I suspect that this is going to be a piece forever "under construction". Its also going to be written predominantly 'from the gut', so I guess that if anyone reads this then they'll get annoyed at my careless language (more about that later).

Some of the web sites devoted to this question annoy me greatly. Check this site for some weak "debunking" of some weak arguments.

Anyway, there are too many sites to critique individually, so I won't. Let's get straight into the Big Question.

(1) The argument from Design.

The web atheists often make the mistake of thinking that by destroying Paley's Watchmaker argument they have in one foul swoop knocked out all the design arguments. Others just scream "god of the gaps!" and strut around proud as Punch. Of course, the argument from design is much more subtle than that. The latest articulations stem from what is known as the 'anthropic principle'. This asks the question: the universe does not have to contain us, but it does indeed seem to be geared exactly that way. Several well-known scientists (especially physicists) have pointed out how the most minor altering of any of the fundamental physical constants of the universe would mean that we would not have come about at all. So why are we here? As I can see it, these are the possible answers:

(a) if we weren't here, then we wouldn't be asking the question. True enough. However, we can go further down this path and arrive at the paradoxical statement "we're here because we're here", and then invoke some sort of reverse causality - our required presence in the future caused the universe to begin in the past - believe it or not, some people subscribe to these mental gymnastics...I don't. If you want to believe this then bully for you.

(b) there actually exist many (an infinite number?) of "parallel universes". So our existence is a statistical fluke - it had to happen in at least one universe, and ours got lucky. Its a bit like looking at the zillions of planets which we suppose are orbiting around other stars - almost all of them are totally inhospitable to life, but some aren't. The problem is that "parallel universes" are total speculation - a leap of faith with no proof and no way of ever being proved or disproved. We are stuck in our universe and can't get out to look for others. Many scientists like this idea - its a very handy "universes of the gaps" idea...you can pull it in whenever you can't explain anything.

(c) there aren't really many possible universes at all. We just don't understand science well enough. Actually, there is only one possible universe and this one is it. This will become clear once we do enough atom smashing. In the past, some scientists have loved telling us that the 'theory of everything' is just around the corner. Today's scientists are wiser. To think that one day we'll know enough to conclude that the universe is the only one that could be is a major leap of faith in our poor scientists. I just don't think that the funding will last that long :-) Besides, if this is the case, isn't it lovely that the only possible universe would produce us? It just smells fishy to me.

(d) Its rigged. Someone outside of the "physical" universe has rigged it.

So there it is. All the explanations, taken with no other evidence, require a substantial leap of faith. None can be proved or disproved. So which do you want to choose? And remember, you believe the one you've chosen because of a leap of faith, and not by consideration of evidence.

Actually, my main point is that there is something out there that is beyond the knowing of people. The skeptic must either pick an alternative to believe in, or shug his shoulders and not align himself with anything (and just continue to point out obvious flaws in other people's arguments, which, in my opinion, is a pretty weak and cowardly thing to do if one is not prepared to hold to any position).

(2) The argument from consciousness

This will be annoying to all you modernists out there, because this isn't really an argument at all. It goes like this: the atheist must believe that people are no more than machines made of meat. Consciousness is an illusion. It can all be explained by chemicals and electrical impulses. Now, many atheists protest and maintain that somehow being human is special - I don't understand how they can say that sort of thing and still insist that nothing exists other than the physical world. Humanism is a totally bankrupt philosophy. A desire to care for your fellow man is simply a trick played on us by our genes in order to continue the species - there's nothing nobel in our endeavours. There is nothing other than (a subtle) survival instinct. We are slaves to our genes. So says Richard Dawkins.

Why don't I agree? Simply because I reckon I'm more than just a meat machine. Sorry, I don't have an detailed argument. Do you think that you're more than a meat machine?

Again, I'm arguing for "something other" than what we can "prove" or "know". I can't "prove" that I'm more than the sum of my parts. I think I am though. Am I kidding myself?

(3) The argument from experience

Another annoying argument. Here goes...

People all over the world, from all faiths, claim to have "experiences" of something from beyond the physical world. Some claim visions or miracles or near-death experiences. Others have a quiet certainty of the existence of "something" (which varies according to background). The range is enormous. So, is there any reality to these experiences or are all these people kidding themselves? I think that the skeptic's argument against the reality of these experiences often amounts to: I haven't had an experience like that therefore they don't happen. However, it is possible that some people have such experiences and others don't. The other common argument goes like this: James Randi has exposed lots of fakes, therefore they're all fakes. I don't deny that there are lots of fakes, but I refuse to deny the reality of all "spiritual" (for want of a better word) experiences. Why? Because, contrary to popular skeptical belief, some non-skeptics are not gullible or simple or indoctrinated or disturbed or desperate for acceptance or any of the other weaknessess which afflict everyone except the skeptics. Some quite reasonable people claim to have real experiences. I'm prepared to believe that their experience may be rooted in a reality beyond the physical world.

(4) The argument from need

People don't want to believe in materialism. They want something beyond the physical world. Pretty stupid aren't they? We skeptics know better. We are objective, rational thinkers, who divorce our emotions from our reason. We won't be fooled. Frankly, we are more intelligent than they are. There is nothing to be found "out there". Its all x-files nonsense.

Forgive me for that indulgence. What I'm trying to say here is that the last great worldview, modernism, was a total failure in giving people meaning. Sure, it made some great gadgets and we're all a lot more comfortable now, but are people any happier? Modernism began in the late 1700s. People believed that reason and science would speed humanity towards progress and, ultimately, a perfect world. They found lots of meaning persuing that dream. Two World Wars later people realised the bankruptcy of the idea. Now we have post-modernism, which rejects most of the assertions of modernism. Unfortunately, the skeptic is a modernist. The average person is more up-to-date. They know that modernism hasn't got the answers, so they continue looking elsewhere. Not many people have decided that, since modernism gave no answers, there are no answers.

Like my dog, I would like to think that something exists to satisfy my need for meaning. My dog finds most of his meaning in his food. Its a pity that I'm more demanding than my dog, and I think most people are too. John Clark Comments? Mail me