Atheist Philosophy

Here is a paper that I wrote for a Philosophy class. Hope you all enjoy!

One of the most fought over and debated question in history is how did we come to exist? There have been thousands of answers to this question; however, I will explore the philosophy behind two main sides of the debate, Theistic explanation and scientific explanation. For the last two thousand years God has been the most accepted explanation for our existence with science in the background. However, with the growing acceptance of scientific fact in society we can now see that it has been correct all along. Science can, and has, been disproving the likelihood of God with each new discovery. Religion has had a few main claims that many people still believe today. The claims and arguments I will explore are the immorality of Atheism, the unchanging God, Intelligent Design, the Cosmological Argument, God’s will, the Fine Tuning Argument. I will explore these arguments and systematically disprove each and every one of them using science, history, and archeology and bringing it into a philosophical argument.

One argument that is levied against Atheists, in an attempt to discredit them, is that they are immoral because they do not have absolute moral ethics that are grounded in a personal God. This sort of thing implies that Atheists will lie to you and that Atheists cannot give you good answers to questions like the origin of the Universe or of man’s origin. They ask how one can be moral if their morality is not grounded in a personal God. This statement is basically saying that the only reason that one would not steal, lie, or kill is because they believe in a personal God rather than because those things are wrong. It is important to make sure that my arguments cannot be dismissed because I am somehow immoral for not having a personal God. It is not necessary for Atheism to be true for Atheists to be moral, it is just necessary to prove that one does not need a personal God to act in a moral way. The Theistic argument can be summarized as (1) It is impossible to have a high moral character without a belief in God. (2) It is more probable than not that a person without a belief in God will not have a high moral character. (3) It is more probable than not that a person without a belief in God will not have a high moral character than that a person with a belief in God will. To refute (1), Jainists, who are Atheists, follow strict ethical codes that forbid injuring living creatures and David Hume has been described as the saintly infidel, which clearly refutes thesis 1. Thesis 2 entails that most Atheists do not have high moral characters. However, the Atheist can levy a counter argument (2’) It is more probable than not that a person with a belief in God will not have a high moral character. It is difficult to know if either one is true, or they could both be false. If (2’) is true then that would make (3) false. However, there is no proof to say that either one is true or false. We do not know if (3) is true, or why it would be true. Without better evidence than we have, the criticism of Atheists having no morality is unwarranted. William Clifford said, “It is wrong always, everywhere, and for anyone, to believe anything upon insufficient evidence.”

One claim Theists make is that God is unchanging. Augustine says, in his “Confession,” that God is unchanging. Most people agree with this, however in order to be unchanging God cannot have emotions. In the Bible we can clearly see that God displays human emotion. If this is the case the argument follows:

1. In order to be unchanging God cannot have emotions.
2. God has emotions.
3. Therefore, God is changing.

This is an important place to start because it will later disprove biblical morality. How do we know that God is changing? In the Bible when Moses is receiving the Ten Commandments and God is dictating them to Moses the very first one is “Thou shalt not have strange Gods before me.” (Exodus 20:3). Right after this he says (Exodus 20:5) “I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God, punishing the children for the sin of the parents to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me.” Jealousy is an emotion that God explicitly says he has. Given this information I can make another argument against the word of God as dictated by the Bible.

1. If the Ten Commandments are true, then God is changing.
2. If God is changing, then His word is not eternal (by ‘eternal’ I mean his word/teachings are always relevant).
3. If God’s word is not eternal, then all the lessons from the Bible can be disregarded.
4. God’s word is not eternal because God is changing.
5. Therefore, the biblical lessons can be disregarded.

Given this argument then we should not regard what God tells us in the Bible as moral because they do not reflect what is moral in modern society. For example (Exodus 35:2) “Six days shall work be done, but on the seventh day there shall be to you a holy day, a Sabbath of rest to the LORD: whosoever doeth work therein shall be put to death.” What does all this mean? It means that God’s lessons can change and are not necessary to modern life. Why is it important that God is changing? For centuries Christians and Catholics have based their faith on God being an unchanging perfect being. However, we can see that God is indeed changing. If God is changing then is he perfect?

1. If God is changing then he is not perfect.
2. God is changing.
3. Therefore, God is not perfect

If God is not perfect then what else has God gotten wrong? We can say, from this argument that belief in the perfect God is irrational. I will explore what else God has gotten wrong, and why it is that way by disproving other claims of God. Furthermore, if God was perfect, then he would not contradict his divine word. However, in the Bible, God contradicts himself. One example is the case of condemning homosexuality.

1. If the Bible is the inspired word of God, then it cannot contradict itself, or it would just be works on man.
2. The Bible contradicts itself.
3. Therefore, the Bible is just the works of man and is not inspired by God.

Where does the Bible contradict itself? When it talks about homosexuality it says that homosexuality is condemnable by death. Why would God want to condemn homosexuals to death?

1. If God hates homosexuals, then he would want them to be condemned to death.
2. God wants homosexuality to be condemned to death (it is in the Bible, Leviticus 20:13).
3. Therefore, God hates homosexuals.

This proves that, if the inspired word of God is the Bible, then God hates homosexuals, however God is supposed to love all his creations (1John 4:16 and John 3:16). However, if everything is God’s creation then homosexuals are God’s creations too.

1. If the Bible did not contradict itself, then God would love homosexuals.
2. God does not love homosexuals (according to the Bible).
3. Therefore, the Bible contradicts itself.

Thus, we have shown that the Bible is not a good source for information regarding science or history. It has also shown us that the Bible, which Theists believe to be the inspired word of God, contradicts itself which would be an impossibility if it were the divinely inspired word of God.

​ The origin of human life has been a thoroughly debated question among human beings for hundreds of years. Where do we come from? How did we originate? These are intrinsically important questions for human beings to know the answer to. However, science has come up with an answer that has been tested and proven, but unaccepted. It is the theory of Evolution through Natural Selection as proposed by Charles Darwin. It says, “This preservation of favourable individual differences and variations, and the destruction of those which are injurious, I have called Natural Selection, or Survival of the Fittest.” However, this is not accepted by some Theists. Instead, a Theist would say that we exist due to Creation, or Intelligent Design. These are the theory that humans were created by an intelligent being. This intelligent being, although they will avoid saying so, is the Judeo/Christian God of Abraham. The reason that I feel it is important to disprove this untested theory is because this is now being taught to kids in biology classes in 4 states (Alabama, Georgia, Kansas, and Arkansas). Intelligent Design is not science and has no room in a science class room. To make it more obvious, in a geology class you wouldn’t teach kids that the earth is flat.

1. Intelligent Design is true science, if and only if it can be scientifically tested and render the same results each and every time it is tested.
2. Intelligent Design cannot be scientifically tested because it is based on God.
3. Therefore, Intelligent Design is not true science.

Most people, when refuting my argument, would reject the second premise. However, there is a reason that Creationists made up the term Intelligent Design. They created this term so as to get this put into curriculum in science classes; however it does not change the fact the Intelligent Design is based on God, or the supernatural. This cannot be tested in a scientific context because science is supposed to give us answers to natural phenomenon, which God would not be. Take for example 3 Biblical miracles:

1. Exodus 14:21 – God parting the Red Sea for the Israelites.
2. Exodus 3:2 – The burning bush. “He looked, and behold, the bush was burning, yet it was not consumed.”
3. Matthew 28:1-6 – The resurrection of Jesus.

These are but 3 of many miracles in the Bible, from which Intelligent Design is based on. These miracles are supposedly from God, then how can we test these things in a scientific context? It would be impossible to test this. The burning bush, for example, would be difficult to test in a lab. Assume that we were able to get a bush that was grown in Egypt, around where the myth took place and we brought it to a lab. If we set fire to it, it would be consumed by the flame and turned into ash. However, the response to this would be that it was a miracle of God which we cannot test. Intelligent Design/Creation would also be a miracle of God, therefore we cannot test it scientifically. Therefore, even if Intelligent Design were true, it still would not be science because it cannot be tested scientifically. Therefore, a similar argument can be made:

1. Intelligent Design is scientifically true, if and only if it can be tested.
2. Intelligent Design cannot be scientifically tested.
3. Even if Intelligent Design were true, it would not be scientific, because it is based on supernatural phenomenon.
4. Necessarily, Intelligent Design cannot be science.

Similar to human origin, the origin of the Universe is another intrinsically important question for human beings to answer. It further helps us understand where we came from and how we came into being. This origin of the Universe has been discussed ever since human kind has been able to peer into space. Science has offered up the explanation that is called The Big Bang. The Big Bang is the theory that the Universe started as an infinitesimally small dot of energy that rapidly expanded into the Universe that we live in today. However, there is another theory that is similar to Intelligent Design. It can be explained through the Kalam Cosmological Argument which goes as follows:

1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause of its existence.
2. The universe began to exist.
3. The universe has a cause of its existence.

This argument basically states that the Universe cannot be infinite. However, there is another Cosmological Argument for causation by Thomas Aquinas which goes as follows:

1. There is an order of causes (of existence) in nature.
2. Nothing can be the cause of itself.
3. Hence, everything that is caused must be caused by something else.
4. There cannot be an infinite regress of causes.
5. Therefore, there must be a first, uncaused cause, which is God.

The conclusion of this argument seems to be quite random. It seems like anything could be in the conclusion, like Sun Ra or the Flying Spaghetti Monster. What is the defense of the Judeo/Christian God as the proper Uncaused Cause? One defense is based on motion. All things are moving, and planets are revolving around the Sun. These movements must be a result of the Unmoved Mover (God) being the force that moves these things. However, we now know that it is gravity that causes the planets to revolve around the Sun. Aquinas would probably argue that it is God that causes gravity to function and is the force causing gravity. We also know that this is not true when we look at the mass of the objects. There is a reason that all the planets in the Solar System revolve around the Sun, and that is because it is the most massive thing in the Solar System. The mass of the Sun causes a bend or dip in the fabric of space-time which the planets are revolving on. Think of one of those spiral coin funnels; when you put a coin into it, it revolves around the center until finally falling into the hole. Gravity is very much the same thing. The real question is what was the first cause of the Universe? If we agree with the Big Bang theory we can also assume that the ball of energy did not exist forever. Why did this ball expand into the Universe? Theists would have to say that God is the cause of the Universal expansion. However, Quantum Fluctuations could be a much better answer. A Quantum Fluctuation is when a particle and an anti-particle spawn from nothing and collide and are destroyed. It is postulated from this that Quantum Fluctuations were the cause of the expansion of the Big Bang, thus taking out any need for a personal God. The idea of something from nothing is a scary and unsettling idea, but much more plausible than a supernatural creator. Thus, my counter argument would only change the conclusion of the Cosmological Argument for Causation to Quantum Fluctuations rather than God as the first Uncaused Cause. These are things that we can, and have observed in the natural world today.

​ One argument that Theists throw out whenever something awful happens, like a natural disaster, is that it was God’s will. God has some plan for the people that were killed. This is a response to the Problem of Evil:

1. If God exists, then there wouldn’t be any gratuitous evil in the world.
2. There is gratuitous evil in the world.
3. Therefore, God doesn’t exist.

The refutation of this would in premise 2, that God has some plan for whom or whatever was killed that make the evil not gratuitous, which is God’s will. However, let us consider the Frankfurt Cases:

Case 1 – There are two men: Smith and Jones. Smith is pointing a gun at Jones and is deciding whether or not to shoot him. There is also an evil demon that could control the outcome. In this case Jones decides not to shoot Jones, however the evil demon forces Smith to pull the trigger and kill Jones.

Case 2 – There are two men: Smith and Jones. Smith is pointing a gun at Jones and is deciding whether or not to shoot him. There is also an evil demon that could control the outcome. In this case Smith decides to shoot Jones with his own free will, and the evil demon does nothing.

In these cases we see that the outcome was the exact same regardless of the intervention of the evil demon. So if God’s will is going to be done if we do it by our own freewill, or he forces us, then there is no difference. My argument follows:

1. If we have free will, then we can do other than God’s will.
2. We cannot do other than God’s will regardless of our own free will.
3. God’s will, will always be the end result no matter what we do (as shown by the Frankfurt Cases)
4. Therefore, if God exists, we do not have free will, only God’s will.

If this argument if true, then we would not have free will in the case that God exists. However, the Problem of Evil, as described above, would entail that God does not exist because of the existence of gratuitous evil in the world. If it is the case that God exists then my argument above is false and we do have free will.
​One of the best Theistic arguments for God’s existence is the Fine-Tuning argument. As described by Dr. Craig the Fine-Tuning argument goes as follows:

1. The fine-tuning of the universe is due to either physical necessity, chance, or design.
2. It is not due to physical necessity or chance.
3. THEREFORE: it is due to design.

Science does not have all the answers to such questions; however Theists claim to have more answers than scientists. For example, the earth being on a 23 degree tilt, or how far the earth is from the sun are evidence of fine-tuning that allowed for intelligent life to exist on earth. Theists claim that this is evidence that God has fine-tuned earth to sustain intelligent life. However, I do not think that this is very good evidence for God. In the Universe we know that there are laws that are acting around us, such as gravity, which allows for us to rotate around the sun and what keeps our feet on the ground. The fine-tuning, as described by Dr. Craig, is actually due to the laws of nature, rather than a supernatural creator. We have evidence that the laws of nature are acting around us, however we have no provable evidence for a supernatural creator. I can create an argument against an intelligent designer like such:

1. If there is an intelligent designer, then human beings and the Universe would not have design flaws.
2. Human beings and the Universe do have design flaws.
3. Therefore, they could not have been created by design.

It would seem that any intelligent designer would not have created human beings with design flaws such as the openings for breathing and swallowing are too close together, the birth canal is far too narrow, often resulting in a C-section or injury/death to the mother and child. There are similar design flaws in the Universe that we have discovered. One of those design flaws is a black hole. A black hole is a rip in the fabric of space-time; it is formed after the death of a star. It is an extremely destructive process and would be completely unnecessary in a Universe designed by any intelligent creator. Austin Dacey argued:

1. If God exists, then the world would be perfectly designed.
2. The world isn’t perfectly designed.
3. Therefore, God doesn’t exist.

​ Throughout my analysis of various Theistic arguments for God’s existence I have found there to be flaws in all of the arguments examined. I can conclude from the arguments that I have examined and from the arguments that I made, that it is more likely that God does not exist. It is more likely that the Universe, and the intelligent life on earth are due to laws of nature and science rather than a supernatural creator.

Sources

1. Michael Martin, Atheism: A Philisophical Justification (Philidelphia: Temple University, 1990).
2. Saint Augustine, The Confessions of Saint Augustine (New York: Doubleday, 1960).
3. John Perry; Michael Bratman; John Fischer, Introduction to Philosophy (New York: Oxford University Press, 2013).
4. Karen Armstrong, A History of God (Baltine Books, 1994).
5. The Holy Bible: English Standard Version (Illinois: Crossway, 2001).
6. Stephen Hawking, The Grand Design (New York: Bantam Books, 2010).
7. William Craig, Reasonable Faith (Illinois: Crossway Books 3rd Edition, 2008).
8. Charles Darwin, On The Origin of Species (Empire Books, 2011)

​​

Out Of The Randomness

One argument that I tackled in an earlier post was the fine tuning argument. I thought about it for a while, and I thought of one of my interests: Astronomy. I realized that there are thousands of galaxies and millions of stars and planets out there. So are we really “fine tuned”? Why us and not any one of the other millions of planets? Why haven’t we found life on other planets? For those of you who do not know much about cosmology or astronomy there is a certain Goldilocks zone that a planet must be in to sustain liquid water. It is called the Goldilocks zone because the planet must have an eccentricity (orbit) of about .2. Kepler came up with a scale for measuring a planet’s orbit (his first law: The orbit of every planet is an ellipse with the Sun at one of the two foci) from a perfect circle to more of an oval (from 0 to 1). A 0 is a perfect circle while you get closer to 1 it becomes more of an oval. So is it by chance that the earth has an eccentricity of .2? Yes. This may be a disturbing and difficult concept for us to grasp, but it is true. Let me demonstrate with an example. Think of your birthday. Let’s say that it is today’s date April 1st. Imagine you are in a room with one other person, what is the chance that they will have the same birthday as you? Probably very low. As you add more people to the room the chance that someone will have the same birthday as you increases. When there are 34 people in a room with you there is a 4 to 1 chance that someone else will have the same birthday as you. Don’t believe me? Try it for yourself. With only 34 people in a room (35 including you) pass around a piece of paper and tell everyone to write down their birthday. You will get at least one other person in the room with the same birthday as you. So what does this prove? This shows us, that if there are millions of planets orbiting suns all over the Universe it is extremely likely that a few of them will be able to sustain intelligent life on them. So now I must ask, where is the fine tuning? This seems more like laws acting around us rather than some supernatural being fine tuning this planet to have intelligent life. With the small amount of space that we have explored, we can conclude that there are more than 4 trillion planets orbiting other suns. With a number like that there must be hundreds of planets that have intelligent life on them. Probably extremely far away from us, father than our telescopes of space ships can take us. However, statistically it is highly probable that we are not alone in this gigantic Universe, and so the fine tuning argument is dead.

Prayer As An Answer

For hundreds of years it has been thought that this world is a result of God. God made everything we see, hear, touch, etc. but is this really the case? In science, once a theory has been proposed it is tested in a way to try to disprove it. If it cannot be disproved, then it works. Does God work?
In an earlier post i took some religious claims and how science has refuted them. In a way I am simply continuing that post. However, I want to look at something different: human nature. Why do we do the things we do? Why do we pray? Why do we have these rituals? The answer is easy, yet complex. The easy answer is conditioning. Conditioning is an extremely powerful tool that has been used ever since human beings have existed. There are many psychological studies done on conditioning. I will use an example to explain further. Imagine a baby sitting in a square. Babies are predisposed by nature (like all human beings) to examine their surroundings. If, every time they move to a corner of the square they are given food, they will move toward a corner, rather than a side of the square when they are hungry. So, the baby concludes that the will not get food at. The sides of the square. However, as a parent you can choose to give the baby food when it moves to a side rather than a corner, so the babies conclusion is false. The easy way to explain this is a hot stove (I’m sure that you know where I’m going with this). You feel pain when you touch it and learn not to. This can be applied to groups quite easily and worked more effectively on ancient people. Lets look at prayer. What does prayer do? I always say that prayer is a form of mental masturbation (not to be confused with physical masturbation). Prayer feels great to the person doing it, but does nothing to the person you’re thinking of. So why do we pray? There are actually more answers than simply conditioning (although conditioning is a large part of it). If, every time you pray you stubbed your toe, at some point you would associate prayer with stubbing your toe, and you would not do it. Inversely, if every time you pray, you find a dollar on the ground you would pray more and associate prayer with getting money. However, the primary flaw of this kind of reasoning is that correlation does not equal causation. Just like with the baby in the square they found a correlation with corners and food and to them going into a corner causes food to come, but that is incorrect. Just like prayer being the cause of finding a dollar or stubbing your toe is incorrect. Obviously, in the real world, you would not get those results EVERY TIME you pray, but more likely less than half the time. It does not make prayer any less effective to the human mind if it doesn’t “work” every time. In fact, it only really has to work once you someone to equate correlation and causation.
I did say there are more reasons that people pray, and they can actually add to the conditioning process FOR prayer being effective and lead people to find conditioning against prayer less effective. One example is nurture. If you are brought up to believe that prayer is true and actually does something, you will be harder to condition out of that frame of mind. Lets take the above example of stubbing your toe when you pray. If you stub your toe 9 or of 10 times you pray, BUT find 10 dollars 1 or of 10 times (and were conditioned by nurture to believe in prayer) then prayer would have worked in your mind. This principle is seen when someone goes to see a psychic. First let me say, there are no real psychics. They use a technique called cold reading. They make vague general statements that apply to almost every human being on the planet (Ex. You are introverted for the most part, but sometimes feel the need to be extroverted — well duh!). If you do go to get a psychic reading i highly suggest you record the whole thing. Listen to it and count the times that the psychic gets something wrong. I guarantee it will outweigh the times they get something right. So how do they stay in business? When someone goes to a psychic they will often times only remember the things that the psychic gets RIGHT. We will often forget the things they get wrong and focus on what they got right. Why do we do this? We do this for an intrinsic reason, that is we want to believe, we want some greater meaning in our lives. This idea is something that really drives religion. A grater meaning, a greater cause. Convince someone they are more important than they are, and that person will really like you. The same thing with God. If a belief in God makes you feel as though your like means more, or that there is more out there it will fill you with a sense of wonder and awe and will be more inclined to believe it.
There is an overarching problem here. That is all the wonder and awe in the world won’t make a falsehood any more real. If feeling good could cure cancer, bring world peace, and feed everyone in the world then we wouldn’t have any more wars after the 70’s. The facts are that prayer does nothing more than make you feel like you are contributing to a solution to some problem and take up your time. Similar religious rituals are the same way. None of them do anything other than make you feel good, and that does not make it correct. The facts may not fit into the way you see the world, but they are what is true and nothing will change that.

The Universe

The next time you find yourself outside on a warm summer’s night, look up at the sky. If you are lucky you will be able to see it lit up with tiny dots called stars. Realize that these stars are probably million of light years away, and the light you are seeing is quite ancient. Some of the stars that you are seeing may be dead by now. Allow me to explain: we can see stars that are million of light years away, but we are seeing light that the star emitted the same amount of time ago as the distance from us. For example: if we are seeing light from a star 100,000,000 light years away, the light we are seeing is 100,000,000 light years old. This may be a difficult concept to grasp, but it is beautiful and amazing that the human mind can grasp such ideas. I find this to be far more beautiful than anything religion has given us (one man’s opinion). However, lets look at history. The old teachings of the Church, in relation to the universe, said that we were living in a geocentric (Earth is the center of the universe) universe, the earth was “created” in 6 days, and all objects in the heavens (universe that we could see from looking to the sky) were perfect objects (for example they said that the moon and the sun and all the stars are perfect spheres. So lets break these down one at a time:

1. The geocentric view of the universe.
Aristarchus of Samos – 310 BCE – 230 BCE. This man figured out what causes lunar eclipses. He reasoned that the shadow of the earth caused the lunar eclipse. Why is this important? Because of his model of how it was actually the earth that moves around the sun, not the other way around. However, his works were ignored and never really came to light. However, as you cans see in the Stephen Hawking video, the inquisitive nature of human being prevailed when Galileo discovered that Venus had gibbous phases. He took from Aristarchus’ works and realized that if Venus traveled around the earth then it would not have phases. This is a very simplistic explanation, for a better one read this. Galileo, made another surprising discovery. He discovered that Jupiter has 4 moons that orbit it (for more information watch the Stephen Hawking video on my Fun Media page. This was such a revolutionary discovery that the Church ordered him to denounce his findings and they put him under house arrest. I am often quite skeptical when Church officials say that science and religion are compatible.

3. Ah yes, the age old story in Genesis, that God created the earth in six days and God rested on the seventh. This has been disproved time and time again. So in order that the bible doesn’t contradict itself the Vatican put a whole lot of spin on it. They said that the Genesis account of creation has to be interpreted allegorically. In other words, instead of saying that the story is wrong (which it is) they decided to put a whole lot of spin on the story, showing they are too proud to admit fault or that they were just plain wrong. Why are they wrong? Let’s take a look at it scientifically. We now know that the Universe was started with what we call the Big Bang. As it turn out the entire universe started out in a single point, smaller than an atom. It was made of pure energy that expanded into the universe (for a more in depth explanation click the “big bang” link for Stephen Hawking’s explanation). What evidence do we have of the Big Bang? As I said before, the Big Bang started as pure energy, that is reflected in the temperature of the universe. It is called the Black Body Radiation and it proves two things: 1.) the universe was once smaller and hotter, and 2.) the universe is around 14 (13.7) billion years old. What evidence corroborates this? In the 1920s and 30s a man named Edwin Hubble discovered that the Universe is still expanding. This is shown through Hubble’s Law. Hubble’s Law says that (1) all objects observed in deep space (intergalactic space) are found to have a Doppler shift observable relative velocity to Earth, and to each other; and (2) that this Doppler­shift­measured velocity, of various galaxies receding from the Earth, is proportional to their distance from the Earth and all other interstellar bodies. To better understand this think of a cup filled with water that has been turned upside down on a table (so as the contents doesn’t leave the cup). Now imagine that cup tipping over and the water spilling out on the table and the water spill becomes much more wide spread than it was in the cup. I would suggest reading on Hubble’s theory of expansion. Stephen Hawking says that before the Big Bang time did not exist, nothing existed, therefore there was no room for a creator to exist. This certainly gave me something to think about.

4. The objects of the heavens (stars and planets) are perfect spheres.
– Galileo also made quite an exciting discovery (which probably contributed to him
becoming blind). The sun actually has sunspots. This proved that the sun was NOT a perfect object AND actually rotates once every 27 (to 31 days depending on where you are on the earth). We have discovered craters on the moon from millions of years of meteor impacts. All of this thoroughly debunks the claim that the early church made that all heavenly bodies are perfect spheres.

This post is actually in response to something that a teacher of mine said. He told the that Richard Dawkins said that he has faith in science that it will answer all of our questions about the natural world. My teacher said that this was the same as having faith in religion, but I disagreed without really having an answer as to why I disagree. I specialize in studying history (although much of the information above is from an astronomy class that I took, I highly recommend taking one yourself if you have the opportunity) so I looked through history. As you can see science has proved again and again that the biblical accounts and religious views of the universe are wrong, so the conclusion that the facts point to is that Dawkins is being rational by saying that he has faith that science will eventually explain the natural world. Although, if I could talk to Dawkins I would suggest that he say that he is not faithful (because faith is believing in something without evidence) because he has historic and scientific evidence that science will explain the many quirks of the natural world. Faith really has nothing to do with it.

The other purpose of this post is to restore wonder to the Universe. The Universe is a curious place filled with mysteries that human beings have only scratched the surface of. When I contemplate the many wonders of the natural world I am filled with awe and inspiration. It is truly a wonderful feeling that I wish I could share with everyone. I think that science discovering these many intricate laws and workings of the Universe further adds to the grandeur that is life. I will leave you with this quote

“It is interesting to contemplate a tangled bank, clothed with many plants of many kinds, with birds singing on the bushes, with various insects flitting about, and with worms crawling through the damp earth, and to reflect that these elaborately constructed forms, so different from each other, and dependant on each other in so complex a manner, have all been produced by laws acting around us.” ~ Charles Darwin