Is there anything you'd like to discuss about this? Or should this be in the lounge?

Hello Jorndoe,

Although I am not familiar with that book, I would like to just share some brief comments on the 10 reasons you expounded for not believing in God.

consistent replacement of supernatural explanations of the world with natural ones

I find that these terms are regularly deployed in vague and superficial manners, where either can be used to consistently and coherently explain reality: it just depends on how loose or precise the definitions are of them.

inconsistency of world religions

This just simply doesn’t entail that God doesn’t exist: it entails, if granted as true, that ‘world religions’ are false. Seems like a non sequitur to me.

weakness of religious arguments, explanations, and apologetics

If we are talking about mainstream apologetics, arguments, etc., then I agree; but so do most theists I talk too! If you are claiming that arguments for theism are all weak, then I don’t buy that. I have heard sophisticated and rational arguments for and against God’s existence.

increasing diminishment of god

Based off of the ‘rawstory’ article you linked, I believe you are referring to humanity being able to explain what was once called ‘supernatural’ with ‘natural’ events. Although this may prima facie count in favor of a physicalistic metaphysical theory, I think there are plenty of theistic arguments that hold weight as well.

Likewise, some people (like myself) would place God in nature as nature: so I find it to be a false dilemma to say that either (1) God exists and there are supernatural events or (2) we can explain everything naturally.

fact that religion runs in families

Again, this doesn’t entail God doesn’t exist. If someone were to argue that God exists because they were taught that traditionally by their family, then that is a bad argument for God’s existence.

physical causes of everything we think of as the soul

One can believe in souls without being a theist, and theists can believe that we don’t have souls (albeit less mainstream and stereotypical).

Also, as a neo-schopenhauerian, I reject the notion that our representations of the world exhaust it, and metaphysically the other side is mind: so I quite literally accept that from the side of the ‘physical’ (which is our representations of the world) we should find no evidence of a soul, but that, from introspection, we realize that the representations are of the soul (of mental events). So kind of a false dilemma again for me.

complete failure of any sort of supernatural phenomenon to stand up to rigorous testing

It’s a metaphysical claim, so one should never expect to study it empirically within our representations: it is (usually) meant to give the best account of the mind-body problem in philosophy of mind.

slipperiness of religious and spiritual beliefs

Sure. But why does this convince one that God doesn’t exist, as opposed to people believing false things?

failure of religion to improve or clarify over time

I get the feeling that the title should have been ‘why I am not religious in any mainstream way’ and not ‘why I don’t believe in God’. Religion, as a mainstream institution, is not a science nor is necessarily a means of refining our knowledge of God (if God exists).

complete lack of solid evidence for god's existence

This is entirely dependent on what one constitutes as “solid evidence”. If they are expecting to scientifically observe God, then I think I have more of a problem with their criteria for knowledge.

⁽²⁾ This just simply doesn’t entail that God doesn’t exist: it entails, if granted as true, that ‘world religions’ are false. Seems like a non sequitur to me. — Bob Ross

⁽⁵⁾ Again, this doesn’t entail God doesn’t exist. If someone were to argue that God exists because they were taught that traditionally by their family, then that is a bad argument for God’s existence. — Bob Ross

I didn't read those as deductive, but as evidence in support of the case. Though, I could of course have misread Christina.

That being said, these observations (evidence) can draw attention to the point in the opening post regarding elaborate versus idealized. God/god and religious faith can mean any number of things ^{(link, link, link, IEP, SEP)}, with varying responses. Regarding the elaborate, prevalent category:

It becomes difficult to see the point of a proof of God's existence when it is construed as a proof of an individual's existence. Does one use arguments to become acquainted with an individual? Either that individual exists or it doesn't, and experience alone can tell us which. The project of a proof of God's existence thus ironically comes to appear meaningless to contemporary philosophers of religion. — Theism and Atheism: Opposing Arguments In Philosophy (2019), Joseph Koterski, Graham Oppy

⁽¹⁾ I find that these terms are regularly deployed in vague and superficial manners, where either can be used to consistently and coherently explain reality: it just depends on how loose or precise the definitions are of them. — Bob Ross

I find "supernatural magic" and "G did it" to be non-explanations ^{(previously ... Nov 9, 2022 ... Jun 4, 2022)}. They could (literally) be raised to explain anything, and therefore explain nothing. When did such an explanation ever do away with ignorance/errors? Not themselves explicable, cannot readily be exemplified (verified), do not derive anything differentiable in particular, ... Replacing with "don't know" does not incur informative loss; not replacing is a termination along such lines of inquiry, a proliferation of ignorance.

:100: :fire:

Agree. I never really know what people mean when they refer to god/s - the idea seems incoherent and convoluted. And you're right, a significant problem is that god has no explanatory power. It's just a place where some people imagine the buck stops. I generally consider myself an agnostic atheist. We can't know there are no gods, but I find myself unable to believe in them.

We can't know there are no gods — Tom Storm

Why can't we know there are no gods? :chin:

Good question. I should have said 'I don't know if there are no gods.'

If you (somehow) knew that there is at least one god, do you think you would still be unable to believe in god?

I imagine I could believe in something I knew to be true. But I don't think I would be worshipping anything.

Same here. As far as I'm concerned, all worship is idolatry and worshippers – religious believers – are idolators.

Opinion | Why I don't believe in God — jorndoe

I think this statement is disingenuous. The reason Cristina doesn't believe in God is that she doesn't believe. I went through a similar process when I was about 15. Before that I volunteered at our local church and acted as an acolyte. I folded programs, lit the candles at the beginning of the service and snuffed them at the end, and helped collect money. At that point we moved to another town and I just dropped my participation and never really thought about it again. There was never any outright rejection, I just stopped. I think most young people who leave the church are probably like that. As long as there isn't any pressure, they never really need to reject belief.

I can think of two reasons why someone would provide the kinds of rationalizations that are included in the OP. 1) Looking back, people look for some reason need to justify their actions or 2) They want to proselytize their disbelief to others because of resentment or anger. Perhaps there is a third 3) Self-aggrandizement - they can feel superior to people who still believe.

The real question should be not “is there a god” but do I have faith that there is no god. This confuses most theists and atheists alike, because the question of god has nothing to do with proof or evidence but belief and faith.

The real question should be not “is there a god” but do I have faith that there is no god. — simplyG

Or, better yet: Is anything we say or claim about "god" (any deity) that is demonstrably true and therefore consistent with the world (existence) as we know it?

I assume you mean “where is the evidence of god ?”

There isn’t much, though you might see it in a pretty flower.

Public evidence.

The real question should be not “is there a god” but do I have faith that there is no god. T — simplyG

Most atheists I have known would not say there is no god. They are more likely to say that they are unconvinced that there is. As an atheist, I am unconvinced that there are gods. I have yet to hear an account of theism that I find convincing. It may be as Calvin says that some people don't have a sensus divinitatis. Perhaps it is like sexual preferences, some people are attracted to the god narrative and others are not.

For me the most convincing argument I suppose you could call it, is intelligent design combined with aesthetics. Why is our vision hard wired to like beauty ? Is it universal?

Perhaps it is like sexual preferences, some people are attracted to the god narrative and others are not. — Tom Storm

:up:

Hello Jorndoe,

I didn't read those as deductive, but as evidence in support of the case. Though, I could of course have misread Christina.

I am not saying they are deductive arguments: even if they are inductive arguments they are still non sequiturs (viz., if the argument’s premises are accepted as true, the conclusion does not clearly follow at all from them, no different than me saying “I’ve seen a banana before, therefore unicorns don’t exist”).

That being said, these observations (evidence) can draw attention to the point in the opening post regarding elaborate versus idealized.

By “idealized”, it seems to me that you are referring to formal theological arguments for God, is that correct?

By “elaborate”, it seems (from your OP) that you are referring to laymen’s beliefs about God.

This is a fine generic and imprecise distinction (for not all laymen beliefs are distinct from formal arguments) for practical purposes, but I would say that your distinction just turns into the “elaborate” being the bad, vague arguments for God and the “idealized” being the good, clear arguments for God—so I think “elaborate” probably not a good term to express the former (nor “idealized”, as formal arguments are not in the business [necessarily] of idealism nor arguing for ideals).

I would say that when I refer to good arguments I have heard (although I am not convinced of them), I am referring to your “idealized” category (if I am understanding you correctly)--i.e., cosmological, ontological, teleological, etc. The best arguments for God that I find appealing are the one’s predicated off of idealism.

It becomes difficult to see the point of a proof of God's existence when it is construed as a proof of an individual's existence. Does one use arguments to become acquainted with an individual? Either that individual exists or it doesn't, and experience alone can tell us which. The project of a proof of God's existence thus ironically comes to appear meaningless to contemporary philosophers of religion.

I love Graham Oppy, and I haven’t read the whole article, but he/they are personifying God, which obviously makes no sense. A theist should not be arguing for the existence of a being when one could immediately experience, as God is posited in order to explain the underlying structure of reality itself. Secondly, yes, people use arguments to “become acquainted with” other people. I may not have met my cousin, rose, but I have ample evidence to support that she does, indeed exist: so a theist would say they can provide evidence of God’s existence without directly experiencing God.

I find "supernatural magic" and "G did it" to be non-explanations
…
They could (literally) be raised to explain anything, and therefore explain nothing.

Sort of. Bad arguments for God, or simply ill-thought out metaphysical explanations of the world, can fall prey to this sort of ‘God-of-the-gaps’ sort of explanation; but contemporary theists in theology do not do this at all.

Also, I can parody this argument with naturalism: someone could ‘explain’ a phenomena by presupposing it as ‘natural’ without actually explaining anything. So what? This just reflects a particularly bad argument, and not that all naturalism is bad argumentation.

When did such an explanation ever do away with ignorance/errors?

When we practice metaphysics correctly, it provides a useful theory of what we think reality is, and, of course, metaphysics is always speculative (so there is always, just like anything else, a degree of possible error).

But, hey, if you don’t like metaphysics, then that’s fine; but just remember you can’t coherently nor consistently hold naturalism, physicalism, etc. as well: it goes both ways.

Not themselves explicable, cannot readily be exemplified (verified), do not derive anything differentiable in particular, ...

There are plenty of ways to verify or illegitimize arguments for God: they just aren’t scientific.

Surely, you agree that there is some legitimate evidence which is not public (e.g., introspective knowledge, self-reflective knowledge, etc.)? Otherwise, I don't know why you think you have evidence that you have thoughts or emotions then, or any qualitative experience whatsoever since, of course, they are private knowledge.

I've been writing an essay on this for awhile. As someone who grew up in a militantly atheist household and also has spent a lot of time a Evangelical churches (which preach conversion and the Great Commission above all else), I think there is a fundemental disconnect with how the Church writ large appeals to people. It is generally concerned with emotional appeals to people who grew up at least culturally Christian, and this is a diminishing share of the population. It doesn't address the two main issues I see, addressed in the OP.

1. The idea that Christianity or religion in general is incompatible with naturalism, or requires belief in superstitions. I don't believe this is true, but it is a common conviction among both atheists and the faithful alike.

2. That there is no explanation for religious pluralism within religious traditions themselves. There is only "well they are all wrong/lacked the Holy Spirit, we are right." Actually, the Catechism of the Catholic Church has a suprisingly ecumenical section on other sects, Ill try to find it. But polysemy was very big with the Church Fathers and such pluralism is not surprising if one assumes that God works, unfolds in God's immanent form, through world history.

The dialectical churn of faith and reason seems to be what is needed to drive humanity towards goals like freedom, contemplation of the Absolute, self-development, etc. And indeed the Bible is an example where God starts off commanding from on high, then teaches laterally through fellow men in the Gospels and Acts, and then moves towards an indwelling, internal mode of self-development with the advent of Pentecost.

The main barrier re naturalism I feel is that people have a fairly inaccurate view of what science says the world "must be like," the limits on speculation, where empirical fact begins to cull possibilities. While in the upper reaches of the sciences and philosophy it has long been accepted that 19th century corpuscular, reductive materialism has major problems, and I don't think modified versions even remain one of the more popular conceptions, it remains popular writ large. This is by far and away the most popular layman's interpretation of what science says "the world is like." Thus, even more sophisticated presentations of faith for the curious tend to result in people talking past each other, because you need vast detours into other areas to set up the ground work on which such arguments are made.

Over time, people simplify and crystalize metaphysical views of the world, but this process has stagnated due to the fact that no one paradigm has come to replace that popular 140 years ago or so. Thus, you have a bit of an idiosyncratic grab bag floating out there.

The real question should be not “is there a god” but do I have faith that there is no god. This confuses most theists and atheists alike, because the question of god has nothing to do with proof or evidence but belief and faith. — simplyG

:100: There is no objective or scientific test that can be done to conclusively prove that god does or does not exist. The belief that there is a god (or no god) is subjective. A question of belief and faith.

A similar argument applies to the question of whether Satan exists or not.

If god exists then she could make it appear as if she doesn't exist. :grin:

Why is our vision hard wired to like beauty ? — simplyG

What is beauty is subjective. What you find beautiful I might find ugly. Is a pack of wolves hunting and killing a bison beautiful or not beautiful?

Is a pack of wolves hunting and killing a bison beautiful or not beautiful? — Agree-to-Disagree

I think @simplyG is referring to aesthetics, and not subjectiveness.

How does that work? Worship of God is idolatry because people are actually worshiping their conception of God (a created thing)?

I think this is partly the idea behind apophatic theology at least. All conception is limiting, and thus insufficient, only the "cloud of unknowing," "divine darkness," at which point even worship has ceased, represents the ultimate goal that cataphatic theology aspires to.

For me the most convincing argument I suppose you could call it, is intelligent design combined with aesthetics. Why is our vision hard wired to like beauty ? Is it universal?

Yes, that has been a popular "argument" since antiquity: "I don't understand physically how this or that came to be, must have been a metaphysical entity". Obviously in ancient times just about everything observable was capable of being part of this narrative. Now since the advent of science, it is a much smaller (and shrinking) subset.

I do not know -- we can not know -- beyond all doubt whether or not gods exist. A very large majority of people think gods do exist, and are active agents. Why?

As a former believer, it seems like the question "Do the gods exist?" is a function of the effectiveness of institutions.

"God" is a product and a service of religious institutions which purvey god-belief, rituals, theology, communal gatherings, and so on. Many individuals and families participate and support religious institutions everywhere. The viability and vitality of belief in the gods is a result of the viability and vitality of the institutions that purvey god-products and services.

Christian institutions in Europe and the Americas have lost a great deal of viability and vitality. Membership and participation losses have been extraordinarily large (over the last century -- not just since 2000).

Before the modern era (whatever date you like) there was good reason to believe in God/s because there were few other especially good explanations for a lot of fortunate and unfortunate natural phenomena. Crops failed? Wife died? A dicey investment paid off? God did it! As science and industry have progressed with ever deeper inquiries into nature there has been less need of God/s to explain bad -- and good -- fortune.

Religious institutions have run up against considerable resistance to the old idea that God (in the 'received religions') causes good and bad things to happen in response to our supplications. Even very conservative believers who consistently and earnestly pray to God go to the doctor when they feel ill. They may pray, but they also take their medicines and sign up for surgeries.

Conclusion: We do not believe because God obviously exists; we believe in God because we have been so taught. Were God-teaching to eventually end, God/god would fade and end as well.

I think simplyG is referring to aesthetics, and not subjectiveness. — javi2541997

Yes, but I think the point being made in response is that aesthetic appreciation is subjective. We don't all appreciate or like the same things and notions of the beautiful seem to vary across time and culture.

Conclusion: We do not believe because God obviously exists; we believe in God because we have been so taught. Were God-teaching to eventually end, God/god would fade and end as well. — BC

If God teaching ended then I think that God/god would not fade. The human mind "wants" explanations for the unknown, and meaning for events, and god provides these.

Also I think that the idea of a god originates in the experience of a child with a parent. The parent is "all powerful". When the child finds out that the parent is not "all powerful" then they look for an entity that is "all powerful".

If God teaching ended then I think that God/god would not fade. The human mind "wants" explanations for the unknown, and meaning for events, and god provides these. — Agree-to-Disagree

But god doesn't explain anything. When we say god created the world, it's equivalent to saying, 'the magic man did it.' God as a (pseudo) explanation does not tell us how or why, it answers nothing. But you are right to say that people are drawn to magical answers - we often attribute phenomena to ghosts, demons, spirits, the evil eye, gods and no doubt this will continue even if Yahweh and Allah join the ranks of defunct gods like Thoth, Xipe Totec and Aegir.