Atheists ignorant of Theology

A common argument against atheists is that we are ignorant of Theology. I can't speak for other atheists, but I'm happy to plead guilty as charged. I haven't read any of the big names in theology, and I don't intend to. I'm convinced it isn't necessary. If their arguments really had any merit, there would also be some objective evidence they could point to as well. As Christopher Hitchens says: "What can be asserted without proof can be dismissed without proof."

But I wonder if any Theologian has ever written a Theology for Dummies that approaches Theology the way I'd like to see it approached? Consider three possible hypotheses about "god":

1. The Old Testament is essentially true.
2. The Old Testament is myth, but there really is a God (unrelated to the God of Abraham) who created the universe.
3. The Old Testament is myth and there are no gods.

For me to take Theology seriously, all three hypotheses must be addressed with intellectual honesty. I would need to see arguments that show how we could tell which of the three hypotheses best explains the world we can all objectively observe. If a Theologian could do this and make strong arguments that the 3rd hypothesis is the weakest, then that would be interesting.

Logic demands agnosticism, not atheism

Here is a quote on Facebook from someone whose initials are J.H. but I will leave otherwise anonymous:

Logic demands that an atheist who chooses not to be an agnostic prove the non-existence of god, just as logic demands that Christians prove the existence of god. Logic demands agnosticism, not atheism.

This argument seems to assume that the only type of logic that may be employed is strict trinary logic, allowing only the three values true, false, and unknown. If one tries this approach, and further asserts that the validity of a claim must be unknown until strictly proven otherise, then only purely mathematical claims could assigned a validity other than unknown, since strict proof is only possible using formal mathematics. In all real world endeavors, people commonly abandon the strict notion of proof and instead use something closer to the judicial notions of preponderance of evidence and beyond reasonable doubt.

I believe people subconsciously use a form of logic that is closer to the way digital devices implement boolean logic using analog electronics. A digital device assigns false to 0.0 volts and true to 1.0 volts, but the voltage is never exactly 0.0 or 1.0 with infinite precision, so instead some kind of tolerance threshold is employed.

Consider two claims about the supernatural:

1. There may one or more intelligent beings who exist outside of our spacetime universe who have the means to observe and influence our universe.
2. The Old Testament is factually correct, i.e. the God of Abraham is real, created our universe, occasionally manipulates the universe.

I consider both claims to be false. But one claim is more false than the other.

Why Axioms?

I spelled out a little why I chose the word belief in the title of this blog, but I didn't explain why I chose the word axioms. An axiom in mathematics is a proposition that is assumed to be true and need not be proven. They are needed in any formal system of mathematics because without some solid foundation of accepted truth, it wouldn't be possible to prove anything.

At first glance there is something a little troubling with the need for axioms. What if a mathematical system chooses an axiom that isn't really true? In practice, this isn't a problem, because mathematics requires that for any given mathematical theory the set of axioms be consistent. If a set of axioms leads to contradictions, then the set of axioms is rejected as useless, and a simpler and consistent set of axioms is used instead.

I like the concept of axioms of belief. Beliefs we hold due to faith are in some ways axioms of belief. It's ok, even necessary, to have axioms of belief, i.e to have faith in certain fundamental ideas. But I believe that problems develop when faiths are not axiomatic. For an axiom to be useful, it must be simple and consistent with the other axioms we hold true. So, for example, one core belief of biblical fundamentalists is that the entire Bible is literally true. This belief is in some sense very simple, but it implies that every simple statement made by the Bible must be treated as an axiomatic truth. This would be fine if each of the statements of the Bible were simple, and if no statement of the Bible contradicted any other statement of the Bible, but this clearly isn't the case. For this reason, the statement the entire Bible is literally true is not an axiom.

Now, the Bible makes various claims that could be axioms of belief, but to my knowledge believers in the Bible never make an attempt to sort out the claims of the Bible into any kind of system resembling an axiomatic one. Religious believers often demand respect for their beliefs. I can't respect the belief that the entire Bible is literally true because it is really a set of beliefs that are not self-consistent, and because many of the beliefs are not consistent with objective reality. But there are some people who hold beliefs based on the Bible who are willing to acknowledge that the Bible is not literally true, but is instead allegorical. This admission is enough to make it possible (in theory) for me to respect their beliefs, or at least much of their beliefs. I think it would be really cool if some liberal Christians would attempt to define a consistent set of axioms of their beliefs. I have a sense that there might be a core set of beliefs that I could respect. But ironically, I think any such set of axiomatic Christian beliefs would be rejected by most Christians.

Librarians are heros

Or at least, Jamie Larue is now one of mine. If only more people defended civil liberties and diversity as thoughtfully and eloquently as Jamie does.

Axioms of belief

What is belief? Some (many?) people think that belief is entirely synonymous with faith. For example, some theists say that if an atheist has no faith then they believe in nothing. I'm an atheist, and I definitely have beliefs that I believe have nothing to do with faith. (There, that was one of them.)

To my understanding, belief and faith have very different connotations, but when I look up these words in a dictionary, I find it's not too surprising that people consider them to be equivalent. For example if you read the definitions given for these words in dictionary.com you'll find one definition of faith is: a religious belief, and one definition of belief is: a religious tenet or tenets. With just these definitions, any reasonable person would have to conclude that belief and faith are essentially synonymous.

But I still assert that they are not. And I further assert that by allowing them to be synonyms, we muddy the debate between faith and reason. I propose that we make it clear that faith is a subset of belief. I like this definition from wikipedia: Belief is the psychological state in which an individual is convinced of the truth of a proposition.

Given this definition, religious faith is clearly a form of belief. However, it is a restricted form. It is restricted in both the nature of the proposition that is made, and in the manner that the believer is convinced. The proposition is a theological one made about the possibility of something supernatural. The believer is convinced of the proposition not because of objective evidence, but because of subjective feelings and the testimony of others.