The core of rational atheism
One of the theists with whom I frequently spar recently wrote the following. The reply that follows is the comment that I left on her post.
Do we truly live in a world that does not need God? Do we have the bird’s eye view of all things to know that there is nothing that transcends nature?
Can you point out any instances in which an atheist of the freethought variety has claimed that we definitively know that there is no supernatural realm? Or is this just another one of your straw men?
I’m guessing that it’s the latter: that you are either ignorant of the freethought atheist position or are purposely misrepresenting it.
The proposition that there is a supernatural realm is not supported by any reliable evidence, and thus we reject it on a provisional basis. If acceptable evidence were to turn up, we’d be happy to re-examine this (or any) claim.
So far, all of the purported “evidence” presented by theists (when they aren’t trumpeting the virtues of blind faith) has not been convincing: subjective personal testimonies, flawed philosophical arguments, vague prophecies, pseudo-scientific nonsense like creationism and biblical numerology, etc.
To explain the available data, there is only one explanation that is coherent and parsimonious: there is no supernatural realm, or if there is, it has no effect upon the natural realm and is therefore meaningless.
Or you can reject it by definition- supernatural phenomena are things that violate the laws of nature… which have no exceptions. Push comes to shove and the laws of nature are invalidated. Which would be nice (FTL!), but obsenely unlikely.
Samuel Skinner
9 Oct 08 at 2:51 am
Kevin writes “Can you point out any instances in which an atheist of the freethought variety has claimed that we definitively know that there is no supernatural realm?”
Kevin writes “To explain the available data, there is only one explanation that is coherent and parsimonious: there is no supernatural realm, or if there is, it has no effect upon the natural realm and is therefore meaningless.”
So atheists don’t claim to know that there is no supernatural realm, but the only adequate explanation is that there is no supernatural realm with the provision that if there is it doesn’t effect us and doesn’t matter anyway.
So when I say atheists don’t have knowledge of all things to know that there is no supernatural realm… how is that a straw man? The statement doesn’t prove that there is a supernatural it only affirms what you are agreeing to on one hand that you don’t know for certain and yet questions the other hand that you could still hold it to be most likely.
In contrast, theism isn’t simply a set of informational knowledge, but an experiential reality. Yes the experiential needs to make sense cerebrally as well, but it can be certainly known for it is an encounter with God that is claimed and not just philosophy about him proclaimed. I see both the experiential and the cerebral working together to form true knowledge, not one at the exclusion of the other.
Moreover, to answer Skinner, the if there were no laws of nature how would we know when something has broken them? Moreover the supernatural affirms the natural and does not invalidate it. It gives it meaning, it doesn’t rob it of meaning.
Karla
3 Nov 08 at 12:40 pm
So atheists don’t claim to know that there is no supernatural realm, but the only adequate explanation is that there is no supernatural realm with the provision that if there is it doesn’t [affect] us and doesn’t matter anyway.
Correct.
So when I say atheists don’t have knowledge of all things to know that there is no supernatural realm… how is that a straw man?
A “straw man” argument is a logical fallacy in which someone misrepresents an opponent’s argument, twisting it into something that (1) was never claimed and (2) is easier to knock down.
You wrote: “Do we have the bird’s eye view of all things to know that there is nothing that transcends nature?”
Your implication (common among theists) is that we atheists claim special “bird’s-eye view” knowledge that leads to a dogmatic rejection of the concept of a supernatural realm.
This is textbook example of the straw-man argument fallacy. We claim no such special knowledge and hold no such dogmatic views, yet you theists continue to attack us as though we did, e.g. as in your original post.
It’s reasonably clear to me that you do understand, or at least are able to regurgitate, our actual (skeptical) position, so I’m just asking that you refrain from accusing us of dogmatism in the future.
In contrast, theism isn’t simply a set of informational knowledge, but an experiential reality. Yes the experiential needs to make sense cerebrally as well, but it can be certainly known for it is an encounter with God that is claimed and not just philosophy about him proclaimed. I see both the experiential and the cerebral working together to form true knowledge, not one at the exclusion of the other.
Let’s cut through the bullshit here. You have been claiming recently that the “informational knowledge” of Christianity is backed up by the “experiential reality” of encounters with God. As we have repeatedly counter-argued, your purported evidence — an uncorroborated anecdote filtered through heavy confirmation bias — does not stand up to scrutiny.
If you posit the existence of a god, the burden of proof is on you to demonstrate that your specific god is the best explanation of your observations, as opposed to a parsimonious naturalistic explanation or even the actions of a different hypothetical god.
Your “evidence” is just part of a vicious cycle. You already believe in Christianity, so you are prone to misinterpreting every event as confirmation of your position, which strengthens your resolve, which leads to further misinterpretation, and so on.
Kevin
4 Nov 08 at 12:25 pm
When I asked about a birds eye view I knew that atheists did not claim having such knowledge. I was not claiming that they claim to have it. I wasn’t attempting to represent another’s view by that statement. I know none of us know everything and have such a view. However, we don’t have to know everything to know something. That was my point. I’m sorry if I offended you by the statement.
Yes the burden of proof is upon me. I could also argue that you are already an atheist or naturalist and will continue to interpret everything as such. I am trying to look beyond how I see things to understand how you see them so that I can better articulate a response to your/atheists actual positions. So I keep at it, asking questions, trying again in a new post, reading the responses, studying more on the topic, and trying again, etc.
I am also finding that not all of my readers of the atheists worldview, if you will, do not maintain the same positions on some subjects and so when I address something I am not addressing it as a position that you all hold, but simply a position that is held.
I am certain you can find Christians who really do think Christianity is all about not going to hell, but saying that across the board would not be a good representation of us. However, if that has been your experience with us then it would be my job to illustrate that it is not so so that next time you would see there are Christians that don’t fit that category (there are a lot of us indeed). I would not be offended for you to represent my belief as such but would try an explain further to show that it is not a an accurate representation on the whole.
Please know that I persist so that I can understand. If only wanted to misrepresent atheism I could just read books, write post, and disallow comments so no one could contradict me. Instead, I really want to know how you all think and not just have someone tell me in a book. I really want to know what you think about what I think and I want to correct any misunderstandings I have of your view and you have of mine. I think if we come to truly understand each other in a way that we feel confident we can then talk about what we believe at a deeper level.
I do want to write books one day in the field of apologetics and I most certainly don’t want to misrepresent anybody. So I really do want to get to know atheists and learn all I can and learn it correctly. I thank you for the time you spend talking with me. It helps and I am listening.
Understanding doesn’t mean agreeing, but it’s the first step to really being able to discuss the real issues of humanity.
Karla
4 Nov 08 at 5:26 pm