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.

[spetey]

Question 2: How do you define "reasonable to believe" (as in "good reasons to believe") in the context of a metaphysical reality that is not itself given to physical examination? What criteria do you need to see present prior to saying that such and such metaphysical explanation "is one of a few reasonable explanations to the universe existing as we observe it to exist?"

You are asking me what makes one reason better than another? That is a very hard question, but as I say, my best guess is that it has to do with inference to the best explanation. I would have to think that the hypothesis is the best (or relatively better) explanation for the phenomena that I do experience. Though I do not experience electrons directly, in a certain sense, I do think electrons help explain the world around me--while I don't think posits of an Abrahamic God or Invisible Pink Unicorn do.

Harvey, I'm still curious, by the way, about whether you're "agnostic" about the Invisible Pink Unicorn. Do you believe that the IPU doesn't exist, or are you genuinely torn on the matter? This might help us clarify what you mean by 'agnostic'.


spetey

[MagusYanam]

I do not believe in God largely for the same reasons I don't believe in the Invisible Pink Unicorn, space monkeys, Vishnu, Zeus, and so on: namely, they do not form part of the best explanation for the phenomena I experience. (Quantum mysteries, by the way, provide no more reason to believe in God than in the IPU. For that matter, no mysteries I can think of provide more reason to believe in God than the IPU.)

I can see where you're coming from on this, spetey, and this standpoint has validity, but here's something else to consider alongside. I think one way of looking at God is not so much at a person as at a nature. Take the second law of thermodynamics (which states that within the universe, any given form of energy may be perfectly converted into heat, but not perfectly converted into any other form of energy, which leaves potential for entropy in every situation). Then look at the way we as human beings live. We (as human beings, mammals, animals, or simply living beings) are very highly-ordered and complex, with a relatively low level of entropy, who require maintenance of this structured complexity to survive. We eat and we breathe to maintain this complexity, all the while creating entropy even through our exhalation. We are, in short, entropy machines - we take order and structure in our surroundings and speed their dissipation.

So what does this mean? It can mean many things, but I have learned to think of it this way: the universe is of such a nature that it is constantly pouring itself out for life's benefit - giving to all living beings the order and energy they require to survive. The thought is humbling - the nature of the universe having at its basis this self-sacrificial, sustaining element. Something to consider, anyway...

By the way, where did you get that guan1 avatar? It's awesome!

[spetey]

Hey MagusYanam...

So what does this mean? It can mean many things, but I have learned to think of it this way: the universe is of such a nature that it is constantly pouring itself out for life's benefit - giving to all living beings the order and energy they require to survive. The thought is humbling - the nature of the universe having at its basis this self-sacrificial, sustaining element. Something to consider, anyway...

Yes, I agree, it's cool and humbling and awe-inspiring that we live in a semi-closed system where energy has a chance to organize itself as it has. Where does the existence of God fit in this?

By the way, where did you get that guan1 avatar? It's awesome!

When I look up 'guan1', I get a totally different character. I don't know the Chinese names anyway, I only know (some) Japanese names.


spetey

[MagusYanam]

Yes, I agree, it's cool and humbling and awe-inspiring that we live in a semi-closed system where energy has a chance to organize itself as it has. Where does the existence of God fit in this?

If one thinks of God as being the fundamental, underlying principle that is the explanation for and definition of the universe, examining the nature of the universe really becomes a kind of theological exercise. I realise that this is sort of an unorthodox way of viewing the concept of God, but I was never really orthodox. Anyhow, if one looks at the universe in this way, one can attribute a sort of nature to the universe that is consistent with the concept of a loving God.

When I look up 'guan1', I get a totally different character. I don't know the Chinese names anyway, I only know (some) Japanese names.

What search methods and source are you using? According to Oxford there are five some-odd characters with the pronunciation guan1. This one is the Japanese kan(muri) 'hat, crown' one, right?

[spetey]

Anyhow, if one looks at the universe in this way, one can attribute a sort of nature to the universe that is consistent with the concept of a loving God.

I don't know--if this is your proposed solution to the Problem of Evil, I don't see how it's so nice of God to set up circumstances for the existence of life and then cause so many of those living creatures undeserved agony.

What search methods and source are you using? According to Oxford there are five some-odd characters with the pronunciation guan1. This one is the Japanese kan(muri) 'hat, crown' one, right?

Yes, exactly, 'kan' in Japanese. As to where I got it--to be honest I stole it from a website advertising sake somewhere, I think. I just did a google image search on 'kanmuri' or something like that. Anyway...


spetey

[harvey1]

Question 2: How do you define "reasonable to believe" (as in "good reasons to believe") in the context of a metaphysical reality that is not itself given to physical examination? What criteria do you need to see present prior to saying that such and such metaphysical explanation "is one of a few reasonable explanations to the universe existing as we observe it to exist?"

I would have to think that the hypothesis is the best (or relatively better) explanation for the phenomena that I do experience. Though I do not experience electrons directly, in a certain sense, I do think electrons help explain the world around me.

Question 3: Doesn't the IBE only beg the question since now you have to talk in terms of 'best explanation' which itself is a reasonable explanation, correct? What I want to know is how do you define "reasonable to believe" (as in "good reasons to believe") in the context of a metaphysical reality that is not itself given to physical examination? What criteria do you need to see present prior to saying that such and such metaphysical explanation "is one of a few reasonable explanations to the universe existing as we observe it to exist?"

Harvey, I'm still curious, by the way, about whether you're "agnostic" about the Invisible Pink Unicorn. Do you believe that the IPU doesn't exist, or are you genuinely torn on the matter? This might help us clarify what you mean by 'agnostic'.

Well, I want to focus on this question and answer approach since it works best if it as simple as possible. However, to answer your question, I'm an 'weak anti-IPU' because I do not find it a reasonable explanation for the universe. I'm sure you agree that one can hold that position, the answer hinges upon what is reasonable... If possible, let's wait on talking about this from my side...

[MagusYanam]

I don't know--if this is your proposed solution to the Problem of Evil, I don't see how it's so nice of God to set up circumstances for the existence of life and then cause so many of those living creatures undeserved agony.

That's a tough problem, and I don't know if I have a good answer. As to the Problem of Evil, I'm not sure - a lot, if not all, of what is truly evil in the world seems to be of human design and human execution. If you're referring to a world in which natural disasters, predation and disease occur - the 'circumstances for the existence of life', as it were - it's true, entropy does cause landslides, earthquakes, severe weather and floods. Entropy may be said to be the cause of the need for predation and consequently disease. It seems to me that there is a need for elegance in the universe (expression of the desired effect requiring the fewest parameters) - and if this truly is the most elegant way of expressing self-sacrificial love, apparently God had to make some kind of trade-off. A universe of entropy in which natural disasters and death did not occur would not be elegant - entropy would not then apply universally.

Yes, exactly, 'kan' in Japanese. As to where I got it--to be honest I stole it from a website advertising sake somewhere, I think. I just did a google image search on 'kanmuri' or something like that.

Thanks!
MagusYanam

[spetey]

What criteria do you need to see present prior to saying that such and such metaphysical explanation "is one of a few reasonable explanations to the universe existing as we observe it to exist?"

The criteria for the best explanation of the universe should be the same for the best explanation of anything else. What makes one explanation better than another? Again very tricky but I'd say it has to do with some tradeoff of making the available explananda more plausible than other available explanations, and with being simpler than other available explanations.

However, to answer your question, I'm an 'weak anti-IPU' because I do not find it a reasonable explanation for the universe.

I'm not sure what it is to be "weak anti-IPU"; can you estimate your "degree of belief" in the proposition "The IPU exists" on the interval [0,1] where 0 is unrevisable belief in the negation and 1 is unrevisable belief in the proposition? Agnostics hover around the .5 mark; is that where you are? Or .3 or so--roughly, you think there's a 30% chance the IPU exists? Myself I'd say I'm between 0 and .000001; that is, I think there's a less than 1 in a million chance that the IPU exists, blessed be her holy hooves. I'd put my degree of belief in "God exists" at about .001 or so. That is, I have .999 credence in the proposition "God does not exist", and that's what makes me an atheist. It's hard to put numbers on these things, and so maybe this isn't so useful. I just wonder if you believe that the IPU does not exist. (Yeah, notice I attach a higher degree to God than to the IPU, despite what I said before. I was being a bit facetious with saying it's more rational to believe in the IPU--I do think the fact that so many other rational people genuinely believe in God, unlike the IPU, counts for something.)

Just curious--we can put it aside if you want. I just worry that for you to be an "agnostic" about p really means something like "cannot prove from first principles that ~p", or "does not believe to degree 1 that ~p". If that's what you mean, we should all be agnostic about (almost) everything, since anyone who's spent a little time in a philosophy classroom knows that you can't even show there is a table in front of you from first principles. Nonetheless I wouldn't say I'm an "agnostic" about whether there's a desk in front of me.

MagusYanam, it looks to me you want to call it 'God' when good things happen and 'entropy' (or something non-personal and "scientific") when bad things happen. This is a typical but unworkable response to the PoE. God is purported to be ultimately powerful, remember. God could easily have set things up so that entropy does not require earthquakes and such. For that matter God could have set it up so that entropy is not a law of nature. Nonetheless if there is a God, that God apparently set things up so that hundreds of thousands of people should die miserably in just that one incident alone. The PoE is a very powerful reason to think God does not exist (though as I say, it's not the main reason I'm an atheist). If you don't have a good answer to the PoE, MagusYanam, do you think it's epistemically responsible to maintain your same degree of belief in God anyway?


spetey

[harvey1]

What criteria do you need to see present prior to saying that such and such metaphysical explanation "is one of a few reasonable explanations to the universe existing as we observe it to exist?"

The criteria for the best explanation of the universe should be the same for the best explanation of anything else. What makes one explanation better than another? Again very tricky but I'd say it has to do with some tradeoff of making the available explananda more plausible than other available explanations, and with being simpler than other available explanations.

[Again, I'm interested in knowing how do you define "reasonable to believe" (as in "good reasons to believe") in the context of a metaphysical reality that is not itself given to physical examination...]

Question 4: All you've done by suggesting "some tradoff of making the available explananda more plausible than other available explanations" is refer to yet another set of criteria that defines 'reasonable' but you haven't told me what it is. What criteria makes an explananda more plausible? Does that criteria provide a means by which to define "reasonable to believe"...itself not given to physical examination? 'Being simpler' also begs the question since you haven't told me what a simpler criteria is and how that criteria provide a means by which to define "reasonable to believe"etc...

I'm not trying to be hard on you. Rather, it seems that a reason to not consider something as reasonable requires a criteria in place that judges whether a belief meets some minimum standard. I want to know the criteria and the minimum standard you use to make that determination in regard to this subject matter.

we can put it aside if you want.

Yes, I prefer to do so otherwise we'll be involved in two extensive debates at the same time. I can't spare that kind of time and neither can you (right?).

[MagusYanam]

MagusYanam, it looks to me you want to call it 'God' when good things happen and 'entropy' (or something non-personal and "scientific") when bad things happen. This is a typical but unworkable response to the PoE. God is purported to be ultimately powerful, remember. God could easily have set things up so that entropy does not require earthquakes and such. For that matter God could have set it up so that entropy is not a law of nature. Nonetheless if there is a God, that God apparently set things up so that hundreds of thousands of people should die miserably in just that one incident alone. The PoE is a very powerful reason to think God does not exist (though as I say, it's not the main reason I'm an atheist). If you don't have a good answer to the PoE, MagusYanam, do you think it's epistemically responsible to maintain your same degree of belief in God anyway?

Firstly, I'm not quite clear on what you mean by 'evil'. 'Evil' as I understand it is a phenomenon peculiar to humanity - a definition for that which causes pain, discomfort or repulsion either out of human malice or out of human negligence or both. I don't know whether it is proper to apply the arguably subjective term 'evil' to the workings of a seemingly objective universe, even though ill can and does arise from these workings.

Secondly, I'm not sure I said, as you seem to infer, that 'God' and 'entropy' are one and the same. Sorry if this sounds Deistic, but it seems that a framework has been set in place that was meant to express both attentiveness to detail while at the same time being as precise and simple as possible. Those situations you suggest are hypothetical - there is no way to know how a universe would work without entropy, or how a universe would work where entropy was only effective in certain situations.

Entropy, as I think I implied, is neither intrinsically 'good' nor intrinsically 'bad', though the results of entropy can be 'good' (the sustenance of life) or 'bad' (pain and death). But the idea I was trying to convey was that because life exists as we know it because entropy happens necessarily - it's a law of the universe. I had come up with an interpretation that might support the idea of a moral universe, but this interpretation seems to be questionable.

Also, it seems that we differ again in our concepts of 'God'. I tend to define God as the underlying, unifying principle to the workings of reality and of the universe. Do reality and the universe have some kind of basic underlying unity? The answer is yes (this is the extent of my belief, and I don't think it epistemically irresponsible to maintain it; the rest is just my attempt at metaphysical conjecture), but then the question becomes, what is it? What is the nature of it? This, I think, is ground for a more useful debate.