From: Chris Ho-Stuart <>
Newsgroups: aus.religion.christian
Sent: Wednesday, August 23, 2000 11:57 AM
Subject: Re: Value-testing atheism


> This article is long. It is, like Gaul, divided into three parts.
>
> Part one explains in very general terms what I think is wrong with
> the debate so far.
>
> Part two presents one particular apologetics for atheism, which I
> offer as a means to give the discussion a more solid grounding.
>
> Part three is a response to a previous article by Lawrence, which
> is intended to explain why I perceive the problems stated in part 1.
>
> 1. Problems with the debate so far.
> -----------------------------------
>
> The analysis and criticism of atheism attempted by Lawrence
> suffers from some fundamental flaws, which actively obstruct a
> clear understanding of the issues and of atheism.
>
> (1) Despite claiming that he is making a logical, rather than moral,
>     criticism of atheism, Lawrence continues to use the word
>     "integrity" and to focus upon the supposed "implications" of
>     atheism for one lives or relates to people, or for accountability,
>     rather than the logical implications.
>
> (2) Even allowing for this lamentable and frankly offensive moral
>     focus, the actual moral criticism continues to be ill-founded.
>     Lawrence quotes words by me and others to the effect that atheism
>     is just disbelief in God and hence does not form the basis of how
>     we relate to people, but continues to discuss this as though it
>     means we have no firm basis for relating to other people. This
>     is simply assuming that theism is the only reasonable foundation
>     for relating to other people; which begs the whole moral issue.
>
> (3) Lawrence treats atheism as an impossibly definite position. Any
>     rational person is, in principle, open to revision of all aspects
>     of their world view in the light of new insight or evidence;
>     regardless of how massively unlikely it is that new insight
>     might arise. Despite being fallible humans, we all form some
>     kind of world view. Insistence that theists are in the unique
>     position of having a special kind of absolute certainty is
>     incredibly naive; there is no absolute assurance that you will
>     not lose your faith, or that I might regain mine. It is incorrect
>     to use "agnostic" for someone who admits their human fallibility.
>
>     I am an atheist -- definitely of the opinion that God does not
>     exist. I have no expectation that evidence or insight could arise
>     that would force revision of that opinion -- but I'm not
>     omniscient and if my expectations fail me then my world view
>     may change, as it has done in the past.
>
> It is a fool's game to even bother responding to most of Lawrence's
> deeply flawed analysis. Lawrence will, I expect, object to some
> of my statements above. They are, I grant, inference rather than
> direct quotes. Therefore, with some reluctance, I include a part
> 3 to this post which does respond directly to a previous post,
> showing why I perceive these flaws in the argument.
>
> First, however, I offer to Lawrence the opportunity to get a bit
> more concrete in his criticisms, by focusing on my beliefs in
> particular. I present this not as an attempt to evangelise or
> persuade others to adopt my world view, but with a view to being
> vulnerable to direct and relevant criticism.
>
> 2. An apologetics for atheism: one person's head on the block.
> --------------------------------------------------------------
>
> As a thinking person, all my beliefs about the world are in principle
> subject to revision in the light of new insight or evidence. This
> is because I recognize that I am human, and and fallible. I have
> no direct access to perfect knowledge.
>
> Nevertheless, I do have some definite opinions about the world. I
> do not think God exists. Likewise I do not think living dodos exist,
> nor fairies, nor angels, nor demons, nor genies, nor werewolves.
>
> None of these aspects of my world view are claims to perfect
> knowledge, and all aspects of my world view are in principle
> subject to revision in the light of new insight. It would,
> however, be misleading to call me agnostic on any of these issues.
>
> Agnosticism is properly speaking a definite belief that it is not
> possible to know whether or not God exists. This is much more than
> mere uncertainty, and it is definitely not the same as admission
> that one is always open to new and unexpected or surprising insights.
>
> On the examples above: Lawrence and I probably agree on the matter
> of fairies, living dodos, and werewolves. We probably also agree on
> genies; though a Muslim, on the strength of the Koran, will usually
> believe in the existence of djinn. Lawrence possibly does believe in
> the existence of demons and angels; but I do not. Lawrence does
> believe in God. I do not.
>
> To make sense of my view that God does not exist, we need to
> understand what I mean by "God". I understand a "god" to be an
> entity that interacts with the physical world but is to some extent
> transcendent of the physical laws of the universe to which humans
> are subject. A "god" is in some sense conscious or intelligent.
>
> This is a deliberately quite inclusive; by this definition fairies,
> genies, angels and demons are all special cases of gods; and
> indeed in some polytheistic world views there are many gods who
> are not all-powerful. I do not limit my unbelief to the omniscient
> omnipotent God of monotheism.
>
> My main reason for disbelief in gods is basically inductive.
>
> I observe, first of all, that consciousness and intelligence are
> tightly linked to our physical bodies. Physical diseases can play
> havoc with our usual sense of identity. A head wound may completely
> transform a person's character. A disease may cause someone to
> lose all sense of personal continuity. Drugs and other physical chemicals
> can affect any aspect of your person which could be called "spiritual".
>
> There is no evidence for personal identity which is not dependent
> on and derived from the physical body: and ample evidence that
> all aspects of our person which might be called "spiritual" are
> intimately linked with our physical body. I conclude that personality
> and consciousness and intelligence are emergent phenomena; they arise
> from the physical body and do not exist as independent things apart
> from a frame that exhibits those qualities.
>
> (This does not belittle personality and consciousness, nor does
> it imply they are well understood. Consciousness, intelligence and
> personality are far from understood; the same can be said for our
> physical bodies.)
>
> This alone is not evidence against God. Christian and Jewish
> theologians whom I respect have made the same point: the concept
> of a soul which exists apart from the body is essentially pagan;
> the Jewish bible describes God as creating a physical body, and
> then giving it life.
>
> However, the evidence does suggest that personality requires a
> physical frame. The Christian resurrection stories describe Jesus
> as having a new body appropriate to his resurrected state; so also
> a God with personality and will should be expected to have some
> bodily frame capable of exhibiting personality and will.
>
> On this basis I reject any notion of God as "essential" intelligence
> or will or personality; and physics gives good reason for supposing
> that there is no other kind of "stuff" from which the divine entity
> might be composed.
>
> This is not a formal proof. It is, however, a consistent viewpoint.
> It is a strongly materialistic viewpoint; in the sense that I have
> a world view in which things are made up of other more simple
> things; and complexity arises from interactions between many
> simple things.
>
> For example: the laws of chemistry are more subtle and complex
> than the laws of physics; because they are essentially more
> abstract high level descriptions of how amalgamations of physical
> particles behave. They do not contradict any laws of physics; nor
> do they propose any special physical laws that apply to chemicals.
> They rather propose that physical laws lead to regularities in
> behaviour of chemicals in a way that is simply too subtle or
> complex to use directly, and so our descriptions of how chemicals
> have to work at a higher level of description. Similarly; living
> creatures grow in very complex ways; which are not any violation
> of known physics or chemistry, but which are entirely consistent
> with known physics and chemistry. The behaviour is too complex,
> however, for us to comprehend in terms of physics and chemistry;
> so we use a higher level of description in biology and biochemistry.
>
> Complex behaviour, like consciousness or intelligence, implies,
> in my world view, a frame of some kind that exhibits consciousness
> or intelligence. The frame exhibiting those qualities implies, IMO,
> a substance from which it is composed. Interactions between humans
> and the god-entity implies complex interactions between the parts
> of which we are composed (modulated through a shared environment).
> And I think there is good reason for confidence that there is no
> god made up of the same stuff as we are made; and that there is no
> other substance of which a god could be made which is interacting
> with the particles of which we are made. Occam's razor is plainly
> of some relevance here!
>
> There it is. I do not present this with a view to persuading
> others; but with the hope that we gain a better understanding
> of each other.
>
> I do not think I am being inconsistent in my world view, or that
> I lack integrity because I do not believe in God; or that disbelief
> itself lacks integrity (whatever that might mean!)
>
> 3. Response to selected extracts from a recent post by Lawrence.
> ----------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Lawrence Meckan <> wrote:
> > The premise of atheism is this (as evidenced from the thread)-
> >
> > "Atheists don't believe in God or gods" (Sean McHugh, 9/8/2000)
> >
> > "Atheism is nothing more than the acceptance that there are no gods of
> > any kind." (Barry O'Grady, 26/7/2000)
> >
> > "Atheism is defined by a negative -- the lack of a belief in
> > God."(Chris Ho Stuart, 11/8/2000).
> >
> > "Atheism is accurately defined as the denial of the assumptions of
> > theism" (E. Haldeman-Julias, quoted from Infidels.org by me, 26/7/2000).
> >
> > The premise I approach testing on whether this rejection of belief is
> > sound or not is based on one thing:
> >
> > What beliefs you choose to hold will affect you and how you relate to
> > other people. The converse statement also remains logical and rational -
> > what beliefs you choose to reject will affect you and how you relate
> > to people.
>
> While it is true that our beliefs in general affect how we relate
> to other people, it does not follow that every belief has direct
> consequences for how you relate to people.
>
> For instance, whether I believe in the "yeti" has no affect on how
> I relate to people.
>
> My relationship to people is founded on (my belief in) their
> intrinsic value and worth. It does not depend on the existence or
> otherwise of a yeti.
>
> Likewise, my relationship to people does not depend on the
> existence or otherwise of a God.
>
> I do not defer to any external God to decide on the value of persons,
> or to make moral choices. I DO seek to be guided by the example of
> wise and compassionate people, but I not give up my own personal
> responsibility for my own choices to any one external reference.
>
> My beliefs on this matter are not far removed from those of Albert
> Einstein; who was greatly impressed with the "rationality" of the
> natural world and often spoke of God as a metaphor for natural
> order; but who definitely rejected the idea of a personal God,
> and considered morality to be an exclusively human matter.
>
> Of course, I accept and respect many who do not share my belief.
> I accept that some people do NOT believe in the intrinsic worth
> of persons, but believe any worth we may have is derived from
> or given by a God in some way. I can respect that.
>
> I hope for, but do not always find, a reciprocal respect for
> my views in return.
>
> I do not regard the linkage of God to human worth as morally
> inferior; but I object most strenuously those who do make such
> linkage a premise for moral judgment of unbelief.
>
> Let us just bear it in mind. Perhaps for some people, God is their
> reason for relating to other people with compassion and respect.
> But it is not the only such basis.
>
> > So, before you even approach atheism as to whether it is sound or not,
> > you must ascertain, beyond all reasonable doubt, that the methodology
> > you're using to test it holds integrity on its own.
>
> I note with sadness that you are still attempting to make
> this a discussion of INTEGRITY.
>
> I think what you should be saying is that we should ascertain
> whether or not the methodology is CONSISTENT or REASONABLE.
>
> The relevance of integrity, is that we base our beliefs on
> what we consider to be TRUE, rather than some other convenience.
>
> > Now, since I wish to bring people alongside what my perspective is, I
> > now give a list of questions by which I test the methodology I'm using:
> > 1) Is my basis reasonable, rational and impartial ? (I've stated such,
> > and I'm currently explaining how this basis works. Openness and
> > vulnerability increases integrity)
> > 2) Have I found it to be sound in situations I've used before ? (I have)
> > 3) How reliable are my sources for material ? (Infidels.org,
> > aus.religion.christian polling, experience, logic and common sense).
> > 4) Will the people I'm relating this ideological rejection to
> > understand what I'm trying to communicate ? (This was one of the
> > reasons I went with a stock, standard definition from Infidels.org).
> > 5) Are the people I'm relating to able to do their own self-testing in
> > regards to what I'm asking of them ? (I think so).
> >
> > So, if everyone can see the logic and rational boundaries I've set up
> > for my testing of atheism, I'll be continuing.. 
> >
> > This is where the rubber hits the road. I've commented during this
> > thread that I will be showing how it remains unsound at its foundation.
> > That foundation I've been repeatedly told by atheists on a.r.c and
> > Infidels / Freethought.org is this -
> >
> > "All that you can know from the fact that someone is an atheist
> > is that whatever ideology, or foundation, or world view, or
> > substitute-the-term-of-your-choice underlies their life; that
> > foundation does not involve a God." (Chris Ho Stuart, 11/8/2000)
>
> That is NOT a foundation of atheism. Sheesh. It is a simple
> statement of what atheism ISN'T. I find it incredible that I
> cannot get this simple point across to you.
>
> Follow this carefully and tell me where you disagree or where I
> am unclear.
>
> (1) Atheism is lack of belief in God.
>
> (2) The FOUNDATION for atheism would be whatever reasons one
> has for disbelief in God.
>
> (3) The foundation for atheism will vary from person to person.
> For some, it might be unreasoned -- like a personal tragedy. For
> others it might be reasoned (bearing in mind of course that
> all reason does ultimately build on given assumptions which may
> not be shared in common by all people).
>
> (4) I am trying tell you that there IS NO ONE FOUNDATION for
> atheism. Different people disbelieve for different reasons.
> Do you dispute this?
>
> > "With regard the fundamental issues of atheism, there is in fact great
> > uniformity. I said "fundamental issues" but there is really only one.
> > Atheists don't believe in God or gods. All the rest is a red herring in
> > regard atheism's actual position." (Sean McHugh, 9/8/2000).
> >
> > So therefore, under all rational principles, I must ask:
> > 1) What are the implications of this rejection ?
> > 2) What are the responsibilities associated with this rejection ?
>
> And here we see that you are NOT attempting to make a criticism
> of atheism on the basis of how logical, or reasonable, or
> consistent it is to lack belief in God.
>
> You are continuing to jump to personal or moral consequences.
> But integrity, since you are fond of that word, demands that
> we base beliefs on what we consider to be TRUE. The moral
> implications or ethical responsibilities are another matter.
>
> For what it is worth, I think it indicates a LACK of integrity to
> base a world view on what is, ultimately, a moral convenience. I
> think (I hope!) that you actually believe in God because you have
> some reasons for thinking God exists; and not merely out of fear
> of some kind of moral vacuum should God not exist. THAT would be
> a compromise of integrity, in my view! I do not think you do this.
>
> Similarly -- I do not believe in God because I find no reason
> to think God exists. Until you examine my actual reasons, you
> have no basis for calling my reasoning inconsistent; and no
> basis for casting slurs on my integrity.
>
> I must, as a moral being, face up to any moral consequences of
> my beliefs; rather than invent a fiction as a way of avoiding
> those consequences. For you to impugn my integrity for failing
> to adopt a morally convenient world view independent of its
> evidential basis is, frankly, stupid and prejudicial.
>
> > Since the ideological foundation by which an atheist acts may not
> > involve a deity of any kind, it remains logical and rational to
> > consider other options for foundational ideology. There are many
> > options under the sun - atheism, self, money, power,
> > intellect,  "science", fame being but a few. All that can be
> > ascertained by external parties is that there is no "God" involved.
> > Atheism, by its very nature, only allows the statement that there is
> > no "God" involved. Everything else remains yet to be determined, on an
> > individual basis alone.
>
> That is true ANYWAY. You decide, on an individual basis,
> whether or not to believe in God.
>
> If you have integrity, you do this on the basis of careful
> consideration of any available evidence. If you lack integrity,
> then perhaps you might simply choose to believe in God as a
> convenient way of finding some foundation for morality.
>
> But I think such a foundation is unstable.
>
> This is all just NOT RELEVANT to evaluating the logical
> consistency or reasonableness of atheism.
>
> People do make their own moral choices. Those who believe
> in God do not (mostly!) give up their personal responsibility
> as moral beings.
>
> > The implications of rejection of a deity in that respect could be
> > considered "liberating" from immaturity, structure, institutition and
> > community or hurt from an individual's perspective. However, it must
> > also be recognised that merely because these factors can be
> > personalised to someone's individual experience (e.g. experientalism)
> > does not provide sufficient proof that these factors are the correct
> > rendering of the situation and circumstances. The experience may be
> > valid, but it may be misintepreting the context. Again it seems there
> > is a distinct lack of information in regards to what outcomes come from
> > the statement of rejection. You can say that theism remained an
> > immature belief for you, but have you recognised and tested that theism
> > (in Christian terms) is a journey from immaturity to maturity ?
>
> This all seems massively irrelevant.
>
> For me, I have tried with care and integrity to test what is true.
> It is my honest and considered opinion that God does not exist.
>
> I accept that I am human, and prone to error in all things; and
> I accept that in principle all aspects of my world view are
> subject to revision in the light of new evidence or understanding.
> I do nevertheless form a world view, incomplete and tentative
> though it may in places. I personally have considerable confidence
> that God does not exist. That is why I call myself an atheist.
>
> > Furthermore it must be recognised from a rational perspective, a
> > statement which gives justification to untested, unaccountable action
> > as a result of it remains suspect. How can I ascertain that atheism
> > allows untested, unaccountable action as a result of it ?
>
> Irrelevant. We are considering whether or not atheism is
> reasonable; and not its implications for accountability.
>
> I've snipped from this point on. I think this is enough to
> show why I perceive problems in this discussion as outlined
> in part 1.
>
> Cheers -- Chris Ho-Stuart