If there is no scientific proof for the non-existence of God, then surely atheism is a belief?

My answer:

There is absence of belief on the existence of aliens but we don’t ask for evidence for the non-existence of aliens, do we?  I’ve never known anyone to seriously ask for non evidence of aliens – that would just be nuts, right?!  There is absence of belief on the existence of God and we don’t ask for evidence, because there can’t be any evidence, for the non-existence of God.  It is logically impossible – can’t prove a negative.

The meaning of theism is defined as ‘the belief in god or gods’.

The ‘a’, which is the prefix, means ‘without’ in the same way the ‘a’ is used when describing “without morals” for ‘amoral’.  So atheism literally means without belief in theism.  In other words, it is the absence of belief  in theism.

Atheism is not a faith position or a belief system. Atheism, in its basic meaning, is not a belief – it is the lack of belief.  Further, there are only atheists because there are theists. Without theists, the term atheism would be unnecessary.

Atheism, as with theism, are descriptive terms.  In other words, they specify the presence or the absence of belief with regards to God, gods or the super-natural.

For someone who has never been introduced to the concept of God/gods/theism, they are by default without belief, ergo default atheists only from the theists’ point of view (the atheist, though he/she doesn’t know it, is indifferent, or without opinion on the matter). It is only when presented with theism does their status on the position need to be declared.  Further, atheism is an adjective, but is often used as a pejorative.  Some theists say that atheism takes more faith than theism, but here they have misunderstood what atheism actually means in its proper sense and hence this is a pejorative use of the word by them.

http://religious-tolerance.blogspot.com/2008/08/relationship-between-time-and_05.html

The author is all over the place, but I thought I’d take him on to see where he goes with my challenges. 

He wrote:

That timelessness exists is evident from the nature of time. The notion that time had a beginning is now scientifically comprehensible if not provable – since it fits in complex ways with the best explanations for the nature and origin of space and matter itself. Since time as we experience it, had a beginning then timelessness once existed and if timelessness existed once, then it follows that it continues to exist because it is timeless.
Thus we have the notion that time and timelessness co-exist.

(I’ve snipped the rest of the article)

My response:

Mike, you are all over the place with this!  Plus, you hit a paradox.  If there was a before time, which is a temporal notion, then you pull back time a little further.

It is like this.  What is North of England?  Scotland. 

What is North of Scotland?  Arctic Circle.

What is North of the Arctic Circle?  North Pole.

What is North of North Pole?  Nothing.  You cannot go further north than north.

In the same way, you cannot go before time because that is like saying that there is something further North than North.

To say you can is paradoxical.

So any subsequent claims you make has no foundation for validity because your starting ground cannot be granted.

 Adam

http://timescolumns.typepad.com/gledhill/2008/02/has-the-archbis.html

Williams has a track record of putting his foot in it, and I, as a secularist (I’ve been a paid up member of the National Secular Society for years) am thankful for it! It’s the bringing the debate to the table I’m thankful for, as it awakens people to the role of religion in public life. The NSS newsletter would be quite dull without his antics, I reckon.

Clearly, I’m for a truly secular society, which, I believe, is about equality for all, regardless if one has a Faith or not. Quite often us secularists are accused of being anti-religious. Whilst this might be the case for some of us, the majority of us don’t take that position.  Personally, I’m not against anyone having a Faith, as long as though they keep it within the private sphere. Of course, I’m not saying that religious folk shouldn’t be allowed to express their faith, what I’m saying is that they shouldn’t be permitted to discriminate against others because of their Faith, or try and push it onto others (such as faith schools, etc.) because they feel they hold a superior belief system.

Williams is, however, a serious academic as well as a Bishop. It’s very probably his thinking aloud that has got him into the mess he’s in now.  But still, he is proving that he’s not very politically savvy in this respect, especially given the tensions of ‘multiculturalism’.

Disestablishment, anyone?

Adam

“When I spoke about the potential dangers of faith schools on Radio 4’s Today programme, a member of one of the Standing Advisory Comms. on Religious Education contacted me to say, “Thank goodness you’re bringing this up.” He regularly goes into schools and is horrified by what he sees. And he’s a Christian. If you’re not worried about what’s going on in some religious schools, you should be. Here’s a brief excerpt from a Radio 4 interview with Ibrahim Lawson, head of an Islamic school:

[t]he essential purpose of the Islamia school as with all Islamic schools is to inculcate profound religious belief in the children.

ER: You use the word “inculcate”: does that mean you are in the business of indoctrination?
IL: I would say so, yes; I mean we are quite unashamed about that really…
ER: Does that mean that Islam is a given and is never challenged?
IL: That’s right…One of the key safeguards religious schools need to have in place is a critical culture. My own view is schools like Ibrahim Lawson’s should no longer be tolerated, let alone be state funded.”

What I find shocking here is that Lawson is really quite comfortable with the idea that children should be indoctrinate into Islam and without question.  Of course, Lawson isn’t the first religious person to hold this view and probably won’t be the last.  This is yet another reason why education should be secularised. 

Anyway, Ibrahaim Lawson replied to Stephen Law on Law’s blog and the debate is developing right now.  Check it out here.  Get Stephen Law’s book The War For Children’s Minds here (UK) or here (US).

“Since you are a believer in REASON, then you know absolutely NOTHING about a believer in FAITH. Therefore, since you are totally ignorant concerning Faith how is it possible that a person with simple COMMON SENSE would trust anything you have to say? Furthermore, since you’ve never met God and do not have a RELATIONSHIP with him then what you may say about him is a complete FABRICATION!I for one could not convince you OTHERWISE, for A MAN CONVINCED AGAINST HIS WILL IS OF THE SAME OPINION STILL! As for me my faith is my STRONGHOLD and my FOUNDATION and as I have learned over the years by TRIAL AND ERROR, just because you do not believe in GOD, it won’t change a thing and your soul’s DESTINATION will remain the same. By the way, the world is full of all kinds of RELIGION, and GOD IS NOT THE AUTHOR OF CONFUSION either!”
- Sandie

Hello Sandie,

You’re obviously passionate about your faith. You’re capitalisation of particular words gives this away (IT’S LIKE SHOUTING!). Let’s relax it a little and have a reasonable discussion, if we can…

So, let us begin. A ‘believer in reason’ is an odd statement. It’s a bit like saying ‘a believer in thinking clearly’. Perhaps you meant someone who believes that reason is necessary for truth. You then say ‘a believer in faith’ which I take it to mean someone who believes that faith is necessary for truth. This is how I’ve interpreted what you have written. In fact, it took me a couple of reads to understand what you wrote – it’s not very clear and comes across as a rant rather than anything thoughtful.

You seem to divide people into two camps – those who apply reason and those who follow faith. You accuse me (I think you mean me, unless you’re accusing Christopher Hitchens) of being ‘totally ignorant’ concerning faith. It does not follow that someone who applies the principles of reason cannot know anything about someone who has faith. The position of someone with faith is simple to understand – these people have a belief in something without supporting evidence, or in the face of contradictory evidence. Faith is to believe without a valid reason, or to believe in the face of reason. However, I’m guessing that you believe faith is a gift from God, and by this, you think that those who do not believe in God cannot have the ‘gift of faith’.

Your rhetorical question – ‘how could anyone with simple common sense trust what I, or anyone else who applies the methodology of reason, might say? (paraphrased)’ strikes me as bizarre. Further, it seems to me that the position you are taking is purely fideistic. Fideism meaning that the reliance on reason will not achieve knowledge about the divine or God – only the reliance on faith could achieve this. I also suppose that you think reason is limited as it relies purely on evidence – a position known as evidentialism. It seems apparent to me that you believe faith to be the only path to ‘true’ knowledge, which is a position supported by Christian theology, if not all theology.

You then ask why would anyone with ’simple common sense’ – meaning good judgement – trust the voice of reason. By this, you are implying that people should only trust those who profess faith. Again, this is a very odd thing to say, and with this there are many problems. For example, how do you know that the beliefs you hold are the correct set of beliefs to have? Is it by your own standards or a standard set by some source of authority? If it is the former, then the problem here is that your own prejudice is unavoidable – you only seek to trust those who confirm your own beliefs. If it’s the latter, then for all you know, you may be being misled by the prejudice of others. If it’s none of these, then perhaps you have settled on a set of beliefs that gives you the most comfort, but this is no reason for supposing the matter to be ‘true’.

Anyway, what have you got against reason? Is it because reason challenges your faith? It very probably is. Trusting people – trusting their testimony, and trusting authority – this does require faith, but why rely on just the word of what someone or some book says? You should evaluate what it is being said to you, and for this, you need to be able to reason – that is, you need to be able to think clearly. You need to be able to identify prejudice, be able to spot faulty claims and to know when someone is trying to pull the wool over your eyes.

If you are closed to reasoning, closed to thinking clearly about what you know and what people say to you, then you are dogmatic. You think that what you know is simply just right and everyone else who doesn’t share your view is wrong. Think about it – how do you know you are right and how do you know the people you trust are right? Faith alone, I’m afraid, is not the answer.

You then say that you ‘learned over the years by trial and error’ – just think about what you are doing here. If you reason – think clearly before you make decisions, then you will probably make fewer errors and there will be less need for trial runs. If you are going to cross a busy road, you stop before you cross and evaluate the situation– this is akin to reasoning. If, however, you rely on trial and error to cross the road, and rely blindly on your faith to get you to the other side, then you’re very unlikely to make it across. This is the same with anything that requires you to make important decisions. You don’t just go for it and hope for the best, you have to think about what you are doing and act on your best judgement. The problem here is that you need to know how to weigh up the propositions and the possible consequences before you act. This is part of what reasoning is about.

Then you say ‘no one can convince you otherwise’. Again, I don’t think you understand what it is to reason. I am open to changing my mind if the argument and/or evidence put before me is convincing. Those with faith, however, take it to be that the position they hold is the right way and any other opinion is wrong. But what makes one person with faith correct over someone else with faith in an opposing position? Nothing, is the answer, because all a person with faith does is to take what it is they hold to be true as true.

Next, you say something about not believing in God so my soul’s ‘destination will remain the same’. You assume that I think I have a soul – but it depends on what you mean by ’soul’. I interpret soul to mean mind, or consciousness. I don’t accept that the ’soul’ is some kind of spirit that exists beyond the natural world. And when I die, my mind, or my soul, will die with me. So, what you are saying here has no impact on my position.

Then you say ‘the world is full of all kinds of religion’. Well, at least you’re right on something! I can’t argue with that, though I do know it’s very difficult to define what a religion is, but that’s another matter.

Finally, you say ‘God is not the author of confusion either’. Hmm, on one level I would agree – a non-existent entity could not create confusion. However, on another level, the many claimed attributes of what a God would have could cause confusion as there doesn’t seem to be a universal agreement of what these should be. In fact, if God is supposed to be infinite in every way then to apply attributes to God would be to limit his (sex being one of them) nature and therefore he could not be infinite. If, however, we were to allow God, for the sake of argument, then there are many more problems to deal with such as his desires, what the claimed prophets have said, claims made in holy texts and so on. So, I won’t go into all of this, as hopefully by now there’s plenty to for you to mull over already.

Within the philosophy of religion there is indeed the ‘Problem of Evil’, especially for the monotheistic traditions.  Apologetics will use the defence that Evil occurs to bring about a greater ‘good’ because otherwise it would be against the nature of a supposed omnipotent and benevolent God.

We are all familiar with what happened when hurricane Katrina struck a devastating blow on the city of New Orleans in 2005 – a Natural Evil, one might say.  Well, there is a chap here in the UK whose name is Stephen Green.  Green is the head of an evangelical group called Christian Voice, and they particularly dislike homosexuals – they see homosexuals as Morally Evil.  He believes that hurricane Katrina was an act of God sent to clean up the Evil immorality that was occurring within the city.  I’ll summarise what he wrote in a press release just a week after this tragic event occurred:

“There are many ‘homosexuals and perverts’ in New Orleans.  There are also abortion clinics and other ‘un-Christian’ stuff there too.  New Orleans needed to be ‘purified’, just like the story of Sodom and Gomorrah.  By divine work, Katrina, which actually means ‘purity’, went about and ‘cleaned up’ New Orleans of ‘Sin’.  God only gives one warning, and this was it.  Katrina [assuming all God's work is ultimately good], was a good thing.”

(Full article, if you can stomach it, is here: http://www.christianvoice.org.uk/Press/press010.html)

Green is one example of an evangelical apologetic of Christianity who has justified the occurrence of a ‘Natural Evil’, to clean up the acts of a Moral Evil, and thereby maintain the status that his God continues to be benevolent and omnipotent. This isn’t unique to Christian Voice either. Recently in the UK we suffered the worst rainfall for decades, devastating communities throughout many parts of England. The Bishop of Carlisle – Rev Graham Dow – is on record as saying:

“This is a strong [(the result of the floods and subsequent deaths)] and definite judgment because the world has been arrogant in going its own way,” he said. “We are reaping the consequences of our moral degradation, as well as the environmental damage that we have caused.” He goes on: “The sexual orientation regulations [which give greater rights to gays] are part of a general scene of permissiveness. We are in a situation where we are liable for God’s judgment, which is intended to call us to repentance.”

(http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/07/01/nflood201.xml)

In other words, the Bishop is saying we deserved this natural disaster as punishment for acting in an Evil fashion, which so happens to be not to God’s liking.

Coming from an atheistic point of view, I reject all notions of supernatural force, so I therefore reject Evil as an existing occurrence. Usually, the word ‘Evil’ is interchanged with the word ‘bad’ – and is used to evoke emotion or to take a higher moral ground.  But what theologians really mean when they use they invoke the notion of ‘Evil’ is to describe, or to justify, something of which they actually disapprove of.

So, where does the Evil come from?  It is my view that Evil comes only from the wicked imaginations of theologians, their apologetics and their followers. These people use the notion to manipulate the minds of the vulnerable and unwitting.  They use the fear of ‘Evil’ to bring about obedience and to force followers to behave to their version of what is ‘good’ and what is ‘not good’.

Creationism holds that the Earth was created about 6000 years ago, whereas ID proponents accept that the Earth is at least many millions of years old.

ID proponents accept that species do undergo a small number of changes, whereas Creationism holds that all life on Earth was created in their current form.

Most crucially, and to avoid ID being immediately classed as a purely religious idea, ID does not name the Intelligent Designer. The Intelligent Designer is not for discussion; all that the theory proposes is that there is intelligent design going on.

For any theory to be considered science it has to hold up to the scrutiny of scientific method.

The classic view of how science operates is that discoveries are made based on observation. For example, a scientist may be working out in the field researching the nature of swans. He observes all the swans that he can find and notes that each swan is white. He does this for several years and comes to the conclusion that all swans are white. In philosophical terms this type of method is known as induction. Inductive reasoning has been the bedrock for many scientific discoveries since at least Ancient Greece. In fact, without induction, we wouldn’t get very far.

However, scientific methods have moved on since Ancient Greece. The philosopher Karl Popper (1902-1994ce), amongst others, suggested that ‘falsification’ would a better scientific method. Falsification is the approach that if any evidence can be found that falsifies the conclusion, then the theory is falsifiable. So, using our example above, if you can find any black swans you can falsify the theory that all swans are white. The theory of ‘all swans are white’ was in principle falsifiable and, as we know there are black swans, the theory has been falsified.

If we extend our swan theory and say that all swans are either white or black and add something extra – that all swans have at least two legs, we have a new theory that in principal can be falsified. All that is required is that we find a swan with more than two legs. This is a much more efficient method of scientific inquiry as all we have to do is find a consistent set of swans with more legs than usual.

A frogswan theory…

An example of an un-falsifiable theory would be as such: I have discovered a unique species of swans that are either black or white and that also turn into frogs when hidden inside a box. That is, when this unique species of swans are not observed, they turn into frogs. I shall call these ‘frogswans’. Any method of observation, either direct or indirect (AV recording, for example), immediately renders the unique frog hidden from view to turn back into a swan. The problem here, however, is this ‘theory’ is not falsifiable as there is no observable (empirical) way to prove or disprove that swans turn into frogs when hidden inside a box. The frogswan ‘theory’ can quite rightly be considered as nonsense, as it cannot be proved either way.

So, a good scientific theory is one that in principle can be falsified. An even better scientific theory is one that stands the test of time and resists any attempt of falsification. Any theory that does become falsified is adjusted or rejected and this is how science, on the whole, progresses. Any theory that in principal cannot be falsified is considered pseudoscience. Or rather, any theory that is impossible to falsify, because a supposed condition exists (such as there is an Intelligent Designer, or swans can turn into frogs), then it can never be positively or negatively proven either way.

The trouble with Intelligent Design as a ‘theory’ is that the Intelligent Designer cannot be positively or negatively proved. Or, scientifically speaking, ID cannot in principle be falsified because: a) the Designer cannot be proved or disproved; b) creates a doubt of predictability; and finally c) the theory is impossible to test, unless we have a direct line with the Designer.

So if the theory of evolution is so solid, why not teach ID in the classroom anyway? Firstly, ID does not stand up to the rigour of contemporary scientific method, as discussed above. Secondly, it’s a carrier for a discussion with a religious context – there is a Designer somewhere in the cosmos that has/had a hand in all that is living. And finally, the ultimate conclusion that ID proposes – a designer did it/does it – is a dead end, at least in scientific realms.