Yesterday, I posted a list for reasons for why I think it would be a good idea to articulate a position on atheism.
I think many people are interested in theory in developing some sort of deconversion programme (for example, see this one), and perhaps creating a library of arguments and counter-arguments for debates with theists.
While I have no negative opinion of these projects, my ambition is much more modest. In a cogent argument for atheism,there would be no need to debate particular arguments. It would be much more effective (and evincing of an open-and-shut case) to just present the general line of reasoning. For example, the following argument would be a beginning (from someone who is just trying to guess what your arguments are):
Example: An Articulated Athiestic Position
First, we reject the claim that any empirical observation is the sleight of hand of a Supreme Being on the grounds that if you begin with such a hypothesis, then you find yourself in an unacceptable epistimological position in which you cannot know anything.
Therefore, we interpret all empirical evidence at face value, using the scientific method, and accept scientific theory, limited as ever by the scientist’s view that theories are modified as needed to incorporate conflicting evidence. Thus, we reject a literal interpretation of the bible and the supernatural as these explicitly contradict the notion that we can interpret empirical evidence at face value.
By this, we have limited the acceptable definition of God to one that obeys the natural laws of the universe. While this leaves open the possibility of a passive, non-intrusive God, we present the principle that one does not assume the existence of something if there is no need to do so.
A definition like the one above is good in that a theist can read it, see exactly where assumptions differ, and decide if they want to engage in a debate—or not. If they think God created an illusive world to test our faith, there’s no point arguing about empirical evidence of anything.
I wanted to give this definition as a crude example of the simplicity I would like to see; I in no way intend to speak for atheists by making a final statement on the main arguments—I would expect this to be edited.
As another example, I would like to give an argument for theism that I think could be a good articulation of their position, if someone held these particular views. The value being in that assumptions are explicit so pretty much you can find exactly where your views differ.
Example: An Articulated Thiestic Position
The existence of God can neither be proved nor demonstrated through any empirical evidence, but is knowable through reasoned reflection and intuition. All knowledge of the properties of God are inferred through experience, and thus knowledge of God is evolving and not absolute.
What an argument for atheism would look like.
Yesterday, I posted a list for reasons for why I think it would be a good idea to articulate a position on atheism.
I think many people are interested in theory in developing some sort of deconversion programme (for example, see this one), and perhaps creating a library of arguments and counter-arguments for debates with theists.
While I have no negative opinion of these projects, my ambition is much more modest. In a cogent argument for atheism,there would be no need to debate particular arguments. It would be much more effective (and evincing of an open-and-shut case) to just present the general line of reasoning. For example, the following argument would be a beginning (from someone who is just trying to guess what your arguments are):
Example: An Articulated Athiestic Position
First, we reject the claim that any empirical observation is the sleight of hand of a Supreme Being on the grounds that if you begin with such a hypothesis, then you find yourself in an unacceptable epistimological position in which you cannot know anything.
Therefore, we interpret all empirical evidence at face value, using the scientific method, and accept scientific theory, limited as ever by the scientist’s view that theories are modified as needed to incorporate conflicting evidence. Thus, we reject a literal interpretation of the bible and the supernatural as these explicitly contradict the notion that we can interpret empirical evidence at face value.
By this, we have limited the acceptable definition of God to one that obeys the natural laws of the universe. While this leaves open the possibility of a passive, non-intrusive God, we present the principle that one does not assume the existence of something if there is no need to do so.
A definition like the one above is good in that a theist can read it, see exactly where assumptions differ, and decide if they want to engage in a debate—or not. If they think God created an illusive world to test our faith, there’s no point arguing about empirical evidence of anything.
I wanted to give this definition as a crude example of the simplicity I would like to see; I in no way intend to speak for atheists by making a final statement on the main arguments—I would expect this to be edited.
As another example, I would like to give an argument for theism that I think could be a good articulation of their position, if someone held these particular views. The value being in that assumptions are explicit so pretty much you can find exactly where your views differ.
Example: An Articulated Thiestic Position
The existence of God can neither be proved nor demonstrated through any empirical evidence, but is knowable through reasoned reflection and intuition. All knowledge of the properties of God are inferred through experience, and thus knowledge of God is evolving and not absolute.