Does atheism make sense?

[Guest]

Gnostic atheism is not a rational default position, but agnostic atheism is IMHO.

 

 

The heavens declare his righteousness, and all the people see his glory. Psalms 97:6

 

~

 

Beloved, Paganism Is Now Somehow Rational?

The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good. Psalms 14:1

 

God Says Otherwise

And ye shall seek me, and find me, when ye shall search for me with all your heart. Jeremiah 29:13

 

Is It Really Wise

Now when Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judaea in the days of Herod the king, behold, there came wise men from the east to Jerusalem, Saying, Where is he that is born King of the Jews? for we have seen his star in the east, and are come to worship him. Matthew 2:1-2

 

To Walk Away

Take heed, brethren, lest there be in any of you an evil heart of unbelief, in departing from the living God. Hebrews 3:12

 

And Is It

Come now, and let us reason together, saith the LORD: though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they be red like crimson, they shall be as wool. Isaiah 1:18

 

Even Rational....

But when he saw many of the Pharisees and Sadducees come to his baptism, he said unto them, O generation of vipers, who hath warned you to flee from the wrath to come? Matthew 3:7

 

~

 

Believe

The Father loveth the Son, and hath given all things into his hand. He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him. John 3:35-36

 

And Be Blessed Beloved

The LORD bless thee, and keep thee:

The LORD make his face shine upon thee, and be gracious unto thee:

The LORD lift up his countenance upon thee, and give thee peace.

 

And they shall put my name upon the children of Israel; and I will bless them. Numbers 6:24-27

 

Love, Joe

[Guest]

The supernatural is unfalsifiable

 

~

 

O taste and see that the LORD is good: blessed is the man that trusteth in him. Psalms 34:8

[alphaparticle]

 

D9,

 

Nice reply. And I am with you, I would not actually be convinced by this argument at all. What I am aiming to do, and will probably retry several times before getting it correctly, is to undermine the assertion that atheism is the rational default position. There are reasons that would apply to a question, like I put forth about nothingness, which would make theism at least as rational a choice as atheism. But i do want to make clear that I agree with you, in that, I can't imagine anybody actually switching sides based on this consideration.

 

Onto your objections, Krauss et al aside I see no problem with considering the problem of nothingness.The simplicity of God has to be that God is one Being. I don't think this is too crazy, insofar as we accept explanations in terms of persons without demanding further interrogation. "Who organized my bookshelves?" "Bill did it." So if I am asserting that Mind actually is primarily existent rather than the boundless amounts of physical stuff together with physical laws, well, I am only have to point at one Person at the very least. It's not clear to me, that is, which is rationally superior on the face of it as a foundational choice.

 

I think it depends on how we characterize atheism. The supernatural is unfalsifiable, in principle there cannot be any logic or evidence that disproves the existence of God with 100% certainty. So a stance that says with 100% certainty God doesn't exist (therefore God couldn't be the designer) is technically illogical from what I understand, and so ontologically that is a poor default position to take. While that sounds good for the theistic position, we can make the same argument for the existence of the invisible pink unicorn, or the invisible dragon in my garage. 

 

However the flip side is that claims require proportional evidence, and that which is without evidence may be dismissed without evidence. Theism is the claim that God exists (among other attributes about God), whereas atheism is the rejection of theism (a-theism); atheism is the null-hypothesis of the theistic hypothesis (and in science the null-hypothesis is presumed true until the hypothesis is "proved"). So atheism in the sense of disbelief until theism provides proportional evidence is a rational default position. 

 

That said, I'll agree that the atheistic stance that says with 100% certainty that onologically there cannot be a God is not a rational default position to take. This is similar to Robby's consideration between the difference of gnostic and agnostic atheism. Gnostic atheism is not a rational default position, but agnostic atheism is IMHO. 

 

I still think the bookshelf analogy only works because of our background understanding. We know that humans exists, that humans made up an alphabet and a written language, that humans write books with a long-standing history of organizing books alphabetically, and we know all of this empirically. And to be blunt, we really have no darn clue empirically whether or not the supernatural exists, let alone a "God" or even a theistic God. Empirically we have no idea how a God would operate, or how many gods there are (why not a group of gods designing our universe? - after all groups of humans come together to create things like complex computer codes), anything we come up with is pure assumption from an empirical point of view. As for the mind, empirically we've only ever witnessed minds as a product of the physical, IOW we've never seen a mind apart from the physical empirically speaking. I don't think theism is the simple explanation you make it out to be. 

 

You're still implicitly assuming there is a preexisting natural order that allows you to empirically test claims. That's the problem with this thinking. People get so used to wanting everything empirically falsifiable (or verifiable) otherwise it's not 'real' or a substantive claim all that they don't see that they are using stuff that cannot, in principle, be verified or falsified in this way, like, the validity of induction in the first place.That's where my question is at, at that level of things. I could rephrase it and get at it with something like "how is it that we are able to verify or falsifiable claims empirically in the first place?" What evidence do you want to use that you can use evidence to substantiate claims?

 

The problem is, I am asking about the order that underlies natural events that allows for us to talk meaningfully about falsifying or verifying *empirical* claims. You keep wanting to skip over  part, but it's at the heart of my consideration. You can say "i have no idea, I just assume it as brute fact", which is what you have to do, fine. But that's what I think is not clearly more rational than theism which provides a back story for why we can talk meaningfully about falsification, verification, evidence, in the first place.

[Floatingaxe]

Everyone innately knows that God exists. It is the mind of man that is separate from Him and is not in touch with his spiritual part, and is only working through his soulish part that holds fast to what his mind wants to believe, against what is innately known. Atheism is merely a denial of what is true.

[alphaparticle]

 

You're still implicitly assuming there is a preexisting natural order that allows you to empirically test claims. That's the problem with this thinking. People get so used to wanting everything empirically falsifiable (or verifiable) otherwise it's not 'real' or a substantive claim all that they don't see that they are using stuff that cannot, in principle, be verified or falsified in this way, like, the validity of induction in the first place.That's where my question is at, at that level of things. I could rephrase it and get at it with something like "how is it that we are able to verify or falsifiable claims empirically in the first place?" What evidence do you want to use that you can use evidence to substantiate claims?

 

 

The problem is, I am asking about the order that underlies natural events that allows for us to talk meaningfully about falsifying or verifying *empirical* claims. You keep wanting to skip over  part, but it's at the heart of my consideration. You can say "i have no idea, I just assume it as brute fact", which is what you have to do, fine. But that's what I think is not clearly more rational than theism which provides a back story for why we can talk meaningfully about falsification, verification, evidence, in the first place.

 

We don't have to assume nature as a brute fact, that nature exists is an observation, perhaps even tautological. I'll agree that philosophically there is nothing about reality that requires the ability to empirically test claims, or that logic works, it just seems to work and work very well. Fundamentally I don't think I can answer your question beyond "I don't know." However theism doesn't really answer any questions either, from my perspective I see a lot of special pleading with superfluous explanation that doesn't get us anywhere. Sure it is a back story, but I don't see anything of substance to the back story, it's just a nice story and not much more. That is the opposite of parsimony, and without substance to back it up such an answer is worse than an admission that we simply don't know, and we may never know. 

 

That without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. If your evidence is that the order and complexity of the universe demands a designer, without special pleading I don't know how this designer of our universe isn't ordered and complex to some degree that also demands a designer for the designer. I'll agree it is a head scratcher on how nature explains its own existence, and the previous point about God needing a designer can become a mute point as far as we are concerned when it comes to explaining the existence of nature. But in order for that to happen we must first be convinced that such a being exists, otherwise we are trading in an "I don't know" for "it must be some being that we don't know whether or not exists, that lives in a place that we don't know whether or not it exists either, and this being doesn't have to explain (or can't) its own existence nor the existence of the the underlying mechanisms that makes the supernatural realm possible" as the default position.

 

It doesn't make sense at all unless we assume a priori that such a being exists (why not multiple gods or multiple hierarchies of gods and supernatural realms), it is nothing more than faith. If people find it convincing or comforting or whatever, that's okay, but it is not a rational, objective, default position. For example, can you explain how theism explains why logic works, or why we can empirically test things, or how theism explains why there is order and complexity in nature, without shifting the fundamental questions from nature to the supernatural? 

 

I've never been running a design argument here, which is I think a big misunderstanding in our exchange. I'm turning to the fundamental consideration that you addressed in your first paragraph, and claiming that I don't think atheism has an edge over theism on the ground level, insofar as theism potentially gives us a narrative for how and why there is multiplicity of physical stuff ordered by physical laws (the precondition for gathering empirical evidence) and atheism doesn't. That sole consideration gives me pause when atheists want to claim that theirs is the de facto rational position.

This can be explored hypothetically in the following manner. If we had some reason to suspect God may exist, given the state of affairs I have been describing over and over, does atheism seem like the de facto rational position? It's not clear to me that it would be! I understand the desire to take what I'm saying as an argument for God's existence, but that is not my aim here.(how would a hierarchy of 'gods' have explanatory power over the fundamental considerations we've been talking about??)

[RobbyPants]

That said, I'll agree that the atheistic stance that says with 100% certainty that onologically there cannot be a God is not a rational default position to take. This is similar to Robby's consideration between the difference of gnostic and agnostic atheism. Gnostic atheism is not a rational default position, but agnostic atheism is IMHO.

Exactly. Any time someone says that "atheists have as much faith as Christians", they are talking about gnostic (strong) atheists. Agnostic (weak) atheism is simply withholding judgment due to a lack of evidence.

You're still implicitly assuming there is a preexisting natural order that allows you to empirically test claims. That's the problem with this thinking. People get so used to wanting everything empirically falsifiable (or verifiable) otherwise it's not 'real' or a substantive claim all that they don't see that they are using stuff that cannot, in principle, be verified or falsified in this way, like, the validity of induction in the first place.That's where my question is at, at that level of things. I could rephrase it and get at it with something like "how is it that we are able to verify or falsifiable claims empirically in the first place?" What evidence do you want to use that you can use evidence to substantiate claims?

 

The problem is, I am asking about the order that underlies natural events that allows for us to talk meaningfully about falsifying or verifying *empirical* claims. You keep wanting to skip over  part, but it's at the heart of my consideration. You can say "i have no idea, I just assume it as brute fact", which is what you have to do, fine. But that's what I think is not clearly more rational than theism which provides a back story for why we can talk meaningfully about falsification, verification, evidence, in the first place.

If I'm understanding you, it's basically a God of the Gaps argument; you're just taking it back a step or two further. So, instead of asking where the universe came from, you are asking where all of the inherent order came from, and saying that God is a better explanation than any naturalistic cause. It's not to say that you are wrong, but you are still taking something that science doesn't understand (yet?) and assuming God is the best default answer. And while I certainly can't prove it wrong, D-9 already pointed out that invisible pink unicorns are an equally valid assumption.

Everyone innately knows that God exists. It is the mind of man that is separate from Him and is not in touch with his spiritual part, and is only working through his soulish part that holds fast to what his mind wants to believe, against what is innately known. Atheism is merely a denial of what is true.

I would disagree. I do not innately know God. You are basically asserting what other people believe in order to frame it within your belief system.

[Floatingaxe]

Yes, everyone knows innately that God exists. I am not saying that every human being knows God personally, and has a relationship with Him---one needs to know Jesus Christ for salvation---but God has placed the knowledge of His existence in us. His creation attests to His existence, for man to marvel and know His presence. It is the one who insists on being rebellious, worshiping only himself, who denies God.

 

You were born with the innate knowledge that there is a God. Atheism is just a denial of that. It is futile and foolish. That is why God says TWICE:

 

Psalm 14:1 (NLT)

¹ Only fools say in their hearts,

    “There is no God.”
They are corrupt, and their actions are evil;
    not one of them does good!

 

 

Psalm 53:1 (NLT)

¹ Only fools say in their hearts,

    “There is no God.”
They are corrupt, and their actions are evil;
    not one of them does good!

[alphaparticle]

 

I've never been running a design argument here, which is I think a big misunderstanding in our exchange. I'm turning to the fundamental consideration that you addressed in your first paragraph, and claiming that I don't think atheism has an edge over theism on the ground level, insofar as theism potentially gives us a narrative for how and why there is multiplicity of physical stuff ordered by physical laws (the precondition for gathering empirical evidence) and atheism doesn't. That sole consideration gives me pause when atheists want to claim that theirs is the de facto rational position.

This can be explored hypothetically in the following manner. If we had some reason to suspect God may exist, given the state of affairs I have been describing over and over, does atheism seem like the de facto rational position? It's not clear to me that it would be! I understand the desire to take what I'm saying as an argument for God's existence, but that is not my aim here.(how would a hierarchy of 'gods' have explanatory power over the fundamental considerations we've been talking about??)

 

It is not my intention to erect a straw-man, I do see a design argument (variation of the watchmaker argument) in your posts but I'll take your word that this is a misunderstanding. 

 

While you aren't proposing a design argument, I certainly do see an argument of explanation (an explanation of ("design"...) ...), otherwise I don't see how it would compete with the stance of "I don't know" as a rational default position? If your stance is not one of an explanation, while it may be completely valid, how is it a rational default position?

 

This is my own take with my own bias as an agnostic, I think atheists view their position as the default position because a) it is not negative claims that have to be proved but positive ones, and b) atheism is the negation of theism therefore theism is the one making positive claims about existence while atheism is the default 'not true' until proven true. 

 

And I do think atheists have a valid point as analogized in Russell's Celestial Teapot. 

 

The point about a hierarchy of gods is that that makes as much sense logically as monotheism; why only Bill and not Bill and Jill? 

 

The latter? parsimony, it only takes one omni-Being to explain things.

 

As to the former, if there is an implicit argument for God in  my posts it would be a cosmological one, but I can see how my use of the term 'order' is suggestive of a design argument. But, I'm not even intending on demonstrating that theism is in fact more rational than atheism with this. My question is, why should we think that atheism is the more rational position, given that theism could have nice explanatory power over a body of facts that atheists have to accept as brute fact?  The reason I don't find the atheists tea pot analogy interesting is because the tea pot is analogous to what I'm talking about here- there is *in principle* no physical mechanism or causation that  could explain the body of facts in question.They can only be accepted as brute fact on atheism. Which, by the way, I had no  problem doing this back in my atheist days.

[alphaparticle]

 

That said, I'll agree that the atheistic stance that says with 100% certainty that onologically there cannot be a God is not a rational default position to take. This is similar to Robby's consideration between the difference of gnostic and agnostic atheism. Gnostic atheism is not a rational default position, but agnostic atheism is IMHO.

Exactly. Any time someone says that "atheists have as much faith as Christians", they are talking about gnostic (strong) atheists. Agnostic (weak) atheism is simply withholding judgment due to a lack of evidence.

You're still implicitly assuming there is a preexisting natural order that allows you to empirically test claims. That's the problem with this thinking. People get so used to wanting everything empirically falsifiable (or verifiable) otherwise it's not 'real' or a substantive claim all that they don't see that they are using stuff that cannot, in principle, be verified or falsified in this way, like, the validity of induction in the first place.That's where my question is at, at that level of things. I could rephrase it and get at it with something like "how is it that we are able to verify or falsifiable claims empirically in the first place?" What evidence do you want to use that you can use evidence to substantiate claims?

 

The problem is, I am asking about the order that underlies natural events that allows for us to talk meaningfully about falsifying or verifying *empirical* claims. You keep wanting to skip over  part, but it's at the heart of my consideration. You can say "i have no idea, I just assume it as brute fact", which is what you have to do, fine. But that's what I think is not clearly more rational than theism which provides a back story for why we can talk meaningfully about falsification, verification, evidence, in the first place.

If I'm understanding you, it's basically a God of the Gaps argument; you're just taking it back a step or two further. So, instead of asking where the universe came from, you are asking where all of the inherent order came from, and saying that God is a better explanation than any naturalistic cause. It's not to say that you are wrong, but you are still taking something that science doesn't understand (yet?) and assuming God is the best default answer. And while I certainly can't prove it wrong, D-9 already pointed out that invisible pink unicorns are an equally valid assumption.

Everyone innately knows that God exists. It is the mind of man that is separate from Him and is not in touch with his spiritual part, and is only working through his soulish part that holds fast to what his mind wants to believe, against what is innately known. Atheism is merely a denial of what is true.

I would disagree. I do not innately know God. You are basically asserting what other people believe in order to frame it within your belief system.

 

Science can't explain why science itself can in principle work. The scientific method just assumes you can do induction,, because that's what it is, a controlled, systematic application of induction to input from the world. When we do science we assumed we will find some sort of pattern, somewhere, that allows us to predict based on past events future events. Those are all things that are taken for granted, and further, used every time that science is employed in any investigation. You seem to think that we could implicitly use the stuff we are setting out to explain in explaining that stuff, and I am not sure how you don't see how that is not problematic. I also am not sure how you don't see how that is intrinsically different from what a God of the gaps argument *is*.

 

Well, how about this, what potential scientific investigation do you think could be done to explain why there is physical order, at all, such that we can use scientific reasoning to explore that very question in the first place? Perhaps increased specificity will help the dialog.

[oldzimm]

I didn't read the posts, but I will give my answer to the question.

 

No, Atheism doesn't make sense, God created man to worship something and since atheist say they don't worship anything, it just isn't true. Atheist worship themselves.

 

Oldzimm