Defending Against Atheism

[CollegeKid]

…WRONG! Atheism is nothing more than freeing one’s self from delusion and opening up one’s self to the natural experience, hence free will.

All those titles like book club member and prayer warrior don’t mean much do they?

You don’t have to belittle people.

 

[tdgesq]

I am severely out of my element here, so I will only say that according to my understanding, I agree the scientific method does predict future events based on the past, but the “faith” that you speak of is based on an observable past. I have faith the sun will rise tomorrow because I saw it rise yesterday, and every day prior to that. I know the sun exists because I have seen it. I do not have the same observed data about God.

You mean that you believe you’ve seen the sun rise. What you presuppose is that your senses are reliable and that you really did see a sunrise. These are the presuppositions that atheists for the most part never question. Not only that, but even if I were to grant that the senses are reliable, the atheistic explanation for why this might be is not forthcoming. In fact, it contradicts their basic view of the world.

The same with the problem of induction. I realize that in the past you have seen day after day the sun rise and set. But that tells us nothing about whether it will or will not tomorrow. You are assuming that because it has in the past, it will in the future. Or put another way, you assume that because “past futures” occurred in the way you expected that “future futures” will also. This is the problem that David Hume proposed and was never able to solve. Again, even if I were to grant that the future will be like the past, nothing in the atheistic world view would account for this.

Scientists for the most part are not philosophers. They assume a great many things without any kind of critical analysis. Not because they are bad scientists, but because that is not what they are interested in studying. All I’m trying to convey is that the ability to do science is based upon many assumptions that most atheists have never explored.

 

[Hubriss]

You don’t have to belittle people.

Sorry I was just under the impression that those colorful titles might mean that a person has some experience.

And also sorry for the sporadic posts, I realize I interrupted some discussions, but I really couldn’t help but post that first one. That post I quoted nearly made me fall off my chair laughing.

But to Ginger2… I noticed you said you believe in God, but do not believe in christianity (or any organized religion?), and you also don’t trust science, thinking that the Big Bang is less believable than the afterlife.

I… don’t see how you can not trust science and yet study up on such things as the Big Bang. Science is nothing more than experience and logic, except the experience is painfully measured and put through rigorously proven and logical calculations. So if you don’t trust science then really you shouldn’t trust your own experiences or even thinking as well. If you are not a scientist (which we all partly are, it only varies in degree, but the degree can be very large), then you are relying on others’ knowledge, but you don’t, you seem to only trust your experiences and intelligence. From an earlier post you said something that gave me the impression that you believe in God because it feels nice, but then you say that you KNOW. I don’t see how you can know when you don’t partake in the vast knowledge and wisdom that the human race has aquired in the last several hundred years. You are only one person of billions after all. I implore you to reconsider.

 

[MerryAtheist]

All I’m trying to convey is that the ability to do science is based upon many assumptions that most atheists have never explored.

Well, all I can say is that those assumptions seem pretty solid and trustworthy so far.

My question for you: When did I give you the impression that atheists must know everything?

 

[tdgesq]

…WRONG! Atheism is nothing more than freeing one’s self from delusion and opening up one’s self to the natural experience, hence free will.

All those titles like book club member and prayer warrior don’t mean much do they?

How in the world can you defend free will as an atheist. I don’t even ask it as a question, because you can’t defend it. Genetics and other outside forces are the only things that cause us to act as we do under your outlook. You’re a fence fighting dog. You were too cowardly to answer the questions I posed to you in your last post.

 

[Hubriss]

You mean that you believe you’ve seen the sun rise. What you presuppose is that your senses are reliable and that you really did see a sunrise. These are the presuppositions that atheists for the most part never question. Not only that, but even if I were to grant that the senses are reliable, the atheistic explanation for why this might be is not forthcoming. In fact, it contradicts their basic view of the world.

The same with the problem of induction. I realize that in the past you have seen day after day the sun rise and set. But that tells us nothing about whether it will or will not tomorrow. You are assuming that because it has in the past, it will in the future. Or put another way, you assume that because “past futures” occurred in the way you expected that “future futures” will also. This is the problem that David Hume proposed and was never able to solve. Again, even if I were to grant that the future will be like the past, nothing in the atheistic world view would account for this.

Scientists for the most part are not philosophers. They assume a great many things without any kind of critical analysis. Not because they are bad scientists, but because that is not what they are interested in studying. All I’m trying to convey is that the ability to do science is based upon many assumptions that most atheists have never explored.

As for the senses, that applies to us all. Any christian who says that when he observes existence he feels that it verifies God all the more, faces the same problem, but even moreso. Because if our senses are not reliable and we are in some kind of Matrix world like the movie, then the person who believes in God is wrong (it was not God who created the world, but the machine programmer), however the athiest would still be right (he didn’t believe it was God in the first place). But really it’s a pointless question to ask, a hopeless question even for the athiest (but remember, moreso for the theist).

For your paragraph on experience and predicting the future. Of course seeing the sun rise and set constantly gives us reason to believe that it will rise and set again tomorrow. It might not be an absolute given, but it’s sure as hell damn likely. Scientists thrive on predicting the future (and uncovering the past) based on past experiences.

Scientists are philosophers, moreso than theologists. Theologists believe they have everything pertaining to the supernatural correct, so they brush aside any other philosophical ideas and narrow their view only to their belief. Atheistic Scientists’ philosophy is much broader as they do not begin with any preconceived faiths, and admit that they do not know, so they are able to delve deeper into possibilities that are more likely true based on their knowledge. And by the way, most Atheists are agnostics, they just might be too stubborn to admit it, or they just haven’t thought about it because they don’t really care. But we are all atheists pertaining to certain religions, for example Catholics are in a way atheistic towards Islam. I am atheistic towards most organized religion, although I have a connection with a form of Buddhism, as it makes the most sense, seems the most truthful.

 

[Hubriss]

How in the world can you defend free will as an atheist. I don’t even ask it as a question, because you can’t defend it. Genetics and other outside forces are the only things that cause us to act as we do under your outlook. You’re a fence fighting dog. You were too cowardly to answer the questions I posed to you in your last post.

Because it’s obvious that we have free will. I’ve never heard from any intelligent Catholic that the existence of free will proves God. Matter is not set on a fixed path. Quantum Physics has proven that it is impossible to predict exactly in what exact form and position any particle will be at any given time, which means that there is some small randomness to it that makes it so that we are not just machines. By the way, Calvanists don’t believe in free will, yet they believe in God.

And as for my other posts. In my experience here I’ve learned that arguing with so many of you is rediculous. Most of you haven’t learned at all to think for yourselves and you’re so locked up in your POV that there’s really no point in trying to argue/convert so many of you at the same time on these forums. I prefer to talk in person or at least quicker one on one or group discussions. And if you didn’t notice, I didn’t mean for that thread to be an argument thread, I only wanted to see what people thought about the videos I posted but some jerk had to come mess it up!

 

[tdgesq]

Well, all I can say is that those assumptions seem pretty solid and trustworthy so far.

So do theists. Of course they actually have a view of the world that allow those assumptions to make sense, whereas atheists do not.

My question for you: When did I give you the impression that atheists must know everything?

I never got that impression from you. I’m just trying to show you that atheists do believe things on faith - the very foundations of knowledge as it turns out. I could respect their faith more if they didn’t conclude things that turn out to contradict it.

 

[Joel_Tunnah]

"…purpose is not imposed from the outside; it is generated from the inside. We make our purpose. And there is a kind of dereliction of duty of us humans when we say that the purpose is to be imposed on the outside or found in some book written thousands of years ago. We live in a very different world than we lived in thousands of years ago. There is no question that we have many obligations to guarantee our purposes, one of which is to survive. And that we have to work out for ourselves.”
Carl Sagan, “The Varieties of Scientific Experience”

There’s no one I’d rather listen to than Carl Sagan when he’s talking about cosmology, but when it comes to the context of human existence and theology - the man was a complete ignoramus.

 

[Ginger2]

Hubriss,

I did not say I “do not believe in christianity” I said I lost faith in my teachers ability to teach me about God.

And no, I don’t trust science. Science begins with a theory and then the attempt to prove or disprove that theory. It is wonderful that God has given us the ability to think and reason and explore His creation… But a problem arises when someone wants to believe something so badly that he is willing to mislead in order to convince others.

Like I told the JW’s, “Why do you need to lie to convince me of the “truth”? The truth should be able to stand on its own.”

I do not trust science because scientists often present their info as hard undisputable fact, when it has not yet been proven as such. Many Christians also feel justified in lying to convince others of the “truth”. Once you are caught in a lie, why should I trust anything you say?

We have hard indisputable evidence for the laws of physics. According to the laws of physics, the big bang is impossible.

BUT, in school the big bang was taught to me as tho it were fact. They lied to me. I do not trust them.

 

[Ginger2]

The “sun comes up, sun goes down” thing is a poor example.

If you want to use it, you should at least point out that at one time people thought that the sun was in orbit around the Earth. They were wrong, but the science at that time made sense.

And so it has been that way throughout all time. What we believe is true today may very well be proven false at some point in the future.

Therefore, seeing is not necessarily proof.

Just last year they told us Pluto isn’t a planet. For about a year we only had eight planets.

I refused to believe in eight planets and stated there are nine and some day I will be proven correct!

And wouldn’t you know it!!! God gave me another planet this very year so that I could say, “I told you so!”

God is good!!! :extrahappy:

 

[Contarini]

Because it’s obvious that we have free will.

In other words, free will, like ethics, is something that atheists find lying around and happily make use of, even though they have no explanation to give for it that does not completely demolish and discredit it.

I’ve never heard from any intelligent Catholic that the existence of free will proves God.

I don’t think it proves God exactly, but it’s hard to believe in free will and be a thorough-going materialist.

Matter is not set on a fixed path. Quantum Physics has proven that it is impossible to predict exactly in what exact form and position any particle will be at any given time, which means that there is some small randomness to it that makes it so that we are not just machines.

Free will is not “randomness.” It is not the same thing as unpredictability.

By the way, Calvanists don’t believe in free will, yet they believe in God.

Most Calvinists do believe in free will over against the material world. There are Calvinists who are philosophical determinists, and they are horribly wrong.

Edwin

 

[Saul.Tentmaker]

If anyone can give me some links for appropriate websites, or just give me assertions for theism (I deal with atheists on a day-to-day basis) I would be very appreciative.

God Bless

Some links, and then some advice.

For belief in God:​

M.J. Adler “How to think about God”
www.leaderu.com
Aristotle’s Metaphysics Lambda
St. Thomas Aquinas’s Summa Theologica, First part, questions 1 and 2, all articles.
James Sire’s “Universe Next Door”
Francis Schaeffer’s “The God who is there.”
Anything by G.E.M. Anscombe, especially “Times, Beginnings and Causes”

A case for Faith:​

The Bible (primarily the Gospel of John)
Lee Stroebel, “A case for faith.”
John Damascene’s “Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith”
orthodox.net/fathers/exactidx.html
Thomas Aquinas’s Catechism, introduction “What is faith?”
cin.org/users/james/ebooks/master/aquinas/acreed00.htm
Kurt Godel’s philosophical musings on why faith is required for acceptance of mathematics, and following.

A case for Christianity itself:​

The Bible (all of it)
The Catechism of the Catholic Church
The Baltimore Catechism
St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Contra Gentiles, esp. book 4
Jimmy Akin’s website www.jimmyakin.org
Jimmy Akin’s other website www.jimmyakin.com
St. Augustine’s Confessions

 

[Saul.Tentmaker]

And now what I’ve learned, having been an atheist since until about three years ago, and in constant struggle to understand and submit to the authority of the Catholic Church, which is Christ.

If someone walks up to you, carrying a book, and says “This book contains the revelation of an entire realm of truth, and this revelation is perfect, containing no error, and this realm is infinite, within it is salvation.” You would have a right to be skeptical.

Further, you would rightfully be frustrated when, after asking many questions, you find out that the main reason to accept the book is because “the book says so”.

So it is important, at least in my many encounters with atheists, being a member of the acedemic world, to make a few things clear to them.

First, there is sufficient evidence for a god, for some being that is supreme, beyond our understanding, who is involved in some way with the creation and development with this universe.

Second, there is insufficient evidence for Christianity, or for any faith based upon God.

Third, this evidence is necessarily insufficient, because if it were sufficient, we would understand God’s existence and purpose definitively, and God’s existence and purpose would not be greater than our own.

Fourth, lots of things we accept, like the existence of the world we observe, rest on this same sort of insufficient evidence. After all, we only know that the universe exists because we see that it does. So the universe is showing us that what it shows us is true, just like the Bible or Koran is telling us that what it tells us is true.

Finally, if you desire to explore this new possible realm, understand that, though Christianity has insufficient evidence to warrent assent, it has the most evidence of any description of God and His purpose worth assenting to.

If someone truly does not have the desire to know this greater being in the universe, to unite with Him, or to interact or consider Him in any way, then all this is academic, and worse, and it is pointless to dicuss.

Atheists: if science is enough for you, don’t bother with the Church. The Church is only for those for whom the way things are isn’t enough.

As Greenspan recently said in an interview on the Daily Show: “It all rests on human nature. We cannot improve ourselves.” If you agree with this, and want still to improve, start looking into the Church. If you think we can improve ourselves, and have no desire to rest upon something outside of us, then don’t bother looking.

But if a person really does want to know this higher being, really does want to discover what is out there beyond mere reason and the senses, then the power of argument, then the world, opens up.

 

[Texas_Roofer]

I mean this with no condescension, but since you do not believe in God, does this mean you believe there is essentially no reason at all for the existence of the universe, or perhaps, that everything just exists because it exists?

I believe we make our own reasons for existence. Here is a favorite quote:

"…purpose is not imposed from the outside; it is generated from the inside. We make our purpose. And there is a kind of dereliction of duty of us humans when we say that the purpose is to be imposed on the outside or found in some book written thousands of years ago. We live in a very different world than we lived in thousands of years ago. There is no question that we have many obligations to guarantee our purposes, one of which is to survive. And that we have to work out for ourselves.”

Carl Sagan, “The Varieties of Scientific Experience”​

To answer your question directly, no, I don’t believe there is an inherent reason for existence, nor does there need to be one. I think it’s hard for us humans to wrap our minds around the concept of “meaninglessness,” and that is one of the reasons for the development of religion, in my view.

Just remember when and if you are treated badly, no matter how badly, the treatment fulfils your belief systems. Those who treated you badly had no reason not to treat you in this way. Which of course brings on a problem yet we will call it a question- “Why would any real Atheist not disguise himself as a religious person to receive protection and good treatment from theist?”

 

[GuanYuWarGod]

Congrats to this thread for keeping charity alive. Most Q&A’s (from my personal experience) between atheists and Christians result in horrible word wars. At least this is one of the few which is quite fruitful.

---

About atheism however, I am a true Catholic, in a word, that is. I find atheism an invaluable tool in understanding Catholicsm and theology in general. A paradox but true. In fact, it has helped me easily spot faults in arguments of certain people when it comes to science of theology (science here in the sense that it is a body of knowledge) and of course, apologetics.

 

[Saul.Tentmaker]

I find atheism an invaluable tool in understanding Catholicsm and theology in general.

I do not understand.

Do you mean that reading the works of atheists has helped you grow in your understanding of theology? I could believe that. As Chesterton said, it was not the writings of the Christian apologists, but the writing of the atheist apologists that convinced him to be Christian.

Or do you mean that accepting atheism has helped you understand theology better? This point cannot be debated, because we cannot measure our understanding of a thing unless we agree upon what that thing is we are measuring against. If there is no standard, there is no way to measure excellence in anything.

 

[ricmat]

I believe the evidence for evolution is overwhelming. I believe the Standard Cosmological Model (which includes the Big Bang) is currently the best explanation for the origin of the universe.

The above is not the same as saying “I believe in evolution” or “I believe in the Big Bang,” however.

BTW - belief in evolution or the Big Bang is not in contradiction with Catholicism.

These theories are a way of explaining, in terms we can understand, what God did and how he did it.

 

[Saul.Tentmaker]

These theories are a way of explaining, in terms we can understand, what God did and how he did it.

Excellent post!

I like to say, sometimes, that when I am studying the big bang, I am searching the hand of God.

 

[ricmat]

I… don’t see how you can not trust science and yet study up on such things as the Big Bang. Science is nothing more than experience and logic, except the experience is painfully measured and put through rigorously proven and logical calculations. So if you don’t trust science then really you shouldn’t trust your own experiences or even thinking as well. If you are not a scientist (which we all partly are, it only varies in degree, but the degree can be very large), then you are relying on others’ knowledge, but you don’t, you seem to only trust your experiences and intelligence.

This sounds like it is right out of “The Science Before Science”. Have you read the book?