CAMPOS: The atheist's dilemma
By Paul Campos, Rocky Mountain News (Contact)
Wednesday, February 20, 2008
Why is Stanley Fish so much smarter than Richard Dawkins? That question occurred to me last week, while attending a lecture at which Fish, the well-known literary and legal theorist, did the thing he always does, which is to make the following point over and over again:
"No believer will find his faith shaken by evidence that is evidence only in the light of assumptions he does not share and considers flatly wrong."
Richard Dawkins is, I'm told by persons whose authority I accept on faith, a distinguished evolutionary biologist. He holds a chair at Oxford. He has won many prestigious academic prizes. By all conventional measures, Dawkins is an extremely intelligent man. So why does he seem incapable of understanding what Fish is saying?
Here is Dawkins on the evidence for religious belief: Such belief, Dawkins writes, "will earn the right to be taken seriously when it provides the slightest, smallest smidgen of a reason for believing in the existence of the divine."
Consider what Dawkins - the author of The God Delusion and, along with Sam Harris and Christopher Hitchens, the most prominent of the current crop of evangelical atheists - is claiming.
He's claiming that if one draws up a list of things that Dawkins considers evidence for the existence of God, and another list of things Dawkins considers evidence for atheism, one list has nothing on it and the other list has everything else.
And he would, of course, be right. Dawkins is a true believer, and for the true believer literally everything is evidence for the truth of his belief. For example, Fish points to St. Augustine's advice when confronting something that appears to contradict Christian belief: The phenomenon should be subjected "to diligent scrutiny until an interpretation contributing to the reign of charity is produced."
That is, Augustine's first principle of sound interpretation is that an interpretation is sound if it confirms the truth of the Christian faith. Indeed, for the perfected soul - which Augustine points out again and again he himself is not - "diligent scrutiny" is unnecessary. For "the pure and healthy internal eye," he says, "God is everywhere."
Dawkins, whose atheism is every bit as zealous as Augustine's Christianity, employs the identical interpretive procedure to reach the opposite conclusion.
Now Dawkins will object that he, unlike the religious believer, is committed to the methods of "science," and will therefore change his mind when evidence refuting his beliefs appears - but it just so happens none ever has.
The striking naivete of this viewpoint becomes clear if one asks a simple question: What, for Dawkins, would constitute evidence of God's existence? Suppose an angel of the Lord were to appear before Dawkins, even as he was delivering another lecture on the delusion that God exists. Would such an experience change Dawkins' views?
Fish has spent his whole career pointing out why it wouldn't: not because of the nature of angels, but because of the nature of interpretation. As long as Dawkins remains who he is now, he will remain incapable of seeing an angel of the Lord.
After all, a genuine atheist must interpret such an event as a temporarily inexplicable hallucination, or a sudden psychotic break, or a clever technological trick - in short, as anything but evidence that atheism is false. (An atheist who questions the truth of atheism is ceasing to be a genuine atheist precisely to the extent that he is asking himself a genuine question).
In other words, evidence must always be interpreted within the context of interpretive assumptions which necessarily determine what that evidence is understood to signify, and which by their nature are themselves matters of faith. Thus the only way someone like Dawkins will ever see any evidence for the existence of God will be if he loses his faith that he never will.
Paul Campos is a professor of law at the University of Colorado. He can be reached at paul.campos@colorado.edu.
Post your comment
Registration is required. Click here to create your free user account, or login below.
Comments are the sole responsibility of the person posting them. You agree not to post comments that are off topic, defamatory, obscene, abusive, threatening or an invasion of privacy. Violators may be banned. Click here for our full user agreement.
February 19, 2008
10:27 p.m.
Suggest removal
arby writes:
Mr. Campos
Written like a true lawyer. This is the most confusing piece I've read in awhile. please try to get it together before presenting it to the public next time. As to the existence of God. I've had some pretty unexplainable experiences. That indicate to me that there is some power/force that is beyond my understanding. Is that God? I hope so. Is God a Christian, a Muslim, a Jew, a Hindu, a Buddist? I hope not. A good article after I read it three times.
February 20, 2008
1:43 a.m.
Suggest removal
peterpi writes:
First, I suspect that, as usual, Paul Campos will be condemned by whiny conservatives as an atheistic liberal. Which will neatly prove Stanley Fish's and Campos' point, because the cons will miss Fish's and Campos' logic completely and prove the theorem.
To your question, arby, I'm probably making it worse, but I believe what Fish and Campos are saying is that to a true believer, whether that belief is atheism or theism in the context of this column, no evidence will be able to shake their conviction, because any such evidence would be denied as evidence, based on the true believer's assumptions, and therefore the evidence will be considered as false. It has to do with one's viewpoint. If one is firm in one's viewpoint, then any evidence that might shake that viewpoint will be denied as evidence because it does not fit one's viewpoints.
Campos is "not" arguing for atheism or theism. Rather he is stating that to a theist, there is no evidence an atheist could bring to change a theist's mind, because to a theist, that evidence will be invalid under a theist's assumptions. And vice versa.
Thus, for those who know of St. Thomas Aquinas' "proofs" of God, they only work if you already believe in God. Otherwise, they appear as utter nonsense.
The same point holds true of creationists and evolutionists.
February 20, 2008
7 a.m.
Suggest removal
VVVV writes:
The greatest fault of man is not admitting what he doesn't know.
February 20, 2008
7:09 a.m.
Suggest removal
Mtnsjohn writes:
For one to be a true atheist, one states categorically that there is no God.
Of the sum total of knowledge in the Universe, might existence of God be found in some part of that knowledge the atheist knows nothing or little about or in some future life experience?
The most that one is left to say is, "I don't know," and that would turn the atheist into an agnostic.
February 20, 2008
8:58 a.m.
Suggest removal
Charles_B writes:
The difference between atheism and theism is that in the case of the former what is unknown is acknowledged, and in the case of the latter what is unknown is filled with fantasy and speculation.
Of course it can't be "proven" that there is no "God", just as it can't be proven that Russell's teapot isn't orbiting. An atheist lives under an operative assumption that there is no God, since there is no evidence to the contrary. A simple calculation of the odds makes belief in "God" and act of faith and nothing else.
Logic dictates atheism, not "faith".
February 20, 2008
9:20 a.m.
Suggest removal
jay writes:
"The greatest fault of man is not admitting what he doesn't know."
Exactly...which is why it is so ridiculous to assume a supernatural cause for unknown phenomenon...or worse...insist on a supernatural cause when we have peer reviewed, credible scientific evidence to the contrary.
February 20, 2008
9:41 a.m.
Suggest removal
malis writes:
Campos seems more that a little confused this week. He provides two quotes:
1) "No believer will find his faith shaken by evidence that is evidence only in the light of assumptions he does not share and considers flatly wrong." (Fish)
2) "[religious belief]...will earn the right to be taken seriously when it provides the slightest, smallest smidgen of a reason for believing in the existence of the divine." (Dawkins)
...and then somehow concludes that if Fish is right, Dawkins must be wrong. I fail to see the logic. Fish makes the unremarkable statement that a believer generally does not take into account evidence that his belief system "considers flatly wrong." Dawkins, also unremarkably, states such a view need not be taken seriously. Where's the conflict between the two?
Campos spends the rest of his limited space in trying to argue for the tired old canard that theism and non-theism are simply two equal 'belief systems.' To put it simply, theism asserts a positive: "There is a God that has influence over the Universe." This is similar to the statement, "there is an invisible force called gravity that has influence over falling objects." Let's call this 'Gravitism.' There is a large body of demonstrable, repeatable evidence to support Gravitism. There is none for Theism.
It's the responsibility of the Theist to provide evidence, since Theism is asserting a positive. The 'a' in 'a-theism' does not mean 'anti-,' it simply means 'without.' There is no positive assertion in atheism, either that a god must, or must not, exist.
Campos last argument--that no atheist could accept evidence of the existence of 'beyond-natural' (supernatural) forces--is dishonest intellectual sophistry. The non-believer simply asks that evidence be vetted through the process demonstrated to have the greatest credibility--the scientific method. The theories of both gravity and evolution have enough demonstrable, repeatable evidence them that they do not require adherence to a 'belief system (I know of no a-gravitists).
Campos hypothetical "angel of the Lord" scenario could provide evidence, were it repeatable and verifiable. Otherwise, the simpler explanation is that of technological fraud, or mental illness, both of which have been demonstrated--with documented verifiable evidence--to occur repeatedly (supernatural visitation, of course, has not).
February 20, 2008
10:03 a.m.
Suggest removal
malis writes:
NotChasB,
On the subject of Theism, I'm in 99.9% agreement with you. That is, I believe there's insufficient evidence to support the existence of 1,000 different gods and religions. You believe there's insufficient evidence to support the existence of 999.
Please accept my sincere best wishes that you manage to gain that last one-tenth of one percent understanding. I'll cheerfully accept your best wishes (or call them prayers) that I receive evidence that would let me believe that your 1 of 1000 gods proves true, however unlikely I think that may be.
February 20, 2008
10:23 a.m.
Suggest removal
jay writes:
obsessedwithcharlesb...you could very well be right...there could be a skydaddy in the clouds that parties with our ghosts when we die all while monitoring and manipulating each of our lives as he/she sees fit. there could also be a giant frog living in the space on the other side of jupiter that manufactures aluminum siding for the stars. there could also be a nasty dirt daddy that lives under the ground and punishes all those nonbelievers and "sinners" for ever and ever until the ghost of skydaddy's son comes to earth to take the "faithful" back to skydaddy. could be. i'm not saying you're wrong....but don't cal me a "fool" if i choose the more probable explanations for the world around us and leave the supernatural beliefs for movies about vampires.
quick question...in your understanding of the universe...who created the god in which you believe?
February 20, 2008
10:35 a.m.
Suggest removal
peterpi writes:
Joy,
A theist has no responsibility to prove God's existence, because most theists understand that God's existence can't be proven. Likewise, an atheist has no responsibility to prove that God does not exist. People simply accept by faith that God exists or not. The concept of God is such that there is no evidence in a legal/scientific/logical sense one way or the other.
February 20, 2008
10:51 a.m.
Suggest removal
jay writes:
you are right that there is no legal/scientific/logical sense behind the belief in the supernatural peterpi...although their exists scientific evidence that we weren't created by a clap of the thunderhands...so you can't say the same for the case against the supernatural. it really comes down to probability. sure it's possible that a supernatural being created the universe...but keeping in mind what we know scientifically about the world around us and the evidence that continues to mount for a less fantastical version of events...which scenario is more PROBABLE
who do you believe created the christian "god"?
February 20, 2008
11:54 a.m.
Suggest removal
Sean writes:
The Earth was not created in six days 4,000 years ago. The biblical creation myth is simply that a myth. If the first part of the Bible is blatantly false, the rest of the Bible is also suspect. People turning into salt, the entire Earth being flooded, people being resurrected after dying, the Red Sea parting at the behest of Moses all are in the realm of the improbable. It is pretty convenient that these "miracles" took place thousands of years ago and nothing approaching those miracles has taken place since.
Dawkins is correct, one has to be delusional to believe in god or gods or goddesses or both because to believe in supernatural beings means one has to totally disregard logic and the sciences in order to be faithful.
I find to be amusing when I see those Christian fish stickers on cars that are powered by an energy source that comes from ancient forests, which were around long before humans ever were. Those Christians may not believe that the Earth is billions of years old , but if it were not for those geologists who believe otherwise, driving to church in their gas fueled car would be much more difficult.
February 20, 2008
12:17 p.m.
Suggest removal
Spencer writes:
why do columnists such as Rosen refer to "agnostics" with disdain? Seems to me to that a simple "I don't know" is the most rational belief
February 20, 2008
3:12 p.m.
Suggest removal
Charles_B writes:
Spencer:
"Seems to me to that a simple "I don't know" is the most rational belief"
That is the position of the atheist.
February 20, 2008
3:51 p.m.
Suggest removal
malis writes:
Charles_B, actually, it's:
"I don't know, and you have yet to convince me that you do."
February 20, 2008
5:06 p.m.
Suggest removal
irisman writes:
This is a really fun discussion, and all the basic arguments have already been stated, so I will add just one little comment. If Campos' hypothetical angel were to appear suddenly in front of Dawkins, if it was a genuine honest-to-gosh angel it would be powerful enough to convince him, perhaps by lifting him off the floor and twirling him around in front of a group of sober witnesses. What do you think the is probability of that happening?
February 20, 2008
8:30 p.m.
Suggest removal
jay writes:
funny there aren't a lot of religious right wingers defending their stances on this one.
February 20, 2008
8:31 p.m.
Suggest removal
Spinoza writes:
I am amused, to say the least, that some local op-ed writer, Mr. Campos, is so presumptive to speak for the eminent evolutionary biologist and eloquent author and advocate for reason and science, Sir Richard Dawkins. That he does so in such a clumsy and simplistic manner is inexcusable.
Mr. Campos can pretend words have no (real) meaning and there is no objectivity... and thus no arbiter of what is (really) true... but that would be delusional. Thankfully, the partnership of reason and science, dating back to the Greeks and rekindled during the Enlightenment, has propelled human-kind well beyond any of the impotent, imagined, man-made god(s) of religion. If it were not for evidenced-based reasoning, we would be at the capicious whim of the priests, shamans and oracles who claim "special status" in relationship to the (nonextant) supernatural.
BTW, an atheist cannot be "evangelical" or "takes things on faith". To the contrary, most atheists have had shed the religious indoctrination of their childhood and the proselytizing of a religiously deluded society which surrounds them to breathe the clear air of reason. Atheists are simply convinced by the weight of experience and evidence that every god of religion described thus far has been invented by the mind of man, having no bearing on the Natural world... the Cosmos.
To compare faith-based "assumptions" with scientific principles and peer-reviewed methods is beyond lame and shameful. Science is a open dialog and fluid... while religious faiths are stale dogma.
Cheers to all who seek.
February 20, 2008
8:34 p.m.
Suggest removal
peterpi writes:
Charles_B,
"I don't know" is the position of an agnostic. "a gnosis" means "without knowledge". "a theos" means "without (or no) God (or gods)".
February 20, 2008
8:56 p.m.
Suggest removal
Spinoza writes:
"A theist has no responsibility to prove God's existence, because most theists understand that God's existence can't be proven. Likewise, an atheist has no responsibility to prove that God does not exist. People simply accept by faith that God exists or not."
by Peterpi
Uh... wrong. People may simply accept by faith that a god(s) exists, but it is only by evidence (or the utter lack thereof) that rational people conclude that god(s) do not exist. The "Inconvenient Truth" for the faith-based is that at some point, they must reveal the nature of the god-construct inhabiting their brain. If it be the sky-god of the bible, then their god can easily and summarily be dismissed. Same for the god(s) of every other religion.
A theist DOES have the responsibility to prove his extraordinary claims... which DO require extraordinary evidence. Especially since those filling the pews indoctrinate their (defenseless) children.
As another poster has already mentioned that somehow, supernatural miracles ceased in the modern era of professional journalism, skepticism, science and telecommunication. However, even in the 2nd century, the biting critic of christianity, Celsus, pointed out the miracle claims were little more than crude magic, commonly found in the public bizaars of Egypt.
Prayer has yet to receive a single objective confirmatory study, yet holds sway among the faith-based. In fact, the studies on "intercessory prayer", typically from Harvard and Duke divinity schools, have not only shown no salutory effect... but in one large recent study, those cardiac patients who were "prayer for" actually faired worse!
So... if you just want to pretend there was a "prime cause" or "first mover" vague sort of ethereal being who is your "god"... who really cares? It would be unknowable anyway. However, it would be slain by the "infinite regress" argument and be a big, fat target for Occam's razor.
Remember, if you cling to a particular religious belief, you are by definition atheistic to all the other myriad religions in the world... and thus, you have that in common with me. I simply deny one more religion: yours.
February 20, 2008
9:03 p.m.
Suggest removal
Spinoza writes:
To MALIS:
I just read your earlier posts... well stated.
February 21, 2008
12:04 a.m.
Suggest removal
epaminondas writes:
Great article. The exposition of it today in class was delightful too. But the best part was to read the discussion posts this article has drawn so far; the number of commentaries surprised me for an article that came out today (btw) and they surely strike me as being almost as didactic as the article itself. So far it seems only 'peterpi' understood the article. So is that a failure by the columnist? or is it only telling with regards to the intellectual capital of the type of fools that spend their time ranting on a message board with the delusional hope that somebody will be impressed by their audacity (or even worst: that the writer will read their messages, change his mind, tell them they are right and then quit his job while weeping uncontrollably)? Don't get me wrong you are all marvelous creatures to follow (and of course I mean to include the columnist himself) and please, by all means, do spend more time drafting an answer to me that will make me change my mind, tell you you are right,...etc.
The reason I read this column every week is because whatever Paul Campos writes, wether I agree with it or not, is sure to draw the kind of readers' responses that can make me laugh my butt off . . . even at 11:54 p.m.
February 21, 2008
12:43 a.m.
Suggest removal
digroovio writes:
I, as an atheist or agnostic, whichever you choose to label me as, have never felt the need to convince those of faith in the non-existence of the supernatural. For the majority of the world, life is hard, and if believing in a god gives you hope, or as John Lennon so eloquently put it, gets you through the night, then alright. But you only need to turn back a few pages to the "Coffee break lands woman in jail" article to see why Dawkins and "the current crop of evangelical atheists", as Campos calls them, have been so vocally opposed to religion. If the conservative Christians like Dobson have their way, premarital sex and divorce will land you jail in the good old USA next. And more importantly, finding a cure for cancer and heart disease will come from the scientific community and those who continue to ask why, not those that accept things as they are and pray for it to go away. Even Charles Darwin, who was deeply religious, put his faith aside when presented with the raw facts. Evolution is the basis for modern biology and without it, drugs that we depend on like antibiotics would not exist, and most likely neither would we.
February 21, 2008
7:30 a.m.
Suggest removal
Spencer writes:
Charles I have always understood that an atheist believes that there is no god and and agnostic doesn't know whether there is a god or not. I may be wrong but that is what I always thought. I'm an agnostic by the way. My Father-in-law once told everyone on that he was one of those "antagonists" which made me laugh.
February 21, 2008
9:30 a.m.
Suggest removal
Charles_B writes:
peterpi, Spencer:
If an atheist is someone who *knows* (or claims to) that there is no God, then atheists effectively *don't exist*.
The difference between being "agnostic" and an atheist is that the atheist views the probability of God existing as so remote that they live their lives under the assumption that there is no God--the same way that everyone lives their lives under the assumption that there is no Zeus or any other mythical creatures.
The agnostic is much less certain that there is no god, so the difference is in the degree of certainty.
February 21, 2008
9:42 a.m.
Suggest removal
jay writes:
I've always thought of agnostics as atheists with The Fear of What If.
February 21, 2008
10:15 a.m.
Suggest removal
Spencer writes:
In my case jay, I happen to believe in golf Gods.
February 21, 2008
1:26 p.m.
Suggest removal
Bookem writes:
Malis...your comments have given me a moment pause. I had to step away to think about them. Especially the one to NotChasB about being in 99.99% agreement with believers.
We can all agree there are an infinite number of atoms in the universe. So...
These infinite number of atoms floated around and over a billion or so years and came together and formed the first amino acid. Then, over a few more billion years those infinite number of amino acids randomly formed the first protein -- the foundation of life. And so this process continued over a few billion years until now -- evolution, right?
What are the odds of these infinite number of atoms, amino acids and proteins randomly coming together over billions & billions of years to form you? To form me?
What are the odds of these infinite number of atoms floating together to give us what we call intelligence? Self awareness? What makes us intellegent & and self aware? Randomness? How is it that we have a conscience and are able to determine what is right and what is wrong?
You have faith that its all random. You have faith in the above odds. As much faith, if not more faith, than the believer who takes the .01% chance.
I think I will take the .01%.
How many species have evolved over time to become sentient? Having a conscience? Just one that I know of.
Could the 'Big Bang' be a non-existent being saying something along the lines of, "Let there be light."?
February 21, 2008
1:26 p.m.
Suggest removal
Charles_B writes:
jay:
"I've always thought of agnostics as atheists with The Fear of What If."
Heh. Those who've accepted the premise of Pascal's wager.
February 21, 2008
2:49 p.m.
Suggest removal
malis writes:
Bookem, yup, that's the real question with no answer...where'd the Big Bang come from? I certainly don't know and that branch of science--cosmology--is better at slowly uncovering the mechanics involved than explaining how it all got started.
On the other hand, your statement "How many species have evolved over time to become sentient? Having a conscience? Just one that I know of." ...you've already answered: "...that I know of." I'm not sure just how big the Universe is, but I do know I can't write enough zeros to state the overwhelmingly small percentage of the Universe of which we have knowledge.
The accepted name for the quandary is "The God of the Gaps." If we don't understand something (that is, there's a gap in our knowledge), why, it must be supernatural! Unfortunately, the 'believers' have a centuries-long losing streak there...as we've reached understanding of the previously unexplainable, the natural (demonstrable, repeatable) cause has won over the supernatural every time.
One last thought. When you say "I think I will take the .01%," that's a not unreasonable course of action for a human on planet Earth early in the 21st century. But, how do you decide which one percent?
If some religion does turn to be, against all odds, the only eternal truth (literally--there are so many religions, numerical odds of any single one being the only true one, are very low), I hope its either the Wiccans or the Mormons. In their afterlife, I may be greatly surprised--but at least I won't be eternally tortured (my unavoidable fate, if the religious tradition in which I was raised is correct).
February 21, 2008
6:03 p.m.
Suggest removal
Charles_B writes:
Bookem:
You lost me at:
"We can all agree there are an infinite number of atoms in the universe. So..."
This is not only a false assumption, but if adopted, it refutes all of your implied assertions about odds.
If their are an *infinite* amount of atoms in the universe the odds that they would come together in a random way and form human beings is 100%. The odds than any one of an *infinite* amount of things happening is 100%.
I think you need to ponder the meaning of the word "infinite" a while before you dive into the metaphysical gauntlet without a helmet again.
You'd seriously take .01% odds? Needless to say, I'd love to be your bookie, Bookem.
February 22, 2008
8:16 a.m.
Suggest removal
malis writes:
Charles_B, yup, I caught your point on the math too but I decided to respond to what Bookem thought he was saying rather than his literal meaning.
February 23, 2008
7:39 a.m.
Suggest removal
p_myers661 writes:
For those who disbelieve, no explanation is possible. For those who believe, no explanation is necessary.
February 23, 2008
9:42 a.m.
Suggest removal
davis_x_machina writes:
Although it doesn't necessarily speak to an individual's belief in the existence or not of a deity, but speaking to the power of religious belief to move people to action. I think it's necessary to remember that the same mathematician/physicist who offered the religious wager also stated that:"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from a religious conviction". It amuses me when people cite individual scientist's- Galileo, Einstein, etc. individual belief in a deity as if their belief somehow constituted evidence for the existence of a deity.Isaac Newton was a firm believer as well while pursuing the primary goal of alchemy, namely the production of gold from base metals, should I therefore believe in that possibility because a scientist-newton- did?
February 23, 2008
12:29 p.m.
Suggest removal
Charles_B writes:
p_myers661 explained why con-artists will never run out of marks:
"For those who disbelieve, no explanation is possible. For those who believe, no explanation is necessary."
February 23, 2008
12:31 p.m.
Suggest removal
Charles_B writes:
davis_x_machina:
Your logic is sound, but I dispute the notion that Einstein believed in a deity.
February 24, 2008
10:30 a.m.
Suggest removal
me2 writes:
The Cosmos may be God. Eternal, ever changing and always the same. Cute thought no?
Perhaps our debate would be clearer if everyone agreed on the meaning of "God".
We can not even define what God is or would be, but we can debate the existence of God. Funny.
Belief systems are not religions. Believing that God does not exist is no more a religion than believing in UFS`s piloted by space people.
Aside from God, religion asks us to except miracles, angles, a God who cares whom we sleep with, what we wear, (God loves old fashioned gingham dresses) and what we eat.
Religions have too much baggage and require too much paraphernalia for my liking.
If we could all just say "The Universe is Probably God" and let it go at that we could get so much more done in life.
February 24, 2008
8:16 p.m.
Suggest removal
Charles_B writes:
Well said me2.
February 24, 2008
10:27 p.m.
Suggest removal
me2 writes:
Charles-B. Thank you for always reading what I post.
February 25, 2008
10:10 p.m.
Suggest removal
jay writes:
"The U.S. religious marketplace is extremely volatile, with nearly half of American adults leaving the faith tradition of their upbringing to either switch allegiances or abandon religious affiliation altogether, a new survey finds."
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23337807/
February 26, 2008
6:42 a.m.
Suggest removal
Gilker writes:
Wow
So many words, so few based on reality.
First, I am an atheist, formerly a fundamentalist Christian. The first misconception that leaps out of all this blather is the idea that an atheist MUST believe in something called "Atheism" (with a capital 'A' and, apparently, with a raft of notions that fall under this label.)
Atheism is nothing more or less than the other side of the coin from theism. A theist is a person who believes in a god or gods. An atheist has no such belief. An atheist doesn't have to subscribe to any particular set of beliefs about cosmology or anything else - though every atheist I ever came across does have any number of beliefs, just none that a deity exists.
So please, stop making silly presumptions and declarations about what it means to be an atheist (and yes, that includes lots of atheists who, like some ardent theists, try to define a very general label in their own personal terms.)
That being said, personally, while I don't have any belief in any of the various gods that I have come across, I also don't lay claim to any cosmic knowledge about what might exist that might fit someone's definition of a deity. That makes me an agnostic atheist. There are atheists who makes statements of belief about the impossibility of there being any sort of god but I also haven't seen any evidence to support that claim either. After a lengthy experience with people making extraordinary claims about supernatural things that must be taken on faith, I don't see claims based on faith as being evidence of anything but faith. And, frankly, it's been my experience that in the context of claims about reality, I see the term 'faith' as being semantically equivalent to the term 'ignorance'.
The title of this article is "The atheist's dilemma". It seems that this "dilemma" is based on a straw man argument, a false definition of the word 'atheist'. And personally, as an atheist, I don't appreciate the inaccuracy.
February 26, 2008
11:58 p.m.
Suggest removal
toddjnsn writes:
"Dawkins, whose atheism is every bit as zealous as Augustine's Christianity, employs the identical interpretive procedure to reach the opposite conclusion."
The zealousness is the same, yes... but their procedures of interpretation are NOT identical. Dawkin's method of interpretation would have to go the same route as Augustine's.
"Augustine's first principle of sound interpretation is that an interpretation is sound if it confirms the truth of the Christian faith."
In order for it to be identical, Dawkins's principle would have to be that a sound interpretation is one that confirms the truth of atheism. That is not Dawkins' principle, and that's not his method of sound interpretation.
Dawkins (and many others), despite the zealousness, just asks for something to "provide the slightest, smallest smidgen of a reason for believing in the existence of the divine."
You're assuming that Dawkins, because of his zealotry, is automatically in a state of mind where his methodology prevents him from being wrong, and that his methodoly HAS to be one that prevents himself from being wrong.
He's just asking for scant evidence. That's it. "Science" is not dogma. Particular scientists can be, surely. But "science" is not about loyalty, feel-good answers. It's a method for accurate detective work to find out the real truth about something. That's it. It flies in the face of one's sad principles that sound interpretation is only one that supports one's current beliefs.
February 28, 2008
12:41 a.m.
Suggest removal
Joe_Ellison writes:
Paul Campos does a fine job of showing why the religious point of view is utterly useless in expanding our knowledge of the universe. Since there is no way to ever prove or disprove religious claims, they serve absolutely no use to reasonable and rational people.
Science says "This is what we see, here's the best explanation that we've got, feel free to test it and see for yourself. We'll change our mind when the evidence changes."
Religion says "Here's a bunch of stuff that we've never seen, but other people have claim to have seen. Here's what they tell us, and we should all shut up and accept it, or we'll go to Hell. Evidence to the contrary must be ignored, because what we already believe is the absolute truth."
Which position is really more reasonable?
March 13, 2008
10:39 a.m.
Suggest removal
DuckPhup writes:
Paul Campos wrote: "Why is Stanley Fish so much smarter than Richard Dawkins? That question occurred to me last week, while attending a lecture at which Fish, the well-known literary and legal theorist, did the thing he always does, which is to make the following point over and over again: "No believer will find his faith shaken by evidence that is evidence only in the light of assumptions he does not share and considers flatly wrong."
Fish's 'point' is comprehensible ONLY if one were presume that:
1) atheism is a 'belief'
2) atheism is based on 'faith'
3) atheism is based on assumptions
Since NONE of those presumptions is true with respect to atheism, that 'point' is NOT comprehensible. So…this piece begins with a red herring… a straw man… a canard.
Paul Campos wrote: "Richard Dawkins is, I'm told by persons whose authority I accept on faith, a distinguished evolutionary biologist. He holds a chair at Oxford. He has won many prestigious academic prizes. By all conventional measures, Dawkins is an extremely intelligent man. So why does he seem incapable of understanding what Fish is saying?
What makes Campos think that Dawkins is "…incapable of understanding what Fish is saying?" Dawkins has spent several decades recognizing and deflating such false premises. Campos' paragraph is nothing more than a vile lie, presented under the wrapping of a phony compliment. MORE deception.
Paul Campos wrote: "Here is Dawkins on the evidence for religious belief: Such belief, Dawkins writes, "will earn the right to be taken seriously when it provides the slightest, smallest smidgen of a reason for believing in the existence of the divine."
And there is something WRONG with that? Let's examine that. Christians believe that a cosmic Jewish zombie, who is his own father, can make you live forever if you symbolically (1) eat his flesh (2) and telepathically tell him that you accept him as your master so he can remove an evil force from your soul that is present in humanity because a rib-woman was tricked by a malevolent entity (3) into eating a piece of fruit from a magical tree... (etc.)... and that there is something horribly wrong with people who ARE NOT so gullible and droolingly stupid as to believe such outrageously ridiculous codswallop.
(1) or actually… depending on which particular christ-cult sect you belong to
(2) in the form of a cracker
(3) disguised a talking snake... with legs
Without even getting into the part where you have to spend your whole life kissing his butt to keep from having to spend the rest of eternity in indescribable torture and torment… (but he LOVES you)… is there REALLY something that WRONG with asking for some PROOF… or at LEAST some credible, compelling EVIDENCE… before you swallow a tall-tale like that?
"Well… if it made any sense, you wouldn't have to accept it on 'faith', would you now?" ~ from 'Nuns On The Run'
March 13, 2008
10:42 a.m.
Suggest removal
DuckPhup writes:
Paul Campos wrote: "Consider what Dawkins - the author of The God Delusion and, along with Sam Harris and Christopher Hitchens, the most prominent of the current crop of evangelical atheists - is claiming. He's claiming that if one draws up a list of things that Dawkins considers evidence for the existence of God, and another list of things Dawkins considers evidence for atheism, one list has nothing on it and the other list has everything else."
So… we begin with blatant dishonesty… sophistry. This is a classic red herring/straw man argument. This weenie sets up an entirely false premise… then spends the rest of his time taking potshots at the falsehood that he created.
Here's the thing… NEITHER list has anything on it. Dawkins don't need no steenking list. He's not asserting anything, and he has nothing to prove.
Dawkins whole point is to say: "Hey… you guys… you're asserting all this crap, yet you have nothing worthwhile to back it up. So I don't believe you."
Paul Campos wrote: "And he would, of course, be right. Dawkins is a true believer, and for the true believer literally everything is evidence for the truth of his belief. For example, Fish points to St. Augustine's advice when confronting something that appears to contradict Christian belief: The phenomenon should be subjected "to diligent scrutiny until an interpretation contributing to the reign of charity is produced."
He would, of course, NOT be right. Dawkins is not a believer… true, or otherwise. Dawkins is not seeing evidence to support his belief… because there is no 'belief' involved in his position. He is just saying (British accent): "Sorry. You'll need to do better than that. I still don't believe you."
"Atheism can be considered to be a 'belief', or a 'religion', only in the same sense that one might regard NOT collecting stamps to be a 'hobby'." ~ Unknown
The polite thing would be to say that this is more sophistry… a canard… a red herring. But that's not really sufficient. This whole bit is a vile lie.
Paul Campos wrote: "That is, Augustine's first principle of sound interpretation is that an interpretation is sound if it confirms the truth of the Christian faith. Indeed, for the perfected soul - which Augustine points out again and again he himself is not - "diligent scrutiny" is unnecessary. For "the pure and healthy internal eye," he says, "God is everywhere."
Dawkins, whose atheism is every bit as zealous as Augustine's Christianity, employs the identical interpretive procedure to reach the opposite conclusion."
Zealous atheism? Ridiculous. There is no such thing as atheist beliefs… atheist dogma… atheist faith… atheist agenda.There is nothing to defend. You do not have to defend "Sorry… that's nonsense. I don't believe you."
Zealous defense of reason, rationality, knowledge and critical thinking? You bet.
March 13, 2008
10:43 a.m.
Suggest removal
DuckPhup writes:
Paul Campos wrote: "Now Dawkins will object that he, unlike the religious believer, is committed to the methods of "science," and will therefore change his mind when evidence refuting his beliefs appears - but it just so happens none ever has.
This is entirely bogus as well. In this context, 'belief' is a mental state… the internalized certainty… the absolute conviction that one's ideations represent the TRUTH with respect to what are actually UNKNOWN aspects of existence and/or reality. These inculcated beliefs include assumptions about reality, and then presumes or asserts them to be 'true', thus creating the illusion of knowledge, where no knowledge actually exists… the illusion that you know what is actually UNknown.
Such a mental state… religious 'belief'… is so compelling that it is integrated into the victims 'self-description', and serves as a primary interpretive filter. In other words, most of what a victim of this insidious mind-virus (Dawkins: meme) experiences… hears… thinks… learns… is interpreted and formulated in terms of this 'belief'.
Now… look at this part. It's going to take me 4 paragraphs to deconstruct this sentence, and comment on it: "… is committed to the methods of "science" and will therefore change his mind when evidence refuting his beliefs appears -- but it just so happens none ever has."
OK… on the surface, that comes across as somewhat insulting… but otherwise, it seems innocuous, and maybe even reasonable.
But it is not innocuous, and it is not even remotely reasonable. To the contrary, it is loaded with deception. It is another red herring… another straw man.
He takes Dawkins' skeptical resistance to being unreasonably persuaded, and establishes an equivalence between that and the deeply delusional mind-set that defines religious belief. Then he creates the illusion that Dawkins is somehow violating the principles that are implied by that equivalency… cynically violating them in much the same way as flawed believer… a hypocrite… someone who loudly and frequently professes his faith, does confession, church and communion every Sunday… and goes carousing and whoring all the rest of the week.
This kind of trickery is risky, though… because someone who has the subtlety of thought to see through this codswallop is able to perceive that it actually amounts to a frank admission that 'religion' has no use for evidence at all, since it blatantly ignores the overwhelming mountains of evidence that stands before them and reveals their whole enterprise to be absolute nonsense.
The bad news part of this is that within his intended audience, there is nobody who has the mental chops to see through this kind of deception.
How do I know that? Am I psychic?
No.
It's simple. Anybody that could see through this kind of deception would not be in his intended audience.
March 13, 2008
10:45 a.m.
Suggest removal
DuckPhup writes:
appear before Dawkins, even as he was delivering another lecture on the delusion that God exists. Would such an experience change Dawkins' views?"
The striking naivete of WHAT viewpoint? The viewpoint of Dawkins "…will therefore change his mind when evidence refuting his beliefs appears?"
Paul Campos wrote: "Fish has spent his whole career pointing out why it wouldn't: not because of the nature of angels, but because of the nature of interpretation. As long as Dawkins remains who he is now, he will remain incapable of seeing an angel of the Lord."
That's presuming a lot… isn't it? So… Fish has spent his whole career pointing out why the appearance of an angel of the lord in front of an atheist would NOT constitute evidence of god's existence… while at this point it is brilliantly clear that neither Fish NOR Campos has a CLUE what an atheist is.
Paul Campos wrote: "After all, a genuine atheist must interpret such an event as a temporarily inexplicable hallucination, or a sudden psychotic break, or a clever technological trick - in short, as anything but evidence that atheism is false. (An atheist who questions the truth of atheism is ceasing to be a genuine atheist precisely to the extent that he is asking himself a genuine question)."
A genuine atheist? It seems to me that neither Campos nor Fish have any clear idea of what an atheist actually IS.
First of all, thinking of atheism as being true OR false is an utterly ridiculous concept. Atheism makes no claims whatsoever.
Think of it this way: We would not expect a sane, well educated, rational, intelligent person who is capable of critical thinking to be so gullible and droolingly stupid as to be persuaded to accept the TRUTH of a proposition that is not sufficiently supported by good logical reasons, and compelling evidence. Got that? Anybody have a problem with that?
Good… I didn't think so. OK. Get this: An atheist is a sane, well educated, rational, intelligent person who is capable of critical thinking to be so gullible and droolingly stupid as to be persuaded to accept the TRUTH of a proposition that is not sufficiently supported by good logical reasons, and compelling evidence… having to do with the existence of deities.
That is it… that is ALL… that is the ONLY thing that defines an atheist.
March 13, 2008
10:51 a.m.
Suggest removal
DuckPhup writes:
In general, atheists do not 'believe' simply because the reasons or evidence purported to support the idea that invisible, magical sky-fairies (gods) 'exist' are not compelling, and thus are insufficient to initiate or sustain a mental state of 'belief'. The idea that there is a 'choice' or a 'decision' involved in this is just plain silly. 'Belief' is a mental state that (abstractly) 'exists' as a consequence of one having arrived at an internalized conviction that a certain proposition is 'true'. An instance of one NOT arriving at an internalized conviction that a certain proposition is 'true' implies NOTHING beyond the notion that the 'evidence' proffered in support of the proposition being 'true' is not compelling.
In other words, atheists are those people who are NOT PERSUADED by the arguments and (so-called) evidence proffered in support of the idea that god(s) exist(s).
I should probably make this more clear… and I will do it with three sentences;
1. I DO believe that god DOES exist.
2. I DO NOT believe that god DOES exist.
3. I DO believe that god DOES NOT exist.
#1 defines a 'theist'… someone who believes in god.
#2 defines an 'atheist'… someone who DOES NOT believe in god. Note that this is NOT the opposite of #1 (theist). The opposite of theist is #3…
#3 Note that there is a distinct DIFFERENCE between #2 (atheist) and position #3. #2 (atheist) does not ASSERT the 'truth' of ANYTHING. THIS position (#3) is sometimes referred to as the 'strong atheist' position… because it DOES assert something. It ASSERTS that the proposition "Gods do not exist" is TRUE. Note that as a CONSEQUENCE of this assertion, statement #2 ALSO becomes 'true': this person "DOES NOT believe that gods DO exist."
So… #3 (in part) FALLS UNDER the definition of atheist… but it DOES NOT DEFINE 'atheist'.
There are actually VERY FEW people who meet the criteria of #3… and most atheists think that those folks are (almost) as deluded as theists (#1) are. Since there is no actual proof that gods DO NOT exist, this position is just as indefensible as #1 (theist).
Oh, yeah… agnostics (in part) ALSO fall under the umbrella of the defining statement for atheist (#2); therefore: all agnostics are atheists… but NOT all atheists are agnostics.
Paul Campos wrote: "In other words, evidence must always be interpreted within the context of interpretive assumptions which necessarily determine what that evidence is understood to signify, and which by their nature are themselves matters of faith. Thus the only way someone like Dawkins will ever see any evidence for the existence of God will be if he loses his faith that he never will."
His 'faith'… another canard. How about that. In EVERY PARAGRAPH of this piece, there has been sophistry… a misrepresentation… a distortion… a misconception… an outright lie… or a combination of those.
Is there ANYONE who wants to make the case that this article is NOT intended to mislead and deceive?
March 13, 2008
11:16 a.m.
Suggest removal
DuckPhup writes:
Here is a tidbit from a writer who has a somewhat more accurate view of Prof.Dawkins… this raving atheist lunatic:
"… what is the core of Dawkins' radical message?
Well, it goes something like this: 'If you claim that something is true, I will examine the evidence which supports your claim; if you have no evidence, I will not accept that what you say is true and I will think you a foolish and gullible person for believing it so.'
That's it. That's the whole, crazy, fanatical package.
When the Pope says that a few words and some hand-waving causes a cracker to transform into the flesh of a 2,000-year-old man, Dawkins and his fellow travellers say, well, prove it. It should be simple. Swab the Host and do a DNA analysis. If you don't, we will give your claim no more respect than we give to those who say they see the future in crystal balls or bend spoons with their minds or become werewolves at each full moon.
And for this, it is Dawkins, not the Pope, who is labelled the unreasonable fanatic on par with faith-saturated madmen who sacrifice children to an invisible spirit." ~ Dan Gardiner, "Those Fanatical Atheists", The Ottawa Citizen, May 5, 2007