>DM>Yes, Steve, there is! And it appears that I am the only one on the
>>Reflector willing to document a defence of atheism.
SJ>Unfortunately, even you don't do that! :-) See below.
don't do that!" :-)
>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.
SJ>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.
Of course! And for very good reason. Atheism is a DISBELIEF, not a BELIEF.
Let us assume, for the sake of argument, that you don't believe in the
existence of fairies, pixies and trolls. How would you defend that
DISBELIEF? Wouldn't you insist that believers in the existence of fairies,
pixies and trolls defend their BELIEF?
SJ>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).
Almost, but not quite! The three basic positions are:
1. Theism = BELIEF that there is God(s)
2. Atheism = BELIEF that there is no God(s), or, if you prefer,
DISBELIEF that there is God(s),
3. Agnosticism = don't know if there is or isn't God(s).
SJ>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.
On the contrary! I do defend atheism SPECIFICALLY as a position to live by.
It is only in the FORMAL sense, i.e. as an exercise in logic, that I do not,
and cannot, defend atheism.
>>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! :-)
Don'r rest your case just yet! I am defending FUNCTIONAL atheism as a
reasonable outcome of logical agnosticism. I am not defending logical
atheism. Further details below.
>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.
It is interesting that you make this point, since I see creationism (both
young-earth as expounded by the Morrises, Gish, Parker and others and
old-earth as expounded by Johnson) in exactly the same way, i.e. creationism
cannot prove its central claim that God directly created the various kinds
of life, but tries to derive validity by negating other claims, such as
naturalistic or theistic evolution. It is essentially a negative parasitic
position, with no life of its own.
If it is OK for creationism to derive its validity by negating other claims,
then it is OK for atheism also. If it is not OK for atheism to derive its
validity by negating other claims, then creationists are left with nothing
to validate their position, either.
SJ>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.
I can understand this. I don't remember any specific time when I became a
Christian, nor any specific time when I became an agnostic/atheist. However,
to cross back again, for me at least, would definitely require either
conclusive evidence or a "leap of faith".
SJ>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?
Starting from my lack of knowledge of the existence of one or more gods, I
have two things to do. The first is to search for, and validate, knowledge.
The second is to decide how my lack of knowledge of the existence of one or
more gods will influence the way I live.
In this second thing, I have two basic choices. I can live as though there
is no god or gods, or I can live as though there is a god or gods. If I
choose to live as though there is a god or gods, on what basis do I decide
WHICH god or gods I will live as though I believe in him/her/them?
If I have no basis for even believing that a god or gods exist, I CANNOT
have any basis for CHOOSING among the various gods that different people and
cultures believe in.
The only reasonable course open to me as an agnostic is to live as an
provisional atheist.
SJ>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)
This means nothing to me unless I first accept the veracity/validity of
biblical positions and the veracity/validity of the revelation that
underpins those positions. In which case, I would not be an atheist/agnostic.
>>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.
SJ>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.
Stephen, if you believe in a "personal" God, then surely you must believe
that, in some convincing way, God has appeared to you personally?
I have no such experience, no intention of inventing such an experience, and
no intention of deluding myself that my own thought processes and
observation can reasonably be assembled into such an experience.
SJ>Even here on the Reflector, you
>just keep raising the bar higher, so that you can never get over.
"Never?" Aren't we discussing a presumed God to whom NOTHING is impossible?
I am quite willing to be dragged, kicking and screaming, over the "bar", as
long as there exists a God capable of doing so.
I may have said this before, but if God really is omnipotent and all-loving,
then he knows and understands my scepticism, and also knows what it takes to
"save" me.
SJ>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! :-)
You are right. I don't want to believe. But I also don't want to believe in
a "Big Bang" origin for the universe. Philosophically, I would be more
comfortable with a "Steady State" universe. However, I find the evidence for
a "Big Bang" origin for the universe to be all but incontrovertible, so I
accept, in spite of my philosophical preferences, a "Big Bang" origin for
the universe.
On the other hand, evidence for the existence of God, much less the
existence of a PARTICULAR God, is unconvincing.
>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".
>
SJ>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)
SJ>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".
But, as I have explained, we are talking about FUNCTIONAL atheists who are
LOGICAL agnostics, not LOGICAL atheists.
>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.
For two milennia Christian "theism" has been defending its position. For two
milennia Christian "theism" has been ATTEMPTING TO logically defend its
position. For two milennia Christian "theism" has only succeeded in
defending a position based ultimately on faith in unsubstantiated claims of
divine revelation. There is no LOGICAL defence of Christian "theism". This
is not necessarily a bad thing for Christianity, since a logical defence of
Christian "theism" would also incorporate many elements of a logical defence
of Islamic "theism" and Judaic "theism".
SJ>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.
If have yet to see any Christian apologetics that did not rely primarily on
faith in unsubstantiated revelation, in circular argument or in the notion
that, because a perfect being can be imagined, such a being must necessarily
exist, else it would not be perfect. No quality logic there!
>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.
SJ>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?
If I have no basis for believing that a god or gods exist, I must also have
no basis for choosing among the many postulated gods.
>>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?
SJ>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.
No they are not. I am defending FORMAL agnosticism, and I am defending
FUNCTIONAL atheism as a reasonable way for a formal agnostic to live.
SJ>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"?
FORMAL atheism cannot be defended. Working atheism can be defended as a
reasonable outcome of FORMAL agnosticism.
SJ>And if according to you, "theism" (like atheism) "is logically
>indefensible", why do you reject theism but not atheism?
I reject both FORMAL theism and FORMAL atheism. I also reject functional
theism as logically inconsistent with formal agnosticism.
SJ>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"?
Would you claim that the God of the Koran was not "a God worthy of" your
"belief"? If so, haven't you "raised the bar" against other forms of
monotheism? Is this very different from my "raising the bar" against all
forms of theism? If there really is an omnipotent God worthy of my belief,
then such a God should be capable of surmounting any bar, no matter how high
I raise it!
>>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.
SJ>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."
No argument, just the observation that the stronger word "demands" was
available to Zacharias, if that was what he really meant.
>>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).
SJ>That's fine, but Zecharias' point is that they then cannot claim to
>be *atheists*. They are *agnostics*.
Yes, FORMALLY agnostics and FUNCTIONALLY atheists.
>>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.
SJ>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.
You didn't think it was "over the top" and "unfair" enough to leave those
"offending" (not really) sentences out of the quote, however! :-)
[to be continued]
Regards
Derek
-----------------------------------------------------
| Derek McLarnen | dmclarne@pcug.org.au |
| Melba ACT | dmclarne@ncomcanb.telstra.com.au |
| Australia | |
-----------------------------------------------------