Freethought & Rationalism Archive

gruveguy · 10-14-2002, 05:05 PM

I've had these questions for a while and this forum seems to be the perfect place to get some responses. If one is an atheist, then it can logically be deduced that that person does not believe in an absolute truth, correct? What I do not understand is how someone that does not believe in an absolute truth can attempt to make an exclusive statement.

If one is an atheist, one must approach the problem of existence. Following Descartes' logic, which I have found to be generally agreed upon, the only exclusive statement an atheist can make is that he exists, and he can only prove that to himself. Outside of that single fact, nothing can be proven logically. An atheist certainly has no right to appeal to the laws of logic, correct? To do so would rest one's entire worldview on something that cannot be proven to be absolutely true or accurate. How can an atheist prove anything, much less that a god does not exist?

Excuse my elementary vocabulary in regards to philosophy, I have had no formal training but enjoy a good mental exercise one in a while

Ben

Devilnaut · 10-14-2002, 05:41 PM

I think that my question would be, why is it necessary to prove anything absolutely? I know that my personal beliefs, right down to my belief that I am sitting in a chair and there is a computer in front of me, are all based on probability. My eyes see the computer, check. They see the chair, check. I can touch the chair / computer, check. I suppose these sense perceptions could be very sophisticated illusions, but I have no idea how such an illusion could be created or who would wish to deceive me in such a way, so I consider this possibility to be highly unlikely. Therefore I can say with a good amount of certainty that I am sitting on a chair and there is a computer in front of me.

Does this answer your question?

Edited to add:

Atheism is simply the lack of belief in deities of any sort. An atheist is not someone who is 100% certain that no deities exist, he is simply someone who would assign a low probability (technically anything under 50% I suppose) to any deity's existence.

Edit to add: I suppose someone could state that they are 100% sure that no Gods exist, and they would still be an atheist. Their belief would be irrational, however.

[ October 14, 2002: Message edited by: Devilnaut ]

Rusting Car Bumper · 10-14-2002, 05:45 PM

This may not be appropriate for this forum. A moderator will decide that...

Quote:

Originally posted by gruveguy:
I've had these questions for a while and this forum seems to be the perfect place to get some responses. If one is an atheist, then it can logically be deduced that that person does not believe in an absolute truth, correct?

Incorrect. The value of Pi for example is an absolute truth as far as I can tell.

Another: "One cannot believe that [A] and not [A] are simultaneously true" is an absolute truth than an atheist could believe in.

Quote:

Originally posted by gruveguy:
What I do not understand is how someone that does not believe in an absolute truth can attempt to make an exclusive statement.

well.. so what if this is true?

Even if we assume it is true, then such a person could make statements of relative degrees of probability. He/she could say "Well I don't know for sure if X is true but its ridiculously probable and all other options are ridiculously improbable." Although this is not absolute truth it amounts to it for some practical purposes.

Quote:

Originally posted by gruveguy:
If one is an atheist, one must approach the problem of existence. Following Descartes' logic, which I have found to be generally agreed upon, the only exclusive statement an atheist can make is that he exists, and he can only prove that to himself. Outside of that single fact, nothing can be proven logically. An atheist certainly has no right to appeal to the laws of logic, correct?

No. As demonstrated above, possibility is not the same as probablility. Because something is uncertain does not make it completely unbelievable or unreliable.

Quote:

Originally posted by gruveguy:
To do so would rest one's entire worldview on something that cannot be proven to be absolutely true or accurate. How can an atheist prove anything, much less that a god does not exist?

So? Everyone does this. The atheist is no different a boat than anything else.

Further atheists do not "prove god doesn't exist." Atheists, more often than not, are simply not convinced because of lack of evidence. This is much different than going arund saying "god doesn't exist" with a certain conviction. Further, the atheist (and the theist) can say with conviction that certain gods DO NOT exist. The proposition that the Sun is a god is one such example that atheists and Christians/Muslims/Jews would agree on.

DC

Corgan Sow · 10-14-2002, 06:29 PM

Ah, greetings...

Quote:

I've had these questions for a while and this forum seems to be the perfect place to get some responses. If one is an atheist, then it can logically be deduced that that person does not believe in an absolute truth, correct? What I do not understand is how someone that does not believe in an absolute truth can attempt to make an exclusive statement.

I think everyone here speaks precisely we do not claim to make exclusive statement, rather, nothing is exclusive for our beliefs...currently.

I think I understand if you met atheists who arrogantly disproved God 100%. I think that deity/deities are yet proven will be the definition for atheism here.

Quote:

If one is an atheist, one must approach the problem of existence. Following Descartes' logic, which I have found to be generally agreed upon, the only exclusive statement an atheist can make is that he exists, and he can only prove that to himself. Outside of that single fact, nothing can be proven logically. An atheist certainly has no right to appeal to the laws of logic, correct? To do so would rest one's entire worldview on something that cannot be proven to be absolutely true or accurate. How can an atheist prove anything, much less that a god does not exist?

Likewise said, we're not obliged to believe in anything that is not empirically proven. Sounds like agnosticism to me, but I think our views regard all spiritual beliefs now as vague and insufficient, or simply nonsensical.

We believed that theists have no rights whatsoever to affirm to us anything. For me, if you are confident of your beliefs, it is better for us to be off alone.

Quote:

Excuse my elementary vocabulary in regards to philosophy, I have had no formal training but enjoy a good mental exercise one in a while.

No problem at all. Enjoy your stay...

K · 10-14-2002, 06:45 PM

gruveguy:

I'm not sure why it matters if no truths can be proven absolutely. We use logic because it works very well in the world with whic we interact daily.

I think it's a much better approach to allow that it may be impossible to absolutely prove anything. Look at what has happened to so many theists who have used religion to prove things absolutely only to find they were completely wrong when science exposes them to the light of reason.

Vorkosigan · 10-14-2002, 08:48 PM

I've had these questions for a while and this forum seems to be the perfect place to get some responses. If one is an atheist, then it can logically be deduced that that person does not believe in an absolute truth, correct? What I do not understand is how someone that does not believe in an absolute truth can attempt to make an exclusive statement.

Many kinds of atheists, including certain Buddhists, pantheists, and New Agers, do believe in some kind of absolute truth.

Metaphysical naturalists, whom I believe you are talking about here, believe in certain kinds of absolutes in logic and mathematics and natural law. Everything else appears relative, subjective or negotiable.

If one is an atheist, one must approach the problem of existence.

Not necessarily. One can disbelieve in gods without ever worrying about other issues.

Following Descartes' logic, which I have found to be generally agreed upon, the only exclusive statement an atheist can make is that he exists, and he can only prove that to himself.

Granting, for the sake of discussion, that Descarte was right, everyone is in the same boat. Theist and atheist. You can assert or assume there is a god, but you cannot prove it.

Outside of that single fact, nothing can be proven logically.

This is extremely incorrect. First of all, logic is simply a way of expressing relationships between entities. It can be used to prove a great deal.

An atheist certainly has no right to appeal to the laws of logic, correct?

Wrong. We can appeal to anything we like. The issue is whether anyone else will listen. Where does "right" enter into the discussion?

To do so would rest one's entire worldview on something that cannot be proven to be absolutely true or accurate.

So what? That's one step ahead of resting it on a proven fallacy, the existence of gods.

In any case, only in well-defined systems of axioms can anything be proven absolutely.

Additionally, your terminological usage is rather muddled. "Accurately" has absolutely nothing to do with "absolute." The two terms are not related at all. "Accuracy" is a value related to a specific set of goals. For example, if I am using nuclear weapons against cities, a high standard of accuracy is unnecessary. Similarly, if I am hunting deer with a rifle, a higher standard might be required. If I am measuring the distance from Los Vegas to LA, high standards of accuracy are not crucial, but if I am manufacturing gears by powder metallurgy, I need high standards. In other words, "accuracy" is a value we choose to meet the task at hand. There is no such thing as an absolute standard of accuracy.

So when thinking people consider the world, they face something that is messy, and are forced to deal in probabilities. Smart people bet on systems of knowing that produce reliable and useful results, like science.

How can an atheist prove anything, much less that a god does not exist?

You can't prove a god doesn't exist. But there are two issues here. First, the burden of proof is on he who asserts. If you assert that a certain Canaanite Sky God, YHWH, exists and is the one and only universal god, you have to prove all of those assertions.

Second, you CAN disprove gods on an individual basis. AFAIK, all gods proposed so far are incoherent, absurd, useless, and contradictory. Thus, they are disproved.

We talk in probabilities. Is it reasonable, highly probable, that gods exist? No. Therefore, we can assert that there is no god, subject to revision as new information comes in. That's one advantage of being an atheist like ourselves: we get to change our minds. We're not hogtied to an absurd metaphysics and a sick, inhuman morality that can never change.

Don't apologize, Ben, for not knowing. These are common questions you have and we are happy to answer them.

Vorkosigan

Agricola Senior · 10-15-2002, 12:13 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Vorkosigan:
 Second, you CAN disprove gods on an individual basis. AFAIK, all gods proposed so far are incoherent, absurd, useless, and contradictory. Thus, they are disproved.

Vorkosigan

That is exactly my standpoint. An atheist should deny a concrete (specific) god (Zeus, YHWH, etc), but it is impossible to prove non-existence of god in the abstract.
First Christians were called "athei" because they had not recognized the gods of State (Roman Empire), so they were �godless�.

AS

[ October 16, 2002: Message edited by: Agricola Senior ]

Tom Sawyer · 10-15-2002, 10:59 AM

gruveguy,

I believe that there is an absloute truth out there, at least in terms of questions such as where the universe came from, how life started, etc. I don't personally know what it is and see no evidence for or reason to believe that any kind of god had anything to do with it.

The universe stared somewhere at some time. Lots of physicists, philosophers and theologians have theories about how and why that happened. One of them may be right, a combination of their theories may be right, or they may have all gotten it wrong. The truth is that at some point in the past, something happened. We may never know what that was, but there was a specific event in history that happened.

That event was an absolute truth; it, whatever it is, did actually happen. The fact that we don't know and may never know doesn't change the truth of it in the slightest since the universe doesn't depend on our perceptions at all. From everything I've read and seen, there's no need for any god to have been involved for this and no evidence that one or more than one was. Saying that we don't know, so therefore goddidit strikes me as intellectual laziness.

The same goes for the origins of life. Everyone has a theory, no one has an answer. We may never have one, but at some point, life did actually start and there was a specific event, or series of events that actually happened to bring about life on this planet. There are lots of theories that plausibly explain how this could happen without bringing any kind of god into it and haven't seen one that rationally shows the need for a deity to take part in it and again, some or none of them may deal with the real historical event. There are many 'God of the Gaps' theories that say "we don't know how x happened, so x was caused by God". Again, these strike me as intellectual laziness by throwing the question off onto an unknowable deity rather taking the more difficult course of actually trying to find an answer.

So basically, I'm saying that there are absolute truths to the universe. Certain things did actually happen at certain times. Science is the only tool that we have that gives us a chance to find out what those things are, since it's the only one that deal with the real universe. Tossing the question off to some supernatural being is the equivalent of giving up and not looking for the real answers to why we're here and why there's a here to be at.

Keith Russell · 10-15-2002, 01:20 PM

Greetings:

I am atheist, yet I believe in absolute truth.

(And yes, I'm probably in the minority of atheists in that respect.)

For me, 'truth' is 'reality' is 'existence'.

What 'is', is 'true'; what 'is' is 'real'; what is 'real', is 'true'.

Keith.

Primal · 10-15-2002, 04:42 PM

Quote:

If one is an atheist, one must approach the problem of existence. Following Descartes' logic, which I have found to be generally agreed upon, the only exclusive statement an atheist can make is that he exists, and he can only prove that to himself. Outside of that single fact, nothing can be proven logically. An atheist certainly has no right to appeal to the laws of logic, correct? To do so would rest one's entire worldview on something that cannot be proven to be absolutely true or accurate. How can an atheist prove anything, much less that a god does not exist?

You have to understand that all Descarte's "logic" consisted of was abandoning and invoking the rules of logic when conveniant.

Descartes for example abandons the rules of logic and math, such as the law of noncontradiction as open to doubt.

But then says if one thinks, one cannot doubt that one exists....why? Because that would be a contradiction. Nevermind the law of noncontradiction could be doubted according to Descartes. So to answer your question according to Descartes logic, nothing really can be proven or anything can be proven at will. It is for that reason that I as an atheist cannot take such arguments stemming from Descarte's philosophy very seriously nor do I feel the need to.

10-14-2002, 05:05 PM	#1
gruveguy Junior Member Join Date: Dec 2001 Posts: 23	I don't understand how atheism is logical I've had these questions for a while and this forum seems to be the perfect place to get some responses. If one is an atheist, then it can logically be deduced that that person does not believe in an absolute truth, correct? What I do not understand is how someone that does not believe in an absolute truth can attempt to make an exclusive statement. If one is an atheist, one must approach the problem of existence. Following Descartes' logic, which I have found to be generally agreed upon, the only exclusive statement an atheist can make is that he exists, and he can only prove that to himself. Outside of that single fact, nothing can be proven logically. An atheist certainly has no right to appeal to the laws of logic, correct? To do so would rest one's entire worldview on something that cannot be proven to be absolutely true or accurate. How can an atheist prove anything, much less that a god does not exist? Excuse my elementary vocabulary in regards to philosophy, I have had no formal training but enjoy a good mental exercise one in a while Ben

10-14-2002, 05:41 PM	#2
Devilnaut Regular Member Join Date: Mar 2001 Location: Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada Posts: 374	I think that my question would be, why is it necessary to prove anything absolutely? I know that my personal beliefs, right down to my belief that I am sitting in a chair and there is a computer in front of me, are all based on probability. My eyes see the computer, check. They see the chair, check. I can touch the chair / computer, check. I suppose these sense perceptions could be very sophisticated illusions, but I have no idea how such an illusion could be created or who would wish to deceive me in such a way, so I consider this possibility to be highly unlikely. Therefore I can say with a good amount of certainty that I am sitting on a chair and there is a computer in front of me. Does this answer your question? Edited to add: Atheism is simply the lack of belief in deities of any sort. An atheist is not someone who is 100% certain that no deities exist, he is simply someone who would assign a low probability (technically anything under 50% I suppose) to any deity's existence. Edit to add: I suppose someone could state that they are 100% sure that no Gods exist, and they would still be an atheist. Their belief would be irrational, however. [ October 14, 2002: Message edited by: Devilnaut ]</p>

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

10-14-2002, 06:45 PM	#5
K Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: Chicago Posts: 1,485	gruveguy: I'm not sure why it matters if no truths can be proven absolutely. We use logic because it works very well in the world with whic we interact daily. I think it's a much better approach to allow that it may be impossible to absolutely prove anything. Look at what has happened to so many theists who have used religion to prove things absolutely only to find they were completely wrong when science exposes them to the light of reason.

10-14-2002, 08:48 PM	#6
Vorkosigan Contributor Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: Barrayar Posts: 11,866	I've had these questions for a while and this forum seems to be the perfect place to get some responses. If one is an atheist, then it can logically be deduced that that person does not believe in an absolute truth, correct? What I do not understand is how someone that does not believe in an absolute truth can attempt to make an exclusive statement. Many kinds of atheists, including certain Buddhists, pantheists, and New Agers, do believe in some kind of absolute truth. Metaphysical naturalists, whom I believe you are talking about here, believe in certain kinds of absolutes in logic and mathematics and natural law. Everything else appears relative, subjective or negotiable. If one is an atheist, one must approach the problem of existence. Not necessarily. One can disbelieve in gods without ever worrying about other issues. Following Descartes' logic, which I have found to be generally agreed upon, the only exclusive statement an atheist can make is that he exists, and he can only prove that to himself. Granting, for the sake of discussion, that Descarte was right, everyone is in the same boat. Theist and atheist. You can assert or assume there is a god, but you cannot prove it. Outside of that single fact, nothing can be proven logically. This is extremely incorrect. First of all, logic is simply a way of expressing relationships between entities. It can be used to prove a great deal. An atheist certainly has no right to appeal to the laws of logic, correct? Wrong. We can appeal to anything we like. The issue is whether anyone else will listen. Where does "right" enter into the discussion? To do so would rest one's entire worldview on something that cannot be proven to be absolutely true or accurate. So what? That's one step ahead of resting it on a proven fallacy, the existence of gods. In any case, only in well-defined systems of axioms can anything be proven absolutely. Additionally, your terminological usage is rather muddled. "Accurately" has absolutely nothing to do with "absolute." The two terms are not related at all. "Accuracy" is a value related to a specific set of goals. For example, if I am using nuclear weapons against cities, a high standard of accuracy is unnecessary. Similarly, if I am hunting deer with a rifle, a higher standard might be required. If I am measuring the distance from Los Vegas to LA, high standards of accuracy are not crucial, but if I am manufacturing gears by powder metallurgy, I need high standards. In other words, "accuracy" is a value we choose to meet the task at hand. There is no such thing as an absolute standard of accuracy. So when thinking people consider the world, they face something that is messy, and are forced to deal in probabilities. Smart people bet on systems of knowing that produce reliable and useful results, like science. How can an atheist prove anything, much less that a god does not exist? You can't prove a god doesn't exist. But there are two issues here. First, the burden of proof is on he who asserts. If you assert that a certain Canaanite Sky God, YHWH, exists and is the one and only universal god, you have to prove all of those assertions. Second, you CAN disprove gods on an individual basis. AFAIK, all gods proposed so far are incoherent, absurd, useless, and contradictory. Thus, they are disproved. We talk in probabilities. Is it reasonable, highly probable, that gods exist? No. Therefore, we can assert that there is no god, subject to revision as new information comes in. That's one advantage of being an atheist like ourselves: we get to change our minds. We're not hogtied to an absurd metaphysics and a sick, inhuman morality that can never change. Don't apologize, Ben, for not knowing. These are common questions you have and we are happy to answer them. Vorkosigan

10-15-2002, 10:59 AM	#8
Tom Sawyer Talk Freethought Staff Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Toronto, eh Posts: 42,293	gruveguy, I believe that there is an absloute truth out there, at least in terms of questions such as where the universe came from, how life started, etc. I don't personally know what it is and see no evidence for or reason to believe that any kind of god had anything to do with it. The universe stared somewhere at some time. Lots of physicists, philosophers and theologians have theories about how and why that happened. One of them may be right, a combination of their theories may be right, or they may have all gotten it wrong. The truth is that at some point in the past, something happened. We may never know what that was, but there was a specific event in history that happened. That event was an absolute truth; it, whatever it is, did actually happen. The fact that we don't know and may never know doesn't change the truth of it in the slightest since the universe doesn't depend on our perceptions at all. From everything I've read and seen, there's no need for any god to have been involved for this and no evidence that one or more than one was. Saying that we don't know, so therefore goddidit strikes me as intellectual laziness. The same goes for the origins of life. Everyone has a theory, no one has an answer. We may never have one, but at some point, life did actually start and there was a specific event, or series of events that actually happened to bring about life on this planet. There are lots of theories that plausibly explain how this could happen without bringing any kind of god into it and haven't seen one that rationally shows the need for a deity to take part in it and again, some or none of them may deal with the real historical event. There are many 'God of the Gaps' theories that say "we don't know how x happened, so x was caused by God". Again, these strike me as intellectual laziness by throwing the question off onto an unknowable deity rather taking the more difficult course of actually trying to find an answer. So basically, I'm saying that there are absolute truths to the universe. Certain things did actually happen at certain times. Science is the only tool that we have that gives us a chance to find out what those things are, since it's the only one that deal with the real universe. Tossing the question off to some supernatural being is the equivalent of giving up and not looking for the real answers to why we're here and why there's a here to be at.

10-15-2002, 01:20 PM	#9
Keith Russell Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Overland Park, Kansas Posts: 1,336	Greetings: I am atheist, yet I believe in absolute truth. (And yes, I'm probably in the minority of atheists in that respect.) For me, 'truth' is 'reality' is 'existence'. What 'is', is 'true'; what 'is' is 'real'; what is 'real', is 'true'. Keith.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.