Lazy Atheism?

[Belacqua]

It's really common for people to assume that an omniscient deity would have the same opinions they do.

Which is fine if those opinions seem reasonable. You don't need all the knowledge in the unviverse to have an opinion on something. You just need all the relevant knowledge.

For what it's worth, I agree with the opinion you expressed earlier. If I had knowledge that was important for all human beings, I would distribute it to everyone, clearly, and without a paywall. 

Due to the contingencies of our birth -- time, place, social class -- we hold these values. Post-Locke, post-Jefferson, Brotherhood of Man, etc. etc. etc. I also hold those values. You could certainly construct arguments for these values against people who disagree.

The question, though, is: how do we know that an omnipotent deity would agree with us? There have been other times and places where the values were different. Is there some indisputable proof that our values are eternally the best? 

I am very very far from omnipotent. By definition, an omnipotent deity would know a lot more than me, including, possibly, reasons to do things in ways that seem obscure to me. 

Here is a poem I like:

Beyond the bright cartoons 
Are darker spaces where
Small cloudy nests of stars
Seem to float on the air.

These have no proper names: 
Men out alone at night
Never look up at them 
For guidance or delight,

For such evasive dust
Can make so little clear:
Much less is known than not,
More far than near.

— Philip Larkin

[Belacqua]

Is pointing out the lack of evidence an example of so-called "lazy atheism"?

If a person lazily assumes that the kind of evidence he prefers is the only kind of acceptable evidence, then that would be lazy.

A non-lazy person would have a good knowledge of the different kinds of evidence (that is, anything which can increase the believability of a proposition), and could give persuasive reasons why the kind of evidence he prefers is the only good kind.

I don't know you, so it's possible you can do all these things in a very non-lazy way.

[Ahriman]

A lazy (but smart) person would simply accept every ontological statement as being true (tentatively) and then sit back and let other people try to disprove any given statement, in a "deconstructing" sense. If someone can't disprove an ontological statement, that means they don't know enough about it, and need to learn more.

[Belacqua]

A lazy (but smart) person would simply accept every ontological statement as being true (tentatively) and then sit back and let other people try to disprove any given statement, in a "deconstructing" sense. If someone can't disprove an ontological statement, that means they don't know enough about it, and need to learn more.

Since I am indeed lazy but not particularly smart, I'm going to agree with you here, with some reservations.

First, I don't think we need to accept even tentatively EVERY claim. I mean, we're confident that the earth isn't flat, and 6-day creation is a myth. But there are lots and lots of other claims, much more interesting, that deserve attention. 

Second, I think if we sit back passively we'll never get anywhere. Learning anything new demands active effort. So I'll "sit back" in the sense that I will be quiet and let the smarter people make their cases, but seeking out and reading their books with proper attention demands work. 

What I don't enjoy seeing is when people stake out a narrow range of beliefs and then spend all their time fighting to defend these. There is SO MUCH more to learn. And this demands holding open the possibility that our current ideas are not very good. 

I'm reading Cosmic Connections by Charles Taylor now and I'm just floored by how much he knows, and how he can see so much more in the world than we usually see. 

https://www.amazon.com/Cosmic-Connection...298&sr=8-1

[brewer]

Is pointing out the lack of evidence an example of so-called "lazy atheism"?

I don't put in the effort to believe correctly. There just aren't enough spoons.

[Ahriman]

A lazy (but smart) person would simply accept every ontological statement as being true (tentatively) and then sit back and let other people try to disprove any given statement, in a "deconstructing" sense. If someone can't disprove an ontological statement, that means they don't know enough about it, and need to learn more.

Since I am indeed lazy but not particularly smart, I'm going to agree with you here, with some reservations.

First, I don't think we need to accept even tentatively EVERY claim. I mean, we're confident that the earth isn't flat, and 6-day creation is a myth. But there are lots and lots of other claims, much more interesting, that deserve attention. 

Second, I think if we sit back passively we'll never get anywhere. Learning anything new demands active effort. So I'll "sit back" in the sense that I will be quiet and let the smarter people make their cases, but seeking out and reading their books with proper attention demands work. 

What I don't enjoy seeing is when people stake out a narrow range of beliefs and then spend all their time fighting to defend these. There is SO MUCH more to learn. And this demands holding open the possibility that our current ideas are not very good. 

I'm reading Cosmic Connections by Charles Taylor now and I'm just floored by how much he knows, and how he can see so much more in the world than we usually see. 

https://www.amazon.com/Cosmic-Connection...298&sr=8-1

This is what my brother does. I've tried nudging him in the direction of higher learning. It doesn't work.

[brewer]

This is what my brother does. I've tried nudging him in the direction of higher learning. It doesn't work.

If he's content with his personal level of knowledge leave him alone, stop judging.

[Jackalope]

I know folks who are very lazy about leprechauns, too. Should they be working harder to justify their aleprechaunism? I think so. I'm still waiting for the next David Hume to lay out the case why faeries not only don't wear boots, but don't exist at all.

Faeries wear boots, you gotta believe me
I saw it, I saw it with my own two eyes

The next Hume can get rekt