• Banno
    23.1k
    In a recent thread I outlined three areas that might typify the thinking of an atheist intent on justifying their view. This seems to me to have some potential for further discussion.

    The three areas to consider are firstly, showing problems with the arguments that purport to demonstrate that god exists, then pointing out inconsistencies in the notion of god that render him logically impossible, and finally rejecting the immorality that so often follows from theism.

    I'll place posts outlining each, but first a few general notes. Here I'm looking at atheism as the belief that god does not exist. That's how it is generally defined, and places it in direct opposition to theism, the belief that god exists, and is contrary to the agnostic view that there is no good reason to think that god doesn't exist.

    In a way this thread is an antidote to several threads started by theists on the forum seeking, perhaps duplicitously but certainly without success, positive arguments from atheists for their view.

    Amongst professional philosophers and there associates theism is overwhelmingly rejected. In forums such as this, there are a small number of theists who are quite prolific. This might give an impression that theism, or other beliefs in God are prominent amongst amateurs, but it's more likely that those who don't believe in god just ignore the threads. Perhaps giving the discussion it's own place will entice a few from them.

    Arguments for the existence of god

    The basic argument is that if these were successful, there would be far more theist philosophers.

    Logicians have given us a better understanding of necessity, the central theme of the cosmological and ontological arguments, than we have ever had. Those developments in logic have not lead towards wider acceptance of theism, but rather has shown further problems with the notion of a necessary being.

    Teleological approaches have had some attention recently, having previously faded in the face of developments in our understanding of the logic of evolution. The catch here is that any purpose one chooses to consider may be imputed by us rather than observed independently. The important point here is that an atheist is not obliged to ignore the astonishing intricacy and beauty of the world around us, but can be whole heartedly amazed and yet not conclude that any of this implies the existence of a god.

    Moral arguments seem to be little more than wishful thinking.

    Far more can be said here, and doubtless will be both here and in other threads. But while these arguments may provide a way for theists to understand the nature of their god, they do not achieve their claimed goal of convincing all who give them due consideration. In that regard they are post hoc rather than evangelical.

    Moral Considerations

    Let's suppose that there is a god, and further that god's will is write in such a way as to be undeniable, as clear as day, so to speak.

    Ought we do as he says?

    Surely what god says is the case, is the case - it follows from his being who he is; and so it is argued that we ought do as he says. We do what is right by being obedient to his will, by submission.

    Here's a philosophical question to consider: ought we do it because it is the will of god, or ought we do it because it is the right thing to do? We can put this in a slightly different way, by asking, is it is right to do as god wills?

    Now this of course is Moore's open question, as applied to god. And to be sure it is open to the theist to simply say, yes, it is right to do gods will; and further that gods will and what is right are exactly the same thing. The theist may claim that the notion of what god wills, and the notion of what is the right thing to do, are the very same notion. But this looks to me like a conceptual error, since it is not on the face of it clear that what god wills and what is the right thing to do are the same notion; when we talk about what god wills, we are not, it seems to me, also talking about what it is right to do. That is, it seems to me that the question "Is it right to do as god wills" is not an analytic question; it is not like asking 'Is 2+2 the same as 4?" or "Are all bachelors unmarried men?". Abraham was willing to sacrifice his son as an act of submission or out of fear for god. Sacrificing another human being out of fear or obedience is not a virtuous act. Hence for the purposes of our story, it is possible to question the virtue of the will of god; and it follows that the will of god is not the very same as what is the right thing to do.

    Now this is not a knock-down argument, since it remains open for the theist to insist that it was right for Abraham to sacrifice his son. But I don't agree. Further, I think those who think it was morally right for god to make such a demand are in error.

    Even if a moral law were indisputably laid down by the good lord, it would remain open for people to choose to obey or not. The religious person still has to choose, and are not in a different position to the non-religious in that regard. So if the choice of a non-believer is in some way arbitrary, so is the choice of the believer. You cannot avoid responsibility for your moral choices by blaming god. So no, the choice is yours, regardless of there being or not being a god.

    Bring to mind that all of this discussion presupposes that we have some direct access to the will of god. Of course, we have no such access, but are instead left to decide if this or that is the will of god, to choose between Jesus, Allah and Brahmin, and then to further choose between the minuscule variations therein.

    All of which might count for nothing if it were clear that the actions of believers were more virtuous than those of unbelievers. But that is not what we see. To be sure, we do see people doing great and noble things in the name of their god, but we see others doing the same for love of their fellows. And we see dreadful crimes committed apparently under the auspices of the Good Lord. Ignoring the right of children, of women, of the dying while using institutional mechanisms to avoid responsibility. Believers do not have any special claim to virtue. They are all too much like everyone else.
    __________________
    Some of the more pertinent replies:
    What more really needs to be said ...
    I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.
    — Stephen Roberts?
    In other words: Hitchens' Razor.
    180 Proof

    From Salman Rushdie:

    If you were an atheist, Birbal," the Emperor challenged his first minister, "what would you say to the true believers of all the great religions of the world?" Birbal was a devout Brahmin from Trivikrampur, but he answered unhesitatingly, "I would say to them that in my opinion they were all atheists as well; I merely believe in one god less than each of them." "How so?" the Emperor asked. "All true believers have good reasons for disbelieving in every god except their own," said Birbal. "And so it is they who, between them, give me all the reasons for believing in none.
    The Enchantress of Florence
    Fooloso4

    I've always found it interesting that, even if the traditional "proofs" of the existence of God had any validity, they don't serve to prove the existence of a personal, peculiarly Christian God, although they're regularly touted by Christians and have been for centuries. The same would apply in the case of other personal Gods if the "proofs" are used to "prove" them. Even if they're true, there's still a long way to go to get from them to Jesus or any other personal deity.Ciceronianus the White

    In real life, it's the moral and political views that matter. I find it intensely uncomfortable that some of the most obnoxious and ignorant attitudes tend to go along with religious belief. Sorry, there's no philosophy here. I just wanted to say that.bert1

    In his book Five Proofs of the Existence of God, Catholic philosopher Edward Feser provides several long-winded metaphysical demonstrations of the existence of God:

    the "Aristotelian proof" is 50 points long,
    the "Neo-Platonic proof" is 38 points long,
    the "Augustinian proof" is 29 points long.
    the "Thomistic proof" is 36 points long.
    the "Rationalist proof" is 27 points long.
    darthbarracuda
    __________________
    This was written in sections, then moved to the OP. Here are links to the original posts:
    Arguments for the existence of god
    Consistency of the notion of god
    Moral considerations

    Here are links to external, related threads:
    Conceiving of agnosticism
    Belief in god is necessary for being good
  • 180 Proof
    14k
    :clap: Outstanding. I'm looking forward to seeing how well/far this thread developes. I'll probably sit this one out though since my own more hetereodox views on unbelief are widely scattered across perhaps too many other threads.
  • Banno
    23.1k
    Arguments for the existence of god

    The basic argument is that if these were successful, there would be far more theist philosophers.

    Logicians have given us a better understanding of necessity, the central theme of the cosmological and ontological arguments, than we have ever had. Those developments in logic have not lead towards wider acceptance of theism, but rather has shown further problems with the notion of a necessary being.

    Teleological approaches have had some attention recently, having previously faded in the face of developments in our understanding of the logic of evolution. The catch here is that any purpose one chooses to consider may be imputed by us rather than observed independently. The important point here is that an atheist is not obliged to ignore the astonishing intricacy and beauty of the world around us, but can be whole heartedly amazed and yet not conclude that any of this implies the existence of a god.

    Moral arguments seem to be little more than wishful thinking.

    Far more can be said here, and doubtless will be both here and in other threads. But while these arguments may provide a way for theists to understand the nature of their god, they do not achieve their claimed goal of convincing all who give them due consideration. In that regard they are post hoc rather than evangelical.
  • skyblack
    545
    Here I'm looking at atheism as the belief that god does not exist. That's how it is generally defined, and places it in direct opposition to theism, the belief that god exists, and is contrary to the agnostic view that there is no good reason to think that god doesn't exist.Banno

    It would be nice to see some integrity in people, but perhaps it's too much to expect from the prejudiced.

    You have incorrectly defined and characterized the agnostic view, clearly in a prejudicial way.

    This is the etymology of agnostic: "one who professes that the existence of a First Cause and the essential nature of things are not and cannot be known" ,and can be seen here .

    This is from Wikipedia: These are the first 2 sentences. "Agnosticism is the view that the existence of God, of the divine or the supernatural is unknown or unknowable.[1][2][3] Another definition provided is the view that "human reason is incapable of providing sufficient rational grounds to justify either the belief that God exists or the belief that God does not exist".

    Therefore the true agnostic view is, they don't know anything about the existence or the non-existence of god.

    So, show some credibility when you start these threads. In any case, i have no investments or interest in this silly "god" game, and will remove myself now.
  • khaled
    3.5k
    they don't know anything about the existence or the non-existence of god.skyblack

    the agnostic view that there is no good reason to think that god doesn't exist.Banno

    Isn't what Banno said included in what you said? Although yes it's missing an essential part "and no good reason to think god exists"
  • skyblack
    545
    Isn't what Banno said included in what you said? Although yes it's missing an essential part "and no good reason to think god exists"khaled

    The "essential part", as you call it, is the prejudicial part, a personal add on, which has very different implication than the actual definition.
  • _db
    3.6k
    The basic argument is that if these were successful, there would be far more theist philosophers.Banno

    Not sure if you were being deliberately flippant, but I think this is a bad argument. There could be many other reasons why more philosophers are atheists than theists aside from it being that arguments for theism are unsuccessful. Recently there has been a growing resurgence of interest in, and appreciation of, medieval scholastic metaphysics; the proponents of which have provided demonstrations, that they believe, show that standard refutations of theistic arguments (usually the cosmological) are insufficient and depend on certain misinterpretations, or just flat out ignorance, of the actual arguments.

    I think the idea is that the majority of philosophers are atheists not because atheism is correct, but because of certain historical events (et cetera et cetera) there is a climate of atheism within philosophy that more or less takes theism to have been refuted, and that because of this most philosophers simply don't see the need to really deal with it. While the majority of philosophers may be atheist, I am not sure if the same can be said about philosophers of religion, those who have specialized in studying these arguments. Within philosophy of religion there does seem to be a much greater appreciation (and understanding) of theistic arguments.

    I don't mean to say that I personally believe in these arguments (I think metaphysics like this is basically propaganda for power structures and so I don't really see it as a worthwhile pursuit), so don't expect me to offer any defenses of them. I'm just making a point that if you decide to play the metaphysics game, I think you might be surprised to find that there are theists with sophisticated arguments that are not so easily refuted by the standard arguments you hear from atheist philosophers.
  • Banno
    23.1k
    The chosen turn of phrase was to contrast atheism and agnosticism, not theism and agnosticism. So no fucks given on my part.
  • Tom Storm
    8.3k
    Banno I'd be interested in sharpening my understanding of knowledge verse belief here. I've always argued that atheism goes to one's belief and agnosticism goes towards knowledge. Hence the idea of an agnostic atheists. You'd have some useful views on this.
  • praxis
    6.2k
    Amongst professional philosophers and there associates theism is overwhelmingly rejected. In forums such as this, there are a small number of theists who are quite prolific. This might give an impression that theism, or other beliefs in God are prominent amongst amateurs, but it's more likely that those who don't believe in god just ignore the threads. Perhaps giving the discussion it's own place will entice a few from them.Banno

    So having a topic titled “In praise of atheism” and designing it to entice the theistically uninterested will somehow change this impression? Perhaps you’re falling too deeply into the character of a bubble headed bleach blonde. :lol:
  • Banno
    23.1k


    https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/11349/conceiving-of-agnosticism

    I'll move the discussion elsewhere, as I would prefer to keep this thread for discussion of atheism (yeah, well, I can dream...)
  • Jack Cummins
    5.1k

    I don't really consider myself as a theist, atheist or agnostic because I find all the labels to be b a little bit inadequate and restrictive. However, I am not really writing here to justify my own perspective on the issue of God. I am really more remarking on your title because all a long when you had your thread on praising science I thought that the title was rather ironic and I think that I made some comment in the post I wrote, saying that I didn't think that we needed to sing any hymns to science or praise because it did not request praise. You did write a reply to me but did not remark on that specifically. But here we go again, with the title in praise of atheism, and I notice that a couple of others have remarked on your title too.So perhaps we really need to build a temple, and compose some hymns for the thread.
  • tim wood
    8.7k
    Therefore the true agnostic view is, they don't know anything about the existence or the non-existence of god.skyblack

    There is quite a lot of evidence on the existence/non-existence of God. And it is known as evidence. "They don't know anything" is thus a misstatement.
  • BitconnectCarlos
    1.7k
    Finally, a place where atheists can gather and not be bothered by those stupid theists and their sky daddy. A place where science can be celebrated and ancient superstition shunned. In this moment I am euphoric, not because of any phony God's blessing, but because I am enlightened by my own intelligence.
  • skyblack
    545
    There is quite a lot of evidence on the existence/non-existence of God. And it is known as evidence. "They don't know anything" is thus a misstatement.tim wood

    The point is, i was clearing up the distortion to the word agnostic. As to your "evidence", you hold on to that, it will help support your beliefs. Or, you can present them in your battles with the theists,
  • Banno
    23.1k
    Consistency of the notion of god

    God is, on Anselm's account, something a greater than which cannot be conceived.

    It would be worth taking some time to consider what goes along with one thing being greater than another. Two is greater than one, and infinity greater than every real number. So is infinity the greatest number? No, we have the transfinite numbers. Is there a number a greater than which cannot be conceived? For any number that one might conceive, it seems a larger can be found.

    Surreal numbers contain all the reals, all the infinite and infinitesimal numbers; If we add imaginary numbers, do we have every number of which we can conceive? Are you brave, or foolish, enough to claim that there are no other numbers of which we might conceive?

    My maths is not up to that task, but I want to make a more general point: those who place a limit on what can be conceived merely set up a target for others.

    That's the trouble with Anselm's formulation. It lends itself to attempts at refutation. From the undergrad "can god make something so heavy that he can't lift it?" to theistic emanationism's committed to the existence of properties being posterior to God’s causing them to exist, Anselm created an argument, not a definition.

    Further, it's just not at all apparent that the various attributes of god sit together in a coherent way; indeed, quite the opposite. The entire enterprise of theology appears for the most part to be an attempt to overcome this disunity, and with dubious - debatable - success.

    Given these issues, it's not unreasonable to suppose that the notion of god is itself inconsistent.
  • tim wood
    8.7k
    that might typify the thinking of an atheistBanno
    It seems to me this contains the key. Theists believe and bend their thoughts - such as they are - and their worlds to their beliefs. Atheists think and try to arrive at reasoned and reasonable conclusions based on facts, evidence, logic, etc., but not mere beliefs.
  • Banno
    23.1k
    Both are a play a play on Russell's "In praise of idleness" - an essay you should read.

    It's three degrees centigrade outside, so rather than doing The Things, I'm idling.
  • skyblack
    545
    . But here we go again, with the title in praise of atheism, and I notice that a couple of others have remarked on your title too.So perhaps we really need to build a temple, and compose some hymns for the thread.Jack Cummins

    As a related point, i think you perhaps forgot to mention missionary work. You know the kind where they travel presenting their "evidence".
  • TheMadFool
    13.8k
    beliefs in God are prominent amongst amateursBanno

    Thereby hangs a tale, a very important one.

    Thales of Miletus, the first philosopher in the Greek tradition

    Thales is recognized for breaking from the use of mythology to explain the world and the universe, and instead explaining natural objects and phenomena by naturalistic theories and hypotheses, in a precursor to modern science. — Wikipedia

    Mythology evolved into Theism as we know it. In a sense then, all amateur philosophers/thinkers are reenacting the journey Thales took from God(s) to Philosophy proper roughly 2,500 years ago.



    Crucifixion in the Philippines is a devotional practice held every Good Friday, and is part of the local observance of Holy Week. Devotees or penitents called magdarame in Kapampangan are willingly crucified in imitation of Jesus Christ's suffering and death, while related practices include carrying wooden crosses, crawling on rough pavement, and self-flagellation. Penitents consider these acts to be mortification of the flesh, and undertake these to ask forgiveness for sins, to fulfil a panatà (Filipino, "vow"), or to express gratitude for favours granted. In the most famous case, Ruben Enaje drives four-inch nails into both hands and feet and then he is lifted on a wooden cross for around five minutes. — Wikipedia

    Theism (mythology) then is The Greatest Lie Ever Told that flags off the journey towards Truth (Philosophy).
  • Saphsin
    383
    “I think the idea is that the majority of philosophers are atheists not because atheism is correct, but because of certain historical events (et cetera et cetera) there is a climate of atheism within philosophy that more or less takes theism to have been refuted, and that because of this most philosophers simply don't see the need to really deal with it.”

    This kind of thing happens sometimes but I think it’s wrong here. They might not see the need to exhaust the whole literature by theistic philosophers, but that doesn’t mean they didn’t legitimately form their own judgments and just ran with the assumption that what their peers say is correct. The main arguments for the existence of god are quite accessible, and it doesn’t take long for one to think them through and become unconvinced even if they don’t hear every new iteration of these arguments.
  • Jack Cummins
    5.1k

    Okay, its play on Russell, and I will try and read his essay, but in the context of a thread on God the title does play with more. Also, even though I say I am not wishing to justify my own position on the theist, atheist or agnostic question, I just read your other new thread and it does seem to be putting oneself into boxes. I do think that the existence of God is extremely important, but don't feel that the neat categories are particularly helpful. Personally, I find some people's ideas about God as restrictive, but I don't categorise myself as an atheist either. I don't even wish to adopt the title agnostic because it is saying that we cannot know. I just feel that all these categories are arbitrary and the power behind everything is far more complex, and defies them completely.

    I realise that this may be seen more as a mystical rather than philosophical position. Also, I am not trying to say that the philosophy arguments are not worth talking about, but I think that some of the structures and frameworks of the philosophical arguments and, clear categories are a bit too narrow. I would not choose to say that we are speaking about 'the ineffable' because that can be a way of saying that we cannot find words to use at all, although I can see why mystics sometimes say this. I am really saying that I have some sympathy with certain ideas of theists and with some views of atheists and agnostics, but I prefer to use all those labels in a more flexible and expansive way.

    However, I realise that others on the site may find my own point of view as being a bit strange, but I do feel entitled to my viewpoint and I don't really have a strong need to justify this to others, especially on this site. I am simply writing it down to say that it is possible to formulate philosophy about the question of God without the rigid definitions or choice of fixed categories. This can involve keeping an open, questioning mind.
  • TheMadFool
    13.8k
    Before we get to beliefs, atheism being one, we need to take care of the issue of justifcation, specifically are justifications any good.

    1. Either there are good justifications or there are no good justifications (true/tautology)

    2. If there are good justifications then circular argument (justifying there are good justifications presupposes there are good justifications)

    3. If there are no good justifications then contradiction (to justify there are no good justifications we presuppose there are good justifications)

    Ergo, the dilemma

    4. Either circular argument or contradiction (1, 2, 3 CD)

    Note: The dilemma only arises if you commit to a standpoint i.e. you must claim either that there are good justifications or that there are no good justifications.

    Hence, the skeptic only asserts,

    1. Either there are good justifications or there are no good justifications (true because tautology and ergo, it itself needs no justification)

    Also, remember to assert either of the two disjuncts in 1 is to claim there are good justifications i.e. neither represent the skeptic's viewpoint which is simply that nothing more can be said apart from 1 Either there are good justifications or there are no good justifications.

    Thus, every proposition p can't progress beyond p v ~p.

    Theism v Atheism

    End of story!

    N.B. I'm not sure about all I said above.
  • PoeticUniverse
    1.3k
    contradictionTheMadFool

    ‘God’ cannot be found anywhere because ‘God’ can’t be Fundamental.

    Yet, an Eternal Basis has to be, for 'Nothing' cannot be, much less 'be' a source of anything, demonstrating that the existence of the Eternal Basis has no alternative, in that existence can have opposite. What is Eternal, then, has to be ungenerated and deathless, unmakeable and unbreakable. Also note that there can be no design point for the Eternal Basis, given no Beginning.

    For certain, 'God' cannot be so, as Fundamental, since a Being who thinks, plans, designs, and implements requires a System of Mind; however, systems violate the Fundamental Arts in that they must contain parts—and parts have to be more fundamental than the system. 'God' is a contradiction and thereby disproved.

    Not even a proton can be fundamental, for quarks are its composite parts, but a quantum field could be, as continuous waves oscillating.

    So long, ‘God’; we hardly knew ‘ye’, because ‘Ye’ were never.

    Look to the future for higher human/alien beings, for that's where greater complexity lies. Look not to the past of the simpler and simpler—that is the wrong direction—the wrongest even.

    I'm not sure about all I said above.TheMadFool

    Yogi Berra: "I never said all the things I said."
  • 180 Proof
    14k
    What more really needs to be said ...
    I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours. — Stephen Roberts?
    In other words: Hitchens' Razor.
  • praxis
    6.2k
    Both are a play on Russell's "In praise of idleness"Banno

    I don’t know the argument of how an increase in leisure time would result in increased involvement in the arts and sciences, but it seems to require a LOT of faith.
  • TheMadFool
    13.8k
    Look to the future for higher human/alien beings, for that's where greater complexity lies. Look not to the past of the simpler and simpler—that is the wrong direction—the wrongest even.PoeticUniverse

    I had similar thoughts a couple of years ago. It all depends on the so-called Technological Singularity. I envision that to be a point wherefrom intelligence increase exponentially. Humans create AI smarter than humans, call this AI A; A creates B, smarter than A; B creates C, smarter than B; so on and so forth...this process, seemingly having no limit but even if that's the case, either the chain of creation (smart->smarter...ad infinitum) or "that than which nothing greater can be conceieved" (St. Anselm) will be God (super AI)

    Suppose now that a dying universe (Heat Death Of The Universe) is problem no. 1 for life. God (super AI) would "solve" it. One solution is to reverse the entropy to lower levels or to zero if that's possible. That would mean a Cyclical Universe. If so, God (super AI) in the future (God will exist) is the same as God (super AI) in the past (God existed) and, more interestingly, in the present (God exists).
  • frank
    14.5k
    The basic argument is that if these were successful, there would be far more atheist philosophers.Banno

    I have a time machine and I go visit Porphyry sometimes. The other day he was saying this same thing, and I was like, damn you crazy people never change.
  • TheMadFool
    13.8k
    I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours — Stephen Roberts?

    :fire: :fire: :fire:

    Not to split hairs but the reasons for dismissing the other gods may not suffice to dismiss the one God we're in a tizzy about. The Devil, as they say, is in the details.
  • Hello Human
    195
    Professional philosophers can be biased, they're not completely logical and unbiased beings, because if they were, then they all would have the same beliefs, as they would all necessarily arrive at the same conclusions through rigorous logic. However, they do not all have the same beliefs, so there isn't really any justification as to why their opinions would be more reliable.
  • Protagoras
    331
    This is the one of the truer comments for a long time on this forum. Applies also to scientists.

    First part should be a pinned sticky.

    But,it begs a question.
    What is rigorous logic?

    @Hello Human
bold
italic
underline
strike
code
quote
ulist
image
url
mention
reveal
youtube
tweet
Add a Comment

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.