Does atheism make sense?

[alphaparticle]

 

As many of you know, I have spent most of my time, as soon as I was old enough to have an opinion, as an atheist. I figured it was the position that assumed the least and best tracked with 'hard evidence'. However, aside from having reasons to think that Christianity is true I also doubt that atheism is the default, 'least assuming' position.

 

Here are some of the questions rattling around in my head with regards to this. Does it really make sense to claim that physical stuff just exists for no reason whatsoever? and, not only does physical stuff just happen to exist, with no further explanation, it's *ordered* beyond belief. So now the claim is that all this stuff just exists in an extremely ordered state for no reason whatsoever. Why would anyone look at that and just assume there is no reason for any of it? I don't think that is the most reasonable, rational response to the state of affairs which is our universe. Assuming that there is nothing behind the existence of the universe and its exquisite ordering is itself an assumption that lacks reasoning.

 

Note, my purpose here isn't to provide evidence for God's existing. I'm merely questioning that atheism is a very rational immediate response to anybody who knows anything about how the world works.

 

Hi alpha, I look at it slightly differently, and I think the most rational response is a humble "I don't know." We start with an observation, the world follows certain 'laws' and is 'ordered'. Theism basically gives us a hypothesis, God ordered and created the world. That is a positive claim where the default of a positive claim would be the null-hypothesis that God didn't create and order the world, until there is evidence to support the positive claim. 

 

Then you get into the definition of atheist and agnostic, which Robby covered. I think most atheists are specifically agnostic atheists, where when pressed they lack a belief in God but cannot rule out the possibility of a God due to limitations in human knowledge. Take the Dawkins' scale test of where you fall on the theist-atheist scale, 1 being theist with 100% certainty and 7 being atheist with 100% certainty. Dawkins labels himself as a 6 instead of a 7, and makes the case that this is the norm for most atheist-agnostics. 

 

With that in mind, I think you can make a reasonable case that atheism as understood by most as a 6 instead of a 7, is a rational default position in absence of any evidence to support theism. Of course any evidence in favor of theism will change the playing field, however the burden of proof will fall on the theist as they are making the positive claim. 

 

The problem I have with this is that atheism, even if it's not making a strong positive claim, is still implicitly making a lot of claims about the world that are not easy to substantiate. The most fundamental one I see is that naturalistic or physical causation is primary, explanation in terms of agents is secondary. I don't see any good reason why I should be assuming this. The reason I say this is because if you are someone who truly gives a 50/50 chance to explanations in terms of agents as being primary then the fact that there is anything at all, and the fact that it is ordered will be interpreted as strong reason to suspect there's an agent, just as if I walk into my room and see all of my books put away alphabetically I will have strong reason to suspect an agent is responsible. It would not make sense for me, in that case, to refuse to think an agent walked in until someone gave me further evidence. What I mean by my OP is this, atheism takes a lot more implicit assumption than it appears on the surface, and I don't think it deserves to be the default "least evidence required" position.

[alphaparticle]

Maybe a good question to ask here is....why is it "unreasonable to claim that everything exists for no reason"?  (and by "reason" I mean for any specific metaphysical, philosophical reason)

 

Because we implicitly assume there is a reason for every other state of affairs or events, so why are we putting this particular one in a special exempt class?

[alphaparticle]

 

The problem I have with this is that atheism, even if it's not making a strong positive claim, is still implicitly making a lot of claims about the world that are not easy to substantiate. The most fundamental one I see is that naturalistic or physical causation is primary, explanation in terms of agents is secondary. I don't see any good reason why I should be assuming this. The reason I say this is because if you are someone who truly gives a 50/50 chance to explanations in terms of agents as being primary then the fact that there is anything at all, and the fact that it is ordered will be interpreted as strong reason to suspect there's an agent, just as if I walk into my room and see all of my books put away alphabetically I will have strong reason to suspect an agent is responsible. It would not make sense for me, in that case, to refuse to think an agent walked in until someone gave me further evidence. What I mean by my OP is this, atheism takes a lot more implicit assumption than it appears on the surface, and I don't think it deserves to be the default "least evidence required" position.

 

I'm not sure atheism necessitates "agents" as secondary, but certainly 'supernatural agents' are put on the back burners if not down right excluded. A common counter-argument I hear from atheists regarding your bookcase in alphabetical order is that we have seen and confirmed agents putting books in alphabetical order. We know such agents exist, why they do this, that such is common practice, and on top of that we know of no known naturalistic processes that will alphabetize books. So when you walk into your room and see your books alphabetized, even if you have no idea who did it, you have good reason to assume that an agent did it. On the other hand, when it comes to the universe, we have no hard evidence that such supernatural agents even exist, but we do know natural processes do. 

 

One line of argumentation that I find makes me very cautious to suppose any supernatural explanation, is our historical inkling to explain things with God that we later discover is purely the result of natural phenomena. It is similar to the god of the gaps. You said earlier that you aren't positing a god of the gaps because you are questioning why anything exists at all, and in response I will argue/ask why God exists at all? To me I see you pushing back the ultimate foundation of existence to a metaphysical plane, which I'll grant is a possibility and not a god of the gaps argument provided we have hard evidence God exists as a metaphysical entity. But without proportional evidence, I think the default position is that there is no reason to think God did it, and no reason to suggest this metaphysical plane exists. 

 

In terms of a default position, any claim requires proportional evidence. And in that respect, absence of evidence, the default is neither philosophical naturalism or theism as both are making a positive claim about the fundamental structure of existence. However through hard evidence we know that the physical/natural exists, yet we cannot say the same thing when it comes to theism. In that respect atheism has a point in favor over theism IMHO. 

 

 

The reason I brought up the alphabetized bookshelf is to argue that it alone would give us reason to think that alphabetizing agents might exist- apart from other background information. Likewise, an ordered universe is one reason to think that an agent is at the bottom of it all. The fundamental question for me is this: why is it that we can explain things in terms of naturalistic causation at all? You could argue there is no further explanation, but I'd wonder why you stop there instead of because an agent ordered the world. The fact that I want explained is the fact that there is natural ordering... at all, not some particular phenomenon, the very order that is the necessary condition for there to be naturalistic explanations at all. And there it makes no sense to me to claim that atheism has explanatory superiority, there it is merely a choice that is made between two basic candidates- naturalistic causation vs agent causation, and there is no really good grounds for excluding one against the other at that level.

[kwikphilly]

Raime

     I just have to say,"What are you talking about?''......I think the question is,"Does atheism make sense".....please,maybe my brain short circuited sometime today and I usually say nothing after reading most of your posts(although equally confused)but I just have to say something this time....You begin with something about creedal religion(all in denial of Christ & scripture)..What?....on to quoting some verses from1John?....off to your claim that the foundation of God is to stop sinning..really?...alot of Gods requirements according to Raime....which I have no idea how you have derived at such conclusions and you closed with "Judge not and you will not be judged".....Unless I am completely insane can you please tell me what any of this has to do with the question?

     Believe me when I tell you ,Raime...I love you...I am not personally attacking you but having great concern about how you perceive things....Scripture is not to be taken out of context and just thrown about to fill in an empty page....Scripture is one of the greatest gifts of God ,His precious Word,it is a treasure....all of Scripture points to and leads to Jesus Christ,the fulfillment of prophesy........He is the foundation,the WAY,the TRUTH and the LIFE.....I am quite sure there are many a people who follow "creedal religion"and yet are saved because they believe in Jesus and have asked Him to be Lord & Savior of their life.......Everyone sins,Raime,Gods foundation is Jesus Christ.....His requirement is that we accept His Son..................

    And still,what does any of this have to do with this topic?If you  would like to discuss creedal religion or any other topic,please feel free to start a topic in the appropriate forum....or I cordially invite you to PM me and we can talk about the Scriptures..ONE AT A TIME...and the context in which they are given....but this conglomeration of things all thrown in a ball of confusion is just too much

                                                                                               I give God the glory,,,In Christ,Kwik

[alphaparticle]

A vote for atheism is a vote for naturalistic explanation at the *foundation*. I don't just mean to posit God as an explanation for why anything instead of nothing, but why a *very ordered* anything instead of nothing. Why is there a * a bunch of ordered stuff* instead of nothing.

 

There are two ways of dealing with Sagan's knee jerk reaction to positing God as an explanatory hypothesis at this level. One is to run an argument from contingency and establish God as necessary, thus defusing him entirely. But rather than do that, as I've done that so much here already, what about this consideration. God is 1 thing, so in positing God 'at the bottom' I am having to assume one thing existing. The universe, the multiverse the totality of the physical stuff is an innumerable amount of stuff-- possibly literally so! Not only is there a ton of it, but it obeys these fantastic relations, so we have to posit that those exist also. God's explanatory power then, in this specific angle, is that He explains an innumerable amount of ordered things, and at our expense we need only posit that God Himself exists.

 

The second comment I'd like to make is that I am not sure my entire point was responded to. Not only am I asking why there is an ordered something rather than nothing,but also asserting that the fact that the things are ordered is a prerequisite to having naturalistic explanations at all, to posit any natural causation... at all. So you are presuming the supremacy of naturalistic explanations even though the existence of ordered stuff is a prerequisite to making sense of the notion of naturalistic causation at all. It's hardly the most intuitively appealing, it's not the simplest, ... I am not sure what explanatory superiority you get from this. There is *in principle* no naturalistic explanation possible here, because naturalistic explanations must assume it to run at all. This is precisely what a God of the gaps argument is not.

[Guest]

The fact that I want explained is the fact that there is natural ordering....

 

To paraphrase Carl Sagan, if we are to utilize the God explanation and say that the origin of God is unknown....

 

To me that sends up red flags all over the place on my (what Carl Sagan would call) baloney detector.

 

~

 

Sadly

 

Thine habitation is in the midst of deceit; through deceit they refuse to know me, saith the LORD. Jeremiah 9:6

 

Baloney Detected

 

But they hearkened not, nor inclined their ear, but walked in the counsels and in the imagination of their evil heart, and went backward, and not forward. Jeremiah 7:24

 

And Eternal Truth Is Asserted

 

And to make all men see what is the fellowship of the mystery, which from the beginning of the world hath been hid in God, who created all things by Jesus Christ: Ephesians 3:9

 

And Atheism Is All About The Denial Of Jesus Christ

 

Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us. Matthew 1:23

 

And Him Crucified

 

But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us. Romans 5:8

 

You See?

 

For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. John 3:16

[Mcgyver]

If I understand it correctly, the original question was along the lines of: "Is atheism rational?"

 

If we define "atheist" as one who believes that there are precisely zero gods; then my position would be that such belief is absolutely irrational.

 

One who holds such a belief is in fact affirming a universal negative (i.e. "there are no gods, there is no God") as true. As such a universal negative can not be proven, to affirm such a position is not rational...or indeed logical. JMO

[RobbyPants]

If I understand it correctly, the original question was along the lines of: "Is atheism rational?"

 

If we define "atheist" as one who believes that there are precisely zero gods; then my position would be that such belief is absolutely irrational.

 

One who holds such a belief is in fact affirming a universal negative (i.e. "there are no gods, there is no God") as true. As such a universal negative can not be proven, to affirm such a position is not rational...or indeed logical. JMO

That's exactly why my first post in this thread was to help better define the terms. What you are referring to is gnostic atheism. Atheism itself is a simple lack of belief in any gods (the opposite of theism; a belief in one or more gods). Anything else is over-defining the terms.

 

Heres is the best definition I found regarding the terms:

 

Theism is the belief in one or more gods. Atheism is the lack of that belief. It's a binary proposition; either you believe in one or more gods, or you don't. There's no middle ground.

From there, you can split each belief into agnostic and gnostic. The gnostic stance holds that the belief is knowable and possibly even provable. The agnostic stance believes that it is not knowable or provable. So, this leaves you with four positions:

• Gnostic theist - Believes in one or more gods, and believes they can know (and possibly prove) this truth.
• Agnostic theist - Believes in one or more gods, but feels it must be accepted just on faith and cannot be truly known.
• Gnostic atheist - Believes that there are precisely zero gods. They don't just lack a belief in gods, they believe there are none. This is often the position that is simply labeled "atheist".
• Agnostic atheist - Lacks a belief in any gods, but does not assert that there are none. Believes the answer to the question "how many gods exist" is unknowable. This position is often simply labeled "agnostic", yet it is still an atheistic stance in that there is no belief in any gods.

So, as a general rule, when someone labels themselves "agnostic", they likely  mean "agnostic atheist", even if they take issue with the atheist portion of the label.

 

[alphaparticle]

I don't mean nothing in a physicist's sense here, I mean it in an existential sense. Equating nothingness with a quantum vacuum is cheating, at least, we aren't going to be talking about the same thing. I mean the totality of physical stuff-- including fields, including spacetime. I also mean the order by which that stuff operates and allows us to posit natural causes to explain any phenomena at all. That is why it's not 'from ignorance', in principle you can't explain how you can do explanation by natural causation by using explanation by natural causation.

 

And as I said, as far as explaining God goes, there are two routes. One, I could show that God is a necessary being. Or two, show why God is a superior explanatory hypothesis by arguing that at least with God we have mere *one* unexplained thing, rather than...an infinite number, including some rather nice laws by which all that stuff operates.

[MorningGlory]

I don't mean nothing in a physicist's sense here, I mean it in an existential sense. Equating nothingness with a quantum vacuum is cheating, at least, we aren't going to be talking about the same thing. I mean the totality of physical stuff-- including fields, including spacetime. I also mean the order by which that stuff operates and allows us to posit natural causes to explain any phenomena at all. That is why it's not 'from ignorance', in principle you can't explain how you can do explanation by natural causation by using explanation by natural causation.

 

And as I said, as far as explaining God goes, there are two routes. One, I could show that God is a necessary being. Or two, show why God is a superior explanatory hypothesis by arguing that at least with God we have mere *one* unexplained thing, rather than...an infinite number, including some rather nice laws by which all that stuff operates.

 

 

'Laws' don't come into being by accident; order is only possible with control by something or someone.  To believe that everything that exists, and the laws governing everything, came about by random chance requires an imagination without limits.