The Dialectic of Atheism and Theism: An Agnostic's Perspective

Thund3r

I, like others, find myself in a unique position when it comes to the debate between atheism and theism. On the one hand, I acknowledge the lack of empirical evidence for a divine being, and on the other, I cannot deny the possibility of its existence. In this post, I aim to articulate my thoughts on the matter and present a dialectic that addresses my concerns of the debate.

1. If there is no empirical evidence for something, then belief in that something is based on faith and personal beliefs, not fact.
2. There is currently no empirical evidence for the existence of a deity.
3. Therefore, the existence of a deity is based on faith and personal beliefs, not fact. (1,2 MP)

Theism, as a belief system, is based on the idea that there is a divine being who created the universe and governs its workings. Theists often argue that the presence of order and design in the universe is evidence of a divine creator.

The argument for a divine creator relies on the assumption that the universe had a beginning. However, there are several alternative theories for the beginning of the universe – for example, Astrophysicist Alex Filippenko of the University of California, Berkeley stated that quantum fluctuations can produce matter and energy out of nothingness and could have led to the creation of the universe. Of course, one could ask how those initial “quantum laws” were created and end up in a similar causal regression as a theist trying to explain who created their deity. The difference between them, though, seems to be that theist is making positive claims that they know what’s at the end of that regression – and that seems problematic. It seems like the atheist is in a better situation here.

Some theists will point to personal experiences as evidence, but these experiences can be subjective and interpreted in different ways. For example, a person who experiences a feeling of peace after praying may attribute that feeling to the presence of a deity, but it could also be due to the release of chemicals in the brain (which is observed to result from meditation)

In our day-to-day lives, we demand evidence and validation before accepting something as truth. For example, we expect to see a plethora of evidence as to why a cutting-edge drug or supplement works before putting it in our bodies. (At the very least, we expect the drug/supplement claims to be evidence-based – not faith or belief based) Why is theism exempt from this kind of evidence-based thinking?

Perhaps I’ve not fully understood some of the strongest theist arguments. All responses are welcome.

T Clark

Some theists will point to personal experiences as evidence, but these experiences can be subjective and interpreted in different ways. — Thund3r

Personal experience is evidence, whether or not you find it convincing. I'm not here to make the case for theism, but saying there's no evidence is just not true. Have you had a similar personal spiritual experience, whether or not you identify it with God?

Banno

↪T Clark

Yep,

1. If there is no empirical evidence for something, then belief in that something is based on faith and personal beliefs, not fact. — Thund3r

...says roughly that beliefs are either based on empirical evidence or faith, setting up a false dilemma.

It's also not at all clear what this has to do with "Dialectic"... I gather it's not a reference to Hegel.

The argument for a divine creator relies on the assumption that the universe had a beginning. — Thund3r

There's other arguments besides this one. And "empirical evidence" suggests that the universe did indeed have a beginning. The example of quantum fluctuation is a case in point, not in contrast.

A better argument against there being a good god who intervenes in the world is to look around at how bad a job he is doing.

Wayfarer

↪Thund3r

I think you’re putting to much faith in empiricism (pardon the irony). Mathematics, logic and many other disciplines are not strictly empirical. in nature. I think what you’re actually saying is that God is intangible, beyond sensory perception.

Secondly God is not ‘based on an idea’. If anything, God is reduced to an idea or a series of propositions, which then are said to have no possibility of empirical validation. But that is a kind of ‘straw God’ in that it refers mainly to the kind of God whose only presence is as a term in Internet debates. In practice belief in God is grounded in community, in tradition, and in a way of living, which opens up horizons of being in a way that mere propositional knowledge cannot.

I’m not here to argue for ‘theism’ (which again is a word only really encountered in Internet debates) but to try and provide another perspective on the question.

Banno

Secondly God is not ‘based on an idea’. If anything, God is reduced to an idea or a series of propositions, which then are said to have no possibility of empirical validation. But that is a kind of ‘straw God’ in that it refers mainly to the kind of God whose only presence is as a term in Internet debates. In practice belief in God is grounded in community, in tradition, and in a way of living, which opens up horizons of being in a way that mere propositional knowledge cannot. — Wayfarer

Funny thing is that no sooner does one start to set out god's attributes then one runs into contradictions.

Better to remain silent.

180 Proof

↪Thund3r

I'm not here to make the case for theism, but saying there's no evidence is just not true. — T Clark

Well, there certaintly isn't any corroborable, non-anecdotal, public evidence of or sound arguments for "theism" (e.g. the existence of any "theistic" g/G). No doubt I could be wrong about this ... :smirk:

T Clark

Well, there certaintly isn't any corroborable, public evidence — 180 Proof

And shared experience doesn't count? Not sure about that.

or sound arguments for "theism" (e.g. the existence of any "theistic" g/G). — 180 Proof

I probably disagree. Still thinking.

T Clark

Secondly God is not ‘based on an idea’. If anything, God is reduced to an idea or a series of propositions, which then are said to have no possibility of empirical validation. But that is a kind of ‘straw God’ in that it refers mainly to the kind of God whose only presence is as a term in Internet debates. In practice belief in God is grounded in community, in tradition, and in a way of living, which opens up horizons of being in a way that mere propositional knowledge cannot. — Wayfarer

I agree with this. Atheism forces God into little boxes and then complains when the boxes don't stack neatly.

Vera Mont

On the one hand, I acknowledge the lack of empirical evidence for a divine being, and on the other, I cannot deny the possibility of its existence. — Thund3r

That's hardly unique.
If you really want to judge on evidence, you first have to decide what is and what is not admissible in your particular court. In legal proceedings, there are several kinds of evidence: physical, eye witness, hearsay and circumstantial. There is also a standard of preponderance - how much of each kinds of evidence is required to add to up to a convincing case.

In this situation, we have all kinds of eye-witness reports, both first-hand written. You have to decide how reliable each witness is. Again, you need to establish a basis for deciding that.

Then of course, you have to hear both sides, with cross-examination, expert testimony, everything - not just a summary of closing arguments.

The argument for a divine creator relies on the assumption that the universe had a beginning. — Thund3r

I am unaware of any scripture that refers to the universe. The creator deities I know of only made the "the world", and the world to which each myth refers is somewhat different from every other world. They usually consist of earth, water and sky or 'the heavens', in which are one sun, one moon; stars optional, but when they are mentioned, they often are the embodiment of dead people or fantastic animals. Little resemblance to the universe as described by cosmologists.
So is the process of creation different in each story, as is the deity performing it.

In our day-to-day lives, we demand evidence and validation before accepting something as truth. — Thund3r

Really?? What percent of your fellow citizens is included in the "we" and how have they demonstrated their demand for proof - of what, exactly?

Perhaps I’ve not fully understood some of the strongest theist arguments. — Thund3r

You may very well have understood the ones under consideration, but I suspect your sample size is inadequate. How many apologists for how many religions have you reviewed?

Agent Smith

No one has either proved/disproved the existence of god. All that has been accomplished is refutations of mainly theistic arguments, that they're unsound. Atheism is happy just doing that, but it bears mentioning that it hasn't disproved god. As a (wannabe) skeptic, this is perfect weather for epoché (to suspend judgment i.e. adopt agnosticism).

Regarding empirical evidence for God, what about order (re clockwork universe); "there's gotta be a ordering principle" say theists, which is God.

180 Proof

No one has either proved/disproved the existence of god. All that has been accomplished is refutations of mainly theistic arguments, that they're unsound. — Agent Smith

Well, that's good enough to demonstrate that disbelief in theistic g/G is more reasonable than theistic g/G-beliefs. From a recent post ...

↪Agent Smith These semantic muddles are why I prefer the more probative question of Is theism true or not true? rather than merely "Does g/G exist?" If theism is not true (i.e. antitheism), then atheism (i.e. every theistic g/G is a fiction) follows; however, whether or not "g/G exists" does not entail either belief or disbelief in g/G ... — 180 Proof

Also (same thread):
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/774753 :fire:

Agent Smith

↪180 Proof

Although you've been kind enough to share your insights with us, I'm afraid the distinction you make between god's existence and theism escapes me. Wait! I get it now. You're right on the money, si señor! Theism can't/shouldn't exist, because god's existence/nonexistence is adiaphora i.e. undecidable.

Philosophim

I think what is often missed in evaluating theism is the cultural and emotional aspects of it. First, there is the cultural. Oftentimes theists are raised in culturally theistic societies. It is seen as the cultural norm, and a positive glue that keeps society together.

Second, people can believe in a deity because it represents a great ideal. The ideal of an ordered universe, morality, and the idea that you as an individual are special somehow and should live your life as if you are. These are powerful motivators to many people.

Third, people can believe in a deity through fear. I view this as the more negative aspect of theism. A cultural bonding can just as easily be a means to exclude a person from a group. Pushing to an ideal that cannot be lived up to can lead to frustration, self-loathing, and needless self-sacrifice.

Its not about evidence. If it was, theism would have died a long time ago. Its about servicing those needs that a lot of humanity has. Until something else can come along and replace that, theism will remain strong.

Bylaw

In our day-to-day lives, we demand evidence and validation before accepting something as truth. — Thund3r

We do for some things, but not for many many others. For example, we have large sets of heuristics about how to achieve certain things: money, friends, romance, creative works: how to avoid certain things: being looked down on, being safe, figuring out the right things to do
and more.
Many of these we follow not based on evidence.
Then there are microversions of this. We have things like 'there I have analyzed that argument/idea/person/situation long enough quale. I don't need to look at it any more. IOW we use intuition about our own effforts, abilities, effectiveness, specific achievement in the moment all the time, without evidence - certainly nothing that would be accepted in a peer reviewed science journal.

These macro assessments/heuristics and then also microversions lead to decisions that affect ourselves and other people. They are not small stuff: they lead to voting choices, moral choices, assessments of parenting techniques or specific actions and attitudes in parenting, how we relate to other people and more.

These heuristics and intuitive assessment processes are working for us, we assume, think, have decided, have faith in. And of course, perhaps they just seem to. Many we are not even conscious of.

180 Proof

↪Agent Smith

:ok:

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/463672 (follow the links ... or not)

Agent Smith

↪180 Proof

:up: Ah, the all-famous lack of belief. In me humble opinion, atheists shouldn't co-opt lack of belief - that position is distinct enough to deserve a separate category (would save us a lot of trouble).

180 Proof

↪Agent Smith

:up: No "lack of belief" here, just active disbelief.

Agent Smith

No "lack of belief" here, just active disbelief. — 180 Proof

We really don't have a choice, do we? It's either up or down. :sad:

180 Proof

↪Agent Smith

We always have a choice whether or not to hold rational (dis)beliefs.

Agent Smith

We always have a choice whether or not to hold rational (dis)beliefs — 180 Proof

:up: Danke kind person.

javi2541997

...says roughly that beliefs are either based on empirical evidence or faith, setting up a false dilemma. — Banno

False? Belief is defined as: the feeling of being certain that something exists or is true, and the page puts a good example related to this topic: His belief in God gave him hope during difficult times. Belief - Cambridge Dictionary

Rather than being a false dilemma it is a deep debate on the identity of the believers tend to have. They - sometimes - experience crisis of faith when questioning the existence of God because of beliefs are not a solid evidence of existence… and that’s why some thought as empirical evidence arises.

If beliefs are not based on faith or empirical evidence, what is the main root? :chin:

And "empirical evidence" suggests that the universe did indeed have a beginning. The example of quantum fluctuation is a case in point, not in contrast. — Banno

But we are questioning the evidence of God’s existence not the universe itself or its beginning

A better argument against there being a good god who intervenes in the world is to look around at how bad a job he is doing. — Banno

Kierkegaard’s existentialism :grin:

Tom Storm

Some theists will point to personal experiences as evidence, — Thunder

Sure. Right now we can probably find many thousands of people who claim to have been abducted by aliens and taken away for a probing... They are often well adjusted people who hold down responsible jobs. I don't think we learn anything much from anecdotes or tales of personal experience. What exactly is a personal experience?

Ah, the all-famous lack of belief. In me humble opinion, atheists shouldn't co-opt lack of belief - that position is distinct enough to deserve a separate category (would save us a lot of trouble). — Agent Smith

I can't know there is no god. I can only decide there are no reasons good enough to believe in one. I am, like many contemporary freethinkers, an agnostic atheist. Agnostic in relation to knowledge of god; atheist in terms of belief in god.

If beliefs are not based on faith or empirical evidence, what is the main root? — javi2541997

I think most people believe in god because they are brought up with the idea - evidence and faith are post hoc. Children are taught there is a god and the notion becomes absorbed as part of their socialisation and enculturation. You're much more likely to have an experience of a particular God as an adult if you are properly primed from birth.

Agent Smith

I can't know there is no god. I can only decide there are no reasons good enough to believe in one. I am, like many contemporary freethinkers, an agnostic atheist. Agnostic in relation to knowledge of god; atheist in terms of belief in god. — Tom Storm

I don't know whether God is/isn't, but I believe God isn't. :up:

Tom Storm

↪Agent Smith

I can't believe in something I don't know to be true, even if I don't know if it is not true. Are we having fun yet? :razz:

javi2541997

I think most people believe in god because they are brought up with the idea - evidence and faith are post hoc. — Tom Storm

:up:

Children are taught there is a god and the notion becomes absorbed as part of their socialisation and enculturation. — Tom Storm

Paradoxically, we have here an act of empiricism because the children who were taught a basic notion of God, probably they wouldn't be aware about what is God or what is the cause of "believing" otherwise.

You're much more likely to have an experience of a particular God as an adult if you are properly primed from birth. — Tom Storm

Then, soon or later, they need a "proof" of God's existence and here is when the dilemma starts: do they believe in God because of blind faith? ... or do they need an empirical evidence?

180 Proof

do they believe in God because of blind faith? ... or do they need an empirical evidence? — javi2541997

... or delusion? ... or whichever is cognitively-socially easier? ... or???

↪Tom Storm

:up: :up:

Vera Mont

It's never about the existence of a god, either. We can believe, with or without evidence, that all kinds of things exist: black holes, wormholes, subatomic particles, the invisible hand of the marketplace, a conscious ordering principle of the universe.... The existence or non-existence of these things don't intrude on pour daily lives.
God-claims do. Those who claim to speak for gods also make demands.
We don't decide on the evidence; we decide on the effect.

180 Proof

↪Vera Mont

:fire:

Agent Smith

I can't believe in something I don't know to be true, even if I don't know if it is not true. Are we having fun yet? :razz: — Tom Storm

I'm under the impression that we may have "reasons" other than a good argument to believe. No, I'm not having fun. Fun and I parted ways thousands of years ago. :lol:

180 Proof

I'm under the impression that we may have "reasons" other than a good argument to believe. — Agent Smith

Such as ...

Agent Smith

Such as ... — 180 Proof

Is that a rhetorical question?

The Dialectic of Atheism and Theism: An Agnostic's Perspective

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Categories

More Discussions