A Not So Good Argument Against Atheism: The Argument from Finite Knowledge
contra “The Argument from Finite Knowledge”
I have heard many people use an illustration when talking about atheism and its viability. Many will say that they can convert an atheist to an agnostic with this simple illustration. Here is how it goes.
If someone claims to be an atheist, you can easily convert them to agnosticism thereby moving them one step closer to theism. How? By asking them a series of questions.
First you ask them how certain they are that there is not a God. If they say that they are not certain, that is just what they believe, then you inform them that they are not really an atheist–one who is certain that there is no God–but an agnostic–one who is uncertain about God’s existence.
If they say that they are certain that there is no God, then you move to step two. Here you draw a large circle that represents all knowledge in the universe. You ask them to draw a circle within that circle that represents their relative knowledge in relation to all knowledge. Of course, they will draw a much smaller circle within the large circle knowing that they do not possess all knowledge, only a small portion of the whole. Once they have created this smaller circle, you ask them if God could exist somewhere in this vast area that you have no knowledge about. They should always answer yes since that area is their area of ignorance. At that point, it is said, you have converted them from atheism to agnosticism. Voila! The Argument from Finite Knowledge.
Let me start by saying that while this sounds really appealing and irrefutable, it is actually a terrible illustration and represents a very modernistic mindset for the requirements of belief. Why? I am glad you asked . . .
Let me turn the tables on you, the one who believes in God. Why couldn’t an atheist use the same illustration for you? You say you believe in God, how certain are you? Absolutely certain? Oh, okay. Well let me draw this circle that represents all knowledge. Now you draw a circle within this circle representing your knowledge. Oh . . that small eh? Could it be that the evidence for God’s non-existence is found outside of your circle of knowledge? Yes? Well then, I have just converted you from a theistic worldview to an agnostic worldview.
You see, it works both ways. Don’t use this illustration. The fallacy on both sides is that it assumes that certainty is only attained and belief is only justified when we possess all knowledge. In order to have true belief, we have to have absolute intellectual certainty about the matter. Since none of us do, we are all necessarily suspended in agnosticism about the matter and must adopt a worldview of hard skepticism. But this is not the case. All of us base our beliefs on incomplete data, but this does not mean that it is inaccurate data. The case for atheism and theism lies not in absolute knowledge of all things, but in the preponderance of the evidence in the knowledge that we do have. That creates an obligation to believe or not believe something. Otherwise we would be suspended in a state of perpetual indecisiveness about all issues, spiritual or mundane, and never have justification for any belief at all.
The key here is that belief is not based upon absolute certainty, but upon reliance in the evidence and information we do have. This creates an obligation to trust. This trust is a combination of intellectual, emotional, and experiential data. It creates degrees of trust according to the evidence provided.
We cover this way of thinking in Introduction to Theology of The Theology Program, session 6.5.
Join us in reclaiming the mind for Christ. Start The Theology Program in your church.
If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!
- Defending the Closet Atheist
- The Sufficiency of Probability
- The Sufficiency of Probablility
- Conversations with an Atheist Concerning the Irrationality of Atheistic Rational
- In Defense of Sola Scriptura - Part 8b - What about all the divisions?
Glenn Leatherman on 07 Oct 2008 at 11:57 pm #
uh? What? So the is no universal negative falacy?
Ranger on 08 Oct 2008 at 12:16 am #
Glenn,
As Michael says, the universal negative fallacy only works in a purely modernist construct, which should not be an option for Christianity. Theology must not conform to modernistic epistemology. Therefore, it’s not only a bad argument, but one that undermines Christianity by forcing it to submit to a faulty epistemology.
Ranger on 08 Oct 2008 at 12:30 am #
By the way,
In response to the fall of foundationalism, I think that a fresh reading of Kuyper is necessary today. After all, the Reformed post-foundationalists have been thinking through these things for well over a hundred years now.
Glenn Leatherman on 08 Oct 2008 at 1:00 am #
Doesn’t this destroy any possibility of knowing anything truly?
joshua on 08 Oct 2008 at 1:04 am #
So, in a strictly philosophical sense, current logic theory dictates that this commonly used (and often effective) illustration should head to the dustbin. But on a practical level, does the illustration still fall apart when presented like this?
Imagine that we are looking for a child that may or may not be lost in the deep woods at night. I search for hours with my flashlight but find nothing, no evidence that the kid had ever been in the woods. You look in a different part of the woods, and your flashlight illuminates some fresh footprints and a candy wrapper. I can’t call the search party a failure because I personally found no evidence, in fact, I would probably hasten to your side to see where the footprints you discovered led.
• Is it possible that evidence for God might lie outside your current experience?
• I feel like I have encountered some evidence that strongly implies the existence of God. At some point could I share what I’ve come across with you?
bethyada on 08 Oct 2008 at 1:20 am #
I disagree with you here Michael. Positive and negative knowledge are not on equal footing.
Belief in God may be based on knowledge of his person. Even if we have finite knowledge, the knowledge we do have may be secure, and even in some cases complete.
Disbelief in God is not based on evidence of his absence. It is based on (claimed) insufficient evidence of his existence.
The hugeness of unknown knowledge does not mean that some knowledge will be overturned, rather that it may be incomplete.
Take dogs. You believe they exist. One cannot use the limitation of knowledge to prove they don’t exist. However one can disbelieve that snorgs exist, but the evidence of a single snorg alters that belief.
I strongly think that blue swans do not exist, but the discovery of one in an island nation will show my belief incorrect.
The problem with your illustration is the claim that someone has moved from atheism to agnosticism implying they are closer to theism, really they have not shifted, they have just looked at their underlying beliefs more deeply.
Further, I think belief is less a matter of knowledge than of will. Biblical belief is more about trusting God, not just acknowledging his reality, even Satan does that. There is very strong evidence of God’s reality in his creation. The strongest 2 evidences are design and morality. Yes, deal with people’s stumbling blocks, but multiple alleged stumbling blocks may be a mask for unwillingness to give up sin.
britphil on 08 Oct 2008 at 11:22 am #
Michael
Apart from the main thrust of your argument I think you have hit the nail on the head when defining the different kinds of atheist/agnostic.
I never cease to be amazed by those who claim to be atheist, but when you do a bit of digging/exploring/gentle probing you tend to discover that they are in reality closet agnostics albeit subtly adorned in atheistic clothing.
Hardened atheists (a law Dawkins et al) are a different kettle of fish altogether, although I do think that Richard Dawkins is far more fundamentalist in his atheist scularism than many so-called Christian “fundamentalists” are.
I am always wrly amused when confronted with convinced atheists who also frequently blaspheme ie the logical inconsistency in using the name of someone who you don’t believe actually exists!
I hope you don’t mind, but I ‘ll leave the more philosophical aspects of the argument to those far more qualified than myself.
C. Barton on 08 Oct 2008 at 11:38 am #
Hmmm . . . hate to be cliche, but atheism and saving belief both require faith. The “shift” from atheism to agnosticism is just that: a paradigm shift (sound familiar?), which is a clever argument from human wisdom but doesn’t necessarily lead to a saving faith.
Consider Pascal’s gambit: it is better to believe in God because to disbelieve makes you liable for a bigger mistake if you are wrong. This was actually use in evangelism on a small scale, but it is only a trick.
Apostle Paul said that he didn’t use clever arguments or deception (examples above!) to lead people to Christ, and neither should we.
britphil on 08 Oct 2008 at 11:48 am #
“The “shift” from atheism to agnosticism is just that: a paradigm shift (sound familiar?), which is a clever argument from human wisdom but doesn’t necessarily lead to a saving faith.”
I don’t necessatily believe it necessarily leads to saving faith at all, but it is a real advantage in knknowing who/what you are dealing with, especiallly in the realm of apologetics/evangelism
Given our unfortunate penchant for aggressive evangelism at times, we could eend up doing terminal damage by treating someone as a hardened atheist, maybe requiring a more robbust respons, iif in reality they are actually more of an agnostoc which may require a “softer” approach if we genuinely wish to lead them to a saving faith, which will mainly tend to happen if we have build a genuinefriendship/relationship with them.
britphil on 08 Oct 2008 at 11:56 am #
The previous post should have read:
“The “shift” from atheism to agnosticism is just that: a paradigm shift (sound familiar?), which is a clever argument from human wisdom but doesn’t necessarily lead to a saving faith.”
I don’t necessatily believe it necessarily leads to saving faith at all, but I would contend that such a shift is something we should seek to know if we wish to be effective in the process of evangelsism. It is a huge advantage knowing exactly who/what you are dealing with, especially in the realm of apologetics/evangelism
Given our unfortunate penchant for aggressive evangelism at times, we could end up doing terminal damage by treating someone as a hardened atheist, maybe requiring a more robust respons, if in reality they are actually more of an agnostic which may require a “softer” approach if we genuinely wish to lead them to a saving faith, which will mainly tend to happen if we have taken the time to build a genuine friendship/relationship with them. Similarly we can be very easily and cleverly led down dead ends if we assume we are dealing with agnostics when it is a very clever atheist who is merely up for a good argument!
I get frustrated by our tendency to assume that we we know exactly where a person stands ie confirmed athist/searching agnostic/casual agnostic/don’t give a monkeys whatsoever etc without ever really bothering to take the time to really listen and actually find out before engaging evangelistically.
C. Barton on 08 Oct 2008 at 12:01 pm #
OK, point taken! I’ts great that you sincerely want to get to know someone instead of just delivering a canned “get saved or die” program.
There was a movement in my home town years ago called “Spirit-led Evangelism”, in which proponents taught that the H.S. will give insight and even special knowledge to those whose hearts are open for spreading the Gospel. This implies one-on-one dialogue, so, discenment is a good part of communication, is what I’m hearing, and I agree.
britphil on 08 Oct 2008 at 12:12 pm #
C Barton
Many thanks for your comments.
As someone with a fairly charismatic background, can I just say that the type of “Spirit-led evangelism” type of movements you have encountered in your locality also makes my heart take a rapid nosedive into my boots.
I am all for discernment and openness, but I sense that the Holy Spirit is more likley to honour and guide our efforts where genuine attempts are made to respect, get to know, to love, and to befriend people. I evne believe words of knowledge being given are possible, but far more so in situations where genuine dialogue is taking place. I would go as far as to say that I believe there are times where I have sensed God prompting me to take the conversation in a certain way which when I act on them lead to amazing conversations, , but that never bypasses the hard work involved in building up friendships and is nearly always within a context of geunine dialogue which involves listening/reflecting as much as talking/discussing.
I actually think such so-called Spirit led evamgelism, is, when you strip it to it’s bare essentuials, is in reality lazy, uninformed evangelism cloaked in authentic-sounding spiritual-speak.
Scott Ferguson on 08 Oct 2008 at 12:38 pm #
I think that 99% of “atheists” would admit, upon questioning, that their position is actually a form of agnosticism.
My view is that we can all agree that perfect knowledge is impossible, blah blah blah, but that when it comes to actually living a life, you must choose whether to act as if there is a God or to act as if there is none. This is where the rubber meets the road. Words are cheap as is some philosophy.
As to whether forcing someone to admit they are an agnostic is a victory, I have my doubts. If you convince them that perfect knowledge is impossible then moving them to a firm acceptance of God is not likely without appealing to emotional and/or non-rational methods.
This is similar to claiming victory over any argument that seems to support the notion of a Creator. Any ol’ god is not equivalent to Yahweh/Christ/Spirit. It is a long way from Deism to Christianity, but there are times when Christians act like the argument is over when it is just beginning.
Jason on 08 Oct 2008 at 1:08 pm #
Scott, it is a huge step from atheism to Deism though.
In many ways this is like the design argument.
Part one is to show the inadequacy of conventional naturalistic explanations to explain a feature or set of features.
Part two is to show that those features are consistent with what we know of designed objects.
These then lead to a probabilistic argument that it is more reasonable to attribute those features to a designing agency rather than naturalistic processes.
In this form the argument from inadequate knowledge is to show that the atheists position is not a strong one. That it is literally an argument from ignorance.
The second part is to show, as kindly as you can, that the evidence for some aspect of Christianity (I like the resurrection) is reasonably strong and defies naturalistic explanations.
This leads to a probabilistic argument that it is reasonable to suppose that there is a God capable of acting within human history.
Atheists now try to show that the concept of God is incoherent by things like the “can God make a rock so big He can’t lift it” argument. Of course a rock so big an omnipotent being can’t lift it cannot exist. God is no more limited because He can’t make one, than He’s limited by the fact He can’t make a four sided triangular polygon.
Scott Ferguson on 08 Oct 2008 at 1:09 pm #
Michael: Thank you to taking such a hard and honest look at this. Many would not dare question the tactics of their own side.
I have long been wanting to start a blog meme among believers and non-believers in which each “victim” of the mind-virus would answer the following:
1) Who are “Us”?
2) Who are “Them”?
3) What is the weakest argument used by supporters of Our Side?
4) What is the best argument deployed by Their Side?
This would hopefully take the focus off bashing the other guy and turn it toward a more humble footing. Unfortunately my blog doesn’t have the visibility (no one reads it) to start something like this. My answers would be run thus:
1) Soft Atheists: those who cite that “(claimed) insufficient evidence” for God’s existence.
2) Theists: I think you know who you are - still wondering about James McGrath
3) Every evil perpetrated in the last 2000 years can be blamed on religion: I firmly believe that, while Hitler may have had religious thoughts, in the absence of those he would have found some other justification for his actions.
4) The argument from personal experience: Although what takes place in an individuals head is subjective and unreproducible (under controlled conditions) it is still a something that was perceived and affected that person’s life. (HT McGrath)
Scott Ferguson on 08 Oct 2008 at 1:28 pm #
Jason,
Unfortunately those things that Christians would argue add to the probability of a Creator or the Resurrection are precisely those things that atheists find least likely. In fact, assigning probabilities to such things is a frightfully subjective exercise. We have a huge gap in respective evaluations of the odds.
(clip gratuitous critique against the Design Argument and ID)
I don’t want to launch into a Creation debate here. As a peace offering I would offer this little story:
There is a complaint that goes around atheistic websites lamenting the fact that theists just can’t seem to understand how unlikely miracles are. One thoughtful atheist chimed in during one such exchange. I paraphrase grossly: “From a naturalistic perspective - one in which everything has a natural explanation - a miracle is all but impossible. Naturalists sit around waiting for someone to bring the thing-that-violates-the-laws-of-nature, safe in the certainty that it will not happen. The believer, on the other hand, perceives a universe in which a God intervening in the world is a real possibility. Far from seeming unlikely, from this perspective miracles are exactly what one would expect.” The points of view facing each other are rooted in such different assumptions that arguments from this or that probability are doomed to failure.
What to do? Try and be nice to people, avoid eating fat, read a good book every now and then, get some walking in, and try and live together in peace and harmony with people of all creeds and nations.
Jason on 08 Oct 2008 at 1:50 pm #
Every evil act perpetrated ever can be blamed on people. Of course the question to ask then is “by whose standards do you determine that Hitler’s actions were evil?” if they say “common human experience” you point to the fact that there is no such common human experience. Tribesmen in New Guinea regarded befriending, betrayal and murder as a virtue.
If they say “the rational position I’ve produced over the years” you can respond with “well that’s just your opinion.”
Finally, attributing every evil act to religion ignores the fact that atheists are the biggest mass murderers in history. Charles IX of France murdered 10,000 French Protestants. Between 1947 and 1949 the Greek atheist regime murdered 20,000 and of the 28 atheistic regimes listed in the book The Irrational Atheist they were the least deadly.
Jason on 08 Oct 2008 at 2:03 pm #
That is what I would regard as the weakest form of argument. I don’t regard personal experience as being of much value at all. I am, when all is said and done, a high IQ rationalist.
Arguments for the resurrection take the form of evaluating available evidence and showing that God acting to produce that effect is the most reasonable explanation. If the atheist turns round at the end and says “I don’t have an explanation, but I know God didn’t do it” then bingo! You’ve beaten their bluff and shown that their position isn’t rational at all.
How many miracles did God perform throughout the 4000 years of history covered in the Bible? Not that many really. Miracles are things that are regarded as possible by believers, not inevitable. Indeed the sheer order and rationality of the universe is probably a greater miracle than anything reported in the Bible. As Einstein put it, “The most incomprehensible thing about the world is that it is at all comprehensible.” Not that he was a theist, but I think he leaned towards deism.
Jason on 08 Oct 2008 at 2:08 pm #
Why?
After all as Darwin said, the strong survive, the weak perish. In the competition for a limited set of resources we should be slaughtering those “weak” whose living reduces the pool available to ourselves and our kin.
Jason on 08 Oct 2008 at 2:10 pm #
Because, as Hume put it, even if they saw it with their own eyes they wouldn’t believe it.
It definitely puts paid to any claims that atheists are dispassionate evaluators of evidence doesn’t it?
C. Barton on 08 Oct 2008 at 2:25 pm #
britphil: sorry about your contact with the “Spirit-Led” stuff; I got a different lesson out of it, but, Dude, I guess you just had to be there.
I would call it a difference between:
1) A canned approach with a hard agenda: “Hello, I’m taking an interview, would you mind if I ask you some questions . . .?” = remember that one? It was pure deception, but used on a college campus with rather intelligent people!
2) Having the awareness of personal needs before God and humbly asking Him to help in witnessing to someone in a personal way: in other words, not every size fits all.
As for humanistic arguments, the scientific process is deficient to bring someone to faith, so reliance on that whole process is like banging your head against a wall.
Use a hammer instead, Dude.
On the wall, I mean.
Robert on 08 Oct 2008 at 2:29 pm #
Actually, the best reason for not using that argument is because it mis-characterizes how most atheists understand atheism. We typically don’t go around proclaiming “There is no God!” Rather, we say, “I lack a belief in god(s).” This position does not deny the possibility that god(s) exist, just that the evidence is insufficient to justify belief.
Agnosticism, as I understand, is the position that one cannot know if there is a god. I tend to think that the Problem of Evil can prove the non-existence of some gods (like the Christian God), but not all. In that sense, we can know if a certain posited god exists.
In any case, I’m confused by britphil’s labeling of Dawkins as a “hardened” or “fundamentalist” atheist. Dawkins, as far as I’m aware, does not categorically deny the existence of god(s), like most atheists. As he writes in The God Delusion (pg. 158), “God almost certainly does not exist.” He’s even called himself a “cultural Christian”.
Wm Tanksley on 08 Oct 2008 at 2:38 pm #
“Doesn’t this destroy any possibility of knowing anything truly?”
No. It removes the delusion that it’s impossible to know something truly unless you know it with utter certainty.
It’s possible to truly know something, and yet not be totally certain about it. We know what the original manuscripts (autographs) of the Bible were like; we don’t have total certainty, but we truly do know.
The reason this is important is that it points out the importance of accurate, useful definitions. In this case, the words “know” and “true” need to be understood.
A proposition is “true” is it corresponds with reality. A belief is “true” if it can be expressed as a proposition which corresponds with reality.
To “know” is to entertain and hold a belief which could be expressed as a true proposition. (I should define “belief” if I were being consistently formal, but I’ll let it float unless someone gets confused.)
So it’s possible to “know” that the stars are fusion-powered furnaces rather like our sun, and yet have little or no confidence in that fact. It’s not possible to know that the moon is made of green cheese, even if you strongly believe it.
These definitions reveal that the phrase “truly know” is a redundancy; to know already implies all the truth that’s possible. The phrase must mean something special.
Scott Ferguson on 08 Oct 2008 at 4:47 pm #
Jason: The finale of my post was a quote from Monty Python’s The Meaning of Life.
Just trying to be humorous…
Jim on 08 Oct 2008 at 8:40 pm #
Though I agree it’s usually not a useful argument, and that belief is not based on “absolute” certainty, and that this misrepresents most athiests’ positions…
I have to agree with bethyada - positive and negative belief are not the same. You can’t simply say it works both way. I still have to say I’m far more certain my wife exists than I am certain that elves don’t.
C Michael Patton on 08 Oct 2008 at 9:00 pm #
Good points fellas (and ladies),
Here is the issue: the argument can be turned in more than one way. Someone can say “Are you sure that somewhere outside of your circle of knowledge that a greater God than yours does not exist? Or are you sure that somewhere outside your limited circle of knowledge that God is not maliciously evil and deceitful.”
The argument sets up wrong epistemic criteria for belief.
It is almost as bad as the currency illustration!
Jason on 08 Oct 2008 at 11:04 pm #
Which means that the answer any Christian has to give is. “I believe in God.” Since one human beings opinion is as good as another (under the despicable post-modern system which is just the atheist’s doctrine of doubt taken to its logical conclusion and applied to human rationality) the atheists position is countered with one of equal value.
Since orthodox Christian beliefs encompass both a belief in the evil actions of men (moral evil) and the cursed and broken creation (natural evil) I can’t see the problem that evil is supposed to present to the Christian deity. I certainly don’t see why atheistic statements about good and evil are supposed to have any meaning when atheist standards of right and wrong have no more substance than a person’s preferences in flavours of ice-cream. Justify your belief in good and evil before I’ll even bother to consider your views on God.
As I said, in a Darwinian world the strong prosper and the weak perish. If you have a problem with that it’s some sort of meme disease that you should probably see someone about.
C Michael Patton on 08 Oct 2008 at 11:12 pm #
Jason,
“Since orthodox Christian beliefs encompass both a belief in the evil actions of men (moral evil) and the cursed and broken creation (natural evil) I can’t see the problem that evil is supposed to present to the Christian deity.”
I agree. It would seem that the absence of evil would do more to disprove the Christian God than the presence of evil.
britphil on 09 Oct 2008 at 8:37 am #
C Barton
Pass me that hammer. Never mind hitting the wall I think I need at least one quick blow to my skull! Oops..for the second time today I feel rightly chastised, not because of your response but because I have since re-read it in the light of your original comment but because I may have got hold of the wrong end of the stick.
I would like to state that not all of the Holy Spirt led evaneglism movement emply “lazy evangelistic” technique just some that I have come across. There are some who I have observed who genuinely seek God’s leading as they attempt to minister into situations.
I share your dislike of the one size fits all canned approach, which appears to negates our individuality, therefore different approaches are required for different people/situations. I also fully endorse your exhortation to get before God and humbly seek his guidance when we are dealing with situations where we have prior knowledge of a person/situation. If we don’t it can be so easy to get it badly wrong.
Just laying the hammer down for a second or two…but I am sure I will need to pick it up to give myself a swift rfepeat blow fairly soon.
Robert on 09 Oct 2008 at 8:46 am #
Jason wrote,
Good to know the Christian’s belief is one of opinion, and that their god would eternally torture someone for a different one.
Then I suggest you’re not truly cognizant of the problem.
And I fail to see why Christian statements about good and evil are supposed to have any meaning with Christian standards of right and wrong have no more substance than a person’s preferences in flavors of ice-cream too. The Christian has no basis to identify anything as evil since everything originates with God, who we are told is “all good”.
Even if this was true, it is infinitely preferable to a Christian world in which the circumstances of birth largely determine whether you spend an eternity in a lake of fire. But perhaps you should see someone to learn about the naturalistic fallacy.
britphil on 09 Oct 2008 at 9:44 am #
Hi Robert..thanks for your response..
“In any case, I’m confused by britphil’s labeling of Dawkins as a “hardened” or “fundamentalist” atheist. Dawkins, as far as I’m aware, does not categorically deny the existence of god(s), like most atheists. As he writes in The God Delusion (pg. 158), “God almost certainly does not exist.” He’s even called himself a “cultural Christian”.”
Not half as confused and stuneed as I was to discover, via your link from the BBC News website that Richard Dawkins considers himself to be a “cultural Christian”. What could be more confusing than a learned professor and acclaimed author, who one day can be found on the platform debating his belief that those who firmly believe in God are to put it mildly, somewhat deluded, only to possibly find yourself standing next to him the following day both merrily singing Christmas Carols at the college carol service! Would I be the only one left scratching my head in puzzzlement? Which of the two of us is really the deluded one? One of the many criticisms levelled at Christians, sometimes quite rightly, is that we are hypocrites, but surely some kind of mixed message is being conveyed here is it not.
My own take on it is that Richard Dawkins is very happy to engage with you, and respect you if, you too, are a similarly “cultural “ Christian, but is far more dismissive and at times extremely patronising to those whose commitment goes far deeper than the mere cultural level. I personally get the feeling that you are all right so long as you believe (or don’t believe!) what he does but if you choose to think differently that is not a stance he allows you to take…hence my usage of the term secular fundamentalist, although I concur that I may have been a tad harsh in hindsight.
What cannot be doubted is that there are other people/organisations (even if Richard Dawkins is not one of them) who see it as their mission almost to extinguish any form of religious belief, Christian or otherwise, from society. I would hope, but I admittedly can’t guarantee that you would stand up and be counted, and state in good old Voltairian fashion, that you may not, indeed do not, agree with what I believe, but you would be willing to die for my right to believe it!
Can I just conclude by stating that I really enjoy discussing issues with self-confessed atheists so long as there is mutual respect for each other. Both Christians and atheists can fall into the condescending/patronising trap which is not healthy in my view and in such situations the conversation can easily descend into pointless name calling. Can I also say I genuinely admire your willingness to engage on a Christian theology website “on our terms” so to speak. This is a lesson we Christians need to learn ie get out of your comfort zone and engage… so a genuine thank you on that score!
By the way, given that the extract was from the BBC website, are you a fellow Brit, or am I assuming a little too much…it wouldn’t be the first time…I was conversing with someone last week on this site who I naively took to be male and was in fact female!
One final thought…Robert is not a pseudonym for Richard Dawkins is it? If is is, pass me the hammer quickly, I need a few more swift blows to the head!
C. Barton on 09 Oct 2008 at 11:51 am #
Oh, brother. Mea culpa tuum, salva me de ora meum (save me from my own mouth, I think).
Something occurred to me just today that a recurring theme in Apostle Paul’s writings is the spiritual battle fought not with physical weapons, but it is a spiritual battle against “strongholds”. I like also to refer to these obstacles as strangleholds, just as if I were wrestling with a strong man who had me by the head or neck.
And many non-believers whom we love and talk with have some of these strangleholds in their minds: so to “know where an atheist stands” is also an awareness of what ideas or false beliefs have a “hold” on him/her.
One example is a response I heard on a college campus (and a popular view, I think) when asked about belief in God and spiritual needs, a young man responded that he is his own greatest resource, and that he is learning to be self-sufficient. The question of God’s existence is virtually moot for this man, because he doesn’t recognize his own need for rebirth.
But, hey, if God can use a donkey (Numbers 22:1-35) to bring a hard-headed Balaam to repentance, I know He can use me, too.
Jason on 09 Oct 2008 at 1:19 pm #
Because a Christian standard of morality is rooted in what God has commanded. That is that they have an objective source. Atheistic morality is entirely subjective, based only on what the atheist thinks is right. Since atheists are moral parasites their morality usually reflects the prevailing cultural morality albeit without pieces that they don’t want to obey (such as prohibitions against sexual immorality). Since even atheistic philosophers know this I’m not sure why you contest it. Evil is anything that is contrary to God’s will from a Christian perspective. That we have free will permits us to act contrary to God’s will, which He tolerates, for the moment.
And it’s good to know that atheists have tortured and murdered millions for holding differing opinions. Actually I was simply showing that your argument was one of opinion, it does not mean that ours is, merely that we can counter one opinion with another. Meanwhile the argument from outrage is the complaining of a child…
Definitely a meme disease. Firstly we believe in a just God. People are not judged on where they were born but the moral code by which they have lived. If they did not receive the law then they are only judged by the little that they do know. Meanwhile the hands of atheism are stained with blood being responsible for the deaths of about 150 million in various countries over the last century meaning that the “naturalistic fallacy” is not a fallacy at all. Go read some Michel Onfray. He’s a consistent atheist who has little time for “Christian atheists” like you and Dawkins.
Jason on 09 Oct 2008 at 1:22 pm #
No, I said that yours was one of opinion (it’s not like you present any evidence for your position) and that all that is needed to counter a bald assertion is another one.
Meanwhile the twentieth century is dripping with the blood of those that atheists murdered for holding different opinions.
Jason on 09 Oct 2008 at 1:29 pm #
Christian morals are rooted in an objective source, that is the commands of God. Atheistic morality is just a matter of whatever the atheist wants to do is right. Albeit they tend to be a bit leery of the police officer but since atheists are over represented in prison statistics (here in New Zealand the irreligious make up 35% of the general population but 48% of the prison population (Christians are 55% and 23% respectively)) it’s a fair indication they aren’t that worried about the police. Since Christian morality is rooted in obedience to God, actions contrary to the will of God are evil by definition. Free will of course makes actions contrary to the will of God possible.
Jason on 09 Oct 2008 at 1:41 pm #
Since no one is sent to a lake of fire (even if you weren’t guilty of reading apocalyptic literature literally) because of where they were born, but because of how they conformed to the amount of God’s law they knew, your argument fails. Since God is (by definition) the strongest, if He arbitrarily chose to throw people into a lake of fire there would be no problem within a Darwinian framework anyway.
Since atheist governments have been the bloodiest butchers in history, and scientific atheism is indeed based on Darwin, it appears that the naturalistic fallacy is not a fallacy at all.
You cannot argue that we ought to preserve the weak. That is the Jewish/Christian ideal that led to Christians picking the baby girls out of Roman rubbish tips when their parents threw them away (sounds awfully like the vast quantity of baby girls aborted in atheistic China doesn’t it). Objectively there is no reason to do so within the atheistic framework.
Please don’t try to say that you do it because some time you yourself might be weak and need help. If you are weak then you should be eliminated. You’re only bringing the species down.
Read some Michel Onfray. He’s a consistent atheist who openly derides atheists who try to shoehorn Christian morals into their atheistic beliefs.
Robert on 09 Oct 2008 at 3:11 pm #
britphil wrote,
When Dawkins says he is a “cultural Christian,” he means it in the same sense as “cultural Jew,” i.e., a person who does not (necessarily) observe the beliefs, but some of the practices of the cultural heritage.
In any case, I’m not here to defend Dawkins
I think you have some misconceptions, but I can tell you as one who lives in the States, I find his criticisms of religion trenchant and accurate.
Is it not the Christian mission to spread their belief to all? How is the one materially different from the other?
For my part, I’m quite fine with whatever theological belief you hold. And indeed, yes, I would die to defend your right to have it. The problem comes when some seek to make that belief binding on the rest of society. Fine, one thinks God has defined marriage as the union of one man and one woman, but what angers me is his attempt to enshrine that view in civil law.
I do as well, so thank you for your consideration. But I remain convinced that the vituperation comes most strongly from the believer’s side.
Well, I’m flattered you assume so, because I’ve always admired the British for your command of English (among other things), but I’m an American. And no, Prof. Dawkins and I are quite separate individuals!
Robert on 09 Oct 2008 at 3:27 pm #
Jason wrote,
A statement that I lack a belief in god(s) is insufficient evidence that I lack a belief in god(s)? Would you prefer a notarized copy?
I’m so gratified you brought this canard up! For I have written an article that dumps it firmly into the dustbin of history, so to speak. Care to find out about the Bible’s influence on a central tenet of communism?
Robert on 09 Oct 2008 at 3:39 pm #
Jason wrote,
I thank you for proving my point! You may believe actions like murdering children is immoral, but if your god was to order it tomorrow (as he has allegedly done in the past), then it becomes moral. Since morality is based on whatever God commands, the Christian cannot say what is immoral today will remain that way forever.
Jason, meet Euthyphro.
Robert on 09 Oct 2008 at 3:45 pm #
Jason wrote,
I suppose I’m gratified to learn that your god wouldn’t eternally punish someone for having the misfortune of being born in the wrong place, but this is decidedly not the Christian God’s intent.
“I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me.” - John 14:6
C. Barton on 10 Oct 2008 at 9:07 am #
I think that a good exercise is identifying what things are essential to Christianity and Atheism as a comparative look at the daily reality of life.
When I hear objections to religion based on externals like ritual or superstition, or perhaps all of the atrocities committed in the name of religion, I have to wonder that these things are all accidental to any human power structure and not the essential things which define us as Christians.
After all, if we “eliminated organized religion across the globe”, then people would merely commit atrocities in the name of something else. Gaia, maybe, or the New World Order: in fact, historically the State has been the biggest torturer and murderer, from Pol Pot to Hitler to . . .
Many Humanistic Atheists regard the future of mankind as sacred and essential - they work for the betterment of mankind, but they do not submit to God as their sorce of inspiration or power.
I think we all agree that the human race needs salvation, we just disagree where it comes from.
britphil on 10 Oct 2008 at 11:43 am #
Hi Robert
“In any case, I’m not here to defend Dawkins I think you have some misconceptions, but I can tell you as one who lives in the States, I find his criticisms of religion trenchant and accurate.
I am all for trenchant and accurate criticisms of religion in general and Christianit in patricualr, if you don’t believe me try and have a word with the Senior Vicar at our church as I am from time totime in deep water when I cast a critical eye ofver my own denomiantion (Anglican). However, I am firmlly of the belief that trenchan t and accurate criticism is a two way street and I would hope you are not blind to some of the criticisms that can belevelled at athism and its practice by some, though by no means all of its adherenmts.
The same can be sauid for both adherents of religious faith and atheism in that there is a dangerous tendency to view their own position through rose-tinted glasses, which must be challenged wherever it is encountered.
“Is it not the Christian mission to spread their belief to all? How is the one materially different from the other?”
“Fine, one thinks God has defined marriage as the union of one man and one woman, but what angers me is his attempt to enshrine that view in civil law.”
Surely it could be equally claiomed that there should be no atytempt to enshrine marriage at ball in civil law,ie between man and woman ir between man an mad.woman and woman. Youcan’t have it both
I would contend that the Christian mission is to inform all about Christian belief. I But anyone is free to reject iot. What I find somewhat itttitating are those who reject the claims of Christianity wityout wever having really looked into what its core beliefs are or aho base their beliefs on other peoples understanding s/enquiries rather than their tbhinking it through for themselves. Caricatures of Christians amongst agnostics and atheists are just as prevalen, if not more so, than the other way around..
“I do as well, so thank you for your consideration. But I remain convinced that the vituperation comes most strongly from the believer’s side.”
I am afraid I beg to differ slightly here. Are you seriously trying to tell me that all atehists are a gracious bunch?? I would go as far as to say that it does not take much for the “trenchant” and accurate” criticism you so admire and applaud to slide into vituperation. Just because it is accurate does not absolve it from being viuperative.
britphil on 10 Oct 2008 at 11:52 am #
Apologies Robert, my response to this aspect of your post should have read
“Fine, one thinks God has defined marriage as the union of one man and one woman, but what angers me is his attempt to enshrine that view in civil law.”
Surely it could be equally claimed that there should be no attempt to enshrine marriage at all in civil law,ie between man and woman or between man an man/woman and woman. In short marriage of any sort should not be enshrined in law which I assume you are equally angry about and strongly against any same-sex civil partnership legislation as well as marriage between different sexes being enshrined in civil law? You can’t pick and choose, surely?
Wm Tanksley on 10 Oct 2008 at 7:09 pm #
Robert said:
You misunderstood Jason. He was claiming that without theistic grounding, morality is a matter of choosing what flavor of ice cream is best. He was not claiming that Christian morality is a matter of choice.
Not valid. Everything originates from God; but everything created is distinct from God. You’re arguing against monism (all is one), not theism (God is above all creation).
Jason said:
I understand, but I’m not sure I’d endorse that completely. The will of God isn’t the ultimate grounding of good and evil; rather, the nature of God is. The expressed revelation of God (AKA His “express Will”) is one way we learn about His nature, and thus about the ultimate grounding of morality.
There’s an important result from this that bears on this discussion. Let me quote Robert again:
By the way: murdering children is not ethical and never will be. Nor is murdering adults. Yet God kills, and sometimes commands to be killed, both children and adults. So do governments — although unlike God, sometimes they are evil in those actions.
You can surely see that ethics, and by extension morality, isn’t a simple or trite exercise. Murder is always evil; but not all killing is murder, and calling an action a murder doesn’t make it one. This is true for all systems of ethics, not merely a grounded system like theism.
But Jason, you can see that grounding ethics in the will or commands of God without reference to His nature is impossible. And Robert, since ethics are grounded in the eternal, immutable nature of God, they are not changeable.
(Here I draw a distinction between ethics and morals; both are important, but ethics are universal while morals require the application of ethical principles to actual action.)
-Wm
Jason on 10 Oct 2008 at 10:45 pm #
Since secular law has already established that murdering children is okay, provided that it is done in the womb by a doctor I’m not sure what point you’re trying to make.
Euthyphro’s fault was to be simply a foil for Socrates’ dialog. Socrates arbitrarily defined piety as that which was loved by the gods, and then proceeded to play the various deities off against each other. That’s not something that is open to the Christian discussion because we have but the one, who changes not.
No, I’m saying that saying you have no belief in God is no proof that there is none.
Let me guess… love your enemies, do good to those that hate you? Probably not.
Here’s the death toll of atheistic regimes in the twentieth century.
Afghanistan 1978-1992 1,750,000
Albania 1944-1985 100,000
Angola 1975-2002 125,000
Bulgaria 1944-1989 222,000
China/PRC 1923-2007 76,702,000
Cuba 1959-1992 73,000
Czechoslovakia 1948-1968 65,000
Ethiopia 1974-1991 1,343,610
Greece 1946-1949 20,000
Hungary 1948-1989 27,000
Cambodia 1973-1991 2,627,000
Laos 1975-2007 93,000
Mongolia 1926-2007 100,000
Mozambique 1975-1990 118,000
North Korea 1948-2007 3,163,000
Poland 1945-1948 1,607,000
Romania 1948-1987 438,000
Spain (Republic) 1936-1939 102,000
U.S.S.R. 1917-1987 61,911,000
Vietnam 1945-2007 1,670,000
Yugoslavia 1944-1980 1,072,000
Whilst the worst of them were communists, not all of them were. Even the favoured communist system differed between the communists. The only belief they had in common was the rejection of religion.
The program of the Communist International also clearly states that Communists fight against religion….Remember that the struggle against religion is a struggle for socialism. Emilian Yaroslavsky
Atheism is a material and inseparable part of Marxism. Lenin
Just as a comparison the 148 million murdered by atheists between 1917 and 2007 is approximately three times the casualties of every war, civil war and individual crime in the twentieth century combined. About 58% of known atheistic rulers ended up as mass murderers. Tired canard, or accurate observation? I’ll leave it to the public to decide.
Jason on 10 Oct 2008 at 10:53 pm #
Hi Wm
Yes I’d agree with you, in fact I wrote the same in another thread here.
C. Barton on 13 Oct 2008 at 12:46 pm #
Another simple tack I’d like to offer is the question of evil: How can such horrors and evil exist in the world if a Just God exists?
OK, let’s say for the moment that God does not exist - now the burden of evil rests squarely on our own shoulders. If God does not exist, then we are resposible for the evil we do as a race, and cannot shift the blame to a deity (through inaction, I presume), therefore why would we shift the blame to God when we acknowlege His existence? How does accountibility change because we have a theology? Have we all collectively received His guidance and help in the matter? This is one of the foundations of Chirstianity, that we cannot “cure” ourselves, therefore we need God’s help.
I know this seems like a simple argument, but the reason behind it is unshakable. Humanity is broken and inherently evil, as acknowledged by both sides - we just differ regarding the solution to the question of evil.
Robert on 16 Oct 2008 at 2:18 pm #
Wm Tanksley wrote,
But I maintain that, in effect, Christian morality is a matter of choice. Pick your denomination, and you’ve chosen your morality. Heck, even if there’s no denomination that suits you, you can create your own.
We agree, evil originates with God. That being the case, how is anything really “evil” then, in the Christian worldview?
Then what crime were the children and infants God killed, or commanded to be killed, guilty of, so that it wasn’t murder?
Wm, if a woman kills her children based on, as she believes, a command of God, how does the Christian gainsay her?
Perhaps, but this gives us no information whether these ethics are good, right, just, etc. They are merely declared to be so.
It seems you hold to what Robert Adams termed “the modified divine command theory,” which claims that God must properly command what is loving, or consistent with that which is loving, because that is his very nature. But as Louis P. Pojman observed: “If we prefer the modified divine command theory to the divine command theory, then we must say that the divine command theory is false, and the modified divine command theory becomes equivalent to the autonomy thesis: the Good (or right) is not good (or right) simply because God commands it. Furthermore, if this is correct, then we can discover our ethical duties through reason, independent of God’s command. For what is good for his creatures is so objectively. We do not need God to tell us that it is bad to cause unnecessary suffering or that it is good to ameliorate suffering; reason can do that. It begins to look like the true version of ethics is what we called ‘secular ethics.’”
Robert on 16 Oct 2008 at 2:26 pm #
Jason wrote,
Perhaps then you should read Wm’s critique of your stance.
You’ve failed to understand the dilemma.
It was never intended as such. But similarly, your belief in God (or belief in God, in general) is no proof that there is one either.
Since you failed to address any of the points in my article, we’ll categorize your views on this matter as purely faith-based beliefs.
Robert on 16 Oct 2008 at 2:38 pm #
C. Barton wrote,
That’s not really the question asked. Rather, the question is “How can evil exist in the world if an all-knowing, all-powerful, all-loving God exists?”
Yes, humans are responsible for moral evil. But moral evil is not the only evil in existence. There is natural evil as well.
Due to the qualities he allegedly possesses, i.e., all-knowing, all-powerful, all-loving. Now, if you believe in a distant, neutral god, like the deists do, or no god at all, like the atheists do, then the problem disappears.
Wm Tanksley on 16 Oct 2008 at 4:42 pm #
I grant your point that not all Christians or Christian denominations agree on all aspects of ethics (note that I use the term ‘ethics’ to address universal value concerns, while ‘morals’ addresses the question of how to put ethics into practice in a particular situation; see Wikipedia for a discussion of the distinction). There’s a lot of agreement, but obviously not total, and a “heretic” or “cult” could obviously get it all wrong at any time (scare quotes intentional, stick with me). So is it possible to tell the difference between the ethics of a “cult” and the ethics of the “real Christianity” without simply counting heads?
Well, that depends on whether there IS an ethics of the real Christianity. And that, in turn, depends on whether Christianity is a real thing. If Christianity is a real thing, then some denominations are further from it than others, in ethical matters as well as other matters.
Pick your denomination, and you’ve chosen your ethics… But if Christianity is not merely a human construct, if you pick the wrong one you’ve chosen poorly. Compare this to quantum theory; you can pick the school you want to follow, and right now most of them are still not known to be wrong. But because quantum theory corresponds to reality, however, some of the schools are closer to reality than others.
This is precisely what we mean when we say that monotheism offers a grounding for ethics and morality. We do NOT mean that theism offers certitude; we mean that if you grant monotheism, ethics follows, and if you do not grant it, ethics are not available.
There is no such thing as utter evil in the Christian worldview. Utter evil would be the total repudiation of God’s purpose; it would undo even creation, and thus would not exist. But if evil is a failure to live up to God’s standards, surely it’s conceivable that such failures can exist.
Why do you assume that murder is the only possible action that results in a dead human being? Does a rockslide commit murder?
(And yes, God has decreed that an innocent human being be killed one time — His own Son.)
There are many different answers. The answer the hangman must give is that God commanded him to punish her, and God’s commands to her were not given to him. The answer the prison chaplain must give would be to try to reason with her; unfortunately, I don’t know what reason she gave, so I can’t possibly respond to it.
That’s true. We’ll have to investigate the specific details to decide THAT one; abstract philosophy won’t carry us any further.
I don’t see how that supports the autonomy thesis… But perhaps I have the wrong definition (Wittgenstein’s??). But yes, if ethics and morals aren’t grounded in God’s commands but are instead grounded in God’s nature, then the command theory is false. I don’t see any need to talk about a “modified divine command theory”; I don’t need to modify a theory which operates from incorrect premises.
God’s commands do not provide the logical ground for good. Love and Holiness were good before God ever commanded them, and God posesses them eternally. God’s commands, however, provide one of the ways by which good can be seen.
The fact that good is objective does not mean that it is apparent or intuitive without God’s revelation (including His command). After all, reason requires premises in order to operate. If Good is grounded in God, then in order to fully know Good, one must start with a knowledge of God. If you know some part of the Good, then you can reason the other way, to a knowledge of God.
(Well, assuming that it’s correct that God’s nature is the ground of ethics.)
-Wm
Wm Tanksley on 17 Oct 2008 at 12:59 pm #
I think that’s a powerful question; the only way out is to call into question one of its premises. As you stated, atheists call into question God’s existence, while deists call into question His (effectual) power. I would ask what the question means by calling God all-loving; the paradox seems to hinge on that meaning that God loves all things equally and treats them all the same. But that’s not present in any reading of the Bible I know of.
The Bible says that “God is love”, but when the Bible says that “God so loved the world”, He shows it not by giving every atom everlasting life, but by providing everlasting life to whoever believes. That’s much more limited than “God loves each and every thing.”
The paradox melts away if you accept that God can love different things differently.
Now, there are still questions. For example, you asked elsewhere how God could possibly be just in killing an innocent infant. But those are different questions; not part of the paradox of love, power, and knowledge.
-Wm
Robert on 17 Oct 2008 at 4:16 pm #
Wm wrote,
But that’s the rub. You won’t know you’ve chosen poorly until it’s too late. Unlike science, where theories can be tested here and now, there is no test which Christians can employ to determine whether the ethics they’ve chosen are the most God-like. Christians claim to be moral objectivists, but they act like moral relativists. To give one hot-button example, I see Christians both oppose and endorse gay marriage. Can you prove who is in the right?
We’re not discussing a particular strand of evil, but evil in general. I still don’t see how God is not responsible for evil.
I haven’t. But when a child or infant dies to due the actions or commands of God, we may right ask, why is that not murder.
The woman believed God was telling her to kill her children, as a way to prove her faith. You may read the story yourself.
So again, I ask, what in the Christian worldview says her actions were objectively evil? God has commanded his followers to kill children in the past. It stands to reason he may command it again, for whatever “inscrutable” or “mysterious” reasons he has.
This sounds very much like you’re conceding that the good exists apart from God. And if love and holiness are parts of God’s nature, then how could his commands be anything but love-filled and holy?
Perhaps, but then we merely arrive at a problem we’ve come to before. How do we know we’ve found the Good? What standard do we use?
Wm Tanksley on 20 Oct 2008 at 5:01 pm #
Now you’re looking at a problem of epistemology: how we can know what things correspond with reality, as opposed to ontology, what things actually exist. The two discussions are not the same thing; but if you refuse to accept that ethics actually exist and are grounded in something, you certainly can’t possibly know what ethics are in detail.
You seem to assume that ethics aren’t knowable because they aren’t discovered in the same way as science. But in fact there is a deep similarity between the two, and where they differ, they differ no more than many other fields of human knowledge. With science, we believe that there’s a consistent set of rules behind all the manipulations of matter that we see; but it’s a different matter to figure out what those rules are, and among the things that help us to converge on knowledge that corresponds with reality are repeatable experiments — but as Goedel proved, there is no simple rule that will lead one to truth (no, not even the “scientific method”). Morality and ethics aren’t exactly like natural science, but there are other examples that aren’t like natural science; for example, (human) history can’t be confirmed by repeatable experiments either.
Like I said before: “This is precisely what we mean when we say that monotheism offers a grounding for ethics and morality. We do NOT mean that theism offers certitude; we mean that if you grant monotheism, ethics follows, and if you do not grant it, ethics are not available.”
I’m not proving that I know exactly what ethics actually are; I’m claiming that they exist. This is the same claim a scientist makes: he doesn’t know what the laws governing all physical interactions are, but he claims they exist. An earlier generation of scientists went further to claim that those laws would be discoverable because God was the creator and we, as image-bearers, were made to be able to find them.
I did discuss that in my last reply; here’s another approach.
If the world is a story, God is the storyteller. Shakespeare is responsible for the murders in his stories in a similar way that God is responsible for the murders and deaths in His. Did Shakespeare commit murder against his characters?
I know what she claimed to hear — I don’t know why she believed it. After the chaplain talked to her, he might decide a psychotherapist was needed; I have a good deal of suspicion that would be needed. It’s certain that no command from God was ever recorded in Scripture like the one she claims she was given.
I want to answer this — what incident are you talking about? The one I know of offhand involves the Midianites, in Numbers 31. I’m guessing, because it’s not what you’re claiming; but certainly infants would be killed.
I’m saying that goodness is grounded in the nature of God; it isn’t His creation. That doesn’t mean it exists apart from God, since it’s grounded in His nature. Good is not something God changes or can change. (Or so goes the theory.)
Agreed. And just, and merciful, and longsuffering, and many other things. What are you telling me?
You can reverse-engineer God’s commands to try to find the ethical basis for them, and then try to apply those ethics to your own situation; that’s an excellent way to derive ethics. God’s commands won’t tell us ethics directly; commands are by their nature moral (related to how to act in the current situation) rather than ethical (related to what things to value regardless of situation). The Psalms are full of talk about meditating on the commands of God in order to find the principles.
How is that problem different from any other branch of epistemology? In order to even reach it we have to agree that Good exists objectively — in fact, we have to at least presume that it’s discoverable by humans (in order to ask how it’s discoverable). Have you really conceded that much?