(Strong) Atheism's Burden of Proof

[Laika]

Not too familiar with Marxism. But it seems to me that a materialist viewpoint is less relativistic than other moral systems because at least is limited by what is known in the natural world.

Is it relativistic because it is based on what is known about the natural world and that can change? Or are there just competing interpretations? Are there assumptions on how humans ideally interact with this world, or is it dependent on available resources?

Edit: just read your response to Typist after I wrote this.

Marxism is a philosophy of history so ethics are relative to the level of technological development over the course of history and therefore our moral knowledge. Consequently, it doesn't have absolute ethical standards like a judeo-christian one. As it is materialist, it would claim that these ethics are objectively derived from the way society is organized and the technological limits people have to achieve their objectives. (The combination of it being relativistic whilst also being objective is a weird one and has taken me a while to figure out. I still find the details are problematic because they expected it to keep changing over time and evolve.).

 

[Laika]

Consider the following two possible objects of belief:

1) God (choose your local flavor)
2) Blue fairies

Both have the same evidence of being objectively real.

Now, how would you react to someone telling you the following (with a straight face):

1) I am agnostic about the existence of God having created the Universe
2) I am agnostic about blue fairies populating my garden

Since blue fairies and gods have the same evidence, both claims of agnosticism should be treated with the same form of respect.

Are they? If not, why not?

Ciao

- viole

I'd smirk, but if I was interested and I liked the person I was talking to (and didn't feel I was wasting my time) I would try to take it seriously. However Blue Fairies aren't as important because god is so central to our understanding of nature, society and ethics etc, as the "first cause" in many belief systems and from which knowledge in those systems is supposedly derived.

Overall, just because an idea is absurd doesn't mean it's not true. nor does the absurdity of an idea stop people from believing it.

 

[Typist]

The reason the question of god's objective non-existence is of interest is because once 'god' goes- it has a cascading effect on our understanding of ethics as the judeo-christian-liberal tradition unravels.

I hear you, yes, that seems an important point. Perhaps the Judeo-Christian worldview might be compared to the operating system on a computer. Trying to change the operating system while running existing programs may be problematic.

What I see, as best I can, is that any philosophical operating system can not be discarded over night. There isn't an on/off switch, even at the personal level. As example, some atheist critiques of religion are grounded in values pounded in to the heads of western culture by 1,000 years of Catholic dominance.

Thus, even if it should be proven beyond doubt that "God Is Dead", it could be centuries before the full impact of such a realization plays out. But then what? I don't claim to know, and feel you are presenting an excellent question.

I'm not going to get drawn into this one, but Lenin and pretty much all the communists that followed were fairly explicit about the need for "class struggle" and the "dictatorship of the proletariat".

Yes, but they didn't really mean either. What they really meant was, let's replace the ruling class with Lenin and his cronies. Same ethic as before, just new despotic rulers.

....whereas the Communists believed that what they were doing was "scientific" because it was based on Dialectical laws of nature and society (i.e. the class struggle) as they believed that logic/dialectics was a science. (much in the same way physicists think mathematics can be used to identify scientific laws of nature such as the orbits of the planets)

Ok, I agree many communists were sincere in this philosophy, but weren't they self deluded about what they believed? What they actually did was not class struggle, rule of the masses, but a power grab for a new tiny elite. To me, one's actions are the best indicator of one's real philosophy.

All that said, I doubt I've studied communism to the degree you have, so correct me where you can.

 

[Kuzcotopia]

Marxism is a philosophy of history so ethics are relative to the level of technological development over the course of history and therefore our moral knowledge. Consequently, it doesn't have absolute ethical standards like a judeo-christian one. As it is materialist, it would claim that these ethics are objectively derived from the way society is organized and the technological limits people have to achieve their objectives. (The combination of it being relativistic whilst also being objective is a weird one and has taken me a while to figure out. I still find the details are problematic because they expected it to keep changing over time and evolve.).

It makes sense to me.

It suggests that the dialectic is never ending. To suggest that there is a static moral authority that never changes is to close off morality as a line of inquiry, and that advancements of knowledge and human activity is irrelevant.

For example, you can claim that pesticide use is wrong universally because there is the potential for human sickness (which affects potential labor, etc) but as population increases, we simply need to produce more calories per acre to feed a larger population. Pesticide use must be considered as less evil. Sure, it is a relative position, but based on material needs.

Alternatives to pesticides, or safe/more effective ones, may be produced in the future, thus changing the moral position again. We'd also have to consider how much productivity goes to the research of alternates to pesticides, weighed against the current risks of their use.

Seems right to me, honestly. It doesn't sacrifice thinking for easy answers. Maybe I need to read more about Marxism?

 

[Deidre]

The burden of proof should always fall on the person making the claim that a god exists, in an objective sense. The burden of proof typically doesn't fall on someone trying to 'prove' a negative.

 

[Typist]

Now, how would you react to someone telling you one of the following (with a straight face):

1) I am agnostic about the existence of God having created the Universe
2) I am agnostic about blue fairies populating my garden

I can demonstrate the existence of the Invisible Pink Unicorn in your own house if you wish, seriously, though I am hesitant to clog this thread with that discussion. Start a new thread if you want that I guess.

So many people are so convinced their reasoning is rock solid, and it can all be overturned just by looking at things in a new way, from a different angle.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Athiest vs theist argument is like this:

There is a table in front of me. On the table, the theist says there is an box. The table is bare.

The thiest says,

Theist: Its there because we need to have faith to see it.

The atheist: Faith is abstract. Give me a way to measure or find ways that make me delusional to a non existing box.

The theist cant give the atheist anymore proof than those people in their holy book because the "box is not there".

They cannot proove something exists when it does not.

Likewise with atheist

Athiest: Cant you see the there is no box. All you need is your five senses (and the brain that in part should tell you what exists and whats not--taking out the option of clinical hulluciations). Your five senses can be trocked by your minds wanting to see something that doesnt exist.

Thiest: but I know the box exist. I have an inner feeling (hunch?) that it does. Also, it is written other people have that same "hunch" as well.

Atheist: a hunch is a product of the mind. It cannot make something exist just make you "assume" it does.

An atheist cannot proove something exist when it does not.

--
What needs to happen is BOTH parties need to agree on an authirity or foundation to make an informed, not hunched nor claim, observation that a box does exist. Even if it is invisble.

 

[viole]

I can demonstrate the existence of the Invisible Pink Unicorn in your own house if you wish, seriously, though I am hesitant to clog this thread with that discussion. Start a new thread if you want that I guess.

So many people are so convinced their reasoning is rock solid, and it can all be overturned just by looking at things in a new way, from a different angle.

And how would that different angle look like?

Ciao

- viole

 

[Kuzcotopia]

I'd smirk, but if I was interested and I liked the person I was talking to (and didn't feel I was wasting my time) I would try to take it seriously. However Blue Fairies aren't as important because god is so central to our understanding of nature, society and ethics etc, as the "first cause" in many belief systems and from which knowledge in those systems is supposedly derived.

Overall, just because an idea is absurd doesn't mean it's not true. nor does the absurdity of an idea stop people from believing it.

Well. . . I think the two ideas are equivalent. If you accept the possibility of blue fairies, you can build your whole world around it if you want. People agreeing on a specific delusion because they have been taught to do so since birth doesn't make it any more plausible. If you're taught to believe that blue fairies are the central core of meaning, then that's what you do:

 

[Typist]

And how would that different angle look like?

As suggested, my best guess is that should happen in it's own thread, so as to not further hijack this one.

 

[Typist]

The burden of proof should always fall on the person making the claim that a god exists, in an objective sense. The burden of proof typically doesn't fall on someone trying to 'prove' a negative.

Atheism is based upon a positive but unproven assertion, the notion that the rules of human reason are binding upon all of reality, the realm addressed by god claims.

The fact that many or most atheists don't understand their own position well enough to get this doesn't change anything.

 

[Kuzcotopia]

Atheism is based upon a positive but unproven assertion, the notion that the rules of human reason are binding upon all of reality, the realm addressed by god claims.

The fact that many or most atheists don't understand their own position well enough to get this doesn't change anything.

I don't think you understand the implications of your own logic.

Not only are you allowing that anyone can conceive of a god concept, and that all these concepts are potentially true unless disproven, you are also saying that each god concept could potentially have it's own logical system independently.

That's a bridge to nowhere. Anyone can create a circular logic system. If there are traditions of logical inquiry, then they exist so we can talk to each other.

 

[Laika]

I hear you, yes, that seems an important point. Perhaps the Judeo-Christian worldview might be compared to the operating system on a computer. Trying to change the operating system while running existing programs may be problematic.

What I see, as best I can, is that any philosophical operating system can not be discarded over night. There isn't an on/off switch, even at the personal level. As example, some atheist critiques of religion are grounded in values pounded in to the heads of western culture by 1,000 years of Catholic dominance.

Thus, even if it should be proven beyond doubt that "God Is Dead", it could be centuries before the full impact of such a realization plays out. But then what? I don't claim to know, and feel you are presenting an excellent question.

This is exactly what happened with Frederich Nietzsche's philosophy; As god was the source of ethics, the "death of god" led to a crisis of all ethical systems derived from god, leading to nihilism and a "trans-valuation of all [ethical] values".
The problem Nietzsche posed is one that came up in Communist ethics but due to some philosophical differences it was not in exactly the same way. Basically, without god as an objective source for ethics, the legal, political and moral structure of society was determined by man through the state. Nietzsche's influence on Communism appears to be indirect, but does illustrate a more general problem with (strong) atheism.

"weak" atheism doesn't have this problem because whilst it means people don't believe in god, it doesn't change the definition of the objective world and therefore the way we derive ethical standards.

Yes, but they didn't really mean either. What they really meant was, let's replace the ruling class with Lenin and his cronies. Same ethic as before, just new despotic rulers.

Ok, I agree many communists were sincere in this philosophy, but weren't they self deluded about what they believed? What they actually did was not class struggle, rule of the masses, but a power grab for a new tiny elite. To me, one's actions are the best indicator of one's real philosophy.

All that said, I doubt I've studied communism to the degree you have, so correct me where you can.

that's one the problems. As Communism changes the definition of objective reality, it also changes the definition of "democracy".

In a liberal sense dictatorship and democracy are mutually exclusive; in the communist sense they aren't; It can be a democracy for the few, who then act as the dictatorship to the many.

Hence, Lenin believed vice versa. the democracy of the many would dictate to the few. the dictatorship of the proletariat was also a "proletarian democracy"; i.e. it was democratic for those who were considered to be proletarian, but dictatorial to everyone who wasn't thought of as proletarian.

it was a question of who had power, not necessarily how it was exercised. honestly, it was trying to build utopia by any means necessary. there was little or no distinction between having the "power" to change things and the "freedom" to change things which is ethically quite a headache. they were quite sincere in believing they were the good guys.

It makes sense to me.

It suggests that the dialectic is never ending. To suggest that there is a static moral authority that never changes is to close off morality as a line of inquiry, and that advancements of knowledge and human activity is irrelevant.

For example, you can claim that pesticide use is wrong universally because there is the potential for human sickness (which affects potential labor, etc) but as population increases, we simply need to produce more calories per acre to feed a larger population. Pesticide use must be considered as less evil. Sure, it is a relative position, but based on material needs.

Alternatives to pesticides, or safe/more effective ones, may be produced in the future, thus changing the moral position again. We'd also have to consider how much productivity goes to the research of alternates to pesticides, weighed against the current risks of their use.

Seems right to me, honestly. It doesn't sacrifice thinking for easy answers. Maybe I need to read more about Marxism?

you'd got it! that's exactly spot on. I couldn't have put it better myself.

The idea of basis and superstructure, that economics determines politics/intellectual ideas is easy enough to grasp and can be very useful.

it's the dialectics that drives me demented as the process of constant change, whereby something changes itself, means that all that looks solid gets swept away. pretty much everything changes all the time.

 

[Laika]

Atheism is based upon a positive but unproven assertion, the notion that the rules of human reason are binding upon all of reality, the realm addressed by god claims.

The fact that many or most atheists don't understand their own position well enough to get this doesn't change anything.

there is more than one kind of "atheism". The idea of atheism on it's own does do very much- it depends on how it's arrived at and what intellectual system it's re-enforcing.

 

[Deidre]

Atheism is based upon a positive but unproven assertion, the notion that the rules of human reason are binding upon all of reality, the realm addressed by god claims.

The fact that many or most atheists don't understand their own position well enough to get this doesn't change anything.

Atheism is about a lack of belief, it's not an assertion about knowledge. No one knows with certainty if a god exists or not, but an atheist simply says...'I don't believe a deity exists.'

There is no objective evidence for a deity's existence, but if someone wishes to claim there is, he/she needs to do the proving FOR it.

 

[Laika]

Atheism is about a lack of belief, it's not an assertion about knowledge. No one knows with certainty if a god exists or not, but an atheist simply says...'I don't believe a deity exists.'

There is no objective evidence for a deity's existence, but if someone wishes to claim there is, he/she needs to do the proving FOR it.

Positive atheism, also called strong atheism and hard atheism, is the form of atheism that asserts that no deities exist; negative atheism, also called weak atheism and soft atheism, is any other type of atheism, i.e. where a person does not believe in the existence of any deities and does not explicitly assert that there are none.

Positive/strong/hard atheism has some burden of proof in asserting that god's non-existence is a knowledge claim about the objective world (but it differs depending on how you get to that conclusion); negative/weak/soft atheism doesn't have that as it is the absence of belief in a god and remains subjective.

 

[Deidre]

Hmmm....
Leave it to mankind to make even a lack of belief, more complicated than it needs to be. lol

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

It seems to me that establishing that a god doesn't exist isn't that different from establishing that a species is extinct, or that a mythical creature isn't real, or that a missing person is actually dead.

I think there's a double standard in the theist responses to strong atheism, because I never, ever hear theists taking this "you can't know!" approach to other issues.

I can say "the passenger pigeon is extinct in the wild" without being challenged, even though I can come up with semi-plausible scenarios where that might not be the case (for instance, maybe some 19th-century millionaire collected a few thousand birds and released them on some uninhabited island that we haven't visited in the last century-or-so). I don't see why we can't approach the question of the existence of gods the same way.

My favorite example of this is that only 100 years ago, we didn't have evidence for 99% of the universe, all those billions of galaxies discovered by Hubble and others. If we can miss 99% of the universe, we can probably miss other things too.

Here's the problem with this approach: when a theist claims that their god exists, they're never (or virtually never) talking about some entity that has been utterly unknown to humanity so far that we would recognize as a god if we discovered it.

Instead, (virtually) every god-claim comes bundled with a whole set of other claims about that god. If a "god" is hiding behind some far-flung galaxy and has never interacted with humanity in any way whatsoever, it isn't the god that any theist believes in, and therefore not the god that any atheist is talking about when he or she responds to a theistic claim by saying "your god doesn't exist."

Also, I notice that theists don't seem to apply this approach themselves. I've never heard someone couch their monotheism by saying "well, I can't prove that all these other gods don't exist, so while I believe in Yahweh, I'm agnostic about all the rest of them."

 

[JoStories]

The burden of proof lies with ANYBODY making a claim.

I really dont see atheists making any claims as to the existence of God. that would be theists, such as me, and I dont really ever argue that as it not my place to convince anyone of what I believe.

 

[JoStories]

I almost feel bad for Theists. Open communication and literacy has not been their friend.

excuse me but have I ever insulted you? I have regular communication with lots of people and if someone can prove my experiences were all in my head, mores the power to you. And trust me, I am extremely well read Sir or Madame.