Sama Says has one of the most evocative posts I’ve read in a long time:
That the universe exists is not proof of a deity and is certainly not proof of any particular deity.
Even if we could agree that the universe was created, there’s been tens of thousands of religions that have attempted to explain how the universe came to be, all with the same amount of credibility and evidence; which is to say, none at all.
Moreover, since all the religious conjecture was made without really understanding how big the universe is – and with all that we still don’t know – it’s not at all credible for anyone to assert that there’s a deity that is not subject to the universe’s rules that are predictable.
We used to explain crop harvest/failure, volcanoes, earthquakes and all kinds of natural weather phenomenon as being the deity’s expression of displeasure, now we understand global plate tectonics and weather systems.
We need to stop using dieties as placeholders to explain what we don’t yet understand, because that placeholder only ends up holding back discovery by limiting research funds and restricting government policy to forbidding promising areas of research and worse, basing scientific policy on matters other than science.
We live in a natural universe. with natural origins. Just because science can’t explain everything right now with easy answers, doesn’t negate the centuries of built up knowledge of the natural world, repeated validated by observation or experimentation and continuously added to by larger and larger numbers of scientists working in a wide ranges of scientific areas, biology, geology, physics, chemistry and interdependent and related fields.
We’ve gone from being limited in our travels to what we could do with our own bodies to animals to machine travel and being able to see with telescopes most of the universe in a very short time period.
There’s a reason why the age where Christianity dominated Europe is called the Dark Ages.
Put in zero sum terms:
It’s not just the lack of evidence, but also the lack of logic and credibility and most importantly, probability.
Especially when you get out of a zero sum mindset it’s not a choice between no god and a christian god but a choice between none and innumerable possible gods that humans have invented and worshipped or will invent and worship.
When you consider science vs each and every religion collectively the scales, if they measure anything meaningful, come down on the side of science, which is a body of knowledge built up over generations and from a range of interconnected disciplines vs the religions with all the same evidence for (none), the same credibility as each other (none) and the same chances of being true (virtually none).