By: Brandi Slavich, Lil Barton, and Kevin Reyes
In order to argue the fact that the belief in god is irrational we should first have a firm understanding of the word. For a belief to be rational it needs to be based on reason or logic. It is impossible to say that the belief in god is rational because it lacks any sort of sufficient evidence, logic, or reason supporting it. One of the most simple arguments against the rationality in the belief in god is the personhood that god is given. This is known as the anthropic principle; it argues for relation between humans and the universe’ creator, believers claim that the universe was designed by a creator with a conscious mind. This theory has no evidence to back it up. The burden of proof lies with the believer; they are to prove that god does exist and are completely unable to do this. The philosopher David Hume states, “A stone will fall, fire will burn, that the earth has solidity we have observed this a thousand and a thousand times.” But god we have never observed in any form yet people continue to irrationally believe. In the past people relied on God and religion for answers to life’s major questions like the origin of the universe, but now we have science to rely on. We have been provided with the tools necessary to answer life’s questions based one proof and reason rather than blind faith.
The creation-evolution controversy involves a reoccurring cultural, political, and theological dispute about the origins of the Earth, humanity, life, and of the universe. The existence of complex life is often cited as evidence of the existence of a god. Creationism is the belief that the universe and living organisms originated from specific acts of divine creation, while evolution is natural selection acting on genetic variation. Even though creationists may irrationally refute evolution, evolution is an undisputed fact among the science community because of its abundance of supporting evidence in the form of the fossil record and the entire field of genetics. In contrast, there is no evidence in support of creationism—it was a story told before science existed to explain our own existence.
Ultimately, it is not just about evolution versus creationism. To scientists, the real war is between rationalism and superstition. Science is completely non-threatened by the claims of creationists because its evidence stands on its own and contradictory evidence would simply spawn improved scientific theories. On the other hand, without god creating people, god becomes relegated to an impersonal “first mover,” as Thomas Aquinas would say. This is far from the personal god in which many people believe. Furthermore, the Miller-Urey experiments performed in the 1950’s showed proof-of-concept that chemicals present on primordial earth, reacting with electricity in the form of lightning, could have created amino acids—the building blocks of DNA. Other scientific hypotheses suggest that organic material could have been brought here on comets or meteorites after being created elsewhere in the universe. Thus, it seems that god is not a necessary first-mover for even simple life to exist.
Therefore the argument that life, both simple and complex, is evidence of god’s existence does not hold up. The fossil record and genetics demonstrate that evolution is a scientific fact, and to believe in a god simply because of the presence of life is irrational in the face of such evidence. The next step in an Aquinas-like regression would be whether the universe and its contents were created by a deity. But science has an explanation for that, too—it’s called the Big Bang.
An example of this is the “Big Bang Theory” which has been studied and is backed with science and logic and reason which the theory of God lacks all of. The Universe began from a state of infinite density called a singularity. Space, time, and matter was all created at one simultaneous moment called the Big Bang. A common misconception is that the big bang happened at one point in space and that the big bang was an explosion, this is untrue. The big bang happened everywhere and it was an instant expansion of matter/space/time that we now call the universe. In 1929 Edwin Hubble discovered distant light that was redder than usual. This discovery proves that the universe is still expanding from points of singularity. Now we can talk about the Law of relativity. Every black hole has a core which has a singularity. Every black hole has points of infinite density which is causing the universe to constantly expand. The universe doesn’t expand more in one direction then the other. Think of it like a balloon, it expands evenly all around. Why should we believe in something that has no sufficient evidence, I am not saying this is the only valid form of the creation of the universe but I am saying that this has more science to back it up. Phillip Morrison a theist and professor at Massachusetts Institute of Technology stated “I find it hard to believe the Big Bang Theory; I would like to reject it but I have to face the facts”. We to have to face the facts; we no longer need God to fill the holes in our reasoning, we now have science that can provide proof.
To close, we have provided you all with the proof that humans have always been seeking, we have provided you with reasonable and logical explanations for the universe that are backed up by the scientific evidence that religion will always go without. Whether it be the Big Bang theory or Evolution, we are not here to convince you of either. We are here to provide you with alternative answers that you are able to rely on with more than just your faith. In the past belief was accepted because there no other answers existed but science has saved us from those irrational beliefs. We will end with a parable by John Wisdom about a gardener, he tells a story of group walking onto a lot that had many flowers and weeds growing, one of the men infer s that a gardener must tend this plot based on the growth. So they wait for the gardener to come but he never does. The same man who inferred there must be a gardener states, “Perhaps he is an invisible gardener,” so the men set up an electrified barbwire fence in an attempt to find proof of him, no shrieks are ever heard. They then patrol with bloodhounds and he is smelled. Yet the believer is still not convinced. The skeptic states “what remains of your original assertion? How does what you call and invisible, intangible and eternally elusive gardener differ from an imaginary gardener or one that never existed to begin with?” in this parable we see the blind faith so clearly in the man, he believes indefinitely in the gardener with a complete lack of any reason or proof he exists. That is my question for you, why believe so blindly in something with no proof at all, because your peers do? Or your family does? It would be irrational to believe in an invisible intangible and eternally elusive gardener and it is just as irrational to believe in an invisible intangible and eternally elusive god.
