The positive and the negative

Is there really much difference between “not believing God exists” and “believing God does not exist”?

I didn’t think so either but apparently the former is negative atheism, and the latter positive atheism.

The negative atheist is obliged only to defend her non-belief on the basis that she refutes the reasons given for believing God exists. So she might answer the question “Why don’t you believe in God?” with a simple “I don’t believe there is a sufficient reason, or reasons, to believe in God”, or more obtusely “Why do you believe in God?”. She might go on then to refute specific reasons a believer might give for believing God exists. For example, a believer might say that they believe God exists because the Bible says so. The negative atheist responds that the Bible is just a book written by a number of Jews several thousand years ago, and just because they say God exists therein lies no more evidence for that claim than does there in Bertrand Russell’s claim that there exists a teapot in orbit between Earth and Mars lie any evidence that there is in fact such a teapot.

The negative atheist also has access to the “extraordinary claims” argument. The claim that Jesus Christ was the first and only person in human history to be stone cold dead, and then subsequently not be dead but to be alive and walking amongst and talking with other humans is an extraordinary claim, in the sense that it requires an complete re-writing of the laws of the universe as we understand them at present. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. An old book written several decades after the claimed event, with no other corroborating physical evidence, is not extraordinary evidence for this extraordinary claim. I’d venture to say it’s not even strong evidence.

In answer to the question “Why do you believe God doesn’t exist?” I’m tempted to suggest that the positive atheist might ask as equally obtusely as his negative cousin above, “Why don’t you believe God doesn’t exist?”. For the negative atheist, the obtuse reply is actually a valid point. The positive atheist however, like the negative atheist’s believer opponent above, is actually claiming to hold a belief. As such the burden of proof is on him.

I think in an everyday sense, when most people think of an atheist, they presume positive atheism, and indeed I think it is the more heroic position. It is however liable to be subject to the charge that one cannot prove the non-existence of God, and though one can then go on to talk about probabilities, as does Dawkins (whose book The God Delusion was primarily an attempt at positive atheism), I think, again in an everyday sense, one’s argument is fatally wounded by that charge. That the believer’s case is as equally wounded by the complimentary charge, is no comfort.

Faith 2

It's important to know what people mean when they talk about their "faith". It's important to know what they believe about belief!


Do they understand that faith is not reason? Is the apparent inconsistency in their belief(s) due to the abandonment of reason as a requirement for belief, or just bad reasoning?

It is in most cases the latter, since very few people, when pressed, accept that it is perfectly acceptable to believe something for no reason at all. That is, when they really think about it, faith is not an acceptable foundation for a belief. A serious, strongly held belief at any rate.

Are you an atheist?

If someone was to ask me "Are you an atheist?" and by that mean "Do you believe there is no God" and by that mean "Do you reject the idea that there exists an ominopotent, omniscient being that created the universe and everything in it, let alone one that has an interest in and is benevolent towards individual human beings?" I would have to answer "Only in the sense that if you call yourself a theist (or more likely a christian) you agree that you believe God exists, then I agree that I am atheist, in that I don't".

I might give a simpler answer to the question, which would be "In every practical way, yes".

This of course avoids that horribly semantic argument that ignores the weighting of evidence and probabilities, and in which everyone is, technically, agnostic. The argument goes like this:

Are you an atheist?

Yes.

Prove there is no God!

It can't be proven.

(Triumphantly) Then you cannot say there is no God.

This is perfectly true and reasonable. Of course, it applies in reverse, equally well, and thus quickly puts an end to any useful discussion that can be had. In these terms, we are all, theist and atheist alike, equally agnostic.

Dawkins on Q and A

This was on The Punch the other day.

http://www.thepunch.com.au/articles/for-gods-sake-our-mps-should-stick-to-their-day-jobs/

You can watch the QndA episode here:

http://www.abc.net.au/tv/qanda/txt/s2831712.htm?clip=rtmp://cp44823.edgefcs.net/ondemand/flash/tv/streams/qanda/qanda_2010_ep05.flv

There were over 200 comments on this article for The Punch. I must admit I didn't read them all so I may have added something that had already been discussed. Oh well. Here's what I wrote:

Weird, David Penburthy. Not sure what had you all riled up that you wanted to kick the plasma! As you observed, this was an excellent session of QandA. Sorry for the late comment; I only saw the show yesterday.

Far from being intellectually belligerent and plain rude, I thought Richard Dawkins was a model of restraint and courtesy. At one point he was attacked by Tony Burke, and lost his cool slightly, but I think he did well, given the nonsense spoken by most of the rest of the panel.

Here's the weird thing about religious beliefs, whether you have them or not! No one wants to talk about them!! Aparently they are personal, not for public discussion, and even more bizarrely, they are not to affect our public behaviour or actions! You say it yourself David, and you're a self confessed atheist: "But many of us in Australia regard politics as the public sphere of life, and religion (or a lack of religion) as very much the private sphere."

I find this plainly bizarre! When Tony Burke was asked to talk about his Christian beliefs on the show, he swallowed nervously and said something along the lines of "I don't want to go there". What's going on here: Is he unsure of his belief? Is he ashamed of it? Why are his theist beliefs, significant as they are in informing his morality and general take on the universe, off-limits for public discussion? Richard Dawkins asked the same question on the show!

I don't agree with Tony Abott about much, including, most significantly his beliefs that are clearly inspired by his Catholism, but I am far more comfortable that he be open and honest about those beliefs, than I am that Tony Burke slinks around with the substance of his Christian beliefs unavailable for discussion or analysis, or even identification. I am amazed and appalled at the amount of Christianity that exists, apparently, in our houses of parliament, but I much prefer to know about it than not.

And the reason that I want to know about these background beliefs is because it's nonsense to say that "private" beliefs about the nature of God should not intrude on the course of day to day decision-making! Of course in an ideal world they shouldn't. But all of us, atheist and theist, we are all informed by our deepest beliefs about the nature of the universe. It's nonsense to say we are not, or that we can suppress that. Thus, I'd rather have it out in the open, rather than sneaking around behind this pretense of objectivity.

Task substitution

It’s my opinion that nursing took a wrong turn back when it became degree-based. There are good and bad aspects to both hospital-based and degree-based nursing training but I’m of the view that everything you can learn about being a fantastic, bedside nurse can be learnt sufficiently, if not in superior fashion, in hospital-based training. Nursing is a practical profession, vital to the effective, safe functioning of any hospital. It’s not to say that there is not a place for some academia in nursing, but that should be an option for those who want to go into reasearch or teaching.

I don’t support independant nurse practitioning! If you want to learn about diagnosis, and wish to order x-rays, and prescribe (as opposed to dispense) drugs, then you want to be a doctor. There is already a training path for this, There shouldn’t be a second one via nursing. The solution to health workforce shortages is not to take professionals from one area of practice, where they are already in short supply, and get them to do the jobs of another group, also in short supply. The solution is to train more of each professional group to do their own jobs, competently.

The Exhaustive Study of that which is Wholly Imaginary

"Fluency in theology--the exhaustive study of that which is wholly imaginary--is not required to deny the veracity of invented supernatural claims."

What a fabulously succinct description of theology, tucked away in an otherwise brilliant statement about a common problem that arises during a lot of discussions about religious ideas with religious people. You know, the point at which the theologian claims that just as he/she is not well versed in all aspects of the science, so the "scientist" is not an authority on the theology and thus we must "agree to differ"!

Ok, ok...it's not mine.

I found this little gem here by Paul Fidalgo at the Secularism Examiner.

Respecting religious diversity

Graeme Innes wrote this in a recent The Punch post:

http://www.thepunch.com.au/articles/Are-we-really-the-secular-nation-we-think-we-are/desc/

It was a rambling piece but I think the point was this: Australians think that their country is becoming increasingly secular. The rest of the world, however, is not becoming increasingly secular but rather more fragmented along sectarian/religious divisions. Thus, with increasing migration of increasingly religiously divided people, Australia will have to confront it's notions of secularism, and indeed come up with a way to deal with these increasing, and opposing, religious views. And of course it suggests the typical path of "respecting diversity", "respecting... the role that faith plays in the lives of many people, "freedom of religion..." etc. There was also this odd statement:

"If we are to have a peaceful, respectful future, then all of us must learn to make a leap of faith and trust."

This was my response:

I think we have to question this notion of ‘tolerance to different beliefs’. Where two beliefs are contradictory then at least one is wrong. It may be that both are wrong. Either way, to pretend that they are equally valid is nonsense.

The way forward for humanity in terms of peace and progress is for each of us to recognize that we are in fact not free to believe anything we want (for example, 2 + 2 = 5) and that the things we do believe are not sacred but open to discussion and dispute.

We must be prepared to abandon happily beliefs which are clearly wrong, and take less offence when someone challenges one of our cherished beliefs. This does not happen in religion because religious beliefs are out-dated, tribal, dogmatic, & easily offended by nature.

The way to peace and happiness on earth is to abandon all types of religious thinking rather than being more tolerant of it.

BTW when I say we shouldn’t be ‘tolerant’ of religious thinking I don’t mean we should go out and perpetrate violence against those with religious beliefs.