Justification for strong atheism

[Roboramma]

I'll jump in on the strong atheism band wagon.

As to faith, I'd say that it tends to be about believing something for emotional reasons rather than based on evidence, parsimony, etc.
This doesn't mean that there can't be evidence in support of that belief, just that this evidence isn't the reason for it - faith is. Where that faith comes from is emotion. For instance, wanting to believe. Being afraid not to believe. Because it's just easier to beleive. Because all your friends believe, and in this social context not believing would make things very hard. I'm sure there are plenty of emotional reasons for having faith in something, some of them completley justified.

I try to base my beliefs (I say beliefs because it's true I can't prove them) on the evidence. Based on what I know, what seems to be the most likely thing to be true?
This can change as new evidence presents itself, though some beliefs seems more solid than others.

Here's a question though. Is basing your beliefs on the evidence always the most rational thing to do? In some situations wouldn't believing something that you have evidence is false been a more rational way to live your life (if for instance you knew you would enjoy your life more)?
So maybe I'm the irrational one.

And of course like anyone I have irrational beliefs that sneak in there, most without my knowing it, but I guess not all.

 

[Roboramma]

Beleth, I would accept a number of things as evidence for God. One is if it could be shown that something about the way the universe works wouldn't be possible by the simple unfolding of the physical laws of the universe. For instance, if ID were a real theory and had a meaningful way of showing design, and demonstrated it experimentally, I'd take that as evidence.
If some religion somewhere had scientific knowledge that we don't have yet, which later proved to be true, and which could be shown to clearly say what the new science said, I'd take that as evidence.
If there were a study that could show that prayer has a demonstrable effect on the world that isn't accountable by any physical mechanism, I'd take that as evidence.
If someone showed up at my door and said "I am God." I'd say, "Okay, then turn this shirt I'm wearing into a puppy." And if he did I'd believe him. But I'd say,
"I still don't believe you, if you really are God, what number am I thinking of."
"3009234."
"Damn. Lucky guess. How about now?"
"593"
"Smart guy. How about now?" Just to make fun of him for being able to read my mind.

Those are some things I'd concider as evidence, I'm sure there are a lot more.
Now you could say, "But what would you consider as evidence of a God that doesn't meddle with creation?" I'd say, of course nothing, because this God is defined as being a God who would leave no evidence.
But I have to ask, what's the point of that? I could come up with a million things that would have no evidence for them. Are we obligated to believe those as well? Is it irrational to say that I believe there is no teapot orbiting pluto?
What evidence do you have that the universe didn't spring into being five minutes ago?

 

[Beleth]

What if the pink unicorn were invisible, or not one to be bothered with skeptical humans who demand he make an appearance. How then would you discount his existence?

Ahh, but that's different. If he's an IPU instead of just a PU, then first off I would note that there is a contradiction in its description (one cannot be both invisible and pink) and I would drop the "visual sensory input" requirement.

If he never makes an appearance, then I would question the people who describe such an imperceptible object as either "pink" or a "unicorn".

The standard I have re god is: Show me evidence of anything non material, or show me that god can influence things (like by answering prayers or controlling the weather).

What would something nonmaterial look like? How would it be possible to become aware of something nonmaterial?

Answering prayers or controlling the weather are not abilities unique to God. If I pray for the sun to rise tomorrow morning, will the sun rise because my prayer has been answered?

Failing that, show me that god is needed logically to explain anything (our existence or morality or boobies).

That's my point. We as material beings are at an impenetrable disadvantage when it comes to determining the existence of God. Any proof we can come up with is either impossible to achieve (you can't materially encounter an immaterial entity by definition) or insufficient (maybe that million dollars that fell through my roof fell from the helicopter passing overhead, and not because I prayed for it).

If there is a god and he has absolutely no discernable effect on existence, what good is he?

No discernable effect today. All the effect in the universe at the beginning of time. My dad died four years ago; it is illogical to say that he has no discernable effect on my existence.

Why posit a god that you have to so strip of specific properties that the god becomes totally empty as a viable explanation for anything.

I'm still working on that one. The best answer I can come up with right now is that such a god does not become totally empty.

 

[SezMe]

Good thread. I just want to applaud Bri for his/her careful distinction between agnosticism and atheism. It is so rare to find the difference argued so well.

Give 'em hell (so to speak), Bri.

 

[Bob Klase]

My point is this:
A mind-wiped person, using only the scientific method, his own experiences, and the rules of reason, will eventually realize that there are only two differences between belief in a place he hasn't been to like Tokyo, and belief in God:
1) It is reported to be easier to see (visit) Tokyo than it is to see God.
2) The anti-Tokyo literature is nonexistent; the anti-God literature is abundant.

Neither of those differences, taken separately or together, is sufficient to decide one way or the other whether either Tokyo or God exists.

But the important thing is that he could go to Tokyo and find out if it exists. If he gets there and there's nothing but desert then he might conclude that Tokyo is a myth.

(Much like those who go to church, find that there's nothing there and conclude that god is a myth).

 

[Bri]

Bri, I think beliefs can be based on probability and the rules of explanation via the scientific method. To me, faith is belief in the absence of evidence or reason. It's is not the same type of faith that one has in, say, the scientific method (at least imo).

Yes, faith is belief in the absence of evidence. However, faith is NOT belief in the absence of reason. Reason and evidence are two different things. It is possible to use reason when there is no evidence, as in the case of the existance of God. We do it all the time, whenever we give an opinion about something. We use reason to make a conclusion in the absence of conclusive evidence. In other words, faith is NOT necessarily irrational or unreasonable.

Don't want to mischaracterize you, but you seem to think belief must be "with certainty" for it to be rational only / not faith based?

Yes, belief must be "with certainty" for it to not be faith-based (belief without proof is the very definition of faith). No, belief doesn't have to be "with certainty" for it to be rational.

Still, I'd argue there are qualitative, important differences between the faith a scientist has in his method versus the faith a theist has in his god.

Sure there are differences between faith in the scientific method and faith in God. What I'm trying to point out is that the scientific method doesn't actually prove very much -- it simply offers a method of testing some things. The existance of God cannot be tested, and therefore to state as a fact that gods either exist or don't exist is a statement based on faith, not on the scientific method (which would require evidence of some kind).

-Bri

 

[Bri]

I'll jump in on the strong atheism band wagon.

As to faith, I'd say that it tends to be about believing something for emotional reasons rather than based on evidence, parsimony, etc.
This doesn't mean that there can't be evidence in support of that belief, just that this evidence isn't the reason for it - faith is. Where that faith comes from is emotion. For instance, wanting to believe. Being afraid not to believe. Because it's just easier to beleive. Because all your friends believe, and in this social context not believing would make things very hard. I'm sure there are plenty of emotional reasons for having faith in something, some of them completley justified.

I couldn't disagree more. Faith is simply belief without proof, and has nothing to do with the reasons for that belief. Faith can be either rational or irrational, depending on whether it is based on valid reasons. A scientist can have faith in the scientific method. Does that faith in the scientific method come from "wanting to believe" rather than from rational thought?

I try to base my beliefs (I say beliefs because it's true I can't prove them) on the evidence. Based on what I know, what seems to be the most likely thing to be true?
This can change as new evidence presents itself, though some beliefs seems more solid than others.

This I can agree with, and this is what separates rational faith from irrational faith. Unfortunately, there is no conclusive evidence for either the existance of God nor for the notion that no gods exist. Does that mean that both beliefs are irrational? Of course not. Either belief can come from rational reasons. That you might come to one conclusion makes your conclusion no less rational than another person who might come to a different conclusion for different reasons.

I might agree that either belief can also be irrational if one were to state them as fact rather than opinion with no evidence to support your claim, or if one were to come to the opinion based on invalid reasoning (or no reason at all).

Here's a question though. Is basing your beliefs on the evidence always the most rational thing to do? In some situations wouldn't believing something that you have evidence is false been a more rational way to live your life (if for instance you knew you would enjoy your life more)?
So maybe I'm the irrational one.

It might be considered irrational to believe something for which you believe the evidence is clearly against. However, the threshold of what represents "clearly" differs from one person to another, and people may still have compelling reasons for believing one way or another even if others believe that the evidence clearly points elsewhere. In addition, there are many things for which there is no clear evidence one way or the other, and there isn't a single person alive who doesn't have beliefs that aren't based on clear evidence -- they're called opinions. In short, unless someone claims a belief to be fact, that belief can be rational as long as they have valid reasons for believing.

And of course like anyone I have irrational beliefs that sneak in there, most without my knowing it, but I guess not all.

We all do. But again, a belief (particularly an opinion) isn't irrational just because someone else claims it to be irrational. An opinion is only irrational if you don't have valid reasons for believing it.

-Bri

 

[Bri]

If there is a god and he has absolutely no discernable effect on existence, what good is he?

Now you could say, "But what would you consider as evidence of a God that doesn't meddle with creation?" I'd say, of course nothing, because this God is defined as being a God who would leave no evidence.
But I have to ask, what's the point of that? I could come up with a million things that would have no evidence for them. Are we obligated to believe those as well? Is it irrational to say that I believe there is no teapot orbiting pluto?
What evidence do you have that the universe didn't spring into being five minutes ago?

These are essentially the same question, and I think that they are excellent and valid points. If a god is inconsequential (i.e. doesn't affect us at all) then what's the difference between this god existing and this god not existing? Beleth and I have had this discussion before, so I know that there are other views on this that differ from mine.

That said, there are many notions of God that cannot be disproven, but yet God does affect us. One example is the typical diest God. In this belief, God doesn't interact with the world, but judges people after they die based on how they lived there life. This notion of God is consequential, but entirely undetectable, and cannot be disproven. There are many other notions of God where God does interact directly with the world, but because God created nature there is no reason to assume that we'd be able to detect this interaction scientifically.

-Bri

 

[Beleth]

But the important thing is that he could go to Tokyo and find out if it exists. If he gets there and there's nothing but desert then he might conclude that Tokyo is a myth.

I agree that it is a distinction. I just don't attach great importance to it. Especially for certain definitions of God that take that into account.

Instead of Tokyo, what about Mare Moscoviense, a geologic feature that is purported to be on the far side of the Moon? In theory, I can get there, but in reality, I can't. I can't even see it from here. It has absolutely no importance to me in my life either. Should I conclude, then, that it doesn't exist?

(Much like those who go to church, find that there's nothing there and conclude that god is a myth).

The strongest conclusion one can rationally come to in that case is that the God that church is dedicated to is a myth.

 

[Huh-What?]

What would evidence of God look like?

Put another way, what would convince you that there was a God?

If you have some evidence, it may change my mind (as well as many others).

However, since we can trace almost any religion to a point in history. In other words, the inception of that religion and any deities it worships.

The modern conception of god is no different as we can trace the roots of Christianity back into history. Knowing about the time Christianity started we can say that before that time it did not exist, thus God did not. So, is he the supernatural being that created everything some want him to be or did we make him up?

It seems to be a simple history lesson that lets me say , "I know there is no God."

 

[Bri]

Knowing about the time Christianity started we can say that before that time it did not exist, thus God did not.

Why could the Christian God not have existed before Christianity? Do you know any Christians who claim that God didn't exist before Christianity?

-Bri

 

[Robin]

thanks for everyone's help so far.

Just curious then-- who here is a strong atheist. In other words, who here believes gods don't exist, and thinks that belief is perfectly rational (i.e., does not rest on faith).

As I have pointed out before, the question of whether someone is a strong or weak atheist depends upon the nature of the theism you are considering. You can't be a strong atheist with respect to weak theism. By weak theism I mean the sort of theism where God is a vague undefined concept - the 'guess what sort of God I am talking about' theism.

But I am certainly a strong atheist with respect to most strong theisms I have come across. For example I am a strong atheist with respect to the God described to me by the religion I grew up with. The same goes for the God described by Catholic orthodoxy. When people come to my door and tell me that I am going to suffer eternal torments unless I accept JC as my personal saviour, then I can say that no such God exists.

The sort of God described by C S Lewis in 'The Problem of Pain' I can say for sure does not exist.

 

[Bri]

As I have pointed out before, the question of whether someone is a strong or weak atheist depends upon the nature of the theism you are considering.

Actually, the generally accepted definition of a strong atheist is one who believes that there are no gods. A weak atheist (who doesn't hold a belief one way or the other as to the existance of gods) can hold the belief that certain gods don't exist while still not holding a belief as to the existance of gods in general.

Note that either a strong or a weak atheist can be agnostic (believing that we don't know for certain whether gods exist). A weak atheist is nearly always agnostic, whereas a strong atheist who is also agnostic generally states their belief that there are no gods as opinion rather than fact.

To answer bpesta22's question, several people on here have claimed to be strong atheists, but a vast majority are also agnostic. However, there is at least one poster who has claimed to be a gnostic strong atheist here. Most agnostic strong atheists admit that their claim is at least partially based on faith (i.e. it is an opinion rather than fact) since there is no definitive proof that no gods exist. Some also think that weak atheists are weanies for not having an opinion.

-Bri

 

[Roboramma]

double post

 

[Roboramma]

I couldn't disagree more. Faith is simply belief without proof, and has nothing to do with the reasons for that belief. Faith can be either rational or irrational, depending on whether it is based on valid reasons. A scientist can have faith in the scientific method. Does that faith in the scientific method come from "wanting to believe" rather than from rational thought?

Hi Bri, sorry for the delay, I hadn't been checking this thread. Actually, forgot I'd posted that!
Anyway, I think we're just working from different definitions of faith. I'm not sure if this is a correct reading, but it seems that you're calling faith any viewpoint that isn't proven?

I disagree with that. But it's more semantics than anything. Mainly I disagree because belief in something that isn't proven, but is just the most parsimonious explanation given the current evidence isn't just faith in it, it's the most reasonable course of action - given your current knowledge.
Faith isn't entirely unreasonable as it won't accept (at least most people's faith won't) things that are shown to be impossible, but it will accept things that aren't the most parsimonious hypothesis.

This I can agree with, and this is what separates rational faith from irrational faith. Unfortunately, there is no conclusive evidence for either the existence of God nor for the notion that no gods exist. Does that mean that both beliefs are irrational? Of course not. Either belief can come from rational reasons. That you might come to one conclusion makes your conclusion no less rational than another person who might come to a different conclusion for different reasons.

Your point here seems to be that since neither viewpoint can be disproven, both are equally valid. I disagree.
I do agree though that to state either one as a certainty is wrong as well. To say that one can prove either that one or more Gods exists, or that none do, doesn't seem to hold up.

My own viewpoint is that given what we know about the universe the existence of God is less likely than it's non-existence. And for what it's worth I think the same statement could be made about Tokyo.
I would be open to arguments that suggest otherwise, of course. I reach this conclusion by Occam's razor - if we can explain everything we see equally well without God as with God, the explanation without God is more likely to be true.
Part of it isn't reasonable, though, I have to admit, in that I think in my own mind I skew the probabilities a little by the fact that I view the concept of God to be unlikely to begin with (ie. similar to the teapot orbiting Pluto. but how can we know anything about either proposition?). Nevertheless, I think the original reasoning is sound.

I might agree that either belief can also be irrational if one were to state them as fact rather than opinion with no evidence to support your claim, or if one were to come to the opinion based on invalid reasoning (or no reason at all).

I agree.

It might be considered irrational to believe something for which you believe the evidence is clearly against.

Actually, I would modify this statement to say that it is irrational to believe something for which you believe the evidence is against at all.
Of course this still requires an interpretation of the evidence, something which I don't claim to be especially good at. I can't say that anyone that believes in God is irrational, just that I think such a belief is unfounded. I can say that I think active disbelief in god is rational, but that's from my own weighing of the evidence.

We all do. But again, a belief (particularly an opinion) isn't irrational just because someone else claims it to be irrational. An opinion is only irrational if you don't have valid reasons for believing it.

Agreed.
I think some of this comes from my characterization of faith as irrational or emotional belief. What I'd like to say is that while I still view it as such, it's only a different use of the word. For instance, your "faith" isn't something I would necessarily call faith. But maybe I'm misusing it. I just don't think we need to use the word faith for beliefs that have been come to based on rational thought. Faith seems to imply a belief that is independent of evidence, not just one that doesn't require proof.
(what I mean by independent of evidence is that new evidence, so long as it wasn't complete disproof, should not alter the faith, but again, this is my own view of the word's usage. Maybe I'm wrong.)

 

[Roboramma]

These are essentially the same question, and I think that they are excellent and valid points. If a god is inconsequential (i.e. doesn't affect us at all) then what's the difference between this god existing and this god not existing? Beleth and I have had this discussion before, so I know that there are other views on this that differ from mine.

That said, there are many notions of God that cannot be disproven, but yet God does affect us. One example is the typical diest God. In this belief, God doesn't interact with the world, but judges people after they die based on how they lived there life. This notion of God is consequential, but entirely undetectable, and cannot be disproven. There are many other notions of God where God does interact directly with the world, but because God created nature there is no reason to assume that we'd be able to detect this interaction scientifically.

The point I was trying to make is that where a God's existence would not be expected to change what we know about the world in any way - where the world would be the same whether that God existed or not - there is no need for the God hypothesis.
And to me it seems less likely that the universe appears exactly as it would if God didn't exist, but God is there, than that there just isn't a God.
For instance, it's possible that the ghost of my mother lives in my kitchen cupboard, and there is no way for me to disprove this. But I find it less likely than that she doesn't. Maybe I'm coming to false conclusions?
I'm led to be this viewpoint by Occam's razor. But I might be misapplying it's usage.

 

[YouBelieveWHAT?]

What a great thread - wish I'd seen it earlier - damn this work!

Bpesta22 - I must apologise to you that I keep seeing you as Bpesto22, what with all this talk about the FSM!

In answer to your question - I'm leaning towards the strong Atheist - I don't believe there are Gods - though, as a sceptic, I'm always open to evidence, of course.

I recall a quote - I think on somebody's sig here - that went something like:

Atheist to Theist - "Tell me why you think all other religions are myths, then I'll tell you what I think of yours."

Somehow, this sums up the question nicely for me!

YBW

 

[arias]

I'd like to know, in this thread, what theists who do concede their belief is irrational and totally faith based, on what they think of cults, FSM, Pink Unicorn and so forth. Because theists can't ask atheists to prove that god doesn't exist --- how do you prove a negative? How can one even prove that an apple can't fly? You can throw thousands of apples in the air and all fall down flat, but who knows if the next one will, or will not? This is basic logic (and may I say, common sense).

And, remember the fallacy -- there is an invisible cat on that chair. I don't see anything on the chair, therefore the invisible cat must be there.

On a personal note, I am an atheist with regards to the Christian God. This is a result of much thinking, and I don't believe that the characteristics of this particular being is possible -- infinite (time), infinitely knowledgeable and wise, omnipotent, omnipresent, infinitely good, and yet having a character of its own (as shown in the bible). I've thought about it, and I couldn't see it as plausible. Staunch believers would tell me that my finite rationality is incapable of grasping the infinity of God, but then again I don't believe in infinity more than I believe that numbers exist ; )

So, I am an agnostic in general regards to the existence of gods.. which are limited. But I am a "christian atheist", and I just say that I'm an atheist anyways because most of western culture know of only one god.

I think what most atheists have a problem with is not a faith-based god, but the consequential religion and its doctrines, which ends up frequently imposing itself on non-believers. See: the USA.

 

[Roboramma]

I recall a quote - I think on somebody's sig here - that went something like:

Atheist to Theist - "Tell me why you think all other religions are myths, then I'll tell you what I think of yours."

I think it's this one:
"I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god
than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible
gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours."
--Stephen F Roberts

 

[YouBelieveWHAT?]

Thanks Roboramma,

That's what I love about this place - no matter how obscure anything is, there's always somebody who can find an answer!

Cheers!

YBW