• 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!

Sharing an observation about atheism here on RF

viole

Ontological Naturalist
Premium Member
The retort is that atheism is "lack of belief" and so has no burden of proof, even though this assumes a naturalistic bias without evidence to support it. By defining atheism in this way, it means that atheists get the 'high ground' and there is pretty much nothing a theist can say that will be taken seriously because it is the atheists who get to decide what is an isn't reasonable. the idea that faith or revelation could be valid means to knowledge is never seriously entertianed, nor are relativistic and subjectivist attacks on science and knowledge given serious consideration.

Whilst theists are attacked for using the 'god of the gaps', no similar effort is made to question the assumption that, inspite of scientific ignorance and uncertianty on the subject, there will be a naturalistic explanation for things we don't know. The former is considered faith, whilst the latter faces no similar scrutiny because it is taken as self-evident

I don't think that symmetry of intellectual guilt applies here. It is true that there is a sort of naturalism of the gap. However, the conditional probability that we might right is pretty heavy, and this for two main reasons:

1) we are surrounded by natural things. There is no evidence whatsoever of spiritual stuff, whatever that is
2) historically, we observe metaphysical explanations being replaced by physical ones. The contrary never happens

If a horse always wins and the other always loses, where would you bet your money?

Ciao

- viole
 

atanu

Member
Premium Member
It's funny, I notice stuff like this, now that I have an atheistic view, but noticed just the opposite when I was religious. lol It's like when you buy a new car, and you suddenly start noticing all of the same model cars driving around you. lol

Might not be the best analogy. ;)

Yes. Selective cognition is a well known effect.
 

Monk Of Reason

༼ つ ◕_◕ ༽つ
being frank for a moment: Is there no space to trust and respect other people who we disagree with rather than assume that the ignorance of theists on many questions is a deliberate and willful attempt to undermine the truth and makes them the enemy of reason or science? that is the problem. the alternative is being forced to chose sides, and even though I'm most definetely not a theist, I find myself on "their" side because I accept philosophical challanges to science. the accumulation of "prove it", "science says so" and "atheists don't have a burden of proof" is deeply polarising even if its unintentional.
The problem with the above issues is when someone states "the evidence" rather than "science" people suddenly feel entitled to using anything as evidence. When someone uses "science" as a noun that provides something to the argument it then isolates and polarizes the differences between scientific evidence and non-scientific evidence. I still feel "evidence" is the best word to use.

"Science says so" needs to be- "The current evidence shows..."
"prove it" needs to be- "What is the evidence for this?"
"Atheists don't have a burden of proof" needs to be- "I have not made the claim there is no god. I am asking you to support the claim that it does. If you don't you haven't admitted that it is factual that god doesn't exist but it does show that your assurtation does not stand upon the grounds of evidence but baseless faith alone."


really, its an observation, not a trap. but I'll reply none the less.

1. Atheism is the response to theism, or rather, the response to a God belief. That is all atheism is.

No. In the case of Materialism, it is not simply a rejection of a singlur belief in god, but a rejection of a conception of objective reality that makes belief in god possible. This is, to the best of my knowledge, the most radical form of atheism because it says only natural explanations are possible in response to any question. it is not scepticism is religious cliams or lack of belief,it is an outright rejection of them as impossible.

2. Even if all atheists do claim that it is impossible for a God to exist, the BOP sides with the party who makes the initial claim.

As a materialist-atheist is challanging the objective nature of reality and re-defining it, the conflict between theists and (this kind of atheist) has a burden of proof on BOTH sides. the problem is, is that the origin for beliefs in different objective realities involves considerable subjectivity. it makes a positive cliam about the nature of reality that consciousness cannot exist in seperation of matter whilst pretty much the basis for all forms of theism, is that consciousness can and does exist in seperation from matter and acts as the cause or creator of matter.

Nice assertions, I don't think they're quite as accurate as you seem to.

The assumption that our ignorance of the world will necessarily be answered by a naturalistic explanation inspite of evidence is based on philosophical assumptions about the nature of reality not scientific evidence because there is no evidence. the question is why do we favour one explanation to fill the gap over another and that is a point theists can legitimately make.

As a strong atheist I will willingly admit that if I make the initial assertion that God cannot be real, I have a BOP.
If I do not make the initial assertion, I will adhere to no such thing.


I don't know why you seem to think that materialism and atheism are the same thing. And it seems you don't quite understand the difference between philosophical materialism and pragmatic materialism.
hurrah! :D

Well, for some odd reason, it makes more sense to believe that science has a better chance of proving something than a unsubstantiated belief.
Is it not logical to rely on something that has proven itself repeatedly, rather than something that cannot prove itself once, to explain these gaps?
I don't believe science is always correct about everything, nor do I believe science can discover/uncover everything.
What I do believe, however, is that in comparison to "God did it", science wins every time.
While we're talking about science and philosophy, may I direct you to the Scientific Method?
It is the single most reliable way we have of verifying the validity of something.


I'm going to answer these all in one go, so bear with me. There is no "one" scientific method. Science itself had to be invented and it had to change. What we now call 'science' in an invention of the early 20th century. People have a very different conception of science in the 18th and 19th centuries because it was much more philosophical. The institutionalisation of science means that a certain concept of the scientific method has become established and is not questioned. As I'm a materialist, I'm obviously using a much older conception of science thats still working with philosophy and I'm keeping in mind that Soviet Science used philosophical challanges against the big bang, qauntum mechanics and (most notoriously) genetics. The reason these are rejected is because it is assumed that science is neutral on political and religious questions because it cannot answer these questions. Western science remains attached to the philosophical dualism of Descartes ("I think therefore I am") in which thought takes precedence over reality; philosophically, we therefore struggle with questions whenever consciousness becomes involved because we believe consciousness does not have an objective properties that can be studied. Whether this is in psychology or nueoroscience, we are stumbling over philosophical questions about what is possible to know via the scientific method. Most of the same problems come up in relation to religion which treats consciousness as something that is independent of the brain and can therefore exist as god or the soul. As A materialist I could argue that consciousness is a natural phenemenoa and so can be studied using science and this opens up whole new areas to scientific study. Soviet science is dissmissed as 'scientism' by treating science as an ideology which can explain all pheneomena. The inverse of course is that "our" western science is the "true" science; but how can we know this?

The problem of demarcating what is science and what is pseudo-science is not wholly objective, but is a product of human reasoning with an incomplete knowledge of reality. Our assumptions about what is real gives us expectations of what we will find as scientific knowledge grows, but if that doesn't prove to be the case- the very concept and definition of the scientific method will have to change as it aquires new knowledge about what is real. The Scientific method is not a constant. it itself changes and therefore can and should be debated.
What is supported by evidence and what is not is whole objective.
 

leibowde84

Veteran Member
I don't see the need because I hardly find any people at all who have the wrong ideas about it. Most who seemingly have trouble are the pedants who would rather argue over the slight differences one can ascribe to the word than get on with the show.

To aggressively criticize someone, which can vary from harshly to very subtly.



:thumbsup:


.
I disagree. Many people incorrectly assume that atheism is a belief, when, in actuality, it is a lack of or reluctance to believe in God due to insufficient evidence.
 

Cephus

Relentlessly Rational
honestly, I think you've got it the wrong way round. there is a distinct pattern where atheists enter a thread and trash it by assuming the burden of proof always falls on the theists. Often if theists do offer evidence, it is shot down as unacceptable (e.g. because it's scripture).

The problem is, that's not evidence. It's a claim. It is a claim without support. It's like holding up the Harry Potter books and claiming that it's evidence for Voldemort. Nothing could be further from the truth.

The retort is that atheism is "lack of belief" and so has no burden of proof, even though this assumes a naturalistic bias without evidence to support it. By defining atheism in this way, it means that atheists get the 'high ground' and there is pretty much nothing a theist can say that will be taken seriously because it is the atheists who get to decide what is an isn't reasonable. the idea that faith or revelation could be valid means to knowledge is never seriously entertianed, nor are relativistic and subjectivist attacks on science and knowledge given serious consideration.

It isn't an assumption, naturalism is the only position which had any objective evidence to support it. We have no evidence whatsoever for anything beyond the natural world. If, and only if, theists can provide demonstrable, objectively-verifiable evidence for the supernatural, then we'd be happy to accept it, but not a moment before.

Whilst theists are attacked for using the 'god of the gaps', no similar effort is made to question the assumption that, inspite of scientific ignorance and uncertianty on the subject, there will be a naturalistic explanation for things we don't know. The former is considered faith, whilst the latter faces no similar scrutiny because it is taken as self-evident.

Nobody says that there will absolutely be a naturalistic explanation for things that we don't know, in fact, for things we don't know, we don't know what the explanation will be, by definition. We don't know. However, there has yet to be anything for which a demonstrable supernatural explanation has been found. Every question that we have ever found the answer to, it has been a natural answer. It has never been a supernatural answer and there's no reason to think this is ever going to change.

Demographics of these groups plays a very important part in this. There are at least two positions that could actually challange this; the first is Deists who would question the naturalistic bias on the basis of reason and perhaps argue that the god of the gaps is a valid argument; the second are atheists who accept they have a burden of proof in asserting there is no god (i.e. strong atheists in the strictest sense of the term) and so could well debate theists by recognising the need to refute their arguments. These groups are not represented in most discussions and are under-represented in RF overall. From the point of view of theists, there aren't many who are able (or perhaps willing) to challange this position because they view science and religion as opposed to each other, rather than reconcilable. The latter position requires considerable philosophical and scientific knowledge to pull off convincingly. The "lack of belief" crowd of weak atheists therefore pretty much always wins because they don't face a serious intellectual challange to the scientific status quo. this is because they form a large group and are probably one of the most active on RF overall.(edit: it's also because almost no-one here has the background to take up such positions).

They can question anything they want, but it still rests on their shoulders to demonstrate anything but the natural actually exists. You be sure to let us know when they actually manage to do so. And virtually no atheists ever make the claim that there is no god, they only say that theists have failed to support their claims with objective evidence, logic and reason. I'm also not saying there are no unicorns, only that until there is evidence that they really exist, I'm not going to believe in them. You're just inventing a strawman here, you're asserting that atheists are doing things that they simply are not doing. All we're doing is pointing out that the positive claimant, in this case the theists, have failed to prove their point and supply objective evidence for their claims. Until they do so, they're going to be the ones on the hook for the things that they believe.

Welcome to logic 101.
 

Skwim

Veteran Member
I disagree. Many people incorrectly assume that atheism is a belief, when, in actuality, it is a lack of or reluctance to believe in God due to insufficient evidence.
One can say "I believe there is a god," or "I believe there is not a god." One belief could be called theism and the other belief, atheism. The reason for each is immaterial.
 

leibowde84

Veteran Member
One can say "I believe there is a god," or "I believe there is not a god." One belief could be called theism and the other belief, atheism. The reason for each is immaterial.
I would say most atheists believe neither, explaining that there is insufficient evidence for both. Atheism merely requires a lack of belief. Not an active belief that God does not exist.
 

outhouse

Atheistically
One can say "I believe there is a god," or "I believe there is not a god." One belief could be called theism and the other belief, atheism. The reason for each is immaterial.

That's not always correct.

Were talking about an agued philosophical position on the definition of knowledge. 1 + 1 = 2 that is not belief, it is known. If I was unsure but thought the answer was 2, that would be belief.

At some point belief can turn into knowledge in a persons conscious mind when they know answer.

If someone doesn't want to even think about it and does not care one way or the other, and just reject theism, they are atheist without a belief on the topic.
 

Skwim

Veteran Member
I would say most atheists believe neither, explaining that there is insufficient evidence for both.
And I would say that, without getting into some of the supposed differences in atheisms, all atheists don't believe there is a god. And, as I pointed out before, the reason is immaterial.

Atheism merely requires a lack of belief [in god].
In that case, it could be said that theism merely requires a lack of belief in no god.

Not an active belief that God does not exist.
What is an "active belief"? Whatever it is, consider the following two beliefs: A is B and A is not B, which statement is the more active and why?

None-A is just as valid a logical concept as A. That A can be defined is immaterial.
 

Skwim

Veteran Member
That's not always correct.

Were talking about an agued philosophical position on the definition of knowledge. 1 + 1 = 2 that is not belief, it is known. If I was unsure but thought the answer was 2, that would be belief.
If you've ever read Plato's Theaetetus, his dialogue concerning the nature of knowledge, you might remember where you've gone astray here. Logical (mathematical) constructions such as 1 + 1 = 2 are irrelevant because their validity lies within the dictates of the laws of logic, identities to be exact, and the laws of mathematics; whereas constructions such as, "god is an actual being," are not identities or mathematical structures, and require supporting evidence to be accepted as correct.

At some point belief can turn into knowledge in a persons conscious mind when they know answer.
Epistemology, the study of knowledge, is a fairly large philosophical subject and one not worth going into, but in main it can be said that knowledge is pretty much justified belief. So you are correct that at some point a belief can become knowledge for someone, however, that doesn't mean it accrues any kind of validity on par with logical identities. Some people say they no longer believe god exists, but know he exists. Does this "knowledge" carry any persuasive weight? If it does I can only assume it's because of who said it, and not because they justified their promotion of god's existence from a belief to knowledge.

If someone doesn't want to even think about it and does not care one way or the other, and just reject theism, they are atheist without a belief on the topic.
If you want to divorce their rejection from belief, fine, but unless they're automatons they're going to have a reason for their rejection, and I would bet good money that if asked they would say it comes down to a lack of belief in god. So I highly doubt there's any "just" rejecting theism. Of course some people do simply mouth words with no understanding of what they're saying, but this is no better than a barking dog, in which case I do agree with your statement. However, I don't put much value in the bark of dogs, finding it more annoying than anything else.
 
Last edited:

Bunyip

pro scapegoat
.

In that case, it could be said that theism merely requires a lack of belief in no god.

Well I guess that could be said, but it strikes me as deliberately deceptive and dishonest. I would not persue a debate in which such tricks were being played.
 

leibowde84

Veteran Member
One can say "I believe there is a god," or "I believe there is not a god." One belief could be called theism and the other belief, atheism. The reason for each is immaterial.
Lawrence Kraus for example states openly that he does not believe that God does not exist because science is about taking the evidence as it comes. He says he can't prove the negative that God does not exist and, this, does not hold a belief either way. And he is definitely atheist.
 
Top