Evidence of faith

An atheist who questions the truth of atheism is ceasing to be a genuine atheist precisely to the extent that he is asking himself a genuine question.

That's a very ignorant sentence, written by someone who's ignorant of atheism. There are no "truths" of atheism; atheism is merely a freedom from faith, or, if you'd rather, a lack of belief. If one questions his or her lack of belief to the point of becoming a believer, one is no longer an atheist. Pretty simple, eh? In other words, atheism is the default position; it's neutral. Theism is the position that states unequivocally: There are one or more gods. An atheist is a person who does not accept that statement blindly, and will not accept it without the support of scientifically testable evidence.

So here's a genuine question: Do you have any scientific evidence whatsoever to offer in support of the proposition that there are one or more gods.

The Exterminator is being very generous by only finding fault with that one sentence. I can find several. Let's start with the first. Let's suppose for a moment Fish gets something that Dawkins doesn't. This makes Fish smarter? No. He might be, but judging relative intelligence based on one thing is, well, not very intelligent, unless judging intelligence wasn't the goal. If the goal was, however, to start right out of the gates making a character attack on Dawkins then I'd say very clever.

Skipping some lesser snarkiness in the opening lines, I'll go right to this - "Dawkins is a true believer". Believer in what exactly? Believer in the scientific method? A believer in the value of empirical evidence and experience to both know the world around us and make decisions about it? Believer in the value of a tasty confection to accompany his afternoon tea? What? Oh wait, I see. Later you write, "Dawkins, whose atheism is every bit as zealous as Augustine's Christianity..." Now I have to stop you right there. Do you know what atheism Mr. Campos? You're showing that you don't since atheism isn't something to believe in. Those things I listed earlier are things to believe in. Believe in the scientific method, believe in the value of empirical evidence and experience (which I'd argue we all do and rely on 24/7), believe in tasty sweets with your tea, but atheism? Atheism is a result of having those other beliefs (well not the desert belief necessarily). IF you require empirical evidence then the logical answer is to dismiss all claims, past and present, for the existence for gods, and THAT is atheism.

Now as for your later characterizations for what Dawkins or any atheist "must" do in light of your example of an angel visitation, I'll tell you exactly what any sane person should do:
• Recognize that this is something I can't immediately explain
• Try and examine it and gather whatever kind of data I can on it
• Try to verify this is actually happening by having others look and also examine this thing
THAT's the rational response. Without corroboration (ie - I was alone and only one witnessing the event), I would have to consider I'm at fault, especially without having gathered any data from the event. If I'm in a crowded room and I'm the only witness then I most certainly would lean towards thinking I'm at fault. But I have to ask you Mr. Campos, by what standard should I recognize this thing as an angel? Is there a definitive example in the bible, one that might exclude me from determining this angel is not a ghost, a fairy, a djin, a demon, or even a space alien? How would you sir be able to distinguish one from another if it were you having the experience?

And finally there's that sentence, the one the Exterminator pointed out. Obviously, as I've already pointed out, you don't know what atheism is because this sentence is nonsensical. Why?
1. Atheism is a position on an issue. It has no inherent truth.
2. Atheism is arrived at precisely by questioning, specifically, questioning the claims of the existence of gods; therefore, a "genuine" atheist not only questions his atheist position but does so perpetually and every time there is a new god claim made.
3. I don't know what constitutes a "genuine" question, but perhaps if you took some time to question more you wouldn't have written such an article that required me spending so much time correcting.

So your argument, basically, is that until Dawkins (or any of the rest of us, I'm guessing) decides to believe in God, we'll never be able to see the evidence for it's existence.

Remind me never to use you or any of your students as my lawyer.

It is this sort of obviously ridiculous thinking that makes me grateful I am no longer a theist.

Why doesn't Campos realise that the burden of proof lies on the person claiming that their particular god exists? It is up to them to say what the evidence is for the god hypothesis, not for the skeptic to limit the believer to a certain kind of evidence. If they have evidence we will examine it, if not then it is irrational of them to believe.

The author seriously mixes up scientific belief, i.e. based on evidence and personal and/or delusional belief, i.e. based solely on something IN YOUR OWN HEAD; please, show us the money, where is the evidence for your God sir?

Contrary to what this author claims, RD has said many times that if scientific evidence is presented to him (or anyone) that unequivocally supports the theistic viewpoint he would switch sides immediately, as would any rational (thinking) person.

I seriously can't believe this guy has a law degree, is "revelation" acceptable as evidence in courts these days..

It's very interesting that even religious believers apply "diligent scrutiny" to religious beliefs - other than their own. Christians (of whatever brand) are very skeptical of miracle claims by Hindus and Muslims, for example. "Liberal" (i.e. "mainstream") protestants are even quite skeptical of miracle claims by Catholics and Pentecostals.

Campos makes the familiar error of concluding that the consistent and persistent failure of religious believers to supply convincing evidence is proof that an atheist like Dawkins is too dogmatic to accept such unpresented evidence.

Augustine said, "For the pure and healthy internal eye, God is everywhere." I say, "The emperor has no clothes."

As a former evangelical of 25 years and a new atheist of one year, I can tell you that the "belief" in atheism is nothing like belief in Christianity.

To equate them is only trying to pin the problems of faith on those that don't buy it.

Show some evidence for your god, you can't so go on believing, but please don't drive any more planes into buildings

Trent, you may be interested in my theories why they try to do that:
http://youmademesayit.blogspot.com/2007/10/why-do-theists-want-atheism-called.html

"Now Dawkins will object that he, unlike the religious believer, is committed to the methods of "science," and will therefore change his mind when evidence refuting his beliefs appears -- but it just so happens none ever has."

What a coincidence. Surely, this must be proof that Dawkins is still refusing to face the abundant religious/subjective "evidence", not that there IS NO EVIDENCE. Kind of reminds me of UFO nuts who claim that the absence of evidence of UFOs is the proof of their existence, as it is all a great governmental conspiracy to hide said evidence. A priori, it's unfalsifiable. That's why the nature of the evidence is important in this debate, and no, the quality of this evidence is not the same on both sides.

"The striking naivete of this viewpoint becomes clear if one asks a simple question: What, for Dawkins, would constitute evidence of God's existence?"

The key here is OBJECTIVE EVIDENCE. Your introspective vision thing(TM) just won't do. Atheists the world over would become theists in an instant if the severed limbs of all amputees were to suddenly re-grow, just after the supreme space daddy in chief uttered some performative incantation, and shazam! Yup, that would to do it. We're not asking for much, I mean, considering that god is omnipotent, right?

Those damn scientists, with their objective evidence, capable of providing us with powerful scientific theories that possess great predictive power. It must really irritate the religiously bent to be so comparatively impotent. No objective facts or observations, no explanatory power, no predictive power, just a bunch of subjective non-existence.

And you're a lawyer? Teaching too?

Your statement, "An atheist who questions the truth of atheism is ceasing to be a genuine atheist" is stunning. It shows a complete misunderstanding of atheism.

"Genuine atheist"?

"The truth of atheism"?

Atheism is simply the absence of belief. Some atheists "believe" there are no gods. Some declare their certainty that there no gods. Some just have no belief and don't care. Some are open minded and welcome evidence for the existence of gods but until then do not believe.

There is no "truth of atheism". It's not a club or a movement. It's the absence of belief in a god. Nothiing else, necessarily. Orthodox Buddhists are atheists, for exmaple.

You are wrong to assume that atheists are committed to their nonbelief and are not capable of seeing evidence for gods.

I, for one, welcome any evidence. I am only loyal to truth and reality. If there are gods out there, I want to know about it. So far, however, it looks like we invented them all.

Have a nice day.

Guy P. Harrison, author of 50 Reasons People Give for Believing in a God (Prometheus Books)

"No believer will find his faith shaken by evidence that is evidence only in the light of assumptions he does not share and considers flatly wrong."

The difference between people who believe based upon faith and those who believe based upon evidence is starkly shown in that quotation. Religious history is filled with dogmatic individuals who stubbornly hold to their basic assumptions in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary. Scientists, on the otherhand, question underlying assumptions constantly and with verifyable contradictory evidence change their beliefs.

That's why science progresses and religion doesn't.

"In other words, atheism is the default position; it's neutral. Theism is the position that states unequivocally: There are one or more gods. An atheist is a person who does not accept that statement blindly, and will not accept it without the support of scientifically testable evidence."

"In other words, atheism is the default position; it's neutral. Theism is the position that states unequivocally: There are one or more gods. An atheist is a person who does not accept that statement blindly, and will not accept it without the support of scientifically testable evidence."

Atheism: 1. {a} Disbelief in or the denial of the existence God or Gods. {b} The doctrine that there is no God or gods. 2. Godlessness; immorality, reference, American Heritage College dictionary, third edition

Hey, idiot you want to tell me again how "atheism is the default position; it's neutral?"

It would appear that faith mongers remain unfazed by, and skeptical of, empirical and objective evidence, preferring to rely on mushy, introspective, delusional, placebo, and subjective hocus-pocus.

It would also appear that atheists are unable to adhere to blind belief in the supreme space daddy, thus preferring the reassuring coldness of the real world.

The two world-views seem incommensurable. But, depending on how you read the article by Campos, you may have concluded that this is just a case of epistemological relativism, à la postmodernism (i.e., crap, just google the "Sokal Affair"). I.e., one point of view is just as valuable as the other. This is a classic variation of "tu quoque," a case of "your point of view is no better than mine." It's similar to faith-heads accusing atheists of being just as "religious" and "fundamentalist" as they are, though not realizing they're bashing themselves in the process, not realizing that postmodernism is a priori self-defeating (infinite regress and solipsism lead nowhere, fast), and not realizing that it is false, as there is no faith-based (i.e., evidence-less) belief involved, nor any fundamental dogma to follow blindly. If demanding objectivity and empirical evidence is dogmatic and fundamentalist, then it's not just the atheists who are guilty, but the entire scientific enterprise.

On the other hand, skeptics, rationalists, agnostics, atheists, and adogmatists would love nothing better than to give into the la-la-land-esque pipe dream: their only concern is in ensuring that the introspective-vision-thing(TM) ACTUALLY works, or is ACTUALLY true. Short of effective common sense, the only game in town allowing these sophisticated theistic brainstorms to be differentiated from charlatan-esque delusions is science. Period.

Unfortunately for faith-heads, science is the only methodology that has, up until now, proven capable of marshalling humanity down fruitful avenues. Every time we fail, and I mean EVERY time, it's because of dogma, whether it's religious, political, sociological, or otherwise. The examples of atheism's failures given by faith-heads, i.e., Hitler, Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot, are actually excellent examples of out of control dogma.

I wish the religiously-minded, as well as Campos and Fish, would once and for all notice that secular humanists, skeptics, rationalists, agnostics, atheists, and adogmatists have nothing to do with these butchers. That their ideas are antithetical with the dogmas espoused by these socio/psychopaths:

Secular humanism, skepticism, rationalism, agnosticism, atheism, and adogmatism = No dogma

No dogma = No Hitler, no Stalin, no Mao, and no Pol Pot.

What does the religious experience have to offer? There's nothing in the religious enterprise, other than a few useful moral precepts that can be had elsewhere, is worth salvaging. Charity? That can be accomplished otherwise and IS being accomplished otherwise. Think of all the religious (i.e. dogmatic) things we could do without: the, Catholic Church acceleration of the AIDS epidemic in Africa, Catholic Church paedophilia and cover up all over the world, the Catholic-Protestant tensions in North Ireland, acceleration of the Rapture by the evangelical nut-jobs in the US and elsewhere, Zionism, the intifada, US indifference to global warming (religiously and commercially motivated, granted), conflicts in Iran, Irak, Afghanistan, Indonesia, Pakistan, India, Tibet, Sri Lanka, etc. Not to mention the countless genocide that took place throughout human history.

Let's get real.

Next time you go to the pharmacist for a prescription ask for something he/she 'has faith' will work. See how far you get in life when you live thinking what you believe is just as good as evidence and real knowledge. Oh, and say 'hi' to Santa Claus for me.

Well, he should be embarrassed. He forgot to check with your dictionary before he decided what he does or doesn't believe in. By the way, if you're a Christian, here's what my dictionary says:

Christian n. pl. Christians, Christers, Christaceans 1. A believer in nonsense; 2. A theocrat; 3. A follower of power-hungry scoundrels who have deluded an ignorant public for nearly 2,000 years; 4. such a scoundrel; 5. a member of the ignorant public deluded by such a scoundrel. Reference: Made-Up Dictionary of the English Language, edition 1.2

The dictionary's definition 2 is incorrect. Atheism is not immoral because many atheists adhere to a moral code. Also, atheists are not necessarily godless because if god does indeed exist then no one is godless, including atheists, and if god does not exist then all are godless, including believers. So, the American Heritage dictionary requires an update in the 4th edition.

I have to say that I must agree with your implication that atheism is not the default condition. Because humans are social animals we are predisposed to accept that: others exist even though we haven't met them, we exist within a hierarchy, and rules exist that we must follow for life to go on. God is simply an extension of our genetics. Therefore, I think that religion is our default. Atheism and agnostism is progress.

Interesting discussion...

This is a reply to Jeffery1.

I must respectfully disagree with most of what you've said.

You say, "atheists are not necessarily godless because if god does indeed exist then no one is godless, including atheists, and if god does not exist then all are godless, including believers..."

This I must disagree with because whether or not there is a god it doesn't matter. There is no evidence for one, and godless is just a label saying that person lacks any beliefs in any gods. I do see where you're coming from, but I don't agree with your conclusion.

You also said, "I have to say that I must agree with your implication that atheism is not the default condition."

I don't agree with this because everyone is born an atheist; religion must be taught. If someone wasn't taught, would someone remain an atheist? I think that's an interesting question and I think they very well might. However, there seems to be some evidence showing some kind of evolutionary adaptation which makes humans prone to the beliefs that we call religion. But to say it's a "default position" I'd say is a mistake. If that were so, people would come out of the womb with a belief in some god. But obviously this isn't the case.

Thanks.