Magi Mike's Blog

Another WordPress blog about politics and religion

Is the Skeptical Atheist no Different from the Gullible Believer?

with 3 comments

It's a figment

When those who deny the existence of God at the same time reveal that they ardently want Him not to exist, are we justified in feeling skeptical? It seems a parallel case of the one presented a couple of posts back, in which we decided we were justified in being skeptical when an ardent believer asserted that God exists.

The trouble is that the case of the atheist is not truly symmetrical with the previous one. The argument which held before now fails. The two cases are not symmetrical because God is not now the base case. That is the natural world we experience. We do not experience a supernatural God. Believers may say they do, in one way or another, but while they may experience something, it is their assumption or hypothesis that it is God. After all, the same experiences can be simulated by means that can only be natural ones—drugs, fatigue, starvation, electrical stimuli to the brain.

God is formulated as the explanation of experiences we cannot otherwise explain, but we are no better off, no nearer an explanation to say that a figment of our imagination explains these things. With nothing more than wishful thinking to support the hypothesis of God we have to eliminate it on the basis both of skepticism and Ockham’s Razor.

The base case is the skeptical case, not the credulous one—we reject what we cannot demonstrate as true. By Ockham’s Razor, we have no need of the entity, God. So far, like Laplace, we have been able to explain our experiences without that hypothesis.

Written by mikemagee

7 October, 2011 at 11:27 pm

3 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. Both atheists and gullible believers believe in the existence of an omnipotent power I don’t know what will happen to me tomorrow. Since I can’t control or pilot future events, I submit to the direction of this omnipotent power, God… to lead me through sunshine or darkness. I prefer sunshine. If the omnipotent power brings darkness, I can do nothing but yield, as Steve Jobs did in spite of his wealth and fame.We have no alternative; submit before Jesus.


    8 October, 2011 at 3:29 am

    • You seem to be saying that atheists are theists. If words have such little content to you, then you must be able to believe anything, and anything you say is meaningless.


      8 October, 2011 at 2:39 pm

  2. Ignorance is no proof of anything.
    The ones claiming that such personal god exists, have the burden of the proof, same as the ones claiming fairies exist.
    In my case, I’m a freethinker. I place belief in deities at the same level of beliefs in fairies, they have the same level of evidence, zero.
    Ignoring what happens after we die, or what’s up beyond the limits of our universe, doesn’t enable me to make up tall tales, just because I don’t accept my IGNORANCE, isn’t it?
    Explaining the unknown with gods is as valid as explaining it with spaghetti monsters or fairies.
    Science, OTOH, is not dogmatic at all, it’s totally open to rebuttal, and has changed the path when theories were proven wrong. It tries to explain nature with rationale, but is totally open to be peer reviewed.
    At least scientific theories and laws has experimental basis to be verified, religious assertions provide NOTHING, that’s because they insist with the ‘faith’stuff, because assertions are just dogma.
    If I’m wrong, please tell me why.


    28 December, 2011 at 8:02 pm

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: