I am capable of some slight bit of civic activism, albeit a
kind of cowardly version of activism. Yesterday after I added an entry to my
goofball blog, I went to a website and got into a brief back-and-forth argument concerning the Miss World Pageant, God, and atheism. Apparently Indonesian
Islamic clerics want the Miss World contest to be banned from their country,
and eventually banned worldwide. I am not a big fan of Miss World or Miss
Universe pageants, but as an atheist I do not want a religion to stop these
contests based on the notion that it is immoral to show the female body in a
bathing suit. In a sense, my atheism took precedence over my feminism.
Anyway, I argued from the standpoint of; how can a religion
determine what God deems to be immoral without first proving there is a god?
I’m sort of skipping the middle part of the equation. Rather than a debate as
to what God proclaims to be immoral, I question the very basic existence of a
god. When it comes to debating, I’m practically cheating. See, I almost cannot
be defeated with this type of strategy simply because to prove there is a god
there needs to be evidence, and there is no actual evidence. The evidence that
there is a god is very similar to the evidence of extraterrestrials;
questionable, unverifiable accounts of sightings and various dubious, unproven
other forms of contact. But that avenue of debate can make people very angry. A person's religious beliefs are suppose to be respected and off limits. It's just that I can't seem to respect a person's religious beliefs in they effect other people negatively.
But what I actually want to say is; I would never get into a debate like that with
someone in person. I am not anywhere close to being that contentious and
extroverted, and besides, I would be afraid of getting slapped. I can see my
counterpart getting so upset, their face turns a bright red, and steam pours out
of their ears. If I weren’t afraid of getting slapped, I’d feel bad for making
someone so upset. But on the internet, I’m not only safe from physical attack;
I cannot see the other person’s distress. Without seeing the other human being,
I feel as though I’m just an ordinary person trying to make a point by going down
a logical, but very unpopular path. Okay, make that an ordinary somewhat cowardly person going down a
logical, but very unpopular path.
First, I noticed a little flaw in your reasoning. When you talk about "evidence" it seems you're only considering empirical evidence. Let's keep in mind that the Higgs Boson was theorized and proven theoretically (based on previously proven theories) before any empirical evidence of its existence was found.
ReplyDeleteSecond, the use of empirical evidence alone would only be fit to prove or disprove any notion of God that fits the parameters satisfied or not by those parameters. There are over 3,000 flavors of "God" rolling around this planet, so to use only empirical evidence as a basis might prove a little lengthy. Think about the proofs you did way back in geometry... those are the types that will get you where you want to be at a faster pace.
So, I pass on to you a gift given to me by Collin McGinn: an ontological proof alone is sufficient to undermine belief in any Islamic-Judeo-Christian flavor of God because part of the definition of "God" in these faiths is that God is perfect. If God is perfect, then God must exist, but for God to exist God must be perfect. Which is to say that without the attribute of being perfect God is just god and without existing God cannot be perfect. It's circular reasoning at its best. Which came first, the chicken or the egg? Which came first, God is perfect or God is?
By the way, my introversion keeps me from being able to do this on the fly in an argument in person, but I'm getting better. When I think about this I'm reminded of Meg Ryan's character in "You've Got Mail."
Good morning! :)
I'm actually not restricting myself to empirical evidence. But regardless of the constitution of the evidence, that evidence would have to prove the existence of a god. I think the keyword might be "prove".
DeleteI just found this and thought you might like it:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/video/flv/generic.html?s=moyj06sf04q608
It's a link to an interview with Collin McGuinn in which he discusses what I mentioned before (BlogSpot won't let me insert hyperlink code with a "target" attribute).
I also forgot to write earlier that the faithful person's challenge is to prove something that exists outside of what we perceive as reality. The atheist's challenge is to prove a negative. As anyone who's gone through a course including building philosophical proofs will tell you, it's very difficult to prove a negative.
I think you are correct in that the a theist would have to prove the existence of something outside the realm of our reality. He believes in a god and has the burden of proof when confronted by doubt. In an argument, the atheist has to prove nothing if he challenges a theist for proof of his god. On the other hand, if the atheist declares that there is no god, then he has the burden of proof.
DeleteAll of this is contingent (pretty much) on a somewhat traditional god rather than something like a omnieverything god or gods (a god that is every insect, every snowflake, every star).
I will not debate with a nutcase who goes off on some tangent (although some may say that they would be debating against a nutcase in me).
Well, we disagree on one thing: that the atheist has no burden of proof. The difference between an atheist and a theist is that they make opposing claims in the affirmative. The theist claims affirmatively in the positive that there is a God where the atheist affirmatively claims in the negative saying that there is NOT a God. The position of doubt that says "I don't know" is agnosticism. In making any positive claim the person making the claim has the burden to prove that claim.
DeleteImagine if you lose your keys one day. You have no idea where they are. Someone suggests that they are in the oven while you maintain they are NOT in the oven because it seems like a ridiculous notion; meanwhile a third person is sitting in the room saying, "I don't know." This is easy because empirical evidence is easy to gather... just look in the oven. But imagine that you couldn't open the oven and still had to prove your side. There would be two ways to go about it. First, the only empirical proof available to either side would be to check every possible spot they might actually be - the entirety of the universe - other than the oven. Second would be a logical proof, for example, let's assume that you and the other two people were leaving someone's house and you took an empty pot home and upon exiting your car for some reason you put your keys in the pot (maybe you had a lot of stuff in your hands and needed a quick solution). As soon as you got home you went about the business of putting things away and put the pot in the oven for temporary storage. The keys were in the pot, the pot is now in the oven, therefore your keys are in the oven. A simple syllogism here would suffice. How would you logically prove your keys were not in the oven in a case like this? (Assume that you didn't all agree that you put your keys in the pot upon exiting your car.) Both sides have a burden of proof. All this time the other person in the room is saying, "I don't know. It's possible, but I don't know and I have no way to prove it." That's the only position that has no burden of proof because this person is making no claim. If you'd like to take it one step further, the ignostic says, "I don't know and I don't really care." Neither of these last two positions has affirmed anything where both of the first two positions do make affirmative claims. Can't have a burden of proof if you've made no claim. These last two positions are generally seen as weak, but each of the four has it's merits.
Atheists don't like this argument because they like the idea of believing there is no God without having to prove it because it's very difficult to prove a negative. But that's still a position which requires faith, so it's really no different from theism in that sense. I think most atheists are actually agnostics that lean toward believing that there is no God (whatever form it takes) and just can't prove it yet much like the agnostic that wants to believe there is a God and just can't prove it yet. Now, I've observed arguments by some atheists that are actually very good arguments and seem conclusive, but even the best of them (Collin McGinn is one of them) will admit that they are not absolutely conclusive and that true atheism is, in fact, a faith position.
These are small, but I think important semantic distinctions in the positions.
I said earlier that the atheist has the burden of proof if he makes the statement "There is no god." Whether the argument is about god/atheism, or an argument with a similar dynamic, the idea is to watch your phrasing, choice of words, etc., and avoid taking on the burden of proof. But as I said in my blog entry, I tell the other person to "prove there is a god", which is only logical since he is basing his beliefs on a god, and his beliefs are the point of contention.
DeleteIn this video Collin McGinn provides the actual argument I mentioned. Enjoy.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aTwCn31pqzQ