What About Arguments for Atheism? Common Arguments Debate Preview? Allen Hainline Reasonable Faith...

What About Arguments for Atheism?Common Arguments

Debate Preview?

Allen HainlineReasonable Faith UTDSeptember 26, 2013

www.OriginsDiscussion.info

Let’s go out to eat with ASH after the debate

Outline

• More Fine-Tuning discussion• Dawkin’s Central Argument (God

Delusion)• Rhetorical Arguments• Scientific Arguments• Philosophical Arguments

Answering Rhetorical Arguments

1. Atheism is not a belief. Rather, it is the lack of a belief in God. As such, it has nothing to prove and the theist bears all the burden of proof in the debate.

Rhetorical Arguments


What's at Stake in Defining Atheism? By trying to define atheism as merely a lack of

belief in the existence of God rather than as the denial of the existence of God, atheists are attempting to shift the burden of proof in the argument entirely to the theist.

If no truth claim is made that no gods exist then agnostic But an agnostic mindset would more open to

searching


The definition of atheism is changing

"According to the most usual definition, an 'atheist' is a person who maintains that there is no God, that is, that the sentence 'God exists' expresses a false proposition. … On our definition, an 'atheist' is a person who rejects belief in God, regardless of whether or not his reason for the rejection is the claimthat "God exists" expresses a false proposition. Paul Edwards


Responses Redefining of AtheismThis new definition leads to confusion:

a. Cannot distinguish atheism from agnosticismb. Makes atheism compatible with theism

• ‘Atheism’ means ‘lack of a belief in God’• It’s possible for God to exist and for someone

to lack belief in gods?• Thus, it follows that theism (the existence of

God is) is compatible with atheism!


2. We are all atheists about most Gods. I'm just atheist about one more God than you. When you understand why you disbelieve in the existence of all the other gods, then you'll understand why I disbelieve in your god.


This can be helpful in understanding and not looking down on atheists May be being rational based on their

current knowledge Reasons for rejecting the existence of Zeus

of Greek mythology have nothing to do with whether it is reasonable to reject the God of the Bible

There is lots of evidence for the existence of a transcendent God


3. Atheists rely on reason and religion is based on faith which is opposed to reasonNew Atheists’ redefine faith:Dawkins: ‘blind trust, in the absence of evidence, even in the teeth of evidence.’Grayling: ‘Faith is a commitment to belief contrary to evidence and reason…’


Biblical Faith - pistis• Same root as in epistemology• Means personal trust in God – I have good

reasons for trusting in God just as I do for trusting in my wife

• Doesn’t in any way imply there are not good reasons for trusting God

• ‘Faith’ according to C.S. Lewis: ‘the art of holding onto things your reason has once accepted, in spite of your changing moods.’

www.damaris.org 16

1 Peter 3:15

‘Always be prepared to give an answer[apologia = reasoned defence]to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect.’

Answering Scientific Arguments

Atheism/naturalism should be believed over theism because it has been a more fruitful way of gaining knowledge about reality – “you’ll know them by their fruits”• Science itself is to some degree the fruit of

Christianity“My explanation is that the faith in the possibility of science, generated antecedently to the development of modern scientific theory, is an unconscious derivative from medieval theology.” Alfred North Whitehead

“Men became scientific because they expected law in nature and they expected law in nature because they believed in a lawgiver.” C.S. Lewis

What Are the Arguments of the Popular Atheists?


Atheism/naturalism leads to more knowledge …

Key question is not “which worldview leads to most knowledge about nature?”• All knowledge gained about the natural world will be

credited to science• The Bible teaches about God not science

Question is “which worldview best explains reality as a whole?”• Are there indications of things that exist beyond nature?• Human ability to do science is surprising under atheism –

our ability to do abstract math or understand quantum mechanics has no survival or reproductive benefit



Most scientists are atheists therefore the belief in God is not scientific.• Percentage is very large in

National Academy of Science• May be selection effect

• Actually not much different than other academic fields• Sociological factors

contribute


Scientific ArgumentsDisbelief in God by Academics

Discipline %

Physics 40.8

Chemistry 26.6

Biology 41.0

Overall 37.6

Sociology 34.0

Economics 31.7

Political Science 27.0

Psychology 33.0

Overall 31.2


Most scientists are atheists therefore its irrational to believe in God

• To think that science is the only source of truth is self-refuting

• Scientists are not trained in the philosophy of religion and have no special qualifications for weighing in on the existence of God• Most don’t know the philosophical

arguments for God and the historical evidence (Quentin Smith)

• Among philosophers of religion 72% were theists – this is also sociological !


1. One of the greatest challenges to the human intellect has been to explain how the complex, improbable appearance of design in the universe arises.

2. The natural temptation is to attribute the appearance of design to actual design itself.

3. The temptation is a false one because the designer hypothesis immediately raises the larger problem of who designed the designer.

4. The most ingenious and powerful explanation is Darwinian evolution by natural selection.

5. We don't have an equivalent explanation for physics.6. We should not give up the hope of a better explanation arising

in physics, something as powerful as Darwinism is for biology

Therefore, God almost certainly does not exist.The conclusion doesn’t follow even if you grant all the premises• At most the argument from design might fail

Dawkins’ “Central Argument”for Atheism

3. The temptation [to attribute appearance of design to a designer] is a false one because the designer hypothesis immediately raises the larger problem of who designed the designer.

This premise should be rejected:• In order to recognize an explanation as the best, one needn’t

have an explanation of the explanation• A pile of machinery discovered on the backside of the

moon could be deemed the product of intelligence without knowing the details of that intelligence

• Requiring an explanation of an explanation leads to an infinite regress and no scientific progress would be possible

Examples from Science:• Darwinism was accepted before genetics were understood• A period of rapid cosmic inflation early in the universe is

considered the best explanation of a set of observations even though scientists do not know what causes the “inflaton” field

Dawkins’ “Central Argument” for Atheism

4. The most ingenious and powerful explanation is Darwinian evolution by natural selection. … We can now safely say that the illusion of design in living creatures is just that – an illusion• In order to make such a strong statement Dawkins needs to

show that life can arise from non-living matter in a way that is not unexpected under naturalism.

• Needs to show a plausible way under naturalism for evolution to arise• “To go from a bacterium to people is less of a step than to

go from a mixture of amino acids to a bacterium.” Lynn Margulis

Dawkins’ “Central Argument”for Atheism

Could Life Originate From Non-Life Apart from a Creator?

Most scientists admit no plausible naturalistic scenario exists– “A scenario describing the genesis of life on earth by chance and natural causes

which can be accepted on the basis of fact and not faith has not been written.“ Hubert Yockey

– “The formation of the first life is viewed as a chance process that occurred in spite of minuscule odds such as 1:10300 and which is accepted only because we are here. “ Christian Schwabe

– “No one has an adequate materialistic explanation for how life arose“ Dawkins• Atheists must appeal to chance to even get evolution started

– “Pre-biological natural selection is a contradiction in terms” Dobzhansky– The first evolver cannot itself have evolved

– $1,000,000.00 is offered to anyone who can provide a plausible theory• http://www.us.net/life/

Origin of Life Scientist Now Appealsto Multiverse/Anthropic Principle

“For biological evolution … to take off, efficient systems for replication and translation are required, but even barebones cores of these systems appear to be products of extensive selection.” Eugene Koonin

– Yet to get both in first living cell is 1 in 101018 chance

“I will argue that I am afraid his answer to this problem might open too broad an avenue to the supporters of intelligent design, as it is currently formulated, and thus does not satisfy me as such as an alternative to the theory to the RNA world.” Eric Bapteste (in reviewing article)

27


There is very strong and growing body of evidence but admittedly it could be stronger …Science is not the only means to truthScience is not the best way to reach all people• Modern science didn’t exist for

millennia• Science is not the best way to reach

people who are not good at science• Science is not the best way to reach

cultures that do not esteem science

Why Doesn’t God Leave More Scientific Evidence?


Why isn’t all of the evidence clearer than it is?“There is enough light for those who desire only to see, and enough darkness for those of a contrary disposition.“ Pascal• Evidence is not the ultimate issue• God’s comprehensive claim on our lives

makes us uncomfortable• If no amount of evidence will remove the

fundamental obstacle between us and God, why blame God?• If God knows we’re not ready to submit to His will, He’s

being merciful by not forcing His knowledge on us – this would increase our accountability



Rhetorical Arguments4. Science flies you to the moon. Religion flies you into buildings.

Science is good. Religion is bad.

Science causes wide-spread death and

destruction.

Religion cares for the injured,

sick, and hungry.

Science is bad. Religion is good.

Government protects the innocent and establishes

justice.

The private sector robs and

pillages the innocent and flouts justice.

Government is good. The private sector is bad.

The private sector contributes to

community flourishing.

Government kills the innocent.

The private sector is good.Government is bad.

Answering Philosophical Arguments

Philosophical Arguments

Can God make a rock too heavy for Him to pick up?

Homer Simpson's version of this dilemma was "Can God microwave His taco too hot for Him to eat it?"


This question is supposed to highlight the problem with God being omnipotent.


If God can make a rock too heavy for Him to lift, then there is something God cannot do, namely, lift the rock.


If God cannot make a rock too heavy for Him to lift, then there is something God cannot do, namely, make the rock.


Either way, there is something that God cannot do.

If there is something God cannot do, then God is not omnipotent.


By definition, anything that is created and is physical cannot be too heavy for God to lift.

So the answer to the question is "no" God cannot create a rock too heavy for Him to lift.


But to say that God cannot create such a rock does not compromise His omnipotence.

This is so because the notion of a physical rock that is beyond the power of an omnipotent God is a contradiction.


What About Arguments for Atheism? Common Arguments Debate Preview? Allen Hainline Reasonable Faith...

Documents

Transcript of What About Arguments for Atheism? Common Arguments Debate Preview? Allen Hainline Reasonable Faith...