Saturday, 5 February 2011

Of Atheism

The principal reason that I am not an atheist is that I am an optimist. However, whenever I have been tempted to think that we just go into an eternal sleep perpetua nox dormienda I think of: Sir Thomas More; of John Donne (especially his poem A Hymn To God The Father), and of Dorothy L Sayers. If minds as great as theirs embraced a conventional faith, then who am I to doubt it? The picture is of Sir Thomas More.

Posted by NJS at 07:37

18 comments:

  1. Anonymous6 February 2011 at 03:04

    and why are you an optimist?

    ReplyDelete
  2. NJS6 February 2011 at 05:55

    Because it can only get better.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Ken6 February 2011 at 10:12

    Great minds do not agree on this topic. While you cite More, Donne, Sayer, et.al., others might think of Epicurus, Democritus, Lucretius, Hobbes, Spinoza, Hume, Percy Shelley, et.al. on the atheist side. There are countless experts, past and present, on opposing sides of this question. Deference to these greater minds may not be adequate to decide the issue.

    As to optimism's value as a determinant in whether or not there's an afterlife, by definition this considers only the optimist's wants and desires, ignoring all other evidence. You may as well say "there is an afterlife because I want there to be". That alone won't get the job done, I fear.

    ReplyDelete
  4. NJS6 February 2011 at 12:06

    I am not sure that there are any experts, are there? Moreover, negative 'evidence' seems, as it so often is, to be lacking!

    ReplyDelete
  5. David Ellis6 February 2011 at 16:07

    Negative evidence lacking?

    We live in a world drenched in horrendous suffering and you don't notice that this is extremely good evidence of the nonexistence of an omnipotent, omniscient benevolent being?

    ReplyDelete
  6. NJS6 February 2011 at 16:52

    If this is evidence of anything it is evidence that it is not given to us to understand the scheme and scope of the world and our lives in it.

    ReplyDelete
  7. David Ellis6 February 2011 at 19:01

    The existence of widespread extreme suffering is exactly what one ought to expect in a universe ruled by blind natural processes.

    It's hardly what one should expect if there exists an omnipotent benevolent being. Which is why you're left with nothing to do but play the mystery card.

    Is the existence of horrendous suffering absolute proof that God doesn't exist? Of course not. Almost nothing is subject to absolute proof. But it certainly qualifies as evidence weighing against the existence of God. Precisely the thing you claimed was lacking.

    ReplyDelete
  8. NJS6 February 2011 at 19:59

    The premise for the first paragraph is unstated and it certainly cannot be inductive reasoning as all that we have experience of is this world (let alone the whole universe). Moreover, there is not just suffering. You should have seen the beach this afternoon.

    Much the same goes for paragraph two because we have no expectations. Faith is mysterious but it isn't a 'card'. If there is nothing beyond then there is nothing. However, for my own part, I don't see how all our constituents can utterly cease to exist: all the matter might change; be compressed (some say become anti-matter) but it continues. I doubt whether we end up sitting on clouds playing harps.

    You keep on about 'horrendous suffering' and you need to blame someone so, while you deny the existnece of God, you affirm the Devil and his works.

    ReplyDelete
  9. David Ellis7 February 2011 at 15:59

    "The premise for the first paragraph is unstated and it certainly cannot be inductive reasoning as all that we have experience of is this world (let alone the whole universe)."

    You seem to be making the mistake of thinking I was stating a formal argument. Quite the contrary. I was simply pointing out that the problem of evil/suffering clearly constitutes negative evidence regarding the claim "God exists". Even most theologians will agree with this.

    "Moreover, there is not just suffering. You should have seen the beach this afternoon."

    Again, precisely what one would expect in a universe governed by blind natural processes. After all, no one is claiming the universe is ruled by an omnipotent malevolent being (which is the only reason one might not expect a world with any joy, happiness or other positive qualities).

    "You keep on about 'horrendous suffering' and you need to blame someone so, while you deny the existnece of God, you affirm the Devil and his works."

    I said that such suffering is best explained by the hypothesis that the universe is governed by blind natural processes. Obviously, if this is the case, no one is to blame for the fact that the universe is ordered the way it is. The fact that people (and animals) often suffer terribly does not entail that anyone is to blame. You may think in anthropomorphic terms but please refrain from projecting your assumptions onto me. Especially when it's clearly contrary to what I've actually said.

    ReplyDelete
  10. NJS7 February 2011 at 16:25

    Evil and suffering are different things. Evil is a cause and suffering an effect; although natural disaster causes suffering too and that is caused by just that and is no more a consequence of evil than the sun rising or setting. Moreover, Christianity embraces suffering as a part of the journey; God's own Son was crucified by mankind,exercising free will.

    That "most theologians" agree with your proposition that evil and suffering constitute evidence that no God exists - well, a comment in a blog is no place to start on a reply to that heedless and tendentious generalization.

    So far as 'natural processes' are concerned: mankind thinks that he has the world by the backside, with his science, but we are far from any real understanding of the scheme and scope of it all.

    So far as your last paragraph goes: much suffering is caused by mankind; mankind, exercising free will, to do either good or evil, is to blame for it. In considering the suffering of [lesser] animals, you too are thinking in anthropomorphic terms and I am not projecting my assumptions onto anyone. I am stating my position, in my own space, where you are a guest, who deserves the courtesy owed to a guest - as long as he does not start throwing the furniture around.

    ReplyDelete
  11. David Ellis7 February 2011 at 20:15

    "Evil is a cause and suffering an effect; although natural disaster causes suffering too and that is caused by just that and is no more a consequence of evil than the sun rising or setting."

    In the problem of evil, as the term is used in philosophy of religion, the word "evil" means simply something that causes gratuitous suffering. A rape is an evil. A tsunami that kills people is an evil. The first is an example of a moral evil (an evil resulting from the decisions of a free agent). The second is a natural evil (an evil resulting from processes in the natural world).

    "That "most theologians" agree with your proposition that evil and suffering constitute evidence that no God exists - well, a comment in a blog is no place to start on a reply to that heedless and tendentious generalization."

    Understand, it's not my claim that they consider it a decisive objection---obviously not, otherwise they wouldn't still be theists. Only that they regard it as weighing against their own position (negative evidence, in other words, to use your term for it). Let me give an example. This is from an essay on the problem of evil by one of the well-known and influential Christian philosopher William Lane Craig:

    "The problem of evil is certainly the greatest obstacle to belief in the existence of God. When I ponder both the extent and depth of suffering in the world, whether due to man’s inhumanity to man or to natural disasters, then I must confess that I find it hard to believe that God exists. No doubt many of you have felt the same way. Perhaps we should all become atheists. But that’s a pretty big step to take. How can we be sure that God does not exist? Perhaps there’s a reason why God permits all the evil in the world. Perhaps it somehow all fits into the grand scheme of things, which we can only dimly discern, if at all. How do we know? As a Christian theist, I’m persuaded that the problem of evil, terrible as it is, does not in the end constitute a disproof of the existence of God. On the contrary, in fact, I think that Christian theism is man’s last best hope of solving the problem of evil."

    And is that not precisely what I was saying is a common view among Christian thinkers?

    ReplyDelete
  12. NJS8 February 2011 at 06:01

    It's actually the first time that you have mentioned Christianity at all; let alone Christian thinkers and the example that you give is an example of such a thinker rejecting the existence of evil or suffering as evidence against the existence of God. Frankly, given that God's own flesh suffered on earth, I find it peculiar (to say the least) that Christians (of all people) cannot accept that suffering is a necessary part of the scheme. Thius must be so but we do not know why.

    Interesting, though, that the mention of actual religion (instead of mere sport and games)still stirs the British at all.

    ReplyDelete
  13. David Ellis8 February 2011 at 18:45

    "...let alone Christian thinkers and the example that you give is an example of such a thinker rejecting the existence of evil or suffering as evidence against the existence of God."

    No he doesn't. He simply thinks we have other evidence that outweighs it. We can, after all, have evidence on both sides of an issue.

    "Frankly, given that God's own flesh suffered on earth, I find it peculiar (to say the least) that Christians (of all people) cannot accept that suffering is a necessary part of the scheme."

    Ah, yes. Before God will forgive human beings for not being morally perfect his son must be tortured to death.

    Can you explain the Christian "plan of salvation" in a way that doesn't make it out to be either sadistic, absurd or both?

    ReplyDelete
  14. NJS8 February 2011 at 18:57

    It is not a question of evidence then, is it? It is a question of faith.

    Apparently, we are made to suffer.

    I can't explain anything about this. All I can tell you about it is how I feel.

    ReplyDelete
  15. David B. Ellis8 February 2011 at 23:00

    "It is not a question of evidence then, is it? It is a question of faith."

    And what is having faith other than believing things you don't have any good reason to think true.

    Obviously, if faith is that it's simply another word for gullibility. Which surely you don't mean. So what do you mean?

    As to it's not being a question of evidence. Yes, it is very much a question of evidence. Just because Craig sees evidence on both sides of the issue doesn't mean he doesn't think he has good evidence for his position. He's wrong, in my opinion. But that just makes it a question of who's evaluating the evidence better. So it's still very much a question of evidence.

    ReplyDelete
  16. NJS10 February 2011 at 09:34

    We won't agree on this and I am not sure that we are adding much to the sum of human knowledge. I'll let Alexander Pope (another incredible mind), have the last word, and let you get back to your painting:

    "Know then thyself, presume not God to scan;
    The proper study of mankind is man."

    ReplyDelete
  17. Anonymous10 March 2011 at 20:47

    "The principal reason that I am not an atheist is that I am an optimist."

    As if knowing that an eternity of existence under the watchful eye of a totalitarian deity - from which you will never escape - is more optimistic than realising that you are just an insignificant speck with a short time to enjoy life.

    ReplyDelete
  18. NJS11 March 2011 at 09:18

    It all depends on the precise nature of eternal existence; I do not think that it probably involves the continuation of discrete and separate souls; or being under the watchful eye, as much as merging with it.

    ReplyDelete

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)