bpesta22
Cereal Killer
- Joined
- Jul 31, 2001
- Messages
- 4,942
Greetings. Just wondering how skeptics here would evaluate the following argument. I'd really be interested in weaknesses in my counters to what this guy claims. It's long, but I think it's definately worth putting time into:
Theist: (in response to someone else's post):
I don't think you followed my point...Of course atheists have values. It's also a belief that is equally founded on faith, by the way. You don't know there is no god. You assume it. You must assume it, because the existence of a creator is a metaphysical question that resides outside the domain of empirical inquiry. If you disagree, then be careful -- you will have unwittingly validated the argument of the proponents of intelligent design.
The only truly faithless position is one of agnosticism -- a stand based upon a position of radical unknowing. Materialism is not agnosticism -- it is a metaphysical belief that, based purely on faith, holds there is nothing beyond the physical world. It's not a scientific position, because science does not engage in metaphysics. It cannot answer metaphysical questions because metaphysical questions are nonempirical questions, by definition.
So of course your materialist, naturalist position has values. It has a set of values like any religious worldview. That's exactly my point: You are fighting religion, but you don't seem to realize that you are also following one.
Keep in mind that when I use the word "religion" I am probably using it as a much broader category than you use the word. You seem to use the word "religion" very narrowly, to describe organized systems of beliefs in supernatural entities. But I'm using the word "religion" to mean any system of beliefs that rely upon faith rather than empirical evidence -- any metaphysics, that is. Naturalism, atheism, scientism -- any rejection of the supernatural -- is equally a metaphysics. A truly nonmetaphysical position would have to remain neutral with regard to the supernatural -- it could not assume it's presence nor absence without becoming metaphysical.
***
My reply:
How can one claim the atheist's faith is the same as the theists?
I don't believe in something I can't see/sense, verify empirically, or justify with logic. The theist DOES believe in something he/she can't see/sense, verify emprically or justify with logic.
One of the many things I don't believe in is god (however you want to define god). But, there's a whole host of other possible things I don't believe in (astrology, esp, bigfoot) by using the same type of rational process.
To say that these are qualitatively the same types of faith is wrong, imo.
The default mode has to be materialism-- believe only what can be verified. The burden isn't on us to prove that no gods exist (or know with certainty that no gods exist); the burden is on they who claim something other than the material exists.
I too think tolerance of different belief systems is fine. What irks me is the common assumption that these belief systems are all equally rational. They're not: Believing in something you can't see is different from not believing in something you cannot see.
***
Theist's counter:
Let's take for granted that what you say is true.
Your argument is a deductive argument which starts with the premise that belief in the nonempirical entities is inferior to nonbelief in nonempirical entities.
It's a rationalist argument, not an empirical one. It's a metaphysical argument, not a scientific one.
I've never said theism is better than atheism. I've only said that a metaphysical argument in favor of theism or atheism is beyond the realm of empirical evidence.
However, with that said, I don't agree with your premise. Belief in nothing presupposes something. It makes nothing into something -- which is the metaphysical position Heidegger critiques in What is Metaphysics?
As soon as you make nothing into a foundational premise for atheism, you've made nothingness the foundation of an ontology -- which is a way of transforming what is nothing into something. If it were truly nothing, it could not be the basis of any metaphysics but a radically agnostic one.
The essence of your argument is that: belief in nothing is better than something. We should talk about empirical objects and beyond that nothing. But as Heidegger writes:
"What about this nothing? Is it an accident that we talk this way so automatically? Is it only a manner of speaking--and nothing besides?
However, what trouble do we take concerning this nothing? The nothing is rejected precisely by science, given up as a nullity. But when we give up the nothing in such a way do we not concede it? Can we, however, speak of concession when we concede nothing? But perhaps our confused talk already degenerates into an empty squabble over words. Against it science must now reassert its seriousness and soberness of mind, insisting that it is concerned solely with beings. The nothing--what else can it be for science but an outrage and a phantasm? If science is right, then only one thing is sure: science wishes to know nothing of the nothing. Ultimately this is the scientifically rigorous conception of the nothing. We know it, the nothing, in that we wish to know nothing about it.
Science wants to know nothing of the nothing. But even so it is certain that when science tries to express its proper essence it calls upon the nothing for help. It has recourse to what it rejects."
***
My re-reply:
I think it's a straw man to say the atheist believes in nothing. There are many things I believe in, all can be verified. I just don't believe in the somethings people claim exist, but yet have no evidence for them.
It's not faith that makes me disbelief, it's lack of evidence. These are not the same, and if someone somewhere provided some evidence, I'd abandon my atheism.
***
Theist's re-reply:
The demand that religious people provide proof for their supernatural beliefs is not a legitimate scientific question. That demand is inconsistent with scientific reasoning.
Science never proves anything. What science does is strive to falsify alternative hypotheses. Read Karl Popper -- whose philosophy of science is probably the most widely accepted amongst scientists today.
Perhaps you recall the discussion of hypothesis testing in your statistics class.
In hypothesis testing, you do not prove the alternative hypothesis. The best you can hope for is a rejection of the null hypothesis.
If you used the hypothetico-deductive method of science in the attempt to prove something, you would fall into the error of "affirming the consequent, " which is a logical fallacy.
This is why students need to learn logic and scientific reasoning, so they don't make these kinds of errors.
You are using legalistic and not scientific language when you ask people to prove the existence of god. Science does not bother with such proofs. They are metaphysical questions and not legitimate empirical ones.
Science has its limits. It can only address empirical questions, and empirical questions are questions that can be falsified. Because the existence or inexistence of god is not a falsifiable question, it is not a legitimate scientific question.
Now, all of the above is not to say that you cannot make the deductive argument that it is better to believe in the inexistence of god rather than the existence of god. But let's just be clear that such deductions reside within the philosophical arena of metaphysics and not empirical science. If you agree, then I have nothing more to say on the topic. I'm not interested in arguing the merits of atheism vs theism; I only wish to point out that such arguments are not scientific arguments.
***
My final word:
I was using "proof" in the everyday sense-- didn't know you'd get all Popper on me. Theories are falsified in science, not individual statements. Individual statements can be either true-- facts-- or not true (granted we're talking true inductively). But, how's this for a modus tollens:
If god exists, then there should be evidence of him
There is no evidence of him, therefore,
God does not exist.
You seem to insist that whether a god exists or not is outside science. I disagree for two reasons: 1) many people in America attempt to pass off religious explanations for reality as scientific ones (e.g., the whole ID mess). Certainly, there are many theists who think that religious doctrine can explain reality. One obvious reason for theology is to explain reality. Given that it can't, comparing it to science in this regard is a valid criticism, at least in my opinion-- especially when science shows that religious explanations are wrong.
2) I think the scientific study of whether prayer works is one valid (but limited) way to test theology. Granted, since the science shows prayer doesn't work, one risks betting on the null, but were valid, reproducable, internally valid data available showing prayer worked, I'd no longer be an atheist. In this arena, using science to debunk supernatural claims (for weeping statues, or psychic ability, etc) is also a valid use of science to test the "metaphysical".
It's nice and convenient to label theological explanations different from scientific ones, especially when both attempt to explain reality. Separating it as metaphysical doesn't make it any less invalid. Though it might be a cure for cognitive dissonance, it seems like rose colored glasses to me.
Crap, this is long-- anyone still reading, your input is greatly appreciated!
Theist: (in response to someone else's post):
I don't think you followed my point...Of course atheists have values. It's also a belief that is equally founded on faith, by the way. You don't know there is no god. You assume it. You must assume it, because the existence of a creator is a metaphysical question that resides outside the domain of empirical inquiry. If you disagree, then be careful -- you will have unwittingly validated the argument of the proponents of intelligent design.
The only truly faithless position is one of agnosticism -- a stand based upon a position of radical unknowing. Materialism is not agnosticism -- it is a metaphysical belief that, based purely on faith, holds there is nothing beyond the physical world. It's not a scientific position, because science does not engage in metaphysics. It cannot answer metaphysical questions because metaphysical questions are nonempirical questions, by definition.
So of course your materialist, naturalist position has values. It has a set of values like any religious worldview. That's exactly my point: You are fighting religion, but you don't seem to realize that you are also following one.
Keep in mind that when I use the word "religion" I am probably using it as a much broader category than you use the word. You seem to use the word "religion" very narrowly, to describe organized systems of beliefs in supernatural entities. But I'm using the word "religion" to mean any system of beliefs that rely upon faith rather than empirical evidence -- any metaphysics, that is. Naturalism, atheism, scientism -- any rejection of the supernatural -- is equally a metaphysics. A truly nonmetaphysical position would have to remain neutral with regard to the supernatural -- it could not assume it's presence nor absence without becoming metaphysical.
***
My reply:
How can one claim the atheist's faith is the same as the theists?
I don't believe in something I can't see/sense, verify empirically, or justify with logic. The theist DOES believe in something he/she can't see/sense, verify emprically or justify with logic.
One of the many things I don't believe in is god (however you want to define god). But, there's a whole host of other possible things I don't believe in (astrology, esp, bigfoot) by using the same type of rational process.
To say that these are qualitatively the same types of faith is wrong, imo.
The default mode has to be materialism-- believe only what can be verified. The burden isn't on us to prove that no gods exist (or know with certainty that no gods exist); the burden is on they who claim something other than the material exists.
I too think tolerance of different belief systems is fine. What irks me is the common assumption that these belief systems are all equally rational. They're not: Believing in something you can't see is different from not believing in something you cannot see.
***
Theist's counter:
Let's take for granted that what you say is true.
Your argument is a deductive argument which starts with the premise that belief in the nonempirical entities is inferior to nonbelief in nonempirical entities.
It's a rationalist argument, not an empirical one. It's a metaphysical argument, not a scientific one.
I've never said theism is better than atheism. I've only said that a metaphysical argument in favor of theism or atheism is beyond the realm of empirical evidence.
However, with that said, I don't agree with your premise. Belief in nothing presupposes something. It makes nothing into something -- which is the metaphysical position Heidegger critiques in What is Metaphysics?
As soon as you make nothing into a foundational premise for atheism, you've made nothingness the foundation of an ontology -- which is a way of transforming what is nothing into something. If it were truly nothing, it could not be the basis of any metaphysics but a radically agnostic one.
The essence of your argument is that: belief in nothing is better than something. We should talk about empirical objects and beyond that nothing. But as Heidegger writes:
"What about this nothing? Is it an accident that we talk this way so automatically? Is it only a manner of speaking--and nothing besides?
However, what trouble do we take concerning this nothing? The nothing is rejected precisely by science, given up as a nullity. But when we give up the nothing in such a way do we not concede it? Can we, however, speak of concession when we concede nothing? But perhaps our confused talk already degenerates into an empty squabble over words. Against it science must now reassert its seriousness and soberness of mind, insisting that it is concerned solely with beings. The nothing--what else can it be for science but an outrage and a phantasm? If science is right, then only one thing is sure: science wishes to know nothing of the nothing. Ultimately this is the scientifically rigorous conception of the nothing. We know it, the nothing, in that we wish to know nothing about it.
Science wants to know nothing of the nothing. But even so it is certain that when science tries to express its proper essence it calls upon the nothing for help. It has recourse to what it rejects."
***
My re-reply:
I think it's a straw man to say the atheist believes in nothing. There are many things I believe in, all can be verified. I just don't believe in the somethings people claim exist, but yet have no evidence for them.
It's not faith that makes me disbelief, it's lack of evidence. These are not the same, and if someone somewhere provided some evidence, I'd abandon my atheism.
***
Theist's re-reply:
The demand that religious people provide proof for their supernatural beliefs is not a legitimate scientific question. That demand is inconsistent with scientific reasoning.
Science never proves anything. What science does is strive to falsify alternative hypotheses. Read Karl Popper -- whose philosophy of science is probably the most widely accepted amongst scientists today.
Perhaps you recall the discussion of hypothesis testing in your statistics class.
In hypothesis testing, you do not prove the alternative hypothesis. The best you can hope for is a rejection of the null hypothesis.
If you used the hypothetico-deductive method of science in the attempt to prove something, you would fall into the error of "affirming the consequent, " which is a logical fallacy.
This is why students need to learn logic and scientific reasoning, so they don't make these kinds of errors.
You are using legalistic and not scientific language when you ask people to prove the existence of god. Science does not bother with such proofs. They are metaphysical questions and not legitimate empirical ones.
Science has its limits. It can only address empirical questions, and empirical questions are questions that can be falsified. Because the existence or inexistence of god is not a falsifiable question, it is not a legitimate scientific question.
Now, all of the above is not to say that you cannot make the deductive argument that it is better to believe in the inexistence of god rather than the existence of god. But let's just be clear that such deductions reside within the philosophical arena of metaphysics and not empirical science. If you agree, then I have nothing more to say on the topic. I'm not interested in arguing the merits of atheism vs theism; I only wish to point out that such arguments are not scientific arguments.
***
My final word:
I was using "proof" in the everyday sense-- didn't know you'd get all Popper on me. Theories are falsified in science, not individual statements. Individual statements can be either true-- facts-- or not true (granted we're talking true inductively). But, how's this for a modus tollens:
If god exists, then there should be evidence of him
There is no evidence of him, therefore,
God does not exist.
You seem to insist that whether a god exists or not is outside science. I disagree for two reasons: 1) many people in America attempt to pass off religious explanations for reality as scientific ones (e.g., the whole ID mess). Certainly, there are many theists who think that religious doctrine can explain reality. One obvious reason for theology is to explain reality. Given that it can't, comparing it to science in this regard is a valid criticism, at least in my opinion-- especially when science shows that religious explanations are wrong.
2) I think the scientific study of whether prayer works is one valid (but limited) way to test theology. Granted, since the science shows prayer doesn't work, one risks betting on the null, but were valid, reproducable, internally valid data available showing prayer worked, I'd no longer be an atheist. In this arena, using science to debunk supernatural claims (for weeping statues, or psychic ability, etc) is also a valid use of science to test the "metaphysical".
It's nice and convenient to label theological explanations different from scientific ones, especially when both attempt to explain reality. Separating it as metaphysical doesn't make it any less invalid. Though it might be a cure for cognitive dissonance, it seems like rose colored glasses to me.
Crap, this is long-- anyone still reading, your input is greatly appreciated!
