SJ>Is there an atheist in the house? :-)
Yes, Steve, there is! And it appears that I am the only one on the
Reflector willing to document a defence of atheism.
Prior to the above question, you provided a quote from Ravi Zacharias which
I will address in this response.
Firstly, let me describe my atheism, just to provide my further comments
below with some sort of background. I am a functional atheist, i.e. I live
without reference to the possible reality of God. Of course, as is correctly
pointed out by Zacharias below, it is not really possible to be an absolute
atheist, since that would require knowledge that is not available. So,
although I function as an atheist, by strict definition I am an agnostic.
>CW>I also highly recommend "Can Man Live Without God" by Ravi
>>Zacharias (Word, 1994). Ravi does the best job I have seen of
>>addressing the emotional (as well as the intellectual) barrenness of
>>atheism.
>
SJ>Seconded. Here is a quote from the above to get the ball rolling:
>
>"Of course there are some like Martin, and for that matter Huxley, who
>like to hide behind a softer version of atheism (just as Russell did
>in his debate) because they know the philosophical decimation they
>would experience in trying to defend the absolute negative There is no
>God. Their soft position that there is not sufficient evidence for
>theism commits three logical blunders.
>
>First, to move to atheism by default is hardly an academically
>credible switch to make when there are myriad other options.
Let us closely examine the first "logical blunder" to see if it is, indeed,
flawed logic.
I have no argument that "there are myriad other options", but, rather than
see this as a flaw in the argument for atheism, I see it as a strong
support. Atheism and agnosticism are not just two options among many. They
have characteristics that single them out as reasonable "default" positions.
To be an atheist or agnostic, I don't need to believe anything based on
faith, revelation or authority. I simply either disbelieve or withold
judgement until sufficient (for me) evidence turns up to cause me to rethink
my position.
All of the other options require that I make a "leap of faith" and accept
one or more premises that cannot be demonstrated or even logically derived.
And, of course, each option requires the "leap of faith" to be in a
different (more or less) direction. (I do accept that, at least among the
more consistent religions, once the initial "leap of faith" is made, the
rest of the religious system is largely internally and externally consistent.)
SJ>Second,
>to say that there is insufficient evidence for theism and therefore I
>am an atheist implies a logically satisfactory defense of atheism that
>they do not have. After all, why else would they hold to it if it is
>logically indefensible, when their very reason for denying theism is
>that it is logically indefensible?
This is a suspect point. Zacharias starts by saying that atheists are
atheists due to "insufficient evidence" for theism. I see no problem with
this. Faced with two options, belief or disbelief, where the evidence is
nonexistent, insufficient or inconclusive, then disbelief is the most
reasonable course. Preferring belief under these circumstances leads
inexorably to gullibility.
However, in the very next sentence, Zacharias changes his mind and now says,
not that atheists are atheists due to "insufficient evidence for theism",
but that atheists are not theists because "theism is logically
indefensible". These are not the same. Of course theism is logically
indefensible. Of course atheism is logically indefensible. This simply means
that logic is of no use in deciding to be a theist or atheist. Again, there
is the need to choose between disbelief or witholding of judgement, and
acceptance of unverified revelation, faith, or authority. Faced with this
choice, a person who is sceptical about unverified revelation, faith, or
authority will reasonably choose atheism or agnosticism.
SJ>Third, it is purely an admission
>that atheism cannot be defended, even though they have tried, hence
>the softer version of agnosticism.
Strictly speaking, atheism cannot be defended. Our knowledge is not great
enough to gategorically deny the existence of any deity. However, focussing
on this truism means that the attraction of atheism as a working hypothesis
is ignored. If a person has not discovered, or had revealed to them, a God
worthy of their belief, what other working hypothesis CAN they have but
atheism? And what else CAN they be but agnostic?
SJ>Let us look at the words themselves.
>
>The word atheism comes from the Greek, which has two words conjoined.
>The alpha is the negative, and theos means "God." The atheistic
>position, whether you like it or not, posits the negation of God.
Notice the use of the word "posits", rather than "demands" or something similar.
SJ>Having quickly recognized the inherent contradiction of affirming
>God's non-existence, which absolutely would at the same time
>presuppose infinite knowledge on the part of the one doing the
>denying, a philosophically convenient switch was made to agnosticism.
Not so much "convenient" as "unavoidable", I would have thought. Once a
person realises that they do not have the knowledge to absolutely deny the
existence of God, while at the same time knowing and/or accepting no God,
they cannot avoid agnosticism except by a "leap of faith" that may be beyond
them (or even abhorrent to them).
SJ>But agnostic has an even more embarrassing connotation. The alpha
>means the negative, and ginosko is from the Greek 'to know." An
>agnostic is one who doesn't know. It sounds quite congenial and
>sophisticated at the same time, but the Latin uncomplimentary
>equivalent is "ignoramus."
Why should it be embarrasing to "not know" of the existence or non-existence
of God? It's not as though the existence of God is as cut and dried as the
existence of California. And I have yet to meet (or be) someone who was not
an "ignoramus" in a great many fields of knowledge.
One of the favourite arguments of a young-earth creationist of my
acquaintance is that evolution is wrong because scientists studying
evolution make mistakes, are forced to reinterpret evidence frequently, and
DON'T KNOW a lot of things (like specifically how bats evolved). He expects
that I will get defensive about this. Presumably he thinks that I think that
the scientific study of evolution should have all of the answers, and that I
should reject it when I find out that it doesn't. In reality, all that I
expect of the scientific study of evolution, is that it continues to
generate reasonable questions.
SJ>That is why the agnostic does not feel
>lauded in this category either but dresses up the concept,
>manufacturing a certain aura not inherent in the word while smuggling
>in atheism for all functional purposes.
Zacharias seems to think that I should be embarrased or ashamed about my
lack of knowledge of the existence or non-existence of God. To be blunt, I'd
be more embarrased and ashamed to claim knowledge of the existence of God
that I do not have.
SJ>So I say to you, the charge
>is not against the apologists; that is to dislocate the problem. The
>hat pin is in the heart of the atheistic position, which could not
>live with itself.
Again, Zacharias has made an error by focussing on the "straw man" of the
strict atheist position, rather than atheism as a working hypothesis. My
personal experience is that atheism as a working hypothesis lives quite well
with itself.
SJ>Let me add that an honest agnostic should be open to the evidence."
Of course! That is WHY honest atheism and agnosticism are reasonable working
hypotheses.
SJ>(Zacharias R.K., "Can Man Live Without God", Word Publishing:
>Dallas TX, 1994, p187)
"Can Man Live Without God"? I am living proof that the answer to that
question is YES. The "atheist in the house" is just great, thanks. :-)
Regards
Derek
-----------------------------------------------------
| Derek McLarnen | dmclarne@pcug.org.au |
| Melba ACT | dmclarne@ncomcanb.telstra.com.au |
| Australia | |
-----------------------------------------------------