Book recommendation for MD atheists

[_Some Schmo]

Their finest example has to do with the Ontological argument, which was by far, my favorite part of the book, and how this argument is useful is gauging people’s understanding of the more complex issues involved. If you don’t understand the Ontological argument, and do not have a reasoned response to it, your atheism is more than likely to be poorly justified.

Rubbish.

[_MrStakhanovite]

Their finest example has to do with the Ontological argument, which was by far, my favorite part of the book, and how this argument is useful is gauging people’s understanding of the more complex issues involved. If you don’t understand the Ontological argument, and do not have a reasoned response to it, your atheism is more than likely to be poorly justified.

Rubbish.

Explain?

[_Some Schmo]

Explain?

I don't think one needs to understand or respond to the Ontological argument in order to be properly justified in rejecting god belief. I suspect many, if not the majority of atheists aren't even aware of the Ontological argument, but that doesn't mean their reasons for belief rejection are poorly justified. You don't need to be a philosophy major in order to be a reasoned atheist. Suggesting so is crazy talk.

[_Milesius]

Thanks for mentioning the book Stak. Unfortunately, the pretentious morons who would benefit from reading it the most won't.

[_MrStakhanovite]

Hey Schmo,

When we talk about atheists, we are really talking about westernized and literate people. Eastern religions and philosophies don’t really map out well when trying to find comparisons, and the major religion Americans are most often confronted with is some form of Christianity. Considering how religion can effect everything from national policy, economics, elections, and legislation, it’s imperative for a responsible atheist to know about the three big theisms.

When you became an atheist Schmo, you took a specific stance on an issue, one that can color and alter the entire way in which you look at the world and behave in it. Since atheism is such an important belief, to suggest that one can be ignorant of certain evidence and still be confident in the justification of a belief contrary to that evidence is crazy, and also very lazy.

You don’t need to be an economics major to understand the basics of Keynesian economics, you don’t need to be an English major to quote a bit of poetry, and you don’t need to be a philosophy major to read one website for 45 minutes to an hour to understand an important part of the Western intellectual tradition.

[_Some Schmo]

When you became an atheist Schmo, you took a specific stance on an issue, one that can color and alter the entire way in which you look at the world and behave in it. Since atheism is such an important belief, to suggest that one can be ignorant of certain evidence and still be confident in the justification of a belief contrary to that evidence is crazy, and also very lazy.

First of all, I don't see the Ontological argument as evidence of god. It's evidence of the masturbatory nature of some philosophical thought. There's no strict correspondence between what we can imagine and a necessary, objective reality. The argument's over before it begins.

But even if it were evidence, what you're suggesting is that before anyone can feel confident about anything, they must know everything there is to know about all sides of that subject, or they are not justified in their opinion. That's silly. By your criterion, nobody is justified in having an opinion of anything, because there is always more to learn on any given subject.

Do you know everything there is to know about every argument for and against theism? I highly doubt that. Nobody does. Therefore, nobody is justified in any belief they have, apparently. I mean... really?

You don’t need to be an economics major to understand the basics of Keynesian economics, you don’t need to be an English major to quote a bit of poetry, and you don’t need to be a philosophy major to read one website for 45 minutes to an hour to understand an important part of the Western intellectual tradition.

I never said it's not a good idea to learn this stuff. It never hurts to learn more, and you can always make a better assessment with more information. That's a given.

It's the idea that an opinion is invalid or unreasoned because you aren't aware of a philosophical argument (and not a very compelling one, at that) that is, well, outrageous.

[_Simon Belmont]

When you became an atheist Schmo, you took a specific stance on an issue, one that can color and alter the entire way in which you look at the world and behave in it. Since atheism is such an important belief, to suggest that one can be ignorant of certain evidence and still be confident in the justification of a belief contrary to that evidence is crazy, and also very lazy.

But Stak, many atheists would say that atheism is not a belief or a belief system. I've had atheists here tell me that not football is not a sport, and not believing in a god is not a belief system.

[_EAllusion]

I don't think atheism is poorly justified without a reasoned response to the ontological argument. If one has not heard of the ontological argument, one is still warranted in being an atheist. The same is true of, say, not believing in quantum mechanics. If you haven't heard an appreciable case for it, you are warranted in not believing it.

But, Stak might say, to exist in our society means one has to be willfully ignorant to not have heard of those cases. In most cases, I agree. However, willful ignorance is a moral problem. It a violation of one's duty to be informed. It doesn't speak to how well justified you are in your beliefs.

Finally, I think there's some ambiguity in what Stak means by having a reasoned response to the ontological argument. I can think of two kinds of replies that don't explain what's wrong with the argument per se, but I think are valid reasons for rejecting it.

1) Ontological arguments are oft subject to parody. The first famous reply to the Anselmian ontological argument, Gaunilo's perfect island, doesn't tell you what's wrong with the argument. It just says that if the argument works, then a plethora of things we ordinarily consider absurd could also by argued for by parity. There are a variations of ontological arguments that I think can be parodied and rejected on those grounds.

2) I think people can be justified in rejecting or accepting ideas not because they themselves fully understand the issue at hand, but through vicariously relying on expertise. This has to be done carefully - people make all manner of mistakes because they misjudge how to evaluate consensus and expertise - but I think it is a necessary and ordinary part of how we reason. I don't crack open a chemistry textbook and perform every single empirical experiment that undergirds the theory found therein to believe the material. I make rational judgments about how to trust what I read.

I think a mistake people frequently make is assuming if that if they can't figure out where some argument goes wrong - let's say a 9/11 controlled demolition argument - then they have to begrudging believe it. That's simply not the case. One has to have humility about their capacity to evaluate arguments and take into account what others think and why. And likewise with ontological arguments, its status in contemporary philosophy is quite relevant.

[_EAllusion]

But Stak, many atheists would say that atheism is not a belief or a belief system. I've had atheists here tell me that not football is not a sport, and not believing in a god is not a belief system.

I presume Stak thinks like I do that atheism is a rejection of belief in deities. This is slightly different than atheism being defined in terms of lack of belief. That can be passive. A newborn baby is an atheist under that definition. But I, and I presume Stak, think that one must actively be aware of what deities are and actively reject them in order to qualify as an atheist.

Now, that doesn't make atheism a belief system or a religion. But it does make atheism a belief about something - namely whether the case for deities they are aware of is sound or not.

[_MrStakhanovite]

But, Stak might say, to exist in our society means one has to be willfully ignorant to not have heard of those cases. In most cases, I agree. However, willful ignorance is a moral problem. It a violation of one's duty to be informed. It doesn't speak to how well justified you are in your beliefs.

I think willful ignorance falls under justification. If S affirms ~P while avoiding evidence that supports P, then you can’t say S is justified in affirming ~P.

I don’t mean to imply that you have to be expert on Plantinga and Swinburne, but if you want to talk down to theists, and call religious beliefs delusional, you better know what you are talking about. One’s humility should reflect one’s the level of justification

Finally, I think there's some ambiguity in what Stak means by having a reasoned response to the ontological argument. I can think of two kinds of replies that don't explain what's wrong with the argument per se, but I think are valid reasons for rejecting it.

I think your first example works fine. I’m wary of the second example because philosophical ideals are usually not so cut and dry.