What are the strongest arguments for atheism?

[harvey1]

You know, come to think of it. I haven't seen any arguments that support the atheist claim that God doesn't exist. Why is that? So, let's turn the tables for a second, and ask, what are the strongest arguments in support of atheism?

Btw, don't bother answering if you either don't have an argument or don't feel that you are required to support your philosophical position.

[spetey]

Hi again! I'm "home" for Memorial Day weekend and so am indulging in some extra posts...

For example, quarks are not really observable, but their presence has kickability that particle scientists can monitor statistically, and that's how we know there are quarks. There are experimental means to directly observe their phenomena and that's why particles such as quarks are part of science. Similarly, natural selection is not beyond "direct" observability in that natural selective schemes have predictable results, and those predictions is what makes natural selection a science versus a philosophy of science. Metaphysical structures (or supranatural structures), on the other hand, cannot be directly observed since experiments and observations cannot eliminate other possibilities. I realize it's a confusing phrase as you pointed out, so I won't use it anymore.

Probably for the best. From what I understand in traditional philosophy of science, quarks and superstrings and such are not considered close to "directly observable". They are theoretical entities that we infer in order to explain what's observed. (Surely the observation/theory line is complicated, though.) If the "supranatural structures" needed for pantheism are not even inferrable from the observables in this way, then it's not clear what reason we have to believe in them--especially if, say, one were so totally opposed to the a priori as you claim to be, Harvey.

So good to throw out "directly observable" as a way to define "supranatural structure". But then I think it's fair to ask for some other way to recognize supranatural structures. And I would still like to hear why their existence means that a god exists.

I would say that language and self-awareness is a key attribute of real intelligence.

I disagree here--I think dogs have real intelligence even without language. I think language and self-awareness are the line for personhood. But I agree with you here:

Just as an example, if we came upon a garden on Mars where the plants flower buds tracked the sun as it moved through the Martian sky, few astrobiologists would make the claim that intelligent life has been found on Mars.

Yes, good point, I forget that I use "intelligence" somewhat idiosyncratically in cases like this, and include plants. I forget most people would not ordinarily include plants. But if you could show that the universe has the "intent" of a plant then that would go some way toward pantheism. (Though I would still wonder why something only as smart as a plant is a god.) So, first things first: why think the universe has the intent of a plant? Once that is established we can discuss why we should consider that a god, rather than just another plant-like thing that's much much bigger.

However, if we are looking for all-inclusive unity in the universe that doesn't imply formal unity, then the organizing principles of complex systems certainly provides a strong argument that the atheist must at least be agnostic about a pantheists belief system.

I believe the universe is extraordinarily complex, and that complex systems theory may teach us many things about the universe. Why does that mean I'm a pantheist?

Look, earlier it seemed you were saying everyone should be at least a pantheist because the universe is so simple (has such Unity). Now you are saying it's because the universe is so complex. It seems that no matter what one believes about the universe, it counts as pantheism to you.

If the universe has intention to move toward complexity based on a universality hypothesis (see the article I cited here), and right away that takes on strong pantheist overtones.

Okay, if the universe has intention to get more complex, that (as I have said many times) would go some way toward establishing pantheism. And again I want to know: why think the universe has intent to get complex?

Note again you simply state that there is a sharing of information. I want to know why we should think of this as a case of information and intent. Again, why does one physical phenomenon (quantum entanglement) demonstrate intent (or information-sharing or whatever), while another (gravitational attraction) doesn't?

Entanglement is explained by an equation showing a non-local interaction between two entangled partners at a (potentially) considerable distance from each other. If one of the particles is measured, there is an intent on the behalf of the laws of the universe to keep the unmeasured particle in agreement with what was measured at a (potentially) considerable distance. Local effects, e.g., gravitational propagation, can be explained without appeal to a non-trivial intent (e.g., a rock's intent to roll down the hill).

Here again you simply state that one requires intent and the other doesn't. But, crucially, we don't need intent to explain quantum entanglement--all we need are quantum laws. You just read those laws as themselves proof of intent, while for some reason you don't read gravitational laws as proof of intent. I want to know why.

So, I think that history is on my side in this discussion. God has not been one definition throughout recorded history.

I agree that 'god' has been used many ways throughout history. Some of them, I think, are wrong. For example, 'god' was applied to cats. I don't think that means that therefore cats are gods. Instead, I think some people were mistaken to think cats are gods. I think people are similarly mistaken to think the universe as a whole must (by some kind of definition) be a god. Now, if the universe as a whole has some kind of benevolent intent, that would go some way toward establishing that it is a kind of god. Then at least it would be approximately the cat-as-god level of plausibility--cats too have benevolent intents to catch mice and stuff. At the moment I don't see how universe-as-god even has that much plausibility.


spetey

[spetey]

Incidentally, I've also finally had a chance finally to catch up some on the QED-Harvey discussion on this thread. It's very interesting. As I have suggested before, I think the fine-tuning argument is the best argument I know for the existence of a god. (That's not to say I consider it a great argument--it just gives me some pause, while the others I know just seem like non-starters.) The article I link has some good responses.

My own view sounds something like QED's. I think that as it stands right now, we simply do not have a great comprehensive explanation of why the universe is as it is. (I do think we're making progress, though.) But I think positing a god as an explanation is no better than no explanation at all.

Consider something else mysterious to our current science--say, the cause of cancer. (That is still mysterious, right?) Here is a potential "explanation" for this mystery: Cancer Fairies cause cancer! Now in one sense, these fairies would explain how people get cancer. That is, if there were Cancer Fairies, they would plausibly be the cause of cancer. But in another sense, this is no explanation at all. It's hard to say just why this is, but I think it has to do with the idea that it simply replaces one unexplained fact with another, and explanation seems to be about reducing unexplained facts.

One trick to the god explanation that Cancer Fairies don't have is that god-explainers can say "and my god is self-explanatory". But if we're willing to accept self-explanatory phenomena, then again there seems to be a tie between simply saying the creation of the universe is self-explanatory, and saying the creation is explained by a god and that god is self-explanatory. So again the god hypothesis is tied with the "it just happened" hypothesis, it seems.

I'm not saying that the creation of the universe is a brute fact--I think we should continue seeking a "genuine" explanation. Maybe brane theory and stuff will pan out. (Maybe not.) Meanwhile, positing a god typically stops the explanatory process. People happy to believe a god causes the moon to wane and wax were not interested in finding out more about why the moon wanes and waxes. Fortunately, others were doubtful of this "explanation" and so learned something about the moon through a genuine explanation.


spetey

[harvey1]

Incidentally, I've also finally had a chance finally to catch up some on the QED-Harvey discussion on this thread. It's very interesting. As I have suggested before, I think the fine-tuning argument is the best argument I know for the existence of a god. (That's not to say I consider it a great argument--it just gives me some pause, while the others I know just seem like non-starters.) The article I link has some good responses.

Spetey, I looked at that article, and it is not what I am referring to. That is what I consider the magnitude problem, and I fully concede that if there are many universes such as what inflationary theories, string theories, etc., are suggesting, then this argument for a Creator is very weak at best.

What I'm referring to is what I called a class problem (to distinguish it from this magnitude problem). I suggest you re-read my discussion with QED and take note of how I clearly distinguish between the two issues.

But if we're willing to accept self-explanatory phenomena, then again there seems to be a tie between simply saying the creation of the universe is self-explanatory, and saying the creation is explained by a god and that god is self-explanatory. So again the god hypothesis is tied with the "it just happened" hypothesis, it seems.

There is a difference which I didn't go into much. Basically, we have to start with some kind of primitive to the universe, and that if we naively accept that primitive as God, then I grant you that the big bang/inflationary universe cosmology is just as warranted. However, that's not what I express as a given. I only ask that we accept that some kind of causal-truth structure is a given. With that, I argue based on our other discussion that truth entails mind, and therefore God exists as part of any causal-truth structure. However, even if one were to construct the universe from such a causal-truth structure to the World, we still need to confront the existence of God because of the satisfaction aspect of truth would need a mind by which to satisfy the truth conditions that exist.

I'm not saying that the creation of the universe is a brute fact--I think we should continue seeking a "genuine" explanation. Maybe brane theory and stuff will pan out. (Maybe not.) Meanwhile, positing a god typically stops the explanatory process. People happy to believe a god causes the moon to wane and wax were not interested in finding out more about why the moon wanes and waxes. Fortunately, others were doubtful of this "explanation" and so learned something about the moon through a genuine explanation.

In my view God does not stop the explanatory process, rather the concept of a God gives us hope that science will continue far, far into the future and will not stop with some TOE as Hawking and others have recently suggested.

[Curious]

You know, come to think of it. I haven't seen any arguments that support the atheist claim that God doesn't exist. Why is that? So, let's turn the tables for a second, and ask, what are the strongest arguments in support of atheism?

The strongest argument for atheism is the lack of objective evidence supporting the existence of an Almighty God. Admittedly there have been several double blind experiments into the efficacy of prayer in relation to wound healing and survival rates in hospital which seem to support the idea that prayer does indeed help. This could just as easily be attributed to some unknown human faculty though so can't really be taken as strong evidence of either.
The existence of God is sought objectively by sceptics but is described by believers as purely subjective (if at all) and those who attempt to prove it objectively have wildly different standards of proof than any sceptic I have met. To try to prove the non existence of anything is impossible without omniscience which would enable you to (by the process of elimination) remove all other factors leaving yourself as the result. Due to the different criteria people set I am unsure whether or not you would qualify as God having only omniscience. As for actual directly measurable results, since God is described as immeasurable any objective evidence would seem to prove that the measured phenomenon was not God after all. If god is incomprehendable and unexplainable how would we even know if what we were looking for was the right thing. I suppose it all depends on what would qualify as God to any particular individual which again leads us back to subjectivity.

[Curious]

You know, come to think of it. I haven't seen any arguments that support the atheist claim that God doesn't exist. Why is that? So, let's turn the tables for a second, and ask, what are the strongest arguments in support of atheism?

Btw, don't bother answering if you either don't have an argument or don't feel that you are required to support your philosophical position.

The strongest argument for atheism is the lack of objective evidence supporting the existence of an Almighty God. Admittedly there have been several double blind experiments into the efficacy of prayer in relation to wound healing and survival rates in hospital which seem to support the idea that prayer does indeed help. This could just as easily be attributed to some unknown human faculty though so can't really be taken as strong evidence of either.
The existence of God is sought objectively by sceptics but is described by believers as purely subjective (if at all) and those who attempt to prove it objectively have wildly different standards of proof than any sceptic I have met. To try to prove the non existence of anything is impossible without omniscience which would enable you to (by the process of elimination) remove all other factors leaving yourself as the result. Due to the different criteria people set I am unsure whether or not you would qualify as God having only omniscience. As for actual directly measurable results, since God is described as immeasurable any objective evidence would seem to prove that the measured phenomenon was not God after all. If God is incomprehensible and unexplainable how would we even know if what we were looking for was the right thing and when we found Him would we really know what the results meant? I suppose it all depends on what would qualify as God to any particular individual which again leads us back to subjectivity.
I wonder how so many religious groups ( who describe God as incomprehensible ) can state with such certainty the attributes of the Divine. This is probably the main obstacle for both theist and atheist alike. How can one hope to learn about something that you already believe you know the answer to? If any data arises that challenges the theists preconceived ideas they tend to rebel against it or simply ignore it. The atheist on the other hand sees this as evidence of non existence rather than being perhaps the first step towards asking the right question. If there is a God then surely the first step should be to attempt to understand what you see and then perhaps the fundamental nature of things may become a little clearer. Instead of saying "This is God!" try "What is God?"

[bernee51]

I wonder how so many religious groups ( who describe God as incomprehensible ) can state with such certainty the attributes of the Divine.

An excellent and well made point. To define is to confine. That which is confined cannot be infinite. If god is 'infinite' a god defined is no god as tall.

[harvey1]

What is so unrealistic about randomness? It is a known property of the cosmos. The only reason it gets a bad press is because certain people have misunderstood it's role in the evolution of life. But you are not entirely in that camp from what I can tell, yet you still find it disdainful. Therefore I can only suspect that your objections arise because it removes the magic from things you hold dear.

Not at all. I think randomness has a prestigious role in creation. Had it not been for randomness, then I suppose that independence from the Creator and created would not be possible.

On the other hand, let's don't get ridiculous in attributing randomness to the class of the beginning state. The possibilities of what that class could have been are enormous, and the vast, vast majority of those class states produce no exploding behavior as we see in the universe. It is really like the fella who goes to Las Vegas with the vision that they don't need a career or money, they plan to win enough at Vegas to answer all their problems with just $20 in their pocket. Such people end up in trouble quick.

It is all too easy come out with this sort of statement. We always pin the label of metaphysics to those things just beyond our understanding. But we're slowly chipping away at improving on our understanding and in doing so have settled countless mysteries thus far. Even if you can demonstrate that an area exists that is off-limits to our understanding I still fail to see why this would entitle you to insert a deity above anything else.

Actually, our understanding of metaphysics is improving because we are beginning to understand the kind of metaphysical principles that the universe is operating under. For example, Renaissance thinkers were not quick to pick up on the usefulness of mathematics in natural philosophy. Kepler, however, was intrigued by the power of mathematics and said, the mathematical structure of the world was "co-eternal with the mind of God," and "geometry provided God with a model for the Creation." He said otherwise: "we shall be driven to admit that God acted arbitrarily in the universe... And this is a conclusion I will not accept on anyone's authority." (see an article title "Magic and Science in the Sixteenth and Seventh Centuries," by John Henry, pg. 592, Companion to the History of Modern Science, Routledge, 1996).

So, at first mathematical order in the world was not seen as viable for science, then Kepler et al. started to introduce mathematical order into nature, and then Darwin introduced the basis for how mathematics could be applied to biology in terms of game theory, and now we are learning about how a mathematical order can apply to just about everything in terms of complex systems.

So, from my perspective, God (i.e., metaphyical order) is becoming more and more critical to understanding nature, and as a result, we need not consider the atheist's view that nature is not operating under some all-inclusive unity aspects, since we now know that it is.

a massive clue to the conundrum. How many times have we brought up the subject of wishful thinking. I just don't see how you can deny that this is utlimately what motivates you.

Why? Simply because I seek a meaningful view of the universe that conforms to what we see in the world? Actually, I cannot understand how it is that you choose a meaningless view of the universe especially since it does not conform to what we see.

When you talk as you do here about yearning and needs I think you totally give the game away. Looking at all this logically I can conclude that humility is ultimately what separates us.

I don't think you are expressing humility. To be honest, it's just pessimism disguised as humility. I'm not a pessimist and the evidence does not force me to being pessimistic.

Some time ago I read that you agonised over arriving at your position. You strived to give as much careful consideration to all the issues you could and in the end you decided that theism was the thing for you. Are you sure that you were not being influenced by your own ego? The bible tells us that man is special and working our way back from that idea it is easy to see how the path we've been discussing can only lead to one place. There are no shortage of whacky suppositions being bandied about to support the notion that man is the "final product" of gods master plan. Just look at otsengs view of our planet being the centre of the universe despite it forcing our galaxy and everything else into a wildly eccentric orbit. Surely you must constantly tut at those who twist and turn reality in order to impose their literal interpretation of the Old Testament, the amazing events of the great flood that "sorted" the fossils into what we now mistake as a chronological order? You can see this going on all around you, and yet you do not seem to question the motives ~ to me you appear to be caught in the same vortex. I feel like I'm standing to one side watching it happen from a safe distance.

I guess I should just close my eyes and ears then, and not believe what appears obvious to me. I don't feel that I would be ingenuous to understanding the universe if I simply rejected anything that looked meaningful. On the other hand, there are facets of the universe that are hard to explain if the world is maximally meaningful, and that's where the struggle comes from. You have to accept what is logical, and that entails a Creator, but you have to try and explain how it is that what appears logical has certain discrepancies (e.g., tsunamis that kill people without any apparent concern for human life). It's a struggle, but I have to reject a Las Vegas mentality since it just is not feasible.

[QED]

I think randomness has a prestigious role in creation. Had it not been for randomness, then I suppose that independence from the Creator and created would not be possible.

If you accept the important role of randomness do you also accept that mankind is a product of contingency and not the deliberate intent of a creator?

So, from my perspective, God (i.e., metaphyical order) is becoming more and more critical to understanding nature, and as a result, we need not consider the atheist's view that nature is not operating under some all-inclusive unity aspects, since we now know that it is.

You seem to be describing an all-inclusive unity such as might be described by a Theory Of Everything as "Metaphysical". This is not how I would describe it. The laws of physics display unity through their limited degrees of freedom. I'm concerned that you are misappropriating this fact in order to claim a metaphysical order when there is none.

I guess I should just close my eyes and ears then, and not believe what appears obvious to me. I don't feel that I would be ingenuous to understanding the universe if I simply rejected anything that looked meaningful. On the other hand, there are facets of the universe that are hard to explain if the world is maximally meaningful, and that's where the struggle comes from.

Enter the random hit-man.

You have to accept what is logical, and that entails a Creator

A creator of hit-men, parasites and disease.. and of course I can go on and on but I don't want to depress anyone. Still, the facts are that things can really stink at times and according to you the buck stops at this "logical creator".

but you have to try and explain how it is that what appears logical has certain discrepancies (e.g., tsunamis that kill people without any apparent concern for human life). It's a struggle, but I have to reject a Las Vegas mentality since it just is not feasible.

Here "not feasible" sounds incredibly like "not what I want to hear". All I can say here is that I'm very glad that my take on all this can't be accused of being the result of wishful thinking. And make no mistake, I wish this Earth was a garden of Eden.

[harvey1]

If you accept the important role of randomness do you also accept that mankind is a product of contingency and not the deliberate intent of a creator?

I don't think it is an either/or proposition. God is the sower that sows the seed and allows it to sprout on its own with randomness being one of the factors. God is a gardener who, seeing fruit, clears out the weeds and nourishes the garden to bring forth a good harvest. Humanity is the harvest after millions of years of evolution. Just like there's randomness in every harvest (e.g., soil type, amount of sunlight, etc.), there's also a great deal of intentional care (e.g., irrigation, tilling, etc.).

You seem to be describing an all-inclusive unity such as might be described by a Theory Of Everything as "Metaphysical". This is not how I would describe it. The laws of physics display unity through their limited degrees of freedom. I'm concerned that you are misappropriating this fact in order to claim a metaphysical order when there is none.

I think it depends on what you mean by a TOE. If you mean a certain regularity of a material universe, then that's not what I mean. However, if you mean that the universe obeys laws that exist independently of the material universe, then I consider those laws to be metaphysical entities that exercise control over the universe. That control does limit the degree of freedom in the universe, and that's how I see God's role. God limits the degrees of freedom in our world.

A creator of hit-men, parasites and disease.. and of course I can go on and on but I don't want to depress anyone. Still, the facts are that things can really stink at times and according to you the buck stops at this "logical creator".

Yes, things can stink at times, however nobody ever promised that the road to heaven was an easy road. It is a hard and arduous journey.

Here "not feasible" sounds incredibly like "not what I want to hear". All I can say here is that I'm very glad that my take on all this can't be accused of being the result of wishful thinking. And make no mistake, I wish this Earth was a garden of Eden.

QED, you have to understand something, from my perspective it is atheists who are engaged in wishful thinking. It is absolutely silly to believe that a beginning state class that can lead to inflation happened to be the one that started everything, especially if this class must happen in a one-time event. For the life of me I can't imagine why we are having that discussion. It should be a closed issue having no more discussion since it isn't realistic. That is exactly what wishful thinking is, interpreting facts in light of what one would like to be true (i.e., that the beginning state can be of a very particular class to solve all magnitude problems). I can't understand why atheists would want something like this to be true, but that's their issues. However, ignoring the emotional reasons for wishful thinking, we have to look objectively at the situation, and it is just silly to think that the beginning state was of a class that was of that kind of sophistication. It is just like the fella who goes to Las Vegas with high hopes of delusion. It cannot happen. I understand you want to believe that, and that's fine. I respect your beliefs, but it still does not remove the reality. I'm sorry, there's a God. I'm sorry to all the atheists and however that makes them feel.

[harvey1]

The strongest argument for atheism is the lack of objective evidence supporting the existence of an Almighty God.

That would be the strongest argument for agnosticism. I want to know the strongest argument for atheist, that is, the ontological stance that the world originated from a random cause.

As for actual directly measurable results, since God is described as immeasurable any objective evidence would seem to prove that the measured phenomenon was not God after all. If God is incomprehensible and unexplainable how would we even know if what we were looking for was the right thing and when we found Him would we really know what the results meant? I suppose it all depends on what would qualify as God to any particular individual which again leads us back to subjectivity.

It sounds like you are putting forth an argument for strong agnosticism. Is that right?

I wonder how so many religious groups ( who describe God as incomprehensible ) can state with such certainty the attributes of the Divine. This is probably the main obstacle for both theist and atheist alike. How can one hope to learn about something that you already believe you know the answer to?

How can atheists hope to learn about something that they already believe they know the answer?

If any data arises that challenges the theists preconceived ideas they tend to rebel against it or simply ignore it.

What data do you have in mind?

The atheist on the other hand sees this as evidence of non existence rather than being perhaps the first step towards asking the right question. If there is a God then surely the first step should be to attempt to understand what you see and then perhaps the fundamental nature of things may become a little clearer. Instead of saying "This is God!" try "What is God?"

Well, I can't answer for anyone else, but the pantheist in my view has set the bar for a minimum qualification of what is God. As for your first step, I agree that a good description of God is the first step anyone should embark upon before saying "this is God!" However, my view is that many theists for the most part do embark on this first step. I think everyone in fact questions what kind of God do they believe in (or not believe in). That's what thinking is all about.