My problem with atheism

Art48

I’ve read many religious writings (scriptures, theology, etc.) and much atheist literature (which began when I first found “Arsenal for Skeptics” about 1976). I agree with many atheist points and often find religion to be childish fantasy.

The same might be said of the alchemists: that many of their beliefs were childish fantasies unrelated to reality. BUT had the alchemists given up, we might never have discovered chemistry. I feel much the same about the atheist, that they’ve given up the quest to find a deeper reality.

Of course, atheists may be right in that there is no deeper reality to be found, at least, not a reality that could in any sensible way be called “God.” But they may be wrong, too.

The atheist may respond that religions have had millennia to get their act together, and have failed. So, there is much justification for rejecting the idea of God. (Or rather rejecting ideas of God, since such ideas are so varied and, at times, contradictory.) But perhaps religions have failed because they use an epistemological method worthy of a child: someone special (prophet, God, God-man, etc.) said or wrote something, and we must believe it. Just like “Mommy or Daddy said some something, so you should believe it.

Alchemists used something akin to science’s epistemological method (hypothesize, experiment, no gold? form different hypothesis, try different experiment). Perhaps, if religion employed something similar to science’s epistemological method, real progress could be made.

But how to apply science’s epistemological method to religion? A difficult question. The current draft of my thoughts is available at
https://adamford.com/NTheo/NewTheology.epub
https://adamford.com/NTheo/NewTheology.pdf
Comments welcome.

Andrew4Handel

I feel much the same about the atheist, that they’ve given up the quest to find a deeper reality. — Art48

That is the impression I get.

I may have described myself as atheist before I studied philosophy and psychology at university and in particular philosophy of mind which raises questions about the physicalist, materialist paradigm and mental states etc.

Now we have prominent Atheists like Dennett and the Churchland's going to the point of denying consciousness exists. Which is ridiculous and indicate they want to exorcise anything that challenges an atheist framework.

I now describe myself as an agnostic.

The atheist may respond that religions have had millennia to get their act together, and have failed — Art48

Well we know what happened when atheist and communistic regimes took hold and the level of brutality including The French Revolutions atrocities and their attempt to De-Christianize France.

I think science has failed to rescue meaning and morality or offer something equivalent to religion and can be accused with evidence of dehumanising us.

Vera Mont

BUT had the alchemists given up, we might never have discovered chemistry. — Art48

Hardly! People were brewing beer, poisoning arrows and embalming corpses long before they tried making gold. Chemistry has always been part of human endeavour, as have all the sciences, long before they were formalized into a system. Alchemy was a mere blind alley along the path of science, just as many of the religions and philosophies people have tried and abandoned were diversions along the path of formulating a collective psychological stance toward the vastness of reality.

Of course, atheists may be right in that there is no deeper reality to be found, at least, not a reality that could in any sensible way be called “God.” — Art48

Why would you need or want a reality under reality? I find reality as a whole quite deep enough to be going on with, since humans much smarter than me have barely scratched its surface. And, following from that, since humans presumably smarter that you have barely scratched the surface of reality, do you not consider a little presumptuous to think we're ready and equipped to look any deeper?

But how to apply science’s epistemological method to religion? — Art48

You don't. Science and philosophy run on parallel rails.

Joshs

↪Art48

Perhaps, if religion employed something similar to science’s epistemological method, real progress could be made. — Art48

Science and philosophy run on parallel rails. — Vera Mont

Science’s epistemological method is itself a remnant of religious metaphysics. Why wee do you think Dennett’s and Dawkin’s doctrinaire atheism comes from? What’s needed is an atheism that overcomes epistemological
method. I recommend Nietzsche, Foucault , Kuhn and Rouse.

Here’s Rouse:

“I also think a more basic trace of a theological conception remains in many philosophical accounts of science and nature. A theological conception of God as creator places God outside of nature. God's understanding of nature is also external to the world. Such a God could understand his language and his thoughts about the world, apart from any interaction with the world. Naturalists long ago removed God from scientific conceptions of the world. Yet many naturalists still implicitly understand science as aiming to take God's place. They interpret science as trying to represent nature from a standpoint outside of nature. The language in which science represents the world could then be understood apart from the causal interactions it articulates.”

Tom Storm

Of course, atheists may be right in that there is no deeper reality to be found, at least, not a reality that could in any sensible way be called “God.” But they may be wrong, too. — Art48

Seems to me that theism and atheism generally loiter at the superficial and glib end of philosophy. Most atheists and theists are satisfied with easy answers and unexamined doctrines. Theists tend to hold their beliefs because their parents did and atheists frequently accept science over theistic explanations because we live in secular times. In other words, neither come to their position through deep thinking. None of this says anything about the merits of atheism or theism in themselves.

What’s needed is an atheism that overcomes epistemological
method. I recommend Nietzsche, Foucault , Kuhn and Rouse. — Joshs

Without going into the details of these thinkers, can you describe in a few dot points what overcoming epistemological method looks like?

Agent Smith

I don't see anything theistic in the OP.

Tom Storm

I feel much the same about the atheist, that they’ve given up the quest to find a deeper reality. — Art48

What does a quest to find a deeper reality mean? Are you referring to mysticism; meaning which transcends physicalism? I've kicked around with atheists for decades. Mostly an atheist is just someone who responds 'no' to a single question - Are you convinced a god exists?

As consequence, while an atheist might consider the idea of a god irrelevant to their daily experience, I have met many atheists who believe in idealism, astrology, reincarnation, tarot cards, ghosts, alien abduction, philosophy. Being an atheist does not make you a specific thing.

Benj96

Of course, atheists may be right in that there is no deeper reality to be found, at least, not a reality that could in any sensible way be called “God.” But they may be wrong, too. — Art48

My response to atheists is that if you don't believe in god, you do not believe in any possible dogma of God, any characterisation, any interpretation whatsoever, old or new.

Interpretations of God or God's abound in the thousands. I doubt atheists have done their homework on all qualifications of such an entity. Furthermore it's not like any new idea about it cannot be formulated, religions develop and die. There are many that have long been lost to time and likely more that don't exist yet.

I woukd ask them if they don't believe in any God, tell me why you don't believe in my personal interpretation. Which of course they cannot, until I describe it.

What if there was a description of a God that satisfies science, evolution, philosophy etc.

You can only be atheist to known religions. For example I myself am Christian-atheist, Islamic-atheist and Judaism-atheist. But I still believe in a concept of God that I enmesh with Eastern hemisphere ideas derived from taoism and Buddhism etc, along with quantum mechanics, philosophy the works.

To be atheist to "all gods" is equivalent to saying I don't believe in any ideas whatsoever. In essence "I believe in nothing, both now and in the future". Which sounds suspiciously like antinatalism/ a direct refutation of all existents entirely.

I think this is absurd as any idea can pertain to a facet of a God concept of one so chooses to unify them under the umbrella term of god.

Tom Storm

What if there was a description of a God that satisfies science, evolution, philosophy etc.

You can only be atheist to known religions — Benj96

To be atheist to "all gods" is equivalent to saying I don't believe in any ideas whatsoever. In essence "I believe in nothing, both now and in the future". — Benj96

The atheists I know tend to argue that they have not yet encountered a version of god they are convinced by and they are open to reconsidering their view if someone can make a case for something different that is convincing.

Benj96

The atheists I know tend to argue that they have not yet encountered a version of god they are convinced by and they are open to reconsidering their view if someone can make a case for something different that is convincing. — Tom Storm

Would that not make them agnostic?

180 Proof

I feel much the same about the atheist, that they’ve given up the quest to find a deeper reality. — Art48

Most atheists and theists are not metaphysicians. Besides, what difference can "finding a deeper reality" make to one's everyday existence or ethical agency? Btw, I'm (usually) a philosophical naturalist and antitheist – whatever divinity there might be, I'm convinced it is not "supernatural" (à la Epicurus/Spinoza).

Being an atheist does not make you a specific thing. — Tom Storm

:100: :up:

Science’s epistemological method is itself a remnant of religious metaphysics. — Joshs

Yeah, and chemistry is "a remnant of" alchemy, astronomy "a remnant of" astrology, philosophy "a remnant of" mythology – big whup. I don't see the point of this old canard (i.e. genetic fallacy). Anyway. Care to cite an instance of "religious metaphysics" (1) that quantifies the error of predictions, (2) that experimentally tests its explanations, (3) that is institutionally error-correcting – fallibilistic – by a peer-review community, (4) that is free of "revealed" "X-of-the-gaps" dogmas, etc etc? :chin:

Banno

Perhaps, if religion employed something similar to science’s epistemological method, real progress could be made. — Art48

Religion does not do the things science does. Religion is not an investigation, but a way of living. It does not tell us how things are, but what to do. Confusing these what to do with how things are will not be helpful.

Scientific method is particularly good at reaching a consensus. This aspect may be worth adopting in working out what to do. That would imply a basically liberal attitude towards ethical decision making, without reference to any "Fundamental entity".

Yet many naturalists still implicitly understand science as aiming to take God's place. They interpret science as trying to represent nature from a standpoint outside of nature. — Joshs

I think this view is mistaken. Part of the way in which science reaches a consensus is that it frames its assertions so that they are true regardless of one's frame of reference. Scientific principles are the same regardless of where one is standing. In physics this is made clear in the Principle of Relativity.

Science does not seek a view from nowhere, it seeks explanations that work anywhere.

The claim that science tries to "stand outside of nature" is no more than rhetoric.

Joshs

↪180 Proof

Care to cite an instance of "religious metaphysics" (1) that quantifies the error of predictions, (2) that experimentally tests its explanations, (3) that is institutionally error-correcting – fallibilistic – by a peer-review community, (4) that is free of "revealed" "X-of-the-gaps" dogmas, etc etc? :chin: — 180 Proof

Your depiction of the methods of science is dependent on normative concepts like error correction and falsification, pointing to the indirect relation between conceptualization and the things themselves of the world. In this move , both our subjectivity and the things in themselves of the world take on the character of the divine in presupposing that which exists in and for itself outside of and before its relation to an outside.

Joshs

↪Banno

Science does not seek a view from nowhere, it seeks explanations that work anywhere.

The claim that science tries to stand outside of nature is no more than rhetoric. — Banno

A view from everywhere , or sideways on, is a relative of the view from nowhere. What justifies this stance is a view of nature grounded in a set of normative presuppositions concerning objectivity. There must be something universal within ‘nature in itself’ that makes it possible for science to ‘work anywhere’.

180 Proof

↪Joshs

:roll:

↪Banno

:100:

Noble Dust

But how to apply science’s epistemological method to religion? — Art48

Rudolf Steiner attempted to do something along these lines with his "spiritual science". Worth researching for the sake of interest if nothing more, if you haven't already.

Tom Storm

Would that not make them agnostic? — Benj96

Yes, as far as a knowledge claim is concerned; but atheism addresses belief. you are unconvinced a god exists. Knowledge claims are of a different order.

Hence in atheist communities I know people often say they are agnostic atheists. They have no certain knowledge of whether god exists, but based on what they do know they are unconvinced.

Tom Storm

I think this view is mistaken. Part of the way in which science reaches a consensus is that it frames its assertions so that they are true regardless of one's frame of reference. Scientific principles are the same regardless of where one is standing. In physics this is made clear in the Principle of Relativity.

Science does not seek a view from nowhere, it seeks explanations that work anywhere.

The claim that science tries to "stand outside of nature" is no more than rhetoric. — Banno

This is nice.

Benj96

↪Tom Storm

fair, i'll take that. Perhaps knowledge of any actual god is impossible. Perhaps not. It all comes down to a unification of a perfect reasoning and perfect ethics as one undeniable unanimity. One we have yet to approach, either for reasons of our own flawed logic or because it may not exist.

Banno

Flame on for a bit...

A view from everywhere , or sideways on, is a relative of the view from nowhere. — Joshs

Not a view from everywhere, nor nowhere, but a view from anywhere.

What justifies this stance is a view of nature grounded in a set of normative presuppositions concerning objectivity. — Joshs

I think this fundamentally wrong. First, the stance you describe, "a view from everywhere" is not something that science seeks. Rather science seeks to express its assertions in a way that is acceptable to any observer. Second, the emphasis in scientific method is not objectivity, but agreement. What is commonly called objectivity amounts to an agreed description.

Scientific method places the emphasis on reaching agreement amongst its proponents. It does this by insisting on things such as open, critical conversations and reproducible results.

There must be something universal within ‘nature in itself’ that makes it possible for science to ‘work anywhere’. — Joshs

No, there need not be any such thing. The notion of "nature-in-itself" is not found in science, but in the babble of phenomenalist philosophers. It's not nature-in-itself, whatever that is, but just nature.

Tom Storm

Perhaps not. It all comes down to a unification of a perfect reasoning and perfect ethics as one undeniable unanimity. — Benj96

I'm not sure what you mean by this but that's perhaps because I am not keen on the word 'perfect' and do not think it's a genuine category, more like a superlative. I also don't fetishize reason - I think it is often the best we can do to identify useful approaches but I don't think it is a pathway to truth (another abstraction I am suspicious of and seems to mean different things in different areas).

One we have yet to approach, either for reasons of our own flawed logic or because it may not exist. — Benj96

:up:

180 Proof

The notion of "nature-in-itself" is not found in science, but in the babble of phenomenalist philosophers. It's not nature-in-itself, whatever that is, but just nature — Banno

:strong: :fire:

↪Tom Storm

:up:

baker

But how to apply science’s epistemological method to religion? — Art48

Why should anyone do that?? Can you explain?

Vera Mont

Why wee do you think Dennett’s and Dawkin’s doctrinaire atheism comes from? — Joshs

Why would any of us presume to know where someone else's thinking comes from? My own atheism is a very simple one: I don't buy that brand of insurance. Even more sim[ply put: I think the god idea is a silly one.

I woukd ask them if they don't believe in any God, tell me why you don't believe in my personal interpretation. Which of course they cannot, until I describe it. — Benj96

Of course we can. Nobody believes in anybody else's personal interpretation: believers all believe in their own interpretation, which is usually, but not universally, based on some description given to them as dogma, but varies slightly or widely from one believer to the next. I believe you have one, which is fine, as long as you don't bully other people or scare the horses, but I don't believe in any.

Would that not make them agnostic? — Benj96

If it gives you comfort to classify them thus, I'm sure most would be tolerant of your label, but would not choose it themselves. Reason: to call oneself agnostic is to suggest - especially to theists, who tend to grab the slightest hint of uncertainty and run amok with it - that one still entertains the god ideas that have been presented in doctrine form - particularly their doctrine, because they tend to be unfamiliar with any other.
This is not the case for most people who identify as atheist: they reject the whole concept of gods, in any and all forms that have been thus far promulgated in religion, and any future iterations that rely on the same idea.

Art48

What does a quest to find a deeper reality mean? — Tom Storm

The periodic table provides a deeper understanding of chemistry. Schrodinger's equation and the Standard Model provide a deeper understanding of chemistry.

Art48

But how to apply science’s epistemological method to religion? — Art48
Why should anyone do that?? Can you explain? — baker

Religion's epistemological method has failed to provide genuine knowledge as evidenced by the fact that different religions disagree about reality. Even Christian denominations cannot agree on how to be saved!

Science works. It possesses genuine knowledge which is why just about all nations accept Western science but usually keep their own religion.

Applying a superior epistemological method to religious questions might produce some genuine knowledge.

180 Proof

↪Art48

In what way does the following "credo" (from an old journal of mine written in 1992) preclude "the quest to find a deeper reality"?

A freethinker's faith:
Both you and I are unbelievers, the only difference being that I'm consistent. The same reason you don't believe in all other gods (except one) is the very same reason I don't believe in your god either. The point is I do not have superstitious or religious commitments. What I trust, or believe in, is public evidence and sound reasoning.

deletedmemberbcc

The same might be said of the alchemists: that many of their beliefs were childish fantasies unrelated to reality. BUT had the alchemists given up, we might never have discovered chemistry. I feel much the same about the atheist, that they’ve given up the quest to find a deeper reality.

Of course, atheists may be right in that there is no deeper reality to be found, at least, not a reality that could in any sensible way be called “God.” But they may be wrong, too. — Art48

Then we'll cross that bridge if/when we come to it. All the currently available evidence suggests that theism is false. But nothing is preventing us from updating our beliefs pending future evidence. If someday it turns out that theists were onto something after all, then we can adjust our views accordingly.

But it would be extremely unreasonable to reject what the current evidence supports based only on the mere possibility that maybe, some day, the evidence might support something different. Once the evidence does support something different, that is the time to reevaluate and update your views.

180 Proof

↪busycuttingcrap

:100:

Maw

Hey @busycuttingcrap is back!

Agent Smith

↪180 Proof

Do you really believe that theism is false (atheism)? Do you also think that having a god would be a bad thing (antitheism)? Questions that have been asked and answered numerous times, but what's yer take mon ami?

My problem with atheism

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Categories

More Discussions