Can atheists be rational? (not a parody thread)

[cj.23]

I know that this has already been gone over in the first two pages, but many people seem to get muddled up with what atheism is, despite it being discussed muchly in other threads. As far as I know, the atheistic concept by itself implies nothing about knowing there is no god(s). It is merely a lack of belief in god. Knowledge comes down to gnosticism - gnostic atheists claim to know that there is no god.

That appears however to be almost entirely a way of defining it that has emerged as a consensus on this forum - I'd be interested in who developed it. I think it has a lot going for it, and it may have existed before in other communities, but most atheist communities I have interacted with actually reject it -- long discussion on RichardDawkins.net actually where I started a thread on it. Still, I think it's a good concept, but no point berating those who do not understand it or accept it, as it differ from both the popular definition, the majority self proclaimed atheist definition at least in the UK atheist communities, and the dictionary definition (and is historically and etymologically questionable as well for reasons i won't get in to.) Despite all that, I still think it is useful...

cj x

 

[fls]

I know that this has already been gone over in the first two pages, but many people seem to get muddled up with what atheism is, despite it being discussed muchly in other threads. As far as I know, the atheistic concept by itself implies nothing about knowing there is no god(s). It is merely a lack of belief in god. Knowledge comes down to gnosticism - gnostic atheists claim to know that there is no god.

I don't know if the term is in common usage. I have used it here in regards to my own position. I don't use it to claim to know that there is no god. I use it to claim that it is possible to know whether or not there is a god - i.e. the claims that are made with regard to what gods are are testable - regardless of the current state of completeness of our knowledge.

Linda

 

[cj.23]

For your argument to make sense you would have to amend it to "I believe SOME people experience a divine reality."

Any investigation of religion shows that basically all cultures across the planet share some sort of God theory. Therefor this reflects a certain reality in humanity.

You suggest that its a dual reality. However I point out that if God exists in some form, if this dual reality was defined in books such as the Torah, Bible, Quran etc and its simply a matter of them misunderstanding this God reality and trying to make sense of it by explaining it as God, then it would not be doubted.

God would not be doubted, only his messengers. Mankind doesn't doubt natural things. You don't see raging debates as to whether a child is really growing inside a mother's belly. Prior to the baby being born people didn't suggest that the baby magically appeared when it was born.

Mankind doesn't doubt death. There aren't scads of people suggesting that when you bury a body it pops back to life down in Mexico.

So if you are talking the natural existence of man, if we were indeed made in God's image, we wouldn't doubt it. We might doubt the prophets but why would we doubt what is natural?

The fact that people doubt God and the fact that some people experience God strongly and others not at all, of course demonstrates logically that God is not a universal thing at all. Rather it depends on the individual. Therefor its an internal construct.

This is a very interesting and sophisticated argument, but I don't think it works. I will never experience pregnancy directly: I'm a bloke. Yet I am happen to concur it exists. Millions of people will never see Halley's Comet - yet it exists. Now we can speculate on whether on not everyone experiences the divine reality, but I certainly agree with you that not everyone experiences mystical states - I do not. We can not logically argue that because only a small number of people wil experience Peru, Peru is an internal construct?

Since brainwave activity and epileptic fits have been shown to have some effect on people's perceptions of God, its apparent that God is a state of mind.

Firstly, can you cite research to demonstrate this? I think it likely, but I'd like to see the research.

Secondly brainwave activity and epileptic fits have been shown to have some effect on people's perceptions of their husbands, so is it apparent that the husband is a state of mind? Of course not. If a brain mechanism is involved as surely it must be as in any experience, say that postulated in d'Aquili & Newberg's hypothesis I outlined above, it would come as no surprise if it could be effected by organic problems in the brain.

So what that means, as to the reality of it, depends on whether you are willing to concede that to SOME people, God really doesn't exist. It is only then that you can give validity to the claims of those who say they have experienced God.

Nope for reasons given. The furthest one can logically go - as in my case - is that some people do not (like me) experience mystical states. Anything beyond that is inference. If Bob and Hilda have seen a rainbow and tell me about it, but I have never seen one and am sceptical, that does not mean that rainbows do not exist. I decide to argue that what they saw was a hallucination. If my friend Kate the meterologist then gives me a thorough explanation for the mechanism of rainbows, and I accept it, I then can't say to Bob & Hilda that does not stop rainbows existing.... it just means i know accept the phenomena and can ascribe a mechanism to it.

In that case those people who have not experienced God and do not, are probably not capable in their brains. In this case God, is not a creator of the universe outside, but a creator of the universe inside. Either way the God out there, most definitely logically can not exist as defined by you here.

It is entirely possible that people can by the natural process of creating neural links set themselves up in a belief system that dognatically rejects all evidence sure. It's just as possible to program yourself inadvertantly to dogmatically except all parts of some faith, regardless of external evidence, or just to be incredibly credulous. Our brains are in a constant process of redrawing those links, but heuristics shows just how some people might end up unable to experience almost aything: in fact theoretically I wonder fi we could create people unable to perceive the colour blue, or able to see the colour octarine? I don't know, but it sound plausible.

cj x

 

[cj.23]

Do you believe Zeus exists as described by the people that say Zeus is god?

No, no more than I believe the host of golden daffodils described by Wordsworth existed as Wordsworth described them, or that the Christian God exist as Christians describe God.


cj x

 

[cj.23]

Firstly apologies to joobz - a great post, and i left replying till I could spare a few more minutes -- so I apologize for the ridiculous delay... I'm still working falt out so I won't be able to do this justice, as I am in my break at moment.

All arguments for atheism boil down to simplification of the world model.
There are four main hypotheses that we can make for god. (There may be more, but these are the ones that I think capture the majority of views for god).

1.) God is external to our universe but interacts with it.
2.) God is external to our universe, but does not interact with it except for its initial creation.
3.) God is external to our universe but does not interact with it nor did he create it.
4.) God is or is part of our universe.

Yep, i) classic theism and panentheism,ii) great architect deism, iii) hard deism, iv) pantheism or other ideas

For items 1 and 4, if god interacts or is part of the universe, then it would stand to reason that we could sense/measure him. Since then advent of the scientific method, we have not yet measured or detected anything that would require a god hypothesis. As such, we can assume god to not exist for simplicity sake.

Right - the problem is we are hereby reducing ways of knowing to Science, committing the fallacy of Scientism, and as our science is predicated on Methodological Naturalism, for perfectly good reasons - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methodological_naturalism#Methodological_and_Metaphysical_Naturalism - it could not provide such evidence anyway. So it becomes a circular argument - science assumes no "supernatural" entities, and a physical causality, so non-natural entities are therefore not evidenced by Science. The next problem of course is that we walk straight in to Hume's Induction Problem - we are now arguing from lack of experience, or the fact we do not know the answer, that there is not one. The argument I have never experienced Peru so Peru does not exist is clearly an argument from Incredulity - it is very har dif possible at all to show how the same does not apply to God. I'm not going to take this objection particularly seriously though - as has been pointed out, a huge part of our knowledge actually fails this text.

For Item 4, if we say god IS our universe, than that would be merely a redefinition of the word universe. As such, it would be trivially meaningless to say that god exists.

Agreed -"a world where all is God, and God is just a word" - Bowie.

For Item 3, if god didn't create the universe and does not interact with it, what's the point of being concerned with god? I do not think anyone argues for such a god, but such a god is equally as possible as a creator god. We could easily hypothesize entire cities filled of such gods, but all this does is increase the complexity of our universal understanding. Considering that the detectable world is complex enough, I see no reason to theorize beyond it.

We theorise beyond the detectable world in Science all the time actually. It's a key part of the ongoing debate between the Realist and non-Realist in Philosophy of Science about what counts as an observation, what is detectable, and the logical value of say electron theory. I'll happily discuss this if anyone is interested? Also, the type 3 deist God still exists, and some Deists postulate as bringing an afterlife in to existence. Long story, but this kind of thinking was common in some deism.

This leaves us with Item 2, the deist god. Such a god is the most plausible in my mind, but again fails the complexity issue. Until there is evidence that a creator was needed, there is no reason to assume there even is a creator. And let's pretend that our universe does in fact need a creator, what does that say about god? If we needed a creator, why wouldn't god?

God as classically formulated in theology since at least the middle Ages (actually far before now i think about it) is a Necesary entity, not a Contingent entity, a First Cause. No creator is required.

Because we define god as the primary source? But since we can't measure such a god or sense such a god(except by creation calling cards), how can we make any definition beyond "creator" for god. Any argument describing something that is immeasurable is merely guessing. As such, discovery of god would be still unsatisfying and open up countless questions and issues that would need to be addressed. I see no reason to theorize such a worry until it becomes a requirement.

I'll leave this for the moment because I have to get back to work but I'll cheerfully run through the theology of it if interested.

For example, what if we discover a part of the universe where our physical constants are different. The ramifications of such an occurrence would be astronomical and greatly increase the complexity of our models. Yet, there is no reason to assume such a thing and indeed good reasons assume that they are constant. As such, we keep to logically simple arguments for ease. Similarly, until we see Item 2 proved true, I see no reason to open that can of worms.

You like me value pragmatiosm and utility. Actually there are a few reasons ot doubt the Principle of Mediocrity in cosmology, but we ar enot there yet. I guess it would make Hume's Induction Problem even more fatal to our reasoning - though we could assume our localpart of relaity remained consistent.

cj x

 

[cj.23]

It seems to me that atheism only needs rationalising if you are rejecting a religious stance and embracing atheism. For me, there has never been a need to rationalise it. I was born an atheist, unadulterated and pure of irrational nonsense, I'm trying to keep it up, succeeding, mostly.

Seems like a plan to me. I was born taht way I think too, but changed my position much later.

The point was we see the claim theism is irrational. To me that suggests it has been falsified - yet so far no arguments which appear to do this. Therefore i contend theism remains rational, as does atheism or agnosticsm....

cj x

 

[cj.23]

There is only one way to be right. There are many, many, many ways to be wrong. Evidence shows us what is necessary in order to be right. In the absence of evidence, any speculation on our part is almost surely wrong.

Linda

Agreed absolutely, so we need to consider the evidence for an assertion or hypothesis. If the hypothesis is internally self contradictory, then we can reject it. If no evidence can be mustered for a hypothesis (and this is surprisingly uncommon - you can find evidence for almost anything really if you look for it, even Bigfoot has huge amounts of sightings and accounts - which does not mean Bigfoot exists!) - you can reject it. Otherwise you have to play the game of constructing a model that accounts for the evidence, which both theists and atheists attempt for their respective positions after all. You end up constructing an Inferred Best Explanation in most cases...

cj x

 

[fls]

Right - the problem is we are hereby reducing ways of knowing to Science, committing the fallacy of Scientism, and as our science is predicated on Methodological Naturalism, for perfectly good reasons - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methodological_naturalism#Methodological_and_Metaphysical_Naturalism - it could not provide such evidence anyway. So it becomes a circular argument - science assumes no "supernatural" entities, and a physical causality, so non-natural entities are therefore not evidenced by Science.

Science does not actually assume no supernatural entities - at least not in the way that supernatural is used in relation to gods. It assumes that an influence on a physical quantity can tell us something about the underlying reality. Since gods are claimed to influence physical quantities, it assumes that we can know something about gods.

Linda

 

[PixyMisa]

Right - the problem is we are hereby reducing ways of knowing to Science, committing the fallacy of Scientism, and as our science is predicated on Methodological Naturalism, for perfectly good reasons - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methodological_naturalism#Methodological_and_Metaphysical_Naturalism - it could not provide such evidence anyway.

FAIL.

Evidence is evidence. It's not up to science to provide evidence; the evidence exists, or it does not exist. Science explains the evidence, links cause to effect.

We have observed no effect that requires us to posit a supernatural cause. It's not a question of assumptions, it's that these things are not observed to happen.

So it becomes a circular argument - science assumes no "supernatural" entities, and a physical causality, so non-natural entities are therefore not evidenced by Science.

No. Total nonsense.

The next problem of course is that we walk straight in to Hume's Induction Problem - we are now arguing from lack of experience, or the fact we do not know the answer, that there is not one. The argument I have never experienced Peru so Peru does not exist is clearly an argument from Incredulity - it is very har dif possible at all to show how the same does not apply to God.

Who cares? Nobody is making this argument, or anything that even resembles it.

We theorise beyond the detectable world in Science all the time actually.

That's when it stops being science.

Also, the type 3 deist God still exists

It would be more appropriate to say the type 3 deist God does not exist - by definition.

God as classically formulated in theology since at least the middle Ages (actually far before now i think about it) is a Necesary entity, not a Contingent entity, a First Cause. No creator is required.

All of which is special pleading.

 

[CurtC]

cj.23, have you provided a straightforward answer for your state of belief regarding leprechauns? I assume you don't have an active belief that they exist - when asked, would you carefully say that, while you haven't seen convincing evidence, you logically cannot disprove their existence, so are agnostic in regards to their existence?

If you would, you're a weirdo. Almost everyone would simply say that they believe leprechauns don't exist, and it goes without saying that they can't actually demonstrate their non-existence.

It's the exact same thing with god - we atheists (for the most part) disbelieve in gods exactly the same way that normal people disbelieve in leprechauns.

 

[cj.23]

FAIL.

Evidence is evidence. It's not up to science to provide evidence; the evidence exists, or it does not exist. Science explains the evidence, links cause to effect.

We have observed no effect that requires us to posit a supernatural cause. It's not a question of assumptions, it's that these things are not observed to happen.

FAIL? I'm glad you are not one of my supervisors!

On the contrary - we have plenty of evidence that might be explained in terms of supernatural causality - are you denying that methodological naturalism is a working assumption of science? Science does indeed not provide the evidence, but explain it - well it technically does not even do that, but I'll let that pass for now - but the explanation must be in the terms of methodological naturalism. So, ok, evidence is evidence - and as i have mentioned for example peoples mystical experiences of a divine reality are evidence for a divine reality - a data point that can be used to argue for the reality of that premise. That is observed to happen - the reason it is assume to refer only to a phemenonological internal state is merely the naturalistic (sensible) working assumption of science, which sensibly enough admits its can make no actual comment on the ontological reality of that experience.

I'm afriad the failure is all yours, Pixy. Unless you can show where i am wrong of course?

So it becomes a circular argument - science assumes no "supernatural" entities, and a physical causality, so non-natural entities are therefore not evidenced by Science.

No. Total nonsense.

OK, why? I am amused by your dismissiveness; surely you can say why thsi argument is flawed, rather than just call it nonsense? If you can't, dow do you know it's nonsense?

The next problem of course is that we walk straight in to Hume's Induction Problem - we are now arguing from lack of experience, or the fact we do not know the answer, that there is not one. The argument I have never experienced Peru so Peru does not exist is clearly an argument from Incredulity - it is very hard if possible at all to show how the same does not apply to God.

Who cares? Nobody is making this argument, or anything that even resembles it.

Really? No one is aserting there is no God because they see no evidence for it? Sorry, thought that was actually the argument you were making. Hence my reply. Maybe you would like to clarify...

We theorise beyond the detectable world in Science all the time actually.

That's when it stops being science.

Oh, ok, so you are a Non-Realist. Okey doke, perfectly respectable position to take - atomic theory does not necessarily reflect the reality of atomic physics, and electrons may or may not exist - but the theory works and is justified on a utilitarian value. Actually has a lot going for it - no objections from me, though I am could certainly argue the Realist position.

It would be more appropriate to say the type 3 deist God does not exist - by definition.

How so?


All of which is special pleading.[/quote]

Not so see - Principle of Relevant Difference.

 

[DeusPhasmatis]

It does not however demonstrate there is not a god, only that there is no rational basis to conclude such, which is by no means the same thing, leaving atheism irrational as well, unless you can make a positive case. As I think (by the definition of rationality I offered: a property of an argument where the argument is logically coherent and consistent) atheism, agnosticism and theism can be rationally argued, I do not face this problem.

You're asking us to prove a negative. Strong Atheism isn't taking that stance. Strong Atheism is saying there's no monster under the bed. There's no elephant on the coffee table. There's no uber-patriarch in the sky. That is all.

Theism says: "there's an elephant on the table". Weak atheism says: "I don't think there's an elephant on the table." Strong atheism says: "there's no elephant on the table."

 

[cj.23]

cj.23, have you provided a straightforward answer for your state of belief regarding leprechauns? I assume you don't have an active belief that they exist - when asked, would you carefully say that, while you haven't seen convincing evidence, you logically cannot disprove their existence, so are agnostic in regards to their existence?

If you would, you're a weirdo.

Guilty as charged m'lud!

I'd regard the evidential case for leprechauns exactly the same way I regard any other case. I certainly believe some people experience leprechauns, and the claim there is no evidence for leprechauns (which I know you have not made!) would fall as soon as you searched youtube, or British Folklore studies.

Do I believe in leprechauns? Not in the same way I believe in say poodles - I would grant the possibility of leprechauns in this solar system existing a very, very small probability. However I would be, and in fact am, interested in what leprechaun experiences actually represent. There may be some entity interpreted in those terms - the leprechaun is a cultural construct pointing to a real experience.

cj x

 

[cj.23]

BTW, Curt, if you want an instant rebuttal to my claim on leprechauns you could probably employ Gord's SF analogy and predictiveness test - in his post above. I have not had time to reply yet, but I think it could be applied here. I try to see both sides.

cj x

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

cj,

Why do you privelege one type of subjective experience -- mysticism -- and not others -- schizophrenic ramblings? Or do you also privelege schizophrenic ramblings as insights into ultimate reality as well?

We don't generally trust subjective experience alone -- it isn't dismissed out of hand, obviously -- because we have learned how fallible our "experience engines" can be.

Of course it is always possible that mystical/divine experiences are windows onto ultimate reality. It is also possible that they are internal experiences. Many people side with the latter possibility because we can manipulate people into them with drugs, etc.

Technically, every experience is a data point. The issue when it comes to knowledge is what data can we trust?

My deep and abiding sense that Heidi Klum has the hots for me will, if I act on it, secure for me a strict restraining order.

 

[Darat]

No

...snip...

Thanks, now we've established that it's back to my first question to you i.e. you don't consider your atheism rational?

 

[cj.23]

cj,

Why do you privelege one type of subjective experience -- mysticism -- and not others -- schizophrenic ramblings? Or do you also privelege schizophrenic ramblings as insights into ultimate reality as well?

We don't generally trust subjective experience alone -- it isn't dismissed out of hand, obviously -- because we have learned how fallible our "experience engines" can be.

Of course it is always possible that mystical/divine experiences are windows onto ultimate reality. It is also possible that they are internal experiences. Many people side with the latter possibility because we can manipulate people into them with drugs, etc.

Technically, every experience is a data point. The issue when it comes to knowledge is what data can we trust?

My deep and abiding sense that Heidi Klum has the hots for me will, if I act on it, secure for me a strict restraining order.

Good luck with Heidi! Why not give it a shot? I think she is married to Seal though, so no, forget that idea...

That aside, absolutely pertinent and brilliant point. I'll answer later as I have to go out to work again now, but basically because there is a consistency of experience across the mystical experience - certain factors appear in any cross cultural-study, in the same way there are certain factors which are ubiquitously associated with the mental experience we call "rainbows". However you have hit the nail on the head - what matters is the consistency of the experience, and its content - not the mechanism, which as i have argued is much of a muchness.

cj x

 

[Freethinker]

No, no more than I believe the host of golden daffodils described by Wordsworth existed as Wordsworth described them, or that the Christian God exist as Christians describe God.

cj, I enjoy your posts, and I hope you don't take any of the arguments as a personal attack.....

If you don't believe in the god that Christians describe, does that not make you an atheist of some flavor and limited scope? Haven't you just created your own personal version of god who doesn't have the flaws you've observed in old Yahweh?

This is something that I've always felt was the most irrational part of religion. As technology has progressed and our knowledge of how the universe works has progressed, religious people have redefined their gods to fit into humanity's new understanding. That's only rational IF you are operating under the preconceived notion that god(s) exist.

The bible says that the Earth is surrounded by a "firmament" which god made, upon which the stars, the moon and the sun are fixed, and which separates the celestial waters from the terrestrial waters. God called this firmament "Heaven".

We know better now. Christians couldn't believe that or preach it now in literal form without being ridiculed, so they decided god didn't really do it that way. Did god change to accommodate our new understanding? Did the bible change? No, only the claims made by believers changed. Whether they admit it or not, their belief was wrong, so they changed it to something different, something that they just made up, and most importantly, something that can't be disproven by telescopic observation or space travel.

This continual downward revision of god, accompanied by rationalization and unspoken acknowledgment that Christians' beliefs (and their bible, the only source of information about god) were wrong and that god isn't as powerful as they had previously believed lead to only one rational conclusion: We don't know much about god because we can't trust what's in the bible.

If we don't know much about god and can't trust what's in the bible, why bother? Sure we can clutch the straw of Deism with its vague and uninvolved god, but if god is like that, why bother?

Paine's essay on The Age of Reason was essentially the driving force in making me move from having a vague belief in an uninvolved god who was goodness and order, to atheism. The essay made me clearly see the irrationality in the bible and belief in the Christian god. Ironic, since one could argue that I was a deist of some sort, and upon reading Paine's arguments in favor of deism over Christianity, I became an atheist.

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

Good luck with Heidi! Why not give it a shot? I think she is married to Seal though, so no, forget that idea...

That aside, absolutely pertinent and brilliant point. I'll answer later as I have to go out to work again now, but basically because there is a consistency of experience across the mystical experience - certain factors appear in any cross cultural-study, in the same way there are certain factors which are ubiquitously associated with the mental experience we call "rainbows". However you have hit the nail on the head - what matters is the consistency of the experience, and its content - not the mechanism, which as i have argued is much of a muchness.

cj x

And good answer, but consistency of experience is precisely what one would expect to see from folks with similar brain structures having a similar experience/activation of similar brain areas.

And is there that much consistency of experience? Are there not some cultural patterns thrown into some of the descriptions? Granted, you could argue that this is the result of the filter through which the experience occurs, but it is also fairly strong evidence that the experience is internally generated.


ETA:
I keep hitting the same wall every time I think about this issue. Yes, there is similarity of experience, but there is no way that we can know that this experience is of ultimate reality. We are simply stuck with two competing theories -- we see some form of the truth through this means and the brain does it -- with no means of deciding which to trust.

There simply is no way to know. So, we decide. We can decide 'yes there is a God' or we can decide 'no there is not a God', but I don't see any means by which anyone can claim to know the correct answer.

We can say that particular views of God or gods do not meet the evidence and that there is evidence against certain types of god(s). I would even say that any attempt to say what God *is* necessarily limits God, since we only know what something is by comparing it to what it is not. Since, by my definition and way of thiking God is everything, then there is simply no way to define "it".

I wish everyone would give up the quixotic search for ultimate reality. It isn't knowable. Realize that you must decide. There is no other choice.

 

[MattusMaximus]

Right - the problem is we are hereby reducing ways of knowing to Science, committing the fallacy of Scientism, and as our science is predicated on Methodological Naturalism, for perfectly good reasons - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methodological_naturalism#Methodological_and_Metaphysical_Naturalism - it could not provide such evidence anyway. So it becomes a circular argument - science assumes no "supernatural" entities, and a physical causality, so non-natural entities are therefore not evidenced by Science. The next problem of course is that we walk straight in to Hume's Induction Problem - we are now arguing from lack of experience, or the fact we do not know the answer, that there is not one. The argument I have never experienced Peru so Peru does not exist is clearly an argument from Incredulity - it is very har dif possible at all to show how the same does not apply to God. I'm not going to take this objection particularly seriously though - as has been pointed out, a huge part of our knowledge actually fails this text.

CJ, you are confusing methodological naturalism with philosophical naturalism. The former has nothing to say about the reality or non-reality of the supernatural, just that there is no way we can use our scientific method (which employs natural techniques) to determine the existence of the supernatural. Read about the difference here.

**Side note: This begs the question of what is truly "supernatural". For example, most people would consider psychic phenomena to be supernatural; however, we can conduct tests for such phenomena and they end up with a null result. I suppose you can then argue that a phenomenon that was supposedly supernatural that is verified by scientific testing is then natural, but that gets into a semantic argument.

On the other hand, philosophical naturalism takes the default position that the supernatural does not exist. The only thing that exists is the natural world.

To automatically equate the scientific method (methodological naturalism) with philosophical naturalism is to create a strawman argument.