Why theists aren't persuaded that there is no god
OP - December 24, 2013, 03:12 PM
_Why theists aren't persuaded that there is no god_
Most discussions between theist and atheist go like this. What evidence do you have that god exists? None, but what evidence do you have that god doesn't exist? None, but the burden of proof is on you, not me. And then the discussion usually ends because the theist doesn't understand what "burden of proof" means, nor does he care. So the discussion fails -- nobody changes their mind.
One problem with this approach is that it ignores that we can refute an idea without even considering any physical evidence. So even if the idea is not scientific, we can still refute it. So, asking for evidence for god's existence is not necessary to explain why god doesn't exist.
So how does refutation work?
A refutation of an idea takes the form of a criticism, which is an explanation of a flaw in an idea. If an idea is flawed, then it's refuted. And if it doesn't have a flaw, then it's unrefuted.
Now I've made that sound pretty simple but it's a lot more complicated than that. For one thing, people are fallible, which means that any of our ideas may be mistaken, which means that even our criticism can be flawed. That's why it's important to keep all our ideas on the table -- to make sure that all of our ideas are open to criticism.
So to clarify how refutation works, if an idea has an unrefuted criticism, then the idea is tentatively refuted. And, the unrefuted status of the criticism is also tentative. So if somebody comes along with a criticism of that criticism, then the original idea is now unrefuted.
A second thing to consider is how criticism works. A criticism is an explanation of a flaw in an idea. Now some ideas are vague -- their purpose is not clear. This makes it hard to find a flaw in it. For this reason, the fact that the idea is vague is a useful criticism of the idea. In other words, if the idea's purpose is unclear, then it's refuted.
Now people often disagree about what things are unclear, but this is a soluble problem. One way to do it is to identify what problem the idea is intended to solve. The people discussing the idea might go back and forth a bunch of times before the problem is established, but once that is agreed on, then it's easier to figure out if there is a flaw in the idea. Since the idea is a proposed solution for the intended problem, if we can explain how the proposed solution fails to solve the problem, then we've found a devastating criticism of that idea.
As an example, consider the case where somebody claims that something caused something else. If the claim doesn't have an explanation for the causal relationship, then that is a criticism of the claim -- that it's unexplained. It's a criticism because without an explanation, we can't find out if it's reasoning is wrong. So it's wrong for not having any reasoning.
So let's consider some examples of why people believe in god.
What created the universe?
One reason people give for their belief in god is that they think god must have created the universe since it's so perfectly designed. So their problem is: What created this awesomely designed universe? And their proposed solution is: God created the universe. And the refutation is simple. The proposed solution raises another problem of the same type: What created this awesomely designed god? So this proposed solution doesn't work to solve the intended problem, hence it is refuted.
Now some people might say that it doesn't raise any problems for them. But that raises another one for me: Why aren't you critically questioning your ideas? Do you think you can't possibly be wrong about an idea of yours? If that's the case, then you are claiming to be like god, infallible, which, correct me if I'm wrong, goes against your belief in god. Right?
Why are we here?
Another question that people think is answered by their belief in god is: Why are we here? But this problem is flawed because it assumes that there was an intelligent being that had a purpose for us. So the problem actually contains an assumption, which is that god created us. And that raises the problem: Why do you assume that god exists? Why do you assume that an intelligent being created us for a purpose? So the idea is refuted because it contains unexplained assumptions.
How will I be moral?
One reason people believe in god is related to their belief that morality is exclusive to religion. So their problem is: How am I going to be a moral person and raise my children morally? And their proposed solution is: God gave us the right way to live so I'll follow his rules. But this idea doesn't work. People can create any kind of knowledge, including moral knowledge. We don't need to be provided with a system of moral rules in order to create some of our own moral knowledge. We can learn that murder is wrong, because it's in each person's own best interest. I want other people not to murder me, so I should respect their preference for not wanting to be murdered. Also, with murder comes a lot of risk of retaliation and other harmful consequences, so it's in my best interest to avoid taking that kind of risk.
So just because a person rejects a religion, that doesn't mean he'll throw out his morality. Consider a Christian who knows that murder is wrong. If he stops believing in God and his religion, that doesn't mean he'll change his mind about the idea that murder is wrong. He doesn't need the fear of hell to prevent him from committing murder. He doesn't commit murder because he knows that murder is the wrong thing to do, so fear of punishment is not necessary.
What's my life's purpose?
Another reason people accept religion and belief in god is to feel like their life has purpose. So their problem is that they feel like their life has no purpose. And their belief in god supposedly solves this problem because it provides purpose to their lives. But what purpose is that? Well let's consider some of the answers. Islam claims that our purpose is to worship god. But that doesn't work as a solution to the problem of what is our purpose since it assumes that god exists and thus raises the question: How do you know god exists?
It also raises another question: Why don't you create your own purpose to your life? For example, if you enjoy designing ergonomic buildings, then designing ergonomic buildings could be your life's purpose. If you enjoy abstract painting, then abstract painting could be your life's purpose. If you enjoy figuring out how the physical world works, then working as a theoretical physicist could be your life's purpose.
Also, since god can't speak to you about your specific interests, how could god tell you about what your purpose should be? In other words, how could a discussion about the purpose of your life not include details about your specific interests? It doesn't make sense.
Why am I suffering?
Then there are other reasons people believe in god that they aren't really aware of. Their lives are full of suffering and they feel stuck. That's their problem. Actually it's many problems that they don't know how to solve. And they don't even try to solve them. Instead, they bury their problems hoping that they will go away on their own. Sometimes they do this by denying that their problems are even problematic. They say things like, "well everyone suffers like this, so it's just a part of life" or "it's not even a problem because other people have it much worse than I do."
This is something that most people deal with, not just theists. Most people live irresponsible lives by denying that they have problems and by shifting responsibility of the problems that they do admit having. It helps them feel better because that way they don’t feel guilty. Some people shift responsibility to their parents, “It’s my dad’s fault that I don’t know how to fix a car or do handy-work because he never taught me.” Some people shift responsibility to their brains, “Please excuse my ADD.” Some shift responsibility to their hormones, “It’s not my fault because I had PMS.”
Another common way that people use to shift responsibility is to believe that god willed their problems into existence and only god can will them away. So they are not responsible for having their problems, and they are not responsible for solving them. So their belief in god is a means of feeling better about their suffering caused by their unsolved problems. Their problem is that they feel bad, and their proposed solution (their belief in god) makes them feel better. But the proposed solution doesn't work. Suffering doesn't stop just because you believe that god is responsible for your suffering. That line of thinking might help you feel better for a few moments when you are feeling your worst, but it doesn't work long term. The only long term solution to suffering is to solve the problems that are causing the suffering. And you can't solve your problems if you deny that you're responsible for them -- which, according to you, is what believing in god means.
Fear of death
One of the reasons people believe in god is related to their fear of the punishment in the afterlife. In order to quell the fear, they suspend critically questioning of their belief in god. They do this because according to their religion, questioning god is considered immoral behavior and punishable by banishment to hell. So the problem is their fear, and their solution is to stop critically questioning god and to try their best to follow the dictates of their religion.
But there is no afterlife. When we die, our bodies turn to dirt, and we no longer exist. We don't have souls that continue on after our death. The concept of a soul is mysticism. There's never been a scientific theory about it, which means no testing of it, which means no evidence at all. Further, the idea of a soul contradicts our laws of physics -- namely the Conservation of Energy. The soul, as it is described in religious texts, requires energy in order to operate. If it did not have energy, then how could it move around or do anything? Which raises the question: How does a soul consume energy? It doesn't. It can't. So the idea of a soul is refuted.
So how did the soul idea come about? It's been theorized that early humans needed explanations for why they could see people in their dreams. So lots of early humans independently came up with the idea that the people in the dreams are actually the souls of the people. And this explanation worked to explain why dead people visited the living in their dreams. But now we know that dreams are imagined by the dreamer. They are hallucinations. Nobody is visiting you in your dreams. So the soul explanation no longer has a purpose -- it's not needed to explain dreams.
How will I have social approval?
Another reason people accept religion and belief in god is because their friends and neighbors expect them to. So they crave social approval. Their problem is: I want my social group to approve of me. And their proposed solution is to believe what their social group believes. And then they suspend their critical thinking of that belief as a means of preserving the approval of their social group.
But let's critically question the problem of wanting social approval. In any given interaction between people, a person is either acting according to his morals, or seeking social approval. You can't have it both ways. Sometimes the two goals don't conflict, in which case seeking social approval was unnecessary. Other times, the two goals do conflict, which means that either you will stay true to your morals and reject the social group, or you will sacrifice your morals in order to seek social approval. And if you choose the latter, that means that you are choosing immorality and so is your social group.
Feelings as evidence
Now some people believe in god because they think they felt him. So they are using their feelings as evidence, and they think that evidence works by supporting a theory. But this is a mistake. Evidence does not work by supporting theories, and instead it works by refuting theories.
Consider the situation where someone gets mad over someone else making a comment. Should the person consider his feeling as evidence supporting the theory that the other guy did something wrong? Or should the person realize that his feelings could be wrong and that maybe he misinterpreted the other guy's comment? Well, a rational person would agree that it's possible he misinterpreted. And often these people do change their minds about their interpretation, which leads to them not being mad anymore. So, if you agree that your feelings can be wrong in this type of situation, then why do you think your feelings can't be wrong about god?
One thing to understand about feelings is that they are based in our beliefs. Consider how hypnosis works. Some people get hypnotized while others don't. Which raises the question: What's the difference between the two types of people? The answer is simple. The people that get hypnotized are the ones that believe in hypnosis and that they can be hypnotized, while the people that don't get hypnotized don't believe that. So it's a self-fulfilling prophecy. And feeling god is the same way. If you believe in god, then you might feel him. So using your feelings as a reason for your beliefs uses circular logic since your feelings are caused by your beliefs.
So how do I persuade a theist?
First of all, you can't persuade someone if that person refuses to adopt a rational attitude -- because persuasion requires rational discussion. Being rational means being willing to change your mind when you find out that an idea of yours has a flaw.
In any case, if you are having a rational discussion, ask him, "What question does your god claim answer?" Or "What problem does your god claim solve?" Or "Why do you believe in god?" That puts the ball in his court. Don't take the ball back until he has given you a question to work with. Then criticize it. Show how their god claim doesn't solve their intended problem.
Often he won't know how to answer your question. So he might change the subject of the discussion. That's ok. He'll end up saying something that you'll recognize as his problem that he thinks his belief in god solves. That's when you rephrase his idea in terms of a problem and his solution and then you can show him the contradiction -- how his proposed solution fails to solve his problem.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If you are arguing with a theist and you're not sure how to criticize his question, post it here and I'll help you. Or email me privately at rombomb@gmail.com.
Topic: Why theists aren't persuaded that there is no god