A Critique of Pure Atheism

[Immanuel Can]

Seriously, though, if the stakes here revolve around objective moral commandments on this side of the grave, as well as immortality and salvation for all of eternity on the other side of the grave, what could possibly be more crucial than worshipping and adoring the right God?

"Seriously" is actually your problem: I don't find you serious at all.

So have you figured out your place on the scale yet?

[iambiguous]

Seriously, though, if the stakes here revolve around objective moral commandments on this side of the grave, as well as immortality and salvation for all of eternity on the other side of the grave, what could possibly be more crucial than worshipping and adoring the right God?

Well, perhaps, other than actually being able to demonstrate that He does in fact exist.

"Seriously" is actually your problem: I don't find you serious at all.

So have you figured out your place on the scale yet?

Note to others:

IC in a nutshell, in my opinion. Instead of actually responding to the two points I made above, he makes it all about me.

I have a word for those here who do that.

[Alexiev]

Well, not to be too picky, but Sennacherib wasn't a place. He was a person. And Baal, like Zeus, is another fake god. But it doesn't mean that there isn't a real God. It just means there are a lot of fakes. And both Theists and Atheists agree on that much; they just don't agree on the existence of the one true God.

Thanks for informing me. I know about Sennscherib only from reading Byron's excellent poem.

I stand by my definition of God, though. I also think "fake" is a calumny. "Fake" implies intentional fraud and deception. When I refer to Zeus as a God. I am not trying to deceive anyone. Neither were many of the ancient Greeks. Neither are you, when you refer to God, even if your God is non-existant.

[LuckyR]

I don't believe the "fault" you claim is any "fault" at all, actually. It's not wrong to deny the validity of other people's "gods." In fact, how can a person be said to "believe in a god" at all, if he or she doesn't also think contradictory views of that god must therefore logically be mistaken?

So I think your original objection isn't at all valid. But I am pointing out that if it were, then Atheism would not escape your own condemnation. For it denies the existence of ALL gods.

If it's bad for one Theist to insult another god-belief, then it's bad for Atheist to insult ALL god-beliefs. Simple fairness covers that.

You got the point backwards.

If a twist is not bad to reject 9999 gods, then an atheist is not bad to reject just one more.

That wouldn't follow, logically speaking. If it's wrong to say that 2+2 = 5, 6,7 or 9, it does not follow that it's better to say it's 8, or wrong to say it's 4.

If God is real, then disbelief is no kind of protection against being wrong; just as if there is no God, then belief will not produce one. Logic is logic. Fair is fair. It's the same for both Atheists and Theists.

Except that Atheists have nothing to gain, since they have to think that believing delusions isn't a particularly bad or wrong strategy for getting through life...and that Atheists have no grounds for a moral condemnation of anybody's belief of anything. But let that be.

If theists believed in the concept of gods, but not necessarily any particular god, then they'd be correct if any god existed. However, just about all theists believe in a particular god and by corollary specifically disbelieve in over 99.9% of all gods. Thus the statistical chance of that sort of theist being correct is quite low, especially if the gods of future human cultures are also added to the tally.

However, before that computation is calculated, the question of the issue of belief in gods as a singular example of the metaphysical vs an individual's choice of belief in other (almost infinite number of) metaphysical ideas, say ESP, ghosts, etc. One possible situation is that nothing metaphysical exists, what you can detect is all there is. In that case, atheists are correct. Another would be that some metaphysical entities exist, but others don't. Which category would gods fit into? I don't know (as everyone else doesn't).

What we do know is that using physical evidence to attempt to prove or disprove the metaphysical, is a fool's errand.

[Immanuel Can]

Well, not to be too picky, but Sennacherib wasn't a place. He was a person. And Baal, like Zeus, is another fake god. But it doesn't mean that there isn't a real God. It just means there are a lot of fakes. And both Theists and Atheists agree on that much; they just don't agree on the existence of the one true God.

Thanks for informing me. I know about Sennscherib only from reading Byron's excellent poem.

Yeah, it's a good one. Byron had some skills.

I stand by my definition of God, though. I also think "fake" is a calumny. "Fake" implies intentional fraud and deception.

Call it "mistaken," then. Atheists believe that the word "god" does not actually refer to anything that exists, so that people who use the word as if such an Entity did exist must be "mistaken."

...when you refer to God, even if your God is non-existant.

There you go. So you're not using the word at all to mean the same thing as when Muslims, Jews or Christians use the word. They mean to signify an Entity that exists, and you insist that such an entity cannot actually exist.

What's the evidence that allows that conclusion?

[Immanuel Can]

You got the point backwards.

If a twist is not bad to reject 9999 gods, then an atheist is not bad to reject just one more.

That wouldn't follow, logically speaking. If it's wrong to say that 2+2 = 5, 6,7 or 9, it does not follow that it's better to say it's 8, or wrong to say it's 4.

If God is real, then disbelief is no kind of protection against being wrong; just as if there is no God, then belief will not produce one. Logic is logic. Fair is fair. It's the same for both Atheists and Theists.

Except that Atheists have nothing to gain, since they have to think that believing delusions isn't a particularly bad or wrong strategy for getting through life...and that Atheists have no grounds for a moral condemnation of anybody's belief of anything. But let that be.

If theists believed in the concept of gods, but not necessarily any particular god, then they'd be correct if any god existed.

That doesn't add up. Why would somebody who said, "I believe in oceans, but not the Pacific Ocean," be "more correct" than somebody who said, "I believe the Pacific Ocean exists"?

However, just about all theists believe in a particular god and by corollary specifically disbelieve in over 99.9% of all gods. Thus the statistical chance of that sort of theist being correct is quite low, especially if the gods of future human cultures are also added to the tally.

I have to say, if I can say it without offence, that that's a very poor strategy of calculation. It errantly supposes that all alternatives are equally valid and possible, and all deserve to be equally weighted: and it makes the false assumption that many wrong answers reduce the chances of there being a right one. Clearly, neither is the case.

Use the same strategy of statistical assessment you're using, you would have to reason as follows: only 4% of the world's population is composed of actual Atheists. And counting in the earlier inhabitants of the world, the number of Atheists dwindles to negligible. Therefore the chances of Atheism being true are exceedingly small.

Would you reason that way?

In point of fact, there is an infinite number (quite literally) of wrong answers to the question, "What is the sum of 2+2?" And that doesn't make it even slightly less probable that there's a real answer, 4. So it's totally irrelevant how many false gods people invent: it doesn't even reduce the chances of there being a true God.

I don't know (as everyone else doesn't).

Wait. You claim to know what other people CAN or CANNOT know? You think you can say that "everybody else" doesn't know what you admit you don't know?

What's the basis of that claim? How do you know the limits of what everybody else can know?

[Alexiev]

]There you go. So you're not using the word at all to mean the same thing as when Muslims, Jews or Christians use the word. They mean to signify an Entity that exists, and you insist that such an entity cannot actually exist.

What's the evidence that allows that conclusion?

I don't insist on any such thing. What makes you think I do?

[Immanuel Can]

]There you go. So you're not using the word at all to mean the same thing as when Muslims, Jews or Christians use the word. They mean to signify an Entity that exists, and you insist that such an entity cannot actually exist.

What's the evidence that allows that conclusion?

I don't insist on any such thing. What makes you think I do?

Well, you're an Atheist, aren't you?

[Alexiev]

]There you go. So you're not using the word at all to mean the same thing as when Muslims, Jews or Christians use the word. They mean to signify an Entity that exists, and you insist that such an entity cannot actually exist.

What's the evidence that allows that conclusion?

I don't insist on any such thing. What makes you think I do?

Well, you're an Atheist, aren't you?

For all practical purposes I am. I don't believe in God, or even give the subject much thought. I come from a long line of non-religious people. I actually like religion. I read a fair amount of Christian apologetics, and I love many mythologies. I also think many of the atheists' arguments are flawed: God is evil for the flood; what about the problem of evil or the problem of pain; there's no evidence for God's existence. None of these are persuasive. Neither, however, are arguments for God. So, for practical purposes I'm atheist, but philosophically I'm agnostic. Of course I know that great many people smarter and wiser than I are religious-- although not all are Christian.

If I were Christian, I think I'd lean toward Orthodoxy. The Roman Catholics have added to apostolic Christianity: added rituals, and declarations from authority. The Protestants have subtracted from tradition -- like Jesus' command to practice communion. The Orthodox are the best exemplars of apostolic faith, and I also like the Eastern mysticism.

I've read most of CS Lewis' and Gk Chesterton's apologetics, mainly because I loved their other books, so was emboldened to read on. I also love Chesterton's short biographies of Acquinas and Assissi. If you haven't read them, I recommend them. Chesterton was a Catholic, and sainthood may not be your thing. The biographies are not interested in historical accuracy, but in the mythical and intellectual meaning of the two saints. Great stuff!

[LuckyR]

That wouldn't follow, logically speaking. If it's wrong to say that 2+2 = 5, 6,7 or 9, it does not follow that it's better to say it's 8, or wrong to say it's 4.

If God is real, then disbelief is no kind of protection against being wrong; just as if there is no God, then belief will not produce one. Logic is logic. Fair is fair. It's the same for both Atheists and Theists.

Except that Atheists have nothing to gain, since they have to think that believing delusions isn't a particularly bad or wrong strategy for getting through life...and that Atheists have no grounds for a moral condemnation of anybody's belief of anything. But let that be.

If theists believed in the concept of gods, but not necessarily any particular god, then they'd be correct if any god existed.

That doesn't add up. Why would somebody who said, "I believe in oceans, but not the Pacific Ocean," be "more correct" than somebody who said, "I believe the Pacific Ocean exists"?

However, just about all theists believe in a particular god and by corollary specifically disbelieve in over 99.9% of all gods. Thus the statistical chance of that sort of theist being correct is quite low, especially if the gods of future human cultures are also added to the tally.

I have to say, if I can say it without offence, that that's a very poor strategy of calculation. It errantly supposes that all alternatives are equally valid and possible, and all deserve to be equally weighted: and it makes the false assumption that many wrong answers reduce the chances of there being a right one. Clearly, neither is the case.

Use the same strategy of statistical assessment you're using, you would have to reason as follows: only 4% of the world's population is composed of actual Atheists. And counting in the earlier inhabitants of the world, the number of Atheists dwindles to negligible. Therefore the chances of Atheism being true are exceedingly small.

Would you reason that way?

In point of fact, there is an infinite number (quite literally) of wrong answers to the question, "What is the sum of 2+2?" And that doesn't make it even slightly less probable that there's a real answer, 4. So it's totally irrelevant how many false gods people invent: it doesn't even reduce the chances of there being a true God.

I don't know (as everyone else doesn't).

Wait. You claim to know what other people CAN or CANNOT know? You think you can say that "everybody else" doesn't know what you admit you don't know?

What's the basis of that claim? How do you know the limits of what everybody else can know?

Wow. I'm sure the guy you're arguing against is losing badly... Except that obviously isn't me since you've misquoted just about everything I'm (trying to) saying.

First, when you quote me as saying "more correct", when in reality I wasn't speaking comparatively, I merely said "correct".

Second, you seem to be missing the point that all of the 10,000 gods had actual believers (not theoretical "believers" that you or I just made up, like making up numerous wrong answers to 2+2, that no one believes in).

Third, while it is psychologically understandable that members of the current culture believe that their brand of metaphysical beliefs have a higher chance of being correct than those of the distant past, it is opaque to just about all laypersons that members of future cultures will identically downgrade the current culture's quality. No one escapes becoming ancient history.

Lastly, you can pop your eyes back in your head, I wasn't saying that I have special knowledge about metaphysical entities. Rather that since metaphysical entities defy proofs using physical evidence that while we all have our personal beliefs, no one (including myself) has any proof of the existence or nonexistance of the metaphysical.

[Immanuel Can]

I don't insist on any such thing. What makes you think I do?

Well, you're an Atheist, aren't you?

For all practical purposes I am. I don't believe in God, or even give the subject much thought. I come from a long line of non-religious people. I actually like religion. I read a fair amount of Christian apologetics, and I love many mythologies. I also think many of the atheists' arguments are flawed: God is evil for the flood; what about the problem of evil or the problem of pain; there's no evidence for God's existence. None of these are persuasive. Neither, however, are arguments for God. So, for practical purposes I'm atheist, but philosophically I'm agnostic. Of course I know that great many people smarter and wiser than I are religious-- although not all are Christian.

Well, that's a fair statement of position. Thanks for being so frank.

I wonder, though, how we would reconcile the first two sentences with sentence 4, or with the subsequent statements (with which, by the way, I agree) about the non-persuasive nature of arguments you also say earlier you "don't give much thought." It seems to me that only one of these can really be the case: either that you don't care for the topic, or that you actually are fairly well-informed on it, because you actually do care.

Would you be willing to clear that up for me?

If I were Christian, I think I'd lean toward Orthodoxy. The Roman Catholics have added to apostolic Christianity: added rituals, and declarations from authority. The Protestants have subtracted from tradition -- like Jesus' command to practice communion. The Orthodox are the best exemplars of apostolic faith, and I also like the Eastern mysticism.

This, again, seems to speak both ways. You seem to know some differences between various brands of putative "Christianity," but this is odd for somebody who also says he "doesn't care" about the subject, and "doesn't give it much thought."

But I should add that you're wrong about Protestants. If you drill down, you'll find that the Catholic-Protestant divide was not over subtraction, whether of contrived rituals or traditions, but rather over authority of the Bible; and many Protestants do, in fact, practice communion. What went missing, as a result of the Reformation, was not Christianity but ecclesiastical innovations of various kinds, and Papal authority -- and in the latter, the Orthodox also take issue and depart from the Catholics, so that it's hard to see why Protestant decisions to object to Catholicism's rituals would be a reason to dislike Protestantism.

I've read most of CS Lewis' and Gk Chesterton's apologetics, mainly because I loved their other books, so was emboldened to read on. I also love Chesterton's short biographies of Acquinas and Assissi. If you haven't read them, I recommend them.

Both Lewis and Chesterton were outstanding writers, there's no question. And, I would add, in a secular way, we might include Orwell as similarly talented. I think that what all three of them really did superbly was take very difficult, profound concepts, and to put them in the common-sense language of the (reasonably clever) ordinary man. I think that's the surest sign of deep intelligence: the ability to make complex and profound concepts clear and comprehensible to ordinary folks.

Chesterton was a Catholic, and sainthood may not be your thing.

Catholicism has a different view of what a "saint" is from what the Bible says it is. If you check the Biblical account, you'll find that "saint" means "one-set-apart," and in context, always refers to ordinary Christians. Nowhere is it ever used of what the Catholics call a "saint," which is a kind of "spiritual super-athlete" or "divine demi-godling" to whom ordinary people can apply for intercession. And this is a good illustration of what powered the Reformation controversies: should we go with what the Bible says, or go with what the guys in the fancy gowns no want us to think, which turn out to be incompatible options.

Great stuff!

Like I say, I'm a big fan of both Lewis and Chesterton, though I also have to admit that I don't always fully agree with every single statement either ever made. I would say I'm a little less likely to take issue with something I find in Lewis than in Chesterton, but find myself frequently agreeing heartily with both.

So what application would you make of all this to the main topic, "the critique of pure Atheism"? Since you are, yourself, more agnostic, as you say, what concern would you have with somebody like the writer of the article, who claims that Atheism has serious faults as a position? It seems, based on your earlier statements about common Atheist claims, that you basically agree that it does have serious flaws.

[Immanuel Can]

If theists believed in the concept of gods, but not necessarily any particular god, then they'd be correct if any god existed.

That doesn't add up. Why would somebody who said, "I believe in oceans, but not the Pacific Ocean," be "more correct" than somebody who said, "I believe the Pacific Ocean exists"?

However, just about all theists believe in a particular god and by corollary specifically disbelieve in over 99.9% of all gods. Thus the statistical chance of that sort of theist being correct is quite low, especially if the gods of future human cultures are also added to the tally.

I have to say, if I can say it without offence, that that's a very poor strategy of calculation. It errantly supposes that all alternatives are equally valid and possible, and all deserve to be equally weighted: and it makes the false assumption that many wrong answers reduce the chances of there being a right one. Clearly, neither is the case.

Use the same strategy of statistical assessment you're using, you would have to reason as follows: only 4% of the world's population is composed of actual Atheists. And counting in the earlier inhabitants of the world, the number of Atheists dwindles to negligible. Therefore the chances of Atheism being true are exceedingly small.

Would you reason that way?

In point of fact, there is an infinite number (quite literally) of wrong answers to the question, "What is the sum of 2+2?" And that doesn't make it even slightly less probable that there's a real answer, 4. So it's totally irrelevant how many false gods people invent: it doesn't even reduce the chances of there being a true God.

I don't know (as everyone else doesn't).

Wait. You claim to know what other people CAN or CANNOT know? You think you can say that "everybody else" doesn't know what you admit you don't know?

What's the basis of that claim? How do you know the limits of what everybody else can know?

Wow. I'm sure the guy you're arguing against is losing badly... Except that obviously isn't me since you've misquoted just about everything I'm (trying to) saying.

I don't mind being set straight on that, if that's the case. Let's see what you find objectionable.

First, when you quote me as saying "more correct", when in reality I wasn't speaking comparatively, I merely said "correct".

That's actually a very minor complaint. My point was merely to question the implication that the vague concept "gods" was more plausibly "correct" than the more precise term, "God." Usually, the person who has the more precise information is more likely to be the one that has a chance of being correct; the vague one has a chance of only being correct in a very vague way, and not in any precise one.

For example, the claim, "the supernatural exists," is very vague, and even if correct, is highly unlikely to convey to us any precise knowledge of what is being talked about. The claim, "ghosts exist" is much more precise, and potentially more testable, and offers a chance of more exact understanding, one way or the other, even if still too vague. "The ghost of Soren Kierkegaard visits me nightly" offers even more precise and testable options, and would be easier to confirm or disprove -- even though none would be completely disprovable.

It seemed to me, rightly or wrongly, that you were saying somebody who talks vaguely about "gods" is more likely to be speaking truth than somebody who claimed the existence of "a particular God." And I couldn't see why one would imagine that.

Second, you seem to be missing the point that all of the 10,000 gods had actual believers (not theoretical "believers" that you or I just made up, like making up numerous wrong answers to 2+2, that no one believes in).

I'm not missing it. I can see that it's just not relevant in any way at all. It doesn't matter how many people believe in a thing: if not true, their belief won't make it more true, and if untrue, then a billion believers will not make it true -- or even significantly increase our reasons to think it's true.

At one time, every last person in the entire world believed in a flat earth. And every last one of them was completely wrong.

So I couldn't see your argument there.

Third, while it is psychologically understandable that members of the current culture believe that their brand of metaphysical beliefs have a higher chance of being correct than those of the distant past, it is opaque to just about all laypersons that members of future cultures will identically downgrade the current culture's quality. No one escapes becoming ancient history.

Again, I can't see the value of the argument here. It seems to depend on a very straightforward fallacy -- namely, that "ancient" means "wrong." Things don't become right or wrong by being "ancient": "ancient" is a very different adjective from "errant."

It also seems to ask us to know what "future cultures" will believe, which, of course, isn't at all possible. And it assumes that these "future cultures," if they have disdain for the past, will be right to do so. Why would we assume that? How would science build on knowledge if all knowledge that becomes "ancient" is also wrong?

Lastly, you can pop your eyes back in your head, I wasn't saying that I have special knowledge about metaphysical entities. Rather that since metaphysical entities defy proofs using physical evidence that while we all have our personal beliefs, no one (including myself) has any proof of the existence or nonexistance of the metaphysical.

That's clearly not going to be the case. I can't claim to know what you have experienced. So how can you claim to know not just what I can experience, but what "everybody" can experience?

If you say, "I live in Boston," and I say, "I don't believe Boston is a real place," then how do we adjudicate those claims? Can I simply insist, "Your belief in Boston is personal, and there is no physical proof of Boston"? Wouldn't you think me absurd, if I gave such a rejoinder?

What you can say, in all fairness, is "I, personally, have no evidence for the existence of the metaphysical," or better, "I don't recognize that I have any evidence for the metaphysical." And if you stopped there, it would be fine. But can you really go on to add, "...therefore, nobody else can possibly have any evidence for the metaphysical," or even "it's impossible that I'm overlooking evidence I actually do have for the metaphysical"?

For I think you do have such evidence, whether you're prepared to recognize it or not. And I say that because human beings all have "spooky" stuff like cognition, self-awareness, aesthetic or moral judgments, rationality, personhood, or soul -- none of which can be confirmed by mere physical test, but all of which we actually depend on for doing things like the task you and I are performing right now...discussing.

I submit to you that the problem with physical tests is that they test only the physical. As such, they are completely incapable of telling us whether or not the physical is all there is. But other things can tell us that the physical is NOT all there is, such as our ability to question whether or not the physical is all there is, which employs our minds, our reasoning, our consciousness...all the spooky stuff you're currently supposing can't possibly exist: the metaphysical.

[Alexiev]

Well, you're an Atheist, aren't you?

For all practical purposes I am. I don't believe in God, or even give the subject much thought. I come from a long line of non-religious people. I actually like religion. I read a fair amount of Christian apologetics, and I love many mythologies. I also think many of the atheists' arguments are flawed: God is evil for the flood; what about the problem of evil or the problem of pain; there's no evidence for God's existence. None of these are persuasive. Neither, however, are arguments for God. So, for practical purposes I'm atheist, but philosophically I'm agnostic. Of course I know that great many people smarter and wiser than I are religious-- although not all are Christian.

Well, that's a fair statement of position. Thanks for being so frank.

I wonder, though, how we would reconcile the first two sentences with sentence 4, or with the subsequent statements (with which, by the way, I agree) about the non-persuasive nature of arguments you also say earlier you "don't give much thought." It seems to me that only one of these can really be the case: either that you don't care for the topic, or that you actually are fairly well-informed on it, because you actually do care.

Would you be willing to clear that up for me?

Sure. That's an easy one. I'm interested in human culture. AT universities the Humanities include: languages, history, literature, anthropology, and Religion (sometimes called "comparative religion"). One of my objections to hard-core atheism is its adherents seem to think there is no value in studying religion. Whatever else religion in general and Christianity in particular is, it is clearly one of the primary influences on culture, and one of the cultural creations on which humans have expended their time, efforts and talents. The history of the West is woven with the history of Christianity and Christian theology. As a Westerner, Christianity has "created" me -- even though I am not a Christian. My cultural norms and my moral precepts have been molded by Christianity. I find it incredible that some atheists are willing to dismiss this and show no interest in it. (As a personal note -- I studied Cultural Anthropology, which you despise, in grad school, and wrote my Masters Thesis on Hopi Mythology.)

If I were Christian, I think I'd lean toward Orthodoxy. The Roman Catholics have added to apostolic Christianity: added rituals, and declarations from authority. The Protestants have subtracted from tradition -- like Jesus' command to practice communion. The Orthodox are the best exemplars of apostolic faith, and I also like the Eastern mysticism.

This, again, seems to speak both ways. You seem to know some differences between various brands of putative "Christianity," but this is odd for somebody who also says he "doesn't care" about the subject, and "doesn't give it much thought."

But I should add that you're wrong about Protestants. If you drill down, you'll find that the Catholic-Protestant divide was not over subtraction, whether of contrived rituals or traditions, but rather over authority of the Bible; and many Protestants do, in fact, practice communion. What went missing, as a result of the Reformation, was not Christianity but ecclesiastical innovations of various kinds, and Papal authority -- and in the latter, the Orthodox also take issue and depart from the Catholics, so that it's hard to see why Protestant decisions to object to Catholicism's rituals would be a reason to dislike Protestantism.

I'm not an expert on Christian sectarianism. I sort of like the notion of saints, and think the "born again" objection to them, which seems based on the notion that all who are born again are equally saints, displays hubris. Also, I find the lives of saints interesting, although Orwell (whom you admire) did begin his "Reflections on Gandhi" with the excellent sentence, "All saints should be considered guilty until proved innocent."

]Catholicism has a different view of what a "saint" is from what the Bible says it is. If you check the Biblical account, you'll find that "saint" means "one-set-apart," and in context, always refers to ordinary Christians. Nowhere is it ever used of what the Catholics call a "saint," which is a kind of "spiritual super-athlete" or "divine demi-godling" to whom ordinary people can apply for intercession. And this is a good illustration of what powered the Reformation controversies: should we go with what the Bible says, or go with what the guys in the fancy gowns no want us to think, which turn out to be incompatible options.

Well, the reverence for the Bible implies reverence for the Church, which, after all, decided what was canonical. I don't see how we can revere the Bible without revering the Church.

So what application would you make of all this to the main topic, "the critique of pure Atheism"? Since you are, yourself, more agnostic, as you say, what concern would you have with somebody like the writer of the article, who claims that Atheism has serious faults as a position? It seems, based on your earlier statements about common Atheist claims, that you basically agree that it does have serious flaws.

My position is that although most hard-core atheist arguments are flawed, so are arguments for God's existence.

[Immanuel Can]

For all practical purposes I am. I don't believe in God, or even give the subject much thought. I come from a long line of non-religious people. I actually like religion. I read a fair amount of Christian apologetics, and I love many mythologies. I also think many of the atheists' arguments are flawed: God is evil for the flood; what about the problem of evil or the problem of pain; there's no evidence for God's existence. None of these are persuasive. Neither, however, are arguments for God. So, for practical purposes I'm atheist, but philosophically I'm agnostic. Of course I know that great many people smarter and wiser than I are religious-- although not all are Christian.

Well, that's a fair statement of position. Thanks for being so frank.

I wonder, though, how we would reconcile the first two sentences with sentence 4, or with the subsequent statements (with which, by the way, I agree) about the non-persuasive nature of arguments you also say earlier you "don't give much thought." It seems to me that only one of these can really be the case: either that you don't care for the topic, or that you actually are fairly well-informed on it, because you actually do care.

Would you be willing to clear that up for me?

Sure. That's an easy one. I'm interested in human culture. AT universities the Humanities include: languages, history, literature, anthropology, and Religion (sometimes called "comparative religion"). One of my objections to hard-core atheism is its adherents seem to think there is no value in studying religion. Whatever else religion in general and Christianity in particular is, it is clearly one of the primary influences on culture, and one of the cultural creations on which humans have expended their time, efforts and talents. The history of the West is woven with the history of Christianity and Christian theology. As a Westerner, Christianity has "created" me -- even though I am not a Christian. My cultural norms and my moral precepts have been molded by Christianity. I find it incredible that some atheists are willing to dismiss this and show no interest in it. (As a personal note -- I studied Cultural Anthropology, which you despise, in grad school, and wrote my Masters Thesis on Hopi Mythology.)

It seems to me that, to be fair to you, we'd have to say you actually have considerable interest in things having to do with religion. But you also say "I don't believe in God, or even give the subject much thought."

I think that's an odd combination. Is it not like saying, "I love studying manuals of auto mechanics, but cars bore me," or like saying, "I love recipe cards, but I never bother thinking about cooking"?

I'm not an expert on Christian sectarianism.

Well, give yourself some credit; at least you seem to know there's something worth knowing about that.

I sort of like the notion of saints, and think the "born again" objection to them, which seems based on the notion that all who are born again are equally saints, displays hubris.

It's actually the only Biblical conception of "saints." As for it being "hubristic," I am quite surprised to imagine that treating particular human beings as lofty, god-like figures seems in any way humble. The contrary view is to say that we are all "set apart" and thus all precious to God...which, far from being hubristic, looks to me like a way to exalt the lowly and to puncture the pretensions of those who would like to present themselves as inherently more "saintly" than others. So I guess that's a matter of how one is looking at it.

Also, I find the lives of saints interesting, although Orwell (whom you admire) did begin his "Reflections on Gandhi" with the excellent sentence, "All saints should be considered guilty until proved innocent."

Orwell's very interesting. I find it amazing he spent any portion of his life being a Socialist, since (judging by things like Animal Farm or 1984) he saw so clearly the follies of collectivism and big government. But I admire his integrity when he chastized the British Socialists, "...you don't love the poor; you just hate the rich." He was a very perceptive man, and I don't need to admire all his shifting politics to admit his greatness as a writer and as a philosopher. I appreciate his insights.

Catholicism has a different view of what a "saint" is from what the Bible says it is. If you check the Biblical account, you'll find that "saint" means "one-set-apart," and in context, always refers to ordinary Christians. Nowhere is it ever used of what the Catholics call a "saint," which is a kind of "spiritual super-athlete" or "divine demi-godling" to whom ordinary people can apply for intercession. And this is a good illustration of what powered the Reformation controversies: should we go with what the Bible says, or go with what the guys in the fancy gowns no want us to think, which turn out to be incompatible options.

Well, the reverence for the Bible implies reverence for the Church,...

That depends on which "Church" one has in mind: the Biblical one, or one of the various ones invented much later, by mere men. We are certainly charged to value the Church -- the real one -- but equally, we are warned not to believe every entity that presents itself, or every person who presents himself, as Christian or "of the Church." It surely must be one of the most obvious observations of human history that we are never short of charlatans, pretenders, posers and fakes...or that we have, among us all, people who will do anything to seize a position of power. And I think that's a general observation, nothing at all specific to "churches."

"Test the spirits," says the Bible, "because many false prophets have gone out into the world." And that's the apostle John speaking, so he was a contemporary of Christ Himself and a direct appointee.

So what application would you make of all this to the main topic, "the critique of pure Atheism"? Since you are, yourself, more agnostic, as you say, what concern would you have with somebody like the writer of the article, who claims that Atheism has serious faults as a position? It seems, based on your earlier statements about common Atheist claims, that you basically agree that it does have serious flaws.

My position is that although most hard-core atheist arguments are flawed, so are arguments for God's existence.

Well, I don't mind delving into the latter, and often do...I think they're actually rather good arguments. But here, the objection earlier posters raised was that the article wasn't being fair to the former, to Atheists, that is.

So if, as you say, the arguments for Atheism are flawed, then I don't think we have much of a bone to pick with the original article. That was, after all, its purpose; and the author didn't, at least in this article, propose to do the other side of the argument, the pro-Theism side. Maybe that would be his next article, or maybe not. But it wasn't this one.

So are you content with the article?

[LuckyR]

What you can say, in all fairness, is "I, personally, have no evidence for the existence of the metaphysical," or better, "I don't recognize that I have any evidence for the metaphysical." And if you stopped there, it would be fine. But can you really go on to add, "...therefore, nobody else can possibly have any evidence for the metaphysical," or even "it's impossible that I'm overlooking evidence I actually do have for the metaphysical"?

For I think you do have such evidence, whether you're prepared to recognize it or not. And I say that because human beings all have "spooky" stuff like cognition, self-awareness, aesthetic or moral judgments, rationality, personhood, or soul -- none of which can be confirmed by mere physical test, but all of which we actually depend on for doing things like the task you and I are performing right now...discussing.

I submit to you that the problem with physical tests is that they test only the physical. As such, they are completely incapable of telling us whether or not the physical is all there is. But other things can tell us that the physical is NOT all there is, such as our ability to question whether or not the physical is all there is, which employs our minds, our reasoning, our consciousness...all the spooky stuff you're currently supposing can't possibly exist: the metaphysical.

Ah, thanks for more detailed explanation. In that case we're in agreement. I just happen to use the label "beliefs" to describe what you call "spooky stuff". And I use the term "evidence" for what you call "physical tests". Thus I may or may not believe in, say an eternal soul. You may or may not feel some spooky stuff that convinces you that you possess an eternal soul. Regardless neither of us can concoct a physical test to answer once and for all whether an eternal soul exists.

Historically humans could not explain bacterial illness and thus metaphysical explanations were created to help make sense of observations and to provide psychological comfort. Of course through time physical evidence of bacterial illness was uncovered and thus as an entity it passed from the metaphysical to the physical. That is, if physical evidence exists about something, it can't be (by definition) metaphysical. Who knows maybe in the future gods will pass from the metaphysical to the physical. Personally I doubt it.