Futile Confrontations Between Theists and Atheists

[Sandra Craft]

I wonder if there's some compromise -- atheists concede that absence of proof isn't proof of absence, and theists accept that evidence is something that must be run thru a lab (so to speak)?

I wouldn't have any problem with that. I don't think revelation/faith and objective evidence/knowledge are in the same sphere.  Technically, to believe is not to claim to know.  You believe based on subjective experience; you know based on objective evidence.

There is really no room for concessions or compromises or finding middle ground. This is not about negotiating a truce between warring parties but of holding philosophical positions on the basis of personal conviction.

I look at it more as politely giving the other side the benefit of the doubt, seeing things from a more generous perspective.

Atheists don't have to concede absence of proof is not proof of absence because that is a truism. It really doesn't move them any closer to the theist position.

It's not supposed to, and I've known some atheists who'd disagree violently with "absence of proof (or evidence) . . . "

[Sandra Craft]

Hmmm. Why shouldn't atheists attempt to make theists see reason? Atheists have been made to shut up, asked to shut up and now this is another plea to keep our ideas to ourselves.

I don't see that that's so at all.  Both sides can talk all we want, but I think it'd be better if we admitted when the other side has a point.  And I really don't care to make theists see reason any more than I want theists making me accept faith.  

Besides, I can just imagine the reaction of theist friends and relatives to the idea that I think they aren't reasonable for having faith, and I can't say I'd disagree with them.  Having faith and believing in things unseen and unprovable may well be perfectly reasonable in the context of what they want or need from their life, just as it isn't in the context of what I need from life.

[Siz]

Cats gives a tolerant and rational perspective. I agree.

If there is no attempt at compulsion or coercion from either side then the motivation for passionate argument (as opposed to debate) comes down to tolerance. I personally don't care enough about other people to bother myself with what they believe. Go ahead and chat away to your invisible friend if it makes you happy. Oh, I like to read a good debate and occasionally even THINK about it, but arguing reason against belief (and vice versa) is drinking from a sieve.

It seems that no matter how futile the argument may be we'll still have a go... just in case the other person isn't really convinced of their own beliefs. How terribly insulting.

[Tank]

Hmmm. Why shouldn't atheists attempt to make theists see reason? Atheists have been made to shut up, asked to shut up and now this is another plea to keep our ideas to ourselves. I see no reason to. In fact if you are going to 'practice what you preach' you should leave HAF (I'm not suggesting you do) as you should be keeping your ideas to yourself shouldn't you?

It's rather arrogant of you to think that theists can't see reason. I'll let you ponder that for awhile. No one is asking anyone to keep ideas to themselves. My post dealt with either side attempting to force the other side to conform.  Discussing and sharing ideas and thoughts is not attempting to force either atheism or theism on anyone. I'm not sure how you concluded that from my post. If sharing and discussing becomes impossible because of the language difference (as it apparently is in our case), then the conversation can become more superficial in order to keep peace.

Not based on the repeated evidence that I have seen hundreds (possibly thousands) of times on the Internet over the last few years. Sorry, but IMO a theist that sees reason is called an atheist. I apologise if that sounds a little blunt.

I do agree with the not forcing bit though. However the nature of Christianity and Islam generally means that a portion of the followers will never stop proselytising and attempting to actively convert or revert (Muslims believe you are born a Muslim and thus if you come back to the faith you 'revert' back to it). I think your ideas are fine but their practicality is questionable.

If you saw somebody drinking poison would you try to stop them or would you just let them die?

[En_Route]

Genericguy argues that if God were proven to exist, science could accommodate this and would modify its understanding so as to propose " "According to the laws of nature, god is exempt from the laws of nature.". This is the same as saying "According to the laws of nature, the laws of nature do not apply to God." But if the laws of nature do not apply to God, then how can a reference to him form part of those same laws?

[Tank]

Genericguy argues that if God were proven to exist, science could accommodate this and would modify its understanding so as to propose " "According to the laws of nature, god is exempt from the laws of nature.". This is the same as saying "According to the laws of nature, the laws of nature do not apply to God." But if the laws of nature do not apply to God, then how can a reference to him form part of those same laws?

God would simply become an add-on to the other laws. Effectively an element of existence not constrained by the mundane laws that the rest of us have to contend with. Disregarding people who break the law consider a police car. It can happily exceed the speed limit that the rest of us can't. God would not need to be constrained by the laws he created.

[En_Route]

I'd like to expand on the "absence of proof" issue. The point I was trying (not very lucidly) to make was that it is a truism that the inability to disprove the existence of God is not decisive proof that he does not exist. Atheists should concede this point because it is true.  However, the absence of any objective evidence for the existence of god would alone justify rejecting the concept. In addition, I take the view along with many others that the Christian god is philosophically impossible.

[Tank]

I'd like to expand on the "absence of proof" issue. The point I was trying (not very lucidly) to make was that it is a truism that the inability to disprove the existence of God is not decisive proof that he does not exist. Atheists should concede this point because it is true.  However, the absence of any objective evidence for the existence of god would alone justify rejecting the concept. In addition, I take the view along with many others that the Christian god is philosophically impossible.

75% of atheist do concede this point; they are known as weak atheists. The remainder do not concede this point and are known as strong atheist.

[En_Route]

Genericguy argues that if God were proven to exist, science could accommodate this and would modify its understanding so as to propose " "According to the laws of nature, god is exempt from the laws of nature.". This is the same as saying "According to the laws of nature, the laws of nature do not apply to God." But if the laws of nature do not apply to God, then how can a reference to him form part of those same laws?

God would not need to be constrained by the laws he created.

Agreed, but then he is not part of those laws and is he is beyond scientific enquiry.

[En_Route]

Hmmm. Why shouldn't atheists attempt to make theists see reason? Atheists have been made to shut up, asked to shut up and now this is another plea to keep our ideas to ourselves.

I don't see that that's so at all.  Both sides can talk all we want, but I think it'd be better if we admitted when the other side has a point.  And I really don't care to make theists see reason any more than I want theists making me accept faith. 

Besides, I can just imagine the reaction of theist friends and relatives to the idea that I think they aren't reasonable for having faith, and I can't say I'd disagree with them.  Having faith and believing in things unseen and unprovable may well be perfectly reasonable in the context of what they want or need from their life, just as it isn't the context of what I need from life.

The problem is that by definition atheists don't think theists have a point. I have theist friends,acquaintances and relatives who are fully aware that I think their religious views are baseless. I see no need to pretend otherwise and prefer relationships based on honesty rather than a bland pretence that there is no fundamental difference of opinion. Nobody has to fall out over it; in fact it is more a subject for good-natured joshing than any kind of acrimony. I have no interest in converting anybody. As you say, for many people religious belief fulfils, or appears to fulfil, psychological and emotional needs. That doesn't validate those beliefs as beliefs.

[Tank]

Genericguy argues that if God were proven to exist, science could accommodate this and would modify its understanding so as to propose " "According to the laws of nature, god is exempt from the laws of nature.". This is the same as saying "According to the laws of nature, the laws of nature do not apply to God." But if the laws of nature do not apply to God, then how can a reference to him form part of those same laws?

God would not need to be constrained by the laws he created.

Agreed, but then he is not part of those laws and is he is beyond scientific enquiry.

I think you're attempting to frame your question in an exclusive manner that precludes a contradictory answer. This is a semantic argument built around the word 'law' and attempts to exclude that which does not under the remit of laws. But laws are a subset of 'all that is known'. There is room for a lot to exist outside scientific laws and 'all that is known'. For example any human thought AFAIK there are no scientific laws that explain how we think or could be applied that could predict what any one person would think next or in an hour's time.

I don't think that a theistic god is beyond the realms of the scientific method. If one can come up with a hypothesis then one can test it. If the tests support the hypothesis a theory can be framed that both accommodates what is known and can be predictive of that which is unknown. But so far nobody has even been able to form a solid God Hypothesis  So the issue is not 'is god within the purview of the scientific method' but 'how can god be defined to bring it within the purview of the scientific method?'

[Tank]

Hmmm. Why shouldn't atheists attempt to make theists see reason? Atheists have been made to shut up, asked to shut up and now this is another plea to keep our ideas to ourselves.

I don't see that that's so at all.  Both sides can talk all we want, but I think it'd be better if we admitted when the other side has a point.  And I really don't care to make theists see reason any more than I want theists making me accept faith. 

Besides, I can just imagine the reaction of theist friends and relatives to the idea that I think they aren't reasonable for having faith, and I can't say I'd disagree with them.  Having faith and believing in things unseen and unprovable may well be perfectly reasonable in the context of what they want or need from their life, just as it isn't the context of what I need from life.

But personally I have come to the conclusion that I don't think they have a point. I also see more harm than good coming from the point they hold. That harm is both active and passive. Active in the sense of terrorism and science denial and passive in lying to children about an afterlife.

Faith is by definition unreasonable because it is a view held in spite of evidence or in the face of a complete lack of evidence.

[En_Route]

I'd like to expand on the "absence of proof" issue. The point I was trying (not very lucidly) to make was that it is a truism that the inability to disprove the existence of God is not decisive proof that he does not exist. Atheists should concede this point because it is true.  However, the absence of any objective evidence for the existence of god would alone justify rejecting the concept. In addition, I take the view along with many others that the Christian god is philosophically impossible.

75% of atheist do concede this point; they are known as weak atheists. The remainder do not concede this point and are known as strong atheist.

As I understand it a strong atheist says there is definitely not a god or gods and a weak atheist says that there may be a god or gods but there is no evidence for it and therefore I have no reason to believe it and so I don't.  However I'd argue that the dichotomy is not as absolute as that definition sounds. I would be a strong(ish) atheist as regards say the Christian god because the concept is philosophically incoherent and therefore using the powers of logic and reasoning available to me I reject the notion. I say strong(ish) because we can never be absolutely certain of anything. I'm a weak(er) atheist in the sense that I cannot categorically rule out the existence of some form of supernatural entity which governs our affairs but absent any evidence I consider the possibility of academic interest only. I do find the strong atheist position hard to defend and that's why I think atheists should accept that absence of the proof of god or gods is not proof per se that they do not exist.

[technolud]

As I understand it a strong atheist says there is definitely not a god or gods and a weak atheist says that there may be a god or gods but there is no evidence for it and therefore I have no reason to believe it and so I don't.

Is this saying that a "weak" atheist doesn't believe in God becuase he/she finds no compelling evidence to?

And a "strong" Atheist says there is "definitely not a god"?  To make a positive statement like this would not the strong atheist need  to offer up some evidence to back up his point?

There is no "evidence" of life on any planets in other solar systems, just probablity's.   Does this prove none exists?

[En_Route]

Genericguy argues that if God were proven to exist, science could accommodate this and would modify its understanding so as to propose " "According to the laws of nature, god is exempt from the laws of nature.". This is the same as saying "According to the laws of nature, the laws of nature do not apply to God." But if the laws of nature do not apply to God, then how can a reference to him form part of those same laws?

God would not need to be constrained by the laws he created.

Agreed, but then he is not part of those laws and is he is beyond scientific enquiry.

I think you're attempting to frame your question in an exclusive manner that precludes a contradictory answer. This is a semantic argument built around the word 'law' and attempts to exclude that which does not under the remit of laws. But laws are a subset of 'all that is known'. There is room for a lot to exist outside scientific laws and 'all that is known'. For example any human thought AFAIK there are no scientific laws that explain how we think or could be applied that could predict what any one person would think next or in an hour's time.

I don't think that a theistic god is beyond the realms of the scientific method. If one can come up with a hypothesis then one can test it. If the tests support the hypothesis a theory can be framed that both accommodates what is known and can be predictive of that which is unknown. But so far nobody has even been able to form a solid God Hypothesis  So the issue is not 'is god within the purview of the scientific method' but 'how can god be defined to bring it within the purview of the scientific method?'

This a quote lifted from a book reviews in amazon.com which puts the point more succintly than I could:

"On the other hand, if religion claims "there exists a supernatural being, outside the natural world, who is beyond the laws of physics and nature," that is decidedly /not/ formulatable as a scientifically studiable hypothesis, since science deals with nature and the natural world, and not with things "outside" of it. Science can study the physical claims; not the metaphysical claims."