Friday, February 11, 2011

The Atheist montra: "there's not a Shred of evidence for your God"


Been posting on CARM again. You know what trouble that brings? The atheists have been fired up repeating their mantra "there's not a shred of evidence for God." There are times when I find that annoying and times when I find it amusing. The reason for either reaction is because all believers know they have reasons for believing and a lot of those reasons are based upon good evidence. Even those who don't have evidence sometimes have sophisticated reasons why they don't need it. The atheist world is simplistic it defies anything sophistocated. This is a true example of what Tillich meant when he said "if you know that being has depth you can't be an atheist." The atheist is assuming that the so called "default" amounts to the basis for a tennable world view, assuming (fallacious) that the alleged default is based upon a true appraisal of the world as it is, which is reflected accurately by a surface view of things proved to exist (or thought to be proved to exist) and no need to delve any more deeply into the matter of being.

The atheist assumption lends credence to the ideologically assumption that to accept only the most well proved scientific assumptions is to mount up a great fortress of facts that demonstaes a scientifically validated world view. There are three major problems with this approach:

(1) Selective and self serving: creates truth regime.

(2) Creates a template effect that is used to screen out any other possibilities

(3) Assumes fallaciously that the surface level equates to an adequate world view

(1) Selective and self serving: Of course in implying the big fortress of facts ("I only believe things that are totally proved by science" I have heard many of them say) they are actually selecting the facts they choose to believe and ignoring others they can't stand. The 200 empirical studies on religious experience are a good example. 200 studies is a vast body of scientific data, that is literally a fortress of facts. They don't accept a word of it. I've seen the most idiotic excuses to doubt the studies form bold faced assertion that they are all done by preachers (most of them done by real social scientists) to attacks on the bibliogrpahy compiled by a promoter of the research, which is guilt by association (the bib included both the good studies and some wacy source like Depok Chopra and to these atheists was sure proof the studies are not good). Another example is the big bang. Atheists used to cling to the big bang as the word from science because it seemed to represent the universe popping out of nothing. Then Christians began to observe that it fit creation better, so now atheists turned against the big bang. One good joke, I found atheists quoting a particular site quite a bit and it turned out i was a creationist site! They were quoting like it was a valid scientifically authoritative site because they didn't get that some creationsts are against the big bang.

(2) Template: The selective nature of the fortress of facts means that that atheist is not nobly or boldly sticking to "only that which is proved by science" but is actually creating his/her own truth regalement that seeks to control what is understood as reality and bend the facts to support an ideological view point. The term truth regime refers to an ideology or a world view that screens out all other possibilities and only allows one view to be true. This is just what atheists have done. This is what's reflected in their often heard mantra "there's no proof for your God." It's not becuase they are considering alternatives or weighing coutner evidence. It's pretty clear that they way they decide the question is to create a template that says "here is the only from of knowledge and anything else has to be wrong." Of couret template is based upon an atheist reductions world view. Hold up the God arguent to the template, doe it fit? This is about God adn the tempalte says no God so it doesn't fit, therefore, this can't be proof.

A good example of this is yesterday in sparing with the inimitable "big thinker" as this guy humbly calls himself (as opposed to "tiny thinker" who actually brilliant). I made temporal beginning argument (in a nut shell):

(1) Time begins with the big bang
(2) there can be no time beyond event horizon (this is "before the big bang" to the laymen but since there can't be a "before" before time, physicist such as Hawking transfered it to spacial coordinates and speak of "beyond" time and "within space/time." Or "even horizon" which is euphemism for the big bang).
(3) No times no causes thus nothing can come to be.
(4) there must be some thing that can change the rules for creation (I go on to argue that this rules change can only be a mind--God). For the actual argument see here.

Bigthinker says,"you argument doesn't do anything. it's meaningless." I say "why?" He says "becasue it doesnt' do anything." I said "it proves God." he says 'not can't becasue it's meaningless," "why is it meaningless" "because it doesn't do anything.

Just like the idiocracy in the movie "it's got what plants crave"
what's that?
why do plants need electro-lights?
"It's got what plants crave."

If the argument is right, I'm not saying an intelligent atheists in good shape at the top of his game can't find valid things to argue agaisnt it. This guy is clear just going in circles because as presented the argument does prove nothing should be here without an all seeing mind capable of re-writing the rules for creation. Yet this guy keeps saying "It doesn't do anything" but he never says what he means. One guy, so what? The whole board has been stumped by it so far. I've done this before. this very argument had sec webbers screaming and cursing becuase they could not find an answer. At times when I have insisted on pushing to the limit and forcing them to face that the did not answer one of my arguments, they would saying "I dont' think arguemnts prove anything anyway. We've seen this over and over again. The Lungs of Charles Anne. Second miracle to put St. Teresa of Lisieux (sp) over the top. I did everything but get the xrays. They demand that I get them. They wont even investigate they just demand that until I own the Xrays (which are in the archives the church in Eruope you can buy copies but expensive and I can't find anyone who can tell me how) until I own those Xrays it's not proven it's bull shit it's not valid they can't be bothered with it. Becasue part of the evidence comes from a saint adoration site then they just dismiss completely, even though I have spoken with a member of the Lourdes/saint making medical committee who swears the X-Rays are there and they are genuine. I am not even asking them to take my word for it, they wont even investigate by search for other sources.

(3) Surface Level = world view:The atheist rests in his comfort zone imagining that the surface level of appear is a valid world view. The surface level (that which is clearly proved by science) is a very basic level and a very misleading level. Of course they don't even understand the basic problems of epistemology. when you confront them with that they poo poo. They will tell me my sense of God's' presence is totally untrustworthy worthy because perceptions and experiences are subjective and subjective is always misleading. You ask them "how do you know you exist" they say "O don't be stupid, I see the world around me, I'm here. It appears to me so clearly as I experience the world." The surface is the world of superficial perceptions. Trusting that as "that which is proved by science "is totally illusory. Consider particle-wave duality. The more closly we seek the answer the more unreal reality seems.

Belief in God is a world view. It's at the world view stage of belief, just as the concept of the big fortress of facts or the validity of scinece, the distrust of the subjective all of these are world view level concepts. Its' a world veiw precisely because you can't prove it. That would like trying to prove that one should love others, or that one should be a democrat or republican. These are sweeping ideas that rest of on vast sets of assumptions. There's no way to prove a world view as the world view is the scale in which we weigh proof. When we accept that something is proved it's proved agaisnt the background of our world view. You can't prove the background of proof that would be redundant and requite a regression. You need another world view against which to weight the evidence for the first world view and so on.

World view are paradigms and they shift according to their abilities to handle anomalies. This is basic theory according to Thomas S. Kuhn. We absorb anomalies into the paradigm. Something doesn't fit we just say "o that's just an anomaly, just wait and further evidence will clear it up." When there are too many of these and another world view answers them better then the paradigm shifts. Kuhn says this is the engine that really drives science. It's not a cumulative piling up of facts, as the atheists would have it with their fortress of facts, but the shift when the former world view can't hold anymore. The fortress of facts topples when we come to realize there is too much depth in being to be dismissed and the fortress of facts is not enough for a world view.In the mean time they decide the truth of evidence comparing the template and saying 'this God argument doesn't fit the atheist template so it must be wrong, therefore, it's not proved."

At that level the concept of proof in God argument is superfluous. They are not really comparing facts in a fortress they are slectively keeping out facts that contradict their view. This all makes them content with the surface but then anything that disturbs the surface is a proof of depth and thus a reason to believe there can be more. The atheist fortress of facts is self defeating.


Kristen said...

Good points, Metacrock. Atheism in itself is not a world view-- that's why atheists can say, correctly, that all atheism is disbelief in a diety or dieties. But the fact remains that everyone, whether they realize it or not, has a worldview, and atheism is one tenet of such a worldview-- which usually contains, as you pointed out, the belief that the only things that can be believed are things which can be proven scientifically. But this belief cannot be proven scientifically, so it's self contradictory.

"There's not a shred of evidence for your God" is an ideological statement. Those who believe it need to see it for what it is and not deceive themselves that they alone are completely objective, that they alone make no assumptions against which they check events-- that they alone have no worldview.

If you don't know you have a worldview, you can't examine that worldview for inconsistencies. Time to wake up and smell the worldview.

SPR said...

Another great blog!

I think the argument from temporal beginning looks rock solid at first glance. The only way I can see a loop hole is just denying the conclusion and resorting that nothing can change something, but I like to keep away from magic.

Metacrock said...

SPR:"I think the argument from temporal beginning looks rock solid at first glance. The only way I can see a loop hole is just denying the conclusion and resorting that nothing can change something, but I like to keep away from magic."

Thanks man. There are a couple ways it could be beaten or turn out to be wrong:

(1) If time runs eternally or if (2) ICR is proved
(3)some principle of organizing without a mind is demonstrated (even then one could still argue for impersonal God).

the problem the atheist faces with these answers at this point:

(1) is not proved with any data, the only real data backs up t=0.

(2) ICR is illogical like a square circle it's not going to be proved.

(3) not bloody likely

Metacrock said...

Kristen, atheism may not be a world view in itself but it is inductive of a world view and employ various aspects of a world view, namely the dreaded secular humanism.

In saying I don't mean to sanction the stereotypical bromide of the fundies where everything from liberal democracy to Hinduism is "secular humanism." There is a humanist view point and many atheists subscribe to it.

Another aspect of world view that typically clings to atheism is reductionism and scientism.

I speak of "tendencies" rather than "atheist belief." That is, when I'm careful I do.

Kristen said...

Metacrock, I agree. I consider myself a "Christian humanist" in the tradition of Erasmus-- as I know you are too, in that we emphasis the value of the human individual-- and I have no argument, generally, with the "humanism" part of secular humanism.

I prefer to call the worldview that generally includes atheism, something like "physicalism" or "materialism" (though the latter can get mistaken for love of material goods; ie., greed). Some atheist-physicalist worldviews (especially in the past) have not placed value on the human individual (communism/Stalinism, for example)-- but secular humanism is an atheist worldview that does value the individual and thus is less dangerous than those earlier manifestations.

I think that Christian fundamentalism (which is what most atheists think all of Christianity is about) is a kind of theism that does not value the human individual, but subordinates the individual completely to the ideology. I am "fundamentally" against fundamentalism in any form. I think Christian humanists and secular humanists could get along better if they understood one another-- like the Christians and the atheists get along on your forum!

Unfortunately just about everyone on CARM, atheist and theist alike, seems to be some form of fundamentalist.

Metacrock said...

I agree with you Kristen. Well said!

Kristen said...

Quick caveat: When I said,

"Secular humanism is an atheist worldview that does value the individual and thus is less dangerous than those earlier manifestations."

I misspoke-- I did not intend to imply that I thought secular humanism was a "dangerous" worldview at all. I don't think an atheistic worldview that highly values the human individual is "dangerous" to humanity-- in this life, anyway! (grin)

Metacrock said...

I think manifesto 2 sux. It think it's indicative a dangerous group that have helped to destroy humanity.

I just don't identify everything that' not have favorite deal as that.