Is the non-personal, non-interventionist deity of the Non-Theist believer really God in the Abrahamic sense? I’m not happy using the same title for Yahweh, Odin, Zeus, Ra, etc as for the non-interventionist deities. To me the word God implies a discrete entity that takes an active role. I think this is a failure of language and a new word is required. What do you think?
A few months ago a reader, Roofwoofer, posted a question in response to my Love questionnaire:
Many atheists state that one of their primary objections to the existence of God is that there is no evidence for it that would stand up to the scientific method.
So the question is, are there things that are real but that reality isn’t supported by results of scientific testing.
So, in what sense is love real? Does it exist? If you believe someone loves you, what would you say if someone asked you to prove it?
I was recently asked this same question by my mother, and I’ll admit I hadn’t thought it through very well and was feeling defensive at the time, so I didn’t have a good answer for her. In fact, this comment sounds so creepily similar to the words my mother said to me that I wonder if Roofwoofer is my mother or if they get their debating points from the same source. Maybe this is a more common argument than I realized?
How would the atheist community answer questions like this one?
You can’t go wrong with hand signals! And no, I don’t see one in there for giving the middle finger—though I imagine it would signify “Your premise is bullshit. I’d rather be watching Will & Grace.”
Originally by Landon Schurtz, a graduate student of Philosophy at the University of Oklahoma
[Source]
A continuation of a series of commentary on the Sam Harris and William Lane Craig debate. This is an opinion piece.
The video being reviewed can be found here. My apologies for not getting this published sooner, I have been busy working on course work.
Sam Harris has the stage at the beginning of this video and has been talking about how the God view of morality isn’t moral.
Harris begins this video with the assertion that God is cruel and unjust because of the suffering given to innocent people. To think that God is moral is to ignore the suffering of other human beings.”Given the misery being heaped on some innocent child at this instant, this kind of faith is obscene.”
Harris asks if God wants to morally guide us with a book why give a book that punishes imaginary crime such as witchcraft, or lighting a fire on the Sabbath (I hope you don’t smoke). On the faith side of things God doesn’t have to be good because what ever God commands is by definition good. However we must ask if the genocide of the Amalekites is a good thing. In my view genocide is always a bad thing, no matter who commands it.
Harris points out that if God exists then Yahweh is psychotic and those that follow his commands aren’t much better. It is psychopathic because it is totally detached from the well-being of human beings. Also according to divine command theory, suicide bombing is a moral action. The only criticism that a divine command theorist can assert is that they are listening to the wrong god. Dr. Harris says this isn’t to say that all theists are psychotic. ”The true evil of religion is that it allows sane people to believe, by the billions, what only lunatics could believe on their own.”
Harris points out that it is a strange god that makes the requirement for salvation belief in bad evidence. He also points out that Christianity is a religion that celebrates human sacrifice. Sam Harris finishes with the statement that if there is a less moral framework than the one that Dr. Craig proposes then [Harris] hasn’t heard of it.
William Lane Craig starts with the answer that atheism is the less moral framework, since atheism has no grounds for objective moral values. I would disagree since atheism has no moral duties to kill people it is intrinsically more moral than anything based on the Bible. Craig continues on to pontificate about how great God is and that the evidence of the poor moral fibre of God presented by Harris is a red herring. However, I think that WLC is just trying to deflect some rather strong points against his standpoint. As it stands WLC must either give up the Bible or he must give up the idea that God is moral. WLC continues to try to discount Harris’ arguments saying that it is immaterial to the debate that God is cruel because that is not what he is talking about. But I again disagree, if God exists and is cruel then he is not a solid foundation for objective morality. Harris self-promotes his website, again I’m not sure what he is thinking, I think that he is very unprofessional trying to hawk these products during what is supposed to be a serious debate. WLC gets back to trying to discount Harris’ arguments instead of disprove them. I find this entire section to be vaguely insulting to me as a viewer that Craig thinks that I am so simple as to buy this rhetoric. WLC finishes and Harris takes his podium again and in the last few seconds of the video says the Dr. Craig has a charming way of summarising the arguments of his opponents in a way that they did not give them.
Dealing with dimwitted debate? I decided to make something that might come in handy.
Here are a few helpful resources for improving your (and my!) writing.
The straw man fallacy is when you misrepresent someone else’s position so that it can be attacked more easily, knock down that misrepresented position, then conclude that the original position has been demolished. It’s a fallacy because it fails to deal with the actual arguments that have been made.
“To be an atheist, you have to believe with absolute certainty that there is no God. In order to convince yourself with absolute certainty, you must examine all the Universe and all the places where God could possibly be. Since you obviously haven’t, your position is indefensible.”
The above straw man argument appears at about once a week on the net. If you can’t see what’s wrong with it, read the “Introduction to Atheism” document.
—”Atheism: Logic & Fallacies,” Infidels.org
Also because, as stated above, there is a tendency to start with desired conclusions and then construct arguments to support them, many people will happily draw upon logical fallacies to make their arguments. In fact, if a conclusion is not true one must either employ a false premise or a logical fallacy in order to construct an argument that leads to that conclusion. Remember, a sound argument (one with true premises and valid logic) cannot lead to a false conclusion. So in order to avoid using logical fallacies to construct invalid arguments, we need to understand how to identify fallacious logic.
—”How to Argue,” Steven Novella, MD
It is particularly easy to slip up and commit a fallacy when you have strong feelings about your topic—if a conclusion seems obvious to you, you’re more likely to just assume that it is true and to be careless with your evidence.
—UNC “Fallacies” handout
The single most annoying (and idiotic) thing I witness is when religious arguments are used to affect actions that influence others. Previously, I've discussed referenced using the Bible to to justify inaction in response to global warming, and I believe that these types of actions are the greatest threat that religion poses to humanity. Greater than all the killing, hate, and violence, I believe that religious ignorance is the most detrimental to society of all the negative aspects of religion.
Another example of religious ignorance is when the Bible is used to oppose gay marriage. The quote "Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable."Leviticus 18:22 (NIV) is often used to assert that God finds homosexuality immoral. However, your holy book has no place whatsoever in the political arena, and therefor cannot be taken into consideration when legislating issues such as gay marriage.
The next route that those opposed to gay marriage often take is the idea that marriage is a religious institution, and therefor is subject to religious arguments. This is a grossly misinformed statement that should convey ignorance the second is it uttered. Marriage requires two people to enter into a legal contract, which makes their relationship acknowledged in the eyes of the government. We do not live in a theocracy. Therefore, marriage is not a religious institution, but a legal one (which transcends religion, at least on paper in our nation). Marriages can have a religious flavor to them if the couple so choses, but marriage is not inherently religious.
Now that is has been established that religious arguments have no weight on the political stage, and that marriage is not a religious institution, we can examine the argument of whether or not homosexual couples should be allowed to get married.
Another common argument against same-sex marriage is that "it is unnatural". My response to this is simple and straightforward, and somewhat obvious: It happens in nature, therefore, it is natural. When I use the term "nature", I do not mean somewhere far out in the woods, away from human influence (although there have been examples of homosexuality in animals). By "nature" I mean occurring (naturally) in the realm of the physical, observable world, humans included. Conversely, even if I were to accept the claim that homosexuality is "unnatural", I would point out that vaccination, plastics, computers, and cars are all unnatural things, so are they immoral as well? Cancer occurs in nature, so does that mean it's unnatural (and therefore wrong) for us to attempt to prevent and cure it?
And finally, the most common argument against gay marriage is the fact that a homosexual couple cannot create children. This idea is based on a common misconception that the only purpose of marriage is to have children. However, this argument is easily defeated, which goes as follows: Marriages contain various legal and practical benefits that have nothing to do with creating or raising children, such as:
1. Filing joint tax returns
2. Receiving Social Security, Medicare, and disability benefits for spouses.
3. Receiving veterans’ and military benefits for spouses, such as those for education, medical care, or special loans.
4. Family visitation rights, such as to visit a spouse in a hospital or prison
5. Permission to make arrangements for burial or cremation in the end of death.
6. Right to inheritance of property without extensive legal work.
7. Access to “family only” services, including membership into certain clubs or organizations.
As you can see, these benefits relate only to the two people involved in the marriage, having nothing to do with children. It's not like there is a shortage of people in this world. Evolutionarily, homosexuality could help prevent overpopulation. Regardless of any perceived purpose or lack therefor, why not extend the same rights and protections to homosexual couples as we do to heterosexual couples? They are basic legal and practical rights that married couples receive, and for that reason should be extended to homosexual couples as well. Until there is some evidence that the Bible should be taken seriously and as absolutely truth, keep it out of politics.
Gay marriage debate chart
/hattip: The Good Atheist & @almightygod.
Possibly related posts:
