On Tue, 4 Jun 1996 22:40:53 +1000 (EST), Derek McLarnen wrote:
>At 06:03 AM 2/04/96 EST, you wrote:
>
>SJ>Is there an atheist in the house? :-)
DM>Yes, Steve, there is! And it appears that I am the only one on the
>Reflector willing to document a defence of atheism.
Unfortunately, even you don't do that! :-) See below.
DM>Prior to the above question, you provided a quote from Ravi
>Zacharias which I will address in this response.
Good! :-)
DM>Firstly, let me describe my atheism, just to provide my further
>comments below with some sort of background. I am a functional
>atheist, i.e. I live without reference to the possible reality of
>God. Of course, as is correctly pointed out by Zacharias below, it
>is not really possible to be an absolute atheist, since that would
>require knowledge that is not available. So, although I function as
>an atheist, by strict definition I am an agnostic.
This is interesting. William Lane Craig, in the video "Atheism vs
Christianity", repeatedly challenged Dr Frank Zindler (who claimed to
be an atheist representing atheists), to defend his central claim,
ie. that atheism was true. Zindler declined to do so, which is what
you are doing.
There are three basic positions on the question of the
existence of God:
1. Theism = there is God(s)
2. Atheism = there is no God(s).
3. Agnosticism = don't know if there is or isn't God(s).
If you do not believe in 1. and 2., then you must believe in 3. That
makes you an "agnostic" which is indeed how you describe yourself.
Therefore, even you are apparently not willing to try to defend
atheism, *as an atheist*. If you are "willing to document a defence
of atheism", it is only as a position that doesn't even convince you
enough for you to live by it.
>CW>I also highly recommend "Can Man Live Without God" by Ravi
>Zacharias (Word, 1994). Ravi does the best job I have seen of
>addressing the emotional (as well as the intellectual) barrenness of
>atheism.
>SJ>Seconded. Here is a quote from the above to get the ball rolling:
>
>"Of course there are some like Martin, and for that matter Huxley,
who like to hide behind a softer version of atheism (just as Russell
did in his debate) because they know the philosophical decimation
they would experience in trying to defend the absolute negative
There is no God. Their soft position that there is not sufficient
evidence for theism commits three logical blunders. First, to
move to atheism by default is hardly an academically credible switch
to make when there are myriad other options.
DM>Let us closely examine the first "logical blunder" to see if it
>is, indeed, flawed logic.
>
>I have no argument that "there are myriad other options", but,
>rather than see this as a flaw in the argument for atheism, I see it
>as a strong support. Atheism and agnosticism are not just two
>options among many. They have characteristics that single them out
>as reasonable "default" positions. To be an atheist or agnostic, I
>don't need to believe anything based on faith, revelation or
>authority. I simply either disbelieve or withold judgement until
>sufficient (for me) evidence turns up to cause me to rethink my
>position.
This is OK for agnosticism (a = no + gnostikos = knowing), but it
is *not* OK for atheism (a = no + theos = God). You are claiming to
defend atheism, but you are here defending agnosticism. If you can't
defend atheism, then I rest my case! :-)
DM>All of the other options require that I make a "leap of faith" and
>accept one or more premises that cannot be demonstrated or even
>logically derived. And, of course, each option requires the "leap
>of faith" to be in a different (more or less) direction. (I do
>accept that, at least among the more consistent religions, once the
>initial "leap of faith" is made, the rest of the religious system is
>largely internally and externally consistent.)
Firstly this only confirms Zacharias' and Craig's point. Atheism
cannot prove its central claim that there is no God, but tries
to derive validity by negating other claims. It is essentially a
negative parasitic position, with no life of its own.
Second, Christianity does not necessarily require a "leap of faith".
The term "leap of faith" was AFAIK coined by the Danish
existentialist Christian Soren Kiekergaard, who over-dramatised it to
fit in with his highly individualistic existentialist philosophy.
When I became a Christian, I made no great "leap of faith". It was
really just a small step in a new direction. While I did not
understand everything (I still don't), I understood enough to make it
a rational decision. Many Christians (my wife included) do not have
a dramatic conversion experience and in fact cannot even remember
when they became a Christian.
Thirdly, you make the implicit assumption that your default position
(ie. where you already are if you do nothing), is inherently right.
What is your logical justification for that assumption? The Biblical
position is that the default position of unbelief in God is already
under God's condemnation:
"Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not
believe stands condemned already..." (Jn 3:18)
>SJ>Second, to say that there is insufficient evidence for theism
>and therefore I am an atheist implies a logically satisfactory
>defense of atheism that they do not have. After all, why else would
>they hold to it if it is logically indefensible, when their very
>reason for denying theism is that it is logically indefensible?
DM>This is a suspect point. Zacharias starts by saying that atheists
>are atheists due to "insufficient evidence" for theism. I see no
>problem with this. Faced with two options, belief or disbelief,
>where the evidence is nonexistent, insufficient or inconclusive,
>then disbelief is the most reasonable course. Preferring belief
>under these circumstances leads inexorably to gullibility.
But Derek, you have already said publicly on Fidonet that *no* amount
of evidence, short of a divine appearance of God to you personally,
would convince you that God exists. Even here on the Reflector, you
just keep raising the bar higher, so that you can never get over.
You don't *want* to believe, Derek, so you will always find reasons
not to, no matter what "evidence...for theism" I or other Christians
might produce! :-)
DM>However, in the very next sentence, Zacharias changes his mind and
>now says, not that atheists are atheists due to "insufficient
>evidence for theism", but that atheists are not theists because
>"theism is logically indefensible".
No. Zacharias is answering a reply by an atheist in the audience
that:
"I also want to make a point that you use the straw man version of
atheism, which I have encountered before. Many philosophers say that
atheism does not necessarily mean a dogmatic assertion that God does
not exist. It is my view that I am an atheist because I lack
theistic evidence." (Zacharias R.K., "Can Man Live Without God",
Word Publishing: Dallas TX, 1994, p186)
Zacharias' point was that atheists are inconsistent in that atheists
claim they don't believe in theism because it is allegedly "logically
indefensible" and yet they admit that atheism is also "logically
indefensible".
DM>These are not the same. Of course theism is logically
>indefensible. Of course atheism is logically indefensible. This
>simply means that logic is of no use in deciding to be a theist or
>atheist.
Disagree. While indeed "atheism is logically indefensible", "theism"
is *definitely* "logically" *defensible*. For two milennia Christian
"theism" has been logically defending its position. There is even a
whole branch of Christian theology called Apologetics, which is
derived from a Greek root which literally means "defense", eg.
Lk 12:11 "When you are brought before synagogues, rulers and
authorities, do not worry about how you will defend [Gk.
apologesesthe] yourselves or what you will say"
that is devoted to logically defending theism in general and
Christianity in particular.
DM>Again, there is the need to choose between disbelief or
>witholding of judgement, and acceptance of unverified revelation,
>faith, or authority. Faced with this choice, a person who is
>sceptical about unverified revelation, faith, or authority will
>reasonably choose atheism or agnosticism.
To remain in a default "do nothing" position is not to "reasonably
choose" anything! What is your "logically defensible" reason for
believing that your default position of unbelief in God is right?
>SJ>Third, it is purely an admission that atheism cannot be
>defended, even though they have tried, hence the softer version of
>agnosticism.
DM>Strictly speaking, atheism cannot be defended. Our knowledge is
>not great enough to categorically deny the existence of any deity.
>However, focussing on this truism means that the attraction of
>atheism as a working hypothesis is ignored. If a person has not
>discovered, or had revealed to them, a God worthy of their belief,
>what other working hypothesis CAN they have but atheism? And what
>else CAN they be but agnostic?
Make up your mind Derek. Which are you defending: "atheism" ("there
is no God" ) or "agnosticism" ("I don't know if there is a God").
They are two different and indeed mutually exclusive propositions.
In one breath you admit that "atheism cannot be defended" and yet in
the next you claim it is a "working hypothesis". What is the good of
a "hypothesis" that "cannot be defended"?
And if according to you, "theism" (like atheism) "is logically
indefensible", why do you reject theism but not atheism?
And there is an interesting little test in your claim that "If a
person has not discovered, or had revealed to them, a God worthy of
their belief". This test enables you to always keep raising the
bar higher so that even if the God of the Bible exists you could
always claim that He was not "a God worthy of" your "belief"?
>SJ>...The word atheism comes from the Greek, which has two words
>conjoined. The alpha is the negative, and theos means "God." The
>atheistic position, whether you like it or not, posits the negation
>of God.
DM>Notice the use of the word "posits", rather than "demands" or
>something similar.
Zaharias does not say that atheism "demands" the "negation of God".
He only claims it "posits" it as a "position". Acording to my Oxford
Dictionary, "posits" means "assume as fact, postulate; put in
position, place". Therefore Zacharias means that "The atheistic
position, whether you like it or not, posits (assumes as fact,
postulates) the negation of God."
>SJ>Having quickly recognized the inherent contradiction of affirming
>God's non-existence, which absolutely would at the same time
>presuppose infinite knowledge on the part of the one doing the
>denying, a philosophically convenient switch was made to
>agnosticism.
DM>Not so much "convenient" as "unavoidable", I would have thought.
>Once a person realises that they do not have the knowledge to
>absolutely deny the existence of God, while at the same time knowing
>and/or accepting no God, they cannot avoid agnosticism except by a
>"leap of faith" that may be beyond them (or even abhorrent to them).
That's fine, but Zecharias' point is that they then cannot claim to
be *atheists*. They are *agnostics*.
>SJ>But agnostic has an even more embarrassing connotation. The
>alpha means the negative, and ginosko is from the Greek 'to know."
>An agnostic is one who doesn't know. It sounds quite congenial and
>sophisticated at the same time, but the Latin uncomplimentary
>equivalent is "ignoramus."
DM>Why should it be embarrasing to "not know" of the existence or
>non-existence of God? It's not as though the existence of God is as
>cut and dried as the existence of California. And I have yet to
>meet (or be) someone who was not an "ignoramus" in a great many
>fields of knowledge.
I agree with you here! I think Zacharias goes over the top at this
point. I think his "ignoramus" jibe looks unfair in print. It is
the transcript of a lecture and it was probably said with a smile and
a twinkle in his eye. If you listen to his tapes, in his debates
with atheists, he comes across as gracious and kind.
DM>One of the favourite arguments of a young-earth creationist of my
>acquaintance is that evolution is wrong because scientists studying
>evolution make mistakes, are forced to reinterpret evidence
>frequently, and DON'T KNOW a lot of things (like specifically how
>bats evolved). He expects that I will get defensive about this.
>Presumably he thinks that I think that the scientific study of
>evolution should have all of the answers, and that I should reject
>it when I find out that it doesn't. In reality, all that I expect
>of the scientific study of evolution, is that it continues to
>generate reasonable questions.
I will not comment on the above "young-earth creationist" and
"evolution is wrong because scientists studying evolution make
mistakes" issues, lest it becomes a red herring :-), except to draw
you out out your analogy that "atheism" (or is it "agnostism)
"continues to generate reasonable questions." What are these
"reasonable questions"? And more importantly, what *answers* does
it/they "generate"?
>SJ>That is why the agnostic does not feel lauded in this category
>either but dresses up the concept, manufacturing a certain aura not
>inherent in the word while smuggling in atheism for all functional
>purposes.
DM>Zacharias seems to think that I should be embarrased or ashamed
>about my lack of knowledge of the existence or non-existence of God.
>To be blunt, I'd be more embarrased and ashamed to claim knowledge
>of the existence of God that I do not have.
I do not defend Zacharias' "embarrased or ashamed" comments. But
are you claiming that you have absolutely *no* "knowledge of the
existence of God" or just no *logically provable* "knowledge of the
existence of God"?
>SJ>So I say to you, the charge is not against the apologists; that
>is to dislocate the problem. The hat pin is in the heart of the
>atheistic position, which could not live with itself.
DM>Again, Zacharias has made an error by focussing on the "straw man"
>of the strict atheist position, rather than atheism as a working
>hypothesis. My personal experience is that atheism as a working
>hypothesis lives quite well with itself.
Firstly, Zacharias is arguing against the "strict atheist position",
ie. the claim that there is no God. By admitting it is a "straw
man" you confirm his argument. If I claim that it is a "straw man"
that there is a God, then I have conceded my main point and therefore
effectively negated my position.
Secondly, your "atheism as a working hypothesis" is really
*agnosticism*, as you yourself admit:
"So, although I function as an atheist, by strict definition I am an
agnostic".
>SJ>Let me add that an honest agnostic should be open to the
>evidence."
DM>Of course! That is WHY honest atheism and agnosticism are
>reasonable working hypotheses.
"[A]theism and agnosticism" are each mutually contradictory
propositions and so cannot both be "reasonable working hypotheses"
except to an exponent of fuzzy logic! :-) "[A]theism" holds there is
no God and "agnosticism" holds that we don't know if there is a God
or not. They cannot both be true, and indeed atheists and agnostics
should, if they were consistent, be opposed to each other as much as
they are to theists.
>SJ>(Zacharias R.K., "Can Man Live Without God", Word Publishing:
>Dallas TX, 1994, p187)
DM>"Can Man Live Without God"? I am living proof that the answer to
>that question is YES.
I think you should read Zecharias' books, "Can Man Live Without God"
and "A Shattered Visage". He of course is aware (as we all are) that
man can *try* to live without God. He even acknowledges that there
are what he calls "happy pagans". But his point is that atheism is a
bankrupt philosophy to live by.
DM>The "atheist in the house" is just great, thanks.
Sorry Derek, you just proved Zecharias' point! :-) You are unable
(or unwilling) to claim outright that you are an "atheist", in the
sense of claiming that *there is no God*. All you do is claim that
*you don't know* if there is a God or not. This makes you an
*agnostic* not an *atheist*, as you yourself admit.
That an agnostic is for all practical purposes a "functional" atheist
is besides the point, since we (you, me and Zecharias) would agree on
that. At the end of the page I quoted from Zecharias says:
"That is why the agnostic does not feel lauded in this category
either but dresses up the concept, manufacturing a certain aura not
inherent in the word WHILE SMUGGLING IN ATHEISM FOR ALL
FUNCTIONAL PURPOSES." (Zacharias R.K., "Can Man Live Without God",
Word Publishing: Dallas TX, 1994, p187)
So poor old atheism has no defender on this Reflector? :-) Even the
atheists are unwilling to defend it *in the same way that theists
defend theism*. That in itself is a strong practical argument for
theism.
So without the second position:
2. Atheism = there is no God(s).
there really are only two basic positions in the existence of God
debate:
1. Theism = there is God(s)
3. Agnosticism = don't know if there is or isn't God(s).
The question then resolves down into a test of the agnostics' claim
that they don't know if there is or isn't God(s). Do you wan't to
have a go logically defending that proposition? :-)
Regards.
Steve
----------------------------------------------------------------
| Stephen Jones ,--_|\ sjones@iinet.net.au |
| 3 Hawker Ave / Oz \ http://www.iinet.net.au/~sjones/ |
| Warwick 6024 ->*_,--\_/ phone +61 9 448 7439. (These are |
| Perth, Australia v my opinions, not my employer's) |
----------------------------------------------------------------