debate-pointsSo, there are theists who dedicate their lives to study and defend their faith, and many of these have proposed some tough challenges/arguments for atheists. Do you know of any such argument that has not seen a ‘satisfactory’ rebuttal (according to you, or whoever else you respect)?
note: I’m aware that a lot of arguments, though appealing, could be based on shaky foundations. I also know that people (as someone here mentioned) sometimes perform mental gymnastics. Don’t let these weaknesses stop you, but if you are aware of them, please mention what they are. Point out other weaknesses as well on your answer.
I would say it depends a bit on how far you want to push the analysis. Very often, apologetic and theological arguments can be brushed aside easily by pointing to their lack of connection with reality.
What I mean is that theological arguments are logical in nature, often even dating from the scholastic period and when they are more modern, they are often just polished versions of the scholastic arguments. Since the discovery of the scientific method, it has become clear to most educated people that purely logical arguments can not give us knowledge about actual empirical facts. David Hume was probably the first to point it out very sharply. Generally, this should be sufficient to show the ineffectiveness of such arguments. We all know the classic answer to for instance the ontological argument: it can be applied to any imaginary entity we wish.
But actually pinpointing the reasoning errors is much more difficult and often has kept the best philosophers busy. I remember reading Mackie’s “the Miracle of Theism” in which he shows that while many people believe Kant (Kant included) gave the definitive refutation of the ontological argument, Kant did in fact not go to the bottom of it.
I suggest following text by philosopher David Stove to show just how easily our thinking processes can go astray, and while it’s often easy to recognize something is amiss, it is difficult to say exactly what.
No. Since theism almost by definition (it’s a direct consequence of the existence of a personal god) makes positive claims about the world and its workings, and since there is no evidence of any action of any non-natural entity in the workings of the world, theism has no rational leg to stand on.
The world looks exactly as it should if there were no god. Theists must answer this satisfactorily for their belief to stand up to the lack of evidence for their god’s presence. I have not yet seen, nor do I ever expect to see, any theist adequately answering this charge, which is the fundamental problem of theism. Either they claim without evidence that their god does in fact act in the world, or they make the even more preposterous claim that their god could if he wished act in the world, but chooses not to do so (a more deistic than theistic approach, though; it cannot possibly be disproved, but then again it explains absolutely nothing).
For the most part, I would say the answer to this question is ‘no.’
There are, however, two things that theists say that deserve to be mentioned in the context of this question.
The first is any theistic claims of what happens after we die. I don’t care whether you’re talking about reincarnation, moving on to another plane of existence or any other theistic claims to what happens when you die. Some of these claims are quite creative, others frightening, and others still just leave you scratching your head. That said, there is no such thing as a claim associated with what, exactly happens when you die because the only people who truly get to find out about it … die. I could say that you go on to be a strand of cotton in the tampons used by Megan Fox, and it is no more and no less prove-able than any other claim… By the strictest logic associated with the question asked, it has not been refuted.
The second topic isn’t so much the theism itself, but rather the human community that can be formed around a religion: a collection of reasonably like-minded people who, for whatever else their failings might be, get along well with one another and occasionally attempt to good works. (With the loosest definitions of the word “good”). Of course we don’t need theism or even religion to have a community like that. (Hell, we participants on this site are a community, too…) But it’s still true that such a community can exist as a result of the religion itself. Just because it doesn’t have to stem from theism doesn’t alter the fact that it occasionally does.
It’s hard to refute someone who claims to have had a personal religious experience.
I currently think reformed epistemology raises a series of questions which are insoluble.
The idea is belief in the past can’t be proven, so we need to take belief in it ‘on faith’. Since belief in the past is clearly rational, other beliefs which can’t be proven also may be rational.
Further there isn’t any argument which can show that belief in the past is rational, which can’t also be used to show belief in God is rational for a theist with a different set of intuitions.
The fun of the argument, is under it belief actually is irrational for an atheist, and only rational if you are already a theist.
I currently don’t have an objection to it I’m happy with. The solution probably involves not showing belief in the past is more rational, but that belief in God is more irrational.
All content is licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0.