GOD – ANYTHING BUT THE EVIDENCE!
The best-selling book God the Evidence which boasts that it has reconciled faith and reason in a post-secular world was written by Patrick Glynn. It is a pity he wasn’t a lecturer in logic at the George Washington Institute for Communitarian Policy Studies or he might have done better. He was an atheist and then an agnostic for years. He should have stayed an atheist because the evidence that shook his atheism and extinguished it is not evidence at all. He displays many of the current scurrilous religious prejudices against atheists. Page 5 admits that as an agnostic he always hoped that he would be proved wrong. What he should have been hoping for was that some evidence for a life after death would come up. Who cares if God exists or not? He has practically admitted to being biased in making God seem to be a likely story.
The only argument that has any substance to it in the entire book is what amounts to the design argument for the existence of God. This time we are told that the chances of the universe produce life and having the right conditions to make life are so minute that it would be as good as impossible for life to have emerged without some intelligent God making, or planning for, the universe to produce it (page 8). It is complained that the theory of parallel universes had been set up by scientists to explain that there are so many universes and have been so many that chances are that one of them would have the capacity to make life while there is no evidence for these universes. But the parallel universe is not just about solving that problem. It is the fact that on the subatomic level things seem to be both something and the opposite at the one time that has principally led to the theory which seeks to solve the seeming contradiction. There are other reasons as well. The book admits later that the argument for parallel universes from the subatomic level is the reason why these universes are believed in (page 50). Then it moves away from this admission and decides that God is the explanation for our universe. What we are not told is why God would make something that is X and not X at the same time so the parallel universes is a better explanation. He never tried to show that God would be a simpler explanation so he was wasting paper.
The book The Road Less Travelled by M Scott Peck a notoriously gullible researcher is held up for our approval for being an attack on the psychiatric profession for being hostile to religious belief and trying to make mental health a separate entity from spirituality and morality and religious faith (page 11). I agree that you cannot have mental health without living the best and most helpful life you can but to let religion tag along as well is not on.
The introduction in God the Evidence states that faith is a gift of God and that you cannot reason your way to faith in God. He thinks that when you open your mind to God you see the evidence God offers and then you encounter God in a relationship and the result is faith and is a gift that God gave you. Witches say the same thing about faith in magic. Magic is the denial of God for it is us controlling fate. So the evidences contradict one another. Besides let us pretend that the argument does work for God. Then what God? Whose interpretation of God? Arguments like his are futile. What Glynn is really doing is assuming the evidence backs his interpretation and it is assuming because the interpretation is just assuming. He quotes the Bible as backup which shows that the Bible is a load of drivel. His belief is that reason cannot show there is a God but shows that there no objection to belief in God and makes way for it (page 19). You could believe in an impersonal intelligence instead of a God and since reason asks you to take whatever is simplest to be what is true, reason cannot therefore be said to leave the way open for God. It shuts the door and puts the bars in.
He says as an unbeliever in God he regarded conscience and living honourably as the components of a stable identity (page 15). So he found a reason to live a good life and yet he maintains that only God can be used as the ground of morality.
Chapter 2 explores his belief that the universe is far from being random for there are not many nearly impossible coincidences in it and that shows that it was made by an intelligent being. He stated that there was nothing at all random in the universe for it was all directed to produce human life (page 25). That statement is obvious nonsense for life could have been produced in a smaller universe and what do all those other galaxies in the universe have to do with life on earth? Their unnecessary existence is a sign of randomness. The universe could exist without them. Page 28 speaks of the evolution of the universe. But it does not tell us that the fact that the universe had to evolve is a far better proof that there was no intelligent creator than it is that there was such a creator. And this remains so no matter what unbelievable coincidences can be found in the universe. Here is an example. It is how even the most unimaginable minuscule difference in the substances that resulted from the big bang would have made the universe unfit for life. Even the spot on Jupiter could be thought of as an amazing coincidence though it is just the product of chance. One could say the chances of it being where it is when the universe is so big are almost nil. But such logic is obviously flawed no matter where the spot was and Jupiter was you could say the same thing. If you pretend that nothing at all exists you could say that the chances of that happening are almost nil because there is something rather than nothing therefore it was easier for there to be something rather than nothing.
Despite this, Glynn is to be commended for attacking the creation scientists’ claim that the earth is very young as preposterous (page 34). Such science is more worried about making the Bible seem to be without error than about the truth.
He tells us that the physicists who seek the theory of everything – the theory that explains it all without God of course – are able to give a theory to explain three out of the four fundamental forces that make the universe the way it is but are bogged down with the fourth force which is gravity (page 39). Since gravity is the outsider he feels entitled to drop the theory search and turn to God as an explanation. What this is really saying is God is needed to explain gravity! Very confused for Glynn would like to go further than that! The assertion that scientists are presently struggling with the God theory (page 40) is preposterous for many call God what cannot be God and an intelligent designer spirit need not be a God or person. That lie is just put in for making a false good impression. The book itself never uses the standard proofs for God that Aquinas used and only makes use of the design argument.
The book argues that David Hume and the Epicureans argument that there is infinite time which gives plenty of scope for the universe to take the developed form it has today is ridiculous. The argument says that if time is long enough extremely unlikely things will happen on their own eventually and by chance. The book deplores this observation saying that infinite time would be more likely to result in one disorder and disarray after another.
The book says that it is silly to think that if a monkey was writing without beginning and without end eventually it would produce all the works of Shakespeare by pure coincidence (page 46). This misrepresents what Hume and the Epicureans were thinking. The monkey of course could develop the power to improve itself given long enough and get smart enough to write exactly what Shakespeare wrote. The result is a coincidence that is possible not nearly impossible. We must remember we may be assuming that no Shakespeare existed so we are not talking about the monkey managing to match his work for there is no work for it to match. But even then the monkey could reproduce the works of Shakespeare given long enough without knowing of him.
The next claim made by this silly book is that non-Church goes are four times more likely to commit suicide than regular worshipers, and the more spiritual people were significantly more happy in general and in their sex-lives and were less likely to divorce page 62-65). This is just a scam to smear atheism and turn society against it and similar philosophies. The unscientific nature of the book comes in these scandalous declarations because it wants to link spirituality and divine assistance with mental health without checking what other factors might explain the figures. For example, maybe the reason religious people divorce less than non-religious is because they are more influenced by people in Church who frown on that type of thing and don't want the shame. It is just worrying about what the neighbours and the congregation will say. People who live in more self-righteous communities or who know mostly people like that are generally prone to engaging in such worry. And if people are so happy because of going to Church then why are they generally so bored during the service and so reluctant to go? More often they are of a happy disposition anyway and the more religious ones will put it down to God without thinking. Most of the people in Church are hypocrites and bigots so the book is really telling us is that these qualities are healthy and good for you. Even Jesus himself said that most people would be unspiritual and damned so this research calls him a liar.
Later in the book, Glynn returns to the nonsense to which we have become accustomed. An unnamed 1972 study is outlined as a case for the healthiness of religion. Why can’t he name this study? Why can't he name who undertook it and how many people were involved? And yet it is cited as showing that people who attended church have a 61% less chance of taking heart disease (page 80). Irresponsibly, we are then informed that smokers who regularly go to Church are a great deal healthier than those who do not have less chance of killing themselves with the weed (page 81). This might show that religious practice is healthy but it certainly cannot be used to prove there is a God or stand as evidence that there might be God. It evidence for mind over body and that is all. This is like a Christian Scientist who would point to the fact that Christian Scientists are happier than Christians and then take this as a clue that there is a God and that the Christian Science version of him is true. Such logic is no good for Christian Scientists are happier because they believe that evil does not exist and is an illusion and they help themselves to "see" that evil is harmless for it is not real. The help is not because of God at all but down to delusion.
The book later admits that meditation puts your brain into the state of alpha which gives of well-being and that many people mediation using non-religious and religious mantras can have an increased spiritual feeling (page 85). Church services can be very relaxing and hypnotic as can prayer especially the rosary. We cannot assume that prayer is what is to be thanked for these benefits for they could be replicated and improved by other techniques. The mantra functions at its best when it is accompanied by a religious faith we are told (page 87). But faith is no good without optimism so one may as well be optimistic in the first place without appeal to religious faith or any specific faith.
The next hilarious claim of the book is that some illusions are beneficial for mental health and cites optimism as one. Yet it agrees with Freud that a mentally healthy mind is a mind that is free from illusions (page 72-73). Optimism is not an illusion for life is more good than bad and it is even better if you find a cure for at least most of your negative feelings. Books like Tony deMello’s Awareness and The Gospel According to Atheism show how this can be done without illusions. God the Evidence is trying to get the God belief encouraged even if it is an illusion. It is trying to make a case for legitimate insanity. But legitimate insanity is a contradiction in terms.
The books tries to claim that praying for people even when they don’t know that they are being prayed for helps them and is a clue that there is a God. It admits that the studies that demonstrate this are requiring mechanical prayer (page 92). To pray for some people and not others and some part of an experiment seems plain evil. Prayers like that would be black magic if they worked. And nobody really knows if the ones who are not being prayed for are being prayed for by someone who is not in on the experiment or involved. If they are, the experiment fails.
Next on Glynn’s agenda is to show that near death experiences prove there is a God. Then we are treated to some tables showing how patients on the operation table having these experiences knew things they could ‘not have known when they were unconscious. For example, a patient on page 106 says that he saw that he was draped in several sheets and his head was covered and could draw a picture of the saw that was used on him and his chest was held open with metal implement and he saw a dark part inside himself which was interpreted as the aneurysm. First of he would have though it would take a few sheets, and he would have been told or guessed beforehand about the need for the saw and would have expected something to be inserted to hold his chest open and heads have to be covered for sterility. He could have known all this from the television or by working out for himself for it is hardly rocket science. Rare is the patient who does not pick up information from other people about what he might have to go through in the theatre. Glynn anyway says that what our patient said matched what the surgeon said. Glynn makes a hit of what he man said about the aneurysm being dark but what the surgeon says is that it was very big. Hardly a hit! Moreover, with most sillier and wackier near death experiences being kept relatively quiet and being dismissed as dreams by the visionary there would have to be some that seem to be impressive and which grab more interest just though pure chance while the other ones that are not impressive are forgotten about. In other words, if enough experiences happen many of them will accurately describe surgery or whatever is happening to the body though the person couldn’t have humanly known about it and it is chance not psychic power. Page 116 tries to make out that there is no motive for lying in these things. If your story comforts your relatives there is a motive. Don’t people tell the lie that there is a God all the time? The near death subjects claim to have met the best being there is allegedly is there so they feel proud to have people think it is true or possible.
If the recipients of near death experiences were humble they would not be making emissaries from Heaven of themselves as if they were special. They wouldn't speak of the experience. They will deny it but they are claiming to be something special. Would you believe somebody that spends two hours putting on make-up every day that says they were not vain but merely trying to make others happy by looking pretty?
Raymond Moody’s flawed research is accepted in this book as valid. Moody has often been taken to task for depending so much on gossip and hearsay. Needless to say no criticism of him appears in this book.
Some points are provided by Glynn for refuting the view that the experiences are hallucinations.
One, the people who have the experiences see them as fully real.
In refutation of one, you have to see a hallucination as real to some degree for it to be a hallucination. You can see a person you mistakenly think is dead walking into the room and not consider your vision to be real though it is. If you might not believe what you see, then you can believe what you see no matter how silly it is. One is a pile of rubbish.
Two, hallucinations distort reality while these experiences are coherent.
Two ignores the fact that imagining can make coherent fantasies and be the medium through hallucination works. Also, people will forget the silly bits if there are any for it is human nature to look for coherent patterns in things.
Three, hallucinations are accompanied by emotional disturbance but these experiences give a huge feeling of peace and joy.
Three, the near death experience evokes distress when the subject sees his life and crimes flash before him. And for a hallucination to cause distress the part of the brain that can sense it has to be up and running if it is not the distress will not manifest though it tries to. But we are not talking about normal brains here. We are talking about brains that are fighting for their lives. When you battle for your life you could shut off all the distress you feel. It could be there but you don’t notice it. It is foolish to say that because normal people cannot be made to replicate a near death experience that is cannot be hallucination for the people who have these experiences were not having a normal experience and were not normal.
Four the experiences change lives which hallucinations never do.
Four, any hallucination that is misinterpreted or misremembered can change lives. Anything at all can make a person change. And if people think they nearly died they are more likely to be nicer to other people anyway.
Several sceptical theories for how the near death experience happens are refuted. The temporal lobe has been stimulated in experiments resulting in people feeling a presence and sensing that they are out of the bodies. Glynn complains that other parts of the brain are not stimulated so the temporal lobe theory is out for the other parts need to be stimulated for the elements of the NDE which involve smell language body image and communication to take place. But the out of body sensation and the feeling of the presence are the basic things and point to the NDE’s having a natural explanation even if the whole thing cannot be replicated. It only means we do not know how to make people have the experiences in full.
The astonishing claim that near death experiences involving a hellish experience are most likely to be forgotten is approved (page 129). This is the excuse for the paucity of such reports. Actually, if the honesty of the witnesses is accepted their forgetting is simply impossible.
Near death experiences report meeting a being of light. The being of light is identified with Jesus Christ by Christians and is said to be non-judgmental though he has an uncompromising view that right is right (page 133). Stress is put on his unconditional love. All this is trash because it is impossible to love the sinner and hate the sin and it shows that the vision is coming from WITHIN the person. If not then they are from the Devil. Glynn then theorises that people from pagan religions, and cites Hinduism, see one of their gods in the near death experiences because it would be too much of a jolt if they seen anybody else, perhaps Jesus, and found out there and then that they were in the wrong religion (page 134). First, Jesus wanted all people confronted with the truth and promised that his Spirit would make up for bad evangelism and do the converting. Second, Jesus does not have to appear in the form of a Hindu God. He could just be himself and not reveal who he is. Third the near death experiences imply that all religions are true and equally acceptable. They are essentially New Age and occultic. The Glynn makes a daring statement. He declares that the visions are doctored and filtered by the subjective needs and prejudices of the visionary (page 134). If that happens then the visions arise from somewhere within the person’s brain for we for we are talking about living people who are almost dead not people who die and return to life.
Glynn then says that reason is not the source of moral value and is not a reliable guide to what is right (page 166). He then says it does not free the mind from the desire to be cruel. We get bad desires because we don’t or can’t think carefully enough before we form judgements and how we are going to live in the world. The Gospel According to Atheism plainly shows that reason does verify the truth about right and wrong and does it without God so reason gives us sensible perception about what is right and what is wrong. Although reason will not make you good it should for evil is nothing more than a misperceived good anyway. And is the point of thinking you are unless you have reason to be sure what good is? Reason is a reliable guide. It is the way it is twisted that is bad and that is anti-reason.
God the Evidence, Patrick Glynn,
Forum,
GOD A GUIDE FOR THE PERPLEXED Keith Ward, OneWorld, Oxford, 2003