(Strong) Atheism's Burden of Proof

[Rick O'Shez]

My space alien friends don't believe in God.

 

[Vishvavajra]

The objective non-existence of god always lays waste to traditional 'objective' ethics...

Only when those ethical systems were fundamentally deontological, such as divine command theory, which is ultimately not really objective, just subjective in a very limited way (i.e. whatever God thinks is right or wrong). Buddhist ethics is both objective and functionally atheistic.

As for the original question, it depends what exactly one means by "God" (and "existence," but that's another conversation altogether), but when it comes to the traditional theistic view of God, strongly atheistic views rely less on disproving the existence of such a thing, and more on showing how it's an incoherent or inherently problematic concept to begin with. Can one definitively prove that there isn't an invisible, disembodied human-like consciousness that is somehow in control of the cosmos? No, but if you look at that model, you'll see that it's absurd on various levels.

The idea of a disembodied personal consciousness doesn't accord with what we know of such things, so it's not unreasonable to reject that out of hand until someone can account for how it's possible. The idea that the natural processes of the universe require a conscious guiding hand amounts to taking Occam's Razor out back and shooting it, so it's not unreasonable to reject that idea as extraneous to the evidence, even if it can't be disproved. After all, the only reason someone would believe it is because they want to, not because the evidence calls for it, and that eliminates the possibility of objectivity in any case. And why should we imagine that the power behind the cosmos is a person like us? That's attributable to human beings' propensity to anthropomorphize everything, even when it doesn't make any sense. In that case it's much easier to explain the phenomenon by appealing to known cognitive errors and biases in the human mind, rather than entertaining the idea that what they are outputting is objectively accurate. So once again, it's reasonable to reject the idea as entailing too many problematic premises from the very beginning.

Then there's the problem of conflicting definitions, such as the claim that God is eternal and unchanging, yet active and responsive. Or that God is perfect and self-sufficient yet also has desires and demands. That's not even getting into the claim that some make, that God is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent, a series of idealized abstractions that does not accord with reality as we experience it. Or that God is both personal and transcendent, like us in all the convenient particulars but not at all like us in essence—e.g. having human emotions, perspectives, concerns, and means of expression, while not actually being an evolved animal with the physiological infrastructure to account for those things. All in all, the theistic God that most people are thinking of when they ask whether it exists, isn't a coherent concept to begin with, so its existence or nonexistence is moot. And for all practical purposes, that effectively means it doesn't exist.

All of this, incidentally, could be taken as a good reason to go with a different concept of God altogether. It's pretty easy to argue that the God of traditional theism is a dinosaur—it once ruled the earth, but then the climate shifted, and now it has precious little place anymore. The entire God-vs.-science thing comes out of the fact that for a very long time people were using God as an explanation for phenomena, which then became less and less necessary as time went on. At this point the concept of God as the man behind the curtain is pretty well moribund and rests on special pleading and question-begging. On the other hand, a non-theistic concept of God such as the one proposed by Paul Tillich (which does have ancient precedent) avoids all these problems by reframing the question entirely.

 

[Typist]

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.

Can you help me see a form of atheism that isn't built upon a faith in the infinite (binding on all reality) power of human reason? How else might one come to atheism?

 

[Kuzcotopia]

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.
.

I apologize for the misunderstanding. I meant to imply this from a historical context. The Theist position has less intellectual influence now because of literacy and open communication.

Yes, I find that ironic.

If you are personally offended, I'm sorry. I disagree with claims against the Atheist position on these forums every day I've been here. Some may be construed as rude, I suppose.

I don't have to afford you automatic respect because of your system of beliefs, but if you want to make a counter argument that the Theist position has not been shaken by world wide literacy and open communication, then bring your intellect and education to bear against my ironic comment and make me look the fool. I'm all ears.

But if your personal offense against my ironic comment is your only argument, well. .

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Can you help me see a form of atheism that isn't built upon a faith in the infinite (binding on all reality) power of human reason? How else might one come to atheism?

Atheism is a response to theism. In that respect, it isn't so much about faith in our own perfect reason as acknowledgement of the unreliability of theists.

 

[Typist]

Not only are you allowing that anyone can conceive of a god concept,

They can obviously...

and that all these concepts are potentially true unless disproven,

They are.

you are also saying that each god concept could potentially have it's own logical system independently.

I'll put it this way. I reject the notion that a single species on one little planet in one of billions of galaxies, a species only recently living in caves, a species with thousands of hair trigger nukes aimed down it's own throat, has figured out the one and only way that all of reality can be.

This is fairly easy to demonstrate with one little four word question. When will science end?

If we reason that science will continue for a very long time, probably at an ever accelerating rate, it follows that we currently know close to nothing, in comparison to what we would need to know to make sweeping assertions about all of reality, the scope of god claims.

That's a bridge to nowhere.

Well, if you should continue to read my posts, you will see nowhere is where I suggest we go. Fuel for another thread on another day.

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

Human logic is indeed very useful for very many things, but it is not itself a type of god, an infinitely powerful universal authority binding on everything everywhere, or at least this has not been proven the case to date.

The infinite power of your chosen authority has not been proven, so I decline to believe in that authority. Atheist methodology, applied to atheism itself. Adamant atheists aren't really arguing with me, but with their own principles.

 

[Typist]

Atheism is a response to theism.

Agreed, get this part.

In that respect, it isn't so much about faith in our own perfect reason as acknowledgement of the unreliability of theists.

Upon what basis do atheists declare theist thinking unreliable?

What system, methodology, authority or other is used to make that evaluation?

 

[Rick O'Shez]

Can you help me see a form of atheism that isn't built upon a faith in the infinite (binding on all reality) power of human reason? How else might one come to atheism?

Both theism and atheism are products of the human mind.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

Upon what basis do atheists declare theist thinking unreliable?

The lack of evidence, which makes theism look very much like wishful thinking.

 

[Kuzcotopia]

They can obviously...



They are.



I'll put it this way. I reject the notion that a single species on one little planet in one of billions of galaxies, a species only recently living in caves, a species with thousands of hair trigger nukes aimed down it's own throat, has figured out the one and only way that all of reality can be.

This is fairly easy to demonstrate with one little four word question. When will science end?

If we reason that science will continue for a very long time, probably at an ever accelerating rate, it follows that we currently know close to nothing, in comparison to what we would need to know to make sweeping assertions about all of reality, the scope of god claims.



Well, if you should continue to read my posts, you will see nowhere is where I suggest we go. Fuel for another thread on another day.



Human logic is indeed very useful for very many things, but it is not itself a type of god, an infinitely powerful universal authority binding on everything everywhere, or at least this has not been proven the case to date.

The infinite power of your chosen authority has not been proven, so I decline to believe in that authority. Atheist methodology, applied to atheism itself. Adamant atheists aren't really arguing with me, but with their own principles.

I hate using the word "straw man." It feels like such a cliche.

But, no one is claiming that logic is a god, or that it's methodology is universal. We can create statements of truth like 1+ 1 = 2. But it's only true within the logical system it self. We can apply it as a way to describe the phenomena of the world around us, but that's all.

The "rules" of logic are not gods, and they aren't worshipped by anyone.

Two people who share a similar language have a greater ability to communicate than two people who do not. That's all it is. A shared langauge to try and describe the world and our ideas. When you claim "infinite power of your chosen authority," I honestly have no idea what you're taking about.

 

[Typist]

But, no one is claiming that logic is a god,

Agreed.

or that it's methodology is universal.

Not agreed.

When you claim "infinite power of your chosen authority," I honestly have no idea what you're taking about.

Ok, then I have failed to make myself clear, poor writing, my fault.

Consider the Bible. For many this is their chosen authority. And they choose it because they consider it's statements to be binding on all of reality. The Bible doesn't claim there is a God for this solar system only. The Bible claims infinite power, the ability to accurately describe the very foundation of all reality, which is labeled "God".

If we wish to debunk this claim, we must first prove that we have an authority which is binding upon the realm claims are being made about, all of reality. And then we must demonstrate that god claims violate the rules of this authority.

So for instance, if we knew for certain that all objects in reality can only be round, and somebody proposes a square god, we can dismiss that claim. But we can dismiss it ONLY if we can first demonstrate that our method of knowing objects can only be round is qualified, reliable, PROVEN.

It's the simplest thing. Just present the very same challenge you reasonably apply to the other fellow's chosen authority to your own chosen authority. Such a process is called intellectual honesty, reason.

A process whereby we challenge the other fellow's authority while declining to challenge our own is not reason. It's ideology.

The two are very commonly confused, as both can involve logical arguments. But logical arguments do not constitute reason. Reason is defined by surrender to the process. In that way, reason is remarkably similar to faith, both are built upon a willingness to surrender to some higher authority.

 

[nilsz]

I might describe myself as a strong atheist. I can not prove the non-existence of what I call God with absolute certainty, however I also recognize that I can neither prove much else with absolute certainty either. So I argue that I only need to prove that the existence of God is infinitesimally unlikely.

1) First, we would have to understand the proposal we are attempting to debunk, a step many atheists seem to skip in their rush to rejection. God ideas are proposals about the most fundamental nature of all reality. Typically they assert the most fundamental nature of all reality is some form of hyper-intelligence.

What I call God I believe reflects common understanding. God is described as that which governs all, God is also often assigned personal qualities such as being loving, and God desires that believers conform to a moral code. Thus I argue that God is understood as a person similar to a human, ie. anthropomorphic. This is often denied by believers, although I suspect they would find faith in God less satisfying if they saw him as completely inhuman.

2) Next, we would have to demonstrate that we can reference some authority which is qualified to deliver credible conclusions about the realm being addressed by god claims, all of reality. Typically atheists wish to use human reason as that authority, thus they bear the burden of proving that the rules of human reason are binding upon all of reality.

I consider faith in human reasoning, even if not explicit, as a prerequesite for any meaningful discussion, and I would think that this is something most will develop faith in through their individual experience. I think it is difficult for me to argue in favour of reason without some reasoning, and that could perhaps be called circular logic.

3) Finally, we would have to demonstrate that a god proposal violates the rules of human reason.

I argue that belief in God and gods is an effect of an anthropocentric bias in humans, a desire to glorify their own existence in the universe. What I believe disproves his existence, is that you can create an infinite number of alternative hypotheses for what governs the universe, ones that do not involve anything that conforms to what is commonly understood as a human person, and you would have little to no way to say that those hypotheses are any more or less likely than the God hypothesis. The likelihood of there existing a God is therefore infinitesimal.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

In that way, reason is remarkably similar to faith, both are built upon a willingness to surrender to some higher authority.

Sorry but I think the reason v. faith thing is a red herring. I think it's really about evidence v. faith, because faith is belief without evidence.

 

[Deidre]

For me at this point, it's honestly as simple as 'I just don't believe what you believe,' as to what I say to any theist, or spiritual person. This is how I choose to see life and my place in it, nothing more or less. I could spend time sharing my views as to why people shouldn't buy into Christianity, and religion in general...but again, it's just my belief (lack of) against someone else's. Everyone has to come to his/her place with all of this, on his/her own terms.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Upon what basis do atheists declare theist thinking unreliable?

What system, methodology, authority or other is used to make that evaluation?

Don't take it personally - everbody's thinking is unreliable. In response to this, we've come up with tools to correct for the unreliability (e.g. logic and reason). They don't do this perfectly, but they're a major improvement on the situation without them.

And even when it comes to strong atheism, the burden of proof is still on the theists. Here's why:

Consider two claims: A - "God exists" and B - "God does not exist."

- if it's established that A is true, then God must exist.
- if it's established that B is true, then God must not exist.
- if neither A nor B are established as true, then God may or may not exist.
- If God may or may not exist, then God's existence is indistinguishable from God's non-existence (at least to us).
- A God that's indistinguishable to humanity from no God at all is not a god that any person actually worships or believes in.
- therefore, when it's unclear whether A or B is correct, we can still conclude that the theists are wrong.

 

[Vishvavajra]

Both theism and atheism are products of the human mind.

Yes, atheism is no more guilty of exalting the powers of the human mind than theism is. If anything, it's somewhat less so, since only theism claims that the human mind is capable of grasping things that are outside its experience. But they are both mental attitudes that rely on faith in one's own faculties to make sense of reality.

Sorry but I think the reason v. faith thing is a red herring. I think it's really about evidence v. faith, because faith is belief without evidence.

That's a very Protestant definition of faith that has become common in modern English but is not actually how the concept was used in ancient times, whether in Christianity or in Buddhism. Prior to very recently in history, pretty much at no time when writers are upholding the merits of faith are they talking about belief without evidence.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

The idea of a disembodied personal consciousness doesn't accord with what we know of such things, so it's not unreasonable to reject that out of hand until someone can account for how it's possible. The idea that the natural processes of the universe require a conscious guiding hand amounts to taking Occam's Razor out back and shooting it, so it's not unreasonable to reject that idea as extraneous to the evidence, even if it can't be disproved. After all, the only reason someone would believe it is because they want to, not because the evidence calls for it, and that eliminates the possibility of objectivity in any case.

Right. In this respect, God isn't that different from, say, a manticore. I shouldn't need to get into an argument over the nitty-gritty details of evolution to reject a beast with the body of a lion, face of a woman, teeth of a shark, and tail of a scorpion as fantasy.

 

[philbo]

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

Sometimes it seems there's almost as many different objects of belief as there are believers, so it makes for an awful lot of different things not to believe in

For many of the different types of gods it is easy to be a "strong atheist", and actively believe that these gods don't exist (because a magical, intercessory God-with-a-capital-G who acts on behalf of His believers would leave behind measurable evidence of His existence, and lack of that kind of evidence is evidence that He isn't that sort of god); for many other different gods, one can only be agnostically atheist, because a god that is unmeasurable in any way may or may not be there; there is no way of knowing.

 

[JoStories]

I apologize for the misunderstanding. I meant to imply this from a historical context. The Theist position has less intellectual influence now because of literacy and open communication.

Yes, I find that ironic.

If you are personally offended, I'm sorry. I disagree with claims against the Atheist position on these forums every day I've been here. Some may be construed as rude, I suppose.

I don't have to afford you automatic respect because of your system of beliefs, but if you want to make a counter argument that the Theist position has not been shaken by world wide literacy and open communication, then bring your intellect and education to bear against my ironic comment and make me look the fool. I'm all ears.

But if your personal offense against my ironic comment is your only argument, well. .

Oh, I agree that the theist position has lost ground owing to both of those things. It is one of the reasons I left organized religion in the first place. I would never wish to make anyone look a fool, so please, if I offended you, it's my turn to apologize. Wha I find unfair, I suppose, is categorizing people. This one is that or that one is this. It's silly, IMO. Not you, btw, just thinking we can all be grouped into neat little pockets. I welcome open communication and have always said I cannot prove my beliefs to anyone including myself. So I think we are really more on the same page than you realize. : )

 

[Jumi]

This question is directed more specifically at strong atheists who make a positive assertion that god does not objectively exist rather than weak atheists who have grounds for not having a subjective belief in god. Realizing this is the case, I've actually decided to change my position to an agnostic as I cannot objectively prove Atheism is true (agnosticism and weak atheism are barely distinguishable).

It can't be proven that there are no gods. It's possible that they exist, but their effect on nature is either negligible, all-pervasive(such as through they are nature's laws) or having an effect we can't measure.

To find gods we can follow subjective religious methodologies and see if we find them and if we do, if they are credible or more likely to be imaginations.

i) how does a (Strong) Atheist set about to prove that god's non-existence is an objectively truth- irrespective of the beliefs of agnostics, theists etc?

So far I don't think there is a way to. All we can prove is falsity of claims that supposedly reflect shared reality.

ii) what proof would be required for a believer to voluntarily give up their belief in god/gods?

I don't think they should be forced this choice. It's up to them, much as it is up to us to accept there probably are no theistic gods. At best they can serve as inspiration or motivational for example to get over losing a close person.