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.
Belief is choice. Respect is civilized.
The God-meme exists, well to the extent that memes exist. I not only believe but know that the God concept exists. This of course is not the same as a belief in God. I don’t know that God does not exist, but the conjecture concerning a deity is to my mind highly problematic, for if nothing else it is a completely ineffective hypothesis.
Gee, Mr. Cromwell, that response to my post was pretty much irrelevant.
Theism is not a conjecture. It a world-view, or rather, a group of world-views, just as atheism is a group of world-views. The atheism of Richard Dawkins, for example, is a rather naive form of radical empiricism in epistemology & materialism in metaphysics. The problems with this kind of uncritical, radical empiricism have been exposed by Popper, by Wittgenstein, by Quine, by Sellars, by Polanyi, by Kuhn, and by Plantinga.
The questions that Dawkins & Dawkinite clones across the Internet are pretty much destined to be the wrong questions. They are questioned premised upon a faulty, self-refuting world-view. They fail to provide any solid basis for knowledge-claims of any kind, theistic or otherwise.
Dawkinites are laughable in their parochialism. Not only do they assume that all rational people share their beliefs, they assume that the methods of natural science are the only rational methods of inquiry, implicitly discounting ethics, ontology, aesthetics, teleology, epistemology, history, economics, law, mathematics, and personal, relational knowledge. The contradictions are obvious. First, methods of inquiry are not constant & uniform across the various branches of the natural sciences. Second, the natural sciences are not a self-justifying enterprise; they presuppose the validity of mathematics, of logic, of induction, of sense perception, but do not provide an ultimate foundation for any of these necessary beliefs.
Theism, or Christian theism, at any rate, does provide an adequate foundation for these necesssary beliefs, while Dawkinite varieties of atheism do not. (Neither do other varieties of atheism, IMHO.) In that sense, the Dawkins-Hitchens-Harris-quoting professing atheist who uses math, logic, induction, or even sense perception is (at the very least) closer to theism than atheism in his daily practice.
More could be said, but I’ve probably offended enough people for one week.
This discussion, as many others, seems to be about the meaning of words like “beleive”, “truth”, “faith” etc. As such it doesn’t relate a lot to real life, not to mine, not to yours (unless you are a philosopher). What does relate is, for example, whether american kids should be taught Christian Teism at school along biology, physics etc.
Well, maybe they should, why not. As long as it comes with smart immigration policy that will help replace those creating new technologies, drugs etc. from countries like India, China and Russia – i see no problem 🙂
As a teacher of Ecology I am an atheist. God was created by man as a necessity. The necessity still exists. Reason also exists and it must. The debate continues. Ultimately it depends on the conceptualisation of God that one develops during one’s life time. Mine is here.
______________________________________________
GOD : OMNIPRESENT, OMNISCIENT AND OMNIPOTENT !
_________________________________________________________
Prof.. C B S R Sharma, Department of Ecology and Environmental Sciences Pondicherry University [Retired] 7, Airport Road, Pondicherry 605 008 , [ Ph: 0413 – 225-7036 ]
_________________________________________________________
How nice it is to have a God.
No one sees god. But every one feels.
It is like the bird that feels the dawn when it is still dark.
It is also like the wolf that feels the dusk when there is still light.
The Pancha Bhootas, the five elements of nature were resources
to the humans, when balanced, but very harmful if imbalanced.
Both good and bad are the attributes of the same.
Humans realized ecology and called it god.
When a child is borne the mother feels the god.
When some one dies, the dear ones fear the god.
When some one kills the other without touching him, the witness sees the god. God is not merely linkages, but a web, inscrutable.
When bad people succeed and enjoy life, Why bad things happen to good people ? what is god doing? Is he existing, or if not is he also bad like the powerful. God’s duty is to protect the good and punish the evil.
An Enigma indeed.
God lies in the work. Work produces dirt. Cleanliness is next to Godliness. Truth is god. But truth is bitter. It takes us to the crematorial elegy land,
the last lap of all journeys, sooner. God is a self contradiction
Myriad times I felt how nice if we have a god. Albeit, formless, faceless, flavorless, tasteless, speechless, senseless, but valuable and powerful?
God is an insatiable yearning.
No one sees god, although feel, but late.
Therefore evils and bads, flourish.
How nice it is to have a God.
I have seen god,
in the first paragraph of A Tale of Two Cities by Dickens.
And in the entire Siddhardha of Herman Hesse
I feel god, whenever good happens , rain and river banks
I deny god, whenever bad happens, heat and dust
This is the stuff of god , a summation of all probabilities
___________________________________________________________
But GOD has always haunted me and did not enlighten me..
Ecology enlightens me. And I found my God. A great necessity