Is Atheism Primarily a Scientific or Philosophical Question?

[Dimmesdale]

I've been wondering whether atheism as a subject of debate has more to do with science or with philosophy?

One isn't necessarily an atheist because of the problem of suffering, or that science can "disprove God" or any other philosophical question. Instead, one may simply be an atheist because the burden of proof rests on any given religion to provide sufficient SCIENTIFIC evidence to back up their God-claim.

Why SCIENTIFIC evidence, one might ask? Of course, there are certain things we "know" in one sense or other without science (things like there being a world external to us). But these are taken for granted whereas the God hypothesis can't be taken so for granted, for I suppose obvious reasons (that we also take for granted!). These reasons include all the competing claims of religion and their lack of coherence, the aspect of naturalistic alternative explanations, and I can go on and on. Many if not most of these reasons reduce to scientific reasons, it seems.

Thus I've come to the conclusion that the question of atheism is actually more scientific than philosophical.

[Divine Insight]

I've been wondering whether atheism as a subject of debate has more to do with science or with philosophy?

For me it isn't related to either one. As far as I can see atheism relies solely on logic and reason. Period. You might suggest that this would then be philosophy, but I often question the logic and reasoning of many philosophies.

In fact, many philosophies are actually based on premises that must be accepted without any logic or reason. Or perhaps, to put that another way, often times philosophies are based upon premises that some people feel are reasonable and others do not.

So Philosophy itself is a fairly arbitrary subject.

One isn't necessarily an atheist because of the problem of suffering, or that science can "disprove God" or any other philosophical question. Instead, one may simply be an atheist because the burden of proof rests on any given religion to provide sufficient SCIENTIFIC evidence to back up their God-claim.

Some individual atheists may demand scientific evidence to back up God-claims. I personally do not. However, having said that I do feel that there is actually overwhelming scientific evidence that demonstrates that many claims about various Gods are indeed false. I won't go into them here, but if you would like examples just ask and I'll post them.

Why SCIENTIFIC evidence, one might ask? Of course, there are certain things we "know" in one sense or other without science (things like there being a world external to us). But these are taken for granted whereas the God hypothesis can't be taken so for granted, for I suppose obvious reasons (that we also take for granted!). These reasons include all the competing claims of religion and their lack of coherence, the aspect of naturalistic alternative explanations, and I can go on and on. Many if not most of these reasons reduce to scientific reasons, it seems.

Thus I've come to the conclusion that the question of atheism is actually more scientific than philosophical.

As I just mentioned above, I feel that there is actually overwhelming evidence that demonstrates that many God Claims are necessarily false. This is especially true with the Biblical God.

However, I did not originally reject Christianity, which was the religion I was indoctrinated into as a child, because of the scientific evidence against this religion.

My rejection of this religion was based entirely on pure logic and reasoning BASED on what is actually written in the religious texts. As far as I can see these texts contradict themselves in extreme ways throughout the entire cannon of tales.

So for me, my "atheism" with respect to Christianity in particular. (and with all the Abrahamic Religions), is based on the logical contradictions contained within their own texts. No science is required to see that they are clearly false claims about an obvious fictitious God.

So my "atheism" with respect to Christianity is base on pure logic and reasoning, not science or philosophy.

As far as I can see, the God of Christianity cannot exist anymore than a whole number solution to the square root of 2. It's that certain.

Now when it comes to other religions and their ideas of what a "God" might be like I cannot be so certain that their Gods do not exist. However, in those cases I still see no compelling evidence to believe that they do. So while I remain "agnostic" with respect to those religions, I must also acknowledge that I have no more reason to believe in their Gods than I do to believe in fairies.

In the end, the real question isn't whether or not any "Gods" exist. The real question is "What is the true nature of reality?"

I do not know the answer to that question, nor do I have any reason to believe that I ever will know the answer to that question.

But the one thing that I can know for certain is that the God described by Christian mythology cannot be true as it is described within their doctrines.

I not only have no reason to believe that Jesus was the sacrificial lamb of Yahweh offered up as a penal substitute for humans, but I see absolutely no reason to believe that ANY God would be so foolish as to have dreamed up such an ignorant scenario.

With all due respect to the Christian Religion (which IMHO amounts to zero due), as far as I can see, all it amounts to is an extreme insult to the very concept of a "God".

A person would need to believe that they were created by a truly sick entity to believe in Christianity, IMHO.

Of course, keep in mind that this ISN'T my reason for rejecting it. My reason for rejecting it is because it contradicts itself from Genesis to Revelation and in just about every chapter in between.

So even if I thought the God it describes was intelligent, I would still have to reject it based on all the self-contradictions it contains.

So my "atheism" with respect to Christianity is based on logic, reasoning, and the fact that the Christian Bible is a compilation of extreme contradictions. No science required to reject it. Although, scientific knowledge actually disproves it anyway. All the more reason to reject it as nothing more than pure fiction created by a male-chauvinistic culture that used it to justify their wars, genocides, and slavery.

[Dimmesdale]

For me it isn't related to either one. As far as I can see atheism relies solely on logic and reason. Period. You might suggest that this would then be philosophy, but I often question the logic and reasoning of many philosophies.

I would rank logic (together with mathematics) as science as well, in that these are sources of knowledge which yield definitive conclusions regarding things in their purview (i.e., the proper distillation of facts).

Philosophy on the other hand is more open-ended in that it cannot be definitive regarding its subject matters. Philosophy may use logic, but it goes over and beyond logic in its speculative endeavor.

In fact, many philosophies are actually based on premises that must be accepted without any logic or reason. Or perhaps, to put that another way, often times philosophies are based upon premises that some people feel are reasonable and others do not.

So Philosophy itself is a fairly arbitrary subject.

That's exactly my point above.

Some individual atheists may demand scientific evidence to back up God-claims. I personally do not. However, having said that I do feel that there is actually overwhelming scientific evidence that demonstrates that many claims about various Gods are indeed false. I won't go into them here, but if you would like examples just ask and I'll post them.

I guess it would depend if the theistic claims are falsifiable or not. The cosmonaut who went up into outer space may have reported back that it isn't full of water or that Zeus isn't out there, but depending on the religion, it may qualify it's dogma to say that "oh, maybe he looked in the wrong section of space" or something to that effect. If the dogma says THAT, then it may be very hard to disprove.

My rejection of this religion was based entirely on pure logic and reasoning BASED on what is actually written in the religious texts. As far as I can see these texts contradict themselves in extreme ways throughout the entire cannon of tales.

So for me, my "atheism" with respect to Christianity in particular. (and with all the Abrahamic Religions), is based on the logical contradictions contained within their own texts. No science is required to see that they are clearly false claims about an obvious fictitious God.

What about Christians who say the contradictions you see are only apparent and can be rationalized? Since you can't falsify what they say, how can you disprove them? It is then your "logic" against theirs. Some Christians think the Bible is totally consistent logically regarding its doctrines and that points to a divine origin.

[Stelar_7]

I find it is often a question of epistomology. Having said that science is a subset of philosophy previously called natural philosophy.

I would also say the answer is dependent on the circumstances. Does prayer have a net positive effect on healing the sick was a scientific question. Does prayer help center the self is a psychological one, does it help bond a group, sociological....will it help you understand a God, philosophy or theology (There is a loaded word. )

[Divine Insight]

I guess it would depend if the theistic claims are falsifiable or not. The cosmonaut who went up into outer space may have reported back that it isn't full of water or that Zeus isn't out there, but depending on the religion, it may qualify it's dogma to say that "oh, maybe he looked in the wrong section of space" or something to that effect. If the dogma says THAT, then it may be very hard to disprove.

It seems to me that in the Bible there is no escape from the fact that it violates scientific knowledge.

Here's the case:

1. The Bible has God creating the earth and "He saw that it was Good".
2. He creates all the animals on the earth and "He saw that it was Good".
3. He creates Adam and Eve clearly from the dust of the earth.
4. The Garden of Eden is clearly on the Earth, not anywhere else.
5. After that fall from grace God says that things will no longer be Good".

Ok fine.

So what does science say?

Science says.

1. Animals existed on planet earth long before humans came upon the scene.
2. Animals clearly ate each other and died from diseases before humans showed up.
3. Humans are very late-comers in the history of life on earth.

Therefore the Biblical story cannot be true, if we accept that scientific knowledge is true.

What can a theist do?

About all they can do is deny science.

Some theists do try to deny what the Bible actually says. But that's an absurd approach to try to defend what the Bible says.

So ultimately theists have no choice in the matter. They too must agree that science disproves their religious texts. All they can do at that point is claim that science is wrong.

Once they start doing that there isn't much point in given them anymore air time.

They basically become no more credible than Flat-Earthers at that point.

What about Christians who say the contradictions you see are only apparent and can be rationalized? Since you can't falsify what they say, how can you disprove them? It is then your "logic" against theirs. Some Christians think the Bible is totally consistent logically regarding its doctrines and that points to a divine origin.

That's exactly what they try to do, but it doesn't work. In truth all they are really doing is denying logic.

For example the Canaanites were supposed to have known that Yahweh is the creator of the world and they had knowingly rejected him.

Yet the Bible has them then going off sacrificing their own babies to "God".

That's a contradiction right there. You can't have people who knowingly rejected God sacrificing their babies to God. For the story to be logically consistent the Canaanites would have had to have rejected God and simply gone off as a "Godless" people who knew full well that they had rejected God.

But that's not the Biblical Story.

Christians will argue that the story can still make sense as it is written. But they are simply wrong. In order for that to be the case the Canaanites would need to be dumber than rocks. They would need to believe that they DID NOT reject God and that the God they were sacrificing their babies to was indeed the true God.

But this is a contradiction.

Why? Because God was the one who CREATED the Canaanites. Therefore he is also responsible for their level of intelligence and ability to comprehend what's going on. In order for the story to be true the Canaanites would need to be extremely stupid. But this would then require that God had created them to be this stupid.

And there's the contradiction right there.

So the story cannot hold-up as it is written. The Canaanites could not have gone off worshiping Gods that don't exist. The mere fact that the Canaanites were sacrificing their babies to a God that doesn't exist proves that the story is utter nonsense.

So there's no hope in saving these biblical stories. The only way to save them would be to go back and rewrite them in an entirely different way.

So in answer to your question. Nothing the theists can say will help. All they can do is play ignorant and pretend to not understand the reasons why this is a contradiction. And so that's what they do. They pretend to not understand why this is a logical contradiction. Or perhaps they aren't pretending? Either way it doesn't change the fact that the contradiction does indeed exist and cannot be made to go away without going back and rewriting the stories entirely.

[Dimmesdale]

I find it is often a question of epistomology. Having said that science is a subset of philosophy previously called natural philosophy.

In a sense, science also is undergirded by assumptions, and some would call this a philosophical underpinning, that science is "theory-laden" in that certain basic premises about reality are first brought to the table (such as the notion that there indeed does exist an external world in some sense) before any science can meaningfully be had.

I would actually not call these initial assumptions "philosophical" anymore. Instead I would call initial premises of this sort "existential" in that we "know them in our bones" the same way we "know in our bones" that an external world is real, or that science works (else why step into a plane, etc). Of course, perhaps some of our existential "taking-for-grantings" may prove false in a sense, I still think their universality is undeniable: even if they are not true, we acknowledge them in ourselves and others, and thus they have a practical hold on us, even morally.

I would also say the answer is dependent on the circumstances. Does prayer have a net positive effect on healing the sick was a scientific question. Does prayer help center the self is a psychological one, does it help bond a group, sociological....will it help you understand a God, philosophy or theology (There is a loaded word. )

We have to move in a systematic order though, I feel. Beginning with our Existential notions (even more foundational than scientific and philosophical I would argue) and move from there.

[Bust Nak]

[Replying to post 1 by Dimmesdale]

Let me side step that question by pointing out that science is a from of philosophy, a certain way of thinking.

[Mithrae]

Instead, one may simply be an atheist because the burden of proof rests on any given religion to provide sufficient SCIENTIFIC evidence to back up their God-claim.

That's a philosophical stance, one of several possible epistemic approaches. Some main possible approaches could be:

• Principled - Holding opinions as an intellectual stance, which should be measured by specific criteria
  A > Accepting only what is proven with certainty
  B > Accepting only that for which we have 'sufficient evidence' or justification
  C > Accepting the most reasonable theory/s of any given question/s or data
  
  Pragmatic - Holding opinions as part of a normal process, which should be questioned and refined
  D > Accepting what we start out believing, unless there's reason to change those beliefs
  E > Accepting whatever seems most beneficial to ourselves or our community

The approach most often promoted by debating atheists is B, but I often find that to be some combination of abnormal (in almost all cases, our normal approach is more along the lines of D and C, rather than absurdly pretending that our minds are or ever have been a blank slate), inconsistent (is that standard applied to political philosophies, interpersonal relationships; is that approach itself even justified by 'sufficient evidence'?), impractical (no-one has the time to painstakingly verify everything they accept as probable or true) or arbitrary.

Just yesterday I was thinking of noting in discussion with Stelar that the best and perhaps only sound reason for holding a materialist (and hence atheist) viewpoint is if one already holds such a view and sees little reason to change it... which is also one of the sound reasons for holding theist views, for those who are already theists. Burden of proof works well in formal debate, but life is not a formal debate; evolution, society and for that matter even science are based far more in pragmatism than in abstract, arbitrary epistemic principles, and in virtually all other cases we do and should stick with what's working unless and until we find a problem with it or find something better.

So I would say that not only is the kind of atheism you're describing a philosophical stance, but it's a very questionable one at that!

[marco]

D Accepting what we start out believing, unless there's reason to change those beliefs

This I think is the default position, one into which the world's unwashed fall. Newton told us that a body will continue in its state of rest or uniform motion unless acted upon by an external force. Millions therefore remain in their state of religious rest. Many theocracies make sure there are not too many "external forces" acting and I think the invention of the species, heretico sapiens, with fatal consequences, also acted against external forces.


My own external force was teenage interest in Shelley's expulsion for his "Necessity of Atheism." But I believe that hoi polloi concern themselves mostly with death and taxes and leave heaven to the smiling clergy.

[Dimmesdale]

Instead, one may simply be an atheist because the burden of proof rests on any given religion to provide sufficient SCIENTIFIC evidence to back up their God-claim.

That's a philosophical stance, one of several possible epistemic approaches. Some main possible approaches could be:

• Principled - Holding opinions as an intellectual stance, which should be measured by specific criteria
  A > Accepting only what is proven with certainty
  B > Accepting only that for which we have 'sufficient evidence' or justification
  C > Accepting the most reasonable theory/s of any given question/s or data
  
  Pragmatic - Holding opinions as part of a normal process, which should be questioned and refined
  D > Accepting what we start out believing, unless there's reason to change those beliefs
  E > Accepting whatever seems most beneficial to ourselves or our community

The approach most often promoted by debating atheists is B, but I often find that to be some combination of abnormal (in almost all cases, our normal approach is more along the lines of D and C, rather than absurdly pretending that our minds are or ever have been a blank slate), inconsistent (is that standard applied to political philosophies, interpersonal relationships; is that approach itself even justified by 'sufficient evidence'?), impractical (no-one has the time to painstakingly verify everything they accept as probable or true) or arbitrary.

Just yesterday I was thinking of noting in discussion with Stelar that the best and perhaps only sound reason for holding a materialist (and hence atheist) viewpoint is if one already holds such a view and sees little reason to change it... which is also one of the sound reasons for holding theist views, for those who are already theists. Burden of proof works well in formal debate, but life is not a formal debate; evolution, society and for that matter even science are based far more in pragmatism than in abstract, arbitrary epistemic principles, and in virtually all other cases we do and should stick with what's working unless and until we find a problem with it or find something better.

So I would say that not only is the kind of atheism you're describing a philosophical stance, but it's a very questionable one at that!

It's worthwhile to keep in mind two things. First, we are all atheists regarding specific deities, and secondly, we do (as you say) grow and refine our beliefs as time goes on. I believe there is in fact such a thing as objective progress in becoming more and more reasonable. And I believe, objectively speaking, that once one arrives at that platform of belief formation (and that includes abandoning former beliefs due to lack of evidence) then one is more reasonable than his or her former self was.

Say I was born in the middle ages, rather than our postmodern times. Yes, I would have to handle epistemic barriers to a stance of atheism. But that doesn't mean those epistemic barriers (conformity, the power of emotional investment in the beliefs) are reasonable. They may certainly seem reasonable, but in light of newer evidence, their reasonableness is shown to be spurious and false. To an unbiased observer, I believe this is the only conclusion. Why? By use of the things I've mentioned: the existential, the scientific, the philosophical, - and adjudicating properly between them.

I have said nothing about materialism. I am actually not a materialist. But regarding atheism, I don't think given what we KNOW and, eventually, as we grow, CAN KNOW, a belief in any specific God is grounded in the evidence we currently, publicly have. (Yes, someone may have a personal revelation, and that I can accept as legitimate for THAT person, but what matters is it's PUBLIC and COMMUNICABLE nature, which, as of yet, I have not found regarding any ONE specific deity....)