It is often claimed by some atheists that atheism is the default position for human beings to take. With all the reasoning I can muster, I have attempted to solve this riddle over the past five years of my life. I have done so to no avail. So, I am curious if anyone here can help me solve this riddle. For debate...
Is atheism the default position? If so, why? If not, why?
Atheism - The Default Position
Moderator: Moderators
-
OccamsRazor
- Scholar
- Posts: 438
- Joined: Wed Mar 29, 2006 7:08 am
- Location: London, UK
Post #81
You may be right about operationalism. I must admit I had not seen this argument. I would probably suggest physicalism or naturalised epistemology are better doctrines.
I would still enquire what you are attempting to ascertain here? I feel that you are arguing one of two propositions:
1. I am willing to accept certain ontologies, remain agnostic about some and reject others. You believe that my argument for making these decisions should not allow me to justify rejection of a creator and I therefore should remain agnostic about one.
2. It is unjustified to adhere dogmatically to justification or rejection of an ontology on a purely empirical basis, you assert that an argument based on rationalism is epistemically justified, so I must therefore submit to either acceptance of a creator or agnosticism.
These two, I believe are reducible to a single issue. You either believe that my philosphical approach to epistemology is flawed or you think that this approach is not consistent with weak atheism. Have I summed this up correctly?
I would still enquire what you are attempting to ascertain here? I feel that you are arguing one of two propositions:
1. I am willing to accept certain ontologies, remain agnostic about some and reject others. You believe that my argument for making these decisions should not allow me to justify rejection of a creator and I therefore should remain agnostic about one.
2. It is unjustified to adhere dogmatically to justification or rejection of an ontology on a purely empirical basis, you assert that an argument based on rationalism is epistemically justified, so I must therefore submit to either acceptance of a creator or agnosticism.
These two, I believe are reducible to a single issue. You either believe that my philosphical approach to epistemology is flawed or you think that this approach is not consistent with weak atheism. Have I summed this up correctly?
-
harvey1
- Prodigy
- Posts: 3452
- Joined: Fri Nov 26, 2004 2:09 pm
- Has thanked: 1 time
- Been thanked: 2 times
Post #82
This my main point in this context. Obviously I'm not arguing that agnosticism is correct, I'm arguing that your position of lacking knowledge ought not to induce weak atheism merely because a philosophical belief lacks operationalist, physicalist, or naturalist support. Basically, there must be a philosophical justification in the negative direction in terms of having evidence against a view which leads you to atheism.OccamsRazor wrote:I feel that you are arguing one of two propositions:
1. I am willing to accept certain ontologies, remain agnostic about some and reject others. You believe that my argument for making these decisions should not allow me to justify rejection of a creator and I therefore should remain agnostic about one.
-
OccamsRazor
- Scholar
- Posts: 438
- Joined: Wed Mar 29, 2006 7:08 am
- Location: London, UK
Post #83
I'm afraid harvey that we may have reached an impass.
I fully understand your point that my approach to epistemology should only leave me with agnosticism. I simply do not agree.
I take the position of weak-atheism because I believe that in the complete absence of physical evidence or a mathematically epistemic argument for a creator I must take a negative view. This goes for any other metaphysical ontology, e.g. I also do not believe in ghosts, telekenesis, the afterlife etc.
I am not sure how or even if we can move forward on this discussion.
I fully understand your point that my approach to epistemology should only leave me with agnosticism. I simply do not agree.
I take the position of weak-atheism because I believe that in the complete absence of physical evidence or a mathematically epistemic argument for a creator I must take a negative view. This goes for any other metaphysical ontology, e.g. I also do not believe in ghosts, telekenesis, the afterlife etc.
I am not sure how or even if we can move forward on this discussion.
