Atheism's Burden of Proof

[KCfromNC]

I'm suggesting that, in the philosophy of mathematics, the opinions of mathematicians deserve respect.

Sure, as much as any other amateurs. Heck, even philosophers don't know the right answer to the question. Is there even a way to tell a good guess from a bad one on this subject?

 

[KCfromNC]

If you think the laws of logic are made up, gronkle squarb. Slurgz.

They're as made up as the "laws" of English. Posting gibberish doesn't show that there's some Platonic ideal version of the OED floating around in the ether. Neither does it show that various contradictory mathematical systems aren't man-made.

 

[Eight Foot Manchild]

I fail to see the problem with acknowledging that the laws of logic are man made.

If there were no minds in the universe to come up with the logical axiom 'A equals' A', things would still be themselves. Masses would also continue to draw things toward their center without gravitational theories. Water would continue to freeze at a particular temperature without fahrenheit or celsius. Etc...

Understand the prescriptive/descriptive distinction, and there is no problem.

 

[Silmarien]

I fail to see the problem with acknowledging that the laws of logic are man made.

If there were no minds in the universe to come up with the logical axiom 'A equals' A', things would still be themselves. Masses would also continue to draw things toward their center without gravitational theories. Water would continue to freeze at a particular temperature without fahrenheit or celsius. Etc...

Understand the prescriptive/descriptive distinction, and there is no problem.

That's really not an argument against Platonism, because the Platonist will say that no, things would not still be themselves in the absence of a realm of forms (or eternal mind, eternal truths, or what not) that gives them their substance. Masses would not continue to draw things towards their center without the eternal truth of gravity. Obviously our ways of measuring and conceiving of things are conventional, but Platonists aren't really denying that. If you accept the idea that our categories do match up to something that exists independently, the question remains: what does this say about reality?

 

[Radagast]

They're as made up as the "laws" of English.

If you think the laws of logic is purely "made up," you don't get to tell anyone else that they're "wrong," or "illogical," because their rules are as good as yours. In which case, everything is equally gibberish, and communication is pointless.

... as is this thread. The combination of ignorance and rudeness is terribly unattractive.

A very Blessed Christmas to all the Christians on the thread, however.

 

[ToddNotTodd]

... as is this thread. The combination of ignorance and rudeness is terribly unattractive.

Pot. Kettle. Black...

 

[Ana the Ist]

I would expect scientific evidence as to how the universe came into being or philisophical ideas that show that it is possible for 'nothing' to cause'something' to exists.

If you are talking about disproving Christianity.
Then to demonstrate that Jesus did not rise from the dead.

Conversly the inability to do either of these should make the atheist re examine his/her position on atheism as without a rational bases for it, it is merely wishfull thinking or at best a faith based belief.

I think people get mixed up in the difference between a belief (I don't believe in a god) and a statement of fact (god doesn't exist).

Both of those statements can be called atheism...but only one needs to be proven. Statements of belief don't require any burden of proof. For example...

If one were to say, "I believe in the christian god"...you're talking about a belief. The only statement of a fact in that claim is regarding one's own beliefs...and that doesn't require any proof.

However, if one were to say, "I know god exists" or simply "god exists"....that's a statement about knowledge, and subject to burdens of proof. "How do you know?"...would be the question which leads to a burden of proof.

As for myself...I would simply state that I don't believe a god exists, which requires no proof whatsoever. I don't make any claims on absolute knowledge of the topic.

That's the simple way of understanding it without getting into the fact that it's almost always impossible to prove a negative, which is why we don't ask for proof of negative claims.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

... as is this thread. The combination of ignorance and rudeness is terribly unattractive.

A very Blessed Christmas to all the Christians on the thread, however.

How are you going to love your enemies if you cannot even pretend to love those who are merely in rational disagreement on a particular proposition?

 

[Tolworth John]

I think people get mixed up in the difference between a belief (I don't believe in a god) and a statement of fact (god doesn't exist).

Both of those statements can be called atheism...but only one needs to be proven. Statements of belief don't require any burden of proof. For example...

If one were to say, "I believe in the christian god"...you're talking about a belief. The only statement of a fact in that claim is regarding one's own beliefs...and that doesn't require any proof.

However, if one were to say, "I know god exists" or simply "god exists"....that's a statement about knowledge, and subject to burdens of proof. "How do you know?"...would be the question which leads to a burden of proof.

As for myself...I would simply state that I don't believe a god exists, which requires no proof whatsoever. I don't make any claims on absolute knowledge of the topic.

That's the simple way of understanding it without getting into the fact that it's almost always impossible to prove a negative, which is why we don't ask for proof of negative claims.

What you say is very rational as far as it goes. What you leave out is how and why you live the way you do.
I 've worked with atheists/agnostics who's moral quality of live has pt me to shame. Yey none could explain rationally why they lied that way.

Now you may be intellectually satisfied with the explanation that 'nothing caused everything to exist' and 'morals are made by society'. I find that they are not intellectually challenging and don't answer any questions.

 

[Liza B.]

Its odd I know. I find Atheism is more of an impulse and I don't actually understand it very well, but its something I've trusted up to this point. I'm not sure if it will mean anything to you but according to the Myers-briggs personality test I would (probably) come out as an INFJ. What that means is I think based largely on intuition and "feeling" my way through a problem. Thinking about it is still just a means of sorting out all the inner experiences and I'm now aware there is something "missing" and doesn't add up.

So my "feeling" of Atheism is very emotional, irrational and mystical if you will and I can relate to lots of ideas about faith because I've already have that kind of experience. I have been a Communist which is basically religion for atheists (i.e. fighting over scripture and who is the true prophet, rooting out heretics, enforcing correct thinking and behaviour, wanting people to surrender themselves completely to the cult for meaning and purpose in life, trying to build heaven on earth only to become obsessed with sin and condemn everyone to oblivion in hell because a section of them become convinced only they are "pure" enough to build utopia- you know, the "usual". ). I haven't taken it seriously for a while though and would like to walk away from it entirely if I could. Its too horrific to be fulfilling in the end. I think I said earlier that I get on better with religious people than atheists and this is probably why. Most Atheists are thinking with their head rather than their heart but that doesn't actually tell you anything about religious experience, "why" people believe and completely miss the point.



Yeah. This would look like an idea peculiar to materialism in which God is "physical" or "material" in some way and can therefore be studied by Science.



Thanks, that's good advice. you've been very helpful.

I am also an INFJ. We tend to get too much into things, including being an INFJ, it's like a darn cult--not really, but almost.

Seriously walk away from Communism. Just do it.

 

[Shadow]

Seriously walk away from Communism. Just do it.

On paper, I certainly should. But in practice, there aren't many positive alternatives to it. We don't have ideas of the future as some kind of paradise where people get along, no-one goes hungry and people can learn things without the power it gives them making them more dangerous. Everyone is so pessimistic now and they believe the absolute worst in people and the Future is one great big pit of despair. They don't have ideals anymore and think anyone who does is either stupid or weak.

At some level, people hate their own existence and they hate everyone else's and fill the culture with apocalyptic nightmares and visions of hell because thinking about death gives them an illusion they can escape from the prison we've made for ourselves. we live in fear of the thought police but we already have thought control without them. people conform and live their lives in quiet desperation believing they will "make it" and be successful as if that actually is the key to a fulfilling life. The media are perfectly happy with it that way because it keeps people in a perpetual state of dissatisfaction to buy more stuff they don't need and spend more money they don't have. They have to make you believe happiness is something you can buy over the counter rather than a potential within you that you can develop for free.

The prevalence of Anxiety and Depression disorders is a pretty big red flag that what we regard as "sanity" is actually unhealthy for us. In the media this state of mind where people abuse themselves and others is called "freedom".

I know that's probably not the best answer or the right one, but its still a "faith" and a source of "hope" that gets me through the day. With Communism at least you think you are worth the effort, keep fighting for your future and shut out the noise of all the people in your life saying "you can't do it! you suck! stop believing in yourself! Reality is out to get you!". The willingness to resist in the insanity and inhumanity of a society built on nothing but greed is at least healthy but if I found something better, I'd look in to it and see if it sticks.

 

[Ana the Ist]

What you say is very rational as far as it goes. What you leave out is how and why you live the way you do.
I 've worked with atheists/agnostics who's moral quality of live has pt me to shame. Yey none could explain rationally why they lied that way.

Lied? What lie?

Now you may be intellectually satisfied with the explanation that 'nothing caused everything to exist' and 'morals are made by society'. I find that they are not intellectually challenging and don't answer any questions.

Well satisfaction doesn't dictate the truth IMO. There's many truths that I find unsatisfying...but I think it's an easy mistake to agree with answers we find more comfortable.

I don't claim to know how the universe came to exist. I don't find that lack of knowledge troubling...I doubt anyone knows how the universe came to exist.

Diderot said that "men will drink greedily from a comforting lie, but only sip from a bitter truth"....or something similar.

 

[KCfromNC]

That's really not an argument against Platonism, because the Platonist will say that no, things would not still be themselves in the absence of a realm of forms (or eternal mind, eternal truths, or what not) that gives them their substance. Masses would not continue to draw things towards their center without the eternal truth of gravity. Obviously our ways of measuring and conceiving of things are conventional, but Platonists aren't really denying that. If you accept the idea that our categories do match up to something that exists independently, the question remains: what does this say about reality?

Pretty much nothing. Kinda like the rest of philosophy.

 

[KCfromNC]

If you think the laws of logic is purely "made up," you don't get to tell anyone else that they're "wrong," or "illogical," because their rules are as good as yours. In which case, everything is equally gibberish, and communication is pointless.

Since you're trying to communicate using English, does that imply you think there is a non-manmade version of it which is "correct" and "logical"? That seems to be the conclusion given your assertions above but it is weird since we know English is in fact made by people.

I think the problem here is you're confusing "useful" with "absolutely correct". So all systems of math and logic are made up. Assuming the person making them up did their job, they're all correct, meaning that their conclusions follow their made up systems and axioms. That doesn't mean that all are equally useful, though. And the fact that some are useful for communicating ideas about reality doesn't make them any less man made than the same fact about English.

 

[Silmarien]

Pretty much nothing. Kinda like the rest of philosophy.

Science too, in that case. Which is cool. I don't mind anti-realism.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Science too, in that case. Which is cool. I don't mind anti-realism.

Are they still gnawing away at that old bone of contention (i.e. regarding the nature and usefulness of philosophy)?

 

[Silmarien]

Are they still gnawing away at that old bone of contention (i.e. regarding the nature and usefulness of philosophy)?

Perpetually. Though incidentally, I was just reading this piece on Heidegger: A Philosopher in the Twilight | David Bentley Hart

@Red Economist, you should read this, actually. It's a nice introduction to Radical Orthodoxy and the sorts of things it says about modern society and intellectual history in general. Relevant to your interests, I think.

 

[DogmaHunter]

In my understanding, Atheism is the positive denial of the existence of god/a deity and I believe this is in fact the understanding of the majority of Christians as well. This is not a widely accepted view amongst atheists on online communities even if it has a long history with philosophers such as Ludwig Feuerbach, Karl Marx and Frederich Nietzsche to its name. This has admittedly been the cause of a great deal of frustration and confusion and my beliefs are therefore not as fully developed as I would want them to be because there are few, if any, people who I can discuss this understanding of atheism with.

I am, if you wish, a militant atheist and want to know how best to deal with the challenge of proving that Atheism- the cliam that there is no god- is true. It would seem reasonable to ask religious believers, especially Christians given it is the worlds largest religion, what they imagine such a position would look like and what it would have to do to compete effectively in a online discussion.

To my knowledge, this view of Atheism relies on at least two assumptions: a) that it is possible to know god does not exist and b) that it is possible to demonstrate it. I would therefore like to ask:

1) What Christians would expect Atheists to offer as arguments or evidence that disproving the existence of God is possible, either philosophically or scientifically, rather than saying it is impossible (i.e. Strong Agnosticism).

2) What Christians would expect Atheists to offer as arguments or evidence that disproving the existence of God is a statement of fact about the objective world, rather than Atheism being subjective belief, (or faith/dogma/religion) of a single individual.

3) Are there any specific elements of Christian Belief and Theology that would have to be shown to be false to demonstrate that Christianity, is in its entirety, based on natural causes and was not authored by a deity but by man himself.

4) What elements of Christian Belief, such as historical accounts of the bible, the historical existence of Jesus, the legacy of scientific and philosophical christian thought or christian morals, would you say could be independently verified as true regardless as to whether God exists and would therefore continue to have value to an Atheist?

I'm hoping that the "wisdom of crowds" means that collectively Christians drawing on their own experiences and knowledge will be able to give me a picture of areas I will need to research offline to better understand and clarify my own beliefs. I hope the exchange that follows is mutually beneficial and I look forward to your responses. Long and detailed responses are very welcome.

I have no idea how you ever hope to prove that a certain entity does NOT exist.
Especially if the entity in question is an entity that is like literally defined as being unfalsifiable.............

 

[DogmaHunter]

If you haven't observed "dark matter" -- the unknown cause of galaxies rotating faster than the ordinary matter in them can account for, by a large factor -- then you'd be like the many astronomers and physicists that have tried to find direct evidence of it.

It's never been found, despite much effort.

You could postively assert it does not exist.

But that would not be a scientific attitude.

But the proposition of dark matter, unlike gods, is actually well-motivated.
It wasn't also declared to exist out of thin air based on visions and dreams and whatnot...

But rather, scientists have been pushed in that direction by actual data, experiment and observation.

Wheter the dark matter hypothesis will turn out accurate or not isn't even that important in that respect.

 

[KCfromNC]

Science too, in that case. Which is cool. I don't mind anti-realism.

I always enjoy people using computers and the internet to tell us how useless science is.