Sqrl said:
I'm not approaching it from that direction though. I'm saying that if a person cannot make a logical argument for a belief then it has faith as its basis. Because if they can't make the argument, whether it exists or not, they are making it based on faith. This goes back to the part where I said "Its not actually an option". This was a comment about what I said next, and was in essence saying you either have a logical argument to support a belief or you don't, and if you don't your argument is based in faith. |
I basically agree, though there are possibly some nits that could be picked. For instance, I think that faith might not be the only non-logic/non-evidence basis for belief (e.g. is "gut instinct" faith?), but I agree with the sense of what you're saying.
If Fred is an anti-theist, but can't support his belief that god cannot exist with logic, evidence, etc., then he's in the same boat as a similiarly situated theist.
Sqrl said:
Well I want to be careful because demonstrating logic in a belief and demonstrating that a belief is supported by logic are slightly different. This is perhaps a big source of confusion between us. An argument is supported by logic as I stated in my numbered points before... but the logic of a belief doesn't actually have to be logically consistent as long as it is logically consistent from the perspective and information available to the believer. |
No, thankfully I suspect we're on the same page here... unless I'm just that confused? :) I'm not suggesting an anti-theist who merely presents a logical argument that he mistakenly believes is correct but that falls apart under a better or more general scrutiny.
Instead, I'm saying that we haven't yet logically shown that an anti-theist argument supported by logic (i.e. an anti-theist argument that would satisfy your criteria) is impossible.
Now, of course, that has nothing to do with the earlier example; Fred's beliefs are still faith-based regardless. I only make this point because I think it's relevant if we ever reach the stage of wanting to say something like "anti-theism by its nature is faith-based."
Sqrl said:
Well I could very simply point out that any omniscient, omnipresent, and omnipotent being that doesn't wish to be proven will not be proven. So no matter what argument is made any god with these attributes (ie pretty much god in every major religion) will remain out of the reach of any logical proof by virtue of his claimed imnipotence, omniscience, and omnipresence. Discovering the origins of our universe, the beginning of time, anything can be simply explained away through the abstraction of one more layer of wrapping around reality. No matter how many layers are peeled back another can be immediately assumed because of the limitless power, wisdom, and information he is defined to have. So while it may be possible to disprove gods without those nifty abilities (although I think even that is a tall order), the gods that do have those abilities will remain possible. |
Let me say that I think that's a very clever argument. :) Now I'll try (unsuccessfully I imagine) to challenge it a bit...
There are Christians who maintain that the existence of god is provable without recourse to faith; strictly via evidence and logic. As they hold that god is omnipotent, they surely don't believe that he doesn't wish to be proven (or, if he does, that at least he doesn't stop them from doing it). While not every Christian will agree on this point, it does slightly challenge the notion that a god with the attributes you've mentioned is at the heart of every major religion. Maybe, within various religions, some view god in the way you suggest, while others believe that god is provable.
So, at the least, we could imagine an anti-theist with an airtight argument against all possible provable gods (and I agree that would be a tall order), leaving only those with the power and inclination to remove themselves from proof altogether.
Of course, this won't satisfy us. For our anti-theist to escape being faith-based, he must be able to prove against all possible gods, and especially those who refuse to be proved, which seems insoluable.
I can only observe that our interest here isn't in saying anything, one way or another, about god--our interest is in whether there can never be an anti-theist who could prove that god cannot exist. What if there was an anti-theist who was as powerful as the god we're supposing?
I mean, as long as we're supposing an omnipotent god, why can't we suppose an uber anti-theist with the power to construct airtight proofs for all that is (and against all that isn't)?
Now... I imagine that a person could say either that the powers of the omnipotent god and the uber anti-theist somehow would cancel each other out, or that the supposition of an omnipotent god renders the uber anti-theist impossible, as the uber anti-theist's existence would be a limit on the god's power to remain aloof from proof. But, by that same rationale, supposing the uber anti-theist would render the omnipotent god impossible, as its existence would be a limit on the anti-theist's ability to construct proofs. And I see no compelling reason to give priority to an omnipotent god over an uber anti-theist.
Yeesh.
I've resorted to absolute nonsense to maintain my point here, and it makes me feel all slimy. But I think it conceivable, at least, that an uber anti-theist is not more nonsensical than an omnipotent god. And I wonder, is it possible to prove that an uber anti-theist cannot exist (without resorting to the same kinds of faith-based pronouncements that the less powerful anti-theists are supposed to make)?
|
But even so my original point was never to show that someone could or couldn't prove God, but to say that those who haven't done so (ie probably everyone) owe their belief about the existance of God to faith. I touched on this earlier with this comment "I'm not making any demands on the way people reach a belief...only taking issue with how they characterize them to others...or specifically mischaracterize them to others." |
I wholeheartedly concur.
I only want to observe that "probably everyone" is not "provably everyone," which I know you know, but I think it's an important point. And not just for the anti-theist's sake; if we allow that some God might exist, and that it might be a God open to being proved... then maybe, somewhere, there is a theist who has that proof?
Also, should any given theist or anti-theist advance what he claims to be a logical argument regarding god's existence, I don't think that we can dismiss his argument prima facie (because it purports to do something we believe is inherently impossible), but it would be an argument like any other, and should stand or fall based on its merits.
|
I'm saying that many non-theists characterize their belief of god to be a logically supported conclusion when it actually is not logically supported. The reason I make this point is because I believe theists and non-theists are on equal footing at the opening of a debate in terms of burden of proof. They both have to make their case, it's not the responsibility of one to prove their case and failing that the other wins. |
So long as "non-theist" continues to mean "anti-theist" in the sense that I've been using (and that I believe you mean), we're in total agreement on these points.
***
I think that maybe we're still short of establishing what I feel like you were saying earlier (even ignoring "atheist" vs. "anti-theist"), when I thought you were claiming that anti-theism was necessarily faith-based. But perhaps that's either no longer your position, or you are unconvinced by my supposition of an uber anti-theist.
I mean, I'm unconvinced by it, too, so I can't expect different from anyone else. :) But logically, I can't see how it's different in nature to suppose the uber anti-theist versus the omnipotent god who doesn't want to be proven. And, as long as we can't prove that the uber anti-theist cannot exist, I don't think we can be... uh... anti-anti-theist.
Yeesh, again.
