Christians: why blame atheists for not “choosing” to believe in god?

[emiliano]

Sorry guys, this is a little of topic. If you want us to stop, just tell us.

To emiliano:
So, I read your post, and looked at the scriptures. I'm a little lost. I'm not sure what point you're trying to make to me. Or maybe it's something I already agree with. That all the wicked will be punished? I believe that. Could you help me with a little more info?

Sorry I thought that you cited Number to support “I feel very strongly that we are all brothers and sisters, children of a wonderful, loving Father. If you'd like though, I could post a few scriptures that support my view. I find that most people just interpret the Bible to say what they already believe anyway. So I don't think it would help much.
Now, one scripture doesn't mean a lot. It could be an error in translation. However, if this scripture is correct, it clearly shows that God is the father of our spirits (or at least, Moses and Aaron consider him such).
Is there a translation that says Father? This one said “O God, the God of the spirits of all flesh”.

 

[cottage]

Dunemeister, here is my initial response to your 6 points.

1) May I remind you of our disagreement. In post 16 laffy_taffy explained the difference between belief and non-belief and, given his lack of belief, asked why should he have to prove a thing’s non-existence. Your reply was that it is the intellectually responsible thing to do. I pointed out the obvious absurdity in that remark. You then quoted philosophers who you claimed had attempted to do just that. They hadn’t. And the arguments you describe simply point up the irrelevance of God, or gods.

2) Atheism is not a ‘default position’, and I assume no such thing. The mistake you are making is to think that anyone who is without belief in supernatural beings is obliged to make an argument against them. Nonsense! Atheism includes the most militant dogmatists, and it also includes millions of people who are simply without god beliefs. The difference is this: those who make assertions based on the question of supernatural beliefs, whether for or against, should expect to put up proper arguments, but it is pure unintelligent folly to ask those without god belief to justify that lack of belief; ‘God’ isn’t a ‘truth’, or something true of the world; nor is it a logical proposition, which, if denied, involves a contradiction.


3) God isn’t a ‘material fact’, but a concept or, in the case of religion, a metaphysical system of belief. And nowhere have I asked you for proof; as a matter of fact I have said God cannot be proved a priori (nor a posteriori, for that matter).

4) It seems to me that if ‘she has only shown that theism doesn’t have very good arguments’, then that is a perfectly reasonable justification for scepticism! And that is certainly true in the case of errant factual evidence, where the object is not to be found in possible experience, or where logical contradictions are evident. Under those terms the sceptic has every reason to remain sceptical. Someone who makes assertions for alien life forms, for example, is expected to provide clear evidence and articulate proper arguments to that end. So while it is the sceptic’s position to evaluate the claims for aliens, the onus isn’t on the sceptic to find some reason for their non-being. Religious beliefs are not truths, not even in the inductive sense, and we do not have to consider them as such: for the concept of God is no different in any respect from all other metaphysical hypotheses. And to ask what arguments can be offered in favour of atheism necessarily presumes a belief that theism is false. It does not. As I’ve already explained, it doesn’t follow from having no belief that others beliefs are false or mistaken. But if you are asking for an intellectual examination of the arguments, then I for one have plenty to say on the matter. For example, a supernatural being sent his only son to earth to die for our sins, and then after three days the Son of God was resurrected and joined his father in heaven. Considered as an argument, what are we to make of that dog’s breakfast? Nothing was achieved since evil (sinning) continues, notwithstanding this futile act. And we see straight off that there was no ultimate sacrifice, since God resurrected his human son (with no corruption of the flesh) after just three days, and we also see that a God of love wasn’t above allowing pain and suffering to make a point.

5) In forum discussions I don’t read links, but expect my adversary to make the argument. However, I am familiar with Plantinga’s argument, and you’re right to say it is not without its problems. In one respect it is no different from all other arguments from free will, in that it instantiates and incorporates evil in order to justify it. Nowhere, nowhere in his argument is he able to assail the contradiction, except by allowing for a God who is not omnipotent and not the ens realissimum (evil, he says, exists in all possible worlds). This proposition is specious, at best, and also involves a further contradiction by weakening the Supreme Being. And Plantinga is stumped when it comes to the so-called natural evil. This is what he has to say: ‘Natural evil is due to the free actions of nonhuman persons; there is a balance of good over evil with respect to the actions of these nonhuman persons; and it is not within the power of God to create a world that contains a more favourable balance of good over evil with respect to the actions of the nonhuman persons it contains.’ The Nature of Necessity (Oxford Press, 1974). The implication is there are for all to see!

Also, I don’t remember saying that it isn’t an important or interesting result! Actually it is, but the contradiction remains intact.


6) Theists, for reasons of their own, presume to pigeon-hole unbelievers. Theism and agnosticism are propositional, which in both cases describe beliefs. A-theism essentially requires no beliefs, despite the many highly vocal militant campaigners and anti-theists who are found under that banner. To have no belief in supernatural beings cannot somehow be turned into a claim about the world. And even the most vociferous atheist isn’t obliged to come up with a competing metaphysical explanation or a further speculative hypothesis in order to provide an alternative to the one offered by the theist, since the very argument is one that questions the missing indubitability in such tenuous propositions. See my post, 118, 'It all come down to faith.'

 

[Dunemeister]

Dunemeister, here is my initial response to your 6 points.

1) May I remind you of our disagreement. In post 16 laffy_taffy explained the difference between belief and non-belief and, given his lack of belief, asked why should he have to prove a thing’s non-existence. Your reply was that it is the intellectually responsible thing to do. I pointed out the obvious absurdity in that remark. You then quoted philosophers who you claimed had attempted to do just that. They hadn’t. And the arguments you describe simply point up the irrelevance of God, or gods.

I see my mistake now, reading back. What I meant to say is that atheists are not free of a burden of proof. Just as we view a theist as somehow intellectually deficient for not having any reason for belief, we (ought to) regard atheists without reasons for their atheism (apart from the alleged deficiency of theistic arguments) as intellectually deficient. That's not to say one MUST have an argument at hand to defend their position. In life, many people hold views without much philosophical reflection, and most people are either uninterested in or ill equipped for such reflection. So allow me to scale back my requirement and say that the atheist without arguments is on an equal intellectual footing with a theist without arguments.

2) <snip> ‘God’ isn’t a ‘truth’, or something true of the world; nor is it a logical proposition, which, if denied, involves a contradiction.

I don't understand what your last sentence means. Surely the question of God's existence is a matter of what is true about the world. Either the universe contains something answering to the word "god' or not?

3) God isn’t a ‘material fact’, but a concept or, in the case of religion, a metaphysical system of belief. And nowhere have I asked you for proof;

as a matter of fact I have said God cannot be proved a priori (nor a posteriori, for that matter).

By "material fact" I mean a fact that contrasts with logical fact. That is, the question of a god's existence is not merely a logical game like mathematics. It's an investigation into what actually exists. That's the force of "material fact." And in saying "material fact" I wasn't trying to imply that God actually exists. Rather, I was simply saying that the question of his existence is a matter of material, rather than mere logical, fact.

4) <snipped the intial part because I wholeheartedly agree and am duly chastened.> Religious beliefs are not truths, not even in the inductive sense, and we do not have to consider them as such: for the concept of God is no different in any respect from all other metaphysical hypotheses.

Your doubts about whether God exists doesn't change the fact that IF God exists, THEN the belief that God exists is a truth.

And to ask what arguments can be offered in favour of atheism necessarily presumes a belief that theism is false. It does not. As I’ve already explained, it doesn’t follow from having no belief that others beliefs are false or mistaken.

I don't think I said that offering a reason for atheism implies the falsity of theism. I agree that the mere existence of an argument for X does not entail that ~X is false.

But if you are asking for an intellectual examination of the arguments, then I for one have plenty to say on the matter. For example, a supernatural being sent his only son to earth to die for our sins, and then after three days the Son of God was resurrected and joined his father in heaven. Considered as an argument, what are we to make of that dog’s breakfast? Nothing was achieved since evil (sinning) continues, notwithstanding this futile act. And we see straight off that there was no ultimate sacrifice, since God resurrected his human son (with no corruption of the flesh) after just three days, and we also see that a God of love wasn’t above allowing pain and suffering to make a point.

You'd better be able to do better than extremely surface and misleading readings of theology. Indeed, the "dog's breakfast" is your insensitive reading of the Christian story, not the Christian story itself.

5) In forum discussions I don’t read links, but expect my adversary to make the argument. However, I am familiar with Plantinga’s argument,... The implication is there are for all to see!

Also, I don’t remember saying that it isn’t an important or interesting result! Actually it is, but the contradiction remains intact.

Yes, these are the alleged problems. Plantinga has noticed and has modified his views. In the intervening years, he and others have continued working along these lines, and now you'll have some difficulty finding philosophers who are eager to press the PoE argument, although there are still a few. Most atheists prefer a different line, usually showing that belief in God is a product of something other than a reliable belief-forming mechanism.

6) <ignoring the first obviously broad-brush falsehood>. Theism and agnosticism are propositional, which in both cases describe beliefs. A-theism essentially requires no beliefs, despite the many highly vocal militant campaigners and anti-theists who are found under that banner. To have no belief in supernatural beings cannot somehow be turned into a claim about the world.

Again, I see this as a distinction between atheism and agnosticism, but whatever, you can insist on this if you like.

And even the most vociferous atheist isn’t obliged to come up with a competing metaphysical explanation or a further speculative hypothesis in order to provide an alternative to the one offered by the theist, since the very argument is one that questions the missing indubitability in such tenuous propositions. See my post, 118, 'It all come down to faith.'

"Questions the missing indubitability"? Are you saying that the sceptic's job is merely to show that something ain't NECESSARILY so? Are we back to lazy scepticism again?

But in any case, all this seems to be a diversion from the OP, which is about whether atheists are blameworthy for not believing in God. The OP is not really about burdens of proof or the definition of atheism. I have indicated earlier why atheists might be blameworthy, so perhaps we should turn our attention to that issue, eh?

 

[OmarKhayyam]

"What I meant to say is that atheists are not free of a burden of proof. Just as we view a theist as somehow intellectually deficient for not having any reason for belief, we (ought to) regard atheists without reasons for their atheism (apart from the alleged deficiency of theistic arguments) as intellectually deficient."

So if I say Athena does not exist I am required to offer reasons? Likewise unicorns, LGM, elves, and things that go bump in the night?

Yet you can assert this christian myth as the final Truth universally applicable and to time place and person with nothing more then "the bible tells me so" as evidence.

And somehow the 1st position is intellectually deficient while the second is self-evident Truth.

R-i-i-i-ght. Thats only fair:sarcastic. We all deserve to burn forever for failing to see that.

 

[Dunemeister]

"What I meant to say is that atheists are not free of a burden of proof. Just as we view a theist as somehow intellectually deficient for not having any reason for belief, we (ought to) regard atheists without reasons for their atheism (apart from the alleged deficiency of theistic arguments) as intellectually deficient."

So if I say Athena does not exist I am required to offer reasons? Likewise unicorns, LGM, elves, and things that go bump in the night?

Yet you can assert this christian myth as the final Truth universally applicable and to time place and person with nothing more then "the bible tells me so" as evidence.

And somehow the 1st position is intellectually deficient while the second is self-evident Truth.

R-i-i-i-ght. Thats only fair:sarcastic. We all deserve to burn forever for failing to see that.

If Athena's existence were alleged to be as important as God's alleged existence is, and if nonbelief in Athena had as important implications as nonbelief in God does, then yes, it would behoove atheists (not to say every atheist BTW) to have arguments to show that her existence is impossible or improbable on balance or irrelevant for some reason. In other words, the importance of providing a negative case depends on how important the alleged existence of the thing is.

However, as I've already admitted to cottage, my original way of expressing this in terms of obligation were too strong.

It's also not fair for you to say that my arguments amount to "the bible tells me so." We haven't had any discussion of the matter, so you have no idea what my arguments might be. I have certainly not argued that God's existence is self-evidently true.

 

[OmarKhayyam]

"In other words, the importance of providing a negative case depends on how important the alleged existence of the thing is."

Ah, of course how dull of me not grasp. :cover:

You have established that your god's existence is vital to humanity. And the consequences of failing to appreciate that fact are - eternal.

But other gods - not really so important. In fact not important at all since the only god that actually exists is (drum roll please) yours.

It is all SO clear now.

(It really IS.)

 

[Dunemeister]

"In other words, the importance of providing a negative case depends on how important the alleged existence of the thing is."

Ah, of course how dull of me not grasp. :cover:

You have established that your god's existence is vital to humanity. And the consequences of failing to appreciate that fact are - eternal.

But other gods - not really so important. In fact not important at all since the only god that actually exists is (drum roll please) yours.

It is all SO clear now.

(It really IS.)

Your presumption continues to underwhelm.

 

[laffy_taffy]

"In other words, the importance of providing a negative case depends on how important the alleged existence of the thing is."

Ah, of course how dull of me not grasp. :cover:

You have established that your god's existence is vital to humanity. And the consequences of failing to appreciate that fact are - eternal.

But other gods - not really so important. In fact not important at all since the only god that actually exists is (drum roll please) yours.

It is all SO clear now.

(It really IS.)

:biglaugh:

 

[cottage]

Quote:
2) <snip> ‘God’ isn’t a ‘truth’, or something true of the world; nor is it a logical proposition, which, if denied, involves a contradiction.



Dunemeister: I don't understand what your last sentence means. Surely the question of God's existence is a matter of what is true about the world. Either the universe contains something answering to the word "god' or not?

‘God’, the concept, is the Supreme Being and the creator by definition, and so to say, for example, ‘God is not the creator’ is self-evidently false; but we can reject the subject and predicate together with no contradiction. And nor is there any argument from experience (evidential) that compels us to assert that only a deity can be the cause of existent things. So what I’m saying here is that as ‘God’, the object, is neither necessarily or contingently true, we are not therefore obliged to justify non-belief in what are just speculative or mystical claims.


Quote:
3) God isn’t a ‘material fact’, but a concept or, in the case of religion, a metaphysical system of belief. And nowhere have I asked you for proof;

Quote:
as a matter of fact I have said God cannot be proved a priori (nor a posteriori, for that matter).



Dunemeister: By "material fact" I mean a fact that contrasts with logical fact. That is, the question of a god's existence is not merely a logical game like mathematics. It's an investigation into what actually exists. That's the force of "material fact." And in saying "material fact" I wasn't trying to imply that God actually exists. Rather, I was simply saying that the question of his existence is a matter of material, rather than mere logical, fact.

I see no difference between a material fact and a logical fact. If the proposition ‘God exists’ is true, then the fact of God’s existence will be logically true. Logic has no bearing on God’s existence, but only on what we say of God (it is the propositions that will be true or false).

Quote:
But if you are asking for an intellectual examination of the arguments, then I for one have plenty to say on the matter. For example, a supernatural being sent his only son to earth to die for our sins, and then after three days the Son of God was resurrected and joined his father in heaven. Considered as an argument, what are we to make of that dog’s breakfast? Nothing was achieved since evil (sinning) continues, notwithstanding this futile act. And we see straight off that there was no ultimate sacrifice, since God resurrected his human son (with no corruption of the flesh) after just three days, and we also see that a God of love wasn’t above allowing pain and suffering to make a point.



Dunemeister: You'd better be able to do better than extremely surface and misleading readings of theology. Indeed, the "dog's breakfast" is your insensitive reading of the Christian story, not the Christian story itself.

This is one the problems with arguing faith. It sounds harsh but I’m sure you’ll understand that as I’m concerned with what is rational, rather than matters of belief, I don’t have to treat the Christian story sensitively. As a Christian you will of course interpret the story to have meaning consistent with your beliefs, whereas I, as an unbeliever, am under no such obligation. My derogatory remarks concern only the argument and its conclusion, and should not be taken as an insult to profoundly held convictions.


Quote:
And even the most vociferous atheist isn’t obliged to come up with a competing metaphysical explanation or a further speculative hypothesis in order to provide an alternative to the one offered by the theist, since the very argument is one that questions the missing indubitability in such tenuous propositions. See my post, 118, 'It all come down to faith.'

Dunemeister: "Questions the missing indubitability"? Are you saying that the sceptic's job is merely to show that something ain't NECESSARILY so? Are we back to lazy scepticism again?

A ‘lazy sceptic’ is simply one who cannot be bothered to articulate a proper critique; it is not for the sceptic to bandy pet theories with the theist. Someone (possibly A J Ayer) said that for every metaphysician with a speculative theory there will be another metaphysician with a competing theory of his own. That way we might as well descend into the old scholastic debate of how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. The sceptic’s role is one of analysis: is a given proposition logically possible/are the inferences valid/do the conclusions follow from the premises, and are they sound? In my last response to you I used the analogy of alien life forms. Sceptics rightly question such claims. What else are they to do? Are they supposed to prove that such claims are impossible? Must they construct an argument to demonstrate that only Homo sapiens can exist? No, of course not: their job quite properly is to deal with the claims and propositions as presented. And it is the same for all claims to the supernatural.




Dunemeister: But in any case, all this seems to be a diversion from the OP, which is about whether atheists are blameworthy for not believing in God. The OP is not really about burdens of proof or the definition of atheism. I have indicated earlier why atheists might be blameworthy, so perhaps we should turn our attention to that issue, eh?


I’m afraid I must disagree: this is about the burden of proof. I don’t see how people can be blamed for their non-belief in mysticism, anymore than they can be labelled ‘intellectually lazy’ for the same reason. In both cases this in my view is a devious attempt to shift accountability from the theist to the unbeliever.