Talk:Atheism/reasons

See test draft at Talk:Atheism/reasons/draft

This is a draft for the section on "reasons for atheism", which contains one weasel phrase after the other.

Draft version of the new "Reasons for atheism" section

Forms of atheism

Numerous forms of atheism of all definitions have appeared and been developed throughout history. Certain of these forms rely on particular rationale or philosophical arguments, and as such can be categorized according to their various approaches. The German Protestant writer Johann Heinrich Alsted was the first to attempt such a systematization of the forms of atheism in his Encyclopaedia (1630). The broadest demarcation is between practical atheism and theoretical atheism.

Practical atheism

• In practical, or pragmatic, atheism, also known as apatheism, individuals live their lives as if there is no God, and natural phenomena are explained without resorting to God. The existence of gods is not denied, but designated unnecessary or useless; God neither provides purpose to life, nor influences everyday life, according to this view. Within the scientific community, practical atheism is exhibited in the form of methodological naturalism - the "tacit adoption or assumption of philosophical naturalism within scientific method with or without fully accepting or believing it."

Theoretical atheism

Epicurus is credited with first expounding the problem of evil, commonly called the "Epicurean paradox". David Hume in his Dialogues concerning Natural Religion (1779) cited Epicurus in stating the argument as a series of questions:

"Is [God] willing to prevent evil, but not able? then is he impotent. Is he able, but not willing? then is he malevolent. Is he both able and willing? whence then is evil?"

Theoretical atheism explicitly posits philosophical or evidential arguments against belief in God. These arguments assume various forms, including psychological, sociological, metaphysical, and epistemological explanations, among others. Proponents of theoretical atheism may utilize one or more of these arguments to support their views.

Epistemological arguments

Epistemological atheism argues that man cannot know God or determine the existence of God. The foundation of epistemological atheism is agnosticism, which takes a variety of forms. In the agnosticism of immanence, the consciousness is considered as an absolute, and all human thought is locked within the subject. The rationalistic agnosticism of Kant and the Enlightenment only accepts knowledge deduced with human rationality; such atheists believe that gods are not discernible as a matter of principle, and therefore cannot exist (cf. ontological epistemology). Skepticism, based on the ideas of Hume, atheism asserts that certainty about anything is impossible, so one can never know the existence of God. The allocation of agnosticism to atheism is disputed; it can also be regarded as an independent, basic worldview.

Other forms of atheistic argumentation that may qualify as epistemological assert the meaninglessness or unintelligibilty of basic terms such as "God" and statements such as "God is all-powerful" (cf. logical positivism, ignosticism). Theological noncognitivism holds that the statement "God exists" does not express a proposition, but is nonsensical or cognitively meaningless. It has been argued both ways as to whether such individuals classify into some form of atheism or agnosticism. Philosophers A. J. Ayer and Theodore M. Drange reject both categories, stating that both camps accept "God exists" as a proposition; they instead place noncognitivism in its own category.

Metaphysical arguments

Further information: [[:Monism, Physicalism]]

Metaphysical atheism is based on metaphysical monism - the "homogeneity of reality". Absolute metaphysical atheists, arguing for materialistic monism, cite the trend toward philosophical materialism as rationale for explicitly denying the existence of God. Relative metaphysical atheists maintain an implicit denial of God based on the incongruity between their individual philosophies and attributes applicable God, such as transcendence, a personal aspect, or unity. Examples of the latter include pantheism, panentheism, and deism.

Psychological, sociological, economical arguments

Further information: [[:Psychology of religion, Neurotheology]]

Philosophers such as Ludwig Feuerbach and Sigmund Freud argued that God and other religious beliefs are human inventions, created to fulfill various psychological and emotions wants or needs. Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, influenced by the work of Feuerbach, argued that God is a human invention, and that belief in God and religion are social functions, used by those in power to oppress the working class. According to Mikhail Bakunin, "the idea of God implies the abdication of human reason and justice; it is the most decisive negation of human liberty, and necessarily ends in the enslavement of mankind, in theory and practice." He reversed Voltaire's famous aphorism that if God did not exist, it would be necessary to invent Him, writing instead that "if God really existed, it would be necessary to abolish Him."

Logical and evidential arguments

Further information: [[:Deductive arguments against the existence of God, Problem of evil, Divine hiddenness]]

Logical atheism holds that the various conceptions of God, such as the personal God of Christianity, are ascribed logically inconsistent qualities. Such atheists present deductive arguments against the existence of God, which assert the incompatibility between certain traits, such as perfection, creator-status, immutability, omniscience, omnipresence, omnibenevolence, transcendence, personhood (a personal being), nonphysicality, justice and mercy.

Theodicean atheists believe that the world as they experience it cannot be reconciled with the qualities commonly ascribed to God by theologians. They argue that if there is an omniscient, omnipotent, omnibenevolent God, then why is there evil and suffering in the world, and why is God's love from many people?

Anthropocentric arguments

Further information: [[:Philosophical anthropology, Humanism]]

Axiological, or constructive, atheism rejects the existence of God in favor of a "higher absolute", such as Humanity. This form of atheism favors humanity as the absolute source of ethics and values, and permits individuals to resolve moral problems without resorting to God. Marx, Nietzsche, Freud, and Sarte all used this argument to convey messages of liberation, full-development, and unfettered happiness.

Reasons given in reliable sources

• George H. Smith, Atheism, Ayn Rand, and Other Heresies. 1991. pp. 183. [1]
  • Ethical, or existential, atheism: Jean-Paul Sartre argued that "there is no ultimate meaning or purpose inherent in human life; in this sense life is 'absurd'." He believed human freedom to be the only basis for values and meaning. Because life is absurd, existential atheism argues, there must be no God. The existence of God is not consistent with human freedom, in Sarte's view.
  • Psychological atheism: Philosophers such as Ludwig Feuerbach and Sigmund Freud argued that God and other religious beliefs are human inventions, created to fulfill various psychological and emotions wants or needs.
  • Socialogical/economical atheism: Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, influenced by the work of Feuerbach, argued that God is a human invention, and that belief in God and religion are social functions, used by those in power to oppress the working class. According to Mikhail Bakunin, "the idea of God implies the abdication of human reason and justice; it is the most decisive negation of human liberty, and necessarily ends in the enslavement of mankind, in theory and practice." He reversed Voltaire's famous aphorism that if God did not exist, it would be necessary to invent Him, writing instead that "if God really existed, it would be necessary to abolish Him."
  • In pragmatic, or practical, atheism, also known as apatheism, individuals live their lives as if there is no God, and natural phenomena are explained without resorting to God. The existence of gods is not denied, but designated unnecessary or useless, because it does not help in the evaluation and explanation of the world, according to this view.
  • Metaphysical atheism, based on metaphysical monism, cites the trend toward philosophical materialism as evidence against the existence of God. Absolute metaphysical atheists will explicitly deny the existence of God, while relative ones will maintain an implicit denial based on the incongruity between their individual philosophies and the attributes applicable God, such as in pantheism or panentheism.
  • Epistemological atheism argues that knowledge of God is impossible, for various reasons. Based on the ideas of Hume, skeptical atheism asserts that certainty about anything is impossible, so one can never know the existence of God.
    • Logical-positive atheism
    • Objectivist atheism

• http://www.kul.lublin.pl/efk/angielski/hasla/a/atheism.pdf starts on page 18 (Universal Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Vol I. International Society of Thomas Aquinas.)
  • Metaphysical atheism
  • Agnosticism
  • Epistemological atheism
  • Semiotic atheism
  • Anthropological atheism

• http://atheism.about.com/od/argumentsagainstgod/Arguments_Against_God_Atheological_Arguments_for_Atheism.htm
  1. Problem of evil
  2. Lack of evidence; burden of proof on those making the positive claim.
  3. Life is material; all evidence indicates material, natural world only.
  4. Faith is unreliable, not a means to acquiring knowledge. Faith can be used to defend anything.
  5. Believers act immorally, contrary to their religious teachings.
  6. Described gods also act immorally.
  7. Descriptions of gods show so many characteristics of humans, that it is likely gods were made in the image of man.
  8. Self-contradictory religions; "No religion is perfectly consistent when it comes to doctrines, ideas, and history."
  9. Descriptions of gods are contradictory and incoherent. Combinations of characteristics that are impossible are attributed to gods. (weak atheism)
  10. Too many gods; too many religions. They can't all be true, but they can all be wrong.
  11. Universe doesn't require gods; lack of evidence.
  12. The idea of a first cause outside of time is incoherent and cannot be connected to causes within time.
  13. Virtue and perfection are contradictory characteristics, because virtues like courage "can only be described in the context of flawed, fallible creatures."
  14. Perfect creators are not possible; deliberate creation entails satisfying a need/want, something a perfect being wouldn't have.
  15. Who made god? A creator requires its own creator.
  16. Omniscience incoherent.

• http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/nontheism/atheism/arguments.html
  • Logical arguments:
    1. A divine being cannot be the original cause of the universe (causation outside of time is incoherent).
    2. Omniscience, or at the very least "having all the knowledge of men", is not possible for a moral, loving god (due to different forms of knowledge, such as experiential knowledge).
    3. Divine freewill and divine omniscience not compatible.
    4. "1. If any being is God, he must be a fitting object of worship. 2. No being could possibly be a fitting object of worship, since worship requires the abandonment of one's role as an autonomous moral agent. 3. Therefore, there cannot be any being who is God."
    5. Various incompatibilities between traits ascribed to gods, including perfection, creator-status, immutability, omniscience, omnipresence, omnibenevolence, transcendence, personhood (a personal being), nonphysicality, justice and mercy.
    6. Anything God does is moral, but the Abrahamic god commits immoral acts.
  • Evidential arguments:
    1. Various explanations for the creation/existence of the universe that do not require divine intervention; logical arguments against a first cause.
    2. Argument for physical minds; argument that because all evidence points to minds being entirely physical, the conception of a God with a nonphysical mind is baseless.
    3. Known facts about the origin of complex life are prima facie evidence against theism.
    4. Problem of evil, suffering
    5. Divine hiddenness not compatable with an all-loving god.
    6. Contrary claims of different religions; religious diversity.

• http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/atheism/beliefs/reasons_1.shtml
  1. Non-intellectual reasons: people were brought up or educated in atheistic environments, such as in communist states; people were never exposed to believers (divine hiddenness); people just feel that atheism is right.
  2. Lack of evidence
  3. God is unnecessary to explain life and the universe (Occam's Razor).
  4. Arguments for theism are not convincing (argument from design; ontological argument; first cause argument)
  5. Problem of evil
  6. Science has provided all necessary explanations thus far; all evidence points to natural phenomena only.
  7. Religious language is meaningless, unintelligible.
  8. Religious arguments are untestable, unverifiable (logical positivism)
  9. The evidence that religion and belief come from psychological drives and emotions (wish fulfillment)
  10. Religion and belief merely fulfill social functions
  11. Divine hiddenness not compatable with an all-loving god.

• http://www.philosophyofreligion.info/atheisticproofs.html
  1. Problem of evil
  2. Presumption of atheism
  3. Incoherency of omnipotence
  4. Omniscience not compatible with being a moral god; omniscience not coherent; omniscience not compatible with free will.
  5. Divine justice must have degrees, but there is either heaven or hell; no gray area.
  6. A being that is worthy of worship (total obedience) not compatible with morally autonomous agents.
  7. The evidence that religion and belief come from psychological drives and emotions (wish fulfillment)
  8. God as meme

Machine translation of German Wikipedia

The weak atheism: The weak atheism gets along without the faith in Gods, stated however not that there would be no Gods, it denies thus not or does not deny not directly the existence of Gods. There are different kinds of play:

1. Pragmatic atheism: This states that an explanation of the world gets along also without acceptance of Gods. The existence of Gods is not denied, but when designates unnecessarily or uselessly. A Pragmatiker (everyday life term) and Pragmatist (philosophy) are someone, which judges the truth of things by its practical probation and its use for practice. God or Gods is useless for many Pragmatiker and Pragmatisten (if also not for all), because they do not offer use with the evaluation and explanation of the world from their view.
2. Nominalisti atheism: Term nominalists represent the view the fact that only to single things reality and thus existence come, while general terms are such as God only names (=Nomen). Under condition of the simplicity of the realizations (Simplizitätskriterium), the acceptance of God or Gods is as independent and independently existing nature redundant (see also Ockhams razor).
3. Agnostizismus: This states that Gods with the means of human reason are not recognizable (intelligibler Agnostizismus) or that for the acceptance of Gods on the basis of scientific criteria the proofs/vouchers were missing (szientistischer Agnostizismus). With respect to the intelligiblen Agnostizismus one can differentiate again between strong and weakly: The weak Agnostizismus states only that Gods are not yet recognizable possibly not, or, the strong however that Gods with the means of the human reason are not in principle recognizable (see for this far down Rationalisti atheism). The allocation of the Agnostizismus to the atheism is disputed, it can also as independent world-descriptive basic attitude be regarded.
4. Szientisti atheism (see to chapter analytic philosophy) holds speech over Gods for nonsense, because sentences, into which these terms occur, are not truthable. The szientistische atheism maintains however non just as little as the weak atheism - that there would be no Gods. For it the sentence is not “it gives Gods” exactly the same contents empty like “it gives no Elfen”.
5. Postulatori atheism: This usually atheism vertetene of scientists themselves assumes that to out-permit first of all Gods from the system of the realizations (ergo science) to thus postulate no Gods contrary to theology. Theisti acceptance can becoming however later at frontiers of the science or in unexplored or than unerforschbar regarded parts again certified (example: Stephen Hawking Pre Big fearing for God). This kind of play of the atheism will often represent designated view in connection with that above as pragmatic atheism and/or Nominalisti atheism.

The strong atheism: Trailers of the strong atheism are convinced of the fact that there are no Gods. It denials thus directly the existence of Gods. For this is occasionally also the term Antitheismus.

1. Rationalisti atheism: This proceeds from the additional assumption the fact that only that can exist which also by human reason is recognizable in principle (ontologischer Epistemologismus). And because Gods were recognizable not in principle, they could also not exist.
2. radical szientistischer atheism: While for normal szientistische Atheisten only the speech is unreasonable over Gods, may be only accepted for their radical representative as existing, what in inter+subjectively examinable procedures is scientifically provable. Since this does not apply to Gods and other transzendentale ideas, they cannot exist after this conviction.
3. Theodizee atheism: This states the fact that it due to that of suffering and the unfairness in the world no (n) (to give knows all-good-natured or all-powerful) God or Gods. In its less radical form the Theodizee atheism can occur also than weak konditionaler atheism: “If God exists, then it cannot be in view of the evil on ground connection all-powerfully or not all good-natured”. The existence of God is not denied thereby, is not limited however in its characteristics. It is then a theological question whether such a nature can be called still God.
4. Logical atheism: Similarity with the Rationalisti atheism possesses. While the rationalism says that it any specific - until into its biological structure handing - characteristics of the human conditions are, which prevented the realization of Gods, the logical atheism means first only that all God proofs entangled themselves into contradictions (Antinomien). Under the premise that something contradictory cannot exist it is rejected, Gods as independent natures.

Further kinds of play that degrees after: Besides there are also still kinds of play of the atheism, which limit or deny the independent ontologischen status of God or Gods. In the anthropozentrischen atheism (Ludwig Andreas's fire brook about) God is not a genuine supernatural nature, but a product of human imagination. With Kant God only one regulations idea of the reason is. And in the Pantheismus of a Spinoza the idea of the personalen unit of God is given up perfectly and understood God only as in the creation as a whole working göttliche substance.

Discussion

Here's the translation you asked for. However, I would advise being very cautious about using German Wikipedia as a source. German Wikipedia has a culture opposed to citing sources, so there's absolutely no way of finding out what's original research, what's simply fabricated, and what's real. This is true even of their featured articles. I have stopped editing German Wikipedia since I discovered that there, if you object to a FAC on the grounds that it doesn't cite its sources, rather than tracking down the sources and adding them, they rationalize why they shouldn't have to, and other people come along and support the FAC with no reason other than "to counteract the absurd suggestion that sources should be added". And indeed looking at de:Atheismus I see a distinct paucity of sources, including for this section (which cited none at all before it was removed). I really don't think using either an old version or the current version of the German article will solve the weasel-word problem. </rant> Here's the translation:

Radical-scientistic atheism: While for normal-scientistic atheists, only gods are unreasonable to talk about, their radical associates accept the existence only of things that are scientifically provable by intersubjective examination. Since this is not the case for gods and other transcendental ideas, the radical-scientistic position holds that they cannot exist.

Have fun! —Angr 07:37, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Separate rewrite

I've been separately rewriting this section under the heading "Reasons given in reliable sources", within the George H. Smith subsection. When that is done, I'll try to merge this into the current rewrite. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-04-07 19:23Z