I have found that a favorite quote of atheists belongs to Stephen Henry Roberts (1901-71):
I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god
than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible
gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.
I would like to descontruct this and challenge it’s logic, but let me add this caveat – I am still exploring atheism, and it opens up all kind of fun intellectual avenues to explore, especially in the areas of logic and argumentation around faith. While the atheist reader may rejoice that I may be on "the road to reason and freedom from religion," I would counsel him that I have long been on the road of reason, and find atheism wanting and Christianity compelling, so don’t get your hopes up. One more caveat – I have a wife and kids, so usually write these between midnight and 3AM, so please give me space to backtrack ;).
When I first encountered this quote and took it at face value, I interpreted it entirely differently than atheists have since informed me it is meant.
The contention that a man who believes in one god is an atheist
because he believes in less than two gods is not only technically
incorrect, it assumes that the logical jump from polytheism to
monotheism is the same as going from monotheism to atheism. However, the logic to make these jumps is entirely different.[…]
The polemic trick the atheist is playing on his own mind, and trying
to play on us, is to reduce the argument to a simple mathematical
equation, and then once we have accepted this false premise, to merely
subtract one more and say "see, it’s the same thing, only I’ve used the
same logic that you use to exclude polytheism, and excluded
monotheism!"The problem is, it’s not the same logic, and questions
of philosophy, faith, or morality do not boil down to mathematical
equations. But to the atheist whose entire epistemology
is based soley on reason, and who can not make use of intuitionn. • direct perception of truth, fact, etc., independent of any reasoning process; immediate apprehension.
• a function of the spirit rather than the mind
More, faith,
revealed truth, or the assumption of objective moral and spiritual law,
I am not surprised that the best argument that Harris can rely on is
the inappropriate reduction of such decisions to mathematical metaphors.
I have since been informed that the above quote means something more like this:
you are an Atheist to 10,000 Gods, both polytheistic and monotheistic
(Allah, Zeus, Mithra, etc), for the same reasons I am an Atheist to
those same 10,000 Gods. The only difference between our Atheism is I am
an Atheist to 10,001 God’s, again for the exact same reasons.
Unfortunately, the original quotation is poorly constructed in that it is overly ambiguous, and so open to multiple interpretations and misunderstanding, so even with this "clarification" I am left with at least two possible meanings, both of which I will now attack like a poorly trained junk yard dog ;)
INTERPRETATION 1: The same process of elimination Christians use to
eliminate other religions, the atheist merely uses to eliminate Christianity as well.
While this is a nice attempt at creating parity between my decisions and the atheist’s, I believe that such a claim is badly mistaken.
My decision about disbelieving other faiths may be similar to the atheist’s in some ways, but in others, it is vastly different, and so to claim that his position is qualitatively or ethically equal to or as reasonable (or unreasonable) as mine is incorrect.
Our decisions are based on various similar and different
assumptions and methods. Not only are the differences critical, their existence proves that the atheist’s comparison above is FALSE.
a. Logical Elimination
First of all, there are logical reasons to eliminate
multiple Gods, and narrow them down to one. This has nothing to do
with faith or unbelief, only with simple philosophic and logical argument. Even if you disagree with the logic, the same logic can NOT be used to argue that there is no God.
The influential positivist philosopher John Stewart Mill argues for the logical superiority of mono over poly theism in his classic Theism, but it is not easy to distill it from his prose. Check this out:
The reason, then, why Monotheism may be accepted as the representative of Theism in the abstract, is not so much because it is the Theism of all the more improved portions of the human race, as because it is the only Theism which can claim for itself any footing on scientific ground. Every other theory of the government of the universe by supernatural beings, is inconsistent either with the carrying on of that government through a continual series of natural antecedents according to fixed laws, or with the interdependence of each of these series upon all the rest, which are the two most general results of science.
Or as gotquestions.org summarizes:
1. If there were more than one God, then the universe would be in disorder because of multiple creators and authorities, but it is not in disorder; therefore, there is only one God.
2. Since God is a completely perfect being, then there cannot be a second God, for they would have to differ in some way, and to differ from complete perfection is to be less than perfect and not be God.
3. Since God is infinite in His existence, then He cannot have parts (for parts cannot be added to reach infinity). If God’s existence is not just a part of Him (which it is for all things which can have existence or not), then He must have infinite existence. Therefore, there cannot be two infinite beings, for one would have to differ from the other, and to differ from infinite existence is to not exist at all.
There is probably more on this argument in God Against the Gods: The History of the War Between Monotheism and Polytheism, but this book is on my Amazon wishlist waiting with about 200 other titles. Note also that some have argued that polytheism is more reasonable than mono (it had to exist, right?).
Summary: Christians use logical arguments to eliminate polytheism which can not be used to eliminate monotheism, so Christians are making some decisions based on logic that atheists would not use to eliminate xianity.
b. Logical Confirmation
This is a little stretch, because "soft" atheism, perhaps the most common, ("I don’t believe in any Gods currently described, though you can’t prove that no God exists"). But this argument definitely applies to hard atheism ("there is NO god"), and applies somewhat to soft atheism, so let me say this anyway.
Atheists’ lack of belief in God crosses the logical arguments FOR God, something a monotheist does not have to do in eliminating other Gods.
Christians posit that there must be at least one God, and use such classic arguments as Gödel’s ontological proof to support that contention. So while Christians do not violate this tenet when eliminating all but one God, atheists DO violate this tenet, when crossing from belief in one God to belief in none. This makes their decision qualitatively different from the Christians in at least this one way, so the decisions are NOT identical, which falsifies the comparative justification of their stance.
Summary: The atheist’s decision must violate every argument for God, of which there are many. Christians do not have to reject these arguments in order to reject other faiths.
c. Historical and Archaeological Proofs and Disproofs
Christians reject many religions (like Mormonism) because their claims flatly contradict history, while the opposite appears true for Christianity
- Nelson Glueck: "It is worth emphasizing that, in all this work, no archaeological discovery has ever controverted a single, properly understood biblical statement."
- W.F. Albright: "Discovery after discovery has established the accuracy of innumerable details [in the Bible], and has brought increasing recognition to the value of the Bible as a source of history."
- Linda Harvey, founder and president of Mission America: "Numerous archaeological finds have confirmed the Bible solely on its historical merit. It records many prophecies that were later fulfilled. Its authority was meant to rest on both its spiritual guidance and its historical validity."
In general, while atheists may use archeology to disprove many religions, they can’t honestly do so for Judaism and Christianity. Again, atheists are crossing the chasm from monotheism without considering or being convinced by the weight of archaeological evidence. Perhaps archaeological evidence doesn’t even play a part in their decision to accept or reject a faith. Regardless, their methods for evaluating the evidence are decision process are different, and so again, the comparison to the Christian’s rejection of other religions is not entirely valid.
d. Rejection of miracles and lack of discrimination between incredible claims
In general, atheists reject all miraculous claims, and use this as part of their justification for rejecting faith. This is absolutely not part of the Christian rejection of other faiths.
However, it must also be admitted that Christians do discriminate between the "scientific believability" of one miracle over another. While atheists view all such claims, such as the virgin birth or a giant turtle laying an egg to birth the universe as equally unbelievable, Christians would say that these two claims are not on the same level of incredulity. I’m not really sure what principles might be used to describe such discrimination, but trust me for now, some miraculous claims are more incredible and less believable than others.
Summary: Atheists use the rejection of miracles as part of their decision, Christians in general do not, or they differentiate between "clearly unreasonable claims" and "believable miraculous claims." Whether or not this makes sense to an atheist, the point is that the decision making processes are different, and therefore, equating them as the atheist quote above does is nonsensical.
e. Relying on authoritative revealed truth (the Bible)
Christians rely on the authority of the bible to eliminate other faiths, while atheists have no authoritative book of revealed knowledge. Again, this shows that Robert’s assertion that the decision to be an atheist is qualitatively similar to the Christian’s rejection of other faiths is false.
I’ll stop there, but there are numerous more ways that these decisions are made differently.
Interpretation 2: Why do you
blame me for not believing in your God, if you have done the same for
every other God?
No one is really blaming you at all, except for lying about the parity of our decisions. They are qualitatively different. Sure, you may find my claims as unbelievable as I find the claims of others. But your standard for proof is in many ways vastly different from mine, and I would maintain that yours is much too narrow, to the point of being illogical and, dare I say, fearfully bound to the limits of reason alone. I know that superstition is a bad thing, and that reason and science seem the most trustworthy epistemological method. I do not discount those. However, I do include healthy faith in my equation, while you believe that no such thing exists. I understand your position, but to claim that our decisions in rejecting religions are the same is just not true. The fact that I accept my claims to God means and you do not means that we are NOT using the same rules.
Lastly, I do understand that your rejection of my faith IS similar to my rejection of other faiths – not identical, but similar. However, while I understand, I also disagree with your conclusion, and do not think that this reflects negatively on MY conclusion to eliminate other faiths. It is not wrong, in a general sense, to reject superstition or to not believe everyone. This allows me to justify my unbelief in other systems. HOWEVER, I find fault with your assumptions, methods and approach, which is why I can justify my unbelief but not yours, and why Robert’s quote seems entirely ridiculous to me, even if it is expressing a true sentiment of atheists.
It is 3:10 AM and my brain hurts. Ouch.
If a person believes that there is a moon, is that faith? No? Why? Because one can see the moon, right? Proof. Even though you can't smell it, touch it, taste it, or hear it.
What about a blind person? Does the blind person have proof of the moon? No, but they have faith that there is a moon because others have told them all about it.
Is it not important to the blind person to believe that there is a moon? Of course it is, it is part of everyone's world even if they cannot see it. It is referenced in many ways. And so it is important for the blind person to understand what is meant by the moon.
If a person believes through faith that "something" exists, does that make "something's" existance any less reasonable?
Not in my opinion.
I hope you got some rest seeker :) That was an interesting post. :)
Lawanda is brilliant! Who would have ever thought that things exist beyond smell, touch, taste, and hearing. I didn't believe in atoms before but thanks to you, now I do! Do you mind if I quote your story about blind people and the moon? You ma'am, are a testament to great Christian thinkers everywhere. Well done!
Neocon, is that all you are going to do? Troll around here? Don’t waste our time.
I find fault with your assumptions, methods and approach, which is why I can justify my unbelief but not yours, and why Robert's quote seems entirely ridiculous to me, even if it is expressing a true sentiment of atheists.
Are you saying "My God is the one true God therefore other's can't exist." Muslims say the same thing about their God, "There is only one God, Allah and Mohammad is His prophet." This is irrelevant because it's a faith based claim. I believe the Flying Spaghetti Monster is the ONE true God therefore all others are false.
If you are not making a faith based claim that "My God is the one true God therefore other's can't exist." then this illustrates that you dismiss all other Gods for logical reasons and not faith based reasons. Your logical reasons are the same as mine. Your religious reasons are not.
"When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours."
I found this. Here is why you Christians don't believe in Mormonism. Same reason I don't believe it.
What Mormon Theology Is Really All About
I wonder what a "healthy faith" could possibly be?
Perhaps Neo-con is such a "great thinker" that he should find some other place to post. No sense in such a brainiac superstar being among us stupid people. :-p
Cineaste, it does take faith to believe in "the one God" being the God of the Bible. But that doesnt negate that locially there is SOMETHING (a god) that created (or started in motion) this universe and its physical laws.
You believe the being to be unknowable, but only at this time. Or so I perceive, because you attest to the fact the the beauty of science is in it's realizing it's own limitations as to the knowledge of origins of the universe.
Scientifically, there HAD to be a starting point to life as we know it. This you can logically conclude. I take it one step further by faith.
But I do not see it as an illogical faith.
I use logic to determine which "religious story" makes the most sense, and has the most proof. I take into account history, and archaelogical finds, and also the reactions to the doctrines.
I also can tell you that there being a Book is one proof to me. And not just any book. A literary miracle. One that was written over so many centuries and by so many authors… yet has such a very continuous and meshing theme. And lots of wisdom as to how this life can be successful, along with other stuff you have no interest in… but which, even when it speaks of scientific things, it has never been proved wrong (although you have nitpickingly pointed out some things about rabbits chewing cud! :-p Sorry, I have to view it as nitpicking.)
:)
Anyway, thanks for reading if you read it all! :)
But that doesnt negate that locially there is SOMETHING (a god) that created (or started in motion) this universe and its physical laws.
This is what you have been taught but it's a cop out of an explanation. It's so easy to say "God did it" but the truth is, we don't know. That's why your position is a "faith" position which is belief without evidence or logical proof. My position of agnosticism, is realistic while theism is wishful thinking.
I also can tell you that there being a Book is one proof to me. And not just any book. A literary miracle. One that was written over so many centuries and by so many authors… yet has such a very continuous and meshing theme.
You must mean the Quran said the Muslim.
And lots of wisdom as to how this life can be successful, along with other stuff you have no interest in…
Don't be insulting. Of course I have an interest in being wise and having a successful life.
it (presumably the bible) has never been proved wrong
Neither has the Book of Mormon but you believe that Holy Book is ridiculous.
The book of Mormon has never been proved right. It is not about Joseph Smith. At all.
Also, I meant that you had no interest in the "other stuff" in the Bible. Sorry :)
And the Quran copied the bible in some parts. Just like the book of Mormon did.
If the bible is so wonderful why does it condone genocide, infanticide, the subjection of women, the murder of gays, and an obviously wrong version of life's origins? And, why does it propagate a horrendously vicious version of the after-life? A "miracle"? Only someone willfully blind could accept that book as such. It's really amusing that anyone could accept this hodge-podge as somehow "holy" or self-evidently true.
Of course, Louis, you know that Christians have "finely crafted" responses to your claims above – I bet you could even spout them if prodded, LOL. But let me give maddeningly short summaries of each
Genocide – Only one real example of such is conquest of Canaan, I think. They were really wicked. Really. Not a founding principle of the faith ;)
Infanticide – again, one instance, same as above.
Subjugation of women – straw man – Christianity esp. has done more for the freedom and dignity of women around the world than even feminism. Arguably ;)
Murder of gays – only a capital crime in the Jewish state. Seems kinda harsh to me. Got me there. Still a sin though ;)
Origins – sorry, Creationism is more believable scientifically than the myth of evolution. Really, I swear it.
Afterlife – so, you consider the justice of God to be a vicious thing? I guess in your version Hitler and Stalin should suffer no more penalty than whatever suffering they had here?
Accepting the bible – despite it's difficulties, there are many convincing non-difficult passages which make for strong convictions.
But you are correct, these difficulties are not easy to overlook.
Yes, one can pick and choose which passages of the bible to support one's point – and ignore the rest which, inconveniently, throw a wrench in the finely honed machine of xianity. Let's face it, the sky-god of the OT was a tribal thug. The stories we have are totally one-sided: the virtuous and godly Hebrews versus the evil Other. And, of course, anyone who doesn't bow to Yahweh gets the sword. The OT is full of nutty prohibitions and silly theories (if you really believe that creationism is more scientifically valid that evolutionary theory, then you are to be pitied). Sure, it has some good stuff (my favorite: Ecclesiastes), but you have to ignore the rest to come up with appellations such as "The Good Book," "The Word of God," etc.
And then there's the New Testament: that testament to hellfire and damnation. Even gentle Jesus, meek and mild, was a font of threats to anyone who can't force themselves to swallow the fairy tale which is xianity (like father like son). Yes, eternity of the most horrendous and agonizing torture to anyone who doesn't "believe in" him, the God Of Love! Revolting.
And, yes, the Hebrews bequeathed to humanity a vile and vicious hatred of gays. Their OT, with its patriarchal and "jealous" god, condemns gays to death without remorse or guilt ("…their blood shall be upon them"), something ratified by Paul. Western cultures, unfortunately enough to be under the thumb of this cult, have used the "Good Book" to persecute, oppress, imprison, torture, execute, murder and generally hate gay people for millennia.
Sure, there's some good stuff in it, but that can be had without the supernaturalist mumbo-jumbo and superstitious prejudices which still plague us today.
if you really believe that creationism is more scientifically valid that evolutionary theory, then you are to be pitied
LOL, I am so used to this response from evolutionist rubes that I have a canned response in my mind – "save your pity for yourself." Heh.
Yes, eternity of the most horrendous and agonizing torture to anyone who doesn't "believe in" him, the God Of Love! Revolting.
Yes, understood, this is the main thing that drove me to leave Christianity for a time. However, I returned for two reasons. Rather than asking "do I think it is fair," I asked the question "is it true?" I find it illogical that a God of love would not be a god of justice too. Love demands justice, not just forgiveness. God's love includes both – justice is not circumvented, but satisfied in the suffering of Christ. That is real love, not the type of penalty-less forgiveness that rewards the violator and fails to protect the victims.
Also, I am willing to live with the questions around that doctrine because so many other things I do believe jive with scripture. But again, I do understand how this can be a sticking point.
Western cultures, unfortunately enough to be under the thumb of this cult, have used the "Good Book" to persecute, oppress, imprison, torture, execute, murder and generally hate gay people for millennia.
I agree somewhat.
If the bible is so wonderful why does it condone genocide, infanticide, the subjection of women, the murder of gays, and an obviously wrong version of life's origins? And, why does it propagate a horrendously vicious version of the after-life?
Let us amuse Louis some more ;)
If [Harry Potter] is so wonderful why does it condone infanticide, [witchcraft], the murder of [Muggles], and an obviously wrong version of life's [realities]? And, why does it propagate a horrendously vicious version of the after-life?
I'm sorry, but you sounded so much like all those people who never read Harry Potter, those who did NOT WANT TO read HP, because they didn't like what it represented (because of their preconceived notions) …. And for that reason dismissed it out of hand, and then proceeded to tell other people not read it because THEY thought it was wrong. I think you could substitute your thoughts on the bible in there too.
And I am not saying HP is the same "genre" as the bible. Just thought it was amusing how like those "fundamentalists" you sounded.
I think if you read the bible in context, you find that it in no way condones any of what you wrote.
The difference is that the Harry Potter books are admitted and declared fiction. The bible, a work of fiction, maintains that it is real. Too bad you can’t see that.
Your opinion that the Bible is a book of fiction has to comfort you. Just as my opinion that it is non-fiction and historically accurate comforts me. :)
But one thing that the Bible and Harry Potter have in common: they make you THINK.
A must have in a good book.
It's not about comfort, but truth.
Louis, i could not agree more. Even if the idea of hell violates our own sense of fairness, the question is not "does it make me feel bad" or good, what matters is, is it true?
Which is precisely why I dismiss xianity.
Seeker, you state the following:
"I find it illogical that a God of love would not be a god of justice too. Love demands justice, not just forgiveness. God's love includes both – justice is not circumvented, but satisfied in the suffering of Christ. That is real love, not the type of penalty-less forgiveness that rewards the violator and fails to protect the victims."
I find it illogical that John Doe who lives a decent life, gives to the poor, loves his family, maybe tells lies here and there, but is overall a great guy who does not believe in your god should roast in hell while Mack the serial murderer of young innocent teenage girls gives his heart to Jesus while on death row and goes to heaven. This is justice?
By the way, not only is the idea of hell not fair, it is NOT true.