Atheism, Universal Negatives and Stuff

Have been reading friend Wildilocks' online stuff. Being an atheist (a nice one), she sometimes writes about that. Here's something I replied to one of hers...

The “knowing God can't exist” argument gets people sometimes, and people on both sides of the divide make mistakes in their thinking imo. eg I came across a slightly erroneous article not long ago where the writer says:

Sophomoric critics of atheism often charge that atheism is committed to proving the negative proposition "no gods exist" and, since allegedly no one can prove a negative, this shows that atheism is an absurd doctrine. The first thing to note is that it is often possible to prove negatives. Euclid proved that there is no highest prime number. I can prove that my bicycle is not in the basement by going downstairs, turning on the light, and looking around.

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/keith_parsons/misconceptions.html

But it's not “proving a negative” that is impossible. It's proving a UNIVERSAL negative that is impossible, and this is both good logic, and misunderstood by the writer in question.

For example, take the statement “no aliens have ever visited earth”. I don't personally believe aliens have visited planet earth – but I can't prove that, because I don't have all knowledge about all alleged visitations on earth at all times (universal knowledge). So if pressed, the best I can do is say “From what I know, I don't believe it likely that aliens have visited earth. But I might be wrong.”

In the same way, I cannot state – in a logical sense – “No gods exist”. If pressed, the best I can do is say “From what I know, I don't believe any gods exist. But I could be wrong.” So technically, it's correct to say only agnosticism is valid. (Epistemology is an interesting, but arcane subject.)

HOWEVER, most of us aren't entirely logical in every single thing we do/think. I think it's perfectly ok to say: “I can't prove there is no god, but I think the evidence is so overwhelming against her existence, that I call myself an atheist. So that atheism might be called the extreme end of agnosticism. I am thinking of Dawkins' chapter title “Why There Is Almost Certainly No God.”

===

Here is the bestest article ever on atheists and christians being nice people to each other because they actually have things in common http://www.pointlesswasteoftime.com/godfuse.html

I also learned a new word: Transhumanism. Generally, the use of technology to expand human capabilities http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transhumanism and http://www.transhumanism.org/index.php/WTA/index


listening to Helix - Afterglow (my new trance track i made - it's good!)

The Dawkins Disillusionment

Picked up Richard Dawkins' The God Delusion in Borders tonight. I was expecting not to enjoy it, as he has a reputation for being a rude, grumpy bigot in writing (the opinion of a number of atheists I know, ironically) , and the little I've read of his backs this up. EthicsDoctor who I picked up from the airport says he has a reputation for being nice in person.

Anyway, the first chapter was quite warm, welcoming and engaging and I thought "yay, maybe this will be different". So I turned to chapter 3 where he treats philosophical arguments for/against g0d. And he pooh poohed the cosmological argument in less than two pages! With virtually no argument, and weak argument at best.

I immediately lost respect for him. He might be a great scientist, but some basic research would tell him that the cosmological argument is currently very strong in philosophical circles. (Half my major was in philosophy for my second degree.) It wasn't when Dawkins was an undergraduate many decades ago, but it is now. To be fair, he spends a few more pages on the ontological argument, and quite a bit more on the teleological argument - I imagine because it has implications on his own field, of biology. But again, he seems ignorant of how strong the design argument is, and trots out the same lame old arguments that were dismissed twenty years ago.

I'm sure he would rightly be concerned if someone tried to present the evolutionary biology of 20, 30, 50 years ago as current.

I may be premature. Unfortunately i can't quote from the book as g0d hasn't blessed my with the money to purchase it ;) But at some point I will read the whole book, much as I read the Da Vinci Code, because it's trendy. I hope my small delve into it doesn't portend Dawkins' scholarship is as weak as Dan Brown's.


[Edit: Many of the reviews the The God Delusion I've just read online imply that i will be in for more unpleasantness after all, when I do get to read the full thing. One commentator said: "the proportion of insult, ridicule, mockery, spleen, and vitriol is astounding." Oh joy.]

listening to Opeth | Godhead's Lament (brilliant gutteral death metal fused with 70's prog rock)