fayfreethinkers.com

What do our more philosophical members/leaders think about the case for strong atheism? My non-professional argument is that whereas no negative claim can typically be proven, it is possible to support an alternative hypothesis.

The usual dynamic I run into when discussing religion with religious folks is they make their various claims, I point out that their claims are extraordinary (i.e. contrary to accepted reality), unfalsifiable and unsupported with evidence; the “evidence,” usually subjective, they do present is easily debunked. And so I reject their claims, making a case for weak atheism. The duller fundies out there will reply that because they haven't been "proven" wrong (i.e. no negative claim demonstrated), then they are justified in continuing to believe as they wish (fair enough),and that I am wrong for rejecting their free, very gracious gift of belief (not so fair).

In science, it’s very one dimensional to suppose only one possible theory could be true or not true, particularly when it hasn’t yet been tested; normally, a number of related falsifiable theories are presented and each tested independently. In my opinion, a good alternative hypothesis can be presented: that Christianity (or any other major religion) is myth and legend. Although the religious claims that Christianity makes are not supported and believers frequently retreat to unfalsifiability when their claims are challenged, this isn’t demonstration of a negative claim; however, there is good evidence to support an alternative hypothesis, one that has a relatively low burden of proof. In debate, this seems to me a good way of shifting from the defense to the offense. Of course, truth is never settled by debate, but debate too often is the only public forum we have to share the good news of critical thinking. Weak atheism, as well reasoned and logical as it is, suffers rhetorically precisely because it is a defensive position. I think the stronger position to take when points are being scored for good rhetoric is to shift to the fundies own usual attack posture; hit the bully back and make them answer for the indecency of their claims. For example, their essential belief that all unbelievers will burn for eternity because an all-loving, perfectly just & fair god cares less for your generally good ethical behaviors and usual common decency than he does the fact that you don't believe in him, in absence of evidence, and "He" plans to be huffy about it for all eternity - it's a wicked claim, but it's one that many, if not most, Americans have been conditioned from an early age to think of as decent and normal, when it is in fact an assault on reason and an insult to one's humanity. If put on the defense, I believe most religious apologists can be thus exposed.

I think this is why Christopher Hitchens so often was one of the best debaters of the so-called “New Atheists.” He was a brilliant rhetorician who put his opponents on the defense by making them defend the indefensible; i.e. the genocide, child killing, marry-your-rapist insanity found in that particular bronze age document the usual fundie so eagerly wields as a cudgel. Thoughts?

Cherryj wrote:What do our more philosophical members/leaders think about the case for strong atheism?

I'm probably not one of those people, but I'll answer anyway.

I think that a defensible case for strongish functional atheism can be made simply based on the idea that certain iterations of the god concept imply that if this god exists, then certain effects would be observable. For example, if a personal god who answers prayers exists, then we ought to see a consistent pattern of prayers being answered at a rate higher than would be predicted by chance. Or, if there exists an all-powerful and all-knowing deity who wants very much for me to be aware of its existence, then it would have all of the capabilities required for me to -- through whatever mechanism -- be a believer in such a deity at this very second.

Because we can make the observations of these allegedly god-dependent consequences, and because we find that they are not true, we are justified in concluding that the antecedent is also not true (modus tollens).

One pro-theism response to this could be that we, as puny humans, simply cannot understand what those consequences really ought to be, and therefore that our rejection of the antecedent is unjustified. But recall that most religious people have views that are wholly dependent upon their ideas of consequences related to the existence of such a deity, so that's a doozy of an example of special pleading.
Alternatively, one could point out that such an objection amounts to rejecting logic as a problem-solving tool, as it is the equivalent of throwing up one's hands and declaring that we can't know. In this case, I'd say that moving someone from the theist camp to the agnostic camp ("We can't know!!") is a pretty damn good non-theistic argument.

Cherryj wrote:In my opinion, a good alternative hypothesis can be presented: that Christianity (or any other major religion) is myth and legend.

I agree. Doug is very good at doing this, in my opinion, especially his discussion of the original Easter and related events as described in the Bible. Particularly damning to the idea of the Bible NOT being a collection of myths, in my mind, is the pattern of aggrandization of certain details surrounding the resurrection... or rather, the alleged resurrection. See Doug's powerpoint presentation here.


I'd like to pick one nit about a tangential reference in your OP:

Cherryj wrote:In science.... normally, a number of related falsifiable theories are presented and each tested independently.

This is true, but theories as a whole can be (and are) tested, too, either directly or indirectly. I love using Dalton's atomic theory as an example of just how this can work: In Dalton's original postulates, there were statements that are simply incorrect, but the overall idea of "atoms exist" is entirely true. Postulates failed while the theory held. The other way around is fairly common: We might have a bunch of simple hypotheses or observations (F_g=Gm₁m₂/r², Kepler's laws of planetary motion, general relativity) that are well-supported but that we haven't figured out how to make tell the overall story in a fully satisfactory way (gravitational theory).

Savonarola wrote:

Cherryj wrote:What do our more philosophical members/leaders think about the case for strong atheism?

I'm probably not one of those people, but I'll answer anyway.

I think that a defensible case for strongish functional atheism can be made simply based on the idea that certain iterations of the god concept imply that if this god exists, then certain effects would be observable. For example, if a personal god who answers prayers exists, then we ought to see a consistent pattern of prayers being answered at a rate higher than would be predicted by chance. Or, if there exists an all-powerful and all-knowing deity who wants very much for me to be aware of its existence, then it would have all of the capabilities required for me to -- through whatever mechanism -- be a believer in such a deity at this very second.

Because we can make the observations of these allegedly god-dependent consequences, and because we find that they are not true, we are justified in concluding that the antecedent is also not true (modus tollens).

One pro-theism response to this could be that we, as puny humans, simply cannot understand what those consequences really ought to be, and therefore that our rejection of the antecedent is unjustified. But recall that most religious people have views that are wholly dependent upon their ideas of consequences related to the existence of such a deity, so that's a doozy of an example of special pleading.
Alternatively, one could point out that such an objection amounts to rejecting logic as a problem-solving tool, as it is the equivalent of throwing up one's hands and declaring that we can't know. In this case, I'd say that moving someone from the theist camp to the agnostic camp ("We can't know!!") is a pretty damn good non-theistic argument.

Cherryj wrote:In my opinion, a good alternative hypothesis can be presented: that Christianity (or any other major religion) is myth and legend.

I agree. Doug is very good at doing this, in my opinion, especially his discussion of the original Easter and related events as described in the Bible. Particularly damning to the idea of the Bible NOT being a collection of myths, in my mind, is the pattern of aggrandization of certain details surrounding the resurrection... or rather, the alleged resurrection. See Doug's powerpoint presentation here.


I'd like to pick one nit about a tangential reference in your OP:

Cherryj wrote:In science.... normally, a number of related falsifiable theories are presented and each tested independently.

This is true, but theories as a whole can be (and are) tested, too, either directly or indirectly. I love using Dalton's atomic theory as an example of just how this can work: In Dalton's original postulates, there were statements that are simply incorrect, but the overall idea of "atoms exist" is entirely true. Postulates failed while the theory held. The other way around is fairly common: We might have a bunch of simple hypotheses or observations (F_g=Gm₁m₂/r², Kepler's laws of planetary motion, general relativity) that are well-supported but that we haven't figured out how to make tell the overall story in a fully satisfactory way (gravitational theory).

Thanks Savonarola! Excellent feedback.

In my view the bible itself is the best tool in demonstrating why God doesn't exist. One of the claims about God's nature is that he is unchanging. Now it is very clear that even in the bible God's demeanor, principles and actions are very inconsistent, but Christians can justify that so I don't use that to make my point. What proves that the God of the bible does not and cannot exist, for me, is simply the non-existence of miracles in the modern world (modern referring to, say, the last 500 years of history).

The bible begins with a miracle, perhaps the grandest miracle of all: the creation story. God speaks the world as we know it into existence, furnished with life and life sustaining environment, in six days. Quite a feat. The next great miracle is the global flood, which is again quite impressive as far as scale goes. However, the magnitude of miracles continuously diminish, going from global, to national, to city, to neighborhood, to household, until when Jesus comes on the scene, miracles are almost all on the individual level.

Even this pattern really doesn't say much, God still performs miracles, right? As far as the bible is concerned, he never stopped doing miraculous feats. What's interesting is Jesus is quoted in John 14:12 as saying: "Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me, the works that I do shall he do also; and greater works than these shall he do; because I go unto my Father." The fact that no miracles are being performed today is enough to argue that no miracles have ever been performed at any time. To this day I have not met a Christian that has a response to this.

"No miracle has ever taken place under conditions which science can accept. Experience shows, without exception, that miracles occur only in times and in countries in which miracles are believed in, and in the presence of persons who are disposed to believe them." --Ernest Renan, The Life of Jesus