Justifying atheism, is the absence of evidence sufficient.

[Bunyip]

Reading through recent threads on atheism, it seems that the question of justifying atheism as a logical position is contentious.
To my mind my disbelief in deities is legitimised by the absence of evidence for God and the incoherence of descriptions and definitions of God. I see atheism as simply the absence of a belief in a God, and believe that the absence of evidence alone is sufficient to inform a disbelief.

So please share what you feel is sufficient justification for atheism, and if you see the absence of evidence as sufficient justification.

As I see it, there can be no burden of proof in this case - so ask that we speak to sufficiency rather than proof. If you do believe there is a burden of proof however please feel free to participate and share your ideas.

 

[LuisDantas]

There is no need for any justification for atheism. Just lacking the desire or even the ability of using some concept of deity is plenty enough.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

So please share what you feel is sufficient justification for atheism, and if you see the absence of evidence as sufficient justification.

If people believe in something for which there is no tangible evidence then the burden of proof is on them. So yes, the absence of evidence is sufficient.

 

[Bunyip]

There is no need for any justification for atheism. Just lacking the desire or even the ability of using some concept of deity is plenty enough.

Thanks. That seems a straightforward approach, cheers. It resonates perfectly with my lack of belief in leprechauns, but seems far more contentious in relation to God.

 

[Bunyip]

If people believe in something for which there is no tangible evidence then the burden of proof is on them. So yes, the absence of evidence is sufficient.

Cheers. Whenever asked for such tangible evidence of non existence - I am always left wondering what form that could possibly take.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

Cheers. Whenever asked for such tangible evidence of non existence - I am always left wondering what form that could possibly take.

The impression I have is that theists find comfort in their beliefs and aren't too concerned with finding evidence.

 

[Laika]

The absence of evidence is a sufficient justification for an individuals lack of belief in god (weak atheism), but it is not a sufficient justification for claiming that atheism is objectively true and is independent of everyone's personal beliefs (strong atheism). The latter does have a burden of proof since it is claiming:

a) atheism is objectively true
b) religious belief is an illusion or (more crudely) is false.

I say that claiming that religious belief is false is crude because it doesn't actually explain where such beliefs came from, why so many have religious beliefs, why it has persisted for thousands of years and why religious beliefs have been so crucial to our conception of nature and society. Claiming religion originates from a persons psyche is not really sufficient grounds for explaining the prevalence of belief, and also has some potentially disturbing implications in that religion can be treated as a mental illness. The claim that atheism is objectively true is the basis for a more militant form of atheism since it implies that it is possible for you to talk religious people out of their beliefs, and that given that operating under a false/illuionsary conception of reality is counter-productive, there may be a moral obligation by atheists to do so.

 

[Bunyip]

The absence of evidence is a sufficient justification for an individuals lack of belief in god (weak atheism), but it is not a sufficient justification for claiming that atheism is objectively true (strong atheism). The latter does have a burden of proof since it is claiming:

a) atheism is objectively true
b) religious belief is an illusion or (more crudely) is false.

I say that claiming that religious belief is false is crude because it doesn't actually explain where such beliefs came from, why so many have religious beliefs, why it has persisted for thousands of years and why religious beliefs have been so crucial to our conception of nature and society. Claiming religion originates from a persons psyche is not really sufficient grounds for explaining the prevalence of belief, and also has some potentially disturbing implications in that religion can be treated as a mental illness. The claim that atheism is objectively true is the basis for a more militant form of atheism since it implies that it is possible for you to talk religious people out of their beliefs, and that given that operating under a false/illuionsary conception of reality is counter-productive, there may be a moral obligation by atheists to do so.

Thanks. I'm not sure what you mean by atheism being objectively true - would you please expand? How could a disbelief be objectively true - and what do you mean by objective truth in this case?

I don't see how we could relate objective truth and atheism as I understand the concepts.

 

[Laika]

Thanks. I'm not sure what you mean by atheism being objectively true - would you please expand? How could a disbelief be objectively true - and what do you mean by objective truth in this case?

I don't see how we could relate objective truth and atheism as I understand the concepts.

I would say it is objectively true in that:

i) it is independent of a person's beliefs. Atheism is a 'fact' irrespective of whether a person beliefs it or not. It is therefore a positive assertion regarding the nature of the natural world, rather than a negative position based on saying that theism is implausible, logically inconsistent, etc.

ii) it is therefore something which is subject to scientific proof as it is a statement of fact and not of opinion, hence there is a burden of proof on the atheist to demonstrate that it is true. This does however rest on radically different notions of science, as in my case is dependent on Marxist philosophy and philosophical materialism. More generally, it would be a form of 'scientisim' in that it asserts a form of metaphysical naturalism (I think) means it is possible to establish that atheism is a fact by scientific methodology. It is therefore a much older conception of science which combines philosophy with science about what can be known, rather than taking for granted that science does give true knowledge of the world. Weak atheism seems include a form of agnosticism that it as god does not have physical properties, religious topics are therefore beyond the scope of scientific knowledge, whereas Strong atheism does not.

iii) the implication is that as there is no god, there is a complex process of figuring out whether beliefs derived from religion are simply false (i.e. absolutely contradict the facts) or are illusions (that they represent the real world in part, but not completely). I lean towards the latter, but it is probably a combination of the two. Consequently Strong atheism has a kind of 'domino effect' on our conceptions of nature, society and ethics and has to deal with nihilism. weak atheism leaves most of the belief systems derived from religion in place, but just takes the god bit out.

 

[Bunyip]

I would say it is objectively true in that:

i) it is independent of a person's beliefs. Atheism is a 'fact' irrespective of whether a person beliefs it or not. It is therefore a positive assertion regarding the nature of the natural world, rather than a negative position based on saying that theism is implausible, logically inconsistent, etc.

ii) it is therefore something which is subject to scientific proof as it is a statement of fact and not of opinion, hence there is a burden of proof on the atheist to demonstrate that it is true. This does however rest on radically different notions of science, as in my case is dependent on Marxist philosophy and philosophical materialism. More generally, it would be a form of 'scientisim' in that it asserts a form of metaphysical naturalism (I think) means it is possible to establish that atheism is a fact by scientific methodology. It is therefore a much older conception of science which combines philosophy with science about what can be known, rather than taking for granted that science does give true knowledge of the world. Weak atheism seems include a form of agnosticism that it as god does not have physical properties, religious topics are therefore beyond the scope of scientific knowledge, whereas Strong atheism does not.

iii) the implication is that as there is no god, there is a complex process of figuring out whether beliefs derived from religion are simply false (i.e. absolutely contradict the facts) or are illusions (that they represent the real world in part, but not completely). I lean towards the latter, but it is probably a combination of the two. Consequently Strong atheism has a kind of 'domino effect' on our conceptions of nature, society and ethics and has to deal with nihilism. weak atheism leaves most of the belief systems derived from religion in place, but just takes the god bit out.

Thanks for expanding. I'm afraid I am having difficulty relating atheism as a disbelief to claiming it to be a fact - sure, my disbelief (my atheism) is a fact. It is sincere. How can a persons disbelief be objectively true other than in that it their disbelief is real? You can question a person's sincerity I guess in terms of whether or not their atheism is true, but as to atheism per say being objectively true - that seems to me to be simply a misapplication.

 

[Bunyip]

Red Economist

It would help if you could tell me what sort of evidence you think a strong theist should be looking for - if it is a positive claim, what sort of evidence would satisfy it? Wouldn't it have to be testable?

 

[Laika]

Red Economist

It would help if you could tell me what sort of evidence you think a strong theist should be looking for - if it is a positive claim, what sort of evidence would satisfy it? Wouldn't it have to be testable?

In the Marxist case it would appear that it based on asserting the reliability of sense-perception over our abstract ideas and that materialism is therefore self-evidently true. If the world we sense is all that exists, it follows there can be nothing "beyond", "behind", or "above" it. As Consciousness is a property of matter/the brain, it cannot exist independently in the form of deities, spirits, souls etc. That's roughly what I've figured out so far.

 

[George-ananda]

As a theist, I would say the absence of evidence for God would be sufficient reason to be an atheist. (But obviously I believe the evidence favors belief).

 

[Rick O'Shez]

The absence of evidence is a sufficient justification for an individuals lack of belief in god (weak atheism), but it is not a sufficient justification for claiming that atheism is objectively true and is independent of everyone's personal beliefs (strong atheism).

I don't think that strong atheism is claiming an objective truth, it's just a strong disbelief in the existence of God. Likewise strong theism is a strong belief in the existence of God. I don't see how anyone can prove that God doesn't exist or establish non-existence as an objective fact because there will always be a remaining gap, however small and however unlikely.

 

[Typist]

In order to be a product of reason, atheism needs to challenge itself in the same way it challenges theism. This process is called "intellectual honesty", a phrase often tossed about in such discussions, but rarely practiced.

Consider the theist who claims that God exists because it says so in the Bible. Why do we not accept this claim? The reason is simple, the theist has skipped the required first step of proving the Bible is a qualified authority on the subject of gods. Unless the Bible is shown to be a qualified authority on the topics under discussion, then what it says in the Bible really doesn't matter.

Every atheist I've met gets the reasoning above when it is aimed at theism. They immediately understand why it is necessary to inspect the credentials of the authority being used to justify a clam. Simple, simple, simple, no problem at all.

But the atheist's understanding on this issue falls completely apart at the first moment it is suggested that the very same process we reasonably apply to theism should be applied to their position too. Once this is suggested, the clarity they once had about challenging referenced authorities dissolves in to chaos, confusion, emotion outbursts, and an impressive array of avoidance tactics.

The atheist looks to human reason for an answer in the same way the theist looks to their holy book. Thus, the qualifications of human reason to deliver credible answers on the subject of gods should be challenged in the very same way we challenged the authority of holy books.

Just like with holy books, exactly the same thing, unless human reason can be proven to be capable of delivering credible answers on the subject of gods, then all the supposedly clever little logic dances members so love to do really don't matter. The burden for proving reason's qualifications falls squarely upon the atheist, just as the burden for proving the qualifications of holy books falls upon the theist.

None of you are going to get this, even though it is the simplest thing. All that is required is basic intellectual honesty, but that is asking too much. This post will be ignored or yelled at until I go away, and then you will return to the comfy cozy routine of doing snazy logic calculations, completely unconcerned that you've not proven human reason qualified to provide credible answers on the subject of gods.

It's just like the theist who quotes verses from the Bible, as if that was enough.

 

[Laika]

I don't think that strong atheism is claiming an objective truth, it's just a strong disbelief in the existence of God. Likewise strong theism is a strong belief in the existence of God. I don't see how anyone can prove that God doesn't exist or establish non-existence as an objective fact because there will always be a remaining gap, however small and however unlikely.

Some forms of atheism use a knowledge claim which does have a burden of proof. You right in saying that it is difficult to prove it. This is where the classification of atheists breaks down because they rely on very different epistemologies.

In order to be a product of reason, atheism needs to challenge itself in the same way it challenges theism. This process is called "intellectual honesty", a phrase often tossed about in such discussions, but rarely practiced.

Consider the theist who claims that God exists because it says so in the Bible. Why do we not accept this claim? The reason is simple, the theist has skipped the required first step of proving the Bible is a qualified authority on the subject of gods. Unless the Bible is shown to be a qualified authority on the topics under discussion, then what it says in the Bible really doesn't matter.

Every atheist I've met gets the reasoning above when it is aimed at theism. They immediately understand why it is necessary to inspect the credentials of the authority being used to justify a clam. Simple, simple, simple, no problem at all.

But the atheist's understanding on this issue falls completely apart at the first moment it is suggested that the very same process we reasonably apply to theism should be applied to their position too. Once this is suggested, the clarity they once had about challenging referenced authorities dissolves in to chaos, confusion, emotion outbursts, and an impressive array of avoidance tactics.

The atheist looks to human reason for an answer in the same way the theist looks to their holy book. Thus, the qualifications of human reason to deliver credible answers on the subject of gods should be challenged in the very same way we challenged the authority of holy books.

Just like with holy books, exactly the same thing, unless human reason can be proven to be capable of delivering credible answers on the subject of gods, then all the supposedly clever little logic dances members so love to do really don't matter. The burden for proving reason's qualifications falls squarely upon the atheist, just as the burden for proving the qualifications of holy books falls upon the theist.

None of you are going to get this, even though it is the simplest thing. All that is required is basic intellectual honesty, but that is asking too much. This post will be ignored or yelled at until I go away, and then you will return to the comfy cozy routine of doing snazy logic calculations, completely unconcerned that you've not proven human reason qualified to provide credible answers on the subject of gods.

It's just like the theist who quotes verses from the Bible, as if that was enough.

I agree with you Typist as reason alone is not sufficient to establish that something is true. There has to be some method to show that our ideas correspond to reality. I'm still struggling with the issue myself. But I get the feeling I'm very "odd" amongst atheists as most people don't accept that some kind of proof is necessary or even possible.

 

[Shad]

In order to be a product of reason, atheism needs to challenge itself in the same way it challenges theism. This process is called "intellectual honesty", a phrase often tossed about in such discussions, but rarely practiced.

Consider the theist who claims that God exists because it says so in the Bible. Why do we not accept this claim? The reason is simple, the theist has skipped the required first step of proving the Bible is a qualified authority on the subject of gods. Unless the Bible is shown to be a qualified authority on the topics under discussion, then what it says in the Bible really doesn't matter.

Every atheist I've met gets the reasoning above when it is aimed at theism. They immediately understand why it is necessary to inspect the credentials of the authority being used to justify a clam. Simple, simple, simple, no problem at all.

But the atheist's understanding on this issue falls completely apart at the first moment it is suggested that the very same process we reasonably apply to theism should be applied to their position too. Once this is suggested, the clarity they once had about challenging referenced authorities dissolves in to chaos, confusion, emotion outbursts, and an impressive array of avoidance tactics.

The atheist looks to human reason for an answer in the same way the theist looks to their holy book. Thus, the qualifications of human reason to deliver credible answers on the subject of gods should be challenged in the very same way we challenged the authority of holy books.

Just like with holy books, exactly the same thing, unless human reason can be proven to be capable of delivering credible answers on the subject of gods, then all the supposedly clever little logic dances members so love to do really don't matter. The burden for proving reason's qualifications falls squarely upon the atheist, just as the burden for proving the qualifications of holy books falls upon the theist.

None of you are going to get this, even though it is the simplest thing. All that is required is basic intellectual honesty, but that is asking too much. This post will be ignored or yelled at until I go away, and then you will return to the comfy cozy routine of doing snazy logic calculations, completely unconcerned that you've not proven human reason qualified to provide credible answers on the subject of gods.

It's just like the theist who quotes verses from the Bible, as if that was enough.

It is not dishonest for those proposing a lack of a belief or acceptance of a claim. The null hypothesis is a valid stance to take until falsified.

 

[Typist]

I agree with you Typist as reason alone is not sufficient to establish that something is true.

Well, I believe reason is entirely sufficient in very many areas where it's qualifications have been proven. As example, we've built millions of bridges using reason, and it's working, thus no need to question reason there.

The problem arises when considering proposals about the ultimate nature of everything, the scope of god proposals. The scale of such topics extends so far beyond human experience.

 

[Shad]

Well, I believe reason is entirely sufficient in very many areas where it's qualifications have been proven. As example, we've built millions of bridges using reason, and it's working, thus no need to question reason there.

The problem arises when considering proposals about the ultimate nature of everything, the scope of god proposals. The scale of such topics extends so far beyond human experience.

We quantify reasoning with empirical evidence in the case of bridges. If a bridge collapses we can find out why by it's design, materials used, expertise of the construction crew. So by your own reasoning the null hypothesis is valid and stand until otherwise. This is the position of the soft atheist which is correct by your reasoning. Of course this does not provide grounds for a strong atheist.

There is also the issue that bridges are designed before construction in which the idea can be falsified before construction takes place. The design is based on empirical data where as the concept of God can only be inferred.

 

[LuisDantas]

Thanks. That seems a straightforward approach, cheers. It resonates perfectly with my lack of belief in leprechauns, but seems far more contentious in relation to God.

Most people hesitate to admit the fairly obvious fact that God is an entirely arbitrary belief, and treating such a concept as if it had some core of established literal existence leads to nothing but confusion and contradiction.