“I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god [sic.] than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.”
— Stephen F Roberts
I see this quote popping up all over the secular hemisphere of the blogosphere.
Why do unbelievers think this is such a great piece of reasoning?
Roberts is insinuating that a theist is an inconsistent atheist. A theist is an atheist who has narrowed the field to just one contender. A theist is an atheist who’s down to one God.
But what, exactly, is the underlying argument?
Why is it illogical to believe that while the shades of error are infinite, there is often just one right answer to a question?
If there really were a lot of gods, then it would be arbitrary to believe in only one. But Roberts is an atheist, not a polytheist.
Let’s apply his logic to a few other test cases.
I suppose that he believes in evolution. But as unbelievers are quick to remind us, Gen 1 is not the only creation story around. There are many creation stories.
Indeed, evolution is just one more creation story.
Suppose a secular anti-Darwinian like David Berlinski were to apply Roberts’ reasoning to evolution:
“I contend that we are both anti-Darwinians. I just believe in one fewer creation story than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other creation stories, you will understand why I dismiss your Darwinian story.”
Or suppose we were going to apply Roberts’ logic to a number of other truth-claims, such as the debate between alethic realism and antirealism:
“I contend that we are both global sceptics. I just believe in one fewer truths than you do. You believe that there are many wrong answers to when Churchill was born, but only one right answer (1874). When you understand why you dismiss all the other birthdates, you will understand why I dismiss yours.”
“I contend that we are both global sceptics. I just believe in one fewer truths than you do. You believe that there are many wrong answers to what two-plus-two equals, but only one right answer (2+2=4). When you understand why you dismiss all the other sums, you will understand why I dismiss yours.”
“I contend that we are both global sceptics. I just believe in one fewer truths than you do. You believe that there are many wrong answers to the boiling point of water, but only one right answer (100˚C). When you understand why you dismiss all the other temperatures, you will understand why I dismiss yours.”
The fact that so many unbelievers are so impressed by Roberts’ shallow, easily refuted, argument says a lot about the beetle-browed, knuckle-dragging level at which many unbelievers reason.
ReplyDeleteWhy do unbelievers think this is such a great piece of reasoning?
It's a great piece of reasoning for theists who can be honest about why they dismiss all other possible gods, and god claims, and even claims about their own gods they don't like.
You're probably not one of those.
You're way too far gone for any honest introspection of your own beliefs.
But what, exactly, is the underlying argument?
That supserstious people have always made all kinds of unsupported god claims of relatively similar types, yet nowadays, it's fashionable for the typical deluded, self righteous , religious fanatic to deny all other claims in a form of special pleading that quickly escalates into tyranny, and violent persecution.
Why is it illogical to believe that while the shades of error are infinite, there is often just one right answer to a question?
And that question is what?
Is there one god? Is his name Allah? Or are there three gods? Does god want you not to do any work on Saturday? Does god want you to pray facing Mecca? Does god want you to have a holy man sprinkle water on you? That god doesn't want you to use birth control of eat pork?
Sorry nitwit, the claims of theists are as varied as their imaginations allow. There is no single question.
Indeed, evolution is just one more creation story.
Sorry you skipped biology 101 Fundy. Evolution simply desribes the process where genes change over time in breeding populations. It's not a "creation story", and there are no magical gods involved.
“I contend that we are both global sceptics. I just believe in one fewer truths than you do. You believe that there are many wrong answers to what two-plus-two equals, but only one right answer (2+2=4). When you understand why you dismiss all the other sums, you will understand why I dismiss yours.”
LOL...sorry you also skipped first grade math Fundy...but what a brilliant analogy comparing the answer to a simple sum, which is true by definition, to some collection of nebulous concepts you call god.
About the level of brilliance I expect from you
I see Dan Barker use this piece of trash... I mean piece of reasoning most of the time in his debates.
ReplyDeleteSteve,
ReplyDeleteI would have to say that I don't think you've given Roberts credit for the real argument he is making here. He is not making the argument that if a number of answers are wrong, then the best answer is no answer at all -- the "no god" option is an answer. It's not "well since 2+2 =/ 5, it can't = 4," but "what method do we use to arrive at /=?" Do we apply that same method consistently to "="?
In the same way, do you apply the same skeptical criteria to your own Bible that you apply to other books, esp those that are regarded as "sacred/holy/inspired"? It doesn't mean that your conclusion itself is necessarily the target of his argument, but the METHOD you use to make your conclusion. Note that he referred to the reasons that you reject other gods, as in, your methodology in determining the veracity of your own god, versus skepticism towards those other gods.
If there really were a lot of gods, then it would be arbitrary to believe in only one. But Roberts is an atheist, not a polytheist.
And if there really were no gods, then it would be just as arbitrary to believe in one as to believe in many, correct?
Indeed, evolution is just one more creation story.
Except it happens to be the one and only "creation story" that science accepts as a scientific one. (whether or not it is true) So it is the only one that is accepted for scientific reasons (whether they are wrong or right).
“I contend that we are both anti-Darwinians. I just believe in one fewer creation story than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other creation stories, you will understand why I dismiss your Darwinian story.”
But this is a logical fallacy. "Anti-Darwinianism" doesn't imply that one is myth-less, it is specific. On the contrary, atheism is general and sweeping and broad.
Also, I reject all of the other creation stories because of the lack of evidence for them. Common descent from universal ancestors is as well-evidenced as it gets, like it or not. Believing there is no driving force behind it, or that the universe wasn't tuned to allow it to happen, is attaching philosophical significance to an otherwise-scientific answer. That is the problem with the Discovery Institute's vacuous statement. They imply that one has to reject God to accept common descent, when some of their own fellows (eg Behe, and Dembski won't answer it either way) accept common descent.
It isn't global skepticism that Roberts advocates, it is skepticism towards the supernatural and unevidenced. It is bias towards our own beliefs and shielding them from the same level of critical inquiry and skeptical caution that we apply to other beliefs. Consistency is the key, and not in denying everything, but in denying faith in X when Y is just as believable (just as well-evidenced).
You don't have to not accept anything, A-Z, just accept E -- the claim with evidence ;)
Daniel wrote:
ReplyDelete---
In the same way, do you apply the same skeptical criteria to your own Bible that you apply to other books, esp those that are regarded as "sacred/holy/inspired"?
---
This was addressed to Steve, but I'll give Daniel my answer anyway :-P
I do use the same criteria when looking at the Bible that I apply to other books, to my religion that I do to other religions, and to my philosophy that I apply to other philosophies.
I do not assume skepticism, though, so I cannot say I apply a "skeptical criteria" to anything. In fact, I would ask you to examine your skeptical criteria skeptically if you are going to be consistent there...
In any case, the method I most commonly use is the internal critique method (evidenced above by the fact that if you were skeptical toward the skeptical method the position becomes self-refuting, and thus fails the internal critique test).
I have found that Christianity does not suffer from the internal critique because it is consistent. However, the other religions that I have looked at do, as does the option of "no religion." They all suffer from internal inconsistencies.
So, until someone cares to bring forth a counter-argument that is actually internally consistent, I see no reason to doubt the consistent belief system that I already have. It would be like giving up a ton of gold because someone said that somewhere there might be another ton that I don't know about.
In any case, Daniel, feel free to offer a secular philosophy that is internally consistent and then I will consider it.
I have to be with CalvinDude on this. I have applied the same standards to Islam and found it one-dimensional on them. The Koran has no supporting material and is a one-man job.
ReplyDeleteThe question, it was rightly noted would be better for a pluralist than an atheist.
For what it's worth Anon. has a point about liberals. We cannot domesticate God. To borrow from C.S Lewis, He is not a tame lion.
And the use of 'honest' by anon is frankly unworthy. Does he engage in introspection that is, by this standard, 'honest'? That is, does he sometimes consider becoming a theist? If not, then I advise him not to throw stones, as he seems to be living in a glass house. As Daniel Morgan has noted, he must apply to his own beliefs the same standards he applies to others.
Remember, what is being firm in our convictions in ourselves we too often identify as delusion in others. But Anonymous is so polite and tolerant that I shouldn't say mean things like that.
Oh, and Daniel, I too often find that, far from being general, too many of the atheists I meet simply dislike Christianity and are prepared to let other religions off with just muttering behind their backs.
ReplyDelete“I contend that we are both anti-Darwinians. I just believe in one fewer creation story than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other creation stories, you will understand why I dismiss your Darwinian story.”
ReplyDeleteThis is a false comparison -- religions are based on faith, meaning, that which is believed without evidence. All religions are based on faith. However, the theory of evolution is based on evidence -- and no evidence exists for the creation stories of any religion.
Here's the problem with the logic being expressed in this blog - the word, story. Unfortuately, there is a big difference in the arena of science - between a creation story, and hard, scientific evidence.
ReplyDeleteThere's a huge difference in a story written over 2000 years ago and revised as needed, numerous times by whoever happened to be in power at the time - and the remains of animals we've found in the ground, that can be dated using science to tell us when this animal died. That would also be the same science that keeps you alive in the hospital when you're sick and allows you to express your view on this blog.
At the end of the day, a fossil can be viewed by anyone with their hands, use the same formula and find the same result. However - when dealing with a creation story, you must examine the facts in front of you - you have no factual evidence of who wrote it, it's most likely not the orignial - but when the orignal was found (the dead sea scrolls) most of it was discounted as ramblings and stuff that wasn't fit for the bible... the point is, there's a bit of a trend developing here. On one hand you have facts, and the other holds a book of stories...we live in a world of evidence and reason, so if at the end of the day if you had to make an educated gamble on which side would hold up in a present day court of law - excluding all emotional ties...
the hard evidence would win every time. Why is that so? Because you can touch it, taste it, replicate it, and prove it - why not apply the same formula to any system of beliefs?
Do you think if the ancient people of their times had access to our current technology, religion would have arisen? No - they would be able to explain the things they didn't understand.
Yes. I totally agree. This is a horrible piece of reasoning.
ReplyDeleteHere is my take:
http://thoughtfulfaith.wordpress.com/2010/05/01/allah-thor-possiedon-and-zeus/