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

ATHEISM AND OMNISCIENCE

3/21/2015

1 Comment

 
Picture
Does one have to be omniscient in order to be an atheist? Some believers think so, and not because as a general rule atheists know a lot more than they do. Rather, the idea is that, unless you know everything about the universe, you cannot rule out the existence of God – or of anything else, for that matter. As many people – both believers and nonbelievers – put it, "you cannot prove a negative."

Well, actually, you can, but the idea is that proving the nonexistence of something is at least very difficult. How would one go about proving that no unicorn has ever existed? It seems one would have to demonstrate that at no time or place has there ever been a unicorn, and the problem is that one doesn't have access to every time and place – unless, of course, one is omniscient. Similarly, it is argued, to prove that God does not exist, one would have to know everything. (And as an added twist, it is sometimes claimed that if one did know everything, one would be God – in which case atheism would of course be false.)

A variant on this idea is something we might call the "circle argument," in which a circle is said to represent the totality of facts and the atheist is asked to indicate how much of this circle represents the facts they themselves know. The idea is that anyone reasonable will of course admit that what they know is a very
tiny part of the total, and indicate this by, say, placing a small dot in the circle. But if there is so much one doesn't know, how can one claim God does not exist? What if the information showing that he exists lies in the area outside one's knowledge?

To these arguments, most people who call themselves atheists these days would probably reply that atheism isn't the belief that God does not exist; rather, it's the absence of belief in God. Atheism, on this view, is the same thing as non-theism, and includes both those who claim there is no God and those who merely lack belief in God.

Now, it's fine if one wants to understand atheism this way. However, the principal flaws in the above arguments have nothing to do with how they interpret atheism. To begin with, the arguments would in that case still apply to those atheists – sometimes called "positive atheists" – who, like me, claim that there is no God. Moreover, even if you are not a positive atheist – or an atheist at all – you probably do claim that certain other things don't exist 
– things like leprechauns, mermaids, and Santa Claus. But if the above arguments made sense, then you would be wrong in making those claims as well. In fact, if anyone presents you with the above arguments, all you need to do is ask them how they can say that Santa Claus isn't real. This already shows that there has to be something wrong with their reasoning. It doesn't, however, tell you what is wrong with it, so let's go a bit further.

The first problem is that the circle argument ignores what the knowledge one does have is knowledge of. For example, I know that the earth is round. But since it's impossible to know a falsehood, if I do know that the earth is round, then it follows that the earth really is round. But in that case there cannot be any fact elsewhere in the circle that contradicts this knowledge. Similarly, if I actually know that God does not exist, it doesn't matter at all that there are a lot of other things that remain unknown to me. If I know God doesn't exist, then he doesn't, and nothing outside my area of knowledge can contradict that fact.

But, the believer will object, how can I really know God doesn't exist? Knowing that the earth is round is one thing; but knowing that something does not exist? How could anyone ever prove the nonexistence of something?

Well, to begin with, there are things whose existence one can disprove – for instance, married bachelors, square circles, and sisters without siblings. If some idea can be shown to be internally inconsistent, then what it supposedly describes cannot be real. Someone cannot be both married and a bachelor, so it is impossible for there to be such an individual anywhere in the universe. It follows that if the concept of God is internally inconsistent, then one can in fact prove that there is no God.

But more importantly, why would one have to prove that God doesn't exist in order to be a positive atheist? There are at least two things wrong with this idea.

In the first place, one can reasonably claim to know things that one cannot prove. I cannot prove – at least not with logical certainty – that there are no leprechauns, but that shouldn't stop me (or you) from claiming to know that there aren't. 

In the second place, a positive atheist doesn't have to claim to know that God does not exist; it's enough to believe that he doesn't. And one can reasonably believe in something that one doesn't know. For example, I believe – given the immensity of the universe – that there is life on other planets, but I certainly don't know that there is.

Both of the above arguments therefore fail. One does not have to be omniscient to be an atheist. Perhaps it's just that, compared with some of their critics, it seems like atheists are omniscient!


1 Comment

RELIGION AND HOMOPHOBIA

3/9/2015

0 Comments

 
Ben Carson received a lot of attention over his comments last week that homosexuality is “absolutely” a matter of choice – and rightly so, given that he is considering a presidential run. But of course such claims from religious conservatives are old hat. To hear the latest in religious homophobic thought, one needs to listen to those who are at the real forefront of the gay-bashing movement, people like Bryan Fischer and Scott Lively.

Fischer,a well-known radio show host, blames Nazism and the Holocaust on homosexuality, saying that “Nazi Germany became the horror that it was because it rejected both Christianity and its clear teaching about human sexuality.” According to this theory, the Nazis started out in a gay bar in Munich, Hitler liked men, and the Holocaust was a result of homosexuals in the German military.

Fischer apparently got these ideas from The Pink Swastika, a book co-authored by attorney, anti-gay activist, and former candidate for Governor of Massachusetts Scott Lively.

And just last week, Lively was a guest on Fischer's program to discuss other important matters in the war on sodomy. Among the claims he made are that homosexuality is “worse than murder, worse than genocide,” and that if the Supreme Court rules against gay marriage bans, we will cross a line against God that hasn't been crossed since before Noah's Flood. Lively also believes that such an action could result in the arrival of the Antichrist by year's end.

There is of course no point in arguing against these views: after all, what could be said that is worse than the statements themselves? But what Fischer and Lively don't seem to realize is that by making such claims, they can potentially do a lot more to promote atheism than Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris combined. We should all commend them for their great work.



Part of Fischer's interview with Lively can be seen here:
http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/lively-homosexuality-worse-murder-and-worse-genocide


0 Comments

PROOF THAT GOD EXISTS

3/2/2015

0 Comments

 
This is cheating in a sense, since the following was previously published on my philosophy page, but someone suggested I re-post it on my blog, as people reading the latter might not check the philosophy section. Moreover, I can use it to make a point relevant to the theism-atheism debate: religious philosophers have for centuries been presenting bad arguments for the existence of God – cosmological ones, ontological ones, you name it – and the following shows just how easy it is to come up with yet another bad reason for belief that isn't all that easy to refute. I give you, then, my own “proof” of the truth of theism:

First, consider what you would regard as a positive demonstration of God's existence. You might, for instance, imagine a scenario where God appears in the sky (white beard, long robes, and all), everyone else behaves in a manner that leads you to believe they also see him, the six o'clock news reports the event, and so on. Furthermore, this apparition correctly predicts exactly what important events will take place over the next year (deaths of famous people, hurricanes, who will win the Superbowl, etc.). If this isn't good enough evidence, then, as I said, simply supply your own scenario. Call the scenario which you would regard as sufficient, event e. 

Now consider statement A, "If I ask God for proof of his existence, then event e will occur". If A is true, then, per the above stipulated conditions, you agree that God exists. That is: if A, then God exists. 

So our first premise is: "If, if I ask God for proof of his existence, then event e will occur, then God exists". Provided there is some scenario you would accept as positive evidence of God's existence, this premise is undeniably true. 

Second, consider the fact that I will not ask God for proof of his existence. You can accept this as a fact because I am an atheist, so even if I were to say something that might be interpreted as my asking God for proof, I would not be asking God, since I don't believe there is a God for me to ask anything of. 

So the second premise is: "I will not ask God for proof of his existence", which is also true. 

Now, the argument is as follows. Substituting P for "I ask God for proof of his existence", E for "event e will occur", and G for "God exists", we have: 


1. (P -> E) -> G

2. ~P

3. (~P v E) -> G                1, Impl.

4. ~P v E                           2, Add. 

5. G                                   3, 4, Modus Ponens 

Q.E.D. 


I will leave it to the reader to determine what is wrong with this argument.

0 Comments

    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