My dear atheist friend,
I have been actively involved in the education of Jews of all stripes (especially those with a built-in apathy or antipathy to theology) for the last 11 years. I have had a lot of time to reflect on your position and I'd like to offer a few general observations that I've culled from my experience over the years - not to convince you to change your mind (which, I've discovered, is close to impossible) and not to judge your choices, but rather so that we can understand each other better and possibly "walk back" some of the clamorous dialogue. Certainly we can open by agreeing that all human beings should be respected and, assuming no egregious misdeeds, treated with civility.
The first point I'd like to explore is that there really are no true atheists. It seems to me that in order to claim with certainty that there is no God you would have to have knowledge of the totality of the universe - seen and unseen - and I don't think any of you guys are ready to make that claim. You have not observed an overarching creative force, a God ... yet. Being a rationalist, of course, you know that failing to make such an observation is different from proving that there isn't one, which, by its very nature, is an impossible task. (You will counter that definitively proving the existence of God on purely rational grounds is similarly impossible, which, for the sake of argument, I will concede.) Given this, your assumption of the title, "atheist" isn't so much a statement of fact as it is a statement of principle, or intent -- a nom de guerre. To define oneself as simply agnostic (which I believe you truly are) sounds unsatisfingly wishy-washy and degrades your ability to take a firm stand against deism, in its various forms. While this is certainly understandable, I suspect that you have traded accuracy for titular intensity.
You may want to counter that you have many well-regarded and brilliant personalities who have provided more than sufficient evidence to knock theism back to the Bronze Age where it belongs. Hitchens, Dawkins, Weinberg, et al are big time, unapologetic, capital "A" atheists. I've read many of their books and found much of them to be polemics against Christianity and ill-conceived take downs of classical philosophical and scientific arguments that make the idea of a Creator seem more than plausible. See here for a great rebuttal of Dawkin's "The Ultimate 747 Argument." But even if the arguments were more persuasive and comprehensive, surely you are aware that believers are ready to parry with many philosophers and scientists of our own, people like Anthony Flew, the Oxford philosopher and sparring partner of C.S. Lewis (who was a pillar of academic atheism until he reversed his position late in his life), theoretical physicist Dr. Andrew Goldfinger, and the mathematical physicist and cosmologist Frank Tipler. You will quote your expert and I will quote mine. Strangely, they disagree ... utterly. At the end of the day, it's always going to be a draw, each of us convinced that our own arguments are superior and that the other is (perhaps willfully) missing the point.
Having spent a sizable portion of my life as an atheist, I understand your perspective. What I have found hard to understand from my new vantage point, however, is why so many of you spend so much time trolling around the comments section of religiously-themed blogs or spend good money to buy billboards on the Jersey Turnpike asserting a negative. Wouldn't it make much more sense to just chuckle knowingly to yourselves and shake your heads at our folly in the way you might with children who believe they have magic powers? Yet, many of you seem to have a big axe to grind, and I only recently realized why. You believe that we are ruining the world and stunting its progress. You will point out all of the violence carried out in religion's name. We will point out that equally severe evils have been perpetrated by secularists such as Hitler, Mao, Stalin and Pol Pot. You deride us as anti-science, to which we respond that we're really not, but, rather, see scientific proof and inquiry as subject to certain inherent limits. You do not find our responses any more compelling than we find your criticisms to be insightful.
To me, however, the crux of the matter is incontrovertible. It is not the product of rational argument, nor expression of faith, but simple historical fact. The faith to which I ascribe has brought substantial light and unique meaning to the world. Some great thinkers readily embrace this idea. Have a look at this quote from British historian Paul Johnson:
"To them (the Jews) we owe the idea of equality before the law, both divine and human; of the sanctity of life and the dignity of human person; of the individual conscience and so of personal redemption; of collective conscience and so of social responsibility; of peace as an abstract ideal and love as the foundation of justice, and many other items which constitute the basic moral furniture of the human mind. Without Jews it might have been a much emptier place."
Given this historical reality, since you're a rationalist who bases your world view on empiric evidence, could you be open to the possibility that religion isn't inherently bad?
As an empiricist, you are only prepared to believe in that which can be seen or measured. You don't enjoy my conviction that there are aspects of existence that are, by their nature, beyond the reach of science. Fine. So when we Theists look carefully at the astounding complexity and improbable fine-tuning of our universe and conclude that there's no way that this happened randomly, you then turn around and ask us to accept that it is the result of undetectable organizational forces or of an un-testable (and thus non-scientific) multiverse. Isn't your argument every bit an assertion of faith, rather than knowledge? Maybe we can at least agree that forces unseen, however we conceive of them, seem to be playing a major role in our lives?
Charles Darwin added three interesting quotes to later editions of the Origin of Species. Of these, the third, from Francis Bacon's Advancement of Learning, is especially revealing:
"To conclude, therefore, let no man out of a weak conceit of sobriety, or an ill-applied moderation, think or maintain that a man can search too far or be too well-studied in the book of God's word, or in the book of God's works; divinity and philosophy; but rather let men endeavor an endless progress or proficiency in both."
If Darwin himself could find room for belief in a God and stay faithful to his discoveries, maybe the common ground is much bigger than we currently imagine. We still have a lot to discuss. Let's do it with a caring heart, and open mind and a spirit of appreciation for our shared humanity.
Sincerely,
Adam
Follow Rabbi Adam Jacobs on Twitter: www.twitter.com/RabbiAdamJacobs
Matt J. Rossano: Can You Be Good Without God?
Atheism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
American Atheists | Welcome Free Thinkers
How do Christians define Christians? What makes you or not a Christian?
Ricky Gervais says atheism shouldn't offend
Joy Behar Asks Miss America: Would You Vote For An Atheist?
Clips From Last Night: Gervais talks atheism, addiction and not apologizing
The rabbi states that "We will point out that equally severe evils have been perpetrated by secularists such as Hitler, Mao, Stalin and Pol Pot". However, if he holds atheists responsible for all the deaths they caused then he also has to do the same for religionists. Virtually all of the wars, genocides, ethnic cleansings etc that have occurred since 3000 BC have been started and carried out by people who believed in god. The body count has been estimated at some 969 million deaths (see Everyone Ever in the World, Peter Crnokrak, Science 331:851, 2011). So if you want to blame atheists for millions of deaths they caused you must also blame the god-believes for hundreds of millions they caused. We are not claiming that secularism is totally good but the rabbi is claiming that for religion. If, in fact, religion is primarily good why does it have any body count at all associated with it let alone hundreds of millions of deaths? This seems to be something that the rabbi is either deliberately denying or deluding himself, something he is quick to blame other people for. The obvious reason is that not only is religion wrong but it is also fundamentally immoral and unethical.
The rabbi says "Being a rationalist,.. you know that failing to make such an observation is different from proving that there isn't one, which, by its very nature, is an impossible task." My response is that god is not there when he should be. Any omnipotent being that directs all the activities of all the components of the universe should be detectable anywhere in that universe. The fact that he's not detectable anywhere by any of our senses or instruments proves beyond reasonable doubt that the god of the bible does not exist and is a figment of the imagination. Of course if you want to define him as not a omnibenevolent entity, then of course he might be hiding somewhere.
With regard to atheists having an axe to grind, yes we have many. Religionists have been ruthlessly ruling most of the world for the past 5000 years, murdering untold numbers of nonbelievers and apostates. In more recent times they have been taking over large segments of our secular government, creating minitheocracies of our towns, robbing billions of taxpayer dollars to advance their religions, overpopulating the planet, indoctrinating our children, blocking medical research and reproductive rights. They have been leaders in denying science, facts and history and in blocking efforts to control global warming which is now threatening the stability and well being of our planet. To not have an axe to grind in these circumstances would be insane.
More to come.
3) You go on to attack this premise by citing disagreement on this issue. You have no basis by which you may successfully argue that this is proof of anything content-related. This proves, more realistically, that it is part of the human method of understanding to engage in argument.
4) You assert that empirical evidence of certain phenomena point, or could point, to god's existence. This seems blatantly untrue. Please see David Hume for the empiricist's position.
5) You ask atheists not to advertise their position (ie your tirade against billboard advertising). Although I too dislike advertising of this kind, this is a remarkably strange position given your membership in a particularly persecuted minority. You, of all people, should be the most sympathetic to the freedom to advertise one's beliefs without fear of reprisal, and you should be respectful of it in this and every arena.
In short, I must register my strong objection to your article. I hope that this has been informative, and that it is not in the mean-spirited vein that you attribute to atheist argument.
1) Atheist versus agnostic: Your suggestion that to refute god's existence absolutely requires absolute, certain knowledge of the universe is a commonly given and invalid critique of atheism. In cases where the argument rests on the stipulation of existence, it is a generally accepted fact of logic that the burden of proof is placed on the positive claim (here that god exists). So, you are incorrect in asserting that there is a category mistake in the atheist's self-identification.
2) Your second argument is what we philosophers refer to as a Straw Man Fallacy. To "straw man" an argument is to attribute a premise or conclusion to it that the argument does not require, or more strongly, one it does not even consider. In this case, you assert that an atheist might prove his or her case by arguing that many famous intellectuals are atheists. This is not a good argument, and I do not believe most atheists would use it as a proof.
Throughout history religion has challenged science and lost. The fact that science has yet to come up with a testable theory for the origin of life doesn't mean that it can't.
The Christin religion suggest it's a scientific approach to god with the words *Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen* in Hebrews 11:1. So long s I held to Christian doctrine without obeying the teachings of Jesus the anointed, there were many unanswerable questions, not the only question I have is "when will what I envision manifest."
Physical science I don't believe can nor will ever provide a testable theory but reasoning with the things of the self reproducing environment will. I recognize, by my experience, reasoning with certain concepts many man hold as true and the reproducing environment will provide the reality of what is considered god, it eliminates its need while maintaining existence always was, is and shall be.
I'm the reverse of you. For the first 34 years of my 66 I believed in Christianity's god until after nearly 4 years of following the teachings of Yoshua the anointed. I found myself in a situation where what I had been hearing no longer communicated with me and I forsook the the concepts of god and devil. I studied nature desiring it and observed Isaiah 7:14 clinching my reason not to believe.
14 Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.
15 Butter [calf's food processed for man, civilization processed from insects] and honey [natural food many lifes to eat from, living in the self reproducing environment] shall he eat [learn laws of], that he may know to refuse the evil [civilization], and choose the good [nature].
16 For before the child shall know to refuse the evil, and choose the good, the land that thou [man in general] abhorrest [dreads] shall be forsaken [by him] of both [the 2 of] her [death's] kings god and devil].
After that interpretation I again began to hear from my guiding source to today, but have never been inspired to believe again. The last of the prophecy, verses 18-22, suggests only those who come to that same conclusion will "endure until the end" of civilization. My experiences and reasoning justifies my explanation of existence without god. I'm Christian Atheist.
The first point I would like to make is that an atheist is not one who says they can prove there is no God, but rather that they are simply "a" (not) "theist" (theist).
Not. Theist. That's what it literally means.
As one fellow put it:
"An atheist doesn't have to be someone who thinks he has a proof that there can't be a god. He only has to be someone who believes that the evidence on the God question is at a similar level to the evidence on the werewolf question." [John McCarthy]
In order to deny God, one must first define it -- which creates an interesting paradox for the atheist.
Thus, when an atheist says there is no god, he has one in mind, and he is sure that no such thing as that particular kind of God exists. As we explore it, you may find that I agree, THAT kind of God does not exist, but MY kind does!
I can almost sympathize.
I can't deny that which does not exist.
Hardly a paradox for the atheist. The defining has to be done by the party making the positive claim.
I consider it either:
A) a failure on the theists' part, that they can't define that which they worship, or
B) purposeful obfuscation, hard to criticize such an abstract and undefined concept.
There has yet to be a definition of a god that can withstand even the most basic of scrutinies. Bible God is self refuting, the traits of other gods seem all to human like to be considered god-like.....
Theists shy away from a definitive description of their gods because they are so easily shown to be hollow definitions that don't pass muster. If one keeps it abstract enough it's easier to move the goal posts, which is what we witness a lot of the time.
Please, define your god. Then we can have a meaningful dialogue, until then it's just wishful thinking on your part.
That would be good and proper debate style. Dan Jighter declares, without definition, "God does not exist". He makes no definition so I have no idea WHICH God he thinks does not exist.
After much back-and-forth, it gradually comes out he is talking about a transcendent, omni-everything God of perhaps the Catholics, and any other thing -- which he acknowledges might exist, is not "god".
Thus he has defined "god" to be the one thing he is sure does not exist.
Bizarre.
That also is a good observation. I have no expectation of "converting" anyone in this forum nor being criticized. I have never converted anyone in person although by answering questions I may have influenced a couple of people over the past few decades to change their mind about a thing or two.
This topic is an invitation for atheists to explain, if they wish. It is not an open door for every theist to try to persuade atheists.
It is an opportunity for atheists to say precisely what they don't believe exists. "God" is an obfuscation in this context, it is not defined.
I listen and learn, ask questions and try to drill through pre-programmed talking points to find out what other people believe, which is not what is frequently written in the spur of the moment.
Hitler was 'still a member in good standing of the Church of Rome… he carried with him its teaching that the Jew was the killer of god. The extermination, therefore, could be done without a twinge of conscinece since he was merely acting as the avenging hand of god – so long as it was done impersonally, without cruelty.' -- Adolf Hitler: The Definitve Biography by John Toland
“…Without Jews it might have been a much emptier place.”
How about: Without the birth of consciousness it might have been a much less conscious place. See Julian Jaynes for more info.
“So when we Theists look carefully at the astounding complexity and improbable fine-tuning of our universe and conclude that there's no way that this happened randomly…”
Therefore god.
“…you then turn around and ask us to accept that it is the result of undetectable organizational forces or of an un-testable (and thus non-scientific) multiverse.
Isn't your argument every bit an assertion of faith, rather than knowledge?”
You can call it an assertion of faith if you like, but multiverse theories do not fly into buildings.
I would argue that someone needs evidence to prove that something DOES exist far more than one needs evidence to prove that something doesn't exist.
You don't need anything at all.
UNLESS you wish to persuade others. Then, suddenly, you DO need to conform to certain rules of evidence -- evidence of non-existence, and you also have to define which God you think does not exist.
Religion is the ONLY field in which these rules do not apply. Suddenly the burden of proof is on an atheist to say that God doesn't exist and to prove it without a doubt. Why? Because religious discourse has its own set of rules, and it shouldn't.
Are all of your arguments with yourself so succinct?
"YAHWEH--Semite
Storm god. By all accounts, he is an extremely jealous god who cannot
tolerate the presence of other divinities. This is a source of great puzzlement to
many of them as, when Yahweh was a member of the Grand Council of the Gods
presided over by El of Ugarit, relations between Yahweh and the rest of the
council members were always most cordial." --Comprehensive Dictionary of Gods, p. 195
I would much prefer that it were required that religious believers be the ones that shake their heads in disbelief at "atheist nonsense". The lying rabbi ( I call him liar because he makes the assertion that he was once an atheist), misses the true reason why Atheists have an axe to grind, it is this: YOUR FOOLISH BELIEFS AFFECT OUR LIVES! Stop demanding that society cater to your beliefs, and I will allow you to hold whatever beliefs you want! Demand that society caters to your beliefs, and I will demand proof that your beliefs are worth catering to!
Just as your foolish disbelief affects the lives of believers.
It is as the writer says; the situation appears to be highly symmetrical and not easily resolved in a compelling way.
Or don't you believe in those gods? If not, why not?
If you do, that's very silly.
this is a dishonest position.
"I do not know if God exists or not" is a lie.
"Know" means: I can point to the existent, parse out the essential distinguishing characteristics and locate the thing in objective reality. I can identify it. This is a process of reason: facts plus logic = reason, by which a human being identifies something that exists. Additionally, I can isolate the existent from other things in existence because everything is finite; everything has a limiting boundary outside of which the thing is not.
So to state "I don't know if God exists or not" is a lie; you either know or you don't know.
I disagree, although it might be better to state it "I do not know THAT God exists" which is perhaps the most true thing most people can say on the subject.
You have defined "know" to suit your purposes. My "know" does not require that I "point to it".
Do you know whether you ate pizza last night? Let's say you did. Do you "know" it? Sure you do, you experienced it. Can you point to it? NO! It is gone, it is ephemeral.
That is hilarious! First, the pizza eater CAN point to it, in any number of ordinarily accepted ways, from the security cam at the pizza shop to the stool inspection you might wish to conduct. To equate that with your private knowledge of a magical being is preposterous!
You have heard about the greater requirements for extraordinary claims, haven't you?
Incorrect. All you need to prove the existence of a marshmallow is to hold one. Just one. That's all it takes. You can even eat it in which case the evidence is gone, but you don't need it any longer because now you have knowledge.
The only way to prove that marshmallow does NOT exist is to search its domain of possible locations (the universe) and, failing to find one, only then can you be sure one does not exist.
It is of course easier to confine the search area -- there is no marshmallow HERE where here might have to be stated or inferred.
In that sense, it is easy to say "there is no visible God here in this room" and you can even compel agreement, for it will be immediately obvious to all whether this is a true statement.