If God exists, atheism is false. Thus atheism is dependent upon the truth of whether or not God exists.
Imagine a world in which it is true that God exists and it is also the case that atheism is true.
This is the world of Patrickatheism.
762 thoughts on “Patrickatheism”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Nonsense. Atheism is the state of lacking a belief in God. Whether or not God actually exists is not relevant to the state of belief.
I’m not sure I get the point. Beliefs and facts are overlapping sets, but not identical. I’m quite sure that all of our beliefs are full of false positives (we believe something that’s false) and false negatives (we disbelieve something that’s true).
Some beliefs are based on evidence, some on the desire for something to be true, some on finding proposed evidence unconvincing, some on indelible indoctrination, etc. etc.
It’s certainly not all that difficult to imagine worlds where plenty of gods exist, and plenty of people doubt it. If imaginary gods are said to exist (in our imaginations they certainly do), then atheism is nothing more than a different imagination.
I always wish posts like yours would specify which gods you are referring to. As far as I can tell, everyone on earth is atheistic with respect to most gods.
Thor rules!
Is a little someone still trying for death by cop? bless.
Didn’t we just have a long and futile discussion about whether atheism was a positive belief?
I can envision multiple kinds of atheism:
1. The denial that any gods exist.
2. The denial of some or all the historical basis for one or more religions.
3. Skepticism: the proposition that belief in entities requires evidence, plus the denial that sufficient evident for gods exists.
4. Nonconformism: the refusal to participate in the dominant religion of one’s country or culture.
5. Apostasy: The loss of a faith previously held.
Show me the money. I see the money, I believe in it (although then it’s hardly a ‘belief’. haha). I’m not going to believe in something just for the hell of it.
I thought he was going for death by public self-humiliation.
I’m personally in category 3, but anyone who lacks belief, for whatever reason or no reason at all, is an atheist by definition.
One first has to have a level of self-awareness and a sense of shame for that to happen.
Always important to state one’s opinions as fact, especially an opinion like this one, which was roundly discredited (especially effectively by Allan Miller, IMO) on a recent (endless) thread.
As we know, however, there are certain posters here who are simply never wrong.
I suppose it could be said to have been futile in that certain posters simply cannot admit an error–no matter what apparently sound arguments they are confronted with. There was some good stuff on that thread, IIRC, but as Patrick can no more be mistaken than keiths (or is it Ludlow?) can,* there is a sort of built-in futility to most of what happens on this site. I think that’s part of the reason that Lizzie (quite sensibly) gave up on it.
*See the result of their recent disagreement on unitarity for a good example of how even when one asserts P and the other asserts Not-P neither of them is wrong. That’s talent!
I didn’t participate much in that one. I fail to see how one could be an atheist without lacking belief, nor can I see any other requirement for being an atheist.
But a human being can have orthogonal beliefs, or accept orthogonal propositions, such as the ones I listed, and possibly others I haven’t thought of.
It seems to me that most of our rousing debates involve one dimensional thinking, and reject orthogonal thinking.
I don’t disagree with any of that. I personally know atheists who believe all kinds of New Age nonsense.
There’s a deep truth to this: atheism is the logical culmination of Christianity, not its negation. Atheists take the same attitude towards the Christian god as Christians do towards the pagan gods.
Christianity already took a major step towards the disenchantment of the world by insisting that there are no immanent gods that somehow co-exist in the mortal world (and frequently visit it), likewise no demigods, heroes, spirits, sprites, elves, gnomes, etc — instead Christianity insisted on a rational world that was the creation of a rational Mind, and that could be understood by us because we too were rational minds created in the image of the Rational Mind. The whole transition from the mysteries and wonders and terrors of the pagan world to the rational, intelligible, and technologically exploitable world of modernity was accomplished by way of Christianity. (This has been well-documented by scholars of the emergence of modernity, such as Blumenberg, Funkenstein, and Dupre.)
To illustrate this, notice that the Dawkins-style “we’re all atheists about some gods, we’re just consistent” line is simplistic and sophomoric. The whole point of classical theism is that God is conceptualized as radically different from the pagan gods. Zeus, Odin, and Marduk are not necessary beings that transcendent all of time and space.
This also means that whereas evidentialist arguments might conceivably apply to the pagan gods in just the same way that they apply to ghosts and vampires, they are completely misapplied to God as classically defined. One of the major errors of modern atheism is to assume empiricism and then criticize Christianity on that basis. There is no argument that grounds warrant in sensory information that can show that there is no necessary being, or that it is unreasonable to attribute the necessary being with the psychological properties that an infinite Mind must have. Christianity is based on rationalism, not empiricism. (More precisely, the history of Christianity is an unstable dialectic between rationalism and mysticism.)
Seen that way, atheism is the continuation of the rationalism that is already at work within Christian theology itself. Atheism simply takes the next logical step, and asks why we need to posit a deus absconditus or watchmaker at all in the first place. The more the world becomes rationalized through Christian theology, the more God himself seems to be a cog that plays no part in the mechanism.
I bristle at being told what to believe or think and I grant those of a religious bent the same freedom of thought I expect for myself. True secularism allows (or at least should allow) the same freedom of thought to all. Why are some of us so mean to the outgroup?
People must be criticised for what they do, not what they think. (Speaking or writing in a public venue is doing not thinking, of course)
Like Patrick, several people I know well espouse versions of New Age spiritualism, though I can’t recall any self identifying as atheists. Apatheism works for me.
Patrick,
Can you give me a definition with examples of the word evidence?
You’re not the first to play this game here. It’s been noted several times that theists are perfectly happy using words like “evidence” until they are applied to their god concepts, at which point the hair splitting begins.
By evidence I mean objective, empirical evidence. The same type of evidence you would require to accept that sasquatch exists, or the Higgs boson, or x-rays. The same type of evidence you rely on in your daily life before making a financial investment or even just crossing the street.
So, do you have any such for anything that might be accurately described as a god?
(Yes, I’m aware that Kantian Naturalist has described a god concept that is not amenable to evidential or logical support. I see no reason to consider such entities as anything more than thought experiments.)
Can I criticize Forms on that basis? May I criticize FMM’s claims to revelation on that basis? After all, neither Plato nor FMM has based their claims on empiricism, yet most people would say, show me the evidence or I have no reason to accept that.
I don’t get how rhetorically protecting one’s arguments from empiricism actually protects them from the demands of empiricism. Will non-empiric revelation be used in court to convict, or are we going to say that we’re not falling for that flim-flam?
Hm, yes, I guess we can’t show that there’s not a Designer, or some God supplying FMM with ridiculous rationalizations, either. So why any judgment that either of them is an illegitimate explanation for the claimed results?
Glen Davidson
As soon as someone can demonstrate that the claims for their particular deity or their particular revelation are categorically different and more compelling than claims for Xenu or Joseph Smith’s golden tablets, I will pay attention.
For believers, what kind of evidence would convince you that Scientology and Mormonism are true?
That would move us in the direction of defining evidence.
The story goes that the classical theistic conception of God can be logically demonstrated, but not empirically confirmed. Please note: I’m completely dubious of that claim. I’m simply noting it.
On this specific point, I’ll stick to my guns (such as they are) and say that one should criticism Plato’s writings on the Forms by arguing that they don’t actually solve the philosophical problem they are intended to solve. The Forms is a bad theory of concepts because it mystifies, rather than explains, the relation between concepts and objects. Likewise, my criticism of presuppositionalism has been that it is a version of the incoherent idea that Sellars calls “the Myth of the Given” (this is probably also true of Plato as well). That’s a philosophical objection that ties into our best account of what linguistic meaning is — it’s not an empirical objection. There’s no empirical test that will determine if foundationalism, coherentism, reliabilism, or some other theory of knowledge is best (though some cognitive science might be relevant).
Presumably the rational theologian needs to say that the criteria of warranted assertability in theology are more like those of logic or mathematics than those of science or law. Again: not endorsing that view, just describing it.
Ah, the Designer is a fish of a different kettle, because the advocate of contemporary Intelligent Design is saying that the Designer is the best empirically confirmed explanation of abiogenesis and biological diversity (at least for the most general taxa). After all, the central complaint that ID folks have with Thomism is that Thomists explicate God-talk on rational grounds alone. (Am I the only one here who reads the on-going debate between Feser and Torley? Ok, probably yes.) Thomists draw the science/metaphysics distinction in a different place than ID folks want to.
So noted, thanks for the clarification.
Everyone needs a hobby. I don’t judge.
Frows up just a bit.
Patrick,
So if we take Higgs or gravity as an example then evidence is not direct but an observation of something like a crt image after colliding sub atomic particles or an object falling to earth, then we infer the cause.
So if we want to speculate about the cause or origin of various sub atomic particles (that could be argued as the product of design) could God be a possible hypothesis if God is defined as the creator of the universe which earth is a part of?
Hmm. So atheism is a psychological state without any necessary relation to outside reality. It’s like love of honey without any reference to actual honey, appreciation of a state of affairs with no state of affairs. More properly, it’s not of anything. It’s like wisdom or stupidity without any reference to a standard that could determine whether it’s wisdom or stupidity.
Remind me again why atheists consider theism false or somehow undesirable. Or don’t they? Since when?
Was going to sit out awhile, but I just found this particular perspective absolutely fascinating. It really rings sound to me. Thanks KN!
As an aside, I’ve been reading a great deal on the background of The Silmarillion of late, particularly Tolkien’s reconsiderations and changes to his “creation/world” model he went through over the many years he spent writing down his ideas. One in particular echos your sentiment above:
Tolkien basic concept of “theism” (as it were) in his fantasy works was based on Germanic/Scandinavian epics and folk tales, however it was heavily influenced and modified by Tolkien’s very strong Catholic beliefs. As such, one of the defining differences between Tolkien’s mythological theology and its Germanic/Scandinavian counterparts is the distinction between good and evil in terms of creative ability. In Tolkien’s belief (and thus reflected in his fantasy world), evil has no ability to create “new” things; it can only mar or corrupt what has been created by good. Eru Illuvatar is The Creator and from Him all other things came forth as a realization of this thoughts (all the other “gods” (Ainur), for example sprang directly from His considerations on the various aspects of Ea and Arda.) Ea and Arda came into being from Illuvatar leading all the other Ainur in song and the ills of the world came in through Melkor’s (one of the Prime Ainur) discord and cacophony with the main symphony.
But Tolkien found himself in a bit of bind when it came to the evil has no ability to create rule: if evil can only corrupt and not create, what of orcs? As it was explained (to the reader at least), orcs are the result of Morgoth’s (Melkor before his “fall”) corruption of elves and men, then they must have souls and those souls must go on to two separate afterlifes. Which means that orcs can’t be always chaotic evil, which…alas…they clearly are. Tolkien was greatly conflicted by this implication and wrote about (and rewrote about) quite often, right up to his death.
Atheists are a disparate group. There is no doctrinal position to refer to. My position is that many theisms are, in themselves, harmless to others (Buddhism and Quakerism spring to mind) so can be safely ignored. Some groups seek to legitimize oppressive acts using their religion as a pretext. That is certainly undesirable.
Of course there are philosophic problems, but nothing that means that they can’t survive in some version. The reason we don’t resort to Forms is that there is no causal efficacy demonstrated, and there are testable and useful causal mechanisms in other explanations.
I wasn’t discussing presuppositionalism, which isn’t necessary for (nor explanatory of) FMM’s claims to have Godly knowledge. I was discussing claims to revelation not based upon empiricism (at least not typical empiricism).
I really don’t care if it’s FMM, a presuppositionalist, or anybody else who claims revelation from God. Why shouldn’t I pay attention to it? Or, why should I?
One may say so. What possible warrant is there for said claim?
The point wasn’t ID itself, it was the Designer, which sometimes is “defended” by saying that we can’t rule it out. Much as you were saying of theology.
But under their “empiricism” one could say that the Designer is the best empirically confirmed explanation of (whatever they want to credit God with, including levitation events), because the Designer can do anything and can’t be held to anything expected of known designers. It’s nonsense by our empiricism, but that’s because we believe it’s illegitimate to invent causes. You might say that still rules them out, but how so if they’re claiming our empiricism to be wrong, and that they should correct empiricism by bringing in a cause that can’t be empirically tested?
I say it’s because their “method” doesn’t work, that it fails to be observably correct.
Nonetheless, I’m returning to the fact that I was just saying a Designer can’t be ruled out, nor can we rule out that some God is supplying FMM with ridiculous rationalizations, just as you argued that we can’t rule out a necessary being or that it is unreasonable to attribute to it the psychology of infinite Mind. Yes, but that’s why we resort to empiricism for our knowledge, and not to the endless claims that could be made sans the limits we’ve discovered empirically.
Glen Davidson
Fixed it.
Fixed it.
Fixed it.
Fixed it.
Come on guys, just show us how your particular deity is real, and all the thousands of competing deities are myths.
Erik:
Yes, as is theism. This is news to you?
People can be wrong, Erik.
No, it’s (most usually) an empirical, cognitive state. It needn’t have any relation to “outside reality,” but most who speak for it would indeed relate it to “outside reality.”
What it isn’t, usually, is an ontological claim that there is no God. It’s typically merely the judgment that there’s insufficient evidence for a God. That may be correct whether or not there truly is a God.
Glen Davidson
Oh, ah OK! Why didn’t you say so!
You should go back and read some of that thread then. That position was (IMHO) utterly exploded.
Good point.
Just as UFOs and ESP may exist, but lack convincing evidence.
Sorry, I saw nothing explosive on that thread. If you don’t accept what I said, then we are using words differently. Wouldn’t be anything new. You encounter this all the time with other posters.
I don’t consider theism true or false.
Specific beliefs might be true or false. But neither theism nor atheism as a package of specific beliefs.
If you think that anyone who disagrees with you about that must be using words dfferently than you are, then you are using the words ‘using words differently’ differently from most people.
walto,
Who, other than you, claims that neither one of us is wrong?
The ‘talent’ you refer to is yours — for making things up.
Ok, I’ll bite, Jean. Who was wrong? (I mean, not YOU, certainly!)
I would have conceded the argument already if I thought I was wrong, walto. I might still be wrong, but I’m waiting to see Patrick’s response to my latest comment.
The bit there I put in bold is (as I understand it) one of the deepest lessons we can learn from Kant, precisely because of his painstakingly detailed examination of the claims of rational theology.
Did you discover this empirically or based on reason?
peace
Well, it’s apparent that Patrick also doesn’t think he’s wrong. One of you must be, but it seems neither of you is. It’s, like a miracle, Chuckie since y’all have indicated that, like Cilfford, you’d err on the side of saying nothing at all long before you’d ever take the chance of asserting something that has the slightest possibility of being wrong.
I mean you’re the same way about insisting you don’t know your own name. With that sort of extreme modesty at work, one can only assume you’re right if you’ve said something out loud. Same for Patrick.
It’s a miracle, but if anybody could manage it, you two could.
A+. Gold star.
Neither. It’s an inference based on the history of inquiry. The history of inquiry shows that empirical methods have been generally successful at resolving disputes, and rational methods have not been, except in strictly formal domains such as logic and mathematics.
Not what I said. If you don’t know what I meant, at least have the courtesy to quote me.