Weaknesses of atheism

[Truthseeker]

A better parallel is the polytheistic world of early Canaanite Judaism.

Wow, what an expert on Iron Age Canaan you are! :awestruck:

[shunyadragon]

Dude. Seriously? You do realize that the whole concept of the unmoved mover originated with Aristotle, right? Aquinas adapted his take on the subject from Averroes, who was himself commenting on Aristotle. Aristotle's idea of the nature of deity could hardly be considered anthropomorphic.

[eschaton]

'Aristotle indicates several times in VII.11–14 that merely to say that pleasure is a good does not do it enough justice; he also wants to say that the highest good is a pleasure. Here he is influenced by an idea expressed in the opening line of the Ethics: the good is that at which all things aim. In VII.13, he hints at the idea that all living things imitate the contemplative activity of god (1153b31–2). Plants and non-human animals seek to reproduce themselves because that is their way of participating in an unending series, and this is the closest they can come to the ceaseless thinking of the unmoved mover. Aristotle makes this point in several of his works (see for example De Anima 415a23-b7), and in Ethics X.7–8 he gives a full defense of the idea that the happiest human life resembles the life of a divine being.'

This link is better, but I will still object that Aristotle's and the Greek view of anthropomorphic Gods and Divine Beings as being equivalent, nor does it come that close to the concept of the God of Christianity's unmoved mover. Greeks classically emulated the Greek Gods and their life resembled the Greek Gods, and yes 'the good is that which all things aim,' but did not consider this as a theistic relationship as the Gods being the source of Happiness in human life., nor the Creator of Humanity. The Greek Gods reflected the fallible human qualities of tragedy, wisdom, rivalry, jealousy, all aspects of love, faults and conflicts between Gods and at times between humans and Gods in a very human way.

A better parallel is the polytheistic world of early Canaanite Judaism.

Where did the idea of an unmoved mover come from Shuny?

[shunyadragon]

Where did the idea of an unmoved mover come from Shuny?

The idea comes from Aristotle's logic view that the universe is finite (nine spheres) therefore the universe requires a source. His unmoved mover is described as deist source without personal involvement in creation.

Lucretius on the other hand sees our physical existence as infinite, consisting of many worlds and suns like ours with no need for an unmoved mover source.

[eschaton]

The idea comes from Aristotle's logic view that the universe is finite (nine spheres) therefore the universe requires a source. His unmoved mover is described as deist source without personal involvement in creation.

Lucretius on the other hand sees our physical existence as infinite, consisting of many worlds and suns like ours with no need for an unmoved mover source.

You said Aristotle's view is different than the Christian one, and yet the Christian idea is an elaboration of Aristotle. I don't accept your assertions without good source references. I'm starting to believe you just make things up off the top of your head.

[Jichard]

I have put together a YouTube playlist of what I feel are the main weaknesses of atheism.

http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list...fZhuZ7vn3UKlxo

1. Why do atheists worry about immorality in the Bible if there is no such thing as objective morality? Apologist Frank Turek and American atheists president David Silverman discuss the Holocaust. Silverman says we can't really condemn the Nazis.

A few problems.

First, atheism is compatible with moral objectivism. So your question presupposes a strawman, where the atheist is committed to rejecting moral objectivism.

Second, one can condemn something even if one is not a moral objectivist. After all, there are non-moral grounds for condemnation. For example, there are moral nihilists who reject moral realism since they think moral realism is committed to external normative reasons [that is: reasons for action, where these reasons don't depend on one's desires, commitments, etc. or what an ideally rational version of oneself would advice one to do] and these nihilists think there are no such things as external normative reasons. Instead, they think there are only internal normative reasons [that is: reasons for action, where these reasons depend on one's desires, commitments, etc. or what an ideally rational version of oneself would advice one to do]. So these moral nihilists would not be able to condemn Nazis based on moral, external normative reasons. However, they would be able to condemn Nazis on the grounds of internal normative reasons.

2. How can atheists know there isn't a God? How can atheists "know" anything? Apologist William Lane Craig and atheist Christopher Hitchens discuss how Hitchens can be an atheist that knows there isn't a God.

Atheists can know there isn't a God, given the numerous arguments against God's existence, depending on one's definition of God. These include arguments based on inference to the best explanation (where God isn't the best explanation for the phenomena that God would be the best explanation for if God existed), variants of the problem of evil, variants of the problem of non-belief, variants of the problem of evil, moral arguments against God's existence, incoherencies in the definition of God, and so on.

And last I checked, atheists can know stuff. As far as I know, atheism is compatible with most of the mainstream theories/accounts of knowledge (ex: classical foundationalism, coherentism, foudherentism, modest foundantionalism, process reliabilism, truth-tracking accounts, contextualist accounts).

3. Father Robert Barron talks about the "new" atheists. The existentialist atheists of the past century knew there was no meaning or purpose to life without a God.

Good for those existentialists. Atheism does not entail that there is no meaning or purpose in life.

In any event, I find that most of the people who complain about "new atheists", lack a deep understanding of the views of Dennett or Harris.

4. Barron discusses atheist, physicist Stephen Hawking's book. Hawking doesn't adequately address the idea that something can happen without a reason.

What do you mean by "reason"?

Do you mean something like "intentional act by an agent"? For example: The reason Sam is dead, is because Robert hated Sam and so decided to kill Sam. If so, then there are numerous examples of things that happen for no reason. For example: weather patterns aren't the result of the workings of some intentional agent. Instead, they are due to non-intentional, naturalistic processes.

Do you instead mean something like "cause"? For example: The reason the ball moved is because my foot made contact with it. If so, then I don't see a problem with saying something happens without a reason. One just needs to offer an acausal explanation of the phenomenon, such as a probabilistic explanation (ex: Quentin Smith does this when he argues, given Hawking's cosmology, the existence of a universe like our's is highly probable, even if the universe has no cause). In any event, nothing about the notion of an "event" ("something") entails that that "event" (or "something") has a cause. If theists thought otherwise, then they'd be committed to thinking that God has a cause. Furthermore, one can explain why an event (or "something") would lack a cause. For example: causes temporally precede their effects. So if there is no time prior to an "event" (or "something"), then that "event" (or "something") has no cause.

[eschaton]

I've added 3 videos to my atheism playlist.

Is Christianity evil? A look at some studies

https://youtu.be/dgESPmh-TxY

Cruel logic. This is a short film by Brian Godawa. It's about morality without God. Warning, not for the squeamish.

https://youtu.be/bq9A-c8bsjc

An interview with Godawa about Hollywood movies.

https://youtu.be/nzCG7DuE818

Enjoy.

[seer]

I've added 3 videos to my atheism playlist.

Is Christianity evil? A look at some studies

https://youtu.be/dgESPmh-TxY

Cruel logic. This is a short film by Brian Godawa. It's about morality without God. Warning, not for the squeamish.

https://youtu.be/bq9A-c8bsjc

An interview with Godawa about Hollywood movies.

https://youtu.be/nzCG7DuE818

Enjoy.

Thanks for the links...

[Jichard]

I've added 3 videos to my atheism playlist.

Is Christianity evil? A look at some studies

https://youtu.be/dgESPmh-TxY

Cruel logic. This is a short film by Brian Godawa. It's about morality without God. Warning, not for the squeamish.

https://youtu.be/bq9A-c8bsjc

An interview with Godawa about Hollywood movies.

https://youtu.be/nzCG7DuE818

Enjoy.

All without addressing the objections mentioned.

[eschaton]

You haven't given the basis for moral objectivism. You haven't given a reason to oppose the Nazis. You need to respond to the second new video about cruel logic to continue the line of thought.

If atheists don't know if there is a God then they should call themselves agnostics.

Atheists have no real purpose for the meaning of the universe except for whatever subjective goals they imagine for themselves. There is no overreaching meaning for them.


Everything that begins to exist has a cause. This is called cause and effect.

[shunyadragon]

You haven't given the basis for moral objectivism. You haven't given a reason to oppose the Nazis. You need to respond to the second new video about cruel logic to continue the line of thought.

Defining objective morality or moral objectivism is a problem for theists also. From the theist perspective can you provide a good, clear and specific definition for 'Objective Morality,' and examples of what these 'Objective morals' would be???

If atheists don't know if there is a God then they should call themselves agnostics.

This is splitting frog hairs. Absolute knowledge whether God exists or not is not necessary for atheists to believe that God(s) do not exist. Just as one may be a theist, and one does not 'know' God exists.

Atheists have no real purpose for the meaning of the universe except for whatever subjective goals they imagine for themselves. There is no overreaching meaning for them.

Assumption on your part and not what atheist believe.

Everything that begins to exist has a cause. This is called cause and effect.

IF everything begins to exist that logically that includes God, unless you resort to special pleading. If our physical existence, and natural law is eternal and infinite there is no cause. If the Quantum world is timeless outside all possible universes there is no other necessary cause then Natural Law.

[Jichard]

You haven't given the basis for moral objectivism.

There are plenty of versions of moral objectivism, that are compatible with atheism. For example: Cornell Realism.

You haven't given a reason to oppose the Nazis.

That's not a question that moral objectivism addresses. Moral reasons are provided with by normative ethical positions, such as welfare utilitarianism, virtue ethics, and so on, not meta-ethical positions like moral objectivism. And on those normative ethical positions, there are plenty of reasons to oppose the Nazis. For example: they're acting callously, they're harming the well-being of others when there are other viable actions that would not lead to such harm, etc.

And please don't tell me that you think the actual reason to oppose Nazis, has something to do with following divine orders. That'd just be a form of moral objectivism.

You need to respond to the second new video about cruel logic to continue the line of thought.

Not really, since that video doesn't address any of the positions noted above.

If atheists don't know if there is a God then they should call themselves agnostics.

Then they'd be agnostic atheists. Atheism is a matter of lacking a belief regarding a concept one understands: God. One lacks a belief that this concept has an existent referent. That's compatible with not knowing there is a God, just as one lacking a belief that intelligent aliens exist, is compatible with one not knowing that intelligent aliens exist.

In sum: lacking a belief that "X exists" is compatible with not knowing that "X exists" and is compatible with not knowing that "X does not exist".

Atheists have no real purpose for the meaning of the universe except for whatever subjective goals they imagine for themselves. There is no overreaching meaning for them.

The universe doesn't need to have meaning, in order for things within the universe to have meaning. This parallels the linguistic usage of the word "meaning", where the term "cat" can have meaning, even if the universe (in which that term appears) does not have meaning. To say otherwise is to commit the fallacy of division, in thinking that since the universe as a whole lacks meaning, than parts of the universe lack meaning.

In any event, I don't see why an "overreaching meaning" is necessary. I've heard some Christians go on and on and on and... about this, and still can;t figure out why it's such a big deal to them. So the universe wasn't created by some supernatural agent with humans in mind. So what? Is one so arrogant as to fall into despair, just because the universe isn't centered around one's own species? It's like a child crying when they realize that rainbows aren't specially-made with them in mind, but are instead just a purely naturalistic phenomena. Move on.

Everything that begins to exist has a cause. This is called cause and effect.

No, that isn't called "cause and effect". It's called the first premise of William Lane Craig's cosmological argument. One can deny that premise, while still accepting that cause and effect relationships occur.

Here's a counter-premise: Every cause temporally precedes it's effect. So if there is a first temporal state T1 of the universe, and there are no states temporally prior to T1, then T1 has no cause. And one can affirm my counter-premise, while still accepting that cause and effect occurs. After all, states temporally subsequent to T1, can still have a cause.

[Truthseeker]

There are plenty of versions of moral objectivism, that are compatible with atheism. For example: Cornell Realism.

Wow, that's quite a barrage of many possible answers. Pick one.

I had never stumbled over "Cornell Realism" until now.

That's not a question that moral objectivism addresses. Moral reasons are provided with by nor[mative ethical positions, such as welfare utilitarianism, virtue ethics, and so on, not meta-ethical positions like moral objectivism. And on those normative ethical positions, there are plenty of reasons to oppose the Nazis. For example: they're acting callously, they're harming the well-being of others when there are other viable actions that would not lead to such harm, etc.

And please don't tell me that you think the actual reason to oppose Nazis, has something to do with following divine orders. That'd just be a form of moral objectivism.

I am puzzled. While trying to figure out that passage just above, I recalled Acts 10:9-17, which is a story about God telling Peter that food that was ceremonially unclean (unholy) can now be eaten (no longer sinful). Later verses show Peter telling others what God commanded. I wonder what your reaction would be.

Then they'd be agnostic atheists. Atheism is a matter of lacking a belief regarding a concept one understands: God. One lacks a belief that this concept has an existent referent. That's compatible with not knowing there is a God, just as one lacking a belief that intelligent aliens exist, is compatible with one not knowing that intelligent aliens exist.

In sum: lacking a belief that "X exists" is compatible with not knowing that "X exists" and is compatible with not knowing that "X does not exist".

The main thing for Christians to keep in mind is that neither atheists nor agnostics are Christian. The difference between those camps isn't important.

No, that isn't called "cause and effect". It's called the first premise of William Lane Craig's cosmological argument. One can deny that premise, while still accepting that cause and effect relationships occur.

Here's a counter-premise: Every cause temporally precedes it's effect. So if there is a first temporal state T1 of the universe, and there are no states temporally prior to T1, then T1 has no cause. And one can affirm my counter-premise, while still accepting that cause and effect occurs. After all, states temporally subsequent to T1, can still have a cause.

Have you managed to rule out the possibility that we can have both cause and effect occurring at the same time? I wonder if the idea of quantum foam can be invoked here ???

[Boxing Pythagoras]

Have you managed to rule out the possibility that we can have both cause and effect occurring at the same time? I wonder if the idea of quantum foam can be invoked here ???

I honestly don't see what Quantum Foam has to do with the subject.

[eschaton]

Jichard,

Thank you for your comments. I may try to respond to you later, or I may just let some of these who are more knowledgeable in the area respond for me. In the mean time I found some information on one of those you mentioned.

https://youtu.be/6UwvXBadRbw