Arguments for the Existence of Cthulhu IV

The Argument from Degrees of Evil

We notice that things around us vary. Some things are "more X" or "less X." And sometimes X has a source, and something closer to the source of X is thereby made "more X."

We see that instability, chaos, and suffering are all "more evil" than their alternatives.

But if these degrees of evil pertain to being and being is caused in finite creatures, then there must exist a "worst," a source and real standard of all the evils that we recognize belong to us as beings.

This absolutely evil being—the "Being of all beings," "the Evil of all evils"—is Cthulhu.

(Ow, my brain hurts. Was that some rambling paraphrase of St. Anselm or something? I'm astounded even True Believers could find this logic convincing.)

Arguments for the Existence of Cthulhu III

The Argument from Time and Contingency

(The closest this comes to making me believe in a god is it makes me say, "Christ, this argument is a mess," but here's my attempt to disentangle the active premises in a coherent manner.)

• If an entity has the possibility of not existing, then in an infinite time, it must realize this state of non-being.
  
• There has been an infinite period of time,* and the universe still exists.
  
• Therefore there must be an entity that does not have the possibility of not existing, from which the universe derives its longevity.
  
• Such a being is called a necessary being.
  
• This necessary being is Cthulhu.
  

This jibes well with scripture: "That is not dead which can eternal lie. And with strange aeons even death may die." - Nec. 3:16.

*remember folks, we're not discussing the validity of the logic, or the accuracy of the premises, just seeing if the arguments as given can equally apply to Cthulhu as to Yahweh.

Arguments for the Existence of Cthulhu, Part Two

The Argument from Efficient Causality

Everything that exists does so due to some cause. The only thing that might conceivably exist without a cause is a supernatural being which is self-existent. Therefore, Cthulhu must exist: an uncaused being who could move to cause the universe.

(I apologize/say "you're welcome" for trimming these arguments of their excess curlicues of language and making them slightly more coherent. I suspect part of the apologist's tactic is to give people a headache, making them give up and assume he must know better than they do.)

Arguments for the Existence of Cthulhu, Part One

The Friendly Atheist provides an apologetics link that would be funny if it wasn't so pathetic. Let's see if I can use all the arguments to "prove" the existence of Cthulhu.

The Argument from Change

We can see that things change. And in order to change, they must have some outside force act on them. A seed cannot grow into a plant without soil, water, and sun acting on it. A planet cannot move without the gravitational force of other objects affecting it. And each item that changes things is itself acted on, ad infinitum.

Since the universe is full of constant change, and is itself changing, it must therefore have something external acting on it. This being, outside space and time, is Cthulhu, who lies dreaming in the inky void.

The Argument from Placenta

Last week I heard the dumbest Christian apologetic I've ever encountered. I'll just let that sink in for a moment . . .

Ravi Zacharias was being interviewed on the Christian radio station. The interviewer mentioned a talk by Dawkins and (IIRC) Lawrence Krauss. Krauss had said that arguments against homosexuality are claimed to be based on the Bible, but that's inconsistent when the same Christians don't advocate other biblical imperatives like stoning disobedient children. The interviewer wanted to know Zacharias's answer to this.

His response was in two parts. First, he failed to address the question as such, and used a lot of meandering words to say, "Times have changed since the Bible was written." Yes, that doesn't address why we would retain some prohibitions and not others, and it's theologically problematic when Yahweh is supposed to be unchanging, but that's not even the dumbest part.

His second "argument" was to reference a story told by Dawkins about a chef cooking and serving a human placenta. He made sure to include gross and shocking details, and then said, "Is that the kind of world you want to live in?"

This is the level of discourse on the ground. All those snooty theologians who complain that atheists don't address deep theological theory need to realize that "the great apologist of our time,"* when confronted with a thorny question, replies, "But, but, but, LOOK OVER THERE - people are eating placenta - EWWWW! Therefore, Christianity."

(For the record, Dawkins recounts the placenta story in A Devil's Chaplain, where it's clear it wasn't necessarily atheists doing this, and he doesn't endorse it in any way. It was an example in his discussion of stem cell research and how we decide what is ethical and what isn't.)

*a quote from Chuck Colson, via Wikipedia

The morality of using Facebook

So a New Jersey pastor has told married church officials they must delete their Facebook accounts, because Facebook breaks up marriages.

He's concerned because he's seen many people re-connect with exes on Facebook, start flirting, and wind up having an affair.

I can actually see what he's saying - I have heard enough stories from my own circles about such issues, even if it only ever gets to flirting. Facebook makes it easier to get back in touch with old loves. Getting back in touch with old loves can be dangerous to your marriage. It's not really Facebook's fault - it's just that Facebook is an easier and more available method of chatting with old flames than periodic high school reunions and whatnot.

But I think it's interesting that this is a big problem among churchgoers, seemingly as much as the general populace. Because I think this kind of thing stems from a failure to give some sober thought to your morality and where your limits are. And of course, ex-religious atheists tend to examine these moral issues much more than many religious people.

Most people are religious without much inquiry. As products of our culture they probably hold enlightenment ideals and interpret their faith to be consistent with them. They go to church, but only on occasion. They have vague notions of God's rules, heaven, and hell, but don't seem to examine their beliefs.

IMHO, it goes hand in hand with this fuzzy notion of religion that people don't sit down and think about their marital obligations, and whether one has a duty to stop short of flirting, the appearance of impropriety, or just actual intercourse.

I also think religious people may fall into a trap made of their own piousness. "I'm a good person," they think. "I can go to lunch with Mr. Wonderful and I'm not doing anything wrong. I can control myself." I personally have a much more practical approach - stop before you get to a point where you might get carried away. Well before. It's all too easy to rationalize, rationalize, rationalize . . . then "lose control" and do something you regret. Or at least that you'll tell yourself afterward that you never planned to do.

Mere Christianity - Not Impressed So Far

I'm on Chapter 4. I'm continuing even though Lewis has instructed me to stop reading. (He says anyone who doesn't agree with his first argument should give it up.)

It boils down to this: because most people feel some sense of fairness and overarching morality (not only "I don't want you to do that" but "You shouldn't do that - it's wrong."), that means there must be an immaterial Lawgiver who put a sense of Moral Law in each of us. I think all of this is perfectly explicable by evolution and socialization. And supported by the indications we see that other animals have "moral codes," such as "Don't eat before the higher-ranked wolves" or "Don't have sex with anyone but the Alpha chimp, unless you can be really sneaky about it" (guilt!).

He also completely overlooks the selfish value of benefiting society. He starts well, saying, "[Human beings] see that you cannot have any real safety or happiness except in a society where every one plays fair," But three sentences later has completely forgotten this concept, and says it's silly to say it's good to benefit society, because wanting to benefit society is unselfish, so it's just begging the question. Except he started the conversation with an admission that helping society helps the individual!

He also misses the fact that human behavior all takes place in roughly the same environment, and this was probably even truer when evolutionary pressures were at their greatest, so it's not a supernatural-level surprise that we are hard-wired and socialized via long tradition to adopt similar cooperative behaviors. It becomes a (granted, complex) series of "if-then" statements: If no one in a clan can trust each other, they fail to cooperate and all die; If most people in a clan feel significant psychological pressure to be trustworthy, they can cooperate and survive.

If Lewis considered engineering, one wonders if he would find an extra-universal entity that bestows the Law of Design. "Look, all people throughout history have made boats that displace more water than that equal to their weight. Clearly this means there is a God of Boat Design!"

Why we atheists think Christians are so stupid

That ^ is irony, for the impaired among you.

First, let's talk about the idea that atheists think religious people in general are stupid. I actually think there is something to this criticism of atheists. Many don't fall into this trap, but I have come upon the meme often enough that I don't deny it is prevalent. The mistake people are making is in confusing a selective, compartmentalized rejection of rationality with stupidity. It is abundantly clear that manymany intelligent, otherwise reasonable people turn off their critical thinking when it comes to religion. I don't think this detracts from their intelligence, merely from their rationality. And yes, intelligence and rationality are often treated as synonyms, or at least closely linked, in our culture, so it's understandable that people conflate them.

In fact, if you are religious and reading this, you probably bristled when I accused you of being irrational. Generally rationality is highly prized, and you probably protested in your head that you're very rational. Perhaps you even defend your religion as a rational conclusion, pointing to various apologetics. However, if any facet of your religion requires faith, (in the "belief regardless of evidence" sense), you are rejecting rationality. I don't dispute that in every other facet of life, you may be highly rational, and I don't think you're stupid.

But when someone rejects standard methods of discovering truth, and embraces beliefs pretty much just because they feel good, it is understandable that someone who doesn't share this propensity is going to feel a gut reaction that the person is stupid, or crazy, or both. Sometimes it's hard to get beyond that gut reaction to the empirical truth that lots of intelligent people are religious.

As a thought experiment, imagine some belief you consider total, obvious codswallop - whose roots and causes are clear to you as mistakes of observation or well-known foibles of human perception. Perhaps alien abduction stories, the healing power of crystals, astrology, or bigfoot sightings. Now, don't you just have a visceral reaction along the lines of, "How could anyone believe THAT? How could someone be so blind as to what is actually going on?" If you know a believer in this stuff who is otherwise bright and sane, don't you boggle at how they can carry both of these personality aspects in the same brain? That mystified disbelief is just how your atheist friends feel about you!

The second issue here is that Christians seem to feel that atheists unfairly target them, above all other religions. Some Christians complain that we're not anti-religious, objecting to irrational beliefs whatever their form, but that we seem to be gunning for Christianity and ignoring Islam, Hinduism, Wicca, Jainism, and so on. Perhaps it's just the natural tunnel vision we're all subject to falling into. Perhaps it's that Christianity teaches a lot about how its practitioners have been persecuted. But take a step back and realize that English-speaking atheists seem to focus on Christians because that is who surrounds us! 85% of the U.S. self-identifies as Christian. Christianity is the established state religion of Britain. The people trying to inject their religious beliefs into the schools, politics, and laws of my country are certainly always Christian, in my experience. Trust me, if the Wiccans mount a campaign to teach that the Goddess gave birth to her consort the Horned God in public school science classes, we'd go after them with equal gusto. If Buddhists smugly proclaimed from campaign platforms that those without Enlightenment were obviously incapable of morality, we'd be writing invective against them too. It's nothing personal - you're the most powerful people out there right now. Sorry.