Blog Archives
The Six Ways of Atheism: Way the First
Geoffrey Berg’s tome, The Six Ways of Atheism, is a small volume but it requires some unpacking to get at the core of what he’s trying to say. I’m going to tackle one argument per post and we should get through the book by Saturday.
Let’s dive in to the first argument, the Aggregate of Qualities Argument:
- If God exists, God must necessarily possess all of several remarkable qualities (including supreme goodness, omnipotence, immortality, omniscience, ultimate creator, purpose giver).
- Every one of these qualities may not exist in any one entity and if any such quality does exist it exists in few entities or in some cases (e.g. omnipotence, ultimate creator) in at most one entity.
- Therefore it is highly unlikely any entity would possess even one of these qualities.
- There is an infinitesimal chance that any one entity (given the almost infinite number of entities in the Universe) might possess the combination of even some two of these qualities, let alone all of them.
- In statistical analysis a merely hypothetical infinitesimal chance can in effect be treated as the no chance to which it approximates so very closely.
- Therefore as there is statistically such an infinitesimal chance of any entity possessing, as God would have to do, all God’s essential qualities in combination it can be said for all practical and statistical purposes that God just does not exist.
This argument fails to disprove God as Christians defend him. Berg states repeatedly that there is little chance a being in this universe possesses any of these qualities, let alone all of them. Agreed. But we never argue that God is part of the universe. Which means all of Berg’s statistical analysis and posturing about how language glosses over reality is moot. His rantings only apply to beings originating in and living in the known universe. God transcends that universe, and therefore isn’t subject to laws that define the universe.
Berg anticipated seven potential responses; this was (oddly) not one of them. All of the objections he considered were pathetic and require no rejoinder from me.
So Berg and I agree that God doesn’t exist in the known universe. That is only equal to “God doesn’t exist at all” given metaphysical naturalism.
Why do People Become Atheists?
I’ve posited that atheists do not want ultimate accountability to God, and that is part of their motivation for denying God’s existence. Atheists try hard to resist that, but a few have been forthright about it. Philosopher Thomas Nagel, for example, wrote:
I want atheism to be true and am made uneasy by the fact that some of the most intelligent and well-informed people I know are religious believers. It isn’t just that I don’t believe in God and, naturally, hope that I’m right in my belief. It’s that I hope there is no God! I don’t want there to be a God; I don’t want the universe to be like that.
Now, the Atheist Camel comes clean as well. When contemplating what the reaction would be to bulletproof evidence that there is a god, he said:
I’ll proffer that it depends on the god’s persona. If it is a hands (or trunk, or tentacles) off god, who created us and lets us live out our lives as independent beings unfettered by its irrational threats and demands; perhaps a fun loving kind of being that finds our behavior amusing or disgusting, but nevertheless nonjudgmental– perhaps asking only for an occasional acknowledgement and thank you now and then I’d have no problem with it. Acknowledge and move on. (source, emphasis added)
So he’s fine as long as there is minimal intrusion in his life. Now, what if this deity was the God of the Bible and did demand certain things?
Where scientists never before bothered to contemplate the supernatural, many of them, and our freethinking brethren, would now kowtow to this God’s demands. But many more would turn their attention toward one objective…find a way to destroy it. An underground movement, an army of partisans, dedicated to freedom of thought, rationality, fairness and conscience battling not only for the freedom to live life free from omnipotent oppression and irrationality, but for the freedom and right to die and fade into oblivion without pain and fear.
If there were a proven God of the Bible in all its horrendous glory man would be compelled to stop killing each other. The thinking among us would turn our undivided attention to find a way to kill this God monster … once and for all. (source, emphasis added)
So the truth comes out. As long as the Atheist Camel gets to live as he chooses, with no interference from a deity, he’s fine. But the moment there is an expectation of behavior and a requisite final judgement, he thinks that humans should join together and kill that God.
What can I say? This confirms my original theory about atheists wanting to avoid final judgment classic-D&D-style — rolling a 20-sider and saying “I disbelieve.” I just wish more atheists were this honest.
Atheism and the Burden of Proof
One of the most frequent statements I hear when I talk about God with atheists is that there is “no evidence” that God exists, and that is usually followed by telling me that the burden of proof is on me, the theist, because I’m the one making the positive assertion.
However, an actual atheist, as I covered yesterday, is making a positive assertion — he is positively asserting there is no God. This is framed negatively, but he isn’t withholding judgement on my assertion. He declares it false.
Withholding judgement is agnosticism — not knowing. In which case, I’m obliged to prove my case (or at least make a reasonable argument for it) for the benefit of the undecided person.
But the atheist has gone beyond withholding judgement. He’s made one of his own, and for that he owes an explanation.
Think this through:
If I say, “God exists!” Aside from, “Praise Jesus, I know he does!” there are two potential replies. (Actually, there are more, but let’s just stick with these two for simplicity sake.)
Someone might respond, “I’m not convinced.”
This is your agnostic. I should lay out my case for him. If he remains unconvinced, we can discuss the particulars. He has no specific position, so he owes me no explanation beyond what my argument lacks.
The other potential reply is: “Poppycock! There is no god, you silly Christian. Science disproves him. Besides, there was never any evidence anyway.”
This is your atheist. It is totally disingenuous for the atheist to think I’m the only one with a burden of proof here. I will still lay out my case, however he needs to both rebut my case and lay out his own — merely rebutting my case doesn’t prove anything other than I have a poor case. It only moves us to agnosticism, being unconvinced. The atheist isn’t “withholding judgement”: he’s convinced that I’m wrong. For that, he owes me an argument.
One needs nothing beyond “insufficient evidence” to withhold judgement, but the moment rejection enters the picture, a judgement has been made and a logical argument for why must be presented. Saying “I lack belief in all gods” is a total cop-out and very lazy debating.
UPDATES:
- 8/13/12 at 1:40am EDT because there were a lot of typos. I’m ashamed of that. 1-2 is fine with me because I’m not perfect, but there were probably 4-5!
- 8/19/12 at 12:41am: Another perspective from Steve Wilkinson here.
Defining “Atheism”
A comment, though marked as spam, poses an interesting problem nonetheless:
Some of the ambiguity and controversy involved in defining atheism arises from difficulty in reaching a consensus for the definitions of words like deity and god. The plurality of wildly different conceptions of god and deities leads to differing ideas regarding atheism’s applicability. The ancient Romans accused Christians of being atheists for not worshiping the pagan deities. Gradually, this view fell into disfavor as theism came to be understood as encompassing belief in any divinity.
I had always meant to do a post on the difference, as I see it, between atheism and agnosticism. This seems like as good a time as any.
First, does it matter that there are a plurality of conceptions of God? And I would have to say, for all practical purposes, the answer is no. Atheism, as I will show, isn’t a point of view (as supernaturalism is).
Supernatural is outside of nature. Nature is your context: the container in which you find yourself. Therefore, that which originates in this universe is natural to us. However, that which originates outside the universe is supernatural.
Flip it, and that makes us supernatural to God, since we don’t reside on the same plane of existence.
Atheism is making a claim about how things are ordered, regardless of your particular perspective.
But who (or what) is God, then? True, there have been a plurality of conceptions of God. Accepting one over another doesn’t make all of those who reject your particular deity atheists. Infidels, yes. Atheists, no.
Think of it like this: in an election, I have several candidates to choose from. The front runners are Mitt Romney and Barack Obama. Or I can simply abstain and not vote. The gray area is this: If I vote for Obama, does that mean I think Romney is unfit for the job?
Well, not necessarily.
There’s no meaningful way to vote against Romney without voting for Obama. So if I want to afford Obama the chance to see his economic plan through but think that Romney would do an adequate job if elected, then I’m not anti-Romney per se.
On the other hand, I may think that Romney and Obama are equally wretched as leaders and statesmen, but vote for Obama because he’s currently more experienced.
Bottom line: a vote for one is not necessarily a vote against the other.
Which is an accurate description of agnosticism. Agnostic literally means “without knowledge.” Agnostics really don’t know whether there is a god, but they remain open to finding out. While they don’t see adequate evidence for God, they find no reasons to deny the possibility of God’s existence. They don’t know.
Finally, the burning question: what is atheism? Atheism is the rejection of all God-belief. In our election example, these guys are staying home from the ballot because the actively reject both candidates.
It is not simply “lacking belief in God.” Lacking indicates they could be persuaded with the right evidence. Nothing sways most atheists. Read these comments if you don’t believe me.
Atheism is a rejection of the divine, no matter one’s conception of it. It matters not whether that divine is supernatural (as monotheism posits), or within nature (as paganism posits), or in ourselves waiting to be unleashed (as New Age theology posits). Atheism rejects it all in one fell swoop.
Tomorrow, atheism and the burden of proof. That should both be interesting, and infuriating to my atheist readers. Because, spoiler alert, you guys have a burden of proof!
The Parable of the Year 4500 [PARODY]
A warning to the sarcastically impaired… this post is meant in jest, but it raises a valid point that bears addressing by atheists of OUR time. Before it’s even a question from speed readers or skimmers, I am not de-converting.
By Supportstorm (Own work) [Public domain], via Wikimedia Commons
But I have, at last, thrown off the shackles of Christian oppression and joined the Brights of society, in knowing the truth that there is no God.
I now post my anti-testimony so that others may find the strength to resist the mindvirus of Christianity. But let me start with a little history…
Christians in 4500 point to two incontrovertible “miracles” proving the existence of their god. The first is the so-called Resurrection, when their zombie lord allegedly rose from the dead.
The second allegedly happened five days after an anonymous writer of what they used to call a “blog” wrote this:
If one evening, every star in the sky began to move in unison, and converge to form an illuminated three dimensional Latin Cross that filled the entire void, leaving the rest of the sky utterly black, devoid of any stars or planets; with Jesus’ face superimposed upon it, speaking in all languages at once its expectations of us, and for good measure it simultaneously rained human blood across the planet; and this all lasted for 24 hrs so that every person on Earth could view the event for themselves … I’d buy it. I’d become the worlds greatest Christian. Or if it were equally strong evidence of some other god being, I’d be first in line to at least apologize to it for my denial and happily sacrifice to it, grovel at its hooves, or otherwise demonstrate my reverence.. (source)
Five days after that, it happened. Millions of eyewitnesses saw it, and thousands posted accounts online and newspapers carried stories and the media frenzy was born.
And so was Christian oppression. Because who could argue with an actual appearance of God?
But I echo the arguments of many critics of this so-called “event” of mid-2012. I now do not believe it happened. The facile replies of the Christian so-called apologists lack so much luster as to be incredible. Even fanciful.
So, here are my questions. . .
First, Why did God wait so long? Allegedly, your “savior” rose from the dead in the year 33. Yet, this fictitious event didn’t occur until 2012 — almost 2000 years later. It seems to me that if God truly cared about humanity, he would never let questions about his existence happen, since you go to hell if you don’t believe in him.
So he wouldn’t have waited. He would have made the first great miracle, the Resurrection, more obvious. The Resurrection, in fact, is all he should have needed to prove that Jesus was who he said he was. People would believe then.
The fact that your god needed a second miracle proves he is inept and not worthy of worship.
Second, Where’s the video of this event? Christian apologists claim that as a supernatural event, this couldn’t have been put on video. Therefore, all of the video from the time that shows a typical, non-rearranged night sky is what we’d expect to see.
Well, it seems to me that if God expected this miracle to convince everyone of his existence, that he’d leave more than just a few eyewitnesses. I know that it is claimed the “entire planet” saw this, but that isn’t good enough. The Resurrection was supposedly seen by over 500 people who were still alive at the time of writing, but I can’t question them now, either. Therefore, both miracles suffer from lack of adequate attestation. Which leads us to …
Why do you expect me to take this on eyewitness testimony alone? Eyewitnesses are notoriously unreliable. I can’t question any of these people today, and supposedly there’s no actual video of this event. The hundreds of blog posts that still exist are no proof, since the Church could have put those together and claimed they were authentic.
I bet they even destroyed the counter-testimony, the people of the era who said this event never happened. There was bound to be lots of those, as I understand atheist activism was popular on the Internet of 2012. Where are all of the atheists who would have decried this obvious Christian propaganda?
Destroyed by the Church, that’s where.
So that’s my case. That is why I now stand with the atheists. Go ahead, theists. Prove me wrong.
In other words, given the space of time, people will find old ways to disbelieve new miracles. All of these arguments are repackaged versions of anti-Resurrection arguments. Nice try, Atheist Camel. Believe because of the Resurrection, or move along. It is the only sign you’re getting.
Krauss’s Wager
Luke Nix of Faithful Thinkers ruminates on two of Lawrence Krauss’s recent statements:
Recently in a discussion with Justin Brierly (Unbelievable?) and Rodney Holder, Lawrence Krauss made an interesting statement (podcast: 58:01):
“You talk about this god of love and everything else. But somehow if you don’t believe in him, you don’t get any of the benefits, so you have to believe. And then if you do anything wrong, you’re going to be judged for it. I don’t want to be judged by god; that’s the bottom line.”
Earlier in the program Krauss also described himself as an antitheist and made a distinction from being called an atheist. Taken in the context of the quote above this distinction and title makes a lot of sense.
Absolutely: this is something that I’ve seen from atheists before. It’s not that they don’t grant the possibility of God — it’s the judgment of God they would like to deny.
It’s not fair.
I’m just being me.
The second objection is true. You are just being you: a sinful human being deserving of God’s judgment. But the first statement is false. God isn’t being unfair; he, too, is being him.
As apologists, it is not enough to address a worldview as a whole, we must look into the specific views of an individual to appeal to them on both an intellectual level and an emotional level.
And Luke unpacks all of that nicely in this post.
Meeting the Contrarian’s Third Challenge to Believers
I’ve talked about the Contrarian (part 1 | part 2), and his strawman representation of the Christian gospel. As it happens, this guy is a gold mine of article ideas for an apologetics blogger. Sort of a one-stop shopping center for a writer who needs ideas.
Therefore, I couldn’t resist his first challenge to believers. I have no idea why I answered it. Along with the second and third challenges, he proves he is only interested in grandstanding for an atheist audience.
So far, #3 is the final challenge and I hope it mercifully stays that way, even though it is the only one remotely interesting: “unobfuscate the Trinity”:
Lucifer: The trinity has caused divisions amongst various christian denominations for centuries. There are those christians who bellieve that Jesus was god in the flesh and those who say he is the sun of god and an entity distinct from god almighty.
Contrarian: Jesus BLATANTLY said things on numerous occasions that points to the fact that he is a being distinct from god, and not god in human form. Before and after being crucified, Jesus prays to god to let this cup pass from his lips, and to forgive his persecutors because they know not what they do.
Furthermore, Jesus also said that neither the angels in heaven nor he (referring to himself) knows the day of his second coming. But he clearly states that God does and speaks of him as a separate entity.
There are various other cases where Jesus makes it plain as daylight that he is NOT GOD incarnate, such as when he claims to have observed the creation of the world, but was not the one doing the creating.
The Contrarian is actually on to something. His problem is one of equivocation, though I don’t think he realizes that he is the one committing the error.
Let’s see if I can set this straight.
First, in general the doctrine of the Trinity (at it’s most basic) says that the Father, Son, and Spirit share an essence but remain distinct persons. Something like I am simultaneously a husband to Jody, father to Ashleigh, Gabe, and Kayti, and a manager to my staff at work.
Each role is different.
This isn’t a perfect analogy — but it’s a step in the right direction. JP Holding, infamous Internet apologist, explains the Father-Son-Spirit relationship better in this video.
Second, we need to get some definitions straight. “God” sometimes refers to the ontological category of what Jesus and the Father are — in other words, their shared essence. Other times, “God” refers to the Father, the First Person of the Trinity. For our purposes in this post, God always means the essence of deity and Father refers to the person.
With this in mind, let’s see how equivocation derails the Contrarian’s line of thought.
Jesus BLATANTLY said things on numerous occasions that points to the fact that he is a being distinct from god, and not god in human form. Before and after being crucified, Jesus prays to god to let this cup pass from his lips, and to forgive his persecutors because they know not what they do.
Wrong.
Jesus is God, distinct from the Father. He is God in the flesh — not the Father in the flesh. Jesus is praying not to his essence, but his Father.
Furthermore, Jesus also said that neither the angels in heaven nor he (referring to himself) knows the day of his second coming. But he clearly states that God does and speaks of him as a separate entity.
Again, he’s speaking of the Father, not of God in an ontological sense.
There are various other cases where Jesus makes it plain as daylight that he is NOT GOD incarnate, such as when he claims to have observed the creation of the world, but was not the one doing the creating.
Again, he’s observing the Father creating.
Critical reading and a little bit of thought should unobfuscate the Trinity. I hope that I’ve helped.
Meeting the Contrarian’s Second Challenge to Believers
I’ve talked about the Contrarian (part 1 | part 2), and his strawman representation of the Christian gospel. As it happens, this guy is a gold mine of article ideas for an apologetics blogger. Sort of a one-stop shopping center for a writer who needs ideas.
Therefore, I couldn’t resist his first challenge to believers. I have no idea why I answered it. Along with the second and third challenges, he proves he is only interested in grandstanding for an atheist audience.
Though he claims he is “actually here hoping that someone will prove me wrong and enhance my understanding of reality,” he goes on:
I give the faithful a snowball’s chance in hell that they will actually do so—if past success can help us predict future success—but I must remain true to my scientific convictions. At any moment, anyone could come forward with proof that would require me to abandon my current perceptions; this is why I dedicate this article to asking questions that I would like answers to. (source)
Yeah, that’s the kind of statement we expect from someone who has already decided the outcome before running the experiment.
Now, on to the second challenge for believers. As it is written in a make-believe dialogue with Lucifer, I’m not sure why the Contrarian expects anyone to actually take it seriously.
Yet, I’m lending it credibility by answering it.
Go figure.
Anyway, he’s asking for a YouTube video from a believer demonstrating any of the following three things:
- Levitation
- Walking on low-viscosity fluids
- Raising someone from the dead
Why? Matthew 17:20, of course:
Because of your little faith. For truly, I say to you, if you have faith like a grain of mustard seed, you will say to this mountain, ‘Move from here to there,’ and it will move, and nothing will be impossible for you.
Now, of course, no believer has ever taken this as meaning that we’d actually command a mountain to jump to a new location. We’ve always understood Christ to be using a rhetorical device common among Semitic people even today — hyperbole.
Why can’t this be a rhetorical device?
The Contrarian doesn’t say.
Of course, the best answer to his drivel is found in the comments section, from Saffa in Asia:
After months of watching this religion bashing and the pointless back and forth arguing, I have come to the conclusion the only way to end this stupidity is for theists to totally ignore the rants and raves of atheists.
If you don’t react, they will become bored and move on to something else where they can get a reaction, for it is the reaction that feeds them.
Ever tried to fight with someone who doesn’t fight back? Rather frustrating. So, don’t feed the trolls. Theists and atheists have made their relevant points over and over again and we are still at square number one.
I know for sure I will get lots of thumbs down and lots of snide comments about being a coward, deluded, stupid, ignorant etc, etc but who cares? Not me.
So I bid you adieu and I trust others will follow suit.
Meeting the Contrarian’s First Challenge to Believers
I’ve talked about the Contrarian (part 1 | part 2), and his strawman representation of the Christian gospel. As it happens, this guy is a gold mine of article ideas for an apologetics blogger. Sort of a one-stop shopping center for a writer who needs ideas.
Therefore, I couldn’t resist his first challenge to believers. I have no idea why I’m answering it. This, along with second and third challenges, are just plain idiotic — proving he is only interested in grandstanding for an atheist audience.
Though he claims he is “actually here hoping that someone will prove me wrong and enhance my understanding of reality,” he goes on:
I give the faithful a snowball’s chance in hell that they will actually do so—if past success can help us predict future success—but I must remain true to my scientific convictions. At any moment, anyone could come forward with proof that would require me to abandon my current perceptions; this is why I dedicate this article to asking questions that I would like answers to.
Yeah, that’s the kind of statement we expect from someone who has already decided the outcome before running the experiment. Read the rest of this entry
Josiah Concept Ministries 