Hacker News Reader

Comment by rdruxn | Hacker News Reader

> I honestly think atheism is inconsistent with the scientific method. What I mean by that is, what is atheism? It’s a statement, a categorical statement that expresses belief in nonbelief. “I don’t believe even though I have no evidence for or against, simply I don’t believe.” Period. It’s a declaration. But in science we don’t really do declarations. We say, “Okay, you can have a hypothesis, you have to have some evidence against or for that.” And so an agnostic would say, look, I have no evidence for God or any kind of god (What god, first of all? The Maori gods, or the Jewish or Christian or Muslim God? Which god is that?) But on the other hand, an agnostic would acknowledge no right to make a final statement about something he or she doesn’t know about. “The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence,” and all that.

He seems to understand it perfectly whereas you seem to be mischaracterizing his words

View on HN

His point is bunk because it is fundamentally mischaracterising the argument of atheists.

It isn't about there being literally proof of no god, it is about how we act in our daily setting.

The classic counter is Russell's teapot. You can't prove to me that there is not a teapot, undetectable by our current tooling (tiny, invisible, etc...), orbiting the Sun somewhere in space between the Earth and Mars.

That said, if I were to ask you "does this thing exist", you'd say "no". Sure, there is technically a chance, in the way we can't prove gravity won't suddenly stop working tomorrow, but there is no evidence for it, and no reason to act like it is there.

An atheist is not saying that there absolutely is no god, but rather "there is no reason to believe in a god, given what we currently know", which remains a different position from "I, personally, don't know" which is the argument of an agnostic.

It is true that, colloquially, we compress "there is no reason to believe that this is true" and "this is false" to the same thing, because realistically we can almost never say the second absolutely with anything outside the deep theoretical, and we fundamentally behave the same way given both.

> An atheist is not saying that there absolutely is no god, but rather "there is no reason to believe in a god, given what we currently know", which remains a different position from "I, personally, don't know" which is the argument of an agnostic.

The dictionary definition of atheism (Chambers, 1990)

Atheism: The belief that there is no god.

Agnostic: Someone who believes one can only know about material things and so believes that nothing can be known about the existance of God.

The author seems to be using these definitions, so it's not surprising people are confused if they've invented their own definitions.

Have you tried checking other dictionaries? Websters has a more accurate definition:

Atheist: a person who does not believe in the existence of a god or any gods

This is consistent with atheist writers like Dawkins.

Can you explain the theological background of Chambers, since you seem to think he's some sort of authority on the matter?

Edit: This from wikipedia on the Chambers dictionary:

The Chambers Dictionary is widely used by British crossword solvers and setters, and by Scrabble players (though it is no longer the official Scrabble dictionary). It contains many more dialectal, archaic, unconventional and eccentric words than its rivals, and is noted for its occasional wryly humorous definitions. Examples of such definitions include those for éclair ("a cake, long in shape but short in duration") and middle-aged ("between youth and old age, variously reckoned to suit the reckoner").[2] These jocular definitions were removed by the publisher in the 1970s, but many of them were reinstated in 1983 because of the affection in which they were held by readers.

So you're using a dictionary whose purpose is entertainment, rather than accuracy.. and insisting this is the definition we should all use? What a joke.

>> Atheism: The belief that there is no god.

> Have you tried checking other dictionaries? Websters has a more accurate definition:

> Atheist: a person who does not believe in the existence of a god or any gods

Allowing for the differences in word-form (ideology vs. adherent), those definitions are semantically identical. They just attach the negation to different parts of the sentence for the same effect (the noun in the first case, the verb in the second).

No they are not. Atheism makes no claims itself. Chambers says we do ("there is no god") while websters does not.

A claim was put forth: god exists. No proof was provided. Therefore atheists do not believe the claim.

This is consistent with a wide range of atheist writings and Webster's definition (but not with Chambers)

> This is consistent with a wide range of atheist writings and Webster's definition (but not with Chambers)

The definitions you quoted in your comment make no mention of the concept of "claim." That's easily verified with ctrl-f.

You're free to push an alternative definition that focuses on that concept, but your quote from Websters does not support you. Your definition also does not extinguish the definition you oppose, as that one clearly has some traction.

They are arguing that this isn't boolean logic.

"god_exists == false" is not the same as "god_exists != true", because "not true" can mean "false", but also "almost certainly false" and many other things.

It absolutely is Boolean logic, if you know how to write it down:

  Definition 1 = Belief(not god)
  Definition 2 = not Belief(god)

Even for the most basic of logic positions this is now considered outright false. Here are all the possible answers for Boolean predicate:

1) true 2) false 3) independent

and, sort of,

4) unknown

In a parallel dimension (using the true mathematical meaning of the word dimension here) there is also, about every predicate:

1) it is theoretically possible to know 2) it is theoretically impossible to know 3) it is impossible to know if it is theoretically possible to know (thanks a LOT, Godel)

Note that in the case where it is impossible to know, there still exists an answer. There is just some reason we won't ever know the answer. If this is relevant, then of course the practical answer to your Boolean predicate is "unknown". In some cases it may be useful to pretend we know the answer, and expand math as if we know the answer.

So yes, we even have claims that we consider "true, yet impossible to know". What that means is that we add a fact we can't prove or even prove as non-problematic as an axiom (e.g. the existence of large cardinal numbers. And of course, an honest mathematician would say that since the first 3 large cardinal number axioms were proven to be disasters, odds seem pretty good the current one is a catastrophe in some currently unknown way as well. But maybe we got lucky this time)

And in yet ANOTHER dimension you have the rather important fact:

1) it is practically possible to know 2) it is not practically possible to know

Here answer 2 is pretty nice, because that provides an argument, a useful dimension where we could research into expanding our practical options to practice science. Or perhaps I should say, it gives us a very practical reason to try to make one particular expansion of our knowledge. A LOT of claims in quantum physics fall into the 2) category and there's lots of research into finding the answers anyway. And sometimes a kindergarten teacher in Italy thinks of a way to ...

So this means there are 12 possible answers to every predicate in maths. 3 basic ones. And there are many fun things that can be said about every independent claim, because then of course that predicate becomes an argument to change maths to change the answer..

So where does a claim about God fall ?

The point stands no matter how you write it - those two things are not equivalent.

Case in point, an agnostic fits one of those, but not the other. An agnostic does not believe in a god, but they also don't believe in "not god".

If those two things are equivalent, then "not Belief(god)" and "not Belief(not god)" couldn't both be true (as they are for agnostics).

The issue is not that you need to find a way to frame it as boolean logic, the issue is that we don't believe in boolean logic. Belief has more than two states.

Of course, this is all a side track because the central point remains: believing there is no god does not require disregarding the possibility of being wrong any more than believing in anything does. It simply means you think it is the most reasonable belief given what you know at that time, as with any belief.

A belief and a lack of belief are not the same thing.

Chambers says: Atheists believe god does not exists. This is a claim: that atheists have evidence god does not exist. And that is inaccurate.

> Chambers says: Atheists believe god does not exists. This is a claim: that atheists have evidence god does not exist.

No, stating that atheists believe something is not stating that they have evidence. Evidence may support a belief, but it is not equivalent to having a belief, or required for having a belief.

It may, depending on ones epistemological viewpoint, be required for justified belief, but the claim being examined is that atheism is not merely unjustified from a scientific perspective but actually incompatible with it, which would require it to actually contradict some belief justified by science, which it absolutely, even for classic “hard atheism”, positive belief in the non-existence of God, do; you'd need an ultra-hard atheism which not only has positive belief in the non-existence of God but also does not view that belief as contingent and subject to reevaluation should new evidence arise to actually be incompatible with science—this view may exisr somewhere, but if so it is still, at best, atypical of atheists.

> You're claiming a belief and a lack of belief are the same things.

Am I? That's news to me.

What I'm actually doing is making claims about grammar, the semantic evaluation of sentences, the the potential existence of multiple valid definitions of the same word.

You are by saying there's no difference in the definitons. Chambers says atheists have a belief. Websters says it's the lack of belief.

> You are by saying there's no difference in the definitons. Chambers says atheists have a belief. Websters says it's the lack of belief.

You're ignoring half of each of the sentences in question. Simplified: one's "belief of non-existence", the other's "non-belief of existence." They both express the same state of belief in different ways.

I understand you want the definitions to make different statements. They just don't, I'm sorry.

Why did you ignore me when I stated earlier that those two things are not equivalent?

> They are arguing that this isn't boolean logic.

> "god_exists == false" is not the same as "god_exists != true", because "not true" can mean "false", but also "almost certainly false" and many other things.

“When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less.”

If you want to express a concept of probability like you tried to, it's exceedingly unclear. If you want to be understood, you should make it clearer what you're trying to say.

Going back to the definitions originally quoted, the only way you find probabilities like that in them is by reading them in yourself.

We don't walk around expecting gravity to suddenly change, or for elephants to suddenly appear around us.

We are not talking about real probability - we are talking about an unfalsifiable thing having no evidence, which is functionally the same thing as proving it false, we can't prove it false, but we act like it is, because doing otherwise would mean acting like anything insane and unfalsifiable you can think of is true.

The reason this distinction isn't clear is because no one needs to make it in the real world.

Atheists don't believe in god. This doesn't mean that - if provided proof, they wouldn't change that belief. That's how normal people use "belief" in the real world, the only way that the weird definition twisting of "Atheist" makes sense here is trying to claim "belief" has to mean unwavering absolute truth.

You can either be talking in absolute logic, and allow for "not false" to mean more than "true" because this isn't a boolean, or you can be talking in natural language where the central debate doesn't hold because no one uses belief like that. You can't pick and choose common use and holding to strict definitions.

Even taking that perspective, the definitions are still semantically equivalent.

> You can't pick and choose common use and holding to strict definitions.

I never did that.

You didn’t address the Boolean example, either. Do you actually think the following evaluates to `true`?

`(god_exists == false) == (god_exists != true)`

Yes, especially when you write it like that.

I get that some people really want to make a distinction, and such a distinction can exist, I just don't think it's reflected in the texts that they claimed it is, especially given their context.

And what if `god_exists` returns something other than a bool? Another way of asking this might be: what if `god_exists` is a black box with poorly understood/defined behavior? Because that’s basically the situation we’re in.

Also consider: in the absence of theism, the word “atheist” wouldn’t mean anything at all.

Atheism has a long history of redefining terms.

The OED changed from

"To deny the Gods/God" to

"To deny or disbelieve in the gods/God"

The latter - disbelieve - fits the greek, but the former was the intended meaning by those who coined it three centuries back, as a derogatory term (ref, encycolopdia Brittanicca which goes in to the history of this issue unlike Wikipedia). The OED mixes and confuses two definitions and reflects a common modern redefining, by atheists themselves, of 'atheism' to mean 'lacking belief' which dodges the problem that to positively believe there is no God or gods is clearly irrational without proof, which is thought to be logically impossible.

That's why educated atheists claim to be agnostic, and uneducated atheists claim to be atheists.

But the proof in the pudding is in how the individual expresses themselves towards religious persons, ie "The God Delusion".

Dawkins claims to be 9/10ths atheist, "technically agnostic".

But that book is a statement that religious believers are delusional, so revealing that he is in fact a true atheist. No genuine agnostic would ever make such a presumption in to minds they cannot see.

Dawkins is therefore irrational.

The irony of the situation is that :

-while a religious believer might be rational (if there were, in fact, a god, and it were proving its own existence, as they claim, as opposed to faith as "Belief without evidence" is in fact an atheist redefinition, by Bertrand Russell to be precise, now also in the dictionary).

-a true atheist is always irrational whether or not there is a god

> -a true atheist is always irrational whether or not there is a god

Explain again why saying "I don't accept your claim that there is a god" is irrational?

>Explain again why saying "I don't accept your claim that there is a god" is irrational?

I addressed that in what I wrote.

As noted, most of the time (including in this dictionary definition), we do not distinguish between "proven false" and "not proven true", because there are very few cases where such a distinction matters.

"Belief"s are not immutable - we believe in things, but given evidence we can change those beliefs.

If I say "I believe in man-made climate change", I am not arguing that I would not change my opinion if evidence was provided that it wasn't the case.

There's a little bit more nuance to it than that. See:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_and_positive_atheism

Negative atheism, also called weak atheism and soft atheism, is any type of atheism where a person does not believe in the existence of any deities but does not explicitly assert that there are none. Positive atheism, also called strong atheism and hard atheism, is the form of atheism that additionally asserts that no deities exist.

And when you talk about "weak atheism", I would argue that the distinction between that and agnosticism is fairly subtle.

> And when you talk about "weak atheism", I would argue that the distinction between that and agnosticism is fairly subtle.

Strong Atheist: There is no god, I can prove it. Weak Atheist: There is no god, there is no reason to believe there is one. Agnostic: I don't know if there is a god.

The difference is not subtle. It is the difference between having an opinion and not having one.

Strong vs Weak atheism is basically a worthless distinction to most people, because having no evidence of something means you don't believe in it in the scientific method. No, it isn't proof of the non-existence, but we still act like it doesn't exist until proven otherwise, otherwise we have to believe literally anything that you can imagine that isn't provably non-existent (back to Russel's teapot).

Exactly. This whole atheism vs. agnosticism debate is about semantics. Ultimately the question to ask is, is it rational to act like there are gods. An atheist says no, a theist says yes, and an agnostic is neutral on the subject.

This is not the same thing as asking if there is a god or not, which is not answerable.

No, an atheist is simply someone who does not affirmatively believe the claim that there are gods. This does not inherently entail the claim that there are no gods. If you do not accept the claim that there are gods, you are an atheist. Nothing about that breaches the Scientific Method. No evidence is required in order to neglect to accept a claim which was also not presented with scientific evidence.

The author says that atheists need evidence of absence to support their claim that gods don't exist, but atheism does not entail that claim, so the author has some pretty substantial misunderstandings about how the scientific method works and what claims are going on here and when evidence is needed.

I do not need evidence in order to reject a claim that the center of the earth is made out of Earl Grey tea. I can say "I don't believe that is correct" and then just continue on with my life as it was before someone told me that with no evidence.

Which dictionary are you using for your definition of atheism please?

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/atheism

https://www.atheists.org/activism/resources/about-atheism/

https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/atheism

https://www.dictionary.com/browse/atheism (2)

https://www.thefreedictionary.com/atheist

And even if an atheist holds the position that a god does not exist, based on our current evidence, this is the default null hypothesis, and this rejection of the claim that a god does exist does not require a proof. The assertion that a god exists requires proof. The author's insistence that atheists who simply default to the null hypothesis in the question of whether a god exists need to provide evidence is the one violating the scientific method.

If someone tells the author that BBQ pork sandwiches cure cancer does he just accept it as true until someone proves that they don't cure cancer?

It requires a double negative "a belief in non-belief" which is an absurdity to make an argument. Nothing more.

If I am to change my position of non belief in faeries, gods, little green men, moons made of green cheese, and telepathy all it takes is a little repeatable evidence. That is not belief in their absence. When the evidence is there I will be a) very surprised b) changing my opinion.

Actually, not forming a belief in something, i.e., not positing the existence of an entity without evidence is a sound practice. And that is actually exactly what we do in science.

E.g., Russell's teapot

Reply on news.ycombinator.com