Saturday, March 12, 2011

Just who are you trying to convince?

Seen recently in an argument: "Arguments for God are only convincing to theists!"

My thoughts: Well... I suppose they'd have to be, wouldn't they? Anyone persuaded by an argument for God's existence would be a theist, at least from that moment on. What's expected here? An argument for God's existence that atheists, remaining atheists, find compelling?

A similar problem pops up with a claim like this: "Science has solved every other question so far, so we have every reason to expect it to solve (problems X and Y)."

My thoughts: Okay. So except for all of the problems science hasn't solved, science has solved every problem it's encountered. What the hell are you talking about?

I suppose what someone may be going for is: "Lots of problems were considered unsolvable by science, but they ended up being solved." Of course, then I'd want to know just who considered these problems unsolvable. Making reference to vitalism won't work, since vitalism was a competing explanation. If vitalism turned out to be true, that would have just been another victory for science.

3 comments:

IlĂ­on said...

What you're getting at is that very few so-called atheists argue in good faith ... and, of the few who wouldn't themselves "argue" in this manner, fewer will explicitly argue against this sort of "reasoning."

Crude said...

Actually, if I'm getting at anything here it's this: The sort of atheists that have sprung up on the internet tend to be pretty slow. Not all of them, but I maintain that the main purpose of New Atheism was to get more idiots to be atheists.

cl said...

"My thoughts: Well... I suppose they'd have to be, wouldn't they? Anyone persuaded by an argument for God's existence would be a theist, at least from that moment on. What's expected here? An argument for God's existence that atheists, remaining atheists, find compelling?"

LOL! Classic. I never even noticed the silliness. Ah, language!