Responding to comments regarding my Divine Hiddenness post by "Truth in Fighting"

Recently, I authored two posts regarding the problem of divine hiddenness in which I responded to common defenses theists give for the problem of divine hiddenness [and did not argue that divine hiddenness serves as a defeater for belief in God].

A theist from the blog "Truth in Fighting: A unique look at issues through the eyes of an MMA fighter, featuring theological discourse" (henceforth referred to as "Truth") engages in a very large amount of personal attacks (at least in this post) responding to my "Divine Hiddenness and Free Will" post. I don't want to 'poison the well here,' but rather note the low level of discourse that takes place in this post before responding to the comments made in between the personal attacks.

I found it rather ironic that Justin Vacula decided to open his argument with a excerpt from Calvin and Hobbes, since his argument contains all of the illogical and emotional reasoning one would expect from a child the age of Calvin.

This argument is already a non starter due to the fact that Justin, like so many other ignorant skeptics and theists, think that the "the all-powerful, all-loving, and all-knowing god" somehow accurately describes the Christian God. It doesn't.

Not only is his inaccurate description of God a major problem, his argument typically displays the same ol' double standard of logic and reasoning that skeptics only apply to religion and not to anything else.

He then goes on to post quite a strange analogy in the process of engaging in more personal attacks (I count at least fifteen below):

This is an emotional argument. Since when does love logically entail person X must personally meet with person Y before person Y joins in a cause. Furthermore, it reveals the ignorance of basic Christian theology.

That's about the gist of it. This 'why doesn't God reveal Himself to me' line of logic not only fails, but it never had any start to begin with. Like most 'arguments' skeptics give, their logic applies SOLELY to religion and if one were to apply the same type of logic to anything else, they would rightly be considered an idiot.

His argument isn't the only thing sorely lacking in this department. He also can't seem to tell the difference between belief and faith, which I believe stems from his elementary or non existent knowledge of Christianity. This guy has created 7 rebuttals to 7 'defenses' he claims theists bring up in response to his argument. A lot of these defenses I would never use, so I will only go over the ones I myself would use.

Again, this bad reasoning all boils down to complete and utter lack of even the most basic knowledge of Christianity.

Vacula is severely lacking in basic Christian theology.

How he thinks he is qualified to refute a single thing regarding Christianity when he doesn't even know Hebrews 11:6 is beyond me.

As you can see, Vacula is neither competent in logic or Christian theology. Just another lightweight intellectually shallow skeptic that thinks his arguments are something new under the sun. Laughable.

I would wager that engaging in more than fifteen personal attacks in one post while responding to someone's comments makes a person look really bad and would lead readers to not to even take the person seriously - and for good reason. Heaping personal attacks onto a person is not an effective or mature way to argue. We can and should disagree while being respectful as 1 Peter 3:15 says.

As I noted, I didn't argue that divine hiddenness serves as a defeater for belief in the Christian god, but rather responded to the defenses theists give to answer the problem. "Truth in Fighting," though, assumes this throughout the post - which is obviously problematic. I'd like, though, to address his points regardless of the personal attacks and the misunderstanding/strawman.

his argument is already a non starter due to the fact that Justin, like so many other ignorant skeptics and theists, think that the "the all-powerful, all-loving, and all-knowing god" somehow accurately describes the Christian God. It doesn't. The problem here how people inaccurately define the 'all-loving' part as some sort of fuzzy, feel good, warm emotion. It's more synonymous with 'happy' or 'wants to make people happy' than it is with the word love. One look the bible will see that God does things that do not match up with the warm, fuzzy, feel good definition of the word love.

I agree that the Bible doesn't describe God as all-loving. This is not, though, a problem for me, but rather the theists. The 'god concept' typically described to me is all-loving, all-powerful, and all-knowing - and this is how many academic theists and Christian philosophers believe God to be. Some, like William Lane Craig, for example, profess that God is all-loving even in the face of slaughter. Others, particularly in problem of evil discussions, will try to argue that evil is needed for 'soul-building' and that we can know what good is. Some even argue that God has sufficient reasons, of course, for permitting evil and he still remains all-good. If the all-loving attribute were removed from God, the problem of evil wouldn't even be a problem; all-loving then, it seems means all-loving in the sense that most persons understand it.

Not only is his inaccurate description of God a major problem, his argument typically displays the same ol' double standard of logic and reasoning that skeptics only apply to religion and not to anything else. When people want to work for walmart, they neither demand nor expect the CEO of walmart to meet with them before they apply. When people enlist in the military, they neither expect nor demand the leaders of the specific branch to personally meet with them before they enlist. If the CEO of walmart or the leader of a military branch doesn't meet with the average joe before they enlist in the military or send in an application for walmart, why would anyone expect God, who is the creator of the universe, expect such a thing?

This analogy fails; persons have good reason to believe that CEOs and military leaders exist. the belief that these persons exist is overwhelmingly reasonable while the belief in God, as theists would even admit, is not on par with belief that Wal-Mart has a CEO. The person applying to be a Wal-Mart worker or a solider additionally has no good reason to meet the CEO or military leaders before enlisting. I would wager, though, that persons should want to have good reasons to believe God exists before 'enlisting' in the Christian faith. I would get a job or enlist in the military not because I have sufficient warrant to believe that CEOs or military leaders exist, but rather because I want to make money, serve the country, etc.

That's about the gist of it. This 'why doesn't God reveal Himself to me' line of logic not only fails, but it never had any start to begin with. Like most 'arguments' skeptics give, their logic applies SOLELY to religion and if one were to apply the same type of logic to anything else, they would rightly be considered an idiot.

The thrust of the "Why doesn't God reveal himself to me" reasoning is that God ought to be morally compelled -- and for good reasons -- to reveal himself. A god who wants persons to believe he exists and knows that many people are killing each other because of religious differences should feel morally compelled to do so.

An all-powerful and all-knowing being, I would wager, should have a tremendous amount of moral responsibility - and much more so than humans do. If I were all-knowing and all-powerful and, at the same time, I wanted persons to believe I existed and knew that persons were killing each other because of me and I could prevent much of this by revealing myself, I would feel obliged to do so. Persons would be horrified to see me sitting at my computer, for example, doing nothing about this situation. If I should be compelled to reveal myself in this hypothetical scenario, why shouldn't God? After all, he should have much more moral responsibility.

Of course, it's not the case that everyone would believe I existed if I revealed myself if I were all-powerful and all-knowing, but revealing myself would not compel people to believe and it would prevent a great deal of suffering.

Again, I'm not making this argument, but rather am posing a hypothetical. Perhaps, though, in the future, I might craft a divine hiddenness argument. If I were to do so, though, I'd spend a great deal of time supporting the premises of the argument mainly arguing why we should expect God to reveal himself if he existed. As many know, though, absence of evidence is not always evidence of absence, so the atheist ought to be careful when crafting a divine hiddenness argument.

He also can't seem to tell the difference between belief and faith, which I believe stems from his elementary or non existent knowledge of Christianity.

The terms 'belief' and 'faith' are very 'open' terms that can have many different definitions. I would, though, generally define 'belief' as 'assenting to the truth value of a proposition' and 'faith' as 'belief in a proposition that is not backed by reason, argument, and evidence.' Depending on the context, I may define these terms differently and many others may disagree with my definitions. Regardless, those are the definitions I would generally give. My "elementary" or "non existent knowledge" of Christianity has nothing to do with this.

Just to note: this idea of "lack of knowledge about Christianity" is quite peculiar because all sorts of Christians disagree about certain matters...and then claim that atheists lack knowledge. How am I suppose to have knowledge of "True Christianity" (TM) when so many people are claiming different things and beliefs vary from person to person? I can only respond to what I am given and generally respond to what most theists believe or otherwise specifically address an argument.

The Bible, even, defines faith quite differently throughout. Is faith "belief in things not seen?" Is faith "hope and trust in God?" Many will interpret faith differently and there doesn't seem to be a compelling reason to believe a given interpretation is accurate while others are inaccurate. This is one of the reasons I hardly care about the Bible and don't think that it's worth my time in arguments. I'll mention some verses and ideas that Christians hold that seem to lead to a contradiction (particularly, perhaps, the idea that we need suffering for there to be good although there is supposedly no suffering in Heaven), but that's not my preferred route.

First off, God revealing Himself unequivocally is not the same thing as revealing Himself through nature or a prayer. That failure of logic is enough to destroy his 'rebuttal of defense (1), since an unequivocal revelation of God is not the same thing as revealing Himself through design and prayer, but it would be wrong not to continue on.

I use the term unequivocally throughout the post to generally mean " relatively undoubtable." A charitable reading of my post should lead the reader to this conclusion when they especially take care to think about my ideas regarding God "compelling" persons to believe if he revealed himself.

I'm not sure what 'God revealing himself through nature' means because many theists assert that God has revealed himself through nature, but yet this is obviously not enough to convince almost everyone (and the arguments from design and fine-tuning quite profoundly fail). Let us suppose, though, that God simply animated every tree to teleport into the air and all of the clouds assembled to say "The Christian god exists." Would this not be a unequivocal revelation? Of course, we still have the problems of distinguishing the source of the miracle (if that is what you would call this), but that's besides the point. I don't understand what "Truth" is getting at there.

God revealing himself through prayer wouldn't be revealing himself to everyone because, of course, not everyone is praying to God. How can we even claim, anyway, that God reveals himself through prayer/ justify this conclusion? The original concern of this post that the atheist or theist might raise is 'Why doesn't God unequivocally reveal himself to everyone,' not revelation through prayer. Again, I'm not sure what "Truth" is getting at. Moving on...

His second error is asserting that Defense 1 fails because Christians continue to sin. Again, this bad reasoning all boils down to complete and utter lack of even the most basic knowledge of Christianity. First off, Christians continue to sin and will continue to sin, because we are imperfect and we live in an imperfect world.

The thrust of my objection to Defense (1) is this: Christians maintain that free will can not be maintained if god reveals himself. If there is no free will, some think, because God revealed himself, no one would be able/would want to sin because they knew God existed. At the same time, though, many Christians maintain that they 'know' God exists (when he obviously didn't utterly reveal himself to everyone although these Christians think God has done so and that his existence is obvious) and they continue to sin. Since Christians who maintain that free will would be lost if persons 'knew' God [through him revealing himself] continue to sin, Defense (1) can't possibly work.

"Truth" stating that persons continue to sin because humans are imperfect, digs a great hole and is an admission that humans would not lose free will if God revealed himself! If God revealed himself, would humans somehow become perfect and would the world be perfect? I don't see any compelling reason to believe this.

God revealing Himself to man unequivocally will kill us since it clearly says in the bible "None who see my face sha'll live." (exodus 33:20.) and that "God dwells in a light unapproachable that no man has seen or can't see." (I Tim. 6:16).

This is an example of circular reasoning of the form; it is true because the Bible says so because the Bible says it is true. Let's assume, though, that "Truth" can provide an argument as to why persons should believe this statement regardless of it being in the Bible to be charitable. The verses "Truth" links are concerned with seeing God's face. God is not limited when revealing himself is concerned; showing his face is not the only way he can do so. The 1 Timothy verse admits of a problem with God's omnipotence; if God is all-powerful, he would be able to reveal himself so that persons can see him.

While we're on the topic of the Bible, several verses actually seem to admit that persons can see God including Genesis 12:7, Genesis 17:1, Genesis 18:1, Genesis 26:2, Genesis 26:24, Genesis 32:30, Genesis 35:9, Genesis 48:3, Exodus 3:16, Exodus 4:5, Exodus 6:3, Exodus 24:9-11, Exodus 33:11, Exodus 33:23, Numbers 14:14, Deut. 5:4, Deut. 34:10, Judges 13:22, 1 Kings 22:19, Job 42:5, Psalm 63:2, Isaiah 6:1, Isaiah 6:5, Ezekiel 1:27, Ezekiel 20:35, Amos 7:7, Amos 9:1, Habakkuk 3:3-5, and Matthew 18:9.

We see, once again, that the Bible appears to be utterly useless in these discussions. We see apparent contradictions with the above verses in Exodus 33:20, John 1:18, John 6:46, Colossians 1:15, 1 Timothy 1:17, 1 Timothy 6:16, and 1 John 4:12. We can go back and forth all day arguing about which verses and accurate and which are not and this seems to get us nowhere. Moving on...

Also, he wonders why without faith belief in God is worthless. Again, a very common scripture in James 2:19 answers his question.

James 2:19
You believe that there is one God. Good! Even the demons believe that--and shudder.

To answer his question, yes they are doing it wrong. The demons obviously believe in the existence of God. Satan, obviously believes in the existence of God and yes, they are doing it wrong.

Dare I say it...but my concern is not with demons, but rather humans. Demons obviously play by different rules and are quite unlike humans. I don't, though, find any compelling reason to believe in demons or Satan, so perhaps my previous comment was a silly one.

Perhaps, to be charitable, "Truth's" point is to argue that belief alone is not sufficient, but rather something else is needed. What, then, is this something else? "Truth" says that it is impossible to please God without faith. The problem, though, while we are on the topic of the Bible (and this is more testament to why I think arguing about the Bible is often useless), is that the Bible, in Matthew 12:37 says that you can be justified by words.

2 Corinthians 5:10 says that persons are judged according to works. Additionally, faith without works is dead (James 2:17). 2 Corin. 11:15 says that minister's salvation is dependent on works and it is "no great thing" that they are righteous [in faith]. Ezekiel 18:27 says that turning away from wickedness and doing what is lawful and right will save persons...and there's so much more.

Who says shifting responsibility doesn't solve the problem? that is just a baseless assertion with absolutely no evidence to support it. Here's an example of how shifting responsibility solves a problem. Problem, my iphone broke because of a hardware issue. If I shift the responsibility from my dog, who has absolutely nothing to do with my phone being broken, to the apple company, who sold me a busted phone, the problem is solved because I get a new phone.

Shifting responsibility here doesn't solve the problem because the 'ball is in God's court.' The issue at hand is "Why doesn't God reveal himself," not "Why should it be up to God, humans should find God." Shifting responsibility might solve problems in other cases, for sure, but it's not going to here.

A quick note on 'doing philosophy' and my Divine Hiddenness posts

On this blog, I often evaluate arguments, respond to arguments, and consider various ideas I might not believe. This is what some might call 'doing philosophy.' Sometimes, additionally, I open posts with pictures or ideas that might not necessarily reflect what I believe, but rather fit the theme of the post. While I indeed make many arguments within this blog, not every post is an argument. Many of my posts, in fact, have the tag 'Responding to Arguments.' Some of these 'responding to arguments' posts contain arguments I am making and responses to arguments and some do not.

For example, in a recent post of mine, "Divine Hiddenness and Free Will," I don't even make an argument, but rather survey an issue and note what other people tend to think about an issue. Starting the post, I wrote,

Atheists (and theists) wonder why -- since it is the case that theists profess God wants everyone to believe he exists – God simply doesn't unequivocally reveal himself so that persons can 'enter into a relationship' with God, no longer doubt, stop fighting one another because of religious differences, and go to Heaven. An all-powerful, all-loving, and all-knowing god should have no problem revealing himself to persons and should want to do so considering he is all-loving [he wants persons to avoid Hell and enter into Heaven]. Why, then, doesn't God just stop playing hide-and-seek and reveal himself?

Here, there is no argument, but rather an introductory paragraph saying "Atheists (and theists) wonder why..." I did not make an argument here, but rather wrote about an issue persons consider. This should be quite obvious because I type "Atheists (and theists)." Further, when considering the rest of the post, I never argued that God revealing himself would cause people to "no longer doubt." In fact, I did argue that there still would be doubt if God revealed himself because some persons would not just immediately accept God's existence.

I wrote,

I and many other atheists are aware that even if a, say, 400 foot Jesus were to march through the skies and mountains were to spin around in the sky, there would still be reasons to be skeptical. Perhaps some advanced alien technology that we are unaware of is causing us to imagine that the event is happening or the display itself is the result of such technology. If I were to see something that did not seem to adhere with what I currently know about the universe, I wouldn't immediately jump to the conclusion that God exists. I'd approach this matter very carefully and would not jump to conclusions.

The post on Divine Hiddenness and Free Will mainly concerned the responses theists give to answer the problem of divine hiddenness. Despite this being quite obvious, not all persons saw this.

Additionally, I noted what I thought was a very clear thesis statement:

I will respond to these six defenses and note further problems that theists face in which they simply can't 'have it both ways.'

I ended the post with the following:

When we don't find a good reason to believe a proposition, the proper response is to not accept the claim. If we can't think of a possible reason for God not revealing himself (and additionally find no reasons to believe God exists), we're quite justified in not believing that the Christian god exists. Even if we can devise a reason for God remaining hidden, this doesn't, of course, mean that God exists. With lack of a reason for God to remain hidden and a lack of a reason to believe God exists, the theist faces two major problems.

When I mention "If we can't think of a possible reason for God not revealing himself (and additionally find no reasons to believe God exists), we're quite justified in not believing that the Christian god exists," I am quite careful to include an "and" here. Reiterating this, at the end of the paragraph, I note another "and."

The final [concluding] paragraph notes:

The common defenses theists give to answer the problem of divine hiddenness fail. Theists believe that persons would lose their free will if God unequivocally revealed himself, but this simply is not the case. The variations of this free will response to the problem of divine hiddenness are not sufficient for one to believe that God has a good reason to remain hidden. Additionally, the idea that natural regularities can only be had if God remained hidden fails. Finally, the common 'mystery card,' if this works for the Christian god, would have to work for every other possible god.

Once again, the post concerned discussing a problem and refuting the common defenses theists provide to answer the problem. If I were to argue that the problem of divine hiddenness were to provide a defeater to belief in the Christian god, I would have explained why this was the case and put time into actually writing an argument rather than responding to the defenses commonly given.

In a follow up post, I wrote

In a recent post, I discussed the problem of divine hiddenness (why God remains hidden despite very good reasons God would have to reveal himself). I showed why various standard arguments apologists give-- mainly 'free will defenses'-- to provide reasons for why God would remain hidden fail. I'll give a quick summary of my previous post and then argue that even if people believed God existed, not all would worship him.

I argued, in my first post on this topic, that there are no good reasons to suggest that persons would lose free will (assuming free will exists) because persons would be skeptical/ not everyone would believe that God exists. Additionally, I noted that the theist is trying to 'have it both ways' because some already maintain that there is an overwhelming amount of evidence for God...and yet they still maintain that they have free will. If a theist maintains that faith is the only way to believe in God and that there can not be sufficient evidence to believe, their argument about God's appearance compelling belief is undone by their own admission. Arguments concerning natural regularities and morally significant decisions also fail. Objections of 'we can't know the mind of God' and 'it is not God's responsibility to reveal himself' also fall short.

If this isn't enough reason for someone to believe that I wasn't arguing that the problem of divine hiddenness provides a defeater for belief in the Christian god, I don't know what can.

Much can be gained by discussion of issues and not all discussion entails that someone is making an argument. Discussion about issues, rather than making arguments, can be quite important and reveal some truths. I certainly 'come out' on some issues, but intentionally 'keep some issues open' and present others' ideas [I don't necessarily agree with] in order to use them as educational tools.

Santorum: Scientific community "afraid of discussion" about God in classrooms

I published a new Examiner.com article titled "Santorum: Scientific community "afraid of discussion" about God in classrooms." Read this article and more on my Examiner.com page and please subscribe for instant updates.

Jason Torpy: 'Camp Pendleton Cross' inappropriate and illegal memorial

I published a new article for Examiner.com titled "Jason Torpy: 'Camp Pendleton Cross' inappropriate and illegal memorial." Read this article and more on my Examiner.com page and please subscribe for instant updates.

More on Divine Hiddenness

In a recent post, I discussed the problem of divine hiddenness (why God remains hidden despite very good reasons God would have to reveal himself). I showed why various standard arguments apologists give-- mainly 'free will defenses'-- to provide reasons for why God would remain hidden fail. I'll give a quick summary of my previous post and then argue that even if people believed God existed, not all would worship him.

I argued, in my first post on this topic, that there are no good reasons to suggest that persons would lose free will (assuming free will exists) because persons would be skeptical/ not everyone would believe that God exists. Additionally, I noted that the theist is trying to 'have it both ways' because some already maintain that there is an overwhelming amount of evidence for God...and yet they still maintain that they have free will. If a theist maintains that faith is the only way to believe in God and that there can not be sufficient evidence to believe, their argument about God's appearance compelling belief is undone by their own admission. Arguments concerning natural regularities and morally significant decisions also fail. Objections of 'we can't know the mind of God' and 'it is not God's responsibility to reveal himself' also fall short.

One point that I didn't discuss in depth was the idea that even if God revealed himself and everyone believed God existed, persons simply all would not worship him. Many atheists, in discussion about God's character, will argue that Christians are simply 'getting it wrong' when they apply the characteristic of 'all-loving' to God and would say that if the Christian god revealed himself, they would not worship him, but rather would rebel in some sort of way. Some persons of other religions, I would wager, even if the Christian god revealed himself and the Christian god had a very long conversation with us, would continue to worship their deities and offer some explanation of why their deities remained hidden while the Christian god revealed himself.

Some atheists -- and perhaps most popularly, Christopher Hitchens -- have argued that they do not want the Christian god to exist and would not 'sign on' to Heaven/eternal worship of God if a choice were to be had. Does the theist honestly think that persons like this would experience a cognitive shift if God revealed himself as he was known prior to revelation?

For some who may still not be convinced that all persons would not worship God if he utterly revealed himself, consider the following analogy. A large portion of the inhabitants of the planet Eth believe in an all-evil, all-powerful, and all-knowing god. Some persons who don't believe all-evil god exists object on various grounds such as atheists of planet earth do and say that even if all-evil god revealed himself, they would not worship such a being.

Is this situation much different than that on earth? If all-evil god revealed himself, some Ethians would refuse to worship. If all-good god revealed himself, Earthlings would refuse to worship. If you believe that Ethians could refuse to worship all-evil god, why wouldn't it be the case that Earthlings could do the same?

There is many good reasons to believe that God utterly revealing himself would not compel all persons to worship him.

---

A recent blog post from JD Curtis -- the person who I recently engaged with in a written debate -- responding to some of my arguments and a commenter on my Facebook page raises some questions and objections regarding the problem of divine hiddenness.

JD argues that arguments from "fine-tuning" and "the probability of specifically-coded DNA sequences arising by random chance" show "fingerprints of a Creator God [...] all over His creation" and says "God unmistakingly and clearly showing Himself to all would then diminish the overall amount of free choice we have when deciding what we would like to do." If JD believes that God revealing himself to all would diminish free choice and maintains that God had revealed himself to JD, it must follow that JD has diminished free choice...but JD doesn't maintain that he has diminished free choice. He simply can't have it both ways.

This is important because variations of 'free will defenses' rest on the idea that God doesn't utterly reveal himself because if he did, persons would lose their free will or have "diminished free choice" (as JD says here) in some manner. The theist can't possibly maintain this free will defense when he individually maintains that 'fingerprints of God are all over creation.' If the free will defense were to work, the individual theist who maintains there is sufficient evidence to believe in God must also maintain that their free will has been diminished.

JD maintains that "such a powerful manifestation would amount to coercion on God's behalf and God would rather that we behave and make our choices absent of any sort of psychological pressure on people that such an appearance would entail." JD notes that people behave differently when they perceive they are being watched. I agree. The problem, though, is, once again, that individual theists do believe they are being watched by God and they don't maintain that this is coercion. Many theists believe that there is sufficient reason to believe in God, yet they still 'sin' and face threats of hellfire. Why aren't individual theists being coerced today?

JD, responding to the change of 'don't threats of hellfire amount to coercion,' notes, "I find it only fair that we are forewarned of the consequences of our actions." This doesn't answer the objection. He also notes, "a truly evil god would never reveal that there were consequences for certain actions until we stand in judgment." I don't know what reason JD has for assuming this, but it's quite obvious that JD is largely ignoring fantasy literature. First, JD has no examples of truly evil gods that exist, so how can be make this claim. Second, would it be hard to imagine that a truly evil god would threaten people with consequences if they did not do its bidding?

Suppose, for example, a truly evil god wanted a specific trinket that a human owned. Suppose, then, that minions of this evil being approached this human and informed the human that he would be eternally imprisoned if he/she did not relinquish the trinket. Regardless, I don't see how knowing consequences somehow justifies a punishment [from a god that was unjust] or gets gods 'off the hook.'

JD seemingly goes on to say that there would be a major difference from God appearing and saying, "If you perform x, you'll go to Hell" and inspiring Bible writers to warn of a threat in the future while God did not tell this to a person. While it might be the case that persons may view God telling them more pressing, this still doesn't diminish the threat and individual theists still profess the dangers of Hell, are very afraid of it, etc. One of the ways theists [and the Bible] provide to diminish the threat or somehow deal with it is repentance; Jesus died so that sins may be forgiven.

I don't see how this gets the theist off the hook. What, exactly, is the argument here? JD doesn't explicitly state one. Perhaps the argument is, "God doesn't utterly reveal himself because the threat of Hell [, said by God,] would modify behavior." I've already dealt with this argument. Some theists believe that there are sufficient reasons to believe Hell really does exist and that they will possibly go there. Did these persons lose their free will?

A commenter on my page noted that JD was special pleading; he said that persons are aware that other persons exist and are not compelled to worship or love them and still maintain free will assuming free will exists. Why should God be a different case, the commenter wonders. JD's response to this is "you are in relationships with people because you want to be." Wonderful. Why, then, do the rules change with God? It is logically possible to both believe God exists and not worship God just like it is logically possible to believe other persons exist and not worship/love them. JD's working against himself here.

Finally, JD asks, " so you would argue a huge, gigantic, and beautiful sky-god [...] would in no way cause "psychological pressure" to "do some act against his or her will." I already addressed this in my first post on this topic; persons would still evaluate the given reasons to believe (or not believe) in God and come to a conclusion. If JD believes the 40-foot tall Jesus would coerce and that this is sufficient reason to believe in God, how can he also maintain what he considers to be evidence for God (fine-tuning and DNA) is not coercing him?

God and The Meaning of Life

"Life's objective's to make it meaningful."

"I'm so afraid to, I couldn't stand to waste all my energy on things that do not matter anymore."

- Epica, Sensorium

Many readers of my blog probably have heard the following sentiment: "If God does not exist, why should we bother living? What's the point of it all?" When I hear this sort of sentiment, I think in quite a charitable and optimistic way believing that the person uttering this statement simply has not considered the issues at hand. I contest that the 'god question' is completely irrelevant to questions of meaning; regardless of whether any gods exist, persons can establish meaning in their lives. Additionally, even if a person believes that there is no meaning, we can find various reasons to continue living.

Generally, the phrase 'meaning of life' is concerned with the purpose and significance of one's life. Meaning, though, it seems, is quite a subjective matter and often an ill-defined term. Some consider meaning to be found in appealing to a deity who has some objective for humans. Others (like myself) find meaning in appealing to experiences in life that are fulfilling. Some believe meaning can only be found in events that are significant in a cosmic sense; these persons believe that if there can not be a 'grand significance' for the future, no meaning can be had.

Some theists, as mentioned, believe that atheists have no reason to continue living and presumably seem to believe that the only way an accounting can be given for meaning is by appealing to God. Can belief in God really be the only way to arrive at meaning? Should atheists simply commit suicide because they don't believe in God?

Consider the following hypothetical:

Joe believes the Christian god exists. He goes through life experiencing much joy, looks forward to the future, has a great deal of social connections and support from said connections, has a well-paying job, and can list many accomplishments that are important to him. Joe, every night, prays to God and thanks God for being able to experience so many opportunities that he believes God allows. With God, Joe believes, meaning is possible.

At a later age, Joe came across a new friend -- Bill -- a dentist who happened to be an atheist. Joe, quite confident in his Christian belief, engaged the atheist in discussion. Bill asked Joe how he can believe in the goodness of a god who rules a world when considering natural disasters, disease, and grievous dental problems. Joe's responses of 'the devil,' 'free will,' and a 'fallen world' went nowhere in the discussion as Bill was able to provide solid refutations. Going home later in the day, Joe was wrought with doubt and decided to embark on a journey to find a good argument to justify his Christian belief. After about a year of research, Joe relinquished his Christian beliefs and realized he was an atheist.

Are we to believe that all of what Joe had accomplished prior to realizing he was an atheist was in naught? Prior to realizing he was an atheist, Joe found meaning in his life, but he attributed the meaning to God. Shall Joe enter into some emotional despair and commit suicide like many theists would think (without God, some maintain, there is no reason to live)? Such a response would not seem justified. With or without God, Joe can cherish the here and now, the past, and find many reasons to continue living. No matter how Joe establishes meaning in his life (or even if he admits life is meaningless), he can still value his experiences and find reasons to continue living.

Despite some theists believing that meaning can only be found by appealing to God and believing that life is only worth living if God exists, we see many godless persons living and enjoying life. I've never heard even one case of a person committing suicide because he/she realized that he/she was an atheist. Meaning or no meaning, we atheists should be enough 'proof' for theistic persons to rid themselves of this 'there is no reason to live if there is no God' idea.

As a philosophical naturalist, I believe that the natural world is all that exists. I don't find any compelling reasons to suggest that any sort of afterlife or second life of any kind exists. Consciousness, it seems, is dependent on brain activity; when the brain completely ceases to function, there is no consciousness. How am "I" supposed to experience anything when my brain completely ceases to function?

I have found my life, despite many hardships I have faced, to be very fulfilling and thus value my life. I can find many reasons to continue living whether or not there is any meaning or any gods exist. I have actually found more meaning in my life since I have realized I was an atheist; many doors have opened, I have learned a great deal, met many more people, shared my ideas with a large audience, have intellectually matured, and so much more.

Whether or not God exists seems to have no bearing on whether meaning can be found in life. With or without God, persons have found many reasons to continue living. Persons would do well in relinquishing this idea of life being utterly pointless if gods did not exist. No matter how we give an accounting of meaning -- or even if we admit that life is meaningless -- God is not necessary to maintain a reason to live.

"Race and Religion" episode of NEPA Freethought Society podcast to be released

I published a new article for Examiner.com titled "Race and Religion" episode of NEPA Freethought Society podcast to be released. Read this article and more on my Examiner.com page and please subscribe for instant updates.

President Obama omits God from Thanksgiving address

I published a new Examiner.com article titled "President Obama omits God from Thanksgiving address." Read this article and more on my Examiner.com page and please subscribe for instant updates!

Margaret Downey: Tree of Knowledge should be holiday symbol for atheists

I published a new article for Examiner.com titled "Margaret Downey: Tree of Knowledge should be holiday symbol for atheists." Read this and more on my Examiner.com page and please subscribe for instant updates!

I don't always thank God for my blessings on Thanksgiving...

Christian hospital worker: Removal of religious symbols is taking away freedom

I published a new article on Examiner.com titled "Christian hospital worker: Removal of religious symbols is taking away freedom." Read this article and more on my Examiner.com page and please subscribe for instant updates!

Divine Hiddenness and Free Will

Atheists (and theists) wonder why -- since it is the case that theists profess God wants everyone to believe he exists – God simply doesn't unequivocally reveal himself so that persons can 'enter into a relationship' with God, no longer doubt, stop fighting one another because of religious differences, and go to Heaven. An all-powerful, all-loving, and all-knowing god should have no problem revealing himself to persons and should want to do so considering he is all-loving [he wants persons to avoid Hell and enter into Heaven]. Why, then, doesn't God just stop playing hide-and-seek and reveal himself?

'Free will defenses' are typically given to explain divine hiddenness. Some variations of free will defenses to explain divine hiddenness and other ideas worth considering are as follows:

• (1) Humans would not have free will if God unequivocally revealed himself.

• (2) If God provided too much evidence to attest to his existence, persons would not be able to enter into a union with God properly because persons would be compelled to believe.

• (3) Faith is important and is only possible if God doesn't unequivocally reveal himself.

• (4) If people unequivocally knew that God existed, they wouldn't make morally significant decisions; people must choose good over evil rather than being compelled to do so.

• (5) God can't intervene often because there would be no stable natural regularities. (Swinburne argue this although this is probably more relevant to natural and moral evil theodicies).

• (6) We can't know the mind of God. God has some reason to remain hidden, but we are simply not aware of it.

• (7) Why expect God to reveal himself? It is the responsibility of humans to find God, not God's responsibility to reveal himself to humans.

I will respond to these six defenses and note further problems that theists face in which they simply can't 'have it both ways.'

Defense (1): Humans would not have free will if God unequivocally revealed himself.

Defense (1) is probably the most common defense that is given to explain divine hiddenness. Theists maintain that free will is supremely important and that this must be maintained no matter what. This 'free will defense' is also commonly given to explain moral evil even when, for example, someone's free will is being 'violated' by the actions of others. For instance, if someone is being raped, God won't intervene, the theist says, because the free will of the rapist is important to maintain. All of this aside, let's consider this defense more thoroughly.

Is it really the case that persons would lose free will if God unequivocally revealed himself? I'm quite skeptical. Many persons today will profess that God does exist and really do believe. Some, for whatever reason, will attest that their belief in God is warranted, profess belief in Heaven and Hell, and believe that their sins could result in eternal torment. Despite all of this, theists who profess very strong beliefs continue to sin. While God hasn't unequivocally revealed himself to everyone, these people will believe that God has revealed himself through the 'design' of the universe, an answered prayer, or something else...and they still sin. Additionally, these people, theists will allege, still have free will. It seems that defense (1), then, fails.

Would people suddenly be physically or logically unable to perform certain actions if God revealed himself? What good reasons do we have for believing this? Theists may argue that some behavior [or all behavior] may change, but I am quite skeptical of this. I'm additionally quite skeptical of the idea that such behavioral changes would not be the result of free choice. (Let's assume, for sake of this argument, that theistic definitions of free will are tenable.)

Perhaps the theist, at this point, will argue “Even though these people profess belief, it's not a belief that is the result of an unequivocal revelation of God. If God unequivocally revealed himself, the world would be a much different place and persons would not freely believe in God.” While it would very likely be the case that many non-believers (and/or persons who are theists, but don't really seem to care about adhering to 'God's law') would believe that God existed if he unequivocally revealed himself, I doubt that the believers who are currently really, really, really confident that God exists would act much differently. 'Free' or 'not free,' it seems that the behavior of those who are really, really, really confident that God exists would remain the same. Are we to believe that these people are simply 'faking it' and don't really believe as they profess (or something else)?

I and many other atheists are aware that even if a, say, 400 foot Jesus were to march through the skies and mountains were to spin around in the sky, there would still be reasons to be skeptical. Perhaps some advanced alien technology that we are unaware of is causing us to imagine that the event is happening or the display itself is the result of such technology. If I were to see something that did not seem to adhere with what I currently know about the universe, I wouldn't immediately jump to the conclusion that God exists. I'd approach this matter very carefully and would not jump to conclusions. If I were to believe in God after the result of a careful process and investigation, would the theist [who believes in free will] honestly say that my belief was not a result of free choices?

Defense (2): If God provided too much evidence to attest to his existence, persons would not be able to enter into a union with God properly because persons would be compelled to believe.

Defense (2) is quite suspect primarily because believers believe there is currently enough evidence to believe in God (thus they believe). What, exactly, is 'too much evidence,' anyway... and how is that different than enough evidence? Believers will point to the currently available evidence as 'overwhelming' by noting that the universe seems designed by God (look at the trees, stupid!), the resurrection of Jesus happened and there is historical information to attest to this, God answers prayers, the universe is fine-tuned, other miracles occurred, etc. Are we to believe that this current 'evidence' compels people to believe when many people simply are not convinced by it?

This idea of entering into a proper union with God, in this light, is interesting. Apparently, since an overwhelming amount of evidence currently exists, according to theists, no one is able to properly enter into union with God.

Perhaps to be more charitable, let us assume that some theists admit that the current evidence for God is not overwhelming (or not even convincing enough to believe) and belief is had only by faith. This would be quite an awkward admission because the belief, then, would only be justified (somehow) because of faith. On the theist's own admission, there is no evidence sufficient to warrant belief. If this is the case, what sort of evidence that God can produce possibly warrant belief? Why would 'the game' suddenly change if God were to produce the evidence?

Perhaps the theist, answering this, might say, “I have granted that there is no current evidence to warrant belief in God, but there could be some evidence to warrant belief in God that God could produce. God revealing himself would be that evidence.” I still, though, don't think that such evidence would compel people to believe or somehow take away their ability to disbelieve.

Defense (3): Faith is important and is only possible if God doesn't unequivocally reveal himself.

Defense (3) assumes that faith is important and seems to assume that without faith, belief in God is worthless. Why is this the case? Is not belief the important thing regardless of faith? Are those who currently believe and do not profess faith (but rather profess that arguments alone are good enough reason to believe) somehow 'doing it wrong?' Will these people not enter into a proper union with God?

Defense (4): If people unequivocally knew that God existed, they wouldn't make morally significant decisions; people must choose good over evil rather than being compelled to do so.

Defense (4) fails for some reasons noted above and namely because persons currently profess that the evidence of God is overwhelming...and these people still are able to make 'morally significant decisions.' Are we to believe that those who currently believe in God based on what they consider to be overwhelming evidence are being compelled to make certain decisions? A common idea that theists propose is that people would refrain from sinning if there were overwhelming evidence for God, but this obviously is not the case because people who believe there is overwhelming evidence continue to sin. Additionally, such persons who unequivocally believe note that 'nothing will change their mind' and that God's existence is quite obvious; such persons believe God has already unequivocally revealed himself. Again, as I mentioned, I find great difficulty believing that the behavior of persons would not be the result of free choice [assuming free will exists] if God unequivocally revealed himself.

Defense (5): God can't intervene often because there would be no stable natural regularities. (Swinburne argue this although this is probably more relevant to natural and moral evil theodicies).

Defense (5) is very suspect and ignores the fact that God is all-powerful and all-knowing. Why should we assume that there would be no natural regularities if God intervened in human affairs? Suppose that God were to strike down Hitler in order to prevent World War II (and such an action would indeed stop World War II). Would we then believe that this would suddenly entail that there would be no natural regularities? I don't see any good reasons to believe so.

The idea of God's intervention removing natural regularities (or, perhaps, to be more charitable, causing us to believe that some natural regularities might not be constant) seems quite funny [and leading to special pleading] considering that theists believe God has intervened in human affairs including but not limited to God raising Jesus from the dead. Some theists also believe that God answers prayers that would interfere with the free will of other persons. If theists maintain that Jesus raising from the dead and God's answering of prayer doesn't take away free will or natural regularities, how can they possibly maintain that God's intervention in there here and now, the future, or even in the past (minus the miracles, of course) would take away free will or natural regularities? The theist, it seems, would be forced to argue -- if he/she were to maintain that God's intervention would not take away free will or natural regularities – that free will 'works differently' from time to time, God's intervention in times past somehow did not take away free will, the free will of people in times past was not cherished like it is for people today, or something else.

Defense (6): We can't know the mind of God. God has some reason to remain hidden, but we are simply not aware of it.

Defense (6) can always pop up in almost any discussion about God. This 'mystery card' claims that there is some unknown, undetectable reason that God might have for failing to reveal himself in this case. We can, though, think of many really good reasons God would have for revealing himself and see, when other defenses are presented, that such defenses do not give us reason to believe God has a good reason to remain hidden (and argue that lack of evidence, reason, and argument supporting God's existence gives us good reason to not believe). Why should this 'unknown, undetectable reason' be permitted for the Christian god and not others? For all we know, every possible god for whom we currently have no good reason to believe exists has their own reasons to remain hidden. Who are you to question the minds of every possible god? I go into more detail with the 'You can't know the mind of God' defense here.

Defense (7): Why expect God to reveal himself? It is the responsibility of humans to find God, not God's responsibility to reveal himself to humans.

This objection largely misses the point of the problem of divine hiddenness to being with: if God is all-loving, all-knowing, and all-powerful, why shouldn't he reveal himself to humans? If the theist contests that it is the responsibility of humans to find God, this doesn't address the problem, but only shifts the responsibility. Further, if humans are to find God, doesn't this mean that God should have devised a more effective way of aiding humans to this goal? The 'ball' is back in 'God's court.'

Framing this in terms of responsibility might also be unhelpful. The problem really isn't about responsibility, but rather is that God -- since he is all-loving and all-powerful -- has no good reason to remain hidden and has every reason to make himself known.

---

When we don't find a good reason to believe a proposition, the proper response is to not accept the claim. If we can't think of a possible reason for God not revealing himself (and additionally find no reasons to believe God exists), we're quite justified in not believing that the Christian god exists. Even if we can devise a reason for God remaining hidden, this doesn't, of course, mean that God exists. With lack of a reason for God to remain hidden and a lack of a reason to believe God exists, the theist faces two major problems.

The common defenses theists give to answer the problem of divine hiddenness fail. Theists believe that persons would lose their free will if God unequivocally revealed himself, but this simply is not the case. The variations of this free will response to the problem of divine hiddenness are not sufficient for one to believe that God has a good reason to remain hidden. Additionally, the idea that natural regularities can only be had if God remained hidden fails. Finally, the common 'mystery card,' if this works for the Christian god, would have to work for every other possible god.

My second post in this 'series' is here.

Response to "Humans must embrace culture that respects life"

The Times Leader's letter to the editor section has recently been a good source of fodder for this blog because it's quite apparent that people have no idea what they are talking about and/or have simply fallen victim to religious propaganda.

One of today's letters, “Humans must embrace culture that respects life” contains several logical fallacies including but not limited to false dichotomies, strawmanning, and inappropriate appeals to emotion.

The letter reads:

Humanity is indeed at a crossroad. It must either choose to preserve human life or face a quite uncertain, unrecognizable and bleak future.

The Bible states that God abhors the shedding of all innocent blood. Yet, since the legalization of abortion in 1973, it is reported that more than 50 million abortions have occurred in our country alone. Who can be more innocent than a helpless child within the womb? God grieves.

Progressively, we have become desensitized toward the plight of the unborn. Many in the media play a major role in this desensitization. The agenda of many is clear: a war and genocide against the helpless and innocent unborn.

While I may not be able to change laws alone, as a matter of conscience, I appeal to your heart to choose life, as your mother did. I appeal to you to teach others not that abortion is so much a right, but something quite destructive to both mother and child. I implore you to embrace a culture that nurtures a respect for life from conception to natural death. Without these things, there is no future for humanity.

Nicholas Butrie

Landsford

Throughout this letter, the phrase 'preserve life' is never defined, but one could assume that this reader assumes that life begins at conception (how he has determined this, I do not know, but I suppose he gets this from his religious beliefs), therefore abortion is murder (and, of course, it is somehow the murder of a child).

The first paragraph in this letter is quite an obvious false dichotomy; the reader presents two options when there are several...and his conclusion doesn't necessarily follow from his premise. Why must it be the case that humanity either must “choose to preserve human life” or “face a quite uncertain, unrecognizable, and bleak future?” What good reasons do we have to believe that abortions will lead to a quite uncertain future? With or without abortions, it is quite possible to have an uncertain future. If no more abortions were performed, does this letter writer honestly believe that the future will suddenly be clear, certain, and recognizable?

The reader goes on to make a quite interesting claim that “The Bible states that God abhors the shedding of all innocent blood.” Never mind, of course, the fact that 'the shedding of innocent blood' [of Jesus] is the cornerstone of Christian belief. Forget, of course, all of the Old Testament sacrifices, Psalm 137:9 (Happy are those who dash their children against the stones), God commanding Amalekian genocide in 1 Samuel 15, and much more.

The reader presents a very interesting caricature of 'many in the media' who, apparently, have an “agenda” of “war and genocide against the helpless and innocent unborn.” Those who are pro-choice would never say, “I have declared war on the unborn,” but rather have quite a different stance.

Why such a focus on the 'life of the unborn' and not the life of the woman? Anti-choice persons such as this letter writer forget that we have an autonomous human being who has rights and can decide what she does or does not do with her own body. This reader, of course, defines life as beginning at conception (and thinks that a child is formed at this time), but many people see this very differently because, during the first trimester, there is little to no capacity to feel pain, no good reason to believe a 'child' is conscious, and every reason to believe that it is morally justified to abort.

Instead of 'appealing to the heart,' good arguments are needed to establish why we should believe life begins at conception, why the 'rights' of the unborn trump the rights of a woman, and why abortion (especially those that are very early, which most are) is immoral.

NEPA Freethought Society Podcast - Now available in itunes Store and RSS Feed

The NEPA Freethought Society Podcast has been available online.

It's now available through an RSS Feed and the itunes store!

RSS Feed

itunes

Reader blames 'homosexual agenda' and secular humanism for Penn State scandal

I published a new Examiner.com article titled "Reader blames 'homosexual agenda' and secular humanism for Penn State scandal." Read this article and more on my Examiner.com page and please subscribe for instant updates.

Local reader misunderstands Philosophy, Science, Economics

A Letter to the Editor titled "Reader Warns the End is Nigh" was published in today's edition of The Times Leader:

Reader warns the end is nigh

Our time is up. Our civilization is coming to an end.

We have fallen short of our goal and purpose on this planet. In fact, we have gone in the opposite direction.

The two most powerful value systems on this planet are science and economics.

Science has replaced the mythical gods. It would have you believe that it and it alone knows what is best for each of us and for the planet. Science accepts only what can be seen and proven, otherwise it doesn’t exist. Science believes that our existence is an accident. It is the coming together of the right elements, which then form greater compounds, etc.

The economic value system has absorbed all of our institutions globally. Its creed is profit, power and greed. It is no more concerned with our well-being and with the common good of the planet than the Man in the Moon.

Together these two systems have absolutely nothing to do with our real purpose and why we are here. In fact, they have plunged us into a meaningless existence.

George Albert

Jenkins Township

As many of my readers probably already can see, many 'red flags' go up in this letter. I took some time to respond:

This letter to the editor titled “Reader Warns the End is Nigh” betrays a deep misunderstanding of science, economics, and philosophy while committing other egregious errors. I'd like to respond in somewhat of a lengthy fashion in order to dispel these gross misconceptions.

George, what in the world do you mean when you say, “We have fallen short of our goal and purpose on this planet?” Can you please state what said goal and purpose is, how you know what said purpose and goal is, and state why this said goal and purpose is important for everyone without simply asserting that there is a goal and purpose?

When thinking of whether there is purpose and meaning in life, I don't look for something that is externally imposed, but rather believe meaning, if there is any, could be subjective based on what one finds important. If there were some externally imposed meaning, I wouldn't find it very meaningful at all, anyway. I derive meaning and purpose from writing, generally enjoying life, sharing my ideas with others, pursuing knowledge, etc. This is derived from me alone.

You write, “the two most powerful value systems on this planet are science and economics.” None of these are 'value systems,' but rather branches of knowledge/systems to reach knowledge. While many value judgments may undergird scientific methodology (intellectual honesty, willingness to accept whatever conclusion study may reveal, open-mindedness, etc), it is wrong to call science a 'value system.' The same goes for economics.

While the statement, “science has replaced the mythical gods” seems quite attractive and many scientific explanations have regulated many gods 'to the gaps' or have shown persons that we no longer need supernatural explanations to explain certain phenomena, it's wrong to think this way. Science operates under the banner of methodological naturalism – the assumption that a natural explanation will be found – but this is much different than philosophical naturalism (the belief that all that exists is the natural world). One can't 'use science' to show that there are no gods, but rather one has to 'do philosophy' to reach this conclusion. While science can and certainly does inform philosophy, we can't arrive at the conclusion of 'there are no gods' from science because of its operating scope (the natural world).

Science doesn't “have you believe that it and it alone knows what is best for each of us and the planet.” Science can only tell us how the world is, but not what we ought to do; one can't go from an is to an ought though science, but rather has to posit a value judgment (thus showing that science is not a 'value system' like you propose and also showing that science doesn't tell us what is best for us). Perhaps we have a value judgment like “this life is generally worth living and we should do our best to protect this planet.” A conclusion like this is not one reached by science, but rather by moral reflection. We can use scientific findings to perhaps show us how we can protect the planet, but science can never reach a value judgment.

You note “Science accepts only what can be seen and proven, otherwise it doesn't exist.” This statement is also not accurate. Consider the famous teapot proposed by philosopher and mathematician Bertrand Russell known as Russell's teapot. Perhaps, somewhere in space, there is a microscopic teapot. We can't detect this and no matter how hard we try to find it, we fail. This doesn't mean the teapot doesn't exist, but rather that we have no good reason to believe it exists – there is a crucial difference here.

The word 'proven' that you use here also shows misunderstanding. Science tells us what, to the best of our knowledge, we can claim about the physical universe. Science doesn't set some lofty bar by saying, “This is 100% right” mainly because we understand that theories can be incomplete and possible problems can be found in the future that may force us to revise theories and discard some old ideas. As you know, much of our scientific understanding has been revised over the years. Additionally, the notion of '100% certainty' is quite useless (except for, perhaps, tautologies and mathematics).

Science also isn't only about what can be seen. Some of what we know through science is the product of inference. For example, we need not 'see' a specific transitional form of some sort of organism, but when we find some evidence that shows what an organism was mostly like (particularly vestigial organs on modern forms), we can infer what was probably the case in the past. This is similar to detective work in a way. Suppose a police officer finds a gun with fingerprints, blood on a carpet, etc. He/she can infer that a murder had taken place without actually have seen it.

Saying that our existence is 'an accident' is also overstating and misunderstanding. While “the coming together of the right elements,” as you mention (abiogenesis) can be called an 'accident,' life as we know it now is anything but. Evolution, as you may know, is the complete opposite of an 'accident.' Simply put – and I'm not going to go into too much detail here – organisms survive and organisms die. Those which are best suited to survive and live on contribute their genetic material to future generations. This is the exact opposite of an accident.

You mention the 'economic value system.' Here, you are equivocating; you use the same term twice, but with a different definition in both instances. First, you call economics a value system and then talk about the 'economic value system' of “profit, power, and greed.” Profit, power, and greed are not intrinsic to economics, but rather are individuals' motives. It is incoherent to state “it is no more concerned with our well-being” because economics does not propose to be an ethical system, but rather a means of understanding. Persons might not be concerned with our well-being, but here you see a crucial difference.

You note, “these two systems have absolutely nothing to do with our real purpose and why are here.” You are right, but economics and science never propose to have anything to do with “real purpose” or “why we are here.” Science and economics answers 'how questions' and doesn't propose that there is any 'real purpose.' It seems you are also looking for 'why questions' (about 'purpose' and 'meaning') when such questions may be incoherent/outside the scope of science and economics and instead can be examined by philosophical reflection.

Economics, for example, might answer 'why questions' of “Why do people behave in a certain way?” or “Why does demand increase when there is less supply?” but this is much different than your questions of meaning and purpose. Science might also perhaps answer “Why are the fundamental constants of the universe the way that there are?” but you won't get some answer of meaning and purpose here either. This doesn't mean that we should discard either discipline, but rather this means that you are looking for something in a discipline that is outside of its scope.

Your main argument, it seems, falls victim to a false dichotomy. You seem to argue, “Science and religion doesn't 'do it for me,' so therefore religious claims are acceptable.” This is fallacious reasoning. Just because one option is problematic doesn't mean that the other just 'wins out.' You're looking for something in science and economics that you aren't just going to get mainly because of the scope of what science and economics covers. Value, though, can be gained through philosophical reflection and we can use science and economics to inform our values.

What, I wonder, have religions to offer us? We hear all sorts of supernatural claims being made, but none of these claims as I see them are believable. The standard arguments for gods not only fail, but they fail quite tremendously. Instead of looking for some supernatural purpose or some grand designer, why don't you focus your attention on the world here and now instead of throwing your hopes and wishes to a possible supernatural world that we have no good reason to believe?

Philosopher Richard Taylor, in his book Metaphysics (4^th edition) says that truth is worth seeking because “it saves us from the numberless substitutes that are constantly invented and tirelessly peddled to the simple-minded, usually with stunning success ... it saves us from these glittering gems and baubles, promises and dogmas and creeds that are worth no more than the stones under one's feet. […] Many persons spend their lives in a sandcastle, a daydream, in which every answer to every metaphysical question decorates its many mansions. … They find, in other words, a comfort born of ignorance.”

Instead of accepting what the various religions of the world have to say – often coupled with no good reason to believe these claims other than 'it's faith' or 'this feels good' – we should be concerned with what is true. The emperor has no clothes and I'm quite happy to point this out to you. Those who agree would do good service in conscientiously expressing their convictions. You're not alone.