I recently heard someone saying that both the religious and the atheists are guilty of having circular reasoning when trying to prove their stands or beliefs. Would you agree to this? Can you share an example showing that this is indeed the case?
Subscription Note:
Choosing to subscribe to this topic will automatically register you for email notifications for comments and updates on this thread.
Email notifications will be sent out daily by default unless specified otherwise on your account which you can edit by going to your userpage here and clicking on the subscriptions tab.
Well, IMO, if soneone thinks everyone who identifies as atheist engages in any specific thing (other than breathing, sleeping, shitting, etc), then they are simply in error. So to say that "atheists are guilty of having circular reasoning" is, well, humorous.
Lily ask them to be more specific an what subject are they referring to.
Else they are making a generalization fallacy like cyber explained.
I don't think atheists have circular reasoning. They look at the facts which support the conclusion that there is no god, and then get on with their lives. And I wish people would stop using the word 'belief' when talking about atheism: that's the last thing it is.
There is no proof that supports a belief in a god. If proof were to show up (or a god itself), I'm quite sure I would believe in it (worship is another matter). I'm perfectly content with admitting that I don't know the answers to the big questions. I don't see any circular reasoning in that.
Examples of (my) short answers to some big questions:
- How was the universe created?
I think The Big Bang theory is the best explanatory model we have right now, but I don't presume to know.
- If the Big Bang is true, what came before it then?
I don't have the slightest idea and I'm not so sure there ever have been a "before", since that would be outside of time itself.
How was life created?
I think Abiogenesis is the best theory we have. But I cant be sure.
Is there life after death?
I don't think so, but I cant know.
---
I welcome opinions from others on this, is there any circular reasoning here?
No circular reasoning at all. And I agree with your answers, except that the big bang could be a big bounce, so there was another universe before it.
I don't know if "circular" is necessarily the right word, but there are certain tenets that are simply assumed in any system. We assume that the universe is ontologically real and not merely a construct of perception (though some might play around with that idea). Similarly, we assume that our faculties are giving us proper information about the universe, a proposition that we test with information we get from our observational faculties. That 1=1 is not mathematically provable within our current system of mathematics. It is simply assumed and helps us derive theorems. In that sense, everybody relies on unproven axioms.
As for atheism in particular, this kind of thing shows itself most clearly in limiting study to the realm of things we can observe. Anything beyond physical observation becomes irrelevant. Atheist and evolutionary biologist Richard Lewontin summed it up nicely:
"Our willingness to accept scientific claims that are against common sense is the key to an understanding of the real struggle between science and the supernatural. We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism.
It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door."
I like to think of the issue of God's existence as a sealed, opaque jar full of gumballs. There is a positive chance that the number of gumballs is either even or odd, but in order to make claims, we'd need some kind of argument, since we can't see them. Likewise, there is a chance that either there are unobserved supernatural beings, or that there are not. Any claim beyond agnosticism on the matter requires some kind of argument. I will point out that I have never heard any argument proposed to positively claim God's nonexistence... If anyone here could argue from the standpoint of agnosticism to atheism, I'd be interested to hear it. From what I've seen, any commitment to true atheism is a step made on assumption.
This is not to say that theists don't do the same thing necessarily. But I do think that atheists and theists both have a priori commitments that aren't provable within their own systems.
@ImagoDei
It is understandable that you want to undermine rationalism/empiricism, but it is simply incomparable to the unreliability of faith.
"We assume that the universe is ontologically real and not merely a construct of perception"
Now, why do you think we do that?
Could it be that is is testable? Results are repeatable? We can make predictions about it based on previous results?
"That 1=1 is not mathematically provable within our current system of mathematics. It is simply assumed and helps us derive theorems. In that sense, everybody relies on unproven axioms."
Mathematics has proven it's accuracy and practical use beyond absurdum. Do you call that an unproven axiom? That is a weak attempt at trying to justify faith by extreme philosophising.
"Similarly, we assume that our faculties are giving us proper information about the universe, a proposition that we test with information we get from our observational faculties."
You're not another one of those who claim conspiracy about the entire scientific community and that only you and your group of selected people knows the truth, are you?
"As for atheism in particular, this kind of thing shows itself most clearly in limiting study to the realm of things we can observe. Anything beyond physical observation becomes irrelevant."
First, you're mixing up the concepts.
Atheism is not rationalism/empiricism. An atheist can believe in ghosts, magic crystals or astrology.
You are also confusing agnosticism as a separate position from atheism, when they are in fact positions that can be held simultaniously.
* Agnostic Atheism - Lacks belief that there is a god, but does not claim to know if there is a god or not.
(Also called "weak atheism" or "implicit atheism")
* Gnostic Atheism - Believes that there is no god and claims to actually *know* that there is no god.
(Also called "strong atheism" or "explicit atheism")
Secondly, physical observation is the starting point for everyone, not just what you refer to as "atheists", but it is by no means the final boundaries. We all start out by testing what the world is like using our senses. Then we build on that and go beyond what is directly observable. But to avoid making false assumptions or getting tricked, we need to learn how to sort out information that is reliable. We all do that with critical thinking, just to different degrees.
"From what I've seen, any commitment to true atheism is a step made on assumption."
Trying to define "true atheism" is like a lousy cliché. Especially when you're not an atheist yourself and even more so when you don't seem to know what atheism is.
But to continue, if you are referring to gnostic atheism, then yes you are right that it is made on assumption. Just like there is a complete lack of proof of your (or any) gods NON-existence, there is a complete lack of proof of your (or any) gods existence. However, I would argue that the assumption that there is no god is less irrational than to assume that there is.
Just like assuming there does NOT live trolls under old stone bridges is less irrational, than to assume that there is.
Just like assuming that thunder is NOT caused by Thor riding his chariot through the heavens is less irrational, than to assume that it is.
Why is it less irrational? Because of the complete lack of any supporting proof of such claims.
That there is a complete lack of proof that there does NOT live trolls under old stone bridges, is no reason to believe that there is. The same goes for your god and for Thor.
Faith, as in belief without sufficient evidence, is by definition unreliable. No matter how much you try to undermine more reliable epistemologies.
How much proof do you need? There is not one shred of proof for a deity, and every religious text asserting the existence of a god - and they are different gods - is flawed. Genesis is just plain untrue, and so is Exodus. If you pick up a book and it says 2+2=5 you throw it in the garbage.
"I like to think of the issue of God's existence as a sealed, opaque jar full of gumballs."
So open the seal and count them; that's what we're doing at the moment: it's called science, reason and logic.
"How much proof do you need? There is not one shred of proof for a deity."
I think you're misunderstanding my point. The absence of observed proof for God does not constitute proof of His nonexistence. If we removed every argument for theism, we would regress back to agnosticism. To make a positive claim that there is no God requires an argument.
"So open the seal and count them; that's what we're doing at the moment: it's called science, reason and logic."
Hm, I'll grant you reason and logic. But science cannot tell us whether there is a God or not. Science consists entirely of the body of inferences drawn from humanly observed data. Philosophical claims do not fall into this realm, since they don't necessarily rest on observed data. So, since we're wanting to "open the seal," could you please reason me from agnosticism to atheism? What, if any, logical arguments can be made to take us from "I don't know if there's a God" to "There is no God"?
We have removed every argument for theism, there are none left. There is only belief without any proof.
You're quite right that it's difficult to prove nonexistence. I could say that there is a green teapot in orbit around Mars and I could ask you to disprove it, and you can't. That doesn't mean it's true, or even reasonable. You would say it's not true, and that it's up to me to prove it, and you'd be quite right. The same with god: if you say such a thing exists then you must prove it, and you can't. Take this argument to its logical conclusion: is it my responsibility to disprove every crazy claim in the world, all the religions, all the miracles, all the conspiracy theories? No, of course not. So man up and prove your god.
Science is disproving all the claims of religion. We know genesis is wrong, we know about evolution, we can explain most natural phenomena. If philosophical claims do not rely on data then they are worthless and not subject to reason.
If I said "I don't know if there's a God" then that would imply that there is some doubt about it, which would imply that there is some proof or at least indication, that such a thing exists. There is none. Zilch. Zip. So the logical conclusion is that there is no god.
Be honest for once: your belief in god is nothing to do with proof or reason or argument, but depends on your childhood conditioning. The intelligent person would have recognised that by now and got over it.
I think that only accepting things that have proof is a banefully dull existence. Plus I think there are still a plethora of things that we do not know about ourselves, the world, and the universe. I think creating useful fictions as placeholders until that time is no great sin.
God is a placeholder............. until we learn more..........
Dream on.
ImagoDei - "But science cannot tell us whether there is a God or not. Science consists entirely of the body of inferences drawn from humanly observed data."
I actually agree with this. Science can't really say anything about god. But that is also the problem. Consider the following cases:
1) God is real, and he leaves observable evidence of his existence.
2) God is real, and he does NOT leave observable evidence of his existence.
3) God is not real, so there can not observable evidence of his existence.
Clearly we live in a case 2 or 3 world (although if you believe the bible then that implies a migration from a case 1 world to a case 2 world). If we in-fact live in a case 2 world, then god is hiding his existence from observation. Of course I endorse case 3, but in this post I won't be arguing for case 3 over case 2 directly. Instead I ask the follow question:
What is the difference between case 2 and case 3? Or in other words: what is the difference between living in a world where a deity hides from all observation; and living in a world where that deity does not exist at all? I think they are identical.
Nyarlathotep, I really don't want to tackle this, since I am apathetic toward religious matters of others, but I feel it needs addressing.
There are many things that many people interpret as evidence for God. But first, we would have to define God which is an impossible task, as borne through our previous discussions. Let's go with the old school version from many native american tribes - a force that does that.
NT "We know what we have seen.............. you are flesh and know only fleshly things, so why do you ask me [what I mean by] 'You must be borne again.' That which is of the flesh is flesh and that which is of the spirit is spirit"
The question goes back to an older thread on this forum - are you a strict materialist? If you are, you will only see things through that lens and nothing can be interpreted as anything other than energy, atoms, molecules and forces. Not everyone sees things that way.
Well when you can make measurements of this 'spirit' give me a call. I'm not interested in fantasy.
you're not supposed to make measurements of spirit. not everything is supposed to or should be measured. In my opinion, you sound as dogmatic about materialism as theists are about their god
VPT - "you're not supposed to make measurements of spirit"
Says who?
-----------
VPT - "you sound as dogmatic about materialism as theists are about their god"
Perhaps I am, but there is at least one difference: physics actually works (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hezfZ91ayiA).
Nutmeg, I do not believe there was proof for the existence of plasma a while back. just because there is no proof now, doesn't mean there cannot be in the future. Until then, I think we should let people do whatever the they feel like.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plasma_%28physics%29
Just because there is no proof now, doesn't mean there cannot be in the future. Until then, I think people shouldn't act as if there was a proof.
There is no proof a god as well as gnomes or imps exist. But imagine people acting as if the existence of leprechaun was true. Imagine those thousands of people looking for the pot of gold at the end of rainbow. Why people should bother to work? Just turn on the garden sprinkler, wait for the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow and there you go - you're rich. No thanks needed.
Or maybe, it may sound ridiculous, but just maybe, we should refrain from acting as if something is true until it's proven to be true.
right, there was no reason to accept it as fact until evidence was given for it
You're right. I don't think there were physicians or engineers using the plasma theory or building anything that uses plasma plasma before the theory was confirmed.
But there is a little bit difference with religions. There is no proof of any god, but it still doesn't stop preachers, theologians and apologists from saying enormous amount of load of cr.p regarding what god is and what he/she/it wants.
Just imagine scientist who make a claim that startrekion particle exist (he read about it in some ancient book) and without confirming its (the particle) existence he starts building perpetual motion machine using it (of course using grants from people tricked into believing in existence of startrekions).
PS.
No, startrekions do not exist. Sorry.
"No, startrekions do not exist. Sorry."
Technically they might exist, since it is just a label anybody can give to the next particle we may discover :P
apart from the pun, yea comparing the scientific method with religion is like comparing humans with dust.
ow wait, someone did make a similar claim??? can't remember where... :)