Is atheism rational?

Metaphysics and Epistemology
1

Atheism seems almost as irrational as religion. To assert a particular God exists, without proof, is foolish. But to assert no God exists, also without proof, is equally foolish.

From http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fTmac2fs5HQ :

Donahue: There is no proof…so therefore you’ve concluded that there isn’t one.

Rand: You’re not called upon to… prove a negative

Rand: Yes, I know that there isn’t, because I’ve been given no evidence.

By Ayn Rand’s logic, Leonardo Da Vinci would be a fool to believe man would one day fly, and opponents who insisted man would never fly were wise.

Agnosticism seems the logical approach. Perhaps flight is possible. Perhaps it is not.

And while I can find fault with people who do irrational things in the name of religion–like strap on suicide bombs, or give away 10% of their income–what of the more rational religious practicioners? My sister is a typical ‘Christian’. She goes to church once a year to enjoy listening to the Christmas carols, and she sent her son to their low-cost, high-performing private school when he was young.

2

Atheism is not an ideological position. If everyone happened to be atheist, certainly nobody would discuss atheism. If almost everyone happened to be atheist, non-atheists would be seen as isolated madmen who talk to snakes and burning bushes. Similarly in categorizing physical health, I do not know of any word for a person currently without cancer, because not having cancer is the norm of human life. Also, I spend no time each day practicing the non-belief of Zeus, Set, or Odin even though my atheism refers as much to those gods as it does to any modern pantheon.

Da Vinci drew a model helicopter and presented a testable hypothesis based on his thinking. Da Vinci was a theoretician, but he wasn’t a mystic. He understood he could extend the principles of wind resistance and mechanical work to fly, whereas mystics dream up non-existent principles out of their non-thinking. He understood he could extend these principles because contradictions cannot exist, whereas mystics understand nothing and live in their self-created dreamland. A thinker does not know everything, but he does know knowledge is possible.

If a god did exist, it would be bound by reason and evidence just like everything else. If an agnostic claims a being may exist which repudiates logic, he is actually claiming that reason and evidence are not valid (i.e. do not apply to everything which exists). If you do not believe in contradictions however, then any ‘god’ you think may exists is not a ‘god’ in the traditional sense and you need a new word. Its either non-contradiction (reason) or your god (faith) but not both.

3

Do you think being agnostic about the Flying Spaghetti Monster is rational? If not then try to figure out why not.

A person would be rational to be agnostic over the possibility of flight in Da Vinci’s time since there was evidence for mechanical flight i.e. birds.

Your sister sounds like a rational person insofar as she pays lip service to religion for the music and schools. Insofar as she actually believes the stuff then she has at best not thought about philosophy, or at worst she is irrational. There really is no evidence for a god and until I see some I will remain an atheist. Since I will consider evidence to the contrary and will change my mind if there is evidence for a God, this makes my position evidence based and scientific, a far cry from being “foolish”.

4

I agree, it’s irrational believing in God existence or not. Any way, those choices come from a rational understanding of our world.

In fact God existence (or not existence) is the answer given to the widespread rational view of reality.

That rational view of reality comes before any thinking about God.

First we have an understanding of realty, and this understanding is believed as absolutely true. Then we may start thinking about God possibility.

Reality, for atheists and believers, it’s only what is here, now, into the present. Whereas what was or what will be it’s not real, but it only was real or it will be. Real, for atheists and believers, it’s just what is living here, now, in the present.

So reality is understood as Being living in the present, and this Being is continuously under attack by Becoming.

That easily causes existential distress.

God can be a good remedy to that distress, and that’s the believer’s choice. While atheists are more courageous and are facing without any remedy the Becoming.

For believers there it must be an uncaused cause, while for atheists the cause - effect chain does not have an origin.

Two different answers to the same reality rational view.

That is, atheists and believers have the same faith!

The faith in the Becoming (understood as birth and dead of Being). It is a faith because no proof we have to say for sure that is the Truth.

Believers are only adding to that faith another faith, as a remedy, the faith in God.

Deeply in our mind there is however another more powerful faith… That Being is and it can’t be not.

That is, the Becoming is impossible.

5

Keep in mind that in many cases, atheists simply assert that they are not theists (hence a-theist). It is not irrational to not be a theist as there is no evidence necessary to support being a theist.

That said, I can’t make sense of any of what bobgo said. He seems to be trying to draw parallels between atheists and theists that do not necessarily exist.

6

Atheism seems almost as irrational as religion. To assert a particular God exists, without proof, is foolish. But to assert no God exists, also without proof, is equally foolish.

[…]

By Ayn Rand’s logic, Leonardo Da Vinci would be a fool to believe man would one day fly, and opponents who insisted man would never fly were wise.

Agnosticism seems the logical approach. Perhaps flight is possible. Perhaps it is not. […]

Agnosticism is not the logical approach, and is in fact worse than theism. The mistake is that you are failing to distinguish the arbitrary from the rational. You are demanding “prove a negative.” When Ayn Rand says that you can not logically be called upon to do this, she is stating the burden of proof principle. The burden of proof is on he who asserts the positive. That is what is meant, that belief and non-belief are not the same. To “prove a negative” is irrational to demand because you cannot prove or disprove the arbitrary.

Arbitrary means without rational basis or justification. Atheism is not the belief in a non-God, it is the principled refusal to credit an arbitrary idea that has no rational basis and makes no sense (is illogical, i.e. contradicting the basic axioms of metaphysics.) Rand’s point here is that theism and atheism are in different epistemological categories. It would be absurd to commit to every idea in the universe, any and every wild claim, until it has been disproved. Instead, reason demands committal to those ideas only with rational support. Belief in an idea cannot be the default position, until canceled by disproof. Belief has to be justified. Otherwise anyone can state anything, such as “what disproof do you have that there isn’t a Zeus, Thor, Odin, Ra, magical unicorns, gremlins, goblins, ghosts, or that I am God, etc. etc.”

A theist offers the arbitrary and says “prove it isn’t so” and the agnostic falls for it. Since the arbitrary is not admissible into rational consideration, the agnostic believes in the possibility of God without reason. At least the theist is more honest (he does not pretend to be rational.) So the choice is ultimately theism or atheism. Agnosticism is just an evasion of the whole issue.

1 Like
7

Reality, for atheists and believers, it’s only what is here, now, into the present. Whereas what was or what will be it’s not real, but it only was real or it will be. Real, for atheists and believers, it’s just what is living here, now, in the present.

So reality is understood as Being living in the present, and this Being is continuously under attack by Becoming.

That easily causes existential distress.

Where does this Being/Becoming language come from? I think I’ve heard it before but I’ve never understood the point of talking in that way. It seems a very unclear and muddling way to frame the issue; it seems to have little relevance to the actual discussion.

For instance, what does it mean for Being to be “under attack” by Becoming? Sounds like nonsense.

8

By Ayn Rand’s logic, Leonardo Da Vinci would be a fool to believe man would one day fly, and opponents who insisted man would never fly were wise.

While I don’t accept your particular example of something which at the time had no evidence for it (flying was shown to be mechanically possible by many organisms, including birds and insects), it is true that sometimes beliefs which have no evidence for them later turn out to be true. This does not refute or in any way weaken the argument that Ayn Rand was making. Until some evidence is presented, there is no systematic way of separating these types of claims from any other random claim (e.g. the Flying Spaghetti Monster). Evidence is the only basis on which to separate one claim from another. Any claim for which there is absolutely no evidence must be regarded as arbitrary. An attempt to live consistently by any other policy leads to madness, and any attempt to live generally by this policy but make exceptions for whatever you want is equivalent to throwing out epistemological rules altogether.

9

Keep in mind that in many cases, atheists simply assert that they are not theists (hence a-theist). It is not irrational to not be a theist as there is no evidence necessary to support being a theist.

That said, I can’t make sense of any of what bobgo said. He seems to be trying to draw parallels between atheists and theists that do not necessarily exist.

What I’m trying to say is that faith in Becoming is present both in atheist and in theist.

A Becoming that builds and destroys. That faith is universally widespread.

But it is only faith, nothing proved.

As Parmenide said, but also Einstein and the Big Bang theory too, this idea of Becoming is probably wrong.

That is, Becoming does not consist in birth and dead of Being (entities), but only it is the appearing of Being.

10

Where does this Being/Becoming language come from? I think I’ve heard it before but I’ve never understood the point of talking in that way. It seems a very unclear and muddling way to frame the issue; it seems to have little relevance to the actual discussion.

For instance, what does it mean for Being to be “under attack” by Becoming? Sounds like nonsense.

Being is what exists. And it exists only what it is here, now, in this exact moment.

The table in front of me is part of Being, because it is here, now.

In the past it wasn’t anywhere, that is, it did not exist. Then it has been built, so it became part of Being, it existed. In the future it will be destroyed, so it will not be part of Being anymore.

Time flows, and Being looses some parts and gains some others. That is the law of Becoming: something comes from nothing to reality (Being), some other goes from Being to nothing.

That is what Becoming usually means.

This meaning of the Becoming is the origin of nihilism. To face nihilism many remedies have been invented, one of them has been a super entity (God).

But that meaning of Becoming is based on absurdity: Being becomes Nothing, Nothing becomes Being.

How can Being become Nothing? How can Being come from Nothing?

May be, Becoming is only the appearing of Being…

Do you remember when Dante looks at God?

11

What I’m trying to say is that faith in Becoming is present both in atheist and in theist.

A Becoming that builds and destroys. That faith is universally widespread.

But it is only faith, nothing proved.

As Parmenide said, but also Einstein and the Big Bang theory too, this idea of Becoming is probably wrong.

That is, Becoming does not consist in birth and dead of Being (entities), but only it is the appearing of Being.

As an atheist, I have no idea what this Becoming is, so I have no idea how you can say I have faith in it. Please define your term “Becoming” better, especially since you capitalize it as if you are talking about a specific idea versus a general concept. As it is, you still are not making any sense to me.

12

As an atheist, I have no idea what this Becoming is, so I have no idea how you can say I have faith in it. Please define your term “Becoming” better, especially since you capitalize it as if you are talking about a specific idea versus a general concept. As it is, you still are not making any sense to me.

The Becoming is the turning of something into some other. Wood that turns into ash, for example.

Becoming is tied to Being.

Being takes its meaning from Becoming (Being is what doesn’t change). While Becoming needs Being to make sense.

13

“Do you think being agnostic about the Flying Spaghetti Monster is rational? If not then try to figure out why not.”

I’m 99.999999999999% certain there’s no real Flying Spaghetti Monster, but I can’t be 100% certain of that or of many other things in this world. We know only what our senses tell us and our reason reduces, and even then, humanity has not entirely explored our planet, our solar system, our galaxy, our universe, or our multiverse. Agnostic: A person who denies or doubts the possibility of ultimate knowledge in some area of study. (dictionary.com)

It woud be rational to say that it’s anything’s possible but it’s extremely, extremely unlikely. It would be irrational to make life decisions upon such an unlikely event as FSM existing.

14

It woud be rational to say that it’s anything’s possible but it’s extremely, extremely unlikely.

It is possible for 0 to be 1, but it’s extremely, extremely unlikely.

Is that rational?

15

If almost everyone happened to be atheist, non-atheists would be seen as isolated madmen who talk to snakes and burning bushes.

That doesn’t follow. An agnostic admits he can’t know the world entirely and there’s a possibility that God exists. He does not talk to snakes nor burning bushes.

If an agnostic claims a being may exist which repudiates logic, he is actually claiming that reason and evidence are not valid (i.e. do not apply to everything which exists).

God - A superior intelligence supposed to possess supernatural or divine powers and attributes

Supernatural - Something that is not of the usual. Something that is somehow not natural, or has been altered by forces that are not understood fully if at all.

If some random God (a superior intelligence with abilities that we don’t fully understand)–or for that matter an alien species meeting the same requirements–were to appear and shake your hand tomorrow, that would not mean that evidence and reason ceased to be useful tools for understanding our world. As we explore the universe, we may discover new things we can’t yet imagine.

16

It is possible for 0 to be 1, but it’s extremely, extremely unlikely.

Is that rational?

I had meant to substitute “anything’s” with “it’s” but kept both by mistake. Of course, you can only know what I say not what I mean to say! :wink:

It woud be rational to say that it’s anything’s possible but it’s extremely, extremely unlikely. It would be irrational to make life decisions upon such an unlikely event as FSM existing.

17

It is not irrational to not be a theist as there is no evidence necessary to support being a theist

True.

Keep in mind that in many cases, atheists simply assert that they are not theists (hence a-theist).

Some people who self-identify themselves as atheists may feel thsat way. Still, Atheism implies more than this. According to the Century dictionary–

Atheist - 1.One who denies the existence of God, or of a supreme intelligent being

Agnostic - 1.One of a class of thinkers who disclaim any knowledge of God or of the ultimate nature of things. They hold that human knowledge is limited to experience, and that since the absolute and unconditioned, if it exists at all, cannot fall within experience, we have no right to assert anything whatever with regard to it.

Neither agnostics nor atheists are theists–neither one lives their life irrationally based on the existance of some unknown God.

A theist is certain there is a God. An atheist is certain there is no God.

An agnostic says there’s no proof to support either assertion.

18

Would you consider ‘certainty’ as attainable?

19

You are demanding “prove a negative.” When Ayn Rand says that you can not logically be called upon to do this, she is stating the burden of proof principle. The burden of proof is on he who asserts the positive.

According to “The Principles of Logic” by Prentice-Hill, “When debating any issue, there is an implicit burden of proof on him or her making a claim.” In other words, if a theist claims there is a God, the burden of proof is on the theist. Similarly, if an atheist claims there is no God, the burden of proof is on the atheist. In that sense, theists and atheists have more in common than an agnostic, who plays the probabilities and does not accept either claim as certain without proof.

20

We know only what our senses tell us and our reason reduces, and even then, humanity has not entirely explored our planet, our solar system, our galaxy, our universe, or our multiverse. Agnostic: A person who denies or doubts the possibility of ultimate knowledge in some area of study. (dictionary.com)

The solution to this problem is the insight that knowledge, by its nature, is contextual. Every piece of knowledge arises from a certain context of perceptual evidence, and can only be applied within that context. For instance, Newton’s law of gravitation was formed within a specific context in which he could take measurements, and even though the law cannot be applied to very massive objects or objects moving very fast (as evidence supporting Einstein’s general relativity showed) the law is still valid for the types of objects from which it was formed. Einstein’s theories did not falsify the work that Newton had done, but rather expanded scientific theories into new contexts.

From this view of knowledge, it is obvious that the standards which you propose to judge knowledge are inappropriate. It is indeed impossible to somehow attain knowledge that will apply with certainty outside the context in which you form it, but this does not mean that knowledge is impossible to man and that we can never be “certain” (properly understood). Rather, you have simply misunderstood the nature of knowledge by asking for an impossibility. For further exposition of the Objectivist view on knowledge and context, see the Lexicon Entry and the work “Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology.”

1 Like