This was always going to be a difficult topic to introduce. Here's my second attempt! Through the magic of spoilers I can at least give the illusion of brevity...
In discussions with theists in the "religious discussion" topic, a theme which often occurs is that many theists feel that God is the best or only explanation for certain phenomena. I refute this, but agree that there are many apparently unlikely aspects of the world for which it is reasonable to seek explanation.
In principle it could work, provided that we allow for this possibility to be tested and the rationality behind it to be examined. Typically, this is where the theist plays the "supernatural" card and says that rationality does not apply in this area (unless it is convenient for supporting theist argument).
Spoiler for So what's wrong with that?:
This way of thinking only embraces ignorance. That which we consider to be "natural" is only that for which there is evidence, the sum total of things which can potentially be understood. If God exists then God is real, a part of nature. We could study God and understand God better. But the word "supernatural" is used as an excuse for not doing that, and centuries of living under the influence of religion have conditioned humankind not to question that excuse.
If you believe in God then God may seem like a likely explanation for all sorts of things, and your use of God as an explanation may then seem like evidence of God's existence. This is circular reasoning (an all too common fallacy).
Spoiler for What if there was something which could have no natural explanation?:
This is another way of saying "what if impossible things happen?". Impossible things do not happen by definition. If there were something which could have no other explanation than "God did it", then that is still a natural explanation. But since the God explanation is intrinsically unlikely, we would have to reliably exclude all other explanations. You may not know that another explanation is correct, but the possibility that it might be (or that some other, as yet unknown explanation might be) is enough to negate something as evidence for God.
The desire for explanation is only human. We may not have all the answers, but in my opinion there are few questions for which we do not have at least potential answers. I (and I suspect, other atheists) have avoided discussing such potential answers in the "religious debate" topic as it would muddy the waters and encourage the misconception that such explanations form part of an "atheist belief" and underpin atheism in some way. Just for the avoidance of doubt,
THE TITLE OF THIS TOPIC IS A JOKE
intended to act as a reminder of what this topic is not.
Spoiler for So what do atheists believe?]Atheism is (typically) not a belief, but a lack of one. Neither does it imply beliefs. Recognising the irrationality of positing God as an explanation for anything does not imply that one is convinced by any other explanation.
For example, various theories exist concerning the origin of the universe. Atheism does not demand that you "believe" any of them, though obviously a knowledge that plausible natural explanations exist can help us to satisfy our desire for explanation, so we don't feel the need to invoke the supernatural (not that we should anyway).
Natural selection is a more established principle. So does atheism require a "belief" in this? Not really, though many atheists do consider natural selection to be a good theory. Still, a theory is only ever as good as the evidence that supports it, and there, in my opinion, it differs from a belief (though that depends on precisely how you define a belief). Natural selection happens to be supported by a mountain of evidence, hence its popularity. Nevertheless, an atheist position does not directly imply acceptance of any theory about anything, other than the fact that you can find no good reason to believe in God. You might simply say "I don't know about anything else" and leave it at that.
Human beings like to have explanations for things, but when we don't know it is far better to accept that we don't know than to say "it's supernatural!" and act as if that were an answer. Fortunately science has explained so much that there are now few gaps in our knowledge for God to fill. 200 years ago there were far more things which science could not explain. Consequently religion was more ubiquitous. The rationale behind it was no more sound then than it is now, but it was more convincing and thus more popular. But believing in God just because you don't understand something was never a good idea.
What this topic is, is a chance for theists to put forward what they consider to be unexplainable by any means other than "God did it", and for atheists and anyone else who fancies it to propose possible other explanations. This is not within the "religious debate" topic because belief or disbelief in God should not hinge on these things, for reasons already explained.
Please excuse my blathering on at length, but I feel it necessary to put the topic in context. Even if we have no explanation for anything, invoking the supernatural is irrational and flawed thinking. Ignorance is better than irrationality. It is important to stress that disbelief in God does not depend on having definitive explanations for all things.
Where to begin? Origins of the universe? Universal fine tuning? Origins of life? Aspects of human consciousness? I'd like a theist to kick things off but if no suggestions are forthcoming I'll go with the first of those...
Question
Guest
This was always going to be a difficult topic to introduce. Here's my second attempt! Through the magic of spoilers I can at least give the illusion of brevity...
In discussions with theists in the "religious discussion" topic, a theme which often occurs is that many theists feel that God is the best or only explanation for certain phenomena. I refute this, but agree that there are many apparently unlikely aspects of the world for which it is reasonable to seek explanation.
What this topic is, is a chance for theists to put forward what they consider to be unexplainable by any means other than "God did it", and for atheists and anyone else who fancies it to propose possible other explanations. This is not within the "religious debate" topic because belief or disbelief in God should not hinge on these things, for reasons already explained.
Please excuse my blathering on at length, but I feel it necessary to put the topic in context. Even if we have no explanation for anything, invoking the supernatural is irrational and flawed thinking. Ignorance is better than irrationality. It is important to stress that disbelief in God does not depend on having definitive explanations for all things.
Where to begin? Origins of the universe? Universal fine tuning? Origins of life? Aspects of human consciousness? I'd like a theist to kick things off but if no suggestions are forthcoming I'll go with the first of those...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
45 answers to this question
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.