franz kiekeben
  • Home
  • Blog
  • Philosophy
  • Publications
  • Contact

MATT DILLAHUNTY'S WORRY

9/14/2015

4 Comments

 
I had a brief discussion with Matt Dillahunty at the Pennsylvania State Atheist/Humanist Conference the other day, and he expressed an interesting concern that I think should be addressed. I was there to promote my book, The Truth about God, in which I claim to disprove the existence of God (in fact, I claim to disprove the existence of all gods, but in promoting the book I believe it's better to begin with the weaker claim). Matt pointed out that if one attempts to demonstrate that God is impossible but fails, then one is in effect providing the opposition with ammunition: they will take the failure as further support for their side. He of course agreed with me that such a failure wouldn't really provide support for theism, but his worry is that it would be regarded as such by some theists. In that, he is certainly correct. And he is intent on not shifting the burden of proof: it is up to the theist to provide evidence of God, not up to the nonbeliever to provide evidence of no God.

Now, I certainly agree that the theist must provide evidence. That's why a failure to disprove the existence of God isn't really a point in favor of theism: there's still the work of showing that there is a reason for belief. But should we be concerned about those theists who don't see it that way – who regard the failure of an argument against God as evidence for their side? I would say that if we do, then we must counterbalance that against any benefits associated with arguing in favor of positive atheism.

My impression is that Matt doesn't think there are any such benefits. If so, that's where we disagree. I think it is worthwhile to argue in favor of positive atheism, for at least two reasons. First, putting the opposition on the defensive is a good thing. If we take Matt's approach and merely present objections to the theist's arguments, we may succeed in keeping the burden of proof on their side, but as far as most theists are concerned, we have at best shown that they need to come up with better arguments. They will not feel that we have defeated their conclusions but at most the method they use to try convincing nonbelievers. If on the other hand we give them arguments for positive disbelief that they cannot answer – well, in that case, they have a real problem!

Second, our main concern – and I assume Matt will agree here – shouldn't be with winning arguments but with finding the truth. Discovering good reasons for disbelief – or better yet, conclusive reasons – is therefore very worthwhile. I think there are several strong arguments for disbelief and at least one conclusive argument that shows no deity (on the traditional meaning of that term) can possibly exist. All of this is discussed in The Truth about God.


4 Comments
Martin link
1/18/2016 01:34:09 pm

Fran, I saw your post over on Sam Harris Forum and I created a response to your post here on my blog. Just wondering what you think of it? It's here http://idiotsinchairstyping.com/a-invisible-dragonist/.

I argue that the god question hasn't even been formulated concisely enough to even make a decision.

Reply
Franz Kiekeben
1/19/2016 05:25:25 pm

Oops, hit the wrong key - reply is below:

Reply
Franz Kiekeben
1/19/2016 03:14:37 pm

You make good points in your post. There are two main things we disagree on, though. First, I don't think the mere belief in a god (consider deism, for instance) is on the same level as belief in invisible dragons and the like. Belief in Jesus as savior, yes; but in a conscious being that is responsible for the universe, no. That's not to say that I don't find the latter ridiculous. But it's less ridiculous than believing in the entire Jesus story, for example.

Second, and more important, I do think there is a reason for arguing against ridiculous beliefs - even extremely ridiculous ones - provided they are widely believed. I agree that we shouldn't waste much time arguing against someone who believes in invisible dragons or in the tooth fairy, but if these were widespread beliefs, with plenty of people defending them (and worse, attacking non-believers), then I would have no qualms about arguing against them.

Reply
Bricklaying New York link
12/26/2022 12:06:34 am

Interesting thoughts I really enjoyed your blog

Reply



Leave a Reply.

    Archives

    April 2022
    May 2021
    April 2021
    March 2021
    October 2020
    September 2020
    August 2020
    May 2020
    April 2020
    March 2020
    February 2020
    January 2020
    December 2019
    November 2019
    October 2019
    September 2019
    August 2019
    July 2019
    May 2019
    April 2019
    March 2019
    January 2019
    December 2018
    November 2018
    October 2018
    September 2018
    August 2018
    July 2018
    June 2018
    May 2018
    April 2018
    March 2018
    February 2018
    January 2018
    December 2017
    November 2017
    October 2017
    September 2017
    August 2017
    July 2017
    June 2017
    May 2017
    March 2017
    February 2017
    January 2017
    December 2016
    November 2016
    September 2016
    August 2016
    July 2016
    May 2016
    April 2016
    March 2016
    February 2016
    January 2016
    December 2015
    November 2015
    October 2015
    September 2015
    August 2015
    July 2015
    May 2015
    April 2015
    March 2015
    February 2015
    January 2015
    December 2014
    November 2014
    October 2014
    September 2014
    August 2014
    July 2014
    June 2014

    Categories

    All
    Atheism
    Creationism
    Determinism And Free Will
    Ethics
    Infinity
    Politics And Religion
    Presuppositionalism

    RSS Feed

Link to my author's page on Amazon