Meanwhile, there’s a topic I want to address here, and the title of this entire thread has just launched it.
Why is it, that whenever those of us who paid attention in class, express doubts about fantastic assertions, the response to said doubts are inevitably cast in in terms taking the form of “Why do atheists do X”?
The response from mythology fanboys, almost never takes the form “Oh, I didn’t think of that”, or “Now that you mention it, that does seem implausible”, whenever their ridiculous assertions are dissected. instead, their ‘go to’ response is to try and represent proper scepticism as the product either of purported malice, purported discoursive deficiency, or the same brand of adherence to doctrinal assertions that we’re questioning in the first place, and to label this misrepresentation of our scepticism as “atheist”.
Er, no. Anyone with functioning neurons can, if they apply said neurons to an assertion, determine whether or not that assertion is absurd. We’re not wearing special “atheist goggles” when we perform the requisite examination, we’re simply applying the rules of proper discourse. But this projection of mythology fanboy ideological goggle wearing onto us, apart from being offensively duplicitous, is yet another indication of the failure of that approach.
At bottom, we know of two reliable methods of determining the status of an assertion. Namely:
One, is that assertion supported by observational data? This approach being taken within the physical sciences. If you’re going to take this route, then you had better spend time learning the same lessons as scientists, with respect to the proper treatment and analysis of observational data, instead of playing dishonest apologetics therewith.
Two, is that assertion supported by an error-free deduction within a properly constructed formal system? This approach is, of course, the approach taken within pure mathematics. If you’re going down that route, then you had better ensure that the only items you bring to the table are:
[1] Properly chosen relevant axioms or relevant previously established theorems;
[2] Reliable rules of inference to apply to the above.
Now with respect to axioms, I recently provided a lesson on the proper choice thereof in this post elsewhere. Failure to learn the lessons therein, and apply them, will result in said failure inviting the requisite attention here.
The point I’m making here,is that none of this requires one to be an atheist, it merely requires one to conduct discourse competently. Indeed, if not being an atheist handicaps you in this regard, it’s time to reconsider your position. But I digress. The point here is that plenty of people who weren’t atheists, were able to conduct discourse on all manner of topics, and in numerous cases produce ground-breaking advances in knowledge, because they exerted the diligent effort to apply the above tools to whatever assertions were being considered.
At this juncture, I admit that the above paragraph will come as an unheralded shock to those among the mythology fanboys, who made the mistake of inviting my withering scorn and derision. But they did so precisely because they exhibited a particularly insidious combination of incompetence and duplicity. Do not be surprised if behaving in the same manner leads to the same response from me.
Of course, I’m still going to hold the view, that treating unsupported mythological assertions uncritically as fact, constitutes a farce. I’m also going to expound, at every opportunity, the view that those doing so should abandon said farce with all haste. But I recognise that not everyone was given the opportunity to escape that farce. Accident of history or social background counts for much in this respect. Said circumstances didn’t stop Newton from developing a view of physics, that ultimately enjoyed the best part of 250 years of success, and can, upon proper analysis, be said to have been in part killed by that success. Nor did circumstance impede Darwin from revolutionising biology, or any of an entire panoply of figures, from Boyle through Lavoisier and Wöhler, from launching chemistry as a robust and successful scientific discipline.
If you have access to the requisite pedagogical tools, neither should circumstance impede you. Indeed, we now live in an age, where access thereto is made easy to a hitherto unprecedented extent by the Internet. Prior to which, access to, for example, peer reviewed scientific papers, required you to take out expensive journal subscriptions. Now, millions of those papers are available for free, and the only effort you need to expend, is a reasonably competent Google search, followed by a few mouse clicks. A similar level of availability holds for textbook type material, and indeed, I’ve been able to acquire some highly informative reading material via this very route.
And, once again … you don’t need to be an atheist to do this. You simply need to be a properly functioning human being, willing to exert a little effort.
So, can we once and for all, toss the constant irrelevant reference to “atheists”, with respect to the matter of learning the truth value of assertions?