Yep. I’m an atheist, for those of you who hadn’t picked up on that, and atheism is a belief system.
Even this is apparently controversial among many atheists, who insist that their position is simply a “lack” of one particular belief, but I don’t know why the idea of a “belief system” is something so many people find off-putting. Presumably anyone who believes anything in any non-random fashion has a system of some sort. I know I do.
I’ve seen some atheists get unnecessarily defensive in asserting that their position isn’t a positive claim. I say “unnecessarily” because there’s nothing shameful about making positive claims about the nature of the universe and things beyond. I positively consider the idea of a creator god very improbable, and the likelihood of the Christian god as described in the Bible to be negligible. But even if I were just to say that I am without god-belief, this doesn’t get me off the hook from having to defend my position.
It is an intellectual position even to withhold from professing a belief in a god, and inherent in that position is the assertion that your position is a tenable one. Unless you’re completely abstaining from any sort of decision, and only claiming not to have any knowledge or opinion about anything, this position (sometimes labelled “weak atheism”) can really be expressed as, “I don’t have a belief in any particular god, and this is a reasonable belief for me not to have.”
To see why this is true, imagine that my friend Bob were to say:
I profess a lack of belief that the Sun exists. I’m not saying it doesn’t exist, but while everyone else sees a bright fiery ball crossing the sky in perfect order every day and leaps to conclusions about some kind of “Sun”, I’m staying on the fence.
I’d be quite comfortable labelling this as ridiculous. To refuse to take a position on something so apparently unequivocal as whether the Sun exists is silly; actively believing that it’s really there is the only reasonable way to think. (Assume that Bob’s not suggesting we’re in the Matrix, or that he’s dreaming, or anything like that which would throw the whole of reality into question; it’s just the Sun he’s doubtful about.)
Someone else might claim to not know whether, say, the Holocaust really happened – they might not deny it, as such, but they don’t know enough on the matter to actually profess a belief in it. And I think you have to allow for the possibility that this might be fair. My own conviction is that the extermination of millions of Jews in Nazi Germany was a genuine event, but this is based largely on the historical and scientific consensus among people who’ve studied it and seem to know what they’re talking about, more than my knowledge of the actual facts. Although I’ve read Michael Shermer’s explanations of why Holocaust denialism is bunk, and have a reasoned trust in the academic research methods that have almost unanimously reached this conclusion, I couldn’t personally argue the case at all well right now. If I were even less informed, and had given it even less thought, I probably wouldn’t even be comfortable asserting a belief one way or the other.
And then there’s atheism, in which people do not profess a belief in any particular god, or in the concept of God in any general terms. And part of the belief system of anyone who calls themself an atheist in this way is the claim that this is not like maintaining a lack of belief in the Sun, it’s not obvious that I ought to believe based on what’s right before my eyes, I can reasonably and rationally make the claim that I don’t have to believe in a god if I want to avoid being ridiculous.
Unless your lack of belief stems entirely from a lack of interest, this is a belief that needs to be justified.
As an atheist, I think this can be done, and that exploring the justifications can only be enlightening, and get me better acquainted with my belief system.
Let’s go back to Bob for a second. Bob’s not denying the Sun might exist, but he’s not willing to stick his neck out and take a side on the issue. Chances are, if he ever brings this up in conversation, the reaction he gets will be a rather confused one. His buddy Dave, for instance, might say:
What the hell do you mean, you “don’t believe in the Sun?” It’s right there, for frig’s sake! It’s in the sky, you can see it! Also, after millennia of observing the heavens and decades of sending stuff up there to take pictures and look around, we have a pretty good idea of our place in the solar system, specifically that our roughly spherical planet is held in an elliptical orbit around the Sun by the gravitational force suggested by Newtonian mechanics, but more important, it’s right sodding there up in the sky, you cretin.
Dave’s a little tetchy. He thinks Bob’s being ridiculous, because he thinks that his arguments in favour of believing in the existence of the Sun are sufficient that you really should believe in it; anyone who doesn’t must be either completely irrational, or deeply uninformed, unintelligent, or uninterested, to an extent rarely seen in modern humans with full mental faculties. And I’d be inclined to agree. I mean, the Sun’s right there.
For Bob to have any chance of being taken seriously, there must be some reason why Dave’s argument doesn’t convince him. If he can’t explain why he maintains his position, in the face of any new argument or evidence presented that might undermine it, he can’t claim to be using sound reasoning. He’s not obliged to explain himself again in detail every time, to everyone who ever brings up any objection, but there must be a reason, in each case, why this new argument doesn’t make him change his mind. And “The Sun’s right there, why wouldn’t you believe in it?” is something I think he’d struggle to answer.
Similarly, atheists need to have a reason for maintaining a lack of belief. We might be starting off from the default position, but as soon as someone asks, “Where did the Universe and all this cool stuff it’s got come from?” we need to have a reason for not being persuaded by this to believe in a god.
(It’s important to note that this is not the same as saying we need to answer the question. The question itself isn’t an argument for a god’s existence, because a question can’t be declaring anything. The argument implicit in the question might go something like: The Universe exists, and has all this cool stuff in it, which couldn’t have come from nothing, and couldn’t just be here with no reason, therefore it must have been (or probably was) created by some divine being. Atheism needs a reason why it doesn’t reach this same conclusion. Yes, the arguments do get a lot more intricate and sophisticated and complex than this, and address all manner of different subjects; I’m just describing the framework.)
I won’t get into the details here of where the rest of that argument goes. The point is that atheism is a position which needs to be able to logically support itself against any theistic arguments, and we atheists positively assert that this can be done. Further, I claim that the theistic belief system does not adequately address atheistic counter-arguments which suggest that a belief in a god is unfounded, or even that many particular gods are highly unlikely to exist. To me, this is what the atheist belief system is.
Discussion topics:
1. Am I full of shit? If so, do we at least agree on the processes of thinking that ought to be employed, and just differ in our ideas of the justifiable conclusions that can be reached? Or am I really just wrong about everything?
2. What’s so great about being rational anyway? I’m acting like it’s such a big deal, but is it really that important?
3. Can you prove that the Sun really does exist? I mean, maybe there’s actually a big conspiracy and it’s all just done with mirrors, like in that film where Jim Carrey pretends he has an emotional range.
You do realize you don’t have to justify beliefs if there is no evidence? See Russel’s Teapot.
Now, belief in the Sun is directly emperically verifiable- even if you can’t see, you can feel it.
The Holocaust is verifiable the way historical events are- you have to rely on records, people’s testimony, etc. By default people do not belief in the Holocaust anymore than they believe in Alexander the Great (for those who are curious, we know he exists because his mentor and two best generals wrote about him, he named multiple cities about himself and the path of conquest he left behind.
The reason most atheists are weak atheists rather than strong atheists is it is impossible to prove certain negatives.
Nicely put — really nicely put. For a similar take from the other side, I just came across ‘The Scandinavian Skeptic (or Why Atheism Is a Belief)’ here: http://bit.ly/is_atheism_a_belief.
May God have pity on your soul.
Not likely. Atheists fry in Hell, and deservedly so.
You thound tho thilly. :)
Bill: No need to go to any trouble, I’m fine for pity right now, thanks.
Samuel: You don’t have to justify beliefs if there is no evidence? I have no idea how you figure that. Russell’s teapot was an example of an unfalsifiable claim intended to demonstrate the fallacy of claiming unfalsifiability as a point of supporting evidence, and to demonstrate that the burden of proof rests on the believer, not the skeptic. If I assert the existence of something for which there exists no evidence of any kind, such as that teapot or an invisible unicorn that lives in my beard, why should anyone grant me any credibility?
The evidence that the Sun exists is overwhelming, not least through direct empirical observation, to the point that withholding a belief in it becomes silly. My point is that this same fact might not hold true for something like the Holocaust in all cases, and it certainly (I claim) doesn’t hold true for God – that is, it’s not as ridiculous to withhold belief in him as it would be in the case of the Sun. That’s my stand as an atheist.
Oy…
…when you can show how a single position constitutes a ‘system’, let me know.
MorsecOde
If you would read his well reasoned argument over again you’ll see that Cubik definetly showed that an atheist must have an idea of “where all this cool stuff came from” (a belief system in other words) to refute the theistic claim that God put it there.
Cubik
Ok then, give me the way an atheist can explain/account for the apparent uniformity of nature that we built science upon, and continue to trust is true to give science any viability.
Also, based on the comment you left on my blog (I think the answer would be more well placed here), can you explain to me how the atheistic universe could have come about any other way but “randomly”?
For the record: When I say that an atheist “must believe X”, I don’t mean that every single atheist actually believes this way. I’m saying that to be a consistent atheist, to be consistent with their worldview, they must hold to a certain belief; in this case that the beginning of the universe was random.
He seems to think that the belief system IS atheism. That isn’t true. The belief system I have INCLUDES atheism.
3) Withhold belief? Your are making the implicate assumption a person starts with beliefs- they don’t. They may not be a tabula rosa, but they do not have beliefs.
The logical result of your stance is that any proposition a person must have a belief related to it. However, there are an infinite number of propositions and our minds are finite.
Any proposition MUST prove itself first. To reject it out of hand is not a belief.
See the idea of skepticism if you don’t understand.
5) Argument from ignorance. You are claiming that a person must have an explanation for something before they can reject alternative explanations. If you look at how people actually work- how logic actually works, this isn’t true.
For example, Kepler formed the laws of planetary motion in 1605. We didn’t know about gravity until 1687 and we didn’t truely understand what it was until 1905… I think.
So what did we do? Did we claim magic? Did the scientific community claim it was a gift from the Gods (They did go for deism, but they didn’t claim that God was acting through gravity)?
The fact is there are a large number of things I personally don’t understand and a good number no one on the planet understands.
A major part of the scientific hypothesis is eliminating false theories- you DON’T have to have one to replace them, only show that the one proposed is false.
The other flaw in your theory is that it doesn’t prove God at all- you could simply say the beginning was magic. Hey- magic and supernatural are synonyms!
6) You are using the transendential argument, no? And you are saying that it “must logically follow”, right?
First off, uniformity of nature is an illusion. We have seperate ways of describing things that occur on a subatomic level than a macro level. The only reason that we have the laws we do is because they emerge statistically from the sheer nember of base particles.
As for trusting the universe… we don’t. We only believe that observing the universe gives information about the universe. Justifying that generally moves into the defintion of the word “observe”.
Uh… random requires that things be influenced by chance. The universe is pretty deterministic given its size.
Look at it this way- we have no way of determining which uranium atom will spontaneously turn into lead first. It is totally random! However, with enough of them (way over a trillion) you can get it accurate enough pattern.
As for come about, I can’t speak on that topic because I do not have a good grounding in physics or cosmology.
morsec0de: Well… okay. Maybe. Kinda. It could just be a matter of semantics which I ought to have clarified. The point I was trying to make was that, for atheists who have reasoned their position out (as opposed to those who have simply never thought about it), I don’t think you can really call it a “single position”. It doesn’t seem useful to characterise atheism as the isolated absence of one belief; implicit in the declaration “I’m an atheist” seems to be a number of other concepts. There are a number of theistic arguments, which I have considered and dismissed, all of which are part of my belief system as an atheist.
You might have a belief system about politics, which could include a number of views on Barack Obama, John McCain, liberalism, conservatism, and many other factors. And I think everyone has what could appropriately be called belief systems about numerous topics, which are rarely summed up by one single claim or idea. This is how I consider the phrase “belief system”, anyway. It could be that for you, your “belief system” regarding religious matters includes atheism as one solitary aspect, and which itself has a different name, or none at all – or, maybe a belief system is something we each have exactly one of, which describes everything we think. These might be just as good ways to define the phrase, but I think it’s useful to consider the position of atheism as incorporating a number of ideas – most atheists will, after all, have a number of ideas regarding the theistic arguments they’ve heard.
Eric: Unless I was a lot less careful with my language than I intended (I don’t seem to have been, looking over it again) I didn’t say that atheists need to have an idea that can explain everything like the origins of the universe, which theists often put down to a god. If this were the case, then any tiny gap in a godless view of the universe would make the whole thing utterly untenable as soon as any theist asserted “Well, it must be [chosen deity], then”. What we need is a reason why the logic that leads from, for instance, “The universe exists” to the conclusion “A god must exist/probably exists”, does not convince us. I don’t have to have a theory of where the universe came from, or to answer every such question, to be able to dismiss the “Therefore God did it” argument.
Samuel: If that assumption was implicit, then I didn’t mean it to be. By “withhold belief”, what I meant was to decline to accept a belief, perhaps, rather than to withdraw a belief once held.
And I’m not sure a proposition needs to prove itself, so much as present itself, for a belief to be held. I’ve never held any opinion on whether swans might be talented artists in the style of cubism until this minute, so a belief on the matter has never been necessary. Now that I give it a moment’s thought, I can decide that it’s rather silly and not very interesting to think about, and move on. I don’t have the belief that swans are natural cubists, and this seems a reasonable position to take, given the nature of the claim.
For most people, the claim that god exists is more prevalent, and so they can’t help taking many of the arguments and claims on board and forming an opinion. Some may simply be even less interested in it than I am in swans, but for a group such as active atheists, people who have deliberately rejected god-belief after weighing up the options, this is something I call a belief system.
Except we are dealing with logic, where the number of people who believe in a claim does not make it any more reasonable. In real life we take the opinions of a large group because someone probably knows what they are talking about, but in a logical argument we work off the evidence, eliminating the need for such crude heuristics.
As such, it does not matter is everyone in the world holds a belief, or if just one man- it is treated the same way.
Cubik
Whoa, I never said atheists had to defend “everything”. I am merely asking you to to do what you say is possible, have a rational argument for rejecting God. Here, I’ll quote you:
“Unless your lack of belief stems entirely from a lack of interest, this is a belief that needs to be justified.”
“For Bob to have any chance of being taken seriously, there must be some reason why Dave’s argument doesn’t convince him. If he can’t explain why he maintains his position, in the face of any new argument or evidence presented that might undermine it, he can’t claim to be using sound reasoning.”
More specifically, I am asking you to be able to explain, atheistically, why our entire sense experience tells us that nature is uniform and why we trust that nature WILL BE uniform in order to use science.
Also, you made the statement that atheists don’t necessarily have to believe the universe came about “randomly”, I am asking you to defend that statement. Are you saying the beginning of the universe was guided?
Honestly Cubik, I find you to be a thoughtful and honest philosopher. However, you have not begun to answer my assertions. I assert that you must steal the Christian worldview in order to expect an orderly universe which allows us to do science. The apparent order we see and trust cannot be explained atheistically.
“What we need is a reason why the logic that leads from, for instance, “The universe exists” to the conclusion “A god must exist/probably exists”, does not convince us.”
I am asking you to apply that “sound reasoning” that you demand of Bob. Since I was never making a cosmological argument for the existence of God, you’re “The universe exists therefore God must exist” strawman doesn’t apply to me. I’ll put my argument more simply:
Without God, the uniformity of nature cannot be relied upon/explained. We DO rely upon the uniformity of nature and it works, therefore God exists.
I do not have to defend a false dilemma! You don’t seem to realize that science does not ASSUME the universe is uniform- do you doubt that it would work even if this was true? This assumption is only used in cosmolgoy and only because we cannot gather information about other areas without assuming it.
Of course, given that having multiple differant laws of physics is… wait- I have. If you DID have multiple laws, than you could cheat thermodynamics- you just have to have something on both sides. Given we don’t see an area of the universe where a line forms, we don’t have such a formation. There are other differances- if we had a place that had differant gravity variables, the stars would be differant, if we had a place with differant elements, the specrum would be differant, etc.
As to trusting our senses… we have no choice. They ARE falliable, but science is made to deal with that- experiments have to be repeatable.
No. The start of the universe could be deterministic.
And he uses the transendential argument! The crowd goes WILD! I knew it, I KNEW IT!
I just love his “stolen from Christianity” and mock outrage. Where does he think science was born? Logic and reason? Pagan Greece of course. In fact, for the longest time the Christian Church rejected the idea of uniformity of reality or the idea that you could trust your senses. They only really changed that when they dumped the Aristotelian view of the universe. That would be… 17th century.
You are making an argument that since nature is uniform, God must exist? Do you not realize the flaw? (mad laughter)
The flaw is that it is not an answer! You have NOT SAID A DAMN THING!
The universe is unifrom because God made it so? Why? Because that is what God does? Aren’t Christian supposed to be humble and not know the mind and exact intentions of their God? And why would a God make a uniform nature? A nonuniform nature would allow thins like FTL, magic and other goodies. In fact, if the pockets were big enough, we wouldn’t notice!
In short, you assume your own conclusion. You make too unwarrented assumptions:
-God would make the universe unifrom
-The universe could not come this way through any other method
Than you ask the atheist to defend against it. Well, your assumptions are invalid and unreasonable- there is NO REASON WHATSOEVER for EITHER to be true!
I can see the point of cubiksrube,
However I have this idea which I think is very valid, namely:
If you say that you believe or even know that God does not exist, you have got to specify where and when God does not exist; because you are existing in space and in time, therefore you have got to qualify where and when something exists or does not exist, in the present context, God.
For example, you can say that you don’t believe or you even know that there is no sphinx on earth at present, then you are right in your statement; but you cannot simply say that you believe or you even know that no sphinx exists, period; because you are only knowledgeable about your earth in the present time.
So, you have got to specify where and at some time God does not exist, while you say that you believe or even know that God does not exist.
Since you do not have access to all the space and time, then you cannot just say that you believe or even know that God does not exist, period.
Besides you cannot just limit existence to your kind of existence which is in space and in time, when you maintain that you believe or even know that God does not exist, period; because God could possibly and even probably and even does exist actually in a mode of existence not bound by time and space.
Can you rule out any and all possible modes of existence outside that which is in the mode of existence in space and in time? No, you cannot because you have no ground at all to do so, unless you arbitrarily limit your the modes and the domains of existence to that in space and in time, which is not a legitimate limitation.
Yes, you can prove a negative if you know that you must prove existence or non-existence always in the space and time you have access to.
In this respect, it is your burden to prove the negative.
What about theists? They are proving a positive from the existence of dependent entities in their space and time to the independent author of these dependent entities outside space and time.
Thinks about that.
gerry
Samuel Skinner
“I do not have to defend a false dilemma! You don’t seem to realize that science does not ASSUME the universe is uniform- ”
You have shown no false dilemma. You have merely stated it. Saying something doesn’t make it true. The fact that you state “science does not assume the universe is uniform” shows a lack of knowledge about the philosophical nature of science. Let me say it as succintly as I can: We either assume that nature is uniform, or we KNOW it is uniform. In order to KNOW that nature is uniform, even on this earth, we must have tested every square inch of the earth and found that acts the same way. Since this is impossible, we have tested a very minute percentage of the Earth and assume the rest acts the same way. It’s actually fairly simple Samuel, even Bertrand Russell would agree with me.
“Of course, given that having multiple differant laws of physics is… wait- I have. . .”
I apologize, I honestly don’t know what you meant by this paragraph and therefore, can’t respond.
“No. The start of the universe could be deterministic.”
Again, stating something doesn’t make it so. What could determine the beginning of the universe besides a deity?
“And he uses the transendential argument! The crowd goes WILD! I knew it, I KNEW IT!”
And? Do you have a refutation of the argument, a reason for why it’s not valid, or do you believe that your incredulity is an argument of itself?
“I just love his “stolen from Christianity” and mock outrage.”
I don’t recall mock outrage, I merely am stating that the atheistic universe can’t be an orderly, universal, law- like one, and yet atheists rely on an orderly universe to do science. Only God accounts for/explains an orderly universe, therefore you are stealing the Christian explanation of order, using it to deny God.
“Where does he think science was born? Logic and reason? Pagan Greece of course.”
Actually most scientifc historians would disagree with that. In fact, a quick wiki education on the subject will show you that perhaps the Muslim scientists of the 7th century had an influence on modern science (this is up for debate however) and that the vast majority of modern science, in fact the entire Scientific Revolution, came about in 17th century (carried on into the 18th as well) Christian Europe by YEC theologians named Descartes, Copernicus, Galileo, Bacon and Newton.
“You are making an argument that since nature is uniform, God must exist? Do you not realize the flaw? (mad laughter). The flaw is that it is not an answer! You have NOT SAID A DAMN THING!”
Actually, you haven’t shown me the flaw. In fact, you haven’t made an argument of any type that refutes my arguments. Instead, you have restated your position, sometimes loudly as if that makes your point more valid, without an argument of why your position is superior, and you have shouted incredulity, expecting it to somehow speak for itself.
“Aren’t Christian supposed to be humble and not know the mind and exact intentions of their God?”
I find it ironic that you suggest I am arrogant while claiming to know that God doesn’t exist.
“And why would a God make a uniform nature?”
Why wouldn’t He?
The point isn’t wether or not God DID make nature uniform, the point is that He is CAPABLE of making nature uniform, in contrast to an atheistic, random universe which is NOT. Random is the opposite of law-like.
“In short, you assume your own conclusion.”
You’re right, I do. I assume that God exists so that I can explain/account for the uniformity of nature. I would be able to say the same about you, however, you have not yet made an argument with a premise and a conclusion for me to critique.
“You make too unwarrented assumptions:
-God would make the universe unifrom
-The universe could not come this way through any other method.”
I’m going to disagree with this one. The first assumption is ridiculous because I’m merely pointing out that He apparently DID make the universe uniform (since all of our sense experience tells us it is). The second assumption is one of your construction that I have not demonstrated. My argument is not even close to that. I am saying that God explains/accounts for the uniformity of nature while atheism cannot do so. This is a point you have not begun to argue against.
“Than you ask the atheist to defend against it. Well, your assumptions are invalid and unreasonable- there is NO REASON WHATSOEVER for EITHER to be true!”
You have merely manufactured two assumptions that I did not display and then stated those assumptions are untrue. This is the definition of a strawman fallacy. I am still waiting to hear an argument for how the atheistic universe can explain the uniformity of nature / can account for the basis of all science.
To GerryFalse.
You don’t have to “check everywhere”. For existance, yes. But we are talking about ATHEISM, which is about wheter belief is justified.
Given the fact that the word God itself has no agreed upon or logically coherant definition we don’t have to deal with the silly quandry either.
Eric Kemp
First of you seem to not have any clue what the heck I am saying. I am saying that DOESN’T have to have a uniform universe. So your answer is a strawman.
The following paragraph is an exploration into what the universe would be like with variable laws of physics. It boils down to “obviously differant”.
What could be deterministic besides a deity? Why, only ALL PHYSICAL PROCESSES. Please- STOP being so dense- all physical processes, by definition are deterministic.
Look up transendental argument on the net. Other people have refuted it. I was simply amazed that you didn’t bother to check the flaws.
“I don’t recall mock outrage, I merely am stating that the atheistic universe can’t be an orderly, universal, law- like one, and yet atheists rely on an orderly universe to do science. Only God accounts for/explains an orderly universe, therefore you are stealing the Christian explanation of order, using it to deny God.”
Except I explicatly stated that the universe could be non-uniform and science would STILL work. In fact it does in some ways- if you do experiments in space you get differant results than on the ground. The conditions are differant. Physics is the same everywhere, implying that reality is uniform. It is an emperical result- what do you not get about that?
“Actually most scientifc historians would disagree with that. In fact, a quick wiki education on the subject will show you that perhaps the Muslim scientists of the 7th century had an influence on modern science (this is up for debate however) and that the vast majority of modern science, in fact the entire Scientific Revolution, came about in 17th century (carried on into the 18th as well) Christian Europe by YEC theologians named Descartes, Copernicus, Galileo, Bacon and Newton.”
This is it. If you continue to strawman me I will cease to argue with you. Look at my argument:
-Where does he think science was BORN? Logic and reason?-
I didn’t ask for influences- I asked for where it first started. After all, you claimed it was being stolen by the evil atheists. Interestingly enough it was begun by the Greeks, along with logic which you probably will also claim under the transendential argument.
The Greeks, in case you didn’t know, where pagans. They DIDN’T believe the universe was uniform. Although their science was not spectacular SOME was correct. They measured they Earth, deduced the existance of the atom and more. They DID science.
“I find it ironic that you suggest I am arrogant while claiming to know that God doesn’t exist.”
Actually, I only claim certain Gods are impossible. Namely the logically impossible ones, or the ones that violate known evidence. Other possible Gods are in the “about impossible/irrelevant category”, while some are in the “Universe is a big place” category.
“The point isn’t wether or not God DID make nature uniform, the point is that He is CAPABLE of making nature uniform, in contrast to an atheistic, random universe which is NOT. Random is the opposite of law-like.”
You never have taken statistics, have you? Or seen any hive insects? Let me give you a hint- if something is random, it doesn’t matter if there is ENOUGH. You get patterns anyway. And guess what? We look at the universe at its finest and we get RANDOMNESS! Quantum mechanics- I guess reality IS random…
“I would be able to say the same about you, however, you have not yet made an argument with a premise and a conclusion for me to critique.”
I am NOT making an argument- I am refuting yours with emperical evidence! I am the default position- remember?
“I’m going to disagree with this one. The first assumption is ridiculous because I’m merely pointing out that He apparently DID make the universe uniform (since all of our sense experience tells us it is). The second assumption is one of your construction that I have not demonstrated. My argument is not even close to that. I am saying that God explains/accounts for the uniformity of nature while atheism cannot do so. This is a point you have not begun to argue against.”
You do realize that you just undermined your entire argument- you showed that atheists don’t assume anything- they simply look at the universe.
Any other method would be a natural method.. or one that is compatible with atheism. You MUST make this assumption or you can’t say “Goddidit”.
Since you are so dense I will explain how I deal with it. I don’t. That is right. I don’t deal with why the universe’s physical laws are unifrom. I also don’t deal with why blue is blue, what something sound likes when there is no one to hear it, what the meaning of the universe is, the good life, or a million other pointless questions?
Do you know why? Let me tell you simply, let me illustrate what you are doing- you are pointing out a fundamental property of the universe and asking why it is, than getting no answer state that “God is responsible”. It is the classic argument from ignorance. They are called “Fundamental properties of the universe” for a very simple reason- we CAN’T explain them because they are the foundations of reality- at least, not yet. What you have done is cheated- putting something outside the universe to claim the higher ground and an explanation… except you STILL haven’t shown why a God would want that (making said explanaiton meaningless) AND you haven’t shown said explanatory factor exists.
Here- I’ll make it easy for you. I’ll sketch out the logic process you take and its flaws.
Observation: The universe has unifrom physical laws. (Observation is correct)
Premise: Randomness cannot lead to this unifromity (premise is false)
Premise: Atheism is based on randomness or natural actions that are random (Premise is also false)
Conclusion: Atheism cannot account for unifromity and thus is false. (Incorrect stating of the premise)
Flaws 1- randomness CAN lead to uniformity. A coin flip is random. Whenever you flip a coin it could be H or T. The longer you flip, the closer the results go to .5.
This applies even to TOTALLY RANDOM systems.
Flaw 2- Atheism doesn’t use randomness. Rational atheism is based on materialism, which is deterministic.
Flaw 3- This fails to rebut atheism, given that the second premise only applies against materialism and only when strawmanned. As such there are forms of atheism where it DOESN’T apply. Ones that reject reason (scientology) or embrace supernaturalism (Buddism- also shares first category).
You will, of course, not understand a word I am saying. Which calls for THIS
Any way, I apologize to Cubix for massive derailment, but as long as a theist makes a dumb argument (re: any argument) there will be no rest.
Samuel Skinner
I was planning on respecting the time and effort it took to write your post by giving it a response until I read this…
“You will, of course, not understand a word I am saying. Which calls for THIS
Any way, I apologize to Cubix for massive derailment, but as long as a theist makes a dumb argument (re: any argument) there will be no rest.”
Unfortunately, this kills all credibility you have as a rational human being. It seems you only desire to mock and berate, and draw Christians into flamewars so that you may point and go “See! A hypocrite!”.
Honestly Samuel, there is just so many strawmen, insults and fabrications in your argument that, added with your already decided conclusion that all theists are idiots, I don’t want to waste the time dissecting them. So, I respectfully decline to continue this conversation. Have fun continuing your search for theists in the blogosphere whom you can insult.
[…] few days ago (and what a lively and exciting few days they’ve been), I blogged a piece about atheism, arguing that I think it can, usefully and validly, be labelled as a belief system, or worldview. […]
You do realize that you are arguing on the internet. Last time I checked there was no reason to be serious here.
And you run away because I am being mean and sarcastic… you really don’t get the concept of irony, do you? I said you wouldn’t understand and posted a picture mocking how serious you are and… you don’t understand and berate me for not being serious.
Honestly, it looks like a transparent attempt on your part to run away. I’m fine with that- just don’t think it is a win or that I was being an asshole. I am an asshole, but I didn’t get an opportunity.
Sorry for monopolizing your blog Cubix.
Samuel:
You don’t need to apologise to me for getting involved – but I do wonder what’s in it for you, exactly, to get into these sorts of discussions. It might not be for me to suggest, but if you’re aiming for other people to really engage with you, and to get anything interesting out of them and really debate things, you might have better luck if you tone down the sarcasm, and focus more on addressing your opponent’s points directly (which in some cases you seem to be able to do very well), rather than describing what sort of person they are, or what they may or may not have any clue about.
Of course, if a deep and meaningful dialogue is a secondary goal, and you’re having more fun with the snarking and the cat macros, then that’s also an approach I can totally get behind. Honestly, I do plenty of that too, I know how much fun it is, especially when people make it so easy for you. But, you can’t really have it both ways and expect a mature response to withering sarcasm, and I’d prefer to avoid too much direct meanness on my blog, wherever possible.
cubiksrube, I’ll be honest- I sincerl doubt the people I am arguing with will change their mind due to my argument- even if they do I sincerely doubt they will admit it on the internet. For example, you have neatly sidesteped my enttire argument (see post 1).
The fact of the matter is I debate for the following reasons:
1) I origionally was curious about apologetics and wanted to see the arguments and see what was the correct answer.
2) I hate stupidity and logical fallacies and love arguing.
3) I find new info. For example, I discovered the cat macros when I did post 18. I was planning to use an image of the God Emperor of Man
I had to look harder- this was what I wanted. The kitty was a mockery of it.
4) Everyone needs a hobby.
5) Antitheism requires the following beleifs
-atheism
-religion is harmful
-desire to help others
For me, none of these are optional. As for why I hit atheism and not politics… because I am insanely inexperienced.
My posts tend to range from polite and serious to blatant mockery and sarcasm. Why? It is the way I am… and I am emulating Publius and Darth Wong respectivly. I want to be that good someday.
An Atheist needs no belief, only facts and the will to think for him/herself.
Sven
Are you saying that “God doesn’t exist” is a fact?
It is a fact that god’s existence cannot be scientifically proven in a reproducible manner.
Critic
It’s also a fact that God’s non-existence cannot be scientifically proven, nor can there be any evidence to that affect. Your point?
My point would be that believing in something because it’s non-existence cannot be scientifically proven is folly.
Critic
Wait, are you saying that because something’s non-existence or existence cannot be scientifically proven than we shouldn’t believe it exists?
One can believe anything that one wants. One can only know what is scientifically proven.
Critic
Ok, but we can’t even scientifically KNOW that matter exists. Any attempt to prove wether or not matter exists would just beg the question. I mean, our sense experiences are just electrical signals in our brain, how do we know that we’re not brains floating in jars somewhere?
More than that, even if we assume that matter exists, we can’t scientifically KNOW that matter is uniform. Uniform meaning that nature acts in the same way given the same set of conditions everywhere at every time. In order to scientifically prove the uniformity of nature we’d have to test every square inch of all of nature every five minutes. Then, and only then, would we scientifically prove that nature is uniform. Since this is impossible, we must assume it. In fact, we must assume that nature is uniform for science to be worth doing at all.
So your absolute scientific “knowledge” is based on assumptions that we can’t know. What does this do to your “one can only know what is scientifically proven” statement?
What it does is remind us that everything we “know” must always be tentative, and subject to refinement, adaptation, or complete overhaul, if any new evidence comes in to undermine it, or any sound reason is provided why the assumptions we’re making are no longer useful, reasonable, or practical.
I feel we’re regressing somewhat here. The brain-in-a-jar argument can’t be disproven, for much the same reasons as God can’t be disproven. It should be possible to “prove” either one to reasonable satisfaction, if they were true and enough facts were presented. Until then, belief would seem to be an unsound premise.
To know something means that is is scientifically proven. To be scientifically proven means that it is a tentative, rational understanding based on observation and theory.
Mind games of brains in jars are not productive avenues of discussion.
Critic
So you are changing the definitions of the words “know” and “proven” to “tentative, rational understanding”?
You better call or write the American Heritage Dictionary people and let them know.
“Mind games of brains in jars are not productive avenues of discussion.”
I argued clearly that the things you “know” are based on assumptions that you can’t know, refuting you argument that we must only subscribe to things that we “know”. You ignoring my argument is not a counter argument.
EK:
I stand by the practical definition of “know” and “proven” I stated above.
Accordingly, we must only subscribe to the things that are known and proven scientifically. The sum of human knowledge indicates that god is not one of those things.
You stated that we can’t prove that matter exists. Maybe. But, if you want evidence that matter exists, I suggest you hit your thumb with a hammer. That ache you feel from the “electrical signals in your brain” is evidence (at the macro scale) of the existence of matter – the result of two bodies composed of matter interacting.
That would be real evidence collected by a real you in a real world. That is the only kind of evidence that I am interested in. When we have enough evidence from enough experiments, we can safely conclude that matter exists until such time as an experiment provides evidence that it does not exist.
I realize that you can deconstruct this to some inane “brain in jar” type argument, but that provides nothing useful for me or anyone else.
I feel very sure in the premise that matter exists, that I am a living breathing being, and that the universe is what we understand it to be based on science. If you can’t provide arguments from the real world that apply to real situations, your are proving nothing to anyone. You are merely playing word games.
If you want to do something useful, provide some real evidence for the existence of god.
Critic
“I stand by the practical definition of “know” and “proven” I stated above.”
Ok then, you’ve just redefined the words. Perhaps you can begin authoring a dictionary in order to make your argument viable.
“…we must only subscribe to the things that are known and proven scientifically. The sum of human knowledge indicates that god is not one of those things.”
Ah yes, redefining words and then arguing with those definitions. Well done.
Are you saying that God’s non-existence has been proven?
“You stated that we can’t prove that matter exists. Maybe. But, if you want evidence that matter exists, I suggest you hit your thumb with a hammer.”
Not really evidence of two bodies of matter interacting . . . it could just be that my floating brain expects it to hurt so it tells me it does.
“When we have enough evidence from enough experiments, we can safely conclude that matter exists until such time as an experiment provides evidence that it does not exist.”
Attempting to run experiments that prove that matter exists would only beg the question. That’s why scientists just assume that matter does exist. It’s a metaphysical assumption. And that’s ok, you just can’t “know” it. Oops, I forgot that you redefined the word. You know, you should really call all those dictionary people and tell them how wrong they are.
“I realize that you can deconstruct this to some inane “brain in jar” type argument, but that provides nothing useful for me or anyone else.”
It’s only useful if you are able to be self-reflective about what we assume to do science, why we assume it, and how that affects what we believe. But you’re already past that point.
“If you want to do something useful, provide some real evidence for the existence of god.”
What would you accept as “real evidence”?
Guys, how you personally define words and how snarky you can be about dictionaries doesn’t directly relate to whether God exists.
Eric, Critic is saying that, when he claims to “know” something, it means that the science and evidence are absolutely on his side and point to him being right, but he’s trying not to preclude the possibility that he might later have to revise his “knowledge” if new reason to do so comes in. This isn’t a totally wacky sense of the word – I know that my brother is called Johnny, for instance, but if it turned out that one of us was adopted (or that I’m a brain in a jar and this whole world is a mental construct), this might not turn out to be exactly, literally true. I don’t think Critic’s claimed to “know” that God doesn’t exist, but only that unless we can “know” he exists (i.e. if there’s a solid theory supported by evidence and reason that he exists) it’s irrational to believe in him.
Critic, I think Eric is questioning your certainty about the idea that God doesn’t exist, and trying to establish whether this is something you’re holding to dogmatically or ideologically. I don’t believe you are, but you’re both using words like “know” and “proven” in slightly different ways, and talking somewhat at cross-purposes. The brain-in-a-jar idea is something that philosophers have been discussing for a long time, and was intended (I think) to demonstrate that we should admit to a lack of complete certainty even to those propositions over which we have negligible doubt (such as that the chair I’m sitting on now exists). The idea was to consider whether we can really “know” anything, and led to some discussion and disagreement over what “to know” something means, or how it can usefully be defined.
That’s still not a closed question, and we’re all apt to use words slightly differently much of the time, but that’s a different discussion (albeit still a potentially interesting one). Critic, I’m with you that insufficient evidence has been presented for the case for God that we should consider his existence likely, or form a tentative, rational conclusion in its favour. This is also true of the brains-in-jars idea, and I imagine Eric would be likely to agree (though I don’t want to put words in his mouth) that the brains-in-jars idea is unlikely, and that the existence of matter as we perceive it is very likely – there could be reasons to doubt our current conclusions, we can imagine how that could work, but there’s not enough evidence to take it seriously at the moment.
Just trying to clear up the semantics where they’re not seeming productive.
Cubiksrube: Thanks for the attempt at clarification. I feel that you have correctly explained my point of view.
What I am interested in is whether someone (Eric Kemp?) might have some new ideas (new to me anyway) about whether or not a god(s) exists. I personally see no evidence that any sort of god must exist. I am open to the possibility, but without evidence, I see no reason to believe that there is any sort of god.
Eric Kemp:
You seem to be very upset by my post. I apologize for offending your sensibilities. In my defense, what I was trying to do was let you know what I mean by defining my terms – otherwise we might not be able to communicate clearly.
Now, in direct reply to some items in your post.
No. I said that the sum of human knowledge indicates that there is no god. That is not a proof of non-existence. It is a statement of my assessment of the current condition of human knowledge. It is an opinion that I hold. I stated it. Clear enough? Just in case, let me say for the record, “I do not believe that god’s non-existence has been proven.” Now, hopefully we can move on.
Snakry, petty and accusative. But, I’ll reply anyway.
I’m all for self-reflection. I understand that there are basic assumptions that must be made in order not think that we are literally brains in jars. I am comfortable with those assumptions. But, I don’t see why you find them so intensely exciting and in need of multiple reiteration. Please expand on the purpose of your fixation with brains in jars and those assumption and why you find them important to this discussion because it’s just not getting through my thick skull.
So, I need to argue both sides of this now? You are the theist arguing that there must be a god. Fine. Give me some evidence. If it is real evidence it will be more persuasive than if it is based on some Intro to Philosophy mind game. Stating that we can’t prove that we are not brains in jars and therefore god exists, simply will not do it for me with my current understanding. Enlighten me.
Perhaps as a start you could define your terms. What type of god are you suggesting that you have proof/evidence of? Then, perhaps you could provide what you consider to be proof or evidence of a god. That is just a suggestion. You may of course present your thoughts in any way you like.
Thanks.
Cubik
“Eric, Critic is saying that, when he claims to “know” something, it means that the science and evidence are absolutely on his side and point to him being right, but he’s trying not to preclude the possibility that he might later have to revise his “knowledge” if new reason to do so comes in.”
I know what he means by “know” and “proven” in the scientific sense, and this is what I’m challenging. Saying that you “know” something that is a tentative, rational understanding is just disengenuous. You believe a certain phenomena came about a certain way because of evidence that points in that direction. And that’s fine. But let’s just be honest about it.
So yes, the brain in the jar stuff was meant to show that to “know” anything is a tricky proposition. I don’t even need to use “with absolute certainty” because just the definition of the word will do, as I demonstrated. My assertion would be that “knowing” anything is impossible outside of God, as being unable to prove you’re not a brain in a jar has shown. Once one has faith in God, you can “know” all those brain-in-a-jar type questions with certainty, instead of having faith that you just aren’t a brain in a jar.
Critic
“I personally see no evidence that any sort of god must exist. I am open to the possibility, but without evidence, I see no reason to believe that there is any sort of god.”
My question along those lines would be, what would classify as “evidence of God’s existence” to you?
“You seem to be very upset by my post. I apologize for offending your sensibilities.”
I’m not upset, honestly, I don’t get angry or upset in argument. If I did, then I wouldn’t be able to have a blog.
“In my defense, what I was trying to do was let you know what I mean by defining my terms – otherwise we might not be able to communicate clearly.”
I understand, and I was challenging your definition of terms. My snark came from your willingness to redefine words seemingly at a whim. While I understand what you mean by “know” and “proven” in the scientific sense, THAT idea is what I’m challenging.
“It is a statement of my assessment of the current condition of human knowledge. It is an opinion that I hold. I stated it. Clear enough?”
Can you explain in more detail to me how you have access to the entire “current condition of human knowledge”? By what standards are you assessing the “current condition of human knowledge?”
“Just in case, let me say for the record, “I do not believe that god’s non-existence has been proven.” Now, hopefully we can move on.”
But, as I’ve shown, you cannot “prove” that you aren’t a brain in a jar. It’s no wonder you’ve having trouble with God’s existence!
“I understand that there are basic assumptions that must be made in order not think that we are literally brains in jars. I am comfortable with those assumptions.”
Thank you for being honest. In light of this, I’m wondering why you still think God’s existence must be PROVEN to you in order for you to believe?
“Please expand on the purpose of your fixation with brains in jars and those assumption and why you find them important to this discussion because it’s just not getting through my thick skull.”
It’s simply that you apply “it must be proved” standards to the existence of God but not to the existence of matter. Specifically, you are willing to assume that matter exists, you recognize this assumption, and recognize matter’s existence can’t be proven, but then apply astronomically higher standards to the existence of God than you do to the existence of matter! Does this seem consistent to you?
“Stating that we can’t prove that we are not brains in jars and therefore god exists, simply will not do it for me with my current understanding. Enlighten me.”
Well, I’m obviously not saying that, I’m merely challenging the merits of two statements that you’ve made. That you are able to access “the sum of human knowledge” and deem that we don’t know God exists; I’m challenging that such a thing is possible. I’m also challenging that God must be proven to you when you can’t even prove that matter exists.
I apologize for the snark that was blatant in my last reply. You seem like a better and more intelligent fellow than I first gave your credit for being. I apologize that my first impression of you lumped you in with all those other belligerent atheists who have no argument and only desire to berate and belittle (alliteration at it’s best!).
However, I am only interested in having open, honest discussion. And if someone is attempting to redefine words, and sticking to those redefinitions when directly challenged with the true definitions, my snark goes higher than usual. If we can revise your statements to be more conducive to discussion and if I can understand what would pass for you as “evidence” for God, then I can present my case more clearly.
For the record: When I say the words “know” and “proven” I’m talking about the dictionary definitions of the words. I’m not defining the words the way scientific sensationalists throw them around about scientific theories (“We KNOW the Earth is 4.5 billion years old” and “It has been PROVEN that humans evolved from a single cell”). A true, honest scientist will use phrases like “Evidence points to . . .” and “Our conclusion based on the evidence is . . . “. These latter phrases are honest and are conducive to discussion.
For the record: When I use the world “God” I’m talking about the all-powerful, all-knowing sentient Elohim of the Old and New Testaments. As a Christian, you cannot expect me to redefine God has I know Him. However, why I subscribe to this particular God over any other is a conversation for another time.
It is completely rational to believe in the continuity of phenomena and the extence of an external reality. It would be irrational not to believe those two basic assumptions and still go through the trouble of commuting to work each day. However, there is no requirement for a belief in god inherent in my position.
Ok. Purely for discussion (I still stand by my practical definitions as stated above), we can use your preferred definitions of know and proven from the AHDoEL.
Know: 1. To perceive directly; grasp in the mind with clarity or certainty. 2. To regard as true beyond doubt.
Proven: Having been demonstrated or verified without doubt.
As for evidence that a god exists. Simple enough, I just need a reproducible phenomenon that can be measured in the real world by real observers over time and that can only be explained by the existence of a supernatural being.
Critic
“It is completely rational to believe in the continuity of phenomena and the extence of an external reality. It would be irrational not to believe those two basic assumptions and still go through the trouble of commuting to work each day. However, there is no requirement for a belief in god inherent in my position.”
We’re not talking about rationality or that you must believe in God in your worldview, which I know you must do no such thing. I’m talking about your inconsistency. I’ll show you: Rational or not, you do not require the existence of matter to be proven to you for you to believe in it. You admitted as much. Yet, God’s existence must be proven to you.
To elaborate and to use your definition of what would qualify as “evidence for God’s existence” as you explained it: your belief that non-living chemicals produced life a billion years ago is not reproducible and/or measurable in the real world by real observers over time. And yet, you believe it and then force a standard upon God that you don’t force upon your own beliefs. THIS is rational?
“Ok. Purely for discussion (I still stand by my practical definitions as stated above), we can use your preferred definitions of know and proven from the AHDoEL.”
Thank you. Just out of curiosity, can you explain to me the difference between “definitions” and “practical definitions”? Specifically can you explain how the “practical definition” can change the meaning of a word?
“As for evidence that a god exists. Simple enough, I just need a reproducible phenomenon that can be measured in the real world by real observers over time and that can only be explained by the existence of a supernatural being.”
This is going to be difficult for me to accomplish since you’ve raised your level skepticism of evidence for God higher than your own personal beliefs. Yet, I’m working on beginning a series of fine-tuning, and biocentricity, arguments on my blog and will let you know when one goes up. Then you can let me know wether or not they qualify as evidence for God’s existence, why they don’t, and we can discuss accordingly.
Eric:
We seem to keep talking past each other. This is my last attempt to make my point on the two topics you seem to be obsessing over.
You claim that I am being inconsistent in that I accept reality on faith but I don’t accept god on faith.
I must have faith in the continuity of phenomena (time, physics, mathematics, etc.) and external reality (mass/energy) in order to believe that my existence is real. Everyone has to accept these basic assumptions. These are logical, practical, sane and compelling assumptions.
Now, you say that, since I accept reality on faith, I should also accept that god exists on faith. Such a claim is totally baseless and frankly absurd. Accepting the existence of god is in no way similar to what I would describe as the essential assumptions of reality that everyone on the planet must make.
Accepting that god exists with no proof is not necessary to live in the universe.
Accepting that mass/energy exists with no proof is a requirement to live in the universe.
This completely refutes your point. Making it again in the same old tired way will not get us anywhere. I am sure you disagree, but you are not going to convince me with the false comparison that you keep proposing. Your argument holds no water. Find a new one or, preferably, just let this ridiculous topic die a quiet, well deserved death.
Again we have to flog a dead horse. Here goes. You like the definitions I quoted above from the AHDoEL:
I assume it is the “beyond doubt” and “without doubt” portions of those definitions that you hold to so reverently. Perhaps my my usage of the words is a bit postmodern and is stated from a scientific viewpoint. I’ll take all the flak you want to dish out for those criticisms, however, the practical definition that is made thought out all of science is that facts are concepts that are known and proven with as little doubt as is possible and nothing can be said to be known or proven without a doubt. As Cubiksrube said earlier, and I can’t say it any better:
Again, Eric, you have succeed in not progressing this argument beyond where it was a week and 10+ posts ago. My frustration stems from the seemingly pointless nature of this exchange.
I am not going to directly reply to such an inane and misleading statement.
Well, I guess I will just have to wait until you are ready to present those ideas. I had hoped that you had thought through that already. Perhaps the horses and carts are all a jumble?
I am interested in reading those arguments. But, beware the major, and perhaps inevitable, failure of all “fine-tuning” arguments: they tend devolve into silly chicken and egg conundrums that prove nothing without a doubt.
Although, maybe you have a new twist. I’ll be interested to see what you come up with.
Cheers,
Critic
PS: Cubiksrube – thanks for the forum. Hopefully this hijacking of your blog has not been a problem. I look forward to reading your blog from here on – I like your ideas and the way you present them.
PS: Eric – feel free to reply, however, this is my last post on this blog entry.
Critic
Ok, the evidential post is up on my blog.
One thing:
“Now, you say that, since I accept reality on faith, I should also accept that god exists on faith. Such a claim is totally baseless and frankly absurd.”
I never said anything close to that. I am merely pointing out that you must accept reality on faith and yet literally demand that God be proven to you. This is inconsistent. And, Critic, it just IS inconsistent, there is no way around it. You can either admit that it’s inconsistent and attempt to rework your belief system accordingly or you can stick your by your inconsistency to the end.
I apologize that you missed my point and thought that I was attempting to get you to believe in God through some “you can’t prove reality” argument because that’s not what I was doing.
“I am not going to directly reply to such an inane and misleading statement.”
Critic, I’m hoping that you are going to be a bit self-reflective here. You are literally raising your level of skepticism about the existence of God higher than your skepticism about the existence of reality. You demand proof of one but no proof of the other. You also assume that you MUST assume reality to survive when in fact hundreds of millions of Hindus believe that none of this is real and they get along just fine. Also, how do you know that you musn’t believe in God? How do you know you aren’t missing a fundamental belief that would allow you to understand yourself and your world correctly?
I apologize that this conversation wasn’t able to get anywhere. But when we can’t even agree on the definition of words, that is quite hard to do. Hopefully we can have more good fortune with another topic such as the fine-tuning argument I’m getting into on my blog.
I am a late comer but let me put in my two bits worth. This whole issue of debating (arguing) the existence or non-existence of God (Eric’s) is an exercise in futility. Did you Critic really expected to convince Eric otherwise? Or you Eric, is there anything Critic could have said that it would have caused you to turn your back on your belief? Not likely. Critic you were toiling with the definitions of Know and Proven. Neither one of them exists in Eric’s vocabulary. So no wonder you had so much difficulty. Those two words were replaced with Belief and Acceptance. No wonder you two were talking past one another.
To sum it up briefly:
Critic: I think, therefore I am.
Eric: I believe, therefore He exists.
Henessy
“Critic: I think, therefore I am.
Eric: I believe, therefore He exists.”
That wasn’t the point at all. The only point was that since Critic can’t prove the existence of reality, why does he find it logical to demand proof of God?
This goes along with the general atheistic delusion that their position is purely scientific while the Christian position is purely faith based when in fact the two worldviews have comparable mixtures of both.
Eric:
I did not miss the point of the discussion between you and Critic. However, you may have missed mine. I simply commented on the futility of it in so far as trying to make a point at the expense of the other. To the best of my knowledge you can not state as fact that God exists nor can Critic do the same referring to the Big Bang. Here I am assuming that we are talking about the Creation vs. Evolution. One is a belief the other is a theory.
You asked: why does he (Critic) find it logical to demand proof of God? Although I do not know the inner workings of his mind but I am fairly certain the he and countless others place the same demand on themselves trying to turn their theory into fact.
Getting back to the discussion that I termed futile, however, it is not without some level of benefit. There is always something that we can learn from what others think. The point is what do we do with it?
So what have you quoted from my previous comment remains as intended, my view of your individual positions from which, you and Critic argue/debate, trying to further your position regarding to topic at hand:
Cogito, Ergo Sum.
Credo, Ergo Deus Est.
Late to the party, but only just stumbled on this and found it interesting. I’ve scanned through the comments, but because I’m only really interested in Cubik’s claim that “atheism is a belief system” rather than debating the existence of God – which is where the conversation seemed to go – I’ve skipped a fair bit, so sorry if I’m repeating points already made!
Cubik:
You seem to be saying that rather than being the absense of a positive statement of the existence of a god/s, atheism is a set of positive statements about the non-existence of god/s. Is that the case?
This seems to be different to my understanding of the word atheist. An atheist is (generally) someone who “does not believe in god” (lack of a positive statement), of whom a subset are those who “believe god does not exist” (positive statement). Someone who had never heard of or considered the concept of a god would be, to me, an atheist despite the fact that they’ve never considered a god in order to identify themselves as such.
You might argue that they are making implicit statements about the existence of god in that they make claims which do not include god, and thus are making positive statements – is it possible to make a positive statement without knowing that you are doing so? This doesn’t seem like a very useful definition of the term.
When I say that atheism is not a belief system I am also, usefully, pointing out some of the strange assumptions inherent in theism, which (IMO) exist for historical rather than logical reasons.
Interested in your thoughts!
Hey fropome, no worries about the tardiness, I think most of the booze has gone but there should still be a few Pringles and some of those little sausages on cocktail sticks. Mind you don’t step in a stray vol-au-vent, though. I don’t know whether to blame Critic or Eric for those being strewn about the floor.
I haven’t revisited this page in a while, and forgot how much discussion there’d been here, tangential though it tended to be. Gosh, this was first posted almost a year ago. It could probably do with redrafting one of these days, when I get around to doing that for the Skeptictionary as a whole, because it couldn’t hurt to clarify a few terms.
For a start, there are different flavours of atheism that I could do with distinguishing more effectively. I don’t really buy the over-simplified strong/weak atheist dichotomy (“There is no God” versus “I have no belief in any particular God”), but there are different ways in which people can unbelieve. (If that wasn’t a verb before, it is now.)
If someone has never given the notion of a divine being any thought at all, and thus never had their brain inhabited by any belief in such, it may well be reasonable to call them an atheist. (Though I wonder how many other sentient beings or living creatures this could be extended to, if that’s how we’re defining our terms.) But this seems to be a different kind of atheism from mine, and it’s not a trivial difference. A lack of belief stemming from a complete lack of consideration probably can’t be labelled a belief system in the way I described here.
I originally wrote this in response to a lot of atheists claiming that atheism isn’t a belief system, it’s just a lack of belief, which I thought was a bad idea. It seems like an unnecessary cop-out, to avoid conflict or wiggle out of having to defend their position, by denying that they even have any position to defend. It reminded me of the kind of people who say things like “Hey, I’m not saying we didn’t land on the Moon,” or “Obviously I don’t know that the Bush administration orchestrated 9/11,” then add a “but…” and start listing all the usual conspiracy theory clichés.
I don’t think we need to act like that, or pretend that we’re not making any definite claims about anything. I’m making a lot of definite claims about stuff. “God doesn’t exist” may or may not be among them. But even if I’m just claiming to lack a god-belief, that’s a position that I’ve chosen, which exists in the context of all my other beliefs and opinions. I think this must apply to anyone except those who’ve never given it a moment’s thought. Most people have encountered the concept of a supreme being, and atheists have actively rejected it. They may not go so far as to deny it, but they’ve decided they’re not convinced.
So, I call that a belief system. There’s a lack of a particular belief, but there’s also reasons why they chose not to accept that belief. They’ve heard the arguments, and they’re still not buying it.
Does that clarify anything at all?
Thanks Mr. Rube, that does clarify!
I still don’t agree though, which is good because it keeps things interesting.
I would be happy to say that I think there is no god, and that I don’t believe in a god, but I wouldn’t say I believe there is no god.
I think that there is a political point to be made here, though it is perhaps trivial in a conversation strictly between atheists. In the context of religion, atheists are often seen as a polar opposite to the religious – that Dawkins is a ‘fundamentalist’ atheist, that atheism is as much of a religion as Christianity and we have ‘faith’ in our position. I don’t think that this is the case – I don’t think (most) atheists think like this. We don’t have faith in atheism any more than we have faith in the theory of gravity; it’s just the best, most parsimonious, explanation. If the Bible was replete with statements like “And Yea, for a beam of light has a speed, and no thing can move faster – for as you move more quickly you become more heavy until your energy is exhausted” or perhaps if Jesus kept swooping down like a hippie Superman to save pious kids from being squished by buses then I’d think that there was something in it, but as it is I don’t. Christians – even pretty moderate or liberal ones – say that their faith in God is different to their faith in gravity. For a start, gravity doesn’t care if you believe in it.
As such I think that, in the sense you mean, while it’s true to say we believe there is no God, the difference between our belief and that of Christians in the existence of God is an important one which could be confused because we don’t use the word ‘believe’ in the same way as Christians do. Saying only that we lack a belief in God conveys some of this difference.
Another (more rhetorical) point is that the default position is atheism, and one should only believe in a God if there is evidence for it. This, again, is not the position of most Christians who would say that while they think there is evidence for God, this is relatively unimportant compared to the need for raw faith.
This conversation has, apparently, been over and done with for a long time (about 4 years now), but I still thought I might contribute to it, even though most, if not all participants will quite possibly never read my response :)
Cubicsrube, I believe a large part of your argument is built on your understanding of the term “belief system”. It would seem that your definition of this term is that the only condition required in order for a concept/denial of a concept to become a belief system is for a person to attempt to and succeed in justifying it somehow. Correct me if I’m wrong.
Quote
“…they’ve decided they’re not convinced.
So, I call that a belief system. There’s a lack of a particular belief, but there’s also reasons why they chose not to accept that belief. They’ve heard the arguments, and they’re still not buying it.”
Personally, I would tend to disagree with that definition, but since I can’t come up with a better explanation, I’ll simply elaborate on MY reasons for thinking that the manner in which most atheists (don’t) believe constitutes a belief system.
The very simple reason is that most of them (in my experience) would appear not to be atheists at all, but rather antitheists, even though they often dispute this claim, especially when confronted with it for these particular reasons (that their status would now qualify as a belief). It might seem like mere semantics, but it’s far more than that.
Your average atheist (strawmanning, sorry, but you’ll probably agree with this) is quite aggressive when it comes to the topic of religion.
Example: A conversation with several friends in which one (unwisely) stated that he was a Christian. Several of my other friends immediately ganged up on him, telling him God didn’t exist (positive claim right there) and that he was an idiot.
Now – had I chosen to question my friends as to the nature of the aforementioned positive claim, they probably would have rescinded their statements, and purported to simply lack a belief in God, not to actually actively believe he didn’t exist. And I think they would have been lying, even though they possibly may not have realised it. They were (and are), in fact, closeted antitheists! In other words, they ACTIVELY believe that God does not exist. Most “atheists” I have encountered have, during discussions, dropped certain sentences or the like hinting at their actual nature. I find that they have trouble being honest to themselves and to others on this matter.
It is for these reasons that I believe that the actual amount of atheists in the world is much smaller than it would seem, and that, therefore, the lack of belief they profess to hold is, in fact, a belief.
Following this reasoning, a true atheist would have to be ENTIRELY OPEN to the concept of religion, even if he chose not to believe in it himself.
I try to follow this particular path, but it can be incredibly confusing at times, and I often do not really know WHAT I believe in, personally.
I just stumbled across this and as a Catholic I think you are brilliant. I don’t know where your search has led you since but you argument is perfect, humble, and logical.
This argument depend entirely on the definitions. Belief system, imo, tend to be defined as several interconnected beliefs, especially systematized beliefs. Atheism tends to be defines as everything between lack of belief to anti-religion or anti-belief. I don’t deny that some definitions of atheism can overlap with some definitions of “belief system”, but saying it has to be so seems to be a generalization. I don’t think I am being overly defensive in thinking so (and I really do appreciate the argument and tone of this blog post), but we do need to argue that atheism is not always a belief system. Not all atheists have thought enough about it to make atheism in to a real belief system, just as people who merely have a lack of belief in global warming should not be classified together with the people who has turned anti global warming into a complete belief system. Saying otherwise does not merely conflict with reality of the way people believe and don’t believe, itt also fosters an terribly culture for debate. Otherwise even the most vague and uninterested belief or lack of belief now has to be defended as vigorously and formally as any real philosophical belief system. At least that’s my experience of the people who uses the “this is a belief system too” line of thinking.
[…] I’ve written before about why the extent to which some atheists take this feels like an unnecessary cop-out. […]
The reason atheists claim not have beliefs is they’re being asked to provide proof and evidence for atheism and they CAN’T. Neither can you, atheotard! ATHEISM IS 100% FAITH, 100% GARBAGE.
wow, lots of comments. And I came here to thank you for your article. All believers, whether Atheist or otherwise need to learn to respect each others’ beliefs. There is no proof either way, and there is no right answer. To believe Atheism is not a belief system is a cop out to be able to argue against other belief but not your own. Good on you.