Atheism: The default option?

One of the more common "arguments" (a terrm I use loosely for this article) is the notion that atheism is the default option.  Or put in another way, that atheists state that the correct default assumption is to state that God does not exist until proven otherwise.

There are actually quite a few problems with this "argument" however.  The first is the assumption that there are only two positions to take on the God existence question.  That the question of God's existence is either true or false.  There is actually a third, that of the unknown.  It is possible for a person to not know either way if God exists or not.  We call these people agnostics.

The atheist would object that for all functional purposes an agnostic and an atheist are interchangeable.  This is true at the functional level.  But it is not true at the proposition level.  An agnostic does not say that God does not exist.  An agnostic states that he doesn't know if God exists or not.  An atheist asserts that God does not exist.  An atheist is not netural on the question.

A theist points out that the atheist has no standing either on the question.  But at this point the atheist employs a sleight of hand.  The statement is that since it is impossible to prove a negative (i.e. God does not exist) it is only proper to assume that God does not exist and prove that He does.  This is absurd for two reasons. 

The first is that as pointed out above we are not locked in by two positions.  The "default" is the stance that we cannot conclude one way or another.  Thus the assumption should be that we dont' know if God exists or not.

The second problem is that if it is impossible from the evidentiary standpoint to prove a negative, then there can be no such thing as a rational atheist.  It is not possible to prove the non-existence of God by the rules set forth by the atheist.  The only thing one can conclude in the negative is that we do not know if God exists or not.  There is no way to assert that God does not exist if evidentiary arguments are what is required.

What the atheist in this case is claiming is "I cannot prove God does not exist.  Thus I will simply assume I'm right and force the theist to do the heavy intellectual lifting."  It is ultimately an argument in bad faith.  The atheist assumes something he cannot possible know by his own framework.  It is an intellectually lazy position to take, and one that reason cannot argue against because if taken on its own terms reason was not how it was arrived at.

The theist should rightly point out that this position is absurd and force the atheist to concede or argue against three things:

1. That under this framework there is no way to prove God does not exist.
2. That the atheist position as the default has nothing to support it.
3. That evidentiary arguments are not necessary (indeed that they are not even appropriate) for determining the existence of God.   

  

Critical thought and truth

It is a staple of current popular thought that critical thinking is the most important skill a person can have. A person who cannot doubt and deconstruct ideas is not intelligent, but little more than a gullible moron.

Critical thought is indeed important to the thought process of evaluating truth. It treats all ideas, old and new alike as propositions that need to be tested. In doing so it attempts to separate fact from fiction by subjecting ideas to cross examination.

But critical thought is simply a tool. It allows us to look at ideas and test their consistency. It asks if a proposition is valid and can withstand the scrutiny of reason.

Critical thought however has limits to what it can discover. It can demonstrate ideas are valid. That is, that ideas are logically consistent. But the truth of an idea, the proposition that an idea possesses the quality of being true, is beyond the ability of critical thinking.

Critical thought at it's heart doubts all propositions. It subjects each and every proposal to the notion that an idea is false. It cannot, by process, prove something is true. It is not equipped for the task.

Religious ideas, like philosophical ones, are either true or they are not. Critical thinking can reveal inconsistencies in religious tenants, just like philosophical principles. As such critical thinking can help us with the evaluation of religious ideas by showing that if they are not valid, then they cannot be true.

But critical thinking cannot prove something to be true. It can only show that ideas are valid. In order to find truth, at som point the thinker must choose to believe. The transition from "possible truth" to actual truth requires an act of will.

That is what faith is at the intellectual level. The holding of valid ideas to be true. It is an act of will as much as reason. We can test our faith to reason, but we will not be able to believe by doubting. It is the wrong tool for the job.

- Posted using BlogPress from my iPad

Edward Fesser points out...

just how bad the New Atheist movement is at attacking the classical theist viewpoint.

Why atheists are unconvincing

I typically do not post with raw emotion as I try to be measured in my writing. It is rare to find blogs that have a measure of calm in a sea of raw words and emotions. I feel it is my obligation of sorts to create that calm space in my own little corner of the Internet.

With that in mind I rather recently stumbled upon the so-called Friendly Atheist blogger. I assume that the title is supposed to be tongue in cheek as I found the blogger to be anything but hostile to religious folks.

Recently he posted a video by a young woman about why she thinks Christians do not find lose their faith after arguing with her. She states five reasons why she thinks this is, and the result is less than complimentary to Christians.

Rather than reply in kind I will list my five reasons why atheist arguments do not convince me. I hope that this will further discussion on the matter but sincerely doubt it.

1. Modern atheist arguments suck -- Now mind you the old guard of atheists do not fall into this category. But far too often the modern atheist when arguing philosophy not only demonstrates ignorance and bad argumentation but seem proud of it.

2. Modern atheists do not understand the terms they are using -- from misunderstanding the definition of objective morality to necessary existence atheists time and again seem to demonstrate a complete and utter lack of understanding about fundamental terms.

3. The only true Christian is the evangelical -- I have dire news for the atheist who thinks religion is about to die. The world is full of Christians and Catholics. Our reach is beyond the Americas. We are exploding in Africa and Asia. And most of the world's Christians are Catholic/Orthodox who look at arguments against biblical literalism regarding Genesis and shrug their shoulders.

4. Atheists don't seem interested in the truth -- Point out to an atheist that the Catholic Church has never taught a literal apple of knowledge or even a literal garden of Eden and watch the sparks fly. Accusations of "liar" and "scum" often indicate only a desire to eliminate religion, not a desire for the truth.

4.5. -- Modern atheist arguments do indeed suck.

5. Modern atheists are more often than not colossal jerks -- As St. Paul teaches that if I have truth but not love then I am an empty noise in the wind, Atheists do not feel the need to be charitable to their opponents having convinced themselves of their own intellectual superiority. Thus the self centered nature of atheists posturing their moral and intellectual superiority does not make a Christian, whose call in life is to be charitable and love others, all that convinced that snubbing those who disagree with them to be a moral improvement.

I hope this clears up any misunderstanding about why I think atheist arguments are unpersuasive. Hopefully this will lead to atheists to understand that a tactical change is in order.


- Posted using BlogPress from my iPad

An atheist movie

A conversation on Facebook (of which I'm having quite a few lately) I commented that a new movie with an atheist 'hero'. My comment stated that movies that are sympathetic to the atheist viewpoint are common and none too subtle. When provided with a list it was criticized that most on the list either involve things such as science fiction, fantasy, or otherwise fictitious elements that attempt to distinguish the world of the movie from "real life."

Now I could make some obvious jokes about the relationship between atheism and fantasy. Instead I was puzzled by how high the bar had been set. If the movie in my previous blog post is 'unusually' sympathetic to the atheist viewpoint what would it take to make a truly atheist movie?

I imagine an opening scene with our hero waking up to the sunrise. Our hero engages in a soliloquy about how the sun activates the pleasure centers in his brain. The woman in his bed is the wife of another man. This is good as the husband (an antiquated concept) is a Christian fundamentalist preacher. When he isn't molesting children or beating his wife he preaches about sin and hell. She wakes and realizes she must return home:


Now our hero struggles are internal. He is tempted at times to convert to Christianity. From 'Holy'wood to public television broadcasting our hero is constantly bombarded with Christianist propaganda. His workplace routinely holds morning prayer and is constantly passed over for promotion because of his "outsider" views.

But nevertheless our hero remains resolute to his commitment to nothing. He knows that the truth is that there is no source and summit of life. He is committed to rescuing those such as the woman he sleeps with to freeing them from the chains of purpose and eternal salvation. With a firm purpose he resolves to rescue the world and the only true maxim:

Nothing is true. Everything is permitted.

It is a stirring tale of struggle and finding the strength to live out one's meaningless life. A tale of courage in the face of relentless oppression of a God of Love. It closes with our hero freeing the woman he sleeps with from the oppressive regime of religion to live out the rest of their life before being buried in the cold ground to rot.

It is highly doubtful that such a script will make it past the clergy that run most major movie studios. It is a shame, because nothing stirs the inner chemical reactions of the brain like the visual effects projected on a screen about the meaninglessness of life.

The "Aha" moment

A common occurrence in arguments with atheists is discussing the notion of "proof." One of the common arguments that atheists assert is that "there is no proof" that God exists. While some of the more thoughtful atheists realize that their current assumptions do not allow for such proof to exist, there is another difficulty with this argument. That there is such a thing as a proof or argument that on its own is decisive.

To take an example that material atheists should be familiar with, consider how science establishes a "law." Now a scientific law, at least in the traditional understanding, is a proposition that is consistent across all physical data available that is relevant to the proposition. That is, that each and every experiment performed in relation to the law is consistent with the law. There is no data that contradicts it.

While some may argue with my definition (and they are welcome to) the core concept in the definition is the notion of a multitude of data to confirm the theory, and thus establish a law. Scientists do not perform one experiment and that is the final word. Such experiments are repeated to generate data that is consistent. After such theory is postulated, others will verify, confirming or contesting the data.

The point of this discussion is that in science it is the case that vast amounts of data are accumulated in order to establish a proposed law or truth about the physical world. While one may point to a particular person as the discovery point, vast amounts of data are used to confirm the theory.

All those who believe in Divine Providence, almost to a man, would argue the same (and often do) regarding their own beliefs. That their lives are a testimony to the notion that there is a Divine Will acting in their lives. Much like scientific inquiry, those who believe often do so because they have accumulated data to confirm to themselves that there is a thing called "God."

In my own life for example I see the hand of God in my life. Reflecting on where I have come from I can see work in my life leading me to the concept of God. Some are more significant than others, but all have a story to tell and a conclusion to reach.

But the main point is that neither in faith nor in science do we radically alter our beliefs and assumptions based on a single idea, argument, or event. St. Paul was already a devoted servant of God before God threw him off the horse. He simply needed correction. Indeed I would be very afraid of a person who's entire worldview revolved around a single experience. This to me is why God works slowly, to give us time to adjust and understand.

Thus for those who are asked what proof one should provide for one's faith remember that it took a lifetime to accumulate. And that if the one asking is looking for a single decisive argument he is looking for a phantom that doesn't exist in his own view. And if it does, it is most probably wrong.

Atheism is morally superior

For those who study the New Atheist movement I often find the following claims presented by such:

1. Religion poisons everything.
2. Atheists can be just as good as religious people.

While I contend the first premise I'm more than happy to acknowledge the second. There are plenty of wonderful people who for one reason or another do not believe in God, the Christian definition or otherwise.

There is a disturbing trend though to attempt to have it both ways among among the New Atheists. One the one hand we are told that atheists can be just as good as their religious counterparts. On the other hand we are told that 'traditional religious based morality' is outdated. The New Atheists typically set up a new set of rules for morality.

For example, there is a new movie out in select theaters where an atheist is the hero of the story. The synopsis basically is that the hero atheist has a love affair with a Christian wife, whose husband then, in a battle of wills, encourages the hero to commit suicide.

My first thought on the film was that it should be no wonder why those of religious belief find atheism to be morally subversive to say the least. To the movie creators the adulterer who seduces the wife of another man is assigned the role of 'hero.' This is enough for those who hold themselves to a moral higher standard to put their teeth on edge and rightly point out that this is simply subversive. It is easy to be 'moral' if morality is whatever one wants.

To me this is essentially to change the rules of the game. If I were to redefine morality to whatever I want and thus be able to redefine my 'vices' as 'virtues' then I would be the most moral person I know. No one else could match my moral stature, because it was crafted entirely for my benefit.

It is important then to realize that New Atheist claims to the moral high ground are rooted not in any sense of morality as understood by the traditional term. Redefine the term enough and Adolf Hitler can be the epitome of 'moral virtue.' Given where such high ground is located I'm perfectly content to let others occupy that swamp.

The Claim that cannot be disproved

I typically have problems with claims that cannot be disproven. Claims that no amout of evidence, logic, etc can disprove. Take the latest hysteria: global warming/climate change/climate disruption, whatever you wish to call it. While I am not qualified to ascertain if pollution has the catastrophic effects as claimed by gw/cc/cd theory, I remain quite skeptical about a number of claims that are made. This is not to say that I think we should continue to pump out noxious and potentally (actual) harmful pollutants. I can't imagine that I'd want to drink some of such pollutants, so I can't imagine that the plants and wildlife enjoy it either. But what particularly bothers me is the "temperature" evidence that supposedly proves this phenomenon that the Earth's temperature will rise to catastrophic levels. Again, not that it couldn't happen. But when defenders claim that rising temperatures prove the theory as well as lowering temperatures prove the theory, one beings to wonder what we would see if the theory wasn't true. I doubt that this idea has occurred to those who wish to warn us. All temeratures prove the theory, nothing can disprove it. It is perhaps that I misunderstand the presentation, but nonetheless I have yet to see a presentation on what would in fact disprove the theory. I think it is always a healthy exercise to to engage in thought experiments regarding our assumptions about life, the universe and everything. In particular, if one can come up with a way to disprove one's assumptions via logic, evidence, etc. I think this is helpful simply because if you assume something and have no way of disproving it, your mind is now trapped. You are stuck with an assumption that can in no way be disproven, and therefore no way of knowing if what you assumed is true or not. The reason why I bring this up is this post by one of the more thoughtful atheists out on the web. I'm told she is by others who interact with her more frequently and whose opinions I trust more or less, so I will simply defer the question. And again I do not wish to pick on her as I find this thinking among intellectuals and atheists quite often. During a conversation with her boyfriend, she asked him the following:

During one discussion, I pressed him to name something that could serve as a disproof of Catholicism. He named the historicity of Jesus as messiah. If convincing historical evidence emerged that Jesus had never lived or that the Resurrection was a scam, he would be forced to give up his faith.

All well and good. The next part however concerned me:

Then he turned the question on me. What would I accept as proof of Christianity?And I paused. And came up with bupkis.I can imagine evidence that would convince me to believe in the supernatural or, that at the very least, human understanding of the laws of nature was deeply flawed, but that's a long way from being able to believe in a personal God who loves me. I've given it some more thought since then, but, for the most part, I'm still at a loss.

This to me is the problem. The boyfriend complied with the request, and provided an example that would undercut one of the core principals of the Christian Faith. When the question was posed to her she not only could not provide a concrete answer, nothing could actually prove her wrong. God could appear in a full blown song and dance number singing "I Am Who Am, Baby" and that would still not be sufficient. Granted it took Saul to be thrown off his horse and stuck blind to come around, but even this would not sway our atheist interlocutor. A theory that cannot be disproved (in this case the non-existence of God) is usually an indication that your assumptions have backed you into a particularly nasty corner. Far from an unassailable positon a theory that cannot be disproved is a prison, an idea that poisons the mind from being able to correct itself. Rather than freeing the mind it is now trapped in an idea that cannot be dismissed. I would encourage the author of the blog to reevaluate the assumptions that lead to this position. When you come to a dead end in the road, the only route to progress is to turn around and figure out where you made the wrong turn.

A burning question for athiests...

how big of a jerk should we be? (H/T Mark Shea)

Because you know, people usually convert when insulted and scorned enough.

Dumb Things?

A saw on my Facebook newsreel an article posted by a friend from Newsweek. This had the caption in the status: "This is why America is in trouble." I found a number of these "dumb" beliefs curious. I think that Newsweek does indeed show why America is in trouble, but not for the reasons they stipulate (more on that in a minute).

The first one that requires a second look is that only 39% "believe" in evolution. I find this curious as to what is meant by "evolution". If by "evolution" one means the creation of larger and more complex organisms via mutation over eons, then we might be able to discuss this. However I have found far too often that those who promote the theory of evolution wrap the theory in the dogma of "natural selection." The idea that this process is purely random and has no "guiding force" or other influence beyond purely physical influences is a metaphysical claim, not a scientific one. It is as much a belief as the belief in God. That a number of scientists often confuse the two is the cause of much confusion when answering the question.

Another of these I found curious is the matter of President Obama's religious viewpoint. That Newsweek identifies Obama as a Christian is a debate in and of itself. However I am curious if Newsweek considers one of the various strains of Muslim thought to be dumb. According to some teachers of Islam, there is no such thing as "conversion." Once a Muslim, always a Muslim. I wonder if Newsweek considers such doctrine of the Muslim world to be "dumb."

Coming back to the idea of why America is in trouble I find the tendency to label the ideas of others as "dumb." Certainly we can disagree with another's opinion to the point where we wonder how one would believe an idea. However, as pointed out the ideas mentioned as "dumb" in the article might not be considered dumb if we took the time to learn a little more of the other half of the country. This unwillingness to learn is what threatens the country far more than any particular belief. That Newsweek only perpetuates the problem is what is "Dumb."

Atheism and the abuse of the scientific method

A curious phenomenon I've noticed when seeing athiest arguments against the existence of God. Specifically one would hear the phrase "There is no evidence for the existence of God." The Chrisitian apologist would then go on to offer events such as miracles and such, and go on back and forth and such.



The problem I've always had with this is that both sides engage in an abuse of the scientific method. In order to see the problem let's review the scientific method.



1. A hypothesis is formed concerning a property of the universe.

2. An experiment is constructed based on the hypothesis to test said hypothesis.

3. A result is expected. If the experiment's results match the expected result, the hypothesis is proven.

4. The experiment is performed.



To illustrate by way of example, consider the following:



1. I propose a force exists, called "grabity", that pulls everything down toward the ground.

2. To test such a theory I will hold a ball above the ground. I will then remove my hand from beetween the ball and the ground.

3. If my theory is correct, the ball will "fall" toward the ground.

4. I drop the ball, and sure enough, the ball "falls" to the ground.



The problem with the dialogue mentioned in the first paragraph is that steps 2 and 3 are never really defined. When asked "What are you looking for" when it comes to evidence this is often accused as being a dodge. It is not. It is simply the correct progression of establishing a scientific test for the existence of God.

I think at some level there is a recognition that the scientific method is the wrong tool for the job. A process to test for the properties of the physical universe being used to determine the existence of an immaterial being is like using a metal detector to find your socks. And at some level I think the atheists recognize this but fail to come to grips with it.