The Case for Atheism/ Shades of Atheism

[Josh]

Mo, with all this talk of "burden of proof" I'm curious if you'd like to give us your best shot at building a "positive case for atheism". Even though you dont' necessarily hold fast to "atheism", I'd like to see how well you could prop it up.

[moritz]

Jun 16, 2009 14:36:59 GMT -8 Josh said:

Mo, with all this talk of "burden of proof" I'm curious if you'd like to give us your best shot at building a "positive case for atheism". Even though you dont' necessarily hold fast to "atheism", I'd like to see how well you could prop it up.

Sure, why not.

Where to start? Perhaps I should take some time to think of a reasonable didactical structure first. Or perhaps I should catch up with the replies I'm owing you before starting yet another discussion. But this one is tempting, man.

Let's start with baby steps: a simple definition to see where we stand.

As you know, my worldview isn't really adequately described with the word atheism. Yet I keep using the term referring to myself. So what do I mean when I speak of atheism?

When I use the term, I mean the absence of belief in any given deity. I don't mean that I believe that no God or Gods exist. There is a very important difference between those two concepts. Dogmatic atheists who firmly believe that there is no supernatural power have just another kind of religion, so to say*. I don't go along with that. I have huge gaps in knowledge and I refuse to fill them with wild speculation, wishful thinking and guesswork. None of the existing religions - present or past - convince me. They all seem pretty improbable. But that doesn't mean that there can't be a supernatural power, call it whatever you like. So in the words of Bill Maher: I preach the gospel of "I don't know". Or to paraphrase Richard Dawkins: You are an atheist to Zeus, Ra, Wotan, Vishnu etc. - just like me. The only difference is that I add one more deity to the list: Yahwe.

So when I call myself an atheist, I mean that as a matter of fact there is no particular God or Religion I believe in.

Any questions so far?





*alright, now many could argue that Gods are the sine qua non of religion and that where someone believes that there is no God, one can't speak of religion either. Let's not be nitpickerish.

[Josh]

I don't mean that I believe that no God or Gods exist.

So, could you restate what you think the general probability that a God* exists?

*by that I mean any transcendant, omni-deity.

[moritz]

Jun 17, 2009 20:52:33 GMT -8 Josh said:

I don't mean that I believe that no God or Gods exist.

So, could you restate what you think the general probability that a God exists?

No I can't. Sorry . But that's exactly the point! Think about it.

[Josh]

Well, I meant for you personally, not objectively. But the answer would probably still be the same.

But, that leads me to another question, which probably would be better for another thread- "What evidence from science or history would you consider positive evidence for the existence of God (as defined above" But since that gets us away from the "case for atheism", here's a link if you want to tackle this one some time:

www.aletheia.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=exist&thread=2103

[Josh]

Mo, I was originally interested in seeing you give your best devil's argument* defense of throughgoing atheism (attempting to demonstrate conclusively that there is no God). But, we can go in this direction as well. Wouldn't you say basically that you are attempting to make a case for Agnosticism? Or if not, refresh me on what you see as the difference between Agnosticism and your position.

I'll say right off the bat that making a case for thoroughgoing atheism is incredibly more difficult than the case you are going to attempt to make. Wouldn't you agree?


* because I know it's not your position

[matty]

The actual task with athiests is diverting the image of this dodgy looking old man in the sky who occasionally does something bad and occasionally does something good. And then decideds your afterlife.
With this view of the lord no wonder people don't believe in him you've got to explain to them the god you believe in the one that works through people. The god we see through Jesus, because the work of Jesus was the work of God.

[Josh]

Matty,

You're right. I'd also say that the picture most self-proclaimed atheists have of God isn't even biblically informed, and therefore what is being rejected isn't even the God of the Bible.

But an atheist worth his/ her salt will do their best to form as realistic a picture of the God they don't believe in as possible.

[moritz]

Jun 19, 2009 11:48:57 GMT -8 matty said:

The actual task with athiests is diverting the image of this dodgy looking old man in the sky who occasionally does something bad and occasionally does something good. And then decideds your afterlife.
With this view of the lord no wonder people don't believe in him you've got to explain to them the god you believe in the one that works through people. The god we see through Jesus, because the work of Jesus was the work of God.

This view is probably held by those people, who are indifferent towards religion. The word atheist has become some kind of a label, that's why I'm not sure it applies to those people you are referring to.

[moritz]

Jun 18, 2009 9:43:30 GMT -8 Josh said:

Mo, I was originally interested in seeing you give your best devil's argument* defense of throughgoing atheism (attempting to demonstrate conclusively that there is no God). But, we can go in this direction as well. Wouldn't you say basically that you are attempting to make a case for Agnosticism? Or if not, refresh me on what you see as the difference between Agnosticism and your position.

I'll say right off the bat that making a case for thoroughgoing atheism is incredibly more difficult than the case you are going to attempt to make. Wouldn't you agree?


* because I know it's not your position

Josh, I'm confused: what am I supposed to make a case for now?

a) the defense of theism (by pointing out the best scientific arguments in favor of theism)
b) Atheism in the sense of a firm belief that no god exists
c) My own views




To refresh you on what I see as the difference between agnosticism and my position: Agnosticism, as I perceive it, doesn't venture an estimation concerning respective belief systems. In other words, some agnostic might say: maybe yahwe exists, maybe he doesn't. 50:50. That isn't the case with me. I don't believe in Yahwe or reverse: I believe Yahwe doesn't exists. I'm an atheist to Yahwe. That's why I'm arguing as an atheist on this board. I'm an agnostic when it comes to the question of whether an unspecified God exists or not. But I'm almost 100% certain it's not Yahwe. And if I don't say "100% certain" then only because I'm a fallibilist.
So technically speaking, I'm an agnostic when it comes to the question of whether a transcendent God exists, and an atheist when it comes to the question of whether Jesus is Lord.

Did that help?

[Josh]

My original thought was, fueled by reading Dawkins and Flew, a discussion of the merits of the position that there almost certainly isn't a god (any god(s)).

I know that's not your position, but I thought it might be instructive to see how difficult it is to make such a case.

But thanks again for the clarifications- it's a good refresher for me on your position and is good for those just joining the party.

Hmmmm.

This thread has kind of become mired. Let's see. How about you decide if you want to start a new thread on any of these ideas?

Lastly, I do think that it would be most beneficial for you and I to discuss simply the likelihood of there being a trascendent, personal God before we talk too much more about Yahweh. If you don't see the evidence for the existence of a transcendant, personal God first, much of the talk about Yahweh and Jesus is going to seem unsubstantiated anyway. In other words, belief in Jesus usually requires a belief in the very kind of deity you have serious doubts about.

And I also believe that some of the best "evidence" to be discussed does favor the existence of a personal, transcendant God.

[moritz]

Okay Josh,
As you requested I’m going to venture an approach to present the main arguments for atheism, defined as the confident belief that there is no God. This definition of atheism is the most common one, yet not the one that applies to me as you know. I also have to admit that I can’t remember Richard Dawkins line of reasoning. It’s been more than a year since I read his book and I read heaps of technical literature on very different issues for my exams in the meantime. I’m not motivated to reread Dawkins book just now. So I’ll just try to present what I imagine to be the basic atheist argument.

I would say the starting point for the belief that no God exists is the highly visible invisibility of any kind of God. If I walk into a room and I see nobody, the normal conclusion is that there’s nobody in that room. Sure, that’s no proof; somebody could be hiding behind the furniture. So to reassure, I could ask: “anybody there?” If I get no reply, the conclusion that nobody’s there becomes even more probable. Still, it’s no proof. There could be someone hiding behind the furniture who doesn’t want me to know he’s there and hence doesn’t answer my call. If I still had the feeling that there might be someone anyway, I could search the room for that person. I could open the closets, look behind the curtains, under the bed and everywhere else where someone would fit. If I still can’t find anymore, it is only logical to assume that nobody’s there. It’s no proof though. Someone could be hiding somewhere I haven’t looked. But to keep on assuming that somebody is in that room watching me, although there’s no trace of him, comes close to paranoia.
The assumption that someone invisible could be there doesn’t root in any confirmable human experience. Never in the history of mankind have we been able to prove the presence of an invisible person. Now, that doesn’t mean that invisible, inaudible superpowers can’t exist, but there is no objective reason to assume their existence to begin with.

This basic observation combines with other observations and lessons about life. There are things we can’t explain. But that’s no evidence for the existence of a higher power. On the contrary: throughout the course of history many religious traditions and beliefs could be exposed as superstition and misperceptions based on lack of knowledge. We know today what thunder and lighting is, we know what earthquakes are and how they are caused, we have a fair understanding of why the tides go up and down and how volcanic eruptions work. And we know that there a perfectly natural explanations for all of those phenomena. The advance of science and knowledge gives evidence for the opposite claim of religion. We have learnt to be careful and reluctant with snapshots. We know the earth isn’t flat even though this has been unchallenged, common belief for the longest time. If an institution can be proven wrong in many of its claims, it doesn’t prove that it is wrong with all of it’s claims, but the suspicion is at hand. If an institution can be proven wrong with many of its claims, it loses credibility. Religions like Christianity drew back into unfalsifiable positions in the course of time. There they are safe from scientific rebuttal, but why should one trust in their stories, if they have been wrong with pretty much everything that is falsifiable? Of course religious people have a very different perception about the reliability of their claims. But this perception is selective. The history of religion is the history of distortion. And upon closer inspection (as the discourse on this board has shown), the best religious (here: Christian) evidence proves to be nothing but hot air.

This, combined with the absolute traceless absence of any kind of Godforce gives strong evidence for the inexistence of such a Godforce. Stronger evidence than the opposite side can provide for the existence of a God, because the atheist approach starts with the observable, while the religious approach starts with a leap of faith. But to be sure, there’s no proof for the hardcore atheist claim.

My personal view is that humans are beings with limited knowledge and limited senses. We have already discovered that there is more than meets the eye. We have discovered the micro-cosmos of bacteria, monads, germs, spores, particles etc.; we have discovered radio waves and ultrasound, ultraviolet and infrared light; we have started to develop and test theories about multiple additional dimensions and physics that put everything we claim to know about the world into question. We know that our brain is interpreting the information it receives from the senses and that it is easily led astray. Hence, to exclude the possibility that things exist we can’t even imagine (including a God), is foolish. But to fill our gaps of knowledge with speculation, guesswork and wishful thinking isn’t more reasonable. It’s just as foolish.

Since there is no trace of the supposed creator, the atheist approach seems more convincing to me. And this is just the beginning. There are more aspects that can be added to the basic observation which help making the atheist approach even more plausible.

Let's hear from you.

[Josh]

So somehow I missed this response, Mo. Glad you took the time to do it.

Some responses:

I would say the starting point for the belief that no God exists is the highly visible invisibility of any kind of God. If I walk into a room and I see nobody, the normal conclusion is that there’s nobody in that room. Sure, that’s no proof; somebody could be hiding behind the furniture. So to reassure, I could ask: “anybody there?” If I get no reply, the conclusion that nobody’s there becomes even more probable. Still, it’s no proof. There could be someone hiding behind the furniture who doesn’t want me to know he’s there and hence doesn’t answer my call. If I still had the feeling that there might be someone anyway, I could search the room for that person. I could open the closets, look behind the curtains, under the bed and everywhere else where someone would fit. If I still can’t find anymore, it is only logical to assume that nobody’s there. It’s no proof though. Someone could be hiding somewhere I haven’t looked. But to keep on assuming that somebody is in that room watching me, although there’s no trace of him, comes close to paranoia.
The assumption that someone invisible could be there doesn’t root in any confirmable human experience. Never in the history of mankind have we been able to prove the presence of an invisible person. Now, that doesn’t mean that invisible, inaudible superpowers can’t exist, but there is no objective reason to assume their existence to begin with.

Mo, this is definitely one of the strongest cases for atheism period, and one of the simplest, in my opinion. This has been precisely the point over which atheism has at times has seem compelling to me.

It reminds me of a song by my favorite band entitled "Author of the Story". Permit me to post the lyrics here. Bolded parts especially remind me of your words.

[Josh]

Author of the Story

by Daniel Amos/ Terry Taylor, 2001

She had one foot on the ground
And one foot in the air
(it seemed) the world held her cold hand
While the angels brushed her hair

"but that's how it has to end
On this side of glory,
Some wounds will never mend,"
Says the author of the story

I held one hand in the fire
And lifted one hand towards the sky
But the busy world still turned
And the angels passed me by

Sometimes there seems to be
No author of the story
These thoughts occur to me
On this side of glory

And I kissed the Lamb of God
And my fingers found the wounds
And the angels moved the stone
And I searched the vacant room

That's how it all begins
On this side of glory
"and you'll see her shine again,"
Said the author of the story

[Josh]

Ok, back from my rightbrained side,

I will say this about that paragraph. While this experience(of searching a vacant room) is true for some of us, what is to be said about the majority of people who don't feel this way? People who feel that they have found God?

On to your next paragraph:

If an institution can be proven wrong in many of its claims, it doesn’t prove that it is wrong with all of it’s claims, but the suspicion is at hand. If an institution can be proven wrong with many of its claims, it loses credibility.

But just because some in the church insisted on a heliocentric theory doesn't mean that God's revelation through Scripture should been seen as dictating a scientific, heliocentric theory when it says the sun rises in the east.

The Bible isn't primarily a scientific textbook- although in many ways it's remarkably scientifically accurate.

However, it is a history book, and it measures up quite nicely with the normal demands of that discipline.

Be back, the kids are needing some attention.

[Josh]

Hence, to exclude the possibility that things exist we can’t even imagine (including a God), is foolish. But to fill our gaps of knowledge with speculation, guesswork and wishful thinking isn’t more reasonable. It’s just as foolish.
Since there is no trace of the supposed creator, the atheist approach seems more convincing to me.

It's the existence of "traces of the Creator" that we disagree on. I think they're everywhere and you can't seem to see them anywhere.