The Case for Atheism

[Esquilax]

I think its a false analogy to compare evidence of gravity with evidence for the existence of God.

One of the key things you learn when doing empirical research is using the right method that fits the research question/hypothesis - rather than assuming there is one right method for testing all hypotheses.

So it really depends on what you mean by evidence - all the counter arguments I've read on the thread really come down to a prior commitment not to interpret the universe, history or experience in theistic terms.

If you've presupposed that only naturalist explanations of the world are valid - of course you're going to conclude there is no evidence for the existence of God. But to show this assumption is valid you need to present evidence why naturalism is true - otherwise it doesn't prove anything its just begging the question.

First of all, bad user, don't necropost.

Second of all: evidence of naturalism? Do you not agree that the natural world exists? And that we can easily observe it?

Now give me some evidence that a god exists.

[Cyberman]

I agree that comparing evidence of gravity with what is offered for the existence of "God" is unfair. One is observable, testable, repeatable, describable, measurable; the other... isn't.

If you've presupposed that only naturalist explanations of the world are valid - of course you're going to conclude there is no evidence for the existence of God. But to show this assumption is valid you need to present evidence why naturalism is true - otherwise it doesn't prove anything its just begging the question.

As I type this, my keyboard is sitting on the desk in front of me more or less where I left it. Every time I hit a key, let's say the letter M, it appears to type out the same character each and every time, wothout fail. MMMMmmmMmmmMmmmmMmm. See? Goes like a bomb. It's also slightly arousing, in its own way.

The really interesting thing is that I don't even have to look at the key to know that it will do that. MmMm. There it goes again. I don't need to presuppose that hitting that key will suddenly cause my PC to turn into a teapot or a naked lady. Now the question is: is this a 'naturalistic' keyboard that will never do that, or a 'supernaturalistic' one that has only happened to behave naturalistically so far?

Or to put it another way: "You can tell me you put your faith in God to put you through the day, but when it comes time to cross the road, I know you look both ways."

[frasierc]

I agree that comparing evidence of gravity with what is offered for the existence of "God" is unfair. One is observable, testable, repeatable, describable, measurable; the other... isn't.

As I type this, my keyboard is sitting on the desk in front of me more or less where I left it. Every time I hit a key, let's say the letter M, it appears to type out the same character each and every time, wothout fail. MMMMmmmMmmmMmmmmMmm. See? Goes like a bomb. It's also slightly arousing, in its own way.

The really interesting thing is that I don't even have to look at the key to know that it will do that. MmMm. There it goes again. I don't need to presuppose that hitting that key will suddenly cause my PC to turn into a teapot or a naked lady. Now the question is: is this a 'naturalistic' keyboard that will never do that, or a 'supernaturalistic' one that has only happened to behave naturalistically so far?

That's a nice analogy. But I think you're conflating naturalism (assuming only materialistic explanations of the universe are valid) with empirical inquiry. I do empirical research for a living and can't think of ever having to presume a naturalist universe in order to do my research.

If I interpret you right you're arguing 'based on empirical evidence we've come to the conclusion naturalism explains the world best - we may one day realise it doesn't - but right now that's the best empirical explanation of the world so we don't need another'.

That's a good response to god of the gaps type arguments - but I've always felt such arguments were weak anyway so I would join you in refuting these too.

But while you may be convinced that naturalism is a valid presupposition that helps you understand the world. How would you convince someone like me who doesn't think I need naturalist presuppositions to understand the world? You don't have to convince me of the benefits of empirical research (I already agree with that) but that I need to make naturalist assumptions to interpret the data.

Or to put it another way: "You can tell me you put your faith in God to put you through the day, but when it comes time to cross the road, I know you look both ways."

I know you're partly joking, but do you really think looking when you cross the road is only justifiable on the basis of naturalist assumptions? It may be for you, but I believe the laws of physics are completely consistent with my Christian worldview that the world is created by a rational God. I don't need to presume naturalism in order to know that if a truck hits me at 100mph I'll likely die.

[Esquilax]

It's like this: if I have no evidence of a thing existing, and no indication that it even could exist, and every claim made about this thing comes loaded with fallacies and unfalsifiable attributes, and every test ever done on this claim returns no positive results, why would I continue to accept the possibility that such a thing exists until such time that I gain positive evidence for it?

You're attempting to shift the burden of proof, Frasier: we can both see that the natural world exists, and one doesn't need to fully seal off any possibility of supernature in order to conduct empirical research, but it's not up to anyone else to disprove the existence of the supernatural before we're justified in examining natural causes for things first. You'd need to provide evidence for the supernatural, given that it's the ontologically positive claim.

Now, this is where it gets hard, because how could that even be done? Just lacking a natural explanation for a phenomena isn't enough, that'd relegate your supernatural claim to being an argument from ignorance. Especially given the long track record we have for finding naturalistic explanations for previously unexplained phenomena, versus the nonexistent track record for discovering supernatural explanations for the same. Positive evidence is what's needed, causal links as opposed to just gaps in the knowledge plus correlation... and that's where the supernatural advocates fall mysteriously silent.

For example, on the last page you said it was unfair to compare the evidence for gravity with the evidence for god. Why? You bandied around accusations of presuppositions, but I can't help but notice you didn't even attempt to explain your proposed false analogy. What's the issue you were having?

[Whateverist]

Well the most pertinent question for a Christian doing science involves evolution. Is abiogenesis an open question for you as a scientist? After all if it turns out to be demonstrably true, you could still go on believing that God so fine tuned the universe at its inception that no further meddling was required. Or do you engage in apologetics to argue that only itsy bitsy evolution happens but none of the trans-species variety?

[frasierc]

First of all, bad user, don't necropost.

Second of all: evidence of naturalism? Do you not agree that the natural world exists? And that we can easily observe it?

Now give me some evidence that a god exists.

First of all sorry if I necroposted - wasn't intentional.

Second - you misunderstand my point about naturalism. I'm not asking for evidence for the natural world existing. I think we can agree on that.

I'm referring to naturalism as the 'philosophical belief that everything arises from natural properties and causes, and supernatural or spiritual explanations are excluded or discounted.' (OED)

Third - from your post I don't know if you presume naturalism or not.
If you're presuming naturalism then you've already ruled out the possibility of evidence for God's existence. So if that's the case the more meaningful discussion is on the basis for naturalist assumptions.

[Cyberman]

The whole point is not to "presume naturalism". You are presenting the case for non-naturalism; the onus is on you to demonstrate the evidence for even supposing the actuality of such a thing.

[pocaracas]

Frasier, we presume as little as possible... Some, even less.

However, like Esq has already told you, thus far, the track record for a naturalistic explanation for whatever effect we observe has been far greater than the one for supernatural explanations, which have landed zero hits.
Everything we know about the world around us has been acquired through naturalistic methods. Everything!
Given this track record, what are the odds that all conceived supernatural explanations have actually been invented by the human mind?

[frasierc]

It's like this: if I have no evidence of a thing existing, and no indication that it even could exist, and every claim made about this thing comes loaded with fallacies and unfalsifiable attributes, and every test ever done on this claim returns no positive results, why would I continue to accept the possibility that such a thing exists until such time that I gain positive evidence for it?

It would be helpful to clarify what you mean by evidence. If your criterion for evidence is that it is possible to test in the lab whether God exists - then you're right there is no evidence of God's existence. But I think you would need to justify why you think only knowledge that can be obtained by using scientific methods is valid. How would you go about testing that assumption?

You're attempting to shift the burden of proof, Frasier: we can both see that the natural world exists, and one doesn't need to fully seal off any possibility of supernature in order to conduct empirical research, but it's not up to anyone else to disprove the existence of the supernatural before we're justified in examining natural causes for things first. You'd need to provide evidence for the supernatural, given that it's the ontologically positive claim.

I think here you're trying to use the analogy of naturalism as null hypothesis. So under this argument your claiming its rational and evidence based to hold to naturalism until there is sufficient evidence for theism that would require naturalism to be rejected.

Superficially this sounds neutral but there's a couple of limitations:
1) As scientific methods are not able to examine the existence of God - by definition you've fixed it that the null hypothesis (naturalism) will be accepted. Which is not much different from saying you presume naturalism without any evidence. Because any evidence that could be used to reject the null hypothesis has been ruled out in advance.

2) This idea of null hypothesis testing is actually quite an outdated view of how to interpret scientific evidence. The limitations of this general approach have been outlined in the literature for over 30 years.

Yes null hypothesis testing is still used in science but there is clearly a move away from this to a more helpful approach of focusing on estimation and precision. That is, what's the strength of the evidence that this is a true explanation and how precise can I be in drawing that conclusion. Where this is the case we need to do that for both naturalist and theist views of the world.

There's also evidence to suggest the way we interpret data is more closer to Bayesian than Frequentist approaches. In the Bayesian approach, you begin with a prior belief before looking at the evidence (e.g. presuming naturalism or theism), you then update this belief with the data to come to a posterior belief.

I think this is more of a realistic explanation of how theists and atheists interpret data about the world. When examining evidence for the existence of God, if you presume only methods that could produce naturalist explanations are permissible, you're by default basing your conclusions on your prior beliefs.

Now, this is where it gets hard, because how could that even be done? Just lacking a natural explanation for a phenomena isn't enough, that'd relegate your supernatural claim to being an argument from ignorance. Especially given the long track record we have for finding naturalistic explanations for previously unexplained phenomena, versus the nonexistent track record for discovering supernatural explanations for the same. Positive evidence is what's needed, causal links as opposed to just gaps in the knowledge plus correlation... and that's where the supernatural advocates fall mysteriously silent.

I think this is again a conflation of naturalism with empiricism. You're saying use of the scientific method has been really effective in explaining the world. I agree it has -but I disagree that requires me to be a naturalist. Also I disagree that this implies the only valid way to evaluate any question is by using scientific methods.

For example, on the last page you said it was unfair to compare the evidence for gravity with the evidence for god. Why? You bandied around accusations of presuppositions, but I can't help but notice you didn't even attempt to explain your proposed false analogy. What's the issue you were having?

One of Stimbo's responses has already explained this. Gravity is observable, repeatable etc in the material world. Scientific methods are therefore the appropriate method of evaluating this concept. God is immaterial therefore requiring the use of methods designed to understand the natural world aren't appropriate for determining evidence for the existence of God.

[Whateverist]

If you are capable of responding to two posters at once I'd still be interested to my question my post, numbered 275 above.