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

[juliod]

Christians might be right about one thing, and Buddhists another.

But then they are both wrong. Let's be clear, Buddhism and Christianity are incompatible. You can't pick one claim from one and another claim from the other and think you've constructed something. That's too close to just making up your own relgion.

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?

They might, but that means as of now they are all wrong.

It would seem consistent for God to use this method to influence and direct the cosmos in the fashion God wants.

Fine. But where's this god? What properties does he have? You're trying to define certain fine details about this god before you've shown he exists. We are dealing with the fundemental principles here.

Look at this way, why is the existence of evil and inefficiencies in nature a sign that God doesn't exist?

Because, in a traditional formulation, god is described as all-powerful and all-good (omnipotent and omnibenevolent). If such a being existed anywhere in the universe it would be impossible for evil to exist, regardless of how you define evil (crime, war, disease, famine, hurricane's, etc). This is the Problem of Evil.

If you don't define god as A-P and A-G, then this argument won't refute your conception of god by itself.

But then, your conception of god is a product of your imagination. Since "product of imagination" cannot be considered a god, I think you are already in trouble.


DanZ

[ShieldAxe]

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

I agree. In my view agnosticism is unreasonable. There are countless things which are unprovable. There are countless fantasies that are unprovable. There are countless fanciful writings that are unprovable. The bible is one of these fanciful writings filled with all sorts of fantastical creatures: talking snakes, unicorns, demons, god, etc. What makes the bible any different than any other fantasy? They are all written by man. 'Lord of the Rings' proposes Elves and Orcs. Have they been proven NOT to exist? No. Are people agnostic concerning their believe in elves and dwarves? Unlikely. Are people agnostic concerning Zeus? Poseiden? The Easter Bunny? Psychics? All these are inventions of man with no physical, mathematical, or logical proof that they exist. It's irrational to take an agnostic position.

[harvey1]

But then they are both wrong. Let's be clear, Buddhism and Christianity are incompatible. You can't pick one claim from one and another claim from the other and think you've constructed something. That's too close to just making up your own relgion.

Juliod, religion evolves. As it evolves, it borrows from other religions, and unites and diversifies with sister religions along the way. Christianity is a formulation of a few different Hebrew religions as well as possible other influences. This does not show that God does not exist, quite the contrary, I think it shows that God can influence religion because the emergence of new eras are well documented in evolution from the first ultraminiseconds of the universe. These are "observed" natural processes, and order to postulate a God, we have to say that God is working on this natural level to some significant degree. My view is that God orchestrates the events that happen, especially at key intervals, and this moves the universe toward the kind of universe and kind of improved conditions that God seeks. Therefore, it is irrelevant to me what Christianity or Buddhism (etc) is right about, the important issue to me is that God is involved in the creation of religious belief, and that we ought to be assisting in that evolution by communicating with other religious beliefs. If there are transmission errors in the religious beliefs, God will correct those when it suits the divine will.

They might, but that means as of now they are all wrong.

The Hindus have a saying. If truth is something exactly stateable, then it's not the truth. Truth is beyond exact expression, hence God is revealed through approximations. I do not doubt this saying. Newton's classical physics are wrong, so is probably Einstein and Heisenberg, it's the nature of the universe to speak in approximations.

Fine. But where's this god?

God is everywhere. It is God who decides issues that are free from constraints as they become free from constraint. God acts minimally to perform the divine will, but the actions to meet the divine will are always maximally achieved.

What properties does he have?

God is the fundamental nature of reality itself. God decides the allowable paths of freedom in our world, and then allows freedom to express itself in all the ways it "wishes" to do so.

You're trying to define certain fine details about this god before you've shown he exists. We are dealing with the fundemental principles here.

Well, I'm sorry you haven't followed my many posts over the past 10 months. For me, it is inconceivable that God doesn't exist.

Because, in a traditional formulation, god is described as all-powerful and all-good (omnipotent and omnibenevolent). If such a being existed anywhere in the universe it would be impossible for evil to exist, regardless of how you define evil (crime, war, disease, famine, hurricane's, etc). This is the Problem of Evil.

I understand that. However, all of these expectations are based on the idea of God being a person. But, it seems ludicrous to think of God as a person. A person is a biological entity that evolved and took 13.7 billion years of a long causal chain of affairs to produce. Why should we expect for God to be a person? I don't get that kind of thinking at all.

If you don't define god as A-P and A-G, then this argument won't refute your conception of god by itself.

I don't know what you mean by A-P and A-G. I'm guessing you mean some abstract variables representing propositions (e.g.,. propositions A thru propositions P, and propositions A thru propositions G)? If so, then it doesn't concern me that some people think of God as a person. In many respects, I think this is a good approximation to God's nature. Unfortunately, like all good approximations they breakdown upon deeper inquiry. The personhood of God breaks down when start asking why a person would allow evil, or why a person would let nature "go it alone" and only tweaking the creation at odd times and in odd places while leaving vast "important" areas without any intervention whatsoever. This is when it is no longer opportune to talk about God as a person.

God, I believe, is an existence. God, if you wish, is the laws of physics and the mind behind those laws. That's not to say those laws aren't very similar to being a person, but a person is not some set of laws. A person is not restricted in their behavior, whereas a law is restricted. A person can make a mistake and just brush it off, whereas a law that makes a mistake is no law at all.

But then, your conception of god is a product of your imagination. Since "product of imagination" cannot be considered a god, I think you are already in trouble.

I don't think it is a product of my own imagination. I recently quoted scriptures from the New Testament that agree in this image of God. In addition, a great many comments have come along since the New Testament where writers have made a number of comments about God's nature as being equivalent to truth. I might add, other religions have also made a number of similar comments. So, I don't think is an invention, it just happens to be the core of how religion has generally conceived of God. As part of that conception, other attributes of God were developed which were approximations (e.g., personhood, father figure, etc.), but these are all derivatives from the main identity of God.

[ST88]

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.

I really don't see the need to draw any conclusions. Just by the process of trying to understand what theists are trying to say, you are tainted by them. An assertion made about something we can't perceive is, itself, irrational. So to answer the assertion with a counter-assertion is an exercise in irrational futility.

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.

There is a great deal of difference between something that has not been observed and something that has been falsified. You can't state for certain whether every single claim made in any religion is untrue. Not because the claims are patently ridiculous or beyond the scope of believability, but because the evidence is such that responding to the claim is, itself, ridiculous.

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.

You're playing the game like it's something that needs to be won. In my opinion, the only losers are the players who enter into the game.

[juliod]

Juliod, religion evolves. As it evolves, it borrows from other religions, and unites and diversifies with sister religions along the way.

Yes, I know that. But it's a point against their truth.

People are so certain about the fundsmental truth of their religions that they are willing to kill for it, and on a large scale. They are also so fixed on their version they are often willing to kill members of their own church who suggest even the smallest alteration to dogma.

If there were a basic truth behind any religion, human society and scholarship would more us progressively closer to it. Yet we see the opposite in religion. Over time more and more variations are invented.

Christianity is a formulation of a few different Hebrew religions as well as possible other influences. This does not show that God does not exist, quite the contrary, I think it shows that God can influence religion because the emergence of new eras are well documented in evolution from the first ultraminiseconds of the universe.

But christianity is a specific belief about a being called YHWH, who did specific things for specific reasons. And YHWH had specific properties. These claims can be seen as either true or false. In my view they are conclusively false.

Bringing christianity into your version of theism only imports the falsehood.

I don't know what you mean by A-P and A-G.

Those were abbreviations of "all-powerful" and "all-good", used earlier in the paragraph.

God, if you wish, is the laws of physics and the mind behind those laws.

But the "laws of physics" are conventions invented by humans to explain various facts about the univarse. We are the mind behind them. This is perhaps a point we should discuss more fully in the science forum.

DanZ

[juliod]

I really don't see the need to draw any conclusions.

That's fine. If you choose to be an agnostic by refusing to draw a conclusion, I have no problem with you.

But if you claim that it is philosophically or scientifically impossible to draw a conclusion, I would have to call that a false statement, in the context of a reasonable observer.

An assertion made about something we can't perceive is, itself, irrational.

Yes, but what are these unpercievable thing? Certainly no major religion believes in a completely hidden god. Theists are constantly invoking their gods, appealing to them for assistance, and asking them for specific actions.

There are many things we can't percieve. And being agnostic toward them is proper. But what can we say about unknown being?

The statement "There are beings in the universe unknown to humans" is almost certainly a true statement.

The statement "These beings have abilities not known on earth" is lso probably true.

But these don't add up to any sort of case for god, even in priciple. When we talk about god we are not talking about some big alien with special powers we can't imagine at the current time. We are talking (by and large) about a super-being with a personal interest in the lives of we mortals and the well-being of our nations. No explanation is available as to why this being should be hidden from us.

You can't state for certain whether every single claim made in any religion is untrue.

We don't need to test every single claim. A single important claim being false is sufficient to falsify an entire religion. And the main religions have multiple major falsifications available.

Also, as far as miracle claims, I beleive that there are no current existing claims that have not already been comprehensively falsified.

You're playing the game like it's something that needs to be won. In my opinion, the only losers are the players who enter into the game.

a) There's nothing wrong with treating it as a game. We are all here as a form of entertainment, to a greater or a lesser degree. And debating can be, and is, done as a competative event.

b) The real question is why defer judgement on the available evidence? Do you expect that the next time someone sees Mary in an imlet that this one might be the true Miracle? In my view that's unreasonable.

DanZ

[QED]

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.

I think a major problem lies within this paragraph. Let's temporarily put ourselves in the shoes of a YEC who's faith utterly convinces him that the Earth can be no more than 6000 years old. But everywhere he goes he finds popular culture talking about the Earth being millions of years old: a visit to any natural history museum could present him with a fossil exhibit with a label identifying the age of the animal as 65 million years or so. Discovery, National Geographic and other public broadcasting channels show TV programmes about geology and anthropology all with reference to an old Earth. Does any of this make him stop and think?

So, how is the atheist to be viewed when all around him are impressive cathedrals and news coverage of religious ceremonies; in court he will be handed a bible and asked to swear 'by almighty God' and his insurance company won't pay out when his garden shed is blown away 'by an act of God'. Does this make him stop and think?

Get an agreement on what constitutes "a reasonable observer" and I think everything else will fall into place.

[ST88]

An assertion made about something we can't perceive is, itself, irrational.

Yes, but what are these unpercievable thing? Certainly no major religion believes in a completely hidden god. Theists are constantly invoking their gods, appealing to them for assistance, and asking them for specific actions.

"Not completely hidden" and "perceivable" are not the same thing. The idea of a God that is "not completely hidden" is one which encourages the user to look for the handiwork of God, even while not actually seeing God.

There are many things we can't percieve. And being agnostic toward them is proper. But what can we say about unknown being?

The statement "There are beings in the universe unknown to humans" is almost certainly a true statement.

The statement "These beings have abilities not known on earth" is lso probably true.

But these don't add up to any sort of case for god, even in priciple.

Yes, this does make a case for god or multiple gods. Just the fact we can conceive of higher beings than us makes it possible.

When we talk about god we are not talking about some big alien with special powers we can't imagine at the current time. We are talking (by and large) about a super-being with a personal interest in the lives of we mortals and the well-being of our nations. No explanation is available as to why this being should be hidden from us.

And there is an explanation. Faith is the highest expression of gratitude & worship that this God can allow us to use. Why? Because a visible God would cause undesirable behaviors -- e.g., obsequiousness, open communication, and perfunctory piety. A visible God would have the same consequences on a population that a visible king has -- there would be an expectation that the Lord would address matters that certain people bring up -- certain people who do not understand the larger picture that God understands; and therefore refusal of such matters would be seen as open rebuke. This is the genius behind a hidden God. If you ask God for something in secret, there is no loss of face if it doesn't come true. You only have yourself to blame because of something in your character that doesn't allow God to answer your prayers; or else "God has other plans for you" & you need to reassess what it is you wish to ask him.

I'm sure you know that I'm not saying that there is a possibility that the God of the Bible is true. I'm quite sure that it's false. But this isn't the same thing as saying I deny your God. On a purely philosophical level, there is no need for this denial. And there are a number of traps you fall into by making such a claim.

By entering into the discussion of whether or not there is a God, you place yourself in the path of theological philosophy, in the path of rhetoric and "logic" about imperceptible beings which you must address. In the case of absolute denial, you are required to examine and deny every piece of evidence available because your denial is based on your assumption that such evidence is faulty. This means you are philosophically susceptible to claims like harvey1 makes about potentially unknowable physical phenomenae and whatever semantic laws of the universe he's talking about. You must have an answer to counter his claims in order to be a strong atheist. The second you say something like: "This particular unknown phenomenon doesn't require that we invoke a God in order to explain it" you have ceased becoming a strong atheist and have entered the realm of agnosticism.

You can't state for certain whether every single claim made in any religion is untrue.

We don't need to test every single claim. A single important claim being false is sufficient to falsify an entire religion. And the main religions have multiple major falsifications available.

This is untrue. Any religion can state quite legitimately that any particular claim being false does not affect the religion as a whole. The religion has the capacity to be "fooled" by such falsified claims and come out the other side unscathed. Catholicism survives the revelation that some priests chemically doctored statues of the Virgin Mary so that she would cry tears of blood in times of high humidity.

Also, as far as miracle claims, I beleive that there are no current existing claims that have not already been comprehensively falsified.

There are plenty of claims that cannot be falsified because they are mired in the past.

You're playing the game like it's something that needs to be won. In my opinion, the only losers are the players who enter into the game.

a) There's nothing wrong with treating it as a game. We are all here as a form of entertainment, to a greater or a lesser degree. And debating can be, and is, done as a competative event.

b) The real question is why defer judgement on the available evidence? Do you expect that the next time someone sees Mary in an imlet that this one might be the true Miracle? In my view that's unreasonable.

Sorry, I didn't mean this debate as a game (thought that's fun too), I meant the game of deciding upon the existence of God.

But I'd like to address b). Agnosticism, as I understand it, is not the deferral of judgment. It's not that I haven't made up my mind, I have. Judgment is not possible. You could have every single claim from now until the end of the Wal-Mart empire be falsified and still not be able to come to any conclusions.

Christianity suffers from the same logical positivist trap that Marxism does. It can only be proved true, it can never be proved false. If Christ doesn't appear tomorrow to announce the Apocalypse, then we must wait at least another day. Heads I win; Tails, we flip again.

[harvey1]

People are so certain about the fundsmental truth of their religions that they are willing to kill for it, and on a large scale. They are also so fixed on their version they are often willing to kill members of their own church who suggest even the smallest alteration to dogma.

What does that have to do with a strong atheist's claim that God cannot possibly exist?

If there were a basic truth behind any religion, human society and scholarship would more us progressively closer to it. Yet we see the opposite in religion. Over time more and more variations are invented.

I think that is indeed what is happening. For example, monotheism has basically superceded polytheism. Anthropomorphisms of God are becoming less popular. God and science discussions are becoming more frequent.

But christianity is a specific belief about a being called YHWH, who did specific things for specific reasons. And YHWH had specific properties. These claims can be seen as either true or false. In my view they are conclusively false.

In my view, they are conclusively true. The name YHWH represents the nature of symmetry, and I think it's only in the last century that humans have come to appreciate how fundamental the nature of symmetry is.

Bringing christianity into your version of theism only imports the falsehood.

Again, what does this have to do with a strong atheist's claim that it is not possible for any kind of God to exist?

But the "laws of physics" are conventions invented by humans to explain various facts about the univarse. We are the mind behind them. This is perhaps a point we should discuss more fully in the science forum.

This is the philosophy forum, so I think the topic is more suitable here. However, I disagree that the laws of physics are just conventions to explain various facts of the universe. As I've mentioned to QED, the new proposals in quantum gravity are all based on prescriptive laws.

In any case, please provide your arguments for the non-existence of God (versus the non-existence of the God of religion).

[juliod]

Get an agreement on what constitutes "a reasonable observer" and I think everything else will fall into place.

I don't see why this should be a problem. The use of "reasonable person" is fairly common. And I think few people would be unclear on the term. What we disagree about is who is being unreasonable.

I use that standard to avoid having to cater to the "unreasonable observer". You know, people with wildly ludicrous standards of evidence, the insane, and those theists who listen to my arguments, admit that I am right in each case, then say "Well, I still believe it."

And, as I said, I don't expect that my argument will convince many people. You can lead a theist to water, but you can't make him think!

DanZ