philosophy, semanticsIt seems that we atheists pride ourselves on the logical examination of evidence. In any system of logic- we must first start with axioms- that is unprovable assumptions that are accepted on their very nature as being true.
I purposefully avoid the definition of axiom as a “universally accepted truth” because it seems that such an assertion in inherently subjective. In what we believe, as atheists, we must first accept such axioms as (1) the existence of self and (2) the existence of a reality around us. By their very nature such assumptions are unprovable as we cannot step outside ourselves or even the universe to examine any evidence of an ultimate truth.
How do atheists differentiate between what we call faith (a believe in the axiom of a deity) from the belief in our own axioms that support the logical systems that disprove the existence of God?
One matter to address, is an argument that can be made where, when following any chain of logical reasoning, we can ask for evidence over and over until we finally come up against something unprovable- axioms. In turn, the acceptance of these might be called faith, is this semantic twist simply renaming God?
I personally reject axioms and faith in the sense of the question.
The only thing I thing I really take as a given is Descartes’ claim “Cogito ergo sum” (I think, therefore I am). Since it’s experimentally verifiable at this moment, I don’t consider it faith or an axiom.
Otherwise, I consider everything else a working hypothesis with varying degrees of support.
For instance, I’m solidly convinced the physical universe exists and I have ongoing consciousness, not because I can “prove” either of those, but because acting as if it’s true works incredibly well, it explains what it purports to explain, and I’ve seen no evidence to the contrary.
Perhaps the “absolute cosmic truth” really is that some jokester deity just created me and everything else a moment ago, and what I think are memories and continuous being are merely a parlor trick that deity did for personal amusement… but in the absence of evidence for that, Occam’s razor tells me to keep acting as if the universe and I both have been and continue to be real.
I think you are conflating science and philosophy (particularly, metaphysics). Science concerns itself with testable explanations of the world. Philosophy is there to address the questions that cannot be tested.
In what we believe, as atheists, we must first accept such axioms as the existence of self and the existence of a reality around us.
I disagree. An atheist, by definition, is one who does not believe in a god (or gods). An atheist could have a philosophical view that the reality we experience does not physically exist, but rather our universe is the merely the dream of a dozing baby in a parallel universe.
Here's how I like to think about it - spend a moment cataloging all of the things that you believe and would continue to believe even when presented with evidence that suggests the contrary. This set of beliefs if what I label faith. Metaphysical viewpoints extend beyond the realm of evidence - you cannot show me evidence that strengthens or weakens the claim that the universe we inhabit is merely the dream of a baby in a parallel universe. Consequently, one's metaphysical viewpoints are not a matter of faith, but rather a matter of philosophical belief.
As an atheist who is a metaphysical naturalist, I evaluate the question of God’s existence through the lens of science (and philosophy, but for this purpose discussing science is sufficient, so for simplicity’s sake I’ll leave out some of the detail about philosophy). Science doesn’t deal with “unprovable assumptions that are accepted on their very nature as being true”. It deals with assumptions supported by evidence. So I’m going to use the term assumption rather than axiom because it is a more appropriate term when dealing with reasoning about faith and science in the same context. (The term ‘hypothesis’ would be more appropriate to science, but not to faith).
Assumptions are not necessarily unprovable. They, along with the theories they’re used to construct, are either supported by evidence, or they’re not. I hold the following assumptions about the nature of reality:
I also have these expectations of explanations of reality:
Assumptions 1 to 4 are not purely axiomatic; they are supported by careful, extensive observation. In all the time we’ve been studying the laws of physics, they’ve never been violated. Premise 5 follows from the previous assumptions. Someone who believes there is a spiritual aspect to reality would argue that those assumptions have been violated, for example in the case of miracles. However expectation 2 contends that unless those miracles are accounted for by a coherent theory, then they are unexplained, so the assumptions can’t be considered violated.
And that brings us to the difference between faith and science. Faith is satisfied with a leap from assumption to conclusion. Science demands that assumptions be rigorously traced to conclusions step-by-step, and also that those assumptions themselves–not just the conclusions–be supported by evidence. For example, faith contends that the assumption that God caused a miracle to occur is a sufficent explanation (as long as no other explanation is available). Science contends that without a coherent account of how God could bring about such an event, the event is unexplained.
The question of God’s existence fails in a similar way. There is no way to account for the existence of God in a coherent, cogent way in light of our understanding of reality (which includes all the evidence we’ve gathered). So there is no reason to consider God’s existence explained, i.e., there is no reason to believe God exists. If we trace our understanding of the world through all the scientific theories and all the evidence, at some point we run into the unknown. What exactly is the nature of reality at the quantum level? Is there anything beyond? At that point the only intelligible position is to acknowledge that what lies beyond is as yet unknown. Not God by any definition. Unknown. That’s not faith based upon unprovable axioms. It’s reasoning supported by evidence.
The real problem of science isn’t about pure logic but empiricism. Clear thinking is not correct thinking.
There is a vast and noble difference between a scientific function and a religious commandment. The point is in one case we are seeking humble, predictive models; in the other, we permit magical explanations that preclude critical analysis.
Theology offers an enormous number of logically consistent discussions of deities. The question to ask in this case is to identify precisely what you are asking: exactly that they are selecting their axioms so as to ‘stack the deck,’ to hallucinate a Creation in place of contingency.
The problem of axioms is what they reveal about the (nobility or vulgarity of the perspective of) one who creates or selects them.
When we go about in the world, we always assume a lot of things tacitly. We assume that if we don’t avoid the bus that is heading towards us and get hit, we’ll end up in the hospital or worse be dead. This assumption is not made on the grounds of any a priori well-defined axiom, but it is nevertheless an a priori which got there either by own experience or by the accumulation of “experience” through the evolutionary process (reflexes to avoid danger).
In any case, logic has little to do with it, the process by which this “axiomatic” knowledge forms is more akin to science and is in any case an example of what is called the principle of induction.
It is certainly true that there is no strictly logico-deductive way to arrive at the principle of induction from other more base axioms of logic. So the principle of induction has to be taken as such and we in fact do it without much thought about it because it is the rational thing to do. Just try to think about the most menial things you do everyday and try to justify them logically, you’ll always arrive somewhere in ultimate analysis at the principle of induction (let’s exclude moral questions though, which would need extra principles to justify the actions).
Is that faith? If you want to call it faith, fine by me. But it’s a faith grounded in experience. And I don’t mean just personal or singular experience. Repeatable, objective experimentation. If that is not good enough for you, welcome to solipsism. Or madness.
The difference between axioms and blind faith is scope.
Every axiom makes a relatively modest claim that is amenable to common sense – that’s the big one. Axioms should be something that everyone can agree on based on logic alone. This does contain an unproven assumption – that we can rely on our logic not to deceive us, which is why axioms are always very small: otherwise, we could deceive ourselves.
Compare that to faith. This isn’t a small unproven assumption that is amenable to logic. It’s figuratively a leap of faith.
In my opinion, this is a pretty big difference, and altogether enough to distinguish axioms as valid from blind faith as invalid.
In any system of logic- we must first start with axioms- that is unprovable assumptions that are accepted on their very nature as being true.
Well, in the systems of logic, maybe. But I’m not a ghost, thrown into a descartian debate, but a physical being, and as such I just have to think enogh to survive.
The fundament of logical thinking is a physical body, who walks into the kitchen and opens the refridgerator to see: no food there. Now this person may go out and buy some food, or get down on his knees and pray for goods.
The rules of logic are deduced from logic thinking, and this is based on empirical observations.
Religious beliefs aren’t completely without empirical observations and without any logic. For example, a strong and angry person to whom you do bad will probably punish you. Now if you get punished by fortune, let’s say you get ill - it isn’t totally stupid to look for some powerful being, to whom you did bad. It’s a reasonable hypothesis, and without observing virus or bacteria, it is hard to accept that it is an effect of something without knowing what caused it.
You can deduce most religious beliefs from a very sound hypothesis: No effect without cause. The search for the cause is always limited by technical progress and common knowledge. What is a lightening? Where does a storm come from? Not easy to answer if you don’t have modern science.
Religious systems didn’t try to answer random questions like ‘Why isn’t a banana an apple?’ but questions which are important in the struggle of live.
This doesn’t answer your question what the basic axioms are, we rely on, but tries to show, that the search for basic axioms might not be that important. I don’t have that question.
All content is licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0.