Debunking Scientism - Tricks New Atheists Play (Part 6)

[Nihilist Virus]

While I agree with you, it’s been my experience that they will press you to justify your assertion that digging in the dirt really can tell you anything about reality. That leads us into a rabbit hole of what constitutes knowledge, truth, and evidence and if they play skeptic’s advocate they’re then able to shift the burden of proof to us. Unfortunately that means pretty much every conversation leads straight into a battle of epistemologies instead of what the original discussion topic is about.

And that tells you all you need to know. They're totally unable to start with basic, universal ideas and prove their case from there.

 

[zippy2006]

While I agree with you, it’s been my experience that they will press you to justify your assertion that digging in the dirt really can tell you anything about reality. That leads us into a rabbit hole of what constitutes knowledge, truth, and evidence and if they play skeptic’s advocate they’re then able to shift the burden of proof to us. Unfortunately that means pretty much every conversation leads straight into a battle of epistemologies instead of what the original discussion topic is about.

I don't think epistemological emphasis is essential to theistic justification. The problem is that in our day and age poor epistemologies stemming from logical positivism, like popular Scientism, are fairly common. Apologetics forums take that to a whole new level. So in that sense the epistemological emphasis of many theists is a historical accident. Nothing is built on negation and tu quoque. It's just that in a polemical and epistemologically overconfident environment you have to tear down before you build up, and the tearing down takes place in communities like this. It's also true that demolition is easier than construction, and is thus more common at the popular level in general.

I like lots of things Silmarien said in this thread, but one concrete takeaway is this: stop worrying about your self-image and how you stack up against others, and start worrying about the truth of the matter. That advice applies to all, but so many atheists these days have contorted themselves into strange positions that they believe will allow them to resist theism. They've locked themselves in some sort of defensive tower, but what for? It doesn't make sense, it is unnecessary, and it is unhealthy on a number of different levels.

Problematic Christian apologists are inevitably part of the cause and share some of the same maladies, but that is only part of the story. She picked out a particularly potent case, but I am happy to extrapolate it onto a continuum. At some point you have to go within yourself and decide what you believe, and at that point you must try to leave behind everything which does not pertain to that goal, including the fears and expectations which derive from what others will think of your potential decision. I would hope that everyone has at least some desire to justify their beliefs, and that this justification takes place in relation to themselves before it takes place in relation to others.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Hey, you're the one tilting at windmills here. Nobody else actually cares whether or not you want to justify your atheism--that's on you.

You got that backwards.

Theism is the position that requires justification.
An atheist is just somebody who considers the claims of theism not justified.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Nobody needs to justify any belief or lack thereof to anyone else. I don't know why you're obsessing over a need for justification here. It seems completely off topic, given that the topic of the thread is scientism.

The most intellectually sophisticated atheists certainly do work at justifying their position, but if you do not want to, you do not need to. It doesn't come across as worth listening to, but that's your prerogative.

If the thread is about "scientism", then it should be directed at "scientismists", not at atheists.
But this thread, in reality, is just part 6 of "uber genius"s series of atheist bashing.

It's not really about "scientism". It's about attacking atheists.

 

[Spikey]

Nobody is ever under any obligation to support any belief or lack thereof--you can believe in unicorns if you so desire, or you could refuse to believe that the moon landing occurred. Nobody is kicking down your door demanding that you offer rational justifications for anything at all.

But children are not being brainwashed into thinking that a non belief in unicorns can lead to eternal torture. What about our obligation to support rational relevant learning?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

But children are not being brainwashed into thinking that a non belief in unicorns can lead to eternal torture. What about our obligation to support rational relevant learning?

Some of us actually do support "rational, relevant learning," over and above our learning about our personal religious ideals. Hence, this is one reason I have a degree in education...............................'cuz I value understanding our world.

So, try not to assume that 'being' a Christian means throwing one's brain to the wind. Many of us actually do like to engage in high quality secular learning in addition to studying our Christian theology or other philosophical investigations....as well as to make sure that our children are receiving the best that public education has to offer.

 

[Silmarien]

You got that backwards.

Theism is the position that requires justification.
An atheist is just somebody who considers the claims of theism not justified.

How did I get it backwards? Nobody is ever under any obligation to justify their beliefs to anyone else--theist, atheist, unicorn believer, and conspiracy theorist alike. However, if we are actually interested in rational discourse and not just solipsistically ranting about our own position to anyone we can catch, then everyone has an obligation to contribute something real to the conversation. If you would like to believe that your position is the rational default, then you are welcome to do so in private. In public, however, even that is a claim that you are going to have to defend.

One problem here is that there is a common justification amongst many atheists: the alleged lack of sufficient empirical evidence for the existence of God really is a justification for disbelief. When theists challenge this justification, however, there is a tendency now to deny the need for rational justification instead of responding to the actual challenge. I don't think the confrontational nature of these discussions helps matters at all, but a lot of people on both sides are primarily looking for a fight, and I can't imagine the motivation behind that desire is all that healthy.

 

[Silmarien]

But children are not being brainwashed into thinking that a non belief in unicorns can lead to eternal torture. What about our obligation to support rational relevant learning?

Well, the first thing you would need to demonstrate is that there is any obligation to support rational relevant learning at all. One of my major interests is metaethics, and while I'm ultimately a moral realist, I don't think there's any sound basis for the concept of duties and obligations. Not under theism, and certainly not under any secular theory.

The second thing you would need to do is define what qualifies as rational, relevant learning. I would have every student study the last 2500 years of Western philosophy so that they have the intellectual tools necessary to approach and weigh in upon these questions, but few countries bother teaching it to children at all.

I would prefer to see religious groups of all types change the way they approach children, though--between the fear-based, coercive style in some circles and the utter lack of theological training in almost all settings, I do think the Church really is it's own worst enemy. On the other hand, indoctrination is a difficult subject and does go both ways: I grew up loathing Christianity because of evolution and the cultural climate, and as a result have trouble approaching it objectively even now. There are strands of naturalistic thinking in my worldview I'd like to get rid of and can't quite shake. There isn't really any such thing as a neutral upbringing, unfortunately.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

So, try not to assume that 'being' a Christian means throwing one's brain to the wind.

I don't think atheists start there, so no such assumption is being made. It's more of a conclusion that we reach. The reality is that you've accepted scores of absurd claims on little to no evidence (and often times in spite of evidence to the contrary) primarily because society around you (typically, but not always, including your parents) has insisted that you do so. If that's not checking your brain at the door, I'd really like to know what is.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I don't think atheists start there, so no such assumption is being made. It's more of a conclusion that we reach. The reality is that you've accepted scores of absurd claims on little to no evidence (and often times in spite of evidence to the contrary) primarily because society around you (typically, but not always, including your parents) has insisted that you do so. If that's not checking your brain at the door, I'd really like to know what is.

You don't actually get to make those claims in my case, especially not 'for me' as you're doing here. The truth of the matter is this: my formation of interest in Christianity came, for the most part, independently of other people's prior influences. I sure as heck didn't pick up the Bible and read it at age 17 due to being prompted to do so by my non-bible reading parents or by any other personages or programs. No, I wasn't prompted to do so. I made that decision on my own, out of the blue, existentially.

So, in my case, you don't get to 'reduce' me down to some kind of formula beforehand, especially not if you do so without knowing the ACTUAL biographical details of MY ACCOUNT as I WOULD GIVE THEM.

And the same will apply in my case as I try [yes, try] to assess your present state of mind as an atheist. I don't get to TELL YOU why you're an atheist. In fact, according to my epistemology and hermeneutics, I can't really know, or know fully..........................until you tell me.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

You don't actually get to make those claims in my case, especially not 'for me' as you're doing here. The truth of the matter is this: my formation of interest in Christianity came, for the most part, independently of other people's prior influences. I sure as heck didn't pick up the Bible and read it at age 17 due to being prompted to do so by my non-bible reading parents or by any other personages or programs. No, I wasn't prompted to do so.

I don't know much about you. That much is true. But your little mini-bio under your avatar says you're from the US, so there's no way you'll have me believe that you felt no influence from Christianity.

I made that decision on my own, out of the blue, existentially.

So your decision to investigate religion and settle on Christianity had nothing to do with the fact that you live in probably the most Christian country on earth?

You sound like a person who insists that advertisements have no effect and that your sudden craving for a Snickers bar was a decision that you made on your "own, out of the blue, existentially."

Companies spend a ton of money just to be allowed to talk to you for thirty seconds. Clearly that has an effect on at least some of the population. Clearly the effect is significant enough so that spending the money is profitable. But somehow you're exempt, right?

For you to "just so happen" to settle on the religion that is dominant in your country for reasons that are not based on popular opinion is going to be a hard sell. Even if I could know for absolute certain that you sincerely believe what you're telling me, that doesn't make it true. Religion has been weaponizing psychology for centuries. We both know that. Atheism is weaponizing reason, and it will win in the end provided that standards of education continue to rise.

So, in my case, you don't get to 'reduce' me down to some kind of formula beforehand, especially not if you do so without knowing the ACTUAL biographical details of MY ACCOUNT as I WOULD GIVE THEM.

The details of your account as you would give them... OK. Let's ask 100 people who bought a Snickers bar to provide their own account, as they would give it, as to why they bought the Snickers bar. How many would say that they did so because of advertising? How many would say that advertising played even a small role? Going just by their testimonies, it would be clear that the Snickers company is wasting money by advertising. Yet you and I both know the exact opposite is true.

So yeah... the Snickers company doesn't know much of anything about these 100 people, but that didn't stop their advertisements from working. That didn't stop them from being totally predictable to the Snickers company.

You're a Christian. In America. And if you grew up in Saudi Arabia you'd be a Muslim. I can say this with very high confidence, well over 90%.

And the same will apply in my case as I try [yes, try] to assess your present state of mind as an atheist. I don't get to TELL YOU why you're an atheist. In fact, according to my epistemology and hermeneutics, I can't really know, or know fully..........................until you tell me.

Wait... are you saying I haven't yet told you?

The evidence for the resurrection of Jesus Christ is severely lacking, and is of a lower grade in both quality and quantity in comparison with evidence for alien abduction testimonies. So basically, you've got your work cut out just to catch up with something that's already laughable.

 

[DogmaHunter]

How did I get it backwards?

You seemed to insinuate that atheism is a position that requires any kind of justification. It doesn't. Theism is the positive claim that needs to be justified. Atheism is what one falls back on, if that the justification for theism is lacking.

Nobody is ever under any obligation to justify their beliefs to anyone else

Unless that person wishes to convince others of his position, like in a debate.

Also: christians actually are required to justify their beliefs according to Peter 3:15, no?

In public, however, even that is a claim that you are going to have to defend.

Okay, I'll "defend" my atheism now: I haven't been presented with valid justification to accept theism as true.

There, done.

One problem here is that there is a common justification amongst many atheists: the alleged lack of sufficient empirical evidence for the existence of God really is a justification for disbelief.

Yes, indeed. Theists make a positive claim (god exist). The atheist asks for evidence to support that as an accurate statement. No such evidence is forthcoming. Result is that that atheist rejects said claim as being accurate.

When theists challenge this justification, however, there is a tendency now to deny the need for rational justification instead of responding to the actual challenge.

Because when theists challenge that justification, they are effectively shifting the burden of proof. THEY are the ones making the positive claim. Atheists are merely rejecting that claim on the grounds of having insufficient evidence to accept it.

I don't think the confrontational nature of these discussions helps matters at all,

Allowing people to shift the burden of proof, doesn't help either.

but a lot of people on both sides are primarily looking for a fight, and I can't imagine the motivation behind that desire is all that healthy.

I'm not looking for a fight. I'm just saying, don't shift the burden of proof.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I don't know much about you. That much is true. But your little mini-bio under your avatar says you're from the US, so there's no way you'll have me believe that you felt no influence from Christianity.

Ok. Well...................that's that, then. I must be a liar or a delusional person, according to you. So, what's more there for me to say since you're not going to take anything I say as being representative of the reality which I think I've lived, breathed, and thought. Apparently, you have the insight to interpret "me" better than I can myself.

Of course, I also notice that you so nicely 'framed' YOUR mini-bio info (that regarding you and your family), and I suppose that in your case, I'm supposed to take all you've shared as being fully and accurately representative of the reality you think you've lived, breathed and thought. It's funny how this doesn't work both ways, NV. You apparently know me AND you know you, but according to you, I don't know me AND I don't know you. Hmmm...

And as for your tirade against Ben Shapiro, that doesn't upset me. I'm neither Red nor Blue, but Transcendent-Purple, so I don't lean toward either Ben Shapiro OR Chuck Todd, so calculate that into the perception you have of me.

 

[Silmarien]

You seemed to insinuate that atheism is a position that requires any kind of justification. It doesn't. Theism is the positive claim that needs to be justified. Atheism is what one falls back on, if that the justification for theism is lacking.

This is completely false. There are traditions within the theistic world that reject the notion that God is knowable rationally altogether, such as versions of religious existentialism. Those who do not think that theism is rationally justifiable do not automatically become atheists--they could as easily be fideists, and this means there has to be some underlying reason behind why someone is an atheist or a fideistic theist. Neither of the two is a psychological default position.

You're simplifying things to an extreme, and I would imagine that very few people, theist and atheist alike, fit into the narrow categories you've devised.

Unless that person wishes to convince others of his position, like in a debate.

Also: christians actually are required to justify their beliefs according to Peter 3:15, no?

Agreed, but a debate has two sides. If the atheist wishes to debate as well, the atheist must justify his position also. If the atheist wishes to sit in judgment and contribute nothing, then the atheist is being a narcissist. As for Peter, that cuts both ways. The Christian should be talking to people who are genuinely interested, but there are other sentiments concerning when to share and when not to that show up in the Gospels as well.

I'm going to skip the rest of your reply, since I can't multi-quote efficiently from the phone and won't have access to a computer for another week or so. If you'd actually like to discuss something here, please don't break the post up into small pieces like this, since even if I could reply to it, it's not exactly conducive to conversation.

 

[DogmaHunter]

This is completely false. There are traditions within the theistic world that reject the notion that God is knowable rationally altogether, such as versions of religious existentialism.

And that somehow absolves them of their burden of proof??

Those who do not think that theism is rationally justifiable do not automatically become atheists--they could as easily be fideists, and this means there has to be some underlying reason behind why someone is an atheist or a fideistic theist. Neither of the two is a psychological default position.

The default position for claims of existance, is always disbelief until one is sufficiently convinced of the accuracy of the claim.

Or do you by default always assume that everything claimed is accurate?

It's either one or the other. You either think a claim is true or you don't.
You either answer "yes" to the question "do you believe x exists?" or you don't.
"yes" means that you accept the claim that X exists as true. Any other answer means that you don't accept that claim as a true-ism.

You're simplifying things to an extreme

I happen to think it's rather simple.
I'ld rather say that you are over complicating things.

, and I would imagine that very few people, theist and atheist alike, fit into the narrow categories you've devised.

I'ld say that they would have to be necessecity.
You either believe a claim is true or you don't.

Agreed, but a debate has two sides. If the atheist wishes to debate as well, the atheist must justify his position also.

You don't seem to be getting it.
The subject of debate here, is the postive theistic claim "a god exists".
The theist is the one that makes that claim. It is thus the theist that has to bring his case.
The atheist in this, is not making a claim. He's responding to a claim and the reasons given by the theist for why one should believe said claim.

A "defense" of the atheist will necessarily consist of addressing those reasons, given by the theist. He can explain why he considers those reasons insufficient to believe. The ball is necessarily in the court of the theist. The theist first needs to bring his rationale / case / reasons for belief. The atheist can then address those reasons.

But the atheist position, in and of itself, is not a claim.

If the atheist wishes to sit in judgment and contribute nothing, then the atheist is being a narcissist.

No. Then the atheist is just responding to a claim.
Consider alien abductees. It's upto them to bring their case for why it should be believed that they were abducted by aliens. We can then look at that case and address the proposed evidence, followed by a conclusion/position concerning their claim, based on a judgement of said evidence.

I'm going to skip the rest of your reply, since I can't multi-quote efficiently from the phone and won't have access to a computer for another week or so. If you'd actually like to discuss something here, please don't break the post up into small pieces like this, since even if I could reply to it, it's not exactly conducive to conversation.

I think it's very conducive for conversation as it allows me to address the various points directly.

But I know that I can exaggerate with it sometimes. Sorry

 

[Silmarien]

And that somehow absolves them of their burden of proof??




The default position for claims of existance, is always disbelief until one is sufficiently convinced of the accuracy of the claim.

Or do you by default always assume that everything claimed is accurate?

It's either one or the other. You either think a claim is true or you don't.
You either answer "yes" to the question "do you believe x exists?" or you don't.
"yes" means that you accept the claim that X exists as true. Any other answer means that you don't accept that claim as a true-ism.



I happen to think it's rather simple.
I'ld rather say that you are over complicating things.




I'ld say that they would have to be necessecity.
You either believe a claim is true or you don't.



You don't seem to be getting it.
The subject of debate here, is the postive theistic claim "a god exists".
The theist is the one that makes that claim. It is thus the theist that has to bring his case.
The atheist in this, is not making a claim. He's responding to a claim and the reasons given by the theist for why one should believe said claim.

A "defense" of the atheist will necessarily consist of addressing those reasons, given by the theist. He can explain why he considers those reasons insufficient to believe. The ball is necessarily in the court of the theist. The theist first needs to bring his rationale / case / reasons for belief. The atheist can then address those reasons.

But the atheist position, in and of itself, is not a claim.




No. Then the atheist is just responding to a claim.
Consider alien abductees. It's upto them to bring their case for why it should be believed that they were abducted by aliens. We can then look at that case and address the proposed evidence, followed by a conclusion/position concerning their claim, based on a judgement of said evidence.




I think it's very conducive for conversation as it allows me to address the various points directly.

But I know that I can exaggerate with it sometimes. Sorry

Theism isn't really a claim of existence, though, at least for anyone who is theologically literate. It is a claim about existence--the theist says that the ultimate nature of reality is a certain way. The atheist says that the theist has an inaccurate depiction of reality. One would hope that the atheist would offer alternative depictions or at least explain why the theistic model fails, but that happens less often than I would like. If you are not going to develop and defend a position, or do anything besides insist that you need not justify your lack of belief, then the conversation is simply not interesting or fruitful. The atheist needs to engage more if he wishes to be taken seriously, and a good starting place would be to become familiar enough with theistic philosophy to actually be able to discuss anything more than a caricature of religion. But that is not something that is suited for a discussion forum.

And no, the fideist does not have a burden to demonstrate rationally that God exists. The fideist ought to defend her position that belief is warranted, whether through Pascalian reasoning or a different approach, but she certainly doesn't have to cater to an empirical or traditionally rational means of justification. (I'm not a fideist, but I don't think they're obviously wrong by any stretch of the imagination.)

And yes, you are oversimplifying things. You're assuming that your own particular vantage point on the subject is the only way to address it, and that anyone who views the question differently simply doesn't "get" it. I'm not particularly interested in getting drawn into this type of meaningless language game, though, so I guess this goes back to my original point: if an atheist has something interesting to say, then say it, but if all they want is a soapbox from which to rant about the rationality of their position, I'm really not impressed.

 

[Uber Genius]

Tell me at least one.

God is all-powerful, God is all-loving, there is evil and suffering in the world.

Two of the three premises could be true but it is hard to see how all three could be true.

If he is all loving he wouldn't want people to suffer and if he is all-powerful he would be able to prevent suffering.

Secondly, It seems that the same argument can be run for the problem of Hell.

Replace "Evil and Suffering" with "a Hell" in the third statement above.

These would be the principle 2 arguments in favor of atheism. Other arguments would be counter-arguments to the various cosmological, teleological, moral, transcendent arguments for God's existence.

 

[Uber Genius]

Theism isn't really a claim of existence, though, at least for anyone who is theologically literate.

I must be theologically illiterate.

I thought that we have had such claims since Plato at least. And Augustine, Al Ghazali, Anselm, Aquinas, and countless other theologians have worked on either arguments for God's existence or presuming same.

Anyone who makes a knowledge claim needs justification.

Theist and Atheist alike need to justify claims. Even the strong agnostic is making a claim that it is impossible to know enough, but he/she must justify their assertion.

And oversimplification is a ridiculous claim as by the nature of this forum we are all over-simplifying. Now if one would read a 20-page paper on the rise of fall of verificationism and logical positivism and specifically how Ayers, and Flew came to reject it as incoherent, I could go there, but who would read it?

 

[Uber Genius]

Atheism doesn't need justification. It is merely the statement that one is unconvinced.

https://www.christianforums.com/threads/tricks-new-atheist-play-part-1.8003722/

Nice try. Equivocates on the definition of atheism.

Philosophically ignorant statement.

Both make truth claims.

Even the originator of this trick (Antony Flew), stopped using it in the 1970s. The only one not making knowledge claims is the weak agnostic.

For more details on this New Atheist Trick see:https://www.christianforums.com/threads/tricks-new-atheist-play-part-1.8003722/

 

[Silmarien]

God is all-powerful, God is all-loving, there is evil and suffering in the world.

Two of the three premises could be true but it is hard to see how all three could be true.

If he is all loving he wouldn't want people to suffer and if he is all-powerful he would be able to prevent suffering.

Secondly, It seems that the same argument can be run for the problem of Hell.

Replace "Evil and Suffering" with "a Hell" in the third statement above.

These would be the principle 2 arguments in favor of atheism. Other arguments would be counter-arguments to the various cosmological, teleological, moral, transcendent arguments for God's existence.

The Principle of Sufficient Reason and modal collapse is an issue for theism that I find particularly interesting. If all things that come into being have a reason for their existence, and the ultimate reason is God, then if God has the choice between our universe (A) and an alternative universe (B), why did God choose A instead of B? Either there is no reason, and the Principle of Sufficient Reason is false, or there is something about A that made it the optimal choice, and the possibility that our universe could exist collapses into the necessity that it would exist, leaving us effectively at Spinoza.

Ironically, this issue is the major reason I'm a theist instead of a non-dualist, but it's an interesting argument, especially compared to some of the more typical responses to cosmological arguments.

I must be theologically illiterate.

I thought that we have had such claims since Plato at least. And Augustine, Al Ghazali, Anselm, Aquinas, and countless other theologians have worked on either arguments for God's existence or presuming some.

None of them conceive of God as an object that exists in the same sense that physical objects or even concepts might. As soon as someone starts comparing God to aliens or fairies or whatever else, they've departed from the traditional understanding of what theism entails.

I'm not saying that the traditional understanding does not require justification, but that God is not simply one more object that we could theoretically account for, or perhaps do without. Familiarity with the classical definition leads to the non-existence of God being as strong a claim as the existence of God. There is no neutral position when dealing with the nature of reality.