I have several half-finished essays attacking the arrogant "rational" atheists, who argue that somehow science "proves" there is no G-d. As Dinesh D'Souza wrote such a good essay today on the topic of using evolution to support atheism, I figure it is time that I finally gave my opinions on the topic.

The idea that one can scientifically disprove the existence of G-d is just absurd. Scientists are perfectly free to say that they see no need for a creator to explain the universe, or they can argue that they personally do not believe in a G-d, but the existence of G-d can be neither proved nor disproved experimentally. William James, with whom I have a number of disagreements, wrote well on this topic, saying that only direct personal experience can provide an individual with evidence he deems sufficient to believe in the divine, and that the personal experience of one individual cannot be passed along to another. Of course, those determined to dismiss anything theological will argue that personal experience is still no proof, as it could be madness, or a brain malfunction.

And they would be correct. Though one may deem his own experience proof enough for him, it still provides no evidence for another as the person claiming experience could be mad, or deluded, or lying.

All of which means that one cannot experimentally prove the G-d exists. But one cannot prove that he does not exist either. The question is framed in such a way that it is not a scientific question. As the existence of G-d cannot be falsified, it cannot be subjected to any scientific inquiry at all.

So, for those who feel so smug saying that they are "above" religion and have dismissed all those "fairy tales", feel free to do so, but please do not tell me that you have any scientific basis. You may see no need for religion, but you cannot disprove it any more than I could prove it. (Nor does Occam's razor work. First, Occam's razor proves nothing, it can point you in the right direction, but simplicity alone does not substitute for proof. Secondly, there is no reason to assume an oscillating universe or a self-created universe is any more simple than a creator. The scientific theories either require a universe created ex nihilo or one that is eternal and oscillating, neither one is logically any simpler than a created universe. Or, at least arguments can be made for the simplicity of any position, meaning attempting to apply Occam's razor is worthless in this case.)

I do wonder, though, why such elevated, rational beings, feel such a need to mock and belittle those who do not share in their beliefs. I have met a number of atheists who are nice rational individuals, polite and civil. But it seems those who need to constantly tell me how rational they are, are also the ones who expend the most effort attacking religion.

If religion really is false, and if we all simply fade away when we die, what harm does it do to allow us our delusions?

I am sure someone will come back with a lengthy diatribe about religious intolerance and such, but that is not what they attack. You will never hear these "rational" atheists attacking communism's oppression, or even attacking real instances of religious intolerance, such as the Taliban. No, they spend all their time attacking ordinary, run of the mill Christians (and sometimes Jews). It just seems a waste of what little time they have to spend so much effort on mocking ordinary people, who are in no way oppressing them, but happen to believe differently than they do.

The irony is that there is very little in this nation which can even be loosely termed "oppression" based on religion. Perhaps one could argue that laws against polygamy and gay marriage fall in that category, if you really want to stretch the definition of oppression. On the other hand, public mocking of religion, and laws against public expression of religious sentiment are on the rise. (Just try setting up a nativity anywhere, or establish a bible study group using school facilities.) If anything, the power of religion is on the decline in our government, yet these "rational" atheists spend even more time mocking those who have belief.

I won't speculate as to their motives, but I do have to say the reasons they give, protecting themselves from some sort of resurgent inquisition, seem suspect at best. 

POSTSCRIPT

Again, I just want to be clear, I am not including all atheists in my description. There are many people who do not embrace religion, or even actively disbelieve, who are perfectly respectable individuals. I am writing here of a particular group, those who feel the need to proclaim themselves more rational, smarter and better because of their atheism and who spend much of their time denigrating and mocking those who have any religious belief. I am criticizing this group alone.

ADDENDUM

For those who think they are so rational in mocking religion, I would point hem to a better logician, and recommend Pascal's gambit as an approach to life. Admittedly, Pascal has a bit of a false assumption, in that his gambit assumes that acting as if there were a G-d has no cost, but as long as the cost is small relative to the potential harm or gain, it still works.

In fact, for those who spend their time mocking the religious, there is an actual benefit to acting as if there were a G-d, as they would stop being so insufferable and may actually stop annoying everyone they meet. In their case, there is an actual earthly benefit to Pascal's gambit as well as a potential reward in the hereafter.

(As an aside, does anyone know why I have a tendency to attribute this to Poincare rather than Pascal? Besides both being French mathematicians, they have little enough in common. Yet I always seem to attribute this to Poincare rather than Pascal. I can't figure out why.)