Thoughts on Atheism (and a plea to the religious)

[KnockEmOuttt]

On what basis do you reject faith in God, but accept faith in 'science'?

That's not a gotcha question, I'm actually interested in knowing.

I come from a christian background. I was a devout christian for more than half of my life. It was actually through bible study and religious instruction that I came to be an atheist (amongst other factors, but it was largely an informed decision).

I reject faith in any sentient being as the sole creator and maintainer of the universe (I know that this is not how all people define God, but it is perhaps the most common one). I'm a believer in chance. I can't pretend to know anything for certain, none of us really can. That said, I am convinced more by the work of the secular scientific community than I am by any religious texts, religious scholars, or the like.

[FallentoReason]

Well, consider the following argument:

1) Being a reasonable person entails exhibiting a certain, proper amount of humility about what we can know.
2) Atheism necessarily entails exhibiting an improper amount of humility about what we can know.
3) Therefore, atheism entails not being a reasonable person.

This argument is valid.

Science is by far the most humble endeavour. It has no agenda but to simply reflect reality through observation. Faith on the other hand says 'I know exactly where the universe came from'. Humble? I think not.

[KnockEmOuttt]

Well, consider the following argument:

1) Being a reasonable person entails exhibiting a certain, proper amount of humility about what we can know.
2) Atheism necessarily entails exhibiting an improper amount of humility about what we can know.
3) Therefore, atheism entails not being a reasonable person.

This argument is valid.

Science is by far the most humble endeavour. It has no agenda but to simply reflect reality through observation. Faith on the other hand says 'I know exactly where the universe came from'. Humble? I think not.

Additionally, it also provides a platform upon which to cast judgment. Science seeks only to explain. Faith and religion are more about control, ritual, and keeping the big guy happy. Science might scare a few people into thinking the Earth is overheating or the Sun might explode, but it certainly never has anyone convinced they're going to be doomed to suffer for eternity if they don't submit.

[CliveStaples]

Well, consider the following argument:

1) Being a reasonable person entails exhibiting a certain, proper amount of humility about what we can know.
2) Atheism necessarily entails exhibiting an improper amount of humility about what we can know.
3) Therefore, atheism entails not being a reasonable person.

This argument is valid.

Science is by far the most humble endeavour. It has no agenda but to simply reflect reality through observation. Faith on the other hand says 'I know exactly where the universe came from'. Humble? I think not.

First, that has nothing to do with the point I was making. I wasn't claiming that science (which you're conflating with atheism) isn't humble; I wasn't claiming that faith is humble.

I was saying that there are valid arguments for which the claim, "Atheism requires a lack of humility" would be neither a strawman nor an ad hominem.


Second, science has its own assumptions (see methological naturalism, evidentialism, as well as the general fields of epistemology and ontology). The ideas that there is a shared reality, that external objects exist, that observations are possible, that our memories of the past are not fictitious--these are all assumptions. Articles of faith.

Science also makes certain truth claims regarding the world; if "I know where [x] came from" is proof of a lack of humility, then science isn't very humble at all. It purports to know the cause of earthquakes, the development of the human species, and so on and so forth.

---

Additionally, it also provides a platform upon which to cast judgment. Science seeks only to explain. Faith and religion are more about control, ritual, and keeping the big guy happy.

Apparently you're not familiar with existentialist Christianity. I'd read up before making grandiose generalizations =)

Science might scare a few people into thinking the Earth is overheating or the Sun might explode, but it certainly never has anyone convinced they're going to be doomed to suffer for eternity if they don't submit.

...wait, I thought that atheists were all about pursuing the truth, no matter how bad it might be. Now you're saying that science is better because religion makes you believe unpleasant things? Irony!

---

I come from a christian background. I was a devout christian for more than half of my life. It was actually through bible study and religious instruction that I came to be an atheist (amongst other factors, but it was largely an informed decision).

I reject faith in any sentient being as the sole creator and maintainer of the universe (I know that this is not how all people define God, but it is perhaps the most common one). I'm a believer in chance. I can't pretend to know anything for certain, none of us really can. That said, I am convinced more by the work of the secular scientific community than I am by any religious texts, religious scholars, or the like.

Erm, what works of the secular scientific community convinced you that God doesn't exist? I'm into math and science, so if there's a good scientific or mathematical (i.e., logical) reason to think God doesn't exist, I'd love to hear it.

[FallentoReason]

Science is by far the most humble endeavour. It has no agenda but to simply reflect reality through observation. Faith on the other hand says 'I know exactly where the universe came from'. Humble? I think not.

First, that has nothing to do with the point I was making. I wasn't claiming that science (which you're conflating with atheism) isn't humble; I wasn't claiming that faith is humble.

I was saying that there are valid arguments for which the claim, "Atheism requires a lack of humility" would be neither a strawman nor an ad hominem.

I should have clarified I was going off on a tangent I guess.

Second, science has its own assumptions (see methological naturalism, evidentialism, as well as the general fields of epistemology and ontology). The ideas that there is a shared reality, that external objects exist, that observations are possible, that our memories of the past are not fictitious--these are all assumptions. Articles of faith.

And so far it looks like it makes sense to have the faith these things are true, because so far they seem to work and we are able to make predictions about reality that do come true.

I always like bringing up civil engineering because that's what I'm studying. Your house is a testimony that these assumptions are pretty dang useful.

Science also makes certain truth claims regarding the world; if "I know where [x] came from" is proof of a lack of humility, then science isn't very humble at all. It purports to know the cause of earthquakes, the development of the human species, and so on and so forth.

Fair enough. Shall we say it has a 'justified ego' in that case? By definition if experimentation consistently lines up with a hypothesis then you know that is true. The claim is justified.

[CliveStaples]

And so far it looks like it makes sense to have the faith these things are true, because so far they seem to work and we are able to make predictions about reality that do come true.

I always like bringing up civil engineering because that's what I'm studying. Your house is a testimony that these assumptions are pretty dang useful.

But "My house is a testimony that these assumptions are pretty useful" requires those same assumptions. "If you make these assumptions, then what you get is consistent with those assumptions." Well, of course.

And if you assume that everything you observe is a figment of your imagination, all the 'evidence' would be entirely consistent with that, too.

Fair enough. Shall we say it has a 'justified ego' in that case? By definition if experimentation consistently lines up with a hypothesis then you know that is true. The claim is justified.

Except that how you interpret the results of the experiment require you to assume the truth of what you're trying to confirm. So it's all just circular reasoning.


It is an established result that logic can't be used to prove that logic is consistent (for sufficiently advanced systems of logic). Science can't prove that science is valid.

[KnockEmOuttt]

I suppose no, I'm not familiar with existentialist christians, although I can't say I've ever met one. I apologize for making a grandiose statement and failing to recognize what I'm going to assume is a religious minority.

I'm not saying science is better because religion makes you believe unpleasant things. I'm only saying that science doesn't threaten punishment. Nature doesn't make decisions.

I didn't leave the faith because of any single scientific work, but because it made more sense to me on the whole. If you recall, I left because of what I was being taught by the church. The science came afterward.

[FallentoReason]

And so far it looks like it makes sense to have the faith these things are true, because so far they seem to work and we are able to make predictions about reality that do come true.

I always like bringing up civil engineering because that's what I'm studying. Your house is a testimony that these assumptions are pretty dang useful.

But "My house is a testimony that these assumptions are pretty useful" requires those same assumptions. "If you make these assumptions, then what you get is consistent with those assumptions." Well, of course.

And if you assume that everything you observe is a figment of your imagination, all the 'evidence' would be entirely consistent with that, too.

Fair enough. Shall we say it has a 'justified ego' in that case? By definition if experimentation consistently lines up with a hypothesis then you know that is true. The claim is justified.

Except that how you interpret the results of the experiment require you to assume the truth of what you're trying to confirm. So it's all just circular reasoning.


It is an established result that logic can't be used to prove that logic is consistent (for sufficiently advanced systems of logic). Science can't prove that science is valid.

I think your framework of reasoning can't even be labelled as reasoning then because somehow you've reasoned that reasoning itself can't be justified (ironic).

Can I ask, how do you manage to stay alive? Is it pure chance that you grab a slice of bread and for no apparent reason put it in this metal device that cooks it on either side? Your entire logic seems to suggest you don't have the slightest clue of what reality is.

Your very own life should be a testimony that you actually do know a thing or two about reality.

[CliveStaples]

I'm not saying science is better because religion makes you believe unpleasant things. I'm only saying that science doesn't threaten punishment. Nature doesn't make decisions.

Which is irrelevant to whether religion is true.

I didn't leave the faith because of any single scientific work, but because it made more sense to me on the whole. If you recall, I left because of what I was being taught by the church. The science came afterward.

I think science makes sense on the whole, too. I don't think it conflicts with my religious beliefs. The idea that scientific knowledge is incompatible with religious belief seems unlikely, to me; I know Christian physicists, geneticists, and mathematicians who have no trouble maintaining their religious beliefs in light of their scientific understanding.

---

I think your framework of reasoning can't even be labelled as reasoning then because somehow you've reasoned that reasoning itself can't be justified (ironic).

It's called mathematical logic. The result I was referring to with regard to logic can be found here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6del'...s_theorems

Can I ask, how do you manage to stay alive? Is it pure chance that you grab a slice of bread and for no apparent reason put it in this metal device that cooks it on either side? Your entire logic seems to suggest you don't have the slightest clue of what reality is.

Your very own life should be a testimony that you actually do know a thing or two about reality.

Well, I have certain beliefs about reality. I act in accordance with those beliefs. I think that there are external objects, that there is a material universe, and so forth.

I'm not arguing that any of that is wrong--which is what you seem to be accusing me of. I'm asking a different question, which is how you can claim to know that those beliefs are, in fact, true.

I didn't argue that your memories are false; I asked you how you know that they're true.


Now, these kind of questions can be problematic for evidentialists. Because it seems like there really isn't any evidence that would show that our memories are accurate, or that the universe wasn't created five minutes ago with the appearance of age. I suspect that these are a kind of belief that is both reasonable to hold, and yet cannot be supported with evidence.

[Creed of Heresy]

Because Christians love to pick and choose what they believe in their holy book. The entire New Testament is based on the understanding that the Old Testament is basically prophesy realized. Therefore you have to believe the Old Testament is fact, and therefore you can either choose to believe that Genesis is truth. Or you can pick and choose, in which case why even bother believing in any of it at all if you choose to disbelieve in only certain parts and you choose to discard others?