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"
Seth, seth, seth
“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.”
I don’t know if you are being deliberately obtuse or sarcastic here.
According to your logic, we should still believe the sun revolves around the Earth because any other conclusion derived from new evidence is merely “zealotry”?
Modern science’s conclusions are correct because there is evidence to support such a conclusion.
Why would one hold dear to conclusions that newly discovered evidence proves false?
You are really letting your religious colors show here.
I wasn’t advocating believing things there is good evidence against believing (and no – God doesn’t fall into that category).
I was simply stating that science is always changing in its conclusions. When you become dogmatic about modern scientific conclusions and assume that your modern science tells you everything you need to know – then you’re basically a zealot.
Responsible scientists are constantly talking about how much we don’t know, and how much modern science cannot know about the world right now.
It’s only atheist zealots yammering on about how science has closed the book on possibilities or how science has ruled out the religious experience (when it clearly hasn’t).
“It’s only atheist zealots yammering on about how science has closed the book on possibilities or how science has ruled out the religious experience (when it clearly hasn’t).”
Please provide specific references to the above that have been made by Dawkins, Dennett, Harris or Hitchens.
I see no reason to limit it to them. Besides Dawkins usually tries to add a slimy little disclaimer about how “of course we haven’t ruled out God” but then goes on to make statements that he’s pretty much as certain of God’s non-existence as he is about anything in life. It’s a two-faced routine you hear all the time in atheist screech-forums. I encounter it regularly.
Oh, an article of interest on how atheists interface with science:
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn23667-atheists-turn-to-science-during-times-of-stress.html
Sure looks like a replacement for religion to me.
“I see no reason to limit it to them. ”
Not limiting, they’re just the most vocal and publicly accessible. If there’s evidence of what you claim then they should be the easiest to point to. The fact that you haven’t illuminates the emptiness of your claim.
“Sure looks like a replacement for religion to me.”
I see what you’re doing. So if I were to say I don’t have a subscription to cable TV you would reply: “You’re merely subscribing to a different *kind* of cable TV”
Trying to use the “atheism is merely absence of belief” argument maroon?
“I wasn’t advocating believing things there is good evidence against believing (and no – God doesn’t fall into that category).”
One does not “believe” in something because there is lack of evidence against it.
Nowhere in our everyday life is such logic applied. It is only religion that gets a pass.
People are zealous about the scientific PROCESS, not the conclusions. Please understand the difference. The process of finding the answer is the rub between science and religion.
And the process of learning demands that previous understandings and notions must be reevaluated. To imply that somehow this very natural process is flawed is completely ignoring any experiences you’ve had with gaining knowledge
(e.g., hopefully when you went through the very scientific process of determining if water is hot or not, you did not continue to burn yourself. That is: taking a hypothesis about the water temperature, observing and gathering evidence about the water temp via touch (that is testable), and reevaluating your conclusions as the evidence changed)
“Responsible scientists are constantly talking about how much we don’t know, and how much modern science cannot know about the world right now.”
And how, exactly, does that lead one to religion? A natural flow would lead one to try harder in science, not give up and accept religion because is answers everything with “god made it”.
Actually “this sort of logic” is applied pretty much everywhere in normal life.
Scientific discipline is one of the rare areas where it is not. Everywhere else, people pretty much act on personal experience and intuition for the VAST majority of their day-to-day decisions and interactions.
Interesting argument about functional entities and not Gods.
Okay, why then do you not believe in the God who created the Universe as per Hindu belief – Lord Bramha? Not only that, Hinduism says this is not the only Universe. There have been many Universes before and will be after.
The “Holy Trinity in Hinduism” – Brahma the creator, Vishnu the maintainer or preserver, and Shiva the destroyer or transformer. Vishnu (the maintainer, NOT Brahma the Creator) is the all-pervading essence of all beings, the master of — and beyond — the past, present and future, the creator and destroyer of all existences, one who supports, preserves, sustains and governs the universe and originates and develops all elements within.
The Hymn of Creation in the Rig Veda has this to say — and is proof of agnostic view of Creation in Hinduism (look for Nasadiya Sukta online) since about 1500 BC:
—
Then even nothingness was not, nor existence,
There was no air then, nor the heavens beyond it.
What covered it? Where was it? In whose keeping
Was there then cosmic water, in depths unfathomed?
Then there was neither death nor immortality
nor was there then the torch of night and day.
The One breathed windlessly and self-sustaining.
There was that One then, and there was no other.
In the beginning desire descended on it –
that was the primal seed, born of the mind.
The sages who have searched their hearts with wisdom
know that which is is kin to that which is not.
But, after all, who knows, and who can say
Whence it all came, and how creation happened?
the Gods themselves are later than creation,
so who knows truly whence it has arisen?
Whence all creation had its origin,
He, whether he fashioned it or whether he did not,
He, who surveys it all from highest heaven,
He knows – or maybe even He does not know.
—
By this logic, even the Holy Trinity is not beyond Him.. and who is He?
And what would you believe in if you were born in India? 🙂
I don’t necessarily have to have faith to sit down in a chair and hope that it doesn’t break, i just HOPE it doesn’t break. i have no faith that it won’t because i consider the possibility that it might break but i weigh in the fact that because it isn’t slouched or old looking that it more than likely won’t break, in addition i’m probably choosing to sit down because i’m at a restaurant and i would like to sit down.
2013 and this is still a valid conversation? If the bible is the best anyone can come up with as an argument (let alone proof) for a god, then I fail to see why anyone would consider it. There are seven books about Harry Potter, should I start a religion? It appears to me that there are way too many arguments based on the definitions of words, so until we all agree on the definitions, what chance is there of an intelligent discussion on the subject? I believe in nothing: it’s the most abundant thing in the universe!
A conversation you obviously didn’t read Bertram – since I already addressed the comparison to make-believe things waaaay up in the discussion.
You missed the point of the quote…I do not reject your god for the same reason you reject the others, I reject yours because you reject all the others, and all the others reject each other without reason. You do not reject with reason, I do, that is why I reject yours, for a good reason, not the same stupid reason all religions use to reject eachother…get it? I know it’s a little deep and intellectual, but when you understand why any and every religion requires you to reject all other religions, you’ll understand my completely different reason for rejecting religion in general, and you’ll probably do likewise. It’s a subtle jab, and a left handed argument.
Having read through the majority of these posts, with their pseudo academic pomposity and literary masturbation, one cannot help but observe the over complication of what is a simple observation – the modern day theist has one god , not many, and has disregarded all other gods. The atheist is merely making the point that there is no “supernatural being” -all candidates have been dismissed in their mind. That being quoted is a statement, not in fact an argument as positioned in the post. Indeed it is a position that cannot really be argued with, as the individual is not inviting discussion, rather is stating a belief…and that is something the religious amongst are surely familiar with, particularly when rooting for your own tribal agendas in the complexities of Judaeoislamic theologies…
“pseudo academic pomposity”
Which is basically code for “you’re making my simple head hurt with all your educated arguments and big words and logical conclusions – whimper.”
But aside from that, I really don’t know why atheists are so stinking proud of having a self-described non-position.
As if that was some sort of achievement rather than a sign of being intellectually gutless.
“Did these people really suddenly believe Caeser was a god?”
Caesar never deified himself. An emperor declaring themselves a God before death was usually considered a crazy act even in Roman times, and most of the ones who did so (Caligula) were considered tyrants.
“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.””
Fun fact, the word “Deus”, which is the word for God in most Romantic languages, and in Greek, was in fact etymologically derived from “Zeus”. So, yeah, Zeus isn’t a God in a really sense, he was just the etymological root of God.
“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.”
You do realize that the person who created the argument you’re using, Plato, was a pagan polytheist, don’t you? Somewhat absurd to use the argument against polytheism when the person who created the argument itself was a polytheist.
” 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. ”
“Allah” is just the Arabic word for “Yahweh”, as “God” is the English word for “Yahweh” and “Deus” is the word for “Yahweh” in Romance and Hellenistic languages. Arab Christians in the middle east refer to God by the word “Allah”, as they have no other word for him.
Tooth Fairies end “other gods” didn´t create the universe
I don’t believe in God. I accept science as fact. Not a belief. Therefore, non-theist. I also try not to call myself atheist because a – theism, means I accept your premise and then deny it. I don’t accept the premise, therefore there is no theism to deny. 🙂
This is laughable and intellectually dishonest on multiple levels. There are staggeringly few religious anthropologists who would accept your position here.
A) There were indeed believed to be supreme gods or creator gods. Brahman, Ahura Mazda, Sikhism’s Ek, and numerous other pantheistic faiths match Christianity. Even the Akhenaten idea of monotheism is comparable. Christian apologists never even bother trying to explain why their rendition of God is more intelligible than other monotheistic or pantheistic conceptions.
B) People sincerely worshiped every god you mentioned. We have odes to them, altars and shrines. Socrates talks extensively about the need for piety to the Greek gods in ways that any modern Christian can understand. There is nothing incoherent about believing, as most polytheistic faiths did, in an account of creation where one or another god makes everything and then others take over for management and rule. An omnipotent and monotheistic god is no more rational than any other religion, especially when you graft on silliness like it creating a son to help it forgive humanity, armies of angels, Cherubim thrones, creating angels that rebel, etc. etc.
This article in no way, diminishes the sentiment. This not is was the statement limited to polytheistic religions/dieties. You have no more evidence of your god than the thousands or other religions. That’s it