The Arrogance of Atheism

[Ryft]

PREFACE: The following article was originally published in three different places, two which died internet deaths and one that still exists as an inactive blog. Shortly after publication it caught the attention of Austin Reed Cline, a Regional Director for the Council for Secular Humanism and editor of the Atheism section of the About.com site, who published an excoriating and profoundly inaccurate review thereof. Please feel free to weigh in with your thoughts on my original point, on Cline’s review, and on my rebuttal.

---

Original Article (27/Jan/2005):

THE ARROGANCE OF ATHEISM

The really frustrating thing about most atheists, at least those who enjoy debating against Christian theism, is that they presuppose the truth of their system of belief and then tacitly insist their Christian opponent work within the framework of that system. In other words, the Christian is expected to provide arguments in defense of Christian theism which accord with the atheist’s epistemology in particular and world view in general. This is implicitly demonstrated in challenges such as, "Provide evidence that God exists." The relevance of evidence, and even what constitutes evidence, are defined by his system of thought.

However, if it is permissible for the atheist to presuppose the truth of his system of thought and expect the Christian to work within the framework of that system, then it is also permissible for the inverse of that situation. Otherwise, the atheist would shoulder the epistemic responsibility for explaining why the only presuppositions permitted in the field of debate are his own—and I would not anticipate a rational argument for that.

---

Critical Review by Austin Cline (09/Feb/2005):

Click here to read.

---

Rebuttal Against Cline (16/Aug/2009):

THE NATURE OF THE ARROGANCE

It is both obvious and clear that Austin Cline grossly misunderstood my argument. For example, his opening paragraph begins with the question, "Are atheists arrogant for insisting that theists support their claims before accepting them as true?" Cline describes it as an "unusual" way to demonstrate the arrogance of atheism, proving that his attempted rebuttal missed the force of my argument entirely—which had nothing to do with atheists insisting that theistic claims be supported but rather how they insist those claims be supported.

That is to say, the arrogance of atheism is proven by atheists who "presuppose the truth of their system of belief and then tacitly insist their Christian opponent work within the framework of that system" while prohibiting by fiat any competing epistemic structure in the field of debate. The force of my argument is found in the following juxtaposition:

If it is permissible and valid for

the Atheist to presuppose the truth of his system of thought and expect the Christian to work within the framework of that system,

then it is equally permissible and valid for

the Christian to presuppose the truth of his system of thought and expect the Atheist to work within the framework of that system.

If an atheist disagrees with this—Cline included—then he shoulders "the epistemic responsibility for explaining why the only presuppositions permitted in the field of debate are his own," for which no rational argument can actually be anticipated.

When Cline says, "Ryft doesn’t like being held to the standard of having to provide evidence for his claims," he could not possibly get it more wrong. His rebuttal is an intellectual disaster. What I dislike is having an atheist shove his beliefs down my throat, which he does by pretending that his is the only legitimate epistemic structure while at the same time prohibiting, by his sacrosanct fiat, every other from the field of debate.

The epistemic structure of Christian theism has exactly equal validity as the one affirmed by the atheist. And the atheist cannot present an argument against this which presupposes the truth of his epistemic structure lest he commits the logical fallacy of Begging the Question.

THE NATURE OF EVIDENCE

Cline suggests that it is legitimate or fair to question the nature of evidence expected for some claim, and then attempts to assert that "trying to exempt one’s own personal god-claims from a standard used pretty much all the rest of the time in other situations is an example of the Special Pleading fallacy."

Wrong. This fallacy is committed only when "someone argues that a case is an exception to a rule based upon an irrelevant characteristic that does not define an exception" (FallacyFiles.org; emphasis added). Empirical claims require empirical evidence; however, God-claims are not empirical claims. To demand that empirical evidence be provided for non-empirical claims is to commit a gross categorical error. It is akin to someone demanding that the Law of Non-Contradiction (a non-empirical claim) be proved with empirical evidence. The nature of evidence must correspond to the nature of the claim.

CONCLUSION

The arrogance of atheism is not proven by atheists demanding that theists support their claims. It is proven by their vituperative denial that competing epistemic structures have exactly equal validity, whereby they shove their beliefs down other people’s throats by pretending that theirs is the only legitimate epistemic structure while at the same time prohibiting or disallowing—by empty fiat—every other from the field of debate.

And it is irrational to expect non-empirical claims to be substantiated by empirical evidence, for that commits a categorical error. The nature of evidence must correspond to the nature of the claim: empirical evidence for empirical claims, non-empirical evidence for non-empirical claims.

[Minimalist]

The really frustrating thing about most atheists, at least those who enjoy debating against Christian theism, is that they presuppose the truth of their system of belief

As do believers who insist, without a shred of evidence, that their particular superstitions are true.

In fact, if both sides did not assume that their positions were correct there would not be a debate.

Nonetheless, at the risk of redundancy, this fellow makes the same mistake that all of you make. Atheism is not a "system of belief." It merely says that there is no god(s).

[downbeatplumb]

So what your saying is there isnt any REAL proof for god so stop asking.

Theists seem to put mankind as the aim of creation the peak of evolution, who have a god obsessed with their thoughts and deeds.

But athiests are arrogant.

Lovely

[Tiberius]

I'd like to know what you think of Austin's rebuttal of your rebuttal, published today on the link you gave.

I think he has a good point about presupposing the truth of belief systems; a "belief" is something you think is true, and if you are going to argue from a specific belief system, you are going to hold it as true.

I wouldn't say atheism is a belief system, but you probably meant the belief system of materialism that most atheists subscribe to. I would argue that this is a valid belief system to hold as an assumption, because it is the only one that produces predictable results. It is the theist that argues that materialism is not the only belief system that works, and it is therefore up to them to reason why things like spiritualism are equally valid. I have seen no reasoning by theists on the existence of spiritualism that cannot equally be explained without it.

Interesting debate though.

[Darwinian]

The thing is though that it is not atheists who are making any claims or have a belief system in which to work, certainly not in the theistic sense. We simply ask those who make specific claims that they provide evidence to support them. We also ask that this evidence be logical, falsifiable and testable.

It's not really a question of two different sets of peoples with two different belief systems and sets of claims that are otherwise just as plausible as each other, such as, for example, Christians and Muslims.

With atheists you are dealing with the default position. A position where any claims made are usually backed up with evidence or theories based on the known workings of the Cosmos.

If anyone actually makes a claim concerning a specific proposition then you are quite at liberty to ask them to substantiate that claim. However it is my observation that most atheists make no such claims when it comes to subjects that, by their very nature, can yield no or insufficient evidence.

We simply ask the proponent of that claim to provide an explanation for it.

[Tiberius]

The thing is though that it is not atheists who are making any claims or have a belief system in which to work, certainly not in the theistic sense. We simply ask those who make specific claims that they provide evidence to support them. We also ask that this evidence be logical, falsifiable and testable.

Wasn't that the point he was talking about? We are asking theists to work within materialism and empiricism. What if God was not material and not empirically testable; then there would literally be no evidence that would be accepted by us.

The counter-argument which I presented is that to argue from another belief system (some form of mysticism or spiritualism, etc) you need to reason why it works. We can reason why materialism and empiricism works, because are predictions based on the two turn out to be correct. If the theist wants to use something other than materialism and empiricism to argue about God's existence, they first need to provide reasoning as to why and how those other systems work.

[dry land fish]

I think Christians are more arrogant than Atheists. They think they are "special" because an imaginary God loves them and they think they will be floating around on clouds while the rest of us "sinners" are burning for eternity.

[Ryft]

I'd like to know what you think of Austin's rebuttal of your rebuttal, published today on the link you gave.

I will be confronting it Wednesday or Thursday. I'm disappointed by its weakness.

I think he has a good point about presupposing the truth of belief systems; a "belief" is something you think is true, and if you are going to argue from a specific belief system, you are going to hold it as true.

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).

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 wouldn't say atheism is a belief system ...

The only time I used the word "atheism" is in the title (and references to it). I have likewise maintained, on this site as well as my own, that atheism is not a worldview. When it comes to the actual substance of my argument, atheism per se is never a predicate.

Materialism is the only [belief system] that produces predictable results.

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 is up to the theist] to reason why things like spiritualism are equally valid.

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.

---

The thing is, though, that it is not atheists who are making any claims ... We simply ask those who make specific claims that they provide evidence to support them. We also ask that this evidence be logical, falsifiable and testable.

In other words, atheists do make claims—unabashed epistemic claims; "Some proposition P is epistemically justified when it satisfies X, Y, and Z."

With atheists you are dealing with the default position.

The phrase "default position" is singular. Based on both study and experience, I reject the notion that there is one position that all atheists affirm—other than the definitional absence of any God-beliefs, which taken by itself is neither an epistemology nor a worldview.

If anyone actually makes a claim concerning a specific proposition, then you are quite at liberty to ask them to substantiate that claim.

Unless, of course, a competition of epistemology is the predicate of the proposition, in which case asking them "to substantiate that claim" engages in the fallacy of begging the question (where the substantiation involves epistemic criteria).

[Secularone]

I would agree with you except that I don’t think that atheists are guilty of what you are claiming they are guilty of. It's a straw man argument. Yes, most assuredly a few are. I can find some pretty stupid arguments even among atheists. However, most atheists I know are not of this mindset and make extremely valid arguments. And you ignore them as though they and their arguments do not exist.
You deliberately forget that many god arguments are empirical arguments and can be tested using basic scientific or logic principles. This is best illustrated by the simple statement:
"A single well-substantiated fact, irreconcilable with a belief, is sufficient to prove that belief false."
Using this principle it is extremely easy to prove that your god is a fraud. One only need compare the empirical promises made by Jesus with the empirical reality that exists for those who follow his instructions and meet his conditions to the letter. For example:
Jesus Promised:
Matt: 6:25-34 “Look at the birds of the air; they do not sow or reap or store away in barns, and yet your heavenly Father feeds them. Are you not much more valuable than they? Who of you by worrying can add a single hour to his life? And why do you worry about clothes? See how the lilies of the field grow. They do not labor or spin. Yet I tell you that not even Solomon in all his splendor was dressed like one of these. If that is how God clothes the grass of the field, which is here today and tomorrow is thrown into the fire, will he not much more clothe you, O you of little faith? So do not worry, saying, ‘What shall we eat’ or What shall we drink’ or ‘What shall we wear?’ For the pagans run after all these things, and your heavenly Father knows that you need them. But seek first his kingdom and his righteousness, and all these things will be given to you as well. Therefore do not worry about tomorrow, for tomorrow will worry about itself.”
(There are millions seeking his kingdom and his righteousness. And of these millions, many are without food, clothing, clean water, shelter or good health. The empirical reality is they haven't had anything added unto them.)

Jesus Promised:
Matt 7:9-11 “What man is there of you whom if his son ask bread will he give him a stone? Or if he ask a fish, will he give him a serpent? If ye then, being evil, know how to give good gifts unto your children, how much more shall your Father which is in heaven give good things to them that ask him?”
(If you are starving to death in Somalia, you can beg Jesus for bread or fish till you drop. The empirical reality is that you don't get bread or fish or anything else for that matter. You don't even get the stone or the serpent. Every human I know will do better than that.)

Jesus Promised:
Matt 18:19 “Again, I tell you that if two of you on earth agree about anything you ask for, it will be done for you by my Father in heaven. For where two or three come together in my name, there I am with them.”
(The empirical reality is that Christians agree in prayer every day by the millions. This doesn't produce delivery either.)

Jesus Promised:
Matt 21:18-21 Early in the morning, as he was on his way back to the city, he was hungry. Seeing a fig tree by the road, he went up to it but found nothing on it except leaves. Then he said to it, “May you never bear fruit again!” Immediately the tree withered. When the disciples saw this, they were amazed. “How did the fig tree wither so quickly?” they asked. Jesus replied, “I tell you the truth, if you have faith and do not doubt, not only can you do what was done to the fig tree, but also you can say to this mountain, “Go, throw yourself into the sea,’ and it will be done. If you believe, you will receive whatever you ask for in prayer.”
(The empirical reality is that you can believe to the n'th degree. You will not receive whatever you ask for in prayer. Absolutely not!)

Jesus Promised:
John 14:12-14 “Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me, the works that I do shall he do also; and greater works than these shall he do; because I go unto my Father. And whatsoever ye shall ask in my name, that I will do, that the Father may be glorified in the Son. If ye ask anything in my name I will do it.”
(The empirical reality is that this promise is totally false. Go ahead, ask anything in his name and watch nothing happen.)

Jesus Promised:
Matthew 17:20 “And Jesus said unto them, Because of your unbelief: for verily I say unto you, If ye have faith as a grain of mustard seed, ye shall say unto this mountain, Remove hence to yonder place and it shall remove; and nothing shall be impossible unto you.
(The empirical reality is that out of the millions of Christians, not a single Christian has the faith to work a real miracle.)

Jesus Promised:
Matthew 16:27&28 “For the Son of Man is going to come in his Father’s glory with his angels, and then he will reward each person according to what he has done. I tell you the truth, some who are standing here will not taste of death before they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom.”
(The empirical reality is that they all saw death and he didn't return.)

Jesus Promised:
Matthew 24:34 “Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled.” (The empirical reality is that the generation passed and nothing was fulfilled.)

Jesus Promised:
Revelation 22:7 “Behold, I am coming soon!”
Revelation 22:12 “Behold, I am coming soon!”
Revelation 22:20 “Yes, I am coming soon.”
(Soon? Really. Is two thousand years soon? Of course not. But I'm sure you'll find a way to make it so.
Yes. Every Christian is capable of nullifying these scriptures with apologetics to avoid the obvious truth. One can easily spin a thousand misinterpretations and sophist excuses. For a time, it worked for me too.
But the fact remains, these promises are not vague. They are not out of context. They don’t need spin interpretations. They literally reflect what the Jesus of the Bible believed and they literally reflect the message he was trying to convey.
He was a religious nut and religious nuts are out of touch with reality.

Your Jesus god made many empire promises and fails to deliver on every one. I don't demand you prove he exists. I demand that he deliver as promised. Else, he is proven to be just another false god.
And as for the millions of false Christian testimonials? I once was among this legion of liars.
Perhaps you enjoy being among the millions of "liars for Jesus," but I don’t care to spend my one and only life nurturing lies and mastering the sophist art of deceiving others. I can’t do that anymore.
I hope you will understand. I didn’t share this with you expecting you to agree. In fact, I fully expect you will reject it. No empirical proof that Jesus is a fraud will ever be sufficient for the religious nut. They'll simply find some sophist trick to dismiss it. I simply shared it with you so you could understand how I got from being a Christian fanatic like you to being an atheist.
Secularone

[Ryft]

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.