The Necessity of Atheism
Over at Ebon Musings there is an essay on The Necessity of Atheism where one can find a brief summary of the core justifications for atheism. It's pretty good, but it doesn't allow for any discussion. So let's discuss it here. What do you think?
26 comments:
Entertaining article to be sure, if you enjoy bald-faced assertions and conjecture. For example the author says that he/she believes in objective morality. That some things are wrong regardless of what anyone else says. Yet, the author goes on to argue that naturalism is the norm but fails to establish a good reason to believe that humans possess sufficient cognitive abilities to perceive reality. If atheism is true, why should we believe that 1)Any action on the part of one animal should be objectively wrong and 2) That one could trust the *perception of reality* of another person?
Further, the author says that religious evangelists rarely win converts by presenting evidence for their faith. How does the author know this? Who is he/she referring to when he uses the term "religous"? What is a fact as the author has used the term? Are facts what can be demonstrated by science [as the author appeals to science in the next paragraph] as a "very effective means of gaining knowledge" The author should then justify his/her use of induction to gain *knowledge*
The author then says that a *religion* [ambigious use of the term IMO] should pass any test it was subjected to, and this by way of a recourse to the facts [as of yet, still undefined] What sort of experiments would justifiy *true belief* ?
I would say that the article actually argues for the reverse.
Mr. Troll,
You said:" It is a sad day when someone is so deluded by religion that he/she can no longer remember what a "fact" is."
This would be sad, but this is not what I said at all. Consider for a moment what I actually wrote:
"What is a fact as the author has used the term?" I am pointing out the *fact* that this assertion is ambiguious without a definition of terms.
You kindly supplied your definition:
"a fact is something that can be observed in physical reality."
Which is a point that I brought up that you kindly ignored. Here is the quote:
"Yet, the author goes on to argue that naturalism is the norm but fails to establish a good reason to believe that humans possess sufficient cognitive abilities to perceive reality."
Please Mr. Troll interact with the above and *demonstrate* that humans possess sufficient cognitive abilities to perceive what you call *physical reality* based on Naturalism.
Further you said: "I feel it is a concept for which there is no evidence whatsoever to the contrary and plenty of evidence to support it,"
Well, I feel that you are wrong. How do you justify your *feeling* that there is no contrary evidence? Have you used your feelings to examine the evidence? Have you examined all of the evidence that exists? Do you even know all the *evidence*, where did the concept of evidence come from? Is there any a priori truth whatsoever?
You also made this assertion:
"Religion is also not factual, but no evidence exists to support it, and plenty of concrete evidence exists against it."
To which Religion are you referring? Are you saying that no religion has any factual truth whatsoever? Again have you examined all of the evidence? What is *concrete evidence* is this an additional appeal to empiricism?
OK, street, you are alluding to the philosophical problem of connecting my perception of the tiger on the lawn with my statement "there is a tiger on the lawn". This problem has a name, which I forget.
Are you sure you want to make a big deal of this particular philosophical problem? It seems to me that it is a problem for philosophers only. In particular it applies equally to theists and atheists. And you perceive the text of the bible and the tiger on the lawn with the same senses. So how exactly is it relevant here?
It seems to me that you are using this problem to say "Hey, I can reject empiricism. And I want to reject empiricism. So bingo!" Well knock yourself out. But be aware that the alternative is basically solipsism. If you don't believe there is really a tiger on the lawn when you see one, that's just about your only option.
Joe,
You are partially correct. I am basically pointing out that some beliefs such as other minds for instance are a priori and can fall into the category of justified true beliefs. In a nutshell the article that was touted in full of groundless assertions and makes a number of logical fallacies, for example it says "religions" do thus and so. Well this is the fallacy of hasty generalization.
Street,
A priori beliefs are necessary in a foundationalist framework, but they are of necessity never justified. This is why foundationalism sucks.
Rusty,
You said:
"No, no, I'm still not seeing anything in any of your arguments that really refutes the article linked. You might point out the odd generalization, but a great deal of what at first glance may seem like a generalization is simply a summation of arguments expanded on more fully elsewhere on that same site"
SA:
I only responded to the first page and a half. As it is filled with informal fallacies, a direct refutation of specific arguments is a waste of time at this point. However I intend to deal with this article at length on my own blog.
Rusty:
"I think you're being needlessly coy about whom the author refers to as "religious." Do you believe in a god, gods, or God? Then, maybe-- just maybe-- the author is talking about you. And if you have ever tried to convert anyone, or defended your faith-- like, say, on a hypothetical site that we'll call "Debunking Christianity," just for fun-- then there's a good chance the author may be referring to you in some sense by using the word evangelist. "
SA:
As I stated above, there is ambiguity in the way certain terms are used in the article. I am not being coy, I am pointing out the hasty generalizations made by the author.
Rusty:
"Finally-- present any evidence for your faith, and you will be the first religious evangelist to do so. So where is the problem with the author's statement?"
SA:
Gee Rusty, what sort of evidence would you accept?
Rusty:
"Are you really going there? Because I have a hunch that you would be willing to accept any definition of the word "fact", or any justification for "the use of induction to gain *knowledge*" if the article was written in support of theism."
SA:
Yes of course I am going there. Atheism can provide no rational justification for the use of induction, whereas Christian theism can and does. I see that you failed to deal with the other questions that I posited. For example is all *knowledge* a posteriori? Is anything a priori, *knowledge*? Rationally justify your belief in other minds etc. Talk about being coy, not one atheist has addressed this question.
Rusty:
"Science even provides the means for you to reject certain knowledge, and even provide a counter assertion ."
SA:
How then can you call an assertion a *fact* or *knowledge* when it is subject to change? This is precisely my point in relation to the assertions made by the author of the article mentioned here. The Scientific method is based on induction which always a formal fallacy yet the author of the article [and perhaps most atheists] believes that science is a "very effective way of gaining knowledge". As of yet you have offered no justification for the use of induction within a naturalistic worldview. Nor have you or anyone else dealt with the problem of objective morality as it relates to naturalism.
Rusty:
"If, however, you start equivocating about what someone means when they say "fact" or how they can "justify the use of induction to gain *knowledge*," then you'll probably be correctly dismissed as an unserious critic who has no real interest in discerning any objective truth, because to do so might contradict your religious beliefs."
SA:
As I pointed out above it is the atheist(s) who have refused to deal with the arguments above and equivocate terms, hence my rejoinder and request for a definition of terms.
Rusty,
We seem to be talking past one another. As Loftus said in his post the article listed on Ebon Musings provides what he calls the "core justifications" of atheism.
When I asked you what *sort* of evidence you would accept here is how you responded:
“Here is god. You can see him—I can see him, everyone can see him. When asked, everyone describes him identically, down to the finest detail. Every effect I attribute to him is verifiable as an effect directly caused by god, and there is no other possible explanation for it, and everyone sees it precisely the same way,” etc."
You are appealing here to empiricism. In other words a *belief* is only properly basic if it is shared by a set of people. I would like for you to demonstrate how sensation provides *knowledge* based on your schema, what happens to people who are color blind and/or blind? As you said above everyone would have to believe this in precisely the same way. Therefore even if you and I would agree on this [assuming your faculty of sight functions precisely in the same way as mine]how could we ever be sure that we believed precisely the same way? Furthermore could you provide me with an example of a *belief* that you hold {that one could reasonable assume that I hold as well} that can be verified using the criterion that you have established above?
As for your next statement:
"Again, the statement stands—religious evangelists don’t win many converts by presenting actual evidence. ...."
How do you know this? Are you someone who was "won" by one of these *religious evangelists* This is a very broad brush stroke and I couldn't hope to address all of the so-called religious evangelists so I must assume that you are dealing with Christian evangelists in particular. Your demand for evidence will not go unanswered. The fact that you are engaging in a rational dialogue presupposes the existence of the Christian God.
I am not certain that you understand my arguments as you caricature them in your final few paragraphs. You even assert that a priori knowledge such as the law of identity could in fact be false. This sort of scepticism would in fact cripple any worldview to the point of being self-referentially incoherent.
Street, there are big problems with your presuppositionalism.
1. If Christianity justifies all other knowledge, then, necessarily, nothing justifies Christianity.
2. The justification that it delivers is not absolute, but relative to Christianity. And because Christianity is unjustified, so is everything else.
This is not just a problem with Christianity but with foundationalism in general. You are demanding from your opponents a solid foundation. But there are none. This is not a point in your favour, because you are exercising a double standard.
Now of course there are people who do treat beliefs in induction and empiricism as foundational. They are making a similar error to you, but with a much more plausible belief.
Street,
You are appealing here to empiricism. In other words a *belief* is only properly basic if it is shared by a set of people. I would like for you to demonstrate how sensation provides *knowledge* based on your schema, what happens to people who are color blind and/or blind? As you said above everyone would have to believe this in precisely the same way. Therefore even if you and I would agree on this [assuming your faculty of sight functions precisely in the same way as mine]how could we ever be sure that we believed precisely the same way? Furthermore could you provide me with an example of a *belief* that you hold {that one could reasonable assume that I hold as well} that can be verified using the criterion that you have established above?
To quote a comedian about the same type of question, "How do we know the color blue that you see is the same color blue I see?"
Answer
"Get a box of crayons."
To really satisfy this question, the 'experiment' should be conducted via a double blind test where each participant has there own box of crayons and are unable to see the others choice. Each pick the blue crayon. I wonder if they will both match?
Joe,
There are no foundations on which propositions rest? Further you can't have it both ways. If you are a coherentist you can't demand evidence from a Theist and if you reject foundationalism then you have no ground to decry my starting point of scripture as being circular.
Closet,
Thanks for your clever analogy but you missed the point.
~SA
Street, no I'm not a coherentist.
Are you admitting that your choice of scripture as a starting point is circular?
It would seem almost to make you the coherentist!
I'll bite -
StreetApologist, please give me the same evidence you received that converted you to your religion. Surely if it was enough for you, it should be enough for me since you are clearly a very intelligent person who questions ideas, thoughts and beliefs in a logical and detailed manner.
Mattie,
Thanks for the compliment. I am not sure if you are sincere or not [one of the many drawbacks with this medium] Assuming that you are sincere I will say the evidence that "convinced" me of the truth of Christianity is that it answers life's ultimate questions. It solves the problems of philosophy; the biggest perhaps being the problem of unity and diversity. Secondly, it makes since out of life. Now John and his gang here [most of which used to be Christians] or at least the idea of Christianity used to appeal to them, would tell you that they can make sense of their lives just fine without God however consider this:
1) Atheism lacks an epistemic foundation for morality. If naturalism is true then it affords no one the right to condemn the actions of another. This is a real problem for atheists [even if they won't admit it]
2)Atheism has no answer for man's depravity. Many atheists are very moral people who are outraged by what they see going on in the world that is unjust.
3)Man has a longing for paradise, a perfect place where there is no worry, death, or despair. Why? Survival of the fittest leaves no room for this desire.
4) If atheism is true, how do we rationally justify the problem of induction? Some atheist will argue that induction is nonexistent however most philosophers (Popper et.al) would argue that induction is a real problem.
5) There are other a priori beliefs that we don't apply the same skepticism to, such as other minds etc. Why? Are these beliefs even if they are unjustified, irrational by necessity?
1) Atheism is not an ethical philosophy. Try again.
Second, self-interest underlies both my own and your own moral system -- you behave in the way that you do because [you perceive that] it brings you the highest reward. Your "carrot" is cosmic, while mine is "lowly".
2) Human beings are natural products of Nature -- genetics and their environments both being natural influences on their "depravity". What's so difficult about that?
3) This is rather incoherent as a charge against evolution. Evolutionary theory (and natural selection) does not predict that the trait of high intelligence was selected for because of every part of the "package" -- only survival value. The fact that bigger brains allow us to survive is why they were retained and we are "more fit" than "Lucy" et al...not the fact that concomitant with big brains, you have the capacity to reflect upon your own death and the quality of life.
4) I see very little relevance of God's existence, either way, to the PoI. Perhaps you can clarify?
5) Are you saying that the "bar" of skepticism is raised so high for those who reject Christianity that an equivalent rejection is "the problem of other minds"? Basically, you're asserting that Christianity is as self-evident as other minds insofar as our experiences and senses and perceptions relate. And assertions are like assholes, except more numerous per person, unfortunately.
StreetApologist
This is a relatively easy problem to reconcile. First, regarding morality:
1. The Common Sense Response: Morality was not invented when Moses received the 10 commandments. Morality existed long before Moses, in other countries, for generations before.
The Code of Hammurabi predates Moses. It contains laws against adultery, incest, false accusations, assault, etc.
C.S. Lewis compiled a list of universal moral principles in his appendix of The Abolution of Man. He quoted sources from Egyptian, Babylonian, Greek, Hindu, Native American, Australian Aboriginal, Chinese etc.
The moral principles common among these and the 10 commandments are:
Honor your mother and father
You shall not murder
You shall not commit adultery
You shall not steal
You shall not bear false witness (lie)
Even the golden rule is not unique and can be found in texts that predate Moses.
Did the Christian God define these morals for all of these cultures all over the world? Rather, were these morals defined by the societies who defined them?
The world would still have these morals if Moses never ventured up the Mount.
2. The Philosophy 101 Response: I can see you enjoy philosophy and prefer to use philosophical forms to debate your position. You seem to adhere to the idea that if God does not exist, everything is permitted, or that a thing is moral or good because God says it is moral or good. Therefor, without God, chaos would result.
However, this is not natural law. There are several theories of natural law. The main premise or idea is that morals are derived from the rational nature of human beings - no deity required. St. Thomas Aquinas recognized natural law as being seperate from divine law. Natural law theories of morality are again seperate from natural law theories of legal law. Human morality governs our actions (stealing is bad) whereas Divine Law is concerned with those requirements to ensure eternal salvation. Removing the Divine Law component does not negate the human or Natural Law component. As we've seen from the common sense response, history tells us that morality developed across all cultures and faiths independant of a deity or promise of salvation.
3. The Psychological Response: How do morals develop? Consider primitive societies where the primary goal is the acquisition of food for self preservation. A man steals another's food. That man goes hungry, perhaps sickens, perhaps dies. The man who was stolen from recognizes that action of stealing as bad. He condemns the action and works to protect his own store from future pilfering. The thief will steal from a different person, and so on. This results in the group or majority of individuals recognizing that stealing is bad, with the consequence being hunger. This is not unlike a child's moral development. Tell a child taking another child's toy is wrong. They will likely not internalize this instruction until their own toy is taken, as they are not yet capable of higher level moral reasoning.
4. The Religious Response: According to the Bible, Adam and Eve through their curiosity and quest for knowledge ate from the tree of 'knowledge of good and evil', thus becoming like gods - with a conscience. The Bible later uses this phrase refering to children who lack this 'knowledge of good and evil' - conscience - or higher level of moral reasoning when discussing the law and penalty for breaking the law. Morality began in the garden, not because of God, but independant of God.
Regarding the Answer to Man's Depravity:
I assume you are saying you find solace in knowing that sin comes from Satan. Surely this would be a comfort - you would never need to take responsibility for your own actions - 'the devil made me do it'. However, if sin is a human component and does not come from Satan, then religion does not answer it at all. Religion provides absolution of sin through the concept of Divine Forgiveness. This concept again relieves you of responsibility for your actions in the heavenly realm, but does nothing for you while you are here on earth. Should we model the absolution of sin on the basis of repentance and forgiveness? Consider the woman who kills her own children; she weeps, she says she regrets what she has done, she asks for forgiveness - do we let her go and say 'good enough for me'? Your answer to man's depravity only works if you believe there will be eternal reward for doing good and eternal punishment for doing evil. However with the forgiveness loophole, all evil acts could go unpunished by God.
Regarding the Longing for Paradise:
Man has a longing to feel secure, autonomous, and without fear. Religion can assist with the fear of an eternal death with a promise of an eternal life, but first it must instill the fear of eternal punishment. To gain your eternal life, you must give up your autonomy. This may give you a sense of security after death, but does not provide security in life. Death is a big scary thing, 'for in that sleep of death what dreams may come'. If in death, we simply return to the same state we were in before we were born, how much less frightened would we be? How much more would we appreciate this life knowing this is the only one we get? How much more determined would we be to create paradise now?
Regarding Induction:
Induction is as much a problem for relgion and Christianity as it is for atheism. You assume a conclusion which can never be verified. In fact, religion is based on inductive reasoning. Every argument must assume it's conclusion. If you think that religion is deductive, you are gravely mistaken.
Regarding A Priori:
There are other apriori beliefs that we DO apply the same skepticism to. These apriori, should they follow valid logical arguements, are then tested with empirical observation. Only then are they accepted as knowledge. The problem with God is that it can not be tested. The problem with religion is that it fails the test. One could also argue the reverse: should all apriori beliefs be accepted? How does one determine which are justified and which are not? Finally, why is it that you do not appear to apply the same level of skepticism to your God as you do to Xenu, the evil war lord of Scientology? Or to the Hindu elephant God? Or to Osiris or Mithras or any other number of deities?
Daniel,
1)Ok, let me clarify please provide ontological justification for morality in the atheistic worldview.
Mattie,
I would have preferred a more honest beginning to this discussion [over against the guise of sincere investigation]
As you have written much and my time is limited allow me to ask this:
Assuming my worldview for a moment wouldn't it make sense that morality [as you point out] has a universality to it? Theologians refer to this as the noetic effect of sin.
Second, stating a universal moral principle doesn't provide an ontological justification [or an epistemic one for that matter] for the why of morality.
streetapologist: "Ok, let me clarify please provide ontological justification for morality in the atheistic worldview."
Street, one point before I proceed. Atheism is not a "worldview." It's simply the absence of a particular kind of belief, namely god-belief. It tells us what a person does not believe, not what he does believe. Atheism as such has no onus to provide "an epistemic foundation for morality" any more than it has an onus to teach musicians how to resolve a Neapolitan sixth chord. So to conclude that "atheism is false" because it does not meet such supposed burdens completely misconstrues atheism.
Also, even if a particular atheist is not able to explain morality in terms of his non-believing worldview (whatever that worldview may be), this would not support the conclusion that a religious worldview is therefore true. That would simply be a non sequitur that any astute thinker should be able to spot a mile away.
Meanwhile, if you want some info on morality from my non-believing worldview perspective, see here:
Christianity vs. Objective Morality
Do I Borrow My Morality from the Christian Worldview?
Regards,
Dawson
Streetapologist,
Echo on what Dawson said.
I personally derive ethics from the following rational basis:
1) Humans are biologically configured to be social animals
2) Social animals can either cooperate or compete for resources
3) When humans cooperate with one another, and behave morally, they derive more benefit on the whole, and on the average, than when they compete (eg societies provide longer life expectancies, more food, better health care, than living alone in the jungle).
4) Therefore, I will behave morally in order to further my own interests, as well as those of my species
Why should I care about my own interests? That is a ridiculous question. If one doesn't, then one need not care if one is behaving morally or immorally, or rationally, etc.
Why should I care about the interests of those others of my species? See #s 1, 2, and 3.
Furthermore, have you considered the possibility that no one can give a coherent justification for moral behavior, yet that we can still choose to behave that way (it would not then be irrational, but nonrational)??
It is logically possible that moral behavior is nonrational, or even irrational. I don't agree that it is, of course, as outlined above. However, proving that no one can "account" (as you presups love to say) for morals does not mean that your own "account" makes sense.
Viz, Euthyprho Dilemma.
Oh, and streetapologist, if you're interested about induction and how my worldview "makes sense" of it, I give some pointers to apologia4JC19 in the combox of this post:
Presuppositionalism and the Argument from Ignorance
See also my comments to Paul Manata in the combox of this post:
Justifying TAG? Part 2: A Reponse to Paul Manata
Regards,
Dawson
Boy they do let anyone post around here don't they Dawson. Since Paul has now departed the scene does this leave me to defend poor old Dr. Van Til and your namesake?
Oh and Dawson,
Atheism is indeed a worldview.
SA: "Boy they do let anyone post around here don't they Dawson."
Well, I see that "they" let you in here. And for a while, "they" were letting Frank Walton in here. Haven't seen him lately though. So be careful, "they" might be clamping down.
SA: "Since Paul has now departed the scene does this leave me to defend poor old Dr. Van Til and your namesake?"
That's up to you. However, you'd have more hope trying to defend the seaworthiness of the Titanic. In other words, good luck!
SA: "Atheism is indeed a worldview."
Here SA simply advertises the fact that he's likely unteachable on these points due to stubbornness rather than solid understanding. For that matter, I wonder if he will take the time to examine the links I posted above. My guess is he won't but will continue to repeat errors that have already been corrected. I would love to be wrong on this, but sadly I don't think I will be.
Regards,
Dawson
Paul Manata is not banned from DC. He can comment as he likes. Walton is banned.
Post a Comment