Notes from the A2 conference – Atheism and Arguments for the non-existence of God

BBC Religion and Ethics websites

Atheism is a legitimate faith position therefore has to be open to challenges too.

A theist believes in a God with the classical attributes of omni…

An atheist does not believe the God of classical theism exists

An agnostic believes we have insufficient evidence on which to prove or disprove God’s existence.

The conviction of the theist or atheist is therefore based on intuition!!

Atheists and antitheists object to the effect of religious faith on human behaviour

Dawkins an antitheist suggests religious belief is no longer a satisfactory way of interpreting the world.

faith is a great cop-out, the excuse to avoid the need to think and to evaluate the evidence.’

The God of the O T is the most unpleasant character in all fiction.’ Dawkins

Are the reasons either for or against supported by the evidence?

Are they decisive?

Are the explanations of religion simpler than those of atheism?

Why do so many still believe in them?

If the arguments against God fail then by default God must exist.

Chatterton: it is up to believers to prove God not non-believers to prove he doesn’t exist. ‘It is impossible to prove a negative.’

Durkheim religion used to control society (functional)

Stunts growth as a species.

Dawkins: bringing up a child in a faith is child-abuse!! ‘poky little medieval universe.’

‘Religion leads to extremism, terror and violence.’

Hume: a non-moral God.

Freud: Religious faith is the result of unresolved childhood issues.

 

To conclude that God doesn’t exist is still a leap of faith.

Can atheism be empirically verified?

Swinburne: science is the complete explanation.

Notes from the A2 conference – Religious Language

What is it?

The language of worship and dogma

Description of god such as omnibenevolent

Descriptions of beliefs such as Second Coming, Judgment Day

Descriptions of concepts such as Sin, Grace, Atonement, Salvation

 

Problems

Human vocabulary inadequate

God removed from our experience so how do we talk sensibly about Him?

Is it meaningless to try?

 

Two types of language

Cognitive –realist – factual, true or false statements

Non-cognitive – anti-realist – not to be taken actually, but interpreted symbolically

 

How do we find out if this claim is true? ‘Jesus died for me.’

Try the verification principle – 3 types of statements analytic, mathematical, synthetic

 

Religious language tends to express fundamental truths hence myths

Symbols enable us to participate in a shared experience or belief e.g. baptism, marriage

 

Bultmann felt that to believe in modern science (the light bulb) and the Bible, was incompatible.

 

Braithwaite: religious language claims mean something to the adherent; they express ‘an intention to follow a certain code of behaviour.’

 

A J Ayer – talk of a soul is meaningless because it cannot be verified

Talk of religious experience is meaningless, no empirical verification.

But emotional, ethical ‘be good’ statements are not verifiable which would make them meaning less. Did man walk on the moon in 1969?

Hick- some religious language, particularly historical claims, could be verified

Falsification principle – Hick believes if potentially falsifiable it is meaningful.

Flew felt believers would never allow anything to count against their faith e.g. Job

RM Hare – blik meaningful to the person in the context and it affects their life

Hick’s story of the toys in the cupboard is presented as an example of the kind of assumption we take for granted, that toys do not get up and dance around our bedrooms at night.