Table of contents:
Atheists believe something can come from nothing.
The simple answer to this goes something like, "No we don't; we have no idea what started or preceded the Big Bang, and we're not claiming it popped out of nowhere. We're saying 'I don't know'."
The complex answer is exactly that: more complex. The entire concept of causality (philosophical shorthand for "cause and effect") rests inside time. There is an interval of time between, say, my dropping an apple and that apple hitting the floor.
We don't really know what causes time, what time really is, nor why immense gravity seems to have an effect on it. What we do know, however, is that time started with the Big Bang, so trying to discuss what caused it is really just a nonsense question at the moment
Really though, I shouldn't have to defend that fact that we don't know. The theist making this claim is really just saying, "The God I worship, which I haven't yet proven or demonstrated exists, can simplistically explain this problem, therefore It must exist." Or, in logical form:
- The Flying Spaghetti Monster exists.
- Part of the definition of the Flying Spaghetti Monster is that He can do X.
- X has been done.
- Therefore, the Flying Spaghetti Monster exists.
Even if you prove point 1, you'll still have to add a point in between 2 and 3 which reads: "X can only be done by the Flying Spaghetti Monster, exclusively."
Sorry theists, the burden of proof's on you. Logic's is a bitch, isn't it?
Atheists claim to know for certain there is no God.
No, actually, we don't. We believe there is no God. There's a difference.
Let's use Santa Claus as an example. Parents across the U.S. raise their kids with this pleasant and harmless idea that there is a chubby old man, dressed in red, who flies all around the world delivering presents to children, all in one day, who are good. He knows which kids are good, of course, because he's been watching them &mdash each and every one &mdash for the entire year, grading them with a remarkably simple "naughty or nice" system.
Kids always buy this story completely. After all, they're hearing it from their parents, who seem to know absolutely everything, and they keep hearing about it in commercials and storybooks.
As they grow up, however, they start accumulating extra evidence. Mom and Dad seem really tired on Christmas morning, Santa's handwriting looks like Mom's, they saw Mom putting presents under the tree, etc., and start to think, "You know? I don't think Santa Claus exists. I think it's much more likely that Mom and Dad made up Santa Claus just to make me be good."
Atheists know God doesn't exist in the same way that we all know Santa Claus doesn't exist; they've heard the arguments for and against the God hypothesis, and it seems infinitely more likely that God was made up to explain stuff that Bronze Age intellects didn't understand (like Zeus was for lightning) and to make people be good.
Actually, I wouldn't say that we believe there is no god. I would say that what we claim is that evidence for god(s) is lacking, or that it doesn't bear up under close examination, or if you like, that the existence of god is functionally irrelevant.
ReplyDeleteI resist the word "belief" in contexts like this one because it implies that atheism is a belief system, like a religion. As you know, theists and some agnostics are fond of claiming that atheists supposedly accept on faith that science is reliable, that the senses are reliable, and that supernatural claims are not. I don't assert any such thing, and I'm in no hurry to play along with those who want to frame the debate in that way.
For myself, I don't think it's accurate to say that I "believe there is no god." I assert that the evidence for one is wanting, but am happy to change my position when that changes.
I also posit that the observable universe functions just exactly as if there is no god, and that therefore, any god who might exist is irrelevant. Once again, I'll happily change that position if evidence to the contrary presents itself.
I would say that we believe there is no god, but I do so from an epistemological perspective and not a faith-oriented one.
ReplyDeleteWe cannot truly know anything. All we can ever hope to do is gather supporting evidence to ensure out "leap of faith," so to speak, from unbelief to belief, is as short as possible.
For the Atheist perspective, that leap is very small. All the evidence points to Bronze Age mythology invented to explain unknown phenomena, perpetuated through guilt and indoctrination, and sustained by the brain's capability to be fooled by emotion and flawed logic. The leap to the "God isn't real" belief is as big as the leap to the "Unicorns, fairies, and leprechauns aren't real" belief.
Yes, the especially simple-minded theists will only read the first half of my first sentence, scream "Pascal's Wager!!", puff out their chests and pat themselves on the back for "fighting the good fight," but what are we Atheists if we shy away from truth just to lubricate potential social friction?
>>"... supposedly accept on faith that science is reliable, that the senses are reliable..."
In our day-to-day lives, we accept two things on faith (theists included). And I say "faith" because it really is exactly that, in the truest sense of the word:
1. Our senses, with care, can be trusted.
2. Our logic, with care, can be trusted.
We all operate this way, knowing that our logic can be flawed and our senses can be deceived, but choosing to trust them anyway. But, from an epistemological standpoint, we really can't justify it.
With those two assumptions, we type emails, make dinner, construct skyscrapers, fly satellites over the north pole of Neptune, eradicate polio, understand polio (which is much more impressive, imho), and so on.
I'm basically summarizing Occam's razor, I realize. Our beliefs are closest to the truths when the only things we take on faith are our senses and our logic, making the "leap of faith" to belief as small as possible.
-----
But I will freely confess that people will hate you less than they will hate me.