Home > Writings > Atheism and Theism Atheism and Theism: A Philosophical Exploration by Jesse Durst "Supernaturalism cannot, by its nature, be a 'missing piece'; it is merely the observation that a piece is missing. The adoption of supernaturalism gives us nothing more than the mere admission of our ignorance. What's worse, the adoption of supernaturalism destroys the knowledge that we do have; under supernaturalism no conclusion, however well supported by sound evidence and argument, can be deemed more or less plausible than any alternative." "Supernaturalism denies that any pattern is meaningful; under supernaturalism the 'explanation' that all events are singular and unconnected to any other event except by the arbitrary will of the deity is just as good as any sound scientific finding. And actually, this is really the only good "explanation" under supernaturalism; by definition, a supernatural deity is not bound by pattern, regularity, bound not even by our trivial and finite understanding of logic itself. Indeed, supernaturalism finds that all of our science, all of our knowledge, indeed rationality itself, is not only unreliable but trivially false." � Malaclypse the Younger "If the choice must be made between the comfort of religion and the truth of atheism, many people will sacrifice that latter without hesitation. From their perspective, there is much more to the issue of god's existence than whether he exists or not." "Proof is applicable only in the case of positive belief. To demand proof of the atheist, the religionist must represent atheism as a positive belief requiring substantiation. When the atheist is seen as a person who lacks a belief in a god, it becomes clear that he is not obligated to "prove" anything. The atheist qua atheist does not believe anything requiring demonstration; the designation of "atheist" tells us, not what he believes to be true, but what he does not believe to be true. If others wish for him to accept the existence of a god, it is their responsibility to argue for the truth of theism--but the atheist is not similarly required to argue for the truth of atheism." � George H. Smith Explanation and Definitions This page is meant to be a relatively informal discussion concerning atheistic and theistic arguments. I take a general position of negative atheism (which doesn't mean "negative" as in "bad"). Negative atheists argue very simply "I do not believe believe in God." That is they withhold belief in a deity(ies). This may be contrasted with positive atheism which says, "I believe there is no God." Sometimes negative atheism may be confused with agnosticism. A "soft" agnostic would say, "I do not know whether there is a God," while a hard one would say that knowledge with respect to deities is impossible (Thus they're saying "I don't know and you don't either"). At some point, negative atheism runs into soft agnosticism and, indeed, many soft agnostic are probably negative atheists and vice versa. Nevertheless, if there isn't much of a practical difference between the two, there is a semantic and philosophical difference. One might imagine a soft agnostic who claims not to "know" whether God exists, but yet still believes that such a God indeed exists. As I said, I consider myself to be a negative atheist. That is, I don't see any clear or overwhelming reason or evidence to suggest that a God does exist, but I also see no reason to deny the possibility of some sort of god actually existing. At some level I consider myself also an agnostic, but the word "knowledge" confuses me a lot, so I try to stay away from it most of the time. For instance, I cannot truly "know" whether the outside world actually exists or not (there is some possibility that we all live in the Matrix), but I do have reasonable evidence to suggest certain things that might be called "knowledge." Aside from this, I sometimes take a positive atheist standpoint. For instance, I think that the Christian conception of an all-powerful, all-good, all-knowing God is logically impossible. Therefore I believe that the Christian God cannot exist in a logical context. The reason I say "in a logical context" is to account for the possibility that God (since he is all-powerful) may not act in a logical fashion. Although one might argue that since God is omnipotent, God has the power to act illogically in a logical context, at some point this becomes deceptive and violates the omni-benevolence of God. Putting these mostly hypothetical considerations aside, I would now like to address some of the silliest arguments I've heard and read on the Internet for the existence of God. I will critique these by arguing that God is not a necessary part of a sound philosophy. He/She/It is not necessarily excluded from the possibility of existence, but merely placed into the realm of possibility. Overly Simplified Ontological Argument "A-theist is sorta like space-man. People may go into the vacuum of space (wearing a suit, of course), but they come from the atmosphere of earth. How can someone who doesn't believe in something have that very thing they don't believe in as part and parcel of their definition? Am I making any sense? ... I can see them being theo-refuseniks or theo-rebels. But once the cat's out of the bag, you can't really pretend the concept doesn't exist." This argument seems to be alluding to the ontological proof of God given by philosophers throughout the ages, but is childishly simplified. This theist believes that the term "a-theist," implies a reaction against something. As I explained above, atheism is not fundamentally a reaction against theism. Atheism is sort of the baseline, the non-existence of a belief with respect to deities. Except in its positive form, atheism does not posit the nonexistence of gods either. Furthermore, like the ontological proof, this theist equates existence in the mind with existence in reality. Thus, he is arguing, since atheists are reacting against the concept of God they are reacting against God himself, which means that God necessarily exists. Unfortunately it doesn't equate that: If the concept of something X exists, then X exists. Just try putting in something like "unicorns" in for X. Or better yet "a perfect circle." Or even pick another god -- Zeus, Krishna, etc. Just because we imagine something to be the case, that doesn't mean that it is the case. This theists position would mean that an a-unicorn-ist would be fundamentally wrong simply because he does not share in the belief that unicorns indeed exist. As my friend puts it, "I can conceive of a magical flying carpet, but I don't believe one exists. I call myself an amagic-carpetist. Would you say that I'm being illogical or intellectually dishonest by defining my belief that way?" How did the theist respond? "The magic carpet exists in your imagination, at the very least. How can you be certain that there aren't magic carpets outside your mind too?" He misses the point here. The possibility that magic carpets do exist obviously does not make one conclude that they *must* exist or that anyone who doubts or does not believe is a foolish carpet-refusenik. Quite an unconvincing argument, and simply seeks to "put down" atheists rather than proving theism.. Here's a similar argument to the last one put forth by the same individual: "My pragmatic theory is that if there really was no God, that the concept of atheism would be unheard of. Getting back to my spaceman analogy, if there was no such thing as atmosphere, people wouldn't be saying 'hey there's no atmosphere!' Similarly atheism couldn't exist without God". This type of argument by analogy rarely works since there's some doubt as to whether God can be compared to "atmosphere." It seems like a powerful rhetorical device, but it really carries no weight philosophically. While he seems like he's criticizing atheists by showing how absurd they are, if he thinks that God is as obvious as atmosphere, then this really is not an argument but an insult based on a one-sided, closed-minded analysis of the world. In reality, even if atheism were a philosophy that reacted "against" theism (which it is not), one does not need an actual "atmosphere" (i.e. God) in order to oppose its existence. Indeed, all an "anti-atmospherist" (atheist) needs is a bunch of kooky "atmospherists" (theists) pulling off their masks and dying in the vacuum of space, thinking that an atmosphere actually exists. That would be enough to make me doubt. Argument from Belief/Tradition I had a really long conversation with one theist about this issue. He seems to think that the burden of proof lies with the individuals who make minority claims to truth. Thus he basically believes a popularity vote is the best way to obtain the truth concerning God's existence. He also combines this with an argument from tradition, saying that traditions with the most followers and believers throughout the ages are the most truthful. Thus it is on the atheist to disprove God's existence, rather than the theist to prove it. Unfortunately both the Appeal to Belief and the Appeal to Tradition are known logical fallacies. Most Christian apologists wouldn't even try to argue them. Nevertheless ere are some examples: "Forms of theism have been a central focus for many cultures, for thousands of years. They may not all have been Christian, but many civilizations throughout history, has believed in God in some form or another. The Christian God is recorded well through the Judeo-Christian texts. Atheism is a recent social phenomenon and it tries to charge mankind, past and present, of the fallibility in the belief of God. The implication of this is clear; the BOP is on the one challenging the position of theism." "... As I have stated, the atheistic position has always been the minority position, a challenger to the generally �accepted truth�. Thus the BOP is on you." "For example, I don�t believe the Muslims claim that Ishmael was the son Abraham was asked to sacrifice. The burden of proof is on me because I am making the challenge to an accepted belief/document. If there was only 1 Muslim then the BOP would be on him, but it�s not." After quite a long conversation on the appeal to belief, I finally pointed him to a website that describes some of these fallacies. I argued that while he may believe his argument, most philosophers (even Christian ones) do not. It violates the rules of reasonable discourse. If he wishes to communicate with other Christians in this manner, he may do so, but it doesn't phase me. This is his response, which refers back to the above quote. "... in my example, I stated that if there were only 1 Muslim who believes this. The implication here is that it would not be an accepted belief, it would to the 1 Muslim, but not in a general or social confine. My bad for not making my example more explicit. Christianity has been a socially accepted position for a long time; the appeal to belief fallacy does not apply here. Even if 1 million people believed X, does not make X true, I agree. But when that 1 million who believe X, integrate said belief into every aspect of their life, becomes the socially and politically accepted standard, the ramification is X is true." "I am not appealing to belief; I am appealing to an accepted norm. You (atheists in general) don�t like the accepted norm; the call is on you to show it�s inherent flaws." The question he brings here is, Do multiple fallacies cancel each other out? The answer is clearly no: if a large number of people (1) believe X (Appeal to Belief); (2) integrate said belief into every aspect of their life (Appeal to Tradition); (3) X become the socially and politically accepted standard (Appeal to Tradition); the ramification is inconclusive because all you've done is combined a bunch of fallacious appeals. Even if you include the idea that these people not only believe X, but *worship* X, you've still only made an appeal to superstitious tradition (worship is a form of tradition). While he calls it "appeal to accepted norm," he basically means that he combined a bunch of fallacious appeals. Even Christian apologists would not argue this point; it just does not work. Transcendental Argument: The Pseudo-Skeptic Theistic Approach This argument I got from an online debate. I would seriously recommend reading it first, because his argument is rather confusing [Come back here though because his opponent does not address some issues that I have brought up]. This theist seems to think that atheists cannot argue ANYTHING (i.e., they are forced into extreme philosophical skepticism), because they have to assume basic things like logic, reason, and empiricism on faith. Thus atheists are forced into some kind of epistemological quandary because "reason ultimately cannot prove reason"... The following is a real quote from him: "he [the atheist] had to presuppose that logic exists (because, as I�ve shown, he can�t prove it exists without violating the laws of logic in the process)." Further, "How do we know, objectively, that logic actually exists so that things do not contradict themselves in reality? If it is simply a man-made formula then how can an atheist make any meaningful statement that Christianity is illogical and wrong? To say that God doesn�t exist is to make a statement using logic, yet if logic cannot be proven then how can there be any meaning to the phrase that God does not exist?" Somehow he thinks Christianity (or theism in general) is superior to atheism because it bypasses the need to "prove logic to be logical." First he tries to argue that If God exists then logic and reasoning must exist. He thinks that since Christian can assume that God exists, then reason and logic are explained perfectly without any epistemological problems. Unfortunately, he fails to recognize that his argument is also one of logic... i.e., If God exists then logic and reasoning exist (or are "trustable"). God exists. Therefore, logic and reasoning "exist." He's basically making a statement of logic in order to prove logic (Even Descartes wouldn't make a mistake this sloppy - At least he assumes logic outright!). Thus, he's using the method to prove the method, the same thing he accuses the atheist of. His previous argument can be turned around in his face by changing "God doesn't exist" to "God exists": "To say that God exists is to make a statement using logic, yet if logic cannot be proven then how can there be any meaning to the phrase that God exists?" Later the theist amends this argument (quite craftily, btw) and says that logic is actually an attribute of God, rather than a condition dependent upon God. At one point he says "The Christian God is logic." Again, this argument utterly fails because he is basically making the assumption that logic exists. An atheist might as well say, "Logic exists" and leave it at that; they would be just as epistemologically correct as the theist. Why do I have to assume that logic is an attribute of God? It certainly doesn't make the problem any better; indeed it makes it worse by adding in an extra unneeded variable - God. I might as well say that logic is an attribute of Harry the Hippo. Basically, this theist is arguing for epistemological solipsism or extreme skepticism or something close to it. If he really followed his arguments to their ultimate conclusions, he would be UNABLE to make ANY claims about ANYTHING at all. The point I think that is missing from this debate is that logic is a fundamental rule or characteristic of symbolic language, and not a method of thought or something "real" in the physical universe. OF COURSE we can't "prove" logic because we have to use symbols or language (which has basic math and logic as a pre-condition) in order to even begin talking about proofs. Hell I could work myself into an epistemological quandary all I want, but this kind of skepticism basically runs nowhere and "proves" itself useless. I prefer to just assume logic and reason outright and go from there. Putting God into the equation just adds one extra variable. Transcendental Argument: The Super-Duper Confusing "Reality of Existence" Wager This one took me quite a while to figure out but eventually I saw what he meant. I almost though he had us for a second. But he's quite the tricky bandit. Just read it for yourself: "You cannot even argue against the existence of God without assuming knowledge of things which can only be true if God exists, e.g., the reality of existence and the predictability of nature." My Response: I, like a lot of the other atheists here, have a serious problem with this assertion. You've basically said: If atheists can assume (safely) that "reality exists" (whatever that means) and nature is predictable, then they can argue that God does not exist. Atheists can assume (safely) that "reality exists" and nature is predictable if and only if God exists. Atheists can argue that God does not exist, if and only if God exists. You think you've boxed atheists in; you think that you've caught us, forced us to recognize our assumption that God exists. But alas you haven't. You've actually made a very unfair, a priori assumption in #2 that necessitates the paradox in #3. Your hard-line �if and only if� statement that was implied in the preceding quote from your email is way too restrictive to be considered a valid argument. Furthermore, this item specifically asserts theism, and makes the untestable assumption that God's existence is the only condition necessary for assuming that reality exists. That's like me saying "Theists cannot argue against the rationality and eternality of the Universe and its laws without assuming knowledge of things which can only be true if the universe is rational and eternal, e.g., the "reality of existence" and the predictability of nature." You mistakenly left out the idea that there might be conditions under which there was no God (for example, the Universe [or its laws] are rational and eternal), while Atheists could still make the safe assumption that nature is predictable and that "reality exists." There is actually a much broader prerequisite than God�s existence (i.e. that reality actually exists and nature is actually predictable). You have to admit that a safe assumption can be most generally made if that assumption is ACTUALLY true and not if some other item is true (i.e., that God exists) that would have an effect on that former item To illustrate this, #2 should more appropriately be: Atheists can assume (safely) that "reality exists" and nature is predictable if and only if reality ACTUALLY exists and nature is ACTUALLY predictable. This implies the conclusion in #3 is: Atheists can argue that God does not exist if and only if reality ACTUALLY exists and nature is ACTUALLY predictable. As this shows, you have not disproven atheism at all. In order to get us now, you must insert another clause: Reality ACTUALLY exists and nature is ACTUALLY predictable if and only if God exists. And you must provide some proof that this statement is true before you can appropriately insert it. Indeed, this assertion seems to be what you've been trying to prove all along (that God created the Universe); you're begging the question. Atheists would reject this statement outright because it purposefully negates atheism. That is, making a statement like this would require an a priori belief, a leap of faith (or at least some proof or evidence beyond what you have so poorly provided), that would reject the idea that the universe could exist and that nature could be predictable by any other cause besides God. It seems that your argument runs right back into your original question - Is the NON-existence of God a logical possibility? The only reasonable answer is a resounding YES!!! Your circular reasoning haunts you. You have not yet disproven atheism. Great try - your logic was tricky, but ultimately flawed. In the future, I'd like to consider "real" arguments, rather than these falsities, from theists. Perhaps the cosmological arguments or the ontological ones.

Home | About Me | Quotes | Links | Writings | Artificial Tear Vessel | Art Gallery | Listen | Guestbook

© 2003 Jesse Durst (email) - Last Updated February 16, 2003