Tuesday, November 30, 2010

The Atheist Turn of Mind

Photo Sharing and Video Hosting at Photobucket



Nothing can ever count as evidence for God or against atheism in the mind of the atheist. I established this last time I was posting here. The skeptical mind forces itself into a corner which eventually, through constant use in a skeptical mode, tricks the user into thinking he/she is making some big gain of insight but he/she is actually closing off the ability to take the necessary risks to step beyond that which is proven and extrapolate to a position of belief.

I am not saying all atheists always think this way. I'm just saying these tendencies that are brought by the skeptical habit of mind.

(1) the mentality to dobut as long as possible.

If any kind of doubt is possible, however slight the probability, the atheist must take it.



(2) Unless something is totally proven it cannot be given any kind of presumption no matter how rationally warranted or how strongly evidenced.


If God is not 100% proven God is 0% proven and though one may consider God 99% proven if it is not 100% then its nothing.


(3) The "no evidence" circle.

this is a form of question begging/circular reasoning that works like this


*there is no evidence for the existence of God because God is not absoltuely proven.

*Since there is no evidence there can be no evidence

*since there can be no evidence than anything presented as evidence must be wrong.



these are all just a large circle of reasoning based upon the false premise in no 1. There are probably corresponding problems that the faith habit of mind produces. But what this mens is that atheism is unverifiable/falsifiable. It's not an analytical position because it's not open proof or disproof.


This applies especially to atheist on message boards. I think atheist seek to gain preferences for their view. the dictum about extraordinary evidence proves this. why should religious experience be deemed "extraordinary?" when it includes 90% of the people in the world.? the assumption is that their assumptions should be the "default." That's why they are always trying to claim mass populations they are not intitleed to, like Buddhism or all new born babies.


The better paradigm would be:

(1) doubt as long as you have real doubts and be willing to assign prima facie to good arguments.

(2) rational warrant.

rational warrant is about all any world view can offer. belief in God is a world view. there is no reason to islaote it form other views or set the bar any higher for it than for any of them.


This is only to rich. I put this put on CARM atheist board. And this atheist is going to show me what's wrong with it. here are his responses:

Fixed:
*there is no evidence for the existence of God because we've for naturalistic explanations for almost everything we've ever studied.

*If the God hypothesis were correct, we'd have found evidence for it by now.

*Since there is no evidence yet, we can feel comfortable in assuming tentatively that there is no God. Taking this assumption will put us in a position where atheism may disproved by contradiction.


Is it possible to saything that would more clearly illustrate the points I just made?

5 comments:

Brap Gronk said...

Do you have any issue with this line of reasoning?

1. There is no evidence for the existence of (Bigfoot, loch ness monster, extra-terrestrials visiting earth) because we have naturalistic explanations for almost everything we've ever studied.

2. If the (Bigfoot, loch ness monster, extra-terrestrials visiting earth) hypothesis were correct, we probably would have found evidence for it by now.

3. Since there is no evidence yet, we can feel comfortable in assuming tentatively that there is no (Bigfoot, loch ness monster, extra-terrestrials visiting earth). Taking this assumption will put us in a position that may be disproved by contradiction.

Metacrock said...

Interesting. I find those as test cases because they are they are more cases of begging the question.

(1) first you assume that naturalism would explain them away (which is interesting problem for Kuhn--anatomies in the paradigm).

most of those things are actually supposed to be naturalistic.Bigfoot is not only natural but proof of evolution.

UFO's are just supposed to people from other planets. Nessies is just a diansour. So how naturalism rule them out?

(2) think about how these things differ from God. These are things in the world. But God is the basis for the world. See the difference?

God is not the product of empircal knowledge because he's the basis of all kinds of knowledge, then you have no analogy so its' not a test case.

(3) there is actually a ton of evidence for Bigfoot.

how you respond to that will give us a clear indication of the extent to which your ideology overshadows our desire for proof.

(4) another problem is there is a ton of evidence for God.


If there were really no evidence for Bigfoot you might have an argument if you would make Bigfoot be supernatural (he's not but there are wavy gravy types who think he is). But suppose there was no evidence then you might, might have a point.


but there's a lot of reasons to believe in God. There are reasons that so sophisticated they outstrip the need for evidence. That's one of the issues atheists want to reduce all knowledge to one taupe, the type that doesn't give us God. So they can rule out God. Knowledge is obviously much boarder than that.

Brap Gronk said...

The evidence for Bigfoot, the loch ness monster, and UFOs never pans out when properly investigated. In those rare cases where a definite naturalistic explanation for a piece of evidence is not found (unlike the obvious hoaxes), there are plausible naturalistic theories to explain it.

Ruling out Bigfoot and UFOs is similar to proving a negative. Regarding Nessie, however, supposedly loch ness has been frozen solid several times since the last known dinosaurs lived. If that's true, and if Nessie's ancestors were unable to transport themselves between bodies of water (dodging the ice), I think naturalism rules out Nessie. If that's not sufficient for you, then you'll have to wait until it freezes again or is drained.

Meta: "but there's a lot of reasons to believe in God. There are reasons that so sophisticated they outstrip the need for evidence."

That's a very clever stance to take. Again, I'll refer to Sagan's "The Demon-Haunted World" for the potential dangers of belief without evidence.

Metacrock said...

The evidence for Bigfoot, the loch ness monster, and UFOs never pans out when properly investigated.

that's a truism. if that's a same of how atheists investigate things that speaks volumes about why don't get it with the good god arguments.

Nessie: I don't see how it could be because from all reports there is no food in the lock.

UFO's: I saw a UFO, I don't know what it was it could have been anything I guess. Most ufo stuff turns out to be bs but not all. that last 2% is just dismissed. I think it's real probably that intelligent people exist somewhere (they sure don' exist on Earth) it would not surprise me if it turned out that they have been here. But I think most of it is bs that's true. that doesn't rule it out.

Bigfoot: there is good Bigfoot evidence. Its' totally wrong to say it doesn't pan out. The dermal ridges never disproved, tracks are good evidence, they don't make themselves. It's crazy to think hoaxers would go all over the country way out in the woods where no one will ever see it.

the mid tarsal break evidence is dynamite, if more people understood that it would be accepted by the public. There is a growing body of anthropologists that do accept it. I know a professional anthropologist who believes in them.



In those rare cases where a definite naturalistic explanation for a piece of evidence is not found (unlike the obvious hoaxes), there are plausible naturalistic theories to explain it.


Nope. there's no pslauible way to expalin mid trsal break accept a ape. Humans don't have them. The evidence is clear.

what hoaxer would put the dermal ridges on running the wrong way? wouldn't a hoaxer follow his own dermal ridges?

Metacrock said...

Ruling out Bigfoot and UFOs is similar to proving a negative.

Not at all, totally different concept. That is about a prori reasoning. Just disprove evidence for empirical creatures is not a prori reasoning, it's empirical reasoning. Disprove the negative means a prori not merely disprove data relating to an empirical object.


Regarding Nessie, however, supposedly loch ness has been frozen solid several times since the last known dinosaurs lived. If that's true, and if Nessie's ancestors were unable to transport themselves between bodies of water (dodging the ice), I think naturalism rules out Nessie. If that's not sufficient for you, then you'll have to wait until it freezes again or is drained.


i agree with you on that. You are missing the major point: you can't find empirical evidence that disproves God because god is not the object of empirical evidence.

Meta: "but there's a lot of reasons to believe in God. There are reasons that so sophisticated they outstrip the need for evidence."

That's a very clever stance to take. Again, I'll refer to Sagan's "The Demon-Haunted World" for the potential dangers of belief without evidence.

Sagan was not a major thinker. atheists like him becuase he did Cosmos that doesn't make him Ernestine.

He was not a philosopher and he did not make rules of logic. That little fluff peice is eaisly betean.

I'll do a thing on it a few days. the que if full right now.