Atheism and Authority

[ryanatau]

As an atheist I've noticed there are fundamental questions I must answer, most importantly why I don't believe in God. For the most part I guess I would say, if I was forced to try to give a reason, "Because there is not evidence for God's existence." However, this answer is based on a logical fallacy (from ignorance). Although it can be avoided by an appeal to who has the burden of proof such an appeal is only an appeal to authority. "You have to prove God exists because you are making a positive statement and 'they' say [who ever 'they' are] that you have to prove your position." Either that or, "I am being reasonable and you are not. Therefore my position is superior, as the reasonable position, and thus true." Either way it is an appeal to the authority either of a rule created by whoever and thus based solely on a changeable, and not at all self-evident, axiom; or it is an appeal to your personal reason ("to me I am being reasonable" i.e. my axioms are self-evident to me because I am of superior intellect and if you would think they might become self-evident to you) and thus a subjective axiom which reduces the problem to subjectivity and thus can only be answered by individuals and the debate is useless as there is not "right" answer.

[Jack]

if I was forced to try to give a reason, "Because there is not evidence for God's existence." However, this answer is based on a logical fallacy (from ignorance).

There are exceptions to the Appeal to Ignorance I think apply here.

Sometimes it is reasonable to argue from a lack of evidence for a proposition to the falsity of that proposition, when there is a presumption that the proposition is false. For instance, in American criminal law there is a presumption of innocence, which means that the burden of proof is on the prosecution, and if the prosecution fails to provide evidence of guilt then the jury must conclude that the defendant is innocent. Similarly, the burden of proof is usually on a person making a new or improbable claim, and the presumption may be that such a claim is false. For instance, suppose that I claim that I was taken by flying saucer to another planet, but when challenged I can supply no evidence of this unusual trip. It would not be an Appeal to Ignorance for you to reason that, since there is no evidence that I visited another planet, therefore I probably didn't do so. Similarly, when extensive investigation has been undertaken, it is often reasonable to infer that something is false based upon a lack of positive evidence for it. For instance, if a drug has been subjected to lengthy testing for harmful effects and none has been discovered, it is then reasonable to conclude that it is safe. Another example is: If there really were a large and unusual type of animal in Loch Ness, then we would have undeniable evidence of it by now. We don't have undeniable evidence of a large, unfamiliar animal in Loch Ness. Therefore, there is no such animal. As with reasoning using the closed world assumption, auto-epistemic reasoning does not commit the fallacy of Argument from Ignorance.

Logical Fallacy: Appeal to Ignorance

The reasonable conclusion of atheism is auto-epistemic and not an appeal to ignorance. If you've never investigated theology but make a definitive declaration that theology is false then you're arguing from a less reasonable position.

[Thanatos]

Prove to me that there are no transparent unicorns on Mars.

[Zhavric]

Quote by: R Although it can be avoided by an appeal to who has the burden of proof such an appeal is only an appeal to authority.

I don't see how you're getting "appeal to authority" out of this.

Traditionally, an appeal to authority is an argument based on the expertise of someone who's not an expert in a specific field. For example:

"Stomach crunches are good for you because my attorney does stomach crunches and he's really smart."

Attorney's, while talented at law, aren't experts on physical fitness.

Furthermore, this part...

Either way it is an appeal to the authority either of a rule created by whoever and thus based solely on a changeable, and not at all self-evident, axiom; or it is an appeal to your personal reason

... is false.

Because logic is a lot like math, we can actually grade logic the way we evaluate math.

1+1=2. That's neither opinion nor arbitrary. It's an axiom. One thing brought together with antoher thing gives us two things. Period.

Logic works much the same way. X = X. X =/= Y. Most logical syllogisms can be broken down into symbols that, to the layperson, appear to be mathmatic formulas.

So, when someone makes an unsupported claim that contradicts what's already proven, the burden is on the claimant to provide the evidence.

Please please please do not succumb to volconvo disease wherein basic logic and common sense become matters of intense debate and doubt.

[ryanatau]

Quote by: Zhavric I don't see how you're getting "appeal to authority" out of this. Traditionally, an appeal to authority is an argument based on the expertise of someone who's not an expert in a specific field.

Not true. It is true that in most critical thinking books appeal to authority is defined as you say, however, it is any appeal to authority such as "I am right because I use reason."

Because logic is a lot like math, we can actually grade logic the way we evaluate math. 1+1=2. That's neither opinion nor arbitrary. It's an axiom. One thing brought together with antoher thing gives us two things. Period. Logic works much the same way. X = X. X =/= Y. Most logical syllogisms can be broken down into symbols that, to the layperson, appear to be mathmatic formulas. So, when someone makes an unsupported claim that contradicts what's already proven, the burden is on the claimant to provide the evidence. Please please please do not succumb to volconvo disease wherein basic logic and common sense become matters of intense debate and doubt.

I actually know mathematical logic (symbolic logic)...

Actually it is quite hard to "grade axioms." 1+1=2 is not as simple as you might think. Bertrand Russell spent the early part of his life trying to conclusively prove, without axioms, that 1+1=2.

We grade logic by the axioms it uses but to grade the axioms we need preexisting axioms. Thus Godel's Incompleteness theorem. We can only logically prove something once the axioms are agreed upon (which means logical truth is just what every one agrees on) we cannot prove the axioms we use are the right axioms. A good example of this is Euclidean geometry. For 2 thousand years everyone believed Euclid's axioms from which all geometry followed. Then in the 19th century people started questioning the axioms and came up with new one and thus we have non-Euclidean geometry. The point is that the system depends on axioms that are unprovable. These unprovable axioms can only be decided on through authority. Some people use the authority found in scripture other on experience, regardless it is an appeal to authority.

However, all this means is that there is not a truer way to settle fundamental questions but that does not imply there is not a better way to settle such questions. I just haven't thought of how to prove that one way is better yet. The way that seems to work well so far (I have been thinking about it a lot) is to ask how we first learn about fundamental questions (where does all our knowledge rest)? I think most would agree that experience is how we learn about the world around us. From this it follows that we only know fundamental questions through experience thus experience must be the judge of our answers to such questions. However, two problems that I can think of arise from this: 1) there is a resurgence of belief in innate ideas because of the popularity of evolution/anthropology and so experience my not be our only recourse and 2) David Hume's is/ought problem: Just because something is a certain way does not mean it ought to be. Just because we learn about fundamental questions through experience does not mean we ought to settle them with experience.

So basically, I am with you Zhav. I believe there is a right way and a common sense approach to the world. However, saying it is common sense will not convince others it is common sense. What I am trying to do is understand my beliefs by pretending I don't believe in them and asking myself difficult questions and forcing myself to convince my unbelieving self. Also, I often ask myself what it would take for me to believe in God. I've realized it would probably take an unreasonable amount of evidence to cause my belief (though it my not be unreasonable if one thinks of Hume's discussion of miracles).

[ryanatau]

Quote by: Thanatos Prove to me that there are no transparent unicorns on Mars.

This is precisely my point I can't prove it. I can only say your argument is silly. But just because your argument is silly does not mean it is not true.

Given it is difficult to impossible to prove a negative. It does not follow that because no one has proven the positive argument the negative argument must be true. I can believe the negative argument but that does not assure my belief nor my by belief valid. Though it very well may be my belief is better it does not insure that it is truer.

[grandpa]

Quote by: ryanatau This is precisely my point I can't prove it. I can only say your argument is silly.

You also can't "prove" it is silly, since that's subjective. That's a reason why religion, or "religion-like" thought so often succeeds.

Grandpa h.

[ryanatau]

Quote by: grandpa You also can't "prove" it is silly, since that's subjective. That's a reason why religion, or "religion-like" thought so often succeeds. Grandpa h.

That why i said "I can only say its silly." We are also assuming that people can be"objective" (I hate that word). I'm not quite sure there is anything objective in human reasoning other than reason distinguished from the individual (reason qua reason). And is such a state I don't think there is any thought. Reason separated from individuality has nothing to reason about. And even if it did it would have no starting point and thus not be able to reason about anything other than itself. Like Aristotle's God.

I don't necessarily like to distinguish between religious and secular thought as if religious thought is equivalent to unreasonableness and secular thought is the same as reasonable. Though it might be the case (I doubt it) it is not a good way to think about the issue. I think it is a better distinguish reason from unreason on purely those lines. I don't much mind if someone believes in God or not. I care more about how they came to that belief.

[Zhavric]

Quote by: ryanatau Not true. It is true that in most critical thinking books appeal to authority is defined as you say, however, it is any appeal to authority such as "I am right because I use reason."

While I agree that "I am right because I use reason" is suspect, it's not an appeal to authority. These definitions exist for a reason and we cannot arbitrarily change them to suit a particular argument. I encourage you find the fallacy that actually applies here and not call it an appeal to authority. It's okay to say "bad logic" :)

I actually know mathematical logic (symbolic logic)... Actually it is quite hard to "grade axioms." 1+1=2 is not as simple as you might think. Bertrand Russell spent the early part of his life trying to conclusively prove, without axioms, that 1+1=2.

Oy.

Where do you guys come from? How do you keep finding volconvo?

[ryanatau]

Quote by: Zhavric Oy. Where do you guys come from? How do you keep finding volconvo?

I'm not saying I don't think 1+1=2. What I am saying is that it is a problem that some people, including one of the founders of modern logic (Bertrand Russell), tried to figure out. It is a bit silly to try and prove such a thing and Russell's work on the subject is so complex that I would rather just assume 1+1=2. However, Russell did have noble reasons. He wanted to make mathematical proofs certain beyond any doubt and as such show that certain knowledge is possible.

[Zhavric]

Quote by: ryanatau I'm not saying I don't think 1+1=2. What I am saying is that it is a problem that some people, including one of the founders of modern logic (Bertrand Russell), tried to figure out. It is a bit silly to try and prove such a thing and Russell's work on the subject is so complex that I would rather just assume 1+1=2. However, Russell did have noble reasons. He wanted to make mathematical proofs certain beyond any doubt and as such show that certain knowledge is possible.

It is. Russel was just uncomfortable with labeling things as self evident. There's really no reason not to.

[Thanatos]

Quote by: ryanatau This is precisely my point I can't prove it. I can only say your argument is silly. But just because your argument is silly does not mean it is not true. Given it is difficult to impossible to prove a negative. It does not follow that because no one has proven the positive argument the negative argument must be true. I can believe the negative argument but that does not assure my belief nor my by belief valid. Though it very well may be my belief is better it does not insure that it is truer.

The space unicorns called. They want you to send them money.

Science does not fit well with martian unicorns. Mars lacks plants or an atmosphere so presumably is not optimal habitat for large ungulates. However, maybe they're magic unicorns and eat moonbeams and breathe carbon dioxide.

Maybe they love us and want to give us some of their magic. Vast unicorn pens on Earth all breathing carbon dioxide would cure global warming you know. And energy from faint moonbeams? Imagine the solar cells you could build if you understood the digestive system of a unicorn!

Perhaps there really is a faction of unicorns who want to come to Earth. Perhaps if you don't send me money for my unicorn-finding expedition the world really is doomed. However, humans are a credulous lot and I doubt I'll be mailed one single cent. Silly us. We'd be so much better off trying to chase every unproven possibility.

I personally believe I don't know whether there are unicorns on Mars. Your own ignorance is quite a thing to believe in. People think I'm crazy because I don't know everything and am willing to admit it. Maybe I really should mail my alternate personality some of my money.

[ryanatau]

Clarification:

By appeal to authority I mean somewhat what Charles Sanders Peirce means by method of authority in The Fixation of Belief.

The Fixation of Belief

[ryanatau]

Quote by: Thanatos The space unicorns called. They want you to send them money. Science does not fit well with martian unicorns. Mars lacks plants or an atmosphere so presumably is not optimal habitat for large ungulates. However, maybe they're magic unicorns and eat moonbeams and breathe carbon dioxide. Maybe they love us and want to give us some of their magic. Vast unicorn pens on Earth all breathing carbon dioxide would cure global warming you know. And energy from faint moonbeams? Imagine the solar cells you could build if you understood the digestive system of a unicorn! Perhaps there really is a faction of unicorns who want to come to Earth. Perhaps if you don't send me money for my unicorn-finding expedition the world really is doomed. However, humans are a credulous lot and I doubt I'll be mailed one single cent. Silly us. We'd be so much better off trying to chase every unproven possibility. I personally believe I don't know whether there are unicorns on Mars. Your own ignorance is quite a thing to believe in. People think I'm crazy because I don't know everything and am willing to admit it. Maybe I really should mail my alternate personality some of my money.

If you noticed I am an atheist. I do not think everyone has time to chase every unproven possibility. If you read my signature it is quite clear I believe that. However that does not mean I should be satisfied with what I understand. As Socrates, through Plato said:

"Some things I have said of which I am not altogether confident. But that we shall be better and braver and less helpless if we think that we ought to inquire, than we should have been if we thought that there was no knowing;--that is a belief for which I am ready to fight, in word and deed, to the utmost of my power" -Plato's Meno

So I act off my beliefs while realizing my belief are not going to always be right. As such I must face the consequences that follow from my beliefs, true or otherwise. However, my lack of certainty, in practice, does not affect the effects of my actions. Thus in practice my uncertainty because certain and is thus the end of inquiry (for the moment).

[ryanatau]

Quote by: Jack There are exceptions to the Appeal to Ignorance I think apply here. Logical Fallacy: Appeal to Ignorance The reasonable conclusion of atheism is auto-epistemic and not an appeal to ignorance. If you've never investigated theology but make a definitive declaration that theology is false then you're arguing from a less reasonable position.

Granted. However, my point is that, though 'they' say that we the atheist argument does not fall under an appeal to ignorance because it is an exception its form never the less does. It comes down to defining what the exceptions should be and who exactly gets to define what is reasonable?

[wyoguy]

I'll probably look it up myself later, but..... does Hume ever postulate that the belief in the miraculous is in itself a miracle? I rather doubt it from what I've gathered so far.

Anyway... that's my position. I never would have chosen to believe in the miraculous events chronicled in scripture based on the authoritative testimony of anyone save God Himself. That's it... in a twinkling... something clicked... the words that I had regarded for so long as myth, if not fairy tales, suddenly rang with undeniable truth. I think my little story scares the crap out of atheists too. Because it means that it could happen to them, and the implications related to a metaphysical conversion of that kind are staggering. It would flip their world inside-out and upside-down... ooooh and the moral implications?

[Sonart]

.

Quote by: ryanatau As an atheist I've noticed there are fundamental questions I must answer, most importantly why I don't believe in God. For the most part I guess I would say, if I was forced to try to give a reason,

Genetics.

Human beings are genetically hardwired by evolution for spirituality. That is, our brains are equipped to induce a spiritual state that 90% of humans interpret as the presence of some form of God. The other 20% may experience a spiritual state but don't necessarily interpret it as a supernatural presence. Since, as creationists love to point out, only 40% of scientists claim to believe in God, versus the 80% of the overall population who claim to believe in God, it seems feasable that evolution determined that a percentage of the most intelligent humans should be free to explore the world unburdened by religion.

If you're curious to know more, I'm starting a new thread, called 'Neural Buddhism'.
.

[ryanatau]

Quote by: wyoguy I'll probably look it up myself later, but..... does Hume ever postulate that the belief in the miraculous is in itself a miracle? I rather doubt it from what I've gathered so far.

I'm not sure what you mean.

Hume says that it is impossible to reasonably believe in miracles because it is contrary to all evidence. It is more likely that the person who told you of the miracle is mistaken no matter how trust worthy than to believe that some miracle happened that would undermine all your previous experience. Even if you yourself see the miracle it still shouldn't be believed because it is one occurrence out of all the other occurrences in your life. It is more probable that you are mistaken now. I once read an example about a disease that goes like this. If you were given a test which is accurate 1/1000 times and it says you have a certain disease but the disease only occurs in 1/1,000,000 people. Which means you have a 1/1002 chance of not having the disease even if the test says you do (I am not sure on how the author arrived at 1/1002). Thus the test is useless (1000<1002). Its the same with miracles. You have seen an event 1,000,000 times and only on the last one did the miracle happen (e.g. a man rose from the dead). It is more likely the man was not dead than that he rose from the dead. And since we can only form causation from experience and wisdom is only a habit of the mind it is best to say the man was not dead.

The above is a really unadequate rendering of what Hume said and I am not entirely satisfied with it. I will post it non-the-less, obviously.

[ryanatau]

Quote by: Sonart . Genetics. Human beings are genetically hardwired by evolution for spirituality.

I'm not at all convinced about this. There could be other explanations for why many people feel compelled to believe. For example, in The Future of an Illusion Freud gives another explanation for why people are spiritual. I can't find a complete edition on the net so I can't post it. However, I am not saying I agree with Freud (I absolutely do not!) but it is another possible explanation.

[Sonart]

.

Quote by: ryanatau There could be other explanations for why many people feel compelled to believe.

Mine makes the most logical sense, considering that the existance of gods is totally illogical.

Quote by: ryanatau I can't find a complete edition on the net so I can't post it.

How about a brief synopsis?



.