Is Atheism Intellectual Cowardice?

[bozo]

I am an atheist because I think it is 99.9999% probable that divine beings do not exist.I am also atheist because I don't want to believe that divine beings exist nor do I want eternal life, salvation and all the other baggage that goes with that belief.
Agnostics are cowards. Agnostics know atheists are probably correct but they WANT to believe in gods' existence.

You clearly have a strong belief in Atheism and you are confident enough to give a numerical value to the probability that a God does not exist. I myself think it is unlikely that a God exists but I could not put a figure on the probability.

We are not so far apart really. Where I think my position is intellectually brave, however, is that I am prepared to accept the state of knowledge that I have without invoking any belief. This is actually an uncomfortable position to be in, not so much safe, but a dogged desire to stick with the truth. It would be much easier for me to jump into Atheism based upon belief but is this would betray the courage of my conviction - namely to consider only the facts.

You are not brave, you are clinging on to a minute possibility that what you know is highly improbable just might be. Do you WANT there to be a god?

[diffidus]

I am an atheist because I think it is 99.9999% probable that divine beings do not exist.I am also atheist because I don't want to believe that divine beings exist nor do I want eternal life, salvation and all the other baggage that goes with that belief.
Agnostics are cowards. Agnostics know atheists are probably correct but they WANT to believe in gods' existence.

You clearly have a strong belief in Atheism and you are confident enough to give a numerical value to the probability that a God does not exist. I myself think it is unlikely that a God exists but I could not put a figure on the probability.

We are not so far apart really. Where I think my position is intellectually brave, however, is that I am prepared to accept the state of knowledge that I have without invoking any belief. This is actually an uncomfortable position to be in, not so much safe, but a dogged desire to stick with the truth. It would be much easier for me to jump into Atheism based upon belief but is this would betray the courage of my conviction - namely to consider only the facts.

You are not brave, you are clinging on to a minute possibility that what you know is highly improbable just might be. Do you WANT there to be a god?

It is not that I want there to be a God. But I should like to know if one exists or not. You claim that it is a minute possibility but this implies the God may exist and so I have no real grounds for ascerting that he does not. (There is still an ugly ditch of belief to cross to get to Atheism)

[Minimalist]

I like you do not have all the evidence required to deny the existence of God.

No, you still don't get it.

I cannot "disprove" invisible pink unicorns drinking margaritas at a Tiajuana bar at Mardi Gras, either.

It is up to the proponents of an idea to prove it is real.

Unlike theists I regard a lack of evidence as evidence of absence. They are always at liberty to present evidence later on..... if they find any... but I cannot present "evidence" that something does not exist. I can simply point out ( ad nauseam) that their superstitions are unsupported.

[Rayaan]

Intellectually, there is not much difference between an Atheist and a Theist.

Yes, the only difference being that one believes in God (theist) while the other doesn't (atheist).

As a species we have only existed for a miniscule amount of time compared to the age of the universe (~14 Billion years according to Scientists). Of this time we have only been studying Science in a rigorous sense for ~ 300 years. It is no exageration to say that, although we have learned a lot in that time, we have much to learn in the future. In fact, it is not just that we do not know everything, but we do not even know how much we don't know.

I agree with everything there. We have learned a lot, and still have many things to learn, and what we know so far could be equal to just a bucket of water from the ocean.

From this it follows that a claim that God does not exist can only be made on the grounds of probability, based upon current scientific knowledge. But probability is only based upon uncertainty and therefore, any claim that God does not exist must be, in the end, a belief (even if based upon the latest empirical and scientific evidence). From this perspective an Atheist and a Theist both share something in common - belief.

I agree with that also. Both theists and atheist come to a conclusion on God in a probabilistic sense as opposed to knowing that God doesn't exist.

Atheism cannot, therefore, be ascerted based upon certain knowledge. Therefore, it follows that the truly honest position of any member of humanity is Agnostic.

Yes, atheism is not based upon certain knowledge. But your second sentence is a non-sequitur.

The fact that atheism is not based on knowledge doesn't mean that people can have beliefs which are different from atheism. Also, how do you know that the "truly honest position" is Agnosticism even though there are so many people who say that they are either theists, atheists, or agnostics?

It is intellectual cowardice, on the part of Atheists, not to accept the rational conclusions that reason leads to - namely, that no definitive statement can be about the existence/or not of God, due to lack of knowledge.

By that reasoning, you should have also said that theism is intellectual cowardice along with atheism due to lack of knowledge.

Although no definitive statement can be made about the existence of God (which I think many atheists will agree with if not all), it still seems very improper to think that not accepting this is "intellectual cowardice." That sounds like too much of a stretch in my opinion and it is totally subjective. I don't see anything cowardly about it. But if you think so, then please explain it to us as clearly as you can.

[Oldandeasilyconfused]

From this it follows that a claim that God does not exist can only be made on the grounds of probability,

No,it does not. I can and do assert I don't believe due to lack of evidence. Not being a so- called neo Platonist, I reject the notion that truth may be discovered by reason alone. I demand evidence.

Probability is pretty good if one happens to be preparing actuarial tables for an insurance company or playing poker. However, probability does not provide absolutes.


If you mean "is atheism a way of avoiding reality,or say expressing anger at god?" I'd say probably for some,but I have no idea of how many people that might be.

My opinion is that to be unable to accept a belief which is virtually universal and say so,is the antithesis of cowardice, and is in fact an act of integrity and intellectual honesty. These qualities are often absent in apologists we get here.

Further,it is my life observation that many of the more dogmatic believers are deeply fearful and cowardly human beings unable to face life on life's terms.

[Cinjin]

Quite the introductory thread ... in the future, you may want to consider this: hello



You have the strangest way of saying that you don't believe in god there diffidus.

[Faith No More]

Being that I am agnostic on the existence of God I would say that it is the most rational point of view but I think taking a definitive stance either way is the opposite of intellectual cowardice. It shows conviction in your beliefs and reasoning abillity.

BTW: You do realize that the reason you got so many dickish replies is the way you posed your question implies that it is intellecutal cowardice. Next time you should try to pose your question in a way that doesn't answer it too.

[theVOID]

Intellectually, there is not much difference between an Atheist and a Theist.

Nonsense, there is a substantial epistemic difference between the positions.

As a species we have only existed for a miniscule amount of time compared to the age of the universe(~14 Billion years according to Scientists). Of this time we have only been studying Science in a rigorous sense for ~ 300 years. It is no exageration to say that, although we have learned a lot in that time, we have much to learn in the future. In fact, it is not just that we do not know everything, but we do not even know how much we don't know.

Agreed.

From this it follows that a claim that God does not exist can only be made on the grounds of probability, based upon current scientific knowledge. But probability is only based upon uncertainty and therefore, any claim that God does not exist must be, in the end, a belief (even if based upon the latest empirical and scientific evidence). From this perspective an Atheist and a Theist both share something in common - belief.

1. It depends on the god that is being claimed to exist, certain concepts of god are internally contradictory and necessarily false, others (most of them) are defined in such an incoherent way that it is meaningless to ask whether or not this incoherently defined concept exists or not - These gods can be dismissed. Before you are going to even consider giving such a concept a probability it must be defined sufficiently - Can you give us a definition of god?

2. Probability is not based on uncertainty, some of the answers simply cannot be stated with certainty, others can.

3. There is not just one classification of belief, some beliefs are epistemically rational, some are instrumentally rational, some are both and some are neither - I would content that given the evidence it is much more likely that a god does not exist, not only is the prior probability of an omniscient being existing extraordinarily low, but there is no evidence (that I know of) that indicates a deity exists in any way shape or form, as such atheism (not a belief but a lack thereof) is more likely than theism and thus would be the rational conclusion.

Atheism cannot, therefore, be ascerted based upon certain knowledge. Therefore, it follows that the truly honest position of any member of humanity is Agnostic. It is intellectual cowardice, on the part of Atheists, not to accept the rational conclusions that reason leads to - namely, that no definitive statement can be about the existence/or not of God, due to lack of knowledge.

And there are so many problems in this last paragraph that it's hard to know where to start...

1. Who cares about knowledge? It's a poorly defined and unnecessary condition, we should be concerned with what proposition is most likely true given the evidence, that is not a question of knowledge but epistemic rationality.

2. You are misusing both the terms Agnostic and Atheist - Atheist comes from the Latin "A Theos" which means "Without (A) Belief In God (Theos)" - Anyone who does not believe in God, whether they claim knowledge (Gnosticism) or not (Agnosticism) is an Atheist. For example, I am without belief in God(s) but I do not claim to know there are no Gods - I am an "Agnostic Atheist", I claim that Naturalism is more likely given the evidence and it is therefore what we are rational in believing. You can also believe in God and be an Agnostic, that is, you believe in God but do not claim to know of the existence of God, you believe it for some reason or another that does not qualify as knowledge - Most deists for sure are agnostic, some theists are too.

3. No definitive statement can be made about the existence of some gods, that does not mean the two beliefs are equal, naturalism is much better supported by evidence and is much more likely true. I agree that gnosticism is irrational regarding the existence of god but not agnosticism, well not as far as agnostic atheism is concerned - Agnostic theism is irrational.

[Maria]

Like most people I’ve met on atheist forums, I’m an agnostic atheist. I’m a strong atheist in respect to the mainstream Christian concept of an onmimax god; but agnostic (or weak atheist) when it comes to other gods. The word ‘god’ – as opposed to ‘God’ – is too loosely defined anyway.
As for gaps in our knowledge, if we run back time those gaps become greater and greater. Go back 2000 years and they are chasms. Our ancestors believed every phenomenon they observed was a direct act of a god. Rainbows, thunder and lightning, tides, seasons, sunrise/set, etc. We could spend the next 1000 posts offering further examples and still only scratch the surface. Those huge gaps have been greatly diminished by natural solutions. Can you think of a single example of a phenomenon once considered natural that is now known to be supernatural? Science has a 100% record in this respect, but theists still insist on filling the remaining gaps with God; and fence-sitters like the OP insist we at least allow the possibility; otherwise we are ‘cowardly’. I do allow the possibility, but it isn’t 50/50, not even remotely close.

[Tiberius]

Atheism cannot, therefore, be ascerted based upon certain knowledge. Therefore, it follows that the truly honest position of any member of humanity is Agnostic. It is intellectual cowardice, on the part of Atheists, not to accept the rational conclusions that reason leads to - namely, that no definitive statement can be about the existence/or not of God, due to lack of knowledge.

Atheism doesn't give a definitive statement about the existence of God...at least, the atheism that most atheists here subscribe to doesn't. Atheism to most people is the disbelief (or non-belief) in the existence of God(s). It is not the statement "God does not exist.", it is a rejection of the beliefs of theism.

Further, Agnosticism is not a valid alternative to theism and atheism, since it deals with a completely different thing. Atheism / Theism deal with belief (i.e. Do you believe in God?), whilst Agnosticism / Gnosticism deals with knowledge (i.e. Can you prove God exists / does not exist?).

To say otherwise would be to violate the law of excluded middle in logic. Either someone believes in God, or they don't believe in God. There is no middle ground. However, you can make a far better statement about your beliefs by clarifying them with agnosticism / gnosticism. For instance, I consider myself an Agnostic Atheist; I do not believe in the existence of God (atheism), but I also do not claim to be able to prove my belief (agnosticism).

So yes, a lack of knowledge is the more rational way to go, but a lack of knowledge simply paves the way for beliefs, of which you cannot say much about the validity of (due to the lack of knowledge). There is no shame is having beliefs about certain things, as long as you can admit to your lack of knowledge concerning them (if a lack of knowledge is the rational way to go).