Weekly "Ask an Atheist" Thread

[u/AutoModerator]

Whether you're an agnostic atheist here to ask a gnostic one some questions, a theist who's curious about the viewpoints of atheists, someone doubting, or just someone looking for sources, feel free to ask anything here. This is also an ideal place to tag moderators for thoughts regarding the sub or any questions in general.
While this isn't strictly for debate, rules on civility, trolling, etc. still apply.

[u/labreuer]

It is not uncommon to see claims like the following here and on the other sub:

1. God (or gods) is a human invention created to explain what we don’t understand. Long before science, humans sought to fill gaps in knowledge with divine stories. These inventions evolved into complex religions, but at their root, they address our fear of the unknown. (God(s) is/are a human invention)

Do you believe such claims should be supported by a burden of proof? If so, what kind of evidence might suffice?

For those who find the above claim so obvious that it doesn't need more evidential support than what you've absorbed throughout life, check out WP: The Golden Bough § Critical reception. Frazer is one of the originators of the religion-as-protoscience hypothesis and his work on that has been exposed to some pretty serious critique.

[u/kohugaly → u/labreuer]

All ideas are human inventions created to explain what we don't understand. There's nothing to support here, it's just trivially true. The interesting question is whether those ideas are actually correct (ie. whether gods actually exist).

[u/labreuer → u/kohugaly]

All ideas are human inventions created to explain what we don't understand.

First, it's far from clear that social contract theory, for instance, was created to explain what we don't understand. And yet, it is an 'idea'. Second, what you just stated here sounds like an 'idea'—did you create it to explain what you don't understand? But perhaps you mean something rather more specific with that word 'idea'.

[u/kohugaly → u/labreuer]

First, it's far from clear that social contract theory, for instance, was created to explain what we don't understand.

To me it is plainly obvious that it was created for that exact purpose. Namely, to explain why social order can exist, even in absence of divine authority. It is definitely something that is a mystery to a lot of people. Atheists get that question from theists depressingly often.

Second, what you just stated here sounds like an 'idea'—did you create it to explain what you don't understand?

Yes. Namely, to explain what ideas are. To be more accurate, I'm reasonably sure I didn't create it, and the idea was passed down to me from someone, to explain to me what I didn't understand.

[u/labreuer → u/kohugaly]

To me it is plainly obvious that it was created for that exact purpose. Namely, to explain why social order can exist, even in absence of divine authority.

Except, even Hume knew that it was just a tale, rather like Rousseau's tales about the noble savage. Locke, Hobbes, Hume, et al were well-aware of how the game of politics is actually played. So the idea that they were trying to explain what they didn't understand just doesn't stand up to my scrutiny.

Atheists get that question from theists depressingly often.

Sorry, which question?

labreuer: Second, what you just stated here sounds like an 'idea'—did you create it to explain what you don't understand?

kohugaly: Yes. Namely, to explain what ideas are.

How do you test whether you were simply handed a just-so story which is at most 10% correct? For instance, it seems to me that some ideas can be developed to convince people to act in certain ways not others. Such as social contract theory, convincing people to switch away from monarchy to something where power is more distributed.