Does atheism have a rational basis?

[ovnoclov]

I wish to argue that atheism does not have a rational basis. Atheism assumes that reason is valid, and I, a Christian agree. However, atheism does not seem to offer an independent standard for reason, and so for escaping claims of biological determinism, or Marxist determinism, or any determinism that says "your thoughts are just the product of your circumstances, rather than having an independent basis".

If the physical universe is that independent standard, and is utterly independent, then how can we interact with it? It must relate to us in some causal sense, in order for us to interact with it by validating it through reason. Only an independent thing ("Reason") seems available, and we participate in Reason by reasoning. Otherwise Reason or reasoning is just something that happens in our heads, with no relation to the outside world. But perhaps you disagree ...

[big_lefty]

Quote by: ovnoclov I wish to argue that atheism does not have a rational basis. Atheism assumes that reason is valid, and I, a Christian agree. However, atheism does not seem to offer an independent standard for reason, and so for escaping claims of biological determinism, or Marxist determinism, or any determinism that says "your thoughts are just the product of your circumstances, rather than having an independent basis". If the physical universe is that independent standard, and is utterly independent, then how can we interact with it? It must relate to us in some causal sense, in order for us to interact with it by validating it through reason. Only an independent thing ("Reason") seems available, and we participate in Reason by reasoning. Otherwise Reason or reasoning is just something that happens in our heads, with no relation to the outside world. But perhaps you disagree ...

None of this disputes atheism. Yes, the universe relates to us in an causal sense, but that doesn't have to mean there's a deity involved.

[Jack]

then how can we interact with it?

We interact with it by being a part of it. We are not apart from the basic stuff of the universe. We are composed of the same material that constitutes the universe and everything in it. We are not, as some theologies suppose, apart from nature or special creations of nature.

The premise of the OP is flawed by the presumption that atheism means something more than the simple lack of a belief in the claims of theism. Materialism or humanism are not inherent aspects of atheism. There are atheists who would contend that we relate to the universe through the collective mind, ESP or crystal energy.

In rejecting the unsupported claims of theists that their particular god exists atheism is practicing reason and being rational.

[ovnoclov]

Dear Jack

Hi. Thanks for engaging. I agree that we are made of the same stuff of the universe, and yet I would suggest that we are also separate from it, so far as we transcend the basic elements of which we are made, just as a tree is separate from the limbs, bits of bark, branches and leaves of which it is composed.

Assuming that the "OP" is the opening premise, I did in fact equate atheism with strict materialism, given that many atheists adopt it. I also agree that atheists practice reason and are rational by rejecting unsupported claims by anybody. However, I would suggest that theists, and in particular monotheists (such as Einstein and Newton), make claims that ARE supported by reason.

Cheers,

o

[ovnoclov]

Dear BL

Hi. Thanks for engaging. I would ask what is the independent standard upon which atheism bases reason as being independent from causality, and hence makes it so useful as a standard for measuring and describing the universe.

Hope you're not snowed under,

o

Quote by: big_lefty None of this disputes atheism. Yes, the universe relates to us in an causal sense, but that doesn't have to mean there's a deity involved.

[yukonmuffin]

I believe all you have pointed out is that we're not 100% certain of anything, witch is a fair assumption but doesn't disprove atheism.

[samsara15]

Quote by: big_lefty None of this disputes atheism. Yes, the universe relates to us in an causal sense, but that doesn't have to mean there's a deity involved.

I can support that idea. However, I am not sure that rational logic applies to the universe.

In any case, I doubt a deity in the Christian sense plays any part in casuality or the universe. The Christian God seems more a part of humans seeing the universe in human terms.

[big_lefty]

Quote by: ovnoclov Dear BL Hi. Thanks for engaging. I would ask what is the independent standard upon which atheism bases reason as being independent from causality, and hence makes it so useful as a standard for measuring and describing the universe. Hope you're not snowed under, o

You're welcome and thanks for responding,

It's news to me that atheism has anything to do with reason being independent from causality. I can't answer that question since I don't agree with the premise behind it.

[Angry Citizen]

I wish to argue that atheism does not have a rational basis. Atheism assumes that reason is valid, and I, a Christian agree. However, atheism does not seem to offer an independent standard for reason, and so for escaping claims of biological determinism, or Marxist determinism, or any determinism that says "your thoughts are just the product of your circumstances, rather than having an independent basis".

Or maybe it's because atheism should be the basis for theology. Anything beyond atheism should be suspect. Frankly, there is no basis for God, any more than there is a basis for a teapot orbiting the sun, its radius larger than Earth's to the sun, yet smaller than Mars' to the sun. If one approaches all questions from a positive, supportive standpoint instead of a negative, skeptical standpoint, one loses that basic filter for determining reality from fiction.

There is no God. Until you can prove me wrong, that fact will remain immutable.

[big_lefty]

Quote by: samsara15 I can support that idea. However, I am not sure that rational logic applies to the universe. In any case, I doubt a deity in the Christian sense plays any part in casuality or the universe. The Christian God seems more a part of humans seeing the universe in human terms.

Quite right and an excellent point. It's an attempt to impose human standards on a universe which probably does not conform to them, which is why it makes no sense. It's tempting to think you have to be stupid to buy into it, but I do know some smart people who do. Mind you, I also find it stupid, to a lesser degree, to be certain there can't be a God, because once again, it's based on human notions (albeit more sensible ones) which likely don't apply to the universe. The universe is vast and unknowable, therefore we can't possibly know the truth about this.

[big_lefty]

Quote by: Angry Citizen Or maybe it's because atheism should be the basis for theology. Anything beyond atheism should be suspect. Frankly, there is no basis for God, any more than there is a basis for a teapot orbiting the sun, its radius larger than Earth's to the sun, yet smaller than Mars' to the sun. If one approaches all questions from a positive, supportive standpoint instead of a negative, skeptical standpoint, one loses that basic filter for determining reality from fiction. There is no God. Until you can prove me wrong, that fact will remain immutable.

I disagree with your last point, because it's not a fact that there is no God.
It's just human conceit to think our notions of what is a sound basis for evidence of God should conform to something that is outside of corporeal human reality.

[Angry Citizen]

I disagree with your last point, because it's not a fact that there is no God. It's just human conceit to think our notions of what is a sound basis for evidence of God should conform to something that is outside of corporeal human reality.

I disagree. It has been shown that religious experiences can be neurologically mapped. It has been shown that religions almost never agree on even the most fundamental nature of so-called divine beings. The historical veracity of the Bible, the Koran and the Torah is lower than the most unreliable texts. Religions speak of a bygone era, comfortably in the past, when miraculous, strange things occurred. It shrouds itself in a web of fear, perpetuates through child indoctrination, and cloaks its inability to prove itself with cop-outs such as your statement regarding 'corporeal reality'. What the hell kind of reality do you think there is beyond this one, and what on Earth makes you think it exists?

Just as it is a 'fact' that will-o'-the-wisps do not guard buried treasure, so too is it a comfortable 'fact' that religion is bullshit. In short, religion is explainable. God is not.

[big_lefty]

Quote by: Angry Citizen I disagree. It has been shown that religious experiences can be neurologically mapped. It has been shown that religions almost never agree on even the most fundamental nature of so-called divine beings. The historical veracity of the Bible, the Koran and the Torah is lower than the most unreliable texts. Religions speak of a bygone era, comfortably in the past, when miraculous, strange things occurred. It shrouds itself in a web of fear, perpetuates through child indoctrination, and cloaks its inability to prove itself with cop-outs such as your statement regarding 'corporeal reality'. What the hell kind of reality do you think there is beyond this one, and what on Earth makes you think it exists? Just as it is a 'fact' that will-o'-the-wisps do not guard buried treasure, so too is it a comfortable 'fact' that religion is bullshit. In short, religion is explainable. God is not.

Once again, you're using evidence based on human standards. The universe doesn't give a rat's ass about neurological mapping and other human science. It's just our arrogance that leads us to think our science
has any validity outside of the human realm. Why is acknowledging the possibility of the existence of something that does not conform to known human reality a "cop-out"? It seems to me that the kind of certainty you have about something which is inherently unknowable is no different in principle from being certain that God exists.

You seem to think I'm arguing that there is a God. I'm not. I'm arguing that nobody can ever possibly know.
So, to your question, I do not know if there's reality beyond this one. I can't know, and neither can anyone else.

[Angry Citizen]

Why is acknowledging the possibility of the existence of something that does not conform to known human reality a "cop-out"?

Because it's stupid to account for things for which there is no evidence. Simple. No, I am not certain that God does not exist. I'm also not particularly sure you exist. Yet I accept as fact that not only does God not exist, but that you exist, simply because I am willing to stake my reputation as collateral. God could indeed have magically set the chimp's DNA to nearly match our own in order to confuse us Doubting Thomases. God could indeed be 'beyond this world', whatever the hell that means. But nothing remotely shows this to be the case. I refuse to compromise reality on the basis of contrived possibility.

[ovnoclov]

Quote by: yukonmuffin I believe all you have pointed out is that we're not 100% certain of anything, witch is a fair assumption but doesn't disprove atheism.

Hey YM

Darn. But can we at least be 100% certain that reason is valid?

[ovnoclov]

Quote by: Angry Citizen Or maybe it's because atheism should be the basis for theology. Anything beyond atheism should be suspect. Frankly, there is no basis for God, any more than there is a basis for a teapot orbiting the sun, its radius larger than Earth's to the sun, yet smaller than Mars' to the sun. If one approaches all questions from a positive, supportive standpoint instead of a negative, skeptical standpoint, one loses that basic filter for determining reality from fiction. There is no God. Until you can prove me wrong, that fact will remain immutable.

Dear AC

The mere idea of proof itself, may be a proof of the existence of God, or at least the supernatural, for the following reason. To assert that anything at all can be proven, is to assert that something exists independently of our circumstances, such that one cannot truly say, in response to that proof, "oh, that proof is just the result of your biological, chemical, physical, social or other circumstances". To that extent, I think that proof, itself, be said to exist independently of the whole physical universe. Thus, proof, itself, is evidence of something being above the universe, or Nature; or (you saw this coming) "supernatural". Or perhaps you disagree?

[ovnoclov]

Quote by: samsara15 I can support that idea. However, I am not sure that rational logic applies to the universe. In any case, I doubt a deity in the Christian sense plays any part in casuality or the universe. The Christian God seems more a part of humans seeing the universe in human terms.

Hey Samsara. To even say that you are not sure that rational logic applies to the universe, isn't that to assert the existence of some independent standard, a standard that is separate from the universe and yet simultaneously present in it - like a tree that is distinguishable from a piece of bark composing that tree?

I'm not arguing here for the existence of a Christian deity, just that atheism does not have a rational basis, because it attacks as circumstantial the very reasoning by which we can reason. - It seems to attribute Reason and the ability to reason, to one's biological, social or other circumstances.

Thanks for responding,

o

[ovnoclov]

Quote by: big_lefty You're welcome and thanks for responding, It's news to me that atheism has anything to do with reason being independent from causality. I can't answer that question since I don't agree with the premise behind it.

Hi BL. I agree that reason is related to causality, but isn't it also independent from causality, lest someone be able to say "your so-called 'independent reason' is just the result of what you had for breakfast this morning", or, in another context, "you say that trees are precious only because you're a tree-hugger", or "you say that the Flying Spaghetti Monster exists only because you were brought up with that belief by your parents".

Cheers,

o

[ovnoclov]

Quote by: Angry Citizen Or maybe it's because atheism should be the basis for theology. Anything beyond atheism should be suspect. Frankly, there is no basis for God, any more than there is a basis for a teapot orbiting the sun, its radius larger than Earth's to the sun, yet smaller than Mars' to the sun. If one approaches all questions from a positive, supportive standpoint instead of a negative, skeptical standpoint, one loses that basic filter for determining reality from fiction. There is no God. Until you can prove me wrong, that fact will remain immutable.

Dear AC,

I'd rather argue for the existence of "supernatural" reason, which I believe would thereby disprove atheism by establishing the existence of the supernatural, rather than argue for a particular form of supernatural belief, such as the existence of God.

First, would you agree that proof itself exists; that things can be proven true or false? If so, I would then seek to prove the existence of God, by arguing that proof must be dependent upon the elements that make up the proof, and yet it must independently of them, lest someone attribute that proof to mere determinism, by saying, for example, "that proof is just the result of your breakfast you had this morning", or the like.

o

[ovnoclov]

Quote:
Quote by: samsara15
I can support that idea. However, I am not sure that rational logic applies to the universe.

In any case, I doubt a deity in the Christian sense plays any part in casuality or the universe. The Christian God seems more a part of humans seeing the universe in human terms.


"The Christian God seems more a part of humans seeing the universe in human terms"

But of course we must see the universe in human terms. To also say that we use human minds to comprehend the universe does not alter matters.

Quote by: big_lefty Quite right and an excellent point. It's an attempt to impose human standards on a universe which probably does not conform to them, which is why it makes no sense. It's tempting to think you have to be stupid to buy into it, but I do know some smart people who do. Mind you, I also find it stupid, to a lesser degree, to be certain there can't be a God, because once again, it's based on human notions (albeit more sensible ones) which likely don't apply to the universe. The universe is vast and unknowable, therefore we can't possibly know the truth about this.

But isn't science at least a valid human standard to which the universe DOES conform? Why do you say the universe is vast and unknowable, when we're learning so much about it right now? I recall that Einstein said that the most remarkable thing about the universe is that it is in fact comprehensible.

Cheers,

o