A Sustainable Conclusion?
Posted in Atheism, Logic, Quickies, Religion on | 1 minute | 8 Comments →
I honestly believe that 99% of however many people actually read my posts are going to laugh aloud and dismiss this to the absurd quantity of beer topped off with a Jameson and coke that violated a cardinal rule last night, but if theism is irrational – what says the rationalist of denying the irrational?
Atheism must be irrational if its aforementioned premise is true! I know that sounds preposterous, but please give it a chance. I'm being dead serious, and if I'm arguing from some sort of fallacy or misunderstanding, I'll shamelessly swallow it like the aforementioned adult beverages.
Brad
says...I have _no idea_ what you just said. Could you explicate the meaning and reasoning of “Atheism must be irrational if its aforementioned premise is true!” What is the premise you’re referring to?
cl
says...I know, I know… this one’s tricky and I fully expect the confusion. The aforementioned premise is that theism is irrational. If saying “there is a God” is irrational, then saying “there is not a God” seems just as irrational to me. There’s some parallel logic in today’s post to Philly, and I’d be glad to explain more later, but I gotta run.
PhillyChief
says...It’s not tricky because I and many other atheists don’t assert as an absolute that “there is not a god”. Imagine the thought process involved in making a left turn when you’re driving. You look in all directions and conclude it’s safe to proceed. Are you absolutely sure you’re safe? Technically no. There could be something you didn’t see, a car nearby might suddenly explode, lightning or a meteor could strike right then and there, who knows? Still, you’d be reasonably sure.
Contrast that with not looking and believing it’s safe to turn.
People who look are justified in calling the non-lookers irrational.
btw – if you add a ‘subscribe by email’ feature, I might return to this
nal
says...cl:
If saying “there is a God” is irrational, then saying “there is not a God” seems just as irrational to me.
If saying “there are leprechauns” is irrational, then saying “there are not any leprechauns” seems just as irrational to me.
Mike aka MonolithTMA
says...I fully agree, if someone were to have never been presented with the concept of God, it would be totally irrational to proclaim your disbelief in something you’ve never heard of.
Of course atheism is a reaction to theism. If there were no theists there would be no atheists, it would be a totally unnecessary position. Just like if there was no such thing as meat, there would be no need to declare ones self to be a vegetarian.
cl
says...Philly,
I’ll look into that. For now, there is a “subscribe to this blog’s RSS feed feature,” on the left hand column, about half-way down.
On one hand, you’ve caught me being sloppy. I should have made the distinction between hard atheism and other varieties. On the other hand, what a pathetic argument!
Then for one, none of what I said applies to you or the subset of atheists you’re in, so why care? For two,
Certainly – but I’m not in the subset of believers who don’t look – and now the best you can do is tell me I’m wrong like a Fundie. Belief doesn’t entail not looking, my friend.
And your analogy is all wrong, I’m afraid. The person who makes no turn at all is the atheist or skeptic. Reasonable people generally proceed when they have no reason to idle. Most skeptics’ reasons for idling are that they believe the arguments for God don’t make sense, but unanswered questions curiously don’t seem to stop the same skeptics from embracing science, and I always scratch my head accordingly.
nal,
Indeed. Are we just agreeing here? Or is there something bigger I’m missing?
Mike,
I like your vegetarian analogy immensely, but I think it actually works against atheism and sustains my point.
Mike aka MonolithTMA
says...My analaogy was not intended to be pro-atheism, but I’m curious, how do you see it as working against it? Perhaps if it was restated like this:
If there were no God there would be no atheists, it would be a totally unnecessary position. Just like if there was no such thing as meat, there would be no need to declare ones self to be a vegetarian.
That would be a poor analogy though.
cl
says...Hi Mike. Although I agree it could be irrational to believe in something one never heard of, that’s not quite what I was getting at. Don’t worry, I realize this post seems absurd. I’m not even sure it’s not yet.
If there’s “no evidence for theism” as atheists commonly declare, on what evidence can they be sure theism is an irrational position? That’s closer to the underlying question behind this post.
To answer your question, you say “If there were no God there would be no atheists.”
Then, if atheists exist – by your logic here – wouldn’t it follow that God exists?