10 Questions Atheists Can’t Answer Well
There are the basic world view questions:
1. Origins: Where did life and humanity originate?
2. The Problem: Why is there suffering, sickness, and death?
3. The Solution: What is the cure for man’s suffering, esp. his existential lonliness?
Questions of Meaning and Value:
4. How does an atheist assign meaning to human activity? Is all meaning subjective, or do some activities have self-evident and objective worth and meaning. If so, what are these activities, and how to you arrive at their value?
5. Are humans of more intrinsic value than animals? Why or why not?
6. How does an atheist determine what is moral or immoral, right or wrong. Is there any objective standard or principles?
Questions of Worldview:
7. What type of government does atheistic philosophy translate into? How does it understand the relationship between man and government? What type of government structures flow from an atheistic world view? Does it merely rely on someone else’s system of thought, like the assumptions of naturalistic science?
8. How does atheism view religions and religious faith? What about metaphysics? Is atheism purely materialistic and naturalistic?
9. Who are the authoritative writers/books of atheism? What are the central tenets of atheism, and if they have a “greatest commandment,” what is it? For example, arguably, Christianity’s is “Love the Lord your God with all of your heart, mind, soul and strength, and love your neighbor as yourself.”
Questions of Revelation:
10. What happens after we die?
Share your thoughts, post a comment.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Hi Seeker, here are my answers: Ten Answers From An Atheist.
I wouldn't say those are 10 questions atheists can't answer well, only that they're questions many atheists don't answer well according to your standards.
Be careful not to mistake "I've never heard a good answer" for "a good answer doesn't exist". And especially don't mistake "I've never heard somebody from another worldview answer this in a way that makes sense from my worldview" as "they can't answer it in a way that makes sense from their own worldview."
You're engaging in the same error I just criticized over on Chicago Boyz from a totally different perspective (I got quoted as "quote of the day" for it, too… I'm so proud!) Here's one way I argued it: "People don't feel respected when you use your model (of morality, of the nature of the universe, etc.) to judge their conclusions. They feel preached at. Telling someone their conclusions don't match your model isn't very enlightening."
Well, those were off the cuff questions. Do you have good questions for atheists that point out the gaps in their world view, perhaps illogic in their stances? That was kinda the point.
Seeker, I posted my answers as well: here.
"Do you have good questions for atheists that point out the gaps in their world view, perhaps illogic in their stances?"
No.
If you think you have a question that destroys someone else's worldview, chances are, you don't understand their worldview very well.
People aren't stupid. Regardless of their religion, political party, etc. most people have thought about their own worldview an awful lot more than outsiders have. People simply don't hold worldviews that can be easily destroyed with just a few minutes of thought — because those worldviews have already been destroyed.
That's one of my fundamental positions when I come into discussion with anyone: the people I'm talking to aren't stupid, and if I treat them as though they are, I'm not respecting them as much as I should. (See this post for more on that.) If you want to point out holes in somebody's thinking, you have to know a lot more about them than a simple label will tell you. People far too often assume that, for example, because I have the label "Christian" I must reject evolution for dogmatic reasons, and they're far too often surprised that I'm doing my PhD research under Joe Felsenstein.
All that is to say, I reject the entire premise of a "10 questions _____ can't answer" list. It's based on an assumption that you can shatter somebody's worldview easily with a point that required only a little thought. Unless you're talking with children, that premise is not valid.
If you think you have a question that destroys someone else's worldview, chances are, you don't understand their worldview very well.
It it interesting that you choose such extreme language such as "destroy" and "shatter" when you interpret what I said, since I never used those words. I used the language of intellectual discourse – I want to analyze their world view, to see where it is weak – its "gaps" and "illogic."
Every world view should be evaluated for internal consistency and logic. In fact, in my response to the first of the ten questions that Xians can't answer, I openly question the assumptions of my own Christian world view.
I am not attacking, I am calling for discourse. It is true, I do not understand atheism as well as I could.
However, those who see every doubt or question regarding their world view as a threat or attack bent on destroying them are really not interested discourse, but on shutting it down – not on finding truth, but on protecting their own deceptions. As an ex-cult member, I know this tactic. Every cult practices this type of intellectual isolationism.
Let me suspect that this is not your intention, but rather, you have mispercieved me as wanting to make a low-brow christianesque attack on atheism. Not true. There has been no talk of destroying anything (not yet, but just go ahead and provoke me ;) jk.
All of us here at wholereason.com are very interested in the comparison of world views, hence our reviews of Total Truth (well, one so far), and our Worldview archives.
I am looking for good questions that elucidate the limits and stances of ahtiesm. I suspect is it not a complete world view, and perhaps even a weak one.
Funny, I am watching the Truman Show right now – he has just cracked his world view by sailing to the edge of his world, and has to decide whether or not he is going to step out of his circumscribed world. He is talking to the voice in the sky (the producer) who is trying to convince him to stay – symbolic of the world's religious leaders and ideologues (atheists included) who talk about caring for us, wanting to protect us (maybe true). But the human spirit and mind should not be kept protected.
This is why we need to examine our worldviews critically.
Seeker, you're 100% right when you say that atheism is not a complete world view, or even a weak one. It's not a world view at all. It's not a religion, or a philosophy, or even a belief of any kind. Being an atheist means one thing, and one thing alone: a *disbelief* in god(s).
So asking some hypothetical atheist questions about evolution, or the origins of life, or anything else that doesn't directly relate to whether you believe in God or not, is sort of awkward. It's like demanding to know how left-handed people feel about baseball: Although they're tangentially related, the people you ask very likely have different opinions on the subject.
Stewart, that even applies to asking Christians questions as you asked me. As I said, someone who is not a young earth Creationist would answer those questions very differently. Just as someone who is a Calvinist would answer those questions very differently from someone who holds more to free will.
You are correct in that athiests cannot be lumped all together, but I don't know many worldviews or belief systems that can. There are always people within the same tent that view things differently and will answer the questions accordingly.
I should hope these are not viewed as some means to "destroy" someone's beliefs, but rather to challenge someone to think about things they may have not thought about before.
When this first started, I didn't believe Stewart was trying to destroy my beliefs. He was simply challenging Christians (me in particular) with questions that too often Christians gloss over and don't take the time to think about and answer. I am glad he did that. I hope to continue this exercise. Some of the questions seeker asked were related to mine, but not all of them. So I still hope to make up my own list and challenge both Sam and Stewart. I enjoy their answers and thoughts and I enjoy the dialogue between our sites (so far) ;).
The problem with these questions are that you are asking questions that have no answer. Questions like "Why are we here" don't really exist. It's hard for humans to comprehend the fact that we made up the question "why". Just like time doesn't really exist. There is no MEANING to anything. Secondly, there is no book of "atheists", there is no "government" we could base on atheism. The reason for this is that atheists don't belong to a cult like religious people do. They are free thinkers and the believe what they want to believe.
Tell that to "secular France."
Also, everyone believes what they want to believe but that doesn't make what we believe true.
That is the ultimate question – are my beliefs about this world true? The logically extention of that would be – what will be the consequences of my belief being true or my belief being false?
Those are the areas we should evaluate, not to toss uneducated generalizations such as all religious people belonging to a cult and all and only atheists are "free thinkers."
If atheism can not answer questions of meaning or social structure, it is really not a player on the field of useful world views, then. It should, therefore, be ignored in public decision making? So in the separation of church and state, perhaps it has nothing to say? :D
Hello! I responded to this post here: http://community.livejournal.com/atheism/752312.h…
If you're interested. :)
Thank you for the thought-provoking questions!
That's it? This is supposed to be difficult?
1. Earth. Duh.
2. Because evolution is an imperfect means, and there's no good reason to expect a perfect universe.
3. Science has done well with the suffering. As far as having an existential loneliness, that's your problem, not mine. I have no problem with keeping some friends and being non-lonely.
4. General principles of ethics suffice; no deities are necessary. The self-evidency of worth depends on your upbringing, but nonetheless there are still some objective worths out there — usually furnished by the social evolution of the species.
5. Humans aren't particularly more valuable, in themselves, than animals, however, *people*, by virtue of being persons, are more valuable than non-persons. Why? Because they have cognitively complex thought-processes. Simple.
6. Morality is chiefly determined by the society you're in, with certain objective standards identified as applying within all societies. Duh. The divine command theorist is the one who has the problem with this question — is suicide immoral or moral when you are dishonored, and why didn't anyone tell feudal japan or Christendom, respectively?
7. There isn't a direct government that is necessarily supported by my worldview. Since my worldview is heavily pragmatic, and low-bureaucracy constitutional republics have been the most pragmatically valuable ones I've seen, I'd go with those.
8. Religions are, in my opinion, strictly bush-league, and if they incorporate too much dogma, they seem to get incredibly reprehensible. As far as metaphysics, I'd start from Descartes — "I exist" — move on to "My perceptions exist", and then hew out a rough empiricist view from that point. Empiricism needs to be justified internalistically, but then it suffices for the rest of what you're looking for. I've got a much more thorough answer, but I figured I'd keep this short.
9. Atheism isn't a religion. There are some powerful books by atheist authors — e.g. Richard Dawkins' works teaching evolution to the common person, or Bertrand Russell's writings and statements — and there's Sagan's "Demon-Haunted World" and some essays written by Douglas Adams. But we're set up in much more of an intellectual-community style than a one-authority-plus-subordinate-populace style. Jacobsen's CaseAgainstFaith.com joins Paul Tobin's site ("Rejection of Pascal's Wager") in the online cry against Christianity. And there's always infidels.org.
As far as a central tenet, there only really seems to be one — "deities are formally quite improbable, and there is no good evidence for any of them, so we won't believe that any of them exist until we get some real evidence." I mean, you can't get an intellectual community to agree on everything. If you had an authority plus a subordinate populace, you might be able to get other agreement, but atheists come from all sorts of walks and creeds. Many atheists are libertarians; some are objectivists, and some just plain don't care.
10. I don't understand the question too well. The world goes on? The body probably rots at some rate? Our family has a funeral? I mean, maybe you meant a more specific question, like, "what happens to us after we die," or "Is there an afterlife?". The first question has an easy answer — since death is, by definition, the cessation of life, life must cease. The second question is tougher, since there's no good evidence for either position. The no-afterlife party wins on a sort of default, because they have an explanation that better works with known physics and Occam's Razor, but the evidence is scant on the matter.
http://whydoesgodhateamputees.com/god5.htm
2 more good questions to add to the list are if there is no god or supernatural being then what is thepurpose for life? if you do not believe you were created for a purpose then what is the point in living. and what's so bad about being brave enough, and having enough faith to believe in something that you will never see on earth, instead of being a coward and wasting your entire life that god does not exist?
Here katie, is your answer…
One more for Katie…
Katie, these questions are not really that difficult, and they are certainly not something that has never been asked or answered. I can imagine you getting all excited, walking or driving home from your Sunday school class, full of these questions that your pastor/youth leader just read off a list and thinking you had some novel idea. Sorry to disappoint.
1. Science allows for the answer "I don't know". It's ok to answer with that. It it is a LOT better than "goddidit". That's the worst answer one can give because it not only puts a stop to a thinking mind, it only creates more questions.
2. There is nothing mystical about suffering, sickness and death. Death comes to us all. Rich and poor, old and young, healthy and infirmed. It is, in literary terms "The Great Leveler". It makes us all equal.. but it is not something full of supernatural garbage. Bodies, be they plant or animal break down, they become susceptible to illness and disease. Grief or suffering at the loss of a loved one, or physical suffering from pain is not a mysterious thing either. There is really nothing difficult about this question. A 12 year old could answer it.
3. Personally, I have no existential loneliness. I believe you are trying to project your own onto others. And why is it up to someone other than the individual in question to cure their own loneliness? Loneliness occurs in the mind, if one is in control of their own mind, they can control their own loneliness.
4. Which activities would you call valuable and which would you not? Is cupping a child's face valuable? Sure, to some. How about stroking a puppy's fur? Cooking a meal? Serving a meal? Sex? Individuals place their own value on behavior. Don't try to ascribe supernatural or mystic importance to things that are very much natural.
5. Humans are what they are. It's pretty simplistic, but there it is.
6. Atheists don't need a book, an imaginary friend or a priest to tell them what is wrong and what is right. We are quite capable enough to determine that KILLING is wrong.. stealing, not a good idea.
7. I like democracy, myself. I can't answer for others.
8. I view religion as silly and unnecessary. If by materialistic and naturalistic you mean, do I require proof.. then Yes.
9. Again, we do not need to rely on some imaginary deity to think for us. We can do it ourselves. As for a central tenet. I think, "Value rational thought, reason and critical thinking before all else. Myth and superstition are not a basis for legislation." works for me.
10. Depending on what plans each individual makes with their family.. you are either dropped into a hole, 6 ft. deep, placed in a family crypt, or cremated, as I have chosen. I'm sure you mean, metaphysically, spiritually… to answer that question.. "nothing". When you die.. you're dead. That's it. Nothing exciting. Not pretty, but then again, it doesn't have to be.. it is reality.. and I value it over the imaginary any day of the week, and twice on sunday.
Im constantly fascinated as to why the religious in this world think that a) everything can be answered, and b) if no good answer if forthcoming then 'god' is the answer.
As to whether Atheists can be trusted in government, yes. No one is more qualified than someone who doesnt have a one sided moral spin, with justification in religious texts. When atheists make a moral choice they have to truly justify them, not just rely on obscure religious passages, that are open to a thousand interpretations. Its not even as though any of the moralistc ideas in the bible or koran are original. So to say western civilisation is based on christian values is extremely false.
So to say western civilisation is based on christian values is extremely false.
Historical evidence contradicts your assertion – in fact, please check out these posts on the biblical basis for modern government, and how Christian thought was the primary input to our Constitution and form of govt. Note that I not claiming (nor denying) that the founders were creating a christian nation, but the contribution of christian thought is blatantly true, not "extremely false":
Christian Roots of America with Dr. D. James Kennedy
Judeo-Christian Roots of America's Founding Ideals and Documents
The Declaration and Constitution: Their Christian Roots
An accurate caricature of Seeker
1. Life on Earth originated on Earth. Since the landmasses were extremely different those billions of years ago there makes no sense it tying down an exact geographical location.
2. Because death is a natural part of life
3. Begging the question.
4. Atheists form opinions just like everyone else, that's how meaning is ascribed.
5. Humans are animals.
6. See number 4.
7. Atheism can work with any governmental system.
8. The definition of atheism shows that it is in direct conflict with religious faith, hence the word atheism.
9. There are no authorities in Atheism as there is no guiding principles on how not to believe in something.
10. Our bodies rot.
These were 10 absolutely simple questions any Atheist could answer. I'm supposing you just don't like the answers because they don't fit in with your preconceived notions on how they should be answered by an Atheist.
Atheism can work with any governmental system.
How about a theocracy?
The fact is, atheism as a theory of government has proved to be murderous. Why? Because in and of itself, it teaches things contrary to reality – the reality of God, spiritual and moral absolutes, and man's need for God.
There are no authorities in Atheism as there is no guiding principles on how not to believe in something.
Don't tell that to Harris, Dennett, or the other guy.
Lets plug this into the Seeker Rhetor-o-matic :)
The…
- Bombardier Beetle
- 2nd Law of Thermodynamics
- complexity of the eye
- geologic column
- Communist style of government
represents a…
- crushing blow
- serious problem
- impossible puzzle
- grave concern
for…
- Secular Humanists
- Evolution
- The Atheist Conspiracy
- Liberal Christians
because…
- it is too hard to understand
- it leads to immoral behavior
- somebody else was wrong about something similar
- a tiny portion of the experimental data is questionable
and also…
- it denies the supernatural
- Hitler believed in it
- it is an uncomfortable idea
- Look! Polystrate trees!
therefore…
- Biblical literalism is the only alternative
- the Earth is no older than 10,000 years
- science will eventually prove creationism true
- you must repent now
furthermore…
- nobody knows everything
- God wrote the Bible Himself
- nobody has seen a live Plesiosaur
- apes and monkeys frighten me
so…
- I declare this debate over and I'm the winner
- I shall not respond to any rebuttals
- Evolution is blasphemous and offensive in the eyes of God; you will burn in Hell!
- Jesus loves you, bye!
You again prove that you don't understand my arguments, nor the problems with atheism. But you draw up nice satirical straw men.
Lolz LotharBot,
<quote>Be careful not to mistake "I've never heard a good answer" for "a good answer doesn't exist".</quote>
Be careful not to mistake "I've never heard from God" for "a God doesn't exist".
Good questions for a believer to pose, lets answer them.
1. Life originated on earth. We don’t know exactly how it started, but we are working on it. Once we have single celled critters with DNA, evolution got us to where we and all other life on the planet is now. As for humanity, we descended from the same ancestors as apes. Homo Sapiens got its start about 150,000 years ago and our civilization started about 7000-8000 years ago.
2. Suffering sickness and death are a natural part of life. Sickness tends to be the product of other lifeforms messing with us (tapeworms, bacteria, viruses etc), deficiencies in our own physiology (cancer, genetic conditions) or accident (broken bones, etc). Suffering tends to come from either side effects of the above (which are unpleasant so that we know these are bad things) or from empathy towards our fellow humans (such as watching a family die of cancer).
3. Cures for suffering are many and varied. Modern medicine does a damn good job at treating most suffering but i suspect you mean suffering in a less physiological way. Friendship, family, support from fellow humans as well as positive thinking and coping techniques help humans beat suffering. As for existensial loneliness, friends, family and lovers tend to do it for me. Being part of a community also helps.
4. Yes, all meaning is subjective. Atheists assign meaning to human activities via they subjective world view. This includes such things as where we are raised, how e are bought up, what philosophical system we follow (if any) and such like. I, for instance, am a transhumanist as well as an atheist. I think certain endeavours such as stem cell research and genetic manipulation are not only acceptable, but necessary. A humanistic atheist might not necessarily agree with me.
5. Humans are of more intrinsic value than animals. Again this is my subjective belief. Other people disagree. I put us above animals because a) we are the only intelligent creature on earth that we know of.
and
b) I am a human, i value myself more than other animals. I extend this to members of my own species.
That said, i do think that animals get a bad deal from mankind and as the only intelligent species on this planet we have a responsibility to care for them as wise stewards.
6. Atheistic morals tend to be kinded by the golden rule (what you would not like done to you, do not do to others). We are also, as social creatures, empathic and we tend to shy away from cruelty and inflicting pain. For the most part. My morals have been developed by my parents, my teachers, my friends and my experiences. There is no objective standard as a quick glance at history will clearly show.
7. Atheistic philosophy has nothing to say about government (other than theocracy is bad). That said, as an atheist the best form of government on the planet for me is clearly a social democracy such as Swedens. This government assures a safety net for the least well off without preventing people from working hard to achieve their full potential. It keeps religion and other irrational believes out of governance and bases its decisions on evidence rather than emotion. Like all institutions it is not perfect. It requires work to maintain.
8. Atheism is naturalistic, materialistic and scientific. Metaphysics i view as pure bunk, much like theology. Religions and religious belief i see as curious relics from mankinds past that we have outgrown but oddly decide to hang onto. They are clearly earlier attempts to explain the universe we inhabit, but they have been utterly supplanted in this regard by science. I personally think they retard good thinking practice, inhibit good moral growth and are a dangerous cancer in politics and society. They have been on the wrong side of every social change in the last 1000 years (and sometimes, simutaneously on the right side). We are best off without them. At the same time i find them fascinating as i find history fascinating. What i find strange is that people actually believe any of them.
9. Atheism means “a lack of belief in god”. There are many strands of atheism and some people lionised by atheists are depised by other atheists. I, for instance, find Christopher Hitchens to be a hideous drunken bore. But i admire and respect Richard Dawkins. I disagree with much of Sam Harris’ work but find myself very much in accord with other thinks he says. There are no definitive books on atheism as it is not a coherent organized movement, more an unwieldy mass of different opinions united by one central tenant (“we don’t believe in god”). My personal choices for good atheist fodder are the God Delusion (Richard Dawkins), The End of Faith (Sam Harris), The Bible (if you actually read it all and not cherry picked bits from your preacher) and pretty much anything exploring the origin of religion or comparative religion. The greatest, and indeed only, commandment of atheism is “We do not believe in the existence of god”. Everything else is negotiable.
10. After we die, we are disposed of in whatever way our next of kin/state decide. I know you don’t really mean our physical remains with this question, but really thats it. Our personality, our memories, our will is simply the product of the amazing organ known as the brain. When we die the brain turns off and never turns back on again. There is nothing after death simply because death means the end of us. This is a pretty good reason to live a good life here and now as there is no other. Its also a good reason to demand justice and fairness in this life as there is no punishment or hellfire for the wicked after death.
There are just “quick & dirty” answers . . . didn’t want to write a thesis :-)
#1.) It’s better to say nobody knows than to say a dubious, ancient, book provides the answers to the origin of life. Our best theory is abiogenesis. The key thing to understand is the scale of geologic time. Experiments prove that the building blocks of life, amino acids, are readily produced under the conditions of primal Earth. That might not be much evidence but it’s better than NO evidence (i.e. the Bible).
#2.) The problem of evil is a false dichotomy. It’s not good versus evil: either – or. Life is complex and, like it or not, full of gray areas. The problem of evil is a human construct prompted by the false and delusional notion of a perfect God. Believers say our sinful nature is responsible for the problem of evil. Atheists say the problem of evil, if you give it any weight, shows that God is not good OR perfect.
#3.) The cure for man’s suffering is education. Only understanding can maintain peace. Enmity is maintained by denial: something religion relies on.
#4.) Meaning is NOT bequeathed to you. Neither is it something you find or figure out . . . it’s something you create. And you can’t do that passively, on your knees.
#5.) Humans are of more intrinsic value than animals but not because the Bible says so. We are of more intrinsic value BECAUSE WE ARE HUMAN. Cats value other cats. Elephants value other elephants. Humans value other humans. This fact is universally codified in local laws — murder is a capital crime everywhere — while butchering livestock is a legal and essential enterprise everywhere.
#6.) There is NO objective moral standard. Nature has only a prime directive: SURVIVE. That’s it. There is no morality in nature. It is an entirely human construct that has evolved out of necessity. All we need for morality is experience and empathy. Through experience, I know what hurts me. With empathy I know they likely hurt you too. There’s no mystery to it. The Golden Rule is empathy at work. So is human dignity and worth, cooperation and compassion. We can live reasonably moral lives without God but NOT without empahty.
#7.) There is no such thing as some sort of monolithic “atheistic worldview”. The closest we come to that would have to be our greatest commonalities such as: pro-science, human rights, and secular government. The question appears to be setting a trap that would corner us into a communist mold. That’s ridiculous. Communism has failed miserably, yet secular governments today are found all over the world — although religious fundamentalists are constantly trying to erode the separation of church and state.
#8.) If atheism had a motto, it would be but one word: THINK. We believe reason can dispel superstition. After all, it’s worked for us. Faith is not a virtue unless denial of evidence is a good thing. If atheists were the majority, the world would still have problems but we wouldn’t be killing each other over who’s sky daddy is more real.
#9.) There is no authority required in atheism. We don’t need anybody or any book to tell us what to think. Authority is for religions. As Ayn Rand pointed out, “There has never been a philosophy, a theory or a doctrine, that attacked (or ‘limited’) reason, which did not preach submission to the power of some authority.”
#10.) After we die, the brain liquifies — either for removal or just by natural decay. Any chance of using it again is pretty much wishful thinking. There is no evidence of life after death. It’s a nice idea but that doesn’t mean it’s true.