Hello,
Check out these web articles and tell me what you think.
http://www.str.org/free/commentaries/ap ... belief.htm
http://str.org/free/commentaries/apolog ... uvegot.htm
I would appreciate comments/refutes.
Does it take more faith to be an atheist/agnostic?
Moderator: Moderators
-
The Hungry Atheist
- Apprentice
- Posts: 124
- Joined: Fri Jul 09, 2004 6:12 pm
- Contact:
Post #2
The first article seems to merely be reiterating Pascal's Wager, for the most part, along with a bit of cosmological argument. If you'd like me to describe my thoughts on that, I will.
The second makes an interesting point. Any position needs to be justified, because it consists of a belief - even if that belief is simply that a lack of belief is a reasonable position to take. I don't make the claim "There is no God", I simply don't believe that he does exist, but even this is something that may need to be justified to be considered reasonable. I think I can justify this, personally, mainly based on the fact that, until sufficient evidence is provided for something's existence, belief in that something seems unfounded and foolish. I haven't yet seen evidence to make God's existence seem likely, so I consider my lack of belief to be reasonable. No "faith" is required here.
The second makes an interesting point. Any position needs to be justified, because it consists of a belief - even if that belief is simply that a lack of belief is a reasonable position to take. I don't make the claim "There is no God", I simply don't believe that he does exist, but even this is something that may need to be justified to be considered reasonable. I think I can justify this, personally, mainly based on the fact that, until sufficient evidence is provided for something's existence, belief in that something seems unfounded and foolish. I haven't yet seen evidence to make God's existence seem likely, so I consider my lack of belief to be reasonable. No "faith" is required here.
-
The Hungry Atheist
- Apprentice
- Posts: 124
- Joined: Fri Jul 09, 2004 6:12 pm
- Contact:
Post #4
Um, I don't think you heard me claim anything about how the universe was created, if it was at all. What exactly is it you want evidence for?
You, on the other hand, make a lot of claims about how the universe was created, which need evidential support. I haven't claimed anything yet, except that my lack of belief is invalid. You haven't done much to challenge that belief yet - the question "How did the Universe get here?" itself is not a refutation, unless you can demonstrate that my lack of an answer undermines my position.
You, on the other hand, make a lot of claims about how the universe was created, which need evidential support. I haven't claimed anything yet, except that my lack of belief is invalid. You haven't done much to challenge that belief yet - the question "How did the Universe get here?" itself is not a refutation, unless you can demonstrate that my lack of an answer undermines my position.
Post #5
I know you didn't say anything about it...
I am just wondering, because people base their beliefs on evidence/lack thereof. So, how do you think the universe came to be? If you believe in the Big Bang, how did it "bang" in the first place?
I would argue that there was no scientific reason for the Big Bang...leading to the possibility of a Deity.
I am just wondering, because people base their beliefs on evidence/lack thereof. So, how do you think the universe came to be? If you believe in the Big Bang, how did it "bang" in the first place?
I would argue that there was no scientific reason for the Big Bang...leading to the possibility of a Deity.
Re: Does it take more faith to be an atheist/agnostic?
Post #6Unbelievable Unbelief
This article seems to be making the following points:
1. There is the existence of things that we can perceive that have no material substance (morals, consciousness, etc.)
2. There are truths about these immaterial things that transcend subjectvity. (I'm saying that with a straight face.)
3. The Universe couldn't have popped out of nothing because that's not how we understand the conservation matter and energy.
4. None of these are as important as how you react to them.
5. The writer cannot understand why people would not want to choose a life full of God, because the rewards are so great and the punishments for not choosing are so terrible.
I think this article is most critical of Atheists and believers of other religions rather than agnostics, because Atheists are the ones who, in his words, are "running from God." At one point, he says "How do you prove that something comes from nothing--especially scientifically? It seems to me that the best you could do scientifically is at least be agnostic on that particular issue." Which I am.
In any case, the arguments are not exactly earth-shattering. It appears as if the writer sincerely doesn't understand why God is such a repulsive, unavailable idea for many people. Unfortunately, his bias towards the existence of God has colored his argument. Leaving aside the science, the philosophical argument is, as The Hungry Atheist points out, like Pascal's Wager, which is not an effective argument for the belief in God. The writer's assumption of a "50/50" odds situation for the existence/non-existence of God is ludicrous. There is no possible probability measurement that could sum up this kind of situation.
In short, what he's saying is that there are so many things that we can't account for scientifically, God must be true. Based on the historical evidence surrounding this "God of the Gaps" argument, it fails.
You've Got to Believe Something
I agree with the point that "belief" applies to everyone. We all do things for reasons that have to do with a particular belief-system. I think the point is not made against non-Christians, however, it is made with respect to how Christians can react more effectively to non-Christians when attacked. If told that someone does not believe in God because that belief is too much without proof, then the Christian may respond in kind (don't be afraid). I don't agree with the argument that the Christian belief-system is equal in the amount and type of faith required in order to get through the day, however. Christian faith is exclusive of evidence, but the faith I have is more relevant to the unknown in people (I have faith that the mechanic really did find that the CV boot was ripped and needs replacement; and not that he ripped it himself when he was under the car -- is there evidence for this? Shaky at best, but what can you do?).
He seems to be making the argument that everyone has absolute faith that their belief system is the right one. And that's an interesting argument. It fails because of moral relativism, but it's a good ponder.
I think the writer takes a grand leap of logic with this passage:
The argument that it is more difficult to define good and evil without invoking God is one I would make to support atheism/agnosticism. It it much easier for people to fall back on rules, on policies when confronted with a given situation, than it is to actually examine the situation from all sides in order to make judgments about it. A school's zero-tolerance policy on drugs will expel the student who comes to school with the steroid albuterol. A situational ethics perspective will realize that the student has asthma, and that albuterol could save the student's life.
He also goes too far when he says this:
But, again, he shows his bias in his concluding statement:
This article seems to be making the following points:
1. There is the existence of things that we can perceive that have no material substance (morals, consciousness, etc.)
2. There are truths about these immaterial things that transcend subjectvity. (I'm saying that with a straight face.)
3. The Universe couldn't have popped out of nothing because that's not how we understand the conservation matter and energy.
4. None of these are as important as how you react to them.
5. The writer cannot understand why people would not want to choose a life full of God, because the rewards are so great and the punishments for not choosing are so terrible.
I think this article is most critical of Atheists and believers of other religions rather than agnostics, because Atheists are the ones who, in his words, are "running from God." At one point, he says "How do you prove that something comes from nothing--especially scientifically? It seems to me that the best you could do scientifically is at least be agnostic on that particular issue." Which I am.
In any case, the arguments are not exactly earth-shattering. It appears as if the writer sincerely doesn't understand why God is such a repulsive, unavailable idea for many people. Unfortunately, his bias towards the existence of God has colored his argument. Leaving aside the science, the philosophical argument is, as The Hungry Atheist points out, like Pascal's Wager, which is not an effective argument for the belief in God. The writer's assumption of a "50/50" odds situation for the existence/non-existence of God is ludicrous. There is no possible probability measurement that could sum up this kind of situation.
In short, what he's saying is that there are so many things that we can't account for scientifically, God must be true. Based on the historical evidence surrounding this "God of the Gaps" argument, it fails.
You've Got to Believe Something
I agree with the point that "belief" applies to everyone. We all do things for reasons that have to do with a particular belief-system. I think the point is not made against non-Christians, however, it is made with respect to how Christians can react more effectively to non-Christians when attacked. If told that someone does not believe in God because that belief is too much without proof, then the Christian may respond in kind (don't be afraid). I don't agree with the argument that the Christian belief-system is equal in the amount and type of faith required in order to get through the day, however. Christian faith is exclusive of evidence, but the faith I have is more relevant to the unknown in people (I have faith that the mechanic really did find that the CV boot was ripped and needs replacement; and not that he ripped it himself when he was under the car -- is there evidence for this? Shaky at best, but what can you do?).
He seems to be making the argument that everyone has absolute faith that their belief system is the right one. And that's an interesting argument. It fails because of moral relativism, but it's a good ponder.
I think the writer takes a grand leap of logic with this passage:
This is outrageously nonsensical twaddle. To say that rejecting the idea of God is rejecting the idea that there is a good and evil standard is Christian-centric chauvanism. The existence of God is not necessary for the existence of the good/evil paradigm, only for the existence of it in terms of what the Judeo-Christian God calls it. He goes on to say that the atheist must then come up with his own source of "good," which is much more difficult to do without God. He says this sincerely, and I have to believe that he doesn't truly understand the atheist position on this.How do you solve the problem of evil by rejecting God? If you reject God, then you've got to reject the idea that there's anything called evil in the world because God is the standard for good which defines what evil is. You have to not only reject the idea of evil, you have to reject the idea that there is anything like good because no absolute standard for good or evil remains to give those words any meaning.
The argument that it is more difficult to define good and evil without invoking God is one I would make to support atheism/agnosticism. It it much easier for people to fall back on rules, on policies when confronted with a given situation, than it is to actually examine the situation from all sides in order to make judgments about it. A school's zero-tolerance policy on drugs will expel the student who comes to school with the steroid albuterol. A situational ethics perspective will realize that the student has asthma, and that albuterol could save the student's life.
He also goes too far when he says this:
None of these things are "patently absurd" to anyone with a high-school level of understanding in chemistry and physics. But this isn't even his point, and I give him credit for recognizing that no one has all the answers. I think he is saying that the argument against belief does not work because everyone has belief. I would only respond by pointing out that the various belief systems he talks about are not on equal footing with regard to how irrational they are.If a person gets God out of the equation, then he has got to say, for example, that everything comes from nothing. He's got to say that life comes from non-life. That order comes from chaos. He's got to say that natural law comes from randomness. He's got to say essentially that the effect is greater than the cause. Now all of these things are patently absurd.
But, again, he shows his bias in his concluding statement:
"Much more pressing" is the Christian-centric way of saying "you're going to Hell," which is more of a patently absurd statement than anything he says about a G/godless universe.The atheist doesn't solve problems by rejecting God. He creates a whole new set of problems, and most of them are much more pressing than the problems he thinks he's escaping.
Post #7
There is absolutely no evidence that the universe was 'created' at all.Amadeus wrote:No evidence...
What evidence do you have for how the universe was created?
There are astronomical indications that tend towards the Big Bang theory - but that refers only to the universe as we know it.
I'm quite comfortable with "I don't know" how the universe (as we know it) has come about.
I do not believe that because there is no explanation (as yet) that the default is 'goddidit'
Post #8
ST88:
Where do morals come from if not from God. You may say it is a standard of society...but how then are basic morals (ie, it is wrong to murder in cold blood) so similar around the world, even in the farthest, "uncivilized" reaches?
Where do morals come from if not from God. You may say it is a standard of society...but how then are basic morals (ie, it is wrong to murder in cold blood) so similar around the world, even in the farthest, "uncivilized" reaches?
Post #9
As an exercise, can you think of any way other than god that morals may have developed?Amadeus wrote:ST88:
Where do morals come from if not from God. You may say it is a standard of society...but how then are basic morals (ie, it is wrong to murder in cold blood) so similar around the world, even in the farthest, "uncivilized" reaches?
Post #10
"Murder" is a legal term of art that ascribes certain mental states and situations in which killing would happen. These definitions are different across cultures and eras. Murder has not had the same definitions throughout history across all cultures, which it would need to have in order for there to be a Universal Moral Law.Amadeus wrote:Where do morals come from if not from God. You may say it is a standard of society...but how then are basic morals (ie, it is wrong to murder in cold blood) so similar around the world, even in the farthest, "uncivilized" reaches?
In Medieval times, it was not uncommon to torture people to death for menial crimes. Even as late as the 19th century, dueling was considered a noble pursuit. Human sacrifice was common in many cultures; cannibalism in some; rape in others. I would argue that it wasn't until the secularization of government during the Enlightenment that laws were produced dealing with human conduct that Institutionalized cruelty effectively stopped in the Western world.
I extrapolate from the ideas of human grief, conscience, guilt, and other emotions based on memory, that it would be part of the human condition to value life enough to make rules against stopping someone else's from continuing. However, it is also part of the human condition to get our traditions and religious rites from our parents and peers, thus the need for rationalizations of such religiously motivated killings towards some kind of religious or cultural ideal.
So Morality, then, is a combination of social pragmatism and human instinct, filtered through a consciousness that can retain many historical and conflicting ideals about behavior. Balance this against the innate desire to believe in something greater than oneself, and the co-dependent desire to please that something, often by any means necessary.
I would argue that Christianity is to be commended for trying to coalesce all different kinds of personal behavior towards others into a cohesive philosophy of "be kind." For the most part, it teaches people to go against their nature in order to make the world a better place, which is great if we all want to live in this society together. If this were all Christianity was, it would be acceptable. Unfortunately, it also condones punishments for "soul crimes" in which the purity of one's spirit is more important than maintaining civil society. This version of Morality comes with unnecessary and undesirable strings attached, and somehow the message got corrupted so that the strings are more important than the Morality.
