A frequent premise used by nontheists regarding the issue of the existence of God...?

Question

(or, of course, gods)... is that something akin to the notion that objectivity is key to the issue. The most common argument I've seen put forth by agnostics and atheists, for example, is that there exists no empirical evidence of such a being.

Abrahamic theists - in particular Christians - on the other hand cite personal examples of such a being touching their lives. Such claims are sometimes attributed to lunacy by some in the first group. Even the labeling of something as "lunacy," though, necessarily imposes cultural norms on the classification - something that would presumably be looked down upon by objectivists.

My question is this: For those that reject the existence of a personal God on the basis of a lack of empirical evidence, why is your approach to this issue superior?

Some notes to the above so as to avoid filtering through personal attacks:

I am an agnostic - or an ignostic, perhaps.

The "God" I refer to above is not necessarily that of Christianity although that is promiment in my mind. Instead, nontheists of a variety of sorts often reject the notion of any sort of higher being on the above basis.

Some pantheists and panentheists may consider themselves "nontheists". If this applies to you, please note that; I'm very interested in where you come from on this.

No, I am not against empirical inquiry. In fact, I not only look to empiricism for answers, I am formally trained in the sciences and believe it to be a fruitful endeavor. Specifically, I hold a BS in physics and an MS in physics with specialization in cosmology/astrophysics. Indeed, as a result of my training I have come to question more science as a method of inquiry to truth rather than less.

Paul: Of course I am :D

... but not intentionally. Do your best, please, to try to read my thoughts through my words.

Answer 1

The evidence approach may not be superior, but notice that if you want to elevate the other approach to that level, you have thrown out the notions of truth and falsehood.

If merely making a claim is considered warrant for the truth of the claim, and the question of evidence adds nothing to the evaluation of the claim, then everything that anyone claims is equally "true".

That's a very Stalinistic world, and one that I'm not at all interested in living in.

Certainly the evidence-based approach includes untestable assumptions, but when you challenge an assumption, you have to look as well as what you're throwing away if you reject that assumption. In this case, you're throwing away everything of value: the notions of truth, falsehood, democracy, justice, human dignity, and just about everything else that anyone values - all just to save the notion that there is a god.

I suppose that this is why some religions teach that one must choose between god and the world.

Excellent question, by the way.
I didn't mean my response to be disrespectful in any way, and I appreciate that you were also careful in how you asked the question. This would be a much better forum if this were the level of discussion we routinely had here.

Answer 2

For clarity, the question is why do those who reject the existence of a personal God on the basis of lack of empirical evidence, believe their approach to this issue is superior?

Well, I certainly qualify as one who rejects the existence of God due to the profound lack of reliable evidence. I am well aware that Western Civilization, including Christianity and Islam, got off to a false start because Plato's Idealism and Aristotle's Solipsism turned out to be demonstrably false. The scientific revolution began about 1590, when Galileo's physics began to question Aristotle's unsubstantiated opinions. Newton's mechanics confirmed that the physical realm is the only legitimate basis for reality. No evidence has ever been discovered to support the assertion that one's subjective (perceptual) experience can be considered to actually exist. The reason the empirical approach is superior to superstition regarding the question of faith, is identical to the reason why science is superior to superstition, whenever attempting to discover truth -- physical evidence is part of the only reality which actually exists. Religious superstition assumes a person's subjective (perceptual) experience is part of reality, when actually such experience is nothing more than an illusion created by our own living brains.

Edit: "Earl D" -- actually this atheist scientist does reject much of string theory, precisely because it is largely a purely mathematical speculation which profoundly lacks creditable physical evidence, somewhat like religion. I also accept that the existence of intelligent life elsewhere in the universe is a virtual certainty, because the available physical evidence strongly suggests abiogenesis and evolution are both perfectly natural processes.

Answer 3

Just as some may summarize that religion is holding mankind back from evolving at the proper pace; the search for proof for other life forms or Gods existence may be just as strongly a motivation. Perhaps it is this very argument that provokes us on both sides just as equally. Just as wars have seemed too destructive they have also given us the motivation and tools for progress,peace and perfection.

Some people just love a good argument without requiring any actual facts to back them up.In a way; isn't this subject similar to gambling?

Answer 4

I would have to call myself a deist at this point, if I'm going to classify myself at all.
I look at empirical evidence and rule nothing out that hasn't shown that it is worthy of being ruled out. That includes the multitudinous theologies. Many belief systems have value, regardless of their explanations of the deity/ies.
I can accept the fact that I may never know "the truth," while allowing myself to examine what evidence I can.

Answer 5

why does this argument only ever apply to (mostly) the xian god

why aren't you saying that there's a possibility that thor, zeus, ra could exist even though there's no evidence of it

why aren't you saying that santa claus or the toothfairy can exist

Answer 6

Good question - but, it's the lack of any real proof that keeps me from belief. Until solid proof can be given, I'm under no obligation to believe in a myth.

Answer 7

If you think an empirical approach is superior, fine. I just think it makes more sense to use evidence versus the suggestive and undefined approach to believing in bronze-age goat-herder myths.

Answer 8

I think the question is framed quite nicely.

Atheists, by and large, don't just reject the God concept, but a lot of other issues such as psychic abilities, extra terrestrial life, out of body experiences.

They don't, by and large, reject science's leaps of faith like string theory.

They have a very unusual way of rationalizing things.

Answer 9

Labelling it as "lunacy" is probably excessive. But the fact is that personal feelings are subjective, so a person's personal feelings about the existence of a deity are not objective evidence. Something is either objective or it is not, and feelings are not.

Answer 10

A simple answer:
To deny a "Creator", is to deny ones own "Being".
As time passes for man, man will eventually feel the emptiness! This will stimulate within man a true need to "Know".

A thumbs down, gosh.... "Ignorance has a way of making its presence felt."

A closed mind, is such a waste!