Arguments Against God

[DonViejo]

By GARY GUTTING

This is the second in a series of interviews about religion that I am conducting for The Stone. The interviewee for this installment is Louise Antony, a professor of philosophy at the University of Massachusetts at Amherst and the editor of the essay collection “Philosophers Without Gods: Meditations on Atheism and the Secular Life.”

Gary Gutting: You’ve taken a strong stand as an atheist, so you obviously don’t think there are any good reasons to believe in God. But I imagine there are philosophers whose rational abilities you respect who are theists. How do you explain their disagreement with you? Are they just not thinking clearly on this topic?

Louise Antony: I’m not sure what you mean by saying that I’ve taken a “strong stand as an atheist.” I don’t consider myself an agnostic; I claim to know that God doesn’t exist, if that’s what you mean.

G.G.: That is what I mean.

L.A.: O.K. So the question is, why do I say that theism is false, rather than just unproven? Because the question has been settled to my satisfaction. I say “there is no God” with the same confidence I say “there are no ghosts” or “there is no magic.” The main issue is supernaturalism — I deny that there are beings or phenomena outside the scope of natural law.

more
http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/02/25/arguments-against-god/?

[Warren Stupidity]

1. interesting discussion.

[trotsky]

2. This particular Q/A is highly relevant for this group:

G.G.: O.K., on your view we don’t have any way to judge the relative reliability of people’s judgments about whether God exists. But the question still remains, why are you so certain that God doesn’t exist?

L.A.: Knowledge in the real world does not entail either certainty or infallibility. When I claim to know that there is no God, I mean that the question is settled to my satisfaction. I don’t have any doubts. I don’t say that I’m agnostic, because I disagree with those who say it’s not possible to know whether or not God exists. I think it’s possible to know. And I think the balance of evidence and argument has a definite tilt.

There are some, particularly herein this group, who react viscerally when anyone suggests that there are no gods. They are the black-and-white thinkers, the ones who think a knowledge claim should only be made when one has absolute certainty. Someone can say there are no gods, yet also be open to any new evidence should it come along. I think it is a mistake to, as some do, simply write off a positive atheist as no different than a rigid religious fundamentalist.

[skepticscott]

3. Intellectually a bit sloppy

Saying "I claim to know that God doesn't exist" begs all sorts of questions, none of which are posed by the interviewer or answered by the interviewee. First and foremost, which "God" (singular) are they talking about? Or are they asserting that there no gods (plural) of any type, shape or form existing anywhere in the universe? If so, that begs the further question of how this person defines a "god" and what does or doesn't qualify under that title. The interviewee seems to hint that something has to be supernatural to qualify as a "god", though it is never really clarified. If that's their view, it's a rather narrow and unjustified one, requiring more of an argument in support than they provide here.

And while it's possible to be rational in asserting with confidence the non-existence of something (as we do with Santa Claus, for instance), so called "strong" atheism is only intellectually supportable when taken one "god" at a time.

[edhopper]

4. Or you could just say

that any supernatural god or agent does not exist. I'd say most religions refer to these.
Religions that worship powerful aliens that visited the Earth would be a different area to refute.

[skepticscott]

5. I would agree that nothing that actually exists can be

"supernatural" But I don't think it's a given that being outside the laws of nature is a requirement for something(s) to qualify as gods.

[edhopper]

7. Sure

But when someone makes a general statement like "I am sure God does not exist." The conversation could be furthered to clarify what is meant. In this case it appears they are talking about the traditional definition of God.

[skepticscott]

10. Yes, that was exactly my point

It really wasn't clarified in the interview and neither party seemed to recognize the need to do so. Hence my label of "intellectually sloppy".

[Warren Stupidity]

9. or for that matter "benevolent".

His argument about evil includes the assumption that the deities must be both omnipotent and benevolent. I see no particular reason for accepting the latter assumption.

[skepticscott]

14. Exactly

Certainly the Greek gods, had they existed as anything like portrayed, were neither omnipotent nor benevolent. And the god of the Bible was a very long way from "benevolent".

[cbayer]

6. The arrogance of these absolutist, one way people is completely

off-putting whether they claim to "know" there is a god or "know" that there is not.

[skepticscott]

8. Why is it not possible to know there is a god

the same way that we know there is a sun and a moon and a gas we call oxygen? Why is it not possible to know that a particular "god" doesn't exist, in the way that you know that Thor and Isis don't exist, in the way that you know that Santa Claus doesn't exist, in the way that you know that unicorns and leprechauns don't exist?

I know you love to embrace intellectual nihilism as a way of trying to keep religion seeming sensible and legitimate, but it really is a bankrupt position, cbayer...and will continue to be, no matter how many times you repeat your little mantra.

[Warren Stupidity]

11. So you are describing all the theists here as "arrogant"?

[cleanhippie]

12. She was against it before she was for it.

It really depends on what position others take first.

[skepticscott]

13. Of course she is

She's made a regular habit of insulting billions of believers with one broad brush, telling them that their beliefs are flat wrong, all the while scolding everyone else who does the same thing.

[trotsky]

15. Time to bring this out again.

Psst... cbayer... if you actually read the entire exchange you might actually find out there's nothing "absolutist" about it.