How to evangelize to an atheist

Tagged with: Apologetics

http://andrewfinden.com/findothinks/ AndrewFinden

She framed it very poorly and made a hash of definitions, but there's actually a decent argument in there – at least, against the kind of 'strong' or 'positive' (i.e."there are no gods") atheism that I know you argue against as well. I agree that it's certainly not a valid argument against 'weak' or 'negative' atheism – i.e. lacking belief in gods.
It's also a valid argument against that no true scotsman fallacy your flyingfree mate made the other day about a 'true' sceptic would never become a Christian – to say such would require the full circle of knowledge to know that there could be no evidence or argument that would be convincing. Without that, one can only speak of what they've come across in their circle of knowledge, not what doesn't exist beyond that circle.

Essentially all she has done is demonstrate why it's virtually impossible to prove a negative outside the scope of your own knowledge / experience.

http://www.facebook.com/anwyll David Gibson

She didn't just mangle definitions and get faith and knowledge confused (when it suited her) she didn't make a good argument.

It isn't a valid argument against a no true scotsman fallacy I could think of (I don't think I saw the comment your referred to from flyingfree). As far as I can tell you are mangling the definition of skepticism and its application to then make an appeal to a full circle of knowledge (of humanity, just the person in question, what?) Being skeptical is about how you approach testable claims, if the claim can't be tested (exactly the warm and cozy place most theists I've encountered like to keep their deity of choice whenever a nasty skeptic/atheist is out on the prowl) then you can't be skeptical about the existence of god and be a believer in a particular religion.

Unless ofcourse you think the existence, specific nature and other pertinent facts which would provide a landing site on your religious flavour are in fact testable claims which would entail some kind of evidence.

So let's have it…

A skeptic who is a believer is not being skeptical about their god, they may be skeptical about a great many other things but they have not fully employed their skeptical capacity to this particular question. As it would be for a skeptic who believes in ghosts or the yeti.

Essentially all she has done is make an appeal to mystery with a side of popularity.

And on proving of negatives, it depends on your criteria of proof (mathematical or reasonable) and demand for certainty in inductive reasoning (if you want a guarrantee try something not real). Most reasonable people are happy to prove negatives except when you bring up God and suddenly it seems this is the only law of logic they know (not that I think this of you). I also usually find it just simply isn't worth the effort to try and show them otherwise, it's like the cultural cringe about atheists has tattooed 'you can't prove a negative' on their brain somewhere

On a side note, I do enjoy when someone quotes Psalm 14:1 to me, they never know what Matthew 5:22 says.

http://andrewfinden.com/findothinks/ AndrewFinden

Being skeptical is about how you approach testable claims, if the claim can't be tested (exactly the warm and cozy place most theists I've encountered like to keep their deity of choice whenever a nasty skeptic/atheist is out on the prowl) then you can't be skeptical about the existence of god and be a believer in a particular religion.

Just to clarify, are you saying that if a claim is not testable, one cannot be sceptical about it? I don't think you would be, but that seems to be what you've written… please explain.

Would it be fair to say that scepticism is not believing claims without evidence and reason? If that is lacking, in what way?

Most reasonable people are happy to prove negatives except when you bring up God and suddenly it seems this is the only law of logic they know

But it's not a law of logic – that's a common myth. You can prove a negative provided the scope is appropriate. For example, I can easily prove that there is no money in my wallet, because a wallet is an easily manageable scope for me – it falls within, if you like, what she would call my 'circle'. As the scope gets bigger, it gets harder: we cannot practically round up all the sheep in the world that have and will ever exist and demonstrate that no green sheep exist (we must be satisfied with induction from those we have seen). And if the planet is still practically not entirely within out scope, how much more for the universe, and indeed, beyond the universe!

http://www.facebook.com/anwyll David Gibson

Skepticism:
If a claim is not testable then you cannot employ tools of skepticism to asses it. This doesn't mean you can't doubt the claim you just can't employ skepticism in relation to it. Too often people conflate skepticism with doubtfulness, a common example today would be a 'climate change skeptic'. In my experience the majority of these individuals I've encountered are not actually skeptical they are doubtful. They lack a burden of proof threshold at which their position would be reversed or their burden of proof is unrealistic and fanciful in order to avoid it ever being reached.

You may be unaware but there has actually been quite a bit of conflict between skeptics within organisations or groups about how to deal with the 'god dilema' where some skeptics try to justify a belief in god (either for themself or others) and find other skeptics finding testable compenents of their beliefs and examining the evidence available (usually boils down to problems of evil, suffering, hiddenness, etc). Or people advocate leaving religion alone, that it isn't within the realm of skeptical inquiry. Subsequently people get upset (strangely skeptics who are religious react the same way 'normal' religious people do when they're backed into a corner in trying to justify their ffaith). Why question religion? Why make enemies? Is this skepticism? Where does skepticism end and atheism begin? Etc, etc.

I'm not that active on skeptics forums or blogs so I've mostly only seen the periphery from the atheists who are and for the most part I'm inclined to think skepticism done right does lead to atheism. Ultimately because the testability of a claim isn't just about whether it is real or not, before even examining that part of the issue producing a testable claim is also saying 'this could be relevant'. If you can't produce a testable claim, you can't justify the issue is even relevant to our existence in some manner.

Proving a negative:
I know it isn't a law, that was poor phrasing on my part and as I predicted you at least understand when you can and can't prove negatives. In fact, the 'Law of Non-Contradiction' is a negative itself and I often use it to quickly demonstrate that you can prove a negative (but as I said this usually isn't worth the effort because then I have to explain the law and bleh). Your description of proving a negative in the scope of deductive reasoning is also true. I was going to write something to that effect myself but decided against it for brevity of a kind.

I usually find those people who obstinately maintain they are an agnostic and not an atheist are the loudest when proclaiming that you can't prove a negative. It is used as the ultimate get out of jail free card because it works so well in most instances – not everyone has read enough theory of logic to know you can.

http://andrewfinden.com/findothinks/ AndrewFinden

Thanks – an interesting comment. I want to ask some further questions, but I also need to think a bit more about what you've written in case my immediate understanding / reaction is not quite clear. To that end:

What would call the 'tools' of scepticism? And how does your definition / understanding of scepticism relate to, say, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skepticism or http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/skepticism ( I realise, of course, that dictionaries can reflect common usage as much as they can direct it)

http://www.facebook.com/anwyll David Gibson

Those definitions aren't particularly good because it presupposes the outcome of a skeptical inquiry on a certain issue (such as Christianity) I think the first list of synonyms are more enlightning (and they are reflecting common usage not 'correct' usage).

1. questioning, probing, testing.

These would also broadly be the 'tools' of skepticism but ultimately skepticism has evolved to essentially be the application of scientific metholodology where possible (which requires a testable hypothesis). It is worth distinguishing modern skepticism from the early Greek phyronistic philosophy mentioned in the wikipedia article which casts doubt on whether truth can be known. To be honest I don't know if can't be known but even if it could I'd be careful whenever someone claims to have the truth unless they can demonstrate it.

I'd say scientific skepticism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_skepticism) is probably most accurate in what I meant by skepticism because while thought 'experiments' are fun, emprical evidence is required to justify the truth value of a claim about reality. Ultimately it comes down to deductive reasoning and evidence. That said it goes the other way and I think critical rationalism is a useful tool for maintaining a balance to skeptical inquiry where scientific evidence is also critiqued and evidence is demanded, falsifiable tests performed, etc.

Nothing is safe, nothing is sacred, everything must stand up to scrutiny and continue to do so.
http://www.godless.biz/ askegg

Completely agree.
http://andrewfinden.com/findothinks/ AndrewFinden

Thanks David.

If you can't produce a testable claim, you can't justify the issue is even relevant to our existence in some manner.

This strikes me as almost Scientistic in it's view. Isn't it basically saying that only what science can deal with is of any relevance and value?

Does your skepticism then exclude philosophical reasoning and historical evidence (which generally cannot be 'demonstrated') as valid?
http://www.facebook.com/anwyll David Gibson

I wouldn't say it is scientistic, I'm not presupposing that all of reality can be examined with the scientific method, I made a statement about what claims you can justify as having a bearing on our existence. Things outside this field of investigation could definitely play a role in our existence but how can we know if we can't examine them with components of the reality they supposedly constitute?

Again this must all be limited to claims about reality, discussions of ethics and morality for example are not necessarily going to draw on scientific skepticism to determine the outcome of the discussion but they may form a compenent of knowledge to aid the argument. (This may be at odds or perfectly aligned with the latest Sam Harris book, I'm yet to buy it, has anyone here read it yet?)

Scientific skepticism doesn't preclude historical evidence, all claims and the evidence for them must be tempered by the appropriate certainty surrounding them. I accept a greater degree of uncertainty on historical claims – mostly because ultimately there is little at stake, what happened happened I can only take care of what is happening now and in the future. History and fields of science based in historical evidence are interesting and very useful but carries with it greater uncertainty than any other scientific field (except theoretical fields).

Philosophical reasoning and skepticism are useful when combined with one another and there are times when reasoning alone is all that can be employed on a given issue but ultimately when it comes to the crunch of whether what is being reasoned is real (as distinct from true) then a testable claim and appropriate evidence is required to justify thinking it is real. I think maintaining a distinction from what can be true but not necessarily real or a part of the material world is important (for example many of the laws of logic are not real things but as concepts they are repeatedly demonstrated to be true with reasoned argumentation, call them transcendant if you wish).
http://andrewfinden.com/findothinks/ AndrewFinden

I wouldn't say it is scientistic, I'm not presupposing that all of reality can be examined with the scientific method, I made a statement about what claims you can justify as having a bearing on our existence. Things outside this field of investigation could definitely play a role in our existence but how can we know if we can't examine them with components of the reality they supposedly constitute?

Well.. I would say that suggesting something is basically irrelevant because it cannot be scientifically tested is also fairly scientistic in approach… but anyway.

I accept a greater degree of uncertainty on historical claims – mostly because ultimately there is little at stake

So you're saying that it's ok for a sceptic to accept less certain things (e.g. in the past) so long as there is 'little at stake' – and by this, religious faith would be ruled out, because even if there was evidence and reason, it would need to be testable certain, because there is a lot at stake?

but ultimately when it comes to the crunch of whether what is being reasoned is real (as distinct from true) then a testable claim and appropriate evidence is required to justify thinking it is real. I think maintaining a distinction from what can be true but not necessarily real or a part of the material world is important (for example many of the laws of logic are not real things but as concepts they are repeatedly demonstrated to be true with reasoned argumentation, call them transcendant if you wish).

I'm not sure I understand what you mean by the distinction of 'true' and 'real'. Could you please elaborate?
http://www.facebook.com/anwyll David Gibson

"Well.. I would say that suggesting something is basically irrelevant because it cannot be scientifically tested is also fairly scientistic in approach… but anyway."

It is about the difference between the claim about reality and the actual nature of reality, there is a difference between what humans have a capacity to perceive and what is actually 'out there'. I take a position that you are only justified in believing what you have evidence for and thus claiming to be the probable state of reality. Simply because I can imagine something to be so, no matter how consistent with all other demonstrable knowledge of reality, until I have evidence for this which extends beyond my own imagination how can I be sure it is the case? For example, the multiverse theory, it doesn't really break any current understanding of the laws of physics although it certainly goes beyond it and makes claims about the nature of reality which we simply have no real evidence to support. Doesn't matter how poetic I find it and appealing for its literally infinite possibilities (not to mention solving a few philosophical dilemas) I don't believe it to be true without evidence.

"So you're saying that it's ok for a sceptic to accept less certain things (e.g. in the past) so long as there is 'little at stake' – and by this, religious faith would be ruled out, because even if there was evidence and reason, it would need to be testable certain, because there is a lot at stake?"

What I'm saying is the conviction something is true must be tempered and corrolate with the confidence surrounding the evidence concerning the claim. There are more types of evidence than just lab controlled experimentation however the further you move from such evidence the greater the uncertainty inherent in the evidence due to factors which you cannot account for or control. I'm not sure I'd phrase it as just what is at stake although that is certainly a part of it. The specificity of the historical claim is going to determine the quantity and quality of evidence required to justify acceptance of that claim. That isn't just scientific skepticism that is rationalism.

"I'm not sure I understand what you mean by the distinction of 'true' and 'real'. Could you please elaborate?"

Well 'real' relates to the actual demonstrable state of reality while 'true' relates to something which is consistently demonstrable to be the case however it does not need to be demonstrated with evidence from the 'real' universe. For example, many (if not all) of the laws of logic are demonstrably true without ever actually using examples from the real world (proofs of the laws are available in mathematical forms and can only truly be said to exist as concepts even though they are considered to be representations of the consistent nature of reality, this is why I suggested they be called transcendant).

There are probably more apt philosophical terms for what I'm describing but to be honest the distinction is something I've come up on my own (as far as I know) and not something I've read from anyone else (although I doubt it is an original thought, I've often done this only to find out some philosopher beat me to it by several hundred years and presented their ideas in a far clearer manner). Do you know what I'm trying to get at?
http://andrewfinden.com/findothinks/ AndrewFinden

Well 'real' relates to the actual demonstrable state of reality while 'true' relates to something which is consistently demonstrable to be the case however it does not need to be demonstrated with evidence from the 'real' universe.

So, for example, it's true that a triangle must have three sides, but an apple is real..? is that what you're getting at?

As for the stuff you wrote before the real / true bit – while I don't hold to all those views necessarily, I can see much more clearly what you're getting at, thanks.

http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=560212430 Andora McKenzie

So she's also making the argument that any religion's god could be outside the personal "circle of knowledge". At least she's fair and balanced. :]

http://www.facebook.com/anwyll David Gibson

I bet it wouldn't take more than a minute to get her to say every other religion's god is a false god though.

http://www.godless.biz/ askegg

Then soon afterwards she would say "it's a simple matter of faith", negating her entire argument from the outset.

http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=560212430 Andora McKenzie

Well yes, of course. But the whole picture is "Any faith is better than no faith" Because where on earth would you get your morals without Gawd?!?!?!?

Pingback: Tweets that mention Godless Business – How to evangelize to an atheist -- Topsy.com

Subscribe to the Podcast

Father Bob and Aronra

This week I meet with Aronra in Melbourne for the Global Atheist Convention, and thought it would be a good idea to chat up with Australia’s most popular secular humanist Catholic Father Bob for a chat. Strap yourself in for this one.

Standard Podcast [ 56 min 23 s | 36 MB ] Play Now | Play in Popup | Download

On Thursday the 17th May the churches of Tasmania will be hosting an event at the Stanley Burbury Theatre entitled “Excellent Marriage”. According to their web site the event “aims to celebrate the importance and value of marriage for the Australian community”. They say “people from religious and non-religious backgrounds, young and old, are all invited to…
Continue reading

Ultimate Answers

Those who have been following this blog for a while will, no doubt, recall the various discussions/debates/arguments I have had with Andrew Finden in the past. As frustrating as I find them at times, I think he often tackles interesting and difficult topics with a calm intelligence not very often found in the religious debate. This…
Continue reading

Dear Mr. Swan,

Wayne Swan is currently having meeting to finalise the Australian federal budget. In these tough economic times it is more important than ever to ensure your hard earned tax dollar is being spent in the most effective and efficient manner. In view of this I can think of one poorly thought out federal program which,…
Continue reading

We have it all

Last weekend I attend the second Global Atheist Convention run by the Atheist Foundation of Australia in Melbourne. The convention attracted over 4,000 attendees to listen to extraordinary line up of world class speakers from a variety of disciplines on a wide range of topics. The convention began with a comedy line up including the brilliantly hilarious…
Continue reading

Poor Pell

Last Monday on Australia’s ABC television network the jet-lagged evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins squared off against Catholic Cardinal George Pell on the “Q and A” program with unimpressive results. A transcript of the entire show can be found in the ABC’s web site. The level of intellectual debate on this episode of Q and A…
Continue reading

How to evangelize to an atheist

Subscribe

Father Bob and Aronra

Further Reading

Excellent Marriage

More Ultimate Answers

Ultimate Answers

Dear Mr. Swan,

We have it all

Poor Pell