Is There A God? - Part 2: There Is A God

So Dawkins says there is no God. But there are many who disagree with him. To represent the opposing side of the argument, I've decided to go with Antony Flew's book, There Is A God. Flew's unique position offers a good deal of intrigue because until recently, Flew has actually been best known for his arguments against the existence of God. In fact, the introduction of the book gives a detailed explanation of why he has been the leading and most respected proponent of atheism in modern history. And then he changed his mind. According to Flew, this change of mind was not due to some sudden "conversion experience", but rather the gradual and logical conclusion of the very question he has been asking all his life. Because of Flew's experience and knowledge in this area, he knows as well as anyone exactly what all the arguments are against the existence of God and yet, based on scientific evidence, he no longer believes that any of these arguments are stronger than those that oppose them. Kind of makes you want to hear what he has to say.

Flew uses a large portion of his book to recount his life's work in order to illustrate the development and evolution of his thought process on the subject of God. Because of this, most of his substantive arguments come from the later portion of the book. I'm going to try to treat Flew's arguments the same way I tried to treat those of Dawkins - with honesty and discernment and without bias. Then I'll take a look at which argument seems to make the most sense. Here we go.

The Good

• "...how easy it is to let preconceived theories shape the way we view evidence instead of letting the evidence shape our theories" (p. 86)

• "Even the most atheistic scientist accepts as an act of faith the existence of a lawlike order in nature..." (p. 107, quoting Paul Davies)

• "The laws of nature seem to have been crafted so as to move the universe toward the emergence and sustenance of life." (p. 114)

• "The existence of a multiverse still does not eliminate the question of a divine Source." (p. 116)

• "If we are trying to understand why the universe is bio-friendly, we are not helped by being told that all possible universes exist...'It is crazy to postulate a trillion (causally unconnected) universes to explain the features of one universe, when postulating one entity (God) will do the job.'" (p. 118 & 119, second portion quoting Paul Davies)

• "Living matter possesses an inherent goal or end-centered organization that is nowhere present in the matter that preceded it." (p. 124)

• "The origin of self-reproduction is a second key problem." (p. 125)

• "It is very unlikely that a universe would exist uncaused, but rather more likely that God would exist uncaused." (p. 144, quoting Richard Swinburne)

• "Such a discovery of the Divine does not come through experiments and equations but through an understanding of the structures they unveil and map." (p. 141)

The Bad

• "What is complex about the idea of an omnipotent and omniscient Spirit, an idea so simple that it is understood by all the adherents of the three great monotheistic religions - Judaism, Christianity, and Islam?" (p. 111)

The Ugly

• Nothing ugly. Honestly, Flew is so extremely rational that I can't find anything that can be construed as glaringly fallacious.

The Good: Commentary

"...how easy it is to let preconceived theories shape the way we view evidence instead of letting the evidence shape our theories"

If you're a sports fan, you know this is true. When the referees make a call that benefits your team, you tend to agree with them. When they make a call that hurts your team, you tend to disagree with them. Sometimes, you see that the referee was right even though you would have liked to disagree with him. When asking the biggest questions one can ask in life, it seems crucial to me that we try to cast aside our preconceived notions in order to find truth. This is something that Flew seems quite able to do. I wish I could say the same for Dawkins, but I really can't. As a biologist, he is so wedded to the concept of natural selection (a process applicable only to biology/genetics) that he suggests that some form of natural selection can also explain cosmological and chemical phenomena. The fact is, there's just no evidence for that whatsoever. It's a perfect example of a preconceived theory being used to shape the way one views evidence.

"Even the most atheistic scientist accepts as an act of faith the existence of a lawlike order in nature..."

Flew's arguments for theism hinge on three arguments for a designer: the existence of laws in nature, the emergence of life from non-life, and the emergence of something from nothing. This statement, of course, applies to the first argument. It is true that we are so accustomed to the laws of nature that it's easy to take them for granted. But even these laws had to be caused by something. Why is it, for instance, that nuclear and gravitational forces are exactly what they need to be in order for matter to exist? Something had to put these laws into place, and that something seems to have been really, really intelligent.

"The laws of nature seem to have been crafted so as to move the universe toward the emergence and sustenance of life."

This is agreed upon by virtually everyone, theist and atheist alike. The question then is why does everything look like it was designed? The answer of course, is either that it was in fact designed or else that there is some other complex cause for the appearance of a design that doesn't actually exist.

"The existence of a multiverse still does not eliminate the question of a divine Source."

Flew goes on to say that the multiverse theory actually makes the question even more imposing than it is to begin with because then you'd have to explain the spontaneous existence of all the other universes as well. This theory is used in an attempt to explain the spontaneous appearance of life from non-life, or of the spontaneous appearance of fine-tuned universal laws of physics, so no, it does nothing to eliminate the question of something appearing from nothing.

"If we are trying to understand why the universe is bio-friendly, we are not helped by being told that all possible universes exist...'It is crazy to postulate a trillion (causally unconnected) universes to explain the features of one universe, when postulating one entity (God) will do the job.'"

While it's entirely possible that there are in fact billions of universes outside our own, this theory is entirely laughable when used as an explanation for the emergence of life. The theory basically goes like this: the odds of life emerging from non-life are so small that it's completely unreasonable to be considered possible in our one universe, within the amount of time that it has existed. But if there are an infinite number of universes, then it's reasonable to think that life would appear in one of those universes, because in an infinite number of universes, anything that can happen will happen. One problem with this theory is we still have to explain where all these universes came from. The other problem is that if these are the lengths that we have to go to explain the origin of life, then we also have to concede the existence of every other ridiculous thing we could possibly imagine. In one of those infinite number of universes, a flying spaghetti monster that eats pink unicorns must exist. In one of those infinite number of universes, enormous polka-dotted helicopters that transform into tiny square-shaped rainbows must exist. It's obviously complete nonsense to invoke a multiverse theory to explain the impossible.

"Living matter possesses an inherent goal or end-centered organization that is nowhere present in the matter that preceded it."

This is a truth that should be recognized when trying to explain the origin of life. Since we're used to living things, it's easy for us to believe that living things should behave intentionally. But if nothing before in the history of the universe had behaved intentionally, it definitely seems odd that something should start behaving that way all of a sudden, and in extreme magnitude, with the spontaneous generation of life.

"The origin of self-reproduction is a second key problem."

It becomes harder to believe that life evolved from non-life without a designer when you consider that the first (incredibly complex) form of life would have to be able to self-reproduce (also incredibly complex). This is a huge problem that, in order to explain the simultaneous production of life and the ability to procreate from non-living matter, must suspend the second law of thermodynamics.

"It is very unlikely that a universe would exist uncaused, but rather more likely that God would exist uncaused."

This statement doesn't prove the existence of a God, but it does say something about the probability of his existence. Philosophically speaking, it is much easier to explain why God would exist without cause than it is to explain why the universe would exist without cause, unless of course, the universe itself is God. I'm not invoking a "God of the gaps" philosophy here by saying that I can't explain something, therefore God exists. Rather, I'm invoking the argument that it seems more probable for God to exist than for him to not, because the existence of God is, in fact, the most readily apparent explanation for the existence of the universe.

"Such a discovery of the Divine does not come through experiments and equations but through an understanding of the structures they unveil and map."

If an omnipotent and eternal God exists, I don't think we should expect to prove his existence with experiments and equations. Since God must be greater than the laws that govern the universe, since he himself would have created them, there is no reason to believe that God is bound by these same laws. What we might expect, instead, is to discover some glimmer of understanding of God - namely, his existence - through observation of that which has been made, and, conversely, if it is possible to understand any part of God, it stands to reason that that understanding will help us better understand the universe.

The Bad: Commentary

"What is complex about the idea of an omnipotent and omniscient Spirit, an idea so simple that it is understood by all the adherents of the three great monotheistic religions - Judaism, Christianity, and Islam?"

Flew says this in response to Dawkins who argues that God cannot be simple because something simple cannot create something complex. This is Flew's way of rebutting Dawkins directly. To me though, this rebuttal isn't convincing. To say that something is understood by a lot of people doesn't prove that it is necessarily simple. At least in one sense, the idea of God must be infinitely complex, since God must at least have intellect superior to (or more complex than) his creation. Then again, you could say God must be simple because he must be purely eternal or purely omnipotent, or maybe even purely good. "Simple" and "complex" in this context don't strike me as very meaningful terms. "Greater than" or "Incomprehensible" might paint the picture better.

In Conclusion

There Is A God really isn't an exhaustive argument for the existence of God. Rather than taking Dawkins' approach of exploring every argument available to make a case, Flew instead chooses to focus on the one most convincing argument - what he calls "the argument to design from order". He doesn't divulge into all the specific scientific data available to support the existence of God, but rather draws upon the conclusions of those scientific studies to show their philosophical implications. The soundness and rationality of this succinct argument seems more than enough to topple Dawkins' own verbose argument, which begins more and more to take on the appearance of a beating-around-the-bush or a grasping-for-straws. One point of interest to me is that Flew, a philosopher, makes his conclusions about God based on well-known scientific evidence. Ironically, Dawkins, a biologist, leaves the arena of science to make his major argument against the existence of God on philosophical grounds. Unfortunately for Dawkins, this philosophical argument - the "central argument of [his] book" - is one of the most obviously fallacious arguments he makes. Of course, the merits of arguments for or against God don't rest solely on the convincing ability of these particular two people, but as they are two of the leading and most learned voices on the subject, they certainly offer some good food for thought.

Basically, this is how the debate boils down: Dawkins argues that there is no good reason for us to believe in God because there is no good evidence to support that claim. He tries to also conjure good evidence that supports the non-existence of God, but that particular evidence falls apart very quickly. Flew then shows that there is compelling evidence for belief in a God, based on 1) the very existence of the universe (and that the prevailing scientific belief is that it had a beginning), 2) an exceedingly overwhelming order in the laws of the universe, and 3) an exceedinly overwhelming order necessary for any form of life to come into existence. Dawkins cannot deny that these three points are true, but he attempts to discount them on the assumption that there is some mysterious cause for them that does not include God, even though this mysterious cause has all appearances of extremely high intelligence and must repeatedly have performed the naturally impossible. At certain points, Dawkins pretends that natural selection can explain the level of complexity in the universe, but as Dawkins himself well knows, natural selection is a theory that applies to living forms and cannot be applied to any of Flew's three tenets, since they all precede life itself. At other points, Dawkins presents hypothetical evidence which would show how the levels of order existent in the universe and in life might be possible (ie. his one in a billion billion argument), except that this hypothetical evidence is absolutely a creation of his own mind and provably absurd. It becomes quickly obvious that this mysterious cause that Dawkins seeks is exponentially less probable than God. Atheism continues to search for a necessary and unknown answer to these three of science's burning questions, when in reality, the most logical answer (and the only known possible answer) is all the while staring us in the face.

The Verdict: God Does Exist.

Given the existence of God, one quickly realizes that we'd better do what we can to be on his good side. But is there anything we can do? And how would we even know? We're inevitably led to ask another question: to what extent has he revealed himself to us? And can any of these so-called "holy texts" be relied on as a true revelation from God? More on that later.

Is There A God? - Part 1: The God Delusion

If you had to choose between God and truth, which would you choose?

This question was posed to me sometime during my youth. I can't remember exactly who it was that asked the question, but it's a question I've often come back to in my thoughts since.

For an atheist, of course, it's the easiest question in the world to answer. For a theist, and specifically, a Christian, it's a little tougher, perhaps even unfair. God and truth are one and the same so it's a trick question. The question, however, has a point (at least to the theist). Which is more valuable: faith like a child or faith through reason? Biblically speaking, we can find support for both (Mark 10:15, John 20:29, Prov. 15:14, 18:15). Ultimately, though, I think common sense tells us that we must choose truth for two reasons. First, if truth does not include God, then our very idea of God falls apart. Second, how can God be discovered in the first place, if not through the discovery of truth? And if God is truth, it should turn out that we've been chasing him all along. All this to say, I've come to the conclusion that it is better to base a belief system on a discerning quest for truth rather than on a blind acceptance of some particular notion. It doesn't mean we have to completely understand something in order to believe in it. But to have this open mindset is to seek knowledge rather than refuse it. It seems to me that this must be the nobler path.

So where does one start in this search for truth? Let's pretend our minds are a blank slate, like the mind of a newborn baby. Knowing nothing about the world, what would be the first question you would ask? I think the first thing I would want to know is who I could trust to answer the rest of my questions. In fact, one of the very first things a baby learns after birth is to either trust or distrust his or her own parents (or caregivers). We as humans need to find a reliable source of knowledge before we can know anything. In adult terms, this leads us to ask who the ultimate authority is. Certainly it's not us. Truths exist that we as humans certainly didn't come up with. For instance, 2 + 2 = 4. The laws of mathematics existed before our minds could observe them. We find truth in the laws of the universe, such as mathematics and physics. So maybe "science" is the ultimate source of truth. But did someone invent science? Here on Earth, we're used to beautiful things having a designer. So would we be right to think that science (and the universe and anything outside the universe) has a designer? Well in order to find the true source, I think that's the question we have to start with.

To answer the question of God's of existence, I suppose we have to start with a definition of God. It's a hard concept to define when you think about it (and should be). I'm going to assume a definition that goes something along the lines of "an eternal being of infinite intelligence and power".

Let the debate begin.

The opening argument goes to Richard Dawkins, author of (among other works) The God Delusion. Before reading this book, I was skeptical about whether it would truly be intelligent and reasonable or just a jaded rant. It turned out to be about as level-headed as I could have hoped - probably more so than I could hope to be if I were to write a refuting book. This book is thick and meaty and offers more to discuss than can really be done in a quick book review. I'm going to try to quickly summarize "the good, the bad, and the ugly" - "the good" being points that I think are valid, "the bad" being points that I think are invalid, and "the ugly" being points that seem to me to based on either completely faulty logic or completely faulty premises. Following this list, I'll talk a little more in-depth about each point. I realize that since I come with my own bias (who doesn't), I don't make an ideal moderator for this type of debate. Nevertheless, I'm going to use what reason and fairness I can muster to determine the value of what Dawkins has to say. Here goes.

The Good

• "A widespread assumption...is that religious faith...should be protected by an abnormally thick wall of respect" (p. 42)

• "...I cannot help remarking upon...the over-weening confidence with which the religious assert minute details for which they neither have, nor could have, any evidence." (p. 55)

• "...the fact that the United States was not founded as a Christian nation was early stated..." (p. 61)

• "It is a common error...to leap from the premise that the question of God's existence is in principle unanswerable to the conclusion that his existence and his non-existence are equiprobable." (p. 74)

• "Why shouldn't we comment on God as scientists?" (p. 78)

• "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic" (p. 98, quoting Arthur C. Clarke)

• "Many people believe in God because they believe they have seen a vision of him" (p. 112)

• "Natural selection...raises our consciousness to the power of science to explain how organized complexity can emerge from simple beginnings without any deliberate guidance." (p. 141)

• "We do not need God in order to be good - or evil." (p. 258)

• "How swiftly the Zeitgeist changes - and it moves in parallel, on a broad front, throughout the educated world."

• "As a scientist, I am hostile to fundamentalist religion because it actively debauches the scientific enterprise." (p. 321)

• "A child is not a Christian child, not a Muslim child, but a child of Christian parents or a child of Muslim parents." (p. 382)

• "...even if it were conclusively demonstrated that belief in God's existence is completely essential to human psychological and emotional well-being...none of this would contribute the tiniest jot or tittle of evidence that religious belief is true." (p. 394)

• "The Roman Catholic Church is an institution for whose gains the phrase 'ill-gotten' might have been specially invented." (p. 401)

The Bad

• "The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction" (p. 51, examples in Chapter 7)

• "[Thomas Aquinas' proofs of God] make the entirely unwarranted assumption that God himself is immune to regress." (p. 101)

• "Scholarly theologians have made an overwhelming case that the gospels are not reliable accounts of what happened in the history of the real world." (p. 118)

• "It is even possible to mount a...historical case that Jesus never lived at all." (p. 122)

• "Not enough evidence, God, not enough evidence" (p. 131, quoting Bertrand Russell)

• "...atonement, the central doctrine of Christianity, [is] vicious, sado-masochistic, and repellant." (p. 287)

• "'Thou shalt not kill'...meant, very specifically, thou shalt not kill Jews." (p. 288)

• "...there is a concensus about what we...consider right and wrong" (p. 298, compare to p. 300)

• "...even mild and moderate religion helps to provide the climate of faith in which extremism naturally flourishes." (p. 342)

The Ugly

• "Omniscience and omnipotence are mutually incompatible" (p. 101)

• "However statistically improbable the entity you seek to explain by invoking a designer, the designer himself has got to be at least as improbable." (p. 138)

• "[Fred Hoyle's] Boeing 747 misunderstanding...suggest[s] that he needed to have his consciousness raised by some good exposure to the world of natural selection." (p. 142)

• If the odds of life originating spontaneously on a planet were a billion to one against, nevertheless that stupefyingly improbable event would still happen on a billion planets. (p. 165)

• "...horrible as sexual abuse no doubt was, the damage was arguably less than the long-term psychological damage inflicted by bringing the child up Catholic in the first place." (p. 356) "religious upbringing as a form of mental abuse" (p. 365) "Parents...have no God-given license to enculturate their children in whatever ways they personally choose" (p. 366, quoting Nicholas Humphrey)

The Good: Commentary

"A widespread assumption...is that religious faith...should be protected by an abnormally thick wall of respect"

Like many of these statements, this observation has nothing directly to do with whether or not God exists. Instead, it is part of a supporting or related point, and this particular point is an interesting one. Especially in the United States, where our Constitution grants religious freedom, there lies potential for this freedom to be abused. I think there needs to be a balance. I would argue (as I suspect Dawkins also might, even though he lives in a nation that technically has an established religion) that religious freedom is a very good thing and that it deserves protection. Without it, a nation runs a serious risk of eventually imposing violent religious persecution. At the same time, there should not be room for the word "religion" to serve as an excuse to allow illegal or qualitatively abusive behavior. Religious freedom demands respect, religion itself does not, at least not for those outside the religion. I agree with Dawkins that we should be free to evaluate religion(s) with the same discernment as we would evaluate anything else.

"...I cannot help remarking upon...the over-weening confidence with which the religious assert minute details for which they neither have, nor could have, any evidence."

Who hasn't experienced this? I'm reminded of the old argument over how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. Every religion will produce questions of fine detail that are either unanswered or only answered vaguely by the religion's own holy book(s) or source of authority. The fact is, none of us knows everything, so it's a little unbecoming to act like we do.

"...the fact that the United States was not founded as a Christian nation was early stated..."

It's most emphatically true that the United States was not founded as a Christian nation. Certain Biblical principles were applied in the country's founding documents, but the nation was explicitly founded without any association whatsoever to an establishment of religion. Dawkins claims that the United States was founded as a "secular nation". I wouldn't go that far - secular implies being against or without religion. That is also not the case. Religious freedom was the motif. Separation of church and state does exist, but it can be a confusing concept. Separation does not mean, for instance, that you can't express your religion on government-owned property. It means that the government (or governmental organizations) cannot impose any religion on a person. Many may desire a Christian nation (I think that would be a bad idea, eg. Constantine's Holy Roman Empire), but the fact is we don't have one.

"It is a common error...to leap from the premise that the question of God's existence is in principle unanswerable to the conclusion that his existence and his non-existence are equiprobable."

This is an important point to realize, no matter what side of an argument you stand on. Just because there are two sides to the argument doesn't mean that they both have an equal chance of being right. This would be like saying that in a baseball game between the World Series champions and a random little league team, both teams have an equal chance of winning. Obviously, the evidence needs to be weighed to show which way the scales tip.

"Why shouldn't we comment on God as scientists?"

Why indeed? Whether or not science can directly observe God, surely it may at least be able to observe the effects of God. I say go for it, comment.

"Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic"

While this quote isn't a Dawkins original, this was the first time I had heard it. To me, this is a consciousness-raising type of statement and I'm sure I'll be pondering it for years to come. And it raises an interesting point regarding God. Just because we don't understand something doesn't mean it's miraculous or supernatural. If, several centuries ago, someone had appeared to a group of people, arriving in a helicopter, the event would have assuredly been interpreted as either supernatural or extraterrestrial. Certainly, this statement alone does little to generally disprove the existence of miracles and the supernatural, but it at least makes you think twice.

"Many people believe in God because they believe they have seen a vision of him"

Well really, the only way we are able to learn is by using our senses and turning the sensation into a perception with our mind. If a person perceives something supernatural in a manner as convincing or more convincing than the manner in which they have learned everything else, then I say there's no problem. But admittedly, hearing of such an event second-hand - perhaps even experiencing it first-hand - is not usually a good substitute for empirical evidence. And don't expect it to convince the rest of us.

"Natural selection...raises our consciousness to the power of science to explain how organized complexity can emerge from simple beginnings without any deliberate guidance."

I'll first say that the popular model of macro-evolution through Darwinian natural selection first takes on the assumption of the absence of divine intervention. But if we are to make that assumption, natural selection provides the best answer available as to why life exists with such complexity. Indeed, natural selection (at least on a small scale) is a real and observed phenomenon. It's tempting for Christians to shy away from this truth because to many, it feels like it doesn't fit with their faith. But it's certainly true that living organisms often adapt to their environment and that those best equipped to survive do so. It's also true that genes mutate and that organisms can be born from parents who are physically slightly different from themselves. To translate this observed phenomenon to a larger scale and to use it to explain all the life we now see on the planet reveals a theory with gaps, such as the gaps in the fossil record, but (again, aside from divine intervention) this theory is still by far the best explanation for the diversity of life in the world. And in fact, when you actually start to study the evidence for evolution, it makes a lot of sense. Even granting divine intervention, there's still substantial evidence to mount an argument of Creation following evolutionary lines. To many (not all) Christians, this is one of those statements that makes one feel a little nervous. But a little bit of nervousness shouldn't hinder us from exploring the claims.

"We do not need God in order to be good - or evil."

Well, techincally, if God exists (at least the type of God that most theists believe in), we probably do need him in order to be good, as he would be the source of all goodness in the first place. But this isn't really the point of the argument. What Dawkins is saying is that people can and do know right from wrong apart from divine revelation. I completely agree. And in fact, it appears to be the Biblical stance (Romans 2:13-15) that our consciences are evidence of God's imprinting of morality on our hearts (or minds, whichever) whether or not we are religious.

"How swiftly the Zeitgeist changes - and it moves in parallel, on a broad front, throughout the educated world."

I was intrigued by Dawkins' explanation of a shifting Zeitgeist (spirit of the times). Essentially, this term embodies the concept of the fluidity of popular opinion through time and that even thinkers who are ahead of their time would be considered terribly behind by generations to follow. For instance, (an example Dawkins used), Abraham Lincoln was ahead of his time concerning the issue of slavery and equality, but even many of his own statements would sound terribly racist to all of us today. The shifting Zeitgeist is a very interesting phenomenon. I'm not sure I'm convinced that it always tends to change for the better, moving toward a more "enlightened" state. I wonder if maybe it moves as more of a wave, toward good, then bad, then good again, etc. Anyway, this doesn't have much to do with the existence of God except that the Zeitgeist could theoretically move to a place where it becomes commonplace to not believe in God anymore.

"As a scientist, I am hostile to fundamentalist religion because it actively debauches the scientific enterprise."

Science seeks truth. If religion also seeks truth, then I see no reason why it should try to fight science. It seems to me that to suppress one's quest for truth is to reveal insecurity in one's own convictions.

"A child is not a Christian child, not a Muslim child, but a child of Christian parents or a child of Muslim parents."

True, but. At it's core, this statement seems valid enough to me, although I see an essential "but" here. I don't think the labeling of children isn't so confined to religion as Dawkins might have us believe. I know people who sincerely believe their child shares their own convictions about the environment, social issues, and even convictions against religion. Heck, I dressed my own daughter in Chicago Cubs apparel as a newborn and I'll proudly claim her as a Cubs fan through and through. I suppose Dawkins still has something of a point though. It seems credible to me to say that religion is the area where this labeling is easiest to happen and where parents might take it the most seriously. When I call my daughter a Cubs fan, I say it tongue-in-cheek, knowing it's actually my ideal, not her choice (yet). To call her a Christian child doesn't seem to be the type of thing I should be so comfortable joking about. I do think, however, that there often comes an age when children are able to take a qualified stance on an issue, even before adulthood (especially if their parents cultivate critical thinking), so maybe we should think twice about the intelligence of children before outlawing the terms completely.

"...even if it were conclusively demonstrated that belief in God's existence is completely essential to human psychological and emotional well-being...none of this would contribute the tiniest jot or tittle of evidence that religious belief is true."

True. The existence of God doesn't depend on our desire or need any more than the existence of Santa Claus depends on the desire of children.

"The Roman Catholic Church is an institution for whose gains the phrase 'ill-gotten' might have been specially invented."

Dawkins is referring to a very sad and regrettable episode in church history when the grief of the mourning was manipulated for financial gain. This type of behavior certainly is not true today of the Catholic church or any other religious institution - at least I hope not. To me, actions like this are very un-Christian and embarrassing, as I'm sure the great majority of Christians would agree.

The Bad: Commentary

"The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction"

On the surface of it, this statement sounds like it might have some merit. A lot of the things God does in the OT seem kind of mean. He banishes Adam and Eve from paradise and dooms them to suffer in life and then die, he destroys the world (and almost all the people in it) with a flood, he tells Abraham to kill his own child and then announces a change of plans only at the last minute, he destroys whole cities at a time, and he instructs his chosen people to kill every living thing in the cities of the promised land they are entering. And the list of "mean-sounding" references doesn't stop there. The first point worth pointing out is plain to see: There's no logical reason (aside from the ontological argument, which doesn't count) that God's existence would depend on his goodness. This statement is about whether God is good, not whether he exists. But what about his goodness? Can he be good if he sounds mean? I think it helps to consider an allegorical example: It's New Year's Eve and little 5-year-old Johnny wants to celebrate with his parents and stay up past midnight. His parents say no and send him to bed at 9:00. Johnny sees absolutely no reason for this demand and feels convinced that his parents are just being heartless and mean. Does this mean that Johnny's parents are not good? Obviously not. Presumably, they are trying to be good parents and have a good reason to think it would be in Johnny's best interest to get some sleep. In our "enlightened" society, it's easy to think that we have reached some kind of threshold of wisdom that allows us to demand that God answer to us. The fact is, if God is greater than the universe itself, he must be infinitely more complex than we could ever fully wrap our little human minds around. The second fallacy I see with Dawkins' argument is that he doesn't seem to leave room for justice. It seems logical to me to say that God would not be good if he were not just. We humans all long for justice. We long for a world where every wrong is made right. Why then, would we expect God to give rewards but not punishments? To do so would be unjust and ungood. When Christians say that God is good, it doesn't mean that he is always nice. It means that he is complete and perfect. There's a difference. Parents who never instruct or discipline their children are not "good" parents. Neither would a candy-coated God be good. Of course, many thinking people will then ask the question, "Why would a good God allow non-goodness to even exist in the first place?" It's a question worth asking, and I believe, an easy question to answer for anyone who really thinks it through. If you'd like a better exposition of this issue than I am able to give, I recommend C. S. Lewis' book, The Problem of Pain.

"[Thomas Aquinas' proofs of God] make the entirely unwarranted assumption that God himself is immune to regress."

What Dawkins is basically saying here is that if everything comes from somewhere, why do we assume that God doesn't have to come from anywhere? While I think that attempts to literally "prove" or "disprove" God in the scientific sense are likely destined to be futile, this argument only shifts the problem that Aquinas observed. If someone or something made God, then that someone or something is the real God. The point is that "stuff" exists and that it seems like quite a stretch to say that "stuff" comes from absolute nothing.

"Scholarly theologians have made an overwhelming case that the gospels are not reliable accounts of what happened in the history of the real world."

"Scholarly" people have also made good cases for us to believe that Neil Armstrong never walked on the moon or that Elvis Presley is still alive or that the holocaust never happened. The overwhelming majority of scholarly work done by historians and archeologists concerning the Biblical texts shows that they are as much of an accurate depiction of history as any other historical work. The opinions of a few theologians three standard deviations away from the norm aren't enough to make a statement true.

"It is even possible to mount a...historical case that Jesus never lived at all."

Again, seriously? This is more far-fetched than even the previous statement. Dawkins concedes that Jesus "probably" did exist, but to even present an argument like this makes it look like he is grasping for straws. Fortunately, most of his logic is better founded than this statement.

"Not enough evidence, God, not enough evidence"

Only if you consider extreme complexity and beauty in every aspect of the universe to not be evidence. On the face of it, as Dawkins says himself, our world gives the appearance of being designed. He accepts natural selection as the responsible party for the existence of complexity. However, natural selection can only explain the complexity of living things. To say that there is no evidence of God is to only accept as evidence that which can be empirically tested. While there is absolutely nothing wrong with empirically testing things, the existence of God does not depend on our attempts to directly observe him. The effects of God on the other hand, assuming they exist, would likely be discoverable. I would argue that there is evidence of those effects, unless you begin with the assumption that God cannot be used as the explanation for anything.

"...atonement, the central doctrine of Christianity, [is] vicious, sado-masochistic, and repellant."

Then justice itself is vicious, sado-masochistic, and repellant. If God set up the rules of the universe to require justice and then stood in our place, redeeming us from judgement, then it's really an extravagant expression of love. Painful and horrific, yes. But only repellant if you think God should only be able to produce things that are painless, rosy, and naïve.

"'Thou shalt not kill'...meant, very specifically, thou shalt not kill Jews."

This is simply speculative and unfounded. If Biblical law was meant only for Jewish in-group loyalty, then God wouldn't have required righteousness from, for instance, the Ninevites during the time of Jonah. There are plenty of examples from both the Old and New Testament to show that God's principles of righteousness were not just for the Israelites.

"...there is a concensus about what we...consider right and wrong"

Two pages later, Dawkins says "we have all changed massively in our attitude to what is right and wrong." To be fair, Dawkins here is speaking of a shifting moral Zeitgeist and would probably say that at any one time in history, the consensus exists, but that that consensus changes over time. I agree with this statement in a broad sense, but not in a particular sense. We all agree on some kind of general moral code (i.e. lying is wrong, murder is wrong, etc.) but we disagree on how that moral code should be played out. Murder is wrong, but is it wrong to go to war? Is abortion murder or mercy? Is stealing okay if one would otherwise die? It's important to note that while we may agree on a broad sense of morality, there are enough particular differences of opinion to make law an important feature of our societies.

"...even mild and moderate religion helps to provide the climate of faith in which extremism naturally flourishes."

Pick any topic of life, religion or otherwise. Let's say, for instance, driving automobiles. Most people drive safely and reasonably. Some see the risk in driving and decide to avoid driving whenever possible. Some drive recklessly and dangerously. It's possible to drive in moderation or to take it to one of two extremes. The fact that automobiles exist provides the climate for extremely reckless drivers to flourish. Should we then do away with automobiles completely? Dawkins' distaste of religion here seems to be causing him to make suggestions that don't stem from good logic.

The Ugly: Commentary

"Omniscience and omnipotence are mutually incompatible"

They're actually not. It's possible to have the power to change one's mind or nature and choose not to do so.

"However statistically improbable the entity you seek to explain by invoking a designer, the designer himself has got to be at least as improbable."

Dawkins claims this statement as the "central argument" of his book - his primary proof of the improbability of the existence of God. This argument so easily falls apart that I have a hard time believing that Dawkins himself actually believes it. Let's try the argument out on anything other than God - say, a chair. How does the chair exist? Maybe someone designed it. But the chair is pretty complex, so its designer must be more complex still. A human would qualify. But since the human is more complex than the chair, the chair is more likely to exist than the human. Therefore the existence of a human is highly improbable. It's a completely fallacious argument and it becomes quickly obvious that Dawkins would be better off choosing a different argument to be his central one. What Dawkins perhaps meant to say is that the designer himself has got to be at least as improbable to have been designed. This argument is at least plausible. But that's not his argument, presumably because then he wouldn't be arguing the existence of God, but rather merely that God was not designed by something else.

For some reason, Dawkins makes the assumption that God has to be simple and that therefore, it doesn't make sense for something simple to create something complex. I have no idea where he got the notion of God being simple. It seems to me that God, by definition, must be both infinitely complex and eternal. It's utterly ridiculous to say that the more complex something is, the less likely it has a designer. In fact, the opposite is true and common sense tells us as much. When we look at a clock, we know someone designed it because it is too complex to have designed itself. We don't look at a clock and say, 'That clock is really complex, too complex in fact, for anyone to have designed it.' It makes more sense to ask 'If everything comes from somewhere, then where did God come from?' The only answer I can think of to this question is that God (or whatever source of all things - or else the things themselves) must be eternal. Eternity is a pretty difficult concept to wrap our human minds around (kind of like quantum theory), but that doesn't make it any less necessary for explaining how anything exists.

"[Fred Hoyle's] Boeing 747 misunderstanding...suggest[s] that he needed to have his consciousness raised by some good exposure to the world of natural selection."

Dawkins plainly makes the misunderstanding here. Fred Hoyle's Boeing 747 analogy refers to the probability of life arising from non-life. It has nothing to do with natural selection, as natural selection requires genes as a prerequisite for operation. To make Dawkins' argument, one must jump to the conclusion that processes of natural selection apply to both living and non-living things. Let's make this jump for a moment and see how it plays out: DNA is seen as the motor that runs natural selection. Obviously, DNA does not exist in non-living things, so one is left with the conclusion that some other type of motor runs the process of natural selection in non-living things - presumably, an intelligent motor because it needs to overcome impossible odds (see below) to make life from non-life. This is in fact what Dawkins hopes science will one day discover when he talks about "an equivalent crane for physics" (p. 188). You can't tell me it doesn't require faith to believe in this kind of a "crane" (a mechanism for building things from the ground up, as opposed to a "skyhook"). In any case, what in the world would we call such a crane? Sounds a lot like God to me, albeit a potentially pantheistic version of God.

If the odds of life originating spontaneously on a planet were a billion to one against, nevertheless that stupefyingly improbable event would still happen on a billion planets.

True, but that's a very big "if" to assume. In reality, the odds are nowhere remotely close to a billion to one. According to a study done by Fred Hoyle (an atheist until this study) to find out exactly what those odds are, the probability of life originating from non-life is 1 in 10^40,000. To put this number into perspective, the number of atoms estimated to exist in the entire universe is 10⁸⁰, an infinitesimally small number in comparison. We need 10^39,920 universes to start talking realistically. To allow for such insurmountable odds, Dawkins invokes the anthropic principle to suggest several hypotheses, one being that maybe there are billions of billions of universes or parallel realities and that we happen to be in the lucky one. It's a stretch of the imagination - I'd argue much more of a stretch than to believe in an intelligent designer - and even assuming the existence of billions of times more universes than there are atoms in our universe, it still leaves an insurmountable improbability of life arising without some kind of design. In any case, the odds certainly are not one in a billion.

"...horrible as sexual abuse no doubt was, the damage was arguably less than the long-term psychological damage inflicted by bringing the child up Catholic in the first place." "religious upbringing as a form of mental abuse" "Parents...have no God-given license to enculturate their children in whatever ways they personally choose"

It doesn't take a lot of thought to see how slippery of a slope this is. While I'm all for teaching children to think for themselves and to use discernment, are we really to believe that parents can avoid indoctrinating their children to some extent? Are we also to avoid indoctrinating our children when it comes to playing in the yard vs. playing in the highway? Children require direction from their parents. The fact that that direction is going to vary from parent to parent is not a reason to stop parents from giving their children direction. To put religious indoctrination on a par with sexual abuse is to suggest that children be taken from their parents if the parents are religious. This suggestion reveals the hypocrisy of Dawkins' reasoning in two ways. First, only a few pages earlier, Dawkins recounts a truly unfortunate story of a child being taken from his family by the church because the parents were not Christians. Now Dawkins is feeding a mindset that encourages the exact same actions, except that children would be taken from their parents because their parents are Christians (or of some other religion). Second, Dawkins devotes a chapter to showing how religion can be harmful and now presents a viewpoint that would bring harm to people because of their religion. These are scary conclusions to draw, but they flow naturally from Dawkins' line of reasoning. Such suggestions reveal just how important it is to maintain the right to religious freedom.

In Conclusion

The God Delusion presents an exhaustive account of the reasons why not to believe in God and how, according to Dawkins, such belief is actually detrimental. Overall, I'd say he does a good job of stripping away certain false foundations that many people hold for believing in God. For example, the fact that science cannot yet explain everything does not mean that God is the only possible answer for things we do not yet know. However, Dawkins' attempts to demonstrate the severe improbability of God are weak at best. Dawkins also speaks a lot about religion and while religion is related to the real question of whether God exists, it is important to note that religion and God are not the same thing. God's existence is not dependent on the religious opinions or behaviors of the people who follow him (or think they follow him). The Bible and the Qur'an both get some attention from Dawkins, but it is apparent that he has approached them with cynicism from the start without much interest in actually studying them - a very different approach than the one he brings to science. I suppose this is only natural, as I would be inclined to approach holy books of religions other than my own with the same cynicism. In any case, it's the question of God's existence that I'm concerned with at the moment. With The God Delusion, Dawkins presents an informed scientific viewpoint to deny God's existence. In the end, the evidence he presents shows itself to be plausible, but still shaky.

The Biggest Questions There Are - Intro

There are certain questions that concern every single one of us. And we all seem to think that we know the answers to those questions. Why are we here? What is the meaning of life? Is there a God? What happens when we die? What is my purpose? Can I make a difference?

Whoa, whoa, slow down there Kevin, you're getting all weird and philosophical on us. I know, and shamelessly so. Maybe it proves that I'm a nerd at heart, I don't know, but lately I've been thinking about these questions a lot. Just like everyone else, I think I have the answers to those questions (at least most of them) but lately, I've been on this kick of finding out what everyone else's answers are. By that I mean giving them a chance to really argue their position. It's really interesting to me. One, because it challenges my beliefs (after all, if you hold a belief that you don't allow to be challenged, then why in the world do you hold it at all?) Two, because for some strange reason, I find it fascinating to attempt to strip myself of all preconceived notions and look at these issues with pure objectivity (it's impossible, but I like to try). I have a degree in psychology...maybe that has something to do with me wanting to look at both sides of every argument.

So anyway, I'm going to initiate a little project here on my blog. I'm going to try to answer these questions. This probably won't be an uninterrupted project. Who knows, it may take years to finish and I'm sure I'll want to intersperse it with other topics of conversation in the meantime. But hopefully, I won't leave this train of thought unfinished. And I'll admit right from the start that I'm sure all my conclusions will be biased toward my already-existing beliefs, but I'm going to make an effort to be completely objective. That means taking the most solid arguments that each side has to offer on the particular issue. I think it would be fun if this experiment sparked some discussion and maybe even a little controversy. I'm only going to ask one question at a time, each time moving to what seems to me to be the most pertinent question left. I'm not going to start with a set list or anything, because the matter at hand will completely hinge on how the previous questions are answered. In short, I'm going to try to construct a worldview from the ground up.

So which question first? It seems to me that the first question to explore should be "So who's in charge here? Is there even anyone in charge?" A little more formally, "Is There A God?" When I think about it, it seems like every other question stems from the answer to this one. Some kind of authority needs to be established on how we know anything about anything. I'll tell you right now, I think the answer is "yes". But I'm trying to be objective here. So because of my own bias, I'm going to give the first say to someone who strongly disagrees with me - Richard Dawkins. Dawkins is perhaps the most notorious atheist out there. He's well-educated and rational and believes emphatically against the existence of a god of any sort, so he seems like a good person to represent the atheist point of view. I'm currently reading his book, "The God Delusion" and have read enough to know that he presents this view well. I hope to summarize his points here with total fairness, after which I'll give the stage to a theist. When I get to the end of this book, I'll check in with you here and I'm sure I'll have lots to talk about.

Back Again

If you had asked me when I was in second grade what I wanted to be when I grew up, I would have answered, "an author". Of course, I would have also told you that I wanted to use my authoring career to write books for boys along with my best friend, Steve. That hasn't happened and I suppose the direction for my desire to write has changed substantially since then. But despite my now-forgotten disdain for the many essay assignments imposed upon me by my schooling, in the end, that desire to write is still there.

A year and a half ago, I decided to intentionally neglect this blog in favor of a brand-spankin'-new, way-cool, business-oriented, imagery-centered blog showcasing my photography and videography work. That blog is still active and will remain so, but during the last year and a half, a feeling in me has been growing that I've been needing to resurrect my original blog. Don't get me wrong - I love my photo/video blog - but I guess there's just something inside of me that needs a portal for putting my thoughts on paper - you know, my real thoughts, the thoughts that stimulate my intellect before I fall asleep at night, the thoughts that sometimes just don't seem to fit amongst a bunch of photos of other people's weddings and updates on my work and livelihood. It's not that I want to compartmentalize my life, showing my clients and certain friends and family one side of me while showing the rest of my friends and family another side of me. I know there are some wedding photographers out there who believe in managing a single blog and like to speak plainly about religion and politics in the same place that they post photos for their clients to see. I have no problem with that...I guess I just feel like if I were to put all the stuff that I actually want to write about from my heart onto my photo/video blog, it might begin to consume the photos and videos and frankly, just become a confusing conglomerate to some of my readers (I know a few of you exist!) Beyond that, I guess I also feel that at least in my case, I have two separate goals. One: to showcase and promote my work (and Kelsey's work) in a way that will hopefully help me grow as an artist and maintain the success of our company. Two: to challenge myself and others in matters of the mind and heart. While these two goals will surely overlap at times, they don't overlap completely and I feel like each goal deserves its own space.

So here we go. This blog, "Fijitown", is my own personal space. It does not belong to Primavera Studios; it belongs to Kevin Visel. This is my space to speak freely - spread my wings, so to speak, and allow myself the catharsis of transparency and of emptying the thoughts in my head into print form. Everyone is invited to read, comment, or not - whatever you like. I've also chosen to keep a few of my older posts from this blog's history, since it just feels wrong to delete them...kind of like book-burning. I think a few people out there will be happy to know that I'm resuming this type of writing. I, for one, am looking forward to it.

The Joy of the Road

This last weekend, I drove to my in-laws' cabin for Memorial Day weekend. The night we arrived, I found myself surrounded by a conversation of the different cabins/homes on their street that were for sale. I had just driven past each of these homes no more than a few hours before, so I felt as though I should have had a mental image to go along with the objects of conversation. But I didn't. I was too concerned about getting to my destination to take any heed of my surroundings while driving.

What a metaphor for how many of us tend to live our lives. One financial and retirement planning company currently parades this mindset with their slogan, "Prepare to Live". While I'm all for smart financial planning, I think it's a bit sad that our society teaches us to be so future-focused. Yes, responsibility matters and yes, we must be mindful of the future. But whatever happened to living now? If we are always focused on the future, then we are never focused on the present. Our future plans and goals are possibilities, but our present is real, tangible, now. Life simply cannot be enjoyed without the enjoyment of the present.

I think the problem is that somehow we tend to build for ourselves the illusion that we will actually "arrive" somewhere in this lifetime. Once I get married, I won't be lonely. Once I get a pay raise, things won't be so tight. Once I own a home, I'll feel established. Once I land my dream job, I won't be as drained. Once I retire, I can start living. All this is a chasing after the wind - chasing after things that exist but that cannot be caught in the sense that we wish to catch them. They are incapable of bringing real satisfaction. We are all on a journey and none of us have arrived. Until heaven, none of us ever will arrive. In the meantime, there's only one thing that is even capable of getting us by with sufficient fulfillment.

And while we drive on toward our destination, we forget all about the beauty that surrounds us. We become dissatisfied, because we are focused on grander things that don't exist right now and may not ever. Kelsey and I have many hopes for the future. We would like to one day have many of the things I listed above, such as a family of our own, a home, a successful business, time to travel, and a comfortable budget. But ever since we've gotten married (and for the foreseeable future) it has been quite a task to live within our means, because our means are not very high. It's easy for us to long for the days when things will finally "be better". But the fact is, things already are just fine. We have each other and we are alive and healthy, not to mention innumerable other blessings we can list if we only take the time to realize them. Besides that, things probably never will "be better". As soon as we make more money, we'll likely spend more, and want more. What a powerful asset it is to be able to control one's own attitude. Jesus told us he came into the world that we "may have life and have it abundantly." I have a feeling that that abundance is not experienced unless we allow ourselves to enjoy the abundance we already have in Him.

While I was at the cabin, Kelsey and I went for a bike ride up that same road. We had no destination - we figured out our path as we went and enjoyed the ride for what it was. I saw the homes I had missed before. I also noticed the names of the people who lived in each home and the ferns and flowers that grew beside the road. If we realize there is no such thing as "arriving", the importance of enjoying the here and now becomes glaringly obvious. As Sheryl Crow wisely sings, "It's not having what you want; it's wanting what you've got." Set your goals, hopes, and dreams. And as you drive toward them, never overlook the joy of the road.

The Emotional Manly Man

What is it that makes a man strong and manly? I think we all have some type of image in our minds of an answer to that question - the characteristics that a man would be proud to be known for. Probably this image is based off of the men we've known - fathers, pastors, teachers...or maybe it's based off of famous people that we watch from a distance - rock stars, sports stars, politicians. I think my gut reaction to this question is to answer with characteristics such as strength, success, steadiness, and wisdom.

Recently, I spent some time reading through First and Second Samuel and I was really intrigued by this character named David. He intrigued me because I think he challenges my notion of what a man is. If you're familiar with Biblical passages about David, then you know that he doesn't always come across as the most manly of men. At times, certain passages almost seem to even push the boundaries of his heterosexuality. This guy grew up playing soothing harp music and continued writing songs with emotional and passionate lyrics throughout his life. I mean rock stars are hardcore, and maybe harps in ancient Israel were the equivalent of screaming guitars today...but it seems like a stretch. David danced half naked in front of crowds of people - enough of a spectacle to make his wife tell him he was acting like an idiot. He had an incredibly close friendship with his male friend Jonathan - 1 Samuel 18 talks of their souls being knit together. They loved each other, shared clothes, kissed, and wept together. Sure, kissing was customary for Israelites, but this friendship obviously was a bit more intimate than your typical business relationship.

But what's really striking to me is not how emotional and passionate and vulnerable David could be. What really strikes me is that on top of all this, he went down in history as the mightiest of warrior kings that Israel has ever known. We all know the story of David and Goliath - you know, the one where the cute little boy with God on his side throws a rock at a giant and kills him? I'm not so sure he was just a cute little boy. This boy had previously overcome lions and bears by himself. And then this boy grew up. He single-handedly killed two hundred men at a time and sliced off pieces of their genitals. Kings and nations fell before him. He conquered or received tribute from virtually the entire Middle East and was respected and feared above anyone else in the world. David was a brutal warrior who killed thousands of men and showed tremendous strength during the course of his life.

And then the most striking thing of all: God calls David a man after the Lord's own heart. This statement, along with the facts of who David was, require some reconciliation in my perception of what a man should be. But really, when I think about it, it makes sense. In God I see a person who holds absolute dominion over the universe - a God who can be brutal in his justice and merciless to the unmerciful. This God reveals the qualities of strength, success, steadiness, and wisdom. Without doubt, these are all qualities of God and also of men who were made in his image. But I also see a God who can dance, shout, sing, and cry. An emotional God who isn't ashamed to be kissing, hugging, or dancing over those he loves. A passionate God who gave up his own life for people who could care less.

I tend to believe that all the qualities of both men and women stem from God. So maybe there would be some weight in arguing that just because God has emotional and passionate traits, that doesn't mean men should. Maybe that's the part of God that was planted in women when he created woman in his own image. Honestly though, this doesn't seem to work for me. David was a man after God's own heart. A man. Whose heart followed God's own heart. He was a man's man and not a woman. He was a warrior who also wrote beautiful poetry. He was a solid leader who also danced passionately without a shirt on. He brutally killed thousands of his opponents and also shared his heart, cried with and kissed his best friend. And apparently, none of these traits that initially strike me as "femmy" make him any less of a man.

There's a certain level of fear and insecurity in being a man. We have a need to provide, conquer, and make people proud and to be exposed as fake, inadequate, or weak is unacceptable. I wonder what it would look like for a man to be completely unafraid of looking like a fool. Completely free to be vulnerable, to dance like an idiot, to weep hard in the arms of a friend, unconcerned of what people might think. Maybe that kind of vulnerability can only be displayed by a man who is, in reality, confident. Maybe true strength goes beyond the ability to stand firm and unbreakable. Maybe true strength includes the strength to let go of pride and to be free to be emotional or broken. That's what I seem to see in David and that's what I seem to see in God. They're both men (at least God was in the form of Jesus) and I respect them, both for their strength and for their vulnerability. If we men are supposed to be strong, maybe it's time to man up and be strong enough to let out the emotion inside us.

The Water Imposters

Okay, I realize the reasoning here. I realize that you need a title that makes people feel good in order to sell. But I'm sorry, something has gone wrong in the bottled water industry. I've been amused for some time over this notion and after watching a couple certain Super Bowl commercials, I just need to say it: If your water is sweet or colored, IT"S NOT WATER!!! We already have a name for flavored water - it's called JUICE! I mean, honestly. How naïve must we be to buy the proposition of these products? Just because something has water IN it does not mean it IS water. Heck, the bowl of pudding in my refrigerator has some water in it...it must not be pudding after all! It must be water! Seriously.
I know, I know. It's not really a big deal. But you've got to admit it's just a little ridiculous how far we go to pretend that we're being healthy. I don't have anything against the companies who pull this off. More power to them if they can inject some minerals into sugar-water (or Splenda-water - yuck!), slap the name "water" on the bottle and pass it off as a health product. Here's an idea: if you want to feel like you're drinking water, maybe...try real water?