The Arguments of Theism as Justifications for Indoctrination

As I elaborate in other contexts, the philosophical and theological arguments intended to substantiate religious beliefs are ultimately secondary. The critical observation is not the existence of God but rather how religions are perpetuated through social mechanisms, including the indoctrination of children by their parents and the innate human instinct to unite around shared beliefs, as highlighted by sociologist Émile Durkheim.

For instance, Rabbi Menussi likely grew up in an Orthodox Jewish environment, which shapes his belief in God and reverence for the Hebrew Bible. The variation in religious adherence across regions—Hinduism in India, Judaism in Israel, Islam in Pakistan, and Eastern Orthodoxy in Russia—demonstrates that theistic arguments are accessible in libraries, yet parental choices regarding a child's religious upbringing are what predominantly shape belief systems.

The theistic claims presented by religious individuals are thus often mere justifications. While there are exceptions, where individuals convert from one religion to another or embrace a faith after secularism, the majority of believers historically adopt their faith first and only later seek philosophical validation.

If this perspective holds true, we would anticipate that these justifications are relatively weak compared to scientific explanations, which aligns with Menussi’s case. He perceives his arguments as robust, but that is a manifestation of confirmation bias. He fails to recognize that the so-called overwhelming evidence against atheism merely rationalizes the prevalent social practice of indoctrinating children who are naturally inclined to obey their parents, regardless of how absurd the directives may seem.

Atheism as a Moral Transgression

Before delving into Menussi’s specific arguments, it’s worthwhile to consider why he resorts to such critiques. His approach exemplifies an ad hominem fallacy; if the evidence against atheism is so compelling, why not allow it to stand on its own merit? Why resort to insinuating a stubborn refusal to believe? As Menussi remarks, “never underestimate the power of the Will to Disbelieve.”

The roots of this issue do not lie within existentialism, which casts significant doubt on theism. The essence of existential thought—spanning from Nietzsche to Sartre—suggests that our core beliefs are as irrational as the choices we make to define ourselves in an absurd and alien reality.

Religious narratives, when viewed through this lens, resemble fairy tales, granting no ground for condescension towards atheists. Menussi’s personal critique aims to link atheism with sin, reinforcing the monotheistic narrative that God punishes nonbelievers. Although Jewish texts might not delve deeply into afterlife conditions, there exists a reliance on Christians to propagate such beliefs due to their more pronounced evangelical tendencies.

Christian doctrine prioritizes belief over practice, implying that erroneous beliefs can be morally judged. Therefore, a rejection of God’s existence must be viewed as sinful, an indulgence in vice, reflecting a deep-seated animosity towards God. Such a rejection is deemed morally inexcusable.

Thus, we can conjecture that Menussi’s arguments for theism will ultimately be unconvincing, as his underlying motivation appears to be to label atheism as immoral, rather than merely philosophically untenable. Similar to how a government addresses crime, Menussi’s claims against atheism as a willful disbelief are irrelevant to his true concern: discrediting critics of religion.

Understanding the Origin of the Natural Universe

Let us now scrutinize Menussi’s arguments. He describes atheism as a “syndrome” rooted in philosophical naturalism, positing that supernatural explanations, including the existence of God, are unwelcome. Menussi attributes the decline of theism to a rebellious obstinacy.

In reality, modern science, which is fundamentally naturalistic in its methodology, has led to this shift. Progress in science stems from seeking natural explanations rather than miracles, causing a transition in perspective from theism to atheism and from dogmatic beliefs to skepticism and empirical investigation.

Menussi invokes the cosmological argument for theism, suggesting that atheists assume everything in the universe is natural, including its origin. Stephen Hawking, for instance, articulated the universe's beginnings without resorting to miraculous explanations. Menussi states, “For years, science insisted that the universe had no beginning in time. Then, in the middle of the 20th century, evidence was suddenly found that it did.” Hawking conceptualized the universe as a self-contained system.

However, Menussi’s simplification is misleading. The notion of the universe “beginning in time” presupposes a temporal framework beyond the universe itself. The realization post-Einstein that time is relative contradicts the idea of time as a metaphysical entity; instead, it emerged with the Big Bang, which was not a conventional temporal occurrence. Time and space were birthed from an earlier state of matter and energy, which might appear “supernatural” to us. The natural universe, much like life itself, is subject to evolution.

Menussi claims, “the very existence of the universe, with all its unfathomable complexity, is one immense supernatural wonder.” This perspective reflects anthropocentrism; we perceive our environment as eternal because our existence depends on such assumptions. Science reveals that the universe is not tailored for us; rather, we have adapted to the conditions that arose at a specific time.

The universe’s early state is causally linked to its later stages, akin to a girl evolving into an adult woman. Yet, the initial phase of the Big Bang lacked the temporal characteristics we recognize today, as the conditions necessary for time and the rise of gravity had not yet developed.

Naturalizing the Supernatural

A pertinent question arises: how can theoretical physicists aspire to scientifically elucidate timeless, nearly supernatural events such as the Big Bang? Are they not sidestepping the issue of theism?

The reality is that we lack a complete understanding of the Big Bang's occurrence or its implications, as we have yet to reconcile Einsteinian and quantum physics. The singularity associated with the Big Bang was minuscule yet immensely potent. While scientists strive to explore this exotic state through atomic accelerators and advanced mathematical concepts, direct experimentation remains elusive.

If theoretical physicists grapple with comprehending the Big Bang, monotheists are even further from grasping it. Asserting that God caused it through a miracle provides no true explanation. Such a narrative merely caters to our human hubris, reinforcing the idea that we are central to the universe, akin to a Garden of Eden created for us by an omniscient deity.

Once again, scientists have found no such tailored paradise; instead, they uncover a vast and ancient universe that challenges us to move beyond comforting myths to embrace complex mathematics and philosophical inquiry. The alternative is to trivialize the profound mysteries surrounding the emergence of life from nonlife and the development of human consciousness, which inevitably leads to existential despair.

In essence, the cosmological argument posits that supernatural explanations fill the void where scientific explanations halt, particularly concerning the universe's origin. I argue that our conception of “the whole universe” merely represents a stage in nature's ongoing evolution. The so-called natural order is simply the present world, which has evolved from unimaginable beginnings and will continue to transform into increasingly unfamiliar states. Given the influence of dark energy, the universe will expand until stars cease to be causally connected or black holes dissipate, ultimately yielding a void devoid of light or order.

Scientists endeavor to comprehend these “supernatural” phases in the most rational manner possible, despite the limitations of human understanding. Conversely, the monotheist clings to a comforting myth, which is no longer satisfactory.

Fine-Tuning and the Universe's Predominant Hostility

Menussi believes he possesses a decisive argument through the concept of fine-tuning. He asserts, “the laws of nature are precisely tailored to enable life in the universe to exist. If any one factor—such as the force of gravity or the charge of an electron—varied even slightly, life on our planet, or the planet itself, could not exist.”

He proclaims this as an undeniable piece of evidence for intelligent design, one that evolution cannot account for since the universe is not merely another organism within an environment, but the very totality of the environment.

First, it’s essential to note that evolution encompasses more than Darwin's theory of species adaptation; it embodies change and development. One does not need to envision the universe as a life form adapting to a larger environment, although some scientific models, as Menussi mentions, do draw upon the multiverse concept. Instead, one can regard the universe as undergoing a series of connected stages.

A valid inquiry arises: how can these stages progress in an orderly manner without adhering to a series of higher, permanent laws that might imply a designer? Physicist Lee Smolin addresses this dilemma by suggesting that natural laws evolve alongside the universe. Time may be more fundamental than many physicists acknowledge. Alternatively, the patterns we observe in the universe’s stages might merely be byproducts appealing to hyper-aware mammals like us, lacking inherent significance.

This leads to a discussion regarding the meaning of “natural laws” in a context free from deistic constraints. The term “law” carries social connotations that contradict the methodological naturalism of science. As I argue elsewhere, the answer may lie in recognizing the practical role of scientific explanations. Even the most objective scientific models serve to empower humanity at nature’s expense. Modern science is not value-neutral; it is secular humanistic and, as some religions would assert, even "satanic." More on this will be discussed in the concluding section.

Furthermore, physicist Lawrence Krauss has pointed out the flawed nature of emphasizing the universe’s fine-tuning. Notice how Menussi carefully claims that conditions merely make life possible, not necessary, thereby suggesting intentional design. Without those conditions, life would be impossible—but only in the context of life as we understand it. Other forms of life may exist in unknown universes or different stages of our own.

Moreover, it is unsettling to acknowledge that life, as we know it, is practically impossible across most of the universe. What sort of benevolent God would create a universe so limited in its ability to sustain life? Why would He design a cosmos primarily hostile to life? If God is all-powerful, why create a world that superficially nurtures life but fundamentally serves a purpose unrelated to it? Such a deity would not conform to our traditional understanding of a divine father figure.

In these circumstances, the rational conclusion is that life’s emergence is coincidental, not purposeful. Life arose here and now due to the favorable cosmic conditions. Life adapts to these conditions, such as the availability of water and the correct type of sunlight, because outside of these rare circumstances lies only the promise of immediate extinction in the void of space or on alien worlds.

If Menussi seeks comfort in the physical constants that appear fixed or arbitrary, he engages in a God-of-the-gaps approach. Theories in theoretical physics are subject to constant change, rendering such a strategy unstable.

Ultimately, discussions regarding the improbability of the universe's initial conditions lack substance since no one fully comprehends those conditions. We can confidently assert the odds of rolling a six on a die because the die has six sides, and we understand the physical mechanics involved in tossing it. However, no one possesses the same clarity when it comes to the universe's origin.

The Enigma of the Multiverse

Menussi contends that these arguments overwhelmingly support theism, driving atheists to resort to the “ridiculous” multiverse theory. He suggests that atheists believe fine-tuning must be part of “an infinite continuum of universes, each with its own slightly different laws of nature. It follows that the fine-tuning of the universe is not a wonder: our universe is simply the only one in which there’s someone around to notice it.”

He mockingly adds, “Where are these infinite universes, you may ask? Here comes the best part: the other universes are completely parallel to ours, and so will never come into contact with us. We simply have to, well, believe they exist.”

This last remark misrepresents the multiverse concept. The notion is meant to expand understanding of evidence in a thoughtful manner, rather than a simplistic one. With Copernicus, we learned that Earth orbits the Sun, and with Newton, we realized that the laws governing the heavens are the same as those on Earth. The natural order we are familiar with is far more expansive than we could have imagined. If the universe’s scale has already astonished us, why not consider that its broader dimensions might yield even greater astonishment?

While there may be indirect methods to test the multiverse model, it primarily emerges from mathematics, eternal inflation, quantum physics, and string theory—not from religious conviction.

Nonetheless, the multiverse may not clarify the fine-tuning dilemma, as these numerous universes would remain unaffected by one another. Similarly, when gambling in a casino, the odds of winning remain consistent regardless of how many times one plays. The existence of other, stranger universes in a multiverse does not provide insight into why this universe was configured to allow life to develop.

The underlying assumption is that everything conceivable becomes real somewhere, suggesting we should expect to find a universe capable of supporting life within the vast multiverse. However, this only raises the question of why life’s emergence is feasible in that expanse of universes. Who or what facilitated that possibility?

Menussi attributes that responsibility to God’s will or character. However, this does not resolve the mystery unless “God” signifies merely the mystery itself rather than a solution. If God is a sentient being, merely stating that such a being desires life to persist and thus creates a universe conducive to organic life does not enhance our understanding. We merely shift the question: What makes God so fundamentally important?

Transhumanism and Atheism’s Societal Role

Here, we may find some common ground. Menussi seeks to frame the choice between theism and atheism as a personal decision. He asserts that the atheist wants to disbelieve, arguing that the multiverse theory represents a misguided solution to fine-tuning. He insists this idea does not arise from genuine skepticism or free inquiry but rather stems from a passionate desire to reject God, making it as “religious” as faith itself.

Conversely, atheists argue that science is objective and that atheism is rational, devoid of faith or sin.

Yet, neither position is entirely accurate. While science strives for objectivity, it does not imply our species can achieve perfect impartiality. We are not machines. When we claim to be philosophical or focused on pure knowledge rather than practical applications, we still operate within a specific context, influenced by our surroundings.

Indeed, we can attain varying degrees of impartiality, and it’s possible to be relatively unbiased. However, our impartiality serves as an evolutionary strategy for planetary dominance. The acceleration of progress during the Anthropocene correlates with the emergence of scientific detachment, allowing us to devise rational methods that counteract our biases. Nevertheless, these methods are not benign; science and philosophy fulfill societal roles, which can, at times, be tragically destructive.

Menussi posits that atheists possess a sinful desire to reject God. In contrast, an atheist might argue they instead harbor a misguided belief that unaided human nature can rectify all issues. The real matter at hand is not atheism itself but secular humanism, which has long been considered hubristic or inherently flawed.

We strive to comprehend and naturalize all phenomena, including the origins of the natural order. But why? What utility does this extensive knowledge serve? Why invest resources in modeling the universe's formative stages? Could such secular pursuits be futile? Of course, one might argue that past scientific discoveries deemed irrelevant at the time later proved transformative. We might deduce that answers once thought trivial could lead to significant advancements.

Nevertheless, such materialistic incentives likely do not embody the core motivation. What does it truly mean to willfully disbelieve? It is not, as Menussi suggests, a question-begging contempt for a deity that the atheist secretly recognizes. As we have discussed, theistic arguments are not as compelling as they appear; they often rationalize the social phenomenon of religion.

What I assert now is that science, philosophy, and secularism are also social phenomena. These processes are directed toward different objectives.

The so-called desire to disbelieve in God is, in an existential and historical context, the desire to mature. It embodies the aspiration to transcend humanity in pursuit of the transhuman ideal, echoing Nietzschean thought. By rejecting the illusion of God, we endeavor to elevate ourselves to a god-like status. Theistic religions may have merely foreshadowed this peculiar terrestrial evolution.

To adapt a famous line from Hamlet, there are more things in heaven and Earth than are dreamt of in the theist's limited theology.