What are the strongest arguments for atheism?

[harvey1]

You know, come to think of it. I haven't seen any arguments that support the atheist claim that God doesn't exist. Why is that? So, let's turn the tables for a second, and ask, what are the strongest arguments in support of atheism?

Btw, don't bother answering if you either don't have an argument or don't feel that you are required to support your philosophical position.

[harvey1]

but God would still need to have some smarts to make it meaningful to refer to a God instead of nature behaving naturally.

I'm curious to hear what Harvey considers to be necessary conditions for a god. So far, according to him, we have that a god would have to be at least a little intelligent, even if not as intelligent as a human being. It can't be totally unintelligent, anyway.

It must be intelligent-like, this is what I mean by smarts. That is, God--at a minimum--would need to be able to figure stuff out about the world so as to bring about some aspect of design. And, I'm not talking about natural selection or some other materialistic implication that has a mere mechanical function. I mean it would have to be some non-materialist principle that was capable of directing the universe to some particular goal where no mechanist explanation (via materialistic implication) is available.

This is some progress: it seems to rule out toasters and such as gods. And if we were to agree that the laws of physics are not literally intelligent, it would rule out the laws of physics as a god too.

It depends. If you agree that the laws of physics act in intelligent-like ways, then you'd stop being an atheist and start being a pantheist. If you looked upon the laws of physics as not figuring stuff out, but just providing a materialistic implication, then you'd be consistent with atheism. On the other hand, if you agreed that the laws act intelligent-like by figuring stuff out that only intelligence can do, and there is no mechanistic approach to explain that behavior, then you'd be a pantheist.

Let me give you an example. If you think that the laws of physics do not act intelligently, then this is akin to saying that there is nobody inside Searle's Chinese Room. Rather, when you insert your question into a slot, you should put the question into a certain envelope depending on what question you are asking. Once you insert the envelope into the door slot, the envelope goes down a chute to where it gets automatically sorted depending on the the size of the envelope. If the envelope is too big, it goes down chute B, if it is too small it stays on chute A. It continues like that until it fits perfectly a chute (e.g., chute N), and then the envelope trips a lever which releases a right answer to the questioner. There's no mind-like action going on. It is a completely "dumb" process that describes what is happening. This is the atheist perspective.

The pantheist perspective is more akin to the person inside the Chinese Room. The person inside might have very little knowledge of Chinese, but they do read English and they are able to look up the rules, etc., and based on that pseudo-reasoning process, they submit their correct answers and are able to give the questioner the view that they understood Chinese, even if they don't.

This summarizes the differences, in my view, from the atheist and the pantheist. The atheist says there is no being existing that can even in principle act like God, whereas in the pantheist view there is an aspect of nature that acts like God, we just might be disappointed if we were to find out that God doesn't understand Chinese.

Also, according to Harvey, it does not have to make sense to worship the thing that is proposed as a god. This is still mysterious to me. I still wonder: how can I tell whether my spider plant is a god? It's minimally intelligent, and though it doesn't make sense to worship it, that's irrelevant according to Harvey. So how can I tell, among all the things out there with some intelligence, which are gods and which aren't? Or is everything with minimal intelligence a god, according to this view?

We would only believe God is due worship if God understands Chinese (at a minimum). However, even if a pantheist doesn't believe that God understands Chinese, the pantheist would still believe that there's a good reason to call this person in the Chinese Room by the name of God since there is this being acting and doing things only a God could do; namely, bring about design and other features of the universe that a primitive mechanism that has an envelope going down a chute could never do (e.g., reasoning skills, tracking skills, etc.).

[AlAyeti]

Just a question for the group. How did the awareness of being "wronged" develope within humans? The philosophical notion that a society gravitates (evolves) to self-governing regulations seems to have merit but when and how was the thought developed within the conscience? It seems to go against natural forces.

For instance and to the utmost example: Why is it not acceptable that the physical action of a man mating with a woman even forcably and against her desire be allowed anytime? Or why would destroying the offspring of a woman to make way for your the new offspring to be produced by the individual woman selected, be seen as a wrongdoing?

Is there a community of humans existing in the world at present, where the survival of the fittest is an accepted norm without the outside introduction of implementation of the ideological and empirical principle of "limits to actions." And is it based on right and wrong or what else?

Morality (obviously my point) is a strange concept to nature is it not? I understand the evolutionary concept to the developement of laws, but it doesn't square with observable actions in nature.

[LillSnopp]

It must be intelligent-like, this is what I mean by smarts. That is, God--at a minimum--would need to be able to figure stuff out about the world so as to bring about some aspect of design. And, I'm not talking about natural selection or some other materialistic implication that has a mere mechanical function. I mean it would have to be some non-materialist principle that was capable of directing the universe to some particular goal where no mechanist explanation (via materialistic implication) is available.

Like Humans ?

It depends. If you agree that the laws of physics act in intelligent-like ways, then you'd stop being an atheist and start being a pantheist. If you looked upon the laws of physics as not figuring stuff out, but just providing a materialistic implication, then you'd be consistent with atheism. On the other hand, if you agreed that the laws act intelligent-like by figuring stuff out that only intelligence can do, and there is no mechanistic approach to explain that behavior, then you'd be a pantheist.

The human definition (which is the only existing one) for "intelligent" would say "Having the capacity for thought and reason", or "Possessing sound knowledge", or similar. The Universe does not have a brain as Humans and Animals do. You are saying that Material Things (like, lets say a Toaster), have intelligence? How does this come to be? How come they have not rebelled against us? I guess the moon has a intelligence too?

Or do you mean in some other way?
You have your own definition of intelligence ?

[CJO]

Just a question for the group. How did the awareness of being "wronged" develope within humans? The philosophical notion that a society gravitates (evolves) to self-governing regulations seems to have merit but when and how was the thought developed within the conscience? It seems to go against natural forces.
<snip>
Morality (obviously my point) is a strange concept to nature is it not? I understand the evolutionary concept to the developement of laws, but it doesn't square with observable actions in nature.

*Newbie jumps headlong into 29 page debate, expects worst*
In hard-Darwinian circles, the concept known as "reciprocal altruism" proposes that "altruism" can be seen as adaptive self-interest in many situations. "You scratch my back and I'll scratch yours". So human "proto-morality" could be seen as an advanced version of this phenomenon which can be observed at work in animal populations.
Also from a neo-Darwinian standpoint, giving your life for two siblings, two offspring or eight cousins makes good sense from the genes' point of view. So, aspects of morality, like taking care of family, are not "against natural forces" at all, but are demanded by the force of natural selection.

Looking at the possible ways that morality (or altruism, to use a less loaded term) could have evolved has brought in ideas like game theory analysis, since any such system begs for "cheating". Basically, if everybody is "moral", then freeloading becomes an adaptive strategy in the short term. You can gain advantage at others' expense, but never expend resources on another. But this kind of analysis has shown that in the long term, it is not an ESS, or Evolutionarily Sustainable Strategy, because there's a tipping point where too many individuals are "freeloading" and not enough are sharing or being altruistic. Emotions like guilt and shame can be seen as evolved features in this kind of "moral arms race".
So, I'd say human morality is more a legacy of our animal origins than a departure from them.

[harvey1]

I mean it would have to be some non-materialist principle that was capable of directing the universe to some particular goal where no mechanist explanation (via materialistic implication) is available.

Like Humans ?

To be a pantheist does not require a level of human understanding. All that is needed to be considered a God by a pantheist is a measure of algorithmic complexity for Nature (i.e., an invisible and eternal aspect of nature) which is what I call intelligence-like. Therefore, God for a pantheist only needs to be smart enough to figure out how to make a universe (and know it has made a universe) with designed features (e.g., galaxies, stars, and possibly life) that met its goals (whatever those primitive goals happen to be). No other higher amount of algorithmic complexity is needed.

It depends. If you agree that the laws of physics act in intelligent-like ways, then you'd stop being an atheist and start being a pantheist. If you looked upon the laws of physics as not figuring stuff out, but just providing a materialistic implication, then you'd be consistent with atheism. On the other hand, if you agreed that the laws act intelligent-like by figuring stuff out that only intelligence can do, and there is no mechanistic approach to explain that behavior, then you'd be a pantheist.

The human definition (which is the only existing one) for "intelligent" would say "Having the capacity for thought and reason", or "Possessing sound knowledge", or similar. The Universe does not have a brain as Humans and Animals do. You are saying that Material Things (like, lets say a Toaster), have intelligence? How does this come to be? How come they have not rebelled against us? I guess the moon has a intelligence too?

At this point I would request that you read my responses in this thread to Spetey on this issue. We addressed this issue already.

[LillSnopp]

All that is needed to be considered a God by a pantheist is a measure of algorithmic complexity for Nature (i.e., an invisible and eternal aspect of nature) which is what I call intelligence-like.

Could you explain that in more detail?

At this point I would request that you read my responses in this thread to Spetey on this issue. We addressed this issue already.

As you Wish.

[harvey1]

All that is needed to be considered a God by a pantheist is a measure of algorithmic complexity for Nature (i.e., an invisible and eternal aspect of nature) which is what I call intelligence-like.

Could you explain that in more detail?

Pantheism equates God with Nature. However, anybody can call a bowl of cabbage by the name of "God," and then everyone would have to say "okay, God exists if God is a bowl of cabbage." But, that's not what pantheists generally mean by saying God is Nature. Often what is meant is to say that Nature has all the natural stuff we call matter/energy/space/time, but it has another aspect which is beyond the material. This other aspect is sometimes considered the laws of physics, or the laws of mathematics, or the laws of logic, etc.. For a pantheist, this other "stuff" takes on some significant properties in that it organizes the matter/energy/space/time according to its own special rules of order, and that's why there's a universe, etc..

What Spetey and I are debating is whether his acceptance of the reasonable possibility that the pantheists are right about this other stuff means that he can no longer consider himself an atheist. My argument is that in order to call himself an atheist he cannot accept, even in principle, that some pantheist stuff is out there that can direct nature in a direction that predisposes itself to life producing properties in the universe. In my view, atheism cannot accept that the universe is predisposed for structured universes (e.g., galaxies, stars, etc.) and life, since that suggests that a being exists which is a God, and that's in contradiction to atheism. He should label himself either an agnostic or pantheist (or deist), and then thank me because he can no longer consider himself an atheist.

[LillSnopp]

(1) What Spetey and I are debating is whether his acceptance of the reasonable possibility that the pantheists are right about this other stuff means that he can no longer consider himself an atheist. My argument is that in order to call himself an atheist he cannot accept, even in principle, that some pantheist stuff is out there that can direct nature in a direction that predisposes itself to life producing properties in the universe. In my view, atheism cannot accept that the universe is predisposed for structured universes (e.g., galaxies, stars, etc.) and life, since that suggests that a being exists which is a God, and that's in contradiction to atheism. He should label himself either an agnostic or pantheist (or deist), (2) and then thank me because he can no longer consider himself an atheist.

1. You are correct, as a pantheist would be defined as someone whom believes that "god" is everything, in whatever sense you wish to adequate it. If you, of course, dont have your own definition of it(?). But as i dont know what he said earlier, i cant judge his/her stance.

2. Thank you? I am an atheist, is this bad in your eyes? If so, why ?


I find it ironic that Deist, also have the astounding synonym of freethinker. I consider freethinker to be a positive, and its amazing that people whom are less inclined to believe in certain religions (a Deist is someone who believes that a god created the universe and then abandoned it), refer themselves as freethinkers. You know, Free= Without restraint, Thinker= Someone who exercises the mind.... Basically, someone whom thinks. Strangely enought, Christians (often) dont like this synonym..... Wonder why? Coz these people use there minds?

[harvey1]

2. Thank you? I am an atheist, is this bad in your eyes? If so, why ?

Atheism is not a good thing. I would never congratulate someone for being an atheist. However, it's only a real bad thing when someone just closes their ears and eyes and won't consider another possibility. Unfortunately, many atheists (as well as theists) fall into this category. It takes a special person to rise above their beliefs and admit honestly as to why they believe (or don't believe something).

I'm honest. I think the answer to the origins of the universe are vastly beyond us. However, I think that's true of every answer that humans can produce when we are talking about what is actually the case (i.e., we aren't talking in terms of models but in terms of what is true). If we took our ignorance as cause to draw back from having a belief, then we shouldn't pursue any belief about the world.

So, I'm content to base my answers on the world in humility knowing that I do not know, but those beliefs are meaningful connections with the world, hence I believe them. The exception, of course, are beliefs based on wishful thinking that are out and out irrational (e.g., ignoring evidence for the sake of ignoring evidence). This is what creationists do, and it's unfortunate.

However, atheism is unfortunate since it doesn't seek meaningful beliefs about the world and often times will even close off consideration for a meaningful belief.

[LillSnopp]

However, atheism is unfortunate since it doesn't seek meaningful beliefs about the world and often times will even close off consideration for a meaningful belief.

I would say this is a very inaccurate statement Harvey.

Atheism and Evolution is usually lumped together, so lets take that one: Evolution is seeking where we come from (evoled from, and how), is this not meaningful ?


What do you mean with "meaningful beliefs" ? You decide what is meaningful?


I never met an athiest whom "close off consideration" for anything. If you would state your opinions and basis for it, he/she would most likely ask something about it, and when its about Christianity, most likely ask for logic, and end up with "you gotta have faith", which is not really an answer. You seem to be the closed ones, as you refuse to accept anything other then your own. Non?