Argument from incredulity and arguments against God's existence

[InterestedAtheist]

I was hoping someone would do the legwork on this. Thank you. I should really keep a note of the link on hand to use whenever this happens. "This" being someone who has not been paying any attention to the last few decades of debate between mainstream science and YEC/ID promoters who goes ahead and trots out the same, tired old, long refuted nonsense, in the hope it will impress someone who lacks analytical skills or a relevant education.

Now, that said, I wouldn't find it difficult to sign the same declaration that @HARK! thinks does such damage to the case for evolution. Let's look at that declaration more closely.

We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged.
[Source: A Scientific Dissent from Darwinism]

• Of course I am skeptical of the claims. I trained as a scientist. I am skeptical of all claims. That's part of the methodology of science.
• I've never felt, since my undergraduate days, that random mutation and natural selection alone could account entirely for the complexity of life. Possible, but not convincingly demonstrated.
• Several developments eased my suspicions somewhat.
  • T.N.George, department head at my alma mater in the late 60's had, for twenty years, been toying with the notion of a rate gene that controlled the pace of evolution to account for the observed 'explosions" in the fossil record. A couple of years later Gould & Eldredge published a superior analysis they called punctuated equilibrium.
  • Hox genes helped explain some aspects of macro evolution.
  • Evo-Devo has added subtlety to the rough cudgel of natural selection
  • Niche creation through behavioural changes adds another layer
• But the skeptic in me says "I don't think we've got it all pinned down yet". And the scientist in me says, "I'm glad we don't . Just think what a world of wonders we have yet to discover, investigate and document".
• "Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged." Well, duh! Careful examination of evidence for any theory should always be encouraged. That's like saying "We should always test a hypothesis", but thinking the statement is radical and outside of mainstream science.
• Aside: Darwinian evolution, sensuo stricto, has long been abandoned. Darwin knew nothing of genetics and in some editions of On the Origin of Species allowed Lamarkism to intrude into his explanations.

So, I would find no difficulty in honestly signing the declaration as reflecting my views. I would not find it in conflict with my understanding that the diversity of life on this planet most likely arose through descent from a common ancestor via mutations mediated by natural selection and other mechanisms, yet to be clearly defined. That, in my opinion, renders the value of the declaration as an assault on evolution, as valuable as a pimple on the foreleg of a pregnant aardvark with poor eyesight.

The mendacity that characterises the Discovery Institute. Appalling frauds.

 

[muichimotsu]

Why redefine the definition of the word?

Atheist
A'THEIST, noun [Gr. of a priv. and God.]

One who disbelieves the existence of a God, or Supreme intelligent Being.

A'THEIST, adjective Atheistical; disbelieving or denying the being of a Supreme God.


Websters Dictionary 1828 - Webster's Dictionary 1828 - atheist

Because a definition is not static, it necessarily adjusts with usage in terms of primacy: gay these days is not used the same as it was 100 years ago

 

[muichimotsu]

Just because you didn't understand the answer; doesn't negate that the answer was given.

Tell me; what is your motive to persist in your attempts to re-frame my argument, by introducing a straw man argument?

You gave an answer, there isn't a "the" answer in terms of such questions, you're engaging in black/white thinking here

If you're not claiming what he claims you are, then qualify otherwise, because it's primarily your fault in being incapable of framing the argument properly rather than someone misunderstanding how you phrase it

 

[muichimotsu]

Argument from incredulity can be used by some atheists, that doesn't mean it is remotely the common line of thought in why atheists would not believe in God claims.

And incredulity is far more often used, in my experience and probably others', by theists in regards to not only scientific but philosophical topics in terms of an atheist presenting some morality that doesn't require God.

The theist cannot comprehend how an atheist can be moral even if they present how they are able to understand morality apart from God and thus they continue in the conclusion that an atheist cannot be moral apart from some cribbing of Christian morality in an implicit fashion or some other variation thereof.

If someone's argument boils down to that they can't understand the premises and conclusion following to each other or that the explanation given for something doesn't make sense to them and, therefore, that the argument or explanation is false, then that'd be an argument from incredulity, or ignorance.

They're related, but methinks oversimplifying what are a few arguments against God's existence or, more precisely, concerns that theists cannot resolve except with further contradictions beyond what is pointed out, is not evidence that atheists use an argument from incredulity, but that you're creating a strawman of atheist arguments to begin with, which is disingenuous to saying you care about argumentation.

Except I also wonder how seriously you take it when your notion of bringing evolution into question borders on an argument from authority ; just because some scientists that are accredited don't believe in evolution is not a reason to question evolution, because that's reducing the credibility of the scientific theory to consensus, which it would be unrealistic to expect unanimous agreement among scientists in general

 

[MrsFoundit]

There is no incredulity here, on my part. End of.

As far as I am aware no one said that this personally applied to every individual.

The Rationalwiki link does not depict every individual person of faith, nor every individual non-believer. The OP and my own post do not either. I used the word "if" for that very reason.

 

[muichimotsu]

I don't think anyone disagrees that atheists are not innately rational, we can disbelieve for bad reasons (and PureFlix movies seem to suggest that all atheists only have bad reasons to not believe in God rather than even remotely being generous to nonbelievers as C.S. Lewis supposedly was in fiction at times, like the Space Trilogy having a skeptic in a group of protagonists that generally believed in aliens), but that doesn't mean that all reasons are equally valid either, which some seem to suggest, trying to put atheists on an entirely even playing field by claiming we have "faith" or such things, practically a tu quoque fallacy

 

[Ophiolite]

As far as I am aware no one said that this personally applied to every individual.

The Rationalwiki link does not depict every individual person of faith, nor every individual non-believer. The OP and my own post do not either. I used the word "if" for that very reason.

You erected a strawman. I deconstructed it.

 

[MrsFoundit]

You erected a strawman. I deconstructed it.

I applied two points from the Rational wiki article to some atheist positions regarding faith.

"The argument from incredulity is a logical fallacy that occurs when someone decides that something did not happen, because they cannot personally understand how it could happen."

"The fallacy lies in the unstated premise. If a state of affairs is impossible to imagine, it doesn't follow that it is false; it may only mean that imagination is limited."

Your own critique as presented by you is not even applicable to my point.

I see no strawman, no deconstruction, no personalised application.

You may imagine otherwise as you wish, but I am not about to join you.

 

[Astrophile]

ATHEIST | definition in the Cambridge English Dictionary
Meaning of atheist in English
someone who believes that God does not exist

Yes, simple.

I do not believe that any god exists; I do not believe that God does not exist. There is a difference between the two statements.

 

[MrsFoundit]

I do not believe that any god exists; I do not believe that God does not exist. There is a difference between the two statements.

I understand there is a difference. I do not understand why the combination is best defined as atheist rather than agnostic.

 

[public hermit]

I do not believe that God does not exist

I was confused by this rendering. But, then I realized the problem with "I do not believe that God does not exist" is that it can refer to either the agnostic or the believer. Something more must be said to differentiate the two.

 

[InterestedAtheist]

I understand there is a difference. I do not understand why the combination is best defined as atheist rather than agnostic.

Perhaps I can help?

"People are invariably surprised to hear me say I am both an atheist and an agnostic, as if this somehow weakens my certainty. I usually reply with a question like, “Well, are you a Republican or an American?” The two words serve different concepts and are not mutually exclusive. Agnosticism addresses knowledge; atheism addresses belief. The agnostic says, “I don’t have a knowledge that God exists.” The atheist says, “I don’t have a belief that God exists.” You can say both things at the same time. Some agnostics are atheistic and some are theistic. Agnosticism is the refusal to take as a fact any statement for which there is insufficient evidence. It may be applied to any area of life, whether science, UFOs, politics or history, though it is most commonly invoked in a religious context as it was first used.
Barker, Dan. Godless: How an Evangelical Preacher Became One of America's Leading Atheists (pp. 96-97).

 

[public hermit]

Some agnostics are atheistic and some are theistic.

Your clarification is helpful. As a theist, I would say that I don't know that God exists, in the strict sense of what it means "to know." Personally, I find it annoying when theists insist that they know God exists, when by that they mean they have a sense of certainty. But, who cares about what might annoy me?

Here's an honest question. Doesn't the definition of "agnosticism" you offered render the term practically superfluous? In the strictest sense of the term, isn't it admitted by both sides that neither know whether or not God does or doesn't exist? Besides the kinds of discussions that happen, like the one on this thread, over the use of terms, isn't that particular term unnecessary? Or, is that your point?

 

[muichimotsu]

Your clarification is helpful. As a theist, I would say that I don't know that God exists, in the strict sense of what it means "to know." Personally, I find it annoying when theists insist that they know God exists, when by that they mean they have a sense of certainty. But, who cares about what might annoy me?

Here's an honest question. Doesn't the definition of "agnosticism" you offered render the term practically superfluous? In the strictest sense of the term, isn't it admitted by both sides that neither know whether or not God does or doesn't exist? Besides the kinds of discussions that happen, like the one on this thread, over the use of terms, isn't that particular term unnecessary? Or, is that your point?

The thing is gnostic atheists and theists exist in terms of explaining their certainty in that sense, so the contrast is necessary, even if with intellectually honest people, it's more often the case that they would be agnostic in the sense of not being certain on such things, even if some people would suggest otherwise

 

[public hermit]

The thing is gnostic atheists and theists exist in terms of explaining their certainty in that sense, so the contrast is necessary, even if with intellectually honest people, it's more often the case that they would be agnostic in the sense of not being certain on such things, even if some people would suggest otherwise

That makes sense. I guess so long as these discussions over terms continue to occur, the need to differentiate between gnostic/agnostic, as you have done, is helpful. And, to be clear, until I came to CF I operated under the old agnostic/atheist distinction that agnostic = "does not claim to know one way or the other" and atheist = "claims to know God does not exist." I take it, that old distinction is no longer sufficient because most (many?) atheists do not claim to know God does not exist, is that right?

 

[InterestedAtheist]

That makes sense. I guess so long as these discussions over terms continue to occur, the need to differentiate between gnostic/agnostic, as you have done, is helpful. And, to be clear, until I came to CF I operated under the old agnostic/atheist distinction that agnostic = "does not claim to know one way or the other" and atheist = "claims to know God does not exist." I take it, that old distinction is no longer sufficient because most (many?) atheists do not claim to know God does not exist, is that right?

I think muichimotso has explained it well, and agree with both of you. Excuse my briefness, it's bedtime in my part of the world.

 

[muichimotsu]

That makes sense. I guess so long as these discussions over terms continue to occur, the need to differentiate between gnostic/agnostic, as you have done, is helpful. And, to be clear, until I came to CF I operated under the old agnostic/atheist distinction that agnostic = "does not claim to know one way or the other" and atheist = "claims to know God does not exist." I take it, that old distinction is no longer sufficient because most (many?) atheists do not claim to know God does not exist, is that right?

It's not even gnostic/agnostic that's the only distinction made, though it's more common by memesis than, say, strong/weak, implicit/explicit and some others

Agnostic as a fence sitter appears to be a more modern usage in cultural memesis versus Aldous Huxley's usage that seemed to be more in the skepticism and epistemological angle versus what amounts to almost Pyrhhonism, a more radical skepticism, as I recall

I can't say I've met any atheists who are absolutely certain on such things and the only ones they might claim they are certain about are those that are more subject to critical investigation, which are rare, but not impossible for someone to assert a belief in. Claiming a rock is a god, I'm pretty sure most people would be gnostic atheists as to that thing not existing as a god, only as a rock

 

[Yttrium]

This is why I don't call myself "agnostic" any more. People get hung up on the semantics of it and "atheist". I prefer listing my faith as "N/A", but that wasn't an option on this site.

 

[Silmarien]

2. I do not incline to the view that "An all-loving and all-powerful God allows suffering". Why not? Well, if he is all-powerful he could certainly act in that way. I see nothing incredible about that. What of the supposed contradiction that an all-loving entity would allow suffering? I don't see that as an issue. Even humans say things like "You have to be cruel to be kind". So, again I find no difficulty in accepting, in principle, that an all-loving and all-powerful God could allow suffering. Why then do not incline to this view? Simple: I see no meaningful evidence that supports the existence of such an entity.

Are you being entirely consistent here? About an hour after making this post, you stated here that you did not accept that the Christian God was plausible.

Are you using a different definition of "plausible"? I don't see how you can get from "no meaningful evidence" all the way to "not plausible," since the latter statement seems to imply that there is some stronger reason to reject a possibility, above and beyond the problem of evidence. (For example, I would say that the existence of multi-cellular extraterrestrial life somewhere is quite plausible, even without meaningful evidence.)

 

[packermann]

It seems,despite quoting the wiki article on Argument from Incredulity that you do not understand it.

The reason atheists reject the foregoing statements is that there is no substantive evidence to support them. Belief in these statements requires an act of faith. (Nothing wrong with faith if that forms a cornerstone of your worldview.) Disbelief does not require an instance of incredulity, merely a demand that undemonstrated assertions are best avoided.

I'll leave it to others to correct the errors and strawmen in the rest of your post.

Although I have no problem with evolution, rightly understood, there are a an increasing number of scientists who as questioning it. So the same thing could be said about evolution.

Also, this is begging the question, another fallacious argument. You are assuming that there is no substantive argument. You assume that atheism is true in order to say that is no evidence for Christianity, something which I am sure that more Christians on this forum would disagree.