Let me be the 17th or so to direct one and all to the new (and free of charge) ebook from the Triabloggers - The Infidel Delusion.
I expect it to be a more direct and more destructive critique of the new atheist arguments, coming against such men as Richard Carrier and Hector Avalos. I actually personally regard some of these "lesser luminaries" of atheism like Carrier and Avalos, as well as Stephen Law and John Shook, as some of the best representatives of atheism in the world today, at least as far as I've seen. They're not that great, don't get me wrong, but they're far better than Hitchens, Dick Dawk, or Sam Harris! (Or John Loftus, who is also heavily represented in the book to which T.I.D. is responding, but no one ever said atheists were all that discerning.) So anyway, I expect this ebook to be quite good, and by page 8 it hasn't yet disappointed.
And if you're looking for a smackdown directed at the big-name New Atheists, don't forget to catch Steve Hays' devastating review of Dick Dawk's The God Delusion. If you're looking for a less-than-optimal and heretical (ie, Open Theist-ic), but still quite serviceable, destruction of their position, check out Vox Day's (also free) ebook The Irrational Atheist (which I have read in its entirety). Enjoy!
Update: Speaking of John Loftus, he blunders his way through an initial refutation of T.I.D. here. Notice also the dismissive comments from the (as yet unnamed) contributors to The Christian Delusion that he references.
"I have looked over their objections, and they are pretty superficial."
Really? Questioning your basis for asserting moral value of any action whatsoever, questioning the justification for your epistemology, those are "superficial"? Either this person invented a new meaning for the word "superficial" or they are dishonest or they didn't really look over the book (in which case...yeah, they're being dishonest).
I would imagine there'll be more coming from Loftus et al in response to T.I.D., and you have to give Loftus props for not running away like Romanists have run away from the Holy Scripture: The Ground and Pillar of Our Faith series. Unfortunately, Loftus' objections are generally superficial and very emotionally-driven, and thus not particularly helpful for the seeker of truth.
Actually, Rhology, I must generally agree with you that, in terms of representatives of atheism who are publishing today, Richard Carrier, to me, is a far more formidable intellect, who articulates considerably more devastating arguments, than Dawkins or Hitchens or Harris is. The only knock on Carrier, to me, is what I perceive to be his abundant ego.
ReplyDeleteThis, of course, is not to say, for me as an atheist, that Dawkins, Hitchens and Harris have nothing valuable to contribute. Dawkins, along with Jerry Coyne, has made Young Earth creationism untenable. Harris and Hitchens have helped me hone my Argument from Mundanity, behind which I fully stand. However, when it comes to philosophy, Dawkins certainly leaves something to be desired. And, Harris and Hitchens both buy into objective, factual morality, which I recognize as mere superstition, in addition to subscribing to the further superstition (and a speciocentric one, at that) that humans are qualitatively different from the rest of our Tree of Life brethren. Harris and Hitchens, more so than Dawkins, seem terrified to accept, let alone embrace, the nihilism that, to me, seems part and parcel of godlessness.
Carrier does come across as rather smug, but to me he just seems confident, so I don't think he's all that bad.
ReplyDeleteDick Dawk, Hitchens, and Harris come across as more egotistical to me.
Coyne is pretty pitiful IMHO. I read "Why Evolution Is True" and was thoroughly underwhelmed, especially by all his "creationists have no answer for this"-es, whereas I had answers immediately except for like 2 instances, in which cases it took me 2 whole minutes to figure an answer.
I find the Argument from Mundanity pitifully bad, TBH. So what if you think it's mundane? I'm more interested in truth.
Loftus also totally fears the logical outworkings into nihilism, which you can probably tell by reading Debunking Christianity.
Some atheists’ attachment to notions of objective, factual morality, and their consequent attempts to make a moral case against the Christian religion, for example by citing slavery in the bible, females being meant to submit to male headship, witch trials, torture, etc., seems to me to be woefully misguided. I have seen Hitchens debate frequently, and his appeal to objective, factual atheistic morality always seems entirely inadequate and fundamentally unsupported. Then again, I have also frequently watched Dinesh D’Souza debate, and his repeated invocations of atheistic mass murder, such as by Stalin and Mao and Pol Pot, make me wonder whether he is, even in the slightest, familiar with argumentum ad consequentiam as a logical fallacy, because, if the topic at hand is whether Christianity is true or false, talking about institutionalized atheism leading to mass death is a textbook non sequitur.
ReplyDeleteQuite true.
ReplyDeleteDo you recall listening to find whether he uses it with the specific intention of ripping down atheism vs as a parry-riposte against an atheist's citation of the Crusades or Inquisition or sthg?
It might have been a retort to Hitchens.
ReplyDeleteHowever, I seem to remember, in his Dan Dennett debate, him introducing the topic (and thus derailing himself) on his own.
"Dawkins, along with Jerry Coyne, has made Young Earth creationism untenable."
ReplyDeleteThat is quite an interesting comment. Actually, I think the YE creation position is on target, given the fact that the Bible speaks very clear on a short creation period for creation. For a defence of the literal reading of Genesis see Dr. Ben Shaw's Literal Day Interpretation.
Although, I do assume, since you are an atheist, you have no interest in an exegetical defense from the Bible.
I have more interest in an 11,500-year dendrochronological record, which exists wholly independently from radiocarbon dating and is to-the-year accurate, that was achieved through a daisy-chaining process having to do with characteristic tree-ring sequences in a particular geographic area. Furthermore, I have more interest in how those to-the-year-accurate dendrochronological records can be used to calibrate our radiocarbon dating, thereby allowing us to date things well beyond a mere six or seven thousand years. Finally, I have more interest in radioactive dating in general, which, as its own means of self-testing and calibration, allows scientists to test different radioisotopes, across orders of magnitude, in a single sample to see whether the results converge on the same age (which they do).
ReplyDeletecharacteristic tree-ring sequences in a particular geographic area.
ReplyDeleteB/c God can't create trees with rings in them already.
allows scientists to test different radioisotopes, across orders of magnitude, in a single sample to see whether the results converge on the same age (which they do).
B/c God can't create materials with decay already present in them.
B/c scientists know for sure that the rates of decay have always been constant. And by "know for sure", I mean "assume on blind faith".
B/c scientists know for sure that the rates of decay have always been constant. And by "know for sure", I mean "assume on blind faith".
ReplyDeleteThis is the whole reason why I mentioned "across orders of magnitude."
Carbon-14 decays to Nitrogen-14; its half-life is 5730 years. Uranium-238 decays to Lead-206; its half-life is 4.5 billion years. Uranium-235 decays to Lead-207; its half-life is 704 million years. Other unstable isotopes include Potassium-40, Thorium-232, Rubidium-87 and Samarium-147.
Is it possible that the decay rates have changed? Well, probably not. But, for the sake of argument, we can say yes.
If a hunk of rock is radioactively dated at, say, 250 million years old, but in actuality is only 6000 years old, as per the Young Earth creationist hypothesis, that would entail that the multiple radioisotopes present, all of which converge on 250 million years old, would have all had to change differently. Uranium-238 would have to change differently from Uranium-235, and both would have to change differently from Samarium-147. And so on.
This beggars all belief.
B/c God can't create trees with rings in them already... B/c God can't create materials with decay already present in them.
ReplyDeleteGod could of course do both of those things, but then you're stuck with the problem of why God would make the material world differ so much from the world described in the (YEC interpretation of the) Bible.
B/c scientists know for sure that the rates of decay have always been constant. And by "know for sure", I mean "assume on blind faith".
They're basing their assumption not on blind faith, but on the fact that the physical facts discovered so far support the hypothesis that rates of decay have always been constant. Do you have evidence that shows otherwise? If so, a Nobel Prize awaits you.
Rho:
ReplyDeleteAnd by "know for sure", I mean "assume on blind faith".
It seems to me that there is a false equivalency going on here. There is a difference in likelihood between assuming that a tree "poofed" into existence full of tree rings, and assuming that the tree grew like trees grow today. Not all assumptions are created equal.
JN,
ReplyDeleteYou tell us on the one hand that your first principle is taken on faith, and that is that evidence is the best way to discover truth.
Then you come here and tell us numerous other things for which you have no evidence, but rather appeal to blind faith in the form of "well, if X weren't like I observe it to be, that'd just be bizarre/unimaginable/"beggars all belief".
So... it would seem that the observer should have every reason to doubt your stated 1st Principle, when in fact you take many, many things on faith. It just takes some time and a little digging to reveal them. But isn't that intellectually dishonest? (Not that there's anything wrong with that, on your worldview.)
Paul C,
why God would make the material world differ so much from the world described in the (YEC interpretation of the) Bible.
I don't agree that He did so. ISTM that the problem lies in your using your limited and human instrumentation, assumptions, methodologies, etc to try to prove God wrong using indirect methods of self-information whereas He already told us directly how it went down.
on the fact that the physical facts discovered so far support the hypothesis that rates of decay have always been constant.
How could facts support that? What I think you mean is that further assumptions support previous assumptions.
If so, a Nobel Prize awaits you.
Ah, the Argumentum ad Nobelium. Perhaps you're not familiar with the biblical notions of sin and the foolishness of worldly thinking and wisdom - it is my firm contention (which I see confirmed all over the place) that men in general do not accept truth from God even when it whacks them upside the head. Why would I expect a Nobel Prize for info that would upset so many Nobel-controlling people's vested interests?
NAL,
There is a difference in likelihood between assuming that a tree "poofed" into existence full of tree rings, and assuming that the tree grew like trees grow today.
Please show how you arrived at your probability calculations of the 2.
You tell us on the one hand that your first principle is taken on faith, and that is that evidence is the best way to discover truth.
ReplyDeleteThen you come here and tell us numerous other things for which you have no evidence, but rather appeal to blind faith in the form of "well, if X weren't like I observe it to be, that'd just be bizarre/unimaginable/"beggars all belief".
So... it would seem that the observer should have every reason to doubt your stated 1st Principle, when in fact you take many, many things on faith. It just takes some time and a little digging to reveal them. But isn't that intellectually dishonest? (Not that there's anything wrong with that, on your worldview.)
Of course, I have never stated that I take my First Principle on “faith,” inasmuch as “faith” is a loaded word; you have said I take my First Principle on faith. What I say is that, by definition, a First Principle is a basic, foundational proposition or assumption, for which proof is not needed.
Now, to use your terminology, what do I take on “faith”?
* That Carbon-14 decays to Nitrogen-14, and its half-life is 5730 years?
* That Uranium-238 decays to Lead-206, and its half-life is 4.5 billion years?
* That Uranium-235 decays to Lead-207, and its half-life is 704 million years?
* That Potassium-40, Thorium-232, Rubidium-87 and Samarium-147 are other unstable isotopes?
* That an 11,500-year dendrochronological record, existing wholly independently from radiocarbon dating and that is to-the-year accurate, was achieved through a daisy-chaining process having to do with characteristic tree-ring sequences in a particular geographic area?
* That there is no known mechanism by which radioactive decay rates could arbitrarily change?
* That several radioisotopes usually occur together, enabling the dates to be cross-checked, and the ages invariably agree?
* Or are you referencing the fact, if several different radioisotopes converge on, say, 250 million years old as a sample’s age, that, if the true age were only 6000 years, each of the radioisotopes would have had to change differently vis-à-vis its decay rate in order for the current convergence to have been actualized?
Rhology
ReplyDeleteit is my firm contention (which I see confirmed all over the place) that men in general do not accept truth from God even when it whacks them upside the head.
Any examples of this "truth"?
Why would I expect a Nobel Prize for info that would upset so many Nobel-controlling people's vested interests?
I thought you said you were interested in the truth. Regardless of your deluded belief of the "Nobel-controlling people's vested interests," if the science shows that the rate of decay of a radioactive element is not a constant, it can't be ignored. We'll go ahead and take your non-answer as a, "No, I don't have any evidence that rates of decay have not always been constant."
ISTM that the problem lies in your using your limited and human instrumentation, assumptions, methodologies, etc to try to prove God wrong using indirect methods of self-information whereas He already told us directly how it went down.
God hasn't told anyone anything "directly." All that's available for review is hearsay evidence from 2000+ year old stories written by undeducated, superstitious men described as "inspired" by God.
Rho:
ReplyDeletePlease show how you arrived at your probability calculations of the 2.
I use common sense and my experience to determine likelihoods. My experience does not contain of any mature trees being poofed into existence. Of course, a being that possesses an advanced technology energy-to-matter converter could poof a mature tree into existence, but that would just be a figment of my imagination.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteISTM that the problem lies in your using your limited and human instrumentation, assumptions, methodologies, etc to try to prove God wrong using indirect methods of self-information whereas He already told us directly how it went down.
ReplyDeleteLuckily I'm not making any such attempt to prove God wrong, and neither are the scientists whose work relies on tree rings and radioactive isotopes.
“Indirect methods of self-information” is simultaneously wrong and meaningless. Observation of tree growth or isotope decay is direct, and “self-information” is meaningless period. What it boils down to is this: the observable features of the world you live in do not match the described features of the world you want to live in. What's your explanation for that?
How could facts support that? What I think you mean is that further assumptions support previous assumptions.
Don't try to tell me what I mean; don't project your own beliefs on to me; and finally, don't abuse the English language. The life of Uranium-238 can be observed and demonstrates consistent rates of decay – a physical fact which is explained by the hypothesis of radioactive decay.
Perhaps you're not familiar with the biblical notions of sin and the foolishness of worldly thinking and wisdom - it is my firm contention (which I see confirmed all over the place) that men in general do not accept truth from God even when it whacks them upside the head.
I'm familiar with them, but they are irrelevant to this discussion.
Why would I expect a Nobel Prize for info that would upset so many Nobel-controlling people's vested interests?
My reference to the Nobel prize was not of course literal. I'll try to use more direct language in future posts, to make sure that you understand what I'm saying.
In this case, I'm saying that proof that the theory of radioactive decay was wrong would be a scientific discovery of the greatest magnitude, with massive implications for the entire body of scientific understanding – why, we might safely deposit radioactive waste in your back yard! I invite you to share your discovery with the rest of the world in the interests of both scientific and religious truth.
Oh, and please explain what “vested interest” the Norwegian Nobel Committee has in tree growth and isotope decay.
p.s. Given your reading comprehension difficulties, I feel bound to point out that my line about putting radioactive waste in your back yard was not a literal proposition.
Paul C,
ReplyDeleteI deleted your duplicate comment, just FYI. It looked the exact same, but Blogger has been giving strange errors recently. Please let me know if that's a problem.
JN,
ReplyDeleteI have never stated that I take my First Principle on “faith,”
You have repeatedly said that evidence cannot be adduced in its support. So, what's left?
you have said I take my First Principle on faith.
And given that you can't give us any evidence for it, it would seem I'm right.
* That Carbon-14 decays to Nitrogen-14, and its half-life is 5730 years? etc
That its half-life has always been and will always be 5730 years. You only know that at its current rate of decay, that's the half-life. You have no idea what it was before. It's an assumption, which I'm not inclined to grant just b/c you get upset if I call your bluff about an old Earth. Give evidence, not assumptions.
That an 11,500-year dendrochronological record
Already answered.
* That there is no known mechanism by which radioactive decay rates could arbitrarily change?
Yes, that is a statement of faith. Someone may know it and might not have told you.
More probably and quite reasonably, "known mechanism" is key - just b/c no human knows about it doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
each of the radioisotopes would have had to change differently vis-à-vis its decay rate
More faith in your uniformitarian assumptions. Even if God doesn't exist and the universe wasn't created, even on your own worldview, isn't it true that weird things happen sometimes?
Paul S said...
Any examples of this "truth"?
An outstanding example is the depravity of man, which many people deny.
I thought you said you were interested in the truth.
Yes, and not necessarily interested in "truth = what the committee says".
if the science shows that the rate of decay of a radioactive element is not a constant
How precisely would "science" show that? All "science" has so far done is to make some individual measurements and compare them to each other.
1) Per the problem of induction, to say that this definitely gives us an ironclad understanding of the general principle is logically fallacious.
2) Taking a few thousand measurements, even 100s of 1000s, is a pitifully tiny % of the whole of radioactive decay events that occur around the universe and throughout history.
God hasn't told anyone anything "directly."
How could you possible substantiate a universal negative like that? Were you there when Moses was before the Burning Bush, and did you observe him tripping on shrooms, or sthg?
NAL said:
I use common sense and my experience to determine likelihoods.
OK. I also use common sense and my experience to determine likelihoods. And it's more probable that God's Word is accurate than that pitifully small and limited humanity might prove Him wrong.
Wow, that was helpful. Looks like you don't have a good reason to apportion out probabilities like that.
Paul C,
the observable features of the world you live in do not match the described features of the world you want to live in. What's your explanation for that?
Yes, they do match. You'd need to find something that is impossible to explain under the YEC framework to make this assertion stick.
The life of Uranium-238 can be observed and demonstrates consistent rates of decay
See above comments.
I'm saying that proof that the theory of radioactive decay was wrong would be a scientific discovery of the greatest magnitude
And I'm saying that there are easily-seen vested interests NOT to accept a change to that widely-accepted hypothesis. This boils down to a psychological game of speculation, which I didn't bring up, so have fun with it.
You have repeatedly said that evidence cannot be adduced in its support. So, what's left?
ReplyDeleteAnd given that you can't give us any evidence for it, it would seem I'm right.
This is simply a case wherein the truism that “words matter” is proved yet again. In the previous comment, I explained that a First Principle is a basic, foundational proposition or assumption, for which proof is not needed. Therefore, if you wished to characterize my First Principle, the most accurate descriptor would be axiom, presupposition, postulate or assumption; “faith” is a deliberately loaded word.
The difference at which I am getting is the same one that exists between the statement, “The military serviceman shot eight Al Qaeda fighters in Afghanistan” and the statement, “The man gunned down eight people.”
That its half-life has always been and will always be 5730 years. You only know that at its current rate of decay, that's the half-life. You have no idea what it was before. It's an assumption, which I'm not inclined to grant just b/c you get upset if I call your bluff about an old Earth. Give evidence, not assumptions.
I got upset? I had not realized; I hope I did not seem so. More on the germane issue later.
Yes, that is a statement of faith. Someone may know it and might not have told you.
More probably and quite reasonably, "known mechanism" is key - just b/c no human knows about it doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
The terms of the discussion - the field on which we are playing, as it were - seem to be changing. In the comment to which you were ostensibly responding, I said it was “probably not” possible that the decay rates have changed, which hardly counts as a stone-cold dismissal. Anyway, thereafter, the entirety of my comment was based on the assumption that the decay rates could change, and why that possibility presents absolutely no help to the Young Earth creationist. That was the point: Whether the decay rates could or could not change, the YEC position is untenable.
More faith in your uniformitarian assumptions. Even if God doesn't exist and the universe wasn't created, even on your own worldview, isn't it true that weird things happen sometimes?
I have already been over this ground, but you have not interacted with the point (in my judgment), leaving me no choice but to repeat myself, hopefully being more clear in the process.
Let us suppose that YEC is correct. Furthermore, let us suppose that, 4000 years ago, radioactive dating were possible. On the YEC view, a hunk of rock that had been around from the beginning of creation, if it were tested 4000 years ago, presumably would date approximately 2000 years old.
Now, let us suppose that contemporary scientists find the very same sample, and proceed to test the sample by means of radioactive dating. Multiple radioisotopes are present, and they all converge - each and every one of them - on 250 million years old as the sample’s age. Given the fact that, in general, radioisotopes exist across orders of magnitude (with half-life values in the thousands of years, hundreds of millions of years, billions of years, etc.), for all the sample’s radioisotopes to converge on 250 million years, when the actual age would only be 6000 years, would require every radioisotope that happens to be present to have changed decay rates differently.
It would be the equivalent of you, me, Barack Obama and William Lane Craig all agreeing to meet at a particular diner “sometime in 2011” and, by sheer and utter coincidence, all four of us arriving at the diner on exactly the same day at exactly the same moment.
Rho:
ReplyDeleteAnd it's more probable that God's Word is accurate than that pitifully small and limited humanity might prove Him wrong.
I'm trying to prove you wrong. You do know there's a difference, right? The arrogance of those claiming their interpretation of God's Word is accurate is astounding.
Paul C said it: (again: hi, Paul!)
ReplyDeleteif you appeal to God making more tree rings than there are years, you've devolved to Last Tuesdayism. Not falsifiable, can be tailored to any situation. Rho, tell me this: why would Almighty God do this to us?
An outstanding example is the depravity of man, which many people deny.
ReplyDelete"Depravity of man" is merely a theological doctrine derived from the concept of original sin. Just because you believe this doesn't make it a "truth."
How could you possible substantiate a universal negative like that? Were you there when Moses was before the Burning Bush, and did you observe him tripping on shrooms, or sthg?
My point was that there is no evidence of God speaking directly to anyone besides the hearsay evidence provided in exactly one ancient source.
In honesty, I must admit, I rather adore these kinds of discussions because, inasmuch as an old Earth (by which I mean one whose age is in the billions) is, owing to the veritable (and non-Noachian) flood of supporting evidence, irrefragable and to dispute that fact is, essentially, to eviscerate one's own position, to the extent that biblical Christianity can be said fundamentally to entail a young Earth, which is to say absolutely require it, biblical Christianity can be efficaciously disproved, without having to wade into the rather deep philosophical waters in which, as compared to scientific terrain, I feel relatively less comfortable.
ReplyDeleteI am still waiting for a good argument for atheism. As has been acknowledged, I think by Russel, the atheists could defeat all of our arguments for God (hypothetically, since they really haven't been that hot at that) and God could still exist. There need to not only be attacks on our arguments, but there needs to be arguments for atheism. I've never seen a good one.
ReplyDeleteAtheism is the realization that there are no good arguments for God.
ReplyDeleteBelief in God seems to me to be a human social phenomenon. The price for being a part of that society is just too high for me.
I am still waiting for a good argument for atheism... There need to not only be attacks on our arguments, but there needs to be arguments for atheism.
ReplyDeleteYou're presupposing that the default position is to be religious. Some people, myself included, were never religious and appear to feel none of the impulses that drive others, yourself included, to embrace religion. So, no, there don't need to be arguments for atheism; I was born without religious belief and simply stayed that way.
You may be different; I don't condemn you for it, I merely seek to understand it.
In honesty, I must admit, I rather adore these kinds of discussions because, inasmuch as an old Earth (by which I mean one whose age is in the billions) is, owing to the veritable (and non-Noachian) flood of supporting evidence, irrefragable and to dispute that fact is, essentially, to eviscerate one's own position, to the extent that biblical Christianity can be said fundamentally to entail a young Earth, which is to say absolutely require it, biblical Christianity can be efficaciously disproved, without having to wade into the rather deep philosophical waters in which, as compared to scientific terrain, I feel relatively less comfortable.
ReplyDeleteIt's natural to feel uncomfortable in deep philosophical waters, until you realize that they're imaginary anyway, JN. But I agree: Rho's honesty about his barefoot acceptance of Biblical inerrancy, come Hell or high water, is refreshing, and makes the choice between the Rock of Ages, or the age of rocks, very clear.
there don't need to be arguments for atheism
ReplyDeleteSeriously? You must be kidding?
No, I'm not kidding. I was born without religious belief and never acquired it, so I never needed "arguments for atheism". On my understanding, atheism is not a belief system but the lack of religious beliefs. I realise that the evangelical position presented by Rhology denies that this is the case - but simple denial doesn't make it true.
ReplyDelete(Of course I should point out that the above statement does not mean that my atheism can't or shouldn't be justified - but that's a different point entirely.)
Ok Paul. I don't think the original statement was clear, at least not to me. I thought you were saying that your athiesm doesn't need to be supported or justified. You were just pointing out that there never was a conversion to atheism.
ReplyDeleteI fundamentally disagree that atheism is a philosophical system of beliefs. Sure it is not religious, but that doesn't mean that it doesn't form its own system.
So what are your arguments FOR atheism?
I fundamentally disagree that atheism is a philosophical system of beliefs. Sure it is not religious, but that doesn't mean that it doesn't form its own system.
ReplyDeleteThat's fine, but you need to present an argument for that rather than just stating it. Christianity claims to be a system of belief, which we can accept at face value; atheism (or rather, atheists) generally doesn't make any such claim.
So what are your arguments FOR atheism?
As I said, there don't need to be arguments for atheism.
p.s. I should qualify that statement: there don't need to be arguments for atheism if your definition of atheism is the lack of religious belief.
ReplyDeleteThis is not your definition of atheism, so you may not agree with the statement that there don't need to be arguments for atheism. However I would argue that your definition of atheism is irrelevant to me, in exactly the same way as my definition of Christianity is irrelevant to you.
I see atheism as an umbrella worldview much in the same way as theism. There are different sects of theism; I am a Christian theist. Certainly this can be whittled down even more. I have no doubt there are different types of atheists, and that atheism is in general a lack of religious belief. However, a person can't just live in that state. At some point, a positive claim must be made to something (e.g., materialism). How else do you interpret the world around you? To say otherwise sounds like you are trying to live in a presuppositional vacuum. I don't buy this. You have presuppositions and beliefs that undergird your atheistic worldview whether or not you choose to recognize them.
ReplyDeleteIn general, I do think it is pretty surprising that there are no positive arguments that you can make to support atheism. To me, this makes atheism as a whole even more untenable, notwithstanding the convincing arguments for theism.
As an aside, I don't think your definitions are Christianity are irrelevant. I might disagree and scrutinize the claims, but this does not mean they are irrelevant.
Cheers to you and yours,
The Chemist
I see atheism as an umbrella worldview much in the same way as theism.
ReplyDeleteI don't.
You have presuppositions and beliefs that undergird your atheistic worldview whether or not you choose to recognize them.
Despite the continual assertion here and on other blogs that I have a range of presuppositions and beliefs that inform my "atheistic worldview", nobody making that assertion has yet explicitly identified a single one of those presuppositions or beliefs. Please let me know what you think those presuppositions and beliefs are, and I can let you know whether you're correct or not.
I can think of two. I'm a physicalist because my experience so far has been that only physical matter exists, but I am willing to sacrifice physicalism immediately if presented with evidence. (I am also an emergentist, if that's any use to you.) I agree that you can only be a physicalist if you're an atheist; however not all atheists are physicalists.
In moral terms, at present I'm a soft moral skeptic with a non-cognitivist bias, but this might change. I agree that you cannot be a non-cognitivist moral skeptic if you are a theist; but a theist could be another type of moral skeptic if they believed that humans do not have sufficient access to moral truth, and an atheist can be a moral realist.
Since not all atheists share those two beliefs, clearly they aren't the beliefs that you're talking about. What other beliefs do I have that undergird my worldview that I'm not recognising?