This is the final segment responding to 31 questions presented at the C.A.R.M. website by Matt Slick aimed at atheists. Please read the other pages first to properly understand my responses as some refer back to earlier questions and answers.
21. If there are moral absolutes, could you list a few of them?
I am not making the claim about moral absolutes, so no.
22. Do you believe there is such a thing as evil? If so, what is it?
Ignoring the definitions used by Christians, which are mired in their presupposed theology, I could still refer to things or actions being evil in a secular way. Evil would be, for example, to knowingly inflict harm on innocent beings without just cause. This is of course open to debate, in regard to "harm", "innocent" and "just cause".
23. If you believe that the God of the Old Testament is morally bad, by what standard do you judge that he is bad?
Empathy, Reason and Logic. Also by the Bible's own standards of morality apologetics love to pretend are infallibly correct. We point out the hypocrisy of such claims.
When apologetics try to justify rape, slavery and genocide as morally good, you know you made the right decision to leave Christianity. Apologetics have done more to solidify my deconversion than any argument from the atheists.
24. What would it take for you to believe in God?
Heal amputees in a double blind test, by only praying to Jesus according to the bible's claims. That would go a long way towards changing my mind.
25. What would constitute sufficient evidence for God’s existence?
Repeatable and verifiable events that match the claims in the bible and/or God or Jesus appearing and demonstrating to me (with independant unbiased witnesses) his power and answering 1st hand my doubts. Considering I don't even have a single reason to accept ANY supernatural claim, including something as basic as a soul or free will, I have high but easily attainable standards if a Christian God exists.
26. Must this evidence be rationally based, archaeological, testable in a lab, etc. or what?
As opposed to what? It depends on what is offered. Not everything has to be testable in a lab but it should be rational to accept a claim. Does Matt think irrational evidence should be acceptable?
27. Do you think that a society that is run by Christians or atheists would be safer? Why?
In what context? Since atheism only deals with the claim about gods, it offers no guidance towards a political or economic society by itself, then this question is not properly formed to give a good answer.
Ideally if the atheists were secular and allowed people to hold religious belief in private, promoted scepticism and tried to justify their beliefs, in whatever system they use for politics and economics, using empirical data rather than state authority, then they would be safer than those that rely on a presupposed divine mandate to guide them. However the reduction in the influence of religion on society is only the first step in changing the attitudes of the human mind, not the final one. All the human weaknesses are still present and still need to be addressed in a healthy and productive manner.
It is a long road and no doubt a rocky one.
Also there is nothing to stop christians being part of the process, as long as they are willing to grasp that their private belief does not equal reality automatically. I would prefer if we could eventually dismiss labels completely in regard to religion and simply work on making this world better for everyone in it.
28. Do you believe in free will? (free will being the ability to make choices without coersion).
Using your definition, free will cannot exist. There are always external and internal coersions to any choice you make.
29. If
you believe in free will do you see any problem with defending the idea
that the physical brain, which is limited and subject to the
neuro-chemical laws of the brain, can still produce free will choices?
Not applicable.
30. If
you affirm evolution and that the universe will continue to expand
forever, then do you think it is probable that given enough time, brains
would evolve to the point of exceeding mere physical limitations and
become free of the physical and temporal, and thereby become "deity" and
not be restricted by space and time? If not, why not?
I don't think brains will become free of physical needs and it seems impossible for a temporal construct like a brain to ever escape time or space. Perhaps we might develop technology that moves the brain beyond mere brain matter in our skulls, but it will still need a physical grounding. The concept of having a immaterial brain that is outside space and time is not even a coherant concept.
Also evolution has been working on brains on this planet for hundreds of millions of years and in millions of different paths, and so far none of them show any sign of trancendance or even probable trancendance. To meet the goal you propose the very nature of the universe would have to change.
31. If you
answered the previous question in the affirmative, then aren't you
saying that it is probable that some sort of God exists?
Not applicable. But for the sake of argument you don't have to meet the ridiculous parameters described in Q.20 to be considered godlike.
We may be able to create life one day. We can already manipulate genes and even change atomic states artifically. One day we might birth stars, or even find ways to cross time. (in an extremely unrealistically optimistic long term view of the future).
Perhaps we could even create a universe of our own, as it may take very little to do so, if the universe cannot abide a vacuum. Being a god might take a lot of knowledge but little actual magical power.
Finally since you use "some sort of God" you are forgetting the definition you hold of God and should turn it to a lowercase god because you cannot evolve an uncreated (eternally existant) being.
So that is it, all the questions answered, or at least attempts to answer them. Some questions were fairly transparent in their attempt to shake an atheist viewpoint, however since they address skewed versions of atheist viewpoints they fail to achieve their intended goals.
Monday 27 January 2014
Response to CARM's Questions for atheists Q11 to 20.
Matt Slick from C.A.R.M. posted a series of questions to atheists. I previously answered 10 of them.
It's a good idea to read them first. This is the next set 11 to 20.
11. If you were at one time a believer in the Christian God, what caused you to deny his existence?
I was a Catholic Christian for about 30 odd years before drifting away from that religion.
The question is, as usual, a bit malformed. As an atheist, the christian god, or God as CARM uses the term, is one of thousands of gods and no more special than any of them from my current position.
However I will attempt to break down issues that led to my doubting the claims about 'his' existence.
A. The bible is full of statements that don't quite mash if the Catholic doctrines were true, including the concept that Jesus was God. The bible is not very clear on that, and there are instances that directly oppose the idea. The story of the Devil tempting Jesus in the desert is a classic problem for that claim. If the devil knew God, but tried to bribe Jesus to worship him instead of God, it makes the idea that Jesus was God (and eternal) absurd. This directly points out that the devil thought Jesus was a man.
B. Genesis vs Science. Genesis is completely at odds with Science. Utterly.
C. The belief in witchcraft.
D. The hatred of and negative propaganda about the Jews.
E. Limbo (now dumped of course, as if it never was preached as real for generations).
F. The fragmentation of christianity (thousands of denominations).
G. The immorality of the Old Testament God and Jesus (for different reasons).
H. The use of guilt and fear to keep people in line while calling it love.
Of course none of this prevents there being a god or gods, or impacts on other religions, but those aspects certainly makes one wonder if the abrahamic God makes any sense at all.
Add to that the problem of evil, the change in the doctrines between the jews and christians and muslims and the remarkable corruption of the Catholic church (E.g. a series of well known evil or mad popes, the fabrication of religious artifacts and the pragmatic use of saints and miracles for wealth and power.)
I could go on and on. I think the last straw came when I finally realised that nothing in the bible about Jesus came FROM Jesus (when you have a personal relationship with Jesus you can forget it is not him saying the words of wisdom), only tales about him from unknown or unreliable sources decades later. Plus all the non canonical gospels and stories and their absurd claims (Dragons for instance).
12. Do you believe the world would be better off without religion?
That depends on how religion was removed. Religion exploits human weaknesses. These weaknesses would still exist and would still be open for exploitation even without religions, as we see with people like Deepak Chopra and other mountebanks.
Religion has far more levels than merely the theology, this is self evident in that there are thousands of religions in the world, many drastically different, (so the theology is largely irrelevant) but all offer social control and some offer hope against the cold reality of death.
It has been so for so long that it would take a massive change in how we think about the big questions and the big fears to educate ourselves away from dependancy on easy lies and fast talkers.
If we could become more sceptical, more patient, less self centred and more responsible then yes, we could dump the out of date concepts that served our primative ancestors and move towards a future that replaced the lies with truths. How that would be achieved is a much harder question.
Currently ripping away religion would cause a lot of problems, however challenging it and seeking real reform that moves away from blind faith would be feasible and not as traumatic. In fact if we are ever to start finding truths, you have to recognise the lies first. As with all addictions, acknowledgement of the problem is the first step. Religion is certainly an addiction to many people.
13. Do you believe the world would be better off without Christianity?
Yes. Without Christianity we also would not have Islam to content with, or Mormons or all the other religions and cults that cling to the christian concepts of Hell and Heaven. Of course we might have something else instead, as human weaknesses are easy to exploit with lies and fast talkers. Would the world have been a better place without Christianity? That is impossible to say. Christianity has been a massive part in our human history for 2000 years. However humans would still act according to their nature, so there would still be art, still reform, still wars and still fast talkers so while names might change, the state we are currently in probably would not.
Since christianity is not one thing, but thousands of losely connected faiths and dogmas, it is possible to further reform Christianity to the point where it does not have to be removed at all to allow for humankind to flourish. The further away from the horrors of blind faith the better.
14. Do you believe that faith in a God or gods is a mental disorder?
This statement is often used by atheists like Richard Dawkins or Sam Harris to describe how they preceive blind faith in a god. They have their reasons for thinking like that. However lets look at the term 'mental disorder' itself to see if blind faith in a god qualifies.
"A mental disorder, also called a mental illness or psychiatric disorder, is a mental or behavioral pattern or anomaly that causes distress or disability, and which is not developmentally or socially normative. Mental disorders are generally defined by a combination of how a person feels, acts, thinks or perceives. " ~ wikipedia.
Now I say BLIND faith as there are many types of faith you can have and apologetics like to pretend that they are all the same in terms of justification. They like to think of faith as a kind of justified trust in God.
However the story of doubting Thomas (John 20: 24-29) in the bible does support Dawkins view of faith as blindly believing something without evidence "...blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.".
So focusing on blind faith, is that a mental disorder?. Well it is a mental and behavoural state, it can cause distress and disability as it can control your thought processes and create blindspots for reason and logic (listen to any apologetic for an example of this line of thinking). The only thing that stops it being seen as not socially normative is that it is so widespread and persistant. If someone says they see fairies or have faith in fairies or elves (which many people still do) most christians would think that faith is crazy and would call it a mental disorder, but if they call these fantasies angels and christians will stop and listen (some anyway). So faith in God is not a mental disorder for a very bad reason, it is simply too common. In some christian denominations, speaking in tongues (gibberish) or drinking poison or handling snakes or praying away cancer rather than seeking treatment, or beating unruly children with a stick, or forbidding swearwords because curses are magical or think that by saying a few words over a cracker it changes into the flesh of Jesus so they can eat it is normal. In such societies, 'normal' can be a very twisted thing.
15. Must God be known through the scientific method?
As we are using the Christian God here, rather than all possible gods, then it is important to understand what atheists mean by providing empirical proof of God. Modern christian apologetics and priests have moved God outside of reality (making it, ironically,by default unreal) and saying that it cannot be preceived by man and science. While this is not backed up by the bible, that has never stopped apologetics from moving the goalposts before when asked to backup their claims.
In the bible, God has a physical form (and I am not talking about Jesus), as do angels which supposedly exist with God on whatever plain of existence he is on.
So there is no reason that God cannot manifest on earth or provide a suitable avatar that would achieve the same result. The bible is full of very physical miracles of his power, very showy and definitely not requiring blind faith to see them.
However even respecting the modern view of God, a being that is supposed to be everywhere (but just not anywhere science can detect him of course) and all powerful (but unable to demonstrate he exists to anyone who does not already accept he exists or accepts very subjectively interpreted events.) Even the most liberal Christian accepts that God is a personal god, and that claims in the bible about how personal he is are true. So while you might not spot a man in the sky with a big beard you should be able, using the scientific method, to descern his interferance with reality. Prayer being one example. Christians have a long and varied history claiming the miracles of prayers, yet not one has been scientifically verified. The Catholic church used to proclaim miracles at a drop of the hat, but in an increasingly educated and scientifically literate society, they have rapidly become very very reluctant to offically claim new ones nowadays and when they do, don't go out of their way to back it up and usually rely on unrepeatable claims and mysteries.
16. If you answered yes to the previous question, then how do you avoid a category mistake by requiring material evidence for an immaterial God?
Well according to the bible, God is not simply immaterial (whatever that is?), that claim was made up by apologetics to get around the problem of having no empirical proof of their God.
But even giving the immaterial claim to them, they are making the error, not the atheist, as we don't ask for material evidence for an immaterial God, but material evidence for that God's interventions on the material universe. Christians do believe God does stuff, all we ask is for them to prove it.
17. Do we have any purpose as human beings?
This question is one of those questions that don't (yet) deserve an answer (like "Why do the rain clouds hate me?"). It also attempts to put the burden of proof onto atheists. Provide evidence we have an ultimate purpose first then ask the question, rather than presuppose it and then dare atheists to disprove it.
Perhaps our only purpose is to feed the legions of bacteria that live on us, or perhaps all living things have one purpose and that is to struggle to survive in a hostile universe, or perhaps such answers are unknowable. The only purpose we can know exists 100% is the one we give ourselves.
18. If we do have purpose, can you as an atheist please explain how that purpose is determined?
Going back to my previous answers in Q. 17. and developing each in turn.
A. There are a heck of a lot more bacteria than there are other species of animal or plant. Perhaps bacteria are special to the universe. (This is a joke, in case someone thinks I am being serious.)
B. Those that do not seek to survive die out before reproducing, those that survived desired to do so and being successful seem to point towards that being a reasonable and respectable purpose.
C. Keep looking for the hard answers and maybe we will find out someday.
D. By genetic and social and personal factors.
19. Where does morality come from?
Nature ultimately, and further refined (in our case) by human development and cognitive awareness of the social contract and self preservation. Morality, from my perspective, is the difference between harmful and beneficial behaviour in a social system. Without a social framework there is no need for morality. Christians may have their own view of what morality is, but I really don't care as I don't recognise many of their presupposed justifications for their definitions.
20. Are there moral absolutes?
Perhaps or perhaps not. I don't know of any but that does not mean there could not be any, assuming the term is internally consistant in the first place. Since morality (IMO) is derived from our development (in many ways), and thus must be somewhat flexible then absolutes makes no sense anymore than a married bachelor makes sense. Christians like to use emotionally charged 'examples' like raping babies, but that proves nothing in itself. Just because certain actions are seen as objectionable by atheists and theists does not, in any way, prove it to be an absolute anymore than if we all agreed upon something being good makes it an absolute. There is no standard to judge these concepts against and that is the nub of the matter. Once again all it comes down to is presupposing a God and then presupposing that God's attributes, then unjustifiably claiming since those attributes exist the God must. A nice circular argument.
Ok, that is enough for now.
It's a good idea to read them first. This is the next set 11 to 20.
11. If you were at one time a believer in the Christian God, what caused you to deny his existence?
I was a Catholic Christian for about 30 odd years before drifting away from that religion.
The question is, as usual, a bit malformed. As an atheist, the christian god, or God as CARM uses the term, is one of thousands of gods and no more special than any of them from my current position.
However I will attempt to break down issues that led to my doubting the claims about 'his' existence.
A. The bible is full of statements that don't quite mash if the Catholic doctrines were true, including the concept that Jesus was God. The bible is not very clear on that, and there are instances that directly oppose the idea. The story of the Devil tempting Jesus in the desert is a classic problem for that claim. If the devil knew God, but tried to bribe Jesus to worship him instead of God, it makes the idea that Jesus was God (and eternal) absurd. This directly points out that the devil thought Jesus was a man.
B. Genesis vs Science. Genesis is completely at odds with Science. Utterly.
C. The belief in witchcraft.
D. The hatred of and negative propaganda about the Jews.
E. Limbo (now dumped of course, as if it never was preached as real for generations).
F. The fragmentation of christianity (thousands of denominations).
G. The immorality of the Old Testament God and Jesus (for different reasons).
H. The use of guilt and fear to keep people in line while calling it love.
Of course none of this prevents there being a god or gods, or impacts on other religions, but those aspects certainly makes one wonder if the abrahamic God makes any sense at all.
Add to that the problem of evil, the change in the doctrines between the jews and christians and muslims and the remarkable corruption of the Catholic church (E.g. a series of well known evil or mad popes, the fabrication of religious artifacts and the pragmatic use of saints and miracles for wealth and power.)
I could go on and on. I think the last straw came when I finally realised that nothing in the bible about Jesus came FROM Jesus (when you have a personal relationship with Jesus you can forget it is not him saying the words of wisdom), only tales about him from unknown or unreliable sources decades later. Plus all the non canonical gospels and stories and their absurd claims (Dragons for instance).
12. Do you believe the world would be better off without religion?
That depends on how religion was removed. Religion exploits human weaknesses. These weaknesses would still exist and would still be open for exploitation even without religions, as we see with people like Deepak Chopra and other mountebanks.
Religion has far more levels than merely the theology, this is self evident in that there are thousands of religions in the world, many drastically different, (so the theology is largely irrelevant) but all offer social control and some offer hope against the cold reality of death.
It has been so for so long that it would take a massive change in how we think about the big questions and the big fears to educate ourselves away from dependancy on easy lies and fast talkers.
If we could become more sceptical, more patient, less self centred and more responsible then yes, we could dump the out of date concepts that served our primative ancestors and move towards a future that replaced the lies with truths. How that would be achieved is a much harder question.
Currently ripping away religion would cause a lot of problems, however challenging it and seeking real reform that moves away from blind faith would be feasible and not as traumatic. In fact if we are ever to start finding truths, you have to recognise the lies first. As with all addictions, acknowledgement of the problem is the first step. Religion is certainly an addiction to many people.
13. Do you believe the world would be better off without Christianity?
Yes. Without Christianity we also would not have Islam to content with, or Mormons or all the other religions and cults that cling to the christian concepts of Hell and Heaven. Of course we might have something else instead, as human weaknesses are easy to exploit with lies and fast talkers. Would the world have been a better place without Christianity? That is impossible to say. Christianity has been a massive part in our human history for 2000 years. However humans would still act according to their nature, so there would still be art, still reform, still wars and still fast talkers so while names might change, the state we are currently in probably would not.
Since christianity is not one thing, but thousands of losely connected faiths and dogmas, it is possible to further reform Christianity to the point where it does not have to be removed at all to allow for humankind to flourish. The further away from the horrors of blind faith the better.
14. Do you believe that faith in a God or gods is a mental disorder?
This statement is often used by atheists like Richard Dawkins or Sam Harris to describe how they preceive blind faith in a god. They have their reasons for thinking like that. However lets look at the term 'mental disorder' itself to see if blind faith in a god qualifies.
"A mental disorder, also called a mental illness or psychiatric disorder, is a mental or behavioral pattern or anomaly that causes distress or disability, and which is not developmentally or socially normative. Mental disorders are generally defined by a combination of how a person feels, acts, thinks or perceives. " ~ wikipedia.
Now I say BLIND faith as there are many types of faith you can have and apologetics like to pretend that they are all the same in terms of justification. They like to think of faith as a kind of justified trust in God.
However the story of doubting Thomas (John 20: 24-29) in the bible does support Dawkins view of faith as blindly believing something without evidence "...blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.".
So focusing on blind faith, is that a mental disorder?. Well it is a mental and behavoural state, it can cause distress and disability as it can control your thought processes and create blindspots for reason and logic (listen to any apologetic for an example of this line of thinking). The only thing that stops it being seen as not socially normative is that it is so widespread and persistant. If someone says they see fairies or have faith in fairies or elves (which many people still do) most christians would think that faith is crazy and would call it a mental disorder, but if they call these fantasies angels and christians will stop and listen (some anyway). So faith in God is not a mental disorder for a very bad reason, it is simply too common. In some christian denominations, speaking in tongues (gibberish) or drinking poison or handling snakes or praying away cancer rather than seeking treatment, or beating unruly children with a stick, or forbidding swearwords because curses are magical or think that by saying a few words over a cracker it changes into the flesh of Jesus so they can eat it is normal. In such societies, 'normal' can be a very twisted thing.
15. Must God be known through the scientific method?
As we are using the Christian God here, rather than all possible gods, then it is important to understand what atheists mean by providing empirical proof of God. Modern christian apologetics and priests have moved God outside of reality (making it, ironically,by default unreal) and saying that it cannot be preceived by man and science. While this is not backed up by the bible, that has never stopped apologetics from moving the goalposts before when asked to backup their claims.
In the bible, God has a physical form (and I am not talking about Jesus), as do angels which supposedly exist with God on whatever plain of existence he is on.
So there is no reason that God cannot manifest on earth or provide a suitable avatar that would achieve the same result. The bible is full of very physical miracles of his power, very showy and definitely not requiring blind faith to see them.
However even respecting the modern view of God, a being that is supposed to be everywhere (but just not anywhere science can detect him of course) and all powerful (but unable to demonstrate he exists to anyone who does not already accept he exists or accepts very subjectively interpreted events.) Even the most liberal Christian accepts that God is a personal god, and that claims in the bible about how personal he is are true. So while you might not spot a man in the sky with a big beard you should be able, using the scientific method, to descern his interferance with reality. Prayer being one example. Christians have a long and varied history claiming the miracles of prayers, yet not one has been scientifically verified. The Catholic church used to proclaim miracles at a drop of the hat, but in an increasingly educated and scientifically literate society, they have rapidly become very very reluctant to offically claim new ones nowadays and when they do, don't go out of their way to back it up and usually rely on unrepeatable claims and mysteries.
16. If you answered yes to the previous question, then how do you avoid a category mistake by requiring material evidence for an immaterial God?
Well according to the bible, God is not simply immaterial (whatever that is?), that claim was made up by apologetics to get around the problem of having no empirical proof of their God.
But even giving the immaterial claim to them, they are making the error, not the atheist, as we don't ask for material evidence for an immaterial God, but material evidence for that God's interventions on the material universe. Christians do believe God does stuff, all we ask is for them to prove it.
17. Do we have any purpose as human beings?
This question is one of those questions that don't (yet) deserve an answer (like "Why do the rain clouds hate me?"). It also attempts to put the burden of proof onto atheists. Provide evidence we have an ultimate purpose first then ask the question, rather than presuppose it and then dare atheists to disprove it.
Perhaps our only purpose is to feed the legions of bacteria that live on us, or perhaps all living things have one purpose and that is to struggle to survive in a hostile universe, or perhaps such answers are unknowable. The only purpose we can know exists 100% is the one we give ourselves.
18. If we do have purpose, can you as an atheist please explain how that purpose is determined?
Going back to my previous answers in Q. 17. and developing each in turn.
A. There are a heck of a lot more bacteria than there are other species of animal or plant. Perhaps bacteria are special to the universe. (This is a joke, in case someone thinks I am being serious.)
B. Those that do not seek to survive die out before reproducing, those that survived desired to do so and being successful seem to point towards that being a reasonable and respectable purpose.
C. Keep looking for the hard answers and maybe we will find out someday.
D. By genetic and social and personal factors.
19. Where does morality come from?
Nature ultimately, and further refined (in our case) by human development and cognitive awareness of the social contract and self preservation. Morality, from my perspective, is the difference between harmful and beneficial behaviour in a social system. Without a social framework there is no need for morality. Christians may have their own view of what morality is, but I really don't care as I don't recognise many of their presupposed justifications for their definitions.
20. Are there moral absolutes?
Perhaps or perhaps not. I don't know of any but that does not mean there could not be any, assuming the term is internally consistant in the first place. Since morality (IMO) is derived from our development (in many ways), and thus must be somewhat flexible then absolutes makes no sense anymore than a married bachelor makes sense. Christians like to use emotionally charged 'examples' like raping babies, but that proves nothing in itself. Just because certain actions are seen as objectionable by atheists and theists does not, in any way, prove it to be an absolute anymore than if we all agreed upon something being good makes it an absolute. There is no standard to judge these concepts against and that is the nub of the matter. Once again all it comes down to is presupposing a God and then presupposing that God's attributes, then unjustifiably claiming since those attributes exist the God must. A nice circular argument.
Ok, that is enough for now.
Thursday 23 January 2014
Response to CARM's Questions for atheists Q1 to 10.
I sometimes like to browse sites like CARM to see what they are posting. They have a page that asks a series of questions to atheists and I decided to write a response here.
This response is aimed to be as truthful as possible in regard to my stance on atheism, and I am not trying to represent anyone else in these answers.
1. How would you define atheism?
A good question. A lack of belief in a god or gods is the broadest and best answer to this, although disbelief in gods also works for explicit atheism, which is what I would think is my stance.
2. Do you act according to what you believe (there is no God) in or what you don't believe in (lack belief in God)?
This is a bit of a leading question or two separate questions. Using the CARM definition of God, rather than all possible gods, then I suppose I do act according to that statement as I believe the abrahamic god does not exist that has the characteristics attributed to it by CARM's definition.
I am not sure what they mean by acting according to a lack of belief in a god. If I don't hold the belief in the first place, how do I act in lacking it. Its not a well formed question. I don't pray, or accept the concepts of a God and it's threats or powers.
I suppose those that lack belief in Santa claus don't go to sleep expecting magical visitations by a fat man with a beard either, or expect to find reindeer hoofprints on their roof in the morning.
Unfortunately CARM also has an article on what they think a lack of belief is, which they manage to mangle. I am not using their view of a lack of belief. My view is simply not holding a positive belief in the claim that a god or gods exist. This can include a range of positions, all of which fall into the lack of belief category.
3. Do you think it is inconsistent for someone who "lacks belief" in God to work against God's existence by attempting to show that God doesn't exist?
Once again the previous corruption of a lack of belief (which they think means having no opinion at all on the topic) is used here, but since I don't recognise that definition I will stick to mine which is more accurate.
The question is poorly phrased, as those that lack belief can be completely consistant in demonstrating or attempting to demonstrate why CARM's version of God doesn't exist. Not all bother doing so of course, as CARM later admits and atheism does not require one to do so to be philosophically sound in having a lack of belief in God. If you believe that CARM's God does not exist, they also lack belief in that God. How could it be otherwise. It is a strawman to attempt to oversimplify the idea of having a lack of belief and thus make it seemingly narrower than it actually is.
Also the idea of working against God's existence does not make sense. Either your God exists or it does not. You cannot work against anything's existence. You can only dispute the CLAIM that such a thing exists or make a claim that such a thing does not exist. The claim about a thing is separate from the fact of existence or non existence of a thing. Existence is not contingent on belief in a thing.
4. How sure are you that your atheism properly represents reality?
This question seems to be assuming atheism equals a claim that there is no God, since I am not sure how a lack of belief in something represents anything outside not accepting the claim. It is not a claim ABOUT reality, only a rejection or ignorance of a claim.
For me, my atheism is 100% matching reality, as I do not see any reason to accept CARM's definition of God existing. That does not mean that I know for 100% that their God cannot exist. But a discussion on the nature of their God is a big topic and would derail this post.
5. How sure are you that your atheism is correct?
Oh I am getting a flashback of Shockofgod. This question is also poorly phrased in it's intention. Once again it seems to be aiming for the idea that atheism means that there is no God. This is not how I defined it.
Atheism is correct by this logical argument:
a. atheism means a lack of belief in gods.
b. a lack of belief can be held as a valid position on a topic if not given sufficent evidence to accept a claim.
c. atheists are not convinced by the evidence provided by theists on the existence of gods.
d. therefore atheism is the correct position to hold in that circumstance.
6. How would you define what truth is?
Heck, that question has dogged philosophers since the dawn of time, and depends on the context it is referring to and the perspective of the questioner too.
If CARM means descriptive truth about reality, like what the diameter of the Earth is, then Truth would mean the closest answer that can be verified with empirical observation and testing. However I do not necessarily mean an absolute value of truth, but more a pragmatic value, in that it is something contingent on our current knowledge and technology and subject to possible revision in the future.
If CARM is referring to some philosophical 'truths' about morality or ultimate meaning then I am not sure truth is even a valid term to use in that circumstance as the questions themselves may not be even coherent.
Not every question has a truth behind it. Just because a person can ask it, does not mean there is any meaningful answer. "why do the clouds always try to drench my new suite when I go on a date? Do they hate me?" Is there any truth in these examples? The questions have lots of presuppositional errors and assumptions that corrupt the validity of the questions.
7. Why do you believe your atheism is a justifiable position to hold?
This seems like a rehash of Q.5 and perhaps Q.4.
8. Are you a materialist, or a physicalist, or what?
These seem a bit off topic, and require an understanding of what CARM thinks these labels represent.
"A materialist atheist is someone who assumes that the physical universe and its properties are all that exist, that nothing exists outside of the material world, and this necessarily means that a transcendent God cannot exist."
OK, I am not sure the phrasing of this is really accurate. We do not know if anything exists outside of the materal universe, as once we discover something new, it becomes automatically part of the universe. We don't have any example of something we know exits NOT being part of a material universe. I don't accept the way materialism is defined as being entirely coherent, but I would consider that everything we do understand is material, including thoughts and dreams.
If something comes from another dimension, or even another universe, it would also be material, if we detected it. I am not sure what a non material thing is. We have no examples of it.
I also support the concept of methodological naturalism in regard to how science operates.
9. Do you affirm or deny that atheism is a worldview? Why or why not?
Using CARM's own definition of worldview it seems obvious that atheism is NOT a worldview. It can be part of one, just as any stance can be, but it has no tenants, guidance, rules or dogma outside of it's definition.
10. Not all atheists are antagonistic to Christianity, but for those of you who are, why the antagonism?
Well just to clarify, it is not JUST christianity that some atheists can be hostile to. Christianity is nothing special in regard to it's claims. However the influence and power of Christianity does make it a larger target for some atheist antagonism, especially if that atheist lives within a predominantly christian populace. Christianity has a long history of persecution of non-believers and heretics too.
Plus it teaches what we preceive as hateful doctrine to our friends, family and children. Living in a society that proclaims atheists are going to hell, are sinful, work for Satan, are evil or fools, blind or ignorant of the 'truth', deserve torture and a whole host of other unpleasant concepts hardly endears christians to atheists, although, thankfully, most christians playdown the worst parts, at least in the more educated areas of the world, excluding parts of the South of the USA.
A lot of the annoyance is also derived from anti-science movements and outright irrational bigotry that has it's roots in a theistic interpretation of a holy book. This is not exclusive to christianity as other religions have their fundamentalists too. Also these movements do not represent all of christianity either. There are thousands of versions.
However the antagonism usually aims to protect atheists from the harm such beliefs can inflict on societies that the atheists live in. We generally think this life is the only one we know we have and don't want it ruined by a barbaric adoption of ancient beliefs that we see impact and undermine our lives. This also can apply to non religious concepts that cause harm too, including psychics and certain new age 'medicines'. However none of that comes directly from atheism.
Anyway that is enough for now. I will come back on more of the questions in future.
This response is aimed to be as truthful as possible in regard to my stance on atheism, and I am not trying to represent anyone else in these answers.
1. How would you define atheism?
A good question. A lack of belief in a god or gods is the broadest and best answer to this, although disbelief in gods also works for explicit atheism, which is what I would think is my stance.
2. Do you act according to what you believe (there is no God) in or what you don't believe in (lack belief in God)?
This is a bit of a leading question or two separate questions. Using the CARM definition of God, rather than all possible gods, then I suppose I do act according to that statement as I believe the abrahamic god does not exist that has the characteristics attributed to it by CARM's definition.
I am not sure what they mean by acting according to a lack of belief in a god. If I don't hold the belief in the first place, how do I act in lacking it. Its not a well formed question. I don't pray, or accept the concepts of a God and it's threats or powers.
I suppose those that lack belief in Santa claus don't go to sleep expecting magical visitations by a fat man with a beard either, or expect to find reindeer hoofprints on their roof in the morning.
Unfortunately CARM also has an article on what they think a lack of belief is, which they manage to mangle. I am not using their view of a lack of belief. My view is simply not holding a positive belief in the claim that a god or gods exist. This can include a range of positions, all of which fall into the lack of belief category.
3. Do you think it is inconsistent for someone who "lacks belief" in God to work against God's existence by attempting to show that God doesn't exist?
Once again the previous corruption of a lack of belief (which they think means having no opinion at all on the topic) is used here, but since I don't recognise that definition I will stick to mine which is more accurate.
The question is poorly phrased, as those that lack belief can be completely consistant in demonstrating or attempting to demonstrate why CARM's version of God doesn't exist. Not all bother doing so of course, as CARM later admits and atheism does not require one to do so to be philosophically sound in having a lack of belief in God. If you believe that CARM's God does not exist, they also lack belief in that God. How could it be otherwise. It is a strawman to attempt to oversimplify the idea of having a lack of belief and thus make it seemingly narrower than it actually is.
Also the idea of working against God's existence does not make sense. Either your God exists or it does not. You cannot work against anything's existence. You can only dispute the CLAIM that such a thing exists or make a claim that such a thing does not exist. The claim about a thing is separate from the fact of existence or non existence of a thing. Existence is not contingent on belief in a thing.
4. How sure are you that your atheism properly represents reality?
This question seems to be assuming atheism equals a claim that there is no God, since I am not sure how a lack of belief in something represents anything outside not accepting the claim. It is not a claim ABOUT reality, only a rejection or ignorance of a claim.
For me, my atheism is 100% matching reality, as I do not see any reason to accept CARM's definition of God existing. That does not mean that I know for 100% that their God cannot exist. But a discussion on the nature of their God is a big topic and would derail this post.
5. How sure are you that your atheism is correct?
Oh I am getting a flashback of Shockofgod. This question is also poorly phrased in it's intention. Once again it seems to be aiming for the idea that atheism means that there is no God. This is not how I defined it.
Atheism is correct by this logical argument:
a. atheism means a lack of belief in gods.
b. a lack of belief can be held as a valid position on a topic if not given sufficent evidence to accept a claim.
c. atheists are not convinced by the evidence provided by theists on the existence of gods.
d. therefore atheism is the correct position to hold in that circumstance.
6. How would you define what truth is?
Heck, that question has dogged philosophers since the dawn of time, and depends on the context it is referring to and the perspective of the questioner too.
If CARM means descriptive truth about reality, like what the diameter of the Earth is, then Truth would mean the closest answer that can be verified with empirical observation and testing. However I do not necessarily mean an absolute value of truth, but more a pragmatic value, in that it is something contingent on our current knowledge and technology and subject to possible revision in the future.
If CARM is referring to some philosophical 'truths' about morality or ultimate meaning then I am not sure truth is even a valid term to use in that circumstance as the questions themselves may not be even coherent.
Not every question has a truth behind it. Just because a person can ask it, does not mean there is any meaningful answer. "why do the clouds always try to drench my new suite when I go on a date? Do they hate me?" Is there any truth in these examples? The questions have lots of presuppositional errors and assumptions that corrupt the validity of the questions.
7. Why do you believe your atheism is a justifiable position to hold?
This seems like a rehash of Q.5 and perhaps Q.4.
8. Are you a materialist, or a physicalist, or what?
These seem a bit off topic, and require an understanding of what CARM thinks these labels represent.
"A materialist atheist is someone who assumes that the physical universe and its properties are all that exist, that nothing exists outside of the material world, and this necessarily means that a transcendent God cannot exist."
OK, I am not sure the phrasing of this is really accurate. We do not know if anything exists outside of the materal universe, as once we discover something new, it becomes automatically part of the universe. We don't have any example of something we know exits NOT being part of a material universe. I don't accept the way materialism is defined as being entirely coherent, but I would consider that everything we do understand is material, including thoughts and dreams.
If something comes from another dimension, or even another universe, it would also be material, if we detected it. I am not sure what a non material thing is. We have no examples of it.
I also support the concept of methodological naturalism in regard to how science operates.
9. Do you affirm or deny that atheism is a worldview? Why or why not?
Using CARM's own definition of worldview it seems obvious that atheism is NOT a worldview. It can be part of one, just as any stance can be, but it has no tenants, guidance, rules or dogma outside of it's definition.
10. Not all atheists are antagonistic to Christianity, but for those of you who are, why the antagonism?
Well just to clarify, it is not JUST christianity that some atheists can be hostile to. Christianity is nothing special in regard to it's claims. However the influence and power of Christianity does make it a larger target for some atheist antagonism, especially if that atheist lives within a predominantly christian populace. Christianity has a long history of persecution of non-believers and heretics too.
Plus it teaches what we preceive as hateful doctrine to our friends, family and children. Living in a society that proclaims atheists are going to hell, are sinful, work for Satan, are evil or fools, blind or ignorant of the 'truth', deserve torture and a whole host of other unpleasant concepts hardly endears christians to atheists, although, thankfully, most christians playdown the worst parts, at least in the more educated areas of the world, excluding parts of the South of the USA.
A lot of the annoyance is also derived from anti-science movements and outright irrational bigotry that has it's roots in a theistic interpretation of a holy book. This is not exclusive to christianity as other religions have their fundamentalists too. Also these movements do not represent all of christianity either. There are thousands of versions.
However the antagonism usually aims to protect atheists from the harm such beliefs can inflict on societies that the atheists live in. We generally think this life is the only one we know we have and don't want it ruined by a barbaric adoption of ancient beliefs that we see impact and undermine our lives. This also can apply to non religious concepts that cause harm too, including psychics and certain new age 'medicines'. However none of that comes directly from atheism.
Anyway that is enough for now. I will come back on more of the questions in future.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)