Is the lack of faith of Atheists due to theists' failure to support their claims?

[RedDragon94]

"something from nothing"

This is a theist's argument?

The question at hand is whether theists should blame themselves for the lack of belief of atheists due to their failure to provide valid, reasoned, and supported arguments for their belief.

I believe that Christians could give better arguments as to how and why certain things happen in the spirit world. However, it is impossible for us to teach theology from a purely biological standpoint. Just as there is a separation between church and state to a certain extent there is a separation between science and faith. Although there is some minute overlap between the two, what the church teaches will effect the way people act even politically at times and faith will make an attempt to explain the beginnings of the cosmos.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Do you think the flawed reasoning (cosmological argument, "something from nothing", arguments from ignorance, etc.) of the theist is to blame ...

 

[LuisDantas]

Pretty good post.

The key word is 'sufficient'. Sufficient for what exactly? For many thousands of years people have held a great diversity of religious beliefs and fought over them. Religious belief was largely sufficient for a pre-industrial and agricultural way of life. Widespread atheism remains a very recent phenemonan largely confined to the late 19th and 20th centuries. I would reason that religious belief was no longer sufficient as the scientific and technological forces unleashed by industrialisation necessitated a naturalistic understanding of the world in order to replicate its processes in predictable ways. The agricultural and industrial revolutions of the 18th century co-incided with the scientific revolution and the enlightenment. With new advances in equipment came the need for education beyond ruling elites and this education involved the scientific method to seek naturalistic explanations.

Let me suggest that while it may at first glance appear that atheism was encouraged by greater knowledge and demand for science and technology, I happen to suspect that the opposite is in a sense just as true. When lifestyles were so much more predictable and so much more directly tied to survival, subsistence and land there was not necessarily a lot of overt significance to belief, and faith was rarely if ever seen as a reason to lead noticeably divergent habits (except of course for priests and the like).

The idea that some people hold that people of faith should in some sense "abstain from the world" seems to me to be just as much enabled by an industrial society as atheism itself.

Previously, there was considerably less reason to attempt to convince others about matters of belief and less discernible result in succeeding or failing to do so, as well.

One of Darwin's proofs for evolution was evidence of domestic selection in farming and agriculture. Cattle, poultry etc, were breed for specific properties such as meat content, egg laying etc, and still are today. What he lacked was a mechanism to explain how man-made variation in species in 19th farming could be brought about by a entirely natural process. The answer came from Thomas Malthus who argued that there were natural limits to human population and competition for resources- Darwin applied this to natural selection.

I would argue that in the case of strong atheism, the question of what is sufficient evidence to reject the view of god holds as much weight as it does for a theist. In so far as reasoning or evidence must be sufficient, it must be sufficient to be acted on. our beliefs affect our actions and vice-versa. As we act in a new way in a industrial and post-industrial society, so we need new beliefs as religion is no longer sufficient for a society.

Personally I think it is more accurate to say that many traditional religions have found themselves unwilling or unable to effectively address the very real concerns and questions that the advances in science and technology made relevant. Theistic religion has been changed quite a lot by it, sometimes to considerable internal dissent.

However, as we are not masters of our own social organisation but are subject to various hidden forces, like the evulation of "public opinion", the self-organisation of "market forces", and the deep complexities of "human nature" we remain a society that cannot obtain full or scientific knowledge. There therefore is not a sufficient basis for eliminating religious belief as we are still the prisoners of forces we do not control.

I don't think religion was ever meant to truly rely on belief to such an extent, personally. It sort of defeats the purpose of having a religion in the first place.

 

[LuisDantas]

This is a theist's argument?

There are theists that keep insisting that it should be taken as such.

Not surprisingly, we atheists nearly always find it rather unconvincing, even mishappen.

I believe that Christians could give better arguments as to how and why certain things happen in the spirit world. However, it is impossible for us to teach theology from a purely biological standpoint. Just as there is a separation between church and state to a certain extent there is a separation between science and faith. Although there is some minute overlap between the two, what the church teaches will effect the way people act even politically at times and faith will make an attempt to explain the beginnings of the cosmos.

Maybe it is just me, but I think the best way of spreading religious beliefs is by focusing on its doctrine - what it actually proposes - as opposed to focusing on its beliefs, which amounts to an invitation to choose between challenging them or submitting to them, with no clear benefit in even making the attempt.

 

[RedDragon94]

There are theists that keep insisting that it should be taken as such.

Not surprisingly, we atheists nearly always find it rather unconvincing, even mishappen.

Are they saying that the cosmos came from nothing?

Maybe it is just me, but I think the best way of spreading religious beliefs is by focusing on its doctrine - what it actually proposes - as opposed to focusing on its beliefs, which amounts to an invitation to choose between challenging them or submitting to them, with no clear benefit in even making the attempt.

And what is the difference between doctrine and beliefs?

 

[LuisDantas]

Are they saying that the cosmos came from nothing?

Some theist proselitisers insist that we atheists should reconsider "because without God there was no way for existence to arise".

Most theists simply don't understand why there is so much worry about that. Contrary to what some theists apparently believe, the question is neither particularly sensible, nor very convincing as evidence of a creator God - except for those who are already predisposed to believe in a creator God, that is.

Predictably, most atheists are not so predisposed (if they were they would hardly be atheists in the first place).

And what is the difference between doctrine and beliefs?

Beliefs are what you believe to be or not to be real. When presented as important in religious contexts, they are often not too removed from a bet not only on whether their subject matters are true, but also on whether they are significant and more constructive than the alternatives.

Doctrine is what you propose as desirable or valid as a way of life. It is by definition possible to at least attempt and, hopefully, to directly live the results of.

 

[RedDragon94]

Doctrine is what you propose as desirable or valid as a way of life. It is by definition possible to at least attempt and, hopefully, to directly live the results of.

Your definition of doctrine is what Christians define as ethics. According to Christians doctrine=belief, therefore when Christians focus more on doctrine they preach more about their beliefs than what it means to live a good life.

Some theist proselitisers insist that we atheists should reconsider "because without God there was no way for existence to arise".

Most theists simply don't understand why there is so much worry about that. Contrary to what some theists apparently believe, the question is neither particularly sensible, nor very convincing as evidence of a creator God - except for those who are already predisposed to believe in a creator God, that is.

Predictably, most atheists are not so predisposed (if they were they would hardly be atheists in the first place).

A theist believes something came from something (the second something being God). So Buddhism doesn't really ask the question "how did we get here"?

 

[LuisDantas]

Your definition of doctrine is what Christians define as ethics. According to Christians doctrine=belief, therefore when Christians focus more on doctrine they preach more about their beliefs than what it means to live a good life.

That may well be so. I am not a Christian, after all, and I never fully understood it, despite having gone through Eucharisty due to social pressure. I ilterally did not understood what I was doing or why, alas.

A theist believes something came from something (the second something being God).

Some no doubt do. I don't expect most to, nor do I see any reason why they should.

Even when they hold such a belief - well, it is of such marginal importance really.

So Buddhism doesn't really ask the question "how did we get here"?

Sometimes. We do not avoid the question. But for us just as for anyone else it has very little practical importance, and we tend not to spend a lot of time dwelling on it.

 

[RedDragon94]

We do not avoid the question.

How do you answer it?

For me, in my Christian theology, I find that the doctrine of creation says something about our creative element that each of us have. If God created the world by process of evolution then it shows careful planning and the genius of what the cosmos is.

 

[LuisDantas]

How do you answer it?

Both in my Buddhists and my Atheist circles the usual answer tends to be "that is not a question worth bothering to attempt to answer. There is no satisfactory answer, nor an useful one."

Buddhists sometimes have to deal with neophites who are a bit shocked to learn that. Atheists sometimes stray into talk about physical concepts and definitions.

But ultimately, neither of my groups spends a lot of time away from the simple constatation that it is not an important question to attempt to answer.

For me, in my Christian theology, I find that the doctrine of creation says something about our creative element that each of us have.

I can understand that as a source of inspiration and motivation for some people, and that is fine for what it is.

It just won't really work for everyone, nor do I think it is a matter of "truth", even hypothetically. It is far more of a matter of esthetical, even artistic perception.

If God created the world by process of evolution then it shows careful planning and the genius of what the cosmos is.

Biological evolution is no evidence of planning, though.

I think theistic beliefs work better when aimed to remind people of our duty towards existence than when they try to explain existence itself.

 

[ether-ore]

I've often thought about this question, but I have yet to see it on this forum. The question at hand is whether theists should blame themselves for the lack of belief of atheists due to their failure to provide valid, reasoned, and supported arguments for their belief.

Isn't withholding adherence to a belief system until sufficient evidence/reasoning has been provided merely displaying the prudence of atheism? Do you think the flawed reasoning (cosmological argument, "something from nothing", arguments from ignorance, etc.) of the theist is to blame for atheists' refusing to "buy into" deities of any kind.

When you use the phrase: "valid, reasoned and supported arguments", I think you might need to consider that the evidences being considered as such are very different between the theist and atheist camps. For the most part, atheist have limited themselves to a large extent to exclusively empirical evidence. The interesting thing is that most atheists haven't sought out this empirical scientific evidence themselves. Rather, and ironically enough, they take it on faith that the scientists have got it right.

Theist, on the other hand (and at least speaking for myself) accept that the scriptural record concerning the core message of the atonement along with the reports of honest men who claim to have been witness to manifestations of God, to be valid, reasonable and supported by the coherence and agreement of the various reports. Atheist have a tendency to get hung up on details which have little or nothing to do with the core message of scripture and reject the whole thing on that basis... throwing the baby out with the bath water as it were. There are many things which I cannot explain in scripture, but I feel I can hold those issues in suspense until such time as God sees fit to make things more clear. The important thing is the core message... The atonement of Jesus Christ. Also, I do not neglect empirical evidence. I attempt as best I may, try to find correlation between science and scripture. For myself, I think I have found avenues of thought... reasoning, to explain what might otherwise be considered disparities.

 

[leibowde84]

This is a theist's argument?

I believe that Christians could give better arguments as to how and why certain things happen in the spirit world. However, it is impossible for us to teach theology from a purely biological standpoint. Just as there is a separation between church and state to a certain extent there is a separation between science and faith. Although there is some minute overlap between the two, what the church teaches will effect the way people act even politically at times and faith will make an attempt to explain the beginnings of the cosmos.

Yes. "How can we get something from nothing" is a commonly used, albeit flawed, argument employed by many theists.

 

[leibowde84]

When you use the phrase: "valid, reasoned and supported arguments", I think you might need to consider that the evidences being considered as such are very different between the theist and atheist camps. For the most part, atheist have limited themselves to a large extent to exclusively empirical evidence. The interesting thing is that most atheists haven't sought out this empirical scientific evidence themselves. Rather, and ironically enough, they take it on faith that the scientists have got it right.

Theist, on the other hand (and at least speaking for myself) accept that the scriptural record concerning the core message of the atonement along with the reports of honest men who claim to have been witness to manifestations of God, to be valid, reasonable and supported by the coherence and agreement of the various reports. Atheist have a tendency to get hung up on details which have little or nothing to do with the core message of scripture and reject the whole thing on that basis... throwing the baby out with the bath water as it were. There are many things which I cannot explain in scripture, but I feel I can hold those issues in suspense until such time as God sees fit to make things more clear. The important thing is the core message... The atonement of Jesus Christ. Also, I do not neglect empirical evidence. I attempt as best I may, try to find correlation between science and scripture. For myself, I think I have found avenues of thought... reasoning, to explain what might otherwise be considered disparities.

In response to your first paragraph, I think you are being unfair to atheists and their reliance on scientific discovery. The data is available, and there is no reason to think that the experts each respective scientific field would be dishonest. They allow the evidence to take them to discovery, and the data is publicly available. So, there isn't too much "faith" involved in the process. With religious beliefs, there is no consensus possible. The experts in theism disagree about pretty much everything (unless they come from the same religious affiliation), so, to the theists, there is not even non-empirical evidence to go on. Why belief the Christian expert over the Jewish one, or the Muslim over the Buddhist? For this reason, I think this is an unfair comparison.

 

[jonathan180iq]

I've often thought about this question, but I have yet to see it on this forum. The question at hand is whether theists should blame themselves for the lack of belief of atheists due to their failure to provide valid, reasoned, and supported arguments for their belief.

Isn't withholding adherence to a belief system until sufficient evidence/reasoning has been provided merely displaying the prudence of atheism? Do you think the flawed reasoning (cosmological argument, "something from nothing", arguments from ignorance, etc.) of the theist is to blame for atheists' refusing to "buy into" deities of any kind.

It's not just because the theist provides no substantiating evidence for their claims after the fact, but also because their initial claims are just so absurd and not based in anyone's observable reality to begin with that I cannot fathom why anyone keeps up the charade.

I mean, even from a young age children can discern between fiction and nonfiction based on their previous real world experiences. I don't think anyone ever failed the "fiction or nonfiction" portion of reading class in grade school, did they?

So why do we adults suddenly choose to ignore the obvious when confronted with something like this:

or this

??

No one is ever going to read a story about an unbelievably strong man who wields a magic sword and rides a cat to save the world and assume it's factual, right??
No one is going to base their whole life on He-Man and pretend it's factually, historically, accurate. As far as I know, there are no tax exempt organizations arguing for the teaching of He-Man lore in the Science classrooms, right?

Yet people readily accept a story about an invisible man in the clouds who sends all the furry animals to live on a boat for 40 days so he can kill everything else and then invisibly impregnates a young girl so his baby can grow up to be a teleporting, shape-shifting, mind-reading magician who never dies...
(Please note that there are lobbying, tax-exempt, multi-million dollar organizations who constantly jockey to have their cloud magician story taught in public schools.)

Why is there is a disconnect when it comes to certain fantasies?
Why don't theists understand that we atheists are simply using the same level of skepticism as they would use when trying to determine the validity of He-Man?
It takes nothing more than that to discredit most religious mythology.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Theist, on the other hand (and at least speaking for myself) accept that the scriptural record concerning the core message of the atonement along with the reports of honest men who claim to have been witness to manifestations of God, to be valid, reasonable and supported by the coherence and agreement of the various reports. Atheist have a tendency to get hung up on details which have little or nothing to do with the core message of scripture and reject the whole thing on that basis... throwing the baby out with the bath water as it were. There are many things which I cannot explain in scripture, but I feel I can hold those issues in suspense until such time as God sees fit to make things more clear.

I think you touch on something important:

- when someone approaches scripture - any religion's scripture, IMO - with the assumption that it probably had a divine origin, it's often the case that they don't find anything in the scripture that suggests to them that their assumption is wrong. They then take this as confirmation that their original assumption is wrong.

- OTOH, if someone approaches scripture with the assumption that it was written by people on their own, they don't find anything to suggest they're wrong, either.

So... what's a better way of determining whether a piece of scripture is correct? At the very least, I think this state of affairs suggests that neither approach should be taken as reliable without more justification.

I do note that theists frequently (but not universally) reject claims that are supported even better than the claims of their religion. Take alien abduction: not only do we have groups of independent eyewitnesses whose claims are consistent with each other, but in many cases, abduction claimants are still alive to be interviewed.

... but it's very common to find people who accept 2000-year-old miracle claims who don't accept these modern claims that are just as good, if not better.

 

[leibowde84]

It's not just because the theist provides no substantiating evidence for their claims after the fact, but also because their initial claims are just so absurd and not based in anyone's observable reality to begin with that I cannot fathom why anyone keeps up the charade.

I mean, even from a young age children can discern between fiction and nonfiction based on their previous real world experiences. I don't think anyone ever failed the "fiction or nonfiction" portion of reading class in grade school, did they?

So why do we adults suddenly choose to ignore the obvious when confronted with something like this:

or this

??

No one is ever going to read a story about an unbelievably strong man who wields a magic sword and rides a cat to save the world and assume it's factual, right??
No one is going to base their whole life on He-Man and pretend it's factually, historically, accurate. As far as I know, there are no tax exempt organizations arguing for the teaching of He-Man lore in the Science classrooms, right?

Yet people readily accept a story about an invisible man in the clouds who sends all the furry animals to live on a boat for 40 days so he can kill everything else and then invisibly impregnates a young girl so his baby can grow up to be a teleporting, shape-shifting, mind-reading magician who never dies...
(Please note that there are lobbying, tax-exempt, multi-million dollar organizations who constantly jockey to have their cloud magician story taught in public schools.)

Why is there is a disconnect when it comes to certain fantasies?
Why don't theists understand that we atheists are simply using the same level of skepticism as they would use when trying to determine the validity of He-Man?
It takes nothing more than that to discredit most religious mythology.

I would say that it's because they feel their salvation and future depends on their religious beliefs, but the same has never been claimed for He-man.

 

[jonathan180iq]

I think you touch on something important:

- when someone approaches scripture - any religion's scripture, IMO - with the assumption that it probably had a divine origin, it's often the case that they don't find anything in the scripture that suggests to them that their assumption is wrong. They then take this as confirmation that their original assumption is wrong.

- OTOH, if someone approaches scripture with the assumption that it was written by people on their own, they don't find anything to suggest they're wrong, either.

So... what's a better way of determining whether a piece of scripture is correct? At the very least, I think this state of affairs suggests that neither approach should be taken as reliable without more justification.

I do note that theists frequently (but not universally) reject claims that are supported even better than the claims of their religion. Take alien abduction: not only do we have groups of independent eyewitnesses whose claims are consistent with each other, but in many cases, abduction claimants are still alive to be interviewed.

... but it's very common to find people who accept 2000-year-old miracle claims who don't accept these modern claims that are just as good, if not better.

I know it's not the same, but this reminds me of an argument that I've made before regarding the differences between religions and things like Bigfoot or the "Ancient Astronaut Theory" (AAT).

When compared to ancient mythologies, there is actually more evidence for the AAT than for the religion... That says a whole lot, I think.

 

[jonathan180iq]

I would say that it's because they feel their salvation and future depends on their religious beliefs, but the same has never been claimed for He-man.

But even their faith in their salvation is entirely self-imposed, right?

Even if someone deeply believed that their future and eternal salvation rested in He-Man, couldn't they at some point in their lives reassess their faith and maybe consider that it was all based on magic hokum, make believe, and self-serving delusions?

I know your religious persuasion, and I'm not trying to be offensive.
But really, what is the difference between someone believing that He-Man will save them from Skeletor's dark magic, and someone believing that Jesus will teleport them to heaven after they die, away from Satan's dark magic?

 

[leibowde84]

But even their faith in their salvation is entirely self-imposed, right?

Even if someone deeply believed that their future and eternal salvation rested in He-Man, couldn't they at some point in their lives reassess their faith and maybe consider that it was all based on magic hokum, make believe, and self-serving delusions?

I know your religious persuasion, and I'm not trying to be offensive.
But really, what is the difference between someone believing that He-Man will save them from Skeletor's dark magic, and someone believing that Jesus will teleport them to heaven after they die, away from Satan's dark magic?

Not speaking for myself here, but to most, it seems that the number of people with faith plays a role. Human beings like to "flock together". They like to feel like part of a larger whole. Christianity in the US does that for a lot of people. The beliefs aren't as important as "fitting in". But, the beliefs get stronger and stronger once that happens. After a while, the believer sees more harm possible than good in doubting their own faith.

It is possible though. My mom was a Roman Catholic her entire life. But, after I graduated from college with a philosophy degree, we began talking exclusively about the plausibility and history of our religious beliefs. At that time I was a bit on the fence myself, but I always retained by belief in God. My mom, however, stopped going to church altogether. She questions everything now. She likes the community, but she feels that she can't be honest with her friends about her faith anymore, as when she has been, they have been extremely judgmental.

For example, one time my mom was discussing me with one of her art student friends. She asked my mom whether she was going to go to mass, and my mom said that she didn't really go to mass anymore, and really had changed her mind on her faith. Her friend said, "I feel so sorry for you". Then she asked about me, and my mom (incorrectly, but not important) said that I was agnostic. She said, "well, he must have all the answers, huh." And my mom freaked out on her, saying that I was obsessed with the fact that I didn't have the answers, and spent much of my free time exploring possibilities and searching for truth. I knew at that moment that my mom finally "got it". That the real "know-it-alls" were those who felt confident in their religious beliefs without sufficient reason to.

 

[jonathan180iq]

Not speaking for myself here, but to most, it seems that the number of people with faith plays a role. Human beings like to "flock together". They like to feel like part of a larger whole. Christianity in the US does that for a lot of people. The beliefs aren't as important as "fitting in". But, the beliefs get stronger and stronger once that happens. After a while, the believer sees more harm possible than good in doubting their own faith.

Yes. Precisely - which is also why people find so much truth, rather conveniently I might add, in the accepted religion of the culture in which they were raised...

I spent 6 years on a study of faith in the Southeastern United States specifically and I can chart rather accurately how and why it became the prevailing cultural framework. It was amazing really, how while during the course of the study I was able to start predicting future historical events and behaviors based on previous cultural events - I know that probably doesn't sound like it makes sense, but I'm basically saying that independent of what I personally know about the History of the Southeast, as I was reading historical events that were new to me, I was able to start predicting the behavior that would result from those events.

People are very simple animals, despite how much emotion or wordage we like to add to our thoughts. We simply go with the flow more often than not.

It is possible though. My mom was a Roman Catholic her entire life. But, after I graduated from college with a philosophy degree, we began talking exclusively about the plausibility and history of our religious beliefs. At that time I was a bit on the fence myself, but I always retained by belief in God. My mom, however, stopped going to church altogether. She questions everything now. She likes the community, but she feels that she can't be honest with her friends about her faith anymore, as when she has been, they have been extremely judgmental.

I think it's awesome that your mom has the personal gumption to recognize that she didn't have answers to the questions that she previously assumed the church answered for her... That takes a lot of balls and I think the lack of balls is one of the reasons that I think many rational people never leave the structured framework of their parent's religion.

For example, one time my mom was discussing me with one of her art student friends. She asked my mom whether she was going to go to mass, and my mom said that she didn't really go to mass anymore, and really had changed her mind on her faith. Her friend said, "I feel so sorry for you". Then she asked about me, and my mom (incorrectly, but not important) said that I was agnostic. She said, "well, he must have all the answers, huh." And my mom freaked out on her, saying that I was obsessed with the fact that I didn't have the answers, and spent much of my free time exploring possibilities and searching for truth. I knew at that moment that my mom finally "got it". That the real "know-it-alls" were those who felt confident in their religious beliefs without sufficient reason to.

Another prefect example of how religion closes the mind - it's sad really, because for a brief moment in our History religious ideals were what drove progress, innovation, and discovery.
Hug your mom for me - I know how judgmental people can be when you're honest with them, and what kind of toll that can take on your psyche.