Constructive critique of an argument I have against atheism

[schaeffer]

Most of these arguments against atheism in this thread sound to me like they boil down to “I don’t like how big, mean and scary the Universe is, and the idea that I am at the mercy of it, therefore I think it’s better if me and everyone around me agrees there is a God and this set of rules and abides by them, otherwise, it’s all too awful to think about,”

Well, yeah, there are lots of big scary and even awful things in the Universe, as far as a mortal and finite being of a human is concerned. Yup. There it is. There are also a lot of awesome things, beautiful things, amazing things. Yup, there it is.

Good/bad, moral/immoral are tools humans came up with to order complex societies.

We apply them however we see fit. Sad but true that often they get applied in ways that decimate huge numbers of others. But yup, there it is.

There is not group that has not been treated horribly and treated another group horribly at some time or another and felt totally justified and moral for doing it. Not a pretty part of reality, but reality just the same.

Shark rape? Really? Does the Catholic Church now dictate the morality of fish behavior?

Why should humans care if another human is raped since sharks do it? Are you seriously positing that as some proof of God?

If shark rape is bad, and there is a God, either sharks have free will and are choosing against God and his morality, or sharks don’t have free will but God made them to behave immorally…do we want to go down THAT road…or I guess we can say, poor sharks ate algae in perfect harmony until original sin came along and now they are savage beasts killing and raping one another.

God or no God, the idea that humans, who are in so many ways NOT sharks, should base their idea of morality on the behavior of sharks is pretty ridiculous.

The idea that we are just bags of meat. Well, yeah, to many, probably most living things on earth we are. The only good we do them is as potential food or host for a parasite. However to other humans we have potential as other things as well, so some humans will love and protect us, some will tolerate us because we may do them some indirect good, some will tolerate us because they fear that if they try to hurt us, the people trying to protect us, will hurt them, and some will try to off us because they want our resources.

Yup, that’s reality, apparently God or no God, that’s reality.

And us calling it moral, or immoral or good or bad, doesn’t change any of it. Not a single itty bit of it. We use those concepts to order, or disorder our behavior to suit ourselves.

And into that falls altruism as well as acts of horrendous cruelty.

Sharks don’t have a concept of morality, they don’t live in complex societies and their brains aren’t capable of that level of order. if you cut a shark open it will eat it’s own guts, it doesn’t recognize them as important to itself. It doesn’t recognize them AS itself.

Either there is a God who created them, or there isn’t. I can’t see how shark behavior is a good argument for either side.

I think a lot of the arguments here against atheism have nothing to do with the reality of what atheists believe or how they experience the Universe. They are based on assumptions, imaginations and the particular sensibilities and fears of the people positing the arguments.

In order to form any sort of reasonable argument against atheism one would have to actually talk to atheists and get a real grasp on their understanding and experience.

I think it would also be helpful to have a decent grasp on various definitions and understandings of God, beyond one’s own.

The automatic assumption that if there is a God then it must be all good, and “good” meaning the same thing that humans consider “good” is actually a very narrow and not very common idea of God.

Most humans, upon living in this world, never got the sense that whatever was running things was all good, all loving, and had human interest as it’s main concern.

That may not be a warm and fuzzy feeling, but there are few things in the Universe that lead one to believe in a warm and fuzzy anything.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

To say that the future will exist makes more sense to me.

Oh boy, that’s a doozie!

If the future will exist, when it comes to be it will be the present!!!

 

[Charlemagne_III]

In order to form any sort of reasonable argument against atheism one would have to actually talk to atheists and get a real grasp on their understanding and experience.

Actually, the better advantage would be to have been an atheist and know all the arguments for atheism and have repudiated them yourself one by one. As I have done for myself and many other former atheists have done for themselves.

The bottom line of any argument against atheism is that atheism cannot prove itself. It takes the default position that God cannot exist if you cannot see him at the end of a telescope or on a petri dish or in a Hadron Collider.

Well, you’re not supposed to know him in those places, although his reflected glory may be found in those places.

 

[Oreoracle]

If we are made by God, however, it means that each human being is loved and cherished for their own sake. Each human exists to be loved by God and by others.

But why do we need to believe they’re loved by God? Can’t we just love them by ourselves?

It seems that you’re suggesting that you wouldn’t care for others or yourself unless you already knew that some more powerful entity was doing it first. I don’t need another being to value me or my friends before I’m allowed to value them. I don’t need someone to validate my feelings.

Before you had a deep understanding of your religion, did you resolutely refuse to care about anyone else until you knew that a deity was doing it?

If it comes from something that is just another sack of meat on my level, then why should I obey it? Who are you to tell me what’s right and what’s wrong?

You’re right. Without God, we would be reduced to a world in which people have contrasting views about right and wrong. They would have public debates, myriad competing philosophies, etc. People may even get on Internet forums to argue about morality! Good thing we don’t live in such a world, huh?

Oh, wait a minute…

 

[Charlemagne_III]

But why do we need to believe they’re loved by God? Can’t we just love them by ourselves?

Maybe we need to believe that because it’s so?

But I understand your position. You don’t need God.

Yet if god exists, you may need him more than you think?

 

[schaeffer]

Actually, the better advantage would be to have been an atheist and know all the arguments for atheism and have repudiated them yourself one by one. As I have done for myself and many other former atheists have done for themselves.

The bottom line of any argument against atheism is that atheism cannot prove itself. It takes the default position that God cannot exist if you cannot see him at the end of a telescope or on a petri dish or in a Hadron Collider.

Well, you’re not supposed to know him in those places, although his reflected glory may be found in those places.

I know many (probably more, but I haven’t run the numbers) of people who left religions and became atheists than the other way round. Not saying that proves anything, or means anything, but it is a counter point to atheists coming to believe.

If the bottom line argument against atheism is that it cannot prove itself, I guess that would likewise be the bottom line argument against theism.

The idea that you are not supposed to find God in “those places”, where does that come from? Does God play hide and seek? I admit I have heard many people who know him well say he does just that.

And it appears in the end, from your other post, it has again been reduced to Pascal’s wager. Believe in God…just in case.

 

[Oreoracle]

Maybe we need to believe that because it’s so?

And if that’s your position, that’s fine. But I’m not going to let someone tell me that somehow I’m not justified in caring about anyone unless a deity is doing it first. That sounds like the position of a psychopath.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

And it appears in the end, from your other post, it has again been reduced to Pascal’s wager. Believe in God…just in case.

Unless you are infallibly certain there is no God, why not?

 

[Charlemagne_III]

And if that’s your position, that’s fine. But I’m not going to let someone tell me that somehow I’m not justified in caring about anyone unless a deity is doing it first. That sounds like the position of a psychopath.

We are always justified in caring about others, whether we believe in God or not.

We are never justified in not caring about God. :whacky:

 

[Oreoracle]

We are always justified in caring about others, whether we believe in God or not.

So you are with me in disagreeing with this part of the OP?

If there is no God, and we are not made in His image and likeness, then what are we? If naturalism is true, then we are the refuse of the cosmos that was lucky enough to self-replicate, and nothing more. Therefore, we have no reason to believe we are anything special.

 

[schaeffer]

Unless you are infallibly certain there is no God, why not?

Perhaps the same reason you don’t apply the same to any number of situations concerning both this life and the next.

People have to make choices, we can’t follow everything “just in case”.

Maybe it’s a case of different sales pitches for different folks?

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Perhaps the same reason you don’t apply the same to any number of situations concerning both this life and the next.

People have to make choices, we can’t follow everything “just in case”.

Maybe it’s a case of different sales pitches for different folks?

I would not say following God is in the same category of following “everything just in case.”

It most often doesn’t matter whether or not you follow everything. God really matters.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

So you are with me in disagreeing with this part of the OP?

That we should care about others is a moral axiom that God has planted in our hearts.

The moral axiom doesn’t depend on whether you believe in God. That we should care about God is also a moral axiom that God has planted in our hearts. I believe that when we care about God we are more likely to care about others even to the extent of sacrificing ourselves to their care. We are also more likely to care about ourselves if we believe that God cares about us.

 

[schaeffer]

That we should care about others is a moral axiom that God has planted in our hearts.

The moral axiom doesn’t depend on whether you believe in God. That we should care about God is also a moral axiom that God has planted in our hearts. I believe that when we care about God we are more likely to care about others even to the extent of sacrificing ourselves to their care. We are also more likely to care about ourselves if we believe that God cares about us.

I think that is true. For many people, and I have heard them say this for themselves, they find their belief in God leads them to care more for themselves and others.

Beliefs, religious and otherwise, have an extremely powerful effect on our choices and behavior.

unfortunately (and this is not an argument that people should not believe in a god) some use their belief in a god as a reason to discriminate and commit heinous acts against others.

Belief matters.

Thing is no one from the outside can automatically announce to another what their belief is and which actions it will support in their life.

I know many hundreds of Catholics, and the “same” belief system (but of course each person filters it in one way or another) has led to all manner of results when it comes to how it affects their actions in life. So even among one “unified” faith no one can predict the result.

Likewise, no one can say to any particular atheist that because they don’t believe in God, therefore they can’t really believe that life has meaning or that they should care for others or ever act in a selfless manner.

Logic seems to become useless when we go from stated core belief to actual way it plays out in one’s life. It’s like the telephone game…so much gets altered along the way.

Atheists may not have a faith in God, but most people have faith/beliefs in something. The belief does not need to be in God, an god, a religion etc to be powerful and have an profound effect on a person’s choices and behavior.

Atheism is a term meaning one does not believe in a god. That’s all. It does not mean one does not believe, nor is influenced by anything.

 

[schaeffer]

I would not say following God is in the same category of following “everything just in case.”

It most often doesn’t matter whether or not you follow everything. God really matters.

There are many things that really matter, and one must ultimately make choices in those areas as well. And those choices have profound effects.

I find it odd that so many people of deep faith resort to Pascal’s wager.

But then I find it pointless to try to argue anyone into believing anything unless one is trying to “sell them” on something.

I always find it more enlightening and thought provoking when someone tells me what they believe and what their experience is. Then I listen. Then things sink in and become alive and worthy of consideration and attention.

When someone tried to tear apart my beliefs and tell me what they THINK I believe, and therefore must/should feel and experience, I’m not as inclined to pay attention or much consider what they say. I think it is ridiculous to tell another person what they believe, think, feel or experience.

I think it’s pointless for atheists or people of another religion to do that as well. Listen, ask questions, learn, share your own story, those all make sense to me.

I’ve had people of other faiths, and atheists poke me with their accusing finger and try to tell me what I believe, think and experience and why it’s wrong. So far I remain unconvinced because truth, my actual experience etc, are more compelling than someone who hasn’t taken the time to speak to me, telling me what they think about something they don’t even know…what I actually believe and experience.

I am not referring to you when I make this next statement, because I don’t feel you’ve attacked my beliefs and I chose to enter this particular discussion, but it has not been an uncommon occurance that someone beings to pick apart what they think my beliefs are and then disparage me for not “defending” what they tell me my beliefs are. Huh?

It’s like, why get into an argument with some deranged person spouting gibberish and demanding my attention so they can puff themselves up?

Many so called arguments against particular beliefs come down to that.

Recently there was a discussion here on whether or not the Eucharist is cannibalism and it basically parallels this discussion. Logically it would follow that consuming the consecrated host is cannibalism, except that the Church has a list of reason, based on faith and mystery explaining why it is not. Fair enough, I accept that.

Similarly here, one can argue endlessly that according to logic atheists have no reason not to participate in gang rape like sharks do. And they think it’s acceptable to ignore any explanation about why not believing in God does not mean we should participate in gang rape.

At some point we either choose to honor and respect the experience and beliefs of another, or we don’t and go home patting ourselves on the back, but perhaps none the wiser, sharpening our swords for the next battle.

On the other hand, a person like me really doesn’t belong on a philosophy forum where people DO come to discuss the logic of these things to a degree where life experience is secondary at best to the process of absolute logic.

I’m way to “squishy” and empathetic to do that properly. I’m too much a people person, and (I suppose ironically) care too much about real person’s life experiences to be able to distance myself and just argue the logic of things.

but things get so darn interesting, it’s hard to just sit on my hands and read! Darn you guys and your interesting discussions1

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Atheism is a term meaning one does not believe in a god. That’s all. It does not mean one does not believe, nor is influenced by anything.

It does mean one believes one is not influenced by God.

But since one cannot know for a fact there is no God, one cannot know for a fact that one is not influenced by God.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

but things get so darn interesting, it’s hard to just sit on my hands and read! Darn you guys and your interesting discussions1

Some days I feel the same way you do, and that’s a fact!

It’s a special fact for me because I have been both an atheist and a theist.

Whew! It’s complicated. Sometimes I have to shadowfight myself. :hypno:

 

[Charlemagne_III]

I find it odd that so many people of deep faith resort to Pascal’s wager.

Are you familiar with Pascal? His Pensees is an interesting read. The Wager Argument by itself is only about two paragraphs long. The rest of the book talks about other aspects of our relationship with God, and it shows a deep spirituality in Pascal.

The Wager is merely a brief invitation Pascal offers to atheists who insist on using reason and reason alone. Pascal did not have much faith in the power of reason to convince us about God. So, he says, he will use reason one last time to ask the atheist why he is so certain there is no God, and whether it really matters that there is no God. These are legitimate questions to ask the atheist. So then Pascal suggests, using a more modern idiom, “Try it, you’ll like it.” But first you have to try it before you can find out if you like it.

 

[tonyrey]

…
On the other hand, a person like me really doesn’t belong on a philosophy forum where people DO come to discuss the logic of these things to a degree where life experience is secondary at best to the process of absolute logic.

I’m way to “squishy” and empathetic to do that properly. I’m too much a people person, and (I suppose ironically) care too much about real person’s life experiences to be able to distance myself and just argue the logic of things…

Life experiences are an essential part of “the logic of things”. The acid test of a philosophy is whether it corresponds to the way people live. If they behave as if life is purposeful their argument that life is purposeless is valueless!

 

[schaeffer]

Life experiences are an essential part of “the logic of things”. The acid test of a philosophy is whether it corresponds to the way people live. If they behave as if life is purposeful their argument that life is purposeless is valueless!

I agree totally, BUT I have been soundly trounced many times by not sticking to ob logic, and not having been read up enough on various philosophers to talk philosophy properly.

Years ago I was able to do the “fencing” bit for fun, to test wits, and as an intellectual exercise, but no longer.

I like to discuss the topics as if they matter on a personal basis, because they do, but I quickly get lost when they are discussed on other levels.

I think there are both varieties of discussions here, and I know that several times I have misunderstood the tone of a particular discussion and made a fool of myself.

Probably better for me to stick to spirituality forums and not philosophy forums. It doesn’t take long for my mind to grow fatigued or lose the thread of things.