The Coming Atheist Takeover
| May 28th, 2007From a recent article in The New Yorker:
After making allowances for countries that have, or recently have had, an officially imposed atheist ideology, in which there might be some social pressure to deny belief in God, one can venture conservative estimates of the number of unbelievers in the world today. Reviewing a large number of studies among some fifty countries, Phil Zuckerman, a sociologist at Pitzer College, in Claremont, California, puts the figure at between five hundred million and seven hundred and fifty million. This excludes such highly populated places as Brazil, Iran, Indonesia, and Nigeria, for which information is lacking or patchy. Even the low estimate of five hundred million would make unbelief the fourth-largest persuasion in the world, after Christianity, Islam, and Hinduism. It is also by far the youngest, with no significant presence in the West before the eighteenth century. Who can say what the landscape will look like once unbelief has enjoyed a past as long as Islam’s—let alone as long as Christianity’s? God is assuredly not on the side of the unbelievers, but history may yet be.
May 28th, 2007 at 2:29 pm
A major difference between unbelief and atheism and christianity is that atheism doesnt have much in the way of institutions or agenda.
This comment was written by curiousgyrl.Report this comment to the moderators
May 28th, 2007 at 2:55 pm
I’m not sure that Atheism is ‘unbelief’ so much as the conviction(belief even) that there is no God.
If you reject one set of beliefs, then you replace or have others in their stead, there are similarities between some of the doctrines people hold with now and beliefs previous to what the ‘big’ religions themselves replaced. Environmentalism is at its heart the same as Animism.
A lot of things attributed as being caused by religion, such as wars etc., are about the struggle for control of resources.
What is called the Western Industrial Model could be said to have supplanted the need for religion as we have understood it.
Plus ca change.
This comment was written by B.Adu.Report this comment to the moderators
May 28th, 2007 at 3:37 pm
Some of that seems like nonsense. You’ve confused environmentalism in general with Disney cartoons. Or you’re abusing Ravenhurst’s Law: we can find similiarities and differences between any two objects or people, and we can label any arbitrary aspect of the situation ‘essential’.
This comment was written by hf.Report this comment to the moderators
May 28th, 2007 at 4:00 pm
Those numbers can’t be right. China alone is a billion people, at least half of whom are gen-u-wine nonbelievers. The first sentence, about “correcting” for the existence of communism, is nuts (I hope the nuttiness is in the reporter, not the scholar). (”Correcting to account for all the people out there who were young when “Die Hard” came out and started to like action movies because of Bruce Willis’ gallant insouciance, my study indicates that only 8% of the population likes action movies.”)
I’d want to see the actual study before I opine further, however.
(And thanks to Amp for installing the spellcheck plugin that fixed “insouciance” for me.)
This comment was written by Robert.Report this comment to the moderators
May 28th, 2007 at 4:11 pm
based on that estimate, it is pretty likely that one could only get such numbers off the bulk of the western european population, which is under a billion, but high enough that most could be atheist and supply the needed numbers for that stat.
however, western europe isn’t exactly gaining power and influence– it is a constant complaint/railing that their power and influence are waning along with their birthrates and socialist safety nets that weren’t designed for heterogeneous populations.
if the overwhelming majority of atheists are in countries where nobody’s having kids and where the new population is coming mainly from deeply religious people who ARE having kids, then atheism can hardly be said to be gaining footholds, you know?
This comment was written by a person.Report this comment to the moderators
May 28th, 2007 at 5:27 pm
Robert, I don’t know for certain, but I would expect that what they’re correcting for is the number of people who profess unbelief because of societal expectation even when they actually do believe. The similar correction in the US would be to try to figure out the number of Bible Belters who profess belief, yet are actually closet atheists. (Believe me, they’re legion.)
This comment was written by Tapetum.Report this comment to the moderators
May 29th, 2007 at 12:10 am
Could be, Tapetum, could be. I’m not sure how you’d correct for that in a meaningful or scientific fashion. (”I interviewed 100 Chinese people. 49 of them claimed to be atheists. However, after I beat them all 100 respondents senseless and demanded they tell me the truth, 17 individuals confessed that they were secretly believers, while 3 confessed to having falsely claimed a religious affiliation. We have accordingly adjusted the Chinese figures by 14%…”)
My skepticism deepens with a little Internet research about Zuckerman. He seems to have an axe to grind. Of course, that’s just an impression. On the plus side, I think he is being conservative in his figures, since I figure there are more atheists than he does.
This comment was written by Robert.Report this comment to the moderators
May 29th, 2007 at 5:37 am
B.Adu: atheism (usually not deemed worthy of a proper-noun capital letter) is etymologically defined as “the absence of theism”. this is generally (at least by atheists) taken to include the philosophically “weaker” position of simple absence of god-beliefs, not just the “stronger” active disbelief in (or belief in the absence of) gods.
and yes, there really are people who simply lack belief. one belief really does not need to be always replaced with another, real human beings do manage to live without any of them. i’ll grant that i’m not one — i’m a strong atheist myself — but arguably most atheists simply don’t much care about these issues, or don’t care enough to hold any real belief one way or another.
— N.N., long-time veteran of discussion group flame wars on the topic
This comment was written by Nomen Nescio.Report this comment to the moderators
May 29th, 2007 at 8:26 am
If the number of spiritual atheists is counted, the number becomes even harder to ascertain.
This comment was written by Pedal.Report this comment to the moderators
May 29th, 2007 at 5:09 pm
a person:
You assume that beliefs are genetic. They are not. Just because Christians are having kids doesn’t necessarily mean that they are having Christians (I’m living proof). And just because atheists aren’t having kids doesn’t mean they aren’t spreading influence.
This comment was written by Antigone.Report this comment to the moderators
May 29th, 2007 at 5:20 pm
hf, anything that worships nature in the way Environmentalism does, is a religion whether it goes by the name or not. As for the Disney cartoons, where do you think they get those those themes of nature worship from, if not the Greens?
NN
No there are not, all human beings (maybe other animals who knows?) MUST have belief it is simply the way the mind works. Check out basic psychology ( and h. anthropology, apparently).
Any belief as central to the human mind as religion must be replaced by something else, you NN fall into the trap of a lot of atheists in ascribing belief lock, stock and barrel to religion, that is false, belief is what fits said definition, no matter how like or unlike it may seem to be to religion on the surface.
I don’t see why it shouldn’t deserve a capital A, but I am happy to bow to your stated convention of small a, as I couldn’t care less either way.
This comment was written by B.Adu.Report this comment to the moderators
May 29th, 2007 at 7:35 pm
but religious belief simply isn’t all that central to the human mind, at least not in general. i’m living proof; i only adopted my own fairly strident, strong atheist position in adulthood because i’m a stubborn, opinionated type who’s easily offended by religious superstitions and the deleterious effects i see them having. (i.e., my beliefs are a reaction to societal tendencies i find offensive. moreover, they’re a consciously chosen reaction. i didn’t have to stop being an apatheist, i decided to.)
i know for a fact that non-strident atheists exist, because i was raised by and among their kind. religious-type beliefs may be very central to your mind, and maybe even to a majority of minds, but not to all minds, and not by necessity either. practical everyday experience disproves your thesis, and experiences of this kind are by no means uncommon among atheists i’ve spoken to, so there’s only so much respect i’m able to give this position of yours.
it doesn’t help, either, that you’re basically repeating an age-old religionist chestnut; “atheism is a religion” because “everybody has to have some religion”, so therefore it’s okay to just discount the atheists when they say they lack religion. they can’t, so therefore they don’t. arguing with theists who go down those lines is intensely frustrating and quite fruitless, so the usual tactic is simply to mock them mercilessly.
This comment was written by Nomen Nescio.Report this comment to the moderators
May 29th, 2007 at 7:46 pm
The other problem with the “everybody has to have a religion” argument is that it does nothing for people who are raised atheists. If belief has to be replaced by *something*, but that belief never exists in the first place, then the argument breaks down.
This comment was written by Mandolin.Report this comment to the moderators
May 29th, 2007 at 7:46 pm
atheism is a religion because it relies on faith in unquantifiable and unknowable things.
as for beliefs being genetic, it is quite silly to presume i’d think that. with christians or muslims having 5 kids and atheists having 0, it doesn’t matter what little influence the atheist might have in the short term. it will not last. even if 3 of the 5 kids pick something else (and that is a high estimate historically), there’s still a hefty generation of people who do share and practice the beliefs of their parents and their own historical cultural tradition.
atheism has gained no lasting purchase historically for many reasons, some of which are obviated in modern life. but others are not, and that is one reason there’s so many many many more people who are religious in a way that isn’t atheist.
also, the rather shocking amount of prejudiced gloating and crowing by atheists against classically religious people is pretty much a hallmark of religious values. self-righteousness is always a strong marker, and enviro- or atheism-worshippers are following religions of their own, often (and this is the bit that nobody ever wants to admit) in ways that ancient folk would both comprehend as alien/weird and yet consider quite religious.
This comment was written by a person.Report this comment to the moderators
May 29th, 2007 at 8:00 pm
and we know all atheists have such faith, because atheism is a religion. besides, they couldn’t possibly completely lack such faith, for they would vanish in a puff of logic.
or something. rightyho, off you go!
This comment was written by Nomen Nescio.Report this comment to the moderators
May 29th, 2007 at 8:06 pm
Which unknowable things?
Atheism is the position that God is unlikely and unproveable.
Do you believe there is a teacup that orbits the sun? No? Because it’s ridiculous, and such an outlandish claim requires positive proof. You are not professing FAITH in UNKNOWABLE THINGS by saying that there is no teacup orbiting the sun. Failure to say “why, yes, there are purple unicorns and sun-orbitting teacups” does not make one religious.
In fact, I can say “There is no teacup orbitting the sun,” and still not be making a religious claim. I am not obligated to believe in outlandish and unproved things.
So with sky fairies.
This comment was written by Mandolin.Report this comment to the moderators
May 29th, 2007 at 9:17 pm
Even if one wanted to claim that atheism is a religion, there are still lots of agnostics out there with no belief on the issue one way or the other. Agnostics do not rely on “faith in unquantifiable and unknowable things” - they accept that such things are inherrently unknowable, shrug, and then go on about their lives. (and somehow, their brains manage to continue working just fine)
This comment was written by jd.Report this comment to the moderators
May 29th, 2007 at 10:01 pm
Atheism is the position that God is unlikely and unproveable.
No, atheism is the position that God does not exist. There isn’t a label, as far as I know, for the position that God is unlikely (empiricism/skepticism, perhaps). That God is unproveable would be strong agnosticism (”I don’t know and neither do you.”). Weak agnosticism is probably the most intellectually honest position; “It beats the shit out of me.”
Atheism in its strong form requires faith that there is nothing out there. That’s a less unreasonable form of faith than the converse (which takes more faith to believe, that there is no Santa Claus, or that there is?) but it’s faith the nonetheless - a conclusion reached without proof.
This comment was written by Robert.Report this comment to the moderators
May 29th, 2007 at 10:27 pm
Funny how atheism is always posited to the opposite of belief in a particular religion.
I’d want to see the actual study before I opine further, however.
Word. You’re usually much better about primary source-citing, Amp.
This comment was written by mythago.Report this comment to the moderators
May 29th, 2007 at 10:34 pm
I don’t think that an atheist country would last that long. In the past folks didn’t have as many reliable birth control methods and having lots of kids was a good thing because they could help with farming and care for you in your old age.
Nowadays it seems as if every atheist believes that the earth is overpopulated; thus, they aren’t having over 1 or 2 kids, if they choose to have children at all. And we all know that this is below replacement levels.
An atheist landscape will be a lanscape with fewer and fewer children until eventually the landscape is returned to the lower animals ( if we haven’t made all of them extinct; and if we kill all of the other animals before we die off ourselves then the amoeba will inherit the earth!).
This comment was written by Jamila Akil.Report this comment to the moderators
May 29th, 2007 at 10:48 pm
Hyperbole much?
I do believe that the earth is overpopulated, and that the only moral choice currently is to operate below replacement level.
That’s not to say that I advocate operating below replacement level for the rest of all time, forever until mankind becomes extinct! I mean, sheesh.
This comment was written by Myca.Report this comment to the moderators
May 29th, 2007 at 11:01 pm
I do believe that the earth is overpopulated, and that the only moral choice currently is to operate below replacement level.
OK, you do that. My descendants will be glad to occupy your space in the ecosystem. ;)
This comment was written by Robert.Report this comment to the moderators
May 29th, 2007 at 11:11 pm
Robert, you’re wrong.
http://atheism.about.com/od/definitionofatheism/a/definition.htm
This comment was written by Mandolin.Report this comment to the moderators
May 29th, 2007 at 11:21 pm
That link seems to support my definitions more than it supports yours. OK, rather than “atheist = there is no God”, it should be “atheist = I don’t believe in any gods”. A distinction without much difference, it seems to me. Your statement that atheism = God is unlikely/unprovable is not supported in any definition of atheism I’ve ever seen, and certainly not by what you linked.
This comment was written by Robert.Report this comment to the moderators
May 29th, 2007 at 11:27 pm
Myca Writes:
I wasn’t being hyperbolic at all. In fact, you pretty much confirmed what I was saying with your next statement: “I do believe that the earth is overpopulated, and that the only moral choice currently is to operate below replacement level.”
How many human beings is “just right”? 1 billion? 2 billion?
At what number of humans will people be forced to have 2.1 children (the replacement rate), so that humanity survives?
The way I see it only two things can happen: 1) fertility rates continue to decline until there are no more of us left or 2) people are forced to have children ( or maybe they’ll be grown in a lab). But whatever happens, it is unlikely that things will change until there is some cataclysmic event that makes a majority of the world begin to value having children more than they currently value other things.
This comment was written by Jamila Akil.Report this comment to the moderators
May 29th, 2007 at 11:35 pm
It does not require faith not to believe in something for which there is no evidence.
Your objection is that atheists are forced to state their belief in positive terms, but you’re being pedantic.
There is no evidence that there are purple unicorns.
I do not believe in purple unicorns.
There is no evidence that there is a God.
I do not believe in God.
Provide evidence that disproves either statement, and I’ll revise my position. In the meantime, invisible Sky Pals and purple unicorns are equally unlikely, and equally unworthy of my time and comment — except inasmuch as no one is trying to enforce the Purple Unicorn Code of Ethics on my body, loved ones, and personal life.
This comment was written by Mandolin.Report this comment to the moderators
May 29th, 2007 at 11:46 pm
It does not require faith not to believe in something for which there is no evidence.
True.
It requires faith to believe that there isn’t something there, where there is no evidence. The distinction is between “I don’t think that there’s something there” and “I believe that there is nothing there.”
The latter is a stronger statement. There are self-professed atheists who would endorse the first, but not the second, and others who would endorse both.
“I don’t believe in it” != “I believe there is nothing.”
Provide evidence that disproves either statement, and I’ll revise my position. In the meantime, invisible Sky Pals and purple unicorns are equally unlikely…
But you’ve just said that there isn’t any evidence. Without evidence, what are you using to make your assessment about probability?
You have an equal lack of information in the two cases. That equality does not permit you a (reason-based) equivalence of probability.
You can make such an equivalence, but you’re doing so on the basis of faith - a nonrational assessment of what is real and what is not.
This comment was written by Robert.Report this comment to the moderators
May 29th, 2007 at 11:46 pm
You’re conflating the definitions of faith - there’s the theological term “faith in God” - the meaning and implications of which vary by demonination; the sociological term “a person’s faith,” and a couple of more common definitions (”loyalty” or “firm belief”), all of which refer to something different.
The simple answer is: since any conclusion about anything requires the rejection of an infinity of possibilities which can’t be “proven” untrue - by your definition all human thought is simply “faith,” and it becomes a meaningless term.
This comment was written by fatfu.Report this comment to the moderators
May 30th, 2007 at 12:04 am
The simple answer is: since any conclusion about anything requires the rejection of an infinity of possibilities which can’t be “proven” untrue - by your definition all human thought is simply “faith,” and it becomes a meaningless term.
All useful human thought does require some modicum of faith - that we can trust our senses, that we can find out facts without being constantly deceived, and so on. (After a quantity of experience reveals that these things taken on faith actually do appear to be more or less true - that really IS a mountain I see, the Illuminati AREN’T distorting my reality to keep me confused - then you can say you’re going on empirical experience. But it starts out with faith.)
But the quanta of faith we’re talking about here is well beyond that point. In the specific instance you’re quoting, we are talking about faith in the sense of a belief reached and/or held without referent to positive external evidence. In order to assert the positive nonexistence of something where you believe there is no evidence at all, you have to make a mental jump. A simple assertion of personal nonbelief doesn’t require that jump; “I haven’t seen any evidence of this God person, so phlllbt.” There’s no assertion of a fact statement about the external universe, just a report of one’s own cognitive conclusion.
If for whatever reason you don’t want to use the same word for a nonrational cognitive leap that says “God Is”, and a nonrational cognitive leap that says “God Is Not”, that’s OK; tell me what label you prefer and I’ll use it vis a vis you.
This comment was written by Robert.Report this comment to the moderators
May 30th, 2007 at 4:51 am
Robert,
it doesn’t require “faith” to believe there’s no god.
An easy example: OK, you believe in a god. Do you believe in maneating purple flying unicorns? Alien battleships orbiting the Earth just outside of sensor range? Strange faeires inhabiting the last untravelled corners of the English woods? Do you believe that some people can fly?
No?*
Why not?
Do you think your failure to accept the maneating purle unicorns is accurately characterized as faith?*
Or could it be that there’s a part of your mind that recognizes these things are so far outside reality that your standard starting point is one of DISbelief, instead of belief?
*maybe your answer is “yes.” in which case, may the maneating purple unicorns bless you.
This comment was written by Sailorman.Report this comment to the moderators
May 30th, 2007 at 4:53 am
the last few exchanges between Robert, fatfu, and Mandolin are a pure nostalgia trip for me; they remind me, word for word, of debates gone over countless hundreds of times on old usenet alt.atheism threads. ah, memories.
this reminiscence of things past will allow me to prophesy the future of this thread with high degree of likelihood, however. Robert will not get it, and were this not a heavily moderated place, we would quickly descent into insult slinging. people whose thoughts go down the lines his seem to are not, in my experience, communicable with; they are unable to stand back from their conviction that everybody else must be like themselves in ways that atheists, among others, simply aren’t. Robert, like them, seems wedded to his own definitions of terms too closely to admit that we don’t fit those pigeonholes. this is unlikely to be resolvable.
incidentally, this sort of deadlock may be what gives rise to extremely strident and combative atheists like Dawkins, Harris, and Hitchens, or at least one of the factors that egg such people on. i tend to agree with them more and more the older i get.
This comment was written by Nomen Nescio.Report this comment to the moderators
May 30th, 2007 at 6:55 am
The fact that you apparently think that you think ‘we should currenty be operating below replacement level, because we are currently overpopulated’ equals ‘wiping humanity from the face of the Earth and leaving the Earth to the lower species’ is sad.
The fact that you apparently see an endorsement of forcing a certain level of childbirth in my statements, something I did not say and do not believe, is sad.
Really? Those are the only two things that can happen?
I suppose that the other options are flat out impossible, then: 3) people continue to breed like rats, driving our natural resources further into scarcity or 4) we deliberately choose to curtail our rate of reproduction and eventually reach a rate of sustainable homeostasis.
Yes, yes, I know, these beliefs are so silly, I might as well believe in god. /snark
—Myca
This comment was written by Myca.Report this comment to the moderators
May 30th, 2007 at 7:25 am
Robert will not get it…
I believe that Robert does get it and is merely stirring shit. He’s just playing with semantics and trying to force his definition of “faith” on the debate. Part of that, probably, is that, to people with faith, faith is such a central part of their self-identity that a stated lack of faith is a personal insult.
The alternative is that he isn’t as smart as I’ve been led to believe and he really believes that only faith can account for non-belief in anything (unicorns, Santa, etc.) for which there is no evidence.
This comment was written by Jake Squid.Report this comment to the moderators
May 30th, 2007 at 7:38 am
Leaving aside the fertility issues and passing down of a certain set of beliefs at the moment (and environmentalism = animism: seriously, what?), I vaguely remember from anthro and sociology classes that much of myth and religion is about explaining and giving reasons (ok, and social control) for things we didn’t know or understand with our limited set of observation tools. I’ve always been under the impression that atheism was in response to being able to explain many of those things now. At least, I’ve always
blamedpointed to science when asked why I don’t believe in any particular religion. Talking about the male centeredness of the abramhic religions generally gets me blank looks. I do realize that that’s a huge generalization and I know plenty of people in science who do believe.So in a general way, I’d expect atheism to rise. But I’d hardly expect it to take over the world.
This comment was written by Carnadosa.Report this comment to the moderators
May 30th, 2007 at 7:48 am
Mythago:
Well, sometimes I just want to quote something interesting I read in a magazine, without spending an hour researching it. :-)
That said, I’ve put a library hold on the relevant book, so I can read Zuckerman’s article firsthand. I’m not first in line for the book, however, so it may be weeks before I see it.
That said, I think the main thing I found interesting about this quote — the idea that in the last three centuries atheism has gone from almost nonexistent (or at least, not something people could admit to in public) to being a fairly common thing — seems fairly obviously true.
This comment was written by Ampersand.Report this comment to the moderators
May 30th, 2007 at 7:57 am
Robert:
My position is that God does not exist, but I acknowledge a remote possibility I am mistaken. Does that qualify as an atheist position, in your view?
If that’s not an atheist position, in your opinion, then I have to ask: If a Christian says that they are certain God exists, but also acknowledges a remote possibility they are mistaken, would you say they are therefore not a believer?
* * *
I also think you haven’t yet made a satisfactory response to the purple unicorn argument.
This comment was written by Ampersand.Report this comment to the moderators
May 30th, 2007 at 8:28 am
Just out of curiosity, does it really matter if atheism is on the rise or if agnosticism is on the rise? Does the distinction make much difference? More people profess that they don’t believe in a divine being either way. Who cares if they believe there is no divinity or if they don’t believe that there is one?
This comment was written by joe.Report this comment to the moderators
May 30th, 2007 at 8:40 am
joe, it may matter to (some) atheists and agnostics. there is, historically, some dispute as to whether one category includes the other, or whether they are orthogonal concepts.
in common usage, “agnostic” tends to be conflated with what some folks would like to more rigorously term a “weak atheist”. the rigorous — and, arguably, historically and etymologically correct — definition of “agnostic” would have it be a position regarding knowledge whereas atheism speaks to belief. mind that the philosophers may not all agree on what, if anything, the difference between “knowledge” and “belief” strictly speaking is.
in short: it’s all semantics, but it’s semantics that some folks take personally.
This comment was written by Nomen Nescio.Report this comment to the moderators
May 30th, 2007 at 8:53 am
That’s what I figured. This debate usually gets driven by people that just like to argue, people that really like religion, and people that really dislike religion. None of those groups have a tendency to be moderate. (in my experience at least)
This comment was written by joe.Report this comment to the moderators
May 30th, 2007 at 9:08 am
On knowledge:
I also predict that Robert will not get it. I don’t get it, so I have no reason to expect Robert to. Robert isn’t even arguing about god specifically; he’s merely pointing out the logical challenges of drawing conclusions based on ignorance.
We confront this problem all the time. In 1903 some guys claim to have built a heavier-than-air machine that would permit humans to fly. Is their claim accurate? An astonishing number of people offer opinions on the subject without the benefit of any evidence whatsoever. Or a woman accuses a group of Duke lacrosse players of sexual assault. Are her accusations accurate? Again people offer passionate opinions on the issue, long before the facts are established.
Over centuries professional decision-makers have developed procedures related to this very challenge. In law, we have developed “presumptions” and “burdens of proof” as default conclusions to draw in the absence of evidence to the contrary. Statisticians have developed the convention of confidence intervals. Police require a period of time to pass before filing a missing persons report, and when to declare a missing person dead for purposes of property disposition and declaring the spouse a widow(er). The military has conventions for when to declare a soldier “missing, presumed dead.” Certified Public Accountants, home inspectors, securities analysts have standards of “due diligence.” Biologists have developed conventions for when to declare a species extinct. We all have techniques for coping with ignorance. But that’s all they are – techniques, based on social conventions; they are not knowledge.
So I would like to be credited with being the first person to report on the fact that Ampersand has “gone missing.” I can honestly, truthfully and sincerely report the fact that I don’t know Amp’s whereabouts at the moment – or indeed at any moment. I expect some of you will use our collective ignorance as a basis to conclude that Amp no longer exists. Others will note that my statement is not a sufficient basis to assert that Amp doesn’t exist, and will therefore emphatically assert that Amp does exist.
I lack sufficient evidence to conclude that supernatural forces or maneating purple unicorns exist. Similarly, at least since the last time he posted, I lack sufficient reason to conclude that Amp still exists. Nor do I have sufficient evidence to conclude that they don’t exist. Nor do I feel any compelling reason to reach a conclusion on this question any time soon.
Nor do I understand people’s reasons for reaching conclusions on these matters.
This comment was written by nobody.really.Report this comment to the moderators
May 30th, 2007 at 9:29 am
it doesn’t require “faith” to believe there’s no god…An easy example: OK, you believe in a god. Do you believe in maneating purple flying unicorns? Alien battleships orbiting the Earth just outside of sensor range? Strange faeires inhabiting the last untravelled corners of the English woods? Do you believe that some people can fly?
No?*
Why not?
I do not believe that maneating purple flying unicorns exist on this planet. Their existence on other planets, or in the distant past of this planet, is unknown. This disbelief is not based on faith; it is based on the fact that if there were contemporaneous and local maneating purple flying unicorns, I would reasonably expect that someone has seen them, that it would be of general interest, and that they would report it. Nobody seems to have done so; ergo, I conclude that there likely are not any maneating purple flying unicorns around here.
If I stated flatly that there were no maneating purple flying unicorns, ever, anywhere, that would be a declaration of faith, because I do not have sufficient data to make that assertion a reasonable one on the basis of logic alone. It’s a big universe.
Alien battleships orbiting earth outside of sensor range would, by the terms of the question, be unknowable to me. I do not believe there are any, for the same reason I do not believe an alien armada is hiding on the other side of Pike’s Peak - an emotional, gut assessment that it’s unlikely. But it is certainly possible, and so I recognize that I do not know. There could be aliens over there, so I’ll maintain an open mind until it becomes necessary for practical reasons for me to move my assessment in one direction or the other. (”We’re going on a picnic to the other side of Pike’s Peak. Want to come?”)
Again - “I don’t think so”, no faith required. “I am sure NOT, despite no data” - faith.
Faeries in the English countryside is much like the flying purple unicorn, with one notable exception: numbers of people have reported seeing that. I find their testimony uncompelling, and the existence of past frauds on the topic increases my native skepticism, but there is such testimony, and so I score the faeries as being ever so slightly more likely than the unicorns. But the same answer basically applies.
People fly every day. I’ve done it myself, dozens of times; I’ve got a flight scheduled in August to go see grandma for her 90th birthday. So I believe that one, on the basis of personal experience.
Do you think your failure to accept the maneating purle unicorns is accurately characterized as faith?*
No, as explained above. I really don’t see where the confusion/disagreement is coming from.
Do you accept that there is a distinction between saying “I do not believe there are any flying purple unicorns around here”, and “There are no flying purple unicorns.” ?
The first statement does not require faith. It is an expression of a personal decision-making process largely knowable to the individual in question. The second statement does require faith. It is an assertion about the universe and its contents. If you claim to *know*, but recognize that you do not have data/evidence, then a priori you are working from faith. I know there’s a God, but cannot prove it; that’s faith. Atheist Annie thinks there is no God, but cannot prove it; that’s opinion. Atheist Alex KNOWS there is no God, but cannot prove it; that’s faith.
Or could it be that there’s a part of your mind that recognizes these things are so far outside reality that your standard starting point is one of DISbelief, instead of belief?
I don’t think that my brain and knowledge set are sufficient for me to make strong statements about what is or is not outside “reality”. How would I know what the instance of purple unicorns or alien battlefleets is? The universe is 150 billion light years across; I can barely make a catalog of what exists in my 12×20 office.
My position is that God does not exist, but I acknowledge a remote possibility I am mistaken. Does that qualify as an atheist position, in your view?
Certainly. That’s the weak atheist position. “I think X, but I recognize that I do not have full information and it is possible that I am wrong.” It requires no faith to hold this position.
If a Christian says that they are certain God exists, but also acknowledges a remote possibility they are mistaken, would you say they are therefore not a believer?
Interesting question. I’m not really sure. I suspect opinions would vary among Christians as to the answer.
I believe that Robert does get it and is merely stirring shit. He’s just playing with semantics and trying to force his definition of “faith” on the debate. Part of that, probably, is that, to people with faith, faith is such a central part of their self-identity that a stated lack of faith is a personal insult.
I’m not sure where you get this. Your faith or lack of it is your business; I have concern for the state of your soul but it is not insulting to me either way. I readily recognize that there are huge chunks of the “atheist position” that do not require faith; the only part that does is the part that makes an assertion about the universe without data. Many/most atheists do not find it necessary to hold to that part of the position; those atheists are not acting/believing on faith.
This is what it boils down to: making a truth claim about the universe without data requires faith (or exceptional stupidity, I guess). I assert there is a God; I have no (usefully shareable) data. This is faith. I assert there is no God; I have no usefully shareable data. This is also faith. I assert that I don’t know, but have feelings or experiences that incline me in one direction or another; I have data about what I know, feel and experience, and so this is just a statement of my understanding of the data, it requires no faith.
This comment was written by Robert.Report this comment to the moderators
May 30th, 2007 at 9:47 am
Basically. He’s trying to reach the conclusion he wants, and distorting the language to force them. He’s doing this because it allows him to prove that atheists are hypocrites and thus their positions are easily dismissed.
It’s bullshit.
This comment was written by Mandolin.Report this comment to the moderators
May 30th, 2007 at 9:59 am
He’s trying to reach the conclusion he wants, and distorting the language to force them.
If I am distorting language to make my points, then it will be trivial for you to explicate where I have done so, and thus demolish my argument.
He’s doing this because it allows him to prove that atheists are hypocrites and thus their positions are easily dismissed.
There is no hypocrisy in being an atheist and still having faith as part of one’s philosophical arsenal. (Well, as long as it isn’t faith in God.)
If hypocrisy was sufficient to dismiss a position, there would be no position defensible; most everyone is a hypocrite in some way or another. Ask me what I teach my kids about drugs. ;)
I dismiss your position because I believe it to be wrong, not because of your personal cognitive failings. Everybody has those.
This comment was written by Robert.Report this comment to the moderators
May 30th, 2007 at 10:52 am
Robert, your arguement, to the extent that it has validity, only operates against the affirmative atheist position of positive knowlege that no deity of any kind exists. As you yourself have now admitted, such a position is not the sum total of atheism . Moreover, it operates on an assumption that most theists would not accept. That there is an unknowable divinity existing beyond the limits of human perception.
The overwhelming majority of theist believe that God is knowable through scripture, ritual or revelation. That is why theists are divided up into various religious traditions, each claiming an absolute knowlege of God’s relationship to humanity. It requires no act of faith on the part of the atheist to deny the existence of the God(s) such traditions present, only an examination and assessment of their doctrine and practice.
So while it is true to say that there is no way to disprove the existence of the mysterious, undefined divinity you posit, that is not the God(s) that the theists profer to to the atheist, or to one another. Only an agnostic can make the argument you have made without falling victim to hypocrisy , since it relies not on a knowlege of God but on the absence, indeed the impossibility, of such knowlege.
One can, of course, make a quasi or pseudo faith out of ignorance and the quest for knowlege. Einstein famously did so when he used God as a metaphor for the assumed organizing principle(s) of the Universe but that is a God that the vast majority of theists would neither recognize or accept.
This comment was written by W.B. Reeves.Report this comment to the moderators
May 30th, 2007 at 11:01 am
it wouldn’t be too hard to demonstrate that your definition of the word “faith” is highly unusual, to the point where most people who might self-describe as “persons of faith” would not recognize what you call “faith”. however, my prophetic powers inform me that you would be unlikely to listen to such argumentation, and this particular discussion thread would just sink deeper into the morass.
i am fascinated by semantical hair-splitting of that sort; but i’m weird. if i went there, most of Amp’s readers would likely just conclude that at least one of the people arguing was an idiot, and that it weren’t worth their while to figure out which one(s).
This comment was written by Nomen Nescio.Report this comment to the moderators
May 30th, 2007 at 11:14 am
Robert,
Outside of nice mathematical proofs, knowing something is, in English, generally accepting of a minimal degree of possibility that one is wrong. Otherwise we’d constantly be qualifying.
Is George Bush still president of the U.S.?
yes, I know that to be true. Unfortunately.
And that statement is acceptable even though I haven’t qualified it with all possible options:
-he could have just died a second ago
-he could have been dead for days, and the government is hiding it
-he could have been replaced by an alien simalcrum who is, even now, hurtling society towards the unenviable fate of being food for the Zortog breeders of Krimstrom
and so on. The possibilities are almost infinite.
to “know” he’s president does NOT reflect guaranteed ascertainment that each potential possibility has been 100%. It allows for the reality and uncertainty of the world we live in: Everything suggests he is still alive, and nothing suggests he’s an alien simalcrum.
So do I “know” there’s no god? Sure, in that context. I suppose that there could, conceivably, be a God who:
1) created the universe
2) exists outside the universe
3) allows the universe to go about it’s god-given fate, governed by a set of random natural laws.
4) doesn’t intervene, or give a shit about, us. No, not even whether little Billie was chewing gum during catechism.
and so on.
In other words, I’ll happily concede that there could be a god who has no effect on the universe that we have ever detected. Maybe we are all living in a mini-universe created as part of a 3-zerg-old
s science experiment. Our experience would be the same.
Which leads you to pascal’s folly: that whole “better to choose God” bunk fails when you ask the question “which God?” So: out of the literally infinite gods that could exist outside the realm of current human knowledge, why on earth should we think your god is the right one?
There’s no reason to believe any god exists at all. But sure, I’ll concede the evidence isn’t conclusive.
However, there’s a LOT of reason to think that your chosen god doesn’t exist, mostly because it’s one of infinite possibilities, and (1/infinity) is essentially zero (last I checked.)
And as noted above, if it DID exist, it would be at complete odds with essentially every religion out there, including yours.
This comment was written by Sailorman.Report this comment to the moderators
May 30th, 2007 at 11:15 am
Not to mention that several people have already pointed out where the language is twisted, and that Robert is ignoring it.
This comment was written by Mandolin.Report this comment to the moderators
May 30th, 2007 at 11:20 am
Robert, your arguement, to the extent that it has validity, only operates against the affirmative atheist position of positive knowlege that no deity of any kind exists.
That’s the only argument I’ve made.
As you yourself have now admitted, such a position is not the sum total of atheism .
I started out with that position. See my comment #18.
Moreover, it operates on an assumption that most theists would not accept.
What difference does that make?
It requires no act of faith on the part of the atheist to deny the existence of the God(s) such traditions present, only an examination and assessment of their doctrine and practice.
That’s absurd. If you present the idea that people should not rob one another, but then it turns out that you’re a thief, that doesn’t provide us with any information about whether theft is morally right or wrong. It just provides us with information that you’re a hypocrite or a liar. The doctrine and practice of a particular religious tradition tells you about them, not about their god.
You can certainly reject such a god on the basis of rejecting the traditions of the followers, and that’s not an argument from faith. But it’s not a strong atheist position asserting nonexistence, either, just a “this seems like rubbish so I’m not doing it” decision.
This comment was written by Robert.Report this comment to the moderators
May 30th, 2007 at 11:22 am
Not to mention that several people have already pointed out where the language is twisted, and that Robert is ignoring it.
Where?
This comment was written by Robert.Report this comment to the moderators
May 30th, 2007 at 1:11 pm
Ah. Ok.
So, Robert, it now seems fairly clear that your goal is merely to get us atheists to admit that in theory there could be some sort of godlike being somewhere, right? We don’t have to concede that there actually IS one to make you happy, and we don’t have to concede that there is any reason in the world to believe that such a possibility is, in fact, true.
Sure! I concede! there could, indeed, be a God! (and George Bush could have been grown in a ghola tank, and we could all–right now–be living in an infinitely complex computer simulation known as the Matrix, and… but I disgress)
In fact, from the many threads I’ve read on this subject, I suspect this is a fairly common “concession.” Hell, I think even Orac* would agree that there is no way to conclusively disprove the existence of a being who exists outside of our universe’s laws.
And, um, so? So what? Is THIS supposed to be an “aha!” moment where us atheists feel like we lost something? Because if so, I’m missing it.
I’m missing it, partly because such a concession is essentially meaningless. Conceding the potential existence of something with zero effect on reality is… what? An exercise in pointless typing?
And also, I’m missing it because such a concession is STILL so vastly far away from the actual beliefs of every non-atheist on the planet, that it is likewise meaningless. Whether you think “no God” or “functionally no God”, both are antithetical to believers.
Not incidentally, I’d also like to note that you haven’t really provided an alternate hypothesis. Rational decisions require multiple options. Simply saying “you’re wrong” without providing an alternative is bad argumentation, and you should know that by now. After all, even if an ideal position is not yet stated, or cannot be quantified, one of them can still be superior, more rational, etc.
So, given my “concession” to the potential and unproven existence of a being(s) of infinitely possible form, mentality, etc–what now? Do you want to join me in that belief (welcome to the atheist’s club, old chap) or do you want to suggest an alternate hypothesis? I’m open to either. But asking us to constantly refine our position, while failing to provide one of your own, isn’t especially convincing.
*of Respectful Insolence fame–he argues with religious folks a lot.
This comment was written by Sailorman.Report this comment to the moderators
May 30th, 2007 at 1:21 pm
So, Robert, it now seems fairly clear that your goal is merely to get us atheists to admit that in theory there could be some sort of God somewhere, right?
My goal is to clearly classify the positions under discussion, and to use words in a descriptive and shareable fashion. If you claim that atheism means believing in the goodness of chocolate ice cream, I will challenge your factually incorrect taxonomy; I don’t particularly care whether you like chocolate ice cream or not.
(I do care whether you are a believer or not, but that isn’t the purpose of the discussion here today.)
Not incidentally, I’d also like to note that you haven’t really provided an alternate hypothesis. Rational decisions require multiple options. Simply saying “you’re wrong” without providing an alternative is bad argumentation, and you should know that by now.
I haven’t provided an alternate hypothesis because I’m not arguing with you about the existence or nonexistence of God. I’m arguing about what labels accurately describe which philosophical or religious positions.
I did mention to Mandolin that I thought she was wrong, but that was because she was accusing me of dismissing the truth of her religious beliefs on other grounds; I am dismissing those beliefs, but not for the reasons she specified and wanted to make that clear.
If you would like to have an argument about the existence or non-existence of God, I will be glad to start a thread over on CD to have that discussion.
This comment was written by Robert.Report this comment to the moderators
May 30th, 2007 at 1:21 pm
Actually, it is your response that is absurd. Religious doctrine describes the God of the particular religion in question. If the doctrine is false or in error, then the God it describes does not exist. Your mysterious, unknowable god beyond the limits of human perception may exist but the Gods described by false doctrine are, by definition, false Gods.
Now you are certainly playing word games. If one says Mohammed was preaching rubbish, one is saying that the God that Mohammed described does not exist, since the described deity is one that chose Mohammed as his prophet. If one denies the divinity of Jesus then one denies the existence of God as the father of Jesus. That is, the Christian God. If one says the Ark of the Covenant is rubbish, one is saying that the God of the Covenant is rubbish.
Again, you can posit a mysterious, unknowable deity but that is not the God that Moslems, Christians and Jews believe in.
This comment was written by W.B. Reeves.Report this comment to the moderators
May 30th, 2007 at 1:55 pm
That doesn’t seem accurate, since you don’t apparently share this definition with anyone else in the discussion, but hey…
How would you choose to define my position, given that you don’t seem to think I’m an atheist? What word would you like to use?
I would submit that my position IS what is referred to as “atheist,” but I’m open to suggestions.
This comment was written by Sailorman.Report this comment to the moderators
May 30th, 2007 at 2:03 pm
How would you choose to define my position, given that you don’t seem to think I’m an atheist?
I don’t know what your position is, so how would I know whether you’re an atheist or not?
Broadly, if you don’t believe in any gods, you’re an atheist. Whether your atheism is of the strong or weak variety depends on what truth claim(s) you make about divinity in the universe. What truth claim(s) do you make?
Religious doctrine describes the God of the particular religion in question. If the doctrine is false or in error, then the God it describes does not exist.
Again, nonsense. Here’s the teaching of the Church of Cincinnati: Cincinnati is a city of a billion people, located on the shores of the Pacific Ocean. It was the site of the Woodstock music festival back in the 1960s, and is the birthplace and current residence of George Bush. In Cincinnati, orgasms last thirty minutes, minimum.
Every doctrine I’ve just expounded about “Cincinnati” is crap. Yet, Cincinnati exists. You may make the claim that, although I claim to believe in Cincinnati, I clearly don’t have any of my facts straight, and perhaps the entity I’m labeling Cincinnati isn’t the same entity that everyone else thinks of when they think of Cincinnati - but my false doctrine(s) have no bearing on the truth about Cincinnati. There is (or is not) such a place, whether I have the details of its population and geography correct or not.
You are ascribing far too much power to the words and deeds of the fallible people who try and/or claim to follow God.
This comment was written by Robert.Report this comment to the moderators
May 30th, 2007 at 2:23 pm
What truth claim(s) do you make?
That there is no reproduceable, verifiable proof of any divinity and that, therefore, there is no divinity of any sort. Should reproduceable, verifiable proof of divinity be provided, I am willing to reconsider situation.
This is the most solid type of claim of truth that human beings are capable of expounding. That is, the evidence supports X, therefore X. That’s how we can truthfully claim that the Earth revolves around the Sun, that there are no purple unicorns (whether man-eating or vegetarian, whether space traveling or terrestrial), that George Bush is not an extraterrestrial being, that China exists, etc.
Unless you want to devolve the argument to, “how do we know that we know,” I’m not sure what your argument is? Other than trying to convince others that atheists must hold religious beliefs in the face of all evidence to the contrary.
This comment was written by Jake Squid.Report this comment to the moderators
May 30th, 2007 at 2:24 pm
That there is no reproduceable, verifiable proof of any divinity and that, therefore, there is no divinity of any sort.
So absence of evidence is evidence of absence?
This comment was written by Robert.Report this comment to the moderators
May 30th, 2007 at 2:31 pm
Robert, if you don’t know what my position is, you’re either not reading my posts, or you’re being deliberately dense.
in case it’s the latter:
I reject any and all “gods” that I’ve heard about so far I do not believe there is any being who exists, gives a hoot, monitors us, acts to affect our lives, thoughts, or the universe, etc. I believe this is the only rational conclusion, much like it is rational to believe that gravity works everywhere on earth, not just where people would notice.
I accept that there could be some being(s) outside our realm of perception, in which case I could be wrong. But we’d never know. I don’t see any reason to conclude, believe, or even suspect that such beings exist.
So, the $64,000 question: Which Atheist Am I?
This comment was written by Sailorman.Report this comment to the moderators
May 30th, 2007 at 2:36 pm
Robert, if you don’t know what my position is, you’re either not reading my posts, or you’re being deliberately dense.
I don’t generally read your posts.
So, the $64,000 question: Which Atheist Am I?
As is plain from what I’ve already said, since you acknowledge that you do not have actual knowledge of the existence or nonexistence of divinity rather than making a positive claim that there cannot be divinity, you’re an atheist of the weak position.
(BTW, I hate calling them “weak” and “strong” because it makes “weak” sound like an intended insult, but that’s the common terminology. It isn’t intended as a slam, simply as a comparative of the level of claim being made.)
This comment was written by Robert.Report this comment to the moderators
May 30th, 2007 at 2:37 pm
First: if you don’t read them, would you mind not responding to them, and not quoting them in your replies? It’s obnoxious. It’s also deceptive.
Robert, you’re pretending that “absence of evidence” gives license to assume anything you damn well please.
Since you appear to be a reasonably intelligent person, I submit that you would call bullshit on anyone else who tried such an act.
Hey!
I can fly!
In fact, I’m flying RIGHT NOW, as I type this!
You have no evidence to the contrary, I suspect.
Similarly, you have no evidence that your town was not removed last night (while you slept) and replaced with an exact replica.
You have no evidence that you are not a computer program in the Matrix.
You have no evidence that all Christians (or Muslims, or Jews, or Buddhists, or…) don’t go immediately to a lifetime of eternal torment in hell, while us atheists are–to our disbelief, mild frustration at getting it wrong, and perpetual enjoyment of the experience–transported immediately to heaven.
Do you believe these things?
Do you accept others’ belief of these things?
Or do you only apply this standard when talking about your own god?
This comment was written by Sailorman.Report this comment to the moderators
May 30th, 2007 at 2:53 pm
“I don’t generally read your posts.”
*sporfle*
Well, that explains some things. Who else are you skipping?
Not that I can really protest too hard; I skip your posts after a couple rounds of conversation when it appears you’ve decided to be irrational. But it might explain why you, for instance, ignored my detailed explanation on oppression the other day.
This comment was written by Mandolin.Report this comment to the moderators
May 30th, 2007 at 2:55 pm
So absence of evidence is evidence of absence?
And, therefore, unicorns of all varieties exist.
Hey! I’m at the exact center of the universe and you aren’t.
What if you just came into existence 10 minutes ago and everything else is just a false memory?
What if I’m the only person who really exists?
What if nothing exists if I can’t observe it? Is everything behind me and out of my range of hearing an empty void?
My God ate your God.
The Devil made me do it.
This comment was written by Jake Squid.Report this comment to the moderators
May 30th, 2007 at 2:56 pm
First: if you don’t read them, would you mind not responding to them, and not quoting them in your replies? It’s obnoxious. It’s also deceptive.
I’m sorry. I thought you were referring to your own blog posts, not your comments here. Your comment here was evocative but not sufficiently detailed that I would be comfortable in reaching a conclusion about your beliefs.
Robert, you’re pretending that “absence of evidence” gives license to assume anything you damn well please.
I don’t think so. I am not making ANY positive assertions about the role of the divine in the universe; in fact, as far as I can tell, I haven’t made any assumptions at all. I am speaking strictly to the taxonomical question, with the necessary side dishes of epistemology and logic.
In fact, I’m flying RIGHT NOW, as I type this! You have no evidence to the contrary, I suspect.
That’s true. So what? I’m not asserting that you can’t fly, or that you can. And as your amusing list makes clear, there are an awful lot of things that I have no evidence about. Again, so what? I am not claiming that those things are true, or plausible. As I said, if you want to have a conversation about whether there is or is not a God, I will be glad to do that, but that is not what I am doing here and now.
HERE AND NOW, I am making one claim:
The assertion of a truth claim about the external universe, in the absence of empirical proof of that claim, requires faith.
“Strong” atheism makes a truth claim about the universe, in the absence of evidence. It therefore requires faith. “Weak” atheism makes no truth claims about the universe; it limits itself to the opinions and experiences of the holder. It does not require faith. From what others have said, the only person here actually making the strong truth claim is Jake.
If you do not agree with me, fine. Please explain what making a truth claim in the absence of empirical evidence is, if it isn’t faith.
This comment was written by Robert.Report this comment to the moderators
May 30th, 2007 at 3:00 pm
Jake, your reply is non-responsive.
Is absence of evidence evidence of absence? Do you, in other words, accept that formulation in principle on any other issue?
Mandolin, as I explained to Sailorman, I was confused about which posts he was referring to. As far as “ignoring” goes, you are the one who has left my queries and arguments to you unrefuted, choosing instead to make unsupported assertions about my twisted use of language, and declining to make specific citations of such usage when invited to do so, twice.
If there is some explanation of oppression that I left inappropriately unanswered on another thread, I will be glad to take another look at it and provide an answer if you can give me a little more context to go on.
This comment was written by Robert.Report this comment to the moderators
May 30th, 2007 at 3:17 pm
Is absence of evidence evidence of absence? Do you, in other words, accept that formulation in principle on any other issue?
Yes. For example, unicorns don’t exist and can have no impact on my life. Iraq had no WMDs and was no threat to my well-being would be another example.
Absence of evidence, while not necessarily evidence of absence, can be useful in ascertaining truth. If I look around my bedroom for my keys for 2000 years and don’t find them in there, it is extremely likely that the truth is that my keys are not in my bedroom. Sure, there is a possibility that I just didn’t look in that one particular spot where they are hid, but should I continue looking for them? Rather than living with the unsupported belief that my keys are in my bedroom, it would be more prudent and useful to assert as truth that they are not there. Should reproduceable, verifiable evidence later come to light that they are, in fact, in my bedroom then my position would change.
From your comments on this thread, it appears that you would continue to believe that my keys are in my bedroom.
This comment was written by Jake Squid.Report this comment to the moderators
May 30th, 2007 at 3:23 pm
“Mandolin, as I explained to Sailorman, I was confused about which posts he was referring to.”
Got it. Sorry about the confusion.
“If there is some explanation of oppression that I left inappropriately unanswered on another thread, I will be glad to take another look at it and provide an answer if you can give me a little more context to go on.”
It wasn’t inapprorpiately unanswered; you’re welcome to opt out of an argument at any time you find it no longer useful, as am I (which I largely have here, for instance). You just blogged about the post on CD, but didn’t seem to have responded to my positions as stated in the thread. But it’s cool; if you say you’re reading the threads, then I trust that you are.
This comment was written by Mandolin.Report this comment to the moderators
May 30th, 2007 at 3:40 pm
As someone who questions the dominant view about supernatural beings, I feel besieged – even discriminated against – by members of the majority. I sense this is the general experience of minorities groups everywhere. Some of my fellow doubters, especially the most vocal ones, react by adopting a militant posture. There may be political and emotional advantages to such a posture, but sometimes it strikes me as brittle and inflexible. And they may unleash pent-up frustrations on people who are not the source of their frustrations.
I understand this discussion to address (mostly) whether the assertion “There is no god” (or perhaps any assertion of non-existence) can be derived through evidence and reason. I believe this discussion can be pursued without resorting to semantic discussions about the definition of “atheist” or “faith” or “believer.” And it can be addressed quite academically, without any passion at all.
But, as Nomen Nescio predicted, that’s not how things are unfolding.
I tend to believe that people transcend the limits of evidence and reason when they argue that nothing can transcend the limits of evidence and reason. People who have held aloft the standards of evidence and reason to ward off the claims of theists are understandably chagrined to have these standards used against themselves. Understandably chagrined, but perhaps not inevitably so. I appeal to everyone’s love of evidence and reason, and ask that we put aside passions to the greatest extent possible.
If I tell you that I’m a CIA agent, and you discover that I’m lying, what does that tell you about the existence of the CIA?
Now, if my testimony was the only basis you had to believe in the CIA, then you might well conclude that you have no basis to believe in the CIA. But that would not provide a basis to believe in the non-existence of the CIA any more than it would provide a basis to believe in the non-existence of maneating purple unicorns. As Robert suggests, absence of evidence is not the same as evidence of absence.
Mystery writers love to exploit this logical fallacy: Create a suspicion around character X. Midway through the book, reveal that the suspicion was entirely baseless, and everyone was accusing X unjustly. Then at the end, reveal that X was actually guilty. The fact that midway through the book you did not have a basis to conclude X was guilty is not the same as saying that you had a basis to conclude X was NOT guilty.
Any cause-and-effect relationship there?
I am acquainted with evidence supporting the proposition that the Earth revolves around the sun, that China exists, and even that George Bush was born on Earth. In contrast, I’m not acquainted with evidence for the non-existence of purple unicorns. I’m not even sure what type of evidence I could possibly cite. So I distinguish between affirmative propositions and negative ones. And this distinction is important to my understanding of the issue at hand.
Now we’re getting somewhere. How do we deal with uncertainty in daily life?
If someone offered to sell me insurance against being skewered by unicorn, based on my current information, I’d decline. But if news reports begin filling up with stories about people being skewered by unicorns, I’d be free to evaluate this information unencumbered with dogmatic assertions about the existence or non-existence of unicorns. You will never see my children standing in the face of stampeding unicorns saying, “Damn the evidence! Dad told me there are no unicorns, and I’m not going to break faith with my family!”
In short, I strive to keep an open mind not because I want to embrace religion. I strive to keep an open mind, and to espouse an open mind to others, out of concern for the harm that dogma OF ANY KIND can do.
I don’t mean to denigrate anyone’s religion, or hard-fought rejection of religion. But neither do I accept either dogma for myself.
There may yet be more things in heaven and earth than are dreamt of in anyone’s philosophy.
This comment was written by nobody.really.Report this comment to the moderators
May 30th, 2007 at 3:40 pm
My position is that God does not exist, but I acknowledge a remote possibility I am mistaken. Does that qualify as an atheist position, in your view?
Certainly. That’s the weak atheist position.
No, that’s the Dawkins position (which religious people often assure me is fire-breathing atheism). We have no reason to think God exists. All attempts to supply rational evidence for Him have failed, and we have simpler explanations for the phenomena involved. By scientific standards of proof, we have therefore “proven” the nonexistence of God much as we have “proven” the nonexistence of phlogiston. You can of course decide you don’t want to use scientific standards of proof in this case, but calling them faith simply distorts the term.
This comment was written by hf.Report this comment to the moderators
May 30th, 2007 at 3:52 pm
Absence of evidence, while not necessarily evidence of absence, can be useful in ascertaining truth.
Absolutely. For example, in paleontology, you could make a reasonable hypothesis that there has never been a seven-legged mammalian species on Earth, and present as evidence the fact that the fossil record, however spotty, just doesn’t seem to go that way. Two legs or four for mammals, no other options ever get expressed - and no odd number of limbs ever gets expressed for ANY species. (That I know of, anyway.)
The disputatious advocate of Seven Leg Mammalianism might counter, but we don’t have all the information. The record IS spotty. Maybe there are gaps. And of course, there’s possible merit in this position. But the reasoned response would be, we’ve sampled the fossil record all over the world. We’ve sampled it from all through the time continuum, from the time of the first fossils up through last Tuesday. We have reasonable coverage of what can be covered, and there’s just no indication of seven legged species.
That there is no reproduceable, verifiable proof of any divinity and that, therefore, there is no divinity of any sort.
So that brings us back to your claim. There’s no proof, per you. What fraction of the sample space have you checked for proof? On Earth, on the fossil record, you’ve looked at pretty much the whole thing. Sure, you’re getting one page out of ten in the big Encyclopedia of Life - but you do have the whole book. You’re not missing pages 1-1000 and 2000-3000; you’re missing 2-9, 11-20, 22-30, and so on.
The universe is 160,000,000,000 light years in diameter, roughly. It contains approximately 10^21 stars (that’s 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000) in approximately 125 billion galaxies. That is the scope of the field in which you would need to search for evidence of God, if that’s your intention.
What fraction of the existing universe have you checked for God? The answer, of course, is near enough to “none of it” as makes no difference. (1 down, 999,999,999,999,999,999,999 to go!)
That makes using this particular absence of evidence somewhat tenuous, it seems to me. Strong enough to say “this supports my opinion, so I don’t think there’s a God hanging around”? Sure, if you wish. Strong enough that there’s any justification for saying “I haven’t found it so it isn’t here?”
Nah. To jump that far, you need to close your eyes and take a leap of faith.
This has been a really interesting discussion but I have to go earn money now. Hopefully later this evening I can pop back in and read a dozen comments from weak atheists outraged that the description of a philosophy they don’t hold is offensive to them. Or something. ;)
This comment was written by Robert.Report this comment to the moderators