Atheism vs. Theism

[PoliticalChic]

The following thread is based on a discussion between two philosophers carefully analyzing the efficacy of atheism, versus theism.

If any have the time and the interest, the full discussion can be found @ http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/02/09/is-atheism-irrational/?_r=0




As the article itself is long, so I will paraphrase parts.....


1. "....62 percent of philosophers are atheists, then the proportion of atheists among philosophers is much greater than (indeed, is nearly twice as great as) the proportion of atheists among academics generally. " This may be because they feel that there is not enough clear evidence for the existence of God.


2. While his may be the case, "...lack of evidence, if indeed evidence is lacking, is no grounds for atheism. No one thinks there is good evidence for the proposition that there are an even number of stars; but also, no one thinks the right conclusion to draw is [the opposite,] that there are an uneven number of stars.

The right conclusion would instead be agnosticism."





Atheism, like even-star-ism, would presumably be the sort of belief you can hold rationally only if you have strong arguments or evidence."

3. But "[m]any atheists deny this, saying that all they need to do is point out the lack of any good evidence for theism. .... atheists say (using an example from Bertrand Russell) that you should rather compare atheism to the denial that there’s a teapot in orbit around the sun. Why prefer your comparison to Russell’s?


4. Russell’s idea,... is we don’t really have any evidence against teapotism, but we don’t need any; the absence of evidence is evidence of absence, and is enough to support a-teapotism. We don’t need any positive evidence against it to be justified in a-teapotism; and perhaps the same is true of theism.


a. Actually "we have a great deal of evidence against teapotism.

For example, as far as we know, the only way a teapot could have gotten into orbit around the sun would be if some country with sufficiently developed space-shot capabilities had shot this pot into orbit.

No country with such capabilities is sufficiently frivolous to waste its resources by trying to send a teapot into orbit.

Furthermore, if some country had done so, it would have been all over the news; we would certainly have heard about it. But we haven’t.


And so on. There is plenty of evidence against teapotism. So if, à la Russell, theism is like teapotism, the atheist, to be justified, would (like the a-teapotist) have to have powerful evidence against theism."




So...if one demands evidence of God's existence from theists....let's get some evidence for atheism.
...while there may be a lack of evidence for theism....the same is true for atheism: agnosticism is the only rational alternative.

 

[PoliticalChic]

5. How about evidence against theism..." the amount of evil in a world allegedly made by an all-good, all-powerful God?

The so-called “problem of evil” would presumably be the strongest (and maybe the only) evidence against theism.
....it is suffering and sin that make this world less than perfect. But then your question makes sense only if the best possible worlds contain no sin or suffering.




... is that true? Maybe the best worlds contain free creatures some of whom sometimes do what is wrong. Indeed, maybe the best worlds contain a scenario very like the Christian story.


Think about it:

The first being of the universe, perfect in goodness, power and knowledge, creates free creatures. These free creatures turn their backs on him, rebel against him and get involved in sin and evil. Rather than treat them as some ancient potentate might — e.g., having them boiled in oil — God responds by sending his son into the world to suffer and die so that human beings might once more be in a right relationship to God. God himself undergoes the enormous suffering involved in seeing his son mocked, ridiculed, beaten and crucified. And all this for the sake of these sinful creatures.

... a world in which this story is true would be a truly magnificent possible world. It would be so good that no world could be appreciably better.

[In such a case,] the best worlds contain sin and suffering." http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/02/09/is-atheism-irrational/?_r=2

 

[PoliticalChic]

The scientific argument in favor of theism:

6. How about "“good theistic arguments,” ... arguments that are decisive — for example, good enough to convince any rational person who understands them.

One presently rather popular argument: fine-tuning.

Scientists tell us that there are many properties our universe displays such that if they were even slightly different from what they are in fact, life, or at least our kind of life, would not be possible.

The universe seems to be fine-tuned for life.

For example, if the force of the Big Bang had been different by one part in 10 to the 60th, life of our sort would not have been possible. The same goes for the ratio of the gravitational force to the force driving the expansion of the universe:If it had been even slightly different, our kind of life would not have been possible. In fact the universe seems to be fine-tuned, not just for life, but for intelligent life.

This fine-tuning is vastly more likely given theism than given atheism." http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/02/09/is-atheism-irrational/?_r=2



a. "..., if the nuclear force were a few percentage points stronger than it actually is, then all the hydrogen atoms in the infant universe would have fused with other hydrogen atoms to make helium, and there would be no hydrogen left. No hydrogen means no water.

Although we are far from certain about what conditions are necessary for life, most biologists believe that water is necessary. On the other hand, if the nuclear force were substantially weaker than what it actually is, then the complex atoms needed for biology could not hold together.

As another example, if the relationship between the strengths of the gravitational force and the electromagnetic force were not close to what it is, then the cosmos would not harbor any stars that explode and spew out life-supporting chemical elements into space or any other stars that form planets.Both kinds of stars are required for the emergence of life.


The strengths of the basic forces and certain other fundamental parameters in our universe appear to be “fine-tuned” to allow the existence of life.The recognition of this fine tuning led British physicist Brandon Carter to articulate what he called the anthropic principle, which states that the universe must have the parameters it does because we are here to observe it.

Actually, the word anthropic, from the Greek for “man,” is a misnomer: if these fundamental parameters were much different from what they are, it is not only human beings who would not exist.No life of any kind would exist." http://www.harpers.org/archive/2011/12/0083720

 

[PoliticalChic]

Hmmm......so the universe was created just so humans could live here???
Coincidence?


7. "…the great question, of course, is why these fundamental parameters happen to lie within the range needed for life. Does the universe care about life? Intelligent design is one answer. Indeed, a fair number of theologians, philosophers, and even some scientists have used fine-tuning and the anthropic principle as evidence of the existence of God.

For example, at the 2011 Christian Scholars’ Conference at Pepperdine University, Francis Collins, a leading geneticist and director of the National Institutes of Health, said, “To get our universe, with all of its potential for complexities or any kind of potential for any kind of life-form, everything has to be precisely defined on this knife edge of improbability…. [Y]ou have to see the hands of a creator who set the parameters to be just so because the creator was interested in something a little more complicated than random particles.” http://www.harpers.org/archive/2011/12/0083720



a. But wait....." isn’t the theist on thin ice in suggesting the need for God as an explanation of the universe? There’s always the possibility that we’ll find a scientific account that explains what we claimed only God could explain. After all, that’s what happened when Darwin developed his theory of evolution. In fact, isn’t a major support for atheism the very fact that we no longer need God to explain the world?

Some atheists seem to think that a sufficient reason for atheism is the fact (as they say) that we no longer need God to explain natural phenomena — lightning and thunder for example. We now have science.

As a justification of atheism, this is pretty lame. We no longer need the moon to explain or account for lunacy; it hardly follows that belief in the nonexistence of the moon (a-moonism?) is justified. A-moonism on this ground would be sensible only if the sole ground for belief in the existence of the moon was its explanatory power with respect to lunacy. (And even so, the justified attitude would be agnosticism with respect to the moon, not a-moonism.)



The same thing goes with belief in God:

Atheism on this sort of basis would be justified only if the explanatory power of theism were the only reason for belief in God. And even then, agnosticism would be the justified attitude, not atheism." http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/02/09/is-atheism-irrational/?_r=2

 

[Hollie]

The scientific argument in favor of theism:

6. How about "“good theistic arguments,” ... arguments that are decisive — for example, good enough to convince any rational person who understands them.

One presently rather popular argument: fine-tuning.

Scientists tell us that there are many properties our universe displays such that if they were even slightly different from what they are in fact, life, or at least our kind of life, would not be possible.

The universe seems to be fine-tuned for life.

For example, if the force of the Big Bang had been different by one part in 10 to the 60th, life of our sort would not have been possible. The same goes for the ratio of the gravitational force to the force driving the expansion of the universe:If it had been even slightly different, our kind of life would not have been possible. In fact the universe seems to be fine-tuned, not just for life, but for intelligent life.

This fine-tuning is vastly more likely given theism than given atheism." http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/02/09/is-atheism-irrational/?_r=2



a. "..., if the nuclear force were a few percentage points stronger than it actually is, then all the hydrogen atoms in the infant universe would have fused with other hydrogen atoms to make helium, and there would be no hydrogen left. No hydrogen means no water.

Although we are far from certain about what conditions are necessary for life, most biologists believe that water is necessary. On the other hand, if the nuclear force were substantially weaker than what it actually is, then the complex atoms needed for biology could not hold together.

As another example, if the relationship between the strengths of the gravitational force and the electromagnetic force were not close to what it is, then the cosmos would not harbor any stars that explode and spew out life-supporting chemical elements into space or any other stars that form planets.Both kinds of stars are required for the emergence of life.


The strengths of the basic forces and certain other fundamental parameters in our universe appear to be “fine-tuned” to allow the existence of life.The recognition of this fine tuning led British physicist Brandon Carter to articulate what he called the anthropic principle, which states that the universe must have the parameters it does because we are here to observe it.

Actually, the word anthropic, from the Greek for “man,” is a misnomer: if these fundamental parameters were much different from what they are, it is not only human beings who would not exist.No life of any kind would exist." http://www.harpers.org/archive/2011/12/0083720

You assembled your usual collection of cut and paste "quotes".

Yes, it is a profound observation that if things were different, things would be different.

 

[PoliticalChic]

8." ... I don’t think arguments are needed for rational belief in God. In this regard belief in God is like belief in other minds, or belief in the past. Belief in God is grounded in experience, or in thesensus divinitatis, John Calvin’s term for an inborn inclination to form beliefs about God in a wide variety of circumstances.


The most important ground of belief is probably not philosophical argument but religious experience. Many people of very many different cultures have thought themselves in experiential touch with a being worthy of worship. They believe that there is such a person, but not because of the explanatory prowess of such belief. Or maybe there is something like Calvin’s sensus divinitatis.


Indeed, if theism is true, then very likely there is something like the sensus divinitatis. So claiming that the only sensible ground for belief in God is the explanatory quality of such belief is substantially equivalent to assuming atheism."
http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/02/09/is-atheism-irrational/?_r=2




Given the choice between having all the gun laws you want…vs. all the religious folks I want…which would produce a better nation?

 

[Hollie]

8." ... I don’t think arguments are needed for rational belief in God. In this regard belief in God is like belief in other minds, or belief in the past. Belief in God is grounded in experience, or in thesensus divinitatis, John Calvin’s term for an inborn inclination to form beliefs about God in a wide variety of circumstances.


The most important ground of belief is probably not philosophical argument but religious experience. Many people of very many different cultures have thought themselves in experiential touch with a being worthy of worship. They believe that there is such a person, but not because of the explanatory prowess of such belief. Or maybe there is something like Calvin’s sensus divinitatis.


Indeed, if theism is true, then very likely there is something like the sensus divinitatis. So claiming that the only sensible ground for belief in God is the explanatory quality of such belief is substantially equivalent to assuming atheism."
http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/02/09/is-atheism-irrational/?_r=2




Given the choice between having all the gun laws you want…vs. all the religious folks I want…which would produce a better nation?

The hyper-religious right represented by the Palin's and the Mormon polygamists. Everybody gets laid.

 

[PoliticalChic]

9. Why, then, do so many cling to atheism?

a. "...the serious limitation of human autonomy posed by theism. This desire for autonomy can reach very substantial proportions....[a] monumental desire for autonomy can perhaps also motivate atheism. [Many simply don't] want there to be any such person as God. And it isn’t hard to see why.

For one thing, there would be what some would think was an intolerable invasion of privacy: God would know my every thought long before I thought it. For another, my actions and even my thoughts would be a constant subject of judgment and evaluation.



b. Especially among today’s atheists, materialism seems to be a primary motive. They think there’s nothing beyond the material entities open to scientific inquiry, so there there’s no place for immaterial beings such as God....if there are only material entities, then atheism certainly follows.

But there is a really serious problem for materialism: It can’t be sensibly believed, at least if, like most materialists, you also believe that humans are the product of evolution.

.... if materialism is true, human beings, naturally enough, are material objects. Now what, from this point of view, would a belief be? .... belief would have to be a material structure in my brain, say a collection of neurons that sends electrical impulses to other such structures as well as to nerves and muscles, and receives electrical impulses from other structures.

But in addition to such neurophysiological properties, this structure, if it is a belief, would also have to have a content:.... a neurophysiological structure can’t be a belief? That a belief has to be somehow immaterial, [as would be the case with wishes, emotions, attitudes....none of which are material.]"
http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/02/09/is-atheism-irrational/?_r=2

 

[PoliticalChic]

10. Most materialists, atheists, are believers in evolution: here is where the materialist's view gets him into trouble.

"For our species to have survived, presumably many, if not most, of our beliefs must be true — otherwise, we wouldn’t be functional in a dangerous world. Evolution will have resulted in our having beliefs that are adaptive; that is, beliefs that cause adaptive actions. But as we’ve seen, if materialism is true, the belief does not cause the adaptive action by way of its content: It causes that action by way of its neurophysiological properties. Hence it doesn’t matter what the content of the belief is, and it doesn’t matter whether that content is true or false. All that’s required is that the belief have the right neurophysiological properties.If it’s also true, that’s fine; but if false, that’s equally fine.

Evolution will select for belief-producing processes that produce beliefs with adaptive neurophysiological properties, but not for belief-producing processes that produce true beliefs. Given materialism and evolution, any particular belief is as likely to be false as true.



....if materialism is true, evolution doesn’t lead to most of our beliefs being true.

In fact, given materialism and evolution, it follows that our belief-producing faculties are not reliable.



Here’s why. If a belief is as likely to be false as to be true, we’d have to say the probability that any particular belief is true is about 50 percent. Now suppose we had a total of 100 independent beliefs (of course, we have many more). Remember that the probability that all of a group of beliefs are true is the multiplication of all their individual probabilities. Even if we set a fairly low bar for reliability — say, that at least two-thirds (67 percent) of our beliefs are true — our overall reliability, given materialism and evolution, is exceedingly low: something like .0004. So if you accept both materialism and evolution, you have good reason to believe that your belief-producing faculties are not reliable.

... which leaves you with no reason to accept any of your beliefs including your beliefs in materialism and evolution!.

So if you’re an atheist simply because you accept materialism, maintaining your atheism means you have to give up your belief that evolution is true. Another way to put it: The belief that both materialism and evolution are true is self-refuting."
http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/02/09/is-atheism-irrational/?_r=0

 

[G.T.]

Atheism and theism in terms of ultimacy are guessed.

Agnosticism is akin to honesty from the egoic self.

 

[Moonglow]

Both have yet to truly prove the origins of man, the Earth and the Universe...

 

[Moonglow]

and religion or theism is a philosophy also...