Can Atheists Be Good Citizens?

[Foster Zygote]

Good point, I wasn't clear. If I had a belief that wasn't true (let alone justified), no amount of scientific work would change that. I think Kuhn's account is fairly close to what actually does happen when scientists develop a unjustified false belief.

Then tell us: How is lack of belief in gods unjustified? What evidence justifies the belief in gods?

Now, assuming for a moment that natural law is true, is a belief in it ever justified?

Assuming that leprechauns are real, is belief in them ever justified? What it all boils down to is us having to assume that you are correct. That's not a convincing argument.

 

[godless dave]

Now, assuming for a moment that natural law is true, is a belief in it ever justified?

Belief in it would be "justified" if there were compelling evidence that natural law existed.

If there were no evidence that it existed, then there would be no way of knowing it's "true".

 

[Darat]

...snip...

Now, assuming for a moment that natural law is true, is a belief in it ever justified?

Your question is pretty meaningless, it's exactly the same as saying

"Now, assuming for a moment that atheists cannot be good citizens is true, is a belief in it ever justified?"

Or

"Now, assuming for a moment that blue is red is true, is a blue ball red?"

If something is true a "belief in it" is always "justified".

 

[Darat]

Great minds think alike....


(.... OK I'll finish it .... and duffers seldom differ!)

 

[Stone Island]

If something is true a "belief in it" is always "justified".

Uh, no.

If I said, "The Sun will Rise in the East and set in the West because my neighbor's cat whispered it to me this morning", my belief would be true (the Sun will rise in the East and I did have a fairly convincing auditory hallucination), but not justified.

Koestler's The Sleepwalkers has some amusing discussions of this phenomenon. There were some astronomers who had some true beliefs (in certain particulars at least) about how the universe worked, but those beliefs weren't justified because, until Newton and Leibniz, they didn't have the math.

 

[MarkCorrigan]

Uh, no.

If I said, "The Sun will Rise in the East and set in the West because my neighbor's cat whispered it to me this morning", my belief would be true (the Sun will rise in the East and I did have a fairly convincing auditory hallucination), but not justified.

Koestler's The Sleepwalkers has some amusing discussions of this phenomenon. There were some astronomers who had some true beliefs (in certain particulars at least) about how the universe worked, but those beliefs weren't justified because, until Newton and Leibniz, they didn't have the math.

If something can be shown to be true then belief in that thing IS justified. This says nothing about the way that person believes they came to the decision, nor does it state that anything that happens to be shown to be true in the future is auto-justified.

If something is proven to be true (to the extent that something can be known) then belief is automatically justified, even if the belief features something stupid.

 

[GreyICE]

Uh, no.

If I said, "The Sun will Rise in the East and set in the West because my neighbor's cat whispered it to me this morning", my belief would be true (the Sun will rise in the East and I did have a fairly convincing auditory hallucination), but not justified.

Koestler's The Sleepwalkers has some amusing discussions of this phenomenon. There were some astronomers who had some true beliefs (in certain particulars at least) about how the universe worked, but those beliefs weren't justified because, until Newton and Leibniz, they didn't have the math.

The hair, it is split.

 

[Stone Island]

If something can be shown to be true then belief in that thing IS justified. This says nothing about the way that person believes they came to the decision, nor does it state that anything that happens to be shown to be true in the future is auto-justified.

If something is proven to be true (to the extent that something can be known) then belief is automatically justified, even if the belief features something stupid.

You know what we call showing something to be true? Justification.

Now, if you had a belief that was true, but hadn't been shown to be true, would you be justified in holding that belief? "There's a cat in that box." Well, maybe. Maybe not. Until I open the box and discover the cat, I'm not justified, even if my statement is true.

Let's say I teach my daughter to rattle off a fairly complex mathematical formula. I tell her that it's true. She believes me. However, being 8, she has no training the intricacies of maths that would allow her to see why that formula is true. Her belief is unjustified because it rests on my authority, even though it's true, no?

Note: arguments that suffer from informal fallacies can still be true.

 

[Foster Zygote]

You know what we call showing something to be true? Justification.

Then justify your statement that a lack of belief in gods is unjustified.

 

[MarkCorrigan]

Oh, and yes, we atheists can be good citizens. Why would we not be, without ridiculous appeals to our so-called lack of moral compass?

 

[joobz]

Uh, no, I'm not. I'm saying that as a matter of fact a lot of our beliefs are unjustified. And it has nothing to do with lazy. I spend a lot of my time trying to gain knowledge (justified true belief) about politics and political behavior. It doesn't bug me particularly that my beliefs in the realms of physics, biology, or chemistry, not to mention automotive mechanics, are unjustified. Nor should it.

The question is, what justifies belief? And, if you applied that level of justification that causes you to reject as unjustified a belief in God or gods, would the founding principles of natural law survive? Could you consistently reject as unjustified the belief in God or gods while maintaining a belief in natural rights and natural law as the Founders of this country understood those two concepts? How?

Well, to answer these questions, I could go through the effort of explaining the concept of hypothesis testing and how a hypothesis differs from a belief. I could also further explain how, after understanding the mechanism by which scientific knowledge is aquired, be fairly justfied in "believing" in the knowledge presented by others who have used this method. Provided, I do not hold these beliefs dogmatically and be willing to adjust the belief sets if new evidence is presented.

But all this would do would provide further fodder for you to divert attention away from the primary point, can atheists be good citizens?
The answer to this question HAS to be yes, by the simple common usage of the words, atheist and good citizen.

In much the same way, can an atheist be a good christian? Well, that answer is no. Again, by the simple common usage of what it means to be atheist and what it means to be christian.

 

[Belz...]

The question is, what justifies belief?

Nothing. Which is why evidence is better. In the absense of evidence, we can assume that gods do not exist. Hence atheism.

Say, can atheists be good citizens ?

 

[MarkCorrigan]

Nothing. Which is why evidence is better. In the absense of evidence, we can assume that gods do not exist. Hence atheism.

Say, can atheists be good citizens ?

Ah, but surely since nothing can be absolutely known, isn't it belief based upon evidence? It isn't the same as belief in an invisible thing, but it is still belief, and it is evidence, whether one knows exactly what it is, that justifies the belief?

This is what I meant when I addressed Stone Island. His example of the belief in the sun rising via the cat is not a good example. His belief that the sun rises is justified, but his belief in the talking cat is not.

 

[joobz]

Can you provide some evidence of the existence of natural law?

There can definitely be a natural explanation for natural laws, especially when you consider the evolutionary origins of social development. There's nothing to shocking in regards to that.

The question is if the laws presented by the DOI are in fact these laws. Well, I would claim that there is no evidence for that in either appeals to a christian god or appeals to social evolutionary biology. As such, the invoking of god for these natural laws is the appeal to a false authority and merely represents flowery rhetoric.

The question you should ask now is why would an atheist accept the premise that we have a society which provides "Life, liberty and the persuit of happiness." as individualistic rights? Simply, the appeal to self interest, logic and altruism. And funny enough, there's biological evidence for the origins of all three of these elements as found in evolutionary theory.

So, I answered yet another one of your questions. Would you care to answer mine and everyone elses.

Do you believe athiests can be good citizens?

 

[Darat]

Uh, no.

If I said, "The Sun will Rise in the East and set in the West because my neighbor's cat whispered it to me this morning", my belief would be true (the Sun will rise in the East and I did have a fairly convincing auditory hallucination), but not justified.

Koestler's The Sleepwalkers has some amusing discussions of this phenomenon. There were some astronomers who had some true beliefs (in certain particulars at least) about how the universe worked, but those beliefs weren't justified because, until Newton and Leibniz, they didn't have the math.

Which has nothing to do with my comment that you quoted before you posted this. Perhaps you meant it as a response to someone else's post?

 

[Stone Island]

In much the same way, can an atheist be a good christian? Well, that answer is no. Again, by the simple common usage of what it means to be atheist and what it means to be christian.

Wait, why not? Let's think through this. An atheist could go to church, take the liturgy, do good works, give a portion of his wages as a tithe, and do all the actions that one would expect of and praise in a good Christian.

Except that she wouldn't believe. She would lack faith in the fundamental truth of Christianity. She wouldn't be able to offer a morally compelling accounting of the truth of Christianity that wasn't hypocritical. And all that happens in her head, where nobody can see.

So, if an atheist couldn't be a good Christian on the basis of her lack in a belief in the ultimate reality of Christianity's truth, how can someone be a good citizen if they lack a belief in the ultimate reality and truth of natural law?

 

[KingMerv00]

So, if an atheist couldn't be a good Christian on the basis of her lack in a belief in the ultimate reality of Christianity's truth, how can someone be a good citizen if they lack a belief in the ultimate reality and truth of natural law?

Because Christianity is limited to a certain set of beliefs. Citizenship is not.

 

[Stone Island]

Because Christianity is limited to a certain set of beliefs. Citizenship is not.

But we're not talking about mere citizenship, but, rather, good citizenship. Good citizenship, according to Neuhaus, is predicated on certain beliefs and the ability advocate them.

 

[Ateius]

Neuhaus is not the arbiter of what it is to be a "good citizen".

 

[Gate2501]

But we're not talking about mere citizenship, but, rather, good citizenship. Good citizenship, according to Neuhaus, is predicated on certain beliefs and the ability advocate them.

According to Neuhaus, Stone Island does not have a mind of his own. According to Neuhaus, Stone Island does not have a mind of his own. According to Neuhaus, Stone Island does not have a mind of his own. According to Neuhaus, Stone Island does not have a mind of his own. According to Neuhaus, Stone Island does not have a mind of his own. According to Neuhaus, Stone Island does not have a mind of his own. According to Neuhaus, Stone Island does not have a mind of his own. According to Neuhaus, Stone Island does not have a mind of his own. According to Neuhaus, Stone Island does not have a mind of his own. According to Neuhaus, Stone Island does not have a mind of his own. According to Neuhaus, Stone Island does not have a mind of his own. According to Neuhaus, Stone Island does not have a mind of his own. According to Neuhaus, Stone Island does not have a mind of his own.