-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Atheism is a reasonable position to hold
- Thread starter Atomist
- Start date
Eliot Wild
Irreverent Agnostic Jerk
CHEATER!!!!! I'm crushed
No, no, really . . . I don't know what you think you heard or saw, but, Honey, it wasn't me. Really, I swear, it wasn't me. No, it only sounded like I was flirting, but really, it wasn't me . . .
The above is much, much funnier when Eddie Murphy does it. So it goes.
Whatever. I'm not your sidekick anymore. I'm now your arch nemesis!
Eliot Wild
Irreverent Agnostic Jerk
Oh, no . . . Not my ARCH nemeis? Couldn't you just be my everyday, ordinary nemeis? I really don't have the energy to confront an 'Arch Nemesis'.
Aw, I can't stay mad at you. Truce?
Smoke
Done here.
That argument makes no sense to me, for several reasons.
1) I don't think science adequately explains the universe. There's still a lot we don't know and a lot of science to be done before we do know.
2) I don't think one thing has anything to do with the other. Supposing that science couldn't explain much of anything, and we were still talking about four elements and the four humors, so what? Why would we turn to God as a substitute for science? I don't think that's a necessary or reasonable alternative. Which is directly related to my next point:
3) God doesn't satisfactorily explain anything. If anything, a belief in God raises more questions than it answers.
4) Belief in god is not a rational belief; that is, people don't believe in gods for rational reasons. People who already believe in god may come up with arguments to "prove" his existence, but such arguments are always pathetic. I doubt that any competent person was ever convinced by such arguments. People simply don't reason themselves into a belief in gods, or maintain such a belief for rational reasons, so it's pointless to try to reason them out of it.
sandandfoam
Veteran Member
That's an excellent point.
There's times reason just wouldn't work for me. And I don't think my life is less for it - quite the opposite. I'm minded particularly of Darwin sitting down with his two-column list of pros and cons as he contemplated marriage.
Reason is a tool. Sometimes the way it's wielded also reminds me of the other old yarn about how the man with a hammer regards every problem as a nail.
Eliot Wild
Irreverent Agnostic Jerk
Of course. I was already having withdrawals. I'm glad you're not going to make me suffer.
Atomist
I love you.
"God doesn't satisfactorily explain anything" is a restatement of "the universe is adequately explained through naturalistic means" at least for all intensive purposes.
Last edited:
are you sure?
the two statements seem to be talking about two completely different things.
and two completely different requirements for amount of explanation.
i understand that for the sake of this particular thread, and in the terms we're discussing they seem to be linked. but if we decide to use the words 'satisfactory' and 'adequately' we're talking about something pretty subjective. which means both are correct, and both are false at the same time. for those who believe in god and are satisfied by his explanations, he in fact explains everything satisfactorily. and if we choose to believe the naturalistic explanations adequately describe the universe then we obviously find their explanations adequate. (and the counter to either is obvious).
part of why belief in anything (any belief attained through reason) is reasonable, it doesn't have to be reasonable to anyone else.
Atomist
I love you.
Well usually "god" is just an umbrella term for supernatural explanation... and since if there is no satisfactory supernatural explanation to explain x doesn't it follow that the naturalistic explanation is adequate to explain x. It's not perfectly equivalent, but it's pretty much equivalent.
Smoke
Done here.
I don't think so. In the OP you assume a sort of dilemma, that one must choose either God or science as a means of explaining the universe. You maintain that science explains the universe, or at least explains it better than God does.
I maintain that neither God nor science fully explains the universe, and that God doesn't really explain much of anything. A belief in God may be superficially satisfying, but it raises questions -- like the question of evil -- that cannot be satisfactorily answered. I infer that people do not believe in God because they find him a satisfactory explanation for the universe, but for other reasons, and that offering science as an alternate means of explaining the universe is not likely to impress them much, not only because there are still gaps in our scientific knowledge but because "explaining the universe" isn't really what inspires people to believe in God in the first place.
Atomist
I love you.
Nope. It could both be reasonable to believe in god and not believe in god. I was merely arguing that it IS reasonable to not believe in god, without taking a stance on if it's reasonable to believe in god.
I don't know how many theist would take "atheism is reasonable" as a conclusion since it completely is against their core beliefs though.
sandandfoam
Veteran Member
I imagine plenty. There's a lot of room between 'not for me' and 'reasonable'.
I agree.
In epistemology we learn about all kinds of circumstances where a belief can be justified/reasonable to hold for a particular person even if it can't be for you, or if it is wrong (but the person holding the belief is still reasonable).
Consider that you hop in a time machine to 200 years ago or so and you start declaring that there's invisible light -- but lack the knowledge to demonstrate how x-rays, microwaves, infrared, ultraviolet etc. exists; or even if you have the knowledge to explain it, you lack the means to prove it.
Those who are skeptical of your claims are justified in lacking belief if you can't back it up, even if it's ultimately true that "invisible light" exists.
It's completely possible that maybe theism is true but we atheists just haven't seen that proof yet -- we are justified in disbelief, but is atheism true?
We can't know for sure. We can only be reasonably assured.
That's why it's so utterly important for any of us, theist and atheist alike, to always keep an open mind and ever seek the truth -- regardless of what we know, regardless of what we want to be true, we should seek the universe as it really is; not as we want it to be. That doesn't just apply to atheists though; the reverse is also the case -- so keep that in mind, too, theists.
Atomist
I love you.
Yeah, I'll concede that, but the thought of cognitive dissonance in christian that hold that belief is fun.
that's where we aren't understanding each other. the term "god" for the sake of atheist's standpoint doesn't actually mean "umbrella term for supernatural explanation", because atheists dont fundamentally disbelieve in supernatural explanation - we lack a belief in gods. though many of us share a lack of belief in varying forms/degrees of 'the supernatural', it technically has no bearing on the question of gods.
it is important to keep in mind that atheism is a component of a greater belief system. many of us who share an atheistic approach to the question of gods have other things in common, but it's not our atheism that binds us on any other argument, it's just too simple of a term.
know also, while i dont disagree with you on the point that "god doesnt satisfactorily explain anything" as well as "the universe can be adequately explained through naturalistic means", i am just really picky about defining words. so dont take my being a term-brat as disagreement.
Atomist
I love you.
I can't come up with a supernatural explanation that can't be meaningfully redefined to be "god" but I guess that's too generalized.
For all intensive purposes it' a close enough equivalence, because if you accept God is not a satisfactorily explanation for anything that still leads to atheism being reasonable, just like with adequate natural explanation.
Last edited:
it is too generalized, never underestimate the diversity of other people's belief systems. although i think it's because your definition of a god is different from mine.
i think the two of us are going to have to agree to disagree (even though we really agree), based on the usage of terms. and that's okay too, some might even say it's a reasonable position to hold. =)