On Medium: What’s the Strongest Atheistic Argument?
Here's an article about why religion's historically inevitable incoherence, rather than the problem of evil or of unnecessary suffering makes for the strongest atheistic argument.
I think the strongest argument in favor of atheism begins with the problematization of that famous Carl Sagan phrase, that ''absence of evidence is not evidence of absence''.
Because that phrase is not only simple and elegant, it is also very persuasive in favor of both agnosticism and belief. I would wager that many believers, especially the smartest ones, use it to argue against atheism.
So it's true that the absence of evidence for God/eternal life doesn't mean they don't exist.
But there are different cases of absence of evidence, so that, in some cases, the possibility of existence is greater than for others.
For, if you think about the absence of evidence of extraterrestrial life, there are still known facts that support, indirectly, its plausibility: particularly, terrestrial life itself and the existence of many planets similar to ours...
As for god/eternal life, there is absolutely nothing that indirectly corroborates its possibility of existence.
Of course, not even the best argument is enough to change the views of most people who believe in god/eternal life about their religious beliefs.
But at least that argument can be passed on to the next generations of atheists.
This absence of evidence is much less likely than extraterrestrial life.
I suspect that if that point about the absence of evidence is going to turn into an argument against theism, it would amount to a point about the unequal burden of proof in this case, which I've written about elsewhere.
Yes, but this is a very easy argument to use. A more in-depth analysis of this claim, as I have done, is important to demonstrate that, apart from the burden of proof being on who believes, anyway, there is no direct or prior basis of facts that can support a more -really-grounded argument in favor of religious belief.
There's a tactical problem, though, with relying on a difference in the burden of proof, which is that if you say your opponent has the burden, it can look like you're afraid to argue your case. This point came up in my articles on atheism. While I think there's logically some difference in the burden for atheists and theists, if only for the reason I lay out in "Atheism and the Burden of Refuting the Preposterous," there's also no reason to fear taking the initiative and making a case for atheism.
I think the strongest argument in favor of atheism begins with the problematization of that famous Carl Sagan phrase, that ''absence of evidence is not evidence of absence''.
ReplyDeleteBecause that phrase is not only simple and elegant, it is also very persuasive in favor of both agnosticism and belief. I would wager that many believers, especially the smartest ones, use it to argue against atheism.
So it's true that the absence of evidence for God/eternal life doesn't mean they don't exist.
But there are different cases of absence of evidence, so that, in some cases, the possibility of existence is greater than for others.
For, if you think about the absence of evidence of extraterrestrial life, there are still known facts that support, indirectly, its plausibility: particularly, terrestrial life itself and the existence of many planets similar to ours...
As for god/eternal life, there is absolutely nothing that indirectly corroborates its possibility of existence.
Of course, not even the best argument is enough to change the views of most people who believe in god/eternal life about their religious beliefs.
But at least that argument can be passed on to the next generations of atheists.
This absence of evidence is much less likely than extraterrestrial life.
I suspect that if that point about the absence of evidence is going to turn into an argument against theism, it would amount to a point about the unequal burden of proof in this case, which I've written about elsewhere.
DeleteYes, but this is a very easy argument to use. A more in-depth analysis of this claim, as I have done, is important to demonstrate that, apart from the burden of proof being on who believes, anyway, there is no direct or prior basis of facts that can support a more -really-grounded argument in favor of religious belief.
DeleteThere's a tactical problem, though, with relying on a difference in the burden of proof, which is that if you say your opponent has the burden, it can look like you're afraid to argue your case. This point came up in my articles on atheism. While I think there's logically some difference in the burden for atheists and theists, if only for the reason I lay out in "Atheism and the Burden of Refuting the Preposterous," there's also no reason to fear taking the initiative and making a case for atheism.
Delete