by Michael C. Dimopoulos - Main page

text file, other essays

All absolute positive claims about God (He exists, he doesn't exist) are equally unscientific, since we simply cannot prove anything regarding the transcended and the metaphysical because of its very nature. Atheists like to think they're on science's side but in reality their absolute rejection of a metaphysical monad is just as unscientific as absolute acceptance of one.

In fact, the most scientifically sound position would be agnosticism, because it does not make any claims that lack necessary evidence. However, taking the logic to the absolute, if one were to follow reason, he would worship God regardless of whether he exists or not because of the so called Pascal's wager. Basically, you should worship God even if he may not exist, because if he does you'll spend an eternity in hell and since we're uncertain about his existence, it's not a risk you would want to take.

"Pascal argues that a rational person should live as though God exists and seek to believe in God. If God does not actually exist, such a person will have only a finite loss (some pleasures, luxury, etc.), whereas if God does exist, he stands to receive infinite gains (as represented by eternity in Heaven) and avoid infinite losses (eternity in Hell)."

Of course, many modern Atheists just want to fit into a cult, and the cult they've chosen is that of nihilism and materialism. They worship science as if it were a religion because that's how humans are - we need a feeling of belonging, where it's a Christian denomination or a science-worshiping Atheist group. They're not the bastions of reason they like to think they are. I know this is personal anecdotal evidence, but most PhD's in Physics and other STEM fields in my uni are either religious, or agnostic. In fact our freshman year Physics professor spent at least half a lecture one how religion and science are not at all incompatible and should embrace one another. Very few are actually Atheists. So, this relationship between Atheism and Science seems to me one-sided.

>Attributing Pascal's wager to just Christianity is falling into the trap of assumption that the Abrahamic god is the real one. Nobody's using Pascal's wager to justify believing in Thor.

That's correct, but I never mentioned the Abrahamic God. This is about atheism, and Pascal's wager applies whether Christianity is taken into context or not. Furthermore, there is a very good reason nobody uses Pascal's wager to justify believing in Thor or Zeus. Pagan religions, unlike the Abrahamic ones, are not doctrinal and therefore do not provide moral guidelines for their followers to abide by. There is no scripture or dogma, and certainly no concrete understanding of sin or damnation. As a result, in Pascal's wager it might as well be grouped in with atheism.

In fact, by the end of the classical period, polytheism was basically the peasant's religion. Most educated people and philosophers were really hostile to it. Plato was practically a monotheist, since he was the one to come up with the monad, the singular God. He believed polytheists were silly. Aristotle believed in one God, as well. The stoics and later platonists were also monotheists. Most pagan thinkers of the Hellenistic and Roman periods, from Marcus Aurelius to Hermes Trismegistus were much closer to Christianity in terms of religion and philosophy than any other pagan religion that proceeded them. This wasn't a coincidence, it is what led to Christianity. In fact, the Ancient Athenians were so aware that their religion was silly and insufficient, that they had built a temple in their Acropolis specifically dedicated to the Agnostos Theos, the unknown God, who they believed would reveal himself in the future. Paul later preached in the name of the Unknown God in the middle of the Areopagus in Athens, declaring that he had finally revealed himself the way Athenians had anticipated.

I'm not making any claim on the matter here. But I do think if religion is true and intended by God, then perhaps the most widespread faith is that which God wanted to spread, aka the true faith. Or, the one spread well enough that many people would have heard of and could end up embracing with historical and philosophical research, therefore given the opportunity by God. If there is a religion which is true, then it only makes sense that God would not intend for it to be an unknown cult with 5 members in the middle of nowhere, at least not for long. However, what I believe is more important is to follow the religion which is most philosophically sound and coherent, and, of course, I believe that to be Eastern Orthodox Christianity, and not just because I was born into it.

> If both Christians and Atheists make positive claims regarding God's existence, then why defend Christians and attack atheists? Aren't Christians just as unscientific?

Indeed, Christians and atheists are equally unscientific because they make absolute claims about something they simply cannot prove or disprove. However, atheists are the ones that value empiricism and evidence over faith, they are the ones that claim to be on science's side, and as a result are completely inconsistent with their own beliefs. They disregard claims which lack backing evidence (God exists), but completely embrace themselves a claim that has no backing evidence (God doesn't exist). Christians do not claim to be with science, they do not claim that everything requires evidence and empirical data and they do not have a problem with mere faith. Therefore, Christians are at least consistent within their own worldview, whereas atheists are not.

What ought to be well understood is that our view and scientific understanding of the world is bound to change in the future. Science is not a doctrine, it's a method and it keeps building upon itself. It was wrong multiple times in the past, and there's nothing that guarantees it's not wrong now. Our conclusions come from very fragile evidence. Hell, dark matter might just be a miscalculation. In most sciences such as history or even biology, our cultural biases are projected on our conclusions, the same way they used to back when homosexuality was considered a mental illness. Modern scientists admit that science just 50 years ago was flawed and biased, but for some reason we do not even consider the possibility that our modern science may be considered flawed and biased 50 years from now. This is why "science", or more accurately, its current conclusions, are not a hill you want to die on as an atheist.

> Can God do [insert contradiction]?

The omnipotence paradox has many forms. You've probably encountered it as "can God crate a rock so heavy that he can't lift it?" or as "can God create a square circle?". They may sound different but they're essentially the same thing. They play on the idea that God is defined as omnipotent, therefore can do everything. Of course, this is a brain dead level argument. To refute it all you have to do is use the actual definition of omnipotence agreed upon by most Christian philosophers, notably Aquinas: God is capable of everything logical. But in reality you don't even have to do that, even with the other definition of omnipotence the argument is refuted. If God is not bound by logic, then yes he can create a square circle, he can create a rock so heavy that he can't lift and yes, he can also lift it. Why? Because he's bound by the laws of logic. Descartes, particularly, supported this idea. This is why this argument is for the small-brained. We literally don't have to do anything to refute it.

> but.. but.. you can't do that!!11 that's intellechyually dishonest!!!!1


By Michael Constantine Dimopoulos Main page