I had the good fortune to be born into a family of secular Jews who did not believe in god or go to temple. I never believed myself, and I am puzzled to this day why anyone would believe such nonsense. Some years ago, I began to wonder whether there was any chance religious people were on to something, so I read a lot of objective books and articles on religion and atheism, and I did not find a shred of evidence for god, and saw that religion was a pathetic tangle of lies and wishful thinking. After my initial bout of reading, I became hooked, and I love to read about atheism, and I read you and Jerry Coyne every day. I am still mystified, however, why any sane person could believe such rot.
Steve Beck
United States
Beck makes these points:
1. Background is Atheist. He never believed.
2. Read “objective” books on religion and Atheism.
3. No shred of evidence found in his reading.
4. Religion is a “tangle of lies and wishful thinking”.
5. Loves to read about Atheism.
Summary: Family is Atheist; always was Atheist; found no evidence for god through reading; religion is false;
38 comments:
Atheists are such drama queens. It's never a question of weighing evidence on both sides and coming to a conclusion. No it's always finding out that theism has no evidence at all! in its favor.
If Steve Beck did not find a "shred of evidence" in his reading, one can only assume he deliberately chose readings that would not upset his fragile atheist psyche.
Serious thinkers weight evidence. Drama-queen charlatans find NONE!!! on the other side.
Matteo, if something didn't exist why should there be evidence for its existence to be weighed?
Whether it exists or not is the very thing in question. If it does, then there would be evidence for it.
Happy Beethoven's Birthday, everyone!
And maybe it's just me, but I think it's possible to not find a shred of evidence for something and not be a drama queen charlatan, or have a fragile psyche. But what do I know?
Martin: not necessarily. Lots of things can exist without a shred of evidence: for instance, anything outside our spacetime cone.
Although your summary comes off as being a bit critical, you don't actually rebut any of the points he makes.
Can you point to an "objective" "book" that provides "evidence" for the "existence" of "gods"?
It seems Stan's treating these peices as more of a data collection project at this point. I'm interested to see where this is all going
I've been slowly collecting these "reasons" into a spreadsheet, marking them when they are used multiple times, and then I can sort by the most often used reasons. It would be nice to get about 400 or so of them, to make it a statistically significant sample size.
Then Stan's entire project here will be vindicated, when it is shown that atheists are not atheists for rational reasons. I have no doubt that he is correct.
Right now the top reasons (used three times each so far) are:
1. God is a jerk
2. Religion denies civil rights
3. Creationism/ID is false
4. The world can be explained naturalistically
5. God judges everything you do
Try to put any of those into a logically valid argument that concludes: "Therefore, probably, theism is false." I double-dog dare you.
As I suspected, "atheism" today is mostly a counterculture to fundamentalism. The main equation seems to be:
"Biblical literalists are dumb" + "creationism is false" + "the Bible is dumb" + "science is cool" = materialism.
None of which is a good reason to be a materialist.
Ooooh a double-dog dare?!
1.
A. God is all loving (A common theistic position).
B. God as described in the bible is a jerk.
C. Therefore descriptions of God are self-contradictory and the character cannot possibly exist.
2.
A. Following the edicts of religion (theism) is the best path to a moral and happy society. (A common theistic belief).
B. Religion denies civil rights (ie: is immoral and promotes unhappines)
C. Therefore theism is false.
3.
A. Biblical Theism promotes the concepts of Creationism.
B. Creationism is false (you agree so no need to prove this)
C. Therefore the bible/theism is false.
("And if Genesis was wrong, then how could the rest of the Bible be trusted" ~Ken Ham)
4.
A. God is the explanation for the existence of the natural world.
B. The world can be explained naturally.
C. Therefore a God Theory (theism) is superfluous/useless. Not false, but "not even wrong".
5.
Well that's stupid. You can't not believe in something because it judges you.
... enter "That's not the god I was talking about" rebuttal.
How about
1. Theism is the claim that a specific God exists.
2. There is not a shred of evidence that a god exists.
3. Therefore god most likely does not exist.
4. Therefore, probably, theism is false.
How about
1. Theism is the claim that a specific infinite/eternal God exists.
2. Infinity is conceptual.
3. Therefore God does not exist other than as a concept.
4. Therefore, surely, theism is false.
A. God is all loving
B. God as described in the bible is a jerk.
C. Therefore descriptions of God are self-contradictory and the character cannot possibly exist
The most you could get out of that is that either A) the Bible has nothing to do with God, or B) it's not the literal Word of God, but is instead a very human document with all the anthropomorphization that usually comes with such things. That was Aquinas' view.
Either way, allow the Bible to be the ignorant ramblings of Bronze Age tribes. That does nothing to affect whether theism is true over naturalism.
A. Following the edicts of religion (theism) is the best path to a moral and happy society. (A common theistic belief).
B. Religion denies civil rights (ie: is immoral and promotes unhappines)
C. Therefore theism is false.
The logically valid reformulation:
A. If theism is true, then following its edicts should result in a moral society
B. Following theism's edicts does not result in a moral society
C. Therefore, theism is false
I would first of all say that B is difficult or impossible on a naturalistici worldview. Who is to say what is moral? Why is one society's morality better than another? By what standard is something more or less moral than something else? Secondly, I would say that "theism" does not have any edicts to follow. Religion does, but I am talking about just generic theism: the universe was created by a rational source of some kind. And lastly, I would say that, if we are talking about Jesus, then following those edicts WOULD result in a more moral society. But most people who label themselves "Christian" do not follow what Jesus told them to do.
A. Biblical Theism promotes the concepts of Creationism.
B. Creationism is false (you agree so no need to prove this)
C. Therefore the bible/theism is false.
Logically invalid:
A. Some X is C
B. All *C is F
C. Therefore, all X is *F
The conclusion does not follow logically from the premises.
You are also sneaking "theism" next to the Bible. Allow the Bible to be complete hokum, as I said.
Regardless, I see no reason to think that the Bible as a whole is false just because part of it is. Secondly, there are no dates in the OT. Lots of defenders of the Bible think that Adam and Eve were the first ensouled humans, but that evolution and the Earth's natural history are entirely as science says it is.
You are, just like I suggested, seeing the world through your colored lenses: either tent-preaching-faith-healing-literalistic Christianity is true, or NONE of it is.
(continued)
(continued)
A. God is the explanation for the existence of the natural world.
B. The world can be explained naturally.
C. Therefore a God Theory (theism) is superfluous/useless. Not false, but "not even wrong".
Premise B is problematic, because we are trying to explain the existence of nature. Any explanation for contingent P must be in terms of not-P, otherwise your explanation is circular. I can't explain the existence of elephants by appealing to elephants, because that is the very thing I'm trying to explain. I need to appeal to the ancestors of elephants.
So to explain why such a thing as "nature" exists, you need to step outside it and explain it in terms of not-"nature". Which leads you inevitably to something that would posess at least the following attributes: spaceless, timeless, non-physical, supernatural. Add to that the argument from reason, and you can throw in rationality as well. That's perilously close to theism, even allowing the Bible to be complete hooey.
1. Theism is the claim that a specific God exists.
2. There is not a shred of evidence that a god exists.
3. Therefore god most likely does not exist.
4. Therefore, probably, theism is false.
Two thoughts: argument from ignorance (there is no evidence for X, therefore X does not exist), and more importantly, my skepticism that most atheists have even bothered to look at the evidence that DOES exist. When I ask most atheists what they think of the cosmological argument, they answer: "That's stupid. If everything has a cause, then what caused God?" Making it crystal clear they are restricting themselves to reading ATHEIST websites and not stepping outside that echo chamber, seeing as not a single cosmological argument says or has EVER said that "everything has a cause."
Note my earlier attempt to link you to the First Way of Aquinas, to which you responded by furiously Googling all over until you found something supposedly "refuting" it when that person didn't even understand the argument. You've pre-judged the arguments before even giving them a fair hearing. If you cut out the baggage of: the Bible, creationism, fundamentalsts, and "religion", and just give generic theism vs naturalism a fair face-off, what do you get? Think of a scale, with theism on one side and materialism on the other:
Theism
1. First Way of Aquinas
2. Second Way of Aquinas
3. Third Way of Aquinas
4. Fourth Way of Aquinas
5. Fifth Way of Aquinas
6. Leibnizian cosmological arguments
7. Kalam cosmological arguments
8. Fine-tuning arguments
9. MOral arguments
10. A multitude of ontological arguments
11. Arguments from reason
12. Arguments from consciousness
13. Transcendental arguments
14. And at least two dozen others, none of which having anything to do with biology or intelligent design
Materialism
1. *cricket* *cricket*
I'm STILL waiting to hear a SINGLE arugment in favor of materialism.
"Atheists... statistically significant sample size."
Obviously 400 won't get a unbiased statistically significant sample size of atheists.
I can't even say if you'll get a statistically significant sample size of "atheists" who read PZ and answer requests for essays, etc.
"Stan's entire project here will be vindicated... I have no doubt that he is correct."
You sound unbiased!
"the top reasons (used three times each so far)"
Wow, statistically significant! Three times.
Try to put any of those into a logically valid argument that concludes: "Therefore, probably, theism is false." I double-dog dare you.
"Everything can be explained naturalistically therefore theism probably is false." already sounds like a good argument.
"Everything can be explained naturalistically therefore theism probably is false." already sounds like a good argument.
See above, my part 2, at the top, beginning with "A. God is the explanation for the existence of the natural world."
Premise B is problematic, because we are trying to explain the existence of reality. Any explanation for contingent P must be in terms of not-P, otherwise your explanation is circular. I can't explain the existence of elephants by appealing to elephants, because that is the very thing I'm trying to explain. I need to appeal to the ancestors of elephants.
So to explain why such a thing as "reality" exists, you need to step outside it and explain it in terms of not-"reality". Which leads you inevitably to something that would posess at least the following attributes: spaceless, timeless, non-physical, supernatural. That's perilously close to theism.
SloMo:
Defining "the spactime system" as "all of reality" is materialism, the very view in question. And so you are just begging the question against theism.
Martin, you write: "Then Stan's entire project here will be vindicated, when it is shown that atheists are not atheists for rational reasons. I have no doubt that he is correct.
I already explained in another thread that these are personal anecdotes, not logical arguments for atheism. You're being disingenuous.
"I'm STILL waiting to hear a SINGLE arugment [argument] in favor of materialism."
There are arguments for materialism that date back thousands of years. Buy an encyclopedia of philosophy.
debunky said,
"I already explained in another thread that these are personal anecdotes, not logical arguments for atheism. You're being disingenuous."
And I explained the fallacy in your "explanation", which you are ignoring here. The most reasonable reason for the lack of logical reasoning is that they have none to offer. Your excuse-making is without any proof other than your statement, which is merely your opinion, not fact.
My excuse-making without proof? Do you even comprehend what prose looks like versus a logical argument? I posted this in another thread, but PZ asked specifically for prose, not logical arguments. The whole contest was based on a book he read detailing atheist letters.
I'm not making an excuse, I'm calling you and Martin out as being disingenuous. But whatever, lying for Jesus isn't anything new.
As a matter of fact, Stan, it was you I linked to the original post by PZ when I caught you making up fake quotes.
No proof when I presented to you PZ's original post weeks ago? Tsk tsk... Stan, you really need to start telling the truth.
Stan, you really need to start telling the truth.
He is actually; that's why he avoids so many points and resort to name calling as soon as he can.
Personnaly, I have never, EVER, called 'Theists' in general anything else than... 'Theists'. They are people who believe God exists, some god exists, or gods exist... that's it.
For Stan however, the story is very different. He created a blog that has been up for several years, on which he generalizes Atheists, call them names, call them illogical, irrational and so on, without ever addressing specific beliefs since, let's face it, there are no common beliefs among all atheists...
Moreover, on top of all that, he clearly hates Atheists, or at least really dislike them, as I have shown in another thread.
In short, this blog is a joke; Stan is mocking people he does not agree with while claiming that some sort of purely conceptual reality MUST exist because he can think of it. The mere fact that he can think of something is enough for him to conclude that his 'something' could exist. It's that simple.
Again, there is another thread for that... and I was too lazy to paste link so hopefully any reader who is interested in knowing what I am talking about will either go find the comment threads themselves or ask me here... and I will respond for sure.
Cheers!
Martin, your response simply moved the goal posts. Note that I accepted your dare (Try to put any of those into a logically valid argument that concludes: "Therefore, probably, theism is false." I double-dog dare you.
and you responded with
Materialism
1. *cricket* *cricket*
I'm STILL waiting to hear a SINGLE arugment in favor of materialism.
How about, everything is made out of Material!
Disingenuous doesn't begin to cover it.
Your actual responses to my arguments were:
1. Concede the god of the bible is hokum. Victory for me.
2. Throw in some problem of absolute morality. C'mon man. Don't be a dick, how hard is that. Don't trip grandma, don't kill, don't punch babies.
3. Throw out the bible again. Awesome.
4. So what if it is problematic? Ohh, we don't fully understand how the universe was formed. Makes more sense than figuring a wizard did it.
I absolutely LOVE how readily you toss out the entirety of the Bible. Just as I expected (this is not the god you are looking for, move along. Move along.)
Either way, allow the Bible to be the ignorant ramblings of Bronze Age tribes.
I could end this here and consider it a victory over 99.99% of theists.
You have no idea how well I understand Aquinas' arguments. Just because you refuse to see the gaping holes in your pictograms doesn't mean the arguments are valid. And yes, there are incredibly large holes in the arguments, and frankly if you've studied them in any depth, you should be able to point them out yourself.
Nice gish gallop of arguments. You imply that you've studied them all and find them valid. If that is the case, no amount of discussion from me will change your mind. Maybe if we were in the same room, and I could actually pin you down on each point.
All those arguments are empty of justifiable claims to knowledge. You really have no idea how bad those arguments are, I suppose. Maybe you should step out of your own echo chamber instead of prejudging all atheists to be absent any sort of consideration of theistic arguments.
This might shock you, but the majority of atheists were actually raised in a specific religion. So the majority of atheists have already "Stepped out side the echo chamber", so to speak. And found the theistic chamber full of rhetoric, and no substance. Just like alllll those arguments you listed.
Stan,
The most reasonable reason for the lack of logical reasoning is that they have none to offer.
Or maybe .. just going out on a limb here, indulge me. Maybe. Just maybe. People don't tell deconversion stories in the form of logical syllogisms. So to criticize them for failing to do so IS incredibly disingenuous.
What are those most common reasons again? The character of God is an asshole, religion is harmful, religion is wrong, we have an alternative source of answers, that actually works. Oh and God judges you *eye roll*
Oh my, how could people possibly find reasons to abandon religion??
Hugo, you write: "He is actually [telling the truth]."
Maybe he thinks he is telling the truth but has a selective memory. In any case, all I can do is offer my advice. Stan is free to act in any way he wishes. :)
Thanks for the input. Very much appreciated.
"...we have an alternative source of answers, that actually works."
I choked on my coffee when I read those words.
That statement is true only if the key issues are disregarded and metaphysical naturalism is accepted as a given. Nevermind subjects like:
*Cosmogenesis
*Abiogenesis
*Consciousness
*Self-aware consciousness
Jotunn: well said.
Chris: the four subjects you list are difficult, to be sure. Do you have any explanations for them? Hint: "goddidit" is not an "explanation". Unless you can say how God did it, and show that your God hypothesis can explain more data than non-theistic explanations, and I mean really explain, with numbers and predictions, as would be expected from science, then your hypothesis has no explanatory power and may safely be defenestrated.
@ Jotunn
What Zilch said
@Debunkey Monkey
Yep we are on the same page; by selecting bits of information here and there, he is not lying, but he is not being honest either. Actually, the fact that he generalizes so much is a form of lying now that I think about it. Saying something that implies that ALL atheists think like 'this or that' is lying... I was wrong!
@Chris
What makes me 'chocke on my coffee' is being accused of accepting, as a starting point, some sort of metaphysical system that does not mean anything to me.
What about accepting that some things are real, some are not, some things are imaginary, some or not, and then let's try to determine which one is which. Is that too much of a stretch? Is that accepting metaphysical naturalism as a given?
I am very sorry if accepting the fact that people make shit up all the time is considered to be a bias. I am sorry if accepting that reality is not an invention of some mad scientist out this universe is being biased. I am simply incapable of starting with the assumption that it could be the case!
Hugo, I just want to add that trying to use philosophy or logic to prove the existence of has been pretty futile. Only 14.6% of learned philosophers are theist. 72.8% are atheists. Actual philosophers are not buying these debunked arguments, so I fail to see the point of rehashing old arguments or claim atheists are irrational. Atheists clearly have academia and philosophers on their side regardless of what Martin or Stan come up with.
Martin and Stan lack authority, so why would anyone listen to them instead of professionals who actually dedicate their lives to philosophy?
In other words, Martin and Stan are not even close to being on par with philosophers with graduate degrees on the subject, yet they think they can prove them wrong. Kind of silly if you ask me.
Uh, source: http://philpapers.org/surveys/
Zilch,
Well, I guess this is the crux of the matter. The success of methodological naturalism has lead some to conclude that metaphysical naturalism is true.
But, like Martin said, I've yet to see any convincing arguments.
Salut!
From the City That Never Sleeps
Martin said:
1. *cricket* *cricket*
I'm STILL waiting to hear a SINGLE arugment in favor of materialism.
Chris said:
Well, I guess this is the crux of the matter. The success of methodological naturalism has lead some to conclude that metaphysical naturalism is true.
But, like Martin said, I've yet to see any convincing arguments.
Jotunn has already answered this, but I'll put it another way. The naturalist/materialist position is that we have this world that we can see, measure, etc., and nothing else. The theistic position is that we have this world that we can see, measure, etc., plus an infinitely powerful and intelligent superbeing, who cannot be seen, measured, etc.
That being the case, why do materialists have to "prove" their position (as Stan expects from us), or develop "convincing arguments" for it? It seems to me, since the materialist position is simpler than the theistic position by a factor of possibly infinity, that it should be considered the default position, and that the burden of proof can only reasonably be placed on the theists.
*cricket* *cricket* is what I hear from theists about evidence for God, and *cricket* *cricket* is also what I hear from brain-in-vattists about evidence for brain vats. Both gods and brain vats are "explanations" for the world that explain nothing, but just pass the buck and say "goddidit" or "the brain vat masters did it". No explanatory power, more complexity: how is it that we naturalists have the burden of proof that gods or brain vats don't exist?
cheers from chilly Vienna, zilch
Oh, and in keeping with the topic posted here: if anyone's interested, like Steve, I was raised by non-religious parents, who were rather apathetic than thoughtful atheists, and despite the best efforts of my grandmothers (the one Baptist, the other Presbyterian), somehow managed to never believe in God.
cheers from increasingly atheistic Europe, zilch
I thought this passage was relevant and worthy of reproduction.
"If we know anything at all, we know that there are things, events, phenomena, and that we ourselves are among them. We see that all are inter-connected, closely or remotely, in such a way that they can be envisaged as the single whole we call the universe. We infer, not only that all inter-relationships are what they are by virtue of the universality of a chain of causation, but also that the coherence of the universe implies some kind of comprehensive or prime cause. It is now suggested, not only that the chain of causation is in some sense an illusory or at least a secondary phenomenon, but also that the attribution of the coherence of the universe to any kind of prime cause is unnecessary and even misleading, since in reality chance lies at the root of all things.
It is difficult to see how any such contention can be reconciled with the claim that scientific knowledge is built up by a strictly rational process of observation and deduction. Any such process necessitates a strict adherence to causality; the principle of causality is the only thing that can hold the scientific or any other body of knowledge together. How can a science that claims to be strictly coherent and rational deny the applicability of the principle of causality in the very domain which it regards as principal with respect to all other domains? Thought, including that of the scientists, is consequential, and consequentiality is causal.
One might ask: at what point in the development of phenomena from their allegedly fortuitous beginnings does the causality on which science is built up become operative?
The great...search of humanity, the search that has never been wholly abandoned, is a search for a principle that will provide a foundation for a logical system of thought which can avoid either going round and round in circles or coming to a dead end. Reason cannot operate in vacuo; it too cannot be founded on nothing; it demands a stable principle, not a pseudo-principle like chance which is the very type and model of instability, otherwise it must crumble and give way to unreason. That indeed is very much what seems to be happening; if so, it is perhaps not surprising that conduct as well as thought is becoming more and more "un-principled" in the full sense of that old-fashioned but meaningful word."
-Lord Northbourne
@Chris
The idea behind what you quoted can be summarized in just a few words:
Primacy of consciousness.
Most people, by default, and probably without even realizing it, accept this idea. Nothing new; nothing surprising or convincing.
The problem with it is that you have no way to believe, with absolute certainty, that the world we live in (the world we usually call 'reality') is actually real.
In other words, existence comes second and you have to leave the door open to the idea that perhaps you are a brain in a vat. Nothing can be 'true'; everything is contingent to this idea that perhaps nothing is true and everything we perceive is false.
Obviously, one could quickly reply that I am not in a better position, that I am not able to 'prove' that I am not myself a brain in a vat, and I would say 'that's correct'.
Here's the difference: I start by assuming that my existence IS what's absolutely true. So there is such a thing as 'truth', and this truth is absolute. We can even deduce the basic principles of logic from it as I have discussed here before.
I choose the Primacy of Existence to ground my beliefs; why do you choose the Primacy of Consciousness?
Chris- I have two quibbles with Lord Northbourne here. One I've already stated in several comments here: no one, as far as I know, disputes that there is order in the Universe. But positing a God who creates this order is merely passing the buck: where did God's order come from? Unless you can explain God's order, you've explained nothing, and made the picture much more complicated. And if you insist, as some theists do, that God is simple, then you might as well say that Russell's Teapot is responsible for the order in the Universe.
My other quibble is Northbourne's assertion that in not believing in "a stable principle [by which he probably means God]", "conduct as well as thought is becoming more and more "un-principled" in the full sense of that old-fashioned but meaningful word."
Not only is this not obviously true- "un-principled" behavior is engaged in by religious people as well as by atheists- it has no bearing on the truth or falsity of God's existence. It might well be that the mass of humanity needs the specter of a Divine Policeman to behave nicely; that doesn't mean that the Divine Policeman exists.
cheers from chilly Vienna, zilch
Hugo and D. Monkey will not be allowed to comment here any longer. This blog doesn't tolerate name calling and accusations such as have been going on the past few days. Civil discourse does not tolerate such.
I do seriously regret having to do this, since there seemed to be hope there for awhile; but while I was gone, the true colors shined through and it was not pretty.
There is more on this in the post today.
I welcome any and all who wish to make a logical, rational case for their position... so long as there is no denigration involved. Ridicule and Ad Hominem are indicative of rational failure.
Regretfully,
Stan
"I choose the primacy of Existence...."
Is a real "choice" possible under materialism?
Chris, it is my understanding that choice is possible under materialism. The Uncertainty Principle provides a mechanism for probability, not determinism.
Essentially, this provides possibilities without violating causality.
It also my understanding that many theistic views incorporate predestination, which essentially does eliminate choice, free will, etc.
If man is not free, but all his acts are determined by God, then God is directly responsible for evil.
Probably not your view, but still interesting to see how easily religious beliefs not your own can crumble to nonsense.
http://lesswrong.com/lw/r0/thou_art_physics/
Check this out Chris.
TL; DR:
Physics underlies our decisions and includes our decisions, it does not explain them away.
I will.
Thank you.
Post a Comment