Today’s Atheist Meme of the Day. Pass this on; or don’t; or edit it as you see fit; or make up your own. Enjoy!
“You can’t prove that God doesn’t exist” is a terrible argument for religion. We can’t disprove the existence of unicorns, either — but there’s no good, positive evidence to support the unicorn hypothesis, so we don’t take it seriously. And without good, positive evidence for the God hypothesis, there’s no reason to take it seriously, either. Pass it on: if we say it enough times to enough people, it may get across.
Likewise, “You can’t prove that God exists” is a terrible argument for atheism.
Whichever way one chooses, there is no scientific evidence. And even besides that, when new scientific evidence comes to light which disproves or further explains previous discoveries, it’s quaintly labeled a “paradigm shift”. IE, “We weren’t wrong, we just didn’t know yet. But now we know. Uh… for now.”
Science is only ever as right as it is for the time being. And if we say that enough times to enough people, it may get across.
KJ, to pick an obvious example, it really genuinely is the case that Newton wasn’t wrong but “just didn’t know [everything] yet”. Newton’s laws are still quite valid, but now just “merely” as a derivable special case of more modern physics.
A total lack of good evidence for God, even after plenty of people have spent lots of time looking, is an excellent argument for atheism. Otherwise, what makes the God hypothesis stand out as being more plausible than any of the other infinite number of hypotheses with no evidence?
The problem with discussing deities is that they’re an extremely ill-defined group (Norman Borlaug‘s work is dramatically more impressive than Jesus’s feeding of the multitudes; is he a member of the club?), but also that people often demand proof that would convince the staunchest solipsist.
If that’s someone’s standard, then they will never know anything, so their opinion is irrelevant.
The question is, what is there sufficient evidence for, such that I can consider it an established truth and stop worrying about it. I have no absolute proof that the next time I open my front door I won’t be sucked into outer space, but I have sufficient evidence against the idea that I can consider it proven.
But most people’s ideas of a deity falls into one of two classes:
An interventionist deity who answers prayers, performs miracles, rewards the virtuous, and so on.A non-interventionist deity, who created the universe and is standing back to watch creation unfold.
I have sufficient proofs against both of these.
In the first case, such a deity would make a perceptible difference to the world. We can statistically detect very small differences in outcome, and prayer, for example, seems to have no effect whatsoever. If people could actually hear the voice of a deity rather than hallucinate it, there might be some agreement about its nature.
There are many more examples.
A non-interventionist deity, on the other hand, doesn’t exist for a different reason: Occam’s Razor. If this deity makes no perceptible difference to the universe I live in, then the theory of its existence is exactly equivalent to its non-existence. I can understand the universe without a deity, and I will never be wrong.
Either way, my beliefs will guide me well.
Atheism is not a religion, its a personal relationship with reality.
“You can’t disprove Iraqi WMD” was a terrible argument for war too, and look what happens when people are conditioned to give credence to terrible arguments…
The non-existence of an interventionist deity can be treated as a null hypothesis. We can then compare reality with what we would expect to observe if the null hypothesis were true. If observation reveals a reality significantly different from our expectations, then the null hypothesis can be discarded.
No evidence has ever contradicted this null hypothesis. The world as we know it behaves as expected in the absence of the omnipotent/omniscient god favored by many major belief systems. All explained phenomena have naturalistic explanations; no previously unexplained phenomena has failed to have a naturalistic explanation. It is therefore appropriate to reject, or at least seriously doubt, the existence of such a god.
Concepts which are supportive of the existence of a deity, such as a soul or a part of the consciousness capable of persisting after death, may be subjected to similar analysis. Again, reality is consistent with the null hypothesis that there is no such thing as a soul (all activities of the mind affect the brain and vice versa) – casting doubt on a non-interventionist god that nonetheless deals out reward and punishment in an afterlife.
Kj wrote:
So… “You can’t prove that God exists” is a terrible argument for atheism because “You can’t prove that God does not exist”?
John Campbell, who was Isaac Asimov’s first editor, his mentor, his friend and, in spite of being a brilliant man, one of the great champions of 20th century pseudo-science, once told Isaac Asimov a similar story. Isaac asnwered the following:
John, when people thought the earth was flat, they were wrong. When people thought the earth was spherical, they were wrong. But if you think that thinking the earth is spherical is just as wrong as thinking the earth is flat, then your view is wronger than both of them put together.
Really, if you can’t tell the difference between thinking that the earth is flat, thinking that it is round, and thinking that it is is a hollow icosahedron, and cannot see that there is a pattern of progress in the ideas that are accepted and later left behind, I must question your intelligence and maybe even your sanity.
Now, obviously, I am being facetious here; I am merely parodying the dogmatic, intolerant, fascistic rhetoric of these atheists who are, to a man, lonely, angry, nihilistic Nietzche wannabes that would not know love if it hit them in the nose with a brick.
Completely unlike us good honest godly folk, who are, as well, humble and loving.
People believe in God because it helps them make sense of the overall narrative of their lives & structure their perceptions & decisions accordingly. I’m moderately OK with folks who realize they don’t have evidence sufficient for a scientist for their beliefs, but the ones who make inflated claims for the evidential status of their beliefs are very annoying.
I think “inflated claims for the evidential status of their beliefs” is really key. That atheism is equal to a relationship with reality is an inflated claim, certainly. The fact is, again, that there is no scientific proof either way. So if one bases one’s perception and definition of reality on scientific evidence, then no, atheism is NOT reality. It is what many choose to believe, or outright conclude, or provisionally conclude, is reality. And that’s cool, too.
We’re all just here trying to make our way, ostensibly, the best we can.
To campaign, to go cramming our beliefs down anyone else’s throats, in hopes of converting, saving, enlightening, whatEVER-ing them, either to atheism or to religion, is exactly the kind of dismissive, condescending, fundamentalist behaviour that many of us, atheist and theist alike, deplore.
I think it’s when we get overly invested in being RIGHT that we start getting into crap. The truth is, none of us knows, but we each know how we feel and what we believe. And again, that’s cool. But forcing “MY beliefs are righter than YOUR beliefs” on anyone is not.
It can be equally fairly said that atheists are atheists because because it helps them make sense of the overall narrative of their lives & structure their perceptions & decisions accordingly. And there’s not a damned thing wrong that either.
I really do think that the lack of evidence for a god or gods or spirit world or what have you IS a terrible argument for atheism. The opposite hypothesis is equally valid. “Well, there’s no proof against the existence of a god or gods or spirit world, so *I* am going to choose to believe that it does/they do exist.” Which again, is just fine.
None of us needs another Cult of Reason OR Spanish Inquisition.
@Kj: I was going to argue, but someone else has done a better job of it: “Isn’t belief-that-there-is-not-a-god as irrational, arrogant, etc., as belief-that-there-is-a-god? To which I say no for several reasons. First of all I do not believe-that-there-is-not-a-god. I don’t see what belief has got to do with it. …As a carapace for the protection of irrational notions from legitimate questions…I think that the word has a lot of mischief to answer for. So, I do not believe-that-there-is-no-god. I am, however, convinced that there is no god, which is a totally different stance and takes me on to my second reason.
I don’t accept the currently fashionable assertion that any view is automatically as worthy of respect as any equal and opposite view. My view is that the moon is made of rock. If someone says to me, “Well, you haven’t been there, have you? You haven’t seen it for yourself, so my view that it is made of Norwegian beaver cheese is equally valid”-then I can’t even be bothered to argue. There is such a thing as the burden of proof, and in the case of god, as in the case of the composition of the moon, this has shifted radically. God used to be the best explanation we’d got, and we’ve now got vastly better ones. God is no longer an explanation of anything, but has instead become something that would itself need an insurmountable amount of explaining. So I don’t think that being convinced that there is no god is as irrational or arrogant a point of view as belief that there is. I don’t think the matter calls for even-handedness at all.”
-Douglas Adams
Besides, when people start making decisions for the world based on beliefs that have no foundation in reality, it goes beyond simply making sense of the narrative of life. If someone tells me I don’t have the same rights as men, or that I should let my (as yet unknown) husband rape me, or that my lesbian friends can’t get married because it’s in the Bible , or anything, and then tell me I can’t prove the Bible isn’t true, you can bet I’m not just going to let matters lie, no matter how nice their dogma might make them feel. We can’t prove that these beliefs are outdated BS, but we can’t prove that they aren’t either. Are they therefore equally valid?
Forgive me the double commenting, but there’s just so many good points to address!
We can’t assume that everyone buys into science as the be all, end all, know all, reveal all definer of reality, of what is true and correct and actual and REAL.
The fact is, there are many who look upon science as secondary to their own personal experiences. And while atheist A may be looking down his or her nose at theist B for NOT believing science is the be all, end all, theist B may well be looking down his or her nose at atheist A for seeking external explanation and validation of what is rather than seeking within, what have you. We HOPE not. Well, I hope not, anyway, because both of those possibilities just SCREAM condescension, which emotional response calls into question the ability to respect others, regardless of their beliefs. IE, “I may not be down with your theory that cancer is not a man-made disease, but hey, it’s all good. You believe what you believe to get you through YOUR day, not mine. Are we still going for ice cream? Yeah? Cool. Let’s take transit because the earth likes it and feels respected when we don’t spit carbon-based emissions into the atmosphere unnecessarily.” “No, let’s take transit because many of my friends, family and neighbours have asthma, and carbon emissions are proven to irritate it.” “Fair enough.”
Back to the original meme: “You can’t prove that God doesn’t exist” is a terrible argument for religion because “You can’t prove that God doesn’t exist”? They’re both examples of cyclical reasoning. I’m sure if I were more word-fancy, I’d find a better way to say cyclical reasoning which would more deeply impress the rhetoric community, but alas, I’ll have to rely on your good will and open-mindedness to see beyond your own points and into mine, as I strive to see beyond MY own points and into yours.
As far as sufficient proofs against both an interventionist deity and a non-interventionist deity, how could you possibly assume to know or even begin to predict how such an entity/being/whatever might function? It’s kind of like a theist saying “I have proof FOR the existence of a god/gods/spirit world because *I* predict that it behaves like THIS and here are examples of it behaving like this.” Either way, imo, it’s a really good thing when a person’s beliefs serve them well, whatever those beliefs are.
As for champions on either side of this debate being annoying, well… each and every one of us is the boss of our own feelings. A perspective of acceptance, patience and humility ought to manage, if not cure, that whole “I am now annoyed,” response.
We don’t have to be so emotionally and egotistically involved with this argument as we get. In fact, dispassion, detachment and humility are our friends. It doesn’t do to go trampling all over the feelings, rights and sensibilities of other perfectly good human beings and telling ourselves it’s justified because we figure we’re right. In fact, the pursuit of converting other humans to the belief that THIS way/belief is the right one has gotten humanity into some pretty hot, murky water. And that practice is still serving that purpose.
That all atheists get lumped into the categories of amoral nihilistic Nietzche wanna-bes, agnostics, what-have you, is, I think, demeaning and pigeon-holing.
That all theists are lumped into the category of christians and even further, lumped into the category of christians-who-force-their-ways-upon-the-people-of-the-world is the same. Demeaning and pigeon-holing.
I don’t have scientific evidence (but if someone taught me how to get it I might be able to get it) of this, but I know some really positive, lovely, loving, kind and responsive humans who happen to be atheists (and agnostics, to be fair). I also know some really positive, lovely, loving, kind and responsive humans who happen to be theists (and agnostics, to be fair). And I know people in both atheist and theist groups who behave in a greedy, small-minded, intolerant, self-destructive, irresponsible, condescending,holier-than-thou/sciencer-than-though, manipulative, generally crappy way in general.
I don’t think, really, that it’s okay that people are prohibited by law from doing what’s right for them (within reason, which, of course, begs the question: whose reasoning?) based on a specific living expression of a specific religion, or granted special rights based on the same.
When it comes right down to it, believers are believers and they will believe what they will believe, whether it’s in the concept of some divine being or beings, or in the concept that a lack of evidence of such a being indicates the actual absence of such a being.
You can tell a theist that a rainbow is just light fractured and filtered through a specific composition of moisture (forgive me if I’m not describing this correctly in scientific terms and please fill in the blanks yourselves; you’re clever people), and not to worry, because we know how it happens, so there’s no god or gods and you are therefore not going to hell (if that’s what their particular brand of theism buys into) because it proves there’s no god. And you can be darned sure that at least some theists are going to reply, “Who says a god or divine being didn’t make that happen? What proof do you have that that evidence you’ve gathered is ALL the evidence there is to be had about rainbows and what makes them happen?”
It could go on forever, it seems. And from what little I have seen, I surmise that it does. But I won’t. I fear I’m hogging up comment space now.
I think the best thing that we can work for, or hope for, or pray for (if you’re into that), or… search for? Is that that which is for the greatest good for all of us (whose definition of greatest good? Our own most sincere and humble and well-meaning and loving and compassionate and kind and respectful and honest and truthful and brave and generous and wise selves, I guess?) to come to pass.
It doesn’t do to go trampling all over the feelings, rights and sensibilities of other perfectly good human beings and telling ourselves it’s justified because we figure we’re right.
Exactly, the way gays are always going and trying to get married. That really offends my sensibilities, I can tell you!!
kj, I’m going to get to your logic about religion versus atheism versus agnosticism in a moment. But first, I want to address your “Can’t we all just get along, why do you have to be so mean and intolerant as to try to persuade other people that they’re mistaken” stance.
Would you take that position about any other type of claim about the world?
Would you argue that it’s mean and intolerant and tramping on other people’s feelings to try to persuade people that global warming is real? Or that vaccines don’t cause autism? Or that same-sex marriage doesn’t have a negative impact on society?
And if not — why should religion be an exception?
Religion is a hypothesis about the world: the hypothesis that the world is the way it is because of supernatural entities or forces acting on the natural world. Why, alone among all other hypotheses, should it get a free ride in the marketplace of ideas, exempt from criticism and questions? Debating ideas is one of the best ways we have of examining them and sorting through them and deciding which ones are strongest. Why do you want religion to be exempt from that process?
I’ve noticed a very common pattern in debates between atheists and theists. Theists will often start out debating the relative merits of atheism versus theism, the evidence and logic supporting each position… but as the debate wears on, they begin to switch from “Why theism is correct (or at least logically defensible)” to “Why atheists are mean and intolerant for making their arguments at all.” It is hard to escape the conclusion that the reason for this conversational arc is that the actual evidence and arguments for theism are so very weak. If you had better arguments, you wouldn’t be resorting to the “Shut up, that’s why” position.
If you don’t want to participate in these debates, that’s fine. But they why on earth are you reading this blog and commenting in it? Nobody’s making you do it. It is neither fair nor reasonable to voluntarily visit an atheist’s blog, enter into debates about the validity of theism versus atheism, and then accuse atheists of trampling on your feelings for explaining why they think atheism is correct.
As far as sufficient proofs against both an interventionist deity and a non-interventionist deity, how could you possibly assume to know or even begin to predict how such an entity/being/whatever might function?
Well, because many believers suggest or have historically suggested that they know how such a being would function. People claim that god influences events, from watching over specific people to sending disasters and misfortune as a means of administering punishment. Some claim an ability to communicate with the divine. Many assume that god is loving and moral, as well as all-knowing and all-powerful. If god is mysterious and incomprehensible, what grounds does anyone have for proposing any of these things?
What proof do you have that that evidence you’ve gathered is ALL the evidence there is to be had about rainbows and what makes them happen?
I think it’s because we have an explanation that explains everything observed in rainbows. There is no need to provide further reason for their existence. If we say that god causes a rainbow, at what point in the process does god get involved? If not at the moment the sunlight falls on the raindrops, or the storm develops, or the water evaporates, it starts to look more and more like a non-interventionist deity that at most set in motion the laws of reality, and not one that is involved with human affairs, much less cares about them.
kj: And now, to your actual arguments defending theism.
Do you think it’s reasonable to believe in unicorns, simply because we can’t absolutely prove with 100% certainty that they don’t exist? What about Zeus? What about the three inch tall pink pony behind my sofa who instantly teleports to Guam the moment anyone looks back there?
And if not — why is it reasonable to believe in God, simply because we can’t absolutely disprove his existence?
You seem to be arguing that, when faced with an infinitude of hypotheses, none of which can be absolutely proven or disproven with 100% certainty, it’s reasonable to just pick whichever one suits our fancy. This makes no sense. And I would argue that you do not live your life this way, in any arena other than religion. Faced with a choice between jumping out a tenth-floor window or taking the elevator, you don’t jump out the window because it can’t be absolutely proven that fairies won’t catch you and gently carry you to the ground — and it can’t be absolutely proven that the elevator isn’t possessed by Satan. When faced with a choice of hypotheses that can’t be absolutely proven or disproven, we can still decide which hypothesis is most plausible, most logical, least contradictory, best supported by the currently available evidence. We choose the elevator hypothesis over the window-fairy hypothesis — because it is by far the most plausible.
And although it can’t be proven with 100% certainty, atheism is both the most logical and the most plausible hypothesis.
I do not agree that there is no positive evidence or arguments for atheism. Here is a list of the ones I think are best: The Top Ten Reasons I Don’t Believe In God. I think these are very compelling arguments for why atheism is by far a more plausible hypothesis that theism.
But even if there were no positive evidence or arguments, for either atheism or theism, atheism would still be the most logical choice. If for no other reason, Occam’s Razor supports it. If there’s no arguments or evidence for the God hypothesis, we should reject God simply because it’s an unnecessary entity.
You seem to have a common misunderstanding of what atheism is. Atheism is not the absolute, unshakable certainty that there is no God and that there can be no God. Atheism is the conclusion that the God hypothesis is currently unsupported by any good evidence, and that we are going to reject it — just like we reject the unicorn hypothesis and the Zeus hypothesis and the “pink pony behind the sofa” hypothesis — unless we see better evidence.
Atheism is the null hypothesis. And if there’s no positive evidence supporting any other hypothesis, logic tells us that the null hypothesis is what we should go with.
“I think the best thing that we can work for, or hope for, or pray for (if you’re into that), or… search for? Is that that which is for the greatest good for all of us […] to come to pass.”
Kj, if we want the greatest good for all of us to come to pass, we need to do the things that are most likely going to actually help that along.
That’s why figuring out what is actually true is important, and it’s why falling into the “Well, let’s all just agree to disagree” trap would be doing a grave disservice towards our duty to make the world a super awesome place.
From CommonSenseAtheism:
Or, to use Richard Carrier’s analogy:
The Naturalist is merely the person who bets on the horse that has won every single one of its million races, and bets against the horse that has lost every one of its million races.
Greta Christina, yes, you’re right. I was definitely under the influence of the narrower definition of atheism (“…specifically the position that there are no deities.”) as opposed to the broad (“…rejection of belief in the existence of deities.”) and the broadest (“…absence of belief that any deities exist.”) senses. (Took these from Wikipedia – will come to understand how each atheist to which I relate defines their atheism and so come to relate to them better/more productively/efficiently as I go along.) At any rate, I stand corrected
So then, “You can’t prove that God exists,” is a wonderful argument for atheism! (Or is it, more accurately, why atheism is?) Either way, again, I stand corrected.
However, it is prudent to note that the desired proof is requested within quite narrow scientific and (to some) logical guidelines.
Please hear me out and actually consider, with the same open-mindednesses you would want anyone else to consider your points.
Knowing how something works still doesn’t define the why or cause of it working. ie, lights go on in my apt (assume all necessary conditions are met) when I flick a switch because there’s wires from the light to the switch to the fuse box to the earth, up a post across the city to a power plant to a dam somewhere with turbines in it, with magnets in it, with coiled copper wires in it, with copper atoms in them, with protons, electrons and neutrons in them, with quarks in them (I’m not currently well enough versed to know how small our “sight” has gotten on these, but you get the point). None of that addresses the why? Is “the why” because someone, at some point, decided it would be frickin awesome if homes and other structures could have lights inside of them without us having to use candles, oil lamps, swarms of fireflies, torches, whatever? Is “the why” because in 1752 Ben tied a key to a kite string and concluded that static electricity and lightning were the same, or because in 600 BC Thales of Miletus wrote about what we now call static electricity? OR… is “the why” because there actually is some sort of grand unified theory with a human stream of consciousness and someone, somewhere has always been wondering or thining, “What’s with the zap stuff?” (Or even because there’s a god or a diety who on the bazillionth day said, “let there be electricity” and so someone was inspired with an idea to investigate the possibilities.)
Now, I know lots of people are into Occam’s Razor, but in the end, it’s thinking a certain way because a guy in the 14th century said that’s how we should think about things, which, really, is not incredibly different than a guy in say, 2010 telling us how we should think about things, whether he’s wearing a lab coat or a tricivara.
kj: It’s true that, when we’re looking at questions of cause and effect, there is a problem of infinite regress. B causes A, and C causes B, and D causes C… when do you stop?
Here’s the problem: You’re assuming that, once we find an intentional, sentient causer in the chain of cause and effect, we can then stop looking. You’re assuming that finding an intentional, sentient causer to a chain of physical cause and effect would be the final logical answer. And that makes no sense. If we answer the question, “Why is there electricity in the house?” with some version of “Because people decided it would be a good idea to build electric power plants to provide energy in homes,” we still have to ask the question, “Why did people think that was a good idea?” And similarly with the God hypothesis. Even if we assume God, or have some evidence for God, we still have to ask, “Where did God come from, and why does he do the things that he does?” It doesn’t help with the problem of infinite cause- and- effect regress. It just adds one more piece in that chain.
As for Occam’s razor: We don’t apply Occam’s razor because Occam told us to. It’s not the argument from authority. We apply it because it makes good logical sense. If we can answer the question “Why is there electricity in our house?” with some version of “Protons and neutrons and electrons, plus people who thought building power plants was a good idea,” or we can answer it with “All of the above, plus an invisible pink pony who undetectably guides both the electrons and the thought processes of the power plant builders” — and the invisible pink pony is not necessary for the explanation, doesn’t explain anything that can’t be explained by “All of the above with no invisible pink pony,” and adds a complicating factor that then itself needs explaining — we discard it. Not because Occam told us to, but because it makes sense.
I think that’s a really odd assumption! It’s neither what I said nor implied, but my apologies if my writing wasn’t as clearly expressive of my ideas as I thought it was. If I could get my hands/mind on diety or supernatural anything and I could express myself clearly(or test it, to be fair) AND glean responses from it, you can bet I’d have a bunch of questions! Wouldn’t you? Of course, then people will still find a way to disagree on how to interpret those results; and to dismiss them altogether, to be sure; but meh, such is mankind, right? So few of us are able to be comfortable with uncertainty. So we convince ourselves that what we perceive is either all there is to perceive or grounds for casting conclusions about that which we cannot perceive.
With the comment I posted, though, I was meaning to address: this seemingly common notion that science as it is, ought be capable of measuring and discerning the contribution of the supernatural world to the physical one, or the presence of a supernatural world at all. So my position: “Although I do not know for sure, I don’t think so.” And I’m imagining, if I’ve been reading your writings correctly, that your position would be: “Although I do not know for sure, I think so.”
Myself, I think the Occam’s Razor thing is just definitely not good sense when contemplating a possible supernatural realm. The fact that it’s SUPERnatural kind of tells us outright that it’s probably not going to fall under the same rules and laws we perceive in the natural one.
It’s not uncommon for people to want to be right, and to invest a sense of identity in the prospect.
But for me, the fact that scientific testing consistently fails to glean anything of the proposed supernatural world despite the thousands upon thousands of experiences people seem to have with that world begs the questions: “What can we do better, or differently?” And “What technologies or tools might we need to witness what it is we hope we’ll get to see?”
My imagination says, “Hmmm… since volition seems to be such a big factor amongst those to whom we’ve spoken about their experiences, then if we could find some way to measure volition outside of the brain, then maybe we could make some headway.” And then of course, “Okay, that’s nice… how the heck do we do that?” And then “walking it back” as it’s called, to where we are now; which is, admittedly, largely clueless about the supernatural world, but hey, if we really want to know? We’ll do something about it. Of course, then THOSE results too will be open to interpretation.
🙂 That’s my two kernels on it, anyway!
And:
kj: Here’s the problem with that argument.
If there are supernatural entities or forces that affect the natural world — we ought to be able to observe those effects, even if we can’t observe the entities or forces directly themselves. In the same way that we can observe the effects of, say, black holes, and conclude that they exist based on their effects, even though we can’t see them directly.
And if there are supernatural entities or forces that have no effect on the natural world whatsoever — who cares? How would the existence of those entities or forces in any way be different or distinguishable from their non-existence?
You can’t have it both ways. You can’t say that the supernatural exists — or probably exists — and that it has a real and important effect on the world… and then say that your reasons for thinking it exists shouldn’t be expected to stand up to the same serious scrutiny we apply to any other conclusion about the real world. If the supernatural affects the natural, this should be observable, and after thousands of years of supposedly observing it, we should have at least some solid evidence of it, and we should have been able to come to at least some partial conclusions about it.
I mean — it’s God. If he exists, he is by definition the biggest and most real thing there is. Why on earth wouldn’t there be solid evidence for him?
(P.S. The “invisible pink pony” business is a belittling swipe at theism/occultism/spiritualism (etc, etc) that you just don’t need to be using. You’re a good enough writer and debater that the derision just sidetracks your perfectly good points and casts you in a… well, kind of a pissy light, to be honest. If you really want people to open up to your ideas, then causing them to feel put down by you is just not conducive to your declared goal. Apologies ~ wasn’t sure where else would be appropriate for this aspect of the response, and I’m sure you don’t need any more e-mail from me.)
kj,
Might I suggest, then, Carl Sagan’s famous Invisible Dragon that lives in his garage? It’s the same basic point: the proposition of entities for which there is a complete dearth of evidence should not be believed until there is evidence. Asking that supernatural claims be treated differently is special pleading. Scientific methods also failed to detect the aether, and the response wasn’t “science is useless at understanding the aether!” but “huh, maybe there is no aether”.
Russell’s teapot is a good choice too.
themann: I do know the “Invisible Dragon” story, and thanks for the recommendation anyway. I’m definitely not down with this “should” business, though. Especially not in terms of peoples’ beliefs, which are personal to them.
If that lack of evidence when applying the scientific method is enough evidence for you to personally decide that you believe there’s no dragon, that’s awesome. Others might decide that they believe that “science is useless at understanding the aether”. And that’s just fine too.
It is not a belittling swipe. It is a legitimate point. There are a nearly infinite number of propositions that can’t absolutely be disproven, but for which there is absolutely no evidence. It makes no sense to say that because none of these propositions can be absolutely disproven, they’re all equally likely, and we should take them all equally seriously. (See what themann1086 and DSimon said above.)
And I see no reason to take the God hypothesis any more seriously than the invisible pink pony hypothesis… simply because lots of people happen to believe it, and get hurt feelings when its more ridiculous aspects are pointed out. Humor is a time-honored form of social criticism, one that gets applied to politics, philosophy, science, art, pop culture, and more, without anyone complaining. Why should religion be exempt? Why, alone among all other kinds of ideas, should religion be afforded special respect? Why should it be given a special piece of armor against legitimate criticism that no other ideas are expected to have?
More on this:
Is It Okay to Mock Religion?
And finally, I will point out again: There is a very consistent arc in debates between atheists and theists, in which theists switch the conversation from a debate about the evidence and plausibility of atheism versus theism, to a meta-debate about tone and how atheists are being mean. It is hard to escape the conclusion that the reason for this conversational arc is that the actual evidence and arguments for theism are so very weak.
Humor is a time-honored form of social criticism, one that gets applied to politics, philosophy, science, art, pop culture, and more, without anyone complaining. Why should religion be exempt?
Especially since there are so many things about it that are just waiting to be satirized. It’d be a sin to exempt such a rich, abundant and endless source 🙂
No, no it is not. It’s wrong. Just because people have the legal freedom to believe what they want doesn’t mean those beliefs are sacrosanct and immune from criticism or ridicule. And the aether doesn’t exist, so someone believing that is wrong; why should I let someone continue to go on believing something false without at least trying to correct them? Does reality matter to you at all?
Enh. People can call it humour all they like. But mean-spiritedness is mean-spiritedness.
There’s plenty of opportunity to ridicule, also, the reliance on science to tell us what to think, but what’s the point? It’s also challenging not to conclude that “This person feels weak, which is why he/she is resorting to ridiculing the ideas as opposed to discussing them.”
Good will goes much further toward accomplishing what I think, most want, which is for all of our rights to be respected. If we discuss from a place of respectfulness toward one another in the first place, we’re likely to make it a better world by setting that standard of dealing with people. And this standard of behaviour, for me, does not apply only to this debate, but to every debate.
And I ask yet again: How is the invisible pink pony analogy — or Bertrand Russell’s teapot analogy, or Carl Sagan’s dragon analogy, or the Flying Spaghetti Monster analogy, or the analogy of the giant green space- borne lobsters named Esmerelda and Keith — mean-spirited? How is it anything other than fair? It is making a valid point; a point about the infinitude of propositions that can’t be absolutely disproven but which have no evidence to support them and which we don’t take seriously; a point we have explained to you again and again. It is a point you are refusing to respond to — other than to say that it’s mean-spirited.
I have made an argument for why mockery is a valid form of social commentary, and you have not responded to that, other than to repeat your assertion that you, personally, don’t like it. Yes, I understand that you don’t like it when people point out that your religion makes no more sense than these other hypothetical faiths. To that I say: Deal with it. Respect for people and respect for ideas are not the same thing. I draw a line between ridiculing ideas and ridiculing people. The pink pony analogy mocks an idea — but it does not mock people. If you can’t distinguish between the two, perhaps you ought not to be engaging in debates with atheists.
If you can make an argument for why your beliefs are reasonable, even though they’re entirely unsupported by good evidence, I am eager to hear it. If you can’t, then perhaps you ought not to be shoring up your beliefs against a very gentle form of humor that legitimately points out how irrational they are.
Instead of illustrating the benefits of authentic communication and leaving others to discern the point on their own (aha, my own form of twisty communication, admittedly – this one kind and gentle rather than caustic), I’ll address it more directly.
The problem with sarcasm and mockery as a communication tool is that they come from a place of aggression, weakness, insincerity, fear and disrespect. So while it may be a time-honoured tradition, so are many other practices unconducive to the wellness and unity of the people.
The act of passing judgment as to the merits of anyone’s beliefs beyond whether or not to take them as our own is definitely not within our rights. People might do it, but people also clear cut, drive entire species of animals into extinction, poison the waters, and harm and kill one another.
Religion alone ought not be exempt from criticism, mockery and sarcasm; communication ought be.
So is the goal to effect a better world where the rights of the people are such that they are free to believe as they wish? As with your belief that you will recognize it when science tells you when and if it is time to believe in anything other than what science told you to believe in yesterday? Or is simply to muscle way into the same old crappy territory humankind’s been traversing for centuries?
Time and again prophecy after prophecy after prophecy has sadly come to pass. And despite the efforts of cognitive archeology, a new science had to come into being in order to process old and sometimes ancient information in such a way that it could be understood today.
So when ancient tablets in the hands of descendants of people who made prophecies about brothers and sisters coming back walking like turtles on the land, and black ribbons across the earth upon which bugs would crawl and cobwebs that would surround the earth over which people would talk, and houses in the skies, maybe look to post-processual archaeology for assistance, rather than outright dismissing information shared with us simply because a group of people from a whole other culture expressing themselves back in 1325 or later in another language wasn’t speaking to us in such a way that our minds have no work to do in understanding it.
Maybe this sentient god of your definition, is or ought to be, if in existence, the biggest and most real thing going. I reject that definition outright, though. I would submit, with respect to the follow up question, “Why on earth wouldn’t there be solid evidence for him?” that 1. scientific disciplines as they are are simply not evolved enough to perceive it, or 2. (and I believe this to be the far more likely case) most human beings are just not f*cking evolved enough to realize that they ARE looking at the transcendental glory of creation and interconnectedness of all things when we look at the minutiae of the world. And when we step back and are granted, by all that we’ve come to observe, the opportunity to look at the earth and all the inhabitants there as a whole. And a further step back, to look at the universe in which we exist. How, how HOW can ANYone possibly look at a tree and KNOW “We are made up of essentially the same stuff as rocks and water and dirt and stars… and yet, out of this stuff, out of these atoms and molecules, we can be aware of ourselves, and of one another, and of the world around us. And we can shape that awareness, and create experiences that bring joy and delight to ourselves and one another.” and still go on harming any other aspect of creation as we know it regardless of how it came to be, in ANY way? It goes beyond mere self destructiveness into outright suicidal impulse. And how insanely bloated is the collective human ego to assume we, of all of these millions and millions of aspects of creation, are the ones capable of defining which are sentient?
kj said: The fact that it’s SUPERnatural kind of tells us outright that it’s probably not going to fall under the same rules and laws we perceive in the natural one.
I’d call this an a priori assumption. By defining the ‘supernatural’ as something that is above the rules of reality, it allows the circular conclusion that the supernatural is beyond our ability to explain with natural laws – which bears out the erroneous assumption that science is somehow incapable of looking ‘beyond itself’, whatever that means.
kj again: But for me, the fact that scientific testing consistently fails to glean anything of the proposed supernatural world despite the thousands upon thousands of experiences people seem to have with that world begs the questions: “What can we do better, or differently?” And “What technologies or tools might we need to witness what it is we hope we’ll get to see?”
Rather, what this statement says to me is that there is no supernatural. Science doesn’t fail to glean anything of the supernatural – it completely fails to establish the existence of any such thing at all. Moreover, I find that most ‘supernatural’ claims – yes, even god – are too mundane and obviously of human origin. It comes back to people having an a priori assumption about the existence and properties of the supernatural. If we accept accounts of the supernatural as false, then it remains an entirely human invention with no basis in fact, no more worthy of consideration than any other exceptional claim. If we accept accounts of the supernatural as true, then it must have a measurable effect on reality, bringing it back into the realm of things which may be verified and studied with scientific methods.
One of the good things about science is that it often leads to completely unexpected conclusions. If there really is some supernatural realm, science will discover it whether we actively pursue research into the supernatural or not.
However, scientific knowledge has already broached a world that is not bound by the laws perceived in the natural one. It’s the world of the very small, governed by quantum mechanics, and it’s so bizarre as to be barely comprehensible even to experts. When the laws of the macroscopic and quantum are combined, they inevitably break down. Measurement of elementary particles can’t be made because the measurement contaminates the results. And the behaviors of elementary particles can easily be described as ‘supernatural’ – the ability of some particles to pass through apparently solid objects or the concept of entanglement, for example. Even study of the everyday laws of the universe have brought us such concepts as ‘dark matter’ which is even more undetectable and mysterious than black holes. As such, I don’t buy the notion that there is something so unbelievably strange or unnatural out there that science can’t handle it yet. Far as I’m concerned, we’re already looking at something damn weird, and it’s called the universe.
So my personal hypothesis, then, is that “God” if that’s what you choose to call it, is already here and always has been. Furthermore “God” is and has been showing “himself” to and through mankind all this time, and is and is in all things; and even further, IS responsive. Which no, does not mean I get to win the lottery because I ask nicely a whole bunch of times. There’s a semblance of order, a balance to be kept here. Who gets considered and factored in and who gets to decide that? Us. Everything. All that exists.
Religion is not a hypothesis. The beliefs about what and how spiritual things are are your hypothesis. Religion is what you live. It’s what one does each and every day. As in, the archaic form of the word symbol. That is, you re-bind yourself to that standard every day, you re-live it.
Religion can arise from beliefs, but it is not the beliefs themselves.
It’s not the name of a faith or a school of thought, or something one gets, as in “he got religion”. It’s a behaviour repeated over and over. It is a way of life.
Mind you, religion’s an english word… latin at first, and there was no word for religion as most seem to currently misinterpret it in my “religion”.
It was just called life.
Nigel: We’re actually kind of on the same page wrt the “supernatural” quality of some of the behaviour of quantum particles. ToE, though it’s not going to sit well with many and therefore might never ever cease being contended, imo, is the way to go if we want to see “reality” as a whole. Though I think for the most part it’ll be like a giant coin, maybe… won’t necessarily get to experience both sides of it at once. That gravity can’t be address with GUT could conceivably be a hangover from the collision of the two previous universes. So “God” or “the supernatural” could be GUT and physical reality, relativity. Combined, TOE. ie, “reality.” I believe that a functioning ToE must encompass two theories which overlap, in parts, but not completely, since then one or both GUT or relativity would be ToE already.
It’s interesting that for this time we’re in right now, ancestors talked of a time of “the veil between the spirit world and the physical world” thinning and then disappearing altogether.
And plus, I’m not a theoretical physicist, so though I come up with theories, I’m forever bouncing them off of the theoretical physicist friend and being re-educated/streamlined.
Anyway, that’s my largely unintelligible 2 kernels.
Concept of entanglement smells a lot like clairaudio, telepathy, and a bunch of other parapsychological stuff I don’t remember the names for. Maybe even precognition. If there’s sympathy across a given distance and distance from the sun fancied up gives us the name “time”, then could “parts of” people be travelling such a great distance as to be experiencing a different time and informing what’s left here and “now”? Just a thought I’ve been rattling around.
The problem with sarcasm and mockery as a communication tool is that they come from a place of aggression, weakness, insincerity, fear and disrespect.
Well, it’s entirely untrue that it always comes from these things. If I point out that an idea is absurd in a way that you can do nothing else than to laugh at it, I am neither being aggressive (I’m laughing) weak, insincere (I really do find some things funny), I’m not afraid (obviously! Feigning respect for an idea that is silly would be me being afraid to speak my mind though) and I’m not disrepctful for merely pointing out that something is absurd.
Kj, first off, the idea of human brains using entangelement to transfer information is totally implausible; ask your theoretical physics friend why. In general, please please do not attempt to glean conclusions from discoveries in quantum mechanics without at least a pop-science understanding of the terminology you’re using. (Same complaint applies to your confused usage of “Theory of Everything” and “Grand Unified Theory”)
And secondly, it’s way too premature to be looking for explanations for telepathy or precognition or whatever, since we haven’t even had any test return positive on the notion that those things even exist.
Ah ha, some evidence! This is of interest. Please show us these prophecies, so we can determine if they’re actually reasonable (i.e. they aren’t just random hits in the middle of a huge pile of misses, or they aren’t just poetic language being reinterpreted after-the-fact as verified predictions.)
Well, that disagrees with the way the vast majority of people use the word “religion” (which requires belief in the supernatural), but fine, whatever. In this case, those beliefs are what we’re disagreeing with, not (your personal definition of) religion.
Anyone else find it funny that we’re told we can’t use sarcasm and mockery because communication ought to be exempt from criticism… the telling of which, naturally, involves criticizing our communications.
Also, your mangling of quantum physics makes me die a little on the inside.
kj: We’re actually kind of on the same page wrt the “supernatural” quality of some of the behaviour of quantum particles.
Supernatural quality to the quantum yes – application to stuff like telepathy, no.
I was trying to make the point that science has already encountered something that goes against our ‘everyday’ laws of physics – we’ve already encountered a sort of ‘supernatural’, and science had no problem identifying and describing it.
Now, I know that particle entanglement might seem like an explanation for some phenomena, but as pointed out, it simply isn’t compatible with how the mind works. Even if it were, there is a complete absence of accounts of supernatural activity that stand up to scrutiny. If someone could just have an out-of-body experience that allows them to see something that conclusively proves it wasn’t all in their head, but there isn’t even that.
Religion can arise from beliefs, but it is not the beliefs themselves.
Not to be contrary, but, yes, it is. Religion is the belief in and worship of something, typically a God or gods. That’s the consensus on what religion is.
Overall, kj, it sounds like your personal beliefs have less in common with the religious status quo than maybe something like deism or pantheism, correct me if I’m wrong. As has been stated before though, to the point of being tiresome, while there is nothing wrong with making predictions about what we don’t yet know, if there is no way to test those predictions, and if those predictions have no foundation in reality nor any ability to explain real phenomena, anything goes and any particular theory loses all value. And because there are so many ‘valid’ predictions like this, it’s futile to even try and verify any or all of them, or give any one credence. I also think it’s mistaken to assume that because we can ask why things are the way they are, there must be an answer, and that answer is god. ‘Why’ is a very human question to ask, but it’s frequently misplaced – because people have an ingrained tendency to see purpose where non exists. As such, I agree that ‘You can’t disprove god’ is a poor argument, and that atheism is a valid position even on something like deism.
kj: Really? You think Mark Twain, Molly Ivins, Jonathan Swift, Jon Stewart, Aristophanes, Monty Python, the Onion, Chaucer, etc., are/ were all coming from a place of aggression, weakness, insincerity, and fear? You really think that’s always the source of using mockery and sarcasm as social commentary? Is that really the position you want to be taking?
If so, I would like to point out that (a) this is an entirely untenable position, completely contradicted by the evidence, which simply highlights the absurd lengths many believers will go to to protect their beliefs from entirely valid criticism, and (b) in your efforts to chide me for being disrespectful, you have now out-and-out impugned my motivations as aggressive, weak, insincere, and cowardly. That is, to say the least, not very consistent.
kj: And now, because I am sick unto death of debating tone when we could be debating content, I’ll address the content of your recent comments.
Your comments are Exhibit A in why the Invisible Pink Pony and similar analogies are so important. But since you find the Invisible Pink Pony analogy objectionable, I’ll try some others. How about: unicorns. Fairies. Zeus.
Let’s look at the argument you’re now making: that it’s not reasonable to hold supernatural entities or forces to the standards of evidence and logic we apply to the natural world, and that the supernatural is so far beyond our comprehension that our human brains can’t grasp it.
If someone were to make this argument in defense of their belief that unicorns were real, or that fairies were real, or that Zeus was real — would you consider that a valid argument?
And if not — then why is it a valid argument for God?
There is, as I keep saying, a near-infinitude of claims about the world that can’t be absolutely disproven, that could hypothetically be true — but that we have absolutely no good evidence for. If we have no way of distinguishing between this near-infinitude of claims, no way of even beginning to test whether any one of them accurately describes reality or not… then how are we to choose between the near-infinitude? How are we to decide whether to believe in unicorns, fairies, Zeus, or God? Or all of the above?
And if there is no possible way to falsify any of these near-infinitude of claims, no possible evidence that would prove any of them wrong… how are they in any way useful? Forget about how we’re supposed to know if they’re true or not. How do they have any power to explain the past or predict the future? What do they add to our understanding? How are they anything other than a nice story we like to tell ourselves?
If you care whether the things you believe are true, then you ought to not be making up whatever story you like about the universe, regardless of whether there’s any good reason to think your story is true: a story selected essentially at random from a near-infinitude of other stories that are equally unfalsifiable, and equally unsupported by good evidence. If you care whether the things you believe are true, you really, really need to address this question of the near-infinitude of unfalsifiable and unsupported claims, instead of just dodging it by calling it mocking or sarcastic. And if you don’t care whether the things you believe are true, please tell us now, so we can stop wasting our time in this debate.
Well this has been far less productive than I’d hoped, and I’ll definitely bow out of this discussion and resist the urge to visit your sandbox again.
Thank you for sharing your opinions with me.
All the best in your respective explorations of truth and knowing.
Sincerely,
~kj
Yes. It is so unproductive to repeatedly be asked valid questions about your beliefs that you can’t or won’t answer.
m-/
(That’s the emoticon a friend of mine invented for “facepalm.”)
kj, I’m sorry you found this conversation unproductive. You are welcome back to this blog anytime. Please, however, don’t expect people to avoid asking hard questions about your beliefs, or to avoid pointing out the absurdities in them. Thanks.
Nigel, you’ve put your finger on why I consider the very term “supernatural” to be an attempt to evade the point.
It’s a term as variously and nebulously defined as “god”. It’s not even clear if it’s a fixed or movable goalpost.
The fist thing that someone who wants to introduce the term has to do is define it. Is it an objective standard, independent of an observer? Or does it depend on the knowledge of the viewer? Is there anything that will remain supernatural once we learn about it enough?
Were radio waves ever supernatural? Lightning? The aurora borealis? Hurricanes?
Can something be supernatural to one human who doesn’t understand it, but not to another who does? What if no human currently understands it, but the super-advanced aliens on planet X do?
If, on the other hand, you claim that it’s an objective standard, please understand that after the third time you amend the definition because I’ve demonstrated that it’s not mutually exclusive with “natural”, I’m going to lose interest in the discussion…
The word is the rhetorical equivalent of science fiction’s “double-talk drive”: please don’t look behind this curtain because it would make the story I’m telling harder to believe.