The struggle to definitively prove or disprove the existence of atheists has puzzled philosophers for centuries. Some have proposed the cosmological argument — “many cosmologists seem to be atheists” — while others have fallen back on the argument from design — “without atheists, who would believers have to argue against?”
But the Catholic Encyclopedia seems unconvinced by these arguments:
The most trenchant form which atheism could take would be the positive and dogmatic denial existence of any spiritual and extra-mundane First Cause. This is sometimes known as dogmatic, or positive theoretic, atheism; though it may be doubted whether such a system has ever been, or could ever possibly be seriously maintained. Certainly Bacon and Dr. Arnold voice the common judgment of thinking men when they express a doubt as to the existence of an atheist belonging to such a school. Still, there are certain advanced phases of materialistic philosophy that, perhaps, should rightly be included under this head. Materialism, which professes to find in matter its own cause and explanation, may go farther, and positively exclude the existence of any spiritual cause. That such a dogmatic assertion is both unreasonable and illogical needs no demonstration, for it is an inference not warranted by the facts nor justified by the laws of thought.
You have to admire the confidence — the fact that “dogmatic atheism” is “both unreasonable and illogical needs no demonstration,” and let’s leave it at that. It’s a little bit different from the tack they take in another entry:
Formal dogmatic Atheism is self-refuting, and has never de facto won the reasoned assent of any considerable number of men.
The Encyclopedia does not dirty its hands by explaining the nature of this self-refutation, any more than it explained the previously-noted unreasonability and illogic. I like it! It’s kind of like arguing on the internet.
I presume you saw the NYT story yesterday that said a fifth of self-identified atheists say they believe in a god.
George
Who cares? We just don’t believe in any god, lets use that as a definition.
While they may be a little short on their facts, I think they are, in essence, correct. In my eyes, it’s just as conceited to claim with certainty that there was no prime mover, as it is to claim that one exists.
My position has always been that such an entity is unnecessary, unproven, and extremely unlikely. But to claim absolute knowledge of the existence or non-existence of such an entity just smacks to me of the same sort of hubris displayed by the religious in claiming that one exists.
The general thesis follows something like this:
A: “God does not exist”
T: “How do you know?”
A: “Existence of God requires absolute truth, and there are no absolute truths”
T: “But ‘no absolute truths’ is an absolute truth, so your reasoning is wrong.”
There are better presentations of the argument, but it basicly requires Athiesm to state absolutely that there is no god, rather than a more subtle statement that the person individually does not believe in god. Once it does that, it then turns into a classic Godel-Escher-Bach self-reference problem, which merely shows the boundaries of logic, rather than absolutely refuting the claim. At best, it shows that Athiesm is no more rational than theism and that both are founded on belief rather than pure logic. And so the perfect record player fails to exist…
What exactly is it about the god-concept that means that anyone who says “there is no god” is presumed to be arrogant or hubristic, whereas people who say “there are no fairies” or “there are no alien abductions” are not thought of in the same way?
Now, I really don’t think there is a god at all. But the word “atheist” only means that we do not believe in god; it does not necessitate the statement that it definitely does not exist. But we are generally agnostic about it only in the same way that we are agnostic about fairies, leprechauns and other similar entities.
The certainty that many of us put forward is not really any different from the certainty that we and others have about any number of things on which we have opinions. Of course we can admit that we *could* be wrong, but we really don’t think so, so why should we have to tone things down? The theists themselves are the most annoying on this topic: “oh, you’re being so arrogant, so smug, so sure of yourself.” Which is normally followed by some kind of threat as to why god doesn’t look kindly on this sort of behaviour. Sorry, which god was that? The one that you are certainly not arrogantly, smugly and self-assuredly telling me absolutely exists?
>> We just don’t believe in any God
A (tiny) problem with such a statement is that since we dont know what God is,
it is also not really clear what it means to not believe in it.
I’m with Mark H. here. When someone says “I don’t believe in God” they are using “believe” in exactly the same sense as when they say “I don’t believe in the tooth fairy.” Why do people suddenly think that absolute logical certainty is required to make statements where God is concerned, but are not similarly daft with respect to other kinds of statements?
What Mark Hudson said.
Sean,
the “tooth fairy” has enough ‘features’ to give meaning to the sentence that you do not believe in the tooth fairy. e.g. I assume you mean the money under the pillow was really placed there by mom…
But what exactly do you mean when you tell us that you do not believe in God?
Wolfgang, it’s very easy to side step what God means.. lets use the churches definition
Occam’s Razor clearly supports atheism.
If the question is “Where did the Universe come from?” the theist replies “God,” to which the question follows “Where did God come from?” to which the answer is “I don’t know” (usually baked into some kind of light and airy semantic pastry.)
Occam’s Razor suggests that given two equally-likely possibilities, the simpler is most often correct. So simply take God out of the dialog: “Where did the Universe come from?” followed immediately by “I don’t know.”
I figured this out when I was about thirteen.
More complicated was this assertion, about age sixteen (Carter Administration then:) if God exists outside of time and the Universe, then God is moot, because something outside the Universe is by definition unable to interact with it. If God exists INSIDE the Universe, then God is not God because God is limited by the Universe. Therefore either God exists and is moot, or God is not God and is therefore not God.
Finally about age 18 I came up with the moral argument: Assuming God existed, God is not God, because God is not ME. If God is not ME, then God has no right to kill ME because my individuality is as unique as God’s. God may be ABLE to kill me by merit of size or power, but the argumentum ad baculum fallacy is not a morally acceptable justification for murder. And as I did not enter in an agreement with God to be created in exchange for eventually being killed, then God’s creation of mortality itself is immoral. So if God is immoral then God is not God, but merely a very powerful amoral creature.
I’ve been an atheist since I was twelve, and I figured this all about by age 18, mostly while sitting bored in my family-mandated Catholic catechism classes
One of my fave quotes…
“Atheism, therefore, is the absence of theistic belief. One who does not believe in the existence of a god or supernatural being is properly designated as an atheist. Atheism is sometimes defined as “the belief that there is no God of any kind,” or the claim that a god cannot exist. While these are categories of atheism, they do not exhaust the meaning of atheism — and are somewhat misleading with respect to the basic nature of atheism. Atheism, in its basic form, is not a belief: it is the absence of belief. An atheist is not primarily a person who believes that a god does not exist, rather he does not believe in the existence of a god.”
~ George H. Smith
What I find most amusing about this is not the weakness of the argument that dogmatic unbelief in God is illogical (which it is, as JustinB and PaulF point out), but rather the fact that the Catholic Encyclopedia first admits that the actual nonexistence of dogmatic atheism is “the common judgment of thinking men,” then proceeds to argue against this conclusion. Bacon and Arnold correctly point out that this strong form of atheism is a straw man,* and the encyclopedists appear to accept this, then immediately turn around and try to argue against it. One must conclude that the encyclopedists are not “thinking men.” Even if one construes “man” to refer only to adult males, as opposed to the whole of humanity, it is likely that the authors of this section were indeed such “men.” Thus we are led to the likely conclusion that they were, at least at the time they composed this section, not “thinking.”
* I have met people who professed a dogmatic, unwavering disbelief in any deity, but I do not believe that they were sincere.
“it’s just as conceited to claim with certainty that there was no prime mover, as it is to claim that one exists.”
“At best, it shows that Athiesm is no more rational than theism and that both are founded on belief rather than pure logic. And so the perfect record player fails to exist…”
It’s quite simple really, unless you are a solipsist, you utilize reasonable doubt. “God” and “no God” are two possibilities. This is not contested. That rejecting one of them is hubris simply because it is a possibility runs contrary to rational thought. They are not equal in possibility, “God” is far less parsimonious than “No god”, and therefor requires more than mere utterance to justify acceptance. The alternate possibility is entertained primarily because one faces varying degrees of social alienation for failure to do so: “Atheism… has never de facto won the reasoned assent of any considerable number of men.” the most effective arguments for theism are essentially appeals to force, and/or popularity.
I think there’s a lot of confusion (and deliberate obtuseness) over the difference between what is “impossible”, “improbable”, “possible”, and “probable” when it comes to debates over “God” and his/her/its many definitions.
Even as firm atheist I don’t rule out the possibility that there is some sort of supernatural entity responsible in some way of the creation of the Universe. I just think it’s highly improbable. For all we know, the Universe was created as the third-grade science homework of a hyper-dimensional alien being.
But the tiny possibility that we live in a deistic universe is huge when compared with the likelihood that the Universe is governed by a personal God who cares when and who I have sex with to the point of meting out the ultimate sadistic punishment to anyone who disobeys commands written down in a 3,000 year old book. Still, I don’t have the evidence to rule it out completely, though I have a much better chance of, say, Scarlett Johansson arriving on my doorstep with a bottle of champagne in one hand and a check from Bill Gates for one billion dollars in the other. (Hey, a guy can dream.)
So I kind of liken the declaration that “there is no God” to someone who never buys a lottery ticket claiming that they won’t win the lottery this week. How do they know for sure? After all, what happens if, say, a friend just happens to be in a generous mood this week and decides to buy them a dozen lottery tickets just for fun, and one of them turns out to have the winning numbers? Or perhaps a passer-by dropped the soon-to-be winning ticket and it fell unnoticed into their bag? It is likely? No. Is it possible? Yes. Are you going to base critical life choices on that remote possibility? Not if you have an ounce of common sense.
In the same way, just because we can’t absolutely rule out the possibility that God exists, does not automatically make it “likely” that God does exist. Just as I don’t go through life believing I’m going to win the lottery (I don’t buy tickets), I’m not going to go through life believing that I am beholden to some entity that almost certainly does not exist.
“I like it! It’s kind of like arguing on the internet.”
The internet: where the rational and the irrational mingle as one.
As Richard Dawkins spells out clearly in “The God Delusion” (which should have been on that 100 best books list), it is true that the positions “God surely exists” and “God surely does not exist” are both untenable, but its telling that there are a lot more people who hold the former view than who hold the latter.
It boils down to definitions of Atheist, Agnostic, God, etc. George Smith defined athiesm one way, but it is not the generally accepted definition used by religious scholars. His definition of atheism would make a theologian cringe the way many people make physicists cringe when they use the words or phrases “relative”, “uncertainty”, “second law of thermodynamics” and “quantum leap.”
The Catholic Encyclopedia probably assumes that the reader is using specific definitions, rather than loose definitions. Most people here are comfortable using the term athiest and agnostic loosely and interchangably, as Mark demonstrates. But the Catholic document will mean atheism more strictly, as discussed here http://atheism.about.com/od/aboutagnosticism/a/atheism.htm.
The other important point is the definition of God. It is easy to prove that God exists if you allow your definition to be something that loosely equals nature. I would expect the authors of the Encyclopedia to have required an anthropomorphic god who is also omniscient (begging the definition of “knowledge”), omnipotent, etc. They probably assume the reader has the same definition.
I’m not defending them, I’m just trying to explain why the Encyclopedia might not take the effort to explain their claim.
Occam’s razor might favor athiesm, but its not clear to me. When you talk about creation, both physics and theism have a certain point where you just have to stop asking the question. Occum might favor agnosticim, saying “you just can’t know for sure.”
Simplisticly, the analytic philosophers (Wittgenstein, Frege, Russell, etc) did a pretty good job showing that, at its most basic level, logic is unprovable. Godel did the same with mathematics. Ultimately, we accept both as self-evident. I’m not sure that faith in God is all that different.
Personally, I’m not sure where I stand. I have strong agnostic leanings, but I’m not convinced I’m right.
Before one can believe or disbelieve, one must define what it is that is being believed or disbelieved. I have yet to hear a definition of god that is does not contradict itself.
Personally, I like Scott (Dilbert) Adams’ take on it in “God’s Debris”.
BTW: Why do even atheists capitalized the word?
I always find it amazing that there are people able to produce that kind of prose, but so utterly unable to think. Cargo cult encyclopedia, anyone?
To Mark’s point, I happen to think the rationale most people use for rejecting fairies and alien abductions is, in fact, very arrogant. Do I believe in fairies? No. Do I define my worldview by falling on my sword over their nonexistence? No. To reject something just because it seems, according to the current zeitgeist, silly is i think lazy. There is in fact a whole mountain of eyewitness evidence in support of the claims of alien abductions. If you don’t find that an interesting enough area of inquiry to research and reach your own conclusions, fine, but to reject hundreds of claims (or, say, call yourself a “Anabductionist”) simply because the possibility of alien abductions seems extraordinary, or doesn’t fit within your notion of how the universe works, is, in my opinion, only a notch or two removed from the logic of Young Earth Creationism.
god is boring.
if “because god did it” is always an answer…. that’s no fun.
if i believed that some all-knowing entity already put everything together in my life as a series of steps built in to my pre-determined ultimate “fate,” then whats the point of exploring my Universe? that would be no fun.
its much more exciting and makes much more sense to me to think that all possibilities are open to me… to interpret life as i choose… to understand that unexplainable changes will happen and i can react in whatever way i feel… now that’s exciting!
I reject the label “agnostic” because it is tool with which theists attempt to water down my faith. Many atheists reject my characterization of atheism as a “faith,” preferring instead the black and white world of proven facts. But we cannot prove a negative, and so belief in no deity is unprovable, and hence must be taken on faith. Theists have a much easier task – all they need to do is arrange for God to put in an appearance, and many of us will be persuaded to believe.
When theists use the term “agnostic,” they tend to be implying uncertainty on the part of the atheist, which they contrast with their own wholly illogical firm faith. This is of course dishonest, since even the most firmly convinced theist (the one who reportedly was God’s son) had occasion to doubt – so the agnostic is no more uncertain than the theist, simply more honest.
Finally, I refer to God when using the term as a proper noun, and gods or deities when refering to the class of beings.
For more on the natures of gods and deities, you can always buy my book ‘Mitlanyal,’ which examines the theologies of twenty wholly fictional gods created by Professor M. A. R. Barker as part of his world of Tekumel.
Matt,
When the fairyists and the abductionists have as much power over me as the theists do, I will loudly proclaim my afairyism and a-abductionism too.
Well, the best argument (imho) was always the following:
As an atheist, I just believe in one god less then you.
And then I wait for logical and sound arguments, why the other one doesn’t believe in Zeus, FSM or any other of the thousand imagined gods in human history.
And since I’ve never encountered a good argument from believers why they don’t believe in the other gods but insist on believing in a specific one, I let the burden of proof on the believers.
And if they’d ever had a good argument against the other gods, I’ll be damned if it can’t be used against the one they’ve left out. 😉
—————–
And my personal definition of atheism is simple. Atheism is the same as not-stamp-collecting, not-river-rafting. Not doing something/not believing in something is the default position after all. 😉