Can atheists be rational? (not a parody thread)

[cj.23]

OK, this is not a parody thread. Of course I believe atheists can be rational (I just took the title from the other thread) but what I want to see is a rational argument for atheism. I have always assumed such exist, and that atheism can be entirely rational, but following recent reading of Hume and various other writers I have come to seriously doubt if a rational argument outside of a cost/benefit analysis can be constructed for atheism. Yet I remain convinced there must be some - so go on atheists, if you feel like demonstrating the rationality of the atheistic hypothesis, go for it!

cj x

[Beady]

The astronomer Pierre Laplace was explaining his theory of the universe to the Emperor Napoleon. Napoleon asked where God fit into Laplace's scheme, and Laplace answered, "Highness, I have no need of this hypothesis."

I may have got the details wrong, but the quote has always sufficed for me. It's not that I need to invalidate God, I just see him as extraneous.

[cj.23]

Originally Posted by Beady

The astronomer Pierre Laplace was explaining his theory of the universe to the Emperor Napoleon. Napoleon asked where God fit into Laplace's scheme, and Laplace answered, "Highness, I have no need of this hypothesis."

I may have got the details wrong, but the quote has always sufficed for me. It's not that I need to invalidate God, I just see him as extraneous.

No that's complete right. Laplace argued from a extreme form of deterministic ultra-materialism which we know believe to be false: 20th century physics has so far been a strong reaction to the "billard ball hypothesis". I am very sympathetic to your position though Beady - God as extraneous that is. Still, it does not follow logically that God does not exist, and there are many who would argue God is far from extraneous.

cj x

[Darat]

Originally Posted by cj.23

OK, this is not a parody thread. Of course I believe atheists can be rational (I just took the title from the other thread) but what I want to see is a rational argument for atheism. I have always assumed such exist, and that atheism can be entirely rational, but following recent reading of Hume and various other writers I have come to seriously doubt if a rational argument outside of a cost/benefit analysis can be constructed for atheism. Yet I remain convinced there must be some - so go on atheists, if you feel like demonstrating the rationality of the atheistic hypothesis, go for it!

cj x

So you don't consider your atheism rational?

[Gord_in_Toronto]

Any unequivocal evidence that the God construct exists?

[Mojo]

Originally Posted by cj.23

OK, this is not a parody thread. Of course I believe atheists can be rational (I just took the title from the other thread) but what I want to see is a rational argument for atheism. I have always assumed such exist, and that atheism can be entirely rational, but following recent reading of Hume and various other writers I have come to seriously doubt if a rational argument outside of a cost/benefit analysis can be constructed for atheism. Yet I remain convinced there must be some - so go on atheists, if you feel like demonstrating the rationality of the atheistic hypothesis, go for it!

First, you need to define "atheist".

[Mashuna]

Originally Posted by cj.23

No that's complete right. Laplace argued from a extreme form of deterministic ultra-materialism which we know believe to be false: 20th century physics has so far been a strong reaction to the "billard ball hypothesis". I am very sympathetic to your position though Beady - God as extraneous that is. Still, it does not follow logically that God does not exist, and there are many who would argue God is far from extraneous.

cj x

From the debates I've read, definitions of God start at incoherent, then gradually get whittled down to extraneous.

[cj.23]

Originally Posted by Darat

So you don't consider your atheism rational?

Which Gods/Goddeses do I disbelieve in?

cj x

[cj.23]

Originally Posted by Mojo

First, you need to define "atheist".

Good point. Just make a rational argument for the non-existence of god/ddess(e/s) then...

cj x

[Ichneumonwasp]

I'm not an atheist, but here's a truncated version with slight modifications from the Spinozan original. The upshot being that dualism is bunk and monism rules. This leaves us with a situation -- there is an originary substance, but we cannot know that substance in itself. We can view that substance as divine (as Spinoza chose to do) or we can view it as profane. We are left with a choice, really, with no means to decide.

Take the red pill or the blue pill. It is your choice. It is just as rational to choose one or the other.

It is not rational to limit your choice to particular attributes once the choice is made -- in other words, making God in your own image is not rational. Any anthropomorphization that fixes God into some type, be it "the designer" or "the Christian God" is a limitation on God's attributes.


Prop. I. Substance is by Nature prior to its modifications.

Premise 1. Substance exists and cannot be dependent on anything
else for its existence.

Prop. II.
Two substances, whose attributes are different, have
nothing in common.

Premise 2. No two substances can share an attribute.
Proof: If they share an attribute, they would be identical. Therefore
they can only be individuated by their modes. But then they would
depend on their modes for their identity. This would have the sub-
stance being dependent on its mode, in violation of premise 1.
Therefore, two substances cannot share the same attribute.

Prop. III. Things which have nothing in common cannot be one
the cause of the other.

Premise 3. A substance can only be caused by something similar
to itself (something that shares its attribute).

Prop. IV. Two or more distinct things are distinguished one from
the other, either by the difference of the attributes of
the substances, or by the difference of their modifica-
tions.
Implied is Premise 4. Substance cannot be caused.

Proof: Something can only be caused by something which
is similar to itself, in other words something that shares its
attribute. But according to premise 2, no two substances can
share an attribute. Therefore substance cannot be caused.

Prop. V. There cannot exist in the universe two or more
substances having the same nature or attribute.

Implied is Premise 5. Substance is infinite.
Proof: If substance were not infinite, it would be finite and
limited by something. But to be limited by something is to be
dependent on it. However, substance cannot be dependent
on anything else (premise 1), therefore substance is infinite.

Prop. VI. One substance cannot be produced by another
substance.

IImplied is the Conclusion: There can only be one substance.

Proof: If there were two infinite substances, they would limit
each other. But this would act as a restraint, and they would
be dependent on each other. But they cannot be dependent
on each other (premise 1), therefore there cannot be two
substances.

Prop. VII.
Existence belongs to the Nature of substance.

Prop. VIII
Every substance is necessarily infinite.

Prop. IX. The more reality or being a thing has the greater the
number of its attributes.

Prop. X. Each particular attribute of the one substance must
be conceived through itself.

Prop. XI. Substance, consisting of infinite attributes, of
which each expresses eternal and infinite essentiality,
necessarily exists.

Prop. XII.
No attribute of substance can be conceived from which
it would follow that substance can be divided.

Prop. XIII. Substance absolutely infinite is indivisible.

[Freethinker]

Atheism isn't a choice or decision. Rejecting a previously held belief might involve choice or a positive decision, but atheism is just the state in which a person remains until presented with compelling reasons to believe in one or more gods.

I'm an atheist because no one has presented a rational argument for non-atheism.

[cj.23]

Originally Posted by Gord_in_Toronto

Any unequivocal evidence that the God construct exists?

Nope. Any it doesn't?

cj x

[Aepervius]

Originally Posted by cj.23

Which Gods/Goddeses do I disbelieve in?

cj x

Horus. Zeus. Or to take more recent example Shiva. brahama. etc...

To answer your original question, it you define Atheism as the disbelief of an existence of a God DUE to lack of evidence, congruent to the disbelief of existence of pink flying unicorn, then it can certainly be seen as rational. The same reason you disbelieve in such entity is the same reason you will disbelieve a whole class of them (or should be if you are consistent and rational). Mind you it leaves an opening to new evidence. But there is certainly a second class of atheism , which is disbelief in god independent of the absence of evidence. People which simply don't believe in god and just shrug it. The last case is probably less rational.

[Tricky]

Originally Posted by cj.23

Good point. Just make a rational argument for the non-existence of god/ddess(e/s) then...

cj x

Zeus is the god of thunder and lightning.

We now know that lightning is a meteorological phenomena, not hurled by a god.

Okay, one down. A billion to go.

[cj.23]

Originally Posted by Freethinker

Atheism isn't a choice or decision. Rejecting a previously held belief might involve choice or a positive decision, but atheism is just the state in which a person remains until presented with compelling reasons to believe in one or more gods.

I'm an atheist because no one has presented a rational argument for non-atheism.

Agreed entirely with the first paragraph, but you are here including agnosticism as atheism - Weak Atheism (which is a not a perjorative, but a definition, from Flew as I recall). Such ana tatheist does not believe in the non-existence of Gods - they simply have no reason to conclude Gods exist.

So my original formulation was as Mojo showed deeply flawed -- I'm not looking for rational arguments for atheism, but for the non-existence of Gods - the claim of Strong Atheism.

cj x

[cj.23]

Originally Posted by Tricky

Zeus is the god of thunder and lightning.

We now know that lightning is a meteorological phenomena, not hurled by a god.

Okay, one down. A billion to go.

How do you know Zeus does not work through physical causality? TH Huxley raised this problem with claims that Darwinism disproved teleology. I have no reason to assume from this Zeus does not exist - you have simply described the mechanism by which Zeus interacts with the natural world?

cj x

[Jimbo07]

Originally Posted by cj.23

Nope. Any it doesn't?

cj x

[glib comment]
Any evidence that magical pixies don't exist? Any evidence that a stoiacktaplabst doesn't exist?
[/glib comment]

I'm not going to say that the burden of proof is on those claiming God's existence, since I would agree that God is the social default. I made the glib comment merely to demonstrate the difficulties of proving non-existence. It seems it would be easier for those making a positive claim to provide positive evidence. So again, I'm not shifting the burden of proof, but I am commenting on the ease of a shifted burden of proof. Pragmatism can be rational...

[Darat]

Originally Posted by cj.23

Which Gods/Goddeses do I disbelieve in?

cj x

I thought I had a recollection that you had said you were an Anglican and believed in that doctrine? So I assumed that you did not believe in the non-Anglican gods?

[learner]

It seems to me that atheism only needs rationalising if you are rejecting a religious stance and embracing atheism. For me, there has never been a need to rationalise it. I was born an atheist, unadulterated and pure of irrational nonsense, I'm trying to keep it up, succeeding, mostly.

[Mashuna]

Originally Posted by cj.23

How do you know Zeus does not work through physical causality? TH Huxley raised this problem with claims that Darwinism disproved teleology. I have no reason to assume from this Zeus does not exist - you have simply described the mechanism by which Zeus interacts with the natural world?

cj x

Does Zeus jobshare with Thor?

[cj.23]

Originally Posted by Darat

I thought I had a recollection that you had said you were an Anglican and believed in that doctrine? So I assumed that you did not believe in the non-Anglican gods?

I believe people experience a divine reality, and that Zeus etc are reflections of that reality, just as my model is. To use a term from philosophy of science i'm an Objective Instrumentalist, and apply the same reasoning to theology as to science -"the map is not the territory: but different maps can closer approximate the ineffable reality".

Hope clarifies.

And I forget who posted the Spinozan argument, but lovely post. I'll talk about it later if i may...

cj x

[Aepervius]

Originally Posted by Mashuna

Does Zeus jobshare with Thor?

Apologetic will simply say it is the same god under another name.

Sound familiar, isn't it ?


ETA: Darn, beaten already.

[Darat]

Originally Posted by cj.23

I believe people experience a divine reality, and that Zeus etc are reflections of that reality, just as my model is.

...snip...

Do you believe Zeus exists as described by the people that say Zeus is god?

[joobz]

All arguments for atheism boil down to simplification of the world model.
There are four main hypotheses that we can make for god. (There may be more, but these are the ones that I think capture the majority of views for god).

1.) God is external to our universe but interacts with it.
2.) God is external to our universe, but does not interact with it except for its initial creation.
3.) God is external to our universe but does not interact with it nor did he create it.
4.) God is or is part of our universe.


For items 1 and 4, if god interacts or is part of the universe, then it would stand to reason that we could sense/measure him. Since then advent of the scientific method, we have not yet measured or detected anything that would require a god hypothesis. As such, we can assume god to not exist for simplicity sake.

For Item 4, if we say god IS our universe, than that would be merely a redefinition of the word universe. As such, it would be trivially meaningless to say that god exists.

For Item 3, if god didn't create the universe and does not interact with it, what's the point of being concerned with god? I do not think anyone argues for such a god, but such a god is equally as possible as a creator god. We could easily hypothesize entire cities filled of such gods, but all this does is increase the complexity of our universal understanding. Considering that the detectable world is complex enough, I see no reason to theorize beyond it.


This leaves us with Item 2, the deist god. Such a god is the most plausible in my mind, but again fails the complexity issue. Until there is evidence that a creator was needed, there is no reason to assume there even is a creator. And let's pretend that our universe does in fact need a creator, what does that say about god? If we needed a creator, why wouldn't god? Because we define god as the primary source? But since we can't measure such a god or sense such a god(except by creation calling cards), how can we make any definition beyond "creator" for god. Any argument describing something that is immeasurable is merely guessing. As such, discovery of god would be still unsatisfying and open up countless questions and issues that would need to be addressed. I see no reason to theorize such a worry until it becomes a requirement.

For example, what if we discover a part of the universe where our physical constants are different. The ramifications of such an occurrence would be astronomical and greatly increase the complexity of our models. Yet, there is no reason to assume such a thing and indeed good reasons assume that they are constant. As such, we keep to logically simple arguments for ease. Similarly, until we see Item 2 proved true, I see no reason to open that can of worms.

[LarianLeQuella]

On the god(s) argument, I think all of that nonsense started because "people" were loathe to say "I don't know." If there was some sort of "explanation" for everything, it somehow made them feel better. In a pre-industrial age, being self deluded wasn't really that big a deal, but now it can have much more serious implications (like developing nuclear weapons before figuring out how not to kill each other just because of "ideas").

Understanding the psychology of humanity lends a lot of credence to the hypotheses of "It's all made up." Douglas Adams said it quite well:

Quote:

Where does the idea of God come from? Well, I think we have a very skewed point of view on an awful lot of things, but let's try and see where our point of view comes from. Imagine early man. Early man is, like everything else, an evolved creature and he finds himself in a world that he's begun to take a little charge of; he's begun to be a tool-maker, a changer of his environment with the tools that he's made and he makes tools, when he does, in order to make changes in his environment. To give an example of the way man operates compared to other animals, consider speciation, which, as we know, tends to occur when a small group of animals gets separated from the rest of the herd by some geological upheaval, population pressure, food shortage or whatever and finds itself in a new environment with maybe something different going on. Take a very simple example; maybe a bunch of animals suddenly finds itself in a place where the weather is rather colder. We know that in a few generations those genes which favour a thicker coat will have come to the fore and we'll come and we'll find that the animals have now got thicker coats. Early man, who's a tool maker, doesn't have to do this: he can inhabit an extraordinarily wide range of habitats on earth, from tundra to the Gobi Desert - he even manages to live in New York for heaven's sake - and the reason is that when he arrives in a new environment he doesn't have to wait for several generations; if he arrives in a colder environment and sees an animal that has those genes which favour a thicker coat, he says “I'll have it off him”. Tools have enabled us to think intentionally, to make things and to do things to create a world that fits us better. Now imagine an early man surveying his surroundings at the end of a happy day's tool making. He looks around and he sees a world which pleases him mightily: behind him are mountains with caves in - mountains are great because you can go and hide in the caves and you are out of the rain and the bears can't get you; in front of him there's the forest - it's got nuts and berries and delicious food; there's a stream going by, which is full of water - water's delicious to drink, you can float your boats in it and do all sorts of stuff with it; here's cousin Ug and he's caught a mammoth - mammoth's are great, you can eat them, you can wear their coats, you can use their bones to create weapons to catch other mammoths. I mean this is a great world, it's fantastic. But our early man has a moment to reflect and he thinks to himself, 'well, this is an interesting world that I find myself in' and then he asks himself a very treacherous question, a question which is totally meaningless and fallacious, but only comes about because of the nature of the sort of person he is, the sort of person he has evolved into and the sort of person who has thrived because he thinks this particular way. Man the maker looks at his world and says 'So who made this then?' Who made this? - you can see why it's a treacherous question. Early man thinks, 'Well, because there's only one sort of being I know about who makes things, whoever made all this must therefore be a much bigger, much more powerful and necessarily invisible, one of me and because I tend to be the strong one who does all the stuff, he's probably male'. And so we have the idea of a god. Then, because when we make things we do it with the intention of doing something with them, early man asks himself , 'If he made it, what did he make it for?' Now the real trap springs, because early man is thinking, 'This world fits me very well. Here are all these things that support me and feed me and look after me; yes, this world fits me nicely' and he reaches the inescapable conclusion that whoever made it, made it for him.

This is rather as if you imagine a puddle waking up one morning and thinking, 'This is an interesting world I find myself in - an interesting hole I find myself in - fits me rather neatly, doesn't it? In fact it fits me staggeringly well, must have been made to have me in it!' This is such a powerful idea that as the sun rises in the sky and the air heats up and as, gradually, the puddle gets smaller and smaller, it's still frantically hanging on to the notion that everything's going to be alright, because this world was meant to have him in it, was built to have him in it; so the moment he disappears catches him rather by surprise.

I sincerely doubt that you believe in Zeus, cj. Can you clearly articulate why you do not (aside from just copping out with "It's not allowed in the bible." or "Soandso said so.")?

[cj.23]

Originally Posted by Mashuna

Does Zeus jobshare with Thor?

Does Lamarck jobshare with Darwin? For my take on the Norse & Greek pantheons see here --http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=4261704#post4261704

cj x

[Tricky]

Originally Posted by cj.23

How do you know Zeus does not work through physical causality? TH Huxley raised this problem with claims that Darwinism disproved teleology. I have no reason to assume from this Zeus does not exist - you have simply described the mechanism by which Zeus interacts with the natural world?

cj x

Zeus, by definition "hurls" thunderbolts. To have him "work through physical causality" would be to redefine Zeus.

And this was my point. To rationally contest every possible defintion of God or gods, you would have to first assemble every possible definition of them. As you have just demonstrated, it is possible for a person who believes in a certain god, when confronted with the irrationality of that particular definition of god, to simply change their definition, i.e. moving the goalposts.

So if you are asking if an atheist can rationally defend the position that a thing which has no fixed definition does not exist, then the answer is "no". You cannot argue rationally against something which has no definition.

[Mashuna]

Originally Posted by Aepervius

Apologetic will simply say it is the same god under another name.

Sound familiar, isn't it ?


ETA: Darn, beaten already.

Well, identity theft is on the rise.

[AZAtheist]

I don't believe that there is a god/creator because there is no evidence to support that belief. Atheism is simply a lack of belief. I can't prove that there is no god nor do I have to.

It is extremely rational (reasonable) to withhold belief when the supporting evidence is lacking.

[Malerin]

If the atheists here are representative of most atheists, then a lot atheists are not very rational people. The inability of many "rational" atheists here to understand conditional probability doesn't speak very well for the "movement". Maybe this forum is an anamoly, though.

[Mojo]

Originally Posted by cj.23

Good point. Just make a rational argument for the non-existence of god/ddess(e/s) then...

Originally Posted by Freethinker

Atheism isn't a choice or decision. Rejecting a previously held belief might involve choice or a positive decision, but atheism is just the state in which a person remains until presented with compelling reasons to believe in one or more gods.

I'm an atheist because no one has presented a rational argument for non-atheism.

Originally Posted by cj.23

Agreed entirely with the first paragraph, but you are here including agnosticism as atheism - Weak Atheism (which is a not a perjorative, but a definition, from Flew as I recall). Such ana tatheist does not believe in the non-existence of Gods - they simply have no reason to conclude Gods exist.

So my original formulation was as Mojo showed deeply flawed -- I'm not looking for rational arguments for atheism, but for the non-existence of Gods - the claim of Strong Atheism.

I suspect that this absolutist "strong atheist" chappie (who is in line with Richard Dawkins's definition of the "strong atheist" position as "I know there is no god") is something of a strawman.

I have yet to meet an atheist who believes in "the non-existence of Gods". All the atheists I've encountered merely don't believe that gods exist (generally because of the lack of evidence for such an entity), and therefore have no need of an argument for "the non-existence of god/ddess(e/s)", as this is not something they believe.

Personally, I would suggest that the "strong atheist" position you have asked people to defend is not rational, because it is not logically possible to disprove the existence of something, but that it is not representative of the position of actual atheists. I will not attempt to defend it, because it is certainly not my position.

[Tricky]

Originally Posted by Malerin

If the atheists here are representative of most atheists, then a lot atheists are not very rational people. The inability of many "rational" atheists here to understand conditional probability doesn't speak very well for the "movement". Maybe this forum is an anamoly, though.

I think the atheists here understand conditional probability just fine. After all, Pascal's Wager is a perfect example of "conditional probability", in that it essentially states, "If god exists as he is described in the Bible, then it is a good bet to believe in the Biblical god."

So exactly what conditions are you proposing for evaluating the probability?

[MattusMaximus]

Originally Posted by Mashuna

From the debates I've read, definitions of God start at incoherent, then gradually get whittled down to extraneous.

Good point Mashuna. To get a real handle on the question you'd have to have an agreed upon definition of God - good luck with that.

Concerning the "standard" view of the Judeo-Christian monotheistic God, I don't believe in that God for the same reason I don't believe in leprechauns or unicorns - lack of evidence.

[cj.23]

Originally Posted by AZAtheist

I don't believe that there is a god/creator because there is no evidence to support that belief. Atheism is simply a lack of belief. I can't prove that there is no god nor do I have to.

It is extremely rational (reasonable) to withhold belief when the supporting evidence is lacking.

Actually theoretically you can prove there is no God, as a negative can be proven. I understand that is not what you are saying though. Your argument is that is reasonable to not believe in God based upon your reading of the evidence. That I have no disagreement with - you have made that decision (and i have made a differing one.)

In the face of insufficient data one must either remain open to the possibilities and await further data, or make a personal choice. No disagreement at all there.

cj x

[slingblade]

Originally Posted by Malerin

If the atheists here are representative of most atheists, then a lot atheists are not very rational people. The inability of many "rational" atheists here to understand conditional probability doesn't speak very well for the "movement". Maybe this forum is an anamoly, though.

Could you explain what it is "many 'rational' atheists" fail to understand about if/then conditionals?

Could you explain which "movement" you mean, and how you have determined there is a movement? You might also define "movement."

Could you explain "anamoly" as opposed to "anomaly?" Sorry, I just had to.



When I was a small child, I was taught that magic exists.

When I grew a bit older, I was taught that most forms of magic actually don't exist, and that my adult "teachers" knew that when they told me they did exist.

Finally, it boiled down to being taught that no magic exists except one, but that there is no more evidence for it than for the others that really don't exist.

Rationally, if there is no evidence, then there is no reason.


I was just reading a story about motor- and bicycle helmets being required by law in Nigeria, and how, aside from the issue of affordability, people are disinclined to wear the helmets because they think they can be imbued with a magic spell to harm the wearer.

Is there any logical, rational reason to believe in these magic spells? Is there any conditional statement that will affect or demonstrate the reality of magic spells on bike helmets?

Why should I not believe in that magic? Do you?

[cj.23]

Originally Posted by Mojo

I suspect that this absolutist "strong atheist" chappie (who is in line with Richard Dawkins's definition of the "strong atheist" position as "I know there is no god") is something of a strawman.

In my two year stay over in Dawkins place i have met a lot actually. 776 respondents to the poll there, 26%, chose that option.
http://www.richarddawkins.net/forum/...scale#p1342485
1% of respondents (38) were 100% certain theists.

So not a strawman I promise you.

cj x

[EventHorizon]

I don't believe in God because there is no evidence of its existence. It's that simple. If there was evidence for it, I would obviously take that into consideration and modify my position. Whether you want to call that atheism, agnosticism, weak atheism or strong atheism doesn't make a difference to me. The point is I don't believe in God.

[Hokulele]

Why does atheism have to be a rational proposition?

[RandFan]

Originally Posted by cj.23

Actually theoretically you can prove there is no God, as a negative can be proven.

Please to explain. If I say my wife isn't in the garage I can go to the garage and *"prove" she's not there. How do I prove that the ghost underneath my bed isn't there?



*prove isn't really the same as demonstrate but that's fine.

[Tricky]

Originally Posted by RandFan

Please to explain. If I say my wife isn't in the garage I can go to the garage and *"prove" she's not there. How do I prove that the ghost underneath my bed isn't there?

Not if you are allowed to redefine your wife to include the trait of being able to turn herself invisible.

Originally Posted by RandFan

How do I prove that the ghost underneath my bed isn't there?

Is it an invisible ghost?