Why not Theism?

In this section, I aim to quickly and concisely present the rationale behind my lack of faith in any religion. Since I will be attempting to provide evidence for a prime mover, I find it important to clarify that this evidence is not presented in reference to any particular religion, while further explaining why this isn’t the case. To this end, I list some foundational arguments against Theism which I find sufficiently convincing in the following.

• There have been 1000s of religions, many so contradictory to each other (not to mention contradictory in of themselves) that they’re willing to wage wars against each other. The only “reason” to believe in one of these religions rather than ANY of the others, is because one grew up with parents and/or an environment of that religion.
• So many (of the major) gods are made in our image. This anthropomorphism is exactly what one would expect from a bipedal primate species looking for answers to and control of (at the time) unexplained natural phenomena, as well as comfort regarding the afterlife. In addition, many religions are unrealistically anthropocentric, claiming that their respective deity/deities, in all its/their glory, has/have some inexplicable profound interest/stake in our planet or - even more specifically - humanity, despite our unfathomably minimal importance in the grand scheme of the universe. Galileo was threatened with burning at the stake if he didn’t denounce his scientific finding that the earth revolved around the sun.
• This leads me well into my next point: we have, by virtue of the scientific method, developed explanations for many of the phenomena religion has sought to explain. The “God of the gaps” is getting progressively weaker as science progresses.
• There is no evidence for religion. In fact, whenever a religion makes an extraordinary claim that is actually verifiable or falsifiable, the claim is falsified.

Why Deism?

Due to belief in a prime mover. It’s important to note that the prime mover is not necessarily a conscious entity, but rather a force or mechanism that brought the universe into existence. Why hold this belief? In general, are two core prior hypotheses that can be postulated regarding the creation/existence of the universe:

1. The universe was brought into existence by an entity that resides beyond the realm of the universe (prime mover).
2. The universe simply exists. (Note: for example, perhaps in cyclical fashion, the universe could have always existed while continuously collapsing and expanding. This scenario would not necessarily require a prime mover)

Though it may seem like I’ve made the second option out to be unconvincing due to its brevity, it’s actually the more likely scenario in terms of prior probability in my opinion, since it’s based on fewer assumptions (think Occam’s razor). However, as fans of Thomas Bayes, we know that prior probabilities are merely a piece of the puzzle which, when updated according to relevant evidence, give us our desired posterior probabilities. What, then, qualifies as evidence in this case? Simply put, the fact that something exists rather than nothing acts as the relevant piece of evidence here. With this, we can re-evaluate the likelihood of each scenario and, in my opinion, determine that the first option becomes the significantly more likely scenario, based on the fact that if something of the nature of a prime mover does exist, then it “stands to reason” that the universe would be created. Here’s what the math would look like:

Explanation: P(universe exists | not prime mover) = 1 - P(not universe exists | not prime mover) must be comparatively small, since with no prime mover, the likelihood of nothingness is overwhelming. By contrast, while it’s theoretically possible for a prime mover to exist that creates nothing, it provides a foundation that makes the creation of a universe much more likely.

Two notes:

1. Avoiding the fallacy of the teleological argument:

   Imagine a puddle waking up one morning and thinking, “This is an interesting world I find myself in, an interesting hole I find myself in, fits me rather neatly, doesn't it? In fact it fits me staggeringly well, must have been made to have me in it!
   Douglas Adams

   Just because we are able to exist in this universe, doesn’t mean that the universe was specifically made for us. That isn’t the reasoning that is being used to update the prior probabilities. The reasoning behind the use of the universe’s existence as evidence involves acknowledging the fact that our universe exists at all, despite having (and needing) no reason to exist.
2. I’ve seen other scholars use the morality and creativity of our species, which seems to extend beyond the expectations proposed by evolutionary biology (I find this questionable), as evidence for a prime mover as well. While I find this somewhat dubious, particularly due to its anthropocentrism, it is certainly interesting, and could even tie into my definition of the awareness threshold.

07.04.2024Philip Suskin