Yes, the “haha, you can’t disprove god or faeries or that we’re like all in the matrix dude!!! therefore all is fair game!” argument. Well played.
Science can test specific claims made about deities having specific interactions with the world, though, which has relevance to claims of an interventionist god, miracles, etc.
But if you want to play the “God is some mysterious force we don’t understand who has never actually interacted with us meaningfully, therefore we can’t prove or disprove him” card, go ahead. It’s pretty much meaningless.
Logic pretty much handles those ones effectively. Science can to some degree speak to “arguments from personal experience”, though - we have a pretty thorough understanding of the placebo effect.
When? What does tradition in some other time period have to do with you claiming Contrapuntal’s definition of atheism is wrong?
So that makes him incorrect, now? Do you insist all words that once had different definitions than today are being used incorrectly today? You’re being silly.
Doesn’t make him wrong.
Your cite says from a- “without” + theos “a god”. I’m not seeing the big difference here.
No, it’s not. Lack of belief in God or gods is exactly what one of the meanings of atheism is. Words mean what people use them to mean.
And various sources disagree with your claims. It’s also irrelevant. Lots of words once had meanings that differ from today’s.
These claims makes it harder for me to trust what you claim about what “various encyclopedias of philosophy” say.
I’ll just list online dictionary definitions so I don’t have to type out the definitions from dictionaries on my shelf.
I’d be willing to stipulate that there is no “necessity” for supernatural beings to explain anything…with no trouble at all. I see absolutely no evidence whatsoever that there is any need for anything supernatural to exist to explain existence, or any component of it.
Don’t really need the help of “science” to get me to that point.
On the other hand…I see absolutely no evidence whatsoever that the existence of supernatural beings is an impossibility…or evidence that something completely divorced from what we normally consider “what is”…to be an impossibility.
If I had said such a thing, your objection would have validity. I said no such thing though. Rather, I was objection to the claim that science has conclusively disproven God’s existence. At no point did I claim that this proves the existence of any supernatural being by default.
Tell ya what. Why don’t you wait until I actually make such a claim before using it to ridicule me. That would be fair, wouldn’t you say?
Note that I said nothing about God being some mysterious force that has never interacted with us meaningfully. Nor did I say anything about whether we could prove or disprove his existence. Rather, I objected to the notion that SCIENCE has disproven the existence of a supernatural being. Do you honestly think that the two claims are logically equivalent?
And it is “meaningless” because you say it is…or do you have a foundation for it being deemed meaningless.
I personally don’t think it is meaningless when discussing the issue with someone who denies that any such thing exists…which, in essence, is the foundation of atheism…no matter that debating atheists often want to play the “strong/weak atheist” card, to use your phrase.
Proof in either direction is besides the point. Theists cannot prove there is a GOD…Deists cannot prove there is a “driving force”…atheists cannot prove there are no gods.
We are talking about evidence. And I say there is such paltry evidence in any direction…best to simply acknowledge we do not know…and cannot make meaningful guesses.
Maybe I’ve forgotten, but has anyone in this thread suggested that science has completely disproven the possibility of God or leprechauns or invisible fairies? It’s ironic that you’re chastising me for responding to an argument you never made, that instead you are actually responding to an argument that, as far as I can remember, was never made.
It is true that science has not disproven the existence of God because religionists have yet to bring forth ANY evidence as to this entity’s existence. There is nothing to disprove because, so far, there is nothing to consider disproving.
I think that people underestimate the power of the desire for comfort (including avoiding pain). It’s silly to imagine that only religious people believe what they do because they seek comfort. Everyone does. It’s hard wired into our biology to avoid pain and seek pleasure. The real difference is that religious people are more willing to sacrifice reality for their comfort than others are.
BTW (with respect to the idea that religious people aren’t just seeking comfort because they do things that aren’t exactly convenient), it’s not about seeking ultimate comfort. That’s impossible. It’s about seeking the most comfort possible given your value set. You sometimes do painful things in order minimize future (and larger) perceived pain. For instance, it’s not fun or convenient to pay your bills. It can actually be pretty painful at times. However, it’s even less fun to have your stuff repossessed, your electricity shut off, your phone disconnected, your house foreclosed on, etc etc. Paying your bills provides a higher long-term comfort than living in the moment.
I obviously don’t know this for certain, but I strongly suspect that everyone has *unconsciously *selected their beliefs for what provides the most comfort given their complex value set and what supports other, more basic beliefs. Given that there are so many selections/choices for things one can believe, a choice (at some cognitive level) is inevitable. Some of those beliefs (the fundamental ones) were likely formed when we were infants and toddlers, seem like they’ve always been there, and may or may not have any basis in objective reality. I think it appears to our conscious mind like we aren’t actually choosing anything; we believe what we believe because we can’t help but believe it.
But if you’ve ever had a situation where gaining a new piece of knowledge, or having a major epiphany has overhauled large portions of your belief system, or heard about people who have been brainwashed, or kept repeating the same thing over and over in order to convince themselves of something, you know that beliefs are flexible. When confronted with an idea where you’re not sure what to believe, it’s fine to say, “I don’t know” but you still end up picking a side. If you’ve ever uttered the words, “I don’t know but I would like to believe…” you know what I’m talking about. Some people are more comfortable with being ignorant on certain subjects, and will not cling as much to what they would like to be true as others who assume their desires as Beliefs™, but I suspect that kind of behavior is inescapable.
When I say, “I value being rational” I could very well say, “I can’t help it” like you do. It certainly doesn’t feel to me like I could “drink the kool-aid” or wish myself into believing in the invisible all-loving dad in the sky, but there was a time when I did believe in a god, so I suppose I have a hard time buying the “I believe what I believe because I can’t help it” idea. My beliefs have evolved over time (away from theism/deism) because I was consciously aware I cared more about what was true than what felt good, and that involved being as rational as possible. The irony is that it feels good to me to care more about what is true than what I’d like to be true.
Perhaps in one sense, it’s true: given my current knowledge and value set, it doesn’t feel like I could change what I believe. I certainly couldn’t consciously will myself to do it. What I could do, however, is deny certain pieces of data which would alter the parameters of my beliefs and change the resultant conclusions. I have little doubt that’s going on with the majority (if not all) of people.
But ya know… what do I know? It’s just what I believe.
Not so far, but technically you can’t jut make a blanket statement about it. You can only speak to specific claims.
Yes you do. Declarations by fiat don’t mean anything. You can’t rule out magic unless you can demonstrate that some other explanation is possible. This is generally quite easy to do, and so far, we’ve encountered nothing that can’t be explained without magic, but that doesn’t mean it can’t happen tomorrow or that we can rule out magic without scientific method.
Who’s saying otherwise?
That leaves you at atheism. Agnosticism is the position that it’s impossible to know whether gods exist. It’s a position on what is knowable, not technically a position of belief. Atheism is an absence of theistic belief. There is a subset of atheism (“strong atheism”) which positively asserts that no gods exist, but most atheists are not strong atheists, and you aren’t talking to any strong atheists in this thread. You’re arguing with a position that nobody is taking. We all recognize that gods/the supernatural can never technically be disproven. That doesn’t mean they deserve the slightest serious consideration as reasonable possibilities unless and until there is evidence for them.
You’re missing the point. Contrapuntal didn’t merely claim that atheism CAN be used to mean an absence of belief in God. Rather, he insisted that this WAS the traditional definition. It is not.
At no point did I declare that the word “atheism” cannot be used in that manner. Quite the contrary; I openly allowed for that broader use, even though this usage has not made its way into the dictionaries. I was specifically addressing the claim that “atheism” is derived from the roots “a+theism” and thus traditionally means a mere absence of theistic belief. That is simply untrue.
Again, I said no such thing. If you want to argue for the broader meaning, go at it. I will certainly agree that an argument can be made for this broader usage, even though it is not yet recognized by the dictionaries. I was saying that it’s not the traditional usage, despite the fervent protestations of certain people.
This is worth repeating, since some skeptics here will surely miss that point. I am NOT saying that the word atheism CAN be used in that manner. I specifically allowed for that usage in my previous posting. If you folks want to keep protesting, “But the meaning of words can change! They can change!” then that’s your problem. You’re arguing against a position that nobody here has been advocating.
There’s a huge difference between “(a+theos)+ism” (belief that there is no god) and “a+(theos+ism)” (an absence of belief in any god). Skeptics here often insist on the latter etymology, but that’s simply incorrect.
None of the references that you cited support your claim. Quite the contrary; they cite usage such as “the doctrine that there is no deity” and “the belief that there is no God, or denial that God or gods exist.” Not a single one declares that it is merely the absence of belief.
One of them does talk about “disbelief” in God, but as I’ve pointed out in previous discussions, this is not the same as mere lack of belief. Quite the contrary; the Merriam-Webster dictionary defines this as “mental rejection of something as untrue,” so that usage doesn’t support your claim either.
Besides, remember that Contrapuntal specifically declared that an absence of belief is “the very definition of atheism.” Not merely a possible definition, but THE only possible one. I find it interesting that you’re quick to jump on my decidedly moderate claim, while giving his extreme (and hitherto unsupported) claim a complete pass. This is ironic, considering how skeptics have been bashing believers in this thread for their supposed ignorance and unwillingness to seek the truth.
Theists can prove that there is a god, at least in the legal, if not mathematical, sense. God can show himself, like he supposedly did during the Exodus. God can inspire a prophet with some correct and specific predictions. God in the Bible did all kinds of very obvious things, but alas as we get closer to where we have an accurate historical record the interaction with humanity decreases. The NT has all sorts of stuff happening after Jesus dies, but it seems no one thought to write any of them down while they were happening.
That theists haven’t been able to “prove” anything just means that the thing they want to prove appears to be false, not that it is impossible. Deists have defined their god to be unfalsifiable, which is cool but doesn’t give us lots of direction. As for atheists, we can disprove certain gods, but god is so ill-defined that no one in his right mind is going to claim to be able to disprove this fuzzy concept. A tri-omni god can be disproven logically, the God of some planet and people from 10 billion years ago and 100 galaxies away, not so much.
How is the question of whether or not there’s some vague non-interventionist god out there any more relevant to anything than if there are invisible fairies?
Atheists tend to be skeptics, fundamentally. Obviously not all atheists are perfectly skeptical, but fundamentally the idea is that there’s no reason to believe in something that has no evidence. And hence - what would be the point for them to declare there is no god? If they do, it’s really shorthand for “your specific bearded dude in the sky is almost certainly myth” rather than “I am declaring because I know everything that exists and possibly exist I can conclusive prove a negative”
Yeah, this is an attempt to falsely try to make the views seem equally valid. This is as silly as saying “the believe in invisible fairies side and don’t believe in invisible fairies side both have the same amount of proof, therefore it’s equally likely” or something.
So if people changed “I don’t think there is a god” into “there’s no evidence to suggest that there is a god and if there was an interventionist god we’d likely have evidence of that, therefore most likely there is none” you’d be okay with that?
Really, this in part boils down to the silly double standard that theists like to use in arguments about god. They will tell you “This is God, and this is how he created the universe, and this is his holy word, and this is his prophet, and these are the rules he laid out for you, and this is how he has shaped our history”… but then when you get into an argument for the existance of the God, suddenly they flip the switch and now they’re defending a vague non-interventionist god-like entity that you can’t disprove. It goes from “this is my very specific idea of god” to “uh, god is whatever vague notion anyone wants to ascribe to him and therefore you can’t prove he doesn’t exist!”
Alan Smithee said, “FTR, I think science disproves the existence of any sort of supernatural being to the extent that anything can be proven not to exist.” He didn’t use the word “completely,” but neither did I. I think there’s a difference between “conclusive” and “complete,” but even if we ignore that distinction, the point remains that God’s existence is something that lies far beyond the purvey of scientific testing.
I’ve pointed out that the argument has indeed been made. Where does that leave us?
Good job arguing against a strawman argument that no one with any scientific background has made. Now why not start with our real arguments?
As for personal experience, the difference between an experience in the real world and one purely internal can be determined by examining predictions from the experience. God seems to inspire people to love their neighbor (whoopee) and never bothers to tell anyone how to cure AIDS. (Or even the winning lottery number.) It’s just like UFO abductees, or do you give them a break also? Adamski, at least had his aliens tell him about Venus - when the testable prediction turned out to be wrong, we could be secure that our initial impression of him as a loon was correct. Or should we believe in little green men on faith?
On edit: Notice I said people with scientific backgrounds. Those without it have odd ideas of how science works. The very precise language of Dawkins about this comes from having that background.
It’s meaningless because it doesn’t contain any information.
Actually, it still is meaningless, but you aren’t discussing it with anybody who denies that anyway.
No, you don’t get to declare what other people’s positions are or set your own definitions. Atheism is an absence of beliefe. Period. It’s not a positive assertion about anything.
And it’s an utterly fatuous point. It presupposes that the odds that gods exist are the same as the odds they don’t exist. Gods don’t HAVE to be disproven. It is the logical default to assume that X doesn’t exist unless there is evidence that X exists. The God hypothesis is not entitled to a default presumption of plausibility or consideration. Atheists don’t have any burden of proof. They’re the jury. They’re not making any claims or arguing a case. They are either persuaded or not persuaded.
You can’t prove vampires and werwolves don’t exist either. That doesn’t mean it’s some kind of serious, unsettled question or that we can’t make a practical assumption that mythical monsters are mythical. Stating that we can’t prove sky gods don’t exist is no more insightful or compelling an observation than stating that it can’t be proven that orcs don’t exist…
Again, Fantome, can you please show us where ANY of the references you cited affirm that atheism is defined as “lack of belief in God or gods”? I examined every single one, and none of them mention any lack or absence of belief. Quite the contrary; they consistently affirm it to mean the doctrine that there is no god.
You were rather dismissive of what I said earlier, even saying that I was “being silly.” Now I’m not offended by that, but it seems to me that your spirited defense actually supports my claim rather than your spirited dismissal thereof.
It’s a claim that somebody in this discussion specifically made. Why am I not allowed to point out the folly of that claim? (I do agree, however, that it’s a point that was made out of scientific ignorance.)
As for your “real arguments,” that’s something which we’ve discussed on the SDMB before and at great length. It’s also something that goes far beyond the scope of this specific thread. This may displease you, and it will probably cause some folks to cackle in triumph, but I think it would be an unnecessary digression – ESPECIALLY since I was NOT trying to offer a defense of theism in this thread. (What were we saying about strawmen again?)
It’s interesting to note that the OP’s postulate – namely, that religion is nothing more that wish fulfillment – remains unsubstantiated. This notion makes sense to some people here, but so far, no actual evidence for this massively broad claim has been brought forth. Yet people gleefully poke fun at theists for believing things that they supposedly have no evidence for. This is the double standard that the atheist Alan Smithee was talking about, and he’s correct to do so.
I’ve been debating this on-line for 35 years (yes, well before there was an Internet) and I have yet to see the good arguments you imply.
The reason you haven’t seen a defense of the OP is that even most atheists think it is a simplistic statement, and that there are lots of other reasons for religion, some of which have been given.
BTW, it’s worth noting that when a theist makes an argument which supposedly betrays scientific ignorance, you can expect a dogpile from the skeptics around here. Yet when an atheist makes a claim that demonstrates naivete regarding the nature of science, you get responses like “Good job arguing against a strawman argument that no one with any scientific background has made.” I guess it’s fair game to point out these errors when they come from one side, but not from the other.
I think you misinterpret his meaning. “To the extent that anything can be proven not to exist” is important here. It goes along with all the prove a negative stuff. Science cannot prove that God doesn’t exist in the same sense it can’t prove anything that’s asserted to be unobservable to exist.
Again, see my post above about the double definitions of god that theists like to switch between when arguing the subject. They like to switch between the “here’s my very specific interventional god” and “you can’t prove that some vague nonobservable god doesn’t exist!” when it suits then.
Science can disprove specific claims of religion, like, for instance, creationism. It can’t prove things that aren’t logically provable, like that there aren’t invisible fairies that can’t interact with us in any way or be observed. That’s what he meant by “to the extent that anything can be proven not to exist”. He is not attempting to claim the logically impossible position of proving a magical, non-observable negative.