Five Reasons to Reject Belief in Gods

[Copernicus]

Atheism is rejection of belief in gods, not just the Abrahamic version of God. Most arguments against that version of God focus in logical inconsistencies, but let's just focus on a generic concept of a "god": an intelligent agency that has full power over some aspect of our reality. Here are some of my favorite reasons for rejecting belief in gods:

1. Minds depend on physical brains. Religions depend on belief in souls--essentially minds that can exist independently of bodies. But experience tells us that minds depend on brain activity to function properly.
2. Record of failed explanations. Religions have a historical record of making failed explanations of observed natural phenomena. The most powerful argument for gods--the argument from design--has been overturned by the discovery of evolution by natural selection. This pattern of failure has resulted in a pattern of "God of the Gaps" explanations. That is, natural explanations always trump supernatural ones.
3. Record of failed revelation. Humans have a record of worshiping false gods. If gods communicated through revelation, we would not expect to see such variety of religious belief in the world. Moreover, we would expect to find the same religious beliefs arising spontaneously in different locations, since the same set of gods (or "God") would presumably contact different people in different locations.
4. Record of failed prayers. No religious group seems to be luckier or healthier than any other. If prayer worked, we would expect to see some people of faith leading more fortunate lives than the rest of us.
5. Record of failed corroboration of miracles. Religions depend on stories of miracles--events that contravene natural laws--to support religious belief, yet miracles are notoriously resistant to corroboration and verification.

Of all the above reasons, I consider #1 the strongest, because mind-body dualism seems to underpin all religions. I do not oppose the idea of dualism so much as the belief that minds can exist independently of brains. It seems pretty obvious that our minds depend on the physical state of our brains.

Note: None of the above reasons is intended as an absolute proof that gods do not exist. These are reasons that make me consider belief in the existence of gods to be highly implausible.

 

[Sunstone]

Here's a quibble for you.... Only some -- but not all -- religions are revelatory. You might want to consider whether your third point doesn't apply to Abrahamic faiths more than to, say, Confucianism.

Other than that, a good list.

 

[Gentoo]

Record of failed revelation.[/B] Humans have a record of worshiping false gods. If gods communicated through revelation, we would not expect to see such variety of religious belief in the world. Moreover, we would expect to find the same religious beliefs arising spontaneously in different locations, since the same set of gods (or "God") would presumably contact different people in different locations.

Why not? Humans are as unique as their surroundings, and then some. Wouldn't you expect a population on the ocean's coast to see the world in a different way than a population in the desert?

 

[Copernicus]

Why not? Humans are as unique as their surroundings, and then some. Wouldn't you expect a population on the ocean's coast to see the world in a different way than a population in the desert?

No, I would honestly expect the same set of gods to produce very similar revelations in different locations, unless different gods are attached to different geographical locations. So people just pick up the local revelations, so to speak.

It's that patterns of revelation that I'm looking at here. All religions start in one geographical location and spread from there. This is exactly the pattern you would expect if revelations were not actually coming from real gods, since those gods (or 'the God') would have no reason to make up different stories for different people.

 

[Erebus]

I've always said that people should find their own path in life and make their own decisions about what's best for them. If this involves believing in deities then that's really up to them.
The main reason I don't attempt to stop believing in deities is that to do so would take a lot of psychological stress and remove a valued oart of my life for no discernible benefit. I've always though of atheism as a "neutral" area in terms of benefit to oneself. Religions can then push this neutrality either way, making an individual's life better or worse, depending on the religion in question.

 

[Copernicus]

Here's a quibble for you.... Only some -- but not all -- religions are revelatory. You might want to consider whether your third point doesn't apply to Abrahamic faiths more than to, say, Confucianism.

I agree. Revelatory beliefs seem to apply to all theistic religions. If you aren't getting the religion from any divine source, then it isn't revelatory. But the vast majority of religious beliefs include belief in gods. I have to admit that I haven't studied Confucianism very much.

 

[Copernicus]

The main reason I don't attempt to stop believing in deities is that to do so would take a lot of psychological stress and remove a valued oart of my life for no discernible benefit. I've always though of atheism as a "neutral" area in terms of benefit to oneself. Religions can then push this neutrality either way, making an individual's life better or worse, depending on the religion in question.

That is an argument from consequences. I do agree that people are motivated not to examine their religious beliefs too critically because of the benefits that they get from them. However, I also think that it would trouble most people to think that that motivation were all that were behind their faith. For you, the end (mental comfort) justifies the means (religious faith).

 

[Erebus]

That is an argument from consequences. I do agree that people are motivated not to examine their religious beliefs too critically because of the benefits that they get from them. However, I also think that it would trouble most people to think that that motivation were all that were behind their faith. For you, the end (mental comfort) justifies the means (religious faith).

Very true and I do agree that some people would be far better off rejecting their deities.

 

[Riverwolf]

Minds depend on physical brains. Religions depend on belief in souls--essentially minds that can exist independently of bodies. But experience tells us that minds depend on brain activity to function properly.

Not necessarily. I don't believe the "soul" to be independent of the body, nor do I believe that consciousness survives death.

Record of failed explanations.

Religions have a historical record of making failed explanations of observed natural phenomena. The most powerful argument for gods--the argument from design--has been overturned by the discovery of evolution by natural selection. This pattern of failure has resulted in a pattern of "God of the Gaps" explanations. That is, natural explanations always trump supernatural ones.

Only true for external, anthropomorphic, and interactive gods. Not all god-concepts are like this.

Record of failed revelation.

Humans have a record of worshiping false gods. If gods communicated through revelation, we would not expect to see such variety of religious belief in the world. Moreover, we would expect to find the same religious beliefs arising spontaneously in different locations, since the same set of gods (or "God") would presumably contact different people in different locations.

Not true. Confucius gave two different instructions for two of his pupils based on their natures. I do not believe there can be a single, universal religion for all people.

Record of failed prayers.

No religious group seems to be luckier or healthier than any other. If prayer worked, we would expect to see some people of faith leading more fortunate lives than the rest of us.

If all prayer is, indeed, for material fortune. It is not. I do not pray for material things.

Record of failed corroboration of miracles.

Religions depend on stories of miracles--events that contravene natural laws--to support religious belief, yet miracles are notoriously resistant to corroboration and verification.

Not true. This is only true of literalistic mythology, which is not, contrary to common belief, a prerequisite for religion.

Of all the above reasons, I consider #1 the strongest, because mind-body dualism seems to underpin all religions. I do not oppose the idea of dualism so much as the belief that minds can exist independently of brains. It seems pretty obvious that our minds depend on the physical state of our brains.

I should hope it's obvious. After all, some of the ancient Sages have said as much.

Note: None of the above reasons is intended as an absolute proof that gods do not exist. These are reasons that make me consider belief in the existence of gods to be highly implausible.

They work very well for a certain type of god-concept: one that is, definitely, very popular. Not all of them fit this bill, however.

 

[Azrael]

#4 caught my eye. I have read studies that prove that prayer is no more helpful than not. From my own experience I have found it don't work at all but thats me.

 

[Riverwolf]

I agree. Revelatory beliefs seem to apply to all theistic religions. If you aren't getting the religion from any divine source, then it isn't revelatory. But the vast majority of religious beliefs include belief in gods. I have to admit that I haven't studied Confucianism very much.

I will admit, pretty much all theistic religions at least have roots in revelatory beliefs. Hinduism is not excluded. Many Hindus do believe that the Vedas were revealed to man by Brahma (or whatever form depending on the sect.)

Others, such as myself, recognize the human hand behind them, however, but nevertheless turn to them for the highest spiritual guidance, because of the wisdom contained therein.

 

[Copernicus]

Not necessarily. I don't believe the "soul" to be independent of the body, nor do I believe that consciousness survives death.

Fair enough. But do you believe in gods? I think that even most non-theists hold #1 to be true, but the OP is primarily about rejection of belief in gods.

Only true for external, anthropomorphic, and interactive gods. Not all god-concepts are like this.

I would give you more of an argument on this one. It might ultimately come down to how one defines the concept of a "god". For me, it is an intelligent agency that has control over some aspect of reality. The further you get away from that concept, the less I am willing to accept the term "god" to refer to it.

Not true. Confucius gave two different instructions for two of his pupils based on their natures. I do not believe there can be a single, universal religion for all people.

I disagree. I think that the record of false worship is quite obviously there, and most people hold that other religions are false religions. That said, religionists have had to accommodate different belief systems as civilization has evolved into multi-ethnic societies. So most religions have developed a "many different paths" way of dealing with clashes between doctrines. I think that you are reflecting that more ecumenical bent of mind here, but I do not think that most believers are as ecumenical as they would like to maintain. After all, why choose any particular doctrine over its rivals if that were the case?

If all prayer is, indeed, for material fortune. It is not. I do not pray for material things.

My impression is that most prayer is devoted to improving the circumstances of the person doing the praying, but to acknowledge that makes it sound like a shallow pursuit. People who pray for things may expect benefits to accrue from their prayers, but they can also be genuinely grateful to the deity from whom they think good things naturally flow. The fact does remain, though, that people who do pray for improved circumstances do not, on balance, get the desired effects any more than people who do not pray for anything at all. Gods do not respond to prayers, and that is most likely because they do not exist.

Not true. This is only true of literalistic mythology, which is not, contrary to common belief, a prerequisite for religion.

I am not trying to claim that every religionist believes in miracles, but I am fairly confident in my belief that most theists do. Remember that I am not intending these reasons to apply directly to your beliefs.

I should hope it's obvious. After all, some of the ancient Sages have said as much.

Very, very few have denied the existence of a spiritual plane of existence where minds (or "souls") can exist. Sorry, but I do disagree strongly with you on this point.

They work very well for a certain type of god-concept: one that is, definitely, very popular. Not all of them fit this bill, however.

I am not claiming that all do, but I would probably disagree with you on how one ought to define "god". In the end, word usage does come down to popular convention. Not everyone agrees to abide by popular convention in their usage, however.

 

[Gentoo]

No, I would honestly expect the same set of gods to produce very similar revelations in different locations, unless different gods are attached to different geographical locations. So people just pick up the local revelations, so to speak.

It's that patterns of revelation that I'm looking at here. All religions start in one geographical location and spread from there. This is exactly the pattern you would expect if revelations were not actually coming from real gods, since those gods (or 'the God') would have no reason to make up different stories for different people.

Each culture is unique based on their own experiences and needs, with or without gods. Since religion is based primarily in metaphor, a person's environment is going to shape that. A desert people is going to see water in a much more sacred way than another, and their religious symbolism would then be based around water; the Plains Native American's seeing the buffalo as sacred (with very meaningful and powerful stories surrounding them) compared to the coastal Northwestern tribes seeing the orca as sacred. Similar in that both animals are very important to their mythology and play similar roles, but different based on their environmental needs.

Revelations also seem to come about through creative means - story telling and paintings and these seem to be best expressed through human emotion; symbolism and metaphor is going to be the language used in that, and this is very much environment based. Which is why you would get conflicting religious beliefs - again, the difference between the way a desert people sees water in comparison to a people where water is abundant.

Plus, even if the same religious revelation were to come up in different populations, it's going to changed based on cultural evolution. Mythology actually does seem to follow the same sort of trends, archetypes and such. Take the story of Odin sacrificing himself for both his own benefit and the benefit of humans, and compare that with the Jesus myth. Two similar stories, from different people in different places but different enough to address the different needs of that population.

 

[Riverwolf]

[/b]Fair enough. But do you believe in gods? I think that even most non-theists hold #1 to be true, but the OP is primarily about rejection of belief in gods.

Might want to be a bit more specific about the god-concept you're talking about, then. I do not believe in external, supernatural gods. I believe in aspects of the human psyche that do not exist beyond it, yet influence it in very powerful ways.

I would give you more of an argument on this one. It might ultimately come down to how one defines the concept of a "god". For me, it is an intelligent agency that has control over some aspect of reality. The further you get away from that concept, the less I am willing to accept the term "god" to refer to it.

That is a fair, modern definition, and certainly part of the overall definition. However, it's not the only one.

I disagree. I think that the record of false worship is quite obviously there, and most people hold that other religions are false religions. That said, religionists have had to accommodate different belief systems as civilization has evolved into multi-ethnic societies. So most religions have developed a "many different paths" way of dealing with clashes between doctrines. I think that you are reflecting that more ecumenical bent of mind here, but I do not think that most believers are as ecumenical as they would like to maintain. After all, why choose any particular doctrine over its rivals if that were the case?

Are you aware that the "many different paths" outlook has been there in India for thousands of years? "Truth is One, Sages call it by many Names." (Rig Veda 1.164:46... it should be noted that several hymns of the Rig Veda are the oldest surviving religious texts, at least one of which [not the one I quoted] dating back over 5500 years.) Looks like India was culturally ahead of us until the Islam invasion. Before then, each "religion" was just a different way of looking at the same thing in the eyes of a typical Indian. Even now, that outlook still exists among many schools of thought.

I choose my path based on my nature, and others do the same. Each is great in his own place. I do not expect a musician to become an astronomer, nor do I expect a plumber to become the President.

I do not believe in "false" religions. I do believe in "false" practice, and I do believe in "false" literalism. These are paths that lead to feelings of being "trapped" rather than "free." If atheism makes you feel liberated, than that is your path. Likewise, if Satanism makes you feel liberated, then that is your path. The only time a religion can be considered "false" is if it doesn't fit anyone's nature, and anyone who joins it ultimately feels trapped rather than liberated.

My impression is that most prayer is devoted to improving the circumstances of the person doing the praying, but to acknowledge that makes it sound like a shallow pursuit. People who pray for things may expect benefits to accrue from their prayers, but they can also be genuinely grateful to the deity from whom they think good things naturally flow. The fact does remain, though, that people who do pray for improved circumstances do not, on balance, get the desired effects any more than people who do not pray for anything at all. Gods do not respond to prayers, and that is most likely because they do not exist.

Not in that form. I do agree with this likelihood that external gods who ought to respond to such prayers do not exist.

I am not trying to claim that every religionist believes in miracles, but I am fairly confident in my belief that most theists do. Remember that I am not intending these reasons to apply directly to your beliefs.

I'm just reminding you that there will always be exceptions, and that the majority doesn't necessarily represent the only form of religion. In fact, when it comes to religion, I'd probably argue that there really isn't a "majority" considering all the various sects of individual religions; the only religion that can reasonably claim to even have a majority is Islam.

Very, very few have denied the existence of a spiritual plane of existence where minds (or "souls") can exist. Sorry, but I do disagree strongly with you on this point.

Have you read the works of the Sages? Vedic texts frequently say that the mind is inferior to intelligence, which is also inferior to the Atman (translated as "Self"), which is (in advaitic, i.e., "non-dualistic," schools of thought) no different from Brahman. The Atman is the Hindu equivalent of, and is therefore often translated into English as, "soul."

I'll remind you that Hinduism is the third largest religion in the world, with over a sixth of the human population following it.

I am not claiming that all do, but I would probably disagree with you on how one ought to define "god". In the end, word usage does come down to popular convention. Not everyone agrees to abide by popular convention in their usage, however.

A god is certainly a divine agency that is reported to interact with the material world, but it is also an object of worship, either material or abstract. It is also a symbol of perfection of a certain attribute, or multiple attributes. (These definitions are coming off the top of my head.) Which definition is certainly important in communication, hence why I specify which god-concept I'm talking about. In this case, external, supernatural gods.

I do not believe in, nor do I worship, such gods. If such belief liberates someone so they can live up to their full potential of their individual nature, I will encourage them down that path so long as it's not harmful to themselves or others. (Another indication of a "false" religion.)

 

[Riverwolf]

Copernicus, have you ever read Joseph Campbell?

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Here are some of my favorite reasons for rejecting belief in gods:

1. Minds depend on physical brains. ...
2. Record of failed explanations. ...
3. Record of failed revelation. ...
4. Record of failed prayers. ...
5. Record of failed corroboration of miracles. ...

That is stunningly thoughtless. Learn to distinguish between:

• beliefs in God, and
• belief in Gods.

Your 'logic' reduces to the following: that which is beyond comprehension and explication is, ipso facto, impossible.

 

[Copernicus]

That is stunningly thoughtless. Learn to distinguish between:

• beliefs in God, and
• belief in Gods.

Jay, the OP is about general belief in gods, not just the monotheistic God. How did you perceive an insult in that? How was it "thoughtless"?

Your 'logic' reduces to the following: that which is beyond comprehension and explication is, ipso facto, impossible.

Please re-read the note at the end of the OP: Note: None of the above reasons is intended as an absolute proof that gods do not exist. These are reasons that make me consider belief in the existence of gods to be highly implausible.

 

[sonofskeptish]

Or how about simply the fact that there's not a single piece of direct evidence supporting the existence of him/her/it/them.

 

[Madhuri]

Atheism is rejection of belief in gods, not just the Abrahamic version of God. Most arguments against that version of God focus in logical inconsistencies, but let's just focus on a generic concept of a "god": an intelligent agency that has full power over some aspect of our reality. Here are some of my favorite reasons for rejecting belief in gods:

1. Minds depend on physical brains. Religions depend on belief in souls--essentially minds that can exist independently of bodies. But experience tells us that minds depend on brain activity to function properly.
2. Record of failed explanations. Religions have a historical record of making failed explanations of observed natural phenomena. The most powerful argument for gods--the argument from design--has been overturned by the discovery of evolution by natural selection. This pattern of failure has resulted in a pattern of "God of the Gaps" explanations. That is, natural explanations always trump supernatural ones.
3. Record of failed revelation. Humans have a record of worshiping false gods. If gods communicated through revelation, we would not expect to see such variety of religious belief in the world. Moreover, we would expect to find the same religious beliefs arising spontaneously in different locations, since the same set of gods (or "God") would presumably contact different people in different locations.
4. Record of failed prayers. No religious group seems to be luckier or healthier than any other. If prayer worked, we would expect to see some people of faith leading more fortunate lives than the rest of us.
5. Record of failed corroboration of miracles. Religions depend on stories of miracles--events that contravene natural laws--to support religious belief, yet miracles are notoriously resistant to corroboration and verification.

Of all the above reasons, I consider #1 the strongest, because mind-body dualism seems to underpin all religions. I do not oppose the idea of dualism so much as the belief that minds can exist independently of brains. It seems pretty obvious that our minds depend on the physical state of our brains.

Note: None of the above reasons is intended as an absolute proof that gods do not exist. These are reasons that make me consider belief in the existence of gods to be highly implausible.

Not just Abrahamic? Let me tell you why these points are not entirely revelant to Hinduism:

1) Your understanding of the soul is incomplete. There is no 'mind without body'. The soul is life essence. It is the Self. There is no thought involved.

2) Evolution does not contradict Hinduism, unless you are a strict literalist. Many scientific theories relating to the universe correlate with Vedic explanations (like how the universe is expanding). Even the age of the Earth is similar. According to Hinduism, the various ape species are considered to be related to humans.

3) Gods do not necessarily communicate through revelation. There is good reason why there are various models of reality in this world, according to Vedic understanding.

4) God is not expected to answer prayers, according to Vedic beliefs. We do not ask God for material things. We do not attract positivity into our lives based on our beliefs, but based on our actions. I'm sure you have heard of Karma.

5) That is not true. There are many documented cases of unexplainable things but they are quickly ignored or dismissed through 'logic'. I've heard people talk about a man in entertainment (tv I guess) who offered a million (sorry if the facts are slightly off) to anybody who could genuinely show supernatural powers that he could not prove wrong. This man has also been shown to completely ignore and dismiss people who he could not prove wrong or explain scientifically. That is what always happens. As soon as something really fascinating happens, people dismiss it.

 

[Copernicus]

Each culture is unique based on their own experiences and needs, with or without gods. Since religion is based primarily in metaphor, a person's environment is going to shape that...

I would say that metaphor is fundamental to human cognition, so I agree with what you've said here. However, the patterns of behavior are entirely compatible with the point that gods are entirely mythical--inventions of human imagination. Metaphors can lead to false conclusions about the nature of things.

Revelations also seem to come about through creative means - story telling and paintings and these seem to be best expressed through human emotion...

You are talking about claims of revelation. Revelations themselves are actual direct communications with a divine agency. Otherwise, they are "false" revelations--the product of imagination or misunderstood experience.

...symbolism and metaphor is going to be the language used in that, and this is very much environment based. Which is why you would get conflicting religious beliefs - again, the difference between the way a desert people sees water in comparison to a people where water is abundant.

I honestly think that revelations are usually meant and taken quite literally, not as metaphors. Over time, a certain segment of the religious community is going to rationalize and elaborate on those tales as non-literal tales simply because the literal interpretations are ultimately unsustainable. You can either reject all claims of revelation as the product of imagination, or you can try to rationalize them as a way to avoid rejection of popular conventional beliefs.

Plus, even if the same religious revelation were to come up in different populations, it's going to changed based on cultural evolution...

Not necessarily. I do not see why they all have to be different. If gods (or God) can communicate with humans, why wouldn't he/she/it/they be able to send roughly the same revelations to different groups of people? Can you give me a plausible reason why this ought to be the case? The different, often conflicting, religious narratives do not enhance the credibility of alleged revelations. Perhaps gods do not care whether we find their existence credible, but most religions seem to promote the idea that they do care. They value our belief in their existence and our praise of them as exalted beings.

Mythology actually does seem to follow the same sort of trends, archetypes and such. Take the story of Odin sacrificing himself for both his own benefit and the benefit of humans, and compare that with the Jesus myth. Two similar stories, from different people in different places but different enough to address the different needs of that population.

Or, more likely, a common theme that manifested itself in competing religious ideologies. Rival religions borrowed freely from each other in ancient times. Christians were quite open in that practice, and it accounts for the fact that modern Christians celebrate Halloween with Celtic games (dunking for apples, pushing a peanut with the nose, etc.) and Christmas with Christmas trees and mistletoe. This in no way makes any particular religion more credible than any other.