Is Atheism Irrational?

[creekster]

My mistake.

I envy those with the gift of belief. I have wanted the comfort of belief, or at least the comfort believers profess to have. You appear to be a believer, so that was my mistake. I certainly do not have a positive conviction as to the lack of deity.

I think we are talking about different things.

[Topper]

I think we are talking about different things.

Cousins but not twins.

[Jeff Lebowski]

I don't know about atheism, but according to this dude, LDS apostates are insane and/or prone to believe in wild conspiracy theories:

http://www.sixteensmallstones.org/ap...tellectualism/

[kccougar]

I don't know about atheism, but according to this dude, LDS apostates are insane and/or prone to believe in wild conspiracy theories:

http://www.sixteensmallstones.org/ap...tellectualism/

The crazy assertions I see posted here about church leaders indicate he may be on to something.

[myboynoah]

The crazy assertions I see posted here about church leaders indicate he may be on to something.

It's in the DNA.

[New Mexican Disaster]

I don't know about atheism, but according to this dude, LDS apostates are insane and/or prone to believe in wild conspiracy theories:

http://www.sixteensmallstones.org/ap...tellectualism/

Going to high school with that dude does not permit me to take him seriously.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Going to high school with that dude does not permit me to take him seriously.

He's a nut.

[wally]

Every time I've seen an article calling atheists irrational, it relies on a fundamental misunderstanding of what atheism is and what atheists actually think. Dawkins had a whole chapter in his book explaining very carefully how he doesn't have a positive belief in the lack of gods, and yet here he is accused of just that. Even more absurd is a professional philosopher mistaking agnosticism as referring to the position that atheism and theism both have a 50% chance of being right.

Granted, these words both have various valid definitions, but as soon as you require atheism to include a positive truth claim about the non-existence of gods, Dawkins (and most every other atheist) immediately falls into the category of agnostic, leaving you bombing territory your victims don't occupy.

Man, atheists are so slippery. Every time I think I got them figured out, they come out of left field with a new nuance and WHAM! I am back at square-one, bombing territory that they don't even occupy! It is like playing whack-a-mole!

[woot]

Man, atheists are so slippery. Every time I think I got them figured out, they come out of left field with a new nuance and WHAM! I am back at square-one, bombing territory that they don't even occupy! It is like playing whack-a-mole!

It does come across and sounding slippery, I'll admit. Some of it is a marketing problem, but a lot of it seems to be willful ignorance on the part of a few people with strong motivation to consider atheists irrational.

Boiled down to a single concept, atheism is the idea that there's no good reason to accept the existence of gods. For practical purposes, this is identical to positive rejection of the same, sure, since this is the same basis by which we can be all but certain that other fanciful characters don't exist (explaining the frequent mention of pink unicorns, invisible dragons, the flying spaghetti monster, etc.). But because of the strange propensity of some folks to think that it's irrational to reject the existence of anything that hasn't been absolutely proven not to exist (a set that includes literally everything), the distinction becomes important.

I'm fine considering myself an agnostic, but if I'm agnostic then there's basically no such thing as an atheist. Since the number of categories in use is limited, defining one of them out of usefulness seems counterproductive. Still, I get why folks like Neil DeGrasse Tyson identify as agnostics despite fitting the criteria for atheism; it's close enough and prevents the drama.

[old_gregg]

It does come across and sounding slippery, I'll admit. Some of it is a marketing problem, but a lot of it seems to be willful ignorance on the part of a few people with strong motivation to consider atheists irrational.

Boiled down to a single concept, atheism is the idea that there's no good reason to accept the existence of gods. For practical purposes, this is identical to positive rejection of the same, sure, since this is the same basis by which we can be all but certain that other fanciful characters don't exist (explaining the frequent mention of pink unicorns, invisible dragons, the flying spaghetti monster, etc.). But because of the strange propensity of some folks to think that it's irrational to reject the existence of anything that hasn't been absolutely proven not to exist (a set that includes literally everything), the distinction becomes important.

I'm fine considering myself an agnostic, but if I'm agnostic then there's basically no such thing as an atheist. Since the number of categories in use is limited, defining one of them out of usefulness seems counterproductive. Still, I get why folks like Neil DeGrasse Tyson identify as agnostics despite fitting the criteria for atheism; it's close enough and prevents the drama.

at the bottom, it's an evidentiary question. dawkins' arg is premised on the assumption that the existence of deity is empirically verifiable and scientifically knowable. of course the outcome of the debate is clear when the dice are loaded.

[woot]

at the bottom, it's an evidentiary question. dawkins' arg is premised on the assumption that the existence of deity is empirically verifiable and scientifically knowable. of course the outcome of the debate is clear when the dice are loaded.

I'll quibble with your characterization slightly. It's not necessary to assume that the existence of deity is empirically verifiable and scientifically knowable. Atheism is not reliant on science at all. A belief in god was still irrational before science; science just provides alternative explanations for some natural phenomena, obviating supernatural explanation and making the rational choice to avoid conclusions not in evidence a whole lot easier.

But let's grant your premise for the sake of argument. The gods of today's religions in seemingly every iteration wield the power to influence physical events on Earth. If this influence is not subject,even in theory, to empirical demonstration, isn't this an admission that the active, powerful gods of most religions don't exist? That if a god does exist it must be one with no actual influence? I suppose it doesn't preclude a god that works miracles and then covers its tracks, men-in-black style, but I doubt that would be very satisfying.

The vast majority of arguments in favor of the existence of god pertain to a deistic "prime mover" and nothing more. For one who believes in a powerful god, they should not be convincing. God's power has been shrinking over the last few centuries at the same rate that science has been growing. A god with no power or influence in the physical realm is no god at all.

[SeattleUte]

Every time I've seen an article calling atheists irrational, it relies on a fundamental misunderstanding of what atheism is and what atheists actually think. Dawkins had a whole chapter in his book explaining very carefully how he doesn't have a positive belief in the lack of gods, and yet here he is accused of just that. Even more absurd is a professional philosopher mistaking agnosticism as referring to the position that atheism and theism both have a 50% chance of being right.

Granted, these words both have various valid definitions, but as soon as you require atheism to include a positive truth claim about the non-existence of gods, Dawkins (and most every other atheist) immediately falls into the category of agnostic, leaving you bombing territory your victims don't occupy.

That interview is absolutely riddled with bullshit. This whole topic is quite tired for me, but that dude is very wrong on the internet. That argument about evolution being incompatible with materialism has me wondering who he was boning at Notre Dame to be given tenure.

I agree. Hence the Dawkins quotation in my sig.

[SeattleUte]

I'll quibble with your characterization slightly. It's not necessary to assume that the existence of deity is empirically verifiable and scientifically knowable. Atheism is not reliant on science at all. A belief in god was still irrational before science; science just provides alternative explanations for some natural phenomena, obviating supernatural explanation and making the rational choice to avoid conclusions not in evidence a whole lot easier.

But let's grant your premise for the sake of argument. The gods of today's religions in seemingly every iteration wield the power to influence physical events on Earth. If this influence is not subject,even in theory, to empirical demonstration, isn't this an admission that the active, powerful gods of most religions don't exist? That if a god does exist it must be one with no actual influence? I suppose it doesn't preclude a god that works miracles and then covers its tracks, men-in-black style, but I doubt that would be very satisfying.

The vast majority of arguments in favor of the existence of god pertain to a deistic "prime mover" and nothing more. For one who believes in a powerful god, they should not be convincing. God's power has been shrinking over the last few centuries at the same rate that science has been growing. A god with no power or influence in the physical realm is no god at all.

Good post.

[Jacob]

It does come across and sounding slippery, I'll admit. Some of it is a marketing problem, but a lot of it seems to be willful ignorance on the part of a few people with strong motivation to consider atheists irrational.

Boiled down to a single concept, atheism is the idea that there's no good reason to accept the existence of gods. For practical purposes, this is identical to positive rejection of the same, sure, since this is the same basis by which we can be all but certain that other fanciful characters don't exist (explaining the frequent mention of pink unicorns, invisible dragons, the flying spaghetti monster, etc.). But because of the strange propensity of some folks to think that it's irrational to reject the existence of anything that hasn't been absolutely proven not to exist (a set that includes literally everything), the distinction becomes important.

I'm fine considering myself an agnostic, but if I'm agnostic then there's basically no such thing as an atheist. Since the number of categories in use is limited, defining one of them out of usefulness seems counterproductive. Still, I get why folks like Neil DeGrasse Tyson identify as agnostics despite fitting the criteria for atheism; it's close enough and prevents the drama.

But it is only a little slippery. And it can be largely attributed to the confused theist caring more about classification than understanding. But there are also many confused atheists who don't know how to precisely classify themselves. This is all fine and there is no requirement to consider so deeply your appropriate label. And even when you have, people will still argue about it i.e. Mormons classification as Christians. I liked this description that an atheist and political conservative gave in arguing for the compatibility of conservatism and atheism:

One of the problems we have when thinking about atheism in the modern era is that the word has been hijacked and turned into a political position when it is no such thing. The Oxford English Dictionary defines an “atheist” as someone who exhibits “disbelief in, or denial of, the existence of a god.” That’s me right there — and that really is the extent of it. No, I don’t dislike anyone who does believe that there is a God; no, with a few obvious exceptions, I am not angry at the religious; and no, I do not believe the devout to be in any way worse or less intelligent than myself. Insofar as the question inspires irritation in me at all it is largely reserved for the sneering, smarmy, and incomprehensibly self-satisfied New Atheist movement, which has turned the worthwhile writings of some extremely smart people into an organized means by which a cabal of semi-educated twentysomethings might berate the vast majority of the human population and then congratulate one another as to how clever they are. (For some startling examples of this, see Reddit.)

Which is to say that, philosophically speaking, I couldn’t really care less (my friend Andrew Kirell suggests this makes me an “Apatheist”) and practically speaking I am actually pretty warm toward religion — at least as it is practiced in America. True or false, American religion plays a vital and welcome role in civil society, has provided a number of indispensable insights into the human condition, acts as a remarkably effective and necessary check on the ambitions of government and central social-planners, is worthy of respect and measured inquiry on the Burkean grounds that it has endured for this long and been adopted by so many, and has been instrumental in making the United States what it is today. “To regret religion,” my fellow Brit, conservative, and atheist, Anthony Daniels, writes correctly, “is to regret our civilization and its monuments, its achievements, and its legacy.” I do not regret our civilization, its monuments, its achievements, and its legacy. And I do not regret religion either.

That definition from Oxford is just fine: "disbelief in, or denial of, the existence of a god." Agnosticism seems to be something else, but many non-belivers may feel comfortable classifying themselves thusly due to mostly political or cultural sensitivities. I'd suppose most atheists would make only the modest claim "I don't believe." No positive assertion required.

[old_gregg]

I'll quibble with your characterization slightly. It's not necessary to assume that the existence of deity is empirically verifiable and scientifically knowable.

dawkins explicitly presumes that the existence of divinity is an empirically testable hypothesis. his argument that belief in something where the probability of its existence is zero (as informed by the absence of observable, scientifically valid data) is irrational goes away if one starts from the premise that the existence of deity could be either unknowable or knowable only through subjective experience. inability to observe or validate a thing's existence does not logically preclude its existence.

But let's grant your premise for the sake of argument. The gods of today's religions in seemingly every iteration wield the power to influence physical events on Earth. If this influence is not subject,even in theory, to empirical demonstration, isn't this an admission that the active, powerful gods of most religions don't exist? That if a god does exist it must be one with no actual influence? I suppose it doesn't preclude a god that works miracles and then covers its tracks, men-in-black style, but I doubt that would be very satisfying.

The vast majority of arguments in favor of the existence of god pertain to a deistic "prime mover" and nothing more. For one who believes in a powerful god, they should not be convincing. God's power has been shrinking over the last few centuries at the same rate that science has been growing. A god with no power or influence in the physical realm is no god at all.

that is specious logic. whether the nature of deity satisfies our conceptions has no bearing on its existence.