Constructive critique of an argument I have against atheism

[schaeffer]

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.

This thread is not the place for it, but it would be interesting to discuss those who have “tried it” and left a faith for a place of no faith.

Maybe CAF isn’t even the appropriate venue for such a discussion. But there are many people who left a faith (not only Catholicism, or Christianity) because after giving it much time, good will and effort no “connection” was made. That is perhaps a rather different type of atheist than is being considered here?

 

[schaeffer]

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.

Yes, but again, that’s a pointless merry go round as is Pascal’s wager.

No one can definitely prove there is or is not a God, many gods, or no gods.

And even if there no objective/actual god, people are influenced by the concept of god. So the influence is there, no denying it.

Are there atheists that claim to have proof there is no God? I know many who say they see no point in believe there is one without compelling evidence, but I don’t know any who say they can prove no god exists.

I am not really well versed on atheism as philosophy or “movement”, but generally just from knowing atheists who pretty much don’t believe in God because they haven’t found any compelling reason to believe in a god.

I have to admit, that if believing in a particular deity is critical, it would seem that the existence of one would be self evident. But then I am told that God works in mysterious ways that are not the ways of man.

So it brings us back round again, to faith. But I have been told that God bestows that gift on some and not others.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

This thread is not the place for it, but it would be interesting to discuss those who have “tried it” and left a faith for a place of no faith.

There are probably as many who have left Christianity and returned as there have been those who left Christianity and did not return.

The reasons for being an atheist are many and varied. We apparently are not allowed to discuss them here, and that’s all right with me.

But those who become Christians for the first time, especially having been atheists, are the ones that you might profit better talking to.

My own return to Catholicism was rooted in the belief that my life was infinitely better before I left the Church than after I left it. But anyone would have to experience that to know it. I do strongly believe that while philosophical debates on the subject of God’s existence do have their place, their place is secondary to experience. There simply is (in my own case for sure) no existential equivalent to believing in God and feeling that he loves me and that I can love him back in the Eucharist and the place where he seems to love most to play hide and seek … in the depths of my soul.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

I have to admit, that if believing in a particular deity is critical, it would seem that the existence of one would be self evident. But then I am told that God works in mysterious ways that are not the ways of man.

So it brings us back round again, to faith. But I have been told that God bestows that gift on some and not others.

The existence of God(s) is self evident to those who have not only open minds but also open hearts (Pascal again). This has been true of most civilizations in the history of the world. What is certainly not self evident is that there is no God. Most civilizations have never questioned the need for their gods, or the need to worship them. Most civilizations have found meaning in religion. If, throughout the history of the world, you could say that most civilizations had no gods whatever, then you might say most people thought it was self evident that there are no gods and that religion is meaningless wish fulfillment. Of course the opposite is true. So I think it would be only fair to ask why anyone would think it is self evident there are no gods, and also to ask how that helps to explain anything, or why one earth the world would be better off without any religion than with it.

God bestows the gift of faith on everyone. Some return the gift unopened.

There is a book on this subject I am just now reading that may interest you.

The Natural Desire to See God by Lawrence Feingold, a Jewish convert to Catholicism

amazon.com/Natural-Desire-According-Thomas-Interpreters/dp/1932589546/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1406426089&sr=8-1&keywords=Lawrence+Feingold

I am not Lawrence Feingold.

 

[tonyrey]

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.

If we are overambitious we are bound to be daunted and discouraged. I’ve often been attacked and ridiculed but remained undeterred. If what we write is true it will shine by its own light. If we need to modify our views we are making progress. Either way we can’t lose!

 

[KnowtheSilence]

If the Nazis had won world war II and had successfully slaughtered every Jew on the European landmass, and then had brainwashed everybody to believe that such an action was good because it freed up resources for greater cooperation between the Aryan race, and had removed a known enemy of the Aryan race. On what basis, on naturalism, then could we say that the Holocaust was “evil” (or would we?)

Personally, I tend to be less interested in arguing for how I think words like “good” and “evil” should be applied an more interested in how other people are using them. What goals or values are they pointing towards? Do those goals/values correspond to reality? Do the things they call “good” actually help realize those goals/values and are the things they call “evil” actually hindering them? Are there different goals and values that fit with reality better? Basically, I tend to act as a Pluralist Moral Reductionist because I think this is a better way at getting to the meat of the matter.

Does this mean that words like “good” and “evil” are void and meaningless in my personal life, that I don’t have my own preferred definitions that I believe do point to something real or that I don’t use them to point towards some sort of goals and values that I possess? Of course not. It’s just that I don’t want to get into drawn-out conversations with people about how those words are best applied when what we really want to be talking about is the concept behind those words. You want to know if I can use the word “evil” to describe the Holocaust. Yes, yes I can. You want to know if I can convince you that my definition of the word “evil” is up to snuff? Probably not, no.

Why can’t I? Two reasons First, you’ve already said that without God, nothing can have meaning. My ethics don’t reference God since I think that there is no God, so my ethics must be meaningless to you. Similarly, since your ethics must be based on God in some way, your ethics are going to be pretty much meaningless to me (I say “pretty much” and not “definitely” because I’m fairly confident that I could actually tease some non-God values out of you if I was interested in trying).

Second, even if it were possible to convince you that a naturalistic account of ethics can pass muster even without appealing to a God in some way, I’m not the person to do it. I’ve mentioned two theories (Goal Theory and Empowerment Ethics) that I think are strong contenders, and I could adopt one (or a combination of the two, since I do see some overlap) and explain why the Nazis were wrong. But this is only going to trigger a long back-and-forth as you (and probably a half-dozen other posters) try to poke holes in the theories (because, going back to #1, most of you probably can’t think these theories are valid). I may be able to respond to you objections for a time, but eventually I’ll fail, not because the theories are bad, but because I lack the philosophical chops to put up a robust defense. Your best bet is going to go straight to the source and read what the professional philosophers who developed those theories have to say. I can help point you in the right direction if you’re interested in doing that.

But all of this looks like I dodging your thought experiment. I don’t want to do that, but I have to approach it in my own peculiar little way.

The crux question for morality seems to be “how do we convince people to do things they don’t want to do?” Most of us think that the Holocaust is evil, so we don’t really need to be convinced; we can employ our preferred ethical theories to explain why we think it’s bad to kill Jews, and those reasons are going to sound convincing to us. Even if our reasoning is bad, it’s going to sound reasonable to us because we already agree with the conclusion. So we need to keep in mind that the people we’re trying to convince are the Nazis, not the people who think like us.

This is where I’d fall back on Pluralistic Moral Reductionism and ask “what are the Nazis trying to accomplish?” They thought that Aryans are a superior race and that Jews were inferior. They thought that Jews were to blame for their society’s problems and needed to be destroyed. Those things are factually wrong and I could argue based on that. They could say that they wanted to build a stable, healthy society, and I could point out where things like genocide and world wars are antithetical to that.

This wouldn’t be an easy thing to do, but using the word “evil” as a bludgeon isn’t going to get me anywhere any faster. Invoking the will of God won’t, either, because they either a) don’t believe in God and don’t care, or b) think that God is on their side, which would then necessitate a theological discussion about who has the right idea of God. No thank you, I’ll stick with trying to argue from observable facts.

 

[KnowtheSilence]

I will repeat again my experience seeing a group of male sharks forcibly copulate with a female shark, but seriously this time. How does this become “bad” on the naturalist ethic? What makes “rape” bad if sharks do it too, but “showing empathy” good if monkeys do it too? It seems to me that if your basis of ethics is what is helpful for survival, than there is really no basis for saying that anything is “good”, unless if you want to gut the meaning of “good” like how Mormonism calls itself “Christian” but believes that God the Father is just an exalted human being.

I try to avoid using moral language when describing the actions of non-human animals as it can get confusing. I wasn’t trying to say that the monkeys or deer were being “good” when they acted a particular way and that we should emulate them because of that. I was pointing out that things like empathy and concern for the suffering of others does appear elsewhere in the animal kingdom, so the OP’s assertion that there is no naturalist basis for this things will need to be supported with an supernatural explanation of why we find these things in other animals.
As far as me “basing my ethics on what is helpful for survival,” I wouldn’t say that something is good simply because it helps survival; I can think of things that would help survival that I wouldn’t consider “good.” But I do have a hard time thinking of something that I would consider “good” that wouldn’t help with survival, at least in a big-picture sort of way.

Also, if I may add to my above thought experiment concerning the Nazis, if it is good that an injured deer is protected by another deer, supposing that the Nazi worldview was true (either in reality or if they had brainwashed everybody), wouldn’t it also be “good” if the the injured German nation was protected by another deer, the Nazi party, from the wolves (The Jewish Bolshevists and western plutocrats)? Why is it good for the deer to protect her fellow deer but not for the wolves to get their meal?

This is the kind of confusion I try to avoid by not applying moral language when talking about actions performed by non-human animals. We’re not deer. We’re not sharks. We’re not wolves. Looking at what they do and saying it’s good or bad simply because they do it doesn’t make any sense to me. If you call it evil for a shark to rape another shark, the only way I can make sense of this is if you’re saying that it’s wrong for a human to rape another human and the shark reminded you of that.

However, without God, everything is meaningless. On atheism, there is no objective purpose to human life, there is no difference between Father Damien and Dr. Josef Mengele, because both go back into the ground when they die, and in a few generations, it is possible that the effects (to which I won’t add any good or evil evaluation) will not be noticible. Without a God to mete out justice and to give us eternal bliss, mere duration of life doesn’t make a difference.

I don’t understand this kind of thinking. Is there a difference between having your house burn down and not having your house burn down unless there’s a God to tell you whether or not you should want your house to burn down?

 

[Charlemagne_III]

This is where I’d fall back on Pluralistic Moral Reductionism and ask “what are the Nazis trying to accomplish?” They thought that Aryans are a superior race and that Jews were inferior. They thought that Jews were to blame for their society’s problems and needed to be destroyed.

The Nazis perceived that the Jews were their enemy. They chose to destroy their enemy, who were a distinct minority of Europeans, in order to obtain the greater good for the greater number of Aryans. That is a corrupt application of Utilitarian theory. It certainly doesn’t line up with “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.” Had Hitler and the Nazis obeyed Jesus, there would have been no Holocaust.

 

[schaeffer]

My own return to Catholicism was rooted in the belief that my life was infinitely better before I left the Church than after I left it. But anyone would have to experience that to know it. I do strongly believe that while philosophical debates on the subject of God’s existence do have their place, their place is secondary to experience. There simply is (in my own case for sure) no existential equivalent to believing in God and feeling that he loves me and that I can love him back in the Eucharist and the place where he seems to love most to play hide and seek … in the depths of my soul.

Now this seems perfectly logical to me!

Which is why I belong on the spirituality forum rather than the philosophy forum.

I have had a similar experience, though it led me to a different spiritual “home”. (there is no good word for it I can think of so let’s just do the quotation mark thing)

but I also know atheists who have found their experience to be that way.

I have no explanation for why people find fulfillment in different things, is that God playing hide and seek again?

I don’t pretend to know. The older I get, the more experiences I have, the more people I meet, the less I try to find the “unified theory”.

 

[schaeffer]

The existence of God(s) is self evident to those who have not only open minds but also open hearts (Pascal again). This has been true of most civilizations in the history of the world. What is certainly not self evident is that there is no God. Most civilizations have never questioned the need for their gods, or the need to worship them. Most civilizations have found meaning in religion. If, throughout the history of the world, you could say that most civilizations had no gods whatever, then you might say most people thought it was self evident that there are no gods and that religion is meaningless wish fulfillment. Of course the opposite is true. So I think it would be only fair to ask why anyone would think it is self evident there are no gods, and also to ask how that helps to explain anything, or why one earth the world would be better off without any religion than with it.

Well, this is a dangerous form of reasoning, I would think, for one who is a Catholic because there are scads of things that are common to all cultures that most people wouldn’t consider a positive thing that we should consider objectively good and want to perpetuate.

People have all manner of beliefs and behaviors, superstitions etc etc.

I agree that the concept of there being an order to things that it is in the best interest of humans to align with is hard wired into humanity.

Atheists believe that too, but they don’t believe that order is a metaphysical being.

The fact that there IS order and that it IS in the best interest of humanity to align with it, IS self evident, but beyond that the argument of just what that order is (and how we come to know it) takes over.

Not believing in a god is not the same as denying there is an order to things.

Nor is it the equivalent of declaring oneself as a god, which is what atheists are so often accused of. The slinging of untruths in either direction is regrettable.

Nor do atheists make science god. Science may fill the role that god fills in the lives of others but that does not make then neatly interchangeable. Again, a fallacy that results in a lot of pointless dirt slinging in discussions.

I have no idea how your atheism manifested or it if fits the above experiences I have had with atheists.

Some people, if they don’t believe in a god, feel lost, hopeless, and pointless. But that is not the case for everyone, nor need it be.

 

[schaeffer]

If we are overambitious we are bound to be daunted and discouraged. I’ve often been attacked and ridiculed but remained undeterred. If what we write is true it will shine by its own light. If we need to modify our views we are making progress. Either way we can’t lose!

I belong to several online forums on a variety of topics, several of them concerning spirituality and religion.

The tone and purpose of each is different.

On some forums people tend to attack and ridicule, which is their right, but I’m not interested. I come to discuss not to fight, not to either belittle another or be belittled.

Sometimes it is clear from an opening post that a person is asking a question because they are chomping at the bit to shoot down and out manuever anyone who replies.

Let them have at it, there are always people who seem just as eager to tussle with them. I don’t have the interest or stamina.

Other forums (or particular posters) clearly want to discuss, learn, share, and sure disagree when they disagree, but without being disagreeable. I’m all for that.

Certain faiths and philosophies tend towards different styles as well. I’ve been told I won’t fight because I know my position is weak. But really, I don’t see the point in fighting, because usually when people are fighting, it’s the egos, not the positions that are on the line. I feel that if we can’t discuss and even disagree without resorting to that kind of behavior, it’s not worth going there. It’s hard for me to hear the sense or truth of a person’s statement when they use a particular “tone of voice”.

I see many threads where it is clear people are willfully misunderstanding others, twisting words, and appearing to make the other person appear a fool. If that is their agenda, rather than actual exchange of ideas…I’m the wrong opponent.

They don’t scare me away, or make me doubt myself. They just turn me off. lol.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

I don’t pretend to know. The older I get, the more experiences I have, the more people I meet, the less I try to find the “unified theory”.

I have decided that if there is a unified theory of life, and I think Catholicism offers one, no unified theory will be found that does not unite the antithesis of God and the Devil.

All other unified theories will just wander aimlesslessly through the Garden of Good and Evil.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Some people, if they don’t believe in a god, feel lost, hopeless, and pointless. But that is not the case for everyone, nor need it be.

Yes, when I first turned atheist I saw no reason to feel “lost, hopeless, and pointless.” At first there was a refreshing sense of freedom and responsibility. After a while, that got old. There was no way to honestly convince myself that I was better off than being a Catholic, and after a while I decided that this growing conviction that I wasn’t better off was leading me to the Church. Ever since I have been satisfied that now I really do not feel “lost, hopeless, and pointless,” and at the same time I feel even more free and responsible than ever. Feelings matter, and sometimes they have a healthy way of governing our persuasions.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Well, this is a dangerous form of reasoning, I would think, for one who is a Catholic because there are scads of things that are common to all cultures that most people wouldn’t consider a positive thing that we should consider objectively good and want to perpetuate.

Since I’m having trouble figuring this out, could you give me an example?

 

[N0X3x]

I have a line of reasoning for not being an atheist. Granted, I’m not trying to start anything, I’m just looking for any holes in my logic. Here goes:

I believe that naturalism is incompatible with ideas such as love, justice, mercy, etc. 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.

Objection 1: what if things like goodness and justice do exist in a naturalistic world because they are good for the survival of the species?
Reply: objectively, such things do not exist, since they are immaterial. Also, such things do NOT seem good for the survival of the species. Case-in-point, Genghis Khan, who has more living descendants than any other historical figure. He did not achieve that by love or justice, but by destroying any tribes he didn’t enslave. Anybody who isn’t under your control is a loose end and a potential competitor for scarce resources. It’s like Cersei Lannister says in Game of Thrones: “You win or you die, there is no middle ground”.

Dovetailing with this reply, Friedrich Nietzsche, one of the fathers of modern atheism, believed morality was just an invention of the weak to inhibit the strong. Horror novelist H.P. Lovecraft also believed this, and used it in stories such as “the Call of Cthulu”.

Objection 2: “it makes you look bad if religion is the only reason you have empathy.”

Reply: Precisely. What other reason is there? This is also why I don’t consider the Problem of Evil an adequate argument against the existence of God. If there is no God, then we should not be troubled by suffering. The presence of wars and tornadoes and kids dying of cancer is nothing but natural selection on a greater scale. If I’m not suffering, then there’s no reason for me to care. This argument SHOULD sound heartless, scary, and nihilistic, because that is my point exactly. Nihilism is atheism’s Siamese twin. Try to separate the two, they both bleed out and die.

Objection 3: “what about human acheivement? We have made amazing scientific progress?”

Reply: What about human achievement? Who cares? None of it matters. When we die, we become maggot food, and that’s all she wrote. Furthermore, the human race will one day either be extinct or supplanted, and that race will be destroyed once the universe disappears in the Big Crunch.

Your replies would be most helpful. Thank you.

I’m not sure whether or not this has already been mentioned by the previous posters (I only read the first few posts), but the most glaring problem I find with this argument is that, even if it is entirely true that atheism were incompatible with these ideals, at best it only shows that atheism reduces to nihilism. The argument doesn’t actually show that atheism is false. One could simply accept that the universe is nihilistic, and in my experience, that is exactly what many atheists do.

 

[tonyrey]

I belong to several online forums on a variety of topics, several of them concerning spirituality and religion.

The tone and purpose of each is different.

On some forums people tend to attack and ridicule, which is their right, but I’m not interested. I come to discuss not to fight, not to either belittle another or be belittled.

Sometimes it is clear from an opening post that a person is asking a question because they are chomping at the bit to shoot down and out manuever anyone who replies.

Let them have at it, there are always people who seem just as eager to tussle with them. I don’t have the interest or stamina.

Other forums (or particular posters) clearly want to discuss, learn, share, and sure disagree when they disagree, but without being disagreeable. I’m all for that.

Certain faiths and philosophies tend towards different styles as well. I’ve been told I won’t fight because I know my position is weak. But really, I don’t see the point in fighting, because usually when people are fighting, it’s the egos, not the positions that are on the line. I feel that if we can’t discuss and even disagree without resorting to that kind of behavior, it’s not worth going there. It’s hard for me to hear the sense or truth of a person’s statement when they use a particular “tone of voice”.

I see many threads where it is clear people are willfully misunderstanding others, twisting words, and appearing to make the other person appear a fool. If that is their agenda, rather than actual exchange of ideas…I’m the wrong opponent.

They don’t scare me away, or make me doubt myself. They just turn me off. lol.

I’ve participated in several philosophy forums and found this the most stimulating even though sometimes the members are aggressive and discourteous. That is a small price to pay for the high standard of most of the posts. I find the feedback very rewarding after having written articles in the past without ever receiving any comments about their contents. Any reply is better than none in that situation! !

 

[Patty23]

I think the easiest way to illustrate my criticism is by asking you some questions, Jack. Ready?

1. Suppose that we are indeed created by God. So what? Why should I care that I was created? Why should I care what my creator wants?
2. If, after we all have died, God decides to obliterate us all instead of granting us an eternal afterlife, would our existence have been meaningless?

This for me is the second fundamental question next to the question whether God exists or not.

Suppose Zeus is true, I’m not compelled to love or follow him in any way. (Nietzche also asked the same thing, suppose there is truth, why not untruth?)

The only answer is because God is a father. You don’t reason out why you should or shouldn’t love your father although you can. It’s not unreasonable but the answer is beyond reason.

My take is our father is a father who happens to be God. Not that God is a god who happens to be our father. Our biological fathers are our fathers first before their title.

 

[tonyrey]

This for me is the second fundamental question next to the question whether God exists or not.

Suppose Zeus is true, I’m not compelled to love or follow him in any way. (Nietzche also asked the same thing, suppose there is truth, why not untruth?)

The only answer is because God is a father. You don’t reason out why you should or shouldn’t love your father although you can. It’s not unreasonable but the answer is beyond reason.

My take is our father is a father who happens to be God. Not that God is a god who happens to be our father. Our biological fathers are our fathers first before their title.

That is why the message of Jesus stands out far above all others in the history of human civilisation. No other religion or philosophy has put love before everything else…

 

[Oreoracle]

That is why the message of Jesus stands out far above all others in the history of human civilisation. No other religion or philosophy has put love before everything else…

Does non-violence count? Jainists are easily the least violent religious group. They don’t eat root vegetables because uprooting them may lead to the inadvertent death of some organisms. They wear cloth over their mouths whilst walking outside for fear of inhaling an insect. Oh, and speaking of insects, they don’t walk out at night–that’s when accidental deaths are most likely.

Every other religion’s claim to non-violence is laughable compared to that. As Sam Harris said, the more of an extremist you become while practicing Jainism, the less of a threat you are.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Jainism dogmatically preaches against the existence or possibility of dogmas.

How is a Catholic dogmatist supposed to reason against such dogmatism?