Interestingly, one of my friends just pointed me to a question from a pastor he knows, who was asking “why are you not a Christian?” I wrote this up, and felt it would be good to send along.
If you’d like to know why I’m an atheist, its because I am also a skeptic. Atheism is in a way an application of skepticism; I only believe that which has convincing evidence, and there is no convincing evidence for the existence of a divine being. The god proposed by every major religion is a supernatural god; even religions like Buddhism that do not promote a god do promote the supernatural in various ways. But through science, the study of the world around us, the observation of reality, we see absolutely no evidence of the supernatural. Everything fits, everything follows the rules. There is no E that does not equal mc^2, no F that does not have an equivalent MA. The universe appears exactly as it should if the only forces at work were those of the elementary particles of matter responding to the laws of nature. Its possible that there is a god of some kind, but its highly unlikely, and there is no evidence that any god affects reality in any way.
Why I am not a Christian is a little more specific. I was raised as a Christian, going to church every Sunday at the United Church of Christ. But as I grew older, and learned more about the religion I was following, it simply stopped making sense. Every time the Bible, and therefore god, made verifiable statements about the nature of reality, and even most of the time when it made statements of historical fact, it got it wrong. And very importantly, the god being described didn’t actually seem very loving. He demands worship and obedience, he demands that we bow before him, and tells us that we’re sinful creatures that must beg his forgiveness for not being perfect, despite the fact that supposedly he created us. As Richard Dawkins put it in The God Delusion, “The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully.” He set the default state for the afterlife as eternal torture; how could a god who willingly sent most of his supposedly beloved children to hell be good? If there is a god, and an afterlife, and that god sits in judgement, then here is how I see it. If god is just and kind, then he will judge me on my works, not whether I believed in him. If god judges me on whether I believed in him without any evidence, then he is not just and kind, and thus isn’t worthy of worship anyway.
Matthew Prorok
United States
Prorok makes these points:
1. Skepticism/Scientism. No scientific evidence for non-material existence. Bible has errors.
2. Evil God. God of the Bible doesn’t meet Prorok’s standards for a decent God. Hell is not a good thing to believe in. Prorok sets his own standards, based somewhat on Dawkins “philosophy”.
Summary: No age given; Skepticism/Scientism; Evil God.
39 comments:
'No scientific evidence for non-material existence.'
Read on! It's even worse! This guy doesn't even think a God theory is even needed. Like this guy knows everything! What an idiot.
And his objections to the justice of Hell - he is just a man. We know God is good and all good comes from God so therefore Hell is good and this guy not knowing why doesn't make that go away. If this guy doesn't like hell he dosn't have to go there. What a moron.
Please don't call him a moron. He's sharing his personal feelings. I'd appreciate it if you could be respectful.
Being right means never having to be respectful, dybukky. At least that seems to be the view of many theists- and even some atheists.
cheers from chilly Vienna, zilch
Time for the periodic admonition: This blog is for civil conversation, statements of positions and logical analysis of those positions. Ad Hominem attacks aren't tolerated.
Those types of attacks generally come from from drive-by's, not from the regulars here. And they do come from both sides, somewhat more from the Atheist side, especially when some of PZ's guys come over for a bit o'fun with the theists.
I leave single attacks up for observation, but sequential rants get removed.
From the atheistic perspective, is it possible for there to be an atheist who is not an agnostic?
A gnostic atheist believes they know God doesn't exist. An agnostic atheist simply doesn't believe in God.
DM,
A gnostic atheist strikes me as a contradiction in terms.
As I understand it, atheists typically insist that they do not deny, they simply do not affirm. Why is there no denial? Presumably, because they are agnostic, without knowledge.
So, the gnostic atheist himself is actually saying that he knows that he doesn't know?
(a)Gnosticism is about knowledge and (a)theism is about belief. Hope this clears things up.
(Posted the last comment in the wrong tab.)
"Why is there no denial? Presumably, because they are agnostic, without knowledge."
It's common for non-believers call themselves agnostic atheists. That's what I've called myself for decades.
Chris said:From the atheistic perspective, is it possible for there to be an atheist who is not an agnostic?
Debunkey Monkey said:A gnostic atheist believes they know God doesn't exist. An agnostic atheist simply doesn't believe in God.
I think there is no simple answer...
Using to the definition given by DM, I would answer 'yes' to Chris' question since I personally believe that the definitions given by theists to define God usually make God impossible to exist. I would thus consider myself a 'gnostic atheist' in that case since I consider that I know that that kind of God certainly does not exist.
However, I would also claim that it's impossible to be a 'gnostic atheist' since you cannot ever know that something does not exist since there is always a possibility for that thing to exist but not be detected, or not even be detectable. It is thus impossible to know if God exists or not in that case.
Hugo,
When you say, "Yes, I am a gnostic atheist", you say so, presumably, based on reason.
When you say, " No, I am not a gnostic atheist, you say so based on the limits of empiricism.
But, doesn't the atheist argument depend on the adequacy and reliability of empiricism.
Isn't there a conflict?
I agree with Hugo- matters of belief are not so easily pigeonholed. I, too, would call myself an agnostic atheist, in the sense that I don't believe in gods, but can't prove they don't exist. But I can't prove the Sun will rise tomorrow either: proofs are, strictly speaking, only applicable to circumscribed systems of formal logic such as mathematics, and outside such systems, for instance in the real world, no such proofs obtain, as far as I can see. The real world is always capable of surprising us, by going beyond, or defying, what our words and paltry imaginations tell us.
All we can go on in the real world is preponderance of evidence. Luckily, that's enough for most practical purposes, such as living. And for all practical purposes, I believe it highly unlikely that gods exist, for similar reasons that I believe it highly unlikely that unicorns exist. I have no proof, and I'm openminded pending new evidence, but that's my current position.
Perhaps I should rather call myself a meta-agnostic atheist. I'm not sure, but I'm not sure that I'm not sure. Doesn't mean much, but it sounds good.
cheers from chilly Vienna, zilch
@Chris
When you say, "Yes, I am a gnostic atheist", you say so, presumably, based on reason.
That's my opinion yes.
When you say, " No, I am not a gnostic atheist, you say so based on the limits of empiricism.
That is also correct.
But, doesn't the atheist argument depend on the adequacy and reliability of empiricism.
Isn't there a conflict?
No I don't see a conflict. Zilch gave a perfectly reasonable answer in my opinion.
I disagree with him only slightly because of the following opinion: I am not even opened to evidence for gods because of the definitions usually used to describe gods. For me, the definition of gods renders them non-existent right off the bat… usually.
I wonder what you mean exactly by 'atheist argument' by the way?
@ Zilch "And for all practical purposes, I believe it highly unlikely that gods exist, for similar reasons that I believe it highly unlikely that unicorns exist."
Hi Zilch...
It's not a lack of evidence for unicorns that results in us saying it's highly unlikely they exist, we have positive evidence for their non-existance.
What reasons do you have for saying it's highly unlikely God exists?
Hey Ben- we have positive evidence for the non-existence of unicorns? That's new to me. Sure, there's lots of circumstantial evidence that they don't exist, but can you prove they don't?
My reasons for saying it's highly unlikely God exists are also circumstantial, but they are enough for me (for the moment, pending new evidence): no sign of God's existence, the seeming unlikelihood that a superintelligent Being just appeared out of nowhere, or was "just" there all along, and the fact that people make up fantasy beings all the time.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/aid/v2/n1/unicorns-in-bible
This article gives evidence that the Word of God is true and unicorns DID exist but they are extinct now.
Er, Chuck, no, it doesn't, if you discount the one anecdotal account from an unnamed eighteenth-century source in southern Africa, quoted in a nineteenth-century Bible dictionary- I would be tempted to discount it, wouldn't you? All the other examples are real animals which might conceivably been the source for the legend, but none of them are one-horned equines- they are the usual suspects: the rhinoceros, the narwhal, the aurochs.
As interesting as this is, it is not evidence for unicorns, or that the Word of God is true.
cheers from chilly Vienna, zilch
"It's not a lack of evidence for unicorns that results in us saying it's highly unlikely they exist, we have positive evidence for their non-existance."
There is positive evidence of their non-existence or they are unlikely to exist.
Which one is it?
As I understand positive evidence doesn't mean you prove what your arguing that's why I said 'unlikely' though I maybe wrong, I know you can't prove a negative.
Also the whole unicorn comparison with God is a category error as Stan always says :)
Zilch with your circumstancial evidence you said "no sign of his existence" what would classify as a sign to you?
The general argument against the existence of something is:
1. If X exists, we should expect to find Y
2. We do not find Y
3. Therefore, X does not exist
Fill in the blanks. If unicorns existed, we would expect to find evidence on the horse family tree, fossil evidence, etc. We do not.
Note that this is inductive. So it's not 100%.
So the question remains: what do you fill this in with if you think God does not exist?
The general argument against the existence of something is:
1. If X exists, we should expect to find Y
2. We do not find Y
3. Therefore, X does not exist
Fill in the blanks. If unicorns existed, we would expect to find evidence on the horse family tree, fossil evidence, etc. We do not.
Note that this is inductive. So it's not 100%.
So the question remains: what do you fill this in with if you think God does not exist?
I like the way you put it.
My answer would be 'design' and 'divine intervention'.
Both are claimed to be found; I reject both.
You reject both on what grounds? What standards of evidence? What exact instances have you investigated, and using what investigative techniques, producing what data?
I suspect that your rejection is based on opinion only. Can you show otherwise?
Stan:
You reject both on what grounds? What standards of evidence? What exact instances have you investigated, and using what investigative techniques, producing what data?
I suspect that your rejection is based on opinion only. Can you show otherwise?
You want me to explain my entire standard of evidence because I said that I disbelieve the claims presented by others concerning divine intervention and examples of design?
So, in short, no, I cannot show you otherwise right away. I think it's pretty much based on opinions because we are talking about beliefs here.
If someone comes to you and say he was abducted by aliens, would you really go on to analyze the claims and go deep into data, and so on? Probably not, your opinion would take over and you would simply not believe that person until he shows more data.
I am in this position, I am simply saying that what I have seen or heard did not convince me. I don't see why I would have to explain why I disbelieve alllll the claims since I am not making any here. Again, I am just saying that I was not convinced when presented with any.
So, if some more claims were presented, I would look at them and then tell you what does not seem right to me. Again, at first it would be an opinion but I would then try to give reasons if asked to. Right now, I have nothing to talk about precisely since my answer was simply two examples of 'signs from God' I would find plausible.
Since I never ran into a claim of divine intervention that I could believe, and because I don't see design anywhere in the natural world, I don't see good reasons to believe in gods based on that. There could be other things I guess, but since I don't believe, I cannot really think of anything else...
You are making a definite claim of rejection:
"Both are claimed to be found; I reject both."
You did not place conditions on this claim of rejection: it appears to be a categorical, unconditional claim.
Perhaps you didn't mean it that way...
Surely you have standards for what you would or could believe, if it were presented to you. And since it is not presented, then you reject belief. What could be presented that would induce belief? Is it not entire categories which you reject, rather than specifics? Is it not physical, material evidence that you require? It certainly appears that way.
The fact that you cannot prove or disprove certain things does not induce skeptical disbelief in materialism, only in other categories. Yet materialism is no more certain than non-materialism, as has been demonstrated, and can be again if you wish. So your position on materialism should be held in the same suspicion and skepticism as non-materialism, unless you are pressing an agenda.
When skepticism is asymetrical it is not rational, it is ideological.
Another take on your argument:
IFF [design], THEN [God].
ASSERTION: No [design];
THEREFORE [No God]
This is not a proper syllogism because the existence of a deity does not hinge on “design”.
Also, the assertion is a negative. It cannot be known with certainty. So there is no certainty in the conclusion.
More importantly, there are many things which must be assumed to be material and fully causal in order for the premise to be "true". This includes considering human activity to be fully causal back to the origin of the universe. The list of fully materially causal "things" includes the dynamic force in living things; the aquistion of life from minerals; the aquisition of the design inherent in HOX genes; the random occurrence of DNA as a propagation tool; on and on.
All of these have stories which are created in an attempt to make materialism palatable; but when it comes to material evidence for these "hypotheses" there is none. Not only is there no inductive proof, there is no deductive validation. If ever there were a place for skepticism, that is it. Yet it remains a hallowed precept, rather than afforded any of the famous doubt which skeptics pride themselves in.
Next:
IFF [divine intervention], THEN [God];
ASSERTION: NO [divine intervention]: (premise is false)
THEREFORE [no God].
This is not a proper syllogism, because the existence of a deity does not hinge on “divine intervention”.
Also, there is significant proof required to prove that “no divine intervention” exists; materially, that cannot be proved.
Both of these can be stated in the converse:
IFF [no divine intervention], THEN [no God];
ASSERTION: [no divine intervention];
THEREFORE [no God].
In order to be logical proofs, these must be shown to have true premises; but it is not possible, materially to disprove non-material intervention, as is shown in the case of Lourdes, where Atheists do not produce empirical, replicable, falsifiable, experimental “proof” that the intervention did NOT occur.
The allegation that there has been no divine intervention is only believed on faith in Materialism (a failed ideology), not on evidence which refutes non-material intervention.
The allegation that there is no design apparent in the universe is only believed on faith in Materialism (a failed ideology), not on evidence which refutes design.
Opinion is fine, unless it requires abnormal belief in order to justify a worldview. Abnormal belief might be defined as that which requires ignoring logical fallacy in order to believe a thing.
Stan, I am not making an argument here, so I don't understand why you write all that... You are correct:
Perhaps you didn't mean it that way...
Concerning Lourdes for example; I don't even know what you are talking about because I don't know these events. The name sounds familiar and 2 seconds on Google will tell me what it is I am sure, but why on Earth would I need to prove that it did not happen!? I am supposed to read the story, which obviously must include some sort of miracle, and just believe it because I cannot prove it wrong!?
What's wrong with you?
Ben, you ask:
Zilch with your circumstancial evidence you said "no sign of his existence" what would classify as a sign to you?
Basically what Hugo said: evidence for (divine) design and/or other intervention. One example would be what many if not most theists claim: the efficacy of prayer.
Martin and Stan: both of you object to my position (and Hugo's) because "it's not 100%" (Martin) or "there is no certainty in the conclusion" (Stan). As I've said many times, I agree that there is no certainty in our position. But as I've also said many times, you are assuming that you can get to absolute truth about the existence (or nonexistence) of God (or merely the supernatural) through logic alone.
As far as I can see, your claim of certainty is just that- a claim with no substantiation. You've shown us no reason to believe that it's true. And since logical explanations (at least those involving causality) must break down at some point, if you want to avoid infinite regresses, then using logic to puff God into existence and then exempting God from logic is simply ad hoc wordplay. I'd rather just shrug my shoulders and say "I don't know" than pass the buck to God and say that He can take care of explaining His own existence. As I've also said, your worldview doesn't explain anything more than mine does and it's a great deal more complicated, so why should I multiply entities beyond necessity?
cheers from chilly Vienna, zilch
BEN "Zilch with your circumstancial evidence you said "no sign of his existence" what would classify as a sign to you?"
ZILCH "Basically what Hugo said: evidence for (divine) design and/or other intervention."
Cool... I believe there is design but you don't, how then would you recognise design by a God in the universe, what critera would design have to achieve for it to be ascribed to God.
Ben- true, that's a tough question, since I don't know how God would design things. But my feeling is that if God is not a trickster, He would not design life so that it looked exactly the way you would expect if it had evolved: lots of evidence for common descent, especially in things like ERVs, and lots of tinkering, yielding less-than-ideal solutions, for instance the recurrent laryngeal nerve. Of course, none of this applies to an absentee God who merely got the ball rolling, then stood back and let evolution do its thing, but that's not the God of any of the major religions, is it?
cheers from chilly Vienna, zilch
Hugo said,
"Stan, I am not making an argument here, so I don't understand why you write all that... "
Hugo, you assert rejection with a confidence of certainty which you cannot possibly have. Now you don't want to defend it. And you certainly don't want to look at the one (1) example given to you. Your defense of your Materialism is looking more and more ideological, with less rational input in every comment.
One can only surmise that you do not wish to encounter any contrary data that might jeapardize your ideology.
So be it; just don't call your position rational. Your pride in rejection is not evidence based, nor logic based.
Zilch- fair enough... I would just say that the evidence doesn't stand alone. It has to be interpreted. As such, the examples you give for common descent can equally and are equally used as evidence for a common designer.
"Of course, none of this applies to an absentee God who merely got the ball rolling"
Of course :)
Ben- so you think a common designer would have installed the same genetic debris of viruses in our genome and that of chimps? A funny sense of humor the Designer has here....
Zilch said,
"But as I've also said many times, you are assuming that you can get to absolute truth about the existence (or nonexistence) of God (or merely the supernatural) through logic alone.
As far as I can see, your claim of certainty is just that- a claim with no substantiation. You've shown us no reason to believe that it's true. And since logical explanations (at least those involving causality) must break down at some point, if you want to avoid infinite regresses, then using logic to puff God into existence and then exempting God from logic is simply ad hoc wordplay. "
Never, ever, have I made the claims you attribute to me above. The purpose of this blog is to examine atheist claims. I adhere rigidly to that purpose.
What I claim is that Atheists cannot "prove" their own position using their own standard for proof. This is easily demonstrated, over and over and over and...
There is no claim of theist certainty. The theist claim is one of logical deduction, based on material observations...therefore is probabilistic (as is material science, historical and forensic science, etc.)
These are the challenges to atheists:
(1) prove your own position using your own standards of evidence;
(2) disprove the theist claim.
Niether of these challenges have been met, except by complaints of unfainess, and in your present charges, false assertion of Tu Quoque.
Now both you and Hugo assert some sort of acceptable uncertainty for yourselves, while still demanding certainty from the position of others.
"...exempting God from logic..."
The diametrical opposite is the case. The theist position is based on logical deduction; the Atheist position is based on Skeptical denialism, which is anti-knowledge.
Please expand on this comment:
" And since logical explanations (at least those involving causality) must break down at some point, if you want to avoid infinite regresses,..."
What is the cause of logical breakdown? Describe how infinite regress results, please.
from the Llano estacado y pampas de oro,
Stan
Stan says:
There is no claim of theist certainty. The theist claim is one of logical deduction, based on material observations...therefore is probabilistic (as is material science, historical and forensic science, etc.)
Okay, that's a relief. I'm not certain my worldview is correct, and neither are you certain your worldview is correct. That's not the impression I got from you, but I guess I was mistaken.
These are the challenges to atheists:
(1) prove your own position using your own standards of evidence;
(2) disprove the theist claim.
Stan, we've been through this a gazillion times: I don't claim to be able to "prove" my position or "disprove" the theist claim. Proofs do not obtain outside of circumscribed systems of formal logic such as mathematics; all claims about the way the world is are more or less uncertain, because we do not have exhaustive information about the world. The same goes for "disproving" theism. I think it's very likely there is no God; but I can't prove it.
Niether of these challenges have been met, except by complaints of unfainess, and in your present charges, false assertion of Tu Quoque.
Please show me where I complained of unfairness. And saying that we are in the same boat is not a tu quoque argument- it would be a tu quoque if I said we were in the same boat, and that you are thus disqualified from criticizing my position, which I have not done.
Now both you and Hugo assert some sort of acceptable uncertainty for yourselves, while still demanding certainty from the position of others.
Where have I demanded certainty from you or anyone else?
What is the cause of logical breakdown? Describe how infinite regress results, please.
Is the statement "everything has a cause" a logical statement? If so, then there must either be an infinite chain of causes, and causes of causes, without end; or there is some cause which is uncaused, which is where logic breaks down.
cheers from chilly Vienna, zilch
@Stan
Hugo, you assert rejection with a confidence of certainty which you cannot possibly have. Now you don't want to defend it.
Later in your comment you mention Materialism, which I did not mention in here, so I am not sure what you are talking about exactly.
There are at least 3 threads on your blog that I currently follow, and participate in on different levels, so the context is important you know...
And you certainly don't want to look at the one (1) example given to you.
The Lourdes thing? I did not say I don't want to look at it. Read again.
Your defense of your Materialism is looking more and more ideological, with less rational input in every comment.
One can only surmise that you do not wish to encounter any contrary data that might jeapardize your ideology.
So be it; just don't call your position rational. Your pride in rejection is not evidence based, nor logic based.
Not every single word I write is in defence of Materialism...
For instance, I am not doing that at all in this thread. Materialism for me is a conclusion of everything else I believe in, not a starting point.
Moreover, just because I don't put my standard of evidence, my FULL reasoning, all my past beliefs, etc... apparently I am bad at defending my ideas? not rational? not evidence based, nor logic based?
Should I then conclude that your debating techniques resort mostly to Ad Hominem attacks since you put a bunch of generalization regarding Atheists, as individuals and as a group, on this other thread? The list is freaking long and you have not even asked me to remove ONE from the list yet...
What's the expression again; if you live in a glass house you should not throw stones?
"Ben- so you think a common designer would have installed the same genetic debris of viruses in our genome and that of chimps? A funny sense of humor the Designer has here...."
There are two possibilities for the similarities: they could be inherited, or they could be the result of being programmed by the same Designer. If the latter were the case, we would expect that humans would share some of the same DNA programming as primates, because we’re more similar to them in body type than any other sort of animal.
Common ancestry with ERVs assumes that the ERV inserts are functionless junk in that case then of course why would an intelligent creator place useless bits of DNA with the same sequence at the same location in both humans and chimps? But ERVs have been shown to have a significant functional role in the genome.
Ben- Yes, ERVs have been co-opted to serve functions in the genome, much in the same way that mutations are co-opted. But they are viruses, with relatives living outside the genome, and they inserted themselves into the genome at some point, and then were passed on. It's begging incredulity to assume that we humans "just happen" to have most of same ERVs as chimps, fewer in common with monkeys, even fewer with mice, and so forth. You might want to check out some of the information available on the web that's not from creationist sites. Here's a good primer.
"It's begging incredulity to assume that we humans "just happen" to have most of same ERVs as chimps, fewer in common with monkeys, even fewer with mice"
But you could interpret that fact differently i.e. if there is a common designer then humans and primates looking and functioning similarly then you'd expect similar ERVs, mice would have fewer in common because they are more substancially different from humans.
At present I'd say ERVs are the best evidence for evolutionary common descent, even more so if the regions were functionless, but an evolutionary paradigm fails to explain quite alot of the evidence on a number of other issues that lead me to reject evolution in a molecules to man sense. And back to the original points there is plenty of evidence that points to the necessity of a designer i.e the genome it'self with it's complex coding/message system.
In that regard you could say I have faith that the more we underrstand these ERVs and their relation to the genome the more a creationist interpretation will fit... but of course I would cos the bible (and hence creation) is the unprovable assumption in my worldview :)
Ben, you say:
But you could interpret that fact differently i.e. if there is a common designer then humans and primates looking and functioning similarly then you'd expect similar ERVs, mice would have fewer in common because they are more substancially different from humans.
Yes, that would make sense if ERVs were examples of good design, but like jumping genes, recurrent laryngeal nerves, and a host of other bizarre things, they're not. If you look at the big picture, it takes very strongly Bible-colored glasses to try to squoosh all this evidence into a designed, rather than evolved, scenario.
At present I'd say ERVs are the best evidence for evolutionary common descent, even more so if the regions were functionless, but an evolutionary paradigm fails to explain quite alot of the evidence on a number of other issues that lead me to reject evolution in a molecules to man sense.
Sure, there's a lot of stuff that's yet unexplained by the evolutionary paradigm, and we'll probably never have a complete explanation. That's hardly surprising, given the daunting complexity of life, and the fact that we don't have an unbroken record of life from its beginnings. We don't have a unified field theory that explains everything either, though- does that move you to embrace Intelligent Falling rather than gravity?
And as far as I can see, theism doesn't give us any explanations of exactly how and why a designer would use retroviruses in our design- in lack of such explanations, the god hypothesis has no information to add to science, and may thus be disregarded. I could just as well say that we have ERVs because of Russell's Teapot, and our knowledge of ERVs would be improved by just as much.
And back to the original points there is plenty of evidence that points to the necessity of a designer i.e the genome it'self with it's complex coding/message system.
True, we don't know how our genetic system came about. But it's an observed fact that order can emerge from disorder with the input of energy, so it's a bit premature to say that a designer is necessary to explain the evolution of order. And, as many people have pointed out, postulating a Designer is not an "explanation", but simply passing the buck: the design of the Designer is simply taken as a given with no questions asked or answered.
cheers from chilly Vienna, zilch
Post a Comment