Clarification of the atheist - theist argument

Philosophy Forums Religion and Spirituality
1

In an attempt to get past the is - isn’t arguments:

Atheism is a non- position. It isn’t a denial of God(s), it is simply a non-question. No atheist can deny the possibility, but clearly, lack of evidence makes any declaration of God is, speculation and/or supposition. In order for an atheist to deny God(s), there would have to be something beyond speculation. The suppositions of theism can be acknowledged, but they cannot be proven, therefore all ‘reasoning’ about is - isn’t is fallible. While theistic conjecture may be of value to some, for the atheist, it is a non-issue except as a social locus of power. Whatever personal point of view, it is the social consequences that bring friction and fractious discussion and actions.

Arguing is -isn’t is a waste of time and energy. There is no reconciliation of the diametric points of view. Rather, wouldn’t the world be better served in finding the possible compromises to live in peace with our neighbors? The world is in desperate need of on-the-ground answers to it’s many problems. Any and all solutions will demand compromise. Why not accept the differences and look to those compromises and get away from the polarizing is -isn’t arguments?

2

Hello tentative:

— Atheism is a non- position. It isn’t a denial of God(s), it is simply a non-question.
O- I think that you short change the very composition of the word. We have “theism”, preceeded by “A”, which in our language means a lack of or a straight up negation of the morpheme.

— No atheist can deny the possibility
O- Maybe an agnostic cannot, but an atheist does.

— but clearly, lack of evidence makes any declaration of God is, speculation and/or supposition. In order for an atheist to deny God(s), there would have to be something beyond speculation. The suppositions of theism can be acknowledged, but they cannot be proven, therefore all ‘reasoning’ about is - isn’t is fallible.
O- What empirical evidence can be given for God? What proof can be empirically observed? Proof is a speculation in itself. It is as if someone said: Well, I would believe in God if he came in here, appeared before my eyes and cured my cancer" Or “I would believe in God if I heard a voice from the top of the sky…” No one ever had reason for their beliefs. That is why it is called faith. Empiricism cannot help, nor experience of anything at all because no experience in itself can prove anything about what we could call God, Creator of heaven and earth. Our finite condition means that we are forever in need of faith for our beliefs. The notion of God is incomprehensible to me for not even God has reason to belief that He is God and not himself a Creation of a more powerful God.
Thus it isn’t the lack of evidence or proof, each being a sort of speculation. Atheism is the negation that anything is beyond speculation at the borders of the imagination.

— Arguing is -isn’t is a waste of time and energy. There is no reconciliation of the diametric points of view. Rather, wouldn’t the world be better served in finding the possible compromises to live in peace with our neighbors? The world is in desperate need of on-the-ground answers to it’s many problems. Any and all solutions will demand compromise. Why not accept the differences and look to those compromises and get away from the polarizing is -isn’t arguments?
O- Well, tentative, in my opinion religion is about control and that requires a dicernment between what is and what isn’t. Sure we can find compromises, but you need basic materialism for finding those and nothing else. Such a materialist philosophy will probably be one of power. Compromises still require the discernment of is and isn’t, otherwise war without end would result. Everyone accepts the basic need for peace and such but the question is there as to who is my neighbor and it is not easy to answer.
Even I don’t claim too much hope in theocracies, but between them and other political situations one finds little difference.

3

Omar,

An atheist can create a construct that denies any possibility of God, but an honest atheist understands that it is merely a construct. I know many hard agnostics, but I’ve yet to meet the atheist you describe. The limits of knowing are the limits of declaring absolutes.

The declaration of an absolute that there is no God is also speculation. We may rely on empiricism pragmatically, but speculation still exists - even for the atheist.

True, comparison contrast is part of being human, but having acknowledged that, it is a matter of looking to the compromises instead of the constant emphasis on our differences. I realize it is asking for far more than what we have been doing, but one could still ask even if refused.

Tortoise,

I have no problem with discussion that makes clear our differences. That is important if only to understand what must be compromised. But you are right in saying that we seem to be caught up in winning for “our side” instead of seeking those ways that allow us to cooperate in solving the many pressing needs of a growing world population.

4

Hello tentative:

— An atheist can create a construct that denies any possibility of God, but an honest atheist understands that it is merely a construct.
O- Then we are talking of a rightfully called “agnostic”, who is witholding his opinion on the matter because both his refutation of God or his affirmation would rest on constructions. An atheist, per se, has no such reservation or else he would not be an atheist at all.

— I know many hard agnostics, but I’ve yet to meet the atheist you describe. The limits of knowing are the limits of declaring absolutes.
O- It takes faith to reach absolutes. I have said before that it takes a god to kill a god, or that it takes as much faith to believe in the existence of God as to believe that God does not exist. But that does not mean that “theism” does not occur nor that “atheism” is impossible. Both do happen. I would say that both are imprudent.

— … it is a matter of looking to the compromises instead of the constant emphasis on our differences. I realize it is asking for far more than what we have been doing, but one could still ask even if refused.
O- Our declared differences are a matter of speculation. So are our declared compromises. Aggregation is a matter of fuzzy science, and is never exact. What is exact is that the final authority rest on irrational means which render the inprecise, exact.

5

tentative, I’m an atheist of the sort you deny. And I’m not alone. I think your appraisal is unfair, and grants things to theism that it refuses to grant atheism. If theism can make a coherent assertion that god exists, that assertion can be analysed to find internal contradictions that positively disprove it. If god is “all knowing, all powerful, and all loving”, for instance, I can deny it because that definition is logically incoherent.
Omar, you claim that “it takes as much faith to believe in the existence of God as to believe that God does not exist,” but I don’t think that’s a given. If faith in logic and in the senses is the same as faith in a complex and all-powerful god, maybe so, but by who standards are those comparable leaps of faith? The question is even more poignant considering that most theists accept logic and experience in other matters besides religion, but theism they hold above even logic.
The specifics of an argument against god are not appropriate in this meta-discussion, so I want to point out that I don’t intend to disprove god in the sketch I’ve provided. Rather, I only mean to say that such a disproof is possible for any specific god, and if Omar’s stamement that “not even God has reason to belief that He is God and not himself a Creation of a more powerful God” is accurate, a general practical disproof (i.e. that for all intents and purposes we may act as though god doesn’t exist, no matter the specific definition of god) may be possible.

6

Carleas,

You seem to be relying on the pivotal issue of coherency of logic. That’s fine as far as it goes, but logic itself is a construct, man-made, and has yet to provide complete explanatory powers without omissions and exclusions. If you choose to declare an absolute, OK by me, but whether theist or atheist, it seems a bit premature given the state of our knowledge of the universe, which is very incomplete and subject to all sorts of possibilities.

Again, how we choose to act pragmatically is simply the necessity of making sense of, but certainty seems a bit shakey from atheist or theist alike.

7

I agree. But give pragmatism its due. To say that an argument is only an effective disproof of god for rational human beings isn’t a discredit. I’m content to accept that reason and empiricism on faith, because they are our faiths de facto, regardless our ultimate conclusion. People may or may not believe in god, but people believe modus ponens (even if they don’t know it), and people duck when they see a ball coming at them.

8

Hello Carleas:

What I mean is that the one position requires some form of faith, less or more doesn’t matter, as the other. I would have to be pretty arrogant to say what is, or isn’t, both of which are quite beyond my possible experience. Perhaps there is, or perhaps there isn’t, that is as far as reason alone takes us. Anything beyond such agnosticism requires a jump by the imagination, for example that logic extends beyond our minds, and reveals the inner workings of reality, for then, with this logic, one is the same as God…takes a god to kill a god. Faith in the senses is no better, for we are fallible, and an is or isn’t, takes itself as infallible. True, piety can be complicated, but only when it tries to make it’s conception independent of the personal experience, and most often this is done by trying to translate the spiritual into a form of mathematics or logic, same as you would do to establish your own personal opinion into an independent truth surely revealed by reason just as 2+2=4. Logic, by itself, is not the decisive factor, but the rules, or weapon of choice, with which the combatants “play”.
Some theist do reject reason and logic, but you have others like Leibnitz, who proceed from reason and logic to their beliefs in God. Maybe he was not a “christian”, but he was still a theist. What no one seem to answer is this assumption that goes unexamined, that presumes that we go about our beliefs with the guidance of reason. Is reasoning unbiased by the appetites of the body? No. So why do we expect that an argument alone will convince someone of either the existance or non-existance of X? The people who approve of this are men who have appointed reason in the pedestal once reserved by God. It commands them, but stands independent of them. Another idol…
Logic, as demonstrated by Leibnitz, can be used both for or against the demonstration of existence, because reason in itself cannot settle what remains a possibility. What atheist do disprove, most often and more convincingly, in my mind, is the logical impossibility for the existence of the christian God, based on the adoption of christian premises that contradict one another and contradict experience. Never can they show the impossibility of any other god or gods, because any logical conclusion can only proceed from a set of premises, and these are conceivably enless.

You can disprove any “specific god”, but can you be certain that you have disprove all possibility of any god? Once you specify the premises, then it is just a matter of finding inconsistencies that come from such construction, but that is an argument more against the form of the logical argument than an examination of what is or isn’t. What you say is not, is not by the virtue of the argument, not by the actual knowledge of what happens to be the case. In your defense, other than from argument, reason cannot probe any deeper than this.

Now, I hope that my agnostic position is clear. It is not that I am waiting for the right argument to convince me, but that I hold arguments as ineffective in respects to faith in God. Belief in God is Faith in God, not Knowledge of God. What God “is” cannot be revealed by a logical argument. Any argument may echo predispositions, biases, etc., already in us and thus convince us, but all we do is translate into reason what formerly was our passions and instincts on the matter.
My quip about even God being unable to know what he truly “is” is a paradox trying to show how even God needs a bit of faith. How this universe depends on faith. I am not saying that God is the same as the christian conception of God, or Aristotle Prime Mover. Let that be left as plural and undecided as we find it. But what I am saying is that statements about what we are, or what anything else happens to be, rest on faith, thus even if God came to us telling us that He was God, he would be reporting on a belief Himself, a belief about what He thinks, or believes Himself to be. Not that He can know. He indeed might be the Cretor of this universe, but was He not created too? Or, to put it in cosmological language, even if there was a singularity that spawned the universe at the big bang, what spawned that singularity into being? Nothing comes from nothing, and something comes from something, so there is always an implied eternal something, uncreated, that voids pretty much the need of even the distinction of created/uncreated. More than this I cannot say…

9

Carleas and omar,

It sounds like we’re saying the same thing, just using different words. For simplicity’s sake, it is like saying, “There is a possibility I might win the lottery, but in the meantime, I’m going to have to make do with what I have in front of me.” The pragmatic necessities trump possibilities, and how each person comes to faith in whatever is no different than assigning the probability of winning the lottery. The theist sees better odds than does the agnostic or atheist.

If I’m not wrong, this leads us away from the endless is-isn’t blather and allows us to focus on the “How shall we live?” issues. It is here that there is room for compromise and cooperation. It is here that there is potential of meaningful discussion that one can act upon. It isn’t about winning, it is about what has to be done to accomodate our neighbors?

In this period of extremism, we need to move away from polarization and begin replacing diatribe with discussion. If we don’t, it becomes a world of who has the biggest guns.

10

(This post will be somewhat disjointed, I have a few points related to this discussion that I can’t seem to put together fluidly)

-Omar, if I tell you I have a unicorn in my pocket, would it really be “pretty arrogant to say what is, or isn’t, both of which are quite beyond [your] possible experience”? Such a statement is absurd, and yet you have as little experience of the content of my pocket as you do of the existence of god. What’s the difference?

-For all intents and purposes, agnosticism is (hard) atheism. I mentioned earlier a “practical disproof”, meaning “that for all intents and purposes we may act as though god doesn’t exist, no matter the specific definition of god,” and in the same sense, agnosticism is practical atheism: agnostics act as though there is no god. They may enshrine the rhetorical statement that we can never know, but how can one act as though one doesn’t know? Worship all gods and meet all their demands?

-The definition of the word god, as a general term, enables a general disproof of god. There are minimal characteristics a thing must have, and if those characteristics are incoherent, not thing can logically exist that can be called god. For instance, disembodied personhood may be incoherent, in which case anything that qualifies as a disembodied person (anthing godlike that we would refer to as “He”) couldn’t exist. When you say that a god could exist, you mean something, and there’s no a priori reason that that meaning cannot be found self-contradictory.

-Tentative, if we are at a place where a wildly abstract discussion such as the theism-atheism debate cannot be held without degenerating into bloodshed, then what is the hope for “meaningful discussion that one can act upon”? Compromise involves the ability to accept and respect that, at the most fundamental level, people disagree, and that that does not mean that they must be bitter enemies. Some of the thinkers I look up to most on this board are firm believers in some sort of god, but that wasn’t true even a couple years ago. There is something to be gained from these “polarizing” arguments. If compromise isn’t possible while they persist, compromise isn’t possible.

11

I don’t agree with that at all.

Just because someone is agnostic doesn’t mean they act like there is no god. Aldous Huxley(whose grand father invented the term agnostic) said he saw no contridiction between mysticism and the strongest agnosticism. There is no reason to live a life as if one knows the true nature of reality, because we don’t.

One acts as though he does not know by experiencing the world without an a priori assumption as to its nature.

An agnostic person claims to have no knowledge of the devine but that does not mean he cannot seek the devine.

Atheism is a rejection of all spiritual matters.

Atheists are just as bad as theists. Both assume something without any evidence. A “Practical disproof” ha! Thats just awful logic.

Personally I’m a Taoist in the sense that I’m not a dualist. I think the word ‘agnostic’ carries with it some kind of dualist connotations as it comes directly from western thought. By this I mean that it kind of implies that there is a difference between nature and the devine.

I believe that there is just “reality”, call it what you like but its important to realise any name or description you give “reality” carries some connotations as to what “reality” is.

I think it is quite clear to see that there is a limit to how well we can describe this “reality”. This is what science attempts to do. I myself am I scientist and I believe totally in the scientific method; but I understand that science can only ever give us a description of reality and the description will never be complete.

This does not mean that we cannot experience these things we cannot describe. But we should remain skeptical to any conclusions that are drawn from an individuals experience.

12

Carleas,

I have no problem with making our ‘positions’ clear. Part of compromise and cooperation is in knowing where we can’t compromise or cooperate. :-k It gives us a clear picture where we’re going to have to leave each other alone. But this requires good will on everyone’s part and not only the recognition, but the willingness to not attempt to coerce others in their behaviors. As a hard agnostic, I really don’t care what a theist chooses to practice in the home or religious gatherings, but I might have a little problem with being told that I have to behave a certain way because of their beliefs. So yes, is-isn’t is valid to the extent that it is a personal statement that does not attempt to coerce others.

13

Don’t agree I think the position is wrong because your assuming theres no good reason to believe in god. your asuming that with no evidence. That was what I ment.

Lets clarify atheists believe there is no god. Agnostics claim to have no knowledge of god. Agnostics don’t believe there is a god or there is not a god. They say belief in such matters as not valid as there is no evidence.

There could be many good reasons to believe in god but since an agnostic has no knowledge of these things he can’t use any of these reasons to believe in god.

I could name any number of good reasons, if you don’t your mental state will be worse, if you don’t you’ll go to hell, but since I have knowledge of there vadility its a bit pointless. There could be many reasons to belive in god there could be none. It could even be the case that belief in god is actually good for you, in terms of your enjoyment of life, even though god doesn’t infact exist (there could even be evidence for this).

It still stands that atheists assume something without eviedence. They may have their reasons for not believing in god but without any evidence this reason amounts to nothing but belief.

Ok so we don’t get bogged down in semantics, can I be an atheist but also consider worth in experiences that I personally have but cannot completely describe or explain? Can I justify, as an atheist, activily seeking these experiences?

I’ll state that question in a new post.

But it is my view there is worth in these experiences and that we could call these experiences religious, experiences of the devine, experiences of god, experiences of the buddah nature etc. etc. But does atheist mean I must reject this worth?

14

double post…oops

15

“I don’t need evidence…so, no, atheists do not assume something without evidence”

why were the reasons I gave not good ones? Not going to hell is a good thing, is it not?

Theres no sense in your argument.

16

Tortoise,

The fact that you don’t believe your going hell doesn’t make it any more or less a bad thing if you are going to hell.

I’m not saying that hell exists. All I’m saying is that if it does then theres a good reason for you to believe in god.

I wasn’t threatening you with anything. All I’m saying is I have no knowledge of the afterlife. Maybe we go to hell maybe heaven maybe we become a bowl of pudding. The point is we have no evidence. We don’t know we’re just assuming based on a lack of evidence. Its just cold hard logic we have no knowledge, no evidence.

17

Theres no evidence for hell not existing. Thats your assumption. You can’t get away from the fact that you are assuming things. Maybe its a good assumption. But its an assumption none the less.

18

exactly!

typo?

Theres no evidence for you to belive hell does or does not exist. The good reason for you believing is because if it does then you might end up there. Its hypothetical. If it existed then it would be bad to go there. Stop getting annoyed. your making an assumption. Thats ok your only human. Your assuming hell doesn’t exist. Ok good then you have no fear of going there. fair enough. But its still your assumption.

19

Ok, so it might exist and you might burn there for the rest of eternety? Just so we’re clear? But your your (not assuming…) hoping(?) it doesn’t exist cos if it does your a bit fucked?

All I’m saying is you have no evidence. Ok you have your reasons but based not based on any evidence. Its not such a bad state of affairs.

20

Carleas, if you tell me you have a unicorn in your pocket I would need faith either to believe that you do or to believe that you don’t. It isn’t my pocket you see…so yes, it would be pretty arrogant for me to disbelieve that you have an actual unicorn (it is another matter that perhaps “unicorn” has a different meaning for you and thus what you say is true but for me it is absurd based on the definition of “unicorn” in my head. If you call your plastic little horse with a plastic protrusion from it’s head, a unicorn, then you’re absolutely justified in what you say. But if in my mind I have the idea of an actual horse of flesh and bone, three times the size of a man and with a magical horn, then just from size alone I would say that no unicorn could be in your pocket)

-For all intents and purposes, agnosticism is (hard) atheism. I mentioned earlier a “practical disproof”, meaning “that for all intents and purposes we may act as though god doesn’t exist, no matter the specific definition of god,” and in the same sense, agnosticism is practical atheism: agnostics act as though there is no god. They may enshrine the rhetorical statement that we can never know, but how can one act as though one doesn’t know? Worship all gods and meet all their demands?
O- No. You just live ethically. Who said that we need gods to be moral or to live at all in a civil manner? I saw a title to a post that said something like:“Why don’t God just tell me Himself he exist?” or “Why doesn’t God just show Himself to me?” I am paraphrasing but you get my drif I hope. Each person has a different definition of “proof” and so each agnostic may be waiting for the right proof to compel his judgment. I like that position because it recognizes our limits and doesn’t try to impose upon reality what amounts to an opinion based on faith. A man who has lived his entire life in the sands of the Sahara is told about ice:“solid water? that is absurd!” Is he wrong to be sceptical? No, but eventually, when people take him to a frozen lake, what is he to say? That it is absurd? So too, even the strongest agnostic reserves his right to doubt until given enough justification to suspend that doubt. Suppose, though, that indeed God speaks to me tomorow on the road to…Brunswick Maine. “Omar, why don’t you believe in me?” What should I say? More importantly, based on that experience, do I have enough to suspend my doubt? Could I not suspect that my mind is going insane? That what I see is a phantom of my imagination? Of course, especially when it is only I who see the vision (recall “A Beautiful Mind” with Russell Crowe, seeing visions so real that the only way he found out what they were is by the lack of public confirmation of what he saw). Yet that was enough for others. It might be enough for me, who knows. Why? Because we do suspend judgment and stop doubt at a certain level. Because living requires a bit of faith in one form or another and it depends on the vitality of the moment and the meaning generated, not just on the bare facts (objective) of the moment, but on the interpretation invited, on the interpretation then imposed on the facts, which finally makes us believers in X. That said, being a believer is a natural part of our biological make-up. We are interpretative machines and belief in God is just one form of belief in action, and that interpretation, which we apply to other situations, is based on ideas we take at face value without any further examination, such as that belief in the report of the senses.

-The definition of the word god, as a general term, enables a general disproof of god.
O- But then the disproof you present is against a given definition, but outside of that definition what can you prove? A negative?

  • There are minimal characteristics a thing must have
    O- “A thing”? Do you know that God is a “thing”? You presume a knowledge of what God actually is in order to refute God?

-, and if those characteristics are incoherent, not thing can logically exist that can be called god. For instance, disembodied personhood may be incoherent, in which case anything that qualifies as a disembodied person (anthing godlike that we would refer to as “He”) couldn’t exist.
O- That only may prove that the language to describe God is inadequate and limited in trying to define the patent infinite. God, in the Bible, is also called a “He” as if a Spirit had a sex. But you have proved only that the writers were anthropomorphizing God, not that God, in itself, does not or cannot exist absolutely. You cannot prove a necessity for the non-existence of God, because “God” is a frame yet to be filled. When you detailed the contents of the frame and paint a picture, then God is given a version, but that does not mean that a “general” has been achieved. It is only a subjective opinion that has reached wide acceptance by the laziness of the masses. It is not difficult to trample such a God. But there are other Gods more reserved and more prohibited from reason. Ever heard of Negative Theology. Now how can you disprove what consist of negative statements? What thrieves in leaving the concept empty of clumsy anthropomorphisms? Now, you might object that such a God is but clutter for the mind because there is no difference in believing in it’s existence or not. There is no risk, no challenge, it affirms nothing, it denies nothing, heck we might as well call that God “Universe” or “Nature”, or “The Force”, it would not matter. Right, but the point is that it has Being, existence, “is”. I need not define what is beyond definition to ascribe it existence. Now, a “thing” must have a minimal number of characteristic, but what are the characteristics of existence that existence itself must have?

  • When you say that a god could exist, you mean something, and there’s no a priori reason that that meaning cannot be found self-contradictory.
    O- Again, who said that God is necessarly some-thing. Could it be no-thing? Not saying that God is nothing, but that God is not a thing, not something in particular either. Couln’t I say that God is everything?