[ThisspeechwasdeliveredbeforetheSocietyofSeparationistsin1976.Itwastranscribedfromanaudiocassette whichhadthetitle,"Atheism:TheCaseAgainstGod."However,inordertoavoidconfusion(sinceSmithhas publishedabookunderthatsametitle),Ihaveretitledthisspeechas"HowtoDefendAtheism."jjl] I'mespeciallypleasedtobespeakingbeforetheSocietyofSeparationistsmeetingbecause,asyoumayknow,there areveryfewexplicitlyproatheistorganizationsleftintheworld,letaloneintheUnitedStates.Andofthosethat remain,S.O.S.isundoubtedlythelargestandmostactive.AndsinceI'maddressinganatheistorganization,Ishallbe speakingtoyouforthemostpartasfellowatheists.Iwon'tbeattemptingtoconvertanyoneandIwon'tinsultyour intelligencebyattackingChristianityortheBibleandsoforth.Instead,Iwillbeconcernedwithdiscussingbasically whatatheismis,whyit'simportant,andhowbesttodefenditsuccessfully.Andjustincasethereareafew religionistsintheaudience,Iinviteyoutostayaroundandexperienceforanafternoonwhatitfeelsliketobepart ofanintellectualelite. Nowbeforediscussingatheismdirectly,Iwanttomakesomepreliminarycommentsthatarequiteimportant, becauseunlessyouunderstandmygeneralphilosophicalapproach,Idon'tthinkyou'llunderstandmyapproachto atheism.Ifthere'sonemajorintellectualproblemfacingAmericatoday,Iwouldsayit'sthecredulitycrisis.Or,toput itmorebluntly,Iwouldsaythatwe'replaguedwithablightofgullibilityinAmerica.

a.Itneverceasestoamazeme howpeoplearewillingtoacceptthemostabsurd,moronicbeliefsnotonlywithoutsupportingevidence,butoften timesinthefaceofconflictingevidence.ItissometimessaidthatreligionisonthedeclineinAmerica,butevenif thisistruewearenotwitnessingacorrespondingdeclineofirrationalism.Irrationalism,bywhichImeanignorant disregardordisrespectforreason,isstillgoingstrong.Itchangesitsformfromtimetotime,butneverthelessit's stillwithus.So,whilewemaysay,thatsometraditionalWesternreligionsseemtobeonthedeclineandhavebeen forsometime,irrationalismcontinuestorearitsuglyhead,whetherit'sintheformofoccultism,Easternmysticism, orintheformofUriGeller,demonicpossessionmovies,andevensomepsychologicalfadgroupssuchasEste,which areclosertoreligiouscultsthantoanylegitimatepsychology. Now,whataccountsforthisresurgenceofirrationalisminAmerica?Well,thereareundoubtedlymanyfactors involved,butcertainlyoneofthemostsignificantistheinabilityorunwillingnessonthepartofmany,manypeople toreasonwell.Mostpeopledonotknowhowtothinkcriticallybeyondaveryrudimentarylevel.America,forallof itsstressontechnologyandscience,continuestoproduceanabundantcropofintellectualvegetableswhoneither careaboutwhatistruenoreveniftheydid,howtogoaboutascertainingwhatistrue.Somakenomistakeaboutit: youarebornwiththecapacitytoreason,butyouarenotbornwiththeskilltoscare?Toreason.Properreasoning mustbelearnedandpracticed.Evenwiththeproperguidance,itcantakeyearsfortoingrainproperreasoning habits,tothepointwheretheybecomesecondnature. Wearesupposedtobeaneducatednature,butwhenisthelasttimeyouheardofacourseoncriticalthinkingbeing givenatthegradeschoollevel,forexample?Didyoueverwonderwhy,whenchildrenwerebeingforcefedevery subjectfromgeographytosocialstudiesandotheruselesstopics,thattheyarenotgiventheopportunitytolearnto thinkcorrectly?Well,thisisn'ttoosurprisingifyouthinkaboutit,becauseyoucannotteachcriticalthinkingwithout inevitablysteppingonsomeone'stoes.Canyouimaginethereactionofmanyparents,ifJohnnycamehomewith thehomeworkassignmenttoinvestigatetheevidencefortheresurrectionofJesus?Ofcourse,thiswouldn'tgoover toowell.

 ThebasicpointIwantedtomakeaboutatheisminregardtothisis:atheismisimportantonlywhenviewedinthis largercontextwhichIwillcallthe"habitofreasonableness."Atheismissignificantonlyifandwhenitresultsfrom thishabitofreasonableness.TheAmericanchildwhogrowsuptobeaBaptistsimplybecausehisparentswere BaptistandheneverthoughtcriticallyaboutthosebeliefsisnotnecessarilyanymoreirrationalthantheSovietchild whogrowsuptobeanatheistsimplybecausehisparentswereatheistandbecausethestatetellshimtobean atheist.ThefactthattheSovietchildinthisparticularcasemayhavethecorrectpositionisirrelevant.Soit'snoso muchwhatonebelieves,orthecontent,asitiswhyonebelievesasonedoes.Sotheissueofreasonableness pertainstotheconcernfortruth,concernforthecorrectmethodologyofreasoning.Andjustbecauseaperson espousesatheismisnoguaranteebelievemethatpersonisnecessarilyreasonable. ThisisbasicallywhyInevercrusadeforatheismperseoutsideofawiderframework.Atheismissignificant,tobe sure.Butit'ssignificancederivesentirelyfromthefactthatitrepresentstheapplicationofreasontoaparticular field,specificallytheareaofreligiousbelief.Atheism,unlessitisingrainedwithinthisgreaterphilosophicaldefense ofreason,ispracticallyuseless.When,however,itistheconsequenceofthehabitofreasonableness,thenatheism standsinoppositiontothewaveofsupernaturalismandmysticismwearecurrentlyexperiencing.Inotherwords, irrationalisminanyformitmayoccur. Nowwhatthismeansisthatatheismwillnotgetveryfarsimplybyattackingreligiousbelief.Rather,wehaveto defendreason,firstandforemost,andthencriticizereligionwithinthatframework.Ifyouunderstandthatmost peopleadoptreligionforpsychologicalratherthanintellectualreasons,youwillunderstandwhyIthinkdirect, frontalassaultsonreligionrarely,rarelypersuadeanyonetoatheism.If,asatheistshavebeenpointingoutformany years,religionisanemotionalandpsychologicalcrutch,thenyoudon'tgetapersontostandonhisowntwofeet simplybykickingoutthecrutch,iffornootherreasonthatthepersonwillholdontoitfordearlife.Rather,you mustfirstconvincethepersonthatthecrutchisunnecessaryandevenharmful.Andthen,youcanconvincehim thathe'sabletogetalongmuchbetteroffwithoutthecrutch.Soyoudon'thavetokickitout,atthispoint,hewill simplythrowitawayhimself. Sotodemonstratethatthereisnoneedforareligiouscrutch,wemustfirstbeconcernedwithdemonstratingthe crucialandsignificantroleofreasoninaperson'slife,philosophically,psychologically,practically,andeveryother way.Aboveall,thereisonemessagewemustcommunicate:onehasnothingtofearandeverythingtogain,from thehonestpursuitoftruth.Thedesireforknowledge,forfactsunvarnishedbyemotionalprejudicesandsoforth, willalwaysfunctionforaman'slongrangebenefit.Itcanneverbeagainstyourinteresttoknowwhatthetruthis. Thismeansthattheatheist,toeffectivelycommunicatehismessage,mustdisplayreasonablenessinallaspectsand areasofhislife.Youcannotcrusadeforfreeandcriticalthinkinginreligion,andthendisplayslavishconformityin otherareasofyourintellectuallife,suchasyourpoliticalbeliefs.Anydefenseofatheismfromapersonwho compartmentalizeshisbeliefsinthisfashionisonlysubjectingsomeofthemtoscrutinyandwillreekofinsincerity, andjustlyso.Thisatheistwillrightlybeaccusedofhypocrisy.He'swillingtogoonlysofarincriticalexaminationof beliefs.

ThereasonI'mmentioningthisis,besidesmyatheismwhichsomepeopleconsidertobequiteradical,Ialsohold politicalbeliefswhichbymanystandardsarequiteradical.I'mwhat'sknownasalibertarian.AndImustadmitthatI amquiteamazedwhenIamconfrontedbyfellowatheistswhoseemdespondentbymypoliticalbeliefs,not becausetheydisagreewiththemwhichiscertainlytheirrightbutsimplybecauseIampoliticallyaradical.And mypointishere:ifyou'reafraidoftheterm"radicalism"iftheideaofbeinganintellectualradicalfrightensyou thenyou'reinthewrongbusinessbybeinganatheist.Certainlyatheism,inmostpeople'seyes,isthemostradical positionyoucanhold. SothisisthefirstmajorpointIwishtoemphasize:thatifyou'regoingtohaveasignificantimpactonthereligious community,Ithinkit'snecessarytoputatheismwithinthebroaderperspectiveofreason.Letmeelaborateona littlebitbywhatImeanbythe"habitofreasonableness."There'salotthatcouldbesaidaboutthis,butforobvious timelimitationsI'llsimplygiveyouanoutline. Firstofall,letmedistinguishreasoningfromthinking.ThinkingIconsidertobeanytypeofmental,cognitive process.Ifyou'redaydreaming,remembering,anyactivitylikethis,you'resaidtobethinking.Reasoning,however, isamuchmorespecificterm.Reasonpertainstoagoaldirectedmentalprocesswhichattemptstoacquire knowledge.Wheneveryousetyourmindinaction,withtheintentofarrivingattruth,distinguishingtruthfrom falsehood,youaresaidtobeengagedinaprocessofreasoning. Theinterestingthingaboutreasoningisthatitisreallyakindofdecisionmakingprocess.Reasoningisconcerned with,"ShouldIacceptXastrue?","ShouldIacceptYastrue?","ShouldIacceptXasprobable,possible,or pertinent?",andsoonandsoon.Inotherwords,wehavetomakedecisionsinourintellectuallifejustaswehave tomaketheminoureverydaylife.Sowhatreasoningisconcernedwiththephilosophicalapproachwhatwe shouldbeconcernedwithisestablishingthepropercriteriaorstandardsofreasoning.Toputitanotherway,you don'thaveachoiceastowhetheryou'regoingtomakeintellectualdecisions.Youhavetobyyourverynature.You havetoacceptsomethingsasbeingtrue.Yousimplydon'thaveanychoice.Youwoulddieifyoudidn't. Theonlychoiceyouhavehereis,firstofall,whetherornotyou'regoingtomakeyourstandardsofknowledge explicit,whetheryou'regoingtobeawareofwhattheyare,ascontrastedwithsimplyacceptingthemassomesort ofosmosisfromacultureorwhateverpeopletellyou.Andsecondly,whetheryourstandardsofknowledgewillbe appropriatestandards.AndbythatImean,willtheyactuallygetyouwhatyouwant,inthiscase,truth.Now,I'm goingtosuggestthatofallthegoodsandvirtuesthatmanhas,knowledgeisthemostimportant.Knowledgeisa fundamentalvalueformanbecauseitstandsattherootofallofhisothervalues.Wemustknowfacts;wemust knowsomethingabouttheworldbeforewecandetermineanythingaboutwhatisofvaluetoyouintheworld. Thus,knowledgeisindispensabletoourverysurvival.Andit'sonlythroughourreason,throughourpowerof conceptualthought,thatwecanapplyourknowledge. Becausewehavearrivedatcertainstandardsofknowledge,likethelawsoflogic,thelawsofevidence,andsoforth; becausetheyenableustodistinguishbetweentrueandfalsebeliefs;andbecausetheirgoal,knowledge,isthe fundamentalgoodofman,I'mgoingtosuggestthatwhatIcallthe"habitofreasonableness,"bywhichImeanthe abilitytohaveingrainedinoneselfthesestandardsofknowledge,toemploythemhabitually,toemploythem almostasiftheyweresecondnature,asiftheywereacharactertrait.I'mgoingtosaythatthishabitof

reasonablenessisaprimaryvirtueinhumanbeings.ReasonablenessIconsidertobetheprimaryintellectualvirtue possibletoman.Andthisleadstoaninterestingconclusionregardingatheism.If,asIhavesuggested,knowledgeis afundamentalvalueforman,andifthehabitofreasonablenessisaprimaryvirtue,andifatheismisaconsequence ofreasonableness,thenitturnsoutthatatheismisactuallyaconsequenceofbeingvirtuous.Atheismisa consequenceofaparticularintellectualvirtue.I'msayingthistocounteracttheprevalent,nonsensenotionthat atheistsareimmoral.Notonlyisthisfalse,butquitethereverseistrue.Atheismshouldproceedandoftendoes proceedfromreasonablenesswhichactuallysignifiesavirtue,averyimportantvirtue.Soyoucantakesomepridein beinganatheistif,infact,itresultsfromreasonableness. Thereasonableperson,whenexaminingreligiousclaims,willbeconcernedonlywiththetruthvalueofthose claims.Oneoftenhearsthatreligionmakespeoplefeelbetter,happy,etc.,buttheseareallsideissues.I'mnot goingtogointoargumentsagainstwhatIcall"intellectualhumanism,"namelybelievingsomethingjustbecauseit makesyoufeelgood.I'mgoingtosuggestthatifyouareconcernedwithreasonableness,thenyourforemost concerninanydiscipline,certainlyreligion,shouldbewiththetruthofreligiousclaims.Whentheatheistis confrontedwiththeclaimthatGodexists,he'sconcernedfirstandforemostwiththequestion,"Isthatclaim rationallyjustifiable?"Ascorollariesofthat,hewillbeconcernedwith,"WhatisGod?"Howdowedefinethatterm? Isthedefinitionintelligible?It'snot.Andsecondly,evenifwecanmakesomesenseoutoftheconceptofGod,is thereanyevidenceorsupportingargumentsinsupportoftheexistenceofagod?Again,therearenot.Theatheist, proceedingfromthehabitofreasonableness,willultimatelyrejecttheclaimsofreligionandtheclaimsoftheismas false.AndthereforehewillrejectthebeliefinGodasbeingunreasonable. GoingbacktoapointImadeearlier,youoftenalsohearitsaidthatthisisirrelevanttomostreligiouspeople. Religiouspeopledon'tbelieveforintellectualreasons.Ifyoutalkonanintellectualleveltoreligiouspeopleitwon't hithomewiththem,becauseit'snotpersonalenoughforthem.TothisIcanonlysay,yes,it'sunfortunatelytrue thatmanyreligiouspeoplearenotconcernedwiththeissueoftruthandfalsehood.Mypointhereisthatthat'stheir problem,notmine.Andit'snotyourproblem.Andiftheypersistintheirirrationalism,thentheycanandtheyoften doconvincethemselvesofalmostanything.Letmeremindyouthatstandardsofknowledgeareouronlymeansof selectivediscriminationinourbeliefs.Thestandardsofmeaning,evidence,argument,andsofortharethesift(??) bywhichwediscriminatethosebeliefsthatareworthyofacceptancefromthosethatarenot.Ifyouabandonthese standards,ifyouconsiderthemunimportant,thenyouwillbeatthemercyofanybeliefthathappenstocomeyour way.Youwillhavenostandardsbywhichtodistinguishthisaisagoodbelieforwhetherit'snot.Verylikely,youwill beatthemercyofoneintellectualfadafteranother.Thisisquitecommonnowadays.Youseepeoplegoingfrom onecultofEastermysticismtoacultofpsychologyandbackandforthinquasireligiouscults.Thisisthelogical consequencewhenreasonisabandoned.Thereisnolongeragroundingpointorameansofdiscriminatingbetween beliefs.Apersonwhoisirrationalbychoiceisatthemercyofhisfeelingsataparticulartime.Ithinkitwillcomeas nosurprisetoanyoneifIpointouttoyouthatmostChristians,iftheywereraisedinaMoslemculture,wouldbe Moslems,notChristians.MostMoslems,iftheywereraisedinaChristianculture,wouldbeChristians,notMoslems. Andbecauseatheism,atleastinAmericanculture,representsanunorthodoxposition,thisaccountsforwhybyand largeatheistsareindependentthinkers.Tobecomeanatheistinthiscultureyouhavetohaveatleastenough independencetoquestiontheprevailingwisdomconcerningreligion,becauseyouareinundatedwiththisinschool, byyourparents,byyourculture,andcertainlybythemassmedia.

NowthereafewsideissuesIwanttopointoutbeforeIgetintoanactualdefinitionofatheismbecauseIthinkthese arequiteimportant.Thesearemorepracticalissuesthanphilosophicalones.I'msurethatifyouhavetriedtoargue atheism,youhaveencounteredcertainpracticalproblemsincommunicatingyourbeliefs. ThefirstthingIwanttopointoutisratherdepressingtosomepeople.Sincereasonablenessisahabittobelearned, noteveryoneiscapableofconductingagoodargument.Forthatmatter,noteveryoneiscapableofarguinginan intelligiblesenseatall.Argumentisalsoaskillthathastobelearnedandpracticed.Whatthismeansisthat,forthe mostpart,youareprobablywastingyourtimeifyouarguewithmanyreligionists,forthesimplereasonthatmany ofthesereligionistsareincapableofarguingwell.It'salmostlikeyouhavetoeducatesomeChristiansbeforeyou canpersuadethemtoatheism.Youhavetofirstconvincethemthattheyshouldbeconcernedwithwhat'strueand what'snot.Theyshouldbeabletodistinguishbetweenrationalandirrationalargument.Andsoonandsoon.And thentwomonthslater,youmightbeabletosaytothispersonthatiftheycarrythisout,itwillleadthemto atheism.Butunlessyouhavealotofpersonalinterestinthisperson,unlesstheyarepersonallysignificanttoyou, youwillprobablynotwanttowastealotofyourtimeeducatingorreeducatingthispersontotheprinciplesof reason.Whatdoyoudo?Somepeoplejustgiveupontheperson.Somepeople,youhaveto.Somepeopleyou mightrefertobooks.Thisiswherebooksplayacrucialroleineducation,thatifapersonsitsdownwithabookheis abletogleamalotofinformationthatyouarenotabletocommunicateinashortperiodoftime. Thisleadsmetoasecondareaofpracticaladvice:takereligionistsattheirword.Iftheysaytheyarenotinterested inreasonortruth,thenceasetheconversationpossibly,makingtheremark,thatitisimpossibletocommunicate withsomeonewho,byhisownadmission,isnotconcernedwithrationality.Inotherwords,ifyouunderstandthe importanceofreasonablenessandwhatitsignifies,youwillunderstandthatyoumustbackupyourconvictionin practice.Youmustmakeitcleartoyouradversarythatyouarenotwillingtowasteyourtimeandenergywithhimif heisnotevenwillingtoconcedethefundamentalprinciplesofreason.It'slikeyouaretalkingintwodifferent languageswithnomeansoftranslation.Allyouaredoinginsituationslikethisisgivingyourselfaheadache.Ithink it'simportanttomakereligioniststotallyawareoftheconsequencesoftheirirrationalism.Itwillirritatereligionists tonoendifyousimplyrefusetospeaktothemafteracertainpointbecausetheyundoubtedlywishtoconvertyou. Butifyoumakeitclearthatyouareunwillingtodiscusstheissueuntilheiswillingtoconcedethebasic fundamentalprinciplesofreasoning,thenIthinkyouwillimpressuponhiminaverypracticalsensehowimportant youtakereasontobe.Whathappenswhenyoudon'tdothisisthatyousufferfromhisirrationalism.Youendup withaheadacheorfrustrationbecauseherefusestoberational. Withthesepreliminarycomments,letmeproceedintothemeatofthesubjectmatterwhichis,ofcourse,atheism. There'salotthatcanbesaidaboutthis.I'vewrittenanentirebookaboutthissubjectandthereareanumberof otherbooksavailable.SoIdon'twanttorepeatalotofmaterialthatyoucangetsimplybyreadingbooksonthis subject.Idowanttosketchinbrieflywhatatheismis.IthenwanttomoveovertosomeissueswhichIhadnot coveredthatthoroughlyinsomeofmywriting. Firstofall,beforewecanunderstandatheism,wehavetounderstandwhattheismmeansbecauseobviouslya theismisaderivativeofthetermtheism.Well,theismissimplythebeliefinagodorinanynumberofgods.If,to thequestion,"doyoubelieveintheexistenceofagodorgods?",youanswer"yes,"youarephilosophicallyatheist. Buttheraisestheadditionalproblem,whatisagod?Muchinkhasbeenspilledoverthisquestion,butforour

purposesthisafternoonby"god"Imeananykindofsupernaturalortranscendentbeing.Anykindofbeing,inother words,whoinsomewaytranscendsorisexemptfromthenaturallawsoftheuniverse,whetherit'sacreatorgod, thegodofDeism,thegodofpantheism,etc.Whateveritmightbe,ifthisbeinghastheabilityto,insomeway, circumventthelawsofnature,thenthisbeingwouldproperlybedesignatedassupernaturalinotherwordsabove naturallawandwouldthenqualifyasagod.Thiswouldmean,forallpracticalpurposes,thatifyoubelieveinthe existenceofghostsormagicalelvesifthesecreatureshadsupernaturalpowersthentheywouldbegods. Iftheismisthebeliefinsomekindofsupernaturalbeing,whatisatheism?Again,thereisalotofcontroversyover this.I'vegivenoneentiretalkoverwhatthedefinitionofatheismshouldbe;hereIwillsimplystatetheconclusion. Atheism,properlyconsidered,issimplytheabsenceorlackoftheisticbelief.Inotherwords,tothequestion,"Do youbelieveinGod?",youanswer,"No,"forwhateverreason,youareanatheist.Youwilloftenhearitsaidthatan atheistactuallydeniestheexistenceofagodorgods.Thisistrue;manyatheistsdobutnotall.Thiskindofovert denialoftheexistenceofagodorgodsisasubcategoryofabroaderkindofapproachwhichshouldinageneral sensebeknownasatheism.Thisgetsquitecomplextogointoallofthereasonswhysomeatheistswouldnotwish todenythatanygodsexist.Justtakemywordforitthathistoricallyandphilosophicallyit'sveryjustifiabletosay thatthebest,mostgenericdefinitionforthetermatheismissimplytheabsenceorlackofbeliefinagod. There'soneoverridingprinciplethatisoperativehereifyouunderstandthisdefinitionofatheism.Itiswhatis knownastheburdenofproofortheonusofproof.Whatthisprinciplestatesisthattheonusofproofisonthe personwhoassertsthetruthofaproposition.IfIsaytoyou,Xistrue,Iamintellectuallyresponsibleforproviding somekindofreasonsforacceptingit.IfIdonotprovideyouanyreasonsorIprovidereasonsthatareinvalid,you arelegitimatelyjustifiedinrejectingmyclaimtoknowledgeasunfoundedandhenceirrational.Thisisprobablythe singlemostimportantprincipleinregardtothedefenseofatheism.Thetheistassertsanaffirmativeproposition;he assertsthatagodorgodsexist.Theburdenofprooffallsentirelyuponthetheisttoproveordemonstratethe reasonablenessofthatclaim.Itisnotuptomeortoyouasanatheisttodemonstratethatagoddoesnotexist.Itis uptoustosaytothereligionist,"Youhavemadeanassertion.Itisyourresponsibilitytodemonstratethetruthof thatassertion.Ifyourclaimsholdup,thenyouarerational.Ifyourclaimsdonotholdupandyoucontinueto believeasyoudo,thenyouareirrational."Thatisthemostcentral,fundamentalpointinregardtoatheism.Youdo nothavetheburdenofproofasatheists;thereligionistdoes.Youarenotassertingthetruthorexistenceof anything;youarechallengingthetheists'claimtotruth.Youronlyresponsibilityinthisregardistoexaminecritically theviewsofreligionists,subjectthemtorationalscrutiny,andeitheracceptthemorrejectthemonthatbasis.That isyoursoleresponsibility.Youhavedoneyourjobafterthat. Ishouldmentionbrieflytheproblemthatsometimescomesup.Isn'tittruethatsomeatheistsdodenythe existenceofagod?Yes,it'strue.Iwould,forexample,notonlysayIdon'tbelieveintheChristiangod,butthatsuch abeingdoesnotexist.Again,thiswouldgetusintosomephilosophicalpointsthatIcan'tgointohere,butbasically thereasonforthisisthatifyouexamineaconceptanditturnsoutthatitisinherentlyselfcontradictory,inthe samewaythata"squarecircle"isselfcontradictory,thenImayreasonablysaythatsuchabeingcannotpossibly exist.AndthisisindeedthecasewiththeChristiangod.Itisinternallymuddledandselfcontradictory.Ithinkit's interestingthatifyoucomeacrossaChristianwhosaystoyou,"Wellyoucan'tsaythatGoddoesn'texist!",you mightasktheChristiananinterestingquestion:"DoyoubelieveinthegodofZoroastrianism?Doyoubelievein Allah?DoyoubelieveinZeus?"ThereareliterallyhundredsofgodsthattheChristianhimselfdoesnotbelievein.

TheChristianhimselfwouldsaythatthesegodsdonotexist.WellhowdoestheChristianknowthat?Ifheissohot totrottosaythatwecannotknowthatagoddoesnotexist,thenhowcanhesaythatZeusdoesnotexist?Well,of course,theChristianisliabletosayinresponse,"Wellthat'sridiculous!EveryoneknowsthatZeusdoesn'texist.It's amythicalidea."He'llgoonatsomelengthandgivesomeverygoodargumentswhich,ifappliedtohisownbeliefs, woulddemolishthementirely.Monotheists,thepeoplewhobelieveinonegod,areveryclosetobeingatheists. Theyareonlyonestepremovedfromatheism.They'rejustahairlineawayfrombeinganatheist.AllIhavetodois getridofthatonelastgodandhe'smadeitovertheline.ThisisarathernovelwayoflookingatmonotheismbutI thinkit'sjustified.AllyouhavetodoisasktheChristiantoapplyhisownstandardsbywhichherejectsthehundreds ofgodsthathavebeenofferedthroughoutmankind'shistory,andapplythemtohisownbeliefs,andtheywill demolishthatbeliefaswell. Iwantalsotomentionbrieflyatermwhichisveryimportantinthehistoryofatheism.Thisistheterm "freethought."Iwon'tspendalotoftimeonthis,either,butitdoesbearmentioningbecause"freethought"isa termthathasbeenusedquitewidelyhistorically.Whatisthesignificanceof"free"in"freethought"?Inasense,all ofyourbeliefsarefree.Nobodycanforceyoutobelievesomethingyoudon'twishtobelieve.Wellthesignificance of"free"in"freethought"ismorallyfree.Thefreethinkershistoricallywerereactingtothedoctrinethatyouare morallyobligatedtoacceptacertainsetofbeliefsadogmaastrue,thatyouareinsomesenseimmoral,for example,ifyoudonotacceptthetenetsofChristianity.Alongcamethefreethinkersandtheysaid,"No!Oneought tobemorallyfreetoinvestigatebeliefstothebestofone'sability,withoutbeingmorallyobligatedtoacceptany onesetofbeliefsnparticular."Thisistheprimarysignificanceoffreethought.ItrelatesbacktothepointthatI madeearlieroftheimportanceofthehabitofreasonableness.Onewhoisconcernedwithbeingreasonablewill,of necessity,beafreethinker. IwanttogettogetalittlebitintothemurkywatersoftheconceptofGodandjustmakeabasicpointastowhy proofsfortheexistenceofGodinvariably.Inmybookandinbookswrittenbyotherauthors,suchasAntonyFlew, ChapmanCohen,WallaceMatson,andothers,youwillfindquitedetailedrefutationsofargumentsfortheexistence ofagod.Theargumentfromafirstcause,thevariouscosmologicalarguments,theargumentfromdesign,andso forth.Iobviouslycannotcoverthosehere.ButIdowanttomakereferencetothebasicprobleminvolvedinsuch "proofs."Thebasicproblemisthis:theconceptofGodtheconceptoftheChristiangodinparticularonceyou stripawayalloftheverbiagethatsurroundsit,theconceptofGodalwaysturnsouttobesomekindofunknowable being.NownoticeIdidn'tsay,"unknown,"Isaid,"unknowable."Thisisthebasicandcentralbeliefoftheism.The beliefinsomekindofunknowablecreature.By"unknowable,"Imeanacreaturewhichbyit'sverynaturecannever knownbyman.Wedon'tjustmeansomethingwedon'tpresentlyhaveknowledgeof.Therearelotsofthingswe don'thaveknowledgeof.We'retalkingaboutsomethinginprinciplethatcannotbeknown.Thereseemstobean obviousproblemwithattemptingtoprove,muchlesseventalkabout,abeingwhichbythetheists'ownadmission isunknowable.Howcanyoutalkabout,conceptualize,ordemonstrate,theexistenceofsuchathing?Itis,in principle,impossible.This,basically,iswhyalloftheallegedproofsmustultimatelyfail.Thereisonepassagefrom thefamouseighteenthcenturymaterialistandatheistBaronD'Holbachthatisquitegoodinthisregard.Afternoting thattheologyhas"foritsobjectonlyincomprehensiblethings,"D'Holbacharguesthat"itisacontinualinsultto humanreason."Hecontinuesasfollows:

NoreligioussystemcanbefoundedotherwisethanuponthenatureofGodandofmanandupontherelationsthey beartoeachother.Butinordertojudgeoftherealityoftheserelations,wemusthavesomeideaofthedivine nature.ButeverybodytellsusthattheessenceofGodisincomprehensibletoman.Atthesametime,theydonot hesitatetoassignattributestothisincomprehensiblegodandassureusthatmancannotdispensewiththe knowledgeofthisgod,soimpossibletoconceiveof.Themostimportantthingformanisthatwhichisthemost impossibleforhimtocomprehend.IfGodisincomprehensibletoman,itwouldseemrationalnevertothinkofhim atall.ButreligionconcludesthatmaniscriminalifheceasesforamomenttorevereHim. D'Holbachconcludes,quitewellImayadd,that"religionistheartofoccupyinglimitedmindswiththatwhichitis impossibletoconceiveortocomprehend."Yousimplycannotintelligiblydiscuss,muchlessprove,theexistenceof anunknowablecreature.It'sphilosophicalnonsense.Theconceptitselfismeaningless. Ofthemany"proofs"thathavebeenoffered,probablythemostpopularonalaymanleveliswhatisknownasthe argumentfromreligiousexperience. Ihavenottalkedaboutthisorwrittenaboutthispreviously,soIwanttospendafewminutesonthisbecausethisis theargumentyou'llmostfrequentlyencounter.Anditconfusessomepeople,withjustificationbecauseit'sa confusingargument.Bytheargumentfromreligiousexperience,Imeansomevariationonathemesuchas,"Iknow GodexistsbecauseI'vehadsomesortofpersonalexperience",toputitinfundamentalistterms,"Jesushascome intomyheart,"andsoon.ToputitinEasternmysticismterms,"I'vehadsomesortofexperiencewiththeOneness oftheuniverse."Whateverthetermsmightbe,thisisthebasicidea:attemptingtoprovesomephilosophicalpoint withreferencetopersonalexperienceofsomekind.Thisistheargumentmostcommonlyresortedbyreligionistsor mystics. Thefirstproblemwiththisargumentisthatitisnotreallyanargument.Anargumentpresumablyhassomesortof premises,followsachainofreasoning,andhasaconclusion.This"argument"issimplyabaldassertion.It'snotan argumentatall.ImightjustaswellsaythatthereexistsinvisiblefairiesinthisroombecauseI'vehadpersonal experiencewiththem.Orthere'saninvisiblegreenelfsittingonmyshoulderbecauseI'vehadpersonalexperience ofit.Inotherwords,onceyouresorttothisbalderdashyoucan"prove"orargueanything.Thisisthecomplete abandonmentofanykindofrationalcriteria.Toattempttomakeaphilosophicalpointabouttheexistenceof somethingsimplybyreferringtosomekindofinternalexperience,afeeling. Therehavebeenanumberofattemptstodefendthiskindofargument.Oneofthemthatyou'llcommonlyhearis thatthisfeelingisunique.Thereligionistsorthemysticcannotcommunicatehisexperiencetoyoubecauseit'sso uniqueitcannotbecommunicated.TothisIwouldanswerthateveryexperienceisunique.Everyexperienceyou haveisunique.Thereisnooneexperienceyouhavethatistotallylikeanyotherexperienceyouhave.Thepointis youhaveamind,youhavetheabilitytoconceptualize,andthisiswhatconceptualizationallabout.Conceptsenable ustoferretoutthedifferencesamongourexperiencesandfocusonthemostcommonelementsandcommunicate amongourselves.Thisiswhatconceptformationconsistsof;thisishowwereason.Thereligionist'sclaimthathe cannotcommunicatehisexperiencebecauseitisunique,ifcarriedoutconsistently,wouldmeanthatwecouldnot communicateatallbecauseallofourexperiencesareunique.Ithinkitwouldbemoreaccuratetosaythatthe

religionist'sexperienceissimplyunintelligible.Hedoesn'tunderstandwhatitisorwhyitoccurred,sohemakesupa reasonthatsuitshispurpose. There'sanotherkindofresponsethatissometimesmade.Thisistheparallelthatyou'lloftenheartothemystic,the personwhoclaimstohavehadsomesortofpersonalcontactwithadeity.Itisinrelationtoordinarymanasa sightedmanisinrelationtoablindedman.I'msuremanyofyoumusthaveheardthisatonetimeoranother.Not onlydolaymenusethisargument,butsophisticatedphilosophersandtheologianswhoshouldknowbetteralso resorttoit.We'resometimesgiventheillustrationthatifasightedpersonwentamongaraceofblindpersonsand hetriedtoconvincethemofwhattheworldwaslike,theywouldsayhe'sirrationalanddenythatsuchthingsexist. Ofcourse,themysticwantstoputhimselfinthatsamecategory."Ihaveaspecialintuitivefaculty"or"Ihavea specialhotlinewithGod"andthisenableshimtohaveaspecialknowledgethatmeremortalsarenotcapableof having. Therearemany,manyproblemswiththissocalled"argument;"I'llpointoutjustacouple.First,it'struethatthere isadifferencebetweensightedpersonsandblindpersons,butthisdifferenceisattributedtosomekindof differenceinphysicalcapacity.Wecanexplainwhyphysicallyasightedpersonisabletohavesenseperceptions whereasablindpersonisnot.Thereisnothingmysteriousaboutit,whereasthisisnotatallthecasewiththe mystic.Themysticisclaimingsomekindofintuitiveorspecialphysicalcapacityanewsense?Ifheis,lethim provideuswithsomeinformationaboutitsowecantestitout.Second,thesightedpersondoesnotclaimaccessto aninaccessible,supernaturalrealm.Thesightedpersonisdealingwiththesameworldastheblindperson.He simplyhasanaddedsenseabilitythattheblindpersondoesnot.Idonothavetocontradictthepresentknowledge ofablindpersontoexplainwhatIsee.Hecantestoutindependently,inhisownway,theclaimsthatImake.IfIsay totheblindperson,"Thereisawallimmediatelyinfrontofyou,"hedoesn'thavetotakemywordforit.Hecan reachoutandhecantouchit,feelit,senseit,usingthesensemodalitiesthatareopentohim.Thisisanothercrucial pointtokeepinmindinregardtothisargument.It'snotthattheblindpersonandthesightedpersonaredealingin twoseparateworlds;theblindpersondoeshaveameansofcheckingoutourverifyingtheclaimsofthesighted person.Unfortunately,again,wedonothavethisopportunitywhenitcomestotheclaimofthemystic.Whattypes ofverifiableproceduresortestscanwebringtobearonthemystic'sclaimthatheexperiencessomeineffable, supernaturalrealm.Thereisnowaywhatsoeverbecausehenotonlyclaimstohaveaspecialsense,power,or ability,butthatheclaimstosenseorknowsomethingthatliesinanotherrealmaltogether.Thisistotallyarbitrary, indefensible,andinsupportable.Thereareanumberofotherthingswecouldpointouthereaswell,suchasthefact thattheblindmandoesnotusedifferentstandardsofknowledgethanthesightedmandoes.Theysimplyhave differentmeansofgatheringevidence,whereasthemysticwouldrequireustoabandonmanyofthecurrent standardsofknowledgethatwepresentlyuse.I'msureyoucanimaginemanyotherobjectionsthatmightbemade tothisparticularline. Sometimesyouhearitsaidthatthemystichasundergonealotofspecialtraining.He'sgonethroughmeditationor whateverittakes,andthroughthisspecialtraininghehasacquiredthisspecialabilitytoinsomewayperceivea supernaturalbeing.Thatdoesn'treallymeananythingexceptthatyoucangothroughyearsandstillcomeupwitha ridiculousconclusion,justasyoucancomeupwiththatridiculousconclusioninthirtysecondsoraminute.Andin factIthinkyoumayunderstandthatifyoudevoteyearsofstudytoadiscipline,afterawhiletherearisesacertain vestedinterestinthetruthofthatdiscipline.IfIsayI'mgoingtogoouttotheHimalayasandtrytogetintouchwith

theonenessoftheuniverse,IgooutthereandI'mtoldIhavetomeditateforfiveyearsandgothroughcertain practicesinordertoattainthis,Ithinkemotionallyitwouldbeverydifficultaftermyfiveyearsareuptocomeback andsay,"Well,itwasawasteoftime."Thereisinvolvedhereacertainemotionalvestedinterestinhopingwhat youdevotedallthistimetohassomemerittoit.Yourunintothisproblemnotonlywithmystics,butalsoprofessors oftheology.Canyouimaginegoingthroughaseminary,goingthroughyearsoftheologicaltraining,havingyour livelihooddependonit,onlytosayoneday,"Well,Iguessthisisalljustawasteoftime.It'snonsense."It'svery difficulttodothatkindofthingandittakesanextraordinarilyindependentmindtobeabletogoagainstthegrain ofsomuchvestedinterest. OnelastpointIwanttomakeaboutthereligiousexperienceargument.Thisismorepractical,somethingyoucan use.Oneofthemajorproblemswiththeclaimtohavereligiousexperienceisthatthereisnopossibilityoffalsifying suchaclaim.Inotherwords,ifwearetobelievethemystic,hewantsustoundergoakindofexperiment.Hewants ustosubjectourselvestosomekindofprocedureandthenwewillseethathisbeliefsarecorrect.Thewayyouwill encounterthismostofteniswhenafundamentalistcomesuptoyouandsays,"Look,ifyouwillonlygetonyour kneesandpraytoJesusChristtocomeintoyourhear,thenyouwillseethatwhatI'msayingistrue.Ican't communicatethistoyouunlessyougothroughtheseprocedures."Certainlyyou'veallranintothatfromtimeto time.Let'ssupposethisfundamentalistisofaphilosophicalbentandhewantstodefendthisargumenthere.He mightsay, Youclaimtobereasonable.Youclaimtobeopenminded.AllI'maskingyoutodoisundergoanexperiment.Allyou havetodoisgetdownonyourknees,lookupatthesky,holdyourhands,andaskJesustocomeintoyourheart. Nowifyou'rereallyopenminded,wouldn'tyoubewillingtodoatleastthislittlebittocheckoutmyclaim?Isn't thatwhatopenmindednessconsistsof? Iwanttopointouthereaninterestingthingthatnevercomesupwhenthefundamentalistarguesthisway.The fundamentalistwantstosetupan"experiment,"ashewouldputit,buthedoesn'twanttotaketheriskthatis inherentinanyexperiment.Inotherwords,ifthere'sapossibilityofanexperimentsucceeding,thenitmustalsobe possiblethatitwillfail.Ifthere'sapossibilityofsuccess,theremustbeapossibilityoffailure.Theremustbearisk involvedintheexperiment.Thefundamentalisthasahypothesis:"Jesusisyourpersonalsaviororshouldbe"or "Godexists"orwhatever.HewantstotestthishypothesissohetellsyoutoacceptJesus.Here'swhatyousaytothe fundamentalist: Youhaveahypothesis.You'vesetupanexperiment.Iamwageringthetruthofmyclaimsonthisexperiment,but youhavetoputupsimilarstakes.Youhavetowagerthetruthofyourclaimsontheexperiment.SoifIgetdownon mykneesanddowhatyousayisnecessary,ifwhathappensiswhatyousaywillhappen,thenIwillbeconvinced.If, however,Igetdownonmykneesanditdoesn'thappen,thatwillfalsifyyourhypothesisandyoumustgiveupyour beliefinGod. Thisisvery,veryimportanttounderstandwhatI'msayinghere.Ifthat"experiment"istobealegitimate experiment,therehastoberiskonbothsides.Butthetrickcomeswhenyoufindthereligionistisnotwillingtodo that.Ishewillingtotakethecorrespondingriskofgivinguphisbeliefifyouarenotsavedafteryougetdownon yourknees?Ishewillingtodothat?Iwouldsaythatin99.9%ofthecases,"no."Whatwouldhesay?"Maybeyou weren'tsincere"sohe'llblameitonyou.Or"maybeGoddidn'tfeellikesavingyouatthetime"sohe'llblameiton God.Butneverwillheblameitonhimself.Neverwillheblameitonhisownideas.Thenexttimeyou'reinthis

situation,insteadofjustdismissingitasabsurdwhichitisyoumightaskthisquestionoftheChristian:"Ifyou reallywanttothescientificspiritaboutthis,I'lltestthisout.I'lldothis.Butifitfails,youhavetogiveupyourbeliefs andbecomeanatheist."Thatseemsfair,butofcoursehewon'tdothat.Asafinalreminder,Iwillsuggestthatifhe sayshewilldoit,getitinwriting,orgetitinfrontofagroupofwitnesses,becauseChristiansarenotknownfor theirintellectualintegrityonmatterssuchasthis.YoumayrecallthepassagebyPaulthat"Ibecomeallthingstoall meninordertosave"whichisacalltointellectualhypocrisyinthenameofspreadingChristianity. Youoftenhearmanyobjectionstoatheism.TherearesomanyIcannotcoverallofthem.OneoftheonesthatI wanttocommentonistheclaimthat"Ifatheismiscorrect,thenwe'refacedwithacold,indifferentuniverse, there'snopurposetoouruniverse,we'reinsignificantspecsonawhirlingplanetinavastgalaxy."Well,that'squite true.Theuniversedoesn'tgiveadamnaboutyou.Itdoesn'tgiveadamnaboutme.Thepointisyou'resupposedto giveadamnaboutyourselfbecauseifyoudon't,noonewill.Certainlytheuniversewon't.AndinthatsenseI supposeyouareinsignificantasfarastheuniverseisconcerned.Ifyoudiedtomorrow,theuniverseisgoingtohold afuneralforyouorstopinitstracks.Theuniversewillcontinueonitsmerryway.It'snotreallycorrecttosayyou're insignificantbecausetheideaofsignificanceandinsignificancemakesnosensewhenyouconsideraninanimate cosmos.Significanceisatermthatonlyappliestosomesortofconsciousevaluation.Butnonetheless,inasense, youarenotthatsignificantasfarasthetotalityoftheuniverseisconcerned.Sofarastheproblem,"Whatpurpose isthereinman'slife?",thereisnopurposeinman'slife.Thereisapurposehopefullyinyourownlifebutitisupto youtosetit.Again,ifyoudon't,noonewillforyou. Ithinkthisiswhyreligionissodevastating,notonlyphilosophicallybutalsofromapsychologicalpointofview.You sometimeshearitsaid,"Whatwouldwedowithoutreligion?WhatwouldwedowithoutChristianity?"Idon't understandwhatwedowithreligionorwhatwedowithChristianity.Idon'tunderstandwhatreligionissupposed tosolve.WhatifIbelieveinJesus?That'snotgoingtomakemylifesuccessful.EitherI'mgoingtofailorsucceed;I'm goingtotryornot;andsimplybelievinginsomesortofmythicaldeitywillnotchangethat.It'sstilluptome.It'sstill apersonalmatter.Idon'tunderstandwhatthisgreatpsychological,moralbenefitthatreligionissupposedtobe thatreligionhasofferedthroughouttheages.Undoubtedly,itgivessomepeopleasenseofcomfort.Ifcomfortis foremostinyourlife,evenattheexpenseoftruth,thenperhapsyouwillbelieveinGod.ButasIpointedoutatthe beginning,Ithinktheforemostconcernshouldbetruth.Truthmaybesomewhatpainfulonsomelimitedoccasions, butinthelongrunIthinkit'sclearthatitwillalwaysworktoyourlongrangeinterest.Thisisonebenevolent,good effectofatheism.Atheismclearstheair,asitwere.Itclearsawaythepsychological,moral,andphilosophicaldebris. Itallowspeopletosetoutontheirowntopursuerationalgoals,rationalvalues,andsoforth. Asonefinalargumentorsatireonanargument,youmayhaveheardofPascal'swageratsomepoint.BlaisePascal wasthefamousFrenchmathematician,philosopher,andtheologian.Hecameupwiththisargumentwhich consequentlybecamequitefamous,whichwentsomethingasfollows.Reasoncan'tproveordisprovetheexistence ofGod.Weightheodds.Iftheatheistiscorrect,we'regoingtodie,nothingwillhappen,andnothingislost.Butif theChristianiscorrect,thenonbelieversaregoingtobelieveinHellforeternity.Soitseemslikethepracticalodds wouldliewithChristianity.WewouldwageronChristianitybecausethepracticaloddsaresoimportant.Ifyou wageronChristianityandthereisnogod,youdon'tloseanything.

Thefirstobviousproblemwiththisisitcompletelyshovesasidethewholeissueofintellectualintegrity,asifyoucan justdoacompleteturnaboutinyourbeliefswillynillywithoutsufferinganypsychologicaldamage,whichsimply isn'tpossible.Itwouldrequiresuchagrossmiscarriageofintellectualintegritytodothiskindofthingthatit's inconceivablethatsomeonewithPascal'skindofmindwouldevenofferit. ButIwanttoofferyouakindofcounterwager,calledthe"Smith'swager."Herearethepremisesofmywager: 1.Theexistenceofagod,ifwearetobelieveinit,canonlybeestablishedthroughreason. 2.Applyingthecanonsofcorrectreasoningtotheisticbelief,wemustreachtheconclusionthattheismis unfoundedandmustberejectedbyrationalpeople. Nowcomesthequestion,"Butwhatifreasoniswronginthiscase?",whichitsometimesis.Wearefalliblehuman beings.WhatifitturnsoutthatthereisaChristiangodandHe'supthereandHe'sgoingtopunishforeternityfor disbelievinginHim.Here'swheremywagercomesin.Let'ssupposeyou'reanatheist.Whatarethepossibilities? Thefirstpossibilityisthereisnogod,you'reright.Inthatcase,you'lldie,that'llbeit,you'velostnothing,andyou've livedahappylifewiththecorrectposition.Secondly,agodmayexistbuthemaynotbeconcernedwithhuman affairs.HemaybethegodoftraditionalDeism.Hemayhavestartedtheuniversegoingandleftittoitstraditional devices,inwhichcaseyouwillsimplydie,thatisallthereistoit,again,andyou'velostnothing. Let'ssupposethatGodexistsandHeisconcernedwithhumanaffairsHe'sapersonalgodbutthatHeisajust god.He'sconcernedwithjustice.Ifyouhaveajustgod,hecouldnotpossiblypunishanhonesterrorofbeliefwhere thereisnomoralturpitudeornowrongdoinginvolved.IfthisgodisacreatorgodandHegaveusreasonasthebasic meansofunderstandingourworld,thenHewouldtakeprideintheconscientiousandscrupuloususeofreasonthe partofHiscreatures,eveniftheycommittederrorsfromtimetotime,inthesamewayabenevolentfatherwould takeprideintheaccomplishmentsofhisson,evenifthesoncommittederrorsfromtimetotime.Therefore,ifthere existsajustgod,wehaveabsolutelynothingtofearfromsuchagod.Suchagodcouldnotconceivablypunishusfor anhonesterrorofbelief. Nowwecametothelastpossibility.Supposethereexistsanunjustgod,specificallythegodofChristianity,who doesn'tgiveadamnaboutjusticeandwhowillburnusinHell,regardlessofwhetherwemadehonestmistakesor not.Suchagodisnecessarilyunjust,forthereisnomoreheinousinjusticewecouldconceiveof,thantopunisha personforanhonesterrorofbelief,whenhehastriedtothebestofhisabilitytoascertainthetruth.TheChristian thinkshe'sinabetterpositionincasethiskindofgodexists.Iwishtopointoutthathe'snotinanybetterposition thanwearebecauseifyouhaveanunjustgod.Theearmarkofinjusticeisunprincipledbehavior,behaviorthat'snot predictable.Ifthere'sanunjustgodandHereallygetsallthisgleeoutofburningsinnersanddisbelievers,thenwhat couldgivehimmoregleethantotellChristianstheywouldbesaved,onlytoturnaroundandburnthemanyway,for theHellofit,justbecauseheenjoysit?Ifyou'vegotanunjustgod,whatworstinjusticecouldtherebethanthat? It'snotthatfarfetched.Ifagodiswillingtopunishyousimplyforanhonesterrorofbelief,youcan'tbelieveHe's goingtokeephiswordwhenHetellsyouHewon'tpunishyouifyoudon'tbelieveinHimbecauseHe'sgottohavea sadisticstreaktobeginwith.CertainlyHewouldgetquiteabitofgleeoutofthisbehavior.Evenifthereexiststhis unjustgod,thenadmittedlyweliveinanightmarishuniverse,butwe'reinnoworsepositionthantheChristianis.

Again,ifyou'regoingtomakethewager,youmightaswellwageronwhatyourreasontellsyou,thatatheismis correct,andgothatroutebecauseyouwon'tbeabletodoanythingaboutanunjustgodanyway,evenifyouaccept Christianity.Mywagersaysthatyoushouldinallcaseswageronreasonandacceptthelogicalconsequence,which inthiscaseisatheism.Ifthere'snogod,you'recorrect;ifthere'sanindifferentgod,youwon'tsuffer;ifthere'sajust god,youhavenothingtofearfromthehonestuseofyourreason;andifthere'sanunjustgod,youhavemuchto fearbutsodoestheChristian. Wecomebackfullcircletoouroriginalpoint,thatatheismmustalwaysbeconsideredwithinthewidercontextofthe respectforreasonandtherespectfortruth.Ithinkthat,asatheists,whenyoutrytocommunicatetheatheisticmessage thisisthecentralpointyoushouldhammerhomeagainandagain.