A defense of Strong Atheism

[juliod]

I promised Harv a defense and apology of Strong Atheism. Here it is. Keep in mind that this is only supposed to be an outline. Each point could be the subject of several full threads. And I'll be happy to go into each one in irritating detail, but I don't want anyone jumping in with "you haven't proved anything!"

Also, the standard I am arguing for is the "reasonable observer". I do not aspire to the fiction of absolute proof. I only mean that a reasonable person would conclude that this point of view is the correct one, and that it is unreasonable to believe otherwise.

A strong atheist is a person who makes a positive claim that there is no god. In other words, that to believe in god is an unreasonable action.

In order to be a strong atheist it is necessary to conclude that there is firm evidence against the existence of all concepts of god. This is not as hard as it may appear. In reality we need only rule out a few general categories, and the specific gods of the mainstream views of the major religions.

So here are the arguments, in no particular order.

1) Major religions.

This is the easiest one, since there are well-known refutations of all the major religions. For example, the free-will/omniscience paradox which rules out any god that is claimed to have those properties. Combine these arguments with the fact that neither YHWH, nor Allah, nor any Hindu deity has ever been spotted and we have a pretty convincing case. Followers of the major religions make all sorts of claims that would be obvious if they were true. God is said to be all-powerful, but can't do anything. Prayer is said to work wonders but can't be seen to work by any means. Most importantly, god is said to have specific wills and specific purposes, but these can never be seen to operate in the real world.

Instead, the world religions change and mutate as the societies that invented them change. That's the point. Societies invent religions for specific psychological, political, or social purposes. The religions can be seen to operate in that way, and can be seen to change as the social needs change. This distinguishes the religions as they actually exist from the religions as they are described by their own doctrine. The existence of the deity is unnecessary for these functions, and in the absence of evidence it is unreasonable to believe that any of them exist.

2) Minor religions.

Minor religions that are held by only a tiny, usually marginalized, group are a special problem. It's impossible to examine all of their claims. But it's not necessary. We can take it that any being, even if it were to exist, that interests itself in only a tiny group rather than the plurality of mankind, is not qualified as a god. It's impossible for a god, in the meaning we in the west use, to be limited to such an extent.

OTOH, I am not rigid in this. If someone wants to debate the existence of any of these special beings, I am willing to look at it, providing they can tell me enough about it to allow me in principle to decide if the being exists, and if that being is a god.

Keep in mind, in this context, that most "gods" through history have been little statues worshipped by only a few hundred people at most.

3) New Age, modern mysticism, etc.

New religions can usually be ruled out simply because they are new. It's not reasonable to think that the all-powerful, all-seeing, all-wise creator of the universe, etc, with a plan, etc, has only just be discovered, and then only in Southern California. Or rather, if that is so there had better be a very very good explanation for it. But these modern faddy, trendy religions never come with good explanations, and usually disappear as soon as their leaders discover a new scam.

Again, if anyone wants to debate one of these in detail it is necessary to provide sufficient information about the actual claims in order to decide if the claims are true and if there is a god involved.

4) Newly discovered beings.

This is a general argument against any claims about a specific god-being that is not in identity with any of the traditional gods. Imagine an alien being coming to earth. Imagine also that this being has abilities usually attributed to the supernatural on earth. For example, lets say the alien can actually do telepathy. Now, if that being is actually present, and we can actually see a demonstration of the power, that being won't be a god, but just an alien (with powers). It is assured that many people would immediately begin worshipping that being as if it were a god, but a reasonable person should see that as fallacious.

In order to qualify a new being as a god there will need to be a very good explanation. And that assumes that the being is actually here to be observed in the first place. Which none are.

5) Undefined things.

People sometimes demand that we strong atheists prove that something undefined doesn't exist. The claim is "X exists". Where X is not defined. It has no properties. It's not animal, vegetable, mineral, energy, or any other thing real or imagined. It's not large nor small. It has no color and is neither visible nor invisible.

In this case, the claim "X exists" is a nonsense. It's not false. It's logically or rhetorically invalid. No response is necessary.

6) Hypothetical what-ifs.

There is no need to consider gods that are invented as philosophical exercises. At the very least, any being with a claim to be a god must have a sincere core group of followers. If a god-concept is not the focus of an actual religion I won't waste time considering it.

OTOH, if you have a pet god that you insist I discuss, you will need, as in the other cases, to provide sufficient information about it for us to decide if it exists or not, and if it is a god or not.

Conclusion

That pretty much sums it up. Tons and tons of writing could be done on each of these. I don't expect that this outline will convince any theist to become a strong atheist. But the question is, do you have good reason to believe any of these gods exist. If you don't it is a sign that you are not a Reasonable Observer.

DanZ

[harvey1]

Juliod,

Okay, let's get down to brass tax. If there were a God, let's just say there is for the sake of argument, and for the sake of argument let's say this God exhibits a will which nature tends to move toward. Now, what in your argument requires that we deny this God exists?

[juliod]

You would need to define "exhibits a will which nature tends to move toward" much more clearly. For example, that could describe gravity. Nature tends toward a gravitational low-energy state. But calling gravity a god is obviously unreasonable.

So you'll have to tell me more before I can deny your god.

DanZ

[harvey1]

You would need to define "exhibits a will which nature tends to move toward" much more clearly. For example, that could describe gravity. Nature tends toward a gravitational low-energy state. But calling gravity a god is obviously unreasonable. So you'll have to tell me more before I can deny your god.

Sure. Genesis might have it right by saying that God has a will, and the universe follows that will in a natural manner. So, for example, if it is God's will for there to be life in the universe, God might set the boundary conditions for the universe such that the universe has complete natural freedom to do whatever it naturally does, but it cannot act or behave in a manner which would put it on a path in contradiction to the boundary conditions that have been set.

[Nirvana-Eld]

O.K. One hurdle at a time.

1) Major religions.

This is the easiest one, since there are well-known refutations of all the major religions. For example, the free-will/omniscience paradox which rules out any god that is claimed to have those properties. Combine these arguments with the fact that neither YHWH, nor Allah, nor any Hindu deity has ever been spotted and we have a pretty convincing case. Followers of the major religions make all sorts of claims that would be obvious if they were true. God is said to be all-powerful, but can't do anything. Prayer is said to work wonders but can't be seen to work by any means. Most importantly, god is said to have specific wills and specific purposes, but these can never be seen to operate in the real world.

Instead, the world religions change and mutate as the societies that invented them change. That's the point. Societies invent religions for specific psychological, political, or social purposes. The religions can be seen to operate in that way, and can be seen to change as the social needs change. This distinguishes the religions as they actually exist from the religions as they are described by their own doctrine. The existence of the deity is unnecessary for these functions, and in the absence of evidence it is unreasonable to believe that any of them exist.

So if you were to accept a religion would it be a stagnant one that does not evolve with knowledge and insight? (i.e. Pope John Paul II accepting the theory of evolution.) I would appreciate concrete examples that religion changes with societal needs.

And if a supreme God were omniscient then how does that interfere with free will? Free Will as stated by the dictionary; the ability or discretion to choose; free choice. Just because he knows what will happen does not mean he will make us choose one specific option. The only argument is that he knows. If I know for certain my friend will choose a Coke over a Pepsi and I don't make him choose it then that does not interfere with his choice does it?

#2 I agree one hundred percent with this one no argument here. (I'm going to save space by not reposting the ones I agree with.)

#3 Again agreed. All these small exclusive religions are unfounded in every possible way.

#4 Doesnt make sense to me... I really don't see how aliens come into play at all. If an alien had "powers" he still wouldnt fit the "God" description. (Omniscient, Omnipresent, Omnipotent)

#5 Please clarify because you lost me here at "X exisits". Is "X" a variable or what?

6) Hypothetical what-ifs.

There is no need to consider gods that are invented as philosophical exercises. At the very least, any being with a claim to be a god must have a sincere core group of followers. If a god-concept is not the focus of an actual religion I won't waste time considering it.

OTOH, if you have a pet god that you insist I discuss, you will need, as in the other cases, to provide sufficient information about it for us to decide if it exists or not, and if it is a god or not.

Wouldn't you agree the Hypothetical what-if's are how we made many of our scientific and philosophical breakthoughs? That's what Socratic method is all about right? Questioning things?

I will give my own reasons for my beliefs later for i have run out of time in the real world.

[juliod]

So, for example, if it is God's will for there to be life in the universe, God might set the boundary conditions for the universe such that the universe has complete natural freedom to do whatever it naturally does, but it cannot act or behave in a manner which would put it on a path in contradiction to the boundary conditions that have been set.

Sure, but it still leaves us a bit short, doesn't it.

I mean, each religion could make such a vague claim for their own god, and since only one god-concept can be true, the claim does not seem, even in principle, to be able to support the existance of any particular god. The same statement could be made about impersonal "natural forces" or non-god-like "elemental spirits".

I don't see how your formulation helps, but please develop it further if you feel so inclined.

But in general you have to be careful. If you say your god is wise, intelligent, kind, powerful, etc, and that the world follows an expression of his will, I'm going to look at the current state of the world and ask "is this what god intended?" I'm afraid I would then make farting noises at you.

DanZ

[juliod]

So if you were to accept a religion would it be a stagnant one that does not evolve with knowledge and insight?

It's not a question of what I would accept, or even what I expect. It is the major religions themselves that talk about "immutable truths". One of the main functions of religion has been to provide a structure for society. One foundation of this is the claim that society has always been this way, even when it palpably has not.

I would appreciate concrete examples that religion changes with societal needs.

Well, while it is still thought that homosexuality is immoral, making cloth from mixted fibers is not.

Also, modern society depends on a system of banking and credit. The charging of interest was long thought a wicked act, but now is perfectly ordinary, if not a posative good.

Going the other way, slavery was acceptable in biblical times, but not now.

There is no shortage of examples of this, in all existing religions.

And if a supreme God were omniscient then how does that interfere with free will?

That's a question for a different thread. Do a search and I'm sure you'll find several threads discussing this well-known paradox.

#5 Please clarify because you lost me here at "X exisits". Is "X" a variable or what?

X is the undefined thing. We don't know what X is. It goes like this:

Irrationalist: Quoooble is god.

Atheist: What, or who, is Quoooble?

Irrationalist: Aha! You can't proove Quoooble doesn't exist!

Atheist: Well, what is it?

Irrationalist: You've just admitted that Quoooble might exist, therefore chrisianity is true.

Atheist: Go away.

Wouldn't you agree the Hypothetical what-if's are how we made many of our scientific and philosophical breakthoughs?

No, not really. Science, and even philosophy, is based on observation, or evidence. Purely hypothetical speculations about what might be in some remote place may be interesting or entertaining, but they don't lead to progress.

Technology itself builds up stepwise from existiing things and known scientific or technical principles.

But in this case it is mostly just a way to avoid time-wasters.

DanZ

[ST88]

A strong atheist is a person who makes a positive claim that there is no god. In other words, that to believe in god is an unreasonable action.

Point of order, here. These are two separate issues. We can state that believing in God is an unreasonable action, while maintaining that denying He exists is also an unreasonable action.

<------- Agnostic Guy

[harvey1]

I mean, each religion could make such a vague claim for their own god, and since only one god-concept can be true, the claim does not seem, even in principle, to be able to support the existance of any particular god.

Religion, though, doesn't have to fully capture the essence of God. Christians might be right about one thing, and Buddhists another. And, who's to say that these religions won't eventually evolve into a super-religion that is based on key elements of each other? If we look at the evolution from the cell, for example, I believe I heard that at one time there were competitive organisms that over the course of time came together to form cells. It seems to me that this is what will eventually happen to modern religion, and I see no reason why God would not favor that kind of evolution.

The same statement could be made about impersonal "natural forces" or non-god-like "elemental spirits".

The evolution of ideas, though, is just another extension of all the other types of evolution happening in the cosmos. It would seem consistent for God to use this method to influence and direct the cosmos in the fashion God wants.

But in general you have to be careful. If you say your god is wise, intelligent, kind, powerful, etc, and that the world follows an expression of his will, I'm going to look at the current state of the world and ask "is this what god intended?" I'm afraid I would then make farting noises at you.

If I thought of God as a person, I would certainly agree. But, I don't see God as a person. I see God as a major aspect of fundamental reality, and as a major aspect of fundamental reality God's existence implies evolution toward a certain will. My own personal view is that the world pursues a minimum path while still being consistent with that will, and therefore all things are far from perfect, over time this situation is self-correcting. In general, though, I think there are reasons for this, but even if there aren't any grand reasons for this, it still would not mean God does not exist simply because this is how reality happens to be structured.

Look at this way, why is the existence of evil and inefficiencies in nature a sign that God doesn't exist? A perfect world existing without a transition from imperfection strikes me as remote (even with a God) since how could we all be so lucky for reality to get it right in one shot? It seems that we should expect a situation like what we see. That is, reality exists because it is self-consistent, therefore self-consistent structures exist. Our world is a demonstration of self-consistency, but like a math theorem must prove that it is self-consistent. In the process of proving that it is self-consistent, there is evil. That seems likely to me.

[juliod]

We can state that believing in God is an unreasonable action, while maintaining that denying He exists is also an unreasonable action.

I was thinking just today that I only dealt with theism. I should probably post accesory threads condemning weak atheism and agnosticism.

In my view, agnosticism is merely a cop-out. An attempt to avoid having to drawn the necessary conclusion. Unreasonable doubt, I say, is not a virtue.

Religions all make claims. Many of these claims should leave copious evidence if they were true. For example, they all make supernaturalist claims about miracles, divine interventions, demons, angels, etc etc. Yet not one of these things has ever been observed. Religions make claims about prayer, healings, magical shrines, etc etc. All of these, without exception have been falsified by observation.

In my view it is unreasonable to suspend judgement on these things. The agnostic should look at the evidence, and the history of theist claims, then draw the only viable conclusion.

DanZ