Considering all of the conversations with atheists I have had recently, I thought I would bring back to light the fallacy of this common argument.
“I contend we are both atheists, I just believe in one less god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.” —Stephen F Roberts
This is a quote that is found often on the lips of atheists these days. It can be summed up this way: “I don’t have to take the time to reject Christ any more than you have to take the time to reject all the millions of gods that are out there. It just happens by default. The justification for my atheism is the same as yours with respect to your rejection of all the other possible gods.”
While I understand the spirit of this quote, I think it fails to understand some of the very basic beliefs that Christians are claiming about their God as opposed to “the other possible gods.”
I have heard my favorite atheist, Christopher Hitchens, compare belief in Jesus to belief in the Tooth Fairy or Santa Clause. This is really saying the same thing using different illustrations. But he also likes the “I don’t believe in other gods thing too.” As he once said, “No, I don’t believe in Yahweh. I don’t believe in Hercules either.”
As effective as these types of implicit appeals of association might be emotionally, they miss the mark completely. All assume a parallel that is simply not present when the claims are understood and the evidence is considered.
Take the “I don’t believe in Hercules” argument for example. This assumes a parallel between belief in Christ and a belief in any one of the millions of gods that have ever existed, especially those who belonged to a system of religion which espoused many gods (polytheism). These type of systems are represented by ancient Egyptian, Canaanite, Assyrian, Greek, and Roman cultures (as well as others today). There is really not too much difference between the basic philosophical structure of each.
There are two primary reasons why I believe drawing parallels between belief in these gods (or Tooth Fairies) are misleading:
1. The type of belief
Whether we are speaking of this from a political or rural position, the commitment to religious pantheonism (note: not “pantheism”), especially of the Egyptian, Greek, and Roman world, don’t have as committed adherents as we often think. The religious culture that Christianity demands needs to be distinguished here. People did not really believe in Shu, Nut, Hercules, Baal, Wearisomu, Enki, Utu, Diana, and the like in the same way that people believe in Yahweh. Their belief was more of a social convention which included all the pressures that such a system demanded. Their gods were more “faddish” than anything else. Their existence was rather fluid, changing and even morphing into other gods and sometimes moralistic ideals such as “justice” and “reason.” This is why the Caesers could so easily deify themselves and expect people to jump on the bandwagon. Did these people really suddenly believe Caeser was a god? If so, what does this say about the type of belief they had? Both in the philosophical world of the day and among the laity, “belief” as we think of it, was not present.
Don’t get me wrong. I know that we have “faddish” Christianity today where people follow the tide of the culture in believing in Christ the same way that people believed in these ancient gods. In this social folk religion, there is a parallel. But the basis for belief in these other gods was founded on social convention, not philosophical, rational, and historic necessity as is the case with Christianity. Christianity exists not because of rural pragmatism, but because of historic events.
2. The type of god
More importantly, the gods of these pantheons were/are not really gods in the proper sense. In order to call them such is a misunderstanding of what “god” means. In other words, they were functional deities who carried a role that was expedient to the life and happiness of the people. They were the gods of rain, sun, crops, war, fertility, and the like. They were the “go-to” immanent forces who had no transcendence or ultimate creative power. They were more like superheroes from the Justice League than gods. In this system, human beings and these gods shared the same type of life, having similar problems and frustrations. The deistic philosophy of the people did not center around a “universe” in which one god was controlling and holding all things together, but a “multiverse” where each god was responsible for his or her respective career. Therefore, these gods would have much more in common with the Tooth Fairy and Santa Clause than they would with the God that the Bible describes.
While most systems had a “top dog,” if you will (Zeus, Re, Enlil, Marduk, etc), these were not thought of as the ultimate creators of all things who, out of necessity, transcend space and time. They were simply really, really powerful beings that happened to be caught up in the same world we are. More powerful than us mortals? Yes. But none qualify for the title “God.”
Christianity believes in only one God (monotheism). We believe this not simply because we want to have the most powerful being out of the millions, but out of theological and philosophical necessity. We believe that God created all things out of nothing. We believe that existence necessitates a “first cause” or an “unmoved mover.” This first cause is by definition God. Simply put, whoever started it all (the time, space, matter creation) is the only true God. There cannot be multiple first causers. God, while able to interact and love mankind, must transcend all that we see and know. He must be outside of our universe holding it all together, not simply the most powerful actor in our current play. We are simply talking about two different species here. One that is transcendently holy, both ontologically (who he is in essence) and morally (what he does) and the other which is but a hair’s breath from us.
In the end, the theistic type of God espoused by Christianity cannot be compared to the pantheon of gods of polytheistic religions. It is comparing apples to oranges.
Let’s look at this statement again:
“I contend we are both atheists, I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.” —Stephen F Roberts
I understand perfectly why Stephen F Roberts and Christopher Hitchens reject all the other gods. It is because they reject polytheism. But I don’t understand how this parallels to the rejection of the Christian God. It is a slight of hand to make such a comparison (effective as it may be). People believe in these two completely different things for completely different reasons and, therefore, must reject the two differently. The same arguments used against these gods cannot be used effectively against the Christian God. Once polytheism as a worldview is rejected, all the millions of gods go with it. I don’t have to argue against each, one at a time.
My time is up, but I understand the much needed sequel. While there is a philosophical barrier that does not allow us to equate belief in the Christian God to belief in the myriad of gods in polytheistic systems, this does not mean that the Christian God cannot be compared to the god of Islam. However, if Stephen F Roberts would have said, “When you understand why you dismiss Allah, you will understand why I dismiss Yahweh,” then it would be philosophically correct. The comparison would be in tact and the conversation would not be manipulated into this accept-all-or-nothing resolve. However, it still would not make sense. I do reject Allah and my reasons are very specific. But they are not the same reasons why he rejects Christ.
274 replies to "Why the “I Just Believe in One Less God than You” Argument Does not Work"
“Alchemy was derived from evidence supporting a claim.”
You might want to read up on the history of alchemy before replying, lest you make yourself look even more foolish.
The reason alchemy withered was due directly to the rise of modern science.
That’s true of every scientific theory that has been disproven maroon. They were all displaced by the rise of more modern science.
Just like how a lot of the rational scientific ideas of our era will be displaced by what people 200 years from now will call “modern science.”
You seem to have this almost magical faith in the infallibility of the scientific theories and paradigms we have today. Hardly uncommon among atheists, I’ve found.
And I suppose by “read up on the history of alchemy” I suppose you meant I ought to spend ten minutes reading the Wikipedia entry like you did just now?
And I by “read up on the history of alchemy” I suppose you meant I ought to spend ten minutes reading the Wikipedia entry like you did just now?
“That’s true of every scientific theory that has been disproven maroon. They were all displaced by the rise of more modern science.”
Sorry, I mean specifically the Scientific Method.
Seth,
The magical faith in science is not of the theories, but of the process to get there. As you alluded to, the scientific method, the peer review, the critical and skeptical nature of science in general is what is important.
You are right, there are many brilliant scholars who study religion, manuscripts, ancient texts, etc…But none of them, not one, use a scientific approach. None of them, not one, publish their findings in scientific journals for critique.
The arrogance lies at the feet of religious scholars who somehow believe they can never be wrong.
Yes, the scientific method.
Which was used heavily in the study of alchemy. And has been used since in the pursuit of hundreds of theories that later turned out to be false.
They ought to teach a class in high school of failed scientific theories, to prevent the sort of short-sightedness you’ve been exhibiting in this discussion.
“Yes, the scientific method.
Which was used heavily in the study of alchemy.”
Wrong (again). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alchemy#The_decline_of_Western_alchemy
We learn more from our failures than our successes.
Constantly learning is human nature.
What is understood today is based on today’s knowledge. Not to be humble enough and flexible to redefine understanding based on new evidence is folly.
You have forgotten to mention all the scientific breakthroughs that have occurred by virtues of the scientific method.
Do you have a better method?
If you just read the first paragraph from the segment you linked to, you might get the impression that there wasn’t any experimental rigor in alchemy, but the rest of the passage makes it clear there wasn’t a strict dividing line. Alchemists performed experiments and took down results. The fact that they were relying on ancient lore to some extent should not be taken as a blanket-declaration that there was no scientific method used in it.
But thanks for confirming that it was indeed Wikipedia summaries you were getting your opinion from. Christopher Hitchens would be proud, no doubt.
“The fact that they were relying on ancient lore to some extent should not be taken as a blanket-declaration that there was no scientific method used in it.”
Sigh…looks like I need to direct you to yet another definition. This one for “Scientific Method”:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method
Alchemists weren’t following the Scientific Method. Were they doing *some* science? Sure, but *some* science no longer cuts it. It’s very unlikely one will get reviewed, much less published, by/in a peer-reviewed scientific journal unless one follows the Scientific Method in its entirety.
“But thanks for confirming that it was indeed Wikipedia summaries you were getting your opinion from.”
There are several books I could have pointed you to for the same information but given we’re having this conversation on the Web Wikipedia is much more convenient (and free!). Do you have something against Wikipedia?
I don’t follow the “Hitchens” remark…? Did he have some connection to Wikipedia, beyond just an entry?
Json, name me a religious scholar of note who has demonstrated he thinks he can never be wrong.
And you don’t really seem to understand what I’m saying. I’m not saying science isn’t nice and useful and all that. I’m just saying that when you turn it into a religion – and assert that modern science’s conclusions must be correct – as opposed to the scientific conclusions of previous generations – then you’ve left the path of objective inquiry and entered the realms of zealotry. Something you see an awful lot of over on Dawkins.net.
maroon, Hitchens openly admitted that he wrote most of his famous book based on “online research” and Wikipedia entries.
I imagine he was too stupid to even be embarrassed by the admission. He probably thought it was a selling point.
And yes – Wikipedia is a terrible source of information for any topic that has the potential to be ideologically manipulated. The user-generated review and editing process has resulted in a lot of articles that are biased, misleading, and outright false.
It’s fine for researching trivia about summaries of Buffy the Vampire Slayer episodes, and what the county seat of Bent County Colorado is, and so forth. But you’d be extremely foolish to rely on it for controversial historical topics.
Like the role of religion and science, for instance.
“It’s fine for researching trivia about summaries of Buffy the Vampire Slayer episodes, and what the county seat of Bent County Colorado is, and so forth. But you’d be extremely foolish to rely on it for controversial historical topics.
Like the role of religion and science, for instance.”
That you consider the history of science to be controversial is revealing. Had I known you were a Creationist I wouldn’t have wasted my time. Likewise your ignorance of the workings of Wikipedia.
Actually, I think creationism is stupid – and at odds with the actual message of the Bible.
I don’t believe the earth was created in six 24 hour time periods, or that human civilization is under 20 thousand years old, or that dinosaur bones came from another planet, or that Mt. Everest was covered with water during Noah’s flood, etc. etc.
Although, it’s a pretty typical Dawkins.net trick to try and divert the discussion with accusations of fundamentalism whenever the debate doesn’t go your way.
Just like how the New Atheists are always desperate to redefine religion as only the most narrow-minded fundamentalist subset possible.
Perhaps it’s because they feel more secure talking to people who think the same way they do…
I think he misinterpreted your statement in regard to the role of religion and science.
And here’s the wikipedia entry on the relationship of science and religion.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relationship_between_religion_and_science
It is anything but biased.
And to set the record straight on alchemy.
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/01/science/01alch.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0
Thank you for article. The author is a bit more a demagogue than I’d like in an unbiased article, but I think it makes the point I was trying to convey well enough. Alchemy involved and used empirical science and was a forerunner to the modern versions. Yes, they were wrong, but that didn’t make what they were doing irrational. I think the article highlights at least that much fairly well.
Oh, on Wikipedia:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2131458/Up-articles-Wikipedia-contain-factual-errors.html
And for a wonderful example of the Wikipedia editor process completely breaking down into hopelessly biased and un-objective spitting matches, see this article about how Mormonism has been treated by Wikipedia:
http://www.deseretnews.com/article/700105517/Wiki-Wars-In-battle-to-define-beliefs-Mormons-and-foes-wage-battle-on-Wikipedia.html?pg=all
Especially pay attention to the stuff about the editor “John Foxe.”
The bias isn’t really in the individual data points, but rather in how those data points are spun by the controlling editors to present a positive or negative picture.
For example, an article about a racist Bible doctrine I looked up a few years ago, devoted pages of content to Mormonism’s racist past. But it devoted no more than one freaking paragraph to Protestantism.
Just so happened that I had come fresh off studying Protestant racism in the United States and knew for a fact that the doctrine in question was heavily used by racist southern Protestants. What was going on?
I’ll tell you what was going on.
The editors had deliberately left out and blocked all content about Protestant racism while allowing reams of content about the Mormons. It was an attempt by an obviously pro-Protestant editor to turn Mormons into the whipping boy for American religious racism while hiding the ugly truth about white American Evangelicalism.
Unbiased my butt guys.
“…I think it makes the point I was trying to convey well enough. Alchemy involved and used empirical science and was a forerunner to the modern versions. Yes, they were wrong, but that didn’t make what they were doing irrational.”
It doesn’t?? Let me refresh your memory:
“Even though they were secretive and self-deluded and their practices closer to magic than modern scientific methods…”
“Yet on the whole, historians say, the widespread practice of alchemy impeded the rise of modern chemistry.”
“Other alchemists were outright charlatans or fools…”
“Newton’s alchemical bent was not out of character, Dr. Smith of Columbia said. ‘He was drawn to the occult,’ she said. ‘Gravity for him was an occult force, and so was alchemy as an explanation of how things transform into other things.'”
“They also remarked, somewhat conspiratorially, over parallels between the misguided certainties and self-delusion of alchemy and today’s political and religious attacks on modern science.”
Yeah, the author sounded, frankly, too pissed off and irrational during those little rants to be taken seriously. I simply read between the lines to the grudging admissions they were forced to make.
The fact that you can take angry, volatile language like that as even remotely objective and credible does not speak well to your ability to process historical data in a responsible manner.
Seth R.,
It is exactly like today’s modern religious scholars. Sure they look for evidences and go through trial and error experimentation. This does give a huge influence to the scientific method. Rational? No.
What is irrational about it? You look for evidence and go through trial and error.
Gee… sounds raving irrational to me [sarcasm].
Sorry I have been absent for a few days. The weekend is usually tough for me to get on and then my wife and I have been walking through a miscarriage since Sunday. So, some of my responses may jump around a bit as I have no desire to bicker about alchemy.
Maroon,
Your accepted definition denotes “especially” when talking about superhuman agency. As in, this is a particular example that is the largest case. The best part is that there is a comma separating clauses. So, you can take the first clause “A set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe” as the primary definition, then separate out the case as a particular example of when this is true, then go on to the final part with the and to give you (often) a moral code which I am sure you have. Further, I did not create the definition I sent you, I merely typed into Google “religion definition” to ensure I was using it correctly. You can try it and see it as definition number 2.
So, yes, you do have a religion, and one that you dogmatically defend with all the zeal of those of us who admit that we do.
I guess your comments about believing in Jesus would be best framed as, saving faith in Jesus. You would not have any more belief in Jesus than the demons quoted in James 2:19. I assume that you believe that Jesus was in fact a real person, but I don’t want to go too far down that trail until you clear that up.
As far as your confirmation at 14, that does not mean a great deal. You were 14, how many other things did you “firmly believe” that changed? I don’t think firmly is the correct adjective. Also, what evidence were you wanting? A video? Do you hold all antiquity documents to the same standards of authorial proof and accuracy? What constitutes “good evidence” in your mind? Where do you draw the line on historical events being actual? How much evidence do you need? Does it matter the source of the evidence, or frequency, or purpose?
Newenglandsun,
I know very little about the events and people you referenced, so I cannot say anything about those “missions”. I fully believe that the Spirit brings transformation, not us. You can walk with someone through their sin and point to Christ’s atoning work, but until the Spirit works on that part of their life no change will be made.
I would however like to discuss your comment about not clumping homosexuality and bisexuality with adultery and promiscuity. Why do you think that they should not be clumped together? That question is not meant to be offensive or insulting, just pleading for information before we continue our discussion.
Chad Douglass,
You asked:
“Why do you think that they should not be clumped together?”
Specifically because I know LGBT people and am bisexual myself. Heterosexuality is not clumped together with sexual promiscuity either. I am a virgin. I just happen to find men and women both attractive.
In addition, the gay people I know are no where near sexually promiscuous.
newenglandsun,
The common thing here is that these are all sexual behaviors. To what do you appeal to that determines which ones qualify as acceptable positive behaviors and which ones qualify as unacceptable negative behaviors? Also, we could each use anecdotes to discuss this, but to what do we appeal for ultimate authority?
I appeal to Scripture as the revealed will of God. I fully believe that 2 Timothy 3:16 is true. I believe sexuality is clearly governed by the revealed will of God in the Bible.
Chad Douglass,
Here’s where the disagreement lies – homosexuality, bisexuality, and heterosexuality are not behaviors, they are attractions. I appeal to common sense and the forces of self-control to tell whether something is wrong or not. For instance, it’s wrong to get too drunk because it can harm you. It’s wrong to have too much soda in one day because it can harm you. It’s wrong to score on as many girls and/or guys all day because that could lead to STD’s.
So when I look at homosexuality and bisexuality and whether or not to have sex with another of the same gender, I measure the situation and make the decision. Do I like the guy? Are we friends? Is he gay or bi? Etc. Sex is really an act of bonding.
Now, one major problem that I have when it comes to the gays vs. Christians debate is the issue of celibacy. You guys seem to indulge in trying to break up supportive gay couples it comes out to me at times. What if the two gays in a relationship proclaimed chastity and stopped having sex with each other? Would the gay love relationship become okay?
Okay, really two problems. Why disallow a gay couple the right to act on their desires as heterosexual couples get? If you want to appeal to scripture, we can discuss that too.
I love how the gay marriage debate manages to hijack every religion discussion on the Internet.
Can we get back remotely on topic?
“So, yes, you do have a religion…”
I guess you can sort of, kind of, get there, if you squint your eyes and cock your head to the side just a bit. But not really.
When someone asks “Do you belong to any religion?” they ask because most people understand it to be a “yes” or “no” question. By your definition there is only one answer, in which case the question is rendered meaningless. Rather, I think most people will agree that the term specifically takes a supernatural/devotional stance.
“I guess your comments about believing in Jesus would be best framed as, saving faith in Jesus. You would not have any more belief in Jesus than the demons quoted in…”
Based on what exactly are you able to determine the character of my faith?
I take it as given that Jesus existed, yes. I *used* to believe he was born of a virgin, right-hand-of-the-father, etc.
“What constitutes “good evidence” in your mind?”
I’ve just written a 21 word song lyric on a piece of paper. If you were to tell me that you asked god what I’d written, he told you, and you replied back here with the exact sentence, word-for-word, I would believe, and you would find me re-enlisting at the nearest parish tomorrow morning. I’ll give you a hint: the first word starts with a vowel.
“I’ve just written a 21 word song lyric on a piece of paper. If you were to tell me that you asked god what I’d written, he told you, and you replied back here with the exact sentence, word-for-word, I would believe, and you would find me re-enlisting at the nearest parish tomorrow morning.”
No you wouldn’t.
Just proving God exists doesn’t really count for much. So you’ve proved him. So what?
That doesn’t mean you admire him or want a relationship with him.
What if we proved the existence of God and he turned out to be a complete jerk – like “Q” in Star Trek or something? Would you worship him then?
This is something the atheists simply don’t get. It isn’t about proving God’s existence. That’s worthless, more or less. The point of Christianity is to have a good RELATIONSHIP with God. Even Satan himself can pull off the lame status of “I acknowledge the existence of God.”
But I’ve found over the years, if there’s one thing atheists are exceptionally good at – it’s settling for less.
So enjoy your pointless quest for intellectual assent maroon.
What enjoyment can be had of it anyway….
“No you wouldn’t.”
I would. I don’t know how to state it more clearly. And I would most certainly want a relationship with him and I would most definitely worship him and devote my life to him.
Why?
Because he is the Creator and through him I would find eternal salvation.
So what if he’s the creator?
What if he’s a monster?
I wouldn’t follow someone like that, no matter what goody-bags he was offering.
How do know you’re not following a monster?
Obviously you see where this is going and are trying to change the subject to avoid looking foolish.
Anyway – YOU don’t know whether he is a monster or not.
So why are you so willing to declare that you’d follow him if he exists?
“Obviously you see where this is going and are trying to change the subject to avoid looking foolish.”
To paraphrase The Bard: The gentlemen doth protest too much, methinks. 🙂
You going to answer the question or not?
“You going to answer the question or not?”
You haven’t yet answered my question. Or are you trying to avoid looking foolish? 🙂
I asked mine first. So it’s still your turn.
What if God was a monster – would you still follow him?
Your question was rhetorical. Re-read your post.
How do know you’re not following a monster?
This is actually a pretty typical ploy I encounter with some of the dumber atheists online.
They encounter a question they don’t want to answer. So they fire off a question of their own. Then when you ask them to answer the first question, they make noise about how you haven’t answered THEIR question.
It’s basically a method for covering up that they don’t want to answer the question.
(the irony is that I actually answered his question already – but he hasn’t been reading carefully enough to notice apparently)
You like to make lots of pejorative generalizations about your interlocutors when you find yourself in a corner. Curious that.
Why so afraid to answer the question? And why is it so important who answers first?
Please point me to the answer you apparently already gave. I confess I’m not as smart as you.
Your question actually isn’t that upsetting. I’m fine answering it later. I’m just not interested in treating it right now because I’m pretty sure you’re just using it to slip out of the argument we’ve been having so far so that you can get back onto more comfortable ground of atheist gripes about the “ugly god of the Bible” and other tired and worn patterns you are used to.
All the while leaving unanswered the rather crucial point of why you are willing to worship a being if he turns out to be a monster. Why would you want to do that?
I wouldn’t.
“All the while leaving unanswered the rather crucial point of why you are willing to worship a being if he turns out to be a monster.”
I wouldn’t be willing to.
Your turn: How do you know you’re not following a monster?
OK, if we could prove God’s existence to you, and he did turn out to be a monster, you would not be immediately heading to your nearest church to bend your knee, right?
That’s an important correction on what you said earlier. And it does demonstrate that merely proving the existence of God is not the only problem here – you have to also demonstrate that God is worth allegiance.
Now for your question – do I know God is not a monster?
No, I don’t. I believe he is not. I don’t know he is not. And I mentioned earlier that there wasn’t proof of the sort you are requesting available to demonstrate that he is not.
“No, I don’t. I believe he is not. I don’t know he is not.”
So clearly you believe it’s more probable that he’s not a monster, otherwise you wouldn’t follow him.
Sure.