(Strong) Atheism's Burden of Proof

[Laika]

Does this mean something like the following?

Any moral system which has clearly been invented by us will not be credible enough to create the consensus and cohesion necessary for an ordered society?

Or am I just making up ****?

That's about right. The problem is that is cannot be solely created by us. For there to be moral truths, it must be objective to us. Because those truth are objective it is a basis for a consensus about what is moral. There has to be a way to say that something is right and wrong beyond personal preference in order for it to be shared.

@Red Economist : does atheism need any proof, though? Isn't it just a stance?

It seems to me that it would only need proof if asserted as a fact, or if proselitizing.

I want to establish atheism as a fact, yes. If there is no god and that is a fact- that means it is a fact for everyone.

 

[Laika]

I think the question should be "What proof SHOULD be required to......". Because their are some theists out there who freely admit that nothing could change their mind.

I think one of the proofs that SHOULD be required, is the testable statements one i mentioned earlier.

I want to be able to establish it as something which is true for everyone and hence does not need coercion, even if it is a subtle one such as the force of evidence, but I get your point. it has to be something people could spontaneously arrive at before you can deal with those who'd disagree irrespective of the argument/evidence.

 

[Marisa]

Why should an atheist have to prove why he/she doesn’t believe that a god exists?

He/she doesn't, if he/she doesn't make a positive claim. The difference is between saying "I know gods don't exist" and "I don't believe gods exist". It's a statement of fact (requiring evidence) or a statement of opinion (not requiring evidence).

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

it has to be something people could spontaneously arrive at before you can deal with those who'd disagree irrespective of the argument/evidence.

Gulags?

 

[LuisDantas]

I want to establish atheism as a fact, yes. If there is no god and that is a fact- that means it is a fact for everyone.

Not going to happen. There will always be believers in some form of deity.

We should not allow that belief to have many consequences, but we should not attempt to get rid of it either.

 

[Laika]

Not going to happen. There will always be believers in some form of deity.

We should not allow that belief to have many consequences, but we should not attempt to get rid of it either.

So we don't have absolute freedom to chose what we believe even if it is contradicted by evidence?

Gulags?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

So we don't have absolute freedom to chose what we believe even if it is contradicted by evidence?

Not all gods are contradicted by evidence. The deistic god, for instance, is designed to be unfalsifiable. This also takes away any possible foundation for belief in such a god, but that's a different problem.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Not sure how to interpret that. I can see an evil grin lurking behind that disarming charade.

 

[LuisDantas]

So we don't have absolute freedom to chose what we believe even if it is contradicted by evidence?

Indeed, we do not. It takes considerable effort to change one's beliefs, regardless of evidence. And it seems to not always be possible.

 

[Deidre]

He/she doesn't, if he/she doesn't make a positive claim. The difference is between saying "I know gods don't exist" and "I don't believe gods exist". It's a statement of fact (requiring evidence) or a statement of opinion (not requiring evidence).

Agree.

 

[Deidre]

Anybody who makes a claim takes on the burden for that claim. No claim, no burden.

A significant obstacle that keeps the "burden of proof" topic going round and round is that many atheists don't realize they are making a claim. Their faith in the infinite reach of human reason is so deep, and so unexamined, that they sincerely take those qualifications to be an obvious given.

We can see this in this thread, and pretty much any thread on the topic. Participants dive right in to slinging the reasoning about, without ever bothering to demonstrate reason is qualified for the job at hand.

This is the equivalent of discussions on theist forums where those posters all take it as an obvious given that the Bible is the word of God, and so they dive right in to debates about the meaning of Bible verses, on the assumption that whatever the verses mean is the final word on the topic.

In both cases, a logical structure, built upon a faith foundation.

Good points.

Honestly, many atheists simply don’t care if a god exists or not. They just don’t want to be told that one does exist by theists, and that if they don’t believe too, they may meet an eternity filled with torment and suffering.

Atheism is more a place of belief/lack of belief, while agnosticism is more of a place of knowledge. I don’t ‘know’ with certainty if there is a deity that exists or not, but I choose to not worry about it, or believe that one exists, until I see some semblance of objective proof. I can’t speak for all atheists, but that’s how I see it, now.

 

[Marisa]

Honestly, many atheists simply don’t care if a god exists or not. They just don’t want to be told that one does exist by theists, and that if they don’t believe too, they may meet an eternity filled with torment and suffering.

You're right in that I don't care if any of the gods throughout history are real are not. Some might be worth hanging out with, but I haven't been shown one yet worthy of my worship. And I don't care if believers condemn me to a firey eternal torment, why would I? LOL What I don't care for is assumptions of my character being made based on what I fail to believe. I also don't care for morality legislation based on a code that is, at best, replete with questionable morality. It doesn't bother me that I pass 5 churches on my 4 mile drive (one way) to work. What disturbs me is that every 2 years, I follow behind a neighbor who writes "god belongs in MY government" on the back of his SUV.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

He/she doesn't, if he/she doesn't make a positive claim. The difference is between saying "I know gods don't exist" and "I don't believe gods exist". It's a statement of fact (requiring evidence) or a statement of opinion (not requiring evidence).

Keep in mind that evidence and proof are different standards. That ends up being conflated in these debates.

If someone strongly believes that no gods exist, and while they're open to having their mind changed, they think the likelihood of new evidence coming forward that would justify belief in god(s) is so low as to be negligible, then I would call this person a strong atheist. This position doesn't need omniscience, a solution to the problem of hard solipsism, or any of the other things that apologists like to claim go along with strong atheism.

Some theists like to pretend that strong atheism is a claim of perfect knowledge. It isn't... or at least, it doesn't have to be. There's quite a wide spectrum of beliefs that go beyond the mere "lack of belief" of weak atheism. Any person who comes to the conclusion - even tentatively - that the facts at hand point more toward the non-existence of gods than to the existence of gods is in the "strong atheist" spectrum.

 

[FunctionalAtheist]

Sure, but we're not talking about a room, we're talking about an infinite and still poorly understood universe and beyond. It's really another way of expressing the God of the gaps argument, there are still enough gaps in our knowledge of the universe for God to be hiding somewhere.

Though as I also said before, there is no need to disprove the existence of something for which we have no evidence.

It doesn't change the logic. Absence of evidence IS evidence of absence. We use this principle every single day. It is not proof, it is evidence. People confuse the two.

If I thoroughly check my dog for fleas and find none, that is evidence that there are none. It is not proof. If I check again the next day, and the next, and the next, and never find any, even after a year, I have not proved anything, but I have strong evidence, after checking one more time, that there are no fleas on the dog.

If I open the box, and there is no cat in the box, and I check the same box every day for a week, when I open the box on the 8the day, there is not a rational person, that would expect there to be a cat in the box without some extraneous reasoning. Yet I have not proved there will be no cat in the box on the 8th day. Absence of evidence IS evidence of absence.

 

[Typist]

That's about right. The problem is that is cannot be solely created by us. For there to be moral truths, it must be objective to us. Because those truth are objective it is a basis for a consensus about what is moral. There has to be a way to say that something is right and wrong beyond personal preference in order for it to be shared.

Thank you for the clarification Red. Interesting. Hmm.....

Suppose it could be established beyond any doubt that there is no God. Then what?

Do you think it might be possible to create a consensus around a moral code based only on practicality? You know, things will go better if we all get along etc.

Or is the pursuit of individual interest too strong to be tamed by such logic?

Perhaps we say, well yea, things will go better for society if I don't steal this car, but who cares about that, I need a car?

 

[Laika]

Suppose it could be established beyond any doubt that there is no God. Then what?

Freedom! No heaven or hell, no divine judgement, no commandments. Just man-made laws and rules.

Do you think it might be possible to create a consensus around a moral code based only on practicality? You know, things will go better if we all get along etc.

Yes. I think there will be an issue of scale, as what is practical on an indivdiual level may not necessarily be so on a societal level. There would have to be a 'science of ethics' of some sort to establish what works and what doesn't work.

Of course, if there was no god- it means there had never been a god in the first place, so we've been figuring out our moral code based on trial and error and just misattributing the source.

Or is the pursuit of individual interest too strong to be tamed by such logic?

No. I don't think that is an issue. people can be selfish, but it's when it becomes destructive that it is the problem.

Perhaps we say, well yea, things will go better for society if I don't steal this car, but who cares about that, I need a car?

Quite possibly. That's what happens anyway.

 

[Typist]

Honestly, many atheists simply don’t care if a god exists or not.

Yes, I think most atheists are in that camp. They rarely give such matters a thought.

Ideological atheists are more interesting. They may spend a good part of everyday typing about religion, something they sincerely believe to be a waste of time.

I have a pet theory on this, but make no claim it's true. Just a theory.

There is a human need to have a relationship with reality. This might be called something like "The Inquiry". It predates religion. Religion is just one response to The Inquiry. Long subject, enough for now.

Perhaps I keep typing with forum atheists from a belief that they must be sincerely interested in The Inquiry, or they wouldn't be typing on these topics every day. They just don't find religion to be a suitable response to The Inquiry, that's all.

But they don't know what else there might be. And so there is a sense of disappointment, anger even, at the failure of religion to deliver the goods for them, despite some rather grand promises.

If any of this is true, to the degree it might be true for any individual....

A solution might be to be loyal to one's own speeches and simply dump religion, forget about it, let it go, walk away, don't look back. Forum atheists claim to have done this, but really they have not. They're still typing about religion, day after day after day. That's not letting go, that's hanging on.

I suggest The Inquiry can be pursued just as well with reason, to similar places reached by religion. But we have to actually do reason, and not confuse it with ideology. If we do reason, real reason, all the fantasy knowings, theist and atheist, will all fall away.

And then we are left with nothing. A whole new realm to explore.

 

[Typist]

Freedom! No heaven or hell, no divine judgement, no commandments. Just man-made laws and rules.

Ah, but was it freedom that was delivered by the explicitly atheist states? Or the world's oldest democracy built upon "god given rights"?

Of course, if there was no god- it means there had never been a god in the first place, so we've been figuring out our moral code based on trial and error and just misattributing the source.

Good point. So perhaps the question is, will we still buy it if it turns out we made it?

 

[Laika]

Ah, but was it freedom that was delivered by the explicitly atheist states? Or the world's oldest democracy built upon "god given rights"?

Sort of. Communists wanted unlimited freedom (like anarchists) and that had some major overlap with unlimited power and it's abuse. it really depends what such a conception of rights arrives at. There is nothing inherently that say the liberal conception of rights is incomparable with 100% atheist population, but liberalism itself wouldn't lead to such an outcome as it's based on tolerance. And officially according to the census only about 55% of the USSR's population was atheist in 1937 at the height of the purges. the rest were religious or theists of some sort.

Good point. So perhaps the question is, will we still buy it if it turns out we made it?

I don't know. only one way to find out.

 

[Vishvavajra]

ethically, liberalism is derivative of judeo-christian ethics. We think of human rights as a product of human nature. If you go back far enough, human nature is roughly equivalent to the soul and human nature/soul comes from god and so therefore does our conception of rights and ethics. Take the US declaration of independence:

Not really, although it can seem that way if your knowledge of history stops at the 18th century. Liberalism as an ideology got formulated in the Enlightenment period, but its basic premises go back much, much further to classical antiquity. In fact the word itself refers to the rights of free men (as opposed to slaves) that were taken for granted in Greco-Roman culture. There was never any need for an external, supernatural basis for those rights. What you're seeing is that writers in the 18th century are couching those ancient ideas in the basically theistic, creationist language of their day. The Declaration of Independence is an interesting example because Jefferson himself was functionally an atheist, despite the appeal to a deistic creator. The guy was staunchly opposed to any kind of supernaturalism as it was understood in his day. In fact, deism in general was only a thing for a while because people couldn't think of an explanation for natural law that didn't boil down to some Aristotelian First Cause, for which they used the language of divinity. Today it's much easier to imagine.

Secularism evolved out of religion. Consequently, if god didn't exist- our ethical system would be in serious trouble as the objective source of our ethics is not individual consciousness, but natural law and god. if ethics originated exclusively from the individual, you would end up with a relativistic and nihilistic set of ethics which would be a problem. So once you've taken god out of the equation as an atheist, there is a need to find a new objective source for ethics which originates from human society. Without this ability to produce a new 'system' of ethics, we would still end up using the old system derived from religion, regardless as to whether it is true or not.

Secularism as an ideology couldn't have arisen without religion—indeed, a specific type of religion—to give it something to define itself against. On the other hand, you're still working on a false dichotomy when it comes to ethics. That problem was solved over two millennia ago, as I mentioned in a previous post. The only ethical systems that fall apart without a theistic worldview are the stupid ones.

Nor, if we are being absolutely frank here, is a theistic God a proper source for an objective system of ethics. If right and wrong are just whatever God wants them to be, that's the opposite of objective. The logical conclusion of divine command theory is that might makes right, which is about as nihilistic and relativistic as you can possibly get. Nor is the idea of a soul useful in the realm of ethics, not least because nobody can define the damned thing in a coherent way to begin with. And really, if you have to posit an untraceable supernatural component to beings in order to give you a reason not to harm them, you're pretty much morally bankrupt already. All of these things are extraneous to morality. All they do is erect a house of cards.