Continuing with the case against God which I outlined here:

4) Concepts similar to “God” are routinely dismissed out of hand by theists, agnostics, and atheists alike. There are no logical grounds for treating “God” any differently.

It’s a fundamental rule of logic that similar things ought to be treated similarly. The concept of “God,” however, is often treated quite differently than all similar concepts.

Theists and non-theists alike seem conditioned by their families and their cultures to exempt “God” from close inspection and critical analysis. If inspection and analysis cannot be resisted, we’re expected to undertake both only while in a worshipful/fearful frame of mind. If any of the many severe problems associated with “God” poke through that insulating frame of mind, we’re expected to grant “God” every benefit of a doubt. If the obviously nonsensical nature of “God” persists regardless, we’re rewarded for inventing whatever excuse we need in order to save belief in “God.” When analysis even under these circumstances reveals “God” to be unworthy of belief, we’re expected to keep the fact to ourselves lest we offend the sensibilities of others. If we fail to keep the fact to ourselves – if our devotion to Truth prompts us to give voice to our atheism – we are ridiculed, shunned, condemned, and threatened with hell fire. What other concept is defended by so much special pleading? What genuinely true concept has ever needed so much special treatment in order to survive critical analysis?

“God” simply isn’t capable of pulling its own weight.

Consider:

—– People don’t generally spend much time or thought attempting to understand and defend such concepts as “married bachelors” or “4-sided triangles.” Yet people spend a great deal of time trying to understand and defend their belief in the similarly nonsensical concept known as “God.” Why? What is the logical justification for this?

—– Not many people claim that the world is populated by such undiscovered creatures as unicorns, griffins, centaurs, and mermaids. And even fewer people expend much time or energy attempting to defend the belief that even one of these creatures exists right here and now in invisible form. Yet millions of people DO try to defend the belief that the similarly undetectable “God” exists here and now. Why the double standard? Exactly why do people cling to belief in “God” while dismissing belief in unicorns and other creatures out of hand when there’s exactly as much evidence for “God” as there is for the unicorn?

—– Many theists spend a great deal of time and energy worshiping and promoting their particular conception of “God” while rejecting and disparaging the conceptions of other theists even though ALL conceptions of “God” seem nonsensical, delusional, and unsupported by a shred of evidence. Why? On what defensible basis do so many theists reject all conceptions of “God” as absurd save their own?

—– Many theists place a great deal of faith, trust, and belief in the bizarre claims of those who helped formulate the particular conception of “God” they happen to adhere to. These theists assert that these original formulators who claim to have walked with God, heard God’s voice, saw angelic visions, or otherwise had contact with the divine actually DID have the contact with the divine that they claimed. Yet these same theists tend to dismiss the identical claims of those theists and formulators who believe in other Gods. And virtually everyone dismisses the claims of those mad people among us today who claim unprovable encounters with previously unknown conceptions of the divine. Why? On what basis are the fantastic, unproveable, hand-me-down claims of long-dead people to be preferred over the fantastic, unproven, frequently screamed claims of people living in asylums today?

—– Theists – along with virtually everyone else – continuously dismiss out of hand an infinite number of concepts, ideas, and possibilities which are actually much more likely to be true than any conception of “God.” They do so without guilt, without qualms, without any debate, objection, or the need to defend themselves to anybody. Indeed, they and the rest of us usually aren’t even aware of these concepts or the fact that we are in effect rejecting them, so naturally and continuously do we reject them as a matter of course. Why then should it be the far less likely “God” concept which merits so much of our time and attention?

What concepts, ideas, and possibilities far more likely to exist than “God” am I referring to here?

a) Real dangers we ignore every day even as we worry about the illusory dangers of “God,” “God’s judgment,” the afterlife, etc. For example, today’s newspaper tells me that 5000 Americans die of food poisoning annually. That’s almost the equivalent of a Columbine massacre every single day, year in, year out. Almost as many choke to death. Yet all the Americans I know go on eating three meals a day (and countless snacks) without regularly considering the possibility that the next bite they take might kill them. In their minds, the danger seems so remote as to be beneath serious consideration. Yet these same Americans seem sure that “God” exists and is worthy of thought and consideration even though the existence of death from food poisoning and choking is infinitely better understood, documented, and a far more legitimate concern. And of course food poisoning and choking are merely two such dangers in a day full of them….

b) Real possibilities that never rise to the level of consciousness even while virtual impossibilities like “God” are endlessly pondered and clung to. We know we live in a world in which terrorists operate. We know we live in a world of nuclear missiles. We know that it is physically possible for a terrorist to wire virtually any car ignition system so that it activates a radio signal capable of launching a nuclear missile. Yet who among us has ever seriously considered the possibility that we might be tricked into nuking Chicago or Los Angeles the next time we start our car? Why? Crazy terrorists are capable of doing crazy things. No law of physics is violated by the scenario I’ve just laid out. And yet the fact remains that this scenario rarely if ever rises to the level of conscious consideration while much conscious consideration is given to whether or not Jesus, Krishna, Mohammad and many other “God-directed” folks actually DID violate the laws of physics. Why? On what logical basis do people continuously and unquestioningly suppress all consideration of innumerable unlikely but physically possible actions and events while continuing to seriously ponder, debate, and even defend belief in impossible actions and concepts?

c) Claims which might be true but are almost universally treated as if they were absurd lies regardless. Suppose I were to tell you that Hitler is still alive and living in my neighbor’s garage. If you’re a Christian, would you consider that claim more or less likely to be true than the claim that Jesus rose from the dead? If you’re an agnostic, do you say to yourself, “Maybe Hitler is still alive – maybe he’s not. I’ll never know for sure. It’s best to keep an open mind”? In my experience, the Christian and the agnostic both dismiss claims like this without a second thought. And yet the fact remains that Hitler could be alive in my neighbor’s garage. After all, it’s physically possible to live hidden away in a garage with the help of others. Virtually everyone agrees that Hitler once was alive. And were Hitler alive today, he’d only be about 112 years old. That’s old, to be sure – but the Guinness Book of World Records lists the names of several people who have actually lived longer. If you’re a Christian fundamentalist who believes that the Bible’s Methuselah actually lived well over 900 years, certainly anything less than that can’t be dismissed as impossible. And yet who is inclined to give my possibly true claim the same consideration he or she has been conditioned to give the claim that “Jesus rose from the dead,” or “Jesus walked on water,” or “God exists”?

Bottom line: There is no logical reason to treat the “God” concept any differently than we treat all other concepts. “God” does not merit special handling. Claims about “God” are subject to the same rules of logic and evidence we apply to all other claims. True claims about “God” – if any – are determinable to the degree they meet the standards required by those rules. Unproven claims about “God” cannot logically be treated any differently than unproven claims in general. Giving more consideration to claims dealing with the “God” concept than to all other, similarly ill-defined and absurd concepts is to commit the logical sin of misemphasis.

Those who believe otherwise seem to have less in common with logical, rational human beings capable of rising above their narrow self-interest than with those parents of murderers who believe their child is innocent despite all the evidence to the contrary, those citizens who believe their nation can do no wrong merely because it is their country, and those members of a race who believe all members of other races are inferior merely because they are Other.

Just as genuinely rational, objective people will reject all of these other unfounded, emotion-driven beliefs as transparently untrue, logically flawed, and frequently dangerous, so will they reject belief in “God.”

Go to Part 5