Questions impossible to answer? No way!

Image from The March 13, 1964, Miami Herald, highlighting my Science Fair Project on 'The Structure of the Universe'. It was totally wrong, as I admitted two years later in a re-do of the project. (This came after the 1965 discovery- by Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson- of the cosmic microwave radiation , which supported the Big Bang, not the steady-state universe I based my project on).

We see now Pastor Mike has yet another long list of “questions” that he claims atheists can’t or won’t answer. In fact most of them have been answered many times before. The others, as I will show, are based on supreme ignorance of the contextual science or issues. While technically they may not ipso facto merit time or energy – the truth is that one can never dismiss the possibility that lurkers (if they see no cogent response) actually DO believe atheists “lack answers”. So let’s examine some of these: 1) Have you EVER in your adult life been wrong – about ANYTHING ? Obviously, I have, but it comes in the realm of the falsification tests supplied by genuine science – not superstitious baloney and hog wash. Or religious nonsense spieled out by some innumerate, pre-literate sheep herder who fancied he was channeling “God”. In my case, I was totally wrong in my Monsignor Pace Science Fair Project – ‘The Structure of the Universe’ (see photo). I had based it upon the (then) theory of the steady state universe – developed by Sir Fred Hoyle and Hermann Bondi- which hypothesized that the universe was never “created” but had always existed and sustained itself by the inception of about 1 hydrogen atom per cubic centimeter each second- to compensate for the same amount destroyed. Thus it was also known as “continual creation”. This was in March, 1964. By mid-1965, the theory I used was proven wrong, falsified by the discovery of the isotropic, 2.7 K microwave background radiation, the putative basis for the Big Bang (since it represents the leftover or "relic" radiation, cooled over billions of years from the original fireball). Thus, the Big Bang's key evidentiary finding, jettisoned in one fell swoop all those theories that didn't invoke it for their own hypotheses. Alas, that included mine! The key point here is one can indeed admit being wrong, but that admission has to be predicated on something besides belief. It must be based on evidence which falsifies a theory once held. 2) Prior to becoming an atheist , did you belong to , OR were you in any way a member of a specific religious denomination ? Which? For how long, were you a practicing member? Of course, as related before, I used to be a Roman Catholic. And that meant a practicing Catholic who also won his Catholic High School’s Four Year Religion Award (for expertise and knowledge in religious teaching) as well as the Archdiocese of Miami Altar Boy Award. I won a scholarship to Loyola, and there studied Theology (along with my major, Mathematics) comparative religion and philosophy. I estimate I was a seriously practicing member for at least 10 years. 3) Generically speaking , was it EVER , now or in the past , the atheists position that “there is NO God . ? This question like many, misrepresents the atheist position. First, there is not one form of atheism but TWO: implicit and explicit. In order to intelligently ask questions about atheism one has to be able to discriminate between them. Otherwise one makes the error of conflating conviction, probability-based acceptance and knowledge. In implicit atheism the person withholds investing acceptance or belief in the claim already made. The God believer asserts: “There IS a God!” the atheist simply withholds belief. This is NOT the same as agnosticism because the reason is different. Agnostics neither believe that God exists nor disbelieve God exists, so the issue of “withholding belief” can be for either proposition. E.g. the agnostic can technically withhold belief that God exists, or withhold belief that God does NOT exist. The implicit atheist’s position applies only to the first. In explicit atheism, the atheist is saying neither that he “knows God does not exist” or “denies God exists” but rather that he believes God does not exist, based on his assessment of probabilities for it, chiefly using observations and propositions from theodicy. Are these differences relatively complex and nuanced? Yes, but to skate over them to try for some false simplicity avoids the hard work – and leaves discussions open to emotion, and misinformation. The serious debater does the hard work here. (This also answers his question No. 5) 4) If the human brain is finite (cells and processing), and the universe is infinite. How can one process the infinite ? This is a common error made by those outside of astronomy. In fact, the universe is not infinite but a finite conglomerate which can actually be estimated in mass, as well as the total number of particles that comprise it. We can also use the current value of the Hubble constant, H(o) to compute the density of the universe: so d(u) ~ 9.3 x 10 ^–27 kg/ m^3. Obviously, an "infinite" universe would not have a finite density! We can also easily compute the total energy of the universe which must equal approximately ZERO. That is, the sum of all bounded, potential energy (negative energy) systems plus the sum of all non-bounded systems. (Note the presence of dark energy may well weight the total more toward the negative energy side) 5) Do you , personally , have faith in ANYTHING (OR ANYBODY ) ? If “Yes” , what , or who ? If “No , then why ? In his ‘Critique of Pure Reason’, Philosopher Immanuel Kant distinguished between opinion, faith and knowledge. Only ONE of these he deemed as subjectively and objectively sufficient, that is knowledge- while faith is subjectively sufficient but not objectively so. This means, in the context of objective issues and reality, faith is less important than knowledge. What one is really asking when they ask Mike’s question is therefore something like: “Do you personally invest more weight in a subjectively sufficient claim than an objectively sufficient claim?” Of course, the answer is no. I have to see the delivery of some "goods" (evidence) before I accept any claim. And as Carl Sagan once put it: "Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence". Since "God" is an extraordinary claim - if posited as an "infinite" personal entity with absolute parameters (all-knowing, omnipresent, all -powerful etc.) then it surely is an extraordinary claim and ordinary evidence just won't suffice. As for “faith in anyone”, this would entail placing more subjective sufficiency in THEIR answers, explanations (e.g. for existence) than in one’s own objectively obtained ones. Again, a non-starter. 6) Would atheists expend the same amount of time , etc , refuting a belief in “Santa Claus” , the “Easter Bunny”, or “little green men from Mars “ ? If “No” , then why ? What’s the difference if (in the atheists mind) , it’s all made up anyway ? Obviously not, and the question clearly confuses chalk and cheese. The Easter Bunny, Santa Claus et al are all patently obvious fictions that also have no ontological effects or real world consequences. (By which I mean their adherents and believers carry out real world political campaigns to remove rights - like abortion, or attack "unbelievers"). There is no “Easter Bunny” religion that condemns disbelievers of the Easter Bunny to a fiery everlasting "Hell" – thereby terrifying the weak-minded, gullible and kids into psychosis (like the two teens I referenced from Barbados- housed in Jenkins Sanatarium for the Insane). There are no Easter Bunny believers who stop passersby on streets and “witness” to them about their salvation, or threaten them with eternal perdition if they fail to convert to Easter Bunnyism, eat an Easter egg each day or believe on the "Lord Easter Bunny" as their personal Savior. There is no Easter Bunny religion which has adherents who shoot down abortion providers in the name of the Easter Bunny. There is no Easter Bunny religion which seeks to influence elected leaders (as Congressman "Stupid" Stupak is now doing) to gut health care reform legislation to disallow any abortions whatever. So the question is clearly not based on an appreciation of the effects of God belief and how it can harm people’s minds. It simply takes the facile path of least resistance: conflating two sets of unreal entities on the basis of a single false conclusion: that all unreal entities are equally daft and hence ought to be ignored by the skeptic. In any other domain, this would be seen as the intellectual dishonesty it is. 7) If man evolved from apes , then can you explain to us why apes aren’t extinct yet ? I mean , one would think that after a few million (BILLION ? ) years , that would occur , right ? Again, this sort of question is based on a common erroneous belief or perception (concerning human evolution) among those who’ve never taken a science course. In fact, evolution doesn’t once say or assert that humans “evolved from apes”. It asserts that humans and apes evolved from a common ancestor - a totally different claim. This is also not merely a matter of belief but is supported by hard evidence. In the case of the chimp and human, we can see from analysis of their respective DNA that the cytochrome c protein sequences are exactly alike. Because this protein sequence is functional in 10^93 different ways one would logically expect it to vary greatly organism to organism but it doesn’t – in the case of human and chimp. Thus, the finding shows common descent is valid. Will any of these answers sink into Pastor Mike’s noggin, or will they be summarily dismissed as were previous answers given in good faith? We will see, but so far this has not been a man who processes subtle distinctions easily – he prefers them all in black and white. Unfortunately, that’s not how science or reality work!