I know there is no god, just as you know there are no fairies and no pot of gold at the end of a rainbow. The only thing substantiating the god idea is the fact that more people believe it than the fairy story. If I were to say that I know there are no fairies, there would be no argument. Most would agree. Nobody would whip out their overinflated love for epistemology to strike the notion down. So what about the idea of god makes people so righteous about the semantics of knowledge? You’d think these atheists were just agnostics the way they defend god’s right to be considered despite claiming to not believe in it.
I see most atheists as timid creatures, bound by a code of honor that restrains them. Some call it the scientific method, some call it logic, but they apply it far more liberally than they should. I love the scientific method more than most but I have to agree with the quacks on this one; it can’t be used to explain everything. The most frequent response to my claim is that you cannot disprove something that doesn’t exist. So true. But if it doesn’t exist for me to disprove it, can I not say that I know it does not exist?
Of course not. This is where the philosophy jocks step in. Supposedly, if I claim that I know something that cannot be proven, I am no better than a fundamentalist. Ahh, this is where I apply a little misdirection. If I can prove, instead, that the idea of god is a man-made notion, would that not relieve me of the burden of disproving a negative? I sure think so. And before you tell me that a god may exist that has not yet been dreamed of by man, might I remind you about the fairies?
The key to knowing that god does not exist is to acknowledge that he was invented by man to explain the mystery of life and existence. He is no longer necessary, though, as we have learned enough to understand our place in the world with our own knowledge. (Our place, if you’re wondering, is without purpose or meaning. Yay, nihilism!) Though there is much that we do not know, the idea that what we do know is never enough to make a certain claim is such patent bullshit. I have no interest in jerking off to a philosophy text.
The knowledge that there is no god is a priori. Epistemological philosophy is such that if you apply it haphazardly like a jackass, you end up in a loop where you can never truly know anything. The moment that you appeal to this mindfuck of a philosophy, you’re lost. The very statement “you can’t prove it/anything decisively” sets off a shock wave of logical consequences. If the certainty with which I know gods non-existence to be true is useless, what good is anything else you or I consider to be knowledge? You cannot function in life if you honestly think this is a valid way to look at the world. Imagine opening your eyes after a night’s sleep and not being certain about anything. You wouldn’t be able to move if you required “absolute” knowledge to act. Thus, by epistemological definition, getting out of bed in the morning is an act of faith. What mental masturbation!
For every posturing pseudo-philosopher, there seems to be a large space between certainty and absolute knowledge that I simply don't respect. I think that certainty covers the gap quite well and classical philosophers tend to agree with me. Philosophy hacks have put guard rails along the edge though, creating conjectures that make it "theoretically" impossible to know things. They're mad.
Why is what I’m saying any different than a fundamentalist claiming that they “know” god exists? This is the question that the Knights of the Holy Scientific Method like to pose. As if by making a statement that supposedly cannot be falsified, we fall to corruption. Like the paragraphs above demonstrate, life is full of unfalsifiable knowledge, stuff that you just KNOW, and the fact that it cannot be proven either way doesn’t make it less true or useful. Again, we make super-special considerations when it comes to this damned “god” idea. We apply levels of logic that we otherwise wouldn’t have. It reminds me of the fact that South Park once depicted the prophet Mohammad in an episode without controversy, but now that the world is hypersensitive to it, they censored the most recent appearance of the prophet. Same situation, different rules.
Carl Sagan once said, "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence." Indeed, this is a true statement and it has been used to refute my claim, but I am not using only god's lack of evidence as evidence to support my statement.
Next comes the most amusing argument: you cannot use knowledge of the physical world to disprove something that exists beyond it. Well, what would be the purpose of declaring the existence of a metaphysical god if it could not affect the laws of physics? A god who is 100% ineffective is just as good as a god who is 100% nonexistent. The only way to ever have evidence of god (a useful one at least) is to have physical effects that can be attributed to it. In the past, we’ve been fooled into believing what we see is the hand of god at work, but we’ve grown out of that.
We humans have a history of speaking before we have all the facts. Why, at a few points in the last 200 years it was declared that we had learned everything there is to know about the world, only to find how wrong we were. You might think this would prevent me from making further definite claims, but I’m not going there. Every scientific discovery of knowledge has further marginalized the necessity of god. That is the trend and it will continue. We can now trace nearly every question we had 2000 years ago to areas of science that we have even a small amount of knowledge in. Any new gods or metaphysical philosophies that we invent are merely there to ask the new questions that further developments will surely shed light on.
Douglas Adams once said:
I don’t accept the currently fashionable assertion that any view is automatically as worthy of respect as any equal and opposite view. My view is that the moon is made of rock. If someone says to me “Well, you haven’t been there, have you? You haven’t seen it for yourself, so my view that it is made of Norwegian Beaver Cheese is equally valid” - then I can’t even be bothered to argue. There is such a thing as the burden of proof, and in the case of god, as in the case of the composition of the moon, this has shifted radically. God used to be the best explanation we’d got, and we’ve now got vastly better ones. God is no longer an explanation of anything, but has instead become something that would itself need an insurmountable amount of explaining. So I don’t think that being convinced that there is no god is as irrational or arrogant a point of view as belief that there is. I don’t think the matter calls for even-handedness at all.
This quote sums up a large portion of my argument. Why give the idea of god as fair a shake as the idea of fairies?
You're looking at this the wrong way, no offense. The argument you're using is falsifiable. The best argument you have for the non-existence of god or gods is in demonstrating they're internally contradictory. That which contradicts itself, a paradox, cannot exist. There's no other way to demonstrate the non-existence of something for which there's no evidence.
ReplyDeleteWill, you're right. Alas, I like taking the long way.
ReplyDeleteAndrew, I once created a belief scale based on one by Dawkins. It is a 1-7 scale, with 1 being very strong confidence in the existence of God and 7 being very strong confidence in the non-existence of God (with 4 being absolute agnostic). I myself am a #7 about God, just as I am about fairies and Godzilla. My own confidence stems from the positive argument that gods can be better explained by human psychology as well as the negative argument which says that God fails the Outsider Test of Faith (http://bit.ly/axHeZX). Since I am not a philosopher by trade, I'm under no obligation to logically defend a strict epistemological claim...it is enough to claim strong confidence, which everyone can apply to any number of common sense situations (such as getting out of bed in the morning).
ReplyDeleteOh hey! I found the perfect comic strip to go along with my post: http://www.smbc-comics.com/index.php?db=comics&id=1994
ReplyDeleteAfter having been disproved countless times in the past why should I give any credence to a claim of divinity now? The only reason that you can't just out and out say that you know there is no god is because we feel the necessity to play nice with those that still hold out that the rabbit in the hat really is magic.
ReplyDeleteKarsh
Your first paragraph pretty much sums it up with "I’ve purposefully stirred up the hornet nest". I understand your intent, I just wonder if it is worth your time or if it will truly change anything.
ReplyDeleteYour stance, I would argue, is something of a privilege. Why God may (or may not) exist to people across the world within the multitudes of cultures, levels of poverty, freedoms and rights is a bit more complex than merely a logical or philosophical assertion.
Alright you ignorant atheists... if there is no god, then HOW DOES THE SUN KEEP ORBITING THE EARTH? BAM!
ReplyDeleteYou see people, that's how you deal with atheist skum. With LOGIC! Hit that bullseye and the rest of the dominoes will come down like a house of cards... CHECKMATE!
And on that note...
Dunt dun duuh DAAAAHHHH!
!!!!!!!!!MY ATHEIST STORE!!!!!!!!!
Aristotle's Muse
This is my store. Maybe wearing an atheist T-shirt won't change the world, but enough of them just might.
I agree.
ReplyDeleteBack in 1988, when I was in my mid-twenties, after about 3 years of thinking about it and reading what I could find on the subject, I had come to the conclusion that the concept of a theistic deity was contradictory and impossible. Additionally, at the time, I was in just a sergeant in the military and didn't have anything resembling an education beyond a high school diploma. But I managed to assemble something that resembled the ability to reason and think logically all by myself in about a decade before the internet became accessible to regular people.
What I can't fathom is how some people are unable or unwilling to come to the same conclusion as I did, especially with access to the internet.
PS: a good book to read on the subject is "Atheism: The Case Against God" by George H. Smith (I may have the author's name wrong)
Why couldn't a theist just as easily declare I KNOW God exist for a priori reasons as well?
ReplyDeleteSeems to me you're dedicating a lot of your time/effort in waxing lyrical about something you don't believe in. You don't believe in it, why not just leave it at that? Nobody seems to be trying to convince you otherwise.
ReplyDeleteHey man,
ReplyDeleteI loved this post, really clear and eloquent. I disagree with your portrayal of atheists as timid and would maintain that evolution is just a theory, albeit one that has more bearing than sky-wizards (my generic term for 'god'). We won't agree on that point, but you've stated your case very well.
I was going to go into greater depth but I've run out of time unfortunately. It's good to see that you get the curse of the anonymous commenter too. What a gosh-darned (mustn't blaspheme) pity.
Anyway, look forward to reading more from now on.
Con.
Stereo: People are always asking me why I am so interested in religion when I don’t believe in god. It is BECAUSE I know so much about religion that I don’t believe in god. Get it?
ReplyDeleteCarl Sagan once said, "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence."
ReplyDeleteThat's a common quote mine. Here's the context:
appeal to ignorance — the claim that whatever has not been proved false must be true, and vice versa (e.g. There is no compelling evidence that UFOs are not visiting the Earth; therefore UFOs exist — and there is intelligent life elsewhere in the universe. Or: There may be seventy kazillion other worlds, but not one is known to have the moral advancement of the Earth, so we're still central to the Universe.) This impatience with ambiguity can be summarized in the phrase: absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
— Carl Sagan, "The Fine Art of Baloney Detection"
Indeed, this is a true statement....
No, it is not true. What absence of evidence is not is proof of absence. But it is evidence.
Let's take The Monster Under Your Bed. If you look under your bed and see no monster, that is evidence of the absence that monster.
lol Lies! Its absence of the monster At the moment you look. For all you know, you look away and it comes back. Meaning that just cause you can't find evidence of it being there doesn't mean its not there. It just means you found no way to prove it is there. There was actually a theory that states, while no one is paying attention to "object X" that it goes through various changes. Kind of like how the Boos in Mario turn "evil" and chase you when you look away but not when you look at them. To those who have seen a boo, they only assume them to be nice and kind. Anyone who has been caught from behind, wouldn't live to tell the tale (unless your mario and one hit isn't enough lol). But in reality the boos try to attack as soon as you turn your back. But since no one is alive after finding out, there is no evidence. That clearly doesn't mean they won't kill you though. Now does it?
DeleteYour argument is very well organized and if I were not a believer myself I would be easily persuaded. I'm surprised no Christians, or even believers for that matter, have posted snide comments similar to the one posted by Anonymous, satirizing believers. I am very young, presumably much younger than many of the others who have commented, but despite that fact I believe I have something very valuable to bring to the table. I have been exposed to both believers and non-believers and countless numbers of arguments for and against belief in a God, and through them all I have noticed a recurring theme. Although many believers become heated in debates regarding belief in God, their anger generally stems from the passion and conviction they have for their beliefs. This intensity, and even anger, comes from a defense of something that brings genuine happiness and encourages true good in life. Not one Christian teaching in the Bible encourages any acts of anger or hatred or even harm to others. From the non-believers, though, I noticed a general attitude of ridicule. Their arguments were based not on texts or specific pieces of evidence widely held by a large group of atheists, but rather senses and physical logic.
ReplyDeleteI know a man, very respectable in the United States, who said to me once that "youth is unbiased, and it is our biases that prevent us from learning truth." I took this to heart and have tried to maintain that youth as long as possible. It is because of this that I believe my observations are valuable. Many of you, having lived longer than I, have developed many beliefs, and those beliefs have grown stronger and more embedded in your person the longer you have lived. As an eight year old child, I struggled in school. I never struggled with academics, but rather the other students around me. I was very kind-hearted and friends with many of the girls in my class. This, of course, was a problem with many of the guys in my class who liked the girls I was friends with. Because I never dated any of these girls, but was merely friends with them, I was made fun of constantly and called names like "faggot" and "queer" and "homo." I came home and would tell my parents about how well I was doing in my classes, which made them proud, but not once did I tell them about the name calling. I became very upset, and at one point, being a believer at the time, considered how much easier it would be to end the problems and get a head start on eternity with God. I laid in my bed for over three hours, crying and praying and crying and praying, and after all of that time, it finally hit me. What had I been taught in life? I had been raised in a Christian family, I was taught to believe in God, I was told that the tooth fairy and Santa Claus existed, and I was also told that if I watched television too long it was bad for my brain. I believed in the tooth fairy, but there was no substance there. The tooth fairy gave me money and that money brought temporary happiness, but eventually the money was gone and I ran out of teeth. Not to mention, my friends would get $10 for a tooth and I would get $5. I didn't believe my teeth were less valuable than theirs and it didn't seem consistent or fair to me. I believed in Santa because he was nice to children and seemed to have all good characteristics. At the end of the day though, my family got many more presents than my friends with less money and I didn't think that just because my parents made more I deserved more presents. Santa went out the window after that. The television watching thing may actually be true, but it never caused me to be unhappy watching too much television so I never worried about it. God, though, God was different. I believed in God because he embodied "good" and "equality" and "love" and everything else that when you simply think of it, it brings you happiness and joy inside. God never gave my friends less life or happiness because of how much money their parents made or how handsome or intelligent they were. My parents made more money than most and I was a decent looking kid and I was less happy than most. I wasn't happy because of these things though, because at the end of the day when I thought of God, he was what made me happy. He didn't cause those kids to make fun of me, their decisions in life and their reactions to experiences caused them to do that. He provided me with an outlet in him where I could release all of those things and continue on in life bringing happiness to others. He has never left me and has never given me anything I couldn't handle with him. That innocence and lack of biases I had as a child led me to follow God. That has to stand for something.
ReplyDeleteThe metaphysical doesn't need to control the physical. If you believe in science then you should know that the physical has been proven to be able to control itself. God is beyond physics. Just because you write a physical piece of literature doesn't mean you have to control how it effects people. The effect is in the individual and their experiences and biases. Just as well, your argument for why you know there is no God is based on physical as well. The relation between the perceptions of the moon and God is a very good example. Outside of the fact that we know the moon isn't made of cheese, the concept that portrays of trying to understand something you have never seen or touched is included in the belief of God. If you tell me there is no God and your argument is based on sensory observations, I believe that you are missing out on something very important; Metaphysics. I'm assuming you believe in metaphysics. There are things outside of the physical world that exist. For instance, any idea of something is metaphysical. You cannot see, touch, hear, or smell justice, and there is not definite example of justice that encompasses every form. Therefore, justice is metaphysical. If you say that something metaphysical needs to control the physics, you would then agree that justice should control what we do. Unfortunately, when you try to do this you realize that justice is simply and idea, and an idea cannot control anything. Yet, at the same time, justice does exist. You can point out examples of justice and say that someone received justice. In this we reach a paradox. Justice exists, but it is not something we can definitely see and constantly label "justice" because its meaning is debatable, we cannot touch justice, we cannot hear justice, and we cannot taste justice. If this is so then the same should apply to God. God is metaphysical. He is an idea which I happen to believe exists. I cannot see God, yet I can point out examples of his good work, I cannot touch God, I cannot hear God, and I cannot taste God. So what is your point?
ReplyDeleteIn conclusion, with all due respect, I believe that your argument is flawed. You try to explain the nonexistence of something metaphysical with physics when it can be proven that the two are not the same. My argument is just as strong as yours and therefore, I would appreciate it if you would say that you believe there is no God, rather than claiming it as fact.
ReplyDeleteAnonymous: Thanks for the long contribution to the discussion. If I were to demonstrate to you through the manipulation of your brain chemistry that the reality of god could appear more and less apparent depending on the manipulation, would you accept it as an explanation for why you could possibly believe in something that doesn't actually exist, natural or supernatural? It seems to me that you're convinced that since you feel something, it is real. I would like to refer you to another post of mine: Why You Are Wrong. http://www.dontfeedtheanimals.net/2010/07/why-you-are-wrong.html
ReplyDeleteI agree with Andrew. I know there is no such thing as a God too . Why should atheists beat around the bush about it?
ReplyDeleteDear Anonymous: At the moment I only have 2 refutations of your post. #1: You say "believe in science". Here is a short list of things people have believed in: god(s), the tooth fairy, Santa Claus, the Easter bunny, unicorns, fairies, etc. Notice anything interesting about that list? Belief is completely destroyed by knowledge. They cannot co-exist logically with each other. The only one we seem to argue about is the god(s) one. We don't believe in science. Belief means that when we grow and learn (science), We eventually see that the myths are not facts. #2: Justice is not a "thing". It is a quality like love, peace, hate, hot, cold, dark, light. Many people have received justice only to find out later that the justice that they got turned out to be based on faulty data. An apple is the same for everyone but justice is different in every society in the world. Hope this helps your understanding a little. My non-theist peace and love to you.
ReplyDeleteWait, Godzilla isn't real?
ReplyDeleteIt seems that everyone is doing an awful lot of not trying to find God. I wonder who's story would be different if you actually put some effort into seeking God and finding out for yourself whether or not he is real, rather than not looking and claiming he isn't there because you didn't find anything.
ReplyDeleteWhen there is no proof. You are left to trust. If your girl friend says she didn't cheat on you when she was drunk last Friday night and didn't come home til 6am Saturday. Do you really know? Or will you just trust her? Though the situation I'm using is a bit extreme, it is similar to saying "god is real" without any evidence to back it up. Though i have nothing against other believing in an "idol" to help them get through day to day, imposing that idol on others and calling others wrong for not believing in it is a bit unfair. If you can believe in something like that without a shred of evidence every time the questions come up. Then your (general "you" not you specifically) either ignorant, naive, or painfully devoted to an idea. But whatever keeps you going i suppose...
DeleteDear Hawkwind's Aerie,
ReplyDeleteIt was nice of you offer your "non-theist peace and love". Too bad those qualities can only exist in a world where God is real. Otherwise we would have no bases for peace and love, right and wrong. There has to be a higher standard by which these virtues come.
Is it so hard to give credit to humanity for things humanity has done or discovered? I understand how easy it must be to make an all powerful being and point fingers saying "he did it" without even a slight explanation. But do you really feel its that plain and simple?
DeleteLike: It is an egg like the others because god made it an egg.
Instead of: It is an egg because of the DNA/Matter/Genetics it is made of thus because this egg is made of the same Matter and DNA as This Egg, we can classify both as being eggs.
The idea of a god always bothered me. Most times i do think of it as a "man-made" idea made to control man. If you feared dieing after committing a crime would send you to a fiery pit of constant death and agony, you'd probably be less inclined to do bad in your lifetime. I usually stick to ideals of science. I believe the universe is in a constant state of renewal. Like the number zero it has no beginning or end, it starts where it ends and repeats infinitely. Assuming that matter truly can not be "Created or destroyed" my theory makes sense.
ReplyDeleteEver heard of black holes? They are the remnants of a star that has gone supernova and had its own gravity take over. It is literally a well of gravity that sucks in even light in most depictions. But the depictions always make it seem as if the black hole is a two dimensional object. In actuality it makes more sense to picture the black hole as an Orb that sucks everything and densely compacts the new matter onto itself thus growing larger. I've also heard that "nothing escapes black holes". However, they do shoot off X rays, so that is not 100% accurate as the rays are technically escaping. Anyway continuing what i was saying..
Most scientists believe that the big bang started our universe. This suggests that all of the universes matter was crunched into one spot and than spread across the universe in an extremely fast manner (via explosion). Would it be so hard to believe that black holes are that same process in reverse?
If eventually black holes sucked up everything, and with all the matter they sucked up, collided into each other. Could it not have a similar effect as filling two balloons with water til their about to burst, and then having them collide? Just as the water balloons break and cause a huge splash of water, the black holes could "break" and cause a huge explosion of matter that spread out across the universe.