Court rules atheism a religion

[pgwenthold]

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?

If it can be proven that believing god does not exist is logical, than it is justified. I have argued that given a "god" who has no manifestation, belief that it does not exist is logical because we aren't able to distinguish it from all the other possible things that could exist but for which there is no evidence. That's one.

Second, if we consider that something exists only if it manifests itself in some way, then absence of evidence is evidence for absence, making it non-faith.

Third, picking nits on _your_ definition of faith, perhaps the belief isn't "firm."

 

[pgwenthold]

Because atheism does not insist there is no God.

I would add that this in particular applies to such definitions about which we are arguing in this thread: the non-interacting, completely unknowable, untouchable god. Ask even the most ardent _strong_ atheist, and they will not deny that this being is possible but at the same time will probably say that it is completely irrelevent and laugh it off. If you want to reduce god to the equivalent of an invisible unicorn orbiting Pluto, then the concept itself is not worth worrying about.

 

[Ossai]

Bri

This may be off-topic, but isn't proving that God doesn't exist impossible?

Yes, generally it’s impossible to prove a negative. It’s up to the ones that postulate the existence of a god to prove one actually exists.

I can see that an atheist uses "reason" to conclude that God doesn't exist, since one might reason that if something is unfalsifiable then there's no reason to believe it (I can also see that a person who does believe in God could also use different reasoning to come to the conclusion that God does exist). But is there any actual emperical evidence that God doesn't exist?

Is there any actual empirical evidence to suggest the existence of a god, gods, goddess(es?) or any combination therein?

Ossai

 

[Iacchus]

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

At least to those who believe as Atheists do.

 

[Iacchus]

I would add that this in particular applies to such definitions about which we are arguing in this thread: the non-interacting, completely unknowable, untouchable god.

This is simply not so. But then again, how would you know that what I was saying were true? I guess it becomes a matter of faith now doesn't it?

 

[pgwenthold]

Is there any actual empirical evidence to suggest the existence of a god, gods, goddess(es?) or any combination therein?

This isn't quite fair, since she has conceded this, and is arguing about what is rational under those conditions in which there is no evidence at all. How far can one rationally go in this case?

 

[Iacchus]

This isn't quite fair, since she has conceded this, and is arguing about what is rational under those conditions in which there is no evidence at all. How far can one rationally go in this case?

And what is empirical evidence without a mind to conceptualize it? Obviously the answer -- for that which is not physical -- especially -- is not to be maintained outside of ourselves.

 

[Bri]

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.

My use of the word "proof" in the defintion was because of Webster (blame him). Perhaps "overwhelming evidence" might suffice, but one could still argue that without proof it might still be called "faith," at least according to Webster.

"Blind faith" is redundant.

I knew someone was going to call me out on that after I submitted it! I concede this point. Let's call it "irrational faith" then. I think there may be a difference between "rational" and "irrational" faith, whereas others have claimed that faith is necessarily irrational. I contend that, based on Webster's definition, faith is not necessarily irrational, and furthermore I contend that atheism is based on faith.

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'm not sure if I'm understanding your point, but I think you're saying that if one "god" is right and another "god" is wrong, and both are based on faith, then one must necessarily be irrational. If that's the case, then you're confusing the terms "wrong" and "irrational" ("not endowed with reason or understanding" or "lacking usual or normal mental clarity or coherence")! Many scientific theories are eventually proven wrong, but that doesn't make them irrational!

Well, I thought you had referred to "God" with a capital 'G'.

I did use "God" with a capital "G" as an example, but that doesn't mean that I was precluding all other gods from the discussion. Also, typing "a god or gods" all the time gets tiring.

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.

I answered this in response to another post. Many people believe that a god/gods is/are not only interested, but intervene/s in the world. If a god or gods can do this, then it would follow that the god or gods could prevent us from proving his/her/their existance. (See why I just used "God?")

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?

Some people are perfectly content believing that God created the universe but is not involved. Some believe that God was involved at one time but no longer is involved, others believe that God simply set the world in motion and doesn't interfere. Others believe that God is involved, but that science will never be able to prove or disprove it. Still others believe that God exists, created the world, is involved, and will someday make himself known and science will be able to prove it.

Atheists believe that God never existed.

There is no proof of any of these beliefs, and therefore all would be based on faith, according to at least one common definition of the word.

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.

Your comments are well-taken, but I disagree. The fact that God created nature (and therefore science) would indicate that science cannot necessarily explain God. That's not to say that science is false. Science could explain nature perfectly, but that doesn't mean that it could also explain God since God isn't a part of nature (nor does it mean that science could not someday explain God).

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

The elephant is a good example, but since presumably the elephant is a part of nature, it should be reasonable for us to assume that it would have some detectable impact on the world. If your arguing that the elephant exists outside of nature, then it is a god (Ganesha is a Hindu God who happens to be depicted with the head of an elephant), and therefore for an atheist to claim that it absolutely does not exist would be a statement based on faith.

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

I'm familiar with Occam's Razor. Occam's Razor states that all else being equal, the simplest explanation is preferred. Occam's Razor doesn't always hold true. Furthermore, Occam's Razor cannot be used to prove anything. There have been many cases where the more complex explanation turned out to be the right one.

It can be effectively argued that some notions of God explain more than science alone does. There are many things that science cannot explain, whereas God can explain everything.

-Bri

 

[Ossai]

pgwenthold

1) Assume God exists and is good
2) Observe evil exists in the world
3) Because evil exists, either it is by God's design, or it is because God does not interfere with free will
4) If God were to have evil by design, it would mean God is evil. However, this contradicts point (1)
5) Therefore, it must mean we have free will

You’ve left out a few steps and quite a few possibilities.
1a) God is dead
3a) God is powerless to prevent evil
4a) Contradicts point (1) therefore point (1) is incorrect

This isn't quite fair, since she has conceded this, and is arguing about what is rational under those conditions in which there is no evidence at all. How far can one rationally go in this case?

I wrote the response early and didn’t get around to posting it till after lunch, and a meeting, and work.


Bri

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.

This statement doesn’t logically follow the other. There is no reason proof of the existence of god would destroy/remove free will.

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).

Why would god be beyond the laws of nature? How did god go about creating the universe? What created god? It’s nothing more than special pleading and a deliberate attempt to create a gap then fill it with god.

Iacchus

There is no such thing as reasoned faith?

Correct. Faith is belief without evidence. Belief with evidence is trust.

Ossai

 

[pgwenthold]

The elephant is a good example, but since presumably the elephant is a part of nature, it should be reasonable for us to assume that it would have some detectable impact on the world.

If you are talking about my example of the elephant in my office, you are assuming wrong. In fact, I have told you explicitly that the elephant is not detectable.

Thus, it puts it right at the same level as "god outside of nature."

 

[pgwenthold]

pgwenthold


You’ve left out a few steps and quite a few possibilities.
1a) God is dead
3a) God is powerless to prevent evil
4a) Contradicts point (1) therefore point (1) is incorrect

If you included that, it would not prove that free will exists.

But you identified the important part: the argument that we have free will is completely predicated on the fact that an all-powerful God exists and is good. Thus, free will is not a solution to the problem of evil. It is an ad-hoc rationalization.

Iacchus
Correct. Faith is belief without evidence. Belief with evidence is trust.

Ossai

Belief with evidence is better described as empiricism. Or rationalism. Although you can have evidence based trust, you can also have trust without evidence.

 

[Iacchus]

Correct. Faith is belief without evidence. Belief with evidence is trust.

And, when people trust in things blindly?

And he spake a parable unto them, Can the blind lead the blind? shall they not both fall into the ditch? ~ Luke 6:39

 

[uruk]

"Once the courts makes something legal, It's no longer a sin."
Rev. Lovejoy

 

[Bri]

What the heck is a "firm belief?"

I don't know what that means.

The topic of this thread concerns atheism being ruled a religion. We are looking at whether or not the court has a basis for this ruling. It appears to me that using common definitions of words, one may be able to make the case that atheism is a religion. I don't want to get into "dictionary wars" so I'm using Webster's for all my definitions:

religion
4 : a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith

faith
2 b (1) : firm belief in something for which there is no proof

atheism
2 b : the doctrine that there is no deity

According to the above defintion of religion, the only question concerning atheism is whether it is held to with faith. According to the above definition of faith, it is simply a belief in something without proof. According to this defintion of atheism (and granted, there is a spectrum of beliefs that are called "atheism") it is a doctrine that holds that there is no diety. This sounds to me like a firm belief in something for which there is no proof, since there is no proof that there is no diety.

Nowhere do any of these definitions state that faith is irrational. Nor do they state that the belief in something without proof hasn't come about from rational thought.

Now I understand that there are various forms of atheism in combination with agnosticism (see http://atheism.about.com/od/aboutagnosticism/a/atheism.htm)
Some distinguish between "agnostic atheism" and "gnostic atheism," the former being that the person doesn't believe that any diety exists (presumably because of lack of evidence) but doesn't know for sure, and the latter that the person knows for sure that no diety exists.

Some also make a distinction between "weak/negative/implicit" and "strong/positive/explicit" atheism, which is the difference between "lack of belief in any dieties" and "denial of the existance of any dieties." I will admit that I don't understand the difference, since it seems that "belief in" a diety implies "belief in the existance" of that diety, and that "denial of the existance of" a diety is the same as "lack of belief in" that diety. If one says "I don't believe in that diety" doesnt' that mean that they don't believe that diety exists? Anyway, I'm getting way off-topic here (and it doesn't affect the argument I'm making), but perhaps someone can clarify that.

So...if you want to argue that "agnostic" atheism or "agnostic" theism -- in other words agnosticism -- isn't based on faith, I might be able to consider that possibility since that position is that a diety might or might not exist (essentially admitting that they don't know for sure). However, holding a belief that God does or does not exist without knowing for sure sounds a lot like the definition of faith to me.

I would also be willing to hear arguments why "weak atheism" might not be based on faith (which would probably require answering the above question).

But using common definitions, it would seem that at least "strong atheism" might be considered a religion that is based on faith.

That said, I don't see anything in that definition that would make faith necessarily irrational in any way.

-Bri

 

[Bri]

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.

I'm not sure I see the difference (and I'm saying that because I sincerely don't understand, not to be argumentative).

Atheism has to do with belief and agnosticism has to do with knowledge. One can be an "agnostic atheist," which seems to be the position you describe above. However, if you don't take the idea seriously that God exists, doesn't that imply that you believe that God doesn't exist (whether or not you keep that possibility open)?

-Bri

 

[toddjh]

Some also make a distinction between "weak/negative/implicit" and "strong/positive/explicit" atheism, which is the difference between "lack of belief in any dieties" and "denial of the existance of any dieties." I will admit that I don't understand the difference, since it seems that "belief in" a diety implies "belief in the existance" of that diety, and that "denial of the existance of" a diety is the same as "lack of belief in" that diety. If one says "I don't believe in that diety" doesnt' that mean that they don't believe that diety exists?

Yes, it means they don't believe that deity exists. It does not, however, mean that they do believe that deity does not exist.

Here's a good example: do I believe there is life on, oh, a planet orbiting Tau Ceti? Nope. There's absolutely no evidence that there's life there. Do I believe that there is not life at Tau Ceti? Also nope. It's entirely possible that there is.

I don't think this is beside the point; if you're talking about strong atheism, you'll find your audience rather small, especially since you're talking about the abstract concept of an unknowable god and not any God in particular. The vast majority of atheists are "weak" on that score.

Jeremy

 

[Bri]

If it can be proven that believing god does not exist is logical, than it is justified.

And if it can be proven that believing God does exist is logical, then it is justified as well, correct?

I have argued that given a "god" who has no manifestation, belief that it does not exist is logical because we aren't able to distinguish it from all the other possible things that could exist but for which there is no evidence. That's one.

Again, many believe that God does affect the world, so that argument doesn't hold.

Second, if we consider that something exists only if it manifests itself in some way, then absence of evidence is evidence for absence, making it non-faith.

Explain what you mean by "manifests itself." Does magnetism manifest itself? If by "manifests itself" you simply mean that it affects the world, then God "manifests" himself according to many beliefs.

Third, picking nits on _your_ definition of faith, perhaps the belief isn't "firm."

Blame Mr. Webster for that. I don't know what the difference between "firm" and "infirm" belief in something means. Does someone not have faith if they have an infirm belief in something?

-Bri

 

[Bri]

Here's a good example: do I believe there is life on, oh, a planet orbiting Tau Ceti? Nope. There's absolutely no evidence that there's life there. Do I believe that there is not life at Tau Ceti? Also nope. It's entirely possible that there is.

It seems like you're confusing belief and knowledge. You have no knowledge of whether life exists on the planet or not. Your belief is that there is none, because you believe that life on that planet is improbable. Or perhaps you believe that there is life on the planet. Or perhaps you admit that you simply don't have a belief one way or another.

My understanding is that atheistm and theism refer to belief in a diety, whereas agnosticism and "gnosticism" refer to knowledge of a diety.

It seems as though there are only three possibilities for beilef in a diety: I believe a diety exists, I don't believe any deity exists, or I have no opinion.

Furthermore, it seems like "I have no opinion" would leave open the possibility of a diety existing, so this stance would necessarily be an agnostic position ("I don't know if a diety exists"). Does "weak atheism" mean "agnostic atheism?"

I don't think this is beside the point; if you're talking about strong atheism, you'll find your audience rather small, especially since you're talking about the abstract concept of an unknowable god and not any God in particular. The vast majority of atheists are "weak" on that score.

Understood. But my argument is just that the court might have a basis for deeming atheism a religion. Even if a minority of atheists hold a position that might be deemed as a religion, it gives the ruling some basis. That said, I am still unclear as to the difference.

-Bri

 

[Bri]

If you want to reduce god to the equivalent of an invisible unicorn orbiting Pluto, then the concept itself is not worth worrying about.

I can definitely buy this argument. If a concept of "God" is inconsequential (i.e. that God does not and cannot interact with the world in any way), then it isn't worth considering. Whether or not believing that such a God doesn't exist would be considered "faith" or not probably doesn't matter.

So, let's consider only a God who is consequential, and assume that the God that the atheist has a lack of belief in is a God who can interact with the world.

-Bri

 

[Ossai]

Bri

According to the above defintion of religion, the only question concerning atheism is whether it is held to with faith. According to the above definition of faith, it is simply a belief in something without proof. According to this defintion of atheism (and granted, there is a spectrum of beliefs that are called "atheism") it is a doctrine that holds that there is no diety. This sounds to me like a firm belief in something for which there is no proof, since there is no proof that there is no diety.

You’re adding an unnecessary layer.

faith 2 b (1) : firm belief in something for which there is no proof

Atheism is not a belief in ‘no deity’.
Atheism is a lack of belief in a deity.

According to the above defintion of religion, the only question concerning atheism is whether it is held to with faith.

Faith is not needed for a lack of belief. Unless you want to claim that faith is necessary for the non-belief in the existence of fairies, elves, trolls, LGM, etc.

Ossai