Not a Blog has a short list of arguments against God that atheists should avoid [
Bad Atheist Responses to Christianity]. I've listed them below but you'll have to visit the blog for an explanation. Personally, I'm not convinced that all of them are worthless.
- There are a lot of gods Christians don’t believe in.
- If there is a god, He’s obviously not an intelligent designer.
- The Bible contains numerous inconsistencies.
- Quoting Isaiah 55:8, “‘For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways,’ declares the LORD.” [NIV] is a pretty lousy cop-out.
- You can’t prove God exists.
[Hat Tip: Friendly Atheist]
Not a Blog has a short list of arguments against God that atheists should avoid [Bad Atheist Responses to Christianity]. I've listed them below but you'll have to visit the blog for an explanation. Personally, I'm not convinced that all of them are worthless.
22 comments :
Wow. With the list of arguments that you posted I was expecting the reason for them being unconvincing is that "True Christians(TM) of the liberal, rational, Anglican sort don't really believe silly things like that anyway." I wasn't expecting the reason to be "because Christian beliefs are even more bizarre than that!"
There's nothing wrong with the arguments, it's just that theists tend to be immune to reason.
I don't believe any of these are bad arguments at all.
1. "There are a lot of gods Christians don’t believe in." I'm reminded of the Stephen Roberts quote ~ “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.” I think this is quite apropos.
2. "If there is a god, He’s obviously not an intelligent designer." Again, quite apropos. All available evidence points to descent with modification, not engineering. God yet again lies on Occam's cutting room floor.
3. "The Bible contains numerous inconsistencies." Inconsistencies? I think it is self-inconsistent from cover-to-cover! I didn't realize just how bad it was till I read Bart Ehrman's book. Nothing to do with the existence of deities, but certainly a strike against Christianity.
4. "Quoting Isaiah 55:8, “‘For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways,’ declares the LORD.” [NIV] is a pretty lousy cop-out." It is a cop-out, one that held us in the Dark Ages till inquiring minds broke free. Another strike against Christianity, but not existence of deities.
5. "You can’t prove God exists." Heck, I'll settle for a little hard empirical evidence! Anybody? (*chirp!* *chirp!*) Oh, I always hear what believers think to be the killer to this: "You can't prove there isn't a god!", as if 'proving X' and 'proving not X' are identical in terms of the burden of proof. Bull! Discarding the null hypothesis without good reason is irrational. Sorry, but I'm rational. At least I try to be.
Well, the author makes clear he's not saying they are invalid in themselves -- only that they are unlikely to make an impression on the likely targets. And in many cases, he's probably right (though not always).
I think the general (if unhelpfully vague) take-home lesson is to try to tailor one's arguments to the immediate audience, rather than just spout some aphorism -- however clever -- that you read once on Usenet. Yes, there are probably atheists who need that advice.
Yes, the author was more concerned with how the arguments are framed rather than about the quality of the arguments themselves. I do not really agree with much of what was said, though. For instance, I have never run into a believer that thought that Zeus, etc. were fallen angels. That's a new one to me.
I think it's interesting in articles where they mention the Flying Spaghetti Monster, and they always refer to is as a "parody religion." I think they should call it "an acknowledged parody."
I don't see anything wrong with any of those except for "1. There are a lot of gods Christians don’t believe in."
They do believe in the other gods except that they think the other gods are really demons or tricks of the devil, or maybe even witches disguised as noodles.
"There's nothing wrong with the arguments, it's just that theists tend to be immune to reason."
Depends on how you define reason.
"1. "There are a lot of gods Christians don’t believe in." I'm reminded of the Stephen Roberts quote ~ “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.” I think this is quite apropos.
This, of course, is assuming that since the other gods are false,THEN the Judeo-Christian God must be false. It's the same mistake the Assyrians did when they tried to conquer Jerusalem.
"2. "If there is a god, He’s obviously not an intelligent designer." Again, quite apropos. All available evidence points to descent with modification, not engineering.
I can't believe that someone says such things in the age of biomimicry, bio-engeneering, and affiliates. You are only 100 years behind science.
"4. "Quoting Isaiah 55:8, “‘For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways,’ declares the LORD.” [NIV] is a pretty lousy cop-out." It is a cop-out, one that held us in the Dark Ages till inquiring minds broke free. Another strike against Christianity, but not existence of deities.
Inquiring Christian minds,since, as it was said many times, most of the founding fathers of many branches of modern science were Christians. Some, by today's standards, would be considered "Fundamentalists".
""You can’t prove God exists." Heck, I'll settle for a little hard empirical evidence! Anybody? (*chirp!* *chirp!*)
You are one evidence that God exists.
*chuckle*
No matter how weak some of the atheist arguments may arguably be, we can rely on our resident fundy troll to show up with rebuttals that are about 100 times worse.
Sorry Larry, I just can connect with this trench warfare business of protagonists stock piling and testing their cognitive weapons from predetermined affiliations. Although with rhetoric like ‘Atheism is going out of business’ thick in the air, a certain amount of polarization is understandable, count me out! When I look at the world I try to avoid a ‘me vs. the IDiots’ or ‘me vs. Larry the atheist’ paradigm – I see it as ‘me versus the great unknowns’. I’m looking for solutions to riddles and endeavor to get help where I can (like your blog). There are arguments of varying degrees of plausibility from both sides of the trenches and although perhaps through mental infirmity I’ve come down in favor of theism, I’m not going let myself get uptight about atheists, YECS or IDiots. Very appropriate I feel are the words of H.G. Wells desolated time traveler who in spite of extreme disconsolation in the face of being trapped out of time resolved to keep a clear head:
With the plain reasonable daylight, I could look my circumstances fairly in the face. I saw the wild folly of my frenzy overnight, and I could reason with myself. Suppose the worst? I said. Suppose the time machine altogether lost? It behoves me to be calm and patient, to learn the way of the (world)….. That would be my only hope, a poor hope perhaps, but better than despair. And after all it was a beautiful and curious world.
BTW on the subject of the god’s of the pagan past: another line of approach is that they are less demons (or ‘grays’ nowadays!), but aspects of man’s striving for one divine substance, however garbled. Since there is very long history of humans trying to connect with the Divine or otherworldly (if such exists) we have something here that must be engaged with in all seriousness - true it may turn out to be some human cognitive foible with a history lost in the mists of human development. Or alternatively it may be perceptive evidence of God. But whatever, the historical lineage of the ‘God instinct’ (one to which I have obviously succumbed) places it in different league to an arbitrary commercial construction like Santa!
This, of course, is assuming that since the other gods are false,THEN the Judeo-Christian God must be false.
No, this assumes the evidence provided for the Christian god is of the same nature and quality as the evidence for the other gods, which Christians reject. This is a valid assumption.
This, of course, is assuming that since the other gods are false,THEN the Judeo-Christian God must be false. Mats, mats, mats. The Abrahamic god is false for the very same reasons that all the others are false. It's that simple. And it's no mistake.
I can't believe that someone says such things in the age of biomimicry, bio-engeneering, and affiliates. You are only 100 years behind science. Design is several hundred years out of date, which is why it isn't even considered in science today. Biomimicry, for example, is wholly evolutionary in origin. The closer a species coloration, etc. is to a species which has some form of protection, like bad taste (sounds like a fundie, doesn't it?), the greater its surival chances. Over successive generations the vulnerable species becomes closer in appearance to the bad tasting one. Simple, and no design needed!
Inquiring Christian minds,since, as it was said many times, most of the founding fathers of many branches of modern science were Christians. How many of those originators of science were really Christian? We will never know. Profess atheism in those days and the religious zealots had a nasty habit of killing the professor. Rational inquiry certainly did not arise from Christianity, but in spite of it. Galileo got off easy for contradicting scripture. Many of his colleagues were burned alive. Nice people, the fundies.
You are one evidence that God exists. Since we already have excellent explanations (far, far better than the empty 'goddidit'), this is still chirping.
Arguing against religion and arguing against the existence of god are two very different things. In this case we are talking about the validity of religion (specifically christianity).
There is very only one agrument that you need to disprove religion. All you have to do is ask the person why christianity (or whatever) is the only true religion and all others are wrong.
Tegumai Bopsulai, FCD said...
This, of course, is assuming that since the other gods are false,THEN the Judeo-Christian God must be false.
No, this assumes the evidence provided for the Christian god is of the same nature and quality as the evidence for the other gods, which Christians reject. This is a valid assumption.
But the evidence the Christians present for God is not the same as the "evidence" presented by other so called gods.
Shamelessly Atheist said...
This, of course, is assuming that since the other gods are false,THEN the Judeo-Christian God must be false.
Mats, mats, mats. The Abrahamic god is false for the very same reasons that all the others are false. It's that simple. And it's no mistake.
But this is yoru assumption. The evidence for YHWH is not the same as for the other so called gods. The only way for you to know that YHWH is just as "False" as the other "gods" is if you knew for certain there there is no God anywhere in the universe, or outside of it. Do you?
"I can't believe that someone says such things in the age of biomimicry, bio-engeneering, and affiliates. You are only 100 years behind science."
Design is several hundred years out of date, which is why it isn't even considered in science today.
You mean, it isn't considered in evolution. Biomimicry, bio-engeneering and reverse engeneering rely on design assumptions. They do not rely on the assumption that the biological systems have no machine-like structure.
Biomimicry, for example, is wholly evolutionary in origin.
Nonsense. The ability to imitate the design present in nature for the good of mankind relies nothing on the assumption that bio-systems are the result of a series of biological mistakes.
The closer a species coloration, etc. is to a species which has some form of protection, like bad taste (sounds like a fundie, doesn't it?), the greater its surival chances. Over successive generations the vulnerable species becomes closer in appearance to the bad tasting one. Simple, and no design needed!
Magic!!
Inquiring Christian minds,since, as it was said many times, most of the founding fathers of many branches of modern science were Christians."
How many of those originators of science were really Christian?
"Only" those who claimed they were.
We will never know. Profess atheism in those days and the religious zealots had a nasty habit of killing the professor.
LOL
Rational inquiry certainly did not arise from Christianity, but in spite of it. Galileo got off easy for contradicting scripture.
Do your homework. Galileo was a Christian.
"You are one evidence that God exists."
Since we already have excellent explanations (far, far better than the empty 'goddidit'), this is still chirping.
Oh,you do? By all means,lay it all out. I would like to know which natural force is able to create humans.
Ryan said...
Arguing against religion and arguing against the existence of god are two very different things. In this case we are talking about the validity of religion (specifically christianity).
Actually, the arguement is always against Christianity.
There is very only one agrument that you need to disprove religion. All you have to do is ask the person why christianity (or whatever) is the only true religion and all others are wrong.
This begs the question, since there are religions that are not (nominally) exclusivistic. There are religions which, suposedly, accept all other religions. Your question assumes something that is not true.
Timothy V Reeves says,
Since there is very long history of humans trying to connect with the Divine or otherworldly (if such exists) we have something here that must be engaged with in all seriousness - true it may turn out to be some human cognitive foible with a history lost in the mists of human development. Or alternatively it may be perceptive evidence of God. But whatever, the historical lineage of the ‘God instinct’ (one to which I have obviously succumbed) places it in different league to an arbitrary commercial construction like Santa!
Thank-you for your comments. When I'm discussing these issues with you, I'll try and stay out of the trenches! :-)
I'm interested in the logic of your claim. If I understand it correctly, you are saying that because humans have always been looking for supernatural explanations then this is some, albeit weak, evidence that those supernatural beings exist.
It sounds similar to the "Moral Law" argument promoted by Francis Collins. Is that how you see it?
Let's turn the argument around and see how it flies, shall we? Ever since humans have started recording their history, there have been examples of people who try to separate themselves from the supernatural. In China and India there are millions who have done so since some of the most popular "religions" do not incorporate supernatural beings into their beliefs. (I'm thinking mostly of some forms of Buddhism but it also applies to some versions of Daosim and Confucianism.)
Since we have documentary evidence of a quest for atheism, and since more and more people seems to be turning away from supernatural beings—expecially a personal God—do you take this as evidence that humans have an intrinsic longing to reject the supernatural in favor of the rational? Is it evidence that God does not exist?
Add another... the problem of evil.
If you're prepared misuse rationality to hold up a flaky case for god you're not going to be put off by 'the problem of evil'
See http://ronmurp.blogspot.com/2007/06/problem-of-evil.html
"But this is yoru assumption. The evidence for YHWH is not the same as for the other so called gods. The only way for you to know that YHWH is just as "False" as the other "gods" is if you knew for certain there there is no God anywhere in the universe, or outside of it. Do you?" First, you have made no case for why I should accept that the evidence for your god is any different from that of any of the gods you are atheistic about. Nor do I see any such reason. Second, I do not need to know for certain that there are no gods. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, discarding the null hypothesis (i.e., the nonexistence of any deities) is irrational. In no other part of your life (hopefully...) would you do such a thing. Why do it when the 'R' word comes up? It has no immunity from rational inquiry (unless you hold to the NOMA doctrine, which I definitely do not).
"The ability to imitate the design present in nature for the good of mankind relies nothing on the assumption that bio-systems are the result of a series of biological mistakes." Along with natural selection, this is true. Unfortunately for your position, it works. It works incredibly well. Biology simply can not be understood outside of an evolutionary framework.
"Over successive generations the vulnerable species becomes closer in appearance to the bad tasting one. Simple, and no design needed!
Magic!!" Magic?!? Now, that's rich! Natural selection is hardly magic, and evolutionary algorithms have shown how powerful simple selection rules are in affecting apparent design. Magic, now that's what an imaginary sky dude supposedly did. Oh, please, Mr. Pot! A HUGE body of research belies your weak and pitiful objections.
"We will never know. Profess atheism in those days and the religious zealots had a nasty habit of killing the professor.
LOL" That wasn't meant to be funny. I hold religion in general to be directly responsible for most of the world's current and past problems and it was an obstructive force in our growth as a species. We were cheated out of our birthright by unsubstantiated, ridiculous Bronze Age superstitions and, along with the potential for serious future harm, is the source of my condemnation of it.
"Do your homework. Galileo was a Christian." Yes, Galileo was probably a Christian. So were those that persecuted him (and murdered others) and were attempting to maintain the status quo of worthless dogma. What's your point? Everyone professed being Christian in those days (and it is statistically impossible that there were no atheists among them), but if those early practitioners of rational inquiry stuck to being happy with the dogmatic answers religion (and yes, your bible), we would not have had science at all. And don't forget, these were people that didn't have the advantage of knowing modern biology, cosmology, etc. What would be the beliefs of those that bravely went against religious authority with the knowledge that we are fortunate enough to possess today?
"Oh,you do? By all means,lay it all out. I would like to know which natural force is able to create humans." Start with Origin of Species and go from there. Ah, but what's the point, since you seem to lack the honesty to do the research. Your only interest is in disingenuous attacks in the mistaken belief that even if true have no bearing on the truth or your own position. This is a false dichotomy.
I still hear a lot of chirping.
larry moran said...
I'm interested in the logic of your claim. If I understand it correctly, you are saying that because humans have always been looking for supernatural explanations then this is some, albeit weak, evidence that those supernatural beings exist.
This is the same reasoning used in that fMRI study of those meditating nuns. Such psychological studies are restricted to the subjects and says absolutely nothing about anything external to them. As Richard Sloan surmised, parts of the brain will light up eating cheese. Any conclusions about the existence of god lie outside the constraints placed on them by the data. Which makes me wonder what the filler is in The Spiritual Brain. Styrofoam, perhaps?
Oh, this is too good to pass up:
I would like to know which natural force is able to create humans.
Copulation and gestation seem to work very well, Mats.
Larry said:
Since we have documentary evidence of a quest for atheism, and since more and more people seems to be turning away from supernatural beings—especially a personal God—do you take this as evidence that humans have an intrinsic longing to reject the supernatural in favor of the rational? Is it evidence that God does not exist?
Is it evidence that God does not exist? Yes, I agree, it most certainly is, just as conversely the anthropological status of the Supreme Being is evidence relevant to the claim that God does exists. Of course, this is not to imply that there is a contradiction here; it is a mere paradox because as you well know evidence is never proof of anything; evidences are but ‘dots’ that our worldview attempts to connect. Needless to say there may be more than one way to connect to the dots. For example, as I have already admitted there may be ways of ‘explaining’ the ‘god instinct’ without recourse to theism proper, but explain it we must, for given its anthropological status, like the beliefs and experiences centering around the ‘UFO’ phenomenon or ghosts, explanation is demanded. There is, it seems no equal call to explain the ‘Santa instinct’. Amongst the many possible constructions one can imagine for one’s ‘source ontology’, the Supreme Being concept gets an anthropological weighting that Santa doesn’t! If the Supreme Being notion is as an arbitrary construction as Santa then the fact that that Santa doesn’t have the same anthropological status takes theism out of the realm of the trivial.
Theravada Buddhism, in its striving for nirvana was and is agnostic about God, but interestingly as it bedded down into a folk religion and became Mahayana Buddhism beliefs about Supreme Beings reemerged.
Look Larry, I’m not trying to coerce you with some killer argument in favor of God that I can then use to bully you into belief; I don’t think there are any. It’s just that some of us superstitious folk out here are asking for a little respect!
The Santa hypothesis isn't challenged because neither theists or atheists believe it, and it isn't politicised. It is a recognised fantasy, as most fictions are. There's no need for serious debate. Theism is being debated so broadly because of its political implications - mostly fueled by Islamic and Christian fundamentalism. If the secularism of politics and education were guaranteed most atheists would happily leave theists to do their own thing, and maybe the four horsemen wouldn't have written their books.
Eamon Knight said...
Oh, this is too good to pass up:
I would like to know which natural force is able to create humans.
Copulation and gestation seem to work very well, Mats.
Copulation between who and who? Rocks?
Post a Comment