I’m going to expand on a comment I made in the “Deism and Pantheism” discussion.
Many theists, often, say things like the following:
Agnostics are OK, but atheists are arrogant, because they say with absolute certainty that there is no god. How can they know such a thing? They have to believe it on faith - and they call us irrational because of our faith?!
I’ve already answered the “arrogant” part 8 months ago, in Atheism: arrogance?. As for the “faith” part…
The theists’ problem, here, is that they prefer, in their lives, an absolute certainty without any evidence for it (e.g. creationism), rather than a huge certainty with a lot of evidence for it (e.g. evolution). They have a need to be sure. And, therefore, assume that we atheists must work the same way. Surprise: we don’t.
I, like other atheists, am not “sure”, as in 100% certainty, that there is no god. I simply see no evidence of one, and know of nothing that can’t possibly have natural causes - yes, this includes the origin of the universe, or of life. So I draw the logical conclusion: the universe is natural. I don’t have proof, but I have a lot of evidence in that direction. And none in the opposite direction (that there is some god, or intelligent designer, or that the supernatural exists).
Theists, however, are the ones who are 100% sure about something they have absolutely zero evidence for, and, not only that, they know exactly what God is like, what he wants, what he likes and dislikes (which tends to be what they like and dislike, for some reason), and so on.
It’s amazing how theists call atheists “arrogant” for stating that there is no god (because there is no evidence for the existence of one), when they are sure that there is one, and that he’s their version - not the one of the other hundreds (thousands?) of faiths around the world. And they do so without any evidence for their version, much like the other believers are sure without any evidence for their own versions. A Christian will say that the Muslims are wrong - but how can he really know for sure? A Muslim will say the opposite, and, again, with 100% certainty. Neither will stop to think that, by his own logic, he’s being incredibly arrogant by dismissing the other guy’s faith. In fact, both of them dismiss thousands of gods: all, but their own.
And, yet, it’s us atheists, the only ones who have some evidence to support our claims, and who in no way claim (or need) “100% certainties”, that are arrogant. 
Related posts:
Subscribe to this blog
Briefly, I’ll say that I agree that charges of arrogance really tell us more about the person than about the system in question. It’s a similar charge many pop icons tend to make against theists because of their religious particularism. I’d highly recommend this bit of audio (1.3 MB)by William Lane Craig who stands in opposition to the “arrogance” charge in relation to Christian theism.
But a few points of clarification, I don’t think the debate on origins is adequately encompassed as “Creationism vs. Evolution”. That evolution occurs, or that things are generally observed to behave in some predictable natural order is not what’s necessarily in question. Rather, what’s in question is whether we can extend our limited observations to therefore include all else that we haven’t observed: that Ultimate reality itself must therefore be absent of teleology. It seems the evidence you appeal in support of atheism goes something like, “I see a lot of nature; therefore, all that I have yet to see must be nature too.” But how does the observance of natural processes count as evidence of anything concerning the existence of God? Or how does one’s appealing to his own’s lack of reasons or evidence in support of a proposition amount to an argument against it (See: Argument from Ignorance)
To stand in opposition to that claim, however, does not require the theist to be “100% sure”. It would be dishonest to say that no one on either side of this matter has never wavered in their confidence concerning what animates the sum of all existence. In any case, I do agree arguments from “arrogance” fail when coming from any direction.
[quote post="188"]A Christian will say that the Muslims are wrong - but how can he really know for sure? A Muslim will say the opposite, and, again, with 100% certainty. Neither will stop to think that, by their own logic, he’s being incredibly arrogant by dismissing the other guy’s faith. In fact, both of them dismiss thousands of gods: all, but their own.[/quote]
This reminds me of a quote by Stephen Roberts,
“I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.”
A note to Daniel: Although Pedro’s argument seems to suffer from the Argument-from-ignorance fallacy, it doesn’t. Why? Because since there is no evidence proving the existence of God it’s at least logical to tilt towards the view that God doesn’t exist. But then again, is everything natural? Nobody knows for sure and so a rational man should keep his mind open for all the alternate theories. That’s what an atheist does! Keep an open mind, instead of believing word-to-word from an age-old book. At this point Pedro just feels that universe might be natural. But I’d bet he’d surely take a different stand if and when substantial evidence crops up supporting any other theory (this includes existence of God).
Kiran, thanks for chiming in.
I don’t want to be mistaken as saying that it is not a respectable thing to do to hold atheism as an “opinion” or a “feeling” if one cannot provide arguments in favor of God’s non-existence. If one is so inclined to personally favor one position over the other, this may be all one can be expected to do in his short lifetime. But beyond “opinion” or “feeling”, the matter has still been only made inconclusive. The mere observance of natural processes still makes it just as possible (and “logical”) to be open to God’s existence as it is to be open to God’s non-existence. But it seems you may be just repeating Pedro’s fallacy by saying that the lack of evidence warrants a “tilt” in favor of atheism. More needs to be done, and if no one can know for sure whether “all is nature”, then restricting one’s mind to atheism doesn’t appear to me as “open” in any meaningful sense of the term…
But again, I do agree atheism remains a live option, and in this strict sense of possibility, is a valid position to hold and defend.
Atheism is the null hypothesis. There has not been significant enough evidence to reject it.
That’s not quite it. It’s more like: “Everything I see is nature; I have never seen anything that isn’t. Until I have even the slightest bit of evidence to suggest otherwise, I’ll assume that the universe is 100% natural.”
Or, to put it in another way: I can’t prove a god doesn’t exist (some gods, however, are right out, because of self-contradictory claims, such as the omnipotence paradox - just like I don’t need to search the universe for square circles to know that one can’t exist). However, I can’t prove werewolves don’t exist, either. Should I believe that their existence is as likely as their non-existence? Should I remain a werewolf-agnostic? That’s what you’re implying I should do. Yet, it’s quite likely that you don’t do so yourself (at least, most theists don’t). Why the double standard?
In every other field in the world, the one who claims something exists has to present some evidence, or nobody will accept his claim - no matter how strongly he “feels” it to be true. Why should religion be different?
I am a Christian and I don’t claim 100% certainty of anything. I don’t live by certainties, I live by reasonable probabilities. It is more probable that God does exist (or more to the point, that reality is personal), than it is that reality is not personal.
-micah
http://emergentchristian.blogspot.com/
From your blog, it seems that you’re saying God is reality, which seems to me what Einstein believed? Anyhow, do you think that nature/reality is sentient then? I’m quite fuzzy on what it is you believe.
Pedro, thanks for your response. I see no problem with taking that kind of a position as a matter of assumption from which to begin, though I’m suggesting that neither of the preceding clauses in that your stated position amount to the sort of ‘evidence’ that is apparently being required of the theist to produce in favor of his case. If the position of atheism is to rise to rise to some level beyond mere assumption, then something like an argument against the coherence of omnipotence would need to be provided, such as one you might have hinted at in your comment.
Does it succeed? Some think so, though I’m not one of them. I’m inclined to think that the person asking the question “Can God make a round square” can’t even conceive of what it is he’s asking for in the first place. It’s a non-cognitive sort of remark… nothing more than a combination of contradictory words which fail to describe anything. In a sense, the person posing the challenge hasn’t said or asked anything at all. How then, can it be conceived to be an effective argument against God’s Omnipotence if it fails to be a coherent question of God? Questions of being able to actualize a state of affairs that essentially negate a necessary state of affairs are also incoherent sorts of requests (such as God actualizing a state of affairs where a rock is brought into existence that not even God can lift it). Does my rejoinder succeed? I certainly think so… hands down. But in any case, the point is that the matter is not nearly as decisive such that simply contriving assumptions out of something that hasn’t even observed to be the case (that all is nature) should suffice without further argument.
To more effectively write your position, you might make a more modest claim, perhaps something like, “I lack any awareness of grounds for believing that something other than ‘what’s natural’ actually exists.” This isn’t a perfect articulation, but notice that kind of claim says nothing yet of what actually is the case, and so it allows you to have a reasonable starting point from which to defend atheism. From there, you might defend atheism from a continued lack of awareness as you continue to encounter different arguments and claims, and it is far better than making the fallacious claim that by using our ignorance as our basis, we can make a valid assumption about the nature of reality.
But now, what about the werewolf? I, like you, admit I’m not presently capable of proving that they do not exist. Should I therefore think that their existence at this stage is as likely as their non-existence? Yes. But should it remain that way? Not necessarily. We might appeal to something like admitted accounts of fabrication from the idea’s originators. Perhaps we might undertake some historical investigation, but in any case, we might do more than succumb to our ignorance as support for the claim that werewolves do not exist…
But then why do we not work to remedy that question? I think there’s something to be said about the pragmatic nature of questioning God’s existence. A passage in Romans 1 speaks of a sort of innate knowledge, without exactly making clear what this knowledge-content is. In any case, it’s the sort that’s said to leave an atheist without excuse for not attending to it. I suspect this knowledge includes something like an awareness of intrinsic value –not merely constructed norms confined to human imaginings. These sorts of questions immediately give rise to further questions on where the source of Value ultimately hangs, and they do not produce in me any curiosity as to whether a werewolf exists. No, such questions will produce in me a desire to know whether there’s something like Meaning and Purpose to my existence. Can I take comfort in knowing that my sense of unjust suffering by other’s wrongdoing in this world may one day be validated or made sense of in some larger way, or are such categories beyond my ability to call “real”, and perhaps I should resign to life as meaningless?
So while no, I cannot really prove werewolves don’t exist, those questions do not have the same sense of urgency behind them, and I see no profitable reason at this stage to consider it more important than the pressing existential questions that confront me in the here and now. I suspect this is in large part why theists generally don’t see this as any sort of “double standard”.
Last thing I might add is that the question of God’s existence is no matter of small consequence. A person doubting God’s existence is not merely conjecturing on a single entity or a single proposition, but a whole network of propositions which roughly outline the nature of the universe. In that question, we are implying a great many assumptions about what kind of universe we really do live in, and it is for this reason that it is not just when someone claims that something exists that a person has a burden of proof. The person claiming that something does not exist (in this case) also shoulders a considerable burden of proof as well.
Whoa, long one.
Let’s see…
Again, atheism isn’t about being 100% sure. I’d even say it’s not about an “assumption”, but a lack of opposite assumption. I have no reason to believe in a god. I see no indication as to the existence of one. Not even the slightest suggestion. Therefore, I have no belief in one. That’s atheism for me.
Incidentally, some people will disagree, but, to me, agnosticism is, when confronted with the same data, raising your arms and crying “but who am I to know?”.
There was a link in my previous comment, which itself linked to a Wikipedia article with a large discussion of the omnipotence paradox. Basically, the concept of omnipotence is logically self-contradictory. Some race much more powerful and intelligent than humans is possible, but an “all-powerful” god isn’t.
If you undertake such an investigation on the origins of current religions, you’ll find that they’re all as man-made (for instance, they were local, spoke of a small world, committed many errors concerning nature, the “chosen people” were always the people who created it, God always acts exactly like a human, and so on) as werewolves, or the Flying Spaghetti Monster…
Your error here is the belief that the urgency of a question has any relevance on whether it is true or not. It does not — and believing it does is little more than wishful thinking.
However, theism in general — considering that there’s no evidence for the existence of a god, and that everything that theists throughout history used as “proof that God exists” turned out to be a natural, explainable phenomenon — is, itself, wishful thinking. “I have no reason to believe it, but I really wish it was true, so…” It’s either that, or the usual argument from ignorance: “I don’t know how this could be, so God must have done it.”
Oh, and…
Actually, no. One hypothesis comes from observation, the other from books written by primitive desert people, and our own desires and fears - which, in an objective reality, don’t alter it.
You imply that to disbelieve in God takes some effort, that it forces one to find new explanations. But don’t you see? It’s the theists that need to add new entities, not the atheists! Even if things CAN happen / COULD HAVE happened naturally, they say that they didn’t - that some being made them happen supernaturally. But nothing in the world even suggests it, so there’s no reason to believe it - other than the fact that the Catholic Church, which once had the support of the greatest empire in history, was very successful in converting millions around the world.
[quote comment="5967"]From your blog, it seems that you’re saying God is reality, which seems to me what Einstein believed? Anyhow, do you think that nature/reality is sentient then? I’m quite fuzzy on what it is you believe.[/quote]
I think that Einstein equated God with Reality, but rejected the idea of a personal God. I would say that God = Reality, period.
The discussion then becomes, “What is the nature of reality?”
An atheist says the nature of reality is impersonal/nonrational.
A christian theist (like the apostle Paul) says reality is personal.
**cheesy metaphor alert**
There is an ocean, with bubbles floating on the surface. Those bubbles are part of the ocean, formed of the water. But all they see is the surface. They perceive the ocean as being like the surface that they see, but what they don’t understand is that the ocean is much deeper, and that they themselves are just part of the ocean.
**cheesy metaphor alert**
The fact is that the universe is composed of matter, which is composed of energy, which is ultimately just information. Man, nature, the universe, the “multiverse”, are all composed of simply information.
I believe that the nature of information is personal.
Now…what does “personal” mean?
-micah
http://emergentchristian.blogspot.com/
http://www.reddingbrothers.com/
Pedro,
I wish we could do better to remain on topic, as difficult as that may be, but I’ll try to address just a few of some other elements brought into the discussion even as I deal with what started it in the first place. But before I do that, just a point of clarification… You did provide us with some detail on how you would characterize your atheism, and if I’m not mistaken, it seems to run parallel to construals popularized by Antony Flew, Dan Barker, and others. But atheism reconstructed to amount to a mere “lack of belief” strikes me as very problematic. I won’t go into much further detail just yet, but suffice it to say that I was merely using your language when you called your own position an assumption earlier:
[emphasis mine]
But now, what about the main topic in the discussion? I should mention I’ve given another look at your more clarified position, and I no longer consider it necessary to construe it as a a fallacy of reason, per se. It appears to be a well formed induction. Here’s where my hang-up lied in your original post:
Because of linguistic ambiguities, your case for the nonexistence of God appeared to rely on the mere absence of evidence, and not on the continued observance of physical patterns. If the former, then my charge would still stand, but if your concluding assumption is just that the “universe is natural”, then sure, continued observance of natural occurences would be grounds for such an induction. I suppose I would only say at this point that such an inference can only mean so much: theists also tend to believe that the observable universe is natural as well — in other words, how is this not just another way of proving that nature is uniform? So if your induction is going to be one of metaphysical import, more footwork would have to be made to support not just the uniformity of the physical universe, but atheism in general. I know this seems like an unreasonably tall order, but such is the nature of the question.
Fortunately, you did allude to a seperate argument for additional support, namely the argument from the incoherence of Omnipotence, to which I’ve given a brief reply. From your comments, it appears you might have missed it in my response, so I’ll just rehash it on the relevant blog, and move on to consider the question of werewolves. You later ask whether theists should also consider the existence of werewolves to be just as logically possible in the event of our ignorance of any indication to the contrary, to which I’ve said yes! But my point has been that to argue against that on the basis of absent indicators would be a fallacious move; One needs to introduce additional ideas into the debate before the scale can be tipped in favor of either direction. And again, if your question to theists is “Why don’t you then agonize over that idea as much as the question of God,” my initial response would be that a lot more seems to hang on the question of whether there exists a source of Meaning, Value, and Purpose than whether a werewolf is running around in the woods. You misconstrue this response as a suggestion that the existence of werewolves is thereby determined to be automatically false, but this is not at all what I said –only that investigation into that issue seems “unprofitable”. So while there is no double-standard of logical possibility being employed by the theist, there is nonetheless a weighing of priority at play. Put simply, dismissing the question as not important enough to my time and engergy to contemplate is not the same as saying that its truthfulness has been settled either way. On the other hand, you’re among countless others who have considered the question of God important enough to establish an entire blog on the subject, if only to try to refute it –and this to me seems reason enough to consider the possibility of God’s existence more urgently than werewolves or pink unicorns.
Several times you’ve made claims about the non-existence of not just God, but anything that might occasion itself as evidence for God:
have no reason to believe in a god. I see no indication as to the existence of one. Not even the slightest suggestion.
Now, I’ve met atheists who were willing to say that in moments of honest reflection, there is a sense that there must be some thing larger than can be perceived by today’s recognized empirical senses. Would this be the work of an as-of-yet unidentified cognitive facutly? I can’t say that with certainty, but my own view is that people really do possess strong moral intuitions which present themselves as powerful indicators of a universe colored by moral categories. If these moral categories are indeed real, many philosophers agree this would provide for us strong incentive to consider God (or a being like God) as their source. Whether such intuitions are reliable indicators of a moral universe is one thing, but my point is it takes determined, willful, and elaborate argumentation (and much spilled ink) to construct models designed to explain away these intutions as nothing more than the product of sociobiological influences. Do these arguments succeed? That’s are a matter of deliberation (though I think they do not), but their existence does indicate something important: It is simply not the case that there are absolutely no signs hinting at a possible Transcendence –indeed furious attempts continue to be made to overcome them. This example would be just one member of the “network of propositions” I mentioned earlier which must be overcome or denied when doubting God’s existence. And notice such questions about the moral or amoral character of existence is not a question unique to “primitive desert people”. I do not require at this stage that anyone must include such beliefs into that network.
One last thing, I agree that a great many things can be derived about the universe from either the existence or non-existence of God.
I’ll have to say, “last thing” is a bit redundant, and can be ignored. =)
The relevant issue here is who has the burden of proof (theists) and whether they’ve met it (hardly).
I agree with you that there is no way to be 100% certain that there is a god. but I disagree with you in many different ways.
For one, you say there is no proof in the existence of God, but how can you expect proof. If God is spiritual and not material than there is no way of proving/disproving that he/she exists.
Second, religion gives good moral and spiritual stability. We can all think of atrocities that occurred when atheist governments took power. Think of Nazi Germany or Mao’s cultural revolution or even communism in Russia.
Overall, I believe religion serves a far greater role than just believing in a divine deity; religion helps people make better more thoughtful decisions and ultimately helps the world become a better place.
Kile: obviously, I disagree: If atheists don’t believe in God, then why do they talk about him so much?.
As to the communism thing… I’ve answered that one many times, but I think it’s time to write a post about it, and just direct readers there. In short: Stalin or Mao’s communism, while denying a supernatural god, weren’t really about reason and open-mindedness; they were cults of personality, and had a lot in common with religion: rituals, pictures of the Great Leader in every home, following leaders on faith, questioning was forbidden, an “inquisition” to find and kill traitors / heretics…
But there will be a full post about that, soon. I’m tired of seeing Stalin or Mao’s atrocities blamed on “atheism”.