Edward Tabash - Why There Really Is No God
October 20th, 2007
Edward Tabash is a constitutional and civil rights lawyer in Beverly Hills, California. Graduating magna cum laude from UCLA in 1973, he graduated from Loyola Law School of Los Angeles three years later and was admitted to the California Bar that same year. He has chaired the National Legal Committee of Americans United for Separation of Church and State since 1995. He has been the most publicly-active man in the abortion rights movement in California since 1981. He has argued and won before the California Supreme Court and sits as a part-time judge for the Los Angeles County Superior Court system. Since 1990, he has been a member of the First Amendment Committee of the ACLU of Southern California.
In this conversation with D.J Grothe, Eddie Tabash explains why he argues there really is no God. He discusses various scientific and philosophical arguments against god-belief, including arguments from divine hiddenness, the physical mind, the problem of evil, and morality. Tabash also addresses questions of meaning in a godless universe, and what atheists should do with their atheism.
I was surprised that one of my favorite arguments did go unmentioned: Given that so many mutually exlusive God claims exist within and throughout religions (to be exact: one claim for each individual believer) we should recognize that not only must (n minus one) be false (ie one claim hits the mark, all others miss), but they might as well all be false.
Also, I was intrigued to hear Tabash went through a 25 year journey of sucking up new age spiritualism. It’s kind of neat to be able to say (like DJ does who sometimes mentions his evangelist past): been there, done that.
My religious background consists of sitting through Sunday school (held Wednesdays) because I knew the confirmation gifts would finance my planned 6 week trip from NYC to SF and back from Germany; and being kicked out of religion class in 12th grade for asking Scott to ”Beam me up, there’s no intelligent life down here”. It has to be said: reading the wordy Germa academic theologians when you’ve decided that their premises are all worthless.
Another wonderful weekend installment from Point of Inquiry--keep ‘em coming D.J.!
In Re of D.J Groethe’s question to the effect of “ could it be possible that over time people who hear the atheist argument may eventually “convert” to atheism, I must respond in agreement to Tabash’s view in the affirmative (I myself can be counted as a fairly recent “convert”, if that is at all an accurate term for what I prefer to call my “coming of age into disbelief”. While I have been a subscriber since adolescence to the evolutionary theory, I can also state honestly that my search for something to believe in has led me down many corridors of the pagan and Satanist movements.
Despite their promises of power, self-actualization and magic, what I came to find for myself was that magic is nothing more than wishful thinking and a foundation for self-delusion, power begins by conquering superstitious beliefs that inhibit your way of thinking, and self-actualization cannot be attained by way of adopting anyone else’s oppinions of achievment. (I still meditate from time to time, but there is nothing inherently religious, or delusional, about personnal introspection).
After seeking magic and mystery from one religion to another, it became clear to me that if any one-god(or goddess) did exist, then surely one of them would have struck me down years ago for finding their “truth” and then walking away from it, only to join some other god’s faith. The real problems that I invariably ran into, was when the philosophy part of the religion met with the part where I was supposed to pledge undying love to a god who I never really presumed the existance of beforehand. Afterwards ensued several years in which I labelled myself “agnostic"--only because the thought of being an atheist just seemed ...well.....GODLESS! (Imagine that). It took actually hearing others speak out in defense of atheism to shake me from my needlessly theistic attitude.
Throughout all of my explorations down various walks of life, I have met those who rebuffed my views on evolution, or my defense of science and reason as blasphemous on one level or another. It has been that one defining moment replayed over and over again, which eventually led me to lay down my search for belief entirely--and how strange it feels indeed to know that the one thing that I found to believe in was what I used all along as my guiding inspiration for my quest for belief in the first place--the need for an argument to base the direction of my life around, which allowed me to ask the why’s and wherefor’s of how the “great mysteries of the universe” came to be, and one which still allows me to sympathize with the scientific views and arguments which I hold so dear--incomplete as they will always be. Such is the magic of dis-belief!
It is my oppinion on the subject that, rather than “becoming” an atheist, most people are probably naturally atheistic. The battle between belief and disbelief really arises from one’s upbringing and social cues that encourage us to believe in something supernatural--no matter how silly those beliefs might actually be. (I am reminded of the statement supposedly made by Anne Frank to Peter Von Damme just prior to their being captured “Oh, Peter--I really wish you believed in SOMETHING! It doesn’t matter what--just so you had some idea of what life was all about..."). I’ll always consider Anne Frank to be one of my luminaries. Without her first hand account of the attrocities of living in a world turned on it’s head by prejudice and blind fanaticism, our knowledge of a very dark part of human history would be left horrendously lacking. Her diary is certainly firm grounds for what Paul Kurtz dubs the “New Secular Humanism”, but I’m afraid that I don’t agree with her views on faith.
I was surprised that one of my favorite arguments did go unmentioned: Given that so many mutually exlusive God claims exist within and throughout religions (to be exact: one claim for each individual believer) we should recognize that not only must (n minus one) be false (ie one claim hits the mark, all others miss), but they might as well all be false.
Here is an interesting article by Tabash suggesting, among other things, that God should repeat the resurrection now that we have better tools to document it [LINK]
Like moreover, I was expecting a more focused list of arguments. I found that a lot of time was spent on the argument that God needs to have a physical being in order to ‘think’ etc.—I’m not sure this is itself a good argument for believers who assume a priori that he doesn’t need to be physical. I think that the related argument that God is supernatural and we should be skeptical of claims about supernatural occurences might be a helpful supplement—
Lemme start with a disclaimer here---the logical debates against religion are a lot like LZ’s “Stairway to Heaven” for me. Loved them in high school, and loved debating my “born again” friends (and I won every time). But after the 1,898,453,888 time I heard the same song played over and over again, by everybody, each time as if this was some brand new phenom discovery nobody else had ever heard before, I was much more interested in finding something else to listen to. So I spun the dial and discovered a whole world of musical sounds to enjoy instead...Tuva....Polka....Crickets...Tinnitus
So I admit I’ve become “curmudgeonly” hearing it over and over. That said, here’s my take:
Given centuries of bloody and idiotic conflict over “My Unprovable Belief is better than Your Unprovable Belief”, explain me this: Where is the logical consistency to making this argument, while at the same time suiting up and charging into the same war with the same dang motivation as all the others: hell bent to tell everybody how they’re wrong, they’re deranged, they’re dangerous, they’re a pestilence, they’ve put their money on the wrong horse, and he’s right, and everybody has to believe what he believes? “My No-God can beat up your God any day” is different? I don’t think so.
Given centuries of bloody and idiotic conflict over “My Unprovable Belief is better than Your Unprovable Belief”, explain me this: Where is the logical consistency to making this argument, while at the same time suiting up and charging into the same war with the same dang motivation as all the others: hell bent to tell everybody how they’re wrong, they’re deranged, they’re dangerous, they’re a pestilence, they’ve put their money on the wrong horse, and he’s right, and everybody has to believe what he believes? “My No-God can beat up your God any day” is different? I don’t think so.
It’s a good point. Let me say two things.
First, I do think the anti-theistic arguments are important because not everyone is aware that they exist. I do think they should be a part of life just like the pro-theist arguments tend to be. Anti-religious arguments should be current just as pro-religious ones are.
Second, yes, the back-and-forth does get tedious; one ends up seeing the same moves being made for the millionth time. And in the final analysis there are many irrational beliefs that we will never get rid of, and many of them cause no obvious danger. The reason we’re seeing more of the “angry atheists” in public now is largely due to the sociopolitical atmosphere in the US presently. Secularism is a good thing. Having religion infringe on science, religiously oriented policies influence science policy, or violations of the Constitution are real issues. IMO there are many ways to push back against the rising tide of theocratic belief here, and getting angry isn’t necessarily the worst policy, so long as it’s done in an intelligent and focused manner.
As we get to the day that secularism is secure in the US and it is totally acceptable to be a public atheist (or public homosexual, etc.), the “My no-God can beat up your God any day” arguments become less necesary.
I enjoyed the program. He came up with thoughts I’ve had plus a few more. He also made a good point that the more we as a society get a way from Biblical law the more humane we become and the gave the example concerning homosexuals. I thought that was a good example, because he’s right, in the Bible men were killed for lying together.
Given centuries of bloody and idiotic conflict over “My Unprovable Belief is better than Your Unprovable Belief”, explain me this: Where is the logical consistency to making this argument, while at the same time suiting up and charging into the same war with the same dang motivation as all the others: hell bent to tell everybody how they’re wrong, they’re deranged, they’re dangerous, they’re a pestilence, they’ve put their money on the wrong horse, and he’s right, and everybody has to believe what he believes? “My No-God can beat up your God any day” is different? I don’t think so.
It’s a good point. Let me say two things.....
I disagree with the argument that all arguments are equally valid.
I disagree with the argument that all arguments are equally valid.
For the record I agree with you 100%. Not all arguments are equally valid, nor do all arguments lead to true conclusions. I think, however, that Aesopo was making more of a claim about the debate itself—after a few iterations for all involved, it gets sterile, and simply shouting epithets and abuse at one another doesn’t help anybody.
I disagree with the argument that all arguments are equally valid.
Not all arguments are equally valid. But when x=w + z, and y=w + z, then x=y.
And to pretend in one’s own argument:
“x = bad”because“w + z=bad”and ”x=w + z”;
but:
“w + z = #not# bad”when, and only when (in defense of one’s own pet “y”) “y=w + z”
that don’t make no sense.........no how........because what one has just demonstrated is that:
“w + z=bad” because of “x”, not the other way around.
If: x=unprovable belief + rejection of others for their unprovable beliefs
and : y=unprovable belief + rejection of others for their unprovable beliefs,
it’s hardly surprising that the xer’s refuse to “see the light” and turn into yer’s on the strength of the argument.
I disagree with the argument that all arguments are equally valid.
For the record I agree with you 100%. Not all arguments are equally valid, nor do all arguments lead to true conclusions. I think, however, that Aesopo was making more of a claim about the debate itself—after a few iterations for all involved, it gets sterile, and simply shouting epithets and abuse at one another doesn’t help anybody.
Yes, I do think this. Maybe I’m in a bubble, but most of the religious people I know have heard all these arguments. Just like we’ve heard the arguments offered by religious proselytizers. We think they are walking blindfolded on a yellow brick road to lala land. They think we’re going to hell in a hand basket. OK, so believers want to “save” unbelievers. Unbelievers want to “save” the believers. Same difference, when you come down to it.
Maybe I’m weird, but I’m okay with it if they think that’s where I’m going, because whether or not I’m going to hell certainly doesn’t hinge upon my changing their opinion on the question.
I disagree with the argument that all arguments are equally valid.
For the record I agree with you 100%. Not all arguments are equally valid, nor do all arguments lead to true conclusions. I think, however, that Aesopo was making more of a claim about the debate itself—after a few iterations for all involved, it gets sterile, and simply shouting epithets and abuse at one another doesn’t help anybody.
Yes, I do think this. ....... OK, so believers want to “save” unbelievers. Unbelievers want to “save” the believers.
.....Same difference, when you come down to it.......
To the extent that this is a philosophical debate, I agree with you to some extent, and I mentioned this as a criticism of Tabash in comment #3 above {this might have actually been what got you commenting}.
However, I do not think it is the “same difference” to argue for a round earth vs. a flat earth, to argue that the US did actually go to the moon vs. some elaborate conspiracy, or to argue that the geological record indicates the earch is immensely old vs. some “young earth creationist” hypothesis. Similarly, to argue that atheism better fits the evidence and reality of the world and the universe is not “the same” as arguing that philosophically someone thinks there must be a Creator.
I think it is not so much a matter of “saving” believers as waking them up.
Science has solved the riddle and proved atheism? I missed that news. I thought that the statement “there is a God” could not be falsified, therefore it isn’t a question which is answerable in science, the whole Popperian thing.
If so, the flat earth/round earth analogy doesn’t fit. Science can show the world isn’t flat. It isn’t round because secular humanists say it is. It is round because science has shown it is. Not quite the same situation with atheism.
Good show I think. Ed did a fine job at revealing empathy with those he once shared common beliefs. Arguments were presented pretty well and I appreciate his advocacy.
Science has solved the riddle and proved atheism? I missed that news. I thought that the statement “there is a God” could not be falsified, therefore it isn’t a question which is answerable in science, the whole Popperian thing.
If so, the flat earth/round earth analogy doesn’t fit. Science can show the world isn’t flat. It isn’t round because secular humanists say it is. It is round because science has shown it is. Not quite the same situation with atheism.
Thanks for your patience with my comments.
I think you raise a good point here.
An invisible God who doesn’t interact with the universe and does not answer our prayers cannot be falsified.
However evidence continues to accumulate that certain events documented in Holy Scripture didn’t literally occur and are not literally true. We can start with creation/Adam&Eve;, work our way down to a Flood, and continue to Exodus. All the ‘evidence’ in support of belief can be examined with skepticism and reason.
Once there is agreement that the Old Testament was written by people and does not appear to be an accurate account, one is ready to move to the New Testament.
As Tabash notes—curiously miracles no longer as in the past
