The Three Arguments Against Atheism
No, I’m not going to refute atheism for you.
But over at edge.org, the conversation started at the Beyond Belief 2006 conference is continuing with a lively debate between Scott Atran and Sam Harris. A worthwhile read, but I want to focus on something Harris said near the closing of his rebuttal:
If there is an argument against “evangelical” atheists like Dawkins, Weinberg, and myself it must take one of these forms:
(1) Certain religious beliefs are true (or likely to be true); here’s why…
(2) Religious beliefs, while not likely to be true, are so useful that they are necessary; here’s the evidence…
(3) Many religious people are so irrational that it is simply too dangerous to criticize their beliefs. Please keep your mouth shut.
I thought this to be particularly insightful, because many of the arguments I run into these days are entirely tangential to the stratagems Harris lists. A short list of popular tangents:
- Religious people are often good.
- There are bad people who are/were atheists.
- Economic and political circumstances drive people to do bad things.
- Science cannot/has not answered all questions about origins/meaning.
- It is impolite/impolitic to criticize others’ religion.
- You don’t understand the religion(s) you are criticizing as deeply as the believers and/or scholars of that religion.
- Atheists cannot disprove “God” (for some sufficiently vague definition of “God”.)
These points, in and of themselves, are not fallacies. Yet, granting every single one of them will not diminish by one iota the force of the arguments made against superstition and dogmatism in general, and religion in particular.
Unfortunately, many of these points are regularly trotted out not only by believers who seem to think they somehow bolster the case for faith, but also by well-meaning scientists and philosophers who envision a lasting détente between science and religion.
As I don’t see religion going away any time soon, I can see times and places where temporary détente might be a good thing. However, I believe that mollifying dogmatists is ultimately a losing strategy. Our world has been in dire need of voices like those of Dawkins and Harris who are willing to play bad cop to the chorus of Templeton Prize-contender good cops. Calling the good cops on the carpet for attacking such tangents as listed above is one major contribution to the conversation the bad cops make, as Harris does so eloquently in his rebuttal.
So if you want to attack the arguments (or tactics) of “evangelical” atheists, by all means do so. But do it right and go for the three points that Harris raises instead of the litany of straw men that really add nothing to your position.
December 1st, 2006 at 7:28 am
Science vs. Religion
I hear this one a lot from atheists, and I think it is a falacy.
It is one worldview vs. another worldview, with science mixed in.
The only completely objective science is the science that we can test and repeat for ourselves today. Want to test Newton’s theory of gravitation? Fairly easy. Want to prove with an experiment where gravity *actually comes from*? Much more difficult.
If there is no spiritual world, and what we percieve with our 5 senses is all that exists (materialism), then the only instruments we have to work with are logic, and repeatable experimentation.
Using only logic and experiment, I cannot prove to you something which occured in the past if you were not there to witness it directly, and no reliable recordings of the event exist.
Example - I have a meal at McDonalds (illogical, I know). A week later I tell you I had a meal at McDonalds. How can I prove it to you if you don’t believe me? Let’s assume there is no surveillance footage available (also unlikely these days, I know, but it’s a thought experiment).
I bring you a witness to corroborate my story, but I could have bribed them.
I show you a receipt, but it may not have been mine.
I show you a credit card slip with my card number, all I have proved is that someone with my card paid for the transaction.
Now a crucial point is this: you would probably believe that I ate at McDonald’s, just because there is no great *motive* for me to lie to you. I wouldn’t really be very worried if you didn’t believe me.
Now if the universe is billions upon billions of years old, and the average human life span is about 60 to 70 years, and the oldest archeological evidence we have of human existence (forget carbon and radiometric dating, which are based on a number of huge assumptions about the past) is about 4000 to 5000 years ago, what possible scientific experiments are going to reliably tell us about an event billions of years ago?
I can theorise, postulate, and hypothesise all I want, but I cannot show you the big bang. I cannot prove it. All I can do is say “well, this is my hypothesis. I think it fits today’s conditions based on the following evidence”. But I would be fooling myself if I considered that I had proved the big bang beyond all reasonable doubt.
Forensic science has the same problem - it is studying past events, and no matter how compelling the evidence, their theories can be dead wrong, and the only way of knowing for sure, is to have witnessed the event, or have a reliable recording of it from someone who witnessed it first hand.
That is why I object to you labelling what is essentially a hypothesis about a chain of events that purportedly started billions of years back, as science.
My even greater objection is that there are such strong motives for people on all sides of the debate, to prove their point, including atheists. Nobody can claim to be objective. Say what you like about the validity of Christian or Atheist belief systems, you cannot deny that choosing one or the other will have a huge impact on your worldviews, way of thinking, and life.
Please dont call postulating about the past science. Any theories on the origins of the universe will by nature be based on faith as we don’t have anything else to go on (if we take a purely materialist world view).
In the case of origins, it is Christianity v Hinduism v Atheism / Humanism, not “science” v religion.
December 1st, 2006 at 12:15 pm
Douglas,
Your “comment” is very long-winded. Why not consider starting your own blog? But more critically, as your comment was hardly to the point of my posting, you seem to be arguing with some other blogger.
You seem to be saying that science cannot tell us about the past. You dismiss carbon dating, so I presume you would also dismiss geology, paleontology, and astronomy as reliable ways for us to learn about the distant past.
In short, you are quite ignorant. I recommend reading up on this site.
December 2nd, 2006 at 10:59 pm
I have to give it to Sam Harris and his notable colleagues as well. I find it very refreshing indeed to see that he and others like him are not afraid to step around to the other side of the subject and try to view their own beliefs critically. I can honestly say I do not know a single devoted religious believer that will even entertain the thought of questioning the actual existence of God or whatever their chosen deity / deities might be.
Of the three arguments listed above the one that stands out the most in my mind is #3. I have experienced this phenomenon on far too many occasions and most probably will again as soon as tomorrow. This is discouraging to say the least, and often highly frustrating.
All I can really add to this sort of statement is rather a bit of support. One of the things we are told most often is that the main turning point or key factor in dealing with psychiatric dependencies is that the sufferer is nearly always in denial about the reality of their dependent nature. In my humble opinion, those than would shun any other perspective or criticism of their beliefs in an attempt to discern fact from fiction, are in absolute denial. Another striking similarity is that dependency can and will drive it’s victim to heinous ends in order to hold onto or maintain their delusion as factual. In short….yes it can be and is dangerous to criticize religion to its ever so dependent believers.
December 3rd, 2006 at 11:25 pm
The topic of your post was invalid arguments against atheism.
I am pointing out that one of the invalid arguments for it is that atheism is “scientific” whereas any religion is not.
I took this fallacy directly from your post, as it seems to be firmly believed by atheists everywhere.
Nowhere in my post did I once say that science can tell us nothing about the past. I said it can not conclusively prove that a series of events happened as we theorise them. The only definitive way to know what occurred in the past was (a) to have witnessed it or (b) to have a reliable record of it.
My post was not a direct comment on the contents of the subject line of your post, but surely you should be able to see the link.
As for any of the “dating” methods - On the form used to submit samples for dating, is a space to indicate how old you “think” the sample should be. If this is an objective and reliable method, why is this field there?
Thank you for immediately dismissing me as ignorant and long-winded. This is exactly the kind of personal attack I have come to expect from atheists who refuse to use logic and actual evidence to support their views, and merely switch over to abuse.
December 4th, 2006 at 12:22 am
Douglas,
Hello again. Please explain to me how any religion is “scientific.”
As physicist Lawrence Krauss put it, “Science doesn’t make it impossible to believe in God, it just makes it possible to not believe in God.” But many such as myself argue further that atheism is the only logically coherent position given the evidence we currently possess.
You seem to be dancing around your central beliefs here. In your worldview what can science tell us about the past? Do you in fact reject the evidence of geology, paleontology and/or astronomy that our universe and earth are in fact billions of years old?
While admittedly not an expert in the area of radiometric dating, I have never heard of such a field. If in fact the field you mention is there, I suggest you ask a scientist familiar with that subject why it is there. If you have links to pictures of such forms then please post them here and I would be happy to ask a scientist for you. The answer would probably make a good post.
Your sarcastic “thank you” is acknowledged. Your “comment” was much longer than my original post, and quite tangential to it at best, and that qualifies as long-winded in my opinion. Very few except young-earth creationists deny the utility of radiometric dating, and that makes you ignorant in my view. You didn’t even indicate that you went to the link I sent you to. Perhaps you’d rather not be confused by facts.
If you feel hurt by such “abuse” then I suggest you start your own blog where you can work out your feelings unhindered by evil atheists such as myself.
Or if you’d rather continue here, then perhaps you could post on topic. Let me recap the proper ways to argue with me:
Thought you might need a reminder. You’re welcome.
December 4th, 2006 at 1:07 am
Douglas,
Well, lookie here. A blog on “biblical views of various subjects” you’re probably already familiar with. Here’s an article that must be quoting you:
OK, well now I have a good idea of your sources. And interesting use of the word “presumably.” So just get me images of the “forms” and we’ll get to the bottom of this scientific mystery.
December 5th, 2006 at 8:31 am
Some radiometric dating submission forms for you:
http://www.brocku.ca/earthsciences/radiocarbon/
Check the link to the RTF request form on the left. Once you have the file, look for the “probable age” field.
http://www.radiocarbondating.com/submission%20form%202003.pdf
Again look for “Estimate Age” and “age limits” fields on this form.
http://www.gla.ac.uk/centres/surrc/radiocarbon/submission.html
Download the submission form in Word format. Also has the “estimated age” field.
These are just the first 3 forms I found using Google. All 3 ask for an Estimated Age. The last one even supplies some reasons - “this helps the laboratory to select the appropriate instrument for measurement as well as enabling the laboratory to contact the submitter at an early stage if the estimated age is excessively different from the measured age”.
I am sorry but the reasoning to justify this is very weak. I thought the whole point of radiometric dating is that it is supposed to objectively and reliably supply the dates based on radioactive decay rates etc. I think its nuts that you are submitting a sample to “scientifically” determine the age, and at the same time you have to give them your estimate and upper and lower age limits. What if I have a sample and I’ve guessed wrong by several billion years? They are using my guess to calibrate the machines, and the result comes back way outside of my limits. “Oops,” they say, “the machines must have it wrong. Lets repeat the process.”
As for contaminants, if these cannot be reliably detected by the dating lab, how can the process be considered valid? Many huge dating mistakes have after the fact been ascribed to contamination. If they have no way of knowing that a sample is contaminated enough to severely distort the results beforehand, this process is a waste of time.
I would also be interested to read a post on this.
December 5th, 2006 at 2:09 pm
You know… while #3 is an awesome argument, I’d actually say #2 is the strongest. Many people seem to have a very strong desire for something greater than themselves that they can put all their hopes and fears onto. With our powerful imaginations, and so much in the world completely out of control, it’s most comforting to have something that is outside our understanding “on our side”. You can see this outside Christian beliefs, in the many spiritual traditions around the world, there’s always something invisible that affects our world that we can supplicate to aid (or not hinder) us.
Because these beliefs are so widely held, I would tend to think there’s a bit of that need wired into us… which means we do need them on some level, just to keep us content. While some philosophies can help us deal with the spiritual or mystical urges some of us may feel… I think Atheism does one thing wrong, It deconstructs those beliefs without offering another supporting structure to fall back on. There’s almost an implied “Reality is harsh, stop sniveling and grow up.” that doesn’t sit well with many people.
December 5th, 2006 at 3:51 pm
Ascius,
I think you’re inferring rather harsh things from atheism that are never implied.
Beliefs do not have to be true to be comforting as long as they are believed to be true. Beliefs that are manifestly not true also lack the ability to comfort. So as long as the truth of beliefs is not a concern, then I suppose people can believe whatever they want as long as it comforts them and doesn’t hurt anyone else. Alas, this last part is a big part of the problem we face today.
Of course, I’m not talking about “truth” in the sense that “all stories are true,” I’m talking about truth in the sense of “some stories have actually happened.” Caring about the difference is deeply part of the scientific mindset. Discerning wisdom or emotional connection in an ancient story is not the same as “believing it to be true.”
So now, let’s look at what atheism actually is. Is it a moral system upon which to base one’s life? Is it intended to comfort the destitute, the sick, the aged? Is it a religion or even a philosophy? Absolutely not!
Atheism is a refutation, plain and simple. Atheism says, “Theistic belief is wrong or very likely to be wrong, and here’s why…”
So, I agree that if a person abandons some theistic religion for atheism and only atheism, they are likely to throw out the baby with the bath water. What about the Golden Rule? What about morality? What about all the good things that various faith traditions teach? There would definitely be a vacuum.
But that is not the end of the story, although many believers would seem to wish it were— for ending the story there allows them to paint atheists as monsters. “You can’t be good without God,” they say. If I may amalgamate my metaphors, this is truly the Greatest Straw Man Ever Spun Into Rhetorical Gold. I am personally a Secular Humanist in addition to being an atheist. I care about my family, friends, co-workers, city, state, country, and the world. I wish to live in peace with others and make the world a better place. None of that comes from atheism itself, but from the simple joy I have in living my life, and the pleasure I take in seeing others live their lives joyfully.
December 8th, 2006 at 2:18 pm
That’s the problem with Atheism, it doesn’t imply anything, it only takes away, it offers up nothing else. So people can easily read in other meanings.
It’s interesting that people label themselves Atheists, their disbelief, rather than by their beliefs, such as Humanists, then, because taking up a mantle of disbelief opens you up to the attack that you have no beliefs. Whereas a Theist could hardly say you have no morals when you profess to be a Humanist.
December 8th, 2006 at 6:11 pm
Ascius,
Again, I think you are rather unfairly saying that “atheism” ought to have a greater scope of definition than it does have.
Many theists claim that humanists are a source of evil in the world. Furthermore, many theists teach that humanism is the tacit state religion and therefore in conflict with the “true source of knowledge”, Christianity. So while in fact I do label myself a “humanist,” the idea that doing so somehow shields me from accusations of a- or im-morality is false.
If you lived in a society where everyone accepted the idea of faeries at the bottom of the garden, paid obeisance to them, lived their lives by what they perceived as their clever “tiny whispers” and expected you to do the same or else judged you as only just better than criminal, then perhaps you would decided to identify yourself as an a-faeryist. And perhaps you’d also be a humanist.
December 24th, 2006 at 1:59 am
Ascius,
I have been thinking about your responses. I would like to offer that atheism does not actually take anything away other than a terribly opaque veil of delusion. Simply pointing out the obvious fallacies surrounding relgious mythologies doesn’t obliterate anything from existence.
As far as removing the support structure that believing in some higher power seems to provide, I have to disagree. Just take a look around you. The magnificent splendor of this world is awe inspiring on so many levels. When I feel a need for support, I turn to my loved ones. They never fail to bolster my spirits, lend me guidance, inspire my hopes and dreams, and share their strength with me. I am frankly far more comforted by these substantial entities in my life than I ever felt when I uttered prayer after prayer to an obscure presence I was never sure even existed. The structure of which you are refering is strictly a mental crutch. I know that must seem harsh. Honestly, I don’t mean for my thoughts to seem callous. I simply feel that so many people misunderstand what atheism is all about. I often feel as though I am no longer closed in as all the doors have burst open presenting the entire body of knowledge and discovery to me.
January 4th, 2007 at 3:25 pm
Douglas,
As promised, I have an answer from a scientist for you.