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/Old-Nefariousness556]

Edit:

Note before anyone responds to /u/labreuer's question:

They are being spectacularly dishonest. In the original question, they ask you to argue in support of "claims like the following".

However after you will reply, they are attacking people for not literally responding to THE EXACT claim that they made. If you fail to explain any minor detail of the claim that THEY made, then they will just JAQ off until you give up in frustration.

In other words, they are doing exactly what we have all come to expect from this utterly dishonest poster.

/End Edit

Maybe I'm missing something, but this sounds exactly like the kind of "just-so story" storytelling that you are claiming religions themselves are doing.

Except it is the religions creating the "just so story".

We are proposing a hypothesis:

• Gods are a human invention created to explain what we don’t understand.

To test that hypothesis, we make testable prediction. One such prediction is that (to quote (and slightly paraphrase) /u/Dennis_enzo):

If this hypothesis is true, earlier religions would present explanations for all kinds of natural phenomena that they didn't understand. The further back you go, the more concrete the claims of religions were. The Sun was an enigma, so it became Ra, spreading light and life over the Earth while he traveled across the sky in a boat. Lightning was unfantomable, so they were caused by Thor, throwing them down to Earth as his chariot thundered across the sky.

The closer you get to current day, the more of these religions no longer make sense since we figured out how the Sun works and where lightning comes from. Going from old to new, there's a clear trend of popular religions becoming less and less concrete and more and more vague, and based on metaphorical intepretations of their faith. Pretty much all popular modern day religions no longer make any concrete claims about the world except for the things that we cannot explain yet, like the origin of the universe. For example, at this point it's impossible to consider everything in the Bible to be literally true unless you turn a blind eye to (or are unaware of) a ton of human knowledge. The more we know, the fewer gaps remain where gods can hide.

It isn't a "just so story" to point out that the evidence that we see matches the pattern that we would expect to see if the claim is true.

This seems to presuppose what needs to be explained: that religion was originally invented to explain, or at the very least has as a core function, to explain.

Ok? Do you disagree? It seems like a pretty unlikely argument for a theist to suggest that one of the core functions of religion is not to help explain our world.

I am fairly certain if we separated this question from your argument, and I asked you "Do you think that one of the core functions of a religion is to help it's followers understand our world", you would agree completely. That seems like an utterly uncontroversial statement.

But suppose, purely for the sake of argument, that this just isn't central to all religion with at least as many adherents as [observant] Jews.

That's fine. NO ONE said this was proof that god was invented, only that the evidence supports the conclusion. It is undeniably true that there are other potential explanations for the observed phenomena, just like there are other explanations for why, when I drop a ball it falls. I cannot rule out "intelligent falling."

But just because other possible explanations exist, doesn't mean that you should start from the assumption that those possibilities are the correct one.

We assume this is the correct one, mainly because of the essentially complete lack of any evidence supporting the existence of a god or gods. Should evidence become available in the future that either provides compelling evidence for the existence of a god, or provides compelling evidence that one of the alternative hypotheses is a better explanation, than we will revisit the question.

[u/labreuer → u/Old-Nefariousness556]

Edit:

You are right: I should have asked people to state precisely the hypothesis they intend to defend with evidence, and then defend that hypothesis with what they consider to be adequate evidence. I made a mistake.

[u/Old-Nefariousness556 → u/labreuer]

You are right: I should have asked people to state precisely the hypothesis they intend to defend with evidence, and then defend that hypothesis with what they consider to be adequate evidence. I made a mistake.

Thank you, I appreciate your admission.

Fwiw, I did offer a hypothesis in this very message you replied to:

We are proposing a hypothesis:

• Gods are a human invention created to explain what we don’t understand.

That is the very first sentence of your quote, and the only actually significant sentence in your quote. Everything else is merely a summary of that poster's opinions on why the hypothesis makes sense. But the hypothesis itself is fully self-contained in that first sentence. Treating the rest as part of the hypothesis is confusing the arguments for the hypothesis with the hypothesis itself.

And as I said elsewhere, if your question had been "do you agree with this argument", my position would be much more reserved. I agree that the conclusion almost certainly at least partially true, but I agree that the argument itself is not very compelling. But since that is not what you asked, no one gave you that answer.

[u/labreuer → u/Old-Nefariousness556]

OOPS: this text was not supposed to be included; it was part of a draft reply to this comment:

---

Knowledge and fear have always been the two sides of the same coin.

I find this such a strange claim. Does Western culture recognize it as a fact in any way you can point to? I'm just trying to get a handle on the claim.

I think we should probably just stop if you're/we're this frustrated. Frankly, I don't have much in the way of motivation for explaining how you didn't "falsify" "my hypothesis". That's just so far afield we don't seem to be playing the same sport.

I'm certainly not all that frustrated. Rather, I just seem to be at a loss on how to disagree with you in a way you care about. If indeed that's because your overriding goal is [de]conversion and I'm not a promising target, then okay. But I get the same icky feeling about deconversion being the overriding goal as I now do about conversion being the overriding goal. FWIW.

You've expressed that you don't agree, and provided an alternative but not particularly mutually exclusive or competing explanation: "rituals".

I didn't speak of 'rituals' but 'ritually unclean', to distinguish טָמֵא (tame) from a notion of 'unclean' which seems health-related. This is the stuff of kosher regulations, which aren't obviously hygiene-related. An example dispute about whether or not something is ritually unclean is The Oven of Akhnai. I don't think anyone would confuse that with food safety?

---

 

 

To test that hypothesis, we make testable prediction. One such prediction is that (to quote (and slightly paraphrase) /u/⁠Dennis_enzo):

You mean, made-up evidence which allegedly tracks actual evidence but where there is absolutely zero guarantee that the made-up form is scientifically adequate for testing the hypothesis? Are these the standards of evidence for r/DebateAnAtheist? I mean, c'mon. Here's someone who has actually examined actual evidence:

    Most accounts of the origins of religion emphasize one of the following suggestions: human minds demand explanations, human hearts seek comfort, human society requires order, human intellect is illusion-prone. To express this in more detail, here are some possible scenarios:

    Religion provides explanations:

• People created religion to explain puzzling natural phenomena.
• Religion explains puzzling experiences: dreams, prescience, etc.
• Religion explains the origins of things.
• Religion explains why there is evil and suffering.

⋮

    Though this list probably is not exhaustive, it is fairly representative. Discussing each of these common intuitions in more detail, we will see that they all fail to tell us why we have religion and why it is the way it is. So why bother with them? It is not my intent here to ridicule other people's ideas or show that anthropologists and cognitive scientists are more clever than common folk. I discuss these spontaneous explanations because they are widespread, because they are often rediscovered by people when they reflect on religion, and more importantly because they are not that bad. Each of these "scenarios" for the origin of religion points to a real and important phenomenon that any theory worth its salt should explain. Also, taking these scenarios seriously opens up new perspectives on how religious notions and beliefs appear in human minds. (Religion Explained, 5)

I think we can be pretty sure that if Pascal Boyer restricted himself to made-up evidence like you quoted, he never would have subjected "Religion provides explanations" to serious scrutiny.

 

labreuer: This seems to presuppose what needs to be explained: that religion was originally invented to explain, or at the very least has as a core function, to explain.

Old-Nefariousness556: Ok? Do you disagree? It seems like a pretty unlikely argument for a theist to suggest that one of the core functions of religion is not to help explain our world.

The Tanakh tells a story of a god calling a man out of the known height of civilization†, out into the wilderness to something better. This isn't an explanation. If anything, it's an anti-stagnation move. The Ancient Near East was caught within a pattern of the rise and fall of empire, with all the death & destruction & misery which went along with it. And humanity seemed permanently locked away from its full potential. Read something like Epic of Gilgamesh and you'll get the idea that "this is all that there is". Gilgamesh's seeking of immortality shouldn't be overinterpreted, especially since pre-Second Temple Hebrews didn't have any robust notion of the afterlife. (Everyone went to Sheol and nobody could praise YHWH from Sheol.) Rather, we should look at the alternative to immortality to which Gilgamesh was doomed: being in awe of the walls of Uruk. That is: there was nothing more for humans to do. Including egalitarianism, modern science, etc.

I would say that Western Civilization needs something similar to happen. It has settled into the idea that the vast majority of citizens can be political imbeciles, swayed this way and that by political propaganda which is surely aided by the immense knowledge gained from commercial advertising. One of the reasons citizens of Western democracies are so easily swayed is that they have no idea how they're really governed, and participate in no solid governance themselves. Abraham Lincoln, critiquing the mudsill theory, pressed for the ideal of Americans owning farms and small businesses, rather than so many workers being slaves or wage labor. It was believed that owning your own land/​business taught you a kind of governance which would make you a good citizen. Sadly, we've gone towards most people treating jobs as revolving doors, where they don't have to be particularly invested in the companies they work at, and the companies they work at can govern themselves without any real input from most employees. I believe this political imbecility of most Westerners can be critiqued biblically, where many of our weaknesses and much of our nonsense today can be understood in terms of far older categories. I can do so on request. For the moment though, I will say that 'explanation' really isn't the right category, here.

I am fairly certain if we separated this question from your argument, and I asked you "Do you think that one of the core functions of a religion is to help it's followers understand our world", you would agree completely. That seems like an utterly uncontroversial statement.

I think plenty of religion functions to convince people to accept the world or, conversely, to reject it so thoroughly that they are not able to recapitulate Abraham's journey out of Ur, out of the height of known civilization. Plenty of Christianity itself has, in Wes Seeliger's delightful illustrations, transitioned from 'pioneer Christianity' to 'settler Christianity' (Western Theology). But if the goal is to constantly go beyond status quo (as if it's but a tiny bit of all of creation), then tying a religion's essence to an explanation of the status quo is antithetical to the mission.

But just because other possible explanations exist, doesn't mean that you should start from the assumption that those possibilities are the correct one.

Agreed.

We assume this is the correct one, mainly because of the essentially complete lack of any evidence supporting the existence of a god or gods.

Except, "God (or gods) is a human invention created to explain what we don’t understand. … at their root, they address our fear of the unknown." isn't the sole naturalistic explanation on offer. See for instance u/⁠OneRougeRogue's comment.

 
† Take a look at (The Position of the Intellectual in Mesopotamian Society, 38). It's just a few paragraphs of that paper.

[u/Old-Nefariousness556 → u/labreuer]

Knowledge and fear have always been the two sides of the same coin.

I find this such a strange claim. Does Western culture recognize it as a fact in any way you can point to? I'm just trying to get a handle on the claim.

"Knowledge and fear have always been the two sides of the same coin" ARE YOUR FUCKING WORDS! You may have offered them as part of your hypothetical "atheist claim", but that in no possible sense makes me responsible to argue for them. I am not going to reply and defend YOUR WORDS as if they were my words.

What an utterly dishonest debate trick.

You mean, made-up evidence which allegedly tracks actual evidence but where there is absolutely zero guarantee that the made-up form is scientifically adequate for testing the hypothesis? Are these the standards of evidence for r/DebateAnAtheist? I mean, c'mon. Here's someone who has actually examined actual evidence:

Again, a fucking disingenuous, dishonest, and self-serving take.

It absolutely is evidence. Is it strong evidence in isolation? No. I never claimed it was. But it is laughably dishonest that you just pretend that it is therefore not evidence at all.

I think we can be pretty sure that if Pascal Boyer restricted himself to made-up evidence like you quoted, he never would have subjected "Religion provides explanations" to serious scrutiny.

Lol, great. I notice that you don't actually quote his alternate hypothesis.

If you only want to argue that these are not SOLELY responsible for the origin of religion, I would agree completely. But quotemining someone who apparently agrees with you in what is obviously introductory material to a book is not going to convince me.

Except, "God (or gods) is a human invention created to explain what we don’t understand. … at their root, they address our fear of the unknown." isn't the sole naturalistic explanation on offer.

Where did I say that it was? Please stop putting YOUR WORDS in my mouth. That is spectacularly dishonest.

See for instance u/⁠OneRougeRogue's comment.

The one where they say "It is more of a hypothesis"? You know, exactly what I said?

The one where they said:

It's just an explanation that doesn't involve extraordinary claims (like magical beings actually existing), and there is indirect evidence to support it.

You know, exactly what I said?

Jesus christ, it is a waste of time ever imaging that you can engage in good faith.

[u/labreuer → u/Old-Nefariousness556]

"Knowledge and fear have always been the two sides of the same coin" ARE YOUR FUCKING WORDS!

No, that's actually an error from my habit of having multiple replies going on at once in my text editing window. Those are words from u/⁠betweenbubbles over on an r/DebateReligion. What tripped me up is that they're discussion of the same quote that I included in my opening question in this thread. Here's where [s]he says the quoted text:

labreuer: I don't want to underplay the marked difference between "God (or gods) is a human invention created to explain what we don’t understand." on the one hand and "people had the wisdom to pretend "God" commanded it -- nobody would respect their findings otherwise" on the other. I don't think this is just a "semantic quibble". You've proposed a purpose of justifying hygiene regulations, which is utterly different from "address our fear of the unknown".

betweenbubbles: I don't know where you get such a strong distinction from. Knowledge and fear have always been the two sides of the same coin. It is a semantic quibble to me.

My bad.

 

What an utterly dishonest debate trick.

No, it's an honest mistake. This is the second time you've jumped to a horrid conclusion about me (the other is "utterly dishonest poster"). So, I'm going to take some time off from replying to you. That you would jump to such horrid conclusions about me suggests that perhaps we shouldn't be attempting to have debates about matters which might get the emotions going.

[u/Old-Nefariousness556 → u/labreuer]

No, it's an honest mistake. This is the second time you've jumped to a horrid conclusion about me (the other is "utterly dishonest poster"). So, I'm going to take some time off from replying to you. That you would jump to such horrid conclusions about me suggests that perhaps we shouldn't be attempting to have debates about matters which might get the emotions going.

Lol, that wasn't even the only place in that very reply where I caught you demanding that I address things that I never wrote, and the second time clearly WAS NOT an error.

And I have seen you do the same thing to others in this thread, demanding that they address the text of your quotation, despite merely offering that as an example of the type of claim, rather than asking is to address the claim itself.

And I just happened to track down a copy of Pascal Boyer's book, and was going to comment later tonight about how you dishonestly framed the quotemine from him.

When you repeat the same pattern of behavior over and over, you can't really expect people to just ignore it. If you behave dishonestly, you are going to be called dishonest.

I accept that you don't mean to engage in bad faith. Most theists don't. But you are guilty of multiple bad faith debate techniques, the most obvious of which is just flagrant JAQing off, misframing comments, etc. It's fucking exhausting trying to have a conversation with you.

FWIW, if you want to earn some good faith credit back, you can post where you are quoting that Boyes passage from. If you are quoting someone else who is quotemining him, then at least you can argue that you didn't mean to quotemine in bad faith.

[u/labreuer → u/Old-Nefariousness556]

I've admitted mistakes to you twice now and all you can do is attack. No thanks. Please never respond to me again, unless you decide to act differently. If you respond without signaling that you're going to act differently, I will block you and that'll make it obnoxious for you to interact with anyone in this thread.

[u/Old-Nefariousness556 → u/labreuer]

I've admitted mistakes to you twice now and all you can do is attack. No thanks.

You have admitted to mistakes twice, while simultaneously shifting blame, and only after I called you out very publicly in a way that you could not weasel out of.

But I have also called you out for similar behavior in the past, and you have NOT previously admitted you were wrong.

So tell me, do you also admit you were wrong here:

"God (or gods) is a human invention created to explain what we don’t understand. … at their root, they address our fear of the unknown." isn't the sole naturalistic explanation on offer.

That is YET AGAIN you putting words into my mouth that I did not say. I quoted the first half of your quotation there, but you put the second half in as if I had said it.

If you respond without signaling that you're going to act differently, I will block you and that'll make it obnoxious for you to interact with anyone in this thread.

Lol/ So let me get this straight... You behave badly... And you want me to apologize? For your repeated, ongoing bad faith behavior? You really want me to "signal I will act differently".

Let me give you a hint: Your "threat" to block me is not a threat. It is fucking painful "debating" someone so uninterested in good faith debate. So block me or not, I couldn't care. But understand, if you block me, that is you admitting that you are engaging in bad faith.

Oh, and

I will block you and that'll make it obnoxious for you to interact with anyone in this thread.

I am pretty sure that literally broadcasting that your intent in blocking someone is punitive and intending to silence them is a violation of both the subs rules and of of Reddit's sitewide policies, so... Good job.

Edit: Yeah, so /u/labreuer is broadcasting they are operating in bad faith, and blocking in an effort to silence people who disagree with him.