Five Reasons to Reject Belief in Gods

[sandandfoam]

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Imagine. Your North American creationist types ancestors were running around being beguiled by snakes while ours were building these

They didn't learn their lesson after the Tower of Babel, did they?

 

[Agnostic75]

If a God exists, and wanted people to believe that he exists, how difficult would it be for him to convince at least 90% of the people in the world that he exists? Obviously, not difficult at all.

 

[cottage]

I would call the "burden of proof" argument a defensive stance in the sense that it only obligates one to respond to positive arguments against ones "default" position. That is why I used the metaphor of a "defensive bunker".
[/color]

My problem with this blanket statement is that there are plenty of arguments that purport to prove a deity. It's just that we atheists discard those arguments for lack of validity and soundness. This is really a claim about the quality of existing arguments, not their lack of existence. You and I are in full substantive agreement, but I am choosing to quibble with your phrasing of the status quo.


I was very careful in the OP not to make this an argument about the Abrahamic god (or any specific god, for that matter). You are slipping back into the mentality that the only god worth arguing about is that kind of God. Dawkins makes a big point of doing that in The God Delusion. I fully understand why atheists are wont to do that, but the OP takes another tack. My argument in the OP was about general rejection of belief in gods, and that is what atheism is really about. So I do not really attack the idea of a creator god. Nor do my "gods" even necessarily have to be omnipotent. They can just be lesser gods.

If you want to confine the argument to just the Abrahamic God--perhaps on the grounds that most modern believers reject the existence of lesser gods--then that is really a much easier argument to make. The Abrahamic God, I believe, is an impossible being, and therefore provably false on logical grounds. Most versions of that god, anyway. It is much more difficult to argue the nonexistence of any gods, and that is what I have tried to argue here. Even though I have taken pains to make it an argument about plausibility, not possibility, many of the critics have slid back into the mode of thinking that I was denying the possible existence of gods. And, of course, many have taken it to be an argument against their specific brand of God rather than gods in general. (Of course, it is worth noting that no one has been arguing for the existence of all gods, just one or a handful of the ones that have been proposed throughout history.)

The broad point is that we can of course logically deny the hypothesis and we can deny universal experience in that matter, and then all that remains is subjective experience (and ‘true for me’ isn’t an argument). My approach is to argue the Supreme Being as all other gods are necessarily inferior, and when or if that entity has been conceptually annihilated it means that some or all of the characteristics attributed to that entity cannot then be used to defend the inferior models. But yes, of course we can also dispute the quality of the subsidiary arguments rather than simply waving away the general proposition as being non-factual and beyond demonstration. But my main point is that any counter arguments are contingent upon the proposition that there are gods, in whatever form, as entities that created or influence our lives, and I maintain that the primary proof is with those who adhere to the proposition, not those who counter it with arguments to the opposite.

 

[atanu]

Minds depend on physical brains. Religions depend on belief in souls--essentially minds that can exist independently of bodies. But experience tells us that minds depend on brain activity to function properly.

Will you reconsider the above ?

Experience tells us that the earth is flat and that sun goes around earth. A century or two ago, science believed plants were non-living but that was found to be incorrect.

I can add to the list a thousand things.

(Other points do not hold any value for me since they are all subjective opinions -- to me).

 

[atanu]

Yes, but I think it could be more persuasively argued that the body needs a brain to generate a mind in order to navigate its physical environment. After all, that's what brains are--very sophisticated guidance systems for bodies.

Actually the digital guys seem to have hoodwinked us all. For creating such a terrific guidance system will the body not require another more powerful guidance-intelligent system? Where is that in the body?

Or do you mean that nature built that expert guidance system and put it inside the body? That will of course make nature the God and the body (you and me just zombies or puppets).

 

[Copernicus]

Will you reconsider the above ?

Of course. That was the point of posting it here--to get alternative points of view.

Experience tells us that the earth is flat and that sun goes around earth. A century or two ago, science believed plants were non-living but that was found to be incorrect.

I think that it was more than 2 centuries ago that any scientist thought of plants as non-living, but experience is always open to reinterpretation. Scientists have always revised their opinions on the basis of more and more experience. The same is true of human beings. We revise our models of reality continually throughout our lifetimes.

(Other points do not hold any value for me since they are all subjective opinions -- to me).

You have objective opinions? I don't.

Actually the digital guys seem to have hoodwinked us all. For creating such a terrific guidance system will the body not require another more powerful guidance-intelligent system? Where is that in the body?

Actually, I think that the digital guys have provided us with enhancements and augmentations. Computers are extensions of our minds.

Or do you mean that nature built that expert guidance system and put it inside the body? That will of course make nature the God and the body (you and me just zombies or puppets).

Evolution built that guidance system. Competitors with inferior guidance systems did not leave as many copies of themselves around. Hence, our ancestors, because of bigger more complex brains, survived to produce us.

 

[atanu]

I think that it was more than 2 centuries ago that any scientist thought of plants as non-living, but experience is always open to reinterpretation. Scientists have always revised their opinions on the basis of more and more experience. The same is true of human beings. We revise our models of reality continually throughout our lifetimes.

My submission was wrt to "But experience tells us that minds depend on brain activity to function properly".

I said:

.... we experience that sun goes around earth

What I meant was that experience may not be equal to objective knowledge (by which I mean the objective knowledge of a thing as it is). You agree now by saying: We revise our models of reality continually throughout our lifetimes. With that premise can you say that "But experience tells us that minds depend on brain activity to function properly." is an irrefutable proof that consciousness is a product of the physical mass of tissues called the brain?

 

[atanu]

You have objective opinions? I don't.

I don't have too.

Actually, I think that the digital guys have provided us with enhancements and augmentations. Computers are extensions of our minds.

That is agreeable. But you then hold that a mass of tissues composed of some matters that we have detected and surmised actually is the origin of mind?

 

[atanu]

:snoopy:

I have crossed 1000 posts without being kicked out.

 

[Copernicus]

What I meant was that experience may not be equal to objective knowledge (by which I mean the objective knowledge of a thing as it is)...

I do not know what you mean by "objective knowledge". All knowledge is based on experience, and all experience is subjective.

You agree now by saying: We revise our models of reality continually throughout our lifetimes. With that premise can you say that "But experience tells us that minds depend on brain activity to function properly." is an irrefutable proof that consciousness is a product of the physical mass of tissues called the brain?

Who said anything about "irrefutable proof"? I made it quite clear in the OP that my reasons for rejecting belief in gods were not in any sense absolute. They are based on the evidence we accumulate from experience. In the case of minds, it is not hard at all to show that they are completely dependent on the health of the brain. Do you really doubt that? The evidence is overwhelming. For example, we've done enough autopsies on people with behavioral disorders in order to correlate them with damage to specific areas of the brain. And that doesn't even begin to scratch the surface of all the evidence we have to establish dependency of mental function on brain activity.

That is agreeable. But you then hold that a mass of tissues composed of some matters that we have detected and surmised actually is the origin of mind?

Yes. The mind is an effect of physical activity in a brain and its extension (through the peripheral nervous system) to the rest of the body. Tools are extensions of the body (as are clothes), and computers are the most sophisticated prosthetic devices that we have produced yet. They enhance our memories, perceptions, communicative abilities, etc. We can even use them to give paraplegics and quadriplegics the ability to once again manipulate objects and walk. Our robots explore the planets, further extending our senses beyond anything our ancestors dreamed possible. Why should we not consider computers to be extensions of our selves?

 

[atanu]

---- and all experience is subjective.
Who said anything about "irrefutable proof"?
Yes. The mind is an effect of physical activity in a brain

Subjective, not irrefutable and yet YES? Then subjective to what and who is the subject?

Further, I think the following was not considered at all.

But you then hold that a mass of tissues composed of some matters that we have detected and surmised actually is the origin of mind?

Our intelligence stems from the brain yet we describe it? Is it not like characters on a movie screen debating on the movie itself?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Experience tells us that the earth is flat and that sun goes around earth.

No, it doesn't. Not the experience of anyone who's been far enough from home to see the horizon get further away, or who's looked through a telescope and has seen what Galileo saw.

 

[ellenjanuary]

Atheism is rejection of belief in gods, not just the Abrahamic version of God. Most arguments against that version of God focus in logical inconsistencies, but let's just focus on a generic concept of a "god": an intelligent agency that has full power over some aspect of our reality. Here are some of my favorite reasons for rejecting belief in gods:

1. Minds depend on physical brains. Religions depend on belief in souls--essentially minds that can exist independently of bodies. But experience tells us that minds depend on brain activity to function properly.
2. Record of failed explanations. Religions have a historical record of making failed explanations of observed natural phenomena. The most powerful argument for gods--the argument from design--has been overturned by the discovery of evolution by natural selection. This pattern of failure has resulted in a pattern of "God of the Gaps" explanations. That is, natural explanations always trump supernatural ones.
3. Record of failed revelation. Humans have a record of worshiping false gods. If gods communicated through revelation, we would not expect to see such variety of religious belief in the world. Moreover, we would expect to find the same religious beliefs arising spontaneously in different locations, since the same set of gods (or "God") would presumably contact different people in different locations.
4. Record of failed prayers. No religious group seems to be luckier or healthier than any other. If prayer worked, we would expect to see some people of faith leading more fortunate lives than the rest of us.
5. Record of failed corroboration of miracles. Religions depend on stories of miracles--events that contravene natural laws--to support religious belief, yet miracles are notoriously resistant to corroboration and verification.

Of all the above reasons, I consider #1 the strongest, because mind-body dualism seems to underpin all religions. I do not oppose the idea of dualism so much as the belief that minds can exist independently of brains. It seems pretty obvious that our minds depend on the physical state of our brains.

Note: None of the above reasons is intended as an absolute proof that gods do not exist. These are reasons that make me consider belief in the existence of gods to be highly implausible.

1. I consider soul to be mere routing number.
2. through 5. I have a degree of observational data to the contrary. I never really tried to prove that I was a prophet, I tried to prove I cannot be a prophet. And I failed.
That said, I feel no compunction to provide said data for 2-5 because it really ain't about proof. That doesn't mean it is about faith so much as it means - no limits. Which is exactly what any "proof of god" would be. Now, if the title to the thread was "religion" instead of "gods," I would have kept my yap shut.

 

[Willamena]

No, it doesn't. Not the experience of anyone who's been far enough from home to see the horizon get further away, or who's looked through a telescope and has seen what Galileo saw.

I think he's talking about where we're standing here, now, rather than where our imagination takes us.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I think he's talking about where we're standing here, now, rather than where our imagination takes us.

"Where we're standing here, now" isn't "experience"... not the totality of our experience, anyhow.

 

[atanu]

"Where we're standing here, now" isn't "experience"... not the totality of our experience, anyhow.

Yes. That is the point. Conclusions based on immediate sense perception may be error prone. Are you ready to consider the totality of experience and non-experience of your own? Why are you leaving out non-experience, which again, while you exist, is an experience.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

1. Minds depend on physical brains. Religions depend on belief in souls--essentially minds that can exist independently of bodies. But experience tells us that minds depend on brain activity to function properly.
2. Record of failed explanations. Religions have a historical record of making failed explanations of observed natural phenomena. The most powerful argument for gods--the argument from design--has been overturned by the discovery of evolution by natural selection. This pattern of failure has resulted in a pattern of "God of the Gaps" explanations. That is, natural explanations always trump supernatural ones.
3. Record of failed revelation. Humans have a record of worshiping false gods. If gods communicated through revelation, we would not expect to see such variety of religious belief in the world. Moreover, we would expect to find the same religious beliefs arising spontaneously in different locations, since the same set of gods (or "God") would presumably contact different people in different locations.
4. Record of failed prayers. No religious group seems to be luckier or healthier than any other. If prayer worked, we would expect to see some people of faith leading more fortunate lives than the rest of us.
5. Record of failed corroboration of miracles. Religions depend on stories of miracles--events that contravene natural laws--to support religious belief, yet miracles are notoriously resistant to corroboration and verification.

These are all very good reasons to reject religion, but I'm not sure whether they provide any meaningful reason to reject the concept of a god.

 

[Copernicus]

Subjective, not irrefutable and yet YES? Then subjective to what and who is the subject?

All empirical knowledge is subjective and refutable. What we think we know today can turn out to be mistaken for many reasons. You may know who your biological parents are today, only to learn the next day that you were adopted at birth and never told the facts.

Our intelligence stems from the brain yet we describe it? Is it not like characters on a movie screen debating on the movie itself?

Perhaps. Self-awareness is a recursive process.

No, it doesn't. Not the experience of anyone who's been far enough from home to see the horizon get further away, or who's looked through a telescope and has seen what Galileo saw.

I agree with Willamena and atanu on this. There is a certain sense in which we still perceive the environment differently from our understanding of what it is. I see the sun rise and set, because my perspective is fixed. When I think of the Earth revolving and rotating, my perspective changes, and that affects my understanding of why the sun appears to rise and set. So one can think of experience as having many different layers associated with different perspectives. Our model of reality constantly adjusts itself to perspective.

These are all very good reasons to reject religion, but I'm not sure whether they provide any meaningful reason to reject the concept of a god.

My concept of "god" is deliberately defined in the OP in order to head off this objection, but you did not acknowledge that definition in your response. I'm willing to be flexible about it up to a point (i.e. I won't insist on a rigid definition), but I'm not just going to accept anybody's definition of gods.

 

[Autodidact]

That is stunningly thoughtless. Learn to distinguish between:

• beliefs in God, and
• belief in Gods.

Your 'logic' reduces to the following: that which is beyond comprehension and explication is, ipso facto, impossible.

Isn't God a god?