Next Wednesday, SHAFT will be meeting to discuss and debunk the worst arguments for atheism. You can find out more about this event at its Facebook page.
I know many of our readers will be unable to attend, so let’s take up the question here, too. What popular arguments for atheism (or against religion) do you think fail? Why?
6 thoughts on “What is the worst argument for atheism?”
It’s hard to sell the proposition of society without religion, given its entrenchment, its emotional catering to citizens and the establishment of family and private, anti-public sentiment. The days when philosophers like Plato can write about communal responsibility, abolition of property and even family, as he did in Republic, and be called a great thinker to boot, appear to be gone forever. I’m not saying he was right; I’m saying that the fact that these propositions evoke a kind of knee-jerk impression of heresy should give everyone pause. The milieu we inhabit is permeated utterly by religion and the meaning it has dictated.
In other words, it’s hard to tell people there might be something better when their minds are incapable of perceiving anything else. All radical atheist arguments fail. Only gradual, particular ones have any hope of making an impression.
Might attend, might not, since certain somebodies aren’t there I’m more willing. I’ll have to leave at 8 and will be detained till 10 so if there are any plans I might not be able to go along.
Some low lying fruit to ignore/cut off for the health of the plant:
Alien/machine conspiracy theory nutjob stories aren’t arguments, and they miss the point.
Obvious one-a religion or theistic ground doesn’t fail because of the actions of a few. Wagner being an antisemite doesn’t make his music less beautiful or real.
A strange one, the problem of evil, which I think in the Western tradition is going to be one of the bigger obstacles (the inconsistent tetrad). Its a big problem, but should be carefully examined, since too often it accuses the christian god of not being christian enough. Kleiner has an interesting response (lack of the good, not the presence of evil to use a very broad brush) but I don’t think he’s right.
I don’t like God of the gaps arguments. They’re just not effective because they’re not aimed at anybody. Pointing out that science is shiny and new and can explain physical phenomena really well doesn’t touch theists who believe in God because of personal experience or any of the traditional theological arguments (think Aquinas’ five ways). Of course, pointing out that science can explain things really well is good for promoting a materialist worldview; it just doesn’t edge God out.
Here’s an interview with the guy from Common Sense Atheism. He points out a few of his least favorite arguments for atheism.
It’s hard to sell the proposition of society without religion, given its entrenchment, its emotional catering to citizens and the establishment of family and private, anti-public sentiment. The days when philosophers like Plato can write about communal responsibility, abolition of property and even family, as he did in Republic, and be called a great thinker to boot, appear to be gone forever. I’m not saying he was right; I’m saying that the fact that these propositions evoke a kind of knee-jerk impression of heresy should give everyone pause. The milieu we inhabit is permeated utterly by religion and the meaning it has dictated.
In other words, it’s hard to tell people there might be something better when their minds are incapable of perceiving anything else. All radical atheist arguments fail. Only gradual, particular ones have any hope of making an impression.
“fail” as in fails as polemic. They may be logically sound.
Might attend, might not, since certain somebodies aren’t there I’m more willing. I’ll have to leave at 8 and will be detained till 10 so if there are any plans I might not be able to go along.
Some low lying fruit to ignore/cut off for the health of the plant:
Alien/machine conspiracy theory nutjob stories aren’t arguments, and they miss the point.
Obvious one-a religion or theistic ground doesn’t fail because of the actions of a few. Wagner being an antisemite doesn’t make his music less beautiful or real.
A strange one, the problem of evil, which I think in the Western tradition is going to be one of the bigger obstacles (the inconsistent tetrad). Its a big problem, but should be carefully examined, since too often it accuses the christian god of not being christian enough. Kleiner has an interesting response (lack of the good, not the presence of evil to use a very broad brush) but I don’t think he’s right.
I don’t like God of the gaps arguments. They’re just not effective because they’re not aimed at anybody. Pointing out that science is shiny and new and can explain physical phenomena really well doesn’t touch theists who believe in God because of personal experience or any of the traditional theological arguments (think Aquinas’ five ways). Of course, pointing out that science can explain things really well is good for promoting a materialist worldview; it just doesn’t edge God out.
Here’s an interview with the guy from Common Sense Atheism. He points out a few of his least favorite arguments for atheism.
Source, you stole my thunder. I was going to discuss that Common Sense Atheism post in tomorrow’s SHAFT meeting.
Do you visit that blog often? I think it’s top-notch—almost as good as this blog. ;)
Pingback: Sunday in Outer Blogness: The End of the World Edition! | Main Street Plaza