Case Against Atheism: Atheist Scientists?
Zachary Young writes:
Do take note that atheism is not even the lack of belief in a god, but the belief of NO god. It is the reinforcement of the negative absolute statement. Hence there is a world of difference between an atheist and a freethinker.
How can a human with finite intellect confidently presume information that might be beyond their logic? ...No self respectable scientist would dare to declare that he has discovered every species of animal on earth, and neither would he be so quick as to dismiss the possible discovery of new species. Hence how is it possible that they are inconsistent with their work ethic when dealing with religious matters; jumping to the conclusion of there being no god? ...Thus the core belief of atheism of there being no god at best can only be considered as a hypothesis. Somewhere along the way, some misled soul took it for a truth and created a religion based on it.
Zachary Young's "argument" is filled with errors, myths, and mistakes. I've linked to refutations of his errors and have to wonder why Young didn't bother to research the subject before writing about it. I feel confident in saying that he didn't do any research because just about any major site or book about atheism would have provided the facts that contradict his errors. Reading books by anti-atheist apologists, by the way, doesn't count as "research" any more than simply reading a couple of books by atheists about Christianity would count as sufficient research about Christian beliefs.
The above is not an isolated case of Zachary Young basing an argument on a misrepresentation of key concepts:
There is no such thing as faithlessness.
We all put our faith in something or someone. It may be reason, it may be Christ, it may be gods, it may be material things. However make no mistakes about this; faith is inseparable from human living.
People tend to have the misconception that faith is something religious or have an exclusive usage for the supernatural aspects. UTTER RUBBISH! Faith is defined as believing in what we do not see.
The truth is, faith is defined in several different, related ways in English — contrary to what Zachary Young would have his readers believe, there is no single, one-size-fits-all definition. Faith can be defined as having trust in someone, like having faith in one's spouse. Faith can also be defined as belief that isn't based on proof, like having faith that the car brakes will work. What's critical here, though, is faith in the religious context.
In Christianity, for example, faith is clearly defined by Paul: "Faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen." In this sense, it is undeniably possible to be "faithless." Zachary Young may have some difficulty understanding how or why a person may lack faith in Paul's sense, but there's simply no question that few if any atheists have such faith in or about anything.
Atheists can and do have faith in the other senses, but that's clearly not the same has having faith in Paul's sense — unfortunately, many Christians blithely commit the fallacy of equivocation by treating all senses as the same. This is analogous to pointing out how Christians and Buddhists both have religions, and then concluding that they basically believe the same things. That's obviously absurd, but for some reason some religious theists don't see the absurdity in their equivocation of the word faith.
Once again we can see just how important it is to be absolutely clear about the meanings of the key terms in our arguments. When we aren't clear on what words means, we become susceptible to all sorts of rudimentary errors that just shouldn't be committed. If we're going to construct clear, well-reasoned, and logical arguments, then good, reliable definitions have to be our starting point. If we ignore this, we might as well not bother trying because we're unlikely to get very far.
Update: Zachary Young responds, in a fashion:
they insisted that my definition was that of the strong atheism, not that of weak atheism, hence it would not stand against the majority atheistic movement. ...at least seed of doubts have been casting with regards about strong atheism since no one seem to bothered saying anything in defense. Perhaps they are right after all; it is the minority. Well, strong atheism down.
It is unnecessary to "defend" strong atheism because if Zachary Young thinks that he can rebut atheism generally by focusing only a narrow subset of atheism, it's simply not necessary to go any further than point this out. Going further entails assuming that he knows enough about atheism to make a deeper discussion worthwhile — but not only doesn't he, but he never cared enough to do even a little research.
The fact of the matter is, Zachary Young is not only incorrect about the nature of atheism, he is also incorrect in thinking that it's impossible to make negative absolute statements. Strong atheism can be difficult to successfully defend, but it's not impossible. What this means is that Zachary Young is not only ignorant of the basics of atheism, but of the basics of philosophy as well.
At least he acknowledges he made a mistake in the original post, though. That's progress.
Comments
That’s obviously absurd, but for some reason some religious theists don’t see the absurdity in their equivocation of the word faith.
I don’t know, I’ve shown some who have used this arguement on me how silly it is and they would agree with me, yet still use it again later with someone else. I think many who do use this arguement, as well as many other apologetic arguements, do see the absurdity and illogic of it but think it’s okay so long as the person it is used on falls for it.
To me this is along the lines of Pascal’s Wager. Religious people use it all the time despite the fact that they know it’s a bad arguement and will quickly admit that it is not the reason they personally believe. However, they’ll justify its use if it’ll get someone else to believe as they do. To some it’s all about “winning souls”, by any means necessary.
I will never be fooled by Pascals wager.
GOD
He posted a reply to it apparently…
Pascal’s wager is essentialy asking doubters to PRETEND to believe. if christanity were true, God would not be decieved
The contribution of Atheists to the development of humanity is zero.
Dis-belief in god will lead to dismantled human activities and ultimately destroy our society and culture.
Any atheist visiting this site please give me a name of any atheist who won a noble prize or was honored by any state with the highest respect.
Feel free to show how all of the atheists through history have contributed nothing.
Prove it.
You can find a list of atheist scientists here, many of whom won Nobel prizes.
Do you need more?
PWNED!
The contribution of Atheists to the development of humanity is zero.
The mathematical concept of zero originated in Babylonian and Indian mathematics, not in their theology. So yes, the contribution of zero to the development of humanity was the result of a godless pursuit.
Of course, I know that’s not what you meant, but it’s fun to twist your words around.
It still amazes me (and it shouldn’t) the dribble that spews from some people’s mouths whilst there exist mountains of evidence to the contrary! Vamshi - At least check with Wikipedia before inserting foot in mouth!
Why are so many Christians liars and bullies?
Vamshi.I might forgive your spelling but not your total ignorance.
Come down under and in Australia you will find many atheists who have been honored by their countrymen, From Fred Hollowes, in the area of Ophthalmology is revered, and received his country’s highest honor. We have had many leaders both political and business who have been atheists/agnostics.
Like so many other who are in total ignorance of what happens outside their own little bailiwick you can only think of your immediate
and very limited perspective.
Chinese, Arabian,Japanese, and so may others have contributed over the millennia, not a single one being Christian, many not being theistic in any sense. Religion, particularly Christian religion to the contrary, historically, held back scientific advancement
for centuries not allowing any divergence from dogma. Galileo is only one example.Even then it took four hundred years for “The Church.” to say they were wrong.
Speak when you have knowledge. As my late wife would often say. “If you don’t want people to think you are a fool. Don’t open your mouth, thereby dispelling all doubt.
why do religious people always think the sun shines out of their rear end?
Kiara
Because that is from where their intellect resides.
HA. Both sides make me laugh. First: to Tom Edgar and his “Religion, particularly Christian religion to the contrary, historically, held back scientific advancement for centuries”. Come on, to say that generalized statement is on par with vamshi’s “The contribution of Atheists to the development of humanity is zero.” both are fail statements.
You know what also are both fail statements. There is a god, or There is not a god. Since there is no way to collect evidence on EVERYTHING that takes place in the universe. Then we can safely assume that there might or might not be a god, or some being that is powerful enough to be called such. There is no way to seriously make an argument for or against the existence of a being we can not perceive or proof to exist or not exist.
That’s as maybe, but which makes more sense? To think there IS an invisible 300 lb gorilla on your lap when you have no evidence, or to think there IS no 300 lb gorilla on your lap because there is no evidence?
“There is no way to seriously make an argument for or against the existence of a being we can not perceive or proof to exist or not exist.”
Maybe, maybe not. But there is an excellent argument to be made as to which is more reasonable to believe. All it takes is giving up the supposition that the only reasonable beliefs are infallible beliefs.
Here’s what I wrote at Zachary’s site:
“What nonsense. Atheism is lack of belief in gods. Most atheists don’t care enough about gods and religions to take the declarative position you label them with. And that’s a mark of a flawed mode of thinking right there: presuming to define what others are by guidelines you impose, rather than by what they actually think, say, or do.
And your reason for belief in a god is that humans haven’t scoured every cubic inch of existence to disprove the existence of some such being? That’s the best you can do? I guess you don’t really understand what “burden of proof” means. By your logic, then unicorns, fairies, and leprachauns are as likely to exist as your god. After all, they seem to share precisely the same attributes, and have similar lists of accomplishment. Way to paint yourself into a corner.
And the false analogies. Where do I start? Comparing undiscovered gods to undiscovered species? That’s the best you can come up with? Here’s a newsflash: species of animals actually exist. Assuming there are not-yet-classified species of beatles or bacteria is understandable given what we know about beatles and bacteria. But the opposite is true about gods. We have heard about hundreds - thousands - of gods, and the only thing they share is that none has turned out to be anything more than an exercise in human imagination. Nice failed analogy which actually refutes the point you are trying to make.
Anyway, enough said.”
And to Juggernaut (14):
I find it amazing that believers in gods are so willing to put their god on the same level of plausability as unicorns and leprachauns. Seriously.
Juggernaut is as incorrect as Vanshi. My statement re Religion holding back scientific advancement was not generalised but very specific, I even gave one example. The Christian church of the dark ages definitely discouraged anything thing that didn’t relate to the Biblical interpretation for existence. Today even, we have the leader of that same organisation attempting to hold back advancement in biological areas purely on Catholic dogma. Fundamentalist Christians suppress and distort any paleontological evidence that isn’t in accord with their concepts. Do I make my point?
As for not being able to prove there is NO God that is easily done using the scientific method of finding evidence that proves, or disproves a theory, a required procedure in any new scientific endeavour. I have asked and searched for verifiable, replicable, evidence for any God’s existence. So far Zilch.Not the slightest piece to even raise doubts. Prima facie.The theory for a God’s existence, being unsupported by evidence, fails.I have had over eighty years in which evidence could have been shown. So far I haven’t seen any.
If Zachary is serious about knowing about atheistic reasoning, I strongly urge him to read, “Atheism:The Case Against God” by George Smith. That book may get pretty involved for some people, but it nails pretty much everything on the head! In fact, I think everyone should read it.
Long before we appeal to the supernatural as a explanation for anything, we must exhaust ALL natural explanations. The natural world, after all, has the distinct advantage of actually existing, whereas the supernatural is a matter of conjecture. Fascinating how Christians who believe in faith healing still go to hospitals when they’re ill. Hedging their bets, I suppose.
Juggernaut: Why must we prove there aren’t any gods when nobody can prove there are? Once I see scientific evidence that gods do exist I’ll worry about attempting to disprove that evidence, or accept it if I cannot!