Futile Confrontations Between Theists and Atheists

[Tank]

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?

From Spectrum of theistic probability

Dawkins posits that "the existence of God is a scientific hypothesis like any other." He goes on to propose a continuous "spectrum of probabilities" between two extremes of opposite certainty, which can be represented by seven "milestones". Dawkins suggests definitive statements to summarize one's place along the spectrum of theistic probability. These "milestones" are:[2]

   1. Strong theist. 100 per cent probability of God. In the words of C.G. Jung: "I do not believe, I know."
   2. De facto theist. Very high probability but short of 100 per cent. "I don't know for certain, but I strongly believe in God and live my life on the assumption that he is there."
   3. Leaning towards theism. Higher than 50 per cent but not very high. "I am very uncertain, but I am inclined to believe in God."
   4. Completely impartial. Exactly 50 per cent. "God's existence and non-existence are exactly equiprobable."
   5. Leaning towards atheism. Lower than 50 per cent but not very low. "I do not know whether God exists but I'm inclined to be skeptical."
   6. De facto atheist. Very low probability, but short of zero. "I don't know for certain but I think God is very improbable, and I live my life on the assumption that he is not there."
   7. Strong atheist. "I know there is no God, with the same conviction as Jung knows there is one."

Dawkins argues that while there appear to be plenty of individuals that would place themselves as "1" due to the strictness of religious doctrine against doubt, most atheists do not consider themselves "7" because atheism arises from a lack of evidence and evidence can always change a thinking person's mind. In print, Dawkins self-identified as a '6', though when interviewed by Bill Maher[3] and later by Anthony Kenny,[4] he suggested '6.9' to be more accurate.

The 'weak' atheist is what Dawkins calls the 'De facto atheist'

[En_Route]

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?

I'd tend to agree with that. As I said,one's position may be stronger in relation to specific gods. In my view, the Christian God is a philosophical bust so within the framework of human reasoning I believe it to be false. However, the solution to the mystery probably is beyond human reasoning, or if it isn't there is still vital information missing,  so no-one assert anything in the absolute certainty that they are correct.

[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.

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.

It is impossible to know if the incidence of ignorance and terrorism (however defined- we won't go there) would decline if the world turned atheist. People have an endless capacity for uncritical,blinkered belief and are likely to fill the void left by religion by some alternative forms of irrationality.There is no guarantee these new dogma would necessarily be benign. The more liberal, inclusive strands of Christianity strike me as relatively conducive to social harmony. The views of the religious right in the USA on the other hand enshrine a degree of hatred and bigotry which is at the other end of the spectrum.

[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?'

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."

I agree with that last point.

However I joined in when it was stated by somebody that 'If god could be measured' well if god can be measured then he/she/it can be studied in a scientific framework. If god can't be measured then he/she/it can't be studied. However our ability to measure has changed over the years telescopes and microscopes being two prime examples of technology expanding human perception. The scientific method can be applied to every question however if the question can not be stated as a rigerious hypothesis and/or requires measuments beyond our current technology the scientific method can not yield a fruitful answer. So the existance of god can be addressed be the scientific method but at the moment we have neither a workable hypothysis nor suitable instrumentality to make any head way. Which is not the same as saying God is beyond science and outside its remity.

[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.

It is impossible to know if the incidence of ignorance and terrorism (however defined- we won't go there) would decline if the world turned atheist. People have an endless capacity for uncritical,blinkered belief and are likely to fill the void left by religion by some alternative forms of irrationality.There is no guarantee these new dogma would necessarily be benign. The more liberal, inclusive strands of Christianity strike me as relatively conducive to social harmony. The views of the religious right in the USA on the other hand enshrine a degree of hatred and bigotry which is at the other end of the spectrum.

I agree with what you say. In fact my first ever serious thread at the Richard Dawkins forum was basically about what would happen if/when/as atheism erodes theism. What will fill the gap for those people incapable of forming their world view without the comfort provided by the superstition that a God exists?

[fester30]

It is impossible to know if the incidence of ignorance and terrorism (however defined- we won't go there) would decline if the world turned atheist. People have an endless capacity for uncritical,blinkered belief and are likely to fill the void left by religion by some alternative forms of irrationality.There is no guarantee these new dogma would necessarily be benign.

I don't fault theists for believing in gods, as I did for most of my life.  I understand that side of things.  I fault theists, and in fact, anybody, who holds views that are immovable, however.  Religion isn't the only concept on which some people will refuse to budge their ideology.  We see it often in politics, economics, environment, etc.  I agree with you that we could not possibly know the result of the entire world dropping their beliefs in higher powers.  Japan, commonly called the atheist nation, is peaceful now.  However, if they are sufficiently pushed or marginalized by the world around them, they could become irrational quickly.  If religion disappeared, I think people would still feel a need to belong to something bigger than themselves, and would turn to groups that align themselves with certain political ideologies or economic theories, and follow the leaders of those groups stubbornly.  When the economy is tough in any country, groups that tend to get the most blame are immigrant groups for taking jobs.  I have seen it here, and I have seen it in places like Germany and France when I was living in Europe, where the citizenry of those countries have become increasingly hostile to the Turkish immigrant minority.

EDIT:  I also fault myself when I find myself being stubborn about my beliefs in arguments without paying alternatives their proper due.  It happens to me from time to time.  Violence, however, has never been the result.

[technolud]

7. Strong atheist. "I know there is no God, with the same conviction as Jung knows there is one."

How does this statement differ from a theists "faith" that god exists? 

If a strong atheist states that positively no god exists they should be prepared to back it up with factual evidence. 

[Recusant]

Sorry, but IMO a theist that sees reason is called an atheist. I apologise if that sounds a little blunt.

I agree that statement is blunt (and not a little). I think that like most such statements it fails to address nuance and complexity which exists in the topic. William Lane Craig once wrote: "The person who follows the pursuit of reason unflinchingly toward its end will be atheistic or, at best, agnostic." The clause "unflinchingly toward its end" is where Craig's statement differs from yours, I think. Most theists are very reasonable people in at least some parts (and often, in most parts) of their lives. It is only when we search for the foundations of their faith that we will see them abandon reason in favor of what some of them call, "a higher understanding." In other words, I think that at the core of the theistic position is an undeniably non-rational or pre-rational approach to existence, but that fact should not be extended willy-nilly to say that theists don't see reason.

I wouldn't necessarily say that religious experiences are "irrational" either, simply because of the gratuitously pejorative connotation of the word. One does not appreciate beauty because of rational thought, for instance, but to say that appreciation of beauty is "irrational" just doesn't seem accurate. Rather, it's one of the ways of thinking that are available to people which do not utilize our capacity for rational thought (thus "non-rational" as above). I think that a religious experience is similar to an experience of beauty, and cannot be dispensed with merely by labeling it as "irrational." On the other hand, when a religious person attempts to take that experience and use it as the basis for justifying and condemning behavior (for instance), then I think that we might quite properly say that they're being irrational. When Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson say that the attacks on the World Trade Center were caused by the fact that "We have sinned against Almighty God," they're displaying a particular brand of religious thinking which goes right past irrationality to plain lunacy.  

Anyway, it's likely that I'm taking your statement too literally, but there doesn't seem to be anything in its context which modifies it, so I wanted to try to address that.

[Tank]

7. Strong atheist. "I know there is no God, with the same conviction as Jung knows there is one."

How does this statement differ from a theists "faith" that god exists? 

If a strong atheist states that positively no god exists they should be prepared to back it up with factual evidence. 

It doesn't differ in any meaningful way and that is exactly the point that Dawkins was making in that part of The God Delusion. Dawkins points out that to blindly assert that God does not exist it comparably to blindly asserting that God does exist. However so called strong atheists usually counter his position that as there in no evidence for god it is reasonable to state there is no God. I sit myself as a 6 on the Dawkins scale. I would never state that I believe (as in have faith) that there is no God because I can't prove that position.

[Tank]

Sorry, but IMO a theist that sees reason is called an atheist. I apologise if that sounds a little blunt.

I agree that statement is blunt (and not a little). I think that like most such statements it fails to address nuance and complexity which exists in the topic. William Lane Craig once wrote: "The person who follows the pursuit of reason unflinchingly toward its end will be atheistic or, at best, agnostic." The clause "unflinchingly toward its end" is where Craig's statement differs from yours, I think. Most theists are very reasonable people in at least some parts (and often, in most parts) of their lives. It is only when we search for the foundations of their faith that we will see them abandon reason in favor of what some of them call, "a higher understanding." In other words, I think that at the core of the theistic position is an undeniably non-rational or pre-rational approach to existence, but that fact should not be extended willy-nilly to say that theists don't see reason.

I wouldn't necessarily say that religious experiences are "irrational" either, simply because of the gratuitously pejorative connotation of the word. One does not appreciate beauty because of rational thought, for instance, but to say that appreciation of beauty is "irrational" just doesn't seem accurate. Rather, it's one of the ways of thinking that are available to people which do not utilize our capacity for rational thought (thus "non-rational" as above). I think that a religious experience is similar to an experience of beauty, and cannot be dispensed with merely by labeling it as "irrational." On the other hand, when a religious person attempts to take that experience and use it as the basis for justifying and condemning behavior (for instance), then I think that we might quite properly say that they're being irrational. When Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson say that the attacks on the World Trade Center were caused by the fact that "We have sinned against Almighty God," they're displaying a particular brand of religious thinking which goes right past irrationality to plain lunacy.  

Anyway, it's likely that I'm taking your statement too literally, but there doesn't seem to be anything in its context which modifies it, so I wanted to try to address that.

All fair points well made. I should qualify my statement that in my opinion I only consider theists unreasonable when it comes to theism.

[Sandra Craft]

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.

I think we're talking about more than one point.  When theists point out that not everything is known yet -- well, I'm quite sure that's true.  I certainly hope it's true.  When they point out that the existence of a god may someday be proven, or at least justified much better than it is now -- well, maybe.  As someone else has already pointed out, there are plenty of things accepted as a given now that used to be considered impossible or magical.  When theists point out much good has been inspired by peoples faith, I can't argue with that.  Faith's certainly not the only thing that's inspired goodness, or the only thing capable of doing so, but it's done its share.

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.

I'll never deny faith has also inspired a lot of bad things, but again I don't think it's unique in that.  I also don't think that its as much the cause as the excuse for evil.  If religious beliefs vanished this instant, I don't think it'd take more than 2 seconds for people to find other reasons for their evil or stupidity.

I don't think one can be considered to be lying about something one truly believes in.  Passing along a misconception or mistake, maybe, but not lying.  Frankly, I don't think belief in an afterlife does that much harm.  It may be a delusion, I think it is, and it can be twisted to support evil uses as easily as most other beliefs, but for the most part I think it only serves to calm the common anxiety about death and I have no problem with that.

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.

Which goes back to my original concession, just because they don't have the evidence now doesn't mean they never will, tho admittedly I don't think it's likely.  I wouldn't like to consider everyone unreasonable who had a theory they couldn't prove yet. 

As to the "in spite of evidence", I wasn't aware there was any evidence against the existence of a god, or that it was even possible to have evidence against something described as being outside nature.  Which I admit is unfair and special pleading, but it works against theists too -- they can never claim, honestly, to know their god exists, only to believe it.  That's an incredibly big stick in the craw for many of them.

[Genericguy]

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.

That is a great example. There must be laws in regards to diplomatic immunity. How else would a policeman know the person is exempt? According to the laws of the government, the person is exempt from the laws of the government. This person is not outside of the legal system, as god is not outside of science.

Edit: added the god bit at the end.

[Crow]

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?

I disagree with this. I would probably self identify as a week atheist but I don't believe in a god because of a lack of evidence, I do not believe because I don't, simple really. All books in favor of a god don't do anything for me and certainly push me away from the idea of them, the only concept of god I can actually take serious is the deistic one and I am just using the definition of god as a creator of everything around us, whether that creation was intentional or not is another kettle of fish.

The lack of evidence isn't really that important to me, as how do you really define evidence for a god. The concept is so incredibly vague where would you even look in the first place, lets just say somebody find the remains of a human figure with wings that turned out to be legit, that still wouldn't prove the existence of a christian god never mind a non-dom-god, just as the religious books that happen to cover historical events don't imply their god exists, or like if we found the skeletal remains of a Minotaur it wouldn't imply the Greek gods exist. I think you either really believe in one or you don't. If it can't be defined you are never going to find evidence for it, and when it has been defined the god of the gaps has occurred.

[En_Route]

Sorry, but IMO a theist that sees reason is called an atheist. I apologise if that sounds a little blunt.

I agree that statement is blunt (and not a little). I think that like most such statements it fails to address nuance and complexity which exists in the topic. William Lane Craig once wrote: "The person who follows the pursuit of reason unflinchingly toward its end will be atheistic or, at best, agnostic." The clause "unflinchingly toward its end" is where Craig's statement differs from yours, I think. Most theists are very reasonable people in at least some parts (and often, in most parts) of their lives. It is only when we search for the foundations of their faith that we will see them abandon reason in favor of what some of them call, "a higher understanding." In other words, I think that at the core of the theistic position is an undeniably non-rational or pre-rational approach to existence, but that fact should not be extended willy-nilly to say that theists don't see reason.

I wouldn't necessarily say that religious experiences are "irrational" either, simply because of the gratuitously pejorative connotation of the word. One does not appreciate beauty because of rational thought, for instance, but to say that appreciation of beauty is "irrational" just doesn't seem accurate. Rather, it's one of the ways of thinking that are available to people which do not utilize our capacity for rational thought (thus "non-rational" as above). I think that a religious experience is similar to an experience of beauty, and cannot be dispensed with merely by labeling it as "irrational." On the other hand, when a religious person attempts to take that experience and use it as the basis for justifying and condemning behavior (for instance), then I think that we might quite properly say that they're being irrational. When Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson say that the attacks on the World Trade Center were caused by the fact that "We have sinned against Almighty God," they're displaying a particular brand of religious thinking which goes right past irrationality to plain lunacy.  

Anyway, it's likely that I'm taking your statement too literally, but there doesn't seem to be anything in its context which modifies it, so I wanted to try to address that.

I agree with you wholeheartedly on the subject of theists. On the matter of religious experience we diverge. I think you are conflating two distinct senses of the word "irrational" . The experience of beauty is sensual and does not involve a process of reasoning. In that sense it is "irrational". It is self-contained and self-justifying; we can presumably track the firing of the relevant neurons in the observer;s brain.
When someone claims to have felt moved by the spirit of the Lord, they are attributing an external significance to some form of emotional  arousal, excitement or whatever. There is no evidence for this claim this other than a purely subjective conviction. It seems to me that it is irrational in the sense of "contrary to good reason" to rely on an intense emotional state as a basis for subscribing to a theology.

[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 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.

That is a great example. There must be laws in regards to diplomatic immunity. How else would a policeman know the person is exempt? According to the laws of the government, the person is exempt from the laws of the government. This person is not outside of the legal system.

Diplomatic Immunity does not apply in all cases and is conditional on meeting set criteria ; it can even be waived. A diplomat therefore is regulated by the law though he may avail of exceptions from the rules that apply to other people. In God's case however, the laws of nature can never touch him; he is totally outside them in all conceivable cases.