Although I try to respect the opinions of those who disagree with my beliefs and arguments, I do have one prejudice that limits my ability to take my critics seriously. I have an admittedly low regard for the position held by some atheists that the assertion “God does not exist” requires no justification. Though this philosophical relic was once in vogue, it appears that some people didn’t get the memo that the claim has been deemed invalid.
What is even more maddening is that this idea is often accompanied by a claim that a disbelief in God is on par with a refusal to recognize the ontological status of the Tooth Fairy or some other presumptively mythical being.
A prime example is the comment left by BCB on a recent post:
That's right, I don't buy into the notion of God or the fairy or any of the crap...I became too sophisticated for when I was about five.
And a few comments later Rob Ryan added:
No faith is required to not believe something of which there is no evidence. It takes no faith to disbelieve in the tooth fairy, Joe. Your Bible god is similarly incredible to millions of Americans. Get over it. You are the one with the worldview that has a positive statement to defend, one it has never defended anywhere near adequately to assuage my doubts.
Several professed atheists (Larry Lord, Tom Girsch) have made similar claims in the past so I think it's important to clear us some of the confusion on this point. But before we begin, we must first define the meaning of the word “atheist.”
Tom Girsch would probably recommend that I use George H. Smith definition from his book Atheism: the Case Against God. Smith claims that the term atheist is applicable to anyone who lacks a belief in God, or who classifies the proposition that God exists as anything other than true. The problem with this, as has often been pointed out, is that it includes agnostics (those who would claim not to know if God exists) under that definition. It would also lead to such peculiar conclusions as classifying babies – who we assume have no belief in God – as being atheists by default.
Because of this flaw, I recommend that we follow the example of Theodore M. Drange and use the term atheist to refer to a person who would answer “false” or “probably false” to the proposition that “God exists.” We could also say that an atheist is one who believes the set that contains “Entities defined as God(s) which exist” is an empty set. They claim that there are no members of that particular set. While it may not be all-encompassing, I believe it is applicable to my critics who refer to themselves as atheists.
Drange also presents four types of atheists that I think would be useful for this discussion:
Disproof atheists, who claim that there is good objective evidence for God's nonexistence, and if there is any good objective evidence at all for God's existence, it is significantly outweighed by the evidence for God's nonexistence.
Methodological atheists, who claim that there is no good objective evidence either for God's existence or for God's nonexistence, but there is a certain methodological principle which places the burden of proof upon theists, and since they fail to meet that principle, the only rational position to take is that of atheism. (Some methodological atheists formulate the principle by saying that the burden of proof is always on any person making an existence claim, since, from a logical point of view, existence claims are only capable of proof, not disproof. No one has ever proven the nonexistence of Santa Claus, or elves, or unicorns, or anything else, simply because the very logic of an unrestricted existential proposition prohibits its disproof. It is impossible to go all over the universe and show that, for example, there are no elves anywhere. For this reason, rational methodology calls for us to deny the existence of all those things which have never been shown to exist. That is why we all regard it rational to deny the existence of Santa Claus, elves, unicorns, etc. And since God is in that same category, having never been shown to exist, it follows that rational methodology calls for us to deny the existence of God.)
Mystical atheists, who claim that there is no rational support for theism or atheism, but who believe in God's nonexistence on the basis of a private, subjective, mystical experience.
Faith atheists, who accept atheism, not on the basis of any grounds or experiences, but simply on the basis of "faith," regarding it to be a "properly basic belief." They say that one could be rational in accepting a noetic system that has atheism as its foundational presupposition, since there is no good objective evidence for God's existence.
In the comments to a previous post I expressed my opinion that there is nothing “sophisticated” about atheism and that I don’t think it's an "intellectually respectable" position to hold. Girsch replied that this made me sound like an “elitist scoffer.” Upon further reflection I would say that he has a point. I will clarify that my opinion only applies to methodological and mystical atheists. Disproof and faith based atheism is, in my view, more respectable. Unfortunately, most of my critics are methodological atheists so Tom’s charge is still applicable. In fact, he makes the claim that:
The default state of belief is disbelief. I don't believe in anything until I'm presented with good reasons to affirmatively believe in it.
Must you assume that the pink-and-purple polka-dotted toaster god of the sky exists, until someone has conclusively proven that it doesn't exist? Are you relying solely on blind faith to deny the P&PPDTGotS?
Taken at face value, we can clearly see that Tom’s claim is self-refuting. If it is true that the default state of belief is disbelief, then we cannot believe this statement until we have a good reason to affirmatively believe it. I suspect, however, that he is not making the claim about all beliefs but only beliefs about the ontological status of unobserved entities.
But is it really the "default state" to disbelieve that a entity exist until we have good reasons to believe otherwise? If so, then what counts as a “good reason?” If Tom tells me that his wife exists should I take his word for it or remain skeptical until further evidence is presented? Considering the fact that no one has ever been able to “prove” the existence of another person, any criteria I would use would be somewhat arbitrary and purely subjective. The same holds true for Tom’s “good reasons” for believing in the existence of either God or the P&PPDTGotS. The metaphysical atheist attempts to establish a presumptive standard for existence which can never be met.
Another problem is that the absence of evidence cannot be taken as evidence of absence. The most we could say about God, the Tooth Fairy, or the P&PPDTGotS is that we have personally never found evidence of their existence. Unless we examine every possible place where these entities could exist in order to look for evidence, we cannot claim to have knowledge that they do not exist. We can, by a pure act of will, decide to disbelieve in the existence of these entities but we must do so on “faith” (I’m using the term “faith” as defined in the Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy: The conviction of the truth of some doctrine which is the result of a voluntary act of will.) The most we can have is a faith-based assumption that they probably do not exist.
Returning to Rob Ryan’s original statement we find that faith really is necessary to disbelieve in the tooth fairy. If I say that the “Tooth Fairy exists” and Rob says “The Tooth Fairy does not exist” we are both making positive assertions. Rob may remain unconvinced until I provide sufficient evidence for the TF but that would require him to clarify what evidence he would find convincing. If he tells me that there is no evidence that would convince him that the TF exists then he is simply taking a fideistic stance. He has taken an a priori assumption that such entities as the TF cannot exist and therefore no a posteriori evidence will be convincing.
The same holds true for belief in God, an entity whose existence is much more amenable to evidentiary proof. One difference we may have from the TF example is in establishing what reasonable evidence of this entities existence actually is. I may agree that Rob is a reasonable person and he may extend the same compliment to me. Yet we may still disagree on what is considered to be reasonable evidence in establishing the likely existence of God. Obviously, then, the problem is not with the evidence but with the openness to accepting the proof that is presented.
That is the heart of the problem with methodological atheism. It’s adherents tend to claim that there is “no good objective evidence” and then proceed to refuse to acknowledge any evidence that is presented, even that which might be considered “sufficient” under other circumstances. Such close-mindedness is the reason I think that this view lacks “sophistication.” Claiming that no compelling evidence exists and then refusing to acknowledge the existence of any evidence is simply a form of atheistic fideism. And that, in my opinion, is about as intellectually respectable as believing in the Tooth Fairy.
1
Why not ask your tooth fairy for yourself? I asked mine serveral years back and she told me that if I asked anymore questions she would not leave me anymore money. I was broke at the time and decided not to push the issue with her. With my tooth fairy's next visit, I stabbed her with a big nail through her side and her hands when she pleaded with me to stop. I then asked her to answer my question, 'Do tooth fairies believe in atheist?'. She told me to go f*ck myself. I stabbed her again and robbed her blind.
Now your probably wondering why I was so impatient with her, seeing as I had a good chance to ask her such a meaningful question. I must admit I was in it mostly for the money. I now wonder if I should have asked her a different question because I kinda miss her visits even though my teeth have mostly not been falling out lately.
posted on 09.02.2004 1:46 AM2
Asshat, I know that was meant for sarcasm, but seriously, my IQ went down several points with that post. Try something a little less childish next time.
Tom, mind actually making intelligible comment for the other side so that we can elevate the level of discussion?
posted on 09.02.2004 3:19 AM3
Joe: The fairy, crap, age five comment was by someone else, a "bcb" if I'm not mistaken. Please don't damn me with the words of others; I'm sure that you will find that mine will do as well. ;-) Please go back and check this and retract the error. The other post you attribute to me is indeed mine, and I stand by it.
Despite your apparent perception, I have never positively asserted that your god or any other does not exist. I think it is unlikely, though. I may have even referred to it as a fictional deity in a heated exchange. I think it is extremely likely that your god is fictional.
You should know that there are several theistic assumptions we ex-Christians and atheists, agnostics, etc. are tired of:
1. Atheists say there is no god; that requires more faith than theism!
2. Ex-Christians were never really Christians.
3. Atheists can't be moral, or if they are, their morality is of God and they just don't know it.
4. Atheists really believe, they are merely in denial so that they can pursue their selfish, immoral lives.
A theist can't claim to know the mind of an atheist. Even if a theist was once an atheist, he knows only what was and is in his own mind.
I don't see the problem with the overlap of the atheist and agnostic categories. Perhaps you perceive a "tug-of-war" going on over agnostics. As for babies, they are atheists until they are indoctrinated by their theistic parents or society or both, or until they find their way to theism on their own.
I'm glad you seem willing to concede that I am a reasonable person despite the fact that my position is not intellectually respectable in your opinion. I recognize your intelligence and respect your reasoning ability for the most part, but I think your reasoning is colored by your assumptions. Perhaps you feel this is true of me as well.
posted on 09.02.2004 7:02 AM4
Joe,
A very well thought out and cogent post. I agree that methological atheism is problematic. So also, in some contexts, is its mirror twin, presuppositional apologetics. I plan on teasing some lessons out of your excellent post, over at my blog, DOUBLE TOOTHPICKS. I'll be arguing from the theistic point of view.
Steve Bragg
posted on 09.02.2004 7:23 AM5
It behooves EVERYONE to find Truth -- WHATEVER that might be.
The Bible suggests that this is not an intellectual problem but a spirtual one:
John 3.16 "For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. 17 For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him. 18 Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because he has not believed in the name of God's one and only Son. 19 This is the verdict: Light has come into the world, but men loved darkness instead of light because their deeds were evil. 20 Everyone who does evil hates the light, and will not come into the light for fear that his deeds will be exposed. 21 But whoever lives by the truth comes into the light, so that it may be seen plainly that what he has done has been done through God."
posted on 09.02.2004 7:25 AM6
Rob,
Joe: The fairy, crap, age five comment was by someone else, a "bcb" if I'm not mistaken. Please don't damn me with the words of others; I'm sure that you will find that mine will do as well. ;-) Please go back and check this and retract the error. The other post you attribute to me is indeed mine, and I stand by it.
I am terribly sorry. That was very sloppy of me to get your comments mixed up. I apologize for the error.
Despite your apparent perception, I have never positively asserted that your god or any other does not exist. I think it is unlikely, though. I may have even referred to it as a fictional deity in a heated exchange. I think it is extremely likely that your god is fictional.
Obviously then you must have some reason, other than a pure absence of evidence, for your position. I guess that’s what I’m failing to understand, the reason you have for thinking that it is extremely unlikely that God exists.
You should know that there are several theistic assumptions we ex-Christians and atheists, agnostics, etc. are tired of:
1. Atheists say there is no god; that requires more faith than theism!
I still think that is a true statement. An atheist must believe not only that no God exists, that no God(s) ever existed, that there is no sufficient evidence that God exists, and that no sufficient evidence is likely to ever be forthcoming. That, in my opinion, requires a profound act of the will to believe, making it a matter of “faith.”
2. Ex-Christians were never really Christians.
I guess that depends on what you mean by Christian. If someone told me they used to be a “Texan” but now they don’t believe that Texas even exist, I would presume that they would, in some way, be mistaken. If you’re telling me that you once had a personal relationship with Christ but now believe that He doesn’t exist I would find the claim rather peculiar.
3. Atheists can't be moral, or if they are, their morality is of God and they just don't know it.
Atheists, of course, can be moral. They just cannot produce anything other than a purely subjective morality that is based on a matter of personal preference about how one should and should not act.
4. Atheists really believe, they are merely in denial so that they can pursue their selfish, immoral lives.
I don’t think that atheists “really believe.” I think, like most Reformed Protestants, that atheists actively suppress the natural inclination to believe in God.
I don't see the problem with the overlap of the atheist and agnostic categories.
Because they are two separate categories. Most of the confusion comes from people who want to hold the beliefs of agnostics but be referred to as atheists. You have to make a choice about which you want to be.
Perhaps you perceive a "tug-of-war" going on over agnostics.
I’d say they are more in the “no-man’s land” between our two camps.
As for babies, they are atheists until they are indoctrinated by their theistic parents or society or both, or until they find their way to theism on their own.
That’s because you assume that the “default state” is a disbelief in God. I assume that humans are theists (of some sort) until their wills choose to actively suppress the knowledge of God.
I'm glad you seem willing to concede that I am a reasonable person despite the fact that my position is not intellectually respectable in your opinion. I recognize your intelligence and respect your reasoning ability for the most part, but I think your reasoning is colored by your assumptions. Perhaps you feel this is true of me as well.
I should clarify that I am not implying that you are not intelligent. When I say that methodological atheism is “not intellectually respectable” I am simply implying that the reason you have for holding that opinion is not based on logic or sound reasoning. It is not, in other words, a “justified” belief, but one simply asserted an assumed to be true.
I am not implying that atheism cannot be a justified, true belief for the atheist. But unless a person claims that atheism is a “basic belief”, then I think they have a epistemic duty to give reasons for holding that belief.
posted on 09.02.2004 7:37 AM7
Rob Ryan:
1. Atheists say there is no god; that requires more faith than theism!"
-Understand the Bible teaches you have to will to suppress the knowledge of God.
2. Ex-Christians were never really Christians.
-This is exactly what the Bible teaches about "ex-Christians.
3. Atheists can't be moral, or if they are, their morality is of God and they just don't know it.
-Sure, they can be moral. They can have the appearance of godliness but deny it's power. It just won't profit you anything (compared to your sin) upon judgement.
"4. Atheists really believe, they are merely in denial so that they can pursue their selfish, immoral lives."
-Never heard this one. But the Bible does teach that unbelievers want to persue their lustful desires etc and hate the light.
"You should know that there are several theistic assumptions we ex-Christians and atheists, agnostics, etc. are tired of:"
-I can see why "ex-Christians" are "tired of" Christian "assumptions." Because they hate God and his revealed Word. (again - scripture). At least are assumptions are grounded in the Bible while yours is grounded in...well, I don't know what foundation you hold to really. Maybe the few years of observations you've had here on earth?
-It's apparent your problem is with God's revealed Word. So, of course you are bothered by the people that adhere to it. Obviously.
posted on 09.02.2004 8:32 AM8
"As for babies, they are atheists until they are indoctrinated by their theistic parents or society or both, or until they find their way to theism on their own."
No. Hellen Keller was born deaf, dumb, and blind. Yet, without any external influence whatsoever, she knew about God. She just didn't know His name.
Babies are theists.
"For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrightiousness, because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse, because although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened."
Romans 1:18 - 21.
posted on 09.02.2004 9:12 AM9
I'm going to respond to the overarching post on my own blog. Look for it in the trackbacks soon.
"1. Atheists say there is no god; that requires more faith than theism!"
Not more, but some. Belief in no god (as opposed to lack of belief) is not sustainable without faith because it is an unprovable assumption.
"2. Ex-Christians were never really Christians."
This is a central tenent of Calvinism and Reformed Theology. There are definitely cases against it in Christ's own teaching and I'm on the fence with this.
"3. Atheists can't be moral, or if they are, their morality is of God and they just don't know it."
Athiests can certainly be moral. However since Christians believe all good things come from God, athiest morals are often put in the "rain falls on the righteous and the unrighteous" category.
"4. Atheists really believe, they are merely in denial so that they can pursue their selfish, immoral lives."
This assumes a lot and groups all athiests together, which is philosophically incorrect. I believe this is true about some athiests.
posted on 09.02.2004 10:25 AM10
Obviously the default belief of human beings is theism: for all of recorded history humans have believed in god(s), whether monotheism or polytheism. This alone does not mean it is a true belief, but from the Christian point of view, at least it establishes that people were made to search for the divine.
posted on 09.02.2004 10:55 AM11
I'm really glad that I finally got a front page mention here. I'm moving up in the world.
Dude, I don't know where my position would fit into that set of catagories that you presented, but I don't think it all that important. I'll just tell you my position. I don't buy the whole notion of God not because I'm unwilling to consider the evidence, but because all of the evidence that I'm familiar with just isn't any good, and is often contradicted by science.
I'd love to debate these points with any or all of you. Just tell me why you think it is rational to believe in the notion of God and I'll set you straight.
12
"4. Atheists really believe, they are merely in denial so that they can pursue their selfish, immoral lives."
Anyone who has ever seriously used the argument "There are no atheists in foxholes" obviously believes (4), the idea being that potential death beyond the atheist's own control makes him admit the truth.
In reality, the foxholes argument rather proves the atheist argument of religion emerging from fear of death.
In addition, it should be noted that there are no faith healers in burn wards either.
posted on 09.02.2004 11:44 AM13
"The same holds true for belief in God, an entity whose existence is much more amenable to evidentiary proof."
Let's phrase the question this way: if atheists were right and there was no God, how would the reality be observably different?
Answering this question gives us a simple test to check if God exists.
Second, let's rewrite the original posting by replacing each "God" with "Allah" or "Shiva" to tell us something about the Christian unproven but default assumptions "Allah does not exist" and "Shiva does not exist".
posted on 09.02.2004 12:06 PM14
Ilkka,
Allah is the Arabic word for God. Christian Arabs call God Allah. It would seem that denying the existence of God would be kinda un-Christian don't you think???
posted on 09.02.2004 12:23 PM15
BCB,
I would be interested in seeing just what evidence you have seen about the existence of God that is "contradicted by science".
Ilkka Kokkarinen,
How do you know that it is an "unproven but default assumption" that the Christian God exists while Allah and Shivah don't? What is your evidence that either Allah or Shivah exist?
posted on 09.02.2004 12:30 PM16
"Let's phrase the question this way: if atheists were right and there was no God, how would the reality be observably different?"
The problem with this proposition is that it is entirely dependent on someones conceptualization of God. If you see God as the Sustainer who holds the universe together, then the fact that we still exist is enough to show there is a God. After all the universe hasn't spontaneously flow apart has it? On the other hand if you see God as a distant being who cares not for the plight of Man (like a diest would), then things might be different.
posted on 09.02.2004 12:43 PM17
Smith claims that the term atheist is applicable to anyone who lacks a belief in God, or who classifies the proposition that God exists as anything other than true. The problem with this, as has often been pointed out, is that it includes agnostics (those who would claim not to know if God exists) under that definition. It would also lead to such peculiar conclusions as classifying babies – who we assume have no belief in God – as being atheists by default.That's a misrepresentation of what Smith says -- which, if you'd read the book, you would know. Rather than classifying agnostics as atheists by default, he breaks them into two groups: agnostic atheists and agnostic theists. An agnostic atheist claims to be undecided as to whether God exists, but acts as though one does not. The agnostic theist agrees that the status of God's existence is unknown and probably unknowable, but behaves as if God does exist (just in case). Smith argues that "agnostic" cannot be a category by itself, but rather a qualifier.
And for the record, yes, babies are, by definition, atheists. Anyone who does not actively assert that God(s) exist(s) is an atheist. That's the lone requirement.
By Drange's definitions, there are parts of 1, 2, and 4 that are all somewhat appealing, but I most closely match the position of the methodological atheist, I suppose.
Taken at face value, we can clearly see that Tom’s claim is self-refuting. If it is true that the default state of belief is disbelief, then we cannot believe this statement until we have a good reason to affirmatively believe it.I see nothing self-refuting about this position whatsoever, and you have done little to establish that this is the case. You sure like to throw around the term "self-refuting" a lot, though. Maybe it allows you to escape addressing the point.
Perhaps your objection has to do with us using absurd examples, such as the Tooth Fairy or Santa Claus, or the Pink & Purple Polka-Dotted Toaster God of the Sky. It could just as easily be Isis or Zeus or Shiva or Baal or Ra, or some other deity which people at one time believed in and worshipped.
If Tom tells me that his wife exists should I take his word for it or remain skeptical until further evidence is presented? Considering the fact that no one has ever been able to “prove” the existence of another person, any criteria I would use would be somewhat arbitrary and purely subjective.This is, of course, an absurd example. My claim that I have a wife is in no way an extraordinary claim. The fact that lots of people have wives, coupled with the fact that I don't have a history of misleading you on such matters, ought to be sufficient. And even if it isn't, you could always look up the public records and verify this fact, or simply ask to meet her. The next largest difference between my claim about my wife and your claim about God is that my claim is easily verifiable (or falsifiable).
Another problem is that the absence of evidence cannot be taken as evidence of absence. The most we could say about God, the Tooth Fairy, or the P&PPDTGotS is that we have personally never found evidence of their existence. Unless we examine every possible place where these entities could exist in order to look for evidence, we cannot claim to have knowledge that they do not exist.On this much, I agree with you. But it's where you go from here that we diverge. Even given the fact that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, why should we, in the absence of all affirmative evidence, believe a claim about God is true? To me, with an extraordinary claim like the Christian God's existence, it is far more rational to believe that absence of evidence is sufficient reason not to believe. What you seem to be arguing is that since we can't prove God doesn't exist, we must assume that He does. How does this differ from the P&PPDTGotS?
We can, by a pure act of will, decide to disbelieve in the existence of these entities but we must do so on “faith” (I’m using the term “faith” as defined in the Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy: The conviction of the truth of some doctrine which is the result of a voluntary act of will.) The most we can have is a faith-based assumption that they probably do not exist.Perhaps so, but this still makes the assumption that all articles of faith are equal in merit. They're not. And anyway, to be intellectually consistent, you must admit that you take it solely on faith that the P&PPDTGotS "probably" does not exist. In other words, your lack of belief in P&PPDTGotS is not a rational conclusion, but a faith-based belief. I say that's absurd.
That is the heart of the problem with methodological atheism. It’s adherents tend to claim that there is “no good objective evidence” and then proceed to refuse to acknowledge any evidence that is presented, even that which might be considered “sufficient” under other circumstances.This is simply not true. A scientifically accurate and internally consistent scripture would be a very good start. Specific and verifiable prophecies might be another. More consistency among Christians would be helpful also -- even within the confines of Christianity, there are serious disagreements and deep divides, which by themselves do not disprove their positions, but do belie their claim on the "inside track" on big-T Truth. And of course, God could choose to manifest Himself to me directly, and I'd be hard pressed to deny him. I am Thomas, aptly named, and I want to stick my hand in the wound!
Such close-mindedness is the reason I think that this view lacks “sophistication.” Claiming that no compelling evidence exists and then refusing to acknowledge the existence of any evidence is simply a form of atheistic fideism.I'm not aware that you've ever presented any positive evidence for God's existence, so I'm not sure where you get off claiming that atheists automatically reject it. And for the record, nothing in this post establishes that atheism is less sophisticated or less intellectually respectable than Christian belief. At worst, if we accept all your arguments at face value (I do not), the best you have done is established that atheism is no more sophisticated or intellectually respectable. posted on 09.02.2004 12:45 PM
18
tgirsch
"Even given the fact that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence,"
I disagree with this statement. The absence of evidence for the existence of something is indeed evidence [note: not proof] that the thing does not exist, especially if one looked hard for the evidence.
posted on 09.02.2004 1:31 PM19
tgirsh,
"And for the record, yes, babies are, by definition, atheists. Anyone who does not actively assert that God(s) exist(s) is an atheist. That's the lone requirement."
Hmm. That's a mighty large assumption on your part. I assume you have "faith" that that is an accurate statement on your part.
However, I disagree. Rather, anyone who does not actively assert that God does NOT exist is a theist. Therefore all babies are theists by definition. It is only when they are corrupted by the sin of this world that they can choose to disbelieve God's existence.
posted on 09.02.2004 1:41 PM20
Larry,
So quarks don't exist either? We've looked hard for them, but the buggers keep hidding. Since the abssence of evidence is evidence of the absence, they can't exist (espcially since we've looked hard for them).
Chesterton made the point that belief in God led to a larger not a smaller universe. He pointed out that as a Christian he could believe all of science *and* in the miraculous, but atheist could only believe in science, but one miracle could not fit in his world.
Mark
posted on 09.02.2004 1:45 PM21
If lacking a belief in God is atheism, then my shirt is an atheist.
The notion of faith in these discussions is a little strange. It sounds like what Kierkegaard called faith, which doesn't at all resemble the kind of knowledge given by God that Paul called faith.
posted on 09.02.2004 1:59 PM22
Mark
In my earlier post, please see text in brackets.
And I'm assuming that your comments about quarks are accurate. I admit to knowing very little about them (I recall attending a quantum chemistry class in college but golly that was a long time ago ... the clearest recollection I have re the class is walking backwards to it one morning in 2 feet of snow so my face didn't get torn off by the wind).
posted on 09.02.2004 1:59 PM23
tgirsch,
I see nothing self-refuting about this position whatsoever, and you have done little to establish that this is the case. You sure like to throw around the term "self-refuting" a lot, though. Maybe it allows you to escape addressing the point.
I didn’t really spend a lot of time trying to refute it since anyone who reads your statement carefully can see that it refutes itself. But for the sake of clarity I’ll point out how it fails. You said:
The default state of belief is disbelief. I don't believe in anything until I'm presented with good reasons to affirmatively believe in it.
The statement “The default state of belief is disbelief” is itself a belief. You then claim that you don’t believe anything until you have good reasons to affirmatively believe in it. This produces two problems.
The first is that your first statement can’t be true since you would have to disbelieve it before you had a good reason to affirmatively believe in it. Therefore, your claim is inherently self-refuting.
Also, if disbelief is the default state, then you can’t believe that evidence for a belief is a “good reason” until you have a “good reason” to believe that evidence. This produces an infinite regress of supporting beliefs before you can ever believe anything at all.
Perhaps your objection has to do with us using absurd examples, such as the Tooth Fairy or Santa Claus, or the Pink & Purple Polka-Dotted Toaster God of the Sky. It could just as easily be Isis or Zeus or Shiva or Baal or Ra, or some other deity which people at one time believed in and worshipped.
No, the names don’t really matter. It all hinges on the concept itself.
This is, of course, an absurd example. My claim that I have a wife is in no way an extraordinary claim. The fact that lots of people have wives, coupled with the fact that I don't have a history of misleading you on such matters, ought to be sufficient. And even if it isn't, you could always look up the public records and verify this fact, or simply ask to meet her. The next largest difference between my claim about my wife and your claim about God is that my claim is easily verifiable (or falsifiable).
I’m not just referring to your claim to have a wife (which I could take as a true, but not justified, belief) but about your being able to prove that she exist. The best you could do is present an argument from analogy that since you exist and she seems to share most of your characteristics of existence, that she must exist as well.
On this much, I agree with you. But it's where you go from here that we diverge. Even given the fact that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, why should we, in the absence of all affirmative evidence, believe a claim about God is true?
I’m not saying that you should not seek affirmative evidence. My contention is simply that you would reject any evidence that would be presented because you already have a belief in place that you do not want to give up.
To me, with an extraordinary claim like the Christian God's existence, it is far more rational to believe that absence of evidence is sufficient reason not to believe.
Perhaps you might have sufficient reason to think that the Christian God does not exist. But to claim that no God(s) exist at all is itself an extraordinary claim.
What you seem to be arguing is that since we can't prove God doesn't exist, we must assume that He does.
Actually, that’s not what I’m saying at all. I’m simply saying that in the absence of any positive evidence for atheism, the most you can truly be justified in being is agnostic.
Perhaps so, but this still makes the assumption that all articles of faith are equal in merit. They're not.
I agree. Faith is not a substitute for evidence but the “gap filler” between knowledge (justified true belief) based on evidence and the conviction that a belief is true.
And anyway, to be intellectually consistent, you must admit that you take it solely on faith that the P&PPDTGotS "probably" does not exist. In other words, your lack of belief in P&PPDTGotS is not a rational conclusion, but a faith-based belief. I say that's absurd.
I say it more of a mixture of both. Unless it is logically impossible for such a creature to exist, then there is always the chance that they do. Therefore I can’t claim with any certainty that they don’t exist at all. Now if in the entire history of the world no one with properly functioning cognitive abilities ever believed that such a creature existed then I would say that the probability of it existing is very low. I would then have a good reason for doubting its existence, though not a certain one.
God, on the other hand, has been believed to exist by people throughout history. Many, if not most, believe that they have some form of “evidence” for that belief being true. While there is a chance that they could all be wrong and God doesn’t exist, I would do well to treat the belief as being of a higher probability than the P&PPDTGotS.
This is simply not true. A scientifically accurate and internally consistent scripture would be a very good start.
That’s a matter of opinion. I tend to think that the Bible is both scientifically accurate (when it makes scientific claims) and internally consistent.
Specific and verifiable prophecies might be another.
Again, “specific” is a very subjective term. You could always claim that a prophecy wasn’t specific enough to prove the point. And how do you verify a prophecy? Isn’t is always possible that the result was an ad hoc action to fit with the prophecy itself?
More consistency among Christians would be helpful also -- even within the confines of Christianity, there are serious disagreements and deep divides, which by themselves do not disprove their positions, but do belie their claim on the "inside track" on big-T Truth.
I think this is a non sequiter. While Christians may disagree on certain points they all believe in the issue under discussion: that God exist.
And of course, God could choose to manifest Himself to me directly, and I'd be hard pressed to deny him. I am Thomas, aptly named, and I want to stick my hand in the wound!
I would say God has already done so but because your plausibility structure precludes his existence, anything that could be taken as “proof” is explained away.
I'm not aware that you've ever presented any positive evidence for God's existence, so I'm not sure where you get off claiming that atheists automatically reject it.
If you’ll notice I didn’t say that positive evidence was needed for atheism. I think it is possible for a atheist to claim to have a basic belief about atheism and not need positive evidence. He may be wrong (because I doubt that atheism could be a basic belief) but he would at least have the appearance of an epistemic justification.
And for the record, nothing in this post establishes that atheism is less sophisticated or less intellectually respectable than Christian belief. At worst, if we accept all your arguments at face value (I do not), the best you have done is established that atheism is no more sophisticated or intellectually respectable.
Keep in mind that I am only referring to certain brands of atheism. I am not claiming that all types are unsophisticated or unworthy of respect.
posted on 09.02.2004 2:26 PM24
Has anyone had any luck with these pills?
I think they're bogus but I'm basing my belief on the assumption that a company with a working product would be, um, extremely profitable.
Does that "assumption" qualify as "evidence"? Is my belief illogical?
posted on 09.02.2004 3:02 PM25
Has anyone had any luck with with clever sarcasm on this thread?
posted on 09.02.2004 3:27 PM26
Larry,
Quarks, like atoms (and God), for the skeptic can be viewed as a "theoretical" construct which simplifies, clarifies, and make "sense". However, as the construct starts fitting in more places, it might be simpler to believe in it. Note, that none of these "constructs" have been directly (verifiably) observed by the human eye. But that doesn't mean they aren't real.
Mark
27
mark,
you are correct. i am finally able believe both in santa claus and the easter bunny on that logic.
faith doesn't need logic, just leave it at that.
posted on 09.02.2004 3:50 PM28
faith doesn't need logic, just leave it at that.
And apparently that statement doesn't need critical thinking either...
Faith is a synonym for trust. You trust that a good friend will come through. You trust that a competent jury with rule correctly in a criminal case. You have rational reasons for having trust in both those cases. Logic is an intergal part of "faith." Just leave it at that.
Now can we move on from the snide remarks and get back to some real discussion please? Thanks.
posted on 09.02.2004 4:05 PM29
Exactly what is it in the world is made simpler and more logical if you believe in santa and the easter bunny.
posted on 09.02.2004 4:09 PM30
Exactly what are you trying to say by bringing up a previous analogy that isn't even referenced in my last post? My statement was on the act of faith/trust and a simple refutation of the generilization "faith doesn't need logic, just leave it at that." If you respond, please do so in a way that is actually on-subject.
&^%$#@*&^%$$#@! If I have to hear one more immature remark... The reason why I respect Tom Girsch is that he actually discusses the issue at hand. Please take some lessons from him on how to actually post a coherent thought.
posted on 09.02.2004 4:50 PM31
tgirsch
The default state of belief is disbelief. I don't believe in anything until I'm presented with good reasons to affirmatively believe in it.
Jeremy Pierce
If lacking a belief in God is atheism, then my shirt is an atheist.
Wouldn't the 'default state' be ignorance?
Upon which we build varying degrees of knowledge that confirms either theism or atheism?
32
David Marcoe writes
"You have rational reasons for having trust in both those cases."
Sure. Because your previous experience in the material world has taught you that most of the time the entities you cited behave in a predictable way. THAT is the basis for your trust.
In contrast, I personally have seen NOTHING ZERO ZILCH NADA to suggest that there is an invisible omnipotent all powerful being out there who occasionally gives human beings supernatural powers. No evidence whatsoever, unless you count a book written in an age when people universally believed in all kinds of garbage that 99% of us now consider to be absurd.
There is no evidence for God and no other reason to make an exception to my rational approach to life (the same approach, David Marcoe, that you take with respect to nearly everything that you do and please don't waste time trying to deny it).
Some people make an exception because they are afraid of going to "hell" when they die. When someone can prove to me there is an eternal hell for people that don't believe in Jesus, I'll definitely be thinking more seriously about believing in him, along with most of the rest of the world.
In the meantime, I'll continue doing and fantasizing about all kinds of nasty nasty stuff that makes me feel good and doesn't harm anyone else.
posted on 09.02.2004 5:47 PM33
There is no evidence for God...
Again, I was refuting a generality about the act of faith/trust. My comment doesn't directly touch on the existence or non-existence of God. And your putting one of Joe's points in to black and white.
Sure. Because your previous experience in the material world has taught you that most of the time the entities you cited behave in a predictable way. THAT is the basis for your trust.
Larry, I wasn't talking about the basis of trust specifically in those things. I was talking about the act of trust. That is the topic. Note that I wasn't stepping into the atheism vs. theism issue. I'm leaving that to others.
In the meantime, I'll continue doing and fantasizing about all kinds of nasty nasty stuff that makes me feel good and doesn't harm anyone else.
What part of mature discussion is so hard to understand?
posted on 09.02.2004 6:27 PM34
Joe: Thanks for your timely retraction and editing. Your apology was unnecessary but appreciated;I know the error was unintentional. I would like to address a few of your other points:
"Obviously then you must have some reason, other than a pure absence of evidence, for your position. I guess that’s what I’m failing to understand, the reason you have for thinking that it is extremely unlikely that God exists."
It's both the lack of what I consider evidence and several problems I have with the Bible and its portrayal of God and Jesus.
"An atheist must believe not only that no God exists, that no God(s) ever existed, that there is no sufficient evidence that God exists, and that no sufficient evidence is likely to ever be forthcoming."
Again, we define "atheist" differently. You would probably place me in the agnostic camp.
"If you’re telling me that you once had a personal relationship with Christ but now believe that He doesn’t exist I would find the claim rather peculiar."
I was not referring to me. I left the faith at about twelve, having never really believed. I've never felt a supernatural presence that I recognized as such.
cdm: Thanks! I almost forgot #5.
"I can see why "ex-Christians" are "tired of" Christian "assumptions." Because they hate God and his revealed Word."
I don't hate God any more than I hate Holden Caulfield. What you see as his word I see as ancient writings of men.
"Hellen Keller was born deaf, dumb, and blind."
No, Gary, she wasn't. If memory serves, she was over two when she lost vision and hearing... to scarlet fever, I think.
"Babies are theists."
A ridiculous claim.
Jeremy:
"If lacking a belief in God is atheism, then my shirt is an atheist."
So is mine! This is just one of the many things I have in common with clothing.
posted on 09.02.2004 6:49 PM35
Joe
"Drange also presents four types of atheists that I think would be useful for this discussion"
I have heard the 'Atheists are those who lack
a belief in the existence of God' thing too many times. So I found these categories quite interesting.
I would personally argue that having a 'lack of belief' about something is not possible once you have thought about it at all. So I feel this phrase is actually, in a way, intellectually dishonest. I think it is merely a way of side stepping the intellectual problems (i.e. proving a negative) with believing that God does not exist.
As peoples actions quite clearly show, there is no real difference between the actions of someone who claims that they believe God does not exist and someone who claims they lack belief in the existance of God
Food for thought anyways
posted on 09.02.2004 7:16 PM36
"Babies are theists."
Yeah. If boobs are gods, then you are surely correct.
posted on 09.02.2004 7:17 PM37
"Babies are theists" is actually supported by current research on the mental life of infants.
see: DESCARTES' BABY: How the Science of Child Development Explains What Makes Us Human" by Paul Bloom.
Infants and toddlers tend from birth to believe in the soul and afterlife.
posted on 09.02.2004 8:05 PM38
"I would personally argue that having a 'lack of belief' about something is not possible once you have thought about it at all."
Really, Alan? You think that everyone who has thought about something should have a belief about it? What's wrong with "I don't think so, but I'm unwilling to assert something that I can't prove?
Joe says that to say there is no god is not intellectually respectable. When one avoids such a position, you imply that he is weaseling out of something in an intellectually dishonest way. You don't leave a guy a lot of options!
posted on 09.02.2004 8:46 PM39
"Really, Alan? You think that everyone who has thought about something should have a belief about it? What's wrong with "I don't think so, but I'm unwilling to assert something that I can't prove"
Essentially, if you think it is even remotely possible you would check it out. For instance, if Bill Gates was supposedly giving away 10 million dollars to people with your name, if you thought if it was even remotely possible (maybe it has a good explanation) you would at least check it out.
As it is, atheists live completely as if God does not exist. They assume, by their own assumptions, that God does not exist. And yet they claim they 'lack belief'. Their own assumptions mean they believe God doesn't exist.
I have found this to be true for almost every one of the dozens of atheists I have discussed it with. When it comes down to it, they have made a decision. They don't think God exists. Many of them know they can't back that up with logic, so they merely resort to the 'lack of belief' argument.
Your own example that 'I don't think so, but can't prove it' shows this process quite clearly. It says 'I believe God does not exist, but I can't back that up'. It is not a lack of belief.
posted on 09.02.2004 9:50 PM40
Joe,
What do you call a man who thinks that a machine like his car always existed and will always exist? A lunatic.
What do you call a man who thinks that the universe, another type of machine, has always existed and always will? An atheist.
Btw you might want to consider upgrading your MovableType installation to 3.1 to block some of that comment spam. I'm running it now, of course I switched early on to 3.0, but the upgrade from 2.66->3.0 was IMO reallllly straight forward. Should you decide to take the plunge, make sure you have backups of your templates and entries. The entries backup option is in the import/export menu and it dumps all of your entries as raw text in your browser window which you save as a text file.
Oh and MovableType BlackList 2.0 is supposed to be in 3.1 so you can blacklist those spamming bastards :)
posted on 09.02.2004 10:08 PM41
I have always preferred the term "secularist." "Atheist" implies that there are two possible positions, which is to already speak in the theists terminology. Personally, I don't think questions of "God" are interesting, or relevant to my daily life or any of the intellectual issues therein. From this position, it looks like the belief in God takes a whole lot of intellectual work (e.g. avoiding cognitive dissonance) and faith. I imagine this is how Joe feels about atheism from his position. Fortunately, I couldn't care less whether Joe thinks it takes more faith to have my belief system than it does to have his, and I doubt he really cares whether I think the opposite.
posted on 09.02.2004 10:08 PM42
TG (I think) said:
Specific and verifiable prophecies might be another.
Joe said:
You could always claim that a prophecy wasn’t specific enough to prove the point. And how do you verify a prophecy? Isn’t is always possible that the result was an ad hoc action to fit with the prophecy itself?
No, it's not ALWAYS possible to be an ad hoc action to fit with the prophesy. This is especially the case for Christ. One of the most obvious is the manner of his death and how he was brutalized by the guards.
posted on 09.02.2004 10:54 PM43
There's some evidence that Biblical accounts of Jesus' life were manipulated to make them firt prophecies. For instance, Jesus was likely born in Nazareth, not Bethlehem.
The fact that there are prophecies described in the Old Testament, and events that are more or less consistent with those prophecies in the New Testament, is hardly an argument for the existence of the Christian God.
posted on 09.02.2004 11:57 PM44
Joe:
The statement “The default state of belief is disbelief” is itself a belief. You then claim that you don’t believe anything until you have good reasons to affirmatively believe in it. This produces two problems.No, it's not a belief. It's a statement of fact. You don't believe in Xorg, because up until the point when I just made that name up, you hadn't even heard of Xorg. You didn't go around thinking "I'm neutral on the existence of Xorg." Nor did you claim "Xorg does not exist." You simply didn't think about Xorg at all, one way or another. But if pressed, you would have to concede that you do not believe in Xorg, because I have provided no reason for you to do so.
Since may premise was a statement of (purported, at least) fact, then it is either accurate or inaccurate, but the notion is not self-refuting.
Now you could certainly argue that there are certain beliefs to which humans are inherently drawn, and that those beliefs might buck the general trend of my premise. My belief, for example, that I exist. But I would argue that virtually all beliefs are learned, not inherent, so it's not a stretch to say that, at least generally speaking, disbelief is the default state.
The best you could do is present an argument from analogy that since you exist and she seems to share most of your characteristics of existence, that she must exist as well.Well, if you're going to start looking for detailed proofs that any of us actually exist, that's shifting the debate a great deal. Call all knowledge into question, and then previously absurd statements are no longer so absurd-sounding.
My contention is simply that you would reject any evidence that would be presented because you already have a belief in place that you do not want to give up.Not true. I have given several examples of the types of evidence I might accept.
Perhaps you might have sufficient reason to think that the Christian God does not exist. But to claim that no God(s) exist at all is itself an extraordinary claim.First, the truth or faslity of that accusation depends greatly upon how you define "God(s)." Most have a very vague definition, and the semantics are important. In the general sense, I would argue that there's no good evidence that "God(s)" exist, which makes it perfectly rational and reasonable to presume that they do not. It really is no different than the Toaster God in this respect. You reject any number of Gods out of hand. I just happen to reject one (or three, depending on how you look at it) more than you do.
I’m simply saying that in the absence of any positive evidence for atheism, the most you can truly be justified in being is agnostic.Only because you are using non-traditional definitions of agnostic and atheist. Are you "agnostic" about Zeus, or would you be comfortable claiming that Zeus does not exist? By your own logic, you can at best be truly justified in being uncertain as to Zeus' existence.
God, on the other hand, has been believed to exist by people throughout history. Many, if not most, believe that they have some form of “evidence” for that belief being true. While there is a chance that they could all be wrong and God doesn’t exist, I would do well to treat the belief as being of a higher probability than the P&PPDTGotS.That much, at least, I'll grant you. But only about 1/6 of the world's population purports to believe in the same God you do. Which means 5/6 disagree. Still not the best odds ever.
I tend to think that the Bible is both scientifically accurate (when it makes scientific claims) and internally consistent.This could start us down a whole new path, wherein pi = 3, God and Satan did precisely the same thing to David a few chapters apart (are they the same being?), rabbits chew their cud, God destroys all the grass and trees and then later tells his minions to spare the grass and the trees -- which he had already destroyed -- from destruction, etc. Oh, and we of course should be able to find conclusive geological evidence of a worldwide flood roughly 5,000 or 6,000 years ago, right?
Of course, it doesn't even have to be that complicated. If 4,000-year-old scripture has stated unequivocally that the world was spherical and traveled around the sun, when conventional wisdom held otherwise, it would have been quite a "revelation" all those years later when scripture was proven correct, wouldn't you say?
You could always claim that a prophecy wasn’t specific enough to prove the point. And how do you verify a prophecy? Isn’t is always possible that the result was an ad hoc action to fit with the prophecy itself?This is certainly true. But a prophecy predicting the precise time and place of a tornado hitting years hence, for example, would be hard to argue with. A tornado would be extremely difficult for humans to fake.
While Christians may disagree on certain points they all believe in the issue under discussion: that God exist[s].But only because they use a sufficiently vague definition of "God"; and when your eternal soul is on the line, I would expect those "certain points" to be of great importance, not something to be waved away as trivial differences.
I would say God has already done so but because your plausibility structure precludes his existence, anything that could be taken as “proof” is explained away.I must have been asleep the day Jesus appeared before me and offered to let me touch his wound, huh? ;)
If you’ll notice I didn’t say that positive evidence was needed for atheism. I think it is possible for a atheist to claim to have a basic belief about atheism and not need positive evidence.And I never claimed you said that, honestly. We're talking past each other now (probably because you think belief in God is a "properly basic" belief, that requires no evidence), but all I'm saying is that in the lack of positive evidence for God's existence, it's not at all unreasonable to presume that God does not exist. And that presumption makes one, by definition, an atheist.
P.S. I see the comment spam Gods have visited. Them, I believe in! ;)
David:
Faith is a synonym for trust.Not really. Trust is earned, where faith is generally assumed or implied. Of course, in certain contexts, faith and trust are interchangeable, but I submit that's not the case here. Christian Faith generally means faith in the absence of evidence. Trust is faith because of evidence, e.g. someone has proven trustworthy in the past, so you place your faith in them.
Bevets:
Wouldn't the 'default state' be ignorance?Actually, that's also true. But since a "belief" is an active thing, and you don't "believe" in things about which you are totally ignorant, it's fair to say that you do not believe in those things. You do make me wonder, however, if people are misunderstanding what I mean by "disbelief" in that context. I mean "I do not believe in X," whereas some (Joe, for example) seem to take it to mean "I believe that X does not exist." The difference there is subtle but extremely important. We'll call the former "passive disbelief" and the latter "active disbelief." I could not seriously argue that the latter is a default state of belief.
However, as I learn more about X, and see that there is no good evidence to support the existence of X, it is then not a stretch, or at all irrational, to move from the former (passive) to the latter (active) form of disbelief.
posted on 09.03.2004 12:22 AM45
Alan:
As peoples [sic] actions quite clearly show, there is no real difference between the actions of someone who claims that they believe God does not exist and someone who claims they lack belief in the existance [sic] of GodThis assessment reveals an important -- and fundamentally flawed -- assumption you're making. You're using "God" not in a generic sense, but in a very particular sense (e.g., the Christian God). Any atheist may lack belief in God in a more general sense, but actively deny or doubt the existence of God as you describe Him. When you say that they act as if no God exists, what you're really saying as that they're acting as if your particular God doesn't exist, and I don't see anything intellectually dishonest about that.
You also seem to make the same mistake Joe does, lumping the "weak atheists" in with the agnostics.
Suppose I lack belief in, but do not actively deny, the existence of some sort of Creator/God/whatever. How would you expect a person like this to act? Would you expect them to pick one of the many God myths and behave in accordance with that particular one, hoping it's the right one? Or would you expect them to behave as if the issue is irrelevant in their life? I'd bet the latter, thank you.
posted on 09.03.2004 12:41 AM46
Tgirsch
"Any atheist may lack belief in God in a more general sense, but actively deny or doubt the existence of God as you describe Him."
Actually, an Atheist denies any sort of God exists. Mostly due to prior assumptions.
"When you say that they act as if no God exists, what you're really saying as that they're acting as if your particular God doesn't exist, and I don't see anything intellectually dishonest about that."
I am not saying that at all. Every belief system that includes a concept of God impacts the behaviour of those people in such a way that their behaviour and motivations are different to the atheist.
"You also seem to make the same mistake Joe does, lumping the "weak atheists" in with the agnostics."
No. Actually I am claiming that 'weak atheists' are, for the most part, intellectually dishonest (although not necessarily aware of it) strong atheists.
"Suppose I lack belief in, but do not actively deny, the existence of some sort of Creator/God/whatever. How would you expect a person like this to act?"
As I originally say. I expect them to act as a 'strong atheist' because that it what they really are. They assume God does not exist by their assumptions.
You see, there is a very great difference between someone who believes that God (any god) might exist and someone who believes that no God exists.
That is the essence behind the proper formulation of Pascal's wager (the full one). The one who believes a God might exist will search for it and be more objective in their analysis of possible evidence than the person whose assumptions lead them to hold that no God exists.
47
tgirsh,
No, it's not a belief. It's a statement of fact.
First of all, a “fact” can be either true or false. You believe it’s true, I believe its false. Our “beliefs” about that “fact” differ considerably. What I suspect you mean is that your claim that “The default state of belief is disbelief” is some sort of presuppositional truth that is irrefutable, like the claim “A is not non-A.” The claim, though, is neither a tautology or a presuppositional truth.
You don't believe in Xorg, because up until the point when I just made that name up, you hadn't even heard of Xorg. You didn't go around thinking "I'm neutral on the existence of Xorg." Nor did you claim "Xorg does not exist." You simply didn't think about Xorg at all, one way or another. But if pressed, you would have to concede that you do not believe in Xorg, because I have provided no reason for you to do so.
You're confusing “disbelief” (a refusal to believe something is true) with not having a belief at all. The two concepts are completely different.
Since may premise was a statement of (purported, at least) fact, then it is either accurate or inaccurate, but the notion is not self-refuting.
It is self-refuting when you add the condition that all beliefs (which that statement is) can only be based on “good reasons” for believing them.
Now you could certainly argue that there are certain beliefs to which humans are inherently drawn, and that those beliefs might buck the general trend of my premise. My belief, for example, that I exist. But I would argue that virtually all beliefs are learned, not inherent, so it's not a stretch to say that, at least generally speaking, disbelief is the default state.
You seem to be advocating (I think) some form of tabula rasa as the initial, primary cognitive state. Under that condition “lack of belief” is the default state.
Well, if you're going to start looking for detailed proofs that any of us actually exist, that's shifting the debate a great deal.
Not really. I think the problem for atheism is that it resorts to special pleading when it comes to God. We can’t even prove that another human exist yet they want to establish an even higher standard for proof of the existence of God.
Call all knowledge into question, and then previously absurd statements are no longer so absurd-sounding.
I’m not calling all knowledge into question but simply saying that the way we determine such knowledge as the existence of beings (argument from analogy) should be used consistently. The same argument, for example, should be able to be used as a “proof” for the existence of a deity.
Only because you are using non-traditional definitions of agnostic and atheist.
Actually, I think the case is just the opposite. I’m using the definitions that have been standard throughout intellectual history. You are using the new-fangled definitions presented by some thinkers who want to lower the standards of proof necessary for atheism by equating their position with agnosticism.
Are you "agnostic" about Zeus, or would you be comfortable claiming that Zeus does not exist? By your own logic, you can at best be truly justified in being uncertain as to Zeus' existence.
I’m not “agnostic” about Zeus because I’m not an agnostic (or an atheist). My belief is that one -- and only one -- God exist, that only one being can be classified in the set of beings called “god.” A being such as Zeus may exist or he may not, but my belief is that he would simply be subordinate in properties to the existing God.
A similar analogy would be the “universe” as defined as the totality of all physical things that exist. You may believe that the universe exist or believe that it doesn’t. But if your belief is that it does then nothing else can truly be a “universe.” It is excluded, not as an existing entity, but by definition.
This could start us down a whole new path, wherein pi = 3,
Is there any instance in the Bible that says “pi=3?” Or are you simply referring to the standard use of using a rounded number in construction?
God and Satan did precisely the same thing to David a few chapters apart (are they the same being?),
I'm not sure what you're referring to.
rabbits chew their cud
Ever heard of cecotropy?
God destroys all the grass and trees and then later tells his minions to spare the grass and the trees -- which he had already destroyed -- from destruction, etc.
I’m not even sure why this is included. That’s like saying a general allows some targets to be destroyed in war but not others. The same objectives are not always applicable to all situations.
Besides, holding God to the exact same standards he has for humans is like claiming that parents shouldn’t drive cars or drink alcohol because they forbid their children from doing the same.
Oh, and we of course should be able to find conclusive geological evidence of a worldwide flood roughly 5,000 or 6,000 years ago, right?
By “worldwide” do you mean a flood that could reach all of the human race or all of the surface of the earth? The Noahic flood only claims the first, not the second.
Of course, it doesn't even have to be that complicated. If 4,000-year-old scripture has stated unequivocally that the world was spherical and traveled around the sun, when conventional wisdom held otherwise, it would have been quite a "revelation" all those years later when scripture was proven correct, wouldn't you say?
You mean like stating unequivocally that the time-space continuum was created in a single instant 4000 years before anyone ever dreamed up the Big Bang theory? Of course, that kind of stuff doesn’t count as “evidence”, does it?
This is certainly true. But a prophecy predicting the precise time and place of a tornado hitting years hence, for example, would be hard to argue with. A tornado would be extremely difficult for humans to fake.
How would you know that the tornado actually occurred? The Bible predicted a flood and you don’t believe that happened? Why would another type of natural event be different?
Or what about when Moses claimed that certain natural disasters would befall Egypt? Do you think those events happened as predicted?
But only because they use a sufficiently vague definition of "God"; and when your eternal soul is on the line, I would expect those "certain points" to be of great importance, not something to be waved away as trivial differences.
Christians say “God” became man (Jesus). I would say that is a rather specific claim.
And I never claimed you said that, honestly. We're talking past each other now (probably because you think belief in God is a "properly basic" belief, that requires no evidence), …
I do, but that is not to say that confirming evidence isn’t useful or isn’t needed.
posted on 09.03.2004 1:22 AM48
Joe:
You're confusing “disbelief” (a refusal to believe something is true) with not having a belief at all. The two concepts are completely different.As conceded above, "disbelief" was probably not the best word to use. (For the record, I show that it means refusal or reluctance to believe.) Perhaps you would accept non-belief? After all, non-belief is all that's required for weak atheism, and that's more than sufficient to back up my point that atheism is a default state.
It is self-refuting when you add the condition that all beliefs (which that statement is) can only be based on “good reasons” for believing them.I'm not sure I ever added that condition, frankly. And even then, I fail to see how it's self-refuting. Give me an example of a belief that is held that is not held for what seem to the believer to be good reasons.
Under that condition “lack of belief” is the default state.Which I've already clarified above, in my response to Bevets.
I think the problem for atheism is that it resorts to special pleading when it comes to God. We can’t even prove that another human exist yet they want to establish an even higher standard for proof of the existence of God.That's absurd, frankly. I suppose it depends upon how you define "prove." There certainly is a LOT more tangible physical evidence for the existence of other humans to make it reasonable to conclude that they exist. And frankly, if you punch me and I feel that pain, it doesn't matter whether or not you "truly" exist, because for all intents and purposes, you exist enough to directly physically effect me. If atheists are guilty of the sort of "special pleading" you claim, then you are guilty of raising the bar for "proof" of absolutely anything so high that nothing could ever be conclusively proven. That being the case, it's not a terribly useful worldview, since we would then be forced to take absolutely everything on pure faith, with no way to verify anything about the world around us.
I’m not calling all knowledge into question but simply saying that the way we determine such knowledge as the existence of beings (argument from analogy) should be used consistently. The same argument, for example, should be able to be used as a “proof” for the existence of a deity.I beg to differ, but that's very close to what you're doing. You're eliminating the value judgment from claims. What you're essentially saying is that "today is Friday" is every bit as extraordinary a claim as "there exists an omniscient, omnipotent, omnibenevolent being who takes a personal interest in our actions and who sent his 'son' (actually just another aspect of himself) to 'suffer' and 'die' for our sins, to allow us the possibility of eternal salvation." The burden of proof for the Friday claim should be no higher or lower than that for the o/o/o being claim. That is simply absurd on its face.
I’m using the definitions that have been standard throughout intellectual history.Etymology would seem to disagree with you. "Theism" means a belief in a deity or deities, and "a-" simply means without. Etymogically speaking, my definition of "atheism" is accurate. If anything, "agnostic" is the new-fangled term, having been coined by Huxley in the 19th century. And for the record, he described agnosticism not as a state of belief or a doctrine, but as a methodology. More on agnosticism:
Not only evidence from standard dictionaries but also a careful comparison between agnosticism and other ideas like theism and atheism reveal that calling oneself an agnostic by no mean excludes being either an atheist or a theist.It would seem that it is you, and not I, who is trying to play semantic games. While we're on the subject read some more:
Bottom line? This all squares quite nicely with my (and Smith's) definition of agnosticism, cited in my very first post on this thread. It is possible to be both atheist and agnostic, as well as being an agnostic theist. You use the terms as if they're mutually exclusive, but they are not.Many people who adopt the label of agnostic reject the label of atheist - there is a common perception that agnosticism is a more "reasonable" position while atheism is more "dogmatic," ultimately indistinguishable from theism except in the details. Is this a valid position to take?
Unfortunately, no - agnostics may sincerely believe it and theists may sincerely reinforce it, but it relies upon more than one misunderstanding about both atheism and agnosticism. These misunderstandings are only exacerbated by continual social pressure and prejudice against atheism and atheists. People who are unafraid of stating that they indeed do not believe in any gods are still despised in many places, whereas "agnostic" is perceived as more respectable.
Atheists are thought to be closed-minded because they deny the existence of gods, whereas agnostics appear to be open-minded because they do not know for sure. This is a mistake because atheists do not necessarily deny any gods and may indeed be an atheist because they do not know for sure - in other words, they may be an agnostic as well.
My belief is that one -- and only one -- God exist, that only one being can be classified in the set of beings called “god.”But your foundations for this belief are at best no better than those upon which atheists rest their beliefs (or, more appropriately, their lack thereof).
Is there any instance in the Bible that says “pi=3?” Or are you simply referring to the standard use of using a rounded number in construction?Since when did using rounded numbers in construction become "standard?" If the people who built your house rounded things off, it would be shoddy indeed.
I should have said a few books apart. Witness 2 Samuel 24 versus 1 Chron 21. As an interesting (to me, anyway) aside, the latter is the first explicit mention of Satan in the Bible. He never even warrants a reference until 13 books in.[tgirsch] God and Satan did precisely the same thing to David a few chapters apart (are they the same being?),
[Joe] I'm not sure what you're referring to.
I’m not even sure why this [grass and trees] is included. That’s like saying a general allows some targets to be destroyed in war but not others. The same objectives are not always applicable to all situations.Because God is all-knowing, and out to know that all the grass has already been destroyed (but only 1/3 of the trees, I read wrong), per His own word. So why bother giving explicit instructions to spare what has already been destroyed? (Ref: Rev 8 and Rev 9)
By “worldwide” do you mean a flood that could reach all of the human race or all of the surface of the earth? The Noahic flood only claims the first, not the second.Not by my reading of Genesis 6. Gen 6:17 clearly says that "Everything on earth will perish" as a result of the flood. So it would have to encompass every place life on earth where life existed 5,000 or 6,000 years ago. Even if you do limit it to just human life, in direct contradiction to the scripture, the geological evidence for such a flood is still simply not there.
You mean like stating unequivocally that the time-space continuum was created in a single instant 4000 years before anyone ever dreamed up the Big Bang theory? Of course, that kind of stuff doesn’t count as “evidence”, does it?Well it would if it jived with any of our observations, but unfortunately, it does not. And I'd put the time frame at closer to 6,000 years, but who's counting?
How would you know that the tornado actually occurred? The Bible predicted a flood and you don’t believe that happened? Why would another type of natural event be different?Because tornadoes and floods leave evidence of their having been there in their wake. However, your point is taken, and it would have to be at least a fairly recent event or a future event to truly qualify. And for the record, the Bible didn't predict a flood, it reported one as history. Unless you think Moses wrote about the flood before the flood happened. (Or unless you concede Moses didn't write the pentateuch, and claim that the book of Genesis predates the flood). That's shoddy reasoning, Joe, and you should know better.
Or what about when Moses claimed that certain natural disasters would befall Egypt? Do you think those events happened as predicted?Actually, no, I do not. Why? Because the Egyptians were meticulous historians, and they didn't even bother to mention any of them. Why would they carve heiroglyphics depicting seemingly trivial state visits, but ignore countrywide plagues and disasters?
Christians say “God” became man (Jesus). I would say that is a rather specific claim.That one, at least, is. Unfortunately, that's about where the similarities end. posted on 09.03.2004 4:47 AM
49
"They assume, by their own assumptions, that God does not exist. And yet they claim they 'lack belief'. Their own assumptions mean they believe God doesn't exist."
Criminy! You lost me there, Pardner.
I did check it out, of course. I found no reason to believe. Nor did I find proof that your god doesn't exist. Then I moved on. I don't have a lifetime to investigate the theories of others; I have my own to work on. If your god exists, he knows where to find me and what it will take for me to believe. It is not so hard as you make it out to be.
posted on 09.03.2004 6:46 AM50
Some Dude:I would be interested in seeing just what evidence you have seen about the existence of God that is "contradicted by science".
The whole thing with Noah and his arch. The bible tells you how big it is, and it's not big enough to get two of every animal on that boat. What about insects? How did that dude get two bugs to get their freak on. What about fish? Was God not mad at the fish, or were there no fish then?
What about evolution? What about physics (people can't walk on water)? What about chemistry (water into wine)? Eve was made from Adam's rib?...I could go on.
posted on 09.03.2004 11:12 AM51
Alan:
Actually, an Atheist denies any sort of God exists.
True enough, but unless you're talking about a specific God, it's impossible to talk about behavior modification to appease that God.
Actually I am claiming that 'weak atheists' are, for the most part, intellectually dishonest (although not necessarily aware of it) strong atheists.
I would agree if you would substitute "self-described agnostics" for "weak atheists." I have long joked that agnostics are merely atheists who lack conviction. ;)
I expect them to act as a 'strong atheist' because that it what they really are. They assume God does not exist by their assumptions.
My expectation would be different. I would expect them to act the same way as someone who believes that a God might exist, but who is not sure which God that might be or what [his/His/its/her/Her] nature might be.
Imagine someone who believes in the divine, but after studying them all, is unsure whether the Jews or Christians or Muslims or Hindus are correct. How would you expect them to behave? In daily life, I would see no reason why an atheist might behave any differently that that hypothetical person.
posted on 09.03.2004 11:29 AM52
Your "four kinds of atheist" definitions don't cover a large amount of ground.
I'm an atheist for two reasons. First, because of the complete absence of evidence for the existence of God. Second, because the existence God is logically impossible by definition. No being can be simultaneously omnipresent, omniscient, omnipotent, and omnibenevolent.
posted on 09.03.2004 5:04 PM53
I feel a little tentative stepping into this discussion, but the opportunity is too tempting.
It seems to me that the way these questions so frequently get asked is like looking through the wrong end of the telescope. The proper questions to ask of an atheist are two: Why does the world appear to be objective? and Is there any reason to believe in moral conduct?
Conversely, the questions to ask of a theist are How can the existence of God be known? and Why should we regard His nature as moral?
posted on 09.03.2004 10:47 PM54
Some other dude:Infants and toddlers tend from birth to believe in the soul and afterlife.
What's this based on? A survey? 9 out of 10 babies believe in the soul and afterlife. I think something's gone wrong here. 1
posted on 09.04.2004 12:15 AM55
Rob Ryan:
"If your god exists, he knows where to find me and what it will take for me to believe. It is not so hard as you make it out to be."
I find that statement amazing and exciting. And I suspect that "what it will take" has very little to do with intellectual reasoning....
Also, as Jesus made clear, the human-God relationship is not about what we require of God, but about what God requires of us. In order to experience him (and thus "believe"), we have to give up all that we hold dear. I believe this includes our faith in our own intellectual reasoning, perhaps our dearest possession.
posted on 09.04.2004 8:31 PM56
"And I suspect that "what it will take" has very little to do with intellectual reasoning...."
You are right, BMH. I don't want someone to talk me into it, since that has proven a colossal waste of time in the past; a simple miracle I can recognize as such will do: appearing from nowhere, water to wine, touching the wound, a burning bush (preferably George W. ;-) ) not consumed...any of these would do. According to scripture, others were granted these clear signs. It seems a bit unfair to deprive a nice fellow like me of them.
As for letting go of faith in my intellectual reasoning, I'll pass on that. My reason has served me well; my faith failed the test early on.
posted on 09.05.2004 8:00 AM57
Tgirsch
"Imagine someone who believes in the divine, but after studying them all, is unsure whether the Jews or Christians or Muslims or Hindus are correct. How would you expect them to behave? In daily life, I would see no reason why an atheist might behave any differently that that hypothetical person."
You are having trouble imagining how someone who knows that there fate after death is governed by their present actions would act differently to a person who thought that the present actions have no effect after their death (Because there is nothing) ??????
58
Rob:
A story from the book of Matthew may interest you. There Jesus asks his disciples who they think he is. Peter blurts out that he is the Christ, the son of the living God. Jesus tells Peter that he should feel blessed because it must have been God that had revealed that to him.
That seems strange seeing as Peter was one of Jesus' closest disciples and had seen dozens of miracles. Yet Jesus implies that seeing all of those things is not what has led Peter to belief. Rather, is it only direct revelation from God.
In other words, I doubt a miracle would convince you of much. But let's say it would. What are you doing to attempt to see one? Spending time in church? Having people pray for your when you're sick? Praying for a miracle yourself?
Another point: Jesus many times makes the connection between faith and miracles. Faith is a pre-requisite, not a result of such acts. In Jesus' hometown he could do no great works because the people of that town had no faith. At another time his disciples were unable to cast out a particular demon because they lacked faith.
So, you say a miracle would convince you, yet you don't provide yourself with the faith or the opportunity to see one. See the problem?
posted on 09.06.2004 3:52 PM59
"See the problem?"
Yes. I must believe something before I can believe it. That is a sticky one!
posted on 09.07.2004 6:40 AM60
Alan:
You are having trouble imagining how someone who knows that there fate after death is governed by their present actions would act differently to a person who thought that the present actions have no effect after their death (Because there is nothing) ??????See, now you're shifting the goal posts again, and talking about specifics. Belief in God does not imply belief in an afterlife. Ask many Jews. Are Jews who don't believe in an afterlife just atheists and they don't know it? Without an afterlife, why would they behave any differently than an atheist, even if they do believe in God.
Sorry, dude, but your position on this is obviously not very well-thought-out.
posted on 09.07.2004 11:18 AM61
BMH writes
"Another point: Jesus many times makes the connection between faith and miracles. Faith is a pre-requisite, not a result of such acts. In Jesus' hometown he could do no great works because the people of that town had no faith. At another time his disciples were unable to cast out a particular demon because they lacked faith. "
Ah, BMH, sits right on the crux of the problem. Were you here, BMH, several weeks ago when self-proclaimed Christians asserted here that faith, according to the Bible, meant "overwhelming evidence"? It was a sad day for Christianity, let me tell you. The story of Thomas was inverted, twisted, and distorted into an example of how God has provided unbelievers with incontrovertible proof of Jesus' resurrection. Can you believe it? I am still recovering, quite frankly.
posted on 09.07.2004 3:16 PM62
Ikka,
The foxhole statement could have many sources and is not limited to the one you prescribe. For example Samuel Johnson once quipped, "count on it sir, knowing one will be hanged a fortnight concentrates the mind wonderfully!" (That is from memory, but is basically correct.)
Therefore, your conclusion is premature.
posted on 09.07.2004 5:26 PM63
tgirsch and Joe,
babies are, by definition, atheists. Anyone who does not actively assert that God(s) exist(s) is an atheist.
I do believe you err as a matter of categorical logic. Atheist is rooted in Greek the word "theos" means God and the suffix "a" means "no." Thus, an atheist is some who believes there is no God. This is a belief not a lack of a belief. An atheist is someone who denies the existence of God. That is the definition. The word agnostic is also of Greek origins. The root word means to know. Thus an agnostic is one who does not know. Thus a baby would arguably be agnostic, but would not be theist or atheist until they had formed a belief.
As much as I hate to admit it (not because I have anything against him, but because I hate to encourage his bad attitude), Larry Lord actually has a point, absence of evidence is evidence of absence. As I have stated a thousand times on this blog, evidence is a fact that makes another fact more or less likely to be true. Failure to find evidence would make it more likely that something does not exist. Nevertheless, evidence of God does exist.
The problem seems to be the confusion of the notion of proof with the notion of evidence. This is where tgirsch errs. He claims that there is no verifiable evidence of God. What he has in mind is a scientific study that proves God exists. Of course such a thing is impossible for several reasons: (1) Science studies the natural not the supernatural, and therefore, explicitly denies having any knowledge one way or another about God. (2) Proof is in the eye of the beholder. To a profound sceptic I cannot prove that I exist, much less God. Anyone seen the film titled "the matrix?" Can you prove we are not in a matrix right now? There is, in fact, evidence that God exists. For example, the mere fact that so many people believe in God makes his existence more likely. They could be wrong, but the more people who believe something, the more likely it will be true. Other examples abound, we learn from physics that time began. Such a fact implies that something created time. It is not proof, but it is a fact that makes God more likely to exist. Most people believe in free will. Nature has the property of being deterministic. That is that all purely physical events are caused by prior physical events. Therefore, if there exists nothing except the natural world, then free will does not exist. Thus, the fact that so many people believe in free will and that we can observe events that appear to be free will, is verifiable evidence that God exists. One note, tgirsch, if you put three people in identical circumstances, they will frequently respond in three different ways, this is evidence of free will.
The fact is that both theism or atheism requires faith. The Bible teaches that one cannot know God except through faith. Actually, on cannot know anything except thought faith. There is no such thing as a belief that is not founded upon faith. One cannot absolutely prove theism or atheism.
posted on 09.07.2004 5:57 PM64
JBP and I are probably not too far apart on the fundamental issues here but I do have to quibble -- and I will try to do so with a positive attitude ;)
"There is, in fact, evidence that God exists. For example, the mere fact that so many people believe in God makes his existence more likely."
This is just about the worst kind of evidence you can cite for any proposition and I won't waste time arguing my point. In the future, I'd at least save this "evidence" for the end of your laundry list, i.e., "bury it."
"we learn from physics that time began. Such a fact implies that something created time."
Does physics really teach that there was a "time" when there was "no time"?
Relying on ultra pointy headed cosmological wankery which a few hundred people in the world claim to understand (many of whom are atheists)as "evidence" of the existence of your deity seems dubious. So now you've got two really really cruddy pieces of "evidence" to support your deity's existence.
"the fact that so many people believe in free will and that we can observe events that appear to be free will, is verifiable evidence that God exists."
I smell a circular argument. First, you rely on this "so many people believe it" thing. That is an awful place to start if you are trying to prove anything, as I mentioned above. Second, the connection between free will and the existence of God is again something that only a handful of superplush armchair-hugging self-styled philosopher-theologians imagine, and it requires a very rigid approach to "naturalism" that exists only in the minds of people OPPOSED to naturalism.
"There is no such thing as a belief that is not founded upon faith."
Ouch. JBP, when you abuse the term "faith" in this way, it causes me great pain. Using the term "faith" in this way trivializes faith. Can you imagine Christ uttering such a sentence???
"The fact is that both theism or atheism requires faith."
Nope. Not true. No faith required to not believe in God. No faith required to not believe in gnomes. No faith required to not believe in Loch Ness monster.
"One cannot absolutely prove theism or atheism."
If you mean that you cannot absolutely prove the existence of God, you are certainly correct. So why bother with the evidentiary arguments you presented above????
"The Bible teaches that one cannot know God except through faith."
So why bother with the evidentiary arguments you presented above???? The Bible tells you not only it is a waste of time, it also tells you that those who believe in Jesus without needing proof of his existence are BLESSED.
posted on 09.07.2004 7:05 PM65
JBP:
Atheist is rooted in Greek the word "theos" means God and the suffix "a" means "no." Thus, an atheist is some who believes there is no God. This is a belief not a lack of a belief. An atheist is someone who denies the existence of God. That is the definition. The word agnostic is also of Greek origins. The root word means to know. Thus an agnostic is one who does not know. Thus a baby would arguably be agnostic, but would not be theist or atheist until they had formed a belief.Unfortunately, most contemporary dictionaries and About.com disagree with your assessment. And the logical flaw is quite obvious. "Theism" does not mean "God," it means "belief in God." So the "a-" prefix, which does indeed mean "no" or "without," would make "atheism" mean "no belief in God." It's only by an unwarranted logical stretch that you claim it somehow means "belief in no God."
The rest of your logic is, frankly, similarly weak. You do less to make a case that God exists (or even that there's evidence that God exists), and do a lot more making of excuses as to why you shouldn't show such evidence, or why your evidence isn't really evidence at all.
For example, the mere fact that so many people believe in God makes his existence more likely.Does the fact that a lot of people believed Iraq was partially responsible for 9/11 make it more likely to be true? That is a remarkably weak argument.
The rest of your "evidence" is simply more of the "God of the gaps" type stuff I keep com