Leaving Theism

[brandymmiller]

We know it has something to do with God, but we don’t know what God is exactly. We don’t know how He does it. We don’t know why He does it.

Wrong on several accounts. Science tells us the how, and the bible tells us the why. We know God uses tiny particles to create things, and that He has set laws into motion which cause those particles to react in a predictable manner. In fact, science depends on things behaving in a predictable and orderly manner. If they didn’t, it would be of no use to conduct any experiments whatsoever since we could never be certain of reproducing the results. We know WHY He does it. He does it because He loves us. We know what God is: Love. This is why the two greatest commandments are to Love God with our whole heart, our whole mind, and our whole strength and to love our neighbor as ourselves. Jesus Christ was the physical manifestation of Love, The Word made flesh. The Spirit is Love’s soul and the Father is the Mind of Love. This is why there are said to be three persons in one. They are each distinct, each recognizably different and yet all operate with the same purpose and in unity.

I will acknowledge you as an atheist only if you can tell me you truly do not believe in love. If you do believe in love, then you do believe in God, because God is Love. And if you admit to believing in Love, then do as Love commands because it is commanded for your benefit.

 

[jbehan]

Understanding does not seem to have any demonstratable adaptive value. For example, a mouse fleeing from a snake is a good behavior that will be selected. Understanding what it is fleeing from is not very important.

Hmm. Interesting. I’m not sure it’s right though. Seems to me that being able to understand unique problems and situations and then being able to reason about them would be a large evolutionary advantage. Wouldn’t you say that, on average, a creature with understanding would be more likely to survive - because it would be able to react intelligently if it encountered a situation that evolution had not programmed it for and because reason and understanding would allow it to ignore its instincts if they were wrong - than creature blindly following a pre-determined path?

We know God uses tiny particles to create things, and that He has set laws into motion which cause those particles to react in a predictable manner.

Fair enough, but I think you misunderstood what I meant. We don’t understand how an immaterial being can affect the material world through sheer force of will.

e know WHY He does it. He does it because He loves us. We know what God is: Love.

I meant what we know from reason.

will acknowledge you as an atheist…

Not an atheist yet!

…only if you can tell me you truly do not believe in love. If you do believe in love, then you do believe in God, because God is Love. And if you admit to believing in Love, then do as Love commands because it is commanded for your benefit.

You can believe that love exists without believing that love is synonymous with God. Besides, it’s not always clear what love is, which love to let guide you, or what love commands.

 

[brandymmiller]

Not an atheist yet!.

Sorry, that part wasn’t directed toward you but toward those who claim atheism.

You can believe that love exists without believing that love is synonymous with God. Besides, it’s not always clear what love is, which love to let guide you, or what love commands.

You can believe that love exists without believing that love is synonymous with God, just as I can choose to believe that a chair made of wood is made of plastic instead. It doesn’t change the facts. Love is God, and all who experience love are experiencing God whether they choose to acknowledge that as what they are doing or not.

Love has commandments of its own, things which you must do to keep it going. These are, incidentally, the same commandments given to us by God.

1. Make love your greatest priority in life.
2. Don’t speak about love in relation to things which aren’t loving. For instance, calling a one-night stand love-making profanes true love.
3. Take time at least once a week to focus on love and do nothing else.
4. Love your father and your mother, even though they are faulty they gave you life and did what they could to teach you love.
5. Don’t take someone else’s life. Love finds value in everyone.
6. Do not tell your wife or husband you love them and then go bedding other people. That betrays trust on the very deepest level.
7. Don’t take what doesn’t belong to you. This creates division between people and hurts the Love you are seeking to foster.
8. Don’t tell lies. Lies erode the trust necessary for a healthy relationship.
9. Don’t allow yourself to be jealous of what someone else owns. If you love them, you’ll be happy they have been given treasures.
10. Don’t allow yourself to be jealous of someone else’s mate. Look to your own mate and find joy in them, or if you have not yet found a mate be confident that you will find one who is right for you at the right time and in the right place. Also, you should be happy that your friend has found a worthy mate.

As Christ once succinctly put it, “Love God with your whole heart, your whole mind, and your whole strength and love your neighbor as you love yourself”.

 

[john_doran]

Well, we switched theories because quantum mechanics and oxygen had more explanatory power.

no - we “switched theories” for a dizzying array of reasons; but probably the most relevant of which is that QM seems more likely than newtonian mechanics to be true.

that said, what do you think counts as “explanatory power”? QM leaves a great many things unexplained that were explained by Newtonian mechanics - space and time, for example.

jbehan:

I want to emphasize that I do not think that simplicity is the only theoretical virtue.

maybe not, but it is determinative in your initial argument, which is basically “atheism and christianity are indistunguishable in terms of their possession of whatever theoretical virtues there are, except for simplicity: atheism is simpler; therefore atheism is more likely to be true”.

but that is as may be: you have yet to explain why you believe that:

(A) a theory with n-1 entities is simpler than a theory with n entities; and

(B) why the (alleged) simplicity involved in having as few entities as possible is theoretically more important than some other kind of simplicity (e.g. mathematical simplicity; being simply understandable; having fewer constants, etc.).

jbehan:

Well, I’m not sure that solipsism has that much explanatory power.

how so? it explains everything without positing more than one actual entity: there are no ships or shoes, no sealing wax, neither cabbages nor kings; there are no atoms or fields or forces; there is just my mind and the thoughts it thinks. period.

where does my mind come from? the same place the atheist says the universe comes from.

what is left to be explained? certainly nothing like the bewildering array of things that, for instance, quantum mechanics and the standard model leave unexplained…

jbehan:

Besides, why should dismiss solipsism out of hand? Clearly, it is an unattractive and unintuitive theory, but that doesn’t mean it’s wrong.

ahh, and now we get down to it.

of course counterintuitiveness and inelegance do not entail truth, but they are considered to be indices of untruth by those (e.g. many mathematicians and physicists) who take them to be theoretical vices.

but of course, what really matters is truth, not simplicity or elegance or usefulness or explanatory power or fit with other theory or any other ciriteria for model-selection. just truth.

and the real question is whether simplicity, in your reasoning, is a sufficient indicator of the truth of your conclusion - namely that atheism is more likely to be true than theism.

and i would say that even if you had secured your notion of simplicity (and you most certainly haven’t), that simplicity is just not capable of doing the epistemological and logical work that you are asking it to do (which is basically pre-empt the need to look at actual arguments for the (non-)existence of the christian god by saying something like “whatever else is true about those arguments, they are arguing for a world that is more complicated than the alternative; which means that those arguments must be wrong”.)

jbehan:

There are people I don’t love or find difficult to love. What justification can I have for acting nicely to them?

it’s the right thing to do. pretty simple…

 

[jbehan]

You can believe that love exists without believing that love is synonymous with God, just as I can choose to believe that a chair made of wood is made of plastic instead. It doesn’t change the facts.

Whether it is a fact is what we are discussing.

no - we “switched theories” for a dizzying array of reasons; but probably the most relevant of which is that QM seems more likely than newtonian mechanics to be true.

It seemed more likely to be true because it was making correct predictions in cases where Newtonian mechanics was not. It explained more phenomena than Newtonian mechanics.

that said, what do you think counts as “explanatory power”? QM leaves a great many things unexplained that were explained by Newtonian mechanics - space and time, for example.

Yes, we lost some explanatory power in some areas. But, overall we judged we gained more than we lost, which is why we switched. Explanatory power clarifies the causes and effects and puts them in some context so they can be understood.

but that is as may be: you have yet to explain why you believe that:

(A) a theory with n-1 entities is simpler than a theory with n entities; and

(B) why the (alleged) simplicity involved in having as few entities as possible is theoretically more important than some other kind of simplicity (e.g. mathematical simplicity; being simply understandable; having fewer constants, etc.).

I agreed above that I need to re-formulate this part of my argument. What theoretical virtues should I be using and why?

how so? it explains everything without positing more than one actual entity: there are no ships or shoes, no sealing wax, neither cabbages nor kings; there are no atoms or fields or forces; there is just my mind and the thoughts it thinks. period.

Why does the mind exist? How does it exist? What is the mind? How can the mind have illusions in time if time does not exist? Why these illusions and not others? In what sense are they illusions?

of course counterintuitiveness and inelegance do not entail truth, but they are considered to be indices of untruth by those (e.g. many mathematicians and physicists) who take them to be theoretical vices.

This is an argument from authority.

but of course, what really matters is truth, not simplicity or elegance or usefulness or explanatory power or fit with other theory or any other ciriteria for model-selection. just truth.

Agreed. But, how do we find truth?

and the real question is whether simplicity, in your reasoning, is a sufficient indicator of the truth of your conclusion - namely that atheism is more likely to be true than theism.

and i would say that even if you had secured your notion of simplicity (and you most certainly haven’t), that simplicity is just not capable of doing the epistemological and logical work that you are asking it to do (which is basically pre-empt the need to look at actual arguments for the (non-)existence of the christian god by saying something like “whatever else is true about those arguments, they are arguing for a world that is more complicated than the alternative; which means that those arguments must be wrong”.)

It’s not that I haven’t looked at the arguments for and against God’s existence. I have looked at them. It just seems to me that none of them are conclusive. I’m looking for some way to choose between the theories.

I agree that “simplicity” is straining under the weight of the work I have given it. How should I reformulate?

 

[MindOverMatter]

1. Reason is the process of creating explanatory accounts. We come up for different explanations for phenomena, and then we adopt the best ones. Good explanations possess (1) explanatory power, (2) simplicity, and (3) coherence.

Reason is good, but ultimatly everything comes down to faith. There is enough circumstantial evidence in the universe for a reasonable faith.

Your arguement for Atheism is faulty. Atheism has not provided a logical explanation for anything, least of all why the universe exists, or why there is any such thing as a reality in which personal creatures come into being with desires and dreams. As far as natural causes are concerned, there is no reason why a reality, which continues to exist becuase of prior events, can ultimatly explain itself or even the qualitys that it is able to actualize. How can a universe create its own laws for existing and its own nature of being with out coming before itself? And even if it could, what decided that reality should be as such that when there is a unification of particulor substances, animated organisms will evolve; developing the double-helix, sensory perception, lungs, blood systems which carry nutrition around the body, and immune systems, all of which support the continued existence of life through logical mathematical-principles. These things support a teleological-conclusion, regardless of chance and random variation. Chance is very small and neccesary part of a lager mechanism, it is not a determining factor of reality. You should look at reality as a whole, do not be decieved. The only explanation that Atheism has, is that the world ultimatly just exists, with all its logical illusury-ineuendos to purpose, for absolutely no reason whatsoever. Thats no kind of explanation at all, and an atheistic universe is logically self-refuting since it cannot create itself and its own nature out of nothing. There is no justification or reason for thinking it. In other words, in the words of Richard Dawkins, Atheism is an intelectual cop-out.

The best explanation is that some kind of personal being intended that reality should exist.

If we believe Atheism, we must believe that our universe exists for no reason with the logical mathematical laws of physics; after which, through a random combining of various materials, in a sea of an expanding universe, gave birth to various logically consistent qualities, which it just so happened to have. Eventually this universe, though the rearangment and the tranformation of energy into various forms according to various principles, has become self aware and personal through the multiple minds of human beings. Now we have a Universe with a split personality problem. I don’t by it, and neither should you.

Peace and God bless.

 

[davidv]

{snip}

This is an argument from authority.

What if the authority is trustworthy?

Agreed. But, how do we find truth?

By finding the one who is Truth (Jesus). Where will you find Him? In His Church.

 

[BlaineTog]

Why does the mind exist?

For the same reason(s) the universe would exist to an atheist.

How does it exist?

In the same way(s) the universe would exist to an atheist.

What is the mind?

A consciousness.

How can the mind have illusions in time if time does not exist?

Time doesn’t exist but is merely the form of thought. See: Kant.

Why these illusions and not others?

Why other illusions and not these? Or, maybe the mind is cycling through all illusions and what it currently sees is just what it’s currently going through.

In what sense are they illusions?

In the sense that they are actually thoughts.

Agreed. But, how do we find truth?

An action of the will informed by the collective functioning of all your mental and emotional abilities.

I agree that “simplicity” is straining under the weight of the work I have given it. How should I reformulate?

“What seems to be the most correct?”

 

[Sarpedon]

Hmm. Interesting. I’m not sure it’s right though. Seems to me that being able to understand unique problems and situations and then being able to reason about them would be a large evolutionary advantage. Wouldn’t you say that, on average, a creature with understanding would be more likely to survive - because it would be able to react intelligently if it encountered a situation that evolution had not programmed it for and because reason and understanding would allow it to ignore its instincts if they were wrong - than creature blindly following a pre-determined path?

Alright, accurate conciousness can be evolutionary advantageous for some things. There’s two problems with this, though. First off, philosophy has no real survival value so even if some degree of accurate conciousness was beneficial, philosophy would probably not be included in this percentage. There’s little “reason” for a mind to evolve to be able to accurately interpret abstract concepts that have no beneficial value.

Second, we couldn’t know to what extent our mind has evolved to percieve truth. Thus, to make arguments would be like using a calculater that may or may not be accurate in each of its functions. We would have to be very careful in accepting the answers it gives, because unless we are certain that all aspects function correctly we don’t really know if the answers are true or not.

Catholics posit that we can trust our mind because we have faith that God designed it that way. Atheists have a much harder if not impossible task.

 

[BobCatholic]

This is a good point. It’s hard to the atheist to find a solid basis for their morality. (Though one doesn’t need to be an atheist to disbelieve in natural rights. I’m positive they don’t exist, and I’m still a theist for the moment.)

With Darwinian atheists pushing the “only the fittest survive” argument, there is no reason to be unselfish, or moral. One’s personal survival is paramount. Why build hospitals? They only permit the sick and weak to continue living. Let the fittest survive. Why have charities? Let the fittest survive only. See how cold this getting? See how inhumane?

We’ve seen where this philosophy led. Lots of times.

Also, another thing is that suffering is 100% meaningless without the Cross. Catholicism is the only religion one who has the most and satisfying explanations about the meaning of suffering. Judaism and other religions have their explanations, but not as many, or as satisfying as our faith does.

You’re going to suffer in life, that’s guaranteed. It might as well have meaning.

Would you like to see yourself as carrying a cross and imitating Jesus Christ? Or have the suffering be meaningless and have that meaninglessness compound the misery of suffering?

 

[john_doran]

It seemed more likely to be true because it was making correct predictions in cases where Newtonian mechanics was not. It explained more phenomena than Newtonian mechanics.

i’m not sure that “explain” means what you think it means…

predicting that something will happen is not the same thing as explaining why that thing happens. QM has highly accurate experimental verification, for example of the magnetic moment of the electron, but there’s nothing about the mathematical formalism of the theory that says just what an electron is, or what magnetism is, or*** what*** a “magnetic moment” is, etc…

explanatory power is derived from the interpretation of the theory; however, in the case of QM, there just isn’t anything like “the” accepted interpretation - there are many conflicting theories as to what QM numbers actually mean.

jbehan:

Yes, we lost some explanatory power in some areas. But, overall we judged we gained more than we lost, which is why we switched.

not necessarily. how are you calculating the gains and losses of explanatory power? what makes the gain of understanding black-body radiation, for example, a greater gain than the loss of the understanding of time and space? how does that kind of calculus proceed? what are the units of measurement that you’re using to make the calculation?

jbehan:

Explanatory power clarifies the causes and effects and puts them in some context so they can be understood.

…so how is "X has no cause" a useful explanation?

jbehan:

I agreed above that I need to re-formulate this part of my argument. What theoretical virtues should I be using and why?

off the top of my head, i would suggest that coherence with other truths/beliefs is important, as well as the number of ad hoc revisions required to make the theory fit with those other truths.

simplicity just doesn’t make the cut, as far as i can see. if you read some of the history of science, you’ll see that it’s never been a really significant factor in the history of actual theory-selection, either.

jbehan:

Why does the mind exist? How does it exist? What is the mind? How can the mind have illusions in time if time does not exist? Why these illusions and not others? In what sense are they illusions?

sure there are question about solipsism, but there are way more for atheism:

1. Why does the universe exist?
2. How does it exist?
3. What are electrons and quarks?
4. What is gravity?
5. Are the four (known) forces just aspects of one fundamental force?
6. Why do the physical constants have the values they do?
7. Why are there so many constants?
8. What is time?
9. What is space?
10. How many dimensions are there?
11. What is mind?

and so on…

jbehan:

This is an argument from authority.

it’s not an argument of any kind: it is an observation that others consider the inelegance and counterintuitiveness of a theory to be signs that a theory may not be true.

if you don’t think of them as signs of the same thing, then why did you bring them up?

jbehan:

Agreed. But, how do we find truth?

not by looking for the simplest hypothesis (if it even makes sense to judge theories as “simpler” than one another).

jbehan:

It’s not that I haven’t looked at the arguments for and against God’s existence. I have looked at them. It just seems to me that none of them are conclusive. I’m looking for some way to choose between the theories.

of course they’re not “conclusive” in the sense of “compelling assent under pain of irrationality”…

look, you choose between hypotheses by doing your level best to analyze the issues and arguments at stake and determine in a dispassionate manner which seems most likely to be true.

the question is not which theory cannot be reasonably disputed - all knowledge is provisional - but which theory seems most reasonable to accept.

for me, in my search, that’s theism: the logical, epistemological, and metaphysical compromises required by atheism are just too significant for it to seem like a plausible description of the way the world is.

 

[Dameedna]

Much to my own chagrin, I am considering leaving Christianity for a strong agnostic / weak atheist position (basically the thought is that God could exist, but it’s very unlikely). As you might imagine, I am not at all happy about this turn of events, and I am very willing to be persuaded back into the Church. I’ve laid out my argument below – and would really appreciate any responses or criticisms you have.

Rather than focus on the below assumptions, which can be challenged and debated till time ends.

I will make one comment, and that is, you cannot find what is real, until you accept that it is not real.

Reality is a Paradox.

In other words, you can’t find God, till you accept, he does not exist.

I can explain further if you want, but I won’t for now

Syllogism:

*Major premise: *The simpler philosophy is the rational position.

• Atheism and Christianity have roughly the same explanatory power. In other words, I don’t think that Christianity explains any phenomenon better than atheism (although there are several phenomena that neither explain well).

Athiesm is a lack of belief in God.

It does not “explain” anything. Many athiests hold varying views that explain things. But athiesm itself is a lot more simple than people want to admit to.

An Athiest “lacks” believe in a god.

The individual, who happens to lack belief, may hold as many world views as can possibly exist, but that’s who they are. It’s not specific to athiesm.

Cheers

 

[Dameedna]

Much to my own chagrin, I am considering leaving Christianity for a strong agnostic / weak atheist position (basically the thought is that God could exist, but it’s very unlikely). As you might imagine, I am not at all happy about this turn of events, and I am very willing to be persuaded back into the Church. I’ve laid out my argument below – and would really appreciate any responses or criticisms you have.

Rather than focus on the below assumptions, which can be challenged and debated till time ends.

I will make one comment, and that is, you cannot find what is real, until you accept that it is not real.

Reality is a Paradox.

In other words, you can’t find God, till you accept, he does not exist.

I can explain further if you want, but I won’t for now

Syllogism:

*Major premise: *The simpler philosophy is the rational position.

• Atheism and Christianity have roughly the same explanatory power. In other words, I don’t think that Christianity explains any phenomenon better than atheism (although there are several phenomena that neither explain well).

Athiesm is a lack of belief in God.

It does not “explain” anything. Many athiests hold varying views that explain things. But athiesm itself is a lot more simple than people want to admit to.

An Athiest “lacks” believe in a god.

The individual, who happens to lack belief, may hold as many world views as can possibly exist, but that’s who they are. It’s not specific to athiesm.

Cheers

 

[Dameedna]

Much to my own chagrin, I am considering leaving Christianity for a strong agnostic / weak atheist position (basically the thought is that God could exist, but it’s very unlikely). As you might imagine, I am not at all happy about this turn of events, and I am very willing to be persuaded back into the Church. I’ve laid out my argument below – and would really appreciate any responses or criticisms you have.

Rather than focus on the below assumptions, which can be challenged and debated till time ends.

I will make one comment, and that is, you cannot find what is real, until you accept that it is not real.

Reality is a Paradox.

In other words, you can’t find God, till you accept, he does not exist.

I can explain further if you want, but I won’t for now

Syllogism:

*Major premise: *The simpler philosophy is the rational position.

• Atheism and Christianity have roughly the same explanatory power. In other words, I don’t think that Christianity explains any phenomenon better than atheism (although there are several phenomena that neither explain well).

Athiesm is a lack of belief in God.

It does not “explain” anything. Many athiests hold varying views that explain things. But athiesm itself is a lot more simple than people want to admit to.

An Athiest “lacks” believe in a god.

The individual, who happens to lack belief, may hold as many world views as can possibly exist, but that’s who they are. It’s not specific to athiesm.

Cheers

 

[Dameedna]

Sorry not sure why I got duplicates.

I just edited.

 

[Dameedna]

Because evolution selects for behavior and physical adaptations. Understanding does not seem to have any demonstratable adaptive value. For example, a mouse fleeing from a snake is a good behavior that will be selected. Understanding what it is fleeing from is not very important.

Why do you seperate behaviour from understanding?

The mouse “understands” the cat can kill them. That understanding is part of their biology.

You seem to be talking about conciousness. The mouse isn’t “conscious” of its choice, it’s just fleeing. hmmm…

Okay…it may not be “self-aware” like we are but it sure as hell understands that big bad cat means run!! hehe

 

[DL82]

*Major premise: *The simpler philosophy is the rational position.

• Atheism and Christianity have roughly the same explanatory power. In other words, I don’t think that Christianity explains any phenomenon better than atheism (although there are several phenomena that neither explain well).

-Neither philosophy is self-refuting (approximately equally coherent).

-Therefore, we should prefer the simpler philosophy.

*Minor Premise: *Atheism is a simpler philosophy.

-At the very least least, atheism posits one fewer object in the universe (no God). And, most types of atheism posit many fewer types of objects (no souls, no objective moral laws).

*Conclusion: *Atheism is the rational position.

Thanks!

Atheism is by no means the simpler philosophy. By losing an absolute reference point, the construction of any kind of rationality becomes incredibly complex. By losing objective moral laws, the reason for even attempting to construct any kind of rationality itself becomes relative.

Witness the entire project of modernism from its’ Cartesian & Kantian origins through Hegel and Marx, the logical positivists such as Russell, through to the post-modern critique of Derrida and Foucault. There is nothing to rest an atheist explanatory account upon.

Which is fine if you want to be an existentialist or a nihilist, and not concern yourself with thinking anything meaningful about anything. All your thoughts are just electrical pulses in your brain, and the impulse to murder somebody is no different than the impulse to compose beautiful music. I get the feeling you are more rational, and have more self-respect as a human being than that, however, and won’t accept such a failure of human reason.

 

[Nullasalus]

Athiesm is a lack of belief in God.

It does not “explain” anything. Many athiests hold varying views that explain things. But athiesm itself is a lot more simple than people want to admit to.

An Athiest “lacks” believe in a god.

The individual, who happens to lack belief, may hold as many world views as can possibly exist, but that’s who they are. It’s not specific to athiesm.

Cheers

No, atheism is most often the affirmation that there is no God. Agnosticism is most often the state of neither denying nor affirming the existence of any gods.
Deism affirms what amounts to a God or gods, with explanation of said deity ranging from utter ignorance to ‘evident through reason’.

The terms get confused - especially considering they take distinct positions in discussion. And some try to have it both ways, where they both make express claims (as in, offer explanations) of philosophical or natural truths (‘Everything in the universe is the result of chance and law, and the laws either existed eternally or happened by chance’), then assert that atheism itself has no belief in anything and thus has no claims to criticize.

A person who has no positive belief in God, and is skeptical of given explanations of existence, reality, etc would more properly be an agnostic. And an agnostic could still be religious, out of hope or vague suspicion.

Athiests, meanwhile, can (and frankly, mostly do) positively assert there is no God or gods. The terms on which they do so vary, but the central claim does not. Especially in the context of this thread, where what the OP originally brought up were atheistic explanations of the world as we know it and which were simpler given those standards - not ‘what’s the simplest position to take on anything’. Which wouldn’t be atheism, or theism, but either ‘nothing at all’ or (as John Doran expertly pointed out) solipsism.

 

[Sarpedon]

.
Okay…it may not be “self-aware” like we are but it sure as hell understands that big bad cat means run!! hehe

But this isn’t really understanding. It’s just a response to the stimuli of having a cat present. For example, even if the mouse thought it was fleeing from a dog, as long as it escapes that trait will be selected for.

Certainly, in some cases understanding the reality of something may be benefical. For example, if the cat chases the mouse in a different way than a dog knowing the difference may help the mouse escape. However, this doesn’t apply to all cases, so it at least creates an uncertainty as to whether the true reality is known. For philosophy, there is also no real selective benefit to being able to correctly philosophize about things that have no direct bearing on survival.

The Church teaches that we do know reality correctly through our senses, which I believe. However, I see no reason for this to be true in the atheistic scheme.

The absurdity of atheism lies in this: they posit that we have a mind capable of arriving at the truth of God’s nonexistence, yet have no way to explain why this is so or how we know it is so.

 

[BlaineTog]

Actually, the way I’ve heard atheists and agnostics put it (and it’s only fair to let them define their own positions) is that there are actually three positions:

Agnosticism: God may exist, or he may not exist, but we cannot possibly know.

Weak atheism: I lack belief in the existence of God, but I make no claims about his existence.

Strong atheism: I believe that God does not exist.