I saw this meme on a rare visit to Facebook. (Reminding me once again why I’m avoiding Facebook for the most part.)
Let’s examine it…

Atheism Defined
The first miss occurs on the opening line, ‘to be an atheist, I would have to believe…’ But atheism is not a unified belief system. Atheism is the lack of belief in god(s). It does not mean a person has a specific belief about the beginning of the universe or any of the machinations within the universe. The definition of an atheist is simply, ‘a person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of god or gods.’
But, we can infer that this meme advocates that a god is required for all of the sub-points (‘nothing produced everything‘; ‘non-life produced life‘; ‘randomness produced precision; chaos produced order‘) to be possible. So, let’s dive deeper into those implications…
There is no God higher than truth”.
~ Mahatma Gandhi
Something from Nothing
The first point then, ‘…nothing produced everything‘ is an argument that something must have been the first mover. But the theist further implies that the ‘something’ is a ‘somebody’ or a creator – an entity with intelligence and purpose.
In response to the question being begged, the simplest answer is to again point out that atheism is not a scientific theory. Therefore the atheist response, ‘I don’t know how the universe started’ is a perfectly reasonable response to the implied question.
If one does not know what lies behind a door, a person can say, ‘a flying spaghetti monster lies behind the door!’ or they can say, ‘I don’t know what lies behind the door’.
“He who knows nothing is closer to the truth than he whose mind is filled with falsehoods and errors.”
~ Thomas Jefferson
However beyond the strict definitions of atheism we are curious creatures, and if we want to hypothesize on the origin of the universe, it is noteworthy that Cosmologists are still exploring what existed before* the Big Bang or what caused it. Even if there is currently no definitive answer, there are various hypotheses. As a tip of the spear it can be noted that quantum mechanics suggests that particles can pop into and out of existence in a vacuum of ‘nothingness’, indicating that “nothing” is not a stable state. Or consider various multiverse theories: the possibility that our universe is one of many universes and that ‘nothing’ is not even an option. The same is true of cyclic universe models: the idea that the universe goes through cycles of expansion and contraction and has always existed. But even if none of these (small samplings of) hypotheses are true, and even if the big bang gets disproved, that still does mean that one should conclude the answer, ‘well, then: it must be a supernatural entity!’
* Note: the idea of ‘before‘ the universe existed is itself a very deep topic (to put it mildly) with our common perspective perhaps based on a false human construct. Science is exploring the ideas of time: if time is even a linear construct and time as a factor of time-space. That as we try to contemplate a time before the big bang may be like asking for directions to a place north of the North Pole.
These are many alien, foreign perspectives and concepts held in what we call, ‘time’ that are not immediately intuitive to our brains which are evolved to the finite and macro-scales of our lives. – Just as we struggle to understand the immensity of the universe, and the infinitesimally small realities of the universe that are shown to exist but are not revealed natively to our senses, so we may be prepared for a complex model of time and non-time. Science has shown us many non-intuitive realities about, ‘time’ as demonstrated in Special and General Relativity including Spacetime (space and time as a single, unified entity called spacetime); Time Dilation (as an object moves closer to the speed of light, time slows down for that object relative to a stationary observer); Gravitational Time Dilation (gravity can also affect the passage of time, with time slowing down in stronger gravitational fields) and more. None of these concepts are held in the dismissive, incredulous face of the meme.
All of this is to say that an atheist perspective can fairly range from, ‘I don’t know’ to, ‘we don’t know but we have ideas that we are exploring and testing’.
“ …the history of science . . . teaches that the most we can hope for is successive improvement in our understanding, learning from our mistakes, an asymptotic approach to the Universe, but with the proviso that absolute certainty will always elude us. ”
~ Carl Sagan, The Demon-Haunted World
It is the theist who is making the claim. The theist says, ‘I do know! And the answer is God A!’ (Or depending on the religion, Gods XWZ.)
When one asks the next logical question, where did your god (or gods) come from then? The thiest answer is invariably some flavor of, ‘God has always been’. – It answers nothing about the origin of the universe. As Carl Sagan said, “If we say that God has always existed, why not save a step and conclude that the universe has always existed?“
Life from Non-Life
In my experience, the average theist conflates the origins of life – abiogenesis with evolution (and specifically: natural selection [and more often forgotten sexual selection] which describes the diversification of life forms after they emerge.)
But I take this meme’s bullet point to be referencing abiogenesis through the fallacy of incredulity. The theist hasn’t hazard to imagine (and/or most likely has not read or comprehended) what mechanism(s) could result in life stemming from non-life. And although science has not yet demonstrated the full process of abiogenesis in the lab experimentally, there are still vast quantities of evidence pointing us in the direction of a full answer that does not requiring summoning the supernatural and its god(s). And although end-to-end life generation in a test tube has not yet been shown as a single process, many aspects of it has been demonstrated backing a variety of models including: Oparin-Haldane hypothesis (which suggests that life arose gradually from inorganic molecules, with “building blocks” like amino acids forming first and then combining to make complex polymers); Metabolism-First Hypothesis (metabolism, or the chemical processes that sustain life, may have emerged before self-replication, with early metabolic pathways providing the precursors for later self-replicating molecules); Pre-RNA World Hypotheses (theories exploring pre-RNA molecules with alternative genetic materials that could have been precursors to RNA, with simpler chemical structures); and far more (that is well beyond the scope of this humble blog post).
There is no discipline in science that I’m aware in which all answers to all questions are known and complete. And where modern abiogenesis exploration still has questions it also has many answers and an abundance of evidence. And one might appreciate science for not yet having the whole continuity of organic-matter to life demonstrated, modern science has been working on the problem for less than one hundred years. (Whereas, nature had some one billion years on earth for the conditions to arise.)
And let’s not forget the evidence free, contradictory suggestions made by various religions including:
Babylonian (Enūma Eliš): Humans are created from the blood of Kingu, Tiamat’s consort.
Christian: (Genesis 2) Yahweh creates Adam, the first man, from dust and Eve is created from Adam’s rib.
Egyptian: The god Khnum, depicted as the ‘Great Potter’ who shapes humans from clay on a potter’s wheel.
Navajo (Diné): The “emergence from below” creation motif is found in the traditions of several Native American tribes, particularly those in the Southwestern United States. The Navajo creation story also involves a series of emergences from lower worlds.
Norse (Völuspá): The first beings, the giant Ymir and the cow Audhumla, emerge, and the gods Odin, Vili, and Vé create the world from Ymir’s body.
Shinto: Centering around the divine couple Izanagi and Izanami who gave birth to various deities (Kami). the human lineage is said to descend from these Kami. Humans in turn are descended from the divine couple, and the other Kami.
Yoruba (Isese): In Yoruba tradition the god Obatala is credited with forming humans from clay. There are stories that relate that Obatala at times was inebriated while forming humans, which is used to explain those humans that have deformities.
And there are many, many more.
Randomness and Chaos to Order
I’m not sure what the differentiation is between the last two bullet points of the meme are, ‘…randomness produced precision; …chaos produced order’. I believe that those are synonymous ideas and that the meme is trying to pad out its weak argument like a high-schooler who procrastinated writing their 300 word essay until they were on the bus to school.
Furthermore, there are no examples given so I’m not sure if this pertains to all cosmological matters after the big-bang or is more narrow in focus. Again: I’m spending a decent amount of time writing a rather robust response to a rather thoughtless meme. I’m not writing a dissertation on the life, the universe and everything so I’ll have to illuminate a few examples in broad strokes on how, indeed, complexity and precision can arise from randomness and chaos.
Science and human inquiry has shown time and again many, many mechanisms in which order arises from chaos.
The Formation of Galaxies and Star Systems: The early universe, after the Big Bang, wasn’t perfectly uniform. It contained tiny fluctuations in density. These fluctuations, initially random, acted as “seeds” for the formation of larger structures. Gravity, a fundamental force, amplified these initial density fluctuations. Denser regions attracted more matter, leading to the collapse of gas clouds.This collapse wasn’t chaotic. It was governed by gravity, resulting in the formation of galaxies, star systems, and planets. The seemingly random initial fluctuations led to the highly ordered structures we observe today. When the initial gas cloud collapses, the cloud begins to spin. Due to the conservation of angular momentum, the spin increases, and the cloud flattens into a disk. This disk is the precursor to a spiral galaxy, a highly ordered structure.
The Formation of Planetary Systems: After a star forms, it’s often surrounded by a protoplanetary disk of gas and dust. Within this disk, dust grains collide and stick together through electrostatic forces and gravity. These small clumps grow into larger planetesimals, which eventually form planets. The process of accretion, while involving many random collisions, leads to the ordered arrangement of planets orbiting a star. In some planetary systems, planets exhibit orbital resonance, where their orbital periods are related by simple ratios. This indicates a high degree of order arising from the chaotic initial conditions.
Rayleigh-Bénard Convection: When a fluid is heated from below, it can form organized convection cells. This pattern arises from the chaotic motion of fluid molecules.
Belousov-Zhabotinsky Reaction: This chemical reaction exhibits oscillating color changes, demonstrating self-organization in a chemical system.
Fractal Patterns: Many natural phenomena, such as trees, circulatory systems, coastlines and snowflakes, exhibit fractal patterns. These patterns, while appearing complex, arise from simple, iterative processes.
Evolution: Random mutations happen, but natural selection is a non random process that filters those mutations. It is a process where advantageous variations are more likely to be passed on, leading to increased complexity and order over time.
Time and again we see complex systems, like the universe, can exhibit emergent properties, where order arises from the interactions of many chaotic components.
Faith
Atheism is to religion as non-stamp collecting is to a hobby. It’s the lack of a thing, not a different version of it.
When we step away from blind-faith, we can use science and reason to interrogate the universe. Science is based on evidence and testable hypotheses, not faith. The meme conflates scientific inquiry with religious belief. Science is based on falsifiability: a hypothesis can be proven wrong and that is its strength, not its weakness.
Who is more humble? The scientist who looks at the universe with an open mind and accepts whatever the universe has to teach us, or somebody who says everything in this book must be considered the literal truth and never mind the fallibility of all the human beings involved?
~ Carl Sagan
A Specific God
Theists love to insert their particular god into the gaps of knowledge. And so, as gaps are closed, their gods get smaller.
Having made an attempt at a fair argument addressing the specific points outlined in the meme, I’ll now elaborate a bit on the original scope based on a few inferences.
The person who shared this meme is a self-identified Christian and I suspect that the creator and perpetrators of this meme would most often also describe themselves as some flavor of Christian. And so even if we ignored all of the arguments made against the fallacies in this meme and allowed for an intelligent creator, the Christian (or Muslim, or Jew, or Zoroastrian or > insert adherent here <) would still be stuck with the burden of not only proving that it was a god that filled in all of the answers, but that of the thousands of gods that have ever been attested, that it is their particular god that completes the puzzle.
“There’s no such word, though there should be, as “adeism” or as being an “adeist”, but if there was one I would say that’s what I was. I don’t believe that we are here as the result of a design or that by following the appropriate rituals we can overcome death. If there was such a force, if there was an entity that was responsible for the beginning of the cosmos, and that also happened to be busily engineering the very laborious production of life on our little planet, it still wouldn’t prove that this entity cared about us; answered prayers; cared what church we went to, or whether we went to one at all; cared who we had sex with or in what position or by what means; cared what we ate or on what day; cared whether we lived or died. There’s no reason at all why this entity isn’t completely indifferent to us. You cannot get from deism to theism – except by a series of extraordinarily generous (to yourself) assumptions. The deist has all his work still ahead of him to show that it leads to revelation; to redemption; to salvation; or to suspensions of the natural order.“
~ Christopher Hitchens vs. William Lane Craig

Recent Comments