Dealing With A Heartbreak?

Originally written July 2008

One of the biggest Catch 22's in life revolves around love. For some sick reason, it turns out that someone who has the ability to make you feel the best, also has the ability to make you feel the absolute worst.

When you have your heart broken, the pain seems almost unbearable. The only escape from the pain is to go to sleep. But then when you wake up, you have to re-remember everything, and the pain seems to hurt even more than before.

Unfortunately, there isn't any quick fix to a broken heart. But there are things you can do, and keep in mind, that will help you deal with the pain.

REALITY CHECK

First, remember that even though you feel hopeless, alone and crushed, you WILL get over it. This is a fact. Even if you can't imagine not feeling how you do, remember that almost everyone has gone through what you are going through, and they all turn out ok.

I was once told that for every hardship we go through, we come out stronger, and know more about ourselves. I first scoffed at this idea, thinking it was just after-the-fact rationalizations. But from my experience, it is very much true. It might not seem like it at first. You probably will feel lonely, vulnerable and scared. But that will pass as well, and in the end, you will know more about yourself as a person.

Try to self reflect as time goes on, and realize that you are in fact getting better. After two weeks have gone by, remember how much more it hurt before. Pay attention to the fact that you are feeling better over time.

LET THE FEELINGS OUT

Don't try and hide how you feel. If you need to cry, cry. If you have things you want to say, write a letter—you don't have to mail it. Whatever you do, do not hold your feelings in. This will just make things harder down the road.

Listening to sad songs is a good idea, but only to an extent. But when listening to sad songs that seem to have been written for you, realize that the reason that they seem to have been written for you is because what you are feeling is a common human experience. Someone else felt exactly as you did, if not worse, and they overcame it. However, don't listen to sad songs forever.

REALIZE THAT THEY AREN'T THAT PERFECT

When you really like someone, or are in love with someone, it's easy to get ahead of yourself, and imagine how things could be 2, 5 or even 20 years down the road. It's easy to imagine perfect settings, where you are with the person you care for, and are perfectly happy.

When you care deeply for someone, it's easy to only see the positive qualities of them. Sure, this person might seems different than everyone else, but part of this is because you have put them somewhat on a pedestal, and made them out to be better than they are. When you first meet someone, you don't know that much about them. But as you get to know them, and start to have feelings for them, people will focus on the positive aspects, while overlooking the not so great aspects. This is not a bad thing, it's normal. But just try to remember this, and think HARD about the aspects of the person that weren't that great. Write these bad qualities down if you have to. Just don't forget them, because you need to remember that this person isn't perfect.

SPEND TIME WITH FRIENDS

You have been there for your friends in hard times, and they will be there for you now. Chances are they know how you are feeling. So talk to them. But besides just talking with friends, try and accompany them to dinner, or a movie, etc. Get outside and go for a walk to the store with them. Go for a jog. Do anything besides sit around, where your mind will wonder back to the person who you care about. If you are around your friends, you will feel better.

When you sit in your room, and are feeling awful, and your friends invite you to do something, it's easy to say no. You just want to curl up and die. But you have to force through these feelings, and go participate in actives. I guarantee that this will make you feel better, and you will be glad you did it.

It's quite obvious that when you are alone, and with nothing to do, your mind will wonder back to the person you care for, and you will just get overwhelmed by the pain. This is why it's so easy to cry in the shower: you have nothing else to think about. The wall isn't that interesting!

DISTRACT YOURSELF AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE

And besides just doing things with your friends, try and keep yourself busy in general. Do things you enjoy. Go to a movie, ride a bike, read a book, go for a walk, focus on work, etc. Try and do things that make you happy. The key word here is Distraction. Distract yourself as much as possible.

As tempting as it is to just wallow in the pain, try putting on some of your favorite, happy songs, and dance around. Get your blood pumping, and have fun!

However, do not attempt to distract yourself by finding a rebound person. This may seem like a good idea at the time, but in the history of heart breaks, it has never worked. In fact, as everyone knows, it just makes things worse.

WHAT NOT TO DO

With things like myspace and facebook, it's increasingly easy to see what the person who hurt you is up to. Try and not do this, it only makes things harder. If you have to, write yourself a note and put it on your computer, just as a reminder that it's a bad idea to go snoop around on their profile. It's easy to see their picture, with them smiling and happy, and feel that that's how they actually are feeling right this moment. And how unfair is it that they are so happy, when you are so misearble!?

Also, try to resist the urge to overanalyze things. You will want to try and find someway to want to blame yourself. Cause if you can take responsibility, then maybe you can fix the problem, and convince the person to get back with you. And don't spin wild scnearios in your head about what the person you care for may be doing. This will just make you more upset.

And don't drink your sorrows away. You have to face the pain at some time, so it's better to do it now and get it over with.

LASTLY

Remember that the person who broke your heart did not do it out of malice or cruelty. The person more than likely cares about you greatly, and would never want to hurt you. Chances are, they feel really bad for hurting you. Unfortunately, not all relationships are meant to be, and sometimes, this is just how things turn out.

Everything will be ok in the end. If it's not ok, it's not the end.

Indiana Jones

Originally written May 2008

Raiders of the Lost Ark is my favorite movie of all time. I think Indiana Jones is the greatest action hero ever created, and the Indiana Jones theme song is possibly one of the best movie scores ever. Point being, I LOVE Indiana Jones!

There had been talks of another Indiana Jones movie since I was in high school. There was always some excuse though. They couldn’t find a good script, Spielberg, Lucas or Ford had conflicting schedules, etc.

So when I heard rumors that they really were going to make another one, I was really skeptical. I basically thought “I will believe it when they start filming.” Well, that has come and gone, and after years and years of waiting, Indiana Jones is back! Sort of…

To be blunt, this movie sucked. As an action movie, it’s perfectly fine. But for Indiana Jones, it was just all over the place, and on more than one occasion, truly stupid.

Where do I even begin? How about the very beginning. Every Indy movie begins with the Paramount Pictures mountain dissolving into a real mountain, or at least a picture of one (Temple of Doom). On the trailer for this movie, it dissolved into something on a map, which I thought was clever. Well, in the actual movie, it dissolves into a pile of dirt that is the result of a little gopher. Stupid. It’s like a cartoon. And what is the point of having a gopher? Well, throughout the first scene, the gopher and his little family watch all the action. It’s like Caddy Shack or something. Whose idea was this? And why did they think that such stupid comedy belonged in an Indy film?

Anyway, so we come to find out that Indiana Jones and his friend, Mac, have been kidnapped by the Commies, and taken to a secret warehouse in Area 51. How did this kidnapping happen? We are never told.

So once at the warehouse, there is some “witty dialogue” between Indy and Mac. That’s fine, except for the fact that Indy isn’t really that witty, and he acts WAY too cocky. In Raiders, when Indy is in the Well of the Souls, and Belloq says “Why Dr. Jones, whatever are you doing in such a nasty place?” Indy responds with “why don’t you come down here? I’ll show ya!” And that’s about as clever/cocky as he gets, in those situations.

One thing that makes Indiana Jones so awesome is that he is vulnerable. He gets hurt, BIG TIME!! Just in Raiders, he gets shot, drug under/behind a truck and gets the crap beat out of him by a Nazi. He tries to stay calm as long as possible, but when he is really in a jam, he starts to sweat. Remember in Temple of Doom, when Willie won’t pull the handle to open the door, which will save Indy and Short Round from the room with the ceiling spikes, and Indy says “weeee arrrre gooooing to DIE!!” And throughout the whole scene, Indy is not exactly calm. Man, what an awesome scene!

Anyway, so Indy does some running and jumping in the warehouse and escapes, and that’s fine. I was surprised at how well Harrison (if it was actually him) pulled that stuff off.

He then runs into a pseudo-town that is apparently made to test the effects of an A-Bomb. Unfortunately, he finds himself in this little town just about two minutes before the bomb is dropped, so he hides in a refrigerator. The bomb goes off, the town is destroyed, and the fridge goes flying, hundreds of feet through the air. It crashes hard in the desert, and then Indy opens the door and climbs out, no problem. That is something you might see in a cartoon, but not Indiana Jones.

One thing that I always liked about the Indy movies was that even though they are farfetched, they have a very slight hint of realism. That is, the things he does ARE possible, just very dangerous. We know they are possible, because someone actually did the stunts. The giant boulder in Raiders is real (while it’s not rock, it is still heavy), someone actually was drug under a truck on a dirt road, someone actually dove from a horse onto a moving tank. No one is actually getting blown through the air in a refrigerator. And even if they did, the gophers still wouldn’t care.

The movie continues, and we meet Mutt, who is a stereotypical 1950’s tough guy. For dropping out of school, he has a very strong interest in archaeology. So Mutt and Indy chat about something, I don’t even know what, and somehow the plot moves along. I still have no idea what’s going on, or what the point of anything is. Maybe if I watched it again, I would figure it out. But it seemed like we were never given a very solid explanation for anything.

So Indy and Mutt fly to South America, and have some adventures down there and are eventually caught again by the Commies. While caught, Indy runs into his ex, ex lover, Marion Ravenwood. Apparently they were engaged, and then Indy got cold feet. Well, after about two minutes of arguing, they are in love again.

So Mutt helps them escape into the woods, only for Indy and Marion to be caught in some sort of dry quicksand. Indy takes a few seconds to explain the difference between dry and wet quicksand, which is REALLY not something he would do. It reminded me of some nerdy scientist who takes every chance he gets to explain how something is. Indy is not that thick.

So while stuck, there is some madness, and yelling. I find it odd that they were yelling so loud, since the Commies were looking for them, and were no more than 100 feet away. One would think that you would try to be quiet, but whatever.

So then there is a chase scene through the jungle, and it’s ok. It looks pretty fake most of the time, probably because of all the CGI or something. Everyone then crashes into a giant, killer, ant hill. The ants belong in movie like “The Mummy”, not Indiana Jones. Of course, Indy always faces something nasty like snakes, bugs, or rats. But these creatures are always real, not made up.

One thing that was always so awesome about Indiana Jones, was in his fights, he would go all out. He really put a lot of “umph” into it. 4:00-4:15 of this clip is for my money, some of the best punches ever filmed. In every fight scene I have ever made, I have tried to copy those punches. Now contrast those with the punches from the current movie. Pshhh. I guess it’s not just the mileage anymore.

Ok enough whining about that stuff, let’s get to the heart of the problem: Aliens. I was ok with the alien skull. But soon as the alien skeletons formed together and made an actual alien, I was pissed. ALIENS!? I mean, c’mon. At least the Ark of the Covenant and the Holy Grail have some historical aspect to them, even if such things did or did not actually exist. Tons of people have wondered about the Ark, as well as the holy grail, and searched for it. But aliens? C’mon. This is the realm of new age hoo-haws, and conspiracy theorists. I bet that if an archaeologist said he was going to try and find the lost Ark, his colleagues would say “…ok, good luck with that.” But if he said “I am going to try and hunt down the sources of these alien skulls”, he would be laughed out of town. And then the giant UFO, oh man oh man. It was like Close Encounters of the Third Kind. Stooopid.

The movie also lacked excitement. There was never any time where I thought “OH SNAP!!!” or anything of the sort. The movie also lacked a theme song. Of course, there is the Indiana Jones theme, but the second and third movies also have a theme of their own.

Ok enough complaining. I’m sorry, but I just really didn’t like this movie at all. I waited for so long, and it was really disappointing. Nothing about it had the Indiana Jones feel. The characters were totally different, there wasn’t the excitement, suspense or thrills of the original.

So go see it if you want. But as for me, I am gonna stick to the original.

Lesbians Are Overrated

Originally written May 2008

"Men think that if women are grabbing and clawing at each other, there's a chance they might somehow kiss." -Jerry Seinfeld

There is a common theme among many teen boys, as well as many men: lesbians are a treat. If you see two girls, naked, doing all sorts of things to each other, it's excellent. Even if you see two girls just making out, it's apparently awesome as well.

I remember from when I was first introduced to such and idea, to which all of my friends would gush about how awesome it was. I went with it, but remembered thinking "eh. Not so much."

There seems to be this cultural concept that men have this fantasy about girl on girl action. And I think a lot of girls buy into it. Though I could be completely wrong, I think lots of girls just will be making out at a college party or something, just for the attention of the guys. And as expected, the guys react accordingly, hooting and hollering.

But I think this is all a sham. I think that guys, on the majority, do not find anything special about girl on girl action. I think that guys just claim that they do, in order to make sure no one calls into question their own sexuality.

The logic goes like this: you and your friends all like girls, and you agree on which girls you think are the hottest and whatnot. So it seems fair to think that if one hot girl is good, then two must be even better! Right?

In theory, this sounds great. If there were two hot girls, who both wanted the same guy, this would be nice. However, for some strange reason, things then get twisted, and the idea that two women who are apparently attracted to each other, becomes attractive to the guy (allegedly).

What is actually happening here is that men just are afraid to say that they don't find anything special about lesbians or girl on girl action. They are afraid of this, because they fear that if they don't claim to like two girls together, then their friends will conclude that they must be gay, by reversing the bad logic that got them into that position in the first place: you don't like two girls going at it, so you must not like even one girl, so you must be gay. Fag!

So I think the whole interest in lesbians, is for the most part, a sham. Guys just fake interest in two girls together in order to protect their masculinity.

Of course, this is a completely non-falsifiable theory. Either guys admit they don't like lesbians (and I am right), or they continue to say they do like lesbians, proving that they are just too scared to admit that they don't (and I am still right).

However, there is one line of evidence that I think seals the deal: there is much more heterosexual, girl-guy porn, than there is girl-girl porn. If men really were so obsessed with girl on girl action, and thought it was such a treat, why would any guy be interested in girl-guy porn?

The answer is, of course, that guys like girl-guy action more than girl-girl. The reason for this is simple, and has nothing to do with anyone being gay. It's much more desirable to imagine that you are the guy that this porn star girl is desperate to have sex with. It's also easier to imagine you are a guy, messing around with a girl, than it is to imagine you are a girl, messing around with another girl. I won't go into the details of why this is, because I am sure we can all figure it out pretty easily.

If I am right, then I predict that the more secure a guy (or group of guys) is with his masculinity, the less impressed he will be with two girls going at it, and he wont find it desirable. And on the flip side, guys who are more concerned about with people thinking they are gay will be much more ardent in their claim that girl on girl action is this incredible fantasy. But why would it be a fantasty to have two hot girls... who are completely not attracted to you, and want nothing to do with you?

So in conclusion, girl on girl action is not a male fantasy, but just something men feign interest in, in order to try and convince other men that they aren't gay.

Of course, there might be some guys out there who legitimately do find lesbians to be a turn on. There are a lot of stranger things in the world of sexual fantasies. But I don't think that this fantasy is as common as we would be led to believe.

Zak's Theory of Love: Compatibility and Society

Originally written February 2008

Compatibility and Society

This is my oldest and original "theory of love", but I have never really been that fond of it. But today is the day that I have, in the past years, posted blogs on this topic, so I figure that this theory is probably not going to get any better, so I should just post it and get it over with.

As we are all well aware, the rates of divorce continue to rise. According to some studies, nearly 40% of marriages end in divorce.

Of course, everyone has their own theory on why this is. The fundamentalist Christians say it's because of evolution. The conservatives say it's because the traditional family unit is no longer valued. The feminists say it's because women are becoming more empowered. Everyone has a theory… and of course, I am no exception.

However, the difference with my theory, as opposed to the others, is that mine is probably right! But seriously, it's not smart to attribute ONE cause to something as complex as divorce. Does the traditional family unit no longer hold as much force? I don't know. But for sake of argument, let's say that it doesn't. But it would be pretty ridiculous to attribute most divorces to such a thing.

So I have a grand theory that attempts to deal with these issues, and come up with a coherent idea that explains divorce, the change in society, and why people get together and stay together (or split).

Almost every one of my friends' grandparents are not divorced. And back in the day, there were even fewer divorces. What's going on?

Try to picture relationships as a zipper. One person is one side of the zipper, and the other person is the other side. Each tang on the zipper represents one aspect of that person that is important to them in a relationship. In order to have a relationship that works, there has to be enough tangs that match up. If they don't the zipper wont stay zipped, and it falls apart.

So 200 years ago, there were only three aspects that were important for a working relationship: location, social status and religion. All that needed to happen is that you meet a girl (or guy) in your town who was of a similar economic level (which was pretty easy, since the wealthy wouldn't mingle with the poor) who was a Catholic (or Protestant). Since those were the only two factors that came into play, it was easy to stay together. Especially seeing how both factors are pretty much not going to change.

However, time went on. Society became more diverse. Eventually, there was time for doing activities besides working and raising kids. You had free time to do whatever you want. With the increasing ease of communication, things like politics were more easily advanced, and people became more aware of issues they may had never known about before. As educational opportunities arose, people started to learn about different ways to look at the world, learned about different issues that can bring on strong opinions. Women's rights also gave women the ability to stand up for themselves, do what they want, and not just go along with what their husband wanted.

As all of these things came about, there were more and more issues to agree and disagree upon. Rather than location, economic status and religion, it is now things like location, economic status, religion, political views, social values, financial views, hobbies and things that you like to do in your free time, education level, philosophical outlook, eating habits, exercise habits, social group, and on and on and on.

So now instead of just three tangs on the zipper, there are dozens, if not hundreds. So finding someone that meshes with you becomes more and more difficult. However, the good news is that when you do find someone that meshes with you, it can be even more rewarding.

However, with all of those tangs on the relationship zipper, the risk of a freak tang existing, and ruining the whole thing (like a disagreement over how to raise kids) increases. It also increases the chances of someone changing their mind about a few things, and the zipper not working properly.

So this is all well and good. But is there any evidence that would help confirm my idea? Why yes, actually I think there is.

The divorce rates among Jews are the highest in the country. Up next are the conservative Christians. There is also a common theme in both communities: us verses them. Both groups are very adamant about only marrying within their group.

So what? Who cares if Jewish parents want their kids to marry other Jews? What does that have to do with anything? Well… many Jews and conservative Christians say that the number one thing they look for in a relationship is someone who "shares their love of God."

Well, wanting someone who shares your religious convictions is nice, but it's not the only thing that is important these days. Religion is just one of MANY aspects that need to match up in order for a relationship to survive.

So, if a Christian girl meets some guy who shares her love of Jesus, great. But she may have the mentality that religion is ALL that matters. That's simply not the world we live in. Granted, having the same religious views does help the odds of having similar political and social views, but not always. And there are many things that people of the same religion can disagree on.

So the two kids get married, thinking that Jesus is all they need… but they have been misled. Come to find out, they don't agree on much, and the marriage fails. The failure, in this case, is the idea they have come to believe: belief in Jesus is all you need.

So, in order to fix this, the only thing to really do is just be very careful about who you end up getting married to (what a surprise). Make sure that your zipper matches up with theirs, and has a good strong hold. Don't base a relationship on just one or two main similarities, but on as many similarities as you can.

The Incredible God Stopper

Originally written December 2007

The Impossibility of Rational Thought in a Theistic Universe

The idea of free will, as we generally conceive it, is the ability to make decisions, free from any sort of determinism, whether that be the laws of physics acting on the bits in our brains, the genetic influence of our genes on our behavior, or past events influencing the way we think and act in the future. To quote “101 Key Terms in Philosophy and Their Importance to Theology”, free will is the claim that humans have “the ability to rise above their heredity and environment and make free (i.e. uncaused) choices” (pg 31).

The concept of free will that most people embrace is explained with an idea called dualism. Dualism is the idea that humans possess a physical body, and an immaterial mind/soul. Since the mind/soul is immaterial, it is not subject to any sort of determinism, and the traditional conception of free will is therefore possible.

However, there is a huge problem with this. If our choices are the result of completely free, unrestricted, uninfluenced thought, then logic and reason do not influence our thoughts either. In contemporary philosophy of the mind, as well as cognitive neuroscience, reasons are considered to be a type of causation. But if our minds are not caused or influenced by anything (such as reasons), then we have a dilemma. Philosopher of the mind, Owen Flanagan, explains this problem quite nicely:

"Consider what it would mean to have such a free will. When I make a choice I do so ex nihilo, by electing, without anything constraining my deliberation, a course of action. But if nothing constrains my choice, then reasons don't constrain my choices either. And if that is so, then ordinary, introspection must be deemed wildly wrong. After all, it seems to most everyone that when they are deliberating among the options at hand that they are weighing pros and cons and that this information constrains the choice."

"Second, and just as bad, if when I choose I do so for no reason (choice may create a reason for action but does not itself rest on any reasons) then my choice is either arational or irrational. Since one of the main things—perhaps the main thing—any conception of free will worth wanting is supposed to do is to explain how rational choice is possible, and so to explain how I can be held rationally accountable for my choices, the orthodox conception of free will is a miserable failure. It is conceptually incoherent, in the sense that it provides no coherent way of conceiving of what it wants to gain for itself" (The Problem of the Soul, pg 124).

So as we can see, if the dualistic sense of free will exists, and our choices are not constrained or influenced by anything, then logical, rational thought is impossible. The only way for rational thought to be possible is for dualism, and its conception of free will, to be wrong. And since everyone would agree that rational and logical thinking is possible, dualism can be declared wrong.

Now here comes the kicker. For a theist to even suggest talking about anything rationally, they have to presuppose materialism! That is, the theist has to reject the idea of dualism, which is a core part of their dogma. If they don't, then they have no way to account for thinking rationally about anything in the first place.

The only way to get around this, as I can see, is for the theist to either give up the conceptions of dualism and unconstrained free will, or admit that their thinking is completely irrational or arational. And even if a theist were to admit that I am right, and their thinking is irrational or arational, they have just shown that they are wrong, since it was my reasons compelled them to change their mind.

The main thing that needs to be overcome here is for the theist to explain how exactly, something that is defined as being completely uninfluenced by anything (the soul/immaterial mind), can be influenced by reasons.

This argument also undermines the Transcendental Argument for God (logic is only accountable via Christian theism), since that argument assumes from the beginning that we can think rationally in a theistic universe. But as it turns out, we can't.

Therefore, if you can think rationally about anything, or if reasons sway your decision making, you have disproved theism.

Here is the argument in two different proofs:

1. God is an immaterial mind.
2. An immaterial mind is not influenced by anything.
3. Minds are influenced by reasons.
4. Therefore, minds are not immaterial.
5. Therefore, God does not exist.

1. Humans have minds.
2. Immaterial minds cannot be influenced by anything.
3. Human minds are influenced by reasons.
4. Therefore, humans have material minds.

The only criticism of this I can think of is for someone to say that if I am right, then this argument is not the result of rational deliberation, but the laws of physics acting on my brain.

While this may be true, it would be a genetic fallacy to assume that since my brain is a product of the laws of physics, that it cannot produce anything true. Again, I quote Owen Flanagan:

“Rational deliberation is best conceived as the process of building an overall rationale for some conclusion or course of action by blending together the relevant information in a principled manner, so as to yield a sensible conclusion or choice. Again, if we conceive of causes not as collision-like events but as algorithms or heuristics, sets of rules for dealing with information, we can see how rational deliberation is possible for complex creatures, artificial or natural” (The Problem of the Soul, pg 139).

The end.

The Immorality of Child Adoption

Originally written July 2007

In 1785, the German philosopher, Immanuel Kant, released his book called "The Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals." In it, he introduced a term called the "Categorical Imperative." According to Kant, this means that one should "act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law."

So basically, if you are going to do anything, first imagine that that action were a universal law. And if that action was still ok, then go ahead and do it.

So lets say you are going to take a candy from the store. Not that you want to steal it, you just want to see if its any good. What you need to do is ask yourself "if everybody took a candy, would it still be ok?" The answer is obviously no, since all the candy would be eaten up, the store would have no candy to actually sell, it would go out of business, and then no one would get any candy. No candy, oh no! So according to Kant, we can confirm this action as immoral.

Likewise, say someone drops their wallet and you see it, and go to pick it up, and return it to its owner. What would the consequences be if everyone did this? Well… it would be a good thing. So according to Kant, we can safely say that this is a moral action to take.

So this Categorical Imperative idea seems pretty good. And I think that everyone would agree that if you follow this basic concept, you will do alright.

So now lets get to the beef. Many people claim that they would rather adopt children than have their own. Reason being, there are already a lot of kids out there, so why bring another one into the world if you can help one that's already here? Sounds pretty good if you ask me. But lets break it down…

What if this became a moral law, and everyone decided not to have children, and instead adopt? Well… pretty soon, there would be no children to adopt, because no one would be having babies! There might be the occasional accidental pregnancy, but the numbers of babies would decrease so much that it would threaten the survival of our species. And if something threatens the survival of our species (more specifically, our genes), it is immoral.

Therefore, adoption is immoral.

;)

Intellectual Arrogance Argument Against Belief In God

Originally written March 2007

This is not an argument against the existence of God. My argument could be completely without error, and God could still exist. This is merely an argument against belief in a supernatural being.

Many people claim that atheists are intellectually arrogant. I get emails all the time from Christians, saying "you just think you have all the answers and are just soooo smart don't you!?" However, after reflecting on this assertion for awhile, it's actually the opposite that emerges as true. To hold a belief that God has ever had any effect on the universe is exactly the same as me stating, "I, Zachary Kroger, am the smartest person on earth, and no person in the present or future will know more than I do." How is this so? Let me explain.

Since the beginning of human curiosity, we have always placed a huge emphasis on supernatural agents. "How does the sun move across the sky" we asked. The answer, of course, was that there was a sun god that pulled the sun behind a chariot. "What causes thunder and lightning?" again, the answer was supernatural, "Thor and Zeus cause thunder and lightning." For every problem we came across, instead of actually investigating it, we came up with a supernatural explanation. Today, many people follow the same line of thinking and make up a Creator God for the answer to the question "why does the universe exist?" Richard Dawkins has pointed out that the reason these answers are so deeply unsatisfying to the curious mind is because these answers were simply made up. Indeed, such answers are based on nothing more than the laziness, ignorance or lack of imagination of the person asking the question.

Even Isaac Newton, perhaps one of the most brilliant men to ever live, fell into this trap of supernatural thinking. He was able to explain universal gravitation and discovered the three laws of motion. But he was perplexed with the puzzle of why the planets shared the same orbital plane. Instead of actually putting his brilliant mind to the task of figuring it out, he threw in the towel and declared that it must be the work of God. Needless to say, Newton, like everyone else before him that had posited a supernatural explanation, was wrong.

It's interesting to point out that throughout the entire history of scientific investigation, not one supernatural explanation has ever been confirmed as true. But time and time again, every phenomenon we investigate turns out to have a naturalistic explanation. There is not one example of someone claiming that there must be a natural explanation for something, and then the answer turning out to be supernatural. This is very revealing.

So what does this have to do with arrogance? Well, as we can see, every single time that a supernatural cause has been proposed, it has turned out to be wrong. This mode of thinking has a 100% rate of failure. Not good! However, people continue to believe that their favorite god created the universe, created life, works miracles, answers prayers, ect. Believe it or not, but this mode of thinking is about as intellectually arrogant as you can possibly get. Someone who says "God did ________" is essentially saying "no amount of scientific investigation will ever solve this problem. I know that if we went a trillion years into the future, science will still have not discovered the answer to the question of ________." So basically, by holding supernatural beliefs, you have to claim that you are in fact, omniscient. The only possible way you could ever think that something was caused by something supernatural would be to have a perfect understanding of the workings of the universe, and then know that there is no naturalistic explanation. That's a big claim.

In order for the theist to even get close to proving that God really did ________, they have to not only have to disprove all the current scientific models of explanation, they have to disprove every possibly explanation that could ever be presented, even if that explanation won't be proposed for another 10 million years. Obviously, this is an impossibly task. Therefore, the claiming that "God did ________" is a logically impossible position to hold.

So what's more arrogant: an atheist claiming that he does not know the answer to something, but pointing out that given enough time, science has a 100% rate of success? Or, a theist claiming that they know that there will never ever be a naturalistic explanation to a question that they have, even though that mode of thinking has a 100% rate of failure?

Of course, many theists will protest to my claim that they are arrogant. They may charge that I have constructed a straw man of their position. "Some believers might be arrogant, but I don't claim to have all the answers," one might say. Or, "Just because I believe in God doesn't mean that I think science will never answer some questions." And I will concede the point that not all theists act arrogantly. In fact, of all the God believers I know, I wouldn't consider any of them to be the least bit arrogant. However, arrogant behavior or not is not the issue. The issue is that the philosophical underpinnings of their beliefs demand that they take the position of extreme intellectual arrogance, whether they like it or not. The only way to logically hold a position of belief in God is to also claim you know for a fact that science will never answer certain questions. And as I have pointed out, this is an untenable position to hold, therefore belief in God is logically completely unjustified.

To demonstrate my point, just ask any Christian apologist for evidence of God. Even the top apologists in the world have never been able to give any better answer than "science can't explain the origin of life, the origin of the universe, morality or my personal religious experience, therefore God did it." To claim that these unsolved problems are absolutely unsolvable is not only intellectually arrogant to the nth degree, but such a position is not even tenable. Anyone who seriously claims such a thing should be laughed at, and not taken seriously. At this point in time, with our current state of knowledge, the only answer to questions such as how life began, why the universe exists and where morality comes from is "I don't know." And if you are a researcher in one of those areas, you could continue with "but we are working on it."

In conclusion, we can see that not only does belief in god require an enormous amount of intellectual arrogance regarding ones knowledge of the universe, but is a position that is logically impossible to defend.

Think about it.

"It is those who know little, not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science."
–Charles Darwin

"There is, in fact, no worldview more reprehensible in its arrogance than that of a religious believer: 'the creator of the universe takes an interest in me, approves of me, loves me, and will reward me after death; my current beliefs, drawn from scripture, will remain the best statement of truth until the end of the world; everyone who disagrees with me will spend eternity in hell.' An average Christian, in an average church, listening to an average Sunday sermon has achieved a level of arrogance simply unimaginable in scientific discourse — and there have been some extraordinarily arrogant scientists."
–Sam Harris