# The Arguments for Atheism **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [January 15, 2009, 2:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-arguments-for-atheism/481428 "2009-01-15T14:34:58Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![ITR\_champion](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/c67d28/32.png) [@ITR\_champion](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ITR_champion)\ **Post date:** [January 16, 2009, 3:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-arguments-for-atheism/481428/41 "2009-01-16T15:31:37Z")
> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > It does? I can easily imagine a sentient species on a planet far from Earth, or whatever sentient species might replace humanity, discovering mathematics and realizing that 3[sup]2[/sup] + 4[sup]2[/sup] = 5[sup]2[/sup] because this is always true and observable, even if the symbols for the numbers are different. It’s entirely unclear that any form of theism meets this standard. > > The Pythagorean theorem didn’t create the relationship that exists between the sides of a right-angle triangle on a plane, it merely describes it. This relationship existed long before humanity and will exist long afterward. > > Certainly, they can observe and write on subjects about human behaviour, but this behaviour is itself the offshoot of a lengthy and laborious evolutionary process. Were bees the first species to achieve sentience, I’m sure they would have great bee philosophers as well, writing on the social structure of hives which may be as alien and incomprehensible to humans as, say, our JudeoChristianity would be to them. But whatever mathematical discoveries they make (I’m sure they’d consider the hexagon to be nature’s perfect shape) _could_ translate. > > You’re using “reason” in a very unreasonable fashion. While philosophies are, no doubt, species- and culture-specific, I don’t see how math, physics and chemistry could be. I think you’re missing the basic point of my argument. In every civilization until quite recently, it was agreed that the proper pursuits of the human mind were topics that related to humans: philosophy, theology, art, music, literature, poetry, morality, ethics, education, politics, law, justice, and so forth. For these topics, conclusions are specific to humans. Bee ethics would be very different from human ethics. Chimpanzee poetry would have nothing in common with human poetry, if it existed at all. Hence reason means almost exclusively thinking about human topics, according to the definition that almost all intellectuals have used at almost all times. Limiting it to math and the hard sciences is highly arbitrary, and only a few people would do so. Besides which, math and the hard sciences are culture-specific. Members of some cultures are unable to count past ten or twenty or one hundred, but we are. We believe that negative numbers exist. Ancient mathematicians did not. We believe that zero exists. Ancient mathematicians did not. We believe in complex numbers, an invention of the last few centuries. Modern mathematicians believe in thousands of abstract concepts that were invented recently. Did cobordism classes exist before mathematicians started using them? What about Coxeter groups? What would “exist” even mean for such mathetmatical objects, without human minds being invovled? There’s certainly no way to know which of these varying mathematical systems would be used by another species. The same is true for hard sciences. We believe in 92 elements (plus some artificial ones) differentiated by the number of protons in the nucleus. Aristotle believed in only four elements: earth, water, air, and fire. If we get wiped out and another species comes along, will their science follow our approach to elements, or Aristotle’s, or a different one entirely? There’s no knowing. ---
**Author:** ![Kinthalis](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kinthalis/32/16084_2.png) [@Kinthalis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kinthalis)\ **Post date:** [January 16, 2009, 3:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-arguments-for-atheism/481428/42 "2009-01-16T15:58:36Z")
Of course there is “knowing”! That’s the point. These things you mention are ALL objective points of data: systems, available, observable to any reasoning species. Our table of elements, our mathematical constructs, these are all DESCRIPTIONS of what we observe in our universe. We do not “believe” in 92 elements. We observe 92 elements in the universe and thus describe them. Any species that came to use the scientific method would find the exact same phenomena and would thus describe it. ---
**Author:** ![Ruminator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/b9bd4f/32.png) [@Ruminator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ruminator)\ **Post date:** [January 16, 2009, 4:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-arguments-for-atheism/481428/43 "2009-01-16T16:09:39Z")
> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > I can easily imagine a sentient species on a planet far from Earth, or whatever sentient species might replace humanity, discovering mathematics and realizing that 3[sup]2[/sup] + 4[sup]2[/sup] = 5[sup]2[/sup] because this is always true and observable, even if the symbols for the numbers are different. It’s entirely unclear that any form of theism meets this standard. > > The Pythagorean theorem didn’t create the relationship that exists between the sides of a right-angle triangle on a plane, it merely describes it. This relationship existed long before humanity and will exist long afterward. Just to muddy up the waters a bit… There’s still ongoing [philosophical debate](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_mathematics) among mathematicians whether mathematics is transcendent and “discovered” or an invention of the human mind to understand the universe. I love mathematics and the Pythagorean Theorem has undeniable staying power but I’m skeptical that it can be used as metaphysical evidence to prove/disprove God. ---
**Author:** ![ivan\_astikov](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/58f4c7/32.png) [@ivan\_astikov](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ivan_astikov)\ **Post date:** [January 16, 2009, 4:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-arguments-for-atheism/481428/44 "2009-01-16T16:17:21Z")
> [@Ruminator](#): > > Just to muddy up the waters a bit… > > There’s still ongoing [philosophical debate](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_mathematics) among mathematicians whether mathematics is transcendent and “discovered” or an invention of the human mind to understand the universe. > > I love mathematics and the Pythagorean Theorem has undeniable staying power but I’m skeptical that it can be used as metaphysical evidence to prove/disprove God. I’m with you all the way. You can do some funny/strange and clever stuff with maths, but if there is an equation for god, it’s because we have made it to fit the ‘evidence’. ‘Maths’, like that other construct ‘time’, is meaningless without the presence of humanity. ---
**Author:** ![Duhkecco](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/8491ac/32.png) [@Duhkecco](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Duhkecco)\ **Post date:** [January 16, 2009, 4:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-arguments-for-atheism/481428/45 "2009-01-16T16:52:04Z")
**Half Man Half Wit** , you start with this: > [@](#): > > I also should mention that I use the word atheism probably somewhat different than most other people to, in two ways: one, for convenience, I use it as describing the absence of all faith, not merely the absence of faith in god, or gods; two, I use it as describing the _absence of all faith_, not the belief in the non-existence of a god, or gods (or related supernatural beings) Then, a few paragraphs later, you say this: [quote] So, to provide a little digest of the preceding points, I am an atheist because: [ul][li]Atheism is independent of human cognition, i.e. nobody has to know about atheism for it to be a valid philosophical stance[/li][li]It allows for the existence of fundamental truths[/li][li]It allows for logical conclusions to be valid[/li][li]It allows for the increase of knowledge about the world[/li][li]It is unique in the sense that it isn’t equivalent to any faith-based system, whereas all faith-based systems are equivalent to each other[/li][li]It holds explanatory, or at the very least descriptive, power[/ul][/li][/quote] Atheism, according to you, is “the absence of all faith”. Your points, then, become: [ul][li]The absence of all faith is independent of human cognition, i.e. nobody has to know about the absence of all faith for it to be a valid philosophical stance[/li][li]The absence of all faith allows for the existence of fundamental truths[/li][li]The absence of all faith allows for logical conclusions to be valid[/li][li]The absence of all faith allows for the increase of knowledge about the world[/li][li]The absence of all faith is unique in the sense that it isn’t equivalent to any faith-based system, whereas all faith-based systems are equivalent to each other[/li][li]The absence of all faith holds explanatory, or at the very least descriptive, power.[/ul]Is that what you mean? [/li] All of these statements sound strange. How does the absence of anything do anything, or how is it anything? ---
**Author:** ![woodstockbirdybird](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/woodstockbirdybird/32/7905_2.png) [@woodstockbirdybird](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/woodstockbirdybird)\ **Post date:** [January 16, 2009, 5:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-arguments-for-atheism/481428/46 "2009-01-16T17:27:53Z")
> [@ITR\_champion](#): > > I disagree with both of these assessments. Classical music is not able to be experienced by anyone. Before a person can experience classical music, he or she must be willing to listen to it, be willing to give it serious attention, and be willing to approach the process of listening in a sophisticated and intelligent way. If a street punk refuses to listen to Mozart, he can’t experience Mozart. If he listens to Beethoven but has decided beforehand to scoff at it, he can’t experience Beethoven. If he listens to Haydn but won’t give the music as much effort as it requires, he can’t experience Haydn. Listening to music is an intellectual experience that goes far beyond the physical fact of sound waves hitting the eardrum. In order to experience a piece of music as meaningful, memorable, and sublime, the listener must make a conscious choice to give the music a certain amount of mental effort. (Nor, obviously, do music conoisseurs care about the ear and nervous system. It’s the music that matters, man.) Who said anything about experiencing it as “meaningful, memorable and sublime”? Whether they’re receptive to it or not, they will, verifiably, experience it in a concrete manner. Nobody said anything about it being a powerful, life-changing, or even positive experience. Just a factual, observable experience. The same is not even close to being true for “experiencing” God. ---
**Author:** ![Malthus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/85f322/32.png) [@Malthus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malthus)\ **Post date:** [January 16, 2009, 5:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-arguments-for-atheism/481428/47 "2009-01-16T17:33:20Z")
> [@woodstockbirdybird](#): > > And yet, lots of people _don’t_. Not the case with classical music - if it is being played within earshot, you _will_ experience it. I don’t see how the analogy holds. That’s not a _relevant_ objection, since it is a mere reception problem - a deaf person will not, for example, experience classical music. It is true that fewer experience mystic states than have functioning ears, but that is hardly the point. Both are experiences which have verifiable and objective existence. Naturally, the _interpretation_ of the experience differs. ---
**Author:** ![Malthus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/85f322/32.png) [@Malthus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malthus)\ **Post date:** [January 16, 2009, 5:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-arguments-for-atheism/481428/48 "2009-01-16T17:34:36Z")
> [@woodstockbirdybird](#): > > Who said anything about experiencing it as “meaningful, memorable and sublime”? Whether they’re receptive to it or not, they will, verifiably, experience it in a concrete manner. Nobody said anything about it being a powerful, life-changing, or even positive experience. Just a factual, observable experience. The same is not even close to being true for “experiencing” God. You are factually wrong in this (again, making no claims as to the substance of the “experience”). ---
**Author:** ![Malthus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/85f322/32.png) [@Malthus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malthus)\ **Post date:** [January 16, 2009, 5:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-arguments-for-atheism/481428/49 "2009-01-16T17:36:31Z")
> [@Sage\_Rat](#): > > But amazingly–or at least 99% of the time–only seems to happen to people who were raised in religious households. (Or at least those are the only people who consider temporary euphoric states as being divinely inspired.) You have proof of this? ---
**Author:** ![woodstockbirdybird](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/woodstockbirdybird/32/7905_2.png) [@woodstockbirdybird](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/woodstockbirdybird)\ **Post date:** [January 16, 2009, 5:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-arguments-for-atheism/481428/50 "2009-01-16T17:47:45Z")
> [@Malthus](#): > > That’s not a _relevant_ objection, since it is a mere reception problem - a deaf person will not, for example, experience classical music. > > It is true that fewer experience mystic states than have functioning ears, but that is hardly the point. Both are experiences which have verifiable and objective existence. > > Naturally, the _interpretation_ of the experience differs. Even a deaf person can feel the vibrations of the music. And nobody doubts people “experience” mystical states. As you said, the question is one of interpretation. I personally prefer the least crazy-sounding interpretation, but I realize I’m in the minority there. ---
**Author:** ![woodstockbirdybird](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/woodstockbirdybird/32/7905_2.png) [@woodstockbirdybird](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/woodstockbirdybird)\ **Post date:** [January 16, 2009, 5:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-arguments-for-atheism/481428/51 "2009-01-16T17:48:50Z")
> [@Malthus](#): > > You are factually wrong in this (again, making no claims as to the substance of the “experience”). Well, if you say so, that’s good enough for me! I have faith in you as the arbiter of what is factual. ---
**Author:** ![Malthus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/85f322/32.png) [@Malthus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malthus)\ **Post date:** [January 16, 2009, 6:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-arguments-for-atheism/481428/52 "2009-01-16T18:11:41Z")
> [@Half\_Man\_Half\_Wit](#): > > That would, however, lead to a faith whose only tenet is basically to have faith, since that does seem to be about all the various faiths have in common; and a lot of faiths even explicitly deny this possibility by making some sort of uniqueness claim. And even if we collect all the various poly-, mono-, and pantheistic faiths, throw in a dash of folk beliefs from all over the world to arrive at some vague notion of there being ‘something ineffable’ about the world, I believe my reasoning holds: In this case, the hypothetical future race might re-discover this notion, vague and of little substance as it is; however, it also might _not_, in which case they’d basically be atheists. Atheism still would be the more natural position to adopt, at least in the absence of evidence to the contrary. I would disagree fundamentally. I would recomment Aldous Huxley’s book _The Perennial Philosophy_, which makes the contrary argument based on cross-cultural study: > **[The Perennial Philosophy: Aldous Huxley: 9780060901912: Amazon.com: Books](https://www.amazon.com/Perennial-Philosophy-Aldous-Huxley/dp/0060901918)** > > The Perennial Philosophy \[Aldous Huxley\] on Amazon.com. \*FREE\* shipping on qualifying offers. The Perennial Philosophy In essence, there are many different aspects of religion: - There is social rules given religious sanction (“Thou shalt not …”); - There is creation-myths and just-so stories (“In the beginning, God made …”); and - There is direct, intuitive knowledge of the mystic sort (“We are all one”). These are all _related_ - some social rules are based, essentially, on ritual and history (an example, keeping kosher, or the sacrifices described in Liviticus); some are based on mystic intuition (such as the Golden Rule - “do unto others …”). The first two aspects of religion will naturally differ considerably. A hypothetical alien from Alpha Centuri would, obviously, not be kosher, and would probably have a creation myth that differs considerably from the one(s) in Genesis. On the other hand, our hypothetical alien would probably understand the Golden Rule. > [@](#): > > However, some conceptualisations are preferred over others, which I’ve attempted to show with the ‘reasonable assumptions’-argument: if you start down the path of incorporating faith-based notions into your world view, it’s difficult to see where it’ll lead, how to tell ‘true belief’ from ‘false belief’, how to tell different gods from one another, or even the ‘ineffable something’; however, if you keep your assumptions reasonable, you might err, but that’s eventually self-correcting. But the basis of religion is not “faith”, I would argue, but intuitive knowledge. Which leads to non-vague results and provides (I would argue) a means for evaluating the _value_ of religious belief. Of course, in my opinion there is (or rather, ought to be) absolutely no conflict between religion and science; both are not _end results_, but rather _processes_. Complementary ones. ---
**Author:** ![Malthus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/85f322/32.png) [@Malthus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malthus)\ **Post date:** [January 16, 2009, 6:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-arguments-for-atheism/481428/53 "2009-01-16T18:13:38Z")
> [@woodstockbirdybird](#): > > Well, if you say so, that’s good enough for me! I have faith in you as the arbiter of what is factual. I have provided a cite that describes the scientific basis in neurology for the experience. Argue with that, not me. From what I can see, science is not on your side in this - you may, of course, prove me wrong. ---
**Author:** ![Malthus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/85f322/32.png) [@Malthus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malthus)\ **Post date:** [January 16, 2009, 6:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-arguments-for-atheism/481428/54 "2009-01-16T18:17:01Z")
> [@woodstockbirdybird](#): > > Even a deaf person can feel the vibrations of the music. And nobody doubts people “experience” mystical states. As you said, the question is one of interpretation. I personally prefer the least crazy-sounding interpretation, but I realize I’m in the minority there. If by “least crazy interpretation” you mean that the state is an evolutionary artifact based in neurology and no objective proof of the existence of an actual god external to creation, then … I’d agree. It makes absolutely no difference to the argument. ---
**Author:** ![ITR\_champion](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/c67d28/32.png) [@ITR\_champion](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ITR_champion)\ **Post date:** [January 16, 2009, 6:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-arguments-for-atheism/481428/55 "2009-01-16T18:20:26Z")
> [@woodstockbirdybird](#): > > Who said anything about experiencing it as “meaningful, memorable and sublime”? Whether they’re receptive to it or not, they will, verifiably, experience it in a concrete manner. Nobody said anything about it being a powerful, life-changing, or even positive experience. Just a factual, observable experience. Who said that? I said that. When I first brought up classical music as an analogy I was clearly referring to disagreement about the evaluation of music, not about the existence of music. Presumably no sane person disputes that sound waves can carry music. They can disagree greatly about whether music can carry anything meaningful. The experience of music does not occur when sound waves strike the ear drum, but rather when the mind evaluates music. A person who cares nothing for classical music could be in a room where Beethoven’s Ninth is played and experience nothing, not even conscious awareness that the music is there. He can simply “tune it out” and not experience it. A music afficionado can be in the exact same room, at the same time, getting pelted by the exact same sound waves, and have a vastly different experience. Experience, observation, seeing and hearing are _mental_ phenomena that can vary greatly from one person to the next. ---
**Author:** ![Half\_Man\_Half\_Wit](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/half_man_half_wit/32/21766_2.png) [@Half\_Man\_Half\_Wit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Half_Man_Half_Wit)\ **Post date:** [January 16, 2009, 6:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-arguments-for-atheism/481428/56 "2009-01-16T18:22:57Z")
> [@Ruminator](#): > > There’s still ongoing [philosophical debate](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_mathematics) among mathematicians whether mathematics is transcendent and “discovered” or an invention of the human mind to understand the universe. Well, this is a rather academic point – all I really need is for mathematical concepts to have some sort of independent existence, which I think is suitably evidenced by fundamental concepts being repeatedly developed, forgotten, and rediscovered throughout history, or the same concept arising independently in different locations and times (for instance, it’s widely believed that Babylonian mathematicians discovered the, you guessed it, Pythagorean theorem before Pythagoras did). > [@](#): > > I love mathematics and the Pythagorean Theorem has undeniable staying power but I’m skeptical that it can be used as metaphysical evidence to prove/disprove God. I’m doing no such thing; I’m merely arguing that atheism ought to be the default stance from which the god/no god issue ought to be assessed. > [@Duhkecco](#): > > All of these statements sound strange. Yeah, forgive me the snark, but that’s kinda why I spend the few paragraphs in between trying to come up with some justification for those statements. 😉 > [@](#): > > How does the absence of anything do anything, or how is it anything? Well, the absence of something means a great many things – the absence of excess body fat means you’re slim, the absence of noise means it’s silent, the absence of light means it’s dark, and the absence of faith means that you have to build your world view on reasonable assumptions. I don’t see anything inherently strange in that. > [@Malthus](#): > > That’s not a _relevant_ objection, since it is a mere reception problem - a deaf person will not, for example, experience classical music. Nevertheless, the objective existence of classical music is not called into question by that – the deaf person can utilise a great many of techniques to make themselves aware of its presence, like measuring the sound waves in the air, for instance. Again, there’s no comparison to matters taken purely on faith. ---
**Author:** ![Malthus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/85f322/32.png) [@Malthus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malthus)\ **Post date:** [January 16, 2009, 6:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-arguments-for-atheism/481428/57 "2009-01-16T18:32:22Z")
> [@Half\_Man\_Half\_Wit](#): > > Nevertheless, the objective existence of classical music is not called into question by that – the deaf person can utilise a great many of techniques to make themselves aware of its presence, like measuring the sound waves in the air, for instance. Again, there’s no comparison to matters taken purely on faith. I’m taking _nothing_ on faith. I’m discussing the objective, scientifically verifiable existence of mystic-type experiences - for which scientists can (and have) measured actual brain activity relating thereto. I am expressly _not_ claiming that such experiences are “proof” of anything. That is a question of interpretation. ---
**Author:** ![woodstockbirdybird](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/woodstockbirdybird/32/7905_2.png) [@woodstockbirdybird](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/woodstockbirdybird)\ **Post date:** [January 16, 2009, 6:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-arguments-for-atheism/481428/58 "2009-01-16T18:46:21Z")
> [@Malthus](#): > > If by “least crazy interpretation” you mean that the state is an evolutionary artifact based in neurology and no objective proof of the existence of an actual god external to creation, then … I’d agree. > > It makes absolutely no difference to the argument. We do agree. But I think we disagree that it makes no difference to the argument, when one is using the scientific basis in neurology as an argument that the experience somehow proves God or some mystical power exists, which is what I was getting out of it (not from you, admittedly). As I said, I don’t think anybody can claim that so-called mystical experiences have an effect on the brain of the subject, but they can also measure real fear in schizophrenics who think there is an axe-wielding murderer in the corner when there clearly isn’t. Anyway, we seem to both understand it’s down to interpretation. My problem is with the people who claim their interpretation confirms their religious beliefs. ---
**Author:** ![Half\_Man\_Half\_Wit](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/half_man_half_wit/32/21766_2.png) [@Half\_Man\_Half\_Wit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Half_Man_Half_Wit)\ **Post date:** [January 16, 2009, 6:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-arguments-for-atheism/481428/59 "2009-01-16T18:48:54Z")
> [@Malthus](#): > > These are all _related_ - some social rules are based, essentially, on ritual and history (an example, keeping kosher, or the sacrifices described in Liviticus); some are based on mystic intuition (such as the Golden Rule - “do unto others …”). > > The first two aspects of religion will naturally differ considerably. A hypothetical alien from Alpha Centuri would, obviously, not be kosher, and would probably have a creation myth that differs considerably from the one(s) in Genesis. On the other hand, our hypothetical alien would probably understand the Golden Rule. Well, that’s because it’s a rather reasonable statement, with no root in religion at all. I stand by the statement I outlined some posts back – if you have faith, you have faith in something, which admits the possibility of infinitely many other faiths in some other thing, which means that, in all likelihood, non of these faiths can be re-invented. I’m really not sure where people have a problem with that notion. However, we seem to have already come quite far, since so far everybody seems to agree that no specific faith, no specific tenet is ever likely to be re-discovered (barring divine intervention, of course, which doesn’t seem to happen as there’s no case I’d know of where some isolated Amazonean tribe has discovered Christianity), so even with those asserting that some non-specific faith might be re-developed, there seems to be a tacit admission that no specific religion is on par with an atheistic world view in that regard, which I find quite remarkable. > [@](#): > > But the basis of religion is not “faith”, I would argue, but intuitive knowledge. But you’d need faith that your intuitive knowledge is correct (and you’re no just making stuff up), wouldn’t you? > [@](#): > > Of course, in my opinion there is (or rather, ought to be) absolutely no conflict between religion and science; both are not _end results_, but rather _processes_. Complementary ones. Well, I didn’t actually want to concern myself much with religion, but this has piqued my interest – how is religion a process, much less one ‘complimentary’ to science? I can’t claim very thorough knowledge, but in my experience, religion tends to assert its creed in a static fashion, as a divine, unchangeable truth, which is pretty much the opposite of science. ---
**Author:** ![Half\_Man\_Half\_Wit](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/half_man_half_wit/32/21766_2.png) [@Half\_Man\_Half\_Wit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Half_Man_Half_Wit)\ **Post date:** [January 16, 2009, 7:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-arguments-for-atheism/481428/60 "2009-01-16T19:04:56Z")
Just for the record, I just re-read the OP and some of my responses in here, and I realize I tend to sound a bit like a twat the more… exact, or precise, I guess, I try to be. It’s a tendency of mine, perhaps because of wanting to be extra-careful when writing in a foreign language. So, sorry to anybody that’s been bugged by this, I don’t mean to be aloof or condescending. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-arguments-for-atheism/481428.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-arguments-for-atheism/481428.md?page=4)