On What Philosophical Atheism Is
  • some logician
    20
    Hello?
    I think there are many discussions about religion in this forum. Some members suggest versions of atheism. This forum is a philosophy forum. I will suggest a philosophical version of atheism here.

    Philosophy is at least about arguments. Philosophy is, at least, closely related to arguments, anyway. Philosophical versions of atheism should be, at least, suggested with arguments. All good arguments are valid arguments. All valid arguments are whose conclusions necessarily follow from their premises.

    Here's an example:

    Premise 1. If there is no scientific explanation about God, then there is no reason to believe in God.
    Premise 2. There is no scientific explanation about God.
    Conclusion. There is no reason to believe in God.

    You might cast a doubt on premise 2. Here's an example of the defense of premise 2:

    Premise 3. All scientific explanations are about nature.
    Premise 4. All scientific explanations are not about God.
    Premise 5. No scientific explanations about nature is about God.
    Conclusion 2. There is no scientific explanation about God.

    You might suspect whether premise 4 is true, and so on and on. Offense and defense, and offense and defense...
    These are processes of which atheism is offered and defended and discussed. Got it???
    some logician Options
  • Michael
    15.5k
    If there is no scientific explanation about God, then there is no reason to believe in God. — some logician

    I don't think this holds. There's no scientific explanation for why the Sun's corona is hotter than its surface, but we have reasons to believe that it is.

    Premise 3. All scientific explanations are about nature.
    Premise 4. All scientific explanations are not about God.
    Premise 5. No scientific explanations about nature is about God.
    Conclusion 2. There is no scientific explanation about God.

    Premise 4 begs the question.
    Michael Options
  • some logician
    20
    ↪Michael

    I don't think this holds. — Michael

    That's your opinion. Go ahead!

    Premise 4 begs the question. — Michael

    You think so.
    some logician Options
  • Mariner
    374
    Premise 1. If there is no scientific explanation about God, then there is no reason to believe in God. — some logician

    There is no scientific explanation about the OP, therefore there is no reason to believe in the OP.
    Mariner Options
  • some logician
    20
    ↪Mariner


    There is no scientific explanation about the OP, therefore there is no reason to believe in the OP. — Mariner

    Maybe there is.
    some logician Options
  • Mariner
    374
    Maybe there is. — some logician

    You are not acquainted with science, then, if you think "Maybe there is" is a scientific argument.
    Mariner Options
  • Noblosh
    152
    ↪some logician
    Michael is right. Also you don't understand what beliefs and opinions are.
    Noblosh Options
  • some logician
    20
    ↪Noblosh


    Also you don't understand what beliefs and opinions are. — Noblosh

    What makes you think so???
    some logician Options
  • Noblosh
    152
    ↪some logician


    belief: confidence in the truth or existence of something not immediately susceptible to rigorous proof

    That's saying you don't need science to believe. But you say there's no reason for belief without scientific explanation, so you limit rationality to science and don't give any reason yourself for why you do that.

    Michael also challenged that view of yours but you just dismissed what he said as an opinion, instead of addressing it.
    Noblosh Options
  • some logician
    20
    ↪Noblosh

    What if I don't agree with your definition of belief???
    some logician Options
  • some logician
    20
    Suppose that there are scientific explanations about atoms, and atoms actually exist. Then, there is a reason to believe the existence of atoms.
    Suppose that there are scientific explanations about unicorns, and unicorns actually don't exist. Then, there is a reason to believe the existence of unicorns, but the belief is false.
    some logician Options
  • some logician
    20
    Suppose that there is no scientific explanation about God, and actually God does not exist. Then, there is no reason to believe the existence of God, and belief about the existence of God is false.
    some logician Options
  • Mariner
    374
    All valid arguments are whose conclusions necessarily follow from their premises. — some logician

    An interesting discussion may ensue if you observe that there is no scientific explanation for this either.
    Mariner Options
  • some logician
    20
    ↪Mariner

    I think logic is part of science. Logic is included in science.
    some logician Options
  • Chany
    352
    Premise 1 is false. Not all good reasons for belief are scientific reasons. They can't be, otherwise there would be no basis for science.
    Chany Options
  • Mariner
    374
    I think logic is part of science. Logic is included in science. — some logician

    You may believe so, but you have no scientific explanation for your belief. It is, therefore, false.
    Mariner Options
  • some logician
    20
    ↪Mariner

    Many logicians support that logic is part of science. Philosophers of science do so.
    some logician Options
  • Mariner
    374
    Many logicians support that logic is part of science. Philosophers of science do so. — some logician

    Ad populam or ad authoritatem is not a scientific explanation.

    Nullius in verba.
    Mariner Options
  • some logician
    20
    ↪Mariner

    By 'logic' I meant formal logic with natural deduction, such as first-order predicate logic.
    some logician Options
  • Mariner
    374
    By 'logic' I meant formal logic with natural deduction, such as first-order predicate logic. — some logician

    That is still no scientific explanation as to why we should believe in logic (or care for it anyhow).
    Mariner Options
  • some logician
    20
    ↪Mariner

    I just claim that logic is part of science. You don't have to worship logic in Sunday school.
    some logician Options
  • Mariner
    374
    I just claim that logic is part of science. — some logician

    As a scientist, I don't place any weight on unsupported claims.
    Mariner Options
  • some logician
    20
    ↪Mariner

    Many logicians support the claim that logic is part of science.
    some logician Options
  • Mariner
    374
    Many logicians support the claim that logic is part of science. — some logician

    So what?

    Many theists support the claim that God exists.

    Are you withdrawing your criterion, from the OP, regarding how a scientific explanation is a requirement for a true belief?
    Mariner Options
  • some logician
    20
    ↪Mariner

    Scientific explanations provide reasons to believe. Theists' claims about God do not provide reasons to believe the existence of God.
    Suppose that there is a scientific explanation about unicorns, but actually unicorns don't exist. Then, although there is a reason to believe the existence of unicorns, the belief about the existence of unicorns is false.
    some logician Options
  • some logician
    20
    ↪Mariner

    Logic is a scientific discipline. Theism is not a scientific discipline.
    some logician Options
  • Cavacava
    2.4k
    ↪some logician
    Philosophy is at least about arguments.

    Yes, and I don't agree that philosophic arguments about god are about God. I think these arguments conflate the search for the absolute/universal/god, with a search for God.
    Cavacava Options
  • Mariner
    374
    Can you answer my question?

    Are you withdrawing your criterion, from the OP, regarding how a scientific explanation is a requirement for a true belief?

    So far, I haven't seen any scientific explanation for the belief that logic is part of science.
    Mariner Options
  • some logician
    20
    ↪Mariner

    You misunderstood.
    The argument in OP is about 'reason to believe'. The conclusion is 'there is no reason to believe in God'.
    'Reason to believe' is not the same matter as 'truth value'. Atheism is by definition not about the truth/falsity of the existence of God, but about the rationality/irrationality of belief in God.
    some logician Options
  • some logician
    20
    ↪Mariner

    The list of logicians who support the claim that logic is part of science includes: Rudolf Carnap, Hans Reichenbach, Willard Van Orman Quine, and so many others.
    some logician Options
  • TheMadFool
    13.8k
    I agree that science is a continuously expanding domain - gobbling up other disciplines, even art and music, like a hungry shark in the middle of a shoal of fish. Its rational basis and clever use of math has turned it into a formidable tool to understand our world, the universe itself. So, to some degree I'm in agreement with the OP that lack of scientific ''explanation'' does pose a serious problem for theism.

    However, science is not, at least not yet, perfect. In fact, as of principle, science is fallible. It never claims anything definitively, only provisionally. It is in this small space - that of scientific fallibility - that possibilities, ghosts, angels, even God himself, multiply.
    TheMadFool Options
bold
italic
underline
strike
code
quote
ulist
image
url
mention
reveal
youtube
tweet
Add a Comment

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.

Sign In Create Account

Categories