Linked on the title. Respond if you care to, but keep in mind I am not stupid, patient, timid, lacking for words, or ignorant.
Categories
Linked on the title. Respond if you care to, but keep in mind I am not stupid, patient, timid, lacking for words, or ignorant.
4 replies on “Why Atheism is irrational”
An interesting essay, a couple of questions/comments if I may.
1)Materialism may logically imply atheism but dualism doesn't necessarily imply God.
2)What you neglect when you mention Hitler and evolutionary biology, thereby linking EB with violence, is that much of EB's effects are achieved through natural death and survival, not violence as such. It is coherent to reject religion (or rather Christianity and Islam rather than religion in-itself) for the same reasons one rejects Hitler, i.e. the massive violence and unnecessary suffering.
3)Quantum physics indeed shows that in some respects reality is changed by the act of being viewed but that does not mean it is 'created' by the act of viewing. It may exist in and of itself, independent of being viewed but is simply unknowable in this state.
4)Religion may have a placebo effect but why should we adopt something simply because it is utilitarian?
I appreciate your time if you chose to respond to these and I apologise if I have misunderstood your argument at any point. I have further questions but it is late here and my brain is starting to shut down (as you may have noticed), so I better not write anymore as it may not make sense. 🙂
Two metastasized questions:
1) What would you mean by God if you were to agree with the statement "I do not believe in God?"
Would the God you were rejecting have any testable, scientific attributes? Could it?
2) Why is violence wrong? Is it always wrong? How does one decide?
That should get us started. I'm always happy to have rational discussions.
I think it is possible to disprove the (for example) Christian idea of God (omnipotent, omniscient, benevolent etc.) by logical reasoning from certain attributes of existence. That doesn't mean these attributes (of God) are testable, scientific attributes in themselves but that their existence leads to a paradox. Obviously that doesn't disprove the idea of God if we allow a different interpretation, i.e. not all powerful, non-benevolent, non-sentient or non-conscious, non-creative etc. The more abstract and broad we allow our definition of God, the more likely it is to be true.
Violence is wrong, in my opinion, because in general it is not conducive to positive states such as happiness, growth, fulfillment etc. This is an intuitive truth we share (there are obviously some exceptions) although we by no means all act upon it.
No, violence is not always wrong.
One decides based on one's own morality or ethical code which one imposes on themselves and the world. We each do this for ourselves and some need to justify their choices to themselves and others by claiming religious authority. This is just my opinion. I reject the idea that atheism/agnosticism (I am agnostic by the way) leads to a moral vacuum or nihilism. This argument (and the belief in a traditionally defined view of God) is the result of a psychological weakness, again in my opinion.
If you're not an atheist, then we are in agreement. I believe agnosticism IS a rationally defensible position, as are TENDENCIES towards atheism.
As far as violence, I will accept that as an answer. My own forays into what could be called moral philosophy–but which is morphologically distinct from the variants I know–is linked on my other site http://www.goodnessmovement.com
It is suitable for use by atheists.
My belief, though, is that if ceding ground to pessimism is unnecessary, then why do it?
Specifically, the attributes of "God" we care about are: something good happens to good people when they die; and we are connected in ways that are non-physical, such that things like prayer work.
Now, neither of these IS God, per se, but that is what we want from God. We want life to end with something other than a slow ride in a hearse, and to have some sense of control over the uncontrollable. Most all religions grant this.
These things are amenable to empirical study. For example, there are many books evaluating the evidence that supports the survival of death. If evaluated as a whole, it is overwhelming. I mentioned two examples. I'll mention one or two more.
During World War 2, an English medium was prosecuted under an arcane sorcery act for de facto spycraft. She had told a mother that her son's ship had been sunk by a German torpedo, named the ship, and the approximate location (if memory serves). All this information was accurate. The problem was that the British Admiralty itself did not know that information at that time, making this a breach of secrecy.
She offered to do readings in the courtroom, but was refused. Authorities later broke in during a seance, and she was in a state in which light was damaging to her health, and eventually succumbed to the ensuing illness.
Another: a woman had a near death experience in a hospital. She floated outside, and saw a tennis shoe in an unlikely location, which was not visible from the window next to it, or the street. She had never been close to it. Yet, on a search, it was found.
There are hundreds and hundreds of these things.
One sees this phrase "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" all the time, sometimes coupled with "the plural of anecdote is not evidence."
Both of these plainly abuse the scientific method. Extraordinary is a cultural construct. Science has no truck with what is possible, merely what is observable. It measures what can be measured, and develops explanatory hypotheses. Phenomena that cannot plausibly be explained by chance or other alternatives must invoke explanations using remaining possible ideas. Patently, too, none of us have seen the evidence for neutrons. We rely, instead, on the formatted anecdotes of people we trust.
As far as prayer, some early experiments have shown it can help shorten illnesses, but it is a tough phenomena to isolate. In principle, though, it can be tested.
Likewise, one can test phenomena like Remote Viewing, psychokinesis, telepathy, precognition, etc.
These are all made theoretically explicable by Quantum Theory. No, the theory does not imply "God", but it offers a template within which the claims that are being made become comprehensible.