# 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:** 7
**Author:** ![cosmosdan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@cosmosdan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cosmosdan)\ **Post date:** [January 20, 2009, 10:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-arguments-for-atheism/481428/121 "2009-01-20T22:36:25Z")
> [@Half\_Man\_Half\_Wit](#): > > 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. I don’t find it remarkable or a fair comparison. You’re comparing a simple lack of belief with a variety of complex religions. Compare a lack of belief with simple belief. If mankind had to start over would people be likely to believe in some form of god or gods? > [@](#): > > But you’d need faith that your intuitive knowledge is correct (and you’re no just making stuff up), wouldn’t you? This brings up a question to me about this earlier statement > [@](#): > > the absence of faith means that you have to build your world view on reasonable assumptions. don’t we all assume our belief system is correct? Couldn’t one atheist decide it was best to work in an unselfish manner for the betterment of our world for the sake of future generations and another live a totally selfish “get mine” life even to any extreme and both be reasonable assumptions even though they are quite different morally? > [@](#): > > 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. IMO religion and science are both processes of discovering the truth. Religion may teach there is a final unchangeable truth but despite the efforts of some it has not remained static. The point is to improve the inner person and how they we relate to each other and the world, thus improving the quality of life for everyone and for future generations. Faith is not only that God exists or in some next life reward, but that by seeking to learn more of the truth about ourselves and our connection to each other life becomes a journey of personal growth that makes our lives have a more positive impact on others as well. ---
**Author:** ![cosmosdan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@cosmosdan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cosmosdan)\ **Post date:** [January 20, 2009, 10:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-arguments-for-atheism/481428/122 "2009-01-20T22:38:17Z")
> [@ivan\_astikov](#): > > Something like if enough people are banging a drum, eventually the people will follow the beat. Especially if the people banging the drums also have whips to encourage the people. I’m not sure how that relates to the discussion at hand but no matter. ---
**Author:** ![Duhkecco](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/8491ac/32.png) [@Duhkecco](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Duhkecco)\ **Post date:** [January 20, 2009, 11:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-arguments-for-atheism/481428/123 "2009-01-20T23:38:01Z")
> [@Half\_Man\_Half\_Wit](#): > > People seem to have great problems with this point, so perhaps I’m explaining myself badly; it’s in fact perfectly simple: Well, it’s definitely not \*perfectly \*simple. If it was, people wouldn’t be having “great problems” with it. 😉 Seriously, a “perfectly simple” explanation in a theism/atheism debate is an indication that the explanation is incomplete or just plain wrong. Your rough analogy doesn’t help. You’ve pointed out that “reasoning by analogy generally doesn’t constitute valid argument, since the analogy does not necessarily hold for all cases.” Your analogy certainly does not hold for all cases of supernatural entities. You’ve just picked one case where it does work. > [@](#): > > You observe a white sheep; you then know that the sentence ‘there are white sheep’ is true. But, you just happen to exist in a world with an all-powerful and somewhat mischievous wizard, who, just as you make your observation, jumps out from behind a tree, snaps his fingers, and all sheep turn spontaneously pink. Well, it seems that you are being a bit mischievous yourself. Why are you introducing an entity that nobody believes in? (And, why is he/she/it jumping out from behind a tree?). Is the wizard in the form of a red herring? :dubious: > [@](#): > > And you have to contend with this possibility regarding every assertion in a faith-based world view. But your analogy doesn’t explain why it’s a possibility, nor does it explain why it’s impossible in an atheist world view. > [@](#): > > That doesn’t mean that any statement you make can’t possibly be true – if the wizard doesn’t intervene, your knowledge of the whiteness of sheep remains true after the initial observation. But it always has to include the qualifier ‘if the wizard doesn’t intervene’. Even if you had perfect knowledge of the absolute truth in such a world, the wizard could still change everything at his whim. So, this hypothetical wizard eliminates absolute truth in a faith-based world view? Does absolute truth exist in an atheist world view? > [@](#): > > In a world without the possibility of such a wizard, perfect knowledge remains perfect knowledge. I suggest that there’s more than one faith-based view that excludes that possibility. ---
**Author:** ![cosmosdan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@cosmosdan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cosmosdan)\ **Post date:** [January 20, 2009, 11:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-arguments-for-atheism/481428/124 "2009-01-20T23:41:27Z")
> [@Half\_Man\_Half\_Wit](#): > > Well yeah, I’m a bit guilty of using shorthand in my bullet points, but it’s actually in the post where I attempt to reason those things out – atheism, in and of itself, doesn’t explain anything, however, it allows for valid reasoning essentially because of the absence of faith. It allows for a description of the world that doesn’t include the caveat of supernatural non-interference; I’ve argued in the OP that in a faith based world view, all knowledge and all reasoning is essentially subject to the whims of the supernatural, and thus a logical inference is strictly invalid – for instance, if you’ve inferred the law of gravity from planetary motion, if there is a god, he could simply change them according to his will, and if you have faith in a god, you have to accept that possibility; if there is no god, the law of gravity you have inferred may still be wrong, however, if you have no faith, the underlying rule still exists and you can work to discover it with logically valid deductions, since you don’t have to worry about supernatural interference. It seems to me that if God exists terms like supernatural, mystical, and spiritual are simply terms we use for a portion of reality we do not understand or can’t explain from a scientific standpoint at this time. I just don’t see how this point you’re making is relevant. ---
**Author:** ![Thudlow\_Boink](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/thudlow_boink/32/320_2.png) [@Thudlow\_Boink](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Thudlow_Boink)\ **Post date:** [January 20, 2009, 11:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-arguments-for-atheism/481428/125 "2009-01-20T23:44:12Z")
> [@Duhkecco](#): > > Well, it seems that you are being a bit mischievous yourself. Why are you introducing an entity that nobody believes in? (And, why is he/she/it jumping out from behind a tree?). Is the wizard in the form of a red herring? :dubious:But your analogy doesn’t explain why it’s a possibility, nor does it explain why it’s impossible in an atheist world view. Indeed. If the theistic worldview has to take into account the possibility that a wizard could capriciously turn all sheep pink, the atheistic worldview has equaly to take into account the possibility that all shep could spontaneously turn pink. ---
**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 21, 2009, 12:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-arguments-for-atheism/481428/126 "2009-01-21T00:39:41Z")
> [@cosmosdan](#): > > I enjoyed the OP and am in the process of reading the rest of the thread. > I’m having a hard time understanding how this is relevant to your points on atheism. > Why is this qualifier any more relevant than “unless an asteroid destroys all life tomorrow” or any other scenario? Does it really say anything about knowledge, what is true, or the logic of atheism vs. theism? Well, it is a difference in the fundamental epistemology at the heart of both a faith-based and an atheistic picture of the world; how relevant you judge it is, as with all the arguments in this thread, your call to make. But the difference, as I see it, is there – provided there exists such a thing as absolute knowledge, in an atheistic system, you can uncover that knowledge and have it be valid for all eternity, but in a faith based epistemology, even if you do uncover that knowledge, it may not be eternally valid. And the asteroid doesn’t undo your knowledge, it can at best undo you (and will do so in perfect accord with the laws that govern asteroid behaviour). > [@cosmosdan](#): > > I don’t find it remarkable or a fair comparison. You’re comparing a simple lack of belief with a variety of complex religions. Compare a lack of belief with simple belief. If mankind had to start over would people be likely to believe in some form of god or gods? I don’t think there really is such a thing as a ‘simple’ belief. There’s been a comparison to a platonic ideal of faith been made in this thread – let’s, for a moment, assume such exists. Now, there are two tribes, tribe A and tribe B (I don’t mean ‘tribe’ to indicate primitiveness here, by the way). Tribe A worships exactly this ideal of faith, this core of all belief, the thing that all religions try to approximate, however you wish to call it. Tribe B, on the other hand, worships something with the sole defining characteristic of being distinct from what tribe A worships (for worship, you can equally well say ‘have faith in’ or somesuch, here). Now, is the faith of tribe B somehow less true? Or do they, in fact, worship the same thing as tribe A (which we have basically defined as the common element to all faiths)? If none of those, I submit that this contradiction means that there can be no common element, no platonic ideal of faith, and thus, that faith is not unique. However, from there, it follows that if humanity gets a do-over, while they might have gods and religion just fine, all their faiths will likely be distinct from all ours. Such doesn’t hold for atheism, which, as a lack of faith, is unique and allows for a description of the world that approaches ‘truth’ in the same way we do today by utilising the scientific method. > [@](#): > > don’t we all assume our belief system is correct? Couldn’t one atheist decide it was best to work in an unselfish manner for the betterment of our world for the sake of future generations and another live a totally selfish “get mine” life even to any extreme and both be reasonable assumptions even though they are quite different morally? Of course two atheists can come to different conclusions, and yes, they can do so following reasonable assumptions – which, assumptions that they are, can well be wrong. However, once such an assumption is proven wrong, it is by necessity replaced by another, more correct one (since whatever proved the previous assumption wrong essentially constitutes a gain in knowledge), which thus leads to a process that eventually converges on an accurate description of underlying reality, provided such exists. As for morality, I think going into that would be beyond the scope of this thread by a considerable amount – I’ve given some slight outline on my view of morality as a selector for a society’s survival fitness, thus the selfish atheist in your hypothetical may well find society opposed to him, if it is robust, or collapsing, if all followed his example, and thus, his assumptions of leading a good life with his strategy would be proven wrong. > [@](#): > > IMO religion and science are both processes of discovering the truth. Religion may teach there is a final unchangeable truth but despite the efforts of some it has not remained static. The point is to improve the inner person and how they we relate to each other and the world, thus improving the quality of life for everyone and for future generations. Frankly, I don’t see any way by which religion discovers truth – it consists of paradigms it claims eternal and unchanging, and when they are changed despite those claims, it is most often due to some exterior (to the religion, not to its followers) pressure it could otherwise not sustain. > [@Duhkecco](#): > > Well, it’s definitely not \*perfectly \*simple. If it was, people wouldn’t be having “great problems” with it. 😉 > > Seriously, a “perfectly simple” explanation in a theism/atheism debate is an indication that the explanation is incomplete or just plain wrong. Your rough analogy doesn’t help. You’ve pointed out that “reasoning by analogy generally doesn’t constitute valid argument, since the analogy does not necessarily hold for all cases.” Your analogy certainly does not hold for all cases of supernatural entities. Analogy can however constitute example, i.e. demonstrate that something is at least possible, and that’s all my analogy was meant to accomplish. > [@](#): > > You’ve just picked one case where it does work.Well, it seems that you are being a bit mischievous yourself. Why are you introducing an entity that nobody believes in? (And, why is he/she/it jumping out from behind a tree?). Is the wizard in the form of a red herring? :dubious:But your analogy doesn’t explain why it’s a possibility, nor does it explain why it’s impossible in an atheist world view.So, this hypothetical wizard eliminates absolute truth in a faith-based world view? Does absolute truth exist in an atheist world view?I suggest that there’s more than one faith-based view that excludes that possibility. It’s absolutely certain that there are infinitely many possible faith-based views that lack any entities capable of mischief as I have described – however, my example shows that there’s at least one (a _possible_ one, even if nobody actually believes such nonsense!) where such a being exists. And that’s all that I need to make my argument since, as I’m still not tired of pointing out apparently, all faith is equal, none is preferred. In other words, belief in the existence of one kind of supernatural entity admits the possibility of the existence of any other kind; once you’ve made the leap of faith necessary to believe in the Christian god, you have no logical grounds for arguing that the Norse gods don’t exist, they’re just as possible, even if they’re not part of your belief system. Atheism admits the possibility of neither, and of no other, and thus doesn’t run into this problem. ---
**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 21, 2009, 12:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-arguments-for-atheism/481428/127 "2009-01-21T00:43:16Z")
> [@Thudlow\_Boink](#): > > Indeed. If the theistic worldview has to take into account the possibility that a wizard could capriciously turn all sheep pink, the atheistic worldview has equaly to take into account the possibility that all shep could spontaneously turn pink. Only if there’s a natural mechanism for sheep colour change, which would mean that knowledge of sheep colours was incomplete before encountering it. ---
**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 21, 2009, 12:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-arguments-for-atheism/481428/128 "2009-01-21T00:55:42Z")
> [@cosmosdan](#): > > I’m not sure how that relates to the discussion at hand but no matter. I’m saying that even if some people dance to the beat because they like it, and not because they are being coerced, the music wouldn’t exist without the drummers(for drummers, read preachers!). Theists are trying to claim that it is god who has set the tempo for the drummers to follow, and the rules for what dancing is allowed, but this begs the question of why a god would have waited so long to teach his creation about music(for music, read religion.) Unless you are subscribing to pre-flood civilisations? ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [January 21, 2009, 1:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-arguments-for-atheism/481428/129 "2009-01-21T01:03:09Z")
> [@Duhkecco](#): > > You didn’t answer my question. I disagree. > [@](#): > > And, you make a bizarre claim. How do you know what conclusions you would come to before you do the observations? Seems like you’re taking a huge leap of faith. You don’t actually know how the scientific method works, do you? Roughly: 1. Establish a firm hypothesis, as well as a contradictory alternate hypothesis (typically, that the first hypothesis is false). 2. Design tests that would strongly support or strongly deny your hypothesis (deny is better). 3. Run such tests 4. Observe the results 5. Decide if your hypothesis should be rejected (if the tests indicate it was wrong) or provisionally accepted (if the tests indicate it was right). In this particular case, my hypothesis would be that heliocentrism is an accurate model of the solar sysem (and that Copernicus, Galileo and Newton were right). My alternative is that heliocentricism is not an accurate model of the solar system (and they were wrong). I design certain tests which challenge the hypothesis (i.e. _if_ the Earth revolved around the sun, _then_ I should be able to make astronomical observations _A, B, C_ and _D_). If the prediction is true, I provisionally accept the hypothesis. If one or more of them is false, and I am sure the tests are well-designed, I should reject the hypothesis and accept the alternate hypothesis. > [@](#): > > Which god would that be? Any god you care to name. It doesn’t have to be yours, just pick one that belongs to someone else. I’ll hypothesize that such a god exists (with the alternative being that it doesn’t) and design appropriate tests, once I know more about the claims surrounding this particular god. ---
**Author:** ![cosmosdan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@cosmosdan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cosmosdan)\ **Post date:** [January 21, 2009, 1:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-arguments-for-atheism/481428/130 "2009-01-21T01:07:54Z")
> [@Sage\_Rat](#): > > [Yes.](http://books.google.com/books?id=yX3qTZUfLP4C&pg=PA48&lpg=PA49&dq=percent+of+children+same+religious+belief+parents&source=web&ots=y4PC9Sa629&sig=0L6x90JcyLOoqOrYZ6A2zCM-7KQ&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=7&ct=result#PPA49,M1) 99% of people raised in a household ascribing to a particular religion continue to follow that religion (somewhere between 10-40% will change denomination.) People who are raised in households that do not follow a religion generally grow up to be atheistic/agnostic. You can see this visually just by looking at the geographicity of religion. People in India are Hindu, their children are all Hindu, their parents are all Hindu, their grandparents were all Hindu. Same thing for Americans and Christianity or Ancient Egyptians and Egyptian mythology. > > So now if you go to an atheist/agnostic country like Sweden, which is inhabited by people with the same genetic ancestry as people who believed in the Christian God and the Viking mythology, you’ll find that none of these people have had anything they would consider a religious experience. If they had, they wouldn’t continue being irreligious. So either religious people are interpretting things like, “Gee it’s a nice day!” as “God loves me!” or something about the training induces them to create a religious feeling in themselves. Assuming the latter, it could be evidence of God actually contacting them, except that other and even pantheistic religions have all had religious experiences. So this still isn’t evidence for their deity of choice. I’d agree that spiritual experiences don’t prove that any specific doctrine or religion is true. I’d even say that people believing they do is part of the problem. I think your mistaken that non religious people don’t have a similar profound experiences. Those experiences can be interpreted in non religious terms. My own profound experiences were not in the context of any specific religion or religious upbringing. They were just a part of my life’s experiences. My conclusions about their meaning is subject to change as I gain new information and experiences. > [@](#): > > So I mean why say that a “religious experience” isn’t self-hypnosis, a spike of endorphins, or simply the effect of prolonged torture? There’s no evidence otherwise. And why do only religious people get or interpret them as such? It can’t be that specifically “religious” if drugs and hypnosis can create similar effects. You’re correct that people interpret their experiences through their chosen lens or the lens of their culture and upbringing. That doesn’t dismiss the experiences as meaningless. It just makes finding meaning more complicated. ---
**Author:** ![Sage\_Rat](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sage_rat/32/399_2.png) [@Sage\_Rat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sage_Rat)\ **Post date:** [January 21, 2009, 1:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-arguments-for-atheism/481428/131 "2009-01-21T01:23:09Z")
> [@cosmosdan](#): > > You’re correct that people interpret their experiences through their chosen lens or the lens of their culture and upbringing. That doesn’t dismiss the experiences as meaningless. It just makes finding meaning more complicated. If you can replicate something through non-magic means, that has historically always been proof that it wasn’t a magical event. Dowsing, cold reading, etc. Is there any reason to think the case would be different here? ---
**Author:** ![cosmosdan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@cosmosdan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cosmosdan)\ **Post date:** [January 21, 2009, 1:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-arguments-for-atheism/481428/132 "2009-01-21T01:47:10Z")
> [@Sage\_Rat](#): > > If you can replicate something through non-magic means, that has historically always been proof that it wasn’t a magical event. > > Dowsing, cold reading, etc. > > Is there any reason to think the case would be different here? No. Whatever reality we have yet to discover isn’t magic or supernatural. It’s just things we don’t yet know or understand. The nature and boundaries of our consciousness has a lot of discoveries left. ---
**Author:** ![Duhkecco](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/8491ac/32.png) [@Duhkecco](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Duhkecco)\ **Post date:** [January 21, 2009, 2:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-arguments-for-atheism/481428/133 "2009-01-21T02:36:11Z")
> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > I disagree. **Bryan** , why are giving me such a hard time? Did you miss what I said in post #107? > [@Duhkecco](#): > > First, let me say that I agree with you, not just on the issue of heliocentrism, but on the issue of atheism. Why the snarky comment about “my god”? > [@](#): > > You don’t actually know how the scientific method works, do you? Why are you insulting my intelligence? I’m fairly sure that I understand the scientific method at least as well as you do, if not better. (BTW, you left out at least two steps in your list: Data analysis and peer review. Anyway, the scientific method is not etched in stone.) More to the point, there was a basic flaw in your method for testing heliocentrism. You said: > [@](#): > > If I wanted to, I could read up on Copernicus, Galileo and Newton, painstakingly replicate their observations (none of which involved giant leaps of logic) and **come to the same conclusions**. (Emphasis mine.) How can you be following the scientific method and testing a hypothesis when you’ve already determined what the outcome will be? Also, you can’t test a hypothesis merely by observing. What specifically would you test, and what specific method would you use, how would do gather the data, how would you analyze it, and how would you conclude that geocentrism is false? I doubt that you know much of that (maybe you do), but you still accept heliocentrism as true. Why? Furthermore, it seems that you don’t know that Copernicus did not follow the scientific method in formulating heliocentrism. (Also, it was Tycho’s painstaking observations that led to the greater accuracy of heliocentrism after it was modified by Kepler from circular orbits to elliptical ones.) In any case, I would have appreciated less snark. ---
**Author:** ![Sage\_Rat](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sage_rat/32/399_2.png) [@Sage\_Rat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sage_Rat)\ **Post date:** [January 21, 2009, 2:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-arguments-for-atheism/481428/134 "2009-01-21T02:41:17Z")
> [@cosmosdan](#): > > No. Whatever reality we have yet to discover isn’t magic or supernatural. It’s just things we don’t yet know or understand. The nature and boundaries of our consciousness has a lot of discoveries left. So because we don’t perfectly understand the human brain, I should assume an invisible bearded man in a toga implanted happy feelings into people’s brains, rather than that they were deluding themselves via one of the non-theoretical means for them to have just such a happy feeling? ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [January 21, 2009, 3:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-arguments-for-atheism/481428/135 "2009-01-21T03:47:36Z")
> [@Duhkecco](#): > > **Bryan** , why are giving me such a hard time? “I disagee” is giving you a hard time? > [@](#): > > Did you miss what I said in post #107?Why the snarky comment about “my god”? Why are you insulting my intelligence? Fine, someone else’s god. Pick a god randomly from the god-pile. I don’t care. > [@](#): > > I’m fairly sure that I understand the scientific method at least as well as you do, if not better. (BTW, you left out at least two steps in your list: Data analysis and peer review. Anyway, the scientific method is not etched in stone.) I got the meat of it and I dismiss your nitpicks as irrelevant. I don’t know what your understanding of the scientific method is, I only know the statement you made which prompted that reply indicated to me that it was not very good. > [@](#): > > More to the point, there was a basic flaw in your method for testing heliocentrism. You said:How can you be following the scientific method and testing a hypothesis when you’ve already determined what the outcome will be? I roughly outlined a method for testing a given hypothesis. I am confident that I could sufficiently educate myself to test the hypothesis in a manner consistent with the scientific method. I am also confident that others have tested the hypoethesis and applied it in a practical manner and there is no conspiracy to mislead me. Religion does not operate on this standard, hence discussions of evidence regarding religion are moot. > [@](#): > > Also, you can’t test a hypothesis merely by observing. I don’t recall saying you could. Rather one makes predictions of what _should_ happen if a hypothesis was true, and _then_ observes. As for my specific knowldge of astronomy, I am confident that a few months study would suffice (and would not require I surrender my reason on some Altar to Sagan) for me to learn the necessary math to tackle the problem. If you want to call that confidence faith, be my guest in your wrongness. > [@](#): > > Furthermore, it seems that you don’t know that Copernicus did not follow the scientific method in formulating heliocentrism. (Also, it was Tycho’s painstaking observations that led to the greater accuracy of heliocentrism after it was modified by Kepler from circular orbits to elliptical ones.) So? Copernicus had a hypothesis he didn’t know how to test. Within a relatively short time, however, it was indeed tested. Compare that to religious dogma that goes entirely untested for centuries or milllenia, and indeed promises no mechanism by which it _could_ be tested. Of course, I’m taking you at your word here, since I don’t feel the point sufficiently important to research myself. If there’s a “gotcha!” moment coming, make the most of it. > [@](#): > > In any case, I would have appreciated less snark. I would have appreciated a lottery win last week, too. ---
**Author:** ![cosmosdan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@cosmosdan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cosmosdan)\ **Post date:** [January 21, 2009, 5:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-arguments-for-atheism/481428/136 "2009-01-21T05:21:31Z")
> [@Half\_Man\_Half\_Wit](#): > > Well, it is a difference in the fundamental epistemology at the heart of both a faith-based and an atheistic picture of the world; how relevant you judge it is, as with all the arguments in this thread, your call to make. But the difference, as I see it, is there – provided there exists such a thing as absolute knowledge, in an atheistic system, you can uncover that knowledge and have it be valid for all eternity, but in a faith based epistemology, even if you do uncover that knowledge, it may not be eternally valid. > And the asteroid doesn’t undo your knowledge, it can at best undo you (and will do so in perfect accord with the laws that govern asteroid behaviour). I can’t agree. First, the knowledge of the physical world or whatever you are referring to as valid for eternity, doesn’t change for theists. The knowledge sought by religion is also of a eternally valid nature. The bad examples of some religions and some believers doesn’t invalidate that anymore than the bad application of science invalidates the search for scientific knowledge. > [@](#): > > I don’t think there really is such a thing as a ‘simple’ belief. There’s been a comparison to a platonic ideal of faith been made in this thread – let’s, for a moment, assume such exists. Now, there are two tribes, tribe A and tribe B (I don’t mean ‘tribe’ to indicate primitiveness here, by the way). Tribe A worships exactly this ideal of faith, this core of all belief, the thing that all religions try to approximate, however you wish to call it. Tribe B, on the other hand, worships something with the sole defining characteristic of being distinct from what tribe A worships (for worship, you can equally well say ‘have faith in’ or some such, here). Now, is the faith of tribe B somehow less true? Or do they, in fact, worship the same thing as tribe A (which we have basically defined as the common element to all faiths)? If none of those, I submit that this contradiction means that there can be no common element, no platonic ideal of faith, and thus, that faith is not unique. If you study the religions of the world you can find several common themes, ,most often about the brotherhood of man. Regardless of what name the deity is called or the differences in rituals there are common themes of our connection to each other. Other than that I think your point fails in that you’re comparing a lack of faith in god or gods with the specific details of various religions . When I said simple belief I meant the common faith in a higher power. That IMO seems to be the fair comparison. If we started over tomorrow I think the perennial question of “is there something more” would still be asked and some folks would answer yes. > [@](#): > > However, from there, it follows that if humanity gets a do-over, while they might have gods and religion just fine, all their faiths will likely be distinct from all ours. Such doesn’t hold for atheism, which, as a lack of faith, is unique and allows for a description of the world that approaches ‘truth’ in the same way we do today by utilising the scientific method. Nope. Since many religions have developed themes similar to each other my guess is those same themes would develop again and the differences in details would be irrelevant. Long before science was science the spiritual path was teaching the value of truth and encouraging people to seek it. > [@](#): > > Of course two atheists can come to different conclusions, and yes, they can do so following reasonable assumptions – which, assumptions that they are, can well be wrong. However, once such an assumption is proven wrong, it is by necessity replaced by another, more correct one (since whatever proved the previous assumption wrong essentially constitutes a gain in knowledge), which thus leads to a process that eventually converges on an accurate description of underlying reality, provided such exists. The same can be true for two people from different religions. It is only when new knowledge becomes apparent to the individual do we change our concept of what is true. The problem is when considering a selfless atheist or a completely selfish one , both world views can seem a perfectly valid way to view life. Is either view true or untrue? > [@](#): > > As for morality, I think going into that would be beyond the scope of this thread by a considerable amount – I’ve given some slight outline on my view of morality as a selector for a society’s survival fitness, thus the selfish atheist in your hypothetical may well find society opposed to him, if it is robust, or collapsing, if all followed his example, and thus, his assumptions of leading a good life with his strategy would be proven wrong. The spiritual version of that might be that the consciousness of individuals affect and are reflected in the group consciousness. The more people who try to live by and emote the principles of brotherly love the more likely it is that others in that society will follow suit. > [@](#): > > Frankly, I don’t see any way by which religion discovers truth – it consists of paradigms it claims eternal and unchanging, and when they are changed despite those claims, it is most often due to some exterior (to the religion, not to its followers) pressure it could otherwise not sustain. Except some aren’t changed. Perhaps because they’re true. If you’re talking about truth in objective physical sense, I don’t think that’s the point. ---
**Author:** ![cosmosdan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@cosmosdan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cosmosdan)\ **Post date:** [January 21, 2009, 5:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-arguments-for-atheism/481428/137 "2009-01-21T05:24:20Z")
> [@Sage\_Rat](#): > > So because we don’t perfectly understand the human brain, I should assume an invisible bearded man in a toga implanted happy feelings into people’s brains, rather than that they were deluding themselves via one of the non-theoretical means for them to have just such a happy feeling? Never said anything remotely like that. ---
**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 21, 2009, 9:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-arguments-for-atheism/481428/138 "2009-01-21T09:41:05Z")
> [@cosmosdan](#): > > I can’t agree. First, the knowledge of the physical world or whatever you are referring to as valid for eternity, doesn’t change for theists. However, it could, if god willed it so, or do we disagree even there? > [@](#): > > If you study the religions of the world you can find several common themes, ,most often about the brotherhood of man. Regardless of what name the deity is called or the differences in rituals there are common themes of our connection to each other. Other than that I think your point fails in that you’re comparing a lack of faith in god or gods with the specific details of various religions . When I said simple belief I meant the common faith in a higher power. OK, so let tribe A have faith in a higher power. Tribe B then has faith in small little invisible pixies that can’t actually do anything at all, i.e. are definitely no higher power. But still, their faith is every bit as valid as that of tribe A (consider also things like Buddhism in the real world, where the notion of having faith in a higher power isn’t all that clear cut, as well, if you’re getting annoyed by my whimsical examples). > [@](#): > > That IMO seems to be the fair comparison. If we started over tomorrow I think the perennial question of “is there something more” would still be asked and some folks would answer yes. However, the particulars of their ‘yes’ can be arbitrarily different, while the world views of those that say ‘no’ (by the way, I don’t think that’s a fair representation of atheism and faith, but for the time being, let’s run with it) will converge on the same thing. > [@](#): > > Nope. Since many religions have developed themes similar to each other my guess is those same themes would develop again and the differences in details would be irrelevant. That’s just a guess, however, and not logically predicated. I mean, some folks believe in Scientology, so it seems you can pretty much cook up any old bullshit and have people believe in it – so it’s not inconceivable that the do-over people only develop faiths even more bizarre than that. Sure it’s not likely, and in fact there probably will be some superficial similarities to current faith, but I’m not concerned with likelihood, all I’m trying to show is that there is no necessity that any given current faith will be reproduced to any degree of accuracy. > [@](#): > > Long before science was science the spiritual path was teaching the value of truth and encouraging people to seek it. Or at least _their_ truth. > [@](#): > > If you’re talking about truth in objective physical sense, I don’t think that’s the point. No, the point is that there’s no good argument for the existence of any other truth. ---
**Author:** ![Duhkecco](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/8491ac/32.png) [@Duhkecco](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Duhkecco)\ **Post date:** [January 21, 2009, 12:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-arguments-for-atheism/481428/139 "2009-01-21T12:54:30Z")
> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > “I disagee” is giving you a hard time? No, but I get the feeling that you are not interested in finding a point of agreement. I already told you that I agree with you on geocentrism and atheism. You assumed that I was theist. Why? I made no claims about the existence of God. It seems that you assumed that I was a theist because I disagreed with you. > [@](#): > > I am confident that I could sufficiently educate myself to test the hypothesis in a manner consistent with the scientific method. I am also confident that others have tested the hypothesis and applied it in a practical manner and there is no conspiracy to mislead me. Two different arguments. How can I argue against the first? Seems unfalsifiable. You say you are confident, so, even if I can show that you don’t know what you’re talking about, that doesn’t prove that you are not confident. For the second argument, who are these “others”? You mentioned Copernicus, Galileo and Newton, but they didn’t test the hypothesis and apply it in a practical manner. Anyone else? It seems that your confidence comes from your last point – there’s no conspiracy theory – and I had already pointed out that it made no sense to dismiss heliocentrism based on a “bizarre conspiracy theory”. > [@](#): > > I am confident that a few months study would suffice … for me to learn the necessary math to tackle the problem. That’s different from being confident that you will arrive at the same conclusion. > [@](#): > > one makes predictions of what should happen if a hypothesis was true, and then observes. Does “one” make predictions, or do you (Bryan) make predictions and then follow the scientific method to test those predictions? If not, why not? > [@](#): > > If you want to call that confidence faith, be my guest in your wrongness. Well, you sure are confident in your “rightness”. Of course, that’s different from being dogmatic, right? 😉 In any case, it seems that you are interested in the history and philosophy of scientific development. Have you read Popper, Kuhn or Feyerabend? ---
**Author:** ![cosmosdan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@cosmosdan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cosmosdan)\ **Post date:** [January 21, 2009, 2:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-arguments-for-atheism/481428/140 "2009-01-21T14:13:38Z")
> [@Half\_Man\_Half\_Wit](#): > > However, it could, if god willed it so, or do we disagree even there? No. I just don’t see it as a relevant point. I wonder how much time it took for the concept of a round earth rather than a flat one to become commonly accepted, or the idea that we orbit the sun rather than it orbits us. IMO both systems can discover truth and both can make mistakes. > [@](#): > > OK, so let tribe A have faith in a higher power. Tribe B then has faith in small little invisible pixies that can’t actually do anything at all, i.e. are definitely no higher power. But still, their faith is every bit as valid as that of tribe A (consider also things like Buddhism in the real world, where the notion of having faith in a higher power isn’t all that clear cut, as well, if you’re getting annoyed by my whimsical examples). If the goal is to seek the truth rather than just service to tradition and ceremony both may not be equally valid. Science can be influenced by egos or money right? I’m aware that some religions teach things that are contrary to available scientific facts. Buddhism is a good example of what I was talking about. What Buddha taught 500 years before Jesus has many parallels with JCs teaching when it comes to behavior. > [@](#): > > However, the particulars of their ‘yes’ can be arbitrarily different, while the world views of those that say ‘no’ (by the way, I don’t think that’s a fair representation of atheism and faith, but for the time being, let’s run with it) will converge on the same thing. If you’re talking about observations about how the physical world is I can agree. Clinging to mythology against evidence stands in the way of progress IMO. That’s only one facet of religion and IMO not the more relevant one. When it comes to a philosophy of behavior and interaction what does atheism offer? It appears it offers nothing. That’s why I think the comparison fails, unless we want to stick to the purely physical. If that’s the case I think it’s apples and oranges. > [@](#): > > That’s just a guess, however, and not logically predicated. Isn’t it? Why isn’t long observation of human behavior and the note of repeated themes over centuries a logical process? > [@](#): > > I mean, some folks believe in Scientology, so it seems you can pretty much cook up any old bullshit and have people believe in it – so it’s not inconceivable that the do-over people only develop faiths even more bizarre than that. Sure it’s not likely, and in fact there probably will be some superficial similarities to current faith, but I’m not concerned with likelihood, all I’m trying to show is that there is no necessity that any given current faith will be reproduced to any degree of accuracy. Ok granted. I just question the relevancy. If the point is that religion isn’t a good way to gather information about the physical world then we agree. IMO the fact that the themes of human interaction will probably repeat themselves is the significant portion of religion. > [@](#): > > Or at least _their_ truth. Religion does have a history of getting bogged down in ceremony and tradition but “thier truth” goes beyond that. Just as science has much more to discover religion is still a work in progress. “Thier truth” is changing as discovery continues. Ultimately the truth converges. Scientists may have different theories they favor while their knowledge in a certain area is incomplete. The information they gather separately will trying to confirm their own favored theory will help reveal the truth. > [@](#): > > No, the point is that there’s no good argument for the existence of any other truth. Other than what? If truth=reality and reality= truth then yeah there isn’t any other. The fact is we don’t fully understand or grasp what that is. I think atheism is a valid way of exploring that reality. With all it’s imperfections , I think religion is too. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-arguments-for-atheism/481428.md?page=6) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-arguments-for-atheism/481428.md?page=8)