haggholm: (Default)
[personal profile] haggholm

Tell a Christian that you are an atheist because you find the evidence for theism thoroughly unconvincing and the odds are pretty high that you will, at some point, be told that he doesn’t have enough faith to be an atheist, or that you need faith in the non-existence of gods just as much as he needs faith in the existence of his. At first blush, this sounds at once superficially reasonable, obviously false, and profoundly bizarre.

It sounds superficially reasonable, because the objection that my atheism is not founded on an absolute certainty and absolute proof is of course correct. It sounds obviously false because the word “faith” is typically used to describe a positive belief in something for which there is insufficient empirical evidence, and is not a word suited to describe skepticism, whether justified or unjustified. It sounds profoundly bizarre because many Christians use the word to describe a purported virtue of trusting in the existence and benevolence of their god in spite of the lack of such evidence (the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen).

Part of the problem is that the word “faith” is a vague one on which we may both equivocate and have genuine misunderstandings. I use it to describe belief that is not justified by rational evidence, because in any situation where there is evidence we have other words to describe it, but I recognise that anyone who uses the word in conversation with me may mean just that, or equally well something different, such as a religious belief that they perceive to be supported by evidence, as a synonym for “confidence”, or something else altogether.

Then again, a disingenuous approach some debaters will use is to conflate them intentionally, a logical fallacy known as equivocation. You might say that I have “faith” that if I sit down my chair will bear me up, just as you have “faith” that your god exists—but they are clearly not the same kind of faith, since I have ample evidence that my chair will support me, and furthermore this evidence is available to anyone who wants to inspect it: You could (if you truly doubted it) have photos, videos, contemporary eyewitness testimony, or if you were truly dedicated you could come visit me and see for yourself. Moreover, the supportive quality of chairs is not contrary to anything in common experience; it’s not (as Sagan would say) an extraordinary claim. This approach is apparently used to justify the evidence-free kind of faith by implying that it is equivalent to obviously rational forms. It is not. My confidence in chairs is based on facts and observations that could be amply supported against someone skeptical of chairs; unless you can provide facts and observations in favour of your deity, it’s not the same thing at all—and if you can then let’s talk facts and evidence, not “faith”.


More promising is the notion that I need faith to be an atheist—faith not quite supported by evidence, that is—just as the theist needs faith to be a theist. Some theists, indeed, are known to dismissively quip that “I don’t have enough faith to be an atheist” (by implication of which faith is a bad thing, since more of it leads to us sinful atheists—but that is by the way). However, this also falls down flat on closer inspection.

First of all, we all subscribe to most of the same basic premises or assumptions in dealing with the world, theists and atheists alike. We all operate on the assumption that the external world is real and that our senses provide us with systematic information thereof. Even a hypothetical, reductio-ad-absurdam biblical literalist has no choice: Without the empirical evidence of his eyes and ears, he could read no scripture and hear no sermons. So clearly, in terms of the basic appreciation of what exists, we start from the same position.

Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem, as Occam’s Razor slices, and I choose to stop there. I accept the truth of premises that cannot be denied without resort to solipsism, but thereafter I demand evidence before I accept anything as true. This post goes into more detail, but in brief, since it is always possible to invent an infinitude of ideas, explanations, and purported entities, my choices are always going to be either refusal to accept any without evidence, attempting to accept all of them, or picking and choosing in an ad hoc fashion.

This all sounds rather abstract, so let’s consider this tweet from @repenTee:

@haggholm as I think about it ur conjectures are based on faith no evidence 2 prove that God doesn't exist somewhere in the universe.

(Pardon his spelling; it’s a tweet.)

The problem with this protestation is that although it is true that I have no direct evidence that no such thing as his God is floating about somewhere in the interstellar void, nor do I have any evidence that there aren’t two gods. Or three. Or ninety-six point four. Or, for that matter, a giant magic space-duck ’round whose mighty bill six supermassive black holes revolve. This shows the insufficiency of “there is no direct evidence against it” as an argument to accept any proposition: It opens the gates to all manner of silly things. I want to remain intellectually consistent, so I must approach all these disparate and sometimes contradictory claims (there is exactly one, are exactly two, three, four gods… cannot all be true) with the same approach. I do, and so accept only the ones whose existence is supported by good evidence. Therefore I am an atheist.

(This is of course what Russell’s Teapot was created to illustrate, along with its more modern successors—the Invisible Pink Unicorn, Sagan’s invisible dragon, the Flying Spaghetti Monster, and so on.)

So as Bertrand Russell observed,

…I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense.


I believe that this sufficiently deals with equivocation, and dismissing the idea that the lack of positive disproof of a proposition (in spite of lack of positive evidence for it) is sufficient grounds to believe in it. We’re left, then, with the notion that the atheist’s confidence that there are no gods is on par with the theists’s faith in his because both positions have evidentiary support. The same @repenTee provided this frank and illustrative example in a blog comment:

…The faith we've entered into is not without evidence. Much as biologists observe cellular structures so we have observed nature and from it conclude that these things have been created by God. As we have observed people, places and things we conclude that something greater than ourselves must exist. Who this God is from that point we may differ but the theist never concludes that God exists apart from evidence....

Unfortunately, the analogy with biologists falls rather flat when we consider that the biologist’s inference from observation is only the first stage of scientific investigation. In the canonical simplification of scientific inquiry, this is observation leading to hypothesis formation. A biologist might for example observe cells in agar, see some interesting things, and conclude that cells reproduce by fission…but it doesn’t end there. If a biologist submitted a paper to a journal with no more substance than “here’s what I saw and here’s what I conclude”, it would be rejected and might not even receive the grace of a note explaining why. Rather, the biologist must use this point as a starting point only and ask questions. If I am right, what does that imply? What else should I be able to see? Can I follow up on that, and do I see what I expect? More importantly, what if I am wrong? What should I expect to see if I am wrong, and can I check up on that?

Indeed, some very great scientific truths have been discovered thanks to ideas that were arrived at in very ad hoc fashion, but turned out to be true. August Kekulé famously arrived at the structure of the benzene molecule from a dream of the Ouroboros, a snake biting its own tail. Einstein developed a lot of ideas from Gedankenexperiments and his sense of scientific aesthetics. The ultimate source of an idea is not so very important, whether empirical observation or irrational impulse—you may observe nature and draw the wrong conclusions; you may hallucinate and by chance have a correct idea. The key is not where the idea comes from, but how we can tell if it’s correct or erroneous.

This is of course the principles of falsifiability and (implicitly) replicability, two of the great cornerstones of the scientific enterprise. We accept no one’s word that something is true just because it seemed reasonable from what they saw. We expect them to explain in quantitative detail what difference their idea makes, so that we can make predictive statements and check whether it’s correct. Note that this goes beyond merely looking for consistency. I can make up all kinds of crazy ideas that are consistent with facts. I can claim that the world is such as it is because the giant magic space-duck willed it to be so, and this is consistent with facts. But it’s not an idea to be taken seriously because I cannot say “If the space-duck exists then we should observe X; if it does not then we should observe Y.” Before I accept the truth of a proposition, the existence of any entity, it must be clearly meaningful to say that it is false—and of course that meaning must turn out to be counterfactual.

So let us return to the quote from above:

…The faith we've entered into is not without evidence. Much as biologists observe cellular structures so we have observed nature and from it conclude that these things have been created by God.

At this stage, what’s been described is hypothesis generation. There’s nothing wrong with generating hypotheses, and no wrong way to do it (only more or less productive ones), but hypotheses must not be mistaken for validated theories, for truth. How do you know that your idea of divine creation is correct? What predictions have you (or any theist) ever made that would detect divine agency—what evidence should be sought to verify that your god created something rather than just natural processes? If you have not looked for it, then it’s not comparable to what a proper biologist does at all; it’s the brainstorming phase, not the publishable work that actually gets a scientist respect and tenure.

This is also the big problem with a deist god. Certainly it violates no evidence, but nor does it leave any evidence or make any predictions. To say that there is a god, but it leaves no traces of itself for us to find, only sounds less crazy than to say the same of a magic space-duck because we are culturally conditioned to take gods more seriously.

The objection to deism is also applicable to certain views of theism—that is, those that fall into the trap of the God of the Gaps. Over the centuries, some defenders of religious faith have insisted that what we cannot scientifically explain must be the work of their god—the orbits of the planets, say, or the origin of life. As Kepler, Newton et al explained orbital mechanics, these defenders of faith had to admit that the planets weren’t pushed along by their god—but “ah”, they’d say, “gravitation itself is surely the power of God”. Along comes Einstein and explains gravitation as geometry, the consequence of deformations in spacetime, and gravitation turns out not to be an intangible force after all. “Ah!”, exclaim the defenders (or their intellectual descendands), “but then spacetime must be due to God.” And so on—with every new discovery, their god is redefined so as not to conflict with facts. But this god can never generate a meaningfully falsifiable prediction, because every falsification is inevitably explained away with a new redefinition.

Indeed, earlier versions of these beggar-gods, deities who would hide in any nook or cranny that science had yet to illuminate, did generate falsifiable hypotheses, such as “the planets could not remain in stable orbits but for the mystical power of God”—which turned out to be false, neatly disproving them.


The only gods that remain to be dealt with are the ones with more meat on their bones—ones who generate falsifiable claims: Gods such that their followers ought to be able to come up and tell me: “These are the verifiable (or falsifiable) differences between two models of the world: One such as it is or would be with my god in it; one such as it is or would be without him.” That is a god that needs to be evaluated on an individual balance, the evidence for and against it weight—especially that against it (as attempted falsification yields better evidence than mere consistency-with-established-facts).

I’d welcome such falsifiable evidence.

Date: 2012-04-18 06:51 pm (UTC)
From: (Anonymous)
I apologize for not having a better understanding of biology or being able to spell. Let us consider your chair analogy, you say that based on testing and evidence you know that the chair will stand. This too is how the Christian has placed his faith in Christ and continues to. It is historical fact that a man named Jesus was crucified by the Romans around the year 30 or 33 ad. Many of the men that followed him were likewise killed. I put my trust in Him based on the blood that was shed for this Gospel and my God. In light of prophets who were sawed in half, had heads chopped, hung, stoned to death, intestines ripped out in the like. The message was so valid to these men and women that they were willing to give their lives for. And a the Christ who stated that his intentions were to lay down his life for his sheep, some of which hated him. Tell me my friend are you willing to give your life for a Christian?

You want to know why we put our faith in Him. It is because he has done and will do for us more than you ever will. When you enter into a debate the idea is that you are trying to persuade your opposition to something better. Simply what can atheism offer that Jesus can not? Let's look at the world through your "truth," I live I die that's it. No explanation of the love we feel for each other. No reason for our desire to be in community. No explanation for the evil happening (don't know how it is in Vancouver but it's pretty rough here in Baltimore) You have no understanding of family nor the reason why we "test" everything. After we do all this stuff we die.... Thas it. No one can escape death. Your books won't help you with that one. What hope do you have to give to the man stuck on the system who suffers from anxiety and depression? Or to a man who can't even wash himself because he can longer use his arms or legs? Sorry positive thinking won't bring my Father back from the grave or countless lives taken so ruthlessly, especially those of my Christian brothers in sisters?

Alas I submit to my "foolish" Gospel - put your faith and trust in Jesus for the remission of your sins. Get to know this God you hate and find that he is a treasure! Come see that he is also a God of joy and not one that delights in sending those who reject him to hell.

Date: 2012-04-19 03:18 am (UTC)
From: (Anonymous)
Atheists sure write alot... Seems you'd make a pretty good evangelist/apologist. Anyway...

Laying down one's life is not taking it. The men that I'm talking about did not commit suicide for their beliefs but they willingly lived in such a way that they died at the hands of others. Some were toyed with in Roman coliseums, ripped apart by lions. So you are wrong. Others moved to dangerous areas with the intent of winning people to Christ even at the expense of losing their lives much like their savior who had tasted Hell for them and me and for you. Did the 9/11 bombers and Jim Jones followers do that? Don't think so. I would hardly consider them martyrs, nor will my God. But one thing we can learn from all this is that blood is important.


Who am I? I'm scum that has been made a jewel. A man just like you. It's interesting you got pretty testy about "the not knowing about family" piece. Please forgive me.. that wasn't how I intended to write my statement but that is how it came out, so I apologize for that. But I love your energy it's perfect for my next point. I was conveying the vanity of these experiences and any experiences in light of an atheist world view. The practical evidence that we try to ignore is that one day we and our loved ones will die. And it's going to HURT... BAD!!! You should know this... it's "evident." "Vanity, vanity it's all vanity" Consider our labors in light of atheism, what are they for? To learn a lesson? To become a better human being? What's the point? Death will soon come and rob us of such vain glories.

So why even get upset when considering family? Why even feel anything? What's the point? Again these things have no real value in your view, do they? Why do we value family and friends so much? Why? Can you experiment with that? How about make a prediction. Here... I'll make a prediction, based on the evidence given... I predict that you are going to die. It may be tomorrow. This may very well be our last conversation together.

It's crazy... What hope can an atheistic world view provide for a friend of my wife's that lost her sister to senseless murder. I mean the woman was here on June 17th 2011 and on the 26th the police found her torso in a plastic bag in a garbage can. Explanation please... Or maybe this is why some atheist have become so. We can't understand that if this God is so good why does he let such horrible things happen? However, in light of an atheist world view, what retribution does the prior mentioned killer deserve. I say lethal injection is not enough, too easy too good for what this scum has done. You were right the greater the pain to the victim the greater the crime. To add, how about the greater the crime based on the authority of the one offended... I say your views are flawed because in your pride you refuse to see that you have faith and you are looking at us from a lens of hatred and not one that desires to know who we really are (I may be wrong). I'm sure you've received some maltreatment from Christians in the past, for that I'm sorry, but how are you any better? With the same judgment you feel that you've been judged you've judged us and you've missed out on brilliant opportunities to get with some awesome people, yes even those that may not be as smart as you are.

Stay tenacious my friend. God has blessed you with much passion!



Date: 2012-04-19 05:33 am (UTC)
From: (Anonymous)
Last thing... I wanted to respond to your point about there being a better God or "super God". (I read it after a commented) Would I choose Him? To the Christian that doesn't make sense, so my answer is no. There is no other God who is greater than Yahweh for no other God gave his Son for me. No other God took on flesh to show me how I should live and lived the life that I could not and died the death for the sin I committed. (The hell you love to make fun of.) No other God took my sin upon his back and took it to the grave.

My point was to show you that you seemingly are bringing these arguments of why you don't believe and ultimately the biased evidence that you are shoving in my face is designed to get me to not believe either. But as I mentioned, indirectly, you are offering me hopelessness. And I think your responses to my questions were stale and cold-hearted.

You said, (paraphrasing) "that you are using science to find the truth" (sorry if I've misrepresented you) Nonetheless it seems that you are in search of truth. I can dig that. I applaud you for such a task, I really do. I hope that is the truth. What's interesting about Jesus is that he told his disciples he was it... "I am truth, I am the way, I am life, no one comes to the Father except through me." Powerful words for such a man to speak. Have you seen such a man?

I am Truth -- A bold statement... such a man can never lie -- HE is the standard.
I am the way -- A bold statement... such a man can never lead his followers astray
I am Life -- A bold statement... such a man.... don't really know what to do with that one... what is this life he is talking about? -- HE is the standard

You must realize for the true Christian this is not some religion. This is not some thing we are doing to follow the crowd. The bible gives strong warning against such behavior. We have relationship with this God. We know him and are known by him. It is for joy that we are giving up our lives for Him, not obligation. Obligatory actions are worthy of hell. We know what we signed up for. There is so much suffering involved, thats why if it is wrong we are to be the most pitied. Paul makes this argument in the bible. We are choosing to suffer that we may know him more. If it wasn't for God, no Christian would be a Christian. Why? Because without God this walk is too hard. You get atheists who tell you you're dumb, curse you out. Grumble about you. Muslims and Jews who despise you and the rest. But we are not abandoned. And we are greatly loved.

You see... Science is quite useful, but as we've discussed it is only for observing and experimentation, for making predictions and making hypothesis or educated guesses. Such terms don't work with questions of identity or the strong zeal you have for your family. Science can not tell us why we are here and our purpose. My friend, is your only purpose in life to read a lot of books, get really smart and belittle theists? Who are you? Why do you feel pain why do you feel joy? Why are you so passionate? How did you get here? Who are you? I guess that's the question I want to know. Who are you?

Profile

haggholm: (Default)
Petter Häggholm

April 2016

S M T W T F S
      12
345 6789
10111213141516
17181920212223
24252627282930

Page Summary

Most Popular Tags