Atheism

AH RMPS 2024/5

What are the main types of views of atheism?

• Strong atheists - eg. Julian Baggini assert with certainity there is no God (claim to knowledge)

• Atheists - eg. Dawkins are almost certain there is no God, it is highly improbale but want to avoid accusations of a fatih based belief

• Agnostic/weak atheists - eg Russell - not willing to fully discount god → impobable but not impossible

• Theist - will assert there is a God (claim to knowledge)

Difference between strong and weak atheists

• Strong/positive: due to lack of evidence, incoherence of God and absurdity of theist claims, we can assert there is no God

• Weak/negative: given lack of conclsuive eivdence, we are not equipped to assert anything concrete but can presume ther eis no God - unlikely but not a matter of certainity so belief is withheld

Richard Dawkins’ view on the pobaility of God

• Theistic claims lack any real empirical support

• Evolution/natural process explain complexity without a designer

• A God capable of creating the universe would be even more complex → would itslef require an explanation

• Since simpler explanations work, God’s existence is highly improbable

• He is almost certain God doesn’t exist but acknowledge absolute certainity is unattainble

• Belief in God is a psychological & cultural contruct rather than a rational conclusion

Swinburne’s view on the probaility of God

• God existing is the simplest explantion - a single, all powerful god to accpunt for everything rather than a infinite number oif physical causes

• eg. comsological & fine tuning - God is the most reasonable explanation

• Moral values exist - morlaity is objective & comes from a source byond the human mind

• Rleigious experinces - principle of credulity (we should trust our experiences)

William Lane Craig’s view on the probalility of God?

• Sees a culimanteive case for God through Kalam cosmological argument, morals pointing to a transcedent God, fine tuning, burden of proof is not soley on the theist

What is the presumption of atheism and the outline of its basic princples?

• Idea that we should assume atheism is true unless there is good evidence for God - popular by Athony Flew

• Burden of Proof

• Atheism as a default

• Faith is not enough

Summary of Flew’s preusmption of atheism

• The default stance regarding belief in gods should be atheism

• It ios like the legal pricnipleof innocent until proven guilty

• He distinguished positive atheism and negative atheism, and that the presumption is more aligned with negative atheism as it withholds belief until evidence is provided

Explantion of the burden of proof in the presumption of atheism

• Flew argued that anyone making a claim must prove it - theists therefore have it for God

• eg. if someone claims there is a teapot floating in space, we shouldn’t believe unless there is good evidecne (Russell)

Explantion of the atheism as the default in the presumption of atheism

• Innocent until proven guilty - just like in a court

• The accused are presumed innocent until proven guility, so atheism should be assumed until God is proven to exist

• If no solid evidence, God shouldn’t be accpeted

• But theists would argue ‘the jur’ cannot ignore the presnted evidence like fine tuning, first cuase, religious experiences

Explantion of the faith is not enough in the presumption of atheism

• Atheists agrue that just because cannot be disproven does not mean it exists

• eg. cannot disprove the existence of fairies,but that doesn’t mean we should believe in them

Theistic responses to the presumption of atheism

• Theism can also be default: so many culture believed in higher power - maybe it is natural, and Bible suggests people naturally know God

• Evidence for God exists: theists argue philosophical/scientific evidence supports (eg. fine tuning, cosmological) → culimitive case for God

• Atheism is a claim too: still a posotion/belief system - if evidence emerges for God, their ‘belief’ will change

• Neutrality is impossible: everyhone has faith in something, atheiets also have assumptions eg. trust in science, reason, or materialism

Craig’s arguments' against the presumption of atheism

• False defintion of atheism - he claims the presumption treats atheism as a mere lack of lack rather than a postive claim → setting the burden of proof unfairly

• Theism as a viable position: contends that the existence of God is philoopshical question wher eboth theism and atheism require justification → atheism should not get a priveledged starting point

• Evidence for theism: Craig argues there is positive evidence for God, making the resumption of atheism unjustified

Why would theists eg. WL Craig think the presumption of atheism is misguided?

• Flew has moved the goalpost on what it means to be atheist - particular negative atheism

• The term atheism has alywas meant without God - a psotive clai that God doesn’t exist

• Flew changed this so atheism is no longer the view that God doesn not exist

• “On this new redefinition atheism is no longer a position or a truth claim” (Craig)

• The withholding belief of the presumption means an atheist isn’t making a claim isn’t really saying anything

What did Wittgenstein believe?

• Believed langauge gets its meaning from how we use it in everyday life

• Since we can’t test or prove statements about God in the same way we do with science or facts avout the world, any statements that include God are meajingless

• God is a metaphysical concept - cannot be verified or falsified

• “Where of one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent” - if somethign cvannot be clearly expressed with logic/evidence, we shouldn’t talk about it at all

How can Wittegenstein’s views be challenged?

• Feelings & experinces matter - just because something isn’t sciencitfic doesn’t make it meaningless eg. love cannot be proven

• Religious language can shape lives - people act on beliefs, build communities → has a real impact on people

• Morals & ethics matter - we talk about right and wrong even though they aren’t based on logic - it is meaningful

What is Pascal’s wager?

• That a belief in God is favourable

• You can either believe in god, and you’re wither right (eternal joy) or wrong (nothing)

• If you don’t, and you’re right (nothing) or you’re wrong (eternal siffering)

Reason for benevolence casuing an incoherence of God

The problem of evil and suffering

Outline the argument aginst the coherence of God

• Confused concept

• Omnipotence & the paradox of the stone

• Omniscence and its challenges

• Prolem of evil and suffering

How is God an incohrent confused concept?

• Theism claims God to be the ulimate being but using mixed, very different descriptions of him

• Anthromorophic - human qualities (he sees, he hears etc) but also Metaphysical using abstract & philopsophical concepts (that he exists outside of space ansd time)

• Does this make God beyond human comprehension or just incoherent

Quote from Dawkins on God as a confused concept

“A God who is capable of devisingand excuting the creation of a universe is not just conplex: he is a monster of complexit. if he exists at all, he must be the end product of an immense process of evolution - otherwise, we are back to a skyhook explanation, which should will not do.”

Explanation of omnipotence and the paradox of the stone

• If God is all powerful, can he do absolutely anything?

• Paradox: Can God create a stone so heavy he cannot lift it?

  → if he can, he isn’t all powrful because he cannot lift it

  • if he can’t, he isnt’t all powerful becuase he can create it

• Self contradictionary as if God’s power allows him to do ahything, can that include limiting his own power

• Russell: omnipotence is outright impossible - thiests often refine omnipotence to avoid logical problems → concept is meaningless

How would theists respond to omnipotence and the paradox of the stone?

• Argues the paradox misunderstands omnipotence

• Logical limitations - some eg CS Lewis ague God’s power does not extend to logical contradictions eg. God cannot make 2+2=%, he cannot create a logically impossibke stone, Aquinas agrees

• Wiilliam Lane Craig: omnipotence means God can do all things that are logically possible- it doesn’t limit his power as logical contradictions are nonsense

Explanation of omniscience and its challenges - problem 1

Free will vs divine knowledge

• If God already knows what we will do in thr future, can we really have free will?

• If we must follow God, are we truly free?

• Anthony Flew argues omniscience and free will are simply incompatible as if god knows the future with certainity, human choice is predetermined “you cannot have both with contradiction”

Theistic responses to the problem of omnisicnece: Free will vs divine knowledge

• Swinburne: God is like an author, he might know know every detail of the future, but knows all the possible futures. This allows humans to have free will, but God remians monsicent in a meaningfull way

• Craig: grand chess master analogy - compares god to a chess master who doesn’t determine every move but knows all moves. While indivudal players make own choice, God always remains in control of the overall game

• Critics: agrues these only weaken the traditional concept of omniscince as they redfine omniscience to make sense

Explanation of omniscience and its challenges - problem 2

Can God learn?

• If God knows everything, does he earn new things? If he does, there was a time he didn’t know it, so hasn’t alwys been omniscient.

• If he doesn’t learn, can he still respond to humans in a menaingful way?

• Physical knolwedge - if God is timeless, oimmaterial etc, but we humans gain knolwedge through experince, he cannot know everything eg. taste, or what is is to be human

Theistics repsonses to the problem of omnisicnece - can God learn?

• God in the character of Jesus provides an answer to how God can interact on a physical level

• Also that asking God what it is not to be God is another logical contradtion/meaningless words

Quote from Epicrus about the problem of evil and suffering

“Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?”

JL Mackie’s Problem of Evil as a logical problem

• A Priori argument of the Inconsistent triad

  1. God is perfectly good and benevolent

  2. God is all powerful

  3. Evil and suffering exists

• if God is omnipotent & choose not to stop evil = not benevolent

• if God is benevolent & can’t stop evil = not omnipotent

• If not benevolent or omnipotent = not truly God

• Therefore God doesn’t exist

JL Mackie’s Problem of Evil as a evidential problem

• A Posteriori agrument

• Based on our experince in world, does it make more sense that there is an omnibenevolent & omnipotent God at work in the world (with a plan excusing evil)

• Is it more plausible that God does not have the characteritics traditionally atributed to him or there is no God at all?

What is a theodicy?

Arguments by theists trying to justify a belief in God and the exidtence of evil & suffering

3 type or ‘flavours’ of theodices for the problem of evil

• Theodices that agrue Go dis not responsible for evil: God created a good world, evil has another source (misue of free will by others)

• Thweodices that argue God is responsible for evil, but it serves a greater good: the world is a place of soul-making where suffering is essential to develop a holy charcater

• Theocies that argue God is not omnipotent or wholly god: tkw radically different view of God as a fellow suffer who shares our pain but is powerless to prevent it

Leibniz’s theodicy for the problem of evil

• Argued the design of our wolrd may seem flawed 9evil ebing the prime imperfection) but this was unavoidable

• Evil exists so we can enjoy greater good later on (like an athelete suffering to later enjoy winning)

• Evil or any flaws are not flaws, but rather neccessary elements for us to be truly free willed

• Since God is good omnipotent, he choose this world out of all the possibilities soi it must be good - the best of all possible worlds - only God is perfect

JL Mackie on the problem of evil

• Questions why God didn’t cretw us so that we always choose good over evil of our own freewill - humans time good the majoirty of the time, surely creating beings to do so would be better design & offer a better possible world

• If theists try to justify evil as a way to ‘know’ good, that’s riducsulous because you can know without having terrible evil as a benchmark -it’s excessive & cruel

Why was JL Mackie unconivnced by theodices?

• the problem of natural evil has no real answer other than a ‘faith’ based position (eg. it’s all part of his plan) - this is wholly unstaisfactory and faiuls to address the problem

• Theodices about moral evil & free will pale in the face of the sheer level of suffering that exists - no morally good or loving being could see ‘merit’ in this amount

What response do theists think we should have the problem of evil, rather than debate it?

• Do something practical about it to stop it - there is perhaos no philosophical answer

• They accept god on a cumulative basis - belief offers them menaing and purpose, even comfort in the face of suffering

• Religion equips them with rules and guidance to help prevent evil

How did christian thinker straditionally deal with the problem of evil?

• St Augustine: evil is not a thing or a substance so God didn’t create it

• if antyhing, it is simply the absence of good like darkness is the absence of light =- evil is when people ignore the guidance of god

What problems can be identified with the theistic responses to the porblem of evil?

• Insufficent responses: many theodices sturggle to provide satisfactory explanations for the nature & extent of suffering - inadqiuate for prodound evil (Mackie) eg. millions die just for free will?

• Nature evil still a problem: presence of natural disasters indifferent to sauffering raise questions of God’’s benevolence and design

• Empirical evidence: theodices have not provided empiricla evidence to substaniate their claims - could offer some sort of justification for faith but not real proof (Dawkins)

What did Ludwig Feurbach think about the existence of God

• The debate belongs in the 16th/17th centruy when there was no evidence - but there isn’t need for God anymore as the rise of science proves there is no supernatural as only natural exists

• God is a human projection - “The secret to theology is antrophology” - humans have a pyschological need for imaginary transedant beings, needed a fiurgurehead, so the more you learn about God, the more you realise huamsn made him up

What stages of human history show the devleopment of God as a human fabrication according to Feurbach?

• First period: humanity wa sdepedndant on nature - led to polytheism and a desire to satisfy physical needs

• Second period: humans become more depednant on each other in a more devleoped society and spiritual/moral needs led to monotheism

3 criticisms theists have against Feurbach’s idea of God as a human projection

• Enduring religion: religion/God have not disappeared with social progress as Feurbach eagerly predicted the end of God

• Does it have a lead to atheism?: Criag argues Feurbach had chosen atheism as his stance long beofre formualting his philosophy → takes no notice of first causes, design, oral arguements

• Feurbach’s projection: it has been commented that atheism is in fact Feurbach’s own personal projection. Is not wanting God to exist as much a fantasty or a wish fulfillment as watning God to exist?

John Lennox quote relating to evidecne for God

• “faith is not a leap in the dark; it’s the exact oppostie. It’s a commitment based on evidence… it is irrational to reduce all faith to blind faith and then subject it to ridcule”

What ‘crime scene’ feature sof evidence can theists use to prove God?

• Temporal nature of the cosmos

• Appeareance of purpose and design

• Moral standards

• Intutuion and experince

• Science as “provisional”

What would theists say about the Temporal nature of the cosmos evidence?

• The universe isn’t infinte (evidence) & had to have a starting point - whatever caused it cannot be within laws of nature so must be a metaphysical being

• Light swiutch analogy: the universe had 2 possible states - something external had to excerise choose/will for the universe to be

• The simplest expkantion is usually the right one (Ockham’s razor)

What would theists say about the appearance of purpose & design evidence?

• nature shows design, fien tuning, comsological constant (the rate fo expansion of the work is perfect), tenant’s aesthic and antrophic principle

• Chance cannot account for this - God is the simplest explantion

What would theists say about the moral standards evidence?

• Moral standards - universe didn’t give us objective moral standards yet most cultures arrive at some form of golden rule

• We seem to have an innate sense of right/wrong, we care for others - not survival of the fittest

• Gopd explains why this exists

What would theists say about the intuition & experience evidence?

• Swinburnew argues so many have had personal experinces of God that this cannot be brushed aside

• People have religious and spirtiual experince or find in God in extradionary circumstances

What would theists say about the science as ‘provisional’ evidence?

• Sciecne is to do with physical laws that exist within space/time/matter whereas God exists outside of these → cannot be explained by science

• Scicen is limited and is capable of making inductive leaps & applying human bias

• If you use science to find god, don’t be surpise when you don’t find him