Debating the God Problem

I recently listened to a discourse given by Richard Dawkins, an evolutionary biologist and professor at Cambridge University, as well as the author of The Selfish Gene and The God Delusion. Professor Dawkins has been at the forefront of evolutionary science, helping to steer it into the 21^st century, and in recent years has become an outspoken critic of religion, Intelligent Design or Creationism, and a leading figure in the New Atheism.

The discourse was intended to encourage all atheists to become more vocal, outspoken, and adopt a form of “militant atheism” as he put it, in order to fight the incursion of religion, and Theism in general, into politics and science. Throughout the discourse Professor Dawkins mixed theories, hypothesis, and accepted facts of the scientific, in particular the evolutionary science, communities with blanket statements of religion and nuclear examples of religious individuals in an attempt to mock, discredit, and trivialize not only faith, but any who have it. At one point Professor Dawkins poses the question, “Is religion correlated with IQ?” and theorizes that individuals of higher intelligence, meaning, higher IQ's and levels of education, are less likely to be religious. His not so subtle take on the matter is that the higher one's IQ, the less likely they are to believe in the tooth-fairy, unicorns, and God. The more subtle inference to this conclusion would be that those of lower intelligence and levels of education are more likely to believe in supernatural things such as revelation and faith rather than “evidence”.

Now, to be fair, the majority of those who have spoken out against theories such as evolution and in favor of theories of Creationism or Natural Design, have done so in a manner similar to how Professor Dawkins attacks religion. The bases of the Creationist's reasoning for the existence of a Creator is in the statistical improbability of human evolution from primordial ooze to man, that is, that the probability is so small, the only other explanation is that man was created by God. This reasoning however is not only offensive to the logical mind of a scientist, but should be offensive to the believer in a god. The fact of the matter is that no matter how improbable a situation, if there is even the smallest of chances it could happen, with enough time, it will happen. What are the odds of winning the lottery? Pretty slim, right? Yet there are winners, every year! In the theory of evolution, scientists simply contest that it took hundreds of billions of years for everything to fall into place. As for a believer in God or a Creator goes, to reason that because evolution is statistically improbable, God must be real, is like reasoning that because I can't find my car, it must have been taken by aliens. The exclusion of the one doesn't necessarily make the other true. Any true believer in God should understand and accept that such a belief must be based on faith. If you can reason your way in to God, you can reason your way out of God.

Professor Dawkins chose to respond to the issue of statistical improbability of evolution in this way, “Any designer capable of designing something really complex, has to be even more complex himself. And that's before we even start on the other things he's expected to do, like forgive sins, bless marriages, listen to prayers, favor our side in a war, disapprove of our sex lives, and so on. Complexity is the problem that any theory of biology has to solve, and you can't solve it by postulating an agent that is even more complex, thereby simply compounding the problem.”

With the exception of Professor Dawkins' first sentence, I believe this conclusion to be not only inherently flawed, but extraordinarily arrogant. Since the birth of science, if there is one thing that has been universal, it is that there is more to be discovered. Theories held as facts just fifty years ago have been proven today to have been wrong! A thousand years ago we knew that the sun was the center of the universe; six hundred years ago we knew that the earth was flat; roughly one hundred years ago we knew that atoms were the smallest forms of molecules possible; and today we know that human evolution is fact and that there is no being who could possibly be greater, or more complex, than us. Ultimately, science is in search of truth; of things as they are. Isn't that what religion is? Alright, maybe that isn't what religion has become, but isn't that what religion was meant to be? An explanation or set of doctrines and teachings to instruct us on things as they are? And if science and religion are both in search of discovering things as they are, shouldn't they be coming to the same conclusions?

I do, however, agree with Professor Dawkins' first sentence. “Any designer capable of designing something really complex, has to be even more complex himself.” It's too bad that rather than expounding on the meaning of this sentence, Professor Dawkins chooses to turn back to mocking and making light of religious beliefs and teachings. If I may, what Professor Dawkins should have said is this:

If there were a being with the intelligence, power, and ability to create not only beings as complex and diverse as humans, but all manner of life upon the earth from animal life, to insects, to plant and vegetation, and if such a being were knowledgeable and capable enough to create a sphere upon which such creatures could reside with the proper levels of breathable air, food and water, and the ability to multiply within their own species, and if such a being were further able to create an entire system wherein such a sphere, along with other spheres, would rotate and travel not only on its own axis but also by way of gravitational pull and centrifugal force around a massive source of light and warmth thus providing life to the aforementioned inhabited sphere, without getting too close to the source of warmth and light to burn up nor too far away to freeze, and if there were such a being who could further duplicate this process of creating planetary systems over and over and over, that such a being would have no concern whatsoever for a race of creatures, let alone one individual creature, of such inferior intelligence, power, and abilities, regardless of whether or not they are the creation of his own hands. Think of the amount of care we humans have for nanobes, nanoarchaeums, and eukaryotes (a few of the smallest microorganisms discovered on earth). The majority of the world doesn't even know they exist, let alone care about what they are, what they do, or what happens to them. The reason being isn't because they are small, we know about viruses and bacteria and they are small, the reason we don't care or know about these microorganisms is because they don't effect us in any way, our level of intelligence is so much superior to theirs, and our own abilities surpass theirs to such an extent, that they are to us, completely and totally insignificant. Finally, such a being both powerful and intelligent enough to have created everything that is, would not need constant reminders and reassurances, or praise and worship, from such inferior beings as us. He would know that He is God, and what not need us to acknowledge it.

This is what Professor Dawkins meant by “Any designer capable of designing something really complex, has to be even more complex himself.” And to be perfectly honest, I agree with the statement. I see no reason such a being would even know about us...unless, He, despite all His power and intelligence, abilities and grandeur, has a vested interest in us. Unless we are more than another creation among billions. Unless He created us for a specific purpose which He desires that we achieve. And, unless He still has the ability to care, to love, and to mourn. There must be, still, an attachment between such a Deity, and us. Such a bond must be stronger than Maker to creation, and more profound than merely God to man. And the end result must be greater and more purposeful than an eternity of giving praise and adoration, even if it is in paradise! For such a being as God to care about us, we must be meant for more than what we currently are, and there must be a reason, no doubt tied to this destiny, for why we are here. It is in our nature as humans to believe in something greater than us, to hope that there is a purpose to our lives, and somehow, I believe, not even the atheists believe this life is the end. It is at this juncture that science must leave us, for it is both unable and unwilling to search in this realm any further. To faith we must turn, and to religion, it being the other great seeker of truth.

And so, let the various religions of the world stand and be counted. Can any provide doctrine and teachings necessary to answer the God problem? Are there any which see beyond the limited view of this world alone? Is there one that can answer the age old questions, and ultimately reveal our true nature, as well as God's; where did we come from? why are we here? and where are we going? Any religion that cannot satisfactorily answer these questions does not have a leg to stand on! Any religion that denies either the power and intelligence or mercy and love a being such as God would of necessity possess cannot be the one that teaches truth! Any religion or doctrine that has imagined to itself a God without body parts or passions has created a being without the ability to move, to act, to love, or to care and therefore does not have the ability to save itself, let alone anyone else!

I see no other explanation to the God problem than this, that God is a physical being fully possessive of emotion, that He has attained to a level of intelligence and power far greater than anything we can at this time imagine, that we are tied to Him, not merely as Creator to man, but as Parent to child, and that it is this relationship that not only explains his attention to us but the possibilities of our existence. And further, that God is not concerned with only our planet and the inhabitants thereof, but of all His creations in what, because of the magnitude of his knowledge and power, must be literally worlds without number.

In all of my studies, and they have been many, from the Jewish to the Judea o-Christian, from Hindu to Muslim, and from Buddhist to Atheist, I have found no religion which can not only resolve the God problem, but expound on every aspect of it, other than The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. It is on this conclusion that I rest, and where the world must investigate and judge for itself. Science cannot prove it, reason cannot justify it, there is only faith which can confirm it. I invite everyone to visit www.mormon.org and decide for themselves.

Protecting You from Yourself - Part 2: Protection vs Control

In 1993, Dennis Leary released “No Cure for Cancer”, a stand-up comedy album, where he sarcastically poses the question in regards to smoking laws, “What's the law now? You can only smoke in your apartment, under a blanket, with all the lights out, is that the rule now? Huh?”

Although smoking is still a legal act in the United States, since Dennis Leary posed his query, it has been demonized even further, taxed, and banned in various forms throughout every state in various degrees.

Now, I am not a smoker, I don't enjoy cigarette smoke, I don't want the bad breath, yellow fingers, to smell like an ash tray, or to get a sore throat like breathing it in gives me. I certainly don't want to become addicted to nicotine, and I've got enough expensive hobbies as it is without shelling out the price of a pack of cigarettes. I don't find it cool, attractive, or tough to walk around with one sticking out of your mouth or held in your hand and I admit to turning my nose up when I get a whiff of it. I believe regularly smoking cigarettes to be bad for your health, to damage your lungs, and to, depending on your body, increase your risk of certain types of cancer.

This is my opinion, and it is for these reasons that I don't smoke. However, I will be the first person to stand up for all you smokers and your rights to participate in a perfectly legal act. I will be the first, because I believe in freedom of choice and accountability for ones own actions.

I am perfectly aware that the idea of standing up for “smoker's rights” is viewed by many to be irresponsible, unintelligent, and ignorant to the “facts”. I must respectfully disagree. For decades now, smoking has been attacked, demonized, vilified, and turned into something criminals and people with no willpower or self-control get involved in. We have been bombarded with research, facts, and images of how smoking, especially second hand, kills. The tobacco companies themselves have certainly not helped their public image much throughout the years between corrupt business and ethical practices and blatantly targeting youth in the hope of acquiring life long customers. But if there is going to be open debate here in regards to the right to smoke, we need to cut through the crap, and be honest about what both sides have been doing. And why is it even important to have a debate on “smoker's rights”? Remember, I don't smoke, but I don't want someone or some group stopping me from doing something that I do enjoy because they feel they know what is best for me.

I doubt that a majority of people who smoke regularly today don't realize it's bad for their health. In fact, we've all known it isn't healthy for quite some time. Come on, you are putting a stick of fire in your mouth and sucking it into your lungs! Nobody thinks they are full of Vitamin-C.

But the issue at hand isn't whether smoking is bad for you or not, the issue is whether or not another person or group has the right to tell me what I can and cannot do in regards to my body. Do people have the right to control my behavior? Do they have the right to take away my ability to make a wrong choice? There are consequences to every decision, but in our zeal to rid the world of some of those consequences, are we also removing our ability to choose?Where is the line between laws that are in place for my protection, and laws which are designed to control my behavior? What about behavior with consequences that affect only myself?

And this is where the crap of the anti-smoking side comes in to play. Let's make sure something is perfectly clear here, smoking does not kill. Smoking does not cause cancer. Smoking can kill, it can cause cancer. Think about it! If cigarettes killed then every person who has ever smoked one or inhaled second hand smoke in any degree should be either dead or dying. And if cigarettes caused cancer, then every person who has ever smoked or inhaled someone's second hand smoke in any degree should have it. The fact of the matter is that we all know someone who smoked for fifty something years, lived a full life, never got cancer, and died of natural causes.

Now, you're thinking, “Oh, you're just playing with words!” What I am doing is explaining things as they are, you just don't like it because you've lived your entire life hearing how cigarettes do kill and do cause cancer, rather than can kill and can cause cancer, a distinction in words the anti-smoking side has been all too happy to ignore.

The fact of the matter is that the majority of the information we've all heard on the effects of cigarette smoke, particularly second hand smoke, comes from a late 1992 report by the US Environmental Protection Agency, which labeled “environmental tobacco smoke” (ETS) a class A carcinogen that caused approximately 3000 lung cancer deaths among nonsmokers per year(1). The tobacco industry and its allies filed suit against the report in North Carolina in 1998, and won. The judge ruled that the EPA had made serious procedural errors and had “cherry-picked” its data to reach a preordained conclusion (they announced their findings before the tests were performed). The EPA also used a “confidence interval” of 90 percent in calculating the risk of increased lung cancer rather than the more common and far more stringent 95 percent(2). Why is that significant? The lower the standard, the more statistically significant one can make their findings seem. Does 5 percent really make a difference? When you are applying a statistic to 300 million people (US population) 5 percent makes a huge difference. Since the 1992 EPA report was released, four major ETS studies have been completed, two found no evidence that ETS increased cancer risk, on found week evidence, and only one found strong evidence. When it comes down to it, the claim that ETS seriously threatens the health of the general public, and more specifically causes cancer, is unproven at best.

What we have here is not a movement to protect the public, but rather an attempt to control behavior according to a specific view point. Person A doesn't like cigarettes or cigarette smoke, therefore Person B can't do it. Or, let's go a step further. Person A is allergic to cigarette smoke, therefore Person B can't do it. I can't wait until an epileptic visiting Las Vegas sues the city because all the flashing lights caused a seizure.

The Associate Press last month reported that New York City's Mayor, Michael Bloomberg's, next move in his crusade against tobacco is to ban smoking in all of New York City's 1700 parks, playgrounds, and recreational facilities, including the city's 14 miles of beach. New York City's Health Commissioner Thomas Farley said that New Yorker's shouldn't have to breathe cigarette smoke, even outside, and children shouldn't even have to see people smoking(3).

Are you kidding me?! On my list of horrible things my children shouldn't have to see, people smoking cigarettes isn't even close to being found. I tend to save those lists for things like murder and rape. I'm curious the number of adults seeing therapists for their traumatic scars from viewing people smoking when they were little. If it wasn't right for the tobacco industry to go after our kids with ads like “Joe Camel”, then how is it right for the anti-tobacco industry to do the same thing to further their agenda? They are trying to protect us...right? You want to protect me from something? Protect me from doctors! Medical error accounts for approximately 250,000 deaths a year in the US(4).

1 Respiratory Health Effects of Passive Smoking: Lung Cancer and Other Disorders.

2 United States Federal Court Decision, Flue-cured Tobacco Cooperative Stabilization Corporation, el al v. United States Environmental Protection Agency, et al, July 17, 1998

3 Sara Kugler, NYC wants to make parks smoke-free, Associated Press, Sept. 14, 2009

4 Journal of the American Medical Association, Dr. Barbara Starfield, John Hopkins School of Hygiene and Public Health

Protecting You From Yourself: Part 1 - People are Dumb

As I've read some of the events going on throughout the world today, I'm reminded of a quote from the movie Men in Black. Tommy Lee Jones' character, Kay, speaking to Will Smith's character says, “A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky, dangerous animals and you know it.”

This idea of the individual being intelligent, but once grouped with the masses, becoming ignorant, irrational, and fearful appears to be evident throughout the world. A person of average intelligence (which by definition should be the majority of the population) knows that wearing a seatbelt can save their lives in an automobile accident. Yet in 2008, in 55% of all automobile fatalities the victim was not wearing a seatbelt1. If you asked the average individual whether regularly smoking cigarettes was harmful to their health, they would say, “Yes.” Yet each year nearly 490,000 people in the US die from tobacco related deaths2. Heck, the individual even knows not to walk in the middle of the street, but for some reason we forget that rule whenever we get in proximity of a Wal-Mart.

In an effort lower the fatality rate in these examples, our elected leaders and those whom they appoint have enacted laws from ticketing motorists who don't wear their seat belts to Surgeon General Warnings on tobacco products.

It all seems like a good idea. The problem is that somewhere along the way, the idea of, “If people are informed, they will make different choices” became, “If people will not protect themselves, somebody must do it for them”.

Case in point, San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom is planning on introducing legislation this fall that will impose an added tax on retailers on all sugary beverages3. Under California law, he would need voter approval to impose a tax on individual cans of soda and other kinds of sugary juice, but he only needs approval from the Board of Supervisors to tax the retailers, an approval he is expected to get.

And what is the Mayor's reason for the tax levy? A UCLA study has recently been released showing a link between soda and obesity in California. The researchers found that adults who drink at least one soft drink a day are 27% more likely to be obese than those who don't. The study also showed that soda consumption is one of the causes of the state's $41 billion annual obesity problem.

Of course, such a tax is not going to simply be paid by the soda/sugary drink retailers. They will pass their additional costs onto the consumer, a move Mayor Newsom not only has to know, but is most likely counting on, the hope being that if the consumer has to pay more for the product, their consumption of it will change. A small rise in price, consumption might go down a little, a high rise in price, consumption may cease altogether.

The city attorney's office has warned Mayor Newsom that he will most likely be sued if he does push through such a tax.

"We know we'll be sued," Mayor Newsom said. "But I really believe this is important to do."

Director of San Francisco's Department of Public Health, Mitch Katz, said a study conducted over the past nine months showed a clear link between soda consumption and an increased burden on the public health system. Mr. Katz did not, however, give a dollar amount to the burden. He went on to say he considers a soda fee an incremental step, and that other sugary foods could someday have a surcharge as well.

"It makes sense for the government to help people to make the right choices...," he said.

I ask, “make the right choices” according to whose barometer? And let’s not be naive and assume this is going to end with a small tax and therefore a small increase in prices. Mayor Newsom has implied this “war on sugar” is the new “war on tobacco”, and the anti-sugar movement is not going to rest until they have demonized the behavior to the point that they can remove sugary drinks from shelves.

Now, I’m not an avid soda/sugary drink consumer. I might have one soda a week at the most, and that’s only if I go out to eat, so in all reality a jump in the cost of sodas and other sugary beverages is not really going to affect me. However, the premise that something like this sets does affect me, directly. This notion, that if I don’t make the “right choice” then it will be made for me, I find to be appalling. How long will it take before something I do enjoy is attacked, taxed, and ultimately removed as an option? All under the guise of being “for the greater good” or that “the end justifies the means” or any other facade we use to placate our conscious from doing something which is wrong.

One of the defining characteristics that citizens of the US cling to is the idea of a “freedom of choice”. We are free to choose our religion, our politics, and professions; to voice our opinions both verbally and through writing; to think and to feel according to the dictates of our own conscious. There may be consequences, good or bad, attached to our decisions, but isn’t that the beauty of our system? We have been given the opportunity to fail! We have the inalienable right to be wrong! If drinking sugary drinks makes me obese and I decide that I am going to continue to drink them, then haven’t I made my decision? Haven’t I accepted my consequence of never having the physique of an underwear model? Haven’t I exercised my “freedom of choice”? But because my choice isn’t what another might choose I’m no longer going to be given the option?

Eating a pound of bacon a day probably isn’t the greatest thing for my heart and health in general, so is my bacon consumption going to be attacked one day? Am I going to be rationed to a pound a week? a month? a year? It sounds ridiculous, and it should, unfortunately in a world where you are too dumb to govern yourself, there will always be others willing to do it for you.



1 National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 2008 Traffic Safety Annual Assessment. There are around 200 million vehicles on US roads today and around 6 million accidents each year. Your chances of having an automobile accident sometime in your life is fairly high and 1 in 150 chances that your accident will be a fatality accident, and of those unfortunate fatality accidents, over half of those involved could have been saved if they had only wore their seatbelt.
2 Institute of Medicine, 2007
3 Heather Knight, Newsom wants to charge stores that sell sodas, SFGate, Sept. 18, 2009