Bethyada from True Paradigm writes:
I have read a few posts on the ‘one less god’ proposition. Stephen F Roberts originally put it,
“I contend we are both atheists, I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.”
elsewhere he says,
“We are all atheists, some of us just believe in fewer gods than others.”
I have read a few responses against this illogical claim.
One retort is to state that Christians do believe in several gods, it is just that the lesser gods are demons and Christians claim allegiance to the true God. Yahweh is not just a local deity (1Ki 20:23) but the true God, creator heaven and earth
And Hezekiah prayed before the LORD and said: “O LORD, the God of Israel, enthroned above the cherubim, you are the God, you alone, of all the kingdoms of the earth; you have made heaven and earth. (2 Kings 19:15)
the most high God,
Abram said to the king of Sodom, “I have lifted my hand to the LORD, God Most High, Possessor of heaven and earth,…” (Genesis 14:22)
Though there is truth to this, depending a little on how one defines God, I do not think this rebutal gets to the crux of the problem.
Another response is to state that polytheists believe in gods for different reasons than monotheists believe in God. Polytheists believe X and monotheists believe Y, thus the monotheist’s refutation of X does not refute Y, which the atheist is claiming. In other words, the reason Christians reject other gods is not the same as the reason they accept the Christian God. This is logically true, and hints at the atheist error, but does not get to the heart of it. It is inadequate though because it is not immediately obvious that polytheists and monotheists have significantly different reasons for theism. Romans 1 suggests that there are some basic reasons why all people are theists, but our fallen nature means this may be distorted such that theism becomes polytheism or, as per Romans, animism and pantheism.
A related response is to state that Christians see polytheism is a distortion of monotheism. As such, removal of the distortion does not remove the argument. The dismissal of the wrong elements of theism is not an argument against theism. This gets closer to the problem.
The primary problem with the atheist position is that it makes a category error. The following analogy demonstrates this central issue. As such the analogy is useful, but for several reasons I think it is inadequate and could be improved upon. Nevertheless, if it illustrates the problem it is helpful.
“Let’s say that people are debating the best colour for stop signs. One person may prefer red for stop signs. Another green. Still others think that any colour can be used and no standardisation is necessary, and others promote the use of all colours on every sign.
The atheist response is like saying you can’t agree on what colour to use because there are in fact no colours. Colours do not exist.”
Debating colour preference is not the same as debating the existence of colours. Dropping from one god to no gods is not a continuation of the number-of-gods argument, it is a completely different argument.
Consider the deity set. It is either empty: atheism; or not empty: theism. The argument over the number of members in a non-empty theism set is unrelated to argument about whether or not the set is in fact empty.
Douglas Wilson put it well in his response to Sam Harris,
“You say, “Understand that the way you view Islam is precisely the way devote Muslims view Christianity. And it is the way I view all religions.” Well, no, not exactly. And well, actually, no, not at all.
Suppose we are considering a phenomenon that is, by most accounts, inexplicable by an unsupervised occurrence—three of us attend a sophisticated party uptown, and halfway through the evening at the party we find a trout in the punch bowl. At this point, the three of us divide into three schools of thought. I think that Smith, a practical joker, put it there; our friend Murphy thinks that Jones, the avant-garde performance artist, put it there; and you think that it has simply shown up as the result of natural forces. My central point is not to interact with the truth or falsity of your naturalistic position—except perhaps through the use of this absurd example of the punchbowl—but rather to show that you are arguing for something completely different from what Murphy and I are arguing. We all have an explanation but your explanation is of a different kind altogether.
The differences between two of us (between Murphy and me) concern who put the trout in the punchbowl. The difference between the both of us together and you iswhether someone put a trout in the punchbowl. And who and whether represent different questions entirely. Quite apart from who is right and who is wrong about this, it is important to note that we are not disagreeing in the same way or over the same kind of issue at all. Murphy and I are disagreeing over the relative behaviours of Smith and Jones, but not over whether the trout calls for an explanation. Maybe I am more hostile to Smith than I ought to be, and maybe Murphy is deeply prejudiced against Jones. Maybe we are both wrong about who put it there. But thinking someone’s explanation is inadequate (when we agree the phenomenon must be explained) is quite different from arguing with someone who says it calls for no outside explanation whatever.” (Letter from a Christian Citizen)
RELATED POST:
Selling Atheism
Tags: Bethyada · Douglas Wilson · Guest Post · One Less God · Pluralism · Sam Harris · Stephen Roberts92 Comments
A common objection to belief in the God of the Bible is that a good, kind, and loving deity would never command the wholesale slaughter of nations. In the tradition of his popular Is God a Moral Monster?, Paul Copan teams up with Matthew Flannagan to tackle some of the most confusing and uncomfortable passages of Scripture. Together they help the Christian and nonbeliever alike understand the biblical, theological, philosophical, and ethical implications of Old Testament warfare passages.
Doug Wilson does have a knack for getting to the heart of a matter.
He’s almost a modern day Chesterton.
Ok Bethyada I’ll Ask
Why then do you personally reject the claims of some of the more established mainstream religions, such as Islam, Judaism or Roman Catholicism?
Paul,
There is disagreement on some specifics about the nature of One God, is he an absolute unity or a trinity (Islam)? Is Jesus the Messiah? (Judaism) Is transubstantiation and the authority of popes biblical (RC) Bottom line Evangelicals pretty much can symphatize on the common agreements of under the umbrella of Abrahamic Religions being only one God
But the post is right stating that the defense for Abrahamic faiths are different than the non-abrahamic ones, (Pre-Axial Religions) like Hinduism, Graeco-Roman and Zoroastrianism.
Paul, on the side note, why do you sponsor an indifferent, friendly atheism,? why not be a Nazi, a Marxist, an Amoralist, a nihilist or a Randian?
Paul,
I reject their claims because I’m a Christian.
Paul, I reject there claims because I think they contradict theological claims I think are true.
But, can you now answer Alvin’s question.
I’ve read the OP several times and I still can’t see the rebuttal, just alot of hand waving.
Paul, are you a nihilist, we are all nihilists about some accounts of morality, the nihilist just rejects one more.
Do you believe that Obama is not the President of the US, we all accept that most people are not the president, those who deny Obama is just reject one more person is.
Actually, I would argue Roberts’ failure is not understanding the Christian perspective. Why do Christians reject other gods? We reject them because they are logically inconsistent with the one true god, God. We do not, as Roberts supposes, reject others gods because there is a lack of evidence for them.
Paul,
Historically, you’re brand of atheism came out of the various social/political engineering projects Europe was experiencing between the 1700’s to the 20th century.
When God has been declared dead, by Nietzsche during the mood of the time in Germany, there were various competing ideologies of state, nation and self happening in Eurasia. Turkey had at that time 2 factions of secularism, the nationalistic and the inclusivists. the Former were ultra-nationalist who wanted to minimize religion and maximize turkish identity, the latter is of the same mood as the western democracies of today. They wanted minorities to have a say in the national government
The Former won out and as a result, the Armenians were expelled causing a genocide. I can say the same thing to what happened in Italy with Mussolini’s fascism and Hitler Nazism who emphasized religion as control under a sovereign secularist state. Secularist because, their loyalties where not placed in one god or religion but on a dictator, something visible.
Paul, you look at Christian factionalism, and the divisions within the church, but historically speaking in the 1700’s when the French Revolution was in full swing, there was even partisan battles between the Deists and the Atheists on who should lead the New Republic, add to that the execution of Catholic Chemist Antoine Lavoisier in the gulloitine by the Jacobin Atheists Fanatics.
So Paul, even you’re own friendly, indifferent and arrogant approach to non-belief is by no means the only ONE available in interpreting a world view or establishing a legitimate platform to pillory religion, when other systems of non-belief have claimed to do so in the past and its even worse today, when you have so many options on lifestyles, the slacker, drug addict, convict who is as irreligious as you, don’t care about the issues you care, for them their nothing,
Atheist really means, I am a god, and there is no other gods besides ME.
[…] Cross posted at MandM […]
Some of the best discussion of this silly “argument” that I’ve found online can be found here:
http://thomism.wordpress.com/2010/12/27/no-a-theist-is-not-a-kind-of-atheist/
http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2011/04/one-god-further-objection.html
The posts are quite interesting but I don’t think they really hit the heart of the matter.
I think the poster is supposed to be a little humorous while asking us to consider our reasons for belief or otherwise.
We should all accept the challenge to realise we are all on the same journey to find the truth.
I think believers feel that this statement tries to trivialize their beliefs and maybe it does try but in my experience alot of us haven’t put much thought into why we accept Christianity over another religion or god. Christianity was what I was taught and came into most contact with – is that the only reason I am one?
At the end of it o agree with the argument that your choice of god is different from your choice between god or no god. I think most athiests would agree with you but the point is to show that we are all in the same boat with respect to weighing the evidence and accepting one belief system over another.
@ Matt & Alvin
– which Paul are you two addressing ?
If Mr. Bennett and Baird are atheists, then the replies apply to them.
I know you are Baird
John, I’m in the same boat as you are,
The billboard signs probably presents an argument that Christians are ideologically hypocrites, because their secret atheists when it comes to other gods, but Bethyada rightly argues that other gods = other demons, powers and that their is disagreement on the Identity of One God versus if there’s any God at all.
Besides, Atheists too can be argued to be secret Theists, because of their constant obsession, haranguing of Theistic arguments, why get all hot and bothered for something that doesn’t exist? and insist even rant that there is no god. A typically londoner in a pub on a friday night is more of an atheist than the skeptics blogging here.
I generally like to respond….in jest of course ‘ that I’m almost an Atheist..I just believe in one more God than you ‘
Haven’t read anything by Doug Wilson but that quote has made me want to have a read.
Milton I think there is a sense that Roberts probably is correct in that Christians do not accept the existence of other Gods because there is no evidence for there existence. The problem is sceptics don’t appreciate that people can disagree over what counts as evidence. For example is biblical teaching evidence. A Christian will accept it is. The skeptic will say its not, instead he might say that only empirical evidence counts. Someone else might include empirical evidence and moral intuition and so on.
Perhaps the skeptic needs to answer the question as to why he is not a total skeptic and rejects everything including empirical evidence. After all we are all sceptical about some sources, the total skeptic just accepts one more.
John you write “We should all accept the challenge to realise we are all on the same journey to find the truth.I think believers feel that this statement tries to trivialize their beliefs and maybe it does try but in my experience alot of us haven’t put much thought into why we accept Christianity over another religion or god. Christianity was what I was taught and came into most contact with – is that the only reason I am one?”
I think this point looses considerable force when you consider that what you say is true of numerous beliefs which people typically are not sceptical about.
Consider the belief that certain forms of racial discrimination is wrong. Most people have not examined the arguments for and against this position, they grow up in a culture where its taught to them, they do not even take seriously in good faith any one who claims to believe otherwise. One can say the same thing about wife bashing, in many cultures this is seen as permissible, most people today accept this belief because they were taught it. And so on
Or consider our scientific beliefs, if I was raised in a village hunter gatherer society, i would not accept much of what we have by way of science. I believe the scientific beliefs that I do mostly because that’s what anyone educated in our society is taught. Few of us have done the research themselves to verify these claims, and even those who do rely on centuries of conclusions made by other people which they take for granted, conclusions a hunter gather person would probably not accept at all.
So all the many gods objection does, is highlight a feature of religion which is common to lost of belief’s which he himself accepts as rational. This is known as special pleading.
@ Alvin
So, if I understand you correctly, you feel that fundamentally the Abrahamic Religions actually believe in the same god, they just have differing interpretations with regard to the who, what, where & when in regard to him.
Now to answer your question, my personal perspective in relation to atheism has been produced over a fair period of time and although I don’t agree with your comparison to Nazism, is my preferred choice compared to Marxism, Amoralism, Nihilism, etc as they do not appeal to me personally.
I would stress though that I’m open to new ideas, perspectives, evidence, etc that may alter that view.
In addition, I’m aware of some of the European history concerning atheistic perspectives, however I can’t agree with your comment concerning atheists claiming that they are god, certainly not personally anyway.
Also, your argument that atheists can be seen as secret theists, because of their constant obsession about all things religious, is not my personal reason for being motivated to challenge the religious status-quo, it is more due to the way in which religion and the religious manage to exert an influence on the world at large that concerns me.
In particular, having been a teacher for almost twenty years and also a father to two school age children, I’m increasingly concerned the of the influence it has on the young.
In contrast I can virtually ignore those who believe in the power of astrology, as they have no influence on the world, other than providing horoscopes for the entertainment and amusement of some.
@ GKE
I understand that as a christian you reject their claims, but could you provide some specific examples of what you reject and what reasoning you base that rejection on.
@ Matt
If I’m understanding you correctly, it is only the contradictions to your own theological standpoint that causes you to dismiss other belief systems.
Could you provide me with any possible examples and your reasoning for that?
In answer to your word-play, who says I believe that Obama is the president of the US? 🙂
On a more serious note, I would answer that I’m not a total skeptic, as I find empirical evidence to have served the human race rather well over the years, with some exceptions.
Paul, sure Jews claim Jesus is not the messiah, Christians believe he is on the basis of the new testament so they think Judaism is mistaken here. I suspect they also think Mohamed in not a prophet because what he says contradicts the teachings of people they do consider prophets, and so on.
On a more serious note, I would answer that I’m not a total skeptic, as I find empirical evidence to have served the human race rather well over the years, with some exceptions.
This shows you are willing to be skeptical about some things and not others.
I would note however that your argument here is circular. How do you know empirical evidence has served the human race rather well?
Presumably by empirical historical research. No one sceptical of empirical research would accept this as a sound argument. Just as no one who does not accept the new testament would accept the Christians argument against Judaism.
This is why the sceptics position as a kind of neutral observer who merely weighs the evidence to all views equally is a fantasy.
my preferred choice compared to Marxism, Amoralism, Nihilism, etc as they do not appeal to me personally.
Ok so if a Christian says he accepts Christianity and rejects islam because Christianity appeals to him and Islam does not then that’s an adequate answer to the question.
“There is disagreement on some specifics about the nature of One God” CORRECT!
“I reject there claims because I think they contradict theological claims” WRONG!
“theists too can be argued to be secret Theists, because of their constant obsession” CORRECT!
“don’t care about the issues you care, for them their nothing,” WRONG!
“I think believers feel that this statement tries to trivialize their beliefs” CORRECT!
“The billboard signs probably presents an argument that Christians are ideologically hypocrites, because their secret atheists” WRONG!
Well I will agree that any atheist who offers those statements as knockdown arguments against theism deserve a good flogging…
… but I do see that they have some value as conversation starters, or as invitations for some deeper introspection for laymen non-philosophers, who may not think about such things so deeply.
@PB
Sure, I reject Shiva because the Triune God revealed himself in the person of Jesus Christ. He commanded in his law that he alone is worthy of worship, etc. I reject the existence of Braman because God the Father brought all things into being through God the Son.
That’s the reasoning behind my rejection of “other gods,” so do you see why Roberts silly quote only applies to those already in his system (atheism)? I’m not an atheist toward other gods anymore than you are a Hindu toward them. You’re an atheist toward contrary religious claims, and I’m a Christian toward those same claims.
@PB
By the way, I think the problem of this statement is that it assumes some sort of neutrality about individual religious claims. It assumes that it is possible (and expected) that we make all judgments of religious claims in a vacuum.
The reality of the situation is that there is no such thing as neutrality, and reason (just like most everything) is a whore…a slave to the passions, our will, our values, etc. Furthermore, we are complex creatures who cannot separate our values, desires, emotions, beliefs, judgments, etc. from each other. Thus, you bring all of your atheistic bias to the discussion and we bring all of our Christian bias.
@matt I’m not sure I follow you. I don’t think it matters if people are skeptical or not. We should examine all our beliefs.
On another note, alot of my discussions lately end up with a discussion about faith and its role. I would love to se a post here about faith and the philosophy behind it if you accept requests. It’s evident herethat some choose to accept a belief system because it makes sense to them, but for others faith is enough
Several comments are in order.
This is not an argument against atheism, it as an argument against a nonsensical atheist claim. One that is repeated by several atheists.
Further, it is not one argument, it is 3 (or 4). While I think the first 2 have some merit, I don’t think they get to the heart of the matter which is the argument makes a category error. This is demonstrated by my comment that the discussion over the best colours is in a different category to the discussion about the existence of colour. Granted, if colour does not exist then arguments over the best colour are meaningless; nevertheless if we grant the possibility of colour, then denying colour because others disagree about their preferences demonstrates ignorance on the issue.
I think Wilson explains it even better, and if you do not grasp Wilson’s explanation I am not certain I can offer anything better.
Jason, Wilson is an excellent writer, clever, humorous, a wordsmith.
PBennett, others have addressed this, but I don’t reject ancient Judaism, I think the moderns have diverted is errant ways. Roman Catholicism is Christian in my books: it has so errors but so do Protestants. Islam cannot be true if Christianity is and vice versa, I think the latter has greater testimony. But none of this is overly relevant to the post.
MSmith, that would probably be a variant of the second argument.
Kyle, your first link shows how the argument is wrong by using other examples, though he doesn’t specify why it is wrong. Feser’s is a variant of the second argument in my post.
Alvin Bethyada rightly argues that other gods = other demons, powers . I mention this, but it not my argument. Though I think there is some truth to the statement, I stand by the 3rd argument as being the crux of the matter.
Dan Rodger, see dougwils.com
drj, I disagree, the phrase may sound good but it is rhetorical nonsense. That is the problem.
@ Matt & GKE
Matt, I can see the point of your comment that “This is why the skeptics position as a kind of neutral observer who merely weighs the evidence to all views equally is a fantasy.”
However, I do feel that GKE gets closer to the truth than you when he states “The reality of the situation is that there is no such thing as neutrality, and reason (just like most everything) is a whore…a slave to the passions, our will, our values, etc. Furthermore, we are complex creatures who cannot separate our values, desires, emotions, beliefs, judgments, etc. from each other. Thus, you bring all of your atheistic bias to the discussion and we bring all of our Christian bias.”
So, while you may believe that you bring a cold, neutral, logical appraisal to all matters religious, I would doubt that given your religious beliefs you actually are and, in contrast, I can see the merit in the counter argument that I would be guilty of similar fallibility with regard to my own reasoning.
For what it’s worth, I’d also be interested to see a post about faith and the philosophy that underpins it, as suggested by John.
@ Bethyada
Thanks for your reply and, although you might not believe me, I do understand the argument you have outlined.
However, I feel there is a further possibility that you have ignored in your attempt to analyse the argument being put forward.
Another way to view it, is the idea that anyone that believes in a personal god really has the odds stacked against them. As in reality, hundreds, thousands of gods have come and gone throughout history and they all have failed to stand the test of time.
All of them that is, except the one that you happen to personally believe in.
So all atheists are doing is extending that obvious pattern one step further.
Perhaps it could be viewed as a probability statement. In fact, it would make for an interesting research project for a statistics expert or someone similar. 🙂
@PB
Let’s try out your recent argument on some other topics.
I say that life never originated but has always been. After all, thousands of theories of origins have come and gone and the only one that has survived is the evolution that you happen to believe in. All anti-originists are doing is extending that obvious pattern one step further.
I say that you shouldn’t read any classic books. After all, thousands of books have come and gone and only a few have stood the test of time. All are gone except the few that happen to still have a following. So all anti-classicists are doing is extending that obvious pattern one step further.
If anything it seems like there is something to valuing that which survives. The very fact that it continues to hold value and make sense of things while other things fail to do such seems to actually add to its value, not diminish from it as you suggest.
Mr. Bennett
Yes that’s correct, its an identity issue.
In regards to the interactions between Pre-Axial theologies and Axial Theologies, in particular other pagans thought other pagan deities were real in that they are patrons over a foreign nation or allies.
Herodotus or a greek historian mentions a tribe in India the Khorensu or something like that bringing an image of Herackles before them, now scholars have been keen to point out that Herodotus thought Krishna was the Indian version of Hercules, so even the pagans do acknowledge other pagan gods, either in their own fashion or something foreign.
Mesha king of Moab acknowledges Yahweh as Israel’s god who beat him because Chemosh his god allowed it to happen, same thing with the Biblical Yahweh. In fact they sought to humilate one’s god, by bringing sacred objects associated with the deity to their temples as symbolism of the subjection of one god over the victorious god.
Monotheist-Polytheist interaction is also similar, the One God either denies the power that the many gods hold over nature as false and caricatures them to dumb idols who can’t hold their own. Same for atheist using the immanent frame telling all religionists they’re wrong. Its all triumphalist bluster
Paul bennett,
Sure keep spouting triumphalist language, as if you are the Reason personified, which you aren’t
If you can claim omniscience on the rise and fall of deities, the nature of religion, sociology and all the evidence, do so, but boasting at this point is hollow
@ GKE
I can see the strength of your comment that said “If anything it seems like there is something to valuing that which survives. The very fact that it continues to hold value and make sense of things while other things fail to do such seems to actually add to its value, not diminish from it as you suggest.”
So, let’s see which religion has been around the longest then shall we?
Hinduism is generally considered to be the oldest religion still being practiced today. This ancient religion was born when the Aryan peoples migrated to Northern India and first put their religious tradition into writing. The texts they created are the Vedas, which were written around 1,500 B.C.E. (before common era) and have greatly influenced Indian culture ever since.
Zoroastrianism is sometimes called the world’s oldest prophetic religion. It’s certainly one of the earliest religions founded by one person. Scholars are not certain when the founding prophet Zarathustra actually lived. Some believe Zarathustra lived in the 6th century B.C.E., while others trace his writings to the 14th or 13th centuries B.C.E.
Oddly enough, the two religions that dominate the world today are relative newcomers to the spiritual scene. Christianity began with the teachings of Jesus Christ around 30 C.E., and Islam started in 610 C.E. with the prophet Muhammad’s revelation.
So, according to your reasoning and these facts, you’re following the wrong religion. : )
@bethyada
Feser’s is similar to your argument (which I agree with). You might want to go back and read the post at my first link, because he does explain why the argument fails from the start (it conflates simpliciter and secundum quid). It’s fleshed out more in the comments though.
@PB
I’m glad that you seem to have conceded that the argument by Roberts that is parroted by Harris, Dawkins, etc. with regularity fails. Hopefully you have also conceded that “extending the obvious pattern one step further argument” fails as well.
You have changed the topic to a response to my comments showing the flaw in your argument, and that’s okay. I have no problem admitting that Hinduism’s ability to withstand the test of time says something of its value. Of course, Christianity and Islam derive their concept of God from Jewish writings that I would argue date to the mid-2nd millennium (and contain traditions from the early 2nd millennium), and are thus on par with the “age” of the Hindu/Zoroastrian concepts. An interesting study comes in seeing how Hinduism and Buddhism evolved when confronted with Christianity. I’ll leave that for another comment if I have more time.
Of course this shift from discussion of belief in God to different religions does nothing to defend the argument put forward by Roberts above. Are we in agreement then that the “one less god” argument fails? If not, how can you defend it?
@ Alvin
Thanks for your further reply, especially the description of the various ways early religions attempted to undermine and compete with each others gods. Very interesting.
I was not aware I was “spouting triumphalist language” when I stated the simple fact that a large number of religions either no longer exist, or are so relegated to the margins of current society that they no longer have any direct impact on it that they may as well not exist.
It was never my intention to boast, I was merely commenting or responding to others comments posted or directed at me.
I always thought that was what M&M and other blogs were created for. To create a dialogue between individuals using the internet, that would otherwise probably never meet.
@ GKE
I never said that I had conceded with either of the two arguments, I merely stated that I could understand the reasoning behind the posts counter argument and the strength of your counter to my latter one. : )
As you so rightly said earlier, “Thus, you bring all of your atheistic bias to the discussion and we bring all of our Christian bias.”
With that in mind, I would offer an alternative scenario to the “Colour Debate” he used in the post.
So, imagine a hospital room full of people, made up a number of different religious faiths and one atheist. The patient is suffering an unknown, life threatening condition.
The religious members of the room argue about which god or gods they should pray to for help.
The atheist cannot understand why they are praying and prefers the intervention of medical science as the most rational way to help the patient.
Debating which god or gods to pray to, is not the same as knowing that the only rational response is to use the only real help available, namely medical science.
This is how I see this situation, because until you can prove a god or gods exist, the discussion is totally irrational to have in the first place.
@PB
That’s an interesting scenario, but it’s nothing like the argument that we are discussing, and doesn’t defend it. If anything it only shows that you presuppose that prayer doesn’t work and that medical science does. Great, I would expect an atheist to assume that perspective. We don’t…but that doesn’t defend the argument, does it? Furthermore, who said anything about the two being exclusive? A quick study through the history of medicine shows that the Christian church has always been extremely proactive in spreading good health care both to Christian and non-Christian lands. In fact, many of the world’s largest NGOs doing this today are Christian. And yet we pray for God’s assistance in our care. They aren’t exclusive.
The argument at hand (just so that we can refocus on it) is, “I contend we are both atheists, I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.”
1. I think we are in agreement that we are not both “atheists” unless we rid the term of any meaning, for I am a Christian in regards to all religious claims. That entails that I’m a theist in regards to all religious claims as well. Agreed?
2. Since I believe in one God and you believe in none, then the argument at least gets that right. You believe in one less god than I do, but that’s what the argument is trying to explain, so getting that point right doesn’t do much for it.
3. The final phrase isn’t correct either. I reject all other possible gods, because the Triune God revealed Himself in the person of Jesus Christ and taught that all other gods are non-existent idols. I understand very clearly why I reject all other possible gods, but I’m pretty sure that’s not why Roberts rejects the Triune God. Thus, his comment seems to fail again.
He’s presupposing his worldview and epistemology into the argument. He’s assuming the neutrality that we discussed above and for these reasons (at least) this part of the argument fails.
So in the end the argument amounts to stating that he believes in one less god than me (we are agreed), but although it intends to give an argument as to why, in this regard the argument fails completely.
Are we agreed about this? If not, why not? If you think the argument can be defended, then please show us how it can be defended.
@PB
To make your scenario similar, you would need to remove the discussion of medical science altogether. It’s the part that doesn’t fit an analogy to Roberts argument. It should go something like this:
I contend that we shouldn’t be praying at all. We all refuse to pray to god(s), I just pray to one less god than you. When you understand why you don’t pray to all of the other god(s), you will understand why I don’t pray to your god.
This argument clearly fails for all of the same reasons. They may have all sorts of reasons for not praying to other god(s), which differ greatly from the reasons why the atheist doesn’t pray to their god(s). Furthermore, even if we agree on why we don’t pray to the other god(s), and I understand why you don’t pray to my god(s), does that somehow logically infer that we shouldn’t be praying at all? Of course not. The presuppositions that are brought into the argument doom it before it gets off the ground.
@PB
So you are trying to decide which car company to buy from and someone comes up to you claiming that you shouldn’t drive at all, “I contend that we are both anti-driving, I just drive one less car than you do. When you understand why you reject all other cars, you will understand why I don’t drive.”
To take it out of religion altogether, does that make it any clearer as to why it fails? Of course, the reasons are probably nothing alike as to why you drive a Honda instead of a BMW and why he doesn’t drive at all. There could many more similar examples, but I think this one suffices.
So are we in agreement that it doesn’t work?
@ GKE
Your comment in 3 states that “I reject all other possible gods, because the Triune God revealed Himself in the person of Jesus Christ and taught that all other gods are non-existent idols. I understand very clearly why I reject all other possible gods, but I’m pretty sure that’s not why Roberts rejects the Triune God.”
So, clearly you are atheistic in regard to other gods, namely “I reject all other possible gods”. It is irrelevant as to how you came to this conclusion. You, like I and every other atheist is rejecting the possibility of any other god or gods possibly existing other than your own god of choice.
The fact that your atheism in regard to other gods is derived from belief in your own god of choice, does not change the fact that it is still an atheistic perspective in relation to them.
Roberts reasoning behind his rejection do not matter, that is his personal perspective, but you obviously share the same one he does, he just rejects your god as well.
For example, you and I both might agree that all NZ egg production should only come from free range chickens. I might hold that view due to the possible pain and cruelty involved in the processes involved for battery farmed hens, while you might hold that view due to a financial interest that you hold in a number of new free range farms that you have invested in.
Regardless of the motivation behind our two viewpoints, they are the same. We both want to see an end to battery hens.
Perhaps it all comes down to semantics, as historically, in ancient Rome, Christians and Jews were often called Atheists because they did not believe in the pantheon of Roman gods and goddesses.
It would appear that not much has changed. : )
To my understanding people are talking about very different concepts of god. I believe in a god who created the universe out of nothing, and is the sustainer of all reality (Type A god). Now I reject gods who do not fit this definition. So if Zeus say does not fit this definition – ie. Zeus is just another creature in an already existing universe (Type B god) – then I reject this god. So to say you reject just one more god is true… but misleading. We both reject ALL gods of type B. We differ in that you also reject gods of type A, whereas I do not. But rejecting all type B gods is as relevant as rejecting the existence of all gnomes (Type C gods if you like).
Now two points. The rejection of Zeus as a god is precisely because defined in this way he is in fact not god. IF you were to turn around and say that Zeus should be seen as the creator and sustainer of the universe… then I would say then yes I do believe in Zeus (by another name).
@PB
So basically you are defining atheist as someone who denies the existence of a particular god(s), and not someone who denies the existence of god(s)? This is actually a defined logical fallacy. Let me attempt to explain.
The fact that I only drink water doesn’t make me a “non-drinker” because I don’t drink Coca-Cola, Pepsi and everything else. You cannot be a “non-drinker” in regards to a particular, because you are still a drinker that doesn’t drink that particular drink. That fact that I drive a Toyota doesn’t make me a “non-driver” because I don’t drive a Honda, Chevrolet or anything else. I’m still a driver, but don’t drive a particular car. The fact that I watch baseball doesn’t make me “anti-sporting” because I don’t watch football, rugby and the rest. I think you get the point.
I’ve hinted at this above and given a link to the discussion, but Aristotle discussed the differences between simpliciter and secundum quid (which are the medieval terms). It refers to the difference between unqualified and qualified forms of a term. The fallacy is when you conflate the two. So, you are an unqualified (simpliciter) atheist. I’m not. We may both deny the existence of a particular god, such as Shiva (secundum quid), but that doesn’t make me an unqualified atheist (simpliciter). I remain a theist (simpliciter).
So in the end, the most you are saying is that we both deny the existence of Shiva (secundum quid), but I remain a theist (simpliciter) and you remain an atheist (simpliciter). Actually, many Christians would agree that Shiva has a demonic referrent but that’s beside the point. Assuming we both deny the existence, I remain a theist (simpliciter) and you remain an atheist (simpliciter). Furthermore, as we both agree, our reasons for denying Shiva are completely different.
To make the argument get off the ground, you would need to redefine atheist in order to make it a qualified term (secundum quid), such as aShivaist or aThorist. But qualifying the term would not only destroy the argument altogether by denying the unqualified meaning of atheist as Roberts intends to use it, but would also require qualifying the meaning of the positive term, theist. Neither works out. That’s why it’s a logical fallacy.
@ GKE
You say “Tomatoe I say Tomato!” : )
Misusing the word atheist.
I am a theist because i believe in YHWH, no amount of disbelieving in Zeus or Ahura-Mazda makes me in any way an atheist or any less of a theist. My acceptance of the concept of theism has nothing to do with Zeus etc.
Notwithstanding the above, intellectual assent to the concept and philosophy of theism came after belief in God, after the reality of the experience. I think CS Lewis said it rather well. I believe in the light not because i can see it, but because i see every thing by it.
A person who believes in more Gods is not more theist than one who believes in fewer, likewise a person who believes in fewer Gods is not more atheist than a person who believes in more.
Isnt this whole argument about degrees of atheism based on what is called a “category error”?
Paul B,
I am in agreement with you in stating that religions of the past with their deities have become non-existent or marginal; Now some fundy atheist would argue that this progression from poly-mono-atheo society is proof that society is “getting better” that religion would become so marginalized, it would have no effect.
But its wrong for two reasons
1.) The friendly atheism approach discounts the many philosophical, political and social struggles that diverse groups of people have come to define society after God’s funeral. Secular Fascism vs. Secular Democracy. Ethnocentrism vs. Racial Diversity. Social Darwinism, the World Wars I and II was not even a battle between different theologies, but of different secular causes like Democracy vs. Fascism vs. Communism. British Interest vs. Russian Colonialism
2) William Cavanaugh’s book the Myth of Religious violence critiques the definitions of liberals, humanist about how one conceives of Religious identity, of how its so one-sided and narrow-minded that Religion is all about church buildings, prayers, when in the past it wasn’t defined as rigidly as this. The Ancient conception of Religion is not as dichotomous and binary as how the modern people like us view Religion. This stems from a Catholic and Greek-perspective between the Body vs the Spirit against the Semitic totality Concept, where the body IS the spirit, religion and secularity are equal to one another as opposed to them being different categories.
Sure people don’t do “religious” stuff like going to Church, or prayers, but they still manifest a spirit of ritiuals, ideals and values through Rock Concerts, Film Festivals, Environmentalism. On the latter there was an article made by the Chronicle of Higher Ed “Green Guilt” by Professor Asma here http://chronicle.com/article/Green-Guilt/63447/ Paul B you should read this
Bottom line, the divisiveness and obsessiveness of order, good society that characterized religious impulses of the past, becomes manifested in a different non religious form in contemporary society today. Its analogous to how the Romans appropriated the Greek gods by changing their names Furthermore, Time itself is a double edged sword, some ideas about the relationship of the government to the people, secular ideas, atheist implications of De Sade and Nietzsche, too fell out of fashion, but particularly the Nietzschean version of ruthless elitism was favoured by the Nazi party. Versions of Amoralism still are defended by Atheist philosophy undergrads, Debates about whether Human Rights exist still is ongoing.
china in particular, had 2 choices to become a democracy or pursue scientific socialism (Marx) It turns out the former fell out of disfavor, because Mao was more cunning than his Teacher Sun Yat Sen or his Fascist Rival Chang Kai Shek, in out-manuevering both in establishing his legitimacy for control of China’s future generations. As a result we have the China as a communist country today.
An atheist might look at some religions dying others suceeding, but you can also make a case where some forms of atheism, oppressive and benevolent too have had ideological struggles, some died out, some flourished.
@PB
Let’s call the whole thing off…(especially in regards to the atheist use of this “argument”) 🙂
GKE, I think your car argument better than my colour one. I would add that to improve the analogy, the non-driver is not just claiming one shouldn’t drive a Ford or a Holden, he is arguing forl the non-existence of cars.
PB. We can use your hospital argument, but you are bringing in medicine as a distractor. The theist can or cannot use medicine as well as pray, so it doesn’t need to be included.
The sick atheist may say that the debate about which God to pray to is meaningless because gods are not real, I said as much in my reply. But this is not what Roberts is arguing here. Roberts is saying that the argument between gods can be extended to the very existence of god(s) which not true.
Weekly Apologetics Bonus Links (05/13 – 05/20)…
Here are this weeks recommended apologetics links. Enjoy. Atheists believe in one less god?…
“This is how I see this situation, because until you can prove a god or gods exist, the discussion is totally irrational to have in the first place.” If the issue is lack of proof then the athiest faces the retort. We are all solipists about some peoples existence, sollipists just go one step further. Or, we are all sceptical about some metaphysical entities idealists just go one step further.
Since when are marketing campaigns about rational argument?
Soon they’ll be saying that atheists have better sex…. then we’ll all blow a fuse. 😉
“So, clearly you are atheistic [sic] in regard to other gods, ”
It’s hard to know where to start really. Atheism is a universal claim, so you cannot be atheistic in regard to one God – but not commenting on the possibility of some other God.
It’s like a being a metaphysical nihilist (claiming that nothing at all of any kind anywhere exists) when it comes to a flying pink teapot, but still believing that millions of other things exist.
Perhaps this will help.
When non-believers use the “We’re all atheists” quote, the word ‘atheist’ is used slightly differently, or in a different sense. However, it still means “disbelief in the existence of a god or supernatural creator”.
When we say you are atheistic to other religions, we do mean that you don’t believe in the gods of other religions. Unless, somehow, you believe your god is just one of many, and you choose to believe in yours over Odin, Ra, Baal, Vishnu, etc. (but you still believe those others exist).
I suppose that would be a more honest and logical position for you to have, as a believer: that all gods exist and you have simply chosen your favorite.
I don’t think that’s how most believers feel, though, and that is why we suggest you are atheistic in terms of other religions. In other words, if you were faced with a universe where Odin was the generally accepted chief god, you’d be an atheist.
Taking the argument out of its context is simply an argument by misdirection, and is fallacious. But then again, I’ve been following M&M long enough to know what to expect. : )
Any intelligent believer knows what is meant by the “we’re all atheists” quote, some just choose to react as if it means something that is not meant.
“disbelief in the existence of a god or supernatural creator”.
Cant agree Paul, strictly speaking it means without God(s)
a=without , from the greek
theos= God
I guess we know what you are trying to say, trouble is you are wrong. I am not atheistic about any gods rather i am a theist because i believe in God. There is no “degree” of belief involved.
All the slogan actually shows is that the atheist doesnt understand the nature of belief,
The other problem is that the atheist is insisting that his experience or lack of it determines my possible experience.
“In other words, if you were faced with a universe where Odin was the generally accepted chief god, you’d be an atheist.”
Would i? and why? Since when has truth been determined by majority opinion?
“I suppose that would be a more honest and logical position for you to have, as a believer: that all gods exist and you have simply chosen your favorite.”
I think this simply reflects your opinion that all supernatural belief is deluded. Your thinking does not allow for the possibility that even one belief is correct
Moreover it misunderstands Christian belief. The reality of YHWH means none of the others can exist.
@ Jeremy
Your argument that “Christians don’t reject other gods because there’s no evidence that they exist. We reject them because we accept the truth of Christianity, which is incompatible with other gods”.
Well isn’t that just a fun little word game. Let’s break this down shall we?
Say a guy named Dave approaches me. He shows me a shoe box and tells that there’s a gerbil inside. Despite there being no reason for me to accept this claim other than on hearsay, I decide to believe Dave.
Next a man named Steve comes along and tells me that I’m mistaken, there is not a gerbil inside the box but rather a kitten.
Now for me to say “I’m sorry I refuse to believe that there is a kitten in this box because I’ve already accepted that there is a gerbil” is besides the point.
It’s to place the validity of a claim on whichever claim was presented first. As if to say “something is necessarily true because I heard it first from that guy”.
Without distinctive reasons to accept one claim over the other it matters not which claim has already been accepted. To reference one’s acceptance of an incompatible position is irrelevant to the conversation.
The question then still remains, Why do you accept one claim over the other? Of course, once again it comes down to having a standard of evidence that has been fulfilled.
So the point behind the original slogan is a valid one, (I’ll modify it though to emphasize my point):
Theists remain unconvinced in the existence of most of the gods people have asserted to exist. Christians (and all theists) simply lack a belief in one less god than atheists do.
If faith is the only standard for which theists accept the existence of their god, than it is inconsistent and unreasonable that they do not accept the existence of other gods and goddesses.
Furthermore if they were internally consistent in their epistemological standards, many of those beliefs are contradictory in nature, and so are logically impossible to hold simultaneously, rendering faith an utterly useless method of validating belief…(obviously)
Here’s the analogy I like. There are 100 US dollars out there. 99 are counterfeit. The theist rejects the 99 while holding to the authenticity of the 100th. The atheist rejects all 100.
@ Richard
But how do you know that your chosen “Dollar Bill” is actually authentic? You still use “Faith” to underpin that choice.
Namely, a belief “not resting on logical proof or material evidence.
@Paul you are still missing the point. I can be clasified a theist because i am a Christian not the other way around.
It has never been a case of i believe in God, now which one will i pick. In this sense the philosophical concepts of theism and atheism are utterly irrelevant to me.
You are continuing to use the word faith in some kind of atheist sense ie unreasoned, unfounded, blind belief. I know this is what the word has come to mean in English but it is not what it is. Let me refer you to http://strongsnumbers.com/greek/4102.htm.
I doubt it will help you believe but at least you might be able to understand your arguments simply do not address what we mean by faith
As simple definition might be “trust based on character and performance”. It is certainly not belief, to quote James 2:19 “even the demons believe”
@ Jeremy
Your link was really helpful in reinforcing my perspective, so thanks for that!
To illustrate my point I’ve listed just two of the selected key quotes from the site you linked:
“Faith is the divinely given conviction of things unseen” (Homer Kent Jr., Hebrews, 217, quoting Theological Dictionary of the NT vol 2, 476).
“Faith is the organ which enables people to see the invisible order” (F. F. Bruce, Hebrews, 279).
Obviously, both quotes are referring to invisibility, that is the state of an object that cannot be seen. An object in this state is said to be invisible (literally, “not visible”). The term is usually used as a fantasy/science fiction term, where objects are literally made unseeable by magical or technological means.
Further to that, some mythical creatures are believed to be able to make themselves invisible at will, such as some versions of Leprechaun and Chinese Dragons in some tales, which can shrink so small that humans cannot see them.
So, returning to my original definition of “Faith”, namely, a belief “not resting on logical proof or material evidence. I still stand by it, and it would appear that the religious would agree with me!
“Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for,the conviction of things not seen”. (Hebrews 11:1)
Now, I would love to continue this discussion further, but as the “Rapture” is meant to be happening in just over an hour, (NZ Time) then the majority of you guys wont be around to continue this discussion, or any other for that matter!!! 🙂
Mind you, I can’t wait to see how the “Faithful” spin this one when it doesn’t happen!
Here’s another approach.
“God” even more than “world” or “universe” is a human word being used to do a very big task – to characterize ultimate aspects of reality far more vast and complex than we conceivably have the brainpower to comprehend.
So trying to count gods, compare them, argue about their existence or non-existence usually comes down to picking various forms of religious discourse and response in a wide range of imperfect societies, past and present, and asking ourselves: How viable is it for us, given what else we know and believe, to think and react to our lives in these terms?
If we call ourselves theists, we are saying we find some sort of “god-talk” illuminating and consistent with what else we experience and believe. If we say we are atheists we are saying we can get by without that sort of talk and response.
Many folk are theists on some days and atheists on others. It doesn’t have to be hard and fast.
Of course, as Jeremy points out, if one has made a commitment to a particular religious life-style and belief-system such as Christianity then confidence about the “God” in question will come as part of that package and there won’t seem to be much point in arguing about it outside of that system.
You disappoint me Paul, you have clearly picked two quotes out of the context of all and used them to reinforce your prejudice.
“Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for,the conviction of things not seen”.
This can apply to my confidence that my son will come home for Xmas, based on knowing him to be truthful and him promising to do so. He is invisible to me at the moment.
Same with God, i believe His promises, have assurance that they will come to pass not as something without logical proof or without material evidence, but based on Gods character as revealed to us in the person and actions of Jesus Christ.
after “He is invisible to me at the moment” i should have added “and Xmas is well into the future”
I suggest Paul that you live your life in exactly the same way, and that you exercise faith in the same way. The difference is not in the exercise of faith but that you havent learnt to trust God yet.
Paul, I am still having trouble understanding why your argument does not commit you nihilism.
Take the claim rape is wrong.
Person X the platonist tells you that wrongness is a non natural transcendent property.
Person Y the naturalist says its a natural property
person Z states that wrongness is a supernatural property and identical with divine commands.
Person A the relativist states its a sociological property and identical with the mores of a community.
Person B says its a counter factual property and that its identical of with what you would condemn if you were fully rational and impartial.
Person C the non cognitivist emotivist tells you statements such as “rape is wrong” simply express your feelings and are not true or false.
Person D the prescriptivist tells you you statements such as “rape is wrong” are simply commandments you issue everyone in the world.
and so on’
So looking at all this meta-ethical disagreement, none of which has been resolved to any consensus by empirical methods alone. Why don’t you argue as follows:
We are all nihilists about some meta ethical theories. I am just nihilist about one more and embrace moral nihilism.
Perhaps you can tell me what the difference is between the religious case and the meta-ethical case that justifies you taking a different approach?.
The counterfeit dollar example suffers the same problem. Why does someone hold that one dollar is not counterfeit? Because he thinks that dollars are potentially real, it is just that there are many imitations are around. The person saying all dollars are counterfeit is doing so not because he thinks there are some non-counterfeit dollars around but we don’t have access to them, he thinks they are counterfeit because he denies money actually exists. No dollar note produced is going to be accepted if he doesn’t think dollars can be real.
What is important to note is that the person believing most are counterfeit is doing so for a completely different reason than the person denying all. That is the point of this criticism. Roberts says: Understand why you do something (reject other gods) and know that I do a similar thing (reject any god) for the same reason. No you do not, the reasons are completely unrelated.
This thread is sad. I honestly thought Paul and I were having a good discussion above and he was willing to submit his thinking to reason, which clearly shows that ts rhetorical argument fails on a number of levels.
Unfortunately that no longer appears to be the case. I am honestly coming more and more to see that the popular case for atheism is little more than rhetoric and word games, with an ardent passion to attack without ever having to defend. I’ve read serious atheists, but the populist movement that has taken over during the past few years under Dawkins is anything but serious intellectually and I honestly thinks that’s something of a shame. I’ve had to suggest better atheist readings to some of my friends (partially because I believe their position is false and reading their best works will help them see the inadequacy of their positions, but partially out of my embarrassment at the level of atheistic popular discourse that has become so prevalent).
Is anyone else getting tired of going round and round and getting nowhere in these discussions that are truly basic philosophical discussions? How can we move forward in our discussions with the popular atheist in order to get them to actually consider their positions honestly? Is the goal presenting the existential core of the issues through personal relationships, because I’m about ready to give up on blog discussions.
I’m sorry this comment is so off topic, but this thread has turned into a perfect example of the type of roundabouts that are really starting to bug me.
@PeterD
I think your position makes sense if there are no claims of revelation. But that’s not the case with most people. I believe in God because He has revealed Himself to me in Jesus Christ by the Spirit and in His word. This is not an existential willing or “god-talk,” but an authentic “I-Thou” interaction. I think this position (which most Christians find themselves in is a third way beyond the religious and non-religious views you have presented (although both of your perspectives seem clouded in agnosticism, no?).
Kyle, I’m very willing to agree that religious faith rests predominantly on perceived revelations, encounters, sacred traditions and the like.
The only agnosticism intended in my position is the procedural agnosticism of the philosopher, meta-theologian or sociologist of religion who is trying to give a clearer account of just what is going on in a particular debate (eg. between theists and atheists).
@ Jeremy, Matt, Bethyada & GKE
Firstly, good to see you’re all still around and Camping was wrong, or were you all unfortunate to just not make the cut? 🙂
On a more serious note, Peter D, I have to disagree. I’m always an atheist, regardless of which day it is, and I’m sure that the theists who post here are almost certainly theists regardless of the day as well!
Now Jeremy, your comparison regarding “Faith” that you use, is to confuse the two common definitions.
The definition of “Faith” that you describe in relation to your son returning after absence, relates to the confident belief or trust in the truth or trustworthiness of a person, concept or thing. Faith is in general the persuasion of the mind that a certain statement is true, belief in and assent to the truth of what is declared by another, based on his or her supposed authority and truthfulness.
In contrast the definition of “Faith” that you describe in relation to you belief in god, is a religious faith in a theological context is a confident belief in a transcendent reality, a religious teacher, a set of teachings or a Supreme Being. Thus, religious faith disqualifies reasoning in favor of “transcendent reality”.
@ GKE
I too share your frustration with regard to the discussions, but mine is obviously from the opposite perspective. Namely, that no theist is able to provide me with any viable proof of a god or gods existence and yet they are quite happy to belittle my atheistic perspective as a foolish one, without viewing the irrationality of their own!
In fact, returning to my initial humorous comment regarding the predicted “Rapture” that obviously did not eventuate today. While we may laugh, some individuals took this very seriously, in some extreme cases they took their own lives and those of others or rid themselves of all their “Worldly Goods” rather than face the reality of such an event.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Vj8-_jhFAA&feature=player_embedded
http://www.nation.co.ke/News/Man+found+dead+in+church+on+doomsday+/-/1056/1166930/-/hvpqpfz/-/
http://articles.boston.com/2011-05-20/news/29565433_1_prophecy-judgment-day-nonbelievers
Now. I realise that virtually all of the people who post here would not have been carried away by Camping’s prediction, but those who did were simply acting on “Religious Faith”, the same “Faith” you hold, but in a more extreme form.
So, GKE, I completely understand and share your frustration, but mine is due to the “Faith” that theists use to insulate them from reason, facts and evidence!!!
“In contrast the definition of “Faith” that you describe in relation to you belief in god, is a religious faith in a theological context is a confident belief in a transcendent reality, a religious teacher, a set of teachings or a Supreme Being. Thus, religious faith disqualifies reasoning in favor of “transcendent reality”.
Maybe you should go and read some of the Pauline epistles , he was very strong on reason.
You are implying that reason and transcedent reality are mutally exclusive, but of course i disagree.
“would not have been carried away by Camping’s prediction, but those who did were simply acting on “Religious Faith”, the same “Faith” you hold, but in a more extreme form.”
actually all those who got carried away by this put there trust in a fallible man not in God, they ignored the very Bible poor old delusional Harold claimed to be basing his prediction on. As you so rightly say they should have used some reason, to which i will add they should have trusted their God. More faith in God , less in Harold and they wouldnt have a problem.
Kind of gets us back to
“A simple definition might be “trust based on character and performance”.”
People should have trusted God who said no man knows the hour of Christs return rather than Harold who had got it wrong once already. What people needed here was more faith.
@PB
We talk about those other things all over the place on this website. But we are talking about the validity of Roberts argument. I have tried to be very clear above showing that it conflates secundum quid and simpliciter. I give multiple examples of why this is a fallacy. I never refer to faith, god(s) or anything else other than in response to why I hold that Shiva doesn’t exist (because I’m a Christian). In response to this, you claim that I’m the one who keeps aging faith in the faith of reason and evidence. Yeah…
It was a fun discussion, but I’m pretty sure I’m done at this point. Peace. Roberts argument has been shown false by a number of standards, and thus it’s time to leave this topic alone.
@PB
Good grief, autocorrect constantly autocorrects incorrectly. That phrase in the previous comment was supposed to be “arguing faith in the face of reason and evidence.”
@Matt
“Just as no one who does not accept the New Testament would accept the Christians argument against Judaism”
That’s a bit simplistic don’t you think?
Not only do I know people who reject the NT and still believe in JC, The people who wrote the NT were Christians. – They believed in JC without the NT, as it had not been written.
That’s a bit simplistic don’t you think?
Not only do I know people who reject the NT and still believe in JC, The people who wrote the NT were Christians. – They believed in JC without the NT, as it had not been written.
Sure, but I was not citing these particular peoples argument when I made the statement above. I noted a particular argument that does appeal to the NT and then noted that people who do not accept the NT as authoritative will not accept this particular argument.
I also am not sure how your response addresses the point I was making. Which is that the reasons many Christian’s reject other faiths like Islam are not the same reasons atheists reject Christian theism, and hence Roberts claim is false.
I’m choosing to respond to Alvin as his comment was nearest to mine and mentioned me specifically.
“If Mr. Bennett and Baird are atheists, then the replies apply to them.
I know you are Baird
John, I’m in the same boat as you are,
The billboard signs probably presents an argument that Christians are ideologically hypocrites, because their secret atheists when it comes to other gods, but Bethyada rightly argues that other gods = other demons, powers and that their is disagreement on the Identity of One God versus if there’s any God at all.
Besides, Atheists too can be argued to be secret Theists, because of their constant obsession, haranguing of Theistic arguments, why get all hot and bothered for something that doesn’t exist? and insist even rant that there is no god. A typically londoner in a pub on a friday night is more of an atheist than the skeptics blogging here.”
First off, I do have a forename.
Secondly, I am becoming more and more of a ‘hard’ atheist with every encounter that I have with a Theist, so thanks for that.
Thirdly, the underlying problem is not what you believe, but what you seek to do based on what you believe. Personally, I couldn’t care less whether or not Christianity or any other religion is true. What I do care passionately about is the way that some faiths, principally Christianity but also Islam (because I live in the UK) seek to influence my life and the lives of those close to me.
So when I hear Christians slagging off other faiths, and there are posts on this blog that reflect that, or in the UK press where some nut-job Christians denounce Pagans as devil worshippers and child molesters, it does ask for what it gets.
Why should Christianity deserve a special position ?
The only group of people who assert that special position are Christians, just as the only people asserting a similar special position for Islam are Muslims, or for Judaism are Jews.
All that atheists and skeptics are doing is making the observation that the evidence for all of them is pretty much equally poor.
Finally, as the organiser of the Milton Keynes Skeptics in the Pub (inaugural meeting 2nd June at The Galleon in Wolverton) I resent the assertion that a typical Londoner in a pub on a Friday is better than us. 🙂
@GKE don’t let this make you give up the discussion or leave the room. I’m a skeptical Christian trying to see the sense in the Christianity I’ve believed my entire life. I appreciate the arguments from both sides and although there are the hard nuts on the athiest side there are plenty of fundamentals you would not like being represented by. I don’t think we should use such a broader brush. Alot of the disagreement is often about semantics and given radically different assumptions its no surprise that both sides never seem to be able to get the message across to the other side. I propose a radical thought experiment where one, as honestly as can be done, argues for the other side, attempting to see it how the other does without criticizing the assumptions that need to be made. Maybe we could come out of it less hot headed and more understanding. Looking from the outside one can see why a Palestinian would fire a rocket and conversely why an Israeli would want a wall.
Maybe then we can understand what is communicated to the atheist when faith is mentioned and visa versa and begin to use less jargon and more real communication of ideas could begin.
Well this proposition has been proposed in 2nd century, but from Catholic, st. Justin Martyr when he said in his First Apology, chapter 6: “And we confess that we are atheists, so far as gods of this sort are concerned, but not with respect to the most true God, the Father of righteousness and temperance and the other virtues, who is free from all impurity.”
So atheists are just re-interpreting it 🙂
p.s. those who aren’t Catholics because of transubstantiation can read chapter 66 to see what early Fathers taught and believed.
This “one less god” slogan is like calling a homosexual “asexual” because he isn’t hetro or bi etc. This is, obviously, nonsense because to be asexual you have NO sexuality; whereas the homosexual still has one, even if it’s not the same as the others!
Similarly, a Christian who rejects Allah and other gods still affirms the proposition that “there is a god”! This is a world of difference from someone who rejects that there is anything divine going on, of any kind!
Also, their reasons for doing so will not be the same as the atheist, as they are affirming theism and a whole other supernatural realm! Overwhelmingly, atheists will be naturalists, which entails a completely different outlook on the situation.
This is why this is a silly, cheap slogan. It doesn’t achieve the self-trivialisation of atheism vs theism it sets out to. We all reject plenty of slogans, I’ve just gone one slogan further!
I reject Islam as a valid revelation because it makes claims about Jesus of Nazareth that contradict the accounts from the Gospels, which even fringe scholars agree date to the first century AD. Since the Koran is claimed to be the direct dictation of Allah, it calls the authority of the whole into question.
I accept all of Judaism up to about 30AD.
I reject the various religions of the Hindu because they have no equivalent to the resurrection. (Claims that attribute similar actions to Krishna postdate the arrival of Christianity in India and scream of borrowing).
I suppose I can sympathise with Paul Baird. The more atheists I encounter the more I realise there must be a God and that he has a wicked sense of humour.
PS Max, nice comment at May 20, 2011 at 3:57 pm
Paul Bennet:
“When non-believers use the “We’re all atheists” quote, the word ‘atheist’ is used slightly differently, or in a different sense.”
In their own sense, you mean, which makes it a worthless method of communication.
Glenn,
While it can be construed that the position taken by Roberts constitutes a “straw man” with regard to the position of most theists, that is only when applied to the criteria that you give for the difference between atheists and theists in regard to rejecting gods.
Most atheists do it, due to a lack of evidence for any gods while most theists do it because they are arguing over which interpretation of god is correct.
However, this ignores the rather obvious fact that the differences between most theists are more than just skin deep. They are not all arguing about a single divine being with multiple faces; they are arguing about multiple different beings with different tenents, traits, expressions, and so forth.
Most catholics will tell you that the god that they worship has nothing to do with the one that muslims follow. Most Muslims will tell you that that their god is not even remotely related to the Norse God of Thunder. Most Buddhists would laugh and call them all foolish for god is non-sentient or personified.
The point of the matter is that most Catholics do not follow Allah because Allah is a false god. Not because it is a different interpretation of god, but a false one. The same with the Wiccan Goddess or the Norse Gods or the Greek Gods or so on. They reject that god as being non-existent and the followers being fooled. They point to their own scriptures as proof that this god is a phantom and that theirs is real.
So, religous people do reject all other gods for much the same reason as Atheists – the books are fabrications, the god does not exist, there is no proof, etc. Atheists just go one step further and oust the last remaining god. Namely, the one you have chosen!
Basically, as a theist, there will be religions and gods that you do not adhere to or believe in, but you’ll believe in your own. The way you will feel about those religions that you do not adhere to or believe in, is how atheists might feel about your choice of religion.
This is what the quote is attempting to convey and generally speaking it would appear to work. Like most advertising, it is not aimed at pedantic theology philosophers who like to dissect things line by line, which, from past experience, you’ll probably now do to this comment of mine! 🙂
Paul, I wonder what the basis is for saying that
However, this ignores the rather obvious fact that the differences between most theists are more than just skin deep. They are not all arguing about a single divine being with multiple faces; they are arguing about multiple different beings with different tenents, traits, expressions, and so forth.
I provided an example from meta-ethics above, where people accept that moral obligations exist and then give radically different accounts as to the nature of what moral obligations are. Moreover, I could also have pointed out that people dispute whether we have a single fundamental moral obligation or whether we have many fundamental obligations.
I suspect the issue is this: most people intuitively grasp that moral obligations exist, they also can on reflection unpack something of the features of obligations, what we have an obligation to do and so on. In explaining what moral obligations are however, they draw upon other hand other beliefs they hold about the world, about what things exist, about what is socially expected, about how we know, and so on.
The same could well be true here, people intuitively grasp, some supernatural being worthy of worship behind nature. In explaining what moral obligations are however, they draw upon other hand other beliefs they hold about the world, about what things exist, about what is socially expected, about how we know, and so on.
Why does the same line of argument Roberts applies to God not commit athiest’s to nihilism?
@ Byrom
“This is why this is a silly, cheap slogan. It doesn’t achieve the self-trivialisation of atheism vs theism it sets out to. We all reject plenty of slogans, I’ve just gone one slogan further!”
Yay, Peter ! Made the jump yet ?
@Paul Baird
since you ask, I follow the Quaker path, “walking cheerfully on the world, answering that of God in all people”
– yourself included, of course, friend.
When I encounter this atheist argument, all I can hear is, “I lack knowledge of natural theology / general revelation.”
Mariano, a simple question for you.
Do you believe in Zeus?
Yes OR No Answer Only
Paul, a simple question for you.
Do you believe in Nihilism?
Yes OR No Answer Only
Matt
I’ll answer your question when Mariano answers mine!
Paul, its a rhetorical question to illustrate a point.
All of us are skeptics about some secular accounts of morality, some of us just are just skeptical of one more.
I just finished listening to Alister McGrath’s wonderful recent lecture at Westminster Abbey. He makes some interesting connections between the New Atheism and soundbite media. He quotes PZ Myers suggestion that the Old Atheism was “boring” and the New Atheism needed better “slogans.”
I think these “slogans” are the heart and soul of populist atheism (i.e. New Atheism). Consider the recent Craig/Harris debate, where instead of responding directly to the arguments posed by Craig, Harris simply spent 8 minutes offering “red herring” objections to Christianity which received cheers from the atheists in the crowd. These red herrings had nothing to do with the topic of the debate, but were exactly the type of soundbites and slogans that McGrath discusses.
Today, you have a new batch of atheists that converted to their worldview through pop slogans (like Roberts’ argument discussed here), or books that are full of them (The God Delusion). As a Christian, this offers a lot to think about in terms of reaching this Facebook-type, brief Tweet, culture. Christianity is neither shallow nor able to be summarized in a Tweet, and thus must learn to adapt to this type of thinking.
Here is the audio of McGrath. It’s not the best quality, but worth the effort: http://www.westminster-abbey.org/rss–and–podcast/podcasts/latest-episodes
Believers,
Saying to believe in the one true god is saying to be the one (of two or many (others)) who is believing in the only right thing. If you follow such a statement, the real context is that the sayer is right and all others who do not agree or have a different belief are wrong.
That’s the reason why thousonds of millions of people all over the world all over the times killed each other. I’m right and you are wrong.
Any God, floating in the spheres and limbos of other dimensions, watching all those meaningless fighting and killing, would laugh about that perverted comedy mankind performs about one silly question, and cry at the same time, about this endless suffering and deny of learning.
Any god, true or not true, after watching the 100 millionth fruitless theological dispute about his/hers existence, listening to the billionth selflish prayer, would open from time to time the transuniversal notepad and write down “universe xyzx/earth/mankind: not ready for now/needs evolvment-eradicate soon?”.
To believe in any god or no god is everybody’s personal thing. It truely doesn’t matter in any conscious life. Except someone make’s a business about it. And coming to that, you will realize that every argument, lethal or philosophical, about believing, not believieng, god, non-god, is only about business. The business of power, the business of eliminating others, the business of being the one who is right, and so being higher and better than others.
Human hypocracy begins with the public statement of belief and that the one true god is with our actions. To state that is a lie into open air that only justifies actions or statements which can’t be justified otherwise.
Philosophical thoughts about god or gods are not bad to survive the helplessness in front of the mystery of our existence, to overcome the faith of death and destruction of our consciousness, to find a sense in life, to find a way to accept the tremendousness of the universe. And many other things we can’t imagine. Thinking about god helps us to imagine the unimaginable. But unlike most scientic theories, which are deducted from experiencing the nature, god is a “theory” of non-expierence. We experience god by his/her/its absence. So we think that god is speaking to us via his creation, or through gifted persons, prophets, or even his human offspring. If we analyze most of the remaining thoughts of those people, we mostly get rules for mastering our life, for living long and prospering. Rules from thousands of years ago. Would we hear any rules spoken today or would god be inaudible today between those trillions of meaningless words we hear in our modern life ?
Interesting is, where people come to peace with themselves in general, where societies find their own rules (not far from those given by god), the necessarity for worshipping god or believing in god goes down significantly. I mean the old world, Europe. Where people suffer, or where people under pressure, belief is of high value. And also, where belief can be instrumentalized for gainig… something.