Is atheism rational?

Metaphysics and Epistemology
41

The essential flaw in your argument against “God created the universe.” is that you redefined universe in an unusual way without updating the initial claim.

The flaw I’m noticing consistently in your argument is that you apear willing to (faithfully) accept dictionary definitions

I pointed to a flaw in his argument, and rather than address that you’re attempting to associate me with faith. I assure you, I have no “faith” in an unproven God, nor in Ayn Rand.

I define the words I use when there’s ambiguity or confusion because if we can’t understand each other there’s little basis for communication.

In other words, anyone can make arbitrary assertions. What do you propose we do with arbitrary assertions?

That’s simple–ignore or investigate them, as you prefer. Do not claim to know more than you do.

42

Read this book. It uses the Objectivist viewpoints/arguments regarding all of this and will answer any possibly questions or contentions you have regarding Atheism:

http://www.amazon.com/Atheism-Case-Against-Skeptics-Bookshelf/dp/087975124X

Thanks, Swine. (How odd to say that without any malice!) It’s an interesting book. I’m working through it. When he says atheist he simply means someone who doesn’t says, “There is a God”, as opposed to Ayn Rand, who says “There is no God and I can prove it.” I’m not sure if the book will eventually try to rationalize a view as extreme as hers, but it’s informative and entertaining in any event.

43

Precisely. The one who claims “God does not exist” or “Goed does exist” has the burden to prove their claim.

I would say it’s possible, but unlikely as there’s no compelling evidence of their existance.

We are merely denying the claim. To ask us to prove a negative (a negation of the claim the positive makes) is to ask us to prove the non-existent. Proving something to be non-existent is a contradiction in terms and requires omniscience and omnipresence. This is why it’s a logical fallacy to ask us to prove that there is no God, especially when the claim is made in the positive in the first place.

Because of this contradiction, the negative does not have a burden of proof. You are asking us to do the impossible, to prove a non-existent, or the lack of something that exists. We, as the negation, do not even have to acknowledge the affirmation’s claim until they fulfill the burden of proof. Until that burden is met, the statement is arbitrary.

44

No, you are confusing someone making a claim to believe in the existence of something, and someone who is denying that person’s claim because of lack of evidence and contradiction.

I have consistently stated the burden of proof is always on the person making the claim. You are the one making exceptions.

“Prove you’re not a murderer.” … is an arbitrary statement, meaning it lacks any connection to either perceptual observation and logical inference.

“Prove you’re not a murderer” claims nothing. It’s a request for evidence with which the person may or may not comply.

It’s not your responsibility to refute a claim to being a murderer that lacks any basis whatsoever.

Correct. The claimant (of anything) must provide proof.

That is exactly why if the prosecution refuses to state a positive case, the defendant doesn’t even have to offer any defense whatsoever, he can just sit there and he will be declared innocent.

This is where you go astray. “Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence” – Carl Sagan

It’s a common misconception that people are found innocent. In fact, they are only found not guilty. Here’s a quote from the Bar Association: “There is no verdict of innocent. And, not guilty does not mean innocent. When a jury returns a verdict of not guilty, that means that the state has not convinced the jury beyond a reasonable doubt as to all the elements of the crime with which the defendant has been charged.”

Lawyers get logic. A verdict of not guilty simply means YOU ARE A MURDER cannot be sufficiently proven. It does not mean YOU ARE NOT A MURDERER.

Laymen get it too. If someone is accused of child molestation, even if they’re found not guilty, neighbors are going to be wary about letting their kids near them.

The arbitrary thus cannot be treated on the same level as something with a rational basis. That is what the burden of proof principle means.

The philosophical burden of proof means only, “When debating any issue, there is an implicit burden of proof on him or her making a claim.” Both the claims “God exists” and “God does not exist” require proof.

You cannot “disprove” a floating abstraction that has no connection with reality, therefore saying “You can’t prove there isn’t a God, therefore we can never know” is absurd. Claims of these kind have no connection to reality whatsoever, it is as if nothing had even been said, or if you had emitted some grunts or noises, or typed nonsense, like “aklndln;kdasnka”

Your strongest argument: if a fact is unfalsifiable, then it’s irrational to say anything about it. In that case it’s irrational to say “God exists” or to say “God doesn’t exist.” You’re agreeing with me. :wink:

45

We are merely denying the claim.

If someone claimed “God exists” and you said, “That’s irrational” or “Prove it or I don’t believe you” that’s normal and not what I opened this thread about.

Ayn Rand made the claim “God does not exist.” She also claimed it’s easy to prove.

To ask us to prove a negative (a negation of the claim the positive makes) is to ask us to prove the non-existent. Proving something to be non-existent is a contradiction in terms and requires omniscience and omnipresence.

In the general case proving a negative does not require omniscience nor omnipresence.

If a pushy person looking for a donation claimed, “I know there’s a quarter in your pants pocket.” I could answer “Wouldn’t you like to know?” (asserting he can’t know or prove that) or I could pull out my pockets and show they’re empty (proving the negative). If the police tomorrow called me and claimed I murdered someone at 9pm tonight in Madrid, Spain I would prove the negative by showing them recent receipts and naming a few witnesses who saw me tonight.

In the special case of “God exists.” I agree that’s unfalsifiable. In that case, you could say it’s irrational to say anything about his existance. That’s distinct from claiming he does not exist.

(Note: While theoretical unfalsifiability applies to “God exists”, it doesn’t apply to all specific Gods, especially ones who are claimed to have acted upon this world.)

This is why it’s a logical fallacy to ask us to prove that there is no God, especially when the claim is made in the positive in the first place.

In the interview, I don’t see Donahue saying “God exists” and Ayn Rand saying “That’s an irrational belief” or “I don’t believe you, prove it.”

I see Ayn Rand asserting “God does not exist” and further it’s easy to prove. Maybe she wanted to sell more books. :wink:

46

If someone claimed “God exists” and you said, “That’s irrational” or “Prove it or I don’t believe you” that’s normal and not what I opened this thread about.

Ayn Rand made the claim “God does not exist.” She also claimed it’s easy to prove.

In the general case proving a negative does not require omniscience nor omnipresence.

If a pushy person looking for a donation claimed, “I know there’s a quarter in your pants pocket.” I could answer “Wouldn’t you like to know?” (asserting he can’t know or prove that) or I could pull out my pockets and show they’re empty (proving the negative). If the police tomorrow called me and claimed I murdered someone at 9pm tonight in Madrid, Spain I would prove the negative by showing them recent receipts and naming a few witnesses who saw me tonight.

In the special case of “God exists.” I agree that’s unfalsifiable. In that case, you could say it’s irrational to say anything about his existance. That’s distinct from claiming he does not exist.

(Note: While theoretical unfalsifiability applies to “God exists”, it doesn’t apply to all specific Gods, especially ones who are claimed to have acted upon this world.)

In the interview, I don’t see Donahue saying “God exists” and Ayn Rand saying “That’s an irrational belief” or “I don’t believe you, prove it.”

I see Ayn Rand asserting “God does not exist” and further it’s easy to prove. Maybe she wanted to sell more books. :wink:

What Rand is saying is that since there is no proof FOR a God, he doesn’t exist. He can’t be defined or even be recognized as possible until proof is represented. To do that is to give value and credibility to the arbitrary which is not logical.

Not to mention, Rand is refuting the claim that God exists that has presented in the course of history. Not everyone has to say that God exists for the claim to exist. The claim of the affirmation of a God came before the negation, obviously.

47

What Rand is saying is that since there is no proof FOR a God, he doesn’t exist.

I. Argumentum ad Ignorantiam: (appeal to ignorance) the fallacy that a proposition is true simply on the basis that it has not been proved false or that it is false simply because it has not been proved true. This error in reasoning is often expressed with influential rhetoric.

A. The informal structure has two basic patterns:

Statement p is unproved. Not-p is true.

Statement not-p is unproved. p is true.

B. If one argues that God or telepathy, ghosts, or UFO’s do not exist because their existence has not been proven beyond a shadow of doubt, then this fallacy occurs.

C. On the other hand, if one argues that God, telepathy, and so on do exist because their non-existence has not been proved, then one argues fallaciously as well.

I’m surprised if a great thinker endorses what many books on logic classify as a logical fallacy. If I were to say, “Aliens will be found on Pluto within 5 years” with no evidence, you should tell me that’s highly unlikely and it’s irrational to believe so. You shouldn’t say “Aliens won’t be found on Pluto within 5 years.” As far as I can tell, you would have no way of knowing that for certain.

He can’t be defined or even be recognized as possible until proof is represented. To do that is to give value and credibility to the arbitrary which is not logical.

I fail to see how stating what we really know, “That’s highly unlikely and it’s irrational to believe so” lends credibility to the arbitrary “God exists” or “We live in the Matrix” or “Aliens will be found on Pluto within 5 years.” I also fail to see how claiming something we do not really know is an improvement.

48

I’m surprised if a great thinker endorses what many books on logic classify as a logical fallacy. If I were to say, “Life will be found on Pluto within 5 years” with no evidence, you should tell me that’s highly unlikely and it’s irrational to believe so. You shouldn’t say “Life won’t be found on Pluto within 5 years.” As far as I can tell, you would have no way of knowing that for certain.

I fail to see how stating what we really know, “That’s highly unlikely and it’s irrational to believe so” lends credibility to the arbitrary “God exists” or “We live in the Matrix” or “Life will be found on Pluto within 5 years.” I also fail to see how claiming something we do not really know is an improvement.

Because you are still giving validity to the arbitrary by saying it is “unlikely”. “Unlikely” is saying that “it probably isn’t, but could be”. If you give credit to one arbitrary argument, you give credit to every arbitrary argument and you destroy the validity of logical argumentation. If you accept the arbitrary argument of a god, then you have to hold the “Flying Spaghetti Monster” and “Santa” and “The Easter Bunny” as equally logical arguments.

49

Because you are still giving validity to the arbitrary by saying it is “unlikely”. “Unlikely” is saying that “it probably isn’t, but could be”.

Correct, it’s highly unlikely and irrational to believe that God exists, that we’ll meet aliens in the next ten years, and that machines will rebel and conquer us in the next fifty years. At the same time, these things are possible, they could be. Calling them “highly unlikely and irrational” is the truth. Calling them “false” is not.

If you give credit to one arbitrary argument, you give credit to every arbitrary argument… If you accept the arbitrary argument of a god, then you have to hold the … as equally logical arguments.

“Flying Spaghetti Monster”

Highly unlikely and irrational.

“Santa” and “The Easter Bunny”

I’m confident I could convincingly argue Santa and the Easter Bunny do not exist. I already successfully proved the negative of two other things.

and you destroy the validity of logical argumentation.

That’s an odd premise. Stating the truth shouldn’t undermine the validity of logical argumentation.

Thanks for taking the time to explain her perspective. I’m begin to suspect I’m an existentialist but not an objectivist, since I’m willing to pursue logic and truth even when it doesn’t support my causese. I’ll go ahead and read her Introduction to Objectivist Epistemiology anyway since I’ve enjoyed all the other books she’s written. Perhaps that will change my mind. Perhaps not. Cheers. :slight_smile:

50

Correct, it’s highly unlikely and irrational to believe that God exists, that we’ll meet aliens in the next ten years, and that machines will rebel and conquer us in the next fifty years. At the same time, these things are possible, they could be. Calling them “highly unlikely and irrational” is the truth. Calling them “false” is not.

Highly unlikely and irrational.

I’m confident I could convincingly argue Santa and the Easter Bunny do not exist. I already successfully proved the negative of two other things.

That’s an odd premise. Stating the truth shouldn’t undermine the validity of logical argumentation.

Thanks for taking the time to explain her perspective. I’m begin to suspect I’m an existentialist but not an objectivist, since I’m willing to pursue logic and truth even when it doesn’t support my causese. I’ll go ahead and read her Introduction to Objectivist Epistemiology anyway since I’ve enjoyed all the other books she’s written. Perhaps that will change my mind. Perhaps not. Cheers. :slight_smile:

You should look into that book, actually. I enjoyed it though I had to read it a few times to grasp it.

51

At the same time, these things are possible, they could be.

What evidence do you have that they could be possible? How do you know they could be possible?

52

What evidence do you have that they could be possible? How do you know they could be possible?

When you say possible, you mean it the way Peikoff defines it:

  • Peikofff - X is possible” means: in the present context of knowledge, there is some, but not much, evidence in favor of X and nothing known that contradicts X.

When I say possible, I mean the way the rest of the world defines it:

  • American Heritage - Capable of happening, existing, or being true without contradicting proven facts, laws, or circumstances.
  • Webster - Capable of existing or occurring, or of being conceived or thought of; able to happen; capable of being done; not contrary to the nature of things;

The reason Rand/Peikoff switched the meanings seems fairly obvious, it’s to support their hidden axiom that if there’s no evidence that “A is true” (arbitrary statement) then “A is false”. Besides not seeming very logical, the non-objectivist books and lecture notes on logic that I’ve found call their line of reasoning Argument Ad Absurdum (Argument from Ignorance). Since we disagree on this fundamental logical point, further discussions seems pointless.

I again thank everyone in this thread for their opinions and helping me to understand the Rand/Piekoff view of the world. I do plan to read her Introduction to Objectivist Epistemiology.

53

When you say possible, you mean it the way Peikoff defines it:

  • Peikofff - X is possible” means: in the present context of knowledge, there is some, but not much, evidence in favor of X and nothing known that contradicts X.

When I say possible, I mean the way the rest of the world defines it:

  • American Heritage - Capable of happening, existing, or being true without contradicting proven facts, laws, or circumstances.
  • Webster - Capable of existing or occurring, or of being conceived or thought of; able to happen; capable of being done; not contrary to the nature of things;

The reason Rand/Peikoff switched the meanings seems fairly obvious, it’s to support their hidden axiom that if there’s no evidence that “A is true” (arbitrary statement) then “A is false”. Besides not seeming very logical, the non-objectivist books and lecture notes on logic that I’ve found call their line of reasoning Argument Ad Absurdum (Argument from Ignorance). Since we disagree on this fundamental logical point, further discussions seems pointless.

The two definitions are more or less consistent, and there is no “hidden axiom.” To say that something is capable of happening is to say that it’s possible for it to happen. If there’s no evidence to say that something is capable of happening, then the claim is arbitrary, baseless, neither true nor false. The fact that someone can “conceive” of something doesn’t make it possible, but that depends upon what you mean by “conceive.” There’s a distinction between fantasy and reality after all.

The arbitrary is neither true nor false; it’s baseless. It’s as though nothing was said, and in fact nothing was said. It is more than futile to argue with those who accept the arbitrary. Arguing with them lends an air of rationality to their irrationality.

54

Trebor, while your views make sense, they don’t match those of Rand/Piekoff.

The arbitrary is neither true nor false; it’s baseless.

According to Rand, it’s false. She claims God does not exist. She also claims that the proof of that is simple.

The two definitions are more or less consistent, and there is no “hidden axiom.”

They’re quite different. The Rand/Piekoff definition of ‘possible’ requires evidence. The mainstream definitions of ‘possible’ do not. Her hidden axiom seems to be that a(n arbitrary) claim with no evidence is impossible and false.

To say that something is capable of happening is to say that it’s possible for it to happen.

According to Rand/Peikoff, that’s not the case. A silly example of a claim: “Trebot is sending his messages from the International Space Station.”

According to the mainstream defintiion, that’s possible (it could happen–astronauts have sent Internet messages from the space station before and we don’t know your real name) but highly unlikely. We can only say for certain it’s false if/when we encounter a contradiction, such as evidence you’re currently Earthbound or not one of the astronauts on the crew manifest.

According to the Rand/Peikoff definition, the claim’s impossible and false simply because there’s no evidence to support the claim. In logical circles there’s a name for their logical fallacy–Argument Ad Absurdum. They’re pretending to know the truth something, without actually having to take the time required to properly investigate it.

At least we both agree it’s irrational to believe you’re actually sending messages from the space station.

55

I am not going to argue with Mr Absurd, but for those who cannot see through the irrationality of his reasoning, I would like to make a comment about some of his claims.

It is simply absurd and, to be frank, ludicrous to claim that Objectivism engages in an “appeal to ignorance”, when it demands that one appeal to some actual evidence before one claim something is possible. This is the complete opposite of an appeal to ignorance; it is an appeal to knowledge of reality.

Mr Absurd reveals himself when he says that this is “not very logical”. This means that to appeal to knowledge of reality is “not very logical”, but to appeal to _groundless fantasies_ mistaken for reality, supposedly is.

What is it he reveals about himself when he says this? Well, the implicit premise in Mr Absurd’s “reasoning” (if you can call it that) is that if you can imagine something then it is possible - regardless of the facts of reality. (This is to confuse fantasizing with thinking.)

The implicit premise behind this reasoning is the analytic-synthetic dichotomy. If you know why this dichotomy is invalid, then you can also see why Mr Absurd’s reasoning is false. (For details I refer people who are truly interested to Dr Peikoff’s essay “The Analytic-Synthetic Dichotomy” available in Ayn Rand’s Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology.)

As for the general claim that the burden of proof lies on everybody, not only the one who makes the positive claim, I say that rest, in part, on the same false premise. In part it rest on using the concept “evidence” as a stolen concept. For an elaboration on that point, listen to Dr Peikoff here:

http://www.peikoff.com/2008/09/01/is-or-is-not-the-absence-of-evidence-an-evidence-of-absence/

56

When you say possible, you mean it the way Peikoff defines it:

I asked you for evidence, not definitions. You made a claim and it is up to you to support your claim. What evidence do you have that these things are possible? Please don’t sidestep the question with definitions; present evidence to support your claim.

57

If the police tomorrow called me and claimed I murdered someone at 9pm tonight in Madrid, Spain I would prove the negative by showing them recent receipts and naming a few witnesses who saw me tonight.

Recent receipts? They could have been bought by someone else. CCTV evidence of you in the shop buying the items? You could have a secret twin or an alien doppleganger. Your secret twin could have fooled all your witnesses too.

Prove that you don’t have a secret twin. You can’t? Then you can’t prove you didn’t murder the person at 9pm in Madrid, Spain. This is the mess agnosticism gets one into.

58

“Prove you’re not a murderer” claims nothing. It’s a request for evidence with which the person may or may not comply.

Correct. The claimant (of anything) must provide proof.

And that is precisely the issue. Among mystics, the burden of proof is always on the listener to prove his assertions are not true. It is manifestly clear that you, like all agnostics and others who cannot conceive of the integrated and hierarchical nature of logic and thus grant equal status to mysticism and rationality, are a mystic claiming a false pretense at rationality.

59

Trebor, while your views make sense, they don’t match those of Rand/Piekoff.

According to Rand, it’s false. She claims God does not exist. She also claims that the proof of that is simple.

They’re quite different. The Rand/Piekoff definition of ‘possible’ requires evidence. The mainstream definitions of ‘possible’ do not. Her hidden axiom seems to be that a(n arbitrary) claim with no evidence is impossible and false.

According to Rand/Peikoff, that’s not the case. A silly example of a claim: “Trebot is sending his messages from the International Space Station.”

According to the mainstream defintiion, that’s possible (it could happen–astronauts have sent Internet messages from the space station before and we don’t know your real name) but highly unlikely. We can only say for certain it’s false if/when we encounter a contradiction, such as evidence you’re currently Earthbound or not one of the astronauts on the crew manifest.

According to the Rand/Peikoff definition, the claim’s impossible and false simply because there’s no evidence to support the claim. In logical circles there’s a name for their logical fallacy–Argument Ad Absurdum. They’re pretending to know the truth something, without actually having to take the time required to properly investigate it.

At least we both agree it’s irrational to believe you’re actually sending messages from the space station.

You’re claim about “sending messages from space stations” is still bound to being possible because we have sent people to space and we have sent messages from space. It is the same thing as Leonardo’s flying machine. There is evidence of it’s existence and possibility so it is not arbitrary.

Evidence is derived from our senses. No court of law will accept the arbitrary as evidence, even if it is “possible” (which I feel hesitant to say because it really is a groundless claim until there is evidence to support its plausibility). Without evidence, there can be no claim. The dictionary entry you provide does not even get away from that. You know things are possible because they have evidence to support their plausibility. Without the evidence, you have a baseless, arbitrary claim. You can see the logical mess that derives from having such flawed reasoning.

60

If the police tomorrow called me and claimed I murdered someone at 9pm tonight in Madrid, Spain I would prove the negative by showing them recent receipts and naming a few witnesses who saw me tonight.

If your position on agnosticism cannot rule out the existence of an omnipotent, omniscient controller of the entire universe, how could it possibly rule out your being in two places at once? An omnipotent god could easily arrange that.

My point is that even in this situation, you’re proving a positive: you’re proving you were in place Y when the murder occurred in place X. If someone were really agnostic about the types of things you’re suggesting we be agnostic about, that would not be sufficient to prove the negative you’re trying to prove. In fact, nothing would be sufficient. You cannot prove a negative.