I have read that some Christians feel the presence of God as strongly as they feel the presence of a best friend, close relative, or spouse when that person is in a room with them. I have never had that kind of relationship with God. I wish I did.

My stories include religious themes. I cannot prove the existence of God. I wish I could.

 

I used to have a couple novels here. They've been banned, because they contain a few seventeen year old characters who know how babies are made.

Two of those characters share this relevant exchange about faith. Greta is a theist, and Jessica is an atheist. What is relevant about this piece is that it exploits the interesting point that Satan is much harder to disprove than God.

_____“You are beautiful, Greta. You were always the prettiest.”
_____Greta smiled thinly and said, “I think I can state, without equivocation, that I am no longer one of the Sirens of Titan.”
_____“What are you, then?”
_____Greta looked down at herself with a tilt of her bald, shiny scalp. Her sapphire-blue eyes flashed up at Jessica, and she said, “I would look the part of Joan of Arc, I suspect, bound upon the pyre, if I had a shred of conviction. Do you suppose Satan has conviction? Or does dispassion suffice for Him?”
_____Jessica murmured, “I have never thought about it. Besides, I don’t believe in Satan. I am an atheist.”
_____Greta sniffed, laughed shortly, and said, “Sure. But Satan at the very least is symbolic. Atheists have no beliefs, but they do admit the utility of symbolism.”
_____“They do,” Jessica reluctantly agreed.
_____Greta smiled with lips nearly as pale as the surrounding skin, and said, “If we consider Satan as symbol, representative of the primal motivating force of Death, Destroyer of Worlds, the antecedent of the Lion that purportedly will come to judge us, do you suppose such a one would require conviction of any kind? I think not. I think that power, dispassion, and disinterest would suffice. I was told, four years ago and by one whom I respect on a par equal to my respect for you, that I would make an unlikely antichrist; and although I did not look then as I do now, that sapient person apperceived not the burnt husk I have become, but the empty shell that lurked within and that consumed me, even then. Looking in a mirror these days, I myself concede I would not make a plausible Whore of Babylon. One suspects that history demands something a little more grand, a whore with curls and lipgloss. I certainly have the dispassion and disinterest for the job. As to power? Well, we shall see. Is not the purpose of higher education to find oneself? You might be an atheist, Jessica, but I am not. I believe very strongly in God, and I most look forward to meeting Him. Power. Yes. Power would be helpful, indeed, for that meeting.”
​

The other interesting thing about this extract, as I've said, is that it is part of a larger work that has been deemed unworthy of this place. So take it or leave it. Or report it, for all I care.

 

I was raised Catholic, but I was never Confirmed. I'd like to be atheist, but I don't know much about science.

 

I do not agree. I believe yes. A greater power had to create us and all the things that are about. About whether which God is responsible, I have never given a thought, as I mentioned before I am not religious. And please do not mistake me. Just because I believe that their is a higher power doesn't mean I do not wonder at another explanation. The things around are evidence, you and me as human beings are evidence, something created us. Something great must have created allthing and human kind or caused us to ... just happen. That is my logic, and there is no fault in that

 

Quantum mechanics demonstrates that nothing should work, and yet it does somehow. It gives me exactly the opposite outlook that you have. Particles are waves. Waves are particles. Electrons can be in two places at the same time. Two electrons seperated by vast distance affect each other directly and instantly. I could go on and on. I just don't know how a person can view the universe and not think something very, very strange is going on here. Or write it off as just being of its own accord.

 

I could possibly be Solipsist, but I'd need proof that I am the center of the universe like my own church and followers.
It wouldn't make sense to join a Solipsist church centered around somebody else.

 

There is a major difference between a movie, and god. Evidence.
There is a major difference between chemistry and god. Evidence.

 

Quantum mechanics does not demonstrate that nothing should work. QM shows us exactly how things work. Particles aren't waves, particles are particles that trick us by acting like waves, Light is definitely particles, electrons are definitely particles. Quantum mechanics, particularly QED and QCD are very strange. Stranger than anything anyone could probably dream up. But that's just the thing, our brains evolved on the planes of Africa to make sense of basic tool making, gathering food etc, our brains didn't evolve to make sense of the universe at a fundamental level. Fortunately we have mathematics, mathematics tells us how the universe works even though we don't understand it. Just because we don't understand something, doesn't mean god can fill in the gaps. If you want god to fill the gap, let it be known that this god has been shrinking and will continue to shrink into nothingness as we discover more and more.

 

That kind of puts a new twist on the old Groucho Marx line. Would I attend a church that would accept someone like me as a member?

 

I never claimed different.
Evidence is subjectively evaluated. What evidence would be sufficient to convince you that I can make salt from two toxic substances?

 

A mathematical model explaining the reaction, or the application of rational logic while drawing upon established physical laws. Documentation of the results of a physical experiment from which the conclusions were drawn. Description of the experimental conditions and methodology applied. Repeatability of the experiment.

 

Why would you would accept this explanation, even though you can't actually see any of it being done?

 

Because a person educated in the field of chemistry can assess whether there are any flaws in the experiment, any flaws in the analysis of results, and any flaws in the conclusions drawn from the results. More importantly, others can then replicate the results by recreating the experiment under the exact same conditions.
Additionally, mixing two solutions to produce a salt is well established chemistry and is explained fully by the laws of quantum mechanics. Quantum mechanics makes predictions, and these predictions have been tested (in a multitude of different ways) to an equivalent accuracy of measuring the circumference of the earth, and being within the thickness of a human hair to the correct value.

 

This sounds like a reliance on authority and tradition.

 

Not at all.

Anyone can educate themselves in the field, pick up a journal paper, and try to replicate or critique the work. Including yourself.

There are no authorities in science. The mentality of a scientist is to prove others wrong. All scientists do is first try to prove themselves wrong, and after they are satisfied they haven't made a mistake they publish their work, then other scientists make it their aim to prove them wrong. It's called scepticism, and nothing is taken on faith.

When a big figure in science (for example Stephen Hawking) presents a hypothesis, scientists don't think "Well that must be true because the Great Hawking said it". They instead try and work out methods to test out his hypothesis. In fact, the best way in science to make a name for yourself is to take on a big shot scientist, show them to be wrong, and offer a better explanation.

This is a self regulating process. It weeds out the incorrect explanations for things. The bigger scientist you are, the more scrutiny you face.

 

Religion on the other hand, or simply god in this case, is an assumption made that a deity exists. This assumption is based on nothing but the preconceived notions of bronze age men. No attempt is made to search for evidence, and no attempt is made to scrutinise their own assumptions. The best proof which theologians can come up for the existence of god, is the absence of an explanation for a given phenomena. The absence of an answer does not indicate a deity, the absence of an answer is the definition of not having the faintest idea of how a given phenomena occurs.

 

Oh and one last thing about the scientific method. It works. Without it we wouldn't be having this discussion via computers, half way around the world apart.

 

I suppose a "a person educated in the field of chemistry," is not an authority, but you relied upon him to assess flaws in the experiment. Despite your apparent skepticism, you seem eager to accept the word of the next big figure who offers a better explanation.

 

I'm not taking anything on faith. Scientists present their findings. Those findings are peer reviewed (scrutinised) by other experts. Then their findings are published. At which point other scientists attempt to scrutinise their work, recreate the experiments and see if the results are replicable. Work which cannot be replicated is thrown out (search cold fusion). I personally do not need to check every experiment myself because this is a self regulating process. It's a process you know works because it's responsible for all the technology you use today, be it your cell phone, your computer, your sat-nav, the world wide web, the MRI scan you get at the hospital, the medicine you take when you are sick, even the power that arrives at your plug sockets.