My Atheism Explained and Defended: Part 2

Sam Harris (because he's so god damned photogenic...)

A lot of interesting debate and discussion has begun as a result of this blog post. Interestingly enough, the majority of it regards epistemology (how we know what we know). I had suspected that the post would quickly digress into a shouting match where people with varying worldviews would point out the moral discrepancies of religious people and atheists. It didn't, which was nice... I'd like to take this opportunity to discuss some things that were debated directly following the first post on atheism.

Burden of Proof

One prominent argument made for theism challenged my assertion that the theist carried the burden of proof. As soon as that assertion was challenged my immediate response was, "Shit, things just got way more complected." I've always thought that the easiest way to discuss things with people in a persuasive manner was to make claims that the majority of people would agree with without much hesitation. Things move more quickly that way. But often I'm not given the ease that I adore and I must exert myself. Discussion on Facebook (on the comments section and in personal messages) made me do just that.

One notable argument proposed by two Christians on Facebook posited that since theism and atheism are both epistemological assertions, they carry equal burdens of proof. This means that theism must provide evidence that there is a god, and atheism must provide evidence that there is not a god.

Consider the following quote from a Christian who commented:

"Tim, I think it's interesting that you defend atheism, yet try to avoid the responsibility of any burden of proof. Atheism is not merely disbelief in the existence of God, but rather it is an epistemic assertion that there is indeed no God! Surely theism AND atheism, both making a claim to knowledge, bear an equal burden...

I think in many ways this argument centers around inherency (no debaters, I'm not referring to the inherency you're familiar with from policy debate). Consider the following three claims:

1. I don't think that there is anything inherent to the human mind that assumes the existence of a deity.
2. If there is, that doesn't mean that the supposed magnitude of that assumption merits challenge.
3. As a general rule of thumb, it is best to form our metaphysics on the basis of observable scientific phenomena because historically that basis provides the most accurate representation of reality.

In challenge to my first claim, the theist would most likely suggest that the intricacy of the universe makes man look to a higher power. Firstly, I'd like to note that this isn't the case with all people. I'm sure we've all met with people who aren't religious and have always regarded the supernatural as bullshit. Just because some people ascribe existence to a higher power, does not mean that that tendency is a tenet of human nature. Proving that it is seems very difficult. Secondly, I'd like to note that that tendency regards belief in a higher power, not necessarily a god. There is a distinction. I'd hate for any of you to think that the definition of theism is open-ended. There are couple of things that we must note within the definition of theism:

• Singularity- God is a singular entity, not an intangible, amorphous blob of creating power.
• Context- Theism is generally used to describe monotheists who subscribe to a specific religion (Judaism, Islam, Christianity, etc.).

Realize that everyone who believes in a higher power is not necessarily a theist. In order to be a theist, the power that you believe in must be singular. Aside from that, the term theism describes groups of people who adhere to specific religions. Ergo, theism isn't a concept that refers to the supposed inherent ascription of existence to a deity. The semantics are important. Now, if anyone wants to debate supernaturalism vs. naturalism, feel free, but understand that that is a separate debate and I'd wager that our knowledge regarding it is so limited that the discussion would be rather uninteresting (I know it would be for me). I think I've beat that horse as much as I can. I realize that my first claim is difficult to back up and I'm not deluded into thinking that many of you strongly disagree with me. However, even if claim 1 fails, I think that claims 2 and 3 provide a solid defense.

With that in mind, let's move to my second and third claim...

Even if I'm wrong and humans inherently tend to ascribe existence to a deity (theism), I don't think that that tendency would merit the epistemological paradigm change that many Christian people on the comment section thought it should. What I mean by this is that the burden of proof should not rest on the atheist even if most people ascribe existence to a higher power. Before I proceed to defend this position, I think it'd behoove me to frame the argument.

As I read this, I'm becoming worried that this entire section of the blog (on burden of proof) will be incomprehensible to many of you. Therefore, I'm going to try to frame the argument as best I can so we don't lose track of our premises. Now the main contention that was listed on the comment section on Facebook posited that atheism must substantiate its claim by proving that there is no god. One of the commenters said that this must be done using positive evidence. Doing this is impossible, but I'll get to that in the next section. What I'm trying to show through my three claims is that the burden of proof ought to rest on the theist.

I simply think that challenging theism is most logical. It does not seem logical to challenge atheism because there is not substantial evidence to back up theism. Before the theist can require substantiality of the atheist he must substantiate his own claims (something that literally everyone who commented failed to attempt). I'm now scratching at my third claim. How can the atheist disprove something that hasn't been proved? What observable, scientific evidence is there for god? There isn't any. How is the atheist to attack a virtually untenable position when its claims do not rest on his the epistemic basis of his own claims? I commented on this frequently in the discussion. Theism and atheism are conclusions drawn from entirely different epistemologies. It is very difficult to attack someone's knowledge claim if it is not founded upon the epistemological basis that you require your truth to be founded upon. With that being said, understand that when any of you ask me to disprove your belief in theism, I have no idea how to approach it because the basis that my claims rest on are different than yours.

Which raises the question, is my epistemology better than yours, and if so, why? This boils down to a question of morality. As an atheist, I found my epistemology on science, observable factors, etc. Theists on the other hand are content to explain what they don't understand by ascribing it to the supernatural (more specifically a deity) who transcends them. Seemingly, this claim is made on mostly faith. (It's difficult to make an objective proclamation here because no one on the comments section laid out arguments advocating theism [aside from the intricacy of the universe]). So if we attribute the cause of specific effects to theism and/or atheism, then these effects can be morally assessed. I would make the claim that claims based on science produce substantial good effects and claims based on faith produce substantial ill effects. One of my moral tendencies is attempting to maximize human well-being. This tendency has been put on a pedestal by Dr. Sam Harris in his The Moral Landscape, a book which attempted to use science to support objective morality. Personally, I don't draw the same conclusions as Dr. Harris in regards to objective morality, but I do support his moral claim- I think that most of us would. So understand that my moral claims are made with the goal of maximizing human well-being. Consider the following table regarding the history of both faith and science:

 

These are just a few instances that show that people who make their claims with science cause better effects than people who make their claims with faith. This argument is definitely broader and more nuanced than I'm making it out to be, but understand my reasoning all the same. From what I've observed in my lifetime and in my historical studies, science leads to a good understanding of reality (by extension maximizing human happiness/well-being) and faith (often) leads to a bad understanding of reality and the diminishing of human happiness (my claims on morality and reality are my own views and I'm not saying that they necessarily apply to everyone, but we're all pretty sensible and I think you'll agree that science does a good job describing reality and that our moralities ought to try to maximize human happiness/well-being).

So let me bring everything back together because I feel like that was all pretty confusing. Man's inherent positions should be given considerable sway in the matter of whether theism or atheism should bear the burden of proof in epistemological debates. I don't think man has any reason to suppose that there is a god (claim 1). Even if mankind has a tendency to ascribe the unexplained to a higher power, that power is not necessarily theistic leaving man's inherent position undefined. I really couldn't say that atheism is man's default position- I feel I would be unable to substantiate that claim. But I do think that regardless of whatever belief is inherent within mankind, theism should still carry the burden of proof. I think this because I think that the most unsubstantiated claim should carry the burden of proof. I think that theism has not been substantiated because there is no observable, scientific evidence to back it up. Science is important because it leads to a good understanding of reality, whereas faith does not. These are the main reasons why I believe theism bears the burden of proof and atheism is left to assess that proof.

Positive Evidence

As I've already stated, one of the Christians who debated me after the first atheism post said that to support atheism, on must present positive evidence against the existence of god. I attempted to do so, but I don't think I made myself very clear. I'd like to approach this argument from an epistemological angle to try to explain myself more clearly.

So what my Christian friend is basically saying is that it isn't enough to merely doubt god, one must present evidence that disproves his existence. I don't see how this is possible, and in this section I'm going to elaborate on why I hold this position. 

Now, a very intelligent Christian that I've known for awhile named Andy B. recently sent me a lengthy PM in response to the first atheism post. It was REALLY LONG so Andy, I'm sorry I haven't responded, I just don't have time to write detailed responses to messages that would give most college essays a run for their money. But he was asking me questions about something very similar to this. He wanted to know what would prove theism to me. To run with the premise, he outlined a few things that would disprove theism and (in essence) prove atheism to him. Here's what he outlined:

• Evidence that the universe is metaphysically necessary and/or eternal;
• Evidence or argumentation for the truth of the exclusivity of naturalism (or materialism);
• Probabilistic argumentation that sufficiently overcomes theistic probabilistic argumentation (within the framework of a comprehensive probability calculus).

I don't expect most of you to understand what he said, but understand the meaning behind it. Andy outlined specific things that would disprove god. But I must respond by saying, how can you disprove god? The faith that theism is based upon supersedes everything that he just outlined to the theist. Ergo, the scientist can use whatever logic or reasoning that he wants to make a seemingly airtight argument for something but since faith in a deity (for the majority of theists) comes before science and logic, the argument fails.

I think it would behoove me to constrain this argument to Christianity because theism is so broad. Considering the reality of the situation and the backgrounds of my audience, Christianity is an ideal target. Truly, most theists subscribe to a specific monotheistic religion (Christianity, Islam, etc.); therefore, discussing the views held by Christians is quite relevant.

In Christianity (as in most monotheistic constructs), god is transcendental. He's above everything that we comprehend, everything that we can organize and debate and discuss. He's above science and reason and logic and everything that the intellectual holds dear. The following passage of scripture shows this quite clearly:

"For it is written, I WILL DESTROY THE WISDOM OF THE WISE, AND THE CLEVERNESS OF THE CLEVER I WILL SET ASIDE. Where is the wise man? Where is the scribe? Where is the debater of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world?…" (1 Corinthians 1:19-20)

So basically if the atheist meets any of Andy's criteria and "proves" atheism, Andy could always just say that our reasoning is limited and god's is not. Most Christians would get behind that pretty quickly. Our metaphysics is clearly defined and gods is not. In fact, god supposedly created our metaphysics. He created everything that we see and attempt to understand and if he says that he he created it all in a way that confuses people, it only makes sense that the Christian cannot support his claims, right?

What I'm getting at is that there is no evidence that is sufficient to disprove god to the theist. God is supposedly above man, so man is incapable of disproving him. How are we to disprove something that is transcendental? Frankly, I don't see how we can. 

Does this mean that we should all just shrug our shoulders and concede the theism saying, "Well, if god is above me, I guess I ought to stop arguing against him and fall in line..." No, I've already discussed pretty clear epistemological and moral reasons why we should not do this. However, to the theist, with his limited epistemology and hard-hardheadedness (nothing personal guys), there is nothing that constitutes positive evidence that is sufficient in disproving theism. As science has progressed, the intellectual community has drifted from religious viewpoints. The consensus seems to be that (as Nietzsche famously stated) God is dead! And yet, religion lives on...

How is this possible? If people were reasonable and abstained from believing in faith-based arguments then religion would no longer have a foothold. But many people are content to believe in religion simply because they have been taught to have faith in it. If this is truly the basis of their belief, how can an atheist dissuade them? How can a transcendental god be dissected and proved to be false? He cannot, positive evidence is meaningless to the theist.

Faith?

A gentleman by the name of Marsh has maintained that there is an element of faith to atheism- that is, the faith that there is no god. I agree with him in one sense and strongly disagree in another. I'll start by defining faith as it pertains to religion and worldview: 

Faith: strong belief in God or in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof.

So, to make things a little more fair, I'll cross out the god and religion part...

Faith: strong belief in God or in the doctrines of a religion (something), based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof.

This sort of spiritual apprehension is basically believing in something without any reason to do so. This is how I've always considered faith. The atheist does not do that, or at least I do not do that. 

I do agree with Mr. Marsh inasmuch as there is an element of faith in everything. When I say faith in this instance, I mean strong trust in something though. For instance, when you sit in a chair, you have "faith" that it will hold you. Intellectuals tend to be quite skeptical and I for one could identify an uncertainty in almost everything. With that being said, I suppose, in my day-to-day activities I have to trust in my actions (or have "faith"). However, everything that I do and believe has reasoning or proof behind it, whereas theism (which relies on faith) does not. 

I hope you all find this intellectually stimulating!