How to convince an atheist of God's existence

How do you convince a non-believer that God is real? Fight them on their terms. Atheists like rationality, experiments, data and hypothesis testing. So devise a study that has predictive validity. It's that simple. 

Make a specific verifiable prediction about the future whose outcome is not subject to vague or multiple interpretations apart from a religious one. A specific prediction that is so unlikely to occur except in the event of supernatural intervention. And if it were to occur then the only possible inference would be the supernatural. This is your hypothesis. Then devise an experiment to test this hypothesis, with controls.

For example, here's one hypothesis to prove that God is real and he answers prayers - over time t, a clear majority of n number of people suffering from a terminal illness who pray to be healed, will be healed from that illness. As a control, we can compare the results from this study to those from a group of n number of people with a terminal illness who do not pray to be healed. If the death rate is significantly lower in group A, then prayer works and God is real, if it is more or less the same in both groups then prayer has no effect and God is less likely to be real.

Also, the number of people who pray to be healed and die, or the number that don't pray to be healed and live should be so minuscule as to be negligible. In other words, for us to know that prayer works, the majority in both praying and non-praying groups should be true positives and true negatives respectively. And the number of false positives and false negatives should be tiny.

This is a good hypothesis because it separates a real effect from what would be chance or randomness but which might be confused for something else by believers.

One person being healed after prayer is not valid or reliable evidence in itself. It could be due to a number of factors, some of which could be as yet unexplained. A true effect would be visible over a group of people over time under similar conditions. And even if this happened, if a large number of people got better repeatedly after praying, you would still need to compare that effect to a similarly large group of people who got better repeatedly over the same time period without praying. By controlling for this one variable, you would ensure that prayer alone and not other confounding factors were at work.

No rationalist will every accept the results of a study as proof of course. You never 'prove' anything in science. You merely suggest that something is more or less likely. You goal here is to conduct an experiment that demonstrates that obtaining the results you obtained by chance alone would be so unlikely as to be as good as accepting that God exists (or perhaps an alien or the Matrix posing as God). This is as close that any scientist will come to believing in God.

I have yet to come across any data that shows that prayer works. All the evidence I am usually shown is no different from statistical noise (false positives or negatives) rather than true effects. But the experimental design is robust and I'm willing to change my beliefs and believe in God if that's what the model reflects. But we all know that's never going to happen.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Counter claims like God shouldn't be tested, God chooses not to be tested, God does what he will, you can't understand the mind of God, God has a larger plan, etc. to explain why prayer doesn't always work are all invalid and pointless as they don't support God's existence. They merely offer data that is no different from random chance or statistical noise (if not worse), making you question why you would choose to believe in God to begin with. If all the evidence for God is so inconsistent as to be no different from evidence for no God, then why hold to such a theory? 

And the argument that you're trying to measure something that isn't measurable or isn't supposed to be measurable is of course rubbish. That's the point of doing the measuring. If you can't measure an effect, then you have no reason to believe in it. And if you still believe in it, on what basis? 

Of course, a true believer doesn't trouble himself or herself with such trivial concepts like evidence. The best way to Know is to surrender yourself to the unknowable, to have the humility to know that you will never understand what you were never meant to understand, to take a leap into darkness, which is a good way to delude yourself into believing anything, true or false, and which also comprises logical fallacies like circular reasoning and false premise reasoning by first assuming something is true in order to believe in it. 

While this may bring comfort to people it is still the equivalent of a logical fallacy, and if something is the equivalent of a logical fallacy, it is as likely to be true as untrue. Which is why I default to not believing and people who prefer comfort default to believing. Two different frameworks for making sense of the world. Ironically, it's the scientific one that actually does more to prove the existence of the supernatural. Which is why we build verifiable models to make sense of the world. Religious models are just lazy. They explain too much by being deliberately vague. Great for self-delusional comfort, not a good way to derive insight.

How to convince an atheist of God's existence

On Beliefs, Assumptions and my World View

Beliefs are not equal.

I had a discussion with a gentleman recently who refused to accept that someone could have no beliefs. This because I told him I had no beliefs. I personally don't like to use the word belief. I would rather refer to any position I hold as a model or approximation of the truth. These models are in turn built on assumptions of properties about this world that could change. It is easy to dismiss the difference between approximations and beliefs as mere semantics, but do keep in mind that semantics is the first thing you learn in a Philosophy 101 course, and ensures that everyone begins a discussion on the same page, instead of ending up talking about different things while referring to the same term. 

Anyway, I see all views, opinions and theories as merely models that are built on assumptions. Nothing is based completely on evidence of course, as even the most basic evidence requires assumptions of the properties that the evidence is based on. For example, the colour red is not really seen by everyone in the exact same way. Our vision ensures that we all see the colour slightly differently, even if this difference is practically negligible. We still call it red though. This is an approximation. A generalisation. But there's more. We assume that the colour red, like other colours, exists as waves made up of photons. We don't know much about how light exists as energy, but we have created models that explain and exploit its properties to a degree that is useful to us. 

Of course, none of this may be real. We may all be plugged into the Matrix. This could all be a dream. The colours may not exist. This universe may not exist. The properties of this physical world that we think we know about may only be a function of a dream world we inhabit and not part of whatever is really out there. But we don't know for sure if this world is fake, and so we act under the assumption that this universe and all the properties in it are real. Because this is the only practical way to live if our goal is comfort and happiness. We don't know if we exist in the way we experience. But it is best to assume that we do.

So in this sense everything is an assumption. But that doesn't mean that all assumptions are equal. There is a hierarchy. If there weren't then any view or model we created, no matter how crazy, could all be equally plausible. So what we do to maintain order in our world is assume that certain things are probably real like our universe and our existence. We then build the rest of our models on top of these basic assumptions.

Now we need to be really careful about how we construct these models, because a lot of them are based on questions that involve incomplete definitions and subjectivity. For example, do we have free will? Luckily, a lot of our models are objective, and built on physical laws whose properties we can approximate quite well. We use mathematical operations to build bridges. Mathematical identities themselves like Pythagoras theorem are perfect and exist for themselves with no exception, at least under the assumptions of the mathematical laws of this universe. We don't know why these identities exist, but we know that they do and how to exploit them. This is not an excuse for a belief in the supernatural. That is simply uncalled for given the evidence. We simply do not know why identities exist. That is all. Any models explaining why will need additional evidence.

You could of course make up your own inductive proof for a supernatural entity that exists outside the laws of this universe and space and time and matter but you would eventually have to face the fact that the properties of this proof are made up by you. i.e the proof works by induction, just like mathematical proofs work, because you assume all the properties needed for it to work, like we do in math. You don't know if these properties are real, you just assume that they are. A logically valid argument will still lead to a false conclusion if its premise is false. If your assumptions are unfounded, then no matter how good your argument, the conclusion you reach will still be only as good as your assumptions. This is why models for God's existence are both perfect and probably wrong.

Moving on, when you build a model, you identify a pattern and make predictions based on evidence. Sometimes, you use other people's models. You act on expectations that another from another model that you know very little about. For example, when you get sick and pop a pill. You don't know anything about what you're consuming. But you take it anyway expecting to get better. Is this a belief?

You could call it a belief, yes. Like the belief that the sun will rise tomorrow morning, given a normal solar system, or the belief that you will be able to walk or talk tomorrow, given no major changes to your body. You could call these beliefs, and they are all based on assumptions. But are they the same as religious beliefs? No, of course not. Because unlike religious beliefs, all these beliefs are verifiable. You cannot know for sure if a pill will cure you, but you know that you can look up the details of the pill if you wanted to. You can examine the skies or your body for patterns if you want to confirm the expectations you have for your model. In other words, these models are verifiable. Not a 100% verifiable of course. Pills do not always work. Solar systems and human bodies do not always work the way we expect them do. Errors abound. Things unaccounted for. The model is updated with new data. This is how critical reasoning works. Religious models are different. They rely, as I have said, on assumptions that are unverifiable. They might lead to useful but false conclusions. Religious belief may be useful, but it is also unverifiable. 

So now we have not just beliefs, but levels of belief. There are verifiable and unverifiable beliefs. This allows for some degree of subjectivity, as what is verifiable depends on how good the evidence is, and all evidence comes down to further assumptions, which always comes down to our assumptions about this universe and our existence. But we can say for sure that some beliefs are more verifiable than others, because some evidence is better than others, assuming the basic laws governing this universe. Evidence that holds up to falsifiability and has predictive value will always be better than anecdotal evidence that relies false premise reasoning and confirmation bias. This is not to say that unverifiable assumptions are wrong. This is impossible to tell, but that's the problem. 

We are mostly concerned with truth or falsity of assumptions based on the evidence we have. But since we can only examine the evidence in light of what we know about the universe, and since this is itself a series of assumptions that do not take into account what we don't know, then of course anything we postulate about God or a supernatural being could be true. Not probable, but possible. I wouldn't say that  assumptions based on rules outside this universe are something we shouldn't bother to think about. But we definitely are limited in the ways we can verify them, given that all our means of verification exist only in this universe.

So yes, perhaps I do have beliefs. I suppose I do live my life along expectations of how the world should work even though I don't always understand why it works this way. These could be called beliefs. And they are certainly different from supernatural beliefs. My beliefs are based on assumptions that are verifiable, at least to a certain extent. I think is a more practical way to live for the moment, compared to holding beliefs that are unverifiable, because at least I can explain why I hold a belief. I can justify my beliefs with evidence. What about you?

On Beliefs, Assumptions and my World View

The Religion-Violence Correlation

Well, Mumbai had another riot a few weeks ago.

A group of Muslims came to Azad Maidan for a demonstration, some carried weapons and the situation soon grew out of hand. The demonstrators went on a rampage, destroying property and attacking people, before being brought under control a few hours later.

I don't want to go into specifics but look at this event in the more general terms of religion and violence as a whole.

In the aftermath of the riot, fingers were pointed and names were called. I'm not talking about political oneupmanship and bureaucracy. I'm taking about you and me. I'm talking about what normal people talk about in homes, on the streets and online.

People antagonistic to Islam and Muslims felt this was yet another sign of how bad Muslims are, or how much of a curse Islam is.
People who don't like religion saw in this riot another indication of why religion is evil, and played up the harm that religion does to society.
Moderate Muslims apologized on behalf of the rioters and urged justice.
Apologetic Muslims urged people to think about the reasons why people would resort to violence to begin with. 

Which brings up so many points.

Who takes the blame for this?

Firstly, why do we even need to assign blame? Well, because we choose to live in a society governed by elected representatives who are supposed to ensure that we lead a peaceful non-stressful existence. That's what we pay them do do.

Did they perform? No. The police did an admirable job in not letting the riot escalate, and in ensuring law and order returned asap. This quick response is something they need to be commended for. However, it does not excuse them from the fact that they failed to preempt the riot to begin with, and those in charge need to be punished for this.

OK, so with the obvious blame over, can we blame Islam?

Yes, the rioters were Muslims, yes the riot was seeped in an undercurrent of Islam, and yes, if they weren't Muslims, they wouldn't be rioting. Does that mean we blame Islam? 

No, we don't, because Islam is a religion, not a person. It is merely a collection of ideas that people subscribe to. That the principles behind Islam are both ridiculous and irrelevant in today's context is beside the point. The point is they're just principles, which people are free to ignore.

So do we blame the Muslims, people who choose to follow Islam? 

Well, yes and no. 

We don't blame all Muslims, but we blame those who choose to interpret a religion or a belief system in a manner that leads to violence, because their form of expressing this interpretation goes against our laws. 

However, we can't generalize or extrapolate one set of rioters to all Muslims. Only a fool would do this. Most Muslims were as scared as other Mumbaikars when the riot broke out. Only a moron would look at a Muslim riot and go "we must rid this city of all Muslims". 

OK, but why call the rioters Muslims? Why associate them with Islam? They're just criminals, aren't they? Why associate them with any religion?

Because Islam is what the rioters themselves associate with, and it's stupid for us to ignore that, because this sort of information is useful in observing and predicting the ways in which a society moves and how to best control it in future.

Just because the majority of Muslims are wonderful non-violent people doesn't give us the right to purposely disassociate the rioters from Islam. It is entirely possible for two sub groups of people within the same group to interpret a belief system in two different ways. Both the majority and minority sub groups can scream hoarse about who's a true Muslim and who isn't, but they can't disassociate either subgroup from Islam itself, nor can anyone else.

Speaking of anyone else, the one thing that irritates me as much as anti-Muslim fundamentalists are the clueless liberal elite who think that religious rioters are mindless ignorant beasts with no religion. This is just stupidity and I don't know what kind of ignorant guilt-induced political correctness gone wrong, instigates this. 

Sure, all rioters irrespective of ideology tend to act like mindless ignorant beasts when rioting, but their riot has a basis to begin with, and in this case it's their religion. 

This doesn't mean we generalize the riot to draw ridiculous conclusions about Muslims. It just means the riot has a religious basis and we use this information as usefully as we possibly can. Period.

But wouldn't it be easier to just crackdown on Islam and all Muslims? 

This is illogical. You don't punish the group for the individual.

True, fewer Muslims would technically mean a lower chance of riots, but that's a ridiculous generalisation. By application, if the workers in a Maruti factory in a small town decide to riot, do we then get rid of all Maruti workers, or all Maruti factories, to ensure no further riots occur? 

At some point of time in the evolution of a civilization, any group within that civilization is liable to riot if enough members within the group resort to the same kind of violent herd mentality. 

To ban Islam is to ban Christianity is to ban Hinduism is to ban Buddhism is to ban atheism. They're all guilty because they're all groups, and all groups encourage herdthink. 

That one group is currently more violent than the others doesn't exonerate the others. It merely demonstrates that the difference in violence wrought by these groups at any particular time is one of extent rather than principle.

Is this a sign that religion in general is evil and dangerous?

Dangerous, yes. Evil, no. All religions being collections of principles, the only thing that matters to society is how stupidly people interpret these principles.

We can counter this by guarding against groupism in general, by making sure people are aware of the dangers of religion, of any belief system, of any group, of any fundamentalism.

So in summary, do we associate religion with violence?

Yes, we can, wherever we can, as long as it's not a correlation brought about by sinister or ignorant intentions with personal agendas in mind that don't really help anyone.

Also, read this article on war being inevitable by E.O Wilson.

The Religion-Violence Correlation

The Church of Atheism

I've been observing an increasingly disturbing trend lately. Atheists are forming organised groups. They're showing signs of fundamentalism - acting privileged, entitled, superior, rude and harassing religious people online.

To Begin With

I've written before on the futility of belief, and why non-belief is logical. However, these are my personal views, and I hold that imposing these views on anyone else in wrong. Also, it would be wrong on my part to expect everyone else to adhere to my personal views. Just because I see a way of life to be logical or rational doesn't mean everyone has to hold to that view. It is fine for people be irrational, even purposely so, as long as they're not hurting anyone else.

Take religion for example. Religion is irrational, yet it's OK for people to be religious. It's their personal choice. Should religion be encouraged? No more than any other form of irrationality is. Should religion be protected? Of course not. Ordinarily, a state has no part to play in the religions or personal belief systems of it's citizens.

Which is why I'm growing uneasy over this new type of militant atheism, an atheism that people subscribe to like an actionable belief system, rather than merely a philosophy or a personal set of viewpoints. An atheism that has loyal followers who are beginning to resemble religious fundamentalists, ready to defend their atheist leaders and core principles, ever ready to preach to those disinclined to listen. 

We need to guard against this new type of militant atheism.

Atheism Does Not Need Fundamentalism to Work 

I think religion will eventually die out when people see there's no point in taking things on faith, when they realise that the concept of belief itself is pointless. This will happen slowly over time. The number of people who associate with non-belief increases each year. 

Arguments that rationally undermine the concept of belief have been around for ages. These arguments form the foundation of atheism and do not need patron saints like Christopher Hitchens or Richard Dawkins, or their lapdogs to defend or promote them. 

Militant Atheism is Really Harmful to the Cause

As a rationalist, I have to say that men like Christopher Hitchens and Richard Dawkins actually do more harm to rational thought, simply because they rarely indulge/d in any. 

Men like these may occasionally present their ideas logically, but spend more time asserting their superiority over religious people, insulting them, being rude, acting superior and generally just being assholes, that they alienate not just religious people, but the fence sitters as well.

Hitchens in particular was adept at using rhetoric and hyperbole, side-stepping any attempt at debate with humour that reinforced his own one-dimensional points. That his original arguments made sense by themselves is beside the point. The point is that he used the same arguments in contexts that rendered them irrelevant. 

For example, in this debate with Shashi Tharoor on freedom of speech, Hitchens shuns any attempt at engaging in actual intelligent debate. He seems incapable of looking at the world and questioning it in any way that doesn't allow him to spurt his crowd/ratings-friendly one-liners at every opportunity he gets.

Now, as a result of this, two things happen.

One, you give your detractors more ammunition to work with. You are going to be seen as someone who changes the subject and avoids debate, preferring narrow mindedness instead. 

Two, you alienate all those people who want to be on your side, who genuinely care about intelligent debate and an exchange of ideas, and make a mockery of their time.

Groupism is Bad

A true rationalist is interested in debate and an exchange of ideas. That's not what I'm seeing today. I'm seeing people who under the guise of enlightenment, take great pleasure in forming a clique and shoving their non-belief down religious people's throats. 

This is dangerous because, as we've seen in history, any type of groupism has potential to go very wrong. The moment like-minded people get organised around an idea, the potential for disaster is present, especially when that idea revolves around persecution of supposedly inferior beings. 

This is the same kind of groupism that we've seen in religious groups, and we all know the kind of violence it can lead to. In fact, groupism isn't confined to religion. How many millions of people did atheist governments in China and the former USSR kill?

This sort of 'lynch mob' mentality is exactly what happens when you have people eager to belong, to be part of a group, to be part of a movement, something greater to themselves, so that they have meaning in their lives. You see this kind of tribe mentality in all sorts of groups.

On Intelligent Atheism

Is it surprising then that it manifests itself in atheism too? To me it is, because I never imagined any kind of rationalist movement as a kind of cult, which is what it has turned into. 

Rationalism is all about being an open minded skeptic, friendly, ready to engage, open to new ideas, discussion and debate. And let's not forget our humaneness too. Despite all our rationality, we must respect other human beings for their views, whatever they are, even when they decide to be irrational. Their reasons are their own.

I don't see this kind of respect for other human beings in new atheism. If you're not constantly spewing hatred for religion, you're the enemy. If you don't agree with Dawkins or Hitchens, you're the enemy. Atheist fundamentalists cannot grasp that you can be a staunch atheist and still disagree with these so called 'experts'. 

This kind of 'seeing the world in black and white' mentality while ignoring the grey areas is exactly what leads to groupism and possible violence, and is antithetical to the healthy debate that rational thought encourages.

No Excuses

The main excuse of atheist fundamentalists is that their harshness is merely a response to injustices wrought on the world by religion. To which I say "Phooey". 

Granted, the influence of religion is far reaching, and much needs to be done to reverse this. But that does not mean you shove your ideas down people's throats. That doesn't make you any better than the people you're trying to put down. 

And it doesn't accomplish anything. If anything, it makes it worse. Most people dislike non-belief being forced on them as much as they dislike religion being forced upon them.

So in summary

Believe what you like, and keep it to yourself. 
Engage in healthy debate if you feel like it and find the right people to talk to. 
Hear people out and seriously consider what they're saying.
Think and reason logically. 
Be objective. 
Fight for your rights and the rights of others. 
Fight to halt and reverse the dangerous influences of religion.
Support the freedom of religious expression up till the point where it infringes on your rights.
It's fine to hold up a mirror to the absurdity of religion or any irrational thought process to demonstrate how absurd it is, especially when provoked. 
Don't be rude.
Don't end up like one of them.
Keep your individuality. The moment you join a group, you sacrifice a piece of your individuality for a group identity. Be aware of this.

The Church of Atheism