Pragmatic Atheism

[Hutch Hogan]

Hey all, 

I'm posting my rationale behind my position of atheism as a means of explaining the reasoning behind the position that I take.  This could end up as a very long post, though not as long as this topic deserves. 

Firstly, one of the most important things to do with this discussion is to list the 3 basal assumptions.  When discussing reality, these three assumptions are key. 

Assumption 1:

I assume that the phenomenon (the world as I perceive it through my senses) and nounomenon (the world as it exists) are one and the same. 

Assumption 2:

I assume that the world is intelligible (that we can learn things from interacting with the world). 

Assumption 3:

I assume that models with predictive capability are of more value than models without predictive capability.

From these assumptions, when we talk about models of reality, we have to ask "How useful is this model to us?"  So here, conflicting models are going to be pitted against each other in terms of how well they explain previous observations, and how well new observations are explained. 

Now here is something that needs to be pointed out: 

Even if something is true, it may not also be useful or predictive. 

 

To explain this, consider if we found a text from Gaul explaining the existence of invisible rays of light that penetrated through matter, and the author had called them X-rays.  

Today, we can observe X-rays and have experiments involving X-rays, but in the days of Gaul, they could neither observe, or experiment with X-rays. 

So under this pragmatic system, it would be unreasonable for the author to believe in X-rays because there was no predictive model, no evidence.  

So now let's bring this back to atheism and theism:

A theistic god has not been observed, nor has its effects been observed (such as Einstein's gas experiment where the effects of particles were observed as opposed to the particles themselves). 

The religious model does not have predictive value over non-belief (i.e. prayers are answered just as often, if not less often, than prayers are left unanswered). 

So within this pragmatic system, theism may be correct, though it is unuseful and unsubstantiated to believe in pragmatically. 

This explanation is still in need of work and I don't doubt that there are contentions with it.  Though refining this will help me better explain it to others. 

Thanks for your time, 

Hutch

[Tyler]

My reasoning is even shorter,no claims of anything divine by any religion have ever been demonstrated to me to be true. 

[Vertigo_One [Ops Mod]]

This is the kind of arrogance that many people, religious and non-religious, look down on atheism for. It is the assumption that the universe exists exactly as you perceive it, and that there is nothing more complex than that which you can predict. It's a model that assumes humans are the most intelligent thing out there, and that could ever be out there.

A theistic god has not been observed, nor has its effects been observed

 

Debatable in the extreme. I dislike the way in which so many atheists state this with authority. A more accurate statement is "I believe a theistic God has not been observed". There are plenty of arguments with large scale academic and evidential support that disagree.

[Tyler]

If Hutch will not mind me offering a modification to his quote, how about "As atheists we have not observed any effects from a theistic god and see no purpose in assuming there is one until we do."

You say, "There are plenty of arguments with large scale academic and evidential support that disagree." but in all of the many debates I've seen between atheists and theists no one has ever presented any.  I do not mean this sarcastically or mockingly, what is this evidence, what are these arguments, in all of my searching I've never seen or heard of any.

[Hutch Hogan]

If Hutch will not mind me offering a modification to his quote, how about "As atheists we have not observed any effects from a theistic god and see no purpose in assuming there is one until we do."

You're more than welcome to modify it, but I think that weakens the modality and is an unnecessary change. 

[Hutch Hogan]

This is the kind of arrogance that many people, religious and non-religious, look down on atheism for.

Thanks. 

 

 It is the assumption that the universe exists exactly as you perceive it, and that there is nothing more complex than that which you can predict. It's a model that assumes humans are the most intelligent thing out there, and that could ever be out there.

The model actually doesn't say that humans are the most intelligent being out there.  It says instead, that until demonstrable (such as through predictive power) or observed, it does not need to be believed to exist. 

It serves no benefit of explanation otherwise. 

 

Debatable in the extreme. I dislike the way in which so many atheists state this with authority. A more accurate statement is "I believe a theistic God has not been observed". 

I'm not going to weaken my modality.  A theistic god has not been measured and its effects cannot be measured and that is part of the Christian belief unless you believe in a non-transcendent god. 

There are plenty of arguments with large scale academic and evidential support that disagree.

 Would you like to demonstrate one such argument or "evidential support" which demonstrates the necessity of belief in a theistic god or the predictive benefit of such a belief?

[Vertigo_One [Ops Mod]]

The model actually doesn't say that humans are the most intelligent being out there.

Not explicitly, but it implies it very very heavily. It implies that predicitive systems are the most important, ignoring the fact that there may be beings/entities that exist which are so different/advanced that their behaviours are not predictable by our systems.

 

I'm not going to weaken my modality.  A theistic god has not been measured and its effects cannot be measured and that is part of the Christian belief

No, you need to change your modality. It has not been measured SCIENTIFICALLY. This is where people get angry. The notion that so many atheists ascribe to. The idea that everything can be explained scientifically, and that which cannot be measured scientifically cannot exist.

Would you like to demonstrate one such argument or "evidential support" which demonstrates the necessity of belief in a theistic god or the predictive benefit of such a belief?

How about the explanation for the events of the Bible. And how about the existence of an authoritative moral system. I'm sure you won't agree with either example, but the fact is that you do not have sufficient ability to determine me incorrect in either of these to declare that God has not been observed at all. All you can say is that you are of the belief that he did not exist.

[Tyler]

No, you explicitly stated earlier, "There are plenty of arguments with large scale academic and evidential support that disagree." What is this evidence?  What are these arguments? Don't allude to them or say that they are out there, you are the one who needs to provide it.

[Vertigo_One [Ops Mod]]

This may surprise you, but I'm not going to be able to quote the entirity of the works of someone like Alvin Plantagina. The point I was making is that they exist, thereby undermining the whole "there are no arguments/evidence" line that athiests so often like to trot out. The fact is that there is both evidence and arguments. The difference and issue is that atheists feel the need to make their opponents second order by simply dismissing their existance.

[Hutch Hogan]

Not explicitly, but it implies it very very heavily.

No implication.  If a more intelligent being is observed, than the philosophy will include it.  
The philosophy will simply not presume that there is anything beyond what is observed or demonstrated. 

 It implies that predicitive systems are the most important

It doesn't imply that.  That's actually a universal assumption. Logic is a predictive system and its use has to be assumed, same with the scientific method.

ignoring the fact that there may be beings/entities that exist which are so different/advanced that their behaviours are not predictable by our systems.

Again, this system does not comment on whether these beings actually do or do not exist, but instead states that until they are observed or demonstrable, they are assumed to not exist. 

No, you need to change your modality. 

There isn't any reason for me to change my modality, there hasn't been an observation or demonstration necessitating the existence of a theistic god. 

It has not been measured SCIENTIFICALLY. This is where people get angry. The notion that so many atheists ascribe to. The idea that everything can be explained scientifically, and that which cannot be measured scientifically cannot exist.

It doesn't have to be observed scientifically, there are abstract things that can be observed through math, etc. 

However, a theistic god has not been necessitated through science, math, logic, or any other predictive system. 

How about the explanation for the events of the Bible.

Fiction.  There is no supporting evidence of the events from outside sources.  The claims from within the scripture is of vested interest, otherwise we wouldn't explain why the bible is necessarily true and the Qu'ran is necessarily false. 

And how about the existence of an authoritative moral system.

This has not been shown to be anything aside from social construct. 

I'm sure you won't agree with either example, but the fact is that you do not have sufficient ability to determine me incorrect in either of these to declare that God has not been observed at all. All you can say is that you are of the belief that he did not exist.

I cannot prove you wrong, but that breaks down into this:

I can say that you have no evidence or observations that necessitate the existence of a theistic god and it is therefore more rational to presume its non-existence. 

That's all this belief is saying in regards to the unsubstantiated of theism.  

[Vertigo_One [Ops Mod]]

I cannot prove you wrong, but that breaks down into this:

 

No, it doesnt. That would only work if I have no evidence. I do have evidence. You may disagree with it, not consider it reliable or valid etc, but it does exist.

This has not been shown to be anything aside from social construct.

 

Kant and others would disagree.

 

Fiction.  There is no supporting evidence of the events from outside sources.

1. That's false. There are many extra biblical sources for several of the events in the Bible.

2. Even if it were true, follow your logic through on this one. The Bible is a collection of texts about the activities of God surrounding his plan of salvation for humanity. The whole purpose of the texts is to examine and explain that plan. If you were gathering together all the texts nessecary to describe how a printer worked, and then someone said "well that's not true, you've not got any sources outside of all the ones you've gathered together to prove what those ones say is true.

 

It doesn't have to be observed scientifically, there are abstract things that can be observed through math, etc.

 

Yes, and those abstract proofs can and have been used to demonstrate the existence of God (see proof of God though existence of logical absolutes).

 

There isn't any reason for me to change my modality, there hasn't been an observation or demonstration necessitating the existence of a theistic god.

No, there hasn't been an observation to your particular standards. To many other people, there has been. You simply do not believe. That is not the same thing as saying it is absolutely the case that God does not exist.

 

Again, this system does not comment on whether these beings actually do or do not exist, but instead states that until they are observed or demonstrable, they are assumed to not exist.

 

Which thereby implies that humans are at the top of the chain, since that which we cannot observe/predict must be assumed to not exist. Seriously, how is that not arrogance?

No implication.  If a more intelligent being is observed, than the philosophy will include it.  
The philosophy will simply not presume that there is anything beyond what is observed or demonstrated.

 

The philosophy doesn't contend for the possibility of a being to exist beyond our capacity to observe in the fashions you describe.

 

[Hutch Hogan]

No, it doesnt. That would only work if I have no evidence. I do have evidence. You may disagree with it, not consider it reliable or valid etc, but it does exist.

I disagree with it because I do not consider it evidence because it does not necessitate the existence of anything reminiscent of theism, it merely demonstrates that you are willing to make an unsubstantiated jump, beyond what is merited by your """evidence""". 

Kant and others would disagree.

Kant's opinion is 300 years behind in terms of education on sociology and psychology. 

He also believed that god should be tried by humanity for its crimes, so I don't know how you really feel about Kant's take on morality. 

1. That's false. There are many extra biblical sources for several of the events in the Bible.

We've gone over there, they are decades out of being supporting evidence.  They are also usually referential in their citations as well (referring to the followers of Jesus).  If Josepheus and Tacitus were strong sources for evidence of the legitimacy of Christian miracles, one ought to wonder why they did not convert.  

 

2. Even if it were true, follow your logic through on this one. The Bible is a collection of texts about the activities of God surrounding his plan of salvation for humanity. The whole purpose of the texts is to examine and explain that plan. If you were gathering together all the texts nessecary to describe how a printer worked, and then someone said "well that's not true, you've not got any sources outside of all the ones you've gathered together to prove what those ones say is true.

How splendidly facetious.  In the case of the printer and god analogy let's fix it like this:

The book would have to be an advertisement for the printer, telling you how wonderful the printer is (see: Psalms), it would also tell you the history of the printers performance (see: OT & NT) and it would tell you why you should invest in this printer (see: Pauline Letters). 

So we have a source recommending that we buy this printer, and all we have is the printer's advertisement?  Do we make the jump or do we read third party and user reviews?  

Now let's say all we really have are advertisements from the company and third party statements saying that the company is real.  

At this point, we don't even have proof that the company has produced a printer, nor do we have any evidence that the printer is as amazing as it was advertised to be. 

 

Yes, and those abstract proofs can and have been used to demonstrate the existence of God (see proof of God though existence of logical absolutes).

 You're going to posit the claim, you could at least have the manners to provide your sources as opposed to getting me to do your researching for you. 

 

No, there hasn't been an observation to your particular standards. To many other people, there has been. You simply do not believe. 

 If there has not been an observation to my particular standards, then there has not been an observation to my particular standards.  

 

That is not the same thing as saying it is absolutely the case that God does not exist.

Do not weasel words into my mouth, this philosophy has no bearing on whether god exists or not.  It says that there has been no observation and no demonstration so it is more rational to presume that it does not exist until contradicting evidence is brought forward. 

 

 

Which thereby implies that humans are at the top of the chain, since that which we cannot observe/predict must be assumed to not exist. Seriously, how is that not arrogance?

It's not arrogance.  It's common sense.  If a claim is unsubstantiated, you do not believe it.  The claims of theism are currently unsubstantiated and therefore do not warrant belief until their claims are substantiated. 

This has nothing to do with humanity and everything to do with being rationally consistent. 

The philosophy doesn't contend for the possibility of a being to exist beyond our capacity to observe in the fashions you describe.

If it's existence is beyond our ability to observe it or to observe its effects, why would it warrant belief?  In the very best case scenario, its existence is meaningless to us presently. 

[Vertigo_One [Ops Mod]]

I disagree with it because I do not consider it evidence because it does not necessitate the existence of anything reminiscent of theism, it merely demonstrates that you are willing to make an unsubstantiated jump, beyond what is merited by your """evidence""".

 

You BELIEVE it is unsubstantiated. That is your opinion. It is not fact. This is something else many people become frustrated with atheists with. Their insistence that they, and they alone, possess an absolute monopoly on the ability to decide when a fact has been proven and when it has not.

Kant's opinion is 300 years behind in terms of education on sociology and psychology. 

He also believed that god should be tried by humanity for its crimes, so I don't know how you really feel about Kant's take on morality.

My point was that Kant found it nessecary for God to exist in order to make morals work, because he was clear that morals did exist.

We've gone over there, they are decades out of being supporting evidence.  They are also usually referential in their citations as well (referring to the followers of Jesus).  If Josepheus and Tacitus were strong sources for evidence of the legitimacy of Christian miracles, one ought to wonder why they did not convert. 

1. We accept similarly distanced evidence in other cases

2. The reason they did not convert is the same reason the ancient Jewish leaders did not convert when they were faced with Jesus right there and then. Pride and power etc.

 

The book would have to be an advertisement for the printer, telling you how wonderful the printer is (see: Psalms), it would also tell you the history of the printers performance (see: OT & NT) and it would tell you why you should invest in this printer (see: Pauline Letters). 

So we have a source recommending that we buy this printer, and all we have is the printer's advertisement?  Do we make the jump or do we read third party and user reviews?

Your comparison is inaccurate. The OT isn't an advertisement for God, it was produced as a history. There is no sense that the content is designed to make God look good, as much as it is to record. Furthermore, many of the incidents in the OT are about the "third party reviews" as you say. They are then subsumed within the Bible as a whole. In other words, its like there was an amazing printer, and then there was a load of great third party reviews and then the company put them all together in a single document. Do you not trust them now, just because they've been gathered by the company?

 

 You're going to posit the claim, you could at least have the manners to provide your sources as opposed to getting me to do your researching for you.

 

I would have thought you were familiar with the proof in question, but okay.

http://carm.org/discussion-logical-absolutes-proof-gods-existence

http://carm.org/transcendental-argument

 

If there has not been an observation to my particular standards, then there has not been an observation to my particular standards. 

Yes, your standards. So have the good grace in your modality to include that fact. You cannot simply say "God has not been observed" rather, what you can say is "I have not seen God as I would want to in order to believe in him".

 

Do not weasel words into my mouth, this philosophy has no bearing on whether god exists or not.  It says that there has been no observation and no demonstration so it is more rational to presume that it does not exist until contradicting evidence is brought forward.

Yes, but that is where you are wrong. YOU have not observed God in the way YOU want to and it has not been demonstrated in a manned YOU find "rational". To many other people, as rational and more and less educated than yourself, they have observed and have had it demonstrated to them. You cannot discount their perspectives by saying it did not happen. Rather, you can only comment on your own perspective. You are making absoultue claims about whether God has been observed or not which has no bearing on the wider reality beyond your own perspective.

 

It's not arrogance.  It's common sense.  If a claim is unsubstantiated, you do not believe it.  The claims of theism are currently unsubstantiated and therefore do not warrant belief until their claims are substantiated.

No, you believe they are unsubstantiated. Many others disagree. They would argue you are looking to substantiate them in a way that theism does not itself argue is possible.

If it's existence is beyond our ability to observe it or to observe its effects, why would it warrant belief?  In the very best case scenario, its existence is meaningless to us presently.

 

Because it has effects that we can see. We cannot see it in its entirety, but we can see it.