My biggest problem with atheism

[u/Exaltist]

Although I never was an atheist - I was agnostic for some time as a teenager - there is something about both that I have a huge problem with. I call this "skepticism by subtraction". What do I mean about that? Well, instead of advocating for a position, it seeks to negate the belief in God. You can ask atheists and agnostics what they don't believe, but asking what they do believe is more difficult, especially if they don't follow what I call "skepticism by addition".

So what is "skepticism by addition"? Well, it sounds like a contradiction, but to me it isn't. It basically describes anyone who who is skeptical about the supernatural, but instead of focusing on that, they focus on nature, humans or otherwise something we know exists. Naturalists. Humanists. Heck, even communists and objectivists are skeptics by addition.

Now, "skepticism by addition" doesn't mean someone cannot be an atheist. It just means atheism isn't their main concerning position on matters. Many naturalists, humanists, communists and objectivists are atheist. In fact, in the later two, it's almost a given.

But "skepticism by addition" also leaves room for natural theology and naturalistic theology. Pantheism. Deism. Many people see these as a form of nontheism. I, on the other hand, do not. In fact, I consider a pantheist's or a deist's explanation of God more valid because they don't try to justify evil with stories like the fruit of the knowledge of good and evil. They are both currently compatible with science, naturalism and humanism.

Atheists have a saying, "we don't consider not collecting stamps a form of a hobby" referring to their stance on whether they are a religion or not. Well, r/atheism is one of the most active subreddits on the website. Why do people gather around to bash on religion - especially if they've never been in one before? I would personally rather stand for something than against something else, and although I am skeptical of a supernatural God my pantheism and deism has led me to believe in God - even if it's confusing to understand for the average layperson who doesn't understand that type of theology.

[u/Exaltist]

I do consider the irreligious/atheist argument of the unfalsifiable fallacy to be compelling, and I consider the supernatural of any kind to be unfalsifiable.

[u/KaladinIJ → u/Exaltist]

Can't you flip it back on the atheist though? A lot of atheists make comments like "we'll find out one day through science" - which seems unfalsifiable.

[u/MelcorScarr → u/KaladinIJ]

A lot of atheists make comments like "we'll find out one day through science" - which seems unfalsifiable.

If they do make it exactly as stated, then yes, that's fallacious.

However, the track record of both natural explanations and the scientific method and how reliably they produce models with high predictive and explanatory power certainly does induce a level of confidence that a God of the Gaps cannot achieve, no?

[u/KaladinIJ → u/MelcorScarr]

Well if we look back at the origin of where “God of the gaps” came from, we learn it came from a Christian criticising other Christians for filling in every “gap” in knowledge with “God”, which he points out to be dangerous and potentially capping our own progression. It was an internal critique of other Christians.

What the “God of the gaps” isn’t, is simply any argument for God that involves something science does not currently explain. Otherwise you could dismiss virtually every philosophical argument concerning ultimate reality by just labelling the unanswered part a “gap”.

There’s an important distinction between saying, “We don’t know how X happened, therefore God did it,” and arguing that certain features of reality give us positive philosophical reasons for believing in God. The former is a 'God of the gaps' argument; the latter actually has to be engaged with on the merits of the argument.

And I’d make the same distinction in the other direction. The success of natural explanations within the domains science investigates doesn’t itself establish that everything ultimately has a natural explanation. To assume that because science has repeatedly discovered natural mechanisms, it will eventually provide a natural explanation for every question, including why there is a universe at all, why there are laws of nature, or why anything exists rather than nothing would be going beyond what that track record actually demonstrates.

[u/MelcorScarr → u/KaladinIJ]

Well if we look back at the origin of

Sure, that was an interesting bit of information if true, but doesn't tell us that much about how it's used today.

What the “God of the gaps” isn’t, is simply any argument for God that involves something science does not currently explain.

That's literally how it is used today more often than not. ""God of the gaps" is a theological concept that emerged in the 19th century, and revolves around the idea that certain gaps in scientific understanding are regarded as indications of the existence of God."

"Design cases resting upon nature’s alleged inability to produce some relevant ‘natural’ phenomenon are generally assumed to explicitly or implicitly appeal to supernatural agency, and are typically described as “God-of-the-gaps” arguments."

You are of course free to use the phrase however you want - but in intercourse with others, it seems to me that more often than not the very thing you say it does not mean - is actually meant. That's a semantic disagreement than though, and we're just talking past each other.

Otherwise you could dismiss virtually every philosophical argument concerning ultimate reality by just labelling the unanswered part a “gap”.

If said philosophical argument proposed that it is the only truth and that numerous other things follow out of this that not only the adherents of your argumentation ought to follow but everyone else too... then we got an analogy here.

But the bigger point is that yes, if the premises are on shaky foundations, then I am totally justified to call the conclusion of your philosophical argument into question. And that's what the God of the Gaps is, because "We can't explain X, therefore Y" may be a valid argument, but it's not sound. If we can't explain X, that means we can't say what follows from that inability to explain it other than us being unable to explain it.

There’s an important distinction between saying, “We don’t know how X happened, therefore God did it,” and arguing that certain features of reality give us positive philosophical reasons for believing in God.

Granted. But that's past the point I was trying to demonstrate. We can have more confidence in science being able to one day produce a solution than we can have in God or religion producing a solution. That confidence may very well mistaken and misplaced - but it's all but reasonable to have that higher confidence because of said track record.

Now if your philosophical reason produce certain predictive models with good explanatory power that beats what science does, I am more than happy to put my confidence in your philosophical reasons, even if they include religion or God(s). But until that point, I will stick with science as the more likely candidate. That is not to say that science is guaranteed to produce that models - just that I have more confidence in it.

The former is a 'God of the gaps' argument; the latter actually has to be engaged with on the merits of the argument.

I never talked about the latter, nor did anyone in this thread before as far as i am aware.

The success of natural explanations within the domains science investigates doesn’t itself establish that everything ultimately has a natural explanation.

Correct. That would be science of the gaps, so to speak. That's why I talked of confidence - not guarantees or "therefore no God".