The Arrogance of Atheism

[Tiberius]

While that is true, it has little to do with the point of my argument. You see, it is not about the epistemic criteria atheists use to argue from their belief system (be what it may). It is about the epistemic criteria atheists expect Christians to use in arguing from theirs. Suppose that in the course of some discussion an atheist says to a Christian, "You would have to prove this God of yours exists in the first place," to which the Christian responds by pulling out his Bible. I don't expect he would get very far before the atheist interjects that the Bible is unacceptable criteria for establishing truth claims.

Well, now wait a minute: according to who? What standard produced that determination? The atheist's own epistemic structure, of course (which almost universally is some form of empiricism). He is presupposing the truth of his self-determined epistemology and expecting his Christian interlocutor to work within the framework thereof. The force of my argument is found in the fact that the Bible-determined epistemology of Christian theism has exactly equal validity as the one affirmed by the atheist—a conclusion that the atheist cannot present a counter-argument against that presupposes the truth of his epistemology, because to do so would commit the logical fallacy of Begging the Question (in virtue of epistemology itself being the subject).

According to who? According to logic. It is a fallacy to argue that a book proves a God, because if that were the case, any book could be used to prove anything. You could write a contradiction in a book "X = ¬X" and then say it is true because the book says so. Books are the words of men, and men are provably fallible. It is a variation of the argument from authority, which is a logical fallacy (you should know all about them). Just because a book says something does not mean it is (a) true, or (b) provable.

When the atheist pretends that his epistemic structure possesses the only legitimate criteria for establishing truth claims, prohibiting by fiat any competing epistemic structure, he is patently shoving his beliefs down the Christian's throat. This is the "arrogance" which my argument addresses.

I don't think atheists do pretend that their epistemic structure is the only legitimate criteria; I think that atheists support materialism and empiricism because they are the only structures that are able to accurately make predictions. Materialism only works for things that exist and can be observed / tested. If theists make the claim that God cannot be observed/tested, then materialism obviously does not cover it. Before they go any further, they must demonstrate how things that cannot be observed/tested can be said to exist at all, or demonstrate a way of determining the existence of these immaterial things without using materialism or empiricism. If you are able to do this, then you have a valid point, but so far you have no way of distinguishing an existent God from a non-existent one.

Unfortunately materialism, or metaphysical naturalism, begs the question on the issue, insofar as it asserts that "nature is all there is, and all basic truths are truths of nature"("Naturalism." The Encyclopedia of Philosophy. New York: Macmillan. 1996 Supplement, pp. 372-373). All things supernatural (e.g., God, souls, etc.) are asserted to be nonexistent prior to any investigation. Reality is said to be "such that there is nothing but natural things, forces, and causes of the kind that the natural sciences study," rejecting out of hand "the objective existence of any supernatural thing, force or cause" ("Metaphysical naturalism." Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia).

And it further begs the question on another, more pertinent level. Why someone prefers metaphysical naturalism is biographically interesting, but when it comes to a competition about epistemology it is question-begging to presuppose its truth. And begging the question is a logical fallacy, an error in reasoning.

It does not beg the question; it uses the assumption that nature is all there is and bases explanations on that assumption. This is how science works, and we've already discussed how such things are not "begging the question" in the TAG debate. All arguments are based on some assumption, and materialism is based on the assumption that nature is all there is.

That said, if materialism is question begging as you claim, I fail to see how any other philosophical position like spiritualism or idealism is not begging the question.

The fact is, we should make the assumption that nature is all there is, until such evidence (or reasoning) comes forward that this assumption is wrong. Nature is all we can test and observe, so to suppose that there is some other realm which we cannot test or observe is to do the exact same question begging, just without the actual evidence in support of it.

Such is precisely what my argument does. It is equally valid by virtue of the inescapable absence of any means of evaluating a competition of epistemology that does not beg the question.

How does it? It cannot explain how things can be known about the spiritualism realm, it only asserts that materialism is begging the question (I say it is not), and then proceeds to say that "if it is alright for materialism to beg the question, it is ok for spiritualism to beg the question". That is not a logically sound argument, even if materialism is begging the question. If both beg the question, both should be rejected. I hold though, that materialism does not beg the question, as it does not asusme it's truth; rather it has the assumption that nature is all there is, and materialism itself is based upon that.

[Violet]

All of our knowledge... is but assumption... and we are often wrong.

Our physical evidence is but belief. We think we are right, because we think we are right. Example: I believe i am sitting in this chair... I can list many reasons for why I believe it, but i can never prove that it is physically true. We call this circular logic.

Our faith is but belief. By its very definition, the faithful believe they are right, because of their belief. Example: I believe that the IPU will visit me later today... i cannot list a single reason for why I believe that... I simply have confidence in it. We also call this circular logic.

And both the faithful and the materialistic are arrogant in their belief.

[Secularone]

Secularone,

I find it particularly convenient how, after laying out your argument, you dismissed prior to investigation any conclusions contrary to the ones you arrived at, summarily defining them as sophistry on no grounds other than they differ from yours. Not especially brilliant, but tremendously convenient. Notwithstanding the bigotry and prejudicial language littering your post, it essentially missed entirely the point my argument made.

But thanks for the fascinating biographical exposé on why you are an atheist.

I find it particularly convenient how, you dismiss all the evidence reality has to offer by simply dismissing me.
Secondly, there is no bigotry in my argument or prejudicial language. You prove that by your actions and no I didn't miss your point. You point was to nullify a valid argument by focusing on something irrelevant. The exact same tactic you are attempting to repeat now.
Religious nuts? I know them well. I once was one. Let me lay it out for you.
Characteristics of a Religious Nut

1. Hostility to reason and critical thinking concepts.
2. Hostility to any reality or evidence that might call their religious beliefs into question. Completely dogmatic.
3. Hostility to any science that might call their beliefs into question.
4. Hostility to any history that might call their beliefs into question.
5. Hostility to any knowledge or education that might call their beliefs in question or erode their power over others.
6. Eager to employ lies, tricks, misinformation and other forms of sophistry in their quest to make their dogma sound plausible. Bearing false witness is overlooked as an ethical issue by these individuals.
7. Intolerance of others who do not hold to their beliefs, values or way of life.
8. Complete disregard for human rights, except for themselves.
9. Eager to use legislative repression as a means to ensure dominance, control and the forced submission of others.
10. Complete intransigence and arrogance in their dogmatic approaches.

The attack upon reality, science, history, sex, education and reason consists of 100% lies, misrepresentation, demagoguery and other tactics of sophistry, nothing else. These folks need a label and I think "religious nut" fits them perfectly.
The day you stop using the tactics of sophistry to prop up your false truth is the day I'll sit up and take notice.
These 10 characteristics of religious nuts are universal and can be easily verified by any person who cares to objectively investigate.

[Eilonnwy]

How dare atheists demand proof before believing in a God concept. e_e

Arcanus, this article is just special pleading and strawman through and through. Atheism is a lack of belief, and when you are lacking a belief you are not making a positive claim. In a logical argument the person making the claim has the burden of proof. So in a debate, naturally the Christian has the burden of proof. If an atheist makes the claim that there is no god, then yes, they have to then defend their position. Lack of belief and asserting there is no god is an important distinction to make.

[Oldandeasilyconfused]

umm, exactly what 'system of beliefs' do atheists hold? [as a group]

My position :

I assert "I do not believe in gods" yet concede the possibility of error. I make no claims of any kind. I posit no philosophy, belief system or ideology AS AN ATHEIST*. In fact,my position is the antithesis of those things.

I do not care if others feel as I do. Nor do I have any interest in convincing anyone of the validity of my lack of belief. It's a non issue for me. Having made no claims, I have no burden of proof.


The theist claims " I believe in god(s)" or "There IS a god!"

My position: "Good for you! May you live long and and prosper."

"What? You want me accept your beliefs as true? Mkay,why should I accept that? You must have some pretty amazing evidence huh? Not actually? Well fuck off then,and stop wasting my time"

I DO have a basic philosophical position:Egoism.

*Morality and ethics: Relativist

Political Ideology: Theoretical Marxism, including acceptance of the Conflict Theory Of Power.

Although my world view probably precludes a Christian life,there is nothing antithetical to theism per se.

The accusation of "the arrogance of atheists" is an old fashioned ad hominem attack.
Many people ,such as my good self and Richard Dawkins can be arrogant and down right obnoxious.We also happen to be atheists. We are just arseholes, not arseholes BECAUSE we are atheists.

The claim of the "arrogance of atheists" is nonsense every bit as much as "theists are willfully ignorant hypocrites".


Have I missed the point again? Perhaps I'm not a "real atheist"
.

[Minimalist]

Books are the words of men,

He doesn't really think that, boss. He thinks that his special book was written by his god. How else to explain how a simple (and badly constructed) book is true in the absence of tangible evidence?

[Eilonnwy]

Books are the words of men,

He doesn't really think that, boss. He thinks that his special book was written by his god. How else to explain how a simple (and badly constructed) book is true in the absence of tangible evidence?

It actually depends on the viewpoint you take as a Christian. Many Christians view the bible and the gospels as the infallible word of God written with a human hand. Others view it as eyewitness accounts that were only guided by the Holy Spirit. So to some Christians, it doesn't matter when the Gospels were written, to others it does, depending on what you taught. I was always taught that the Gospel writers were the later, original apostles guided by the Holy Spirit, so when I learned how late the gospels were written and that no true authorship is known, it was a big hole chink in my Christian armor that eventually led me to atheism. (Among other things, of course)

[Minimalist]

I don't give this guy that much credit, boss.

[Retorth]

I remember (foolishly) challenging the worship leader in my school about the bible a couple years back when he questioned my faith. I wasn't exactly in the right state of mine to debate. Like what Eilonnwy says, they have different perspectives about the bible, but the general agreement is always the requirement of faith.

[fr0d0]

It actually depends on the viewpoint you take as a Christian. Many Christians view the bible and the gospels as the infallible word of God written with a human hand. Others view it as eyewitness accounts that were only guided by the Holy Spirit.

All sounds the same to me *shrugs*. "God inspired" covers all of them. Something is written and then people decide if it's that good it can be called God inspired.