Court rules atheism a religion

[toddjh]

That fairies and elves are used in stories doesn't mean that elves and fairies aren't real. People write about a lot of things that are real. So by itself that argument doesn't distinguish a belief based on "faith" versus any other belief.

Faith is an irrational belief; that is, a belief which is not supported by sufficient evidence. I would argue that we do have sufficient evidence to disregard unsupported ideas: we have centuries of experience which shows us that empirical study and parsimony are the most useful tools we have for studying the nature of things Ideas whose truth cannot be demonstrated simply have no place in a rational worldview.

I'm not saying that we should boldly claim that all such unsupported ideas are wrong, but I do believe there is good reason not to take them seriously--and, really, I don't think the two are quite so different.

Jeremy

 

[Iacchus]

With this kind of logic you could blame the air we breathe for our deaths since it keeps us alive and we all die.

And if God exists? ... By what means have you rejected Him?

 

[toddjh]

And if God exists? ... By what means have you rejected Him?

By the means that he has carefully hidden his fingerprints and arranged things so that he doesn't appear to exist at all. If a god wants to play such childish games, rationality deals with him by way of Occam's Razor.

How would you propose we distinguish between a god which feigns nonexistence, and one which actually does not exist? Furthermore, why would you distinguish between them? Any speculation about the nature of such a beast would be idle and, more to the point, impotent.

Jeremy

 

[Bri]

I disagree with your "compelling reasons for why there is no evidence of God." They are more post-hoc made up rationalizations for why there isn't, not _reasons_ why there isn't.

The example you give doesn't explain why there is no evidence of God, not to mention that the logic is flawed. Just for starters, point (4) doesn't hold water, and point (5) doesn't seem to follow from point (4) at all. Just because there is evil in the world doesn't necessarily mean that God is evil, and if it did, I don't see how free will would change that fact.

I'm no theologian, but I think the argument goes more like this:

God created the universe, including nature and the laws which govern nature. God put people on earth and gave them free will because God wants people to choose good over evil rather than be forced to do good. In order for people to truly have free will, there can be no irrefutable proof of the existance of God. Because science can deal only with the laws of nature and God is beyond those laws (he created them) it would make sense that God would only be detectable if he wanted to be detected (which he doesn't because then we wouldn't have free will).

Elves, faeries, and invisible elephants, on the other hand, would presumably live within the natural world, and one might expect them to therefore leave some measurable impact on the world.

-Bri

 

[Bri]

In which case I think your definition of faith is inconsistent with my own.

That may very well be. My definition of faith is as I stated: "a firm belief in something for which there is no proof." This is also Webster's definition. By that definition, faith is not necessarily irrational or illogical. The notion of not believing that which is unfalsifiable fits within that definition.

However, I like pgwenthold's comment because it might help to differentiate what might be considered "blind faith."

I think your distinction on belief in fairies vs. belief in God vis-a-vis faith is a false one, stirkingly culture-centered. Do you agree that a belief in Hindu gods, Greek gods, various gods worshipped by African tribes are also significantly different than the fairies and elves? Probably not.

Actually, probably SO. The belief in one god over another god would certainly be based on faith. My distinction (actually pgwenthold's distinction) would hold for any god that would have created -- and therefore exists outside of -- the natural world. I don't know that such a belief is necessarily irrational or illogical.

People only feel -- and it really is just a feeling -- that a belief in God is different because it's widely held in their own area of the world.

I can't speak for "people" but I can say that my argument wasn't one in favor of any particular god.

-Bri

 

[Bri]

Faith is an irrational belief; that is, a belief which is not supported by sufficient evidence. I would argue that we do have sufficient evidence to disregard unsupported ideas: we have centuries of experience which shows us that empirical study and parsimony are the most useful tools we have for studying the nature of things Ideas whose truth cannot be demonstrated simply have no place in a rational worldview.

Lack of evidence to the contrary is not evidence. Perhaps, as pgwenthold suggested, lack of evidence where evidence should be is evidence to the contrary, but there is nothing to suggest that there should be any evidence for the existance of God whether God exists or not.

-Bri

 

[Iacchus]

Iacchus
Empirical evidence and reason. Faith is not required.

There is no such thing as reasoned faith?

Iacchus follower of the GTITS, because he can’t prove it doesn’t exist and by default he must be a follower.

God has tits? Yeah, I suppose He does.

Now I’m going to explain my above statement since you [Iacchus] have previously proven a lack of basic understanding. The statement was a tongue-in-cheek example of the idiocy of your statement.

Or, it's possible I just misunderstood. I suppose people have been called idiots for less than that.

KelvinG
Actually since atheists aren’t required to congregate and form organizations, can I be my own atheist organization? That way I can get a tax credit for all the video games and books I buy. If I push it, I may even have my salary paid directly to my object of worship, me, and have it declared completely tax exempt.

Ossai

It's understandable that people need to draw their own conclusions about God which, is why allowances must be made for the "lack of" belief.

 

[pgwenthold]

Actually, probably SO. The belief in one god over another god would certainly be based on faith. My distinction (actually pgwenthold's distinction) would hold for any god that would have created -- and therefore exists outside of -- the natural world. I don't know that such a belief is necessarily irrational or illogical.

A belief in something for which there is no objective evidence (the only "evidence" you could provide would be the existence of the universe, but that presupposes the existence of the being for which you are trying to assess) is not irrational? I'd like to hear your definition of rational.

The part that makes it illogical is, as has been brought up, the special pleading that it entails. There are an infinite number of things for which there is no evidence at all. The invisible elephant in my office is one of them. So why do you chose to believe in only one of these potential beings and reject the rest? There is no reason for believing in that god that "exists outside of the natural world" that does not apply to the elephant in my office.

 

[Iacchus]

That may very well be. My definition of faith is as I stated: "a firm belief in something for which there is no proof."

Proof to whom? I may very well be aware of something that others are not aware of, and I may not even have the means of proving that it is so. Now, does that mean it simply doesn't exist or, that others require faith -- one way or the other -- if they wish to ascertain it were true? Remember, it can't be proven that it doesn't exist if, in fact it does.

 

[pgwenthold]

Lack of evidence to the contrary is not evidence. Perhaps, as pgwenthold suggested, lack of evidence where evidence should be is evidence to the contrary, but there is nothing to suggest that there should be any evidence for the existance of God whether God exists or not.

And I repeat my question: what is the difference between "exists but is not perceivable in any way" and "doesn't exist"?

Moreover, there is still the issue of your claim that rejecting such a thing requires "faith." I have noted above the illogical notion of believing in god while not believing in the myriad of other possibilities. Hence, you have to accept all as possible, or discount all.

I could quibble with your chosen dictionary definition (I prefer the old Am Her definition, "belief held without the basis of material evidence or logical proof" - doesn't have to be "firm" and empirical "proof" is a difficult concept in the first place), but dueling dicos are boring. I still think the logical basis even qualifies given your more stringent definition.

 

[Cain]

That may very well be. My definition of faith is as I stated: "a firm belief in something for which there is no proof." This is also Webster's definition. By that definition, faith is not necessarily irrational or illogical. The notion of not believing that which is unfalsifiable fits within that definition.

In which case our definitions are not so different after all. I tend to shun the word "proof" in general. Let's not get ahead of ourselves and demand proof -- that is, overwhelming evidence. I demand only evidence, or something that could conceivably support what are rather intense claims as to the origins of the universe and purpose of humankind.

However, I like pgwenthold's comment because it might help to differentiate what might be considered "blind faith."

"Blind faith" is redundant.

Actually, probably SO. The belief in one god over another god would certainly be based on faith. My distinction (actually pgwenthold's distinction) would hold for any god that would have created -- and therefore exists outside of -- the natural world. I don't know that such a belief is necessarily irrational or illogical.

If the belief in one god over another god, or one team of gods over another team of gods, is "certainly" based on faith, then it is necessarily irrational. I do not like using the term "logic" for the same reason I try to avoid proof, as both are suggestive of perfectly constructed systems and elegant deductive answers.

I can't speak for "people" but I can say that my argument wasn't one in favor of any particular god.

Well, I thought you had referred to "God" with a capital 'G'. For the sake of argument let us concede that there is a good chance some god or gods created the universe. Cool. Now what does that mean? What significance does it hold? If these are remote creators uninterested in intervening the world, then they don't really seem to matter much.

People are simply not content (for long) believing, as some point of fact, that a god or gods created the universe and then abandoned it. If you cannot rationally -- or if you prefer, logically -- distinguish between these different gods, then what is the point?

Saying that a god exists "outside" the world -- whatever that means -- solves nothing and answers nothing. If anything it merely compounds the mystery. The above comments directed at you should be well-taken.

That your case for a god(s) constitutes "special pleading" (the elephant in the room is an instructive example).

That you're multiplying the problem by introducing god(s), making it needlessly complex (see Occam's Razor).

 

[Bri]

A belief in something for which there is no objective evidence (the only "evidence" you could provide would be the existence of the universe, but that presupposes the existence of the being for which you are trying to assess) is not irrational? I'd like to hear your definition of rational.

I never said whether such a belief is necessarily rational or irrational. What I suggested was that perhaps faith isn't always irrational. Faith is simply the firm belief in something that cannot be proven.

Atheism is the firm belief that God doesn't exist. If you can prove that God doesn't exist, then I would agree that atheism isn't at all based on faith.

Before someone gets upset, I didn't say that atheism is irrational. On the contrary, the notion that one shouldn't believe anything that is unfalsifiable is extremely rational. I also didn't say that a belief in God is necessarily irrational (many perfectly rational people believe in God).

The part that makes it illogical is, as has been brought up, the special pleading that it entails. There are an infinite number of things for which there is no evidence at all. The invisible elephant in my office is one of them. So why do you chose to believe in only one of these potential beings and reject the rest? There is no reason for believing in that god that "exists outside of the natural world" that does not apply to the elephant in my office.

Well, I think your own explanation of the difference might be useful in determining which beliefs based on faith are rational and which aren't.

-Bri

 

[Iacchus]

By the means that he has carefully hidden his fingerprints and arranged things so that he doesn't appear to exist at all. If a god wants to play such childish games, rationality deals with him by way of Occam's Razor.

Occam's Razor proves nothing.

 

[toddjh]

Lack of evidence to the contrary is not evidence. Perhaps, as pgwenthold suggested, lack of evidence where evidence should be is evidence to the contrary, but there is nothing to suggest that there should be any evidence for the existance of God whether God exists or not.

As I said in another post, speculation about the nature of a god who deliberately makes it appear as though he does not exist is pointless. You may as well spend your time arguing that we cannot disprove solipsism or Last Thursdayism. Good luck getting any useful information out of those dead ends.

That does not mean they are false, necessarily, but it does mean that there is no need to take them even remotely seriously. The thing is, those two positions are practically indistinguishable in the real world. For all practical purposes, you may as well regard an unsupportable position as false.

Jeremy

 

[toddjh]

Occam's Razor proves nothing.

If you want proofs, take a math class. Human philosophy is concerned with what is reasonable to believe.

Jeremy

 

[Bri]

And I repeat my question: what is the difference between "exists but is not perceivable in any way" and "doesn't exist"?

Many consider God to be perceivable. Although some people who believe in God don't believe that God affects the world at all (aside from perhaps having created it), others believe that God does take part in the world. Since God created nature, it would make sense that he would be able to prevent us from acquiring proof of his existance if he wanted to.

Moreover, there is still the issue of your claim that rejecting such a thing requires "faith." I have noted above the illogical notion of believing in god while not believing in the myriad of other possibilities. Hence, you have to accept all as possible, or discount all.

One possible difference was already explained based on your own suggestion.

I will state for the record here that I don't know the answer, but it does seem fairly clear that atheism may very well be based on faith according to at least one common meaning of the term.

I still think the logical basis even qualifies given your more stringent definition.

OK, then let's use my definition! Why doesn't atheism qualify as faith since the existance of God can be neither proven nor disproven?

-Bri

 

[Bri]

And I repeat my question: what is the difference between "exists but is not perceivable in any way" and "doesn't exist"?

Many consider God to be perceivable. Although some people who believe in God don't believe that God affects the world at all (aside from perhaps having created it), others believe that God does take part in the world. Since God created nature, it would make sense that he would be able to prevent us from acquiring proof of his existance if he wanted to.

Moreover, there is still the issue of your claim that rejecting such a thing requires "faith." I have noted above the illogical notion of believing in god while not believing in the myriad of other possibilities. Hence, you have to accept all as possible, or discount all.

One possible difference was already explained based on your own suggestion.

I will state for the record here that I don't know the answer, but it does seem fairly clear that atheism may very well be based on faith according to at least one common definition of the term.

I still think the logical basis even qualifies given your more stringent definition.

OK, then let's use my definition! Why doesn't atheism qualify as faith since the existance of God can be neither proven nor disproven?

-Bri

 

[pgwenthold]

I Faith is simply the firm belief in something that cannot be proven.

Atheism is the firm belief that God doesn't exist.

What the heck is a "firm belief?"

I don't know what that means.

Moreover, many atheists, me included, will tell you that you are incorrect in your characterization of atheism. But again, that is a dueling dictionary match, and is boring.

OTOH, regardless of your source, I find the assertion of "firm belief," if I interpret it correctly, to be absolutely wrong, when it comes to atheists. But I will wait for clarification on "firm belief" before getting into that.

 

[Iacchus]

If you want proofs, take a math class. Human philosophy is concerned with what is reasonable to believe.

Jeremy

As if reason were not a property of the mind? Indeed, what are proofs, without a mind to conceptualize them?

 

[toddjh]

Many consider God to be perceivable. Although some people who believe in God don't believe that God affects the world at all (aside from perhaps having created it), others believe that God does take part in the world. Since God created nature, it would make sense that he would be able to prevent us from acquiring proof of his existance if he wanted to.

Given the fact that there is disagreement on whether God is active in the universe (not to mention widespread and violent disagreement on which God we're talking about!), I think the evidence on that score is, at best, completely unreliable.

OK, then let's use my definition! Why doesn't atheism qualify as faith since the existance of God can be neither proven nor disproven?

Because atheism does not insist there is no God. It merely takes the position that there is not sufficient evidence to take the idea seriously.

Jeremy