2 of 188

Write now Article Tools

Page 2 of 2

science and what is empirical to trust purely on faith and things that are intrinsically untestable (things like creationism and intelligent design). In cases like these, theists have not only offered a convincing reason to show that the way the world *actually* works (evolution, etc.,) requires a God, but beyond that, these certain theists show that they do not actually care for the way the world *actually* works. By emphasizing faith claims, they end up sometimes backing ideas and claims that have no real grounding on the practicality of the world and how understanding the world can increase our progress. For example, while one may believe that faith can heal a disease, the evidence backs medicine. Medicine - which doesn't require a god but doesn't necessarily mean there isn't a god - provides consistent and reliable benefits to the real world when we apply it. Faith healing, on the other hand, doesn't provide consistent, reliable, repeatable benefits beyond placebo.

What are other examples where hypotheses requiring deities are unconvincing when contrasted with real world phenomena?

The idea of morality requiring a deity, for example, is not convincing to many, because morality is more readily seen to be a cultural aspect. Regardless of if there is any universal morality or not, in practice, different societies have different moralities. To add insult to injury, in many cases, specific theistic brandings of morality (which claim to be universal and intrinsic) are cast to the wayside as time progresses. Much of the Old Testament, for example, was "fulfilled" by the New Testament. Of course, other religions (like Islam) would suggest that Christianity or the New Testament or the work of Jesus Christ was then fulfilled by new laws. Even without creating new religions, societies have come from having standardized slavery to unilaterally opposing slavery. Women have gone from being treated as property of husbands and other men in power to be equal partners and independent creators of their destiny.

Does this suggest that there are no objective morals? Not necessarily. And in fact, just because one doesn't believe in God doesn't necessarily mean God doesn't exist or that one believes God doesn't exist. The idea, however, comes back to the simple realization: the reasons to believe are not convincing, so one simply does not believe.

Learn more about this author, Jack Roviere.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.

• << previous page
• 1
• 2

Add your voice

Know something about Reasons not to believe in God?
We want to hear your view. Write now!