From: nrp@st-andrews.ac.uk (Norman R. Paterson)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Is atheism experimentally refutable?
Date: 1 Sep 92 14:04:56 GMT
Organization: St. Andrews University, Scotland.


Thanks for all the replies!  Here's mine back.

===== From Ken Arromdee:
> Are you sure you know what atheism is?
Well, I thought I did, until I started to follow this line of questioning!  I guess I'm 
digging away at the foundations just to see what they're made of.

> >What it comes down to is this: how could a god prove their godhood?

> It's hard.  But even if a god can't prove his godhood, he could provide
> evidence which suggests the possibility.  Just demonstrating some supernatural
> power, for instance resurrecting some dead relatives of mine, would be a good
> start--and certainly better than no proof at all, which is what we have now.
>  god could certainly provide evidence for his existence equal in quality for
> the evidence, for instance, that the sun is made of hydrogen, even though we
> can't _prove_ that it's not a big ball of gold during the moments when nobody
> is looking at it.
Yes, I like the idea of testing for supernatural powers too.  But resurrection could just be 
technological superiority, and not supernature.  As to providing evidence for existence, I 
don't think that is anything like enough.  As I said, my cat can do that (for example by 
miaowing outside my window at 3am).  Qualifying as a god requires more than just existence.  
There must be other key properties.  Supernatural powers seems a promising avenue, to me.  
There may be better ones.

===== From Scott Oser:
> It seems to me that neither atheism or theism can be considered experimentally
> refutable.  If there is a God, then he, being omnipotent and a pain in the
> ass, could alter our experimental results any way he pleases without any of
> us being the wiser.  Thus, any experiment which refuted theism could just be
> God trying to throw us a curve.
I don't think omnipotence is a necessary qualification for being a god.  But isn't your 
argument circular here?  Doesn't god have to exist to "throw us a curve?"  What does it have 
to be to qualify as "god throwing us a curve?"

> Similarly, an experiment which refuted atheism (i.e. demonstrated the existence
> of a God) might be the work of some minor demi-god, powerful enough to confuse
> humans, but not being what we mean by "God".
I don't know what "god" means.  The Xian God seems to be totally ineffable, I don't know much 
about other ones.  One benefit of this experimental approach is that we might have something a 
bit more concrete at least as far as meanings of words go.

> Personally, I think one of the worst problems with theism is that any
> evidence you present against it is dismissed as (a) the work of Satan, or
> (b) God trying to test your faith.  With this sort of logic, theism is in
> principle irrefutable (which is NOT the same thing as being true!)
Agreed, but I'm not concerned with theism.

===== From Dave Hanley:
>   The fine point you seem to miss is that atheism, in the sense most users
> here use it IS NOT A BELIEF!  It is the LACK of one.  Therefore 'faith'
> hardly gets involved.  Even the 'strong' atheist viewpoint should not be
> classified such, because we can hardly be held responsible for every stupid
> theory out there...  If you don't beleive that there are taffita lampcoveres
> following you around, I'm hardly going to say that you are accepting that they
> do not exist on faith.  Ditto for god, thought I find the taffita lampcovers
> more likely, interesting, and amusing.
I think you are drawing a false distinction between a belief and a lack of a belief.  That is, 
I think you are distinguishing "I believe there is no god" from "I do not believe there is a 
god."  But I don't think there is a distinction.  Each seems to imply the other.  For example, 
what is the difference between "I believe there are no lampshades following me" implies "I do 
not believe there are any lampshades following me," and vice versa.  So they are equivalent.  
The only way I can see you might sustain your position is to say that an atheist takes the "I 
do not believe" stance and then refuses to make the mental deduction to the "I believe" 
position.  But that would be rather weak.
But I agree we are not responsible for every stupid theory out there!

===== General continuation.
It seems to me that atheists have *some* beliefs: mainly a belief in reasoned argument, 
logical thought, that sort of thing.  Calling this set of axioms or a set of working 
hypotheses is merely changing the name.  The idea of refutation depends on these beliefs, but 
that does not mean that they cannot be refuted.  If you were able to show, by reasoned 
argument, that any system of reasoned argument was self-contradictory, then you'd not be able 
to claim belief in reasoned argument alone.  You could, for example, allow yourself to believe 
several contradictory or meaningless things at once.
But this is not the original question: what experimental evidence would refute atheism?

-Norman
Newsgroups: alt.atheism,talk.religion.misc