Critiquing: When Atheists Say, “That’s Not Evidence”

March 13, 2023 | #STRask – Stand to Reason

Key Points: Evidence Standards — Free Will Debate — Logical Coherence — Cognitive Biases — Claims and Substantiation

---

Introduction

The content “When Atheists Say, ‘That’s Not Evidence’” attempts to address common atheist criticisms regarding the nature of evidence and the concept of free will in religious contexts. The critique will focus on logical coherence, identifying fallacies and biases, unsubstantiated claims, and the importance of mapping belief to evidence.

Logical Inconsistencies and Cognitive Biases

Misunderstanding Evidence

The content begins with a discussion on evidence, arguing that atheists reject evidence not because it lacks merit but due to an unwillingness to consider views contrary to their own. This assertion commits the straw man fallacy, misrepresenting atheists’ positions to easily refute them.

“I’m not surprised and because what it displays… is just an unwillingness to countenance realistically and honestly, the countenance of view contrary to theirs.”

The content does not adequately address why the evidence presented may be seen as insufficient or irrelevant by skeptics. The failure to distinguish between mere assertion and substantiated evidence weakens the argument.

Equivocation on Free Will

The discussion on free will and the consequences of rejecting God involves equivocation between freedom of choice and the inevitability of consequences.

“A person is what the question presumes is, it’s not really free for me unless there are no consequences for me to choose.”

Here, the argument conflates freedom with the absence of consequences, which is misleading. Freedom entails making choices, but the presence of severe, unavoidable consequences (such as eternal damnation) arguably coerces the choice, thus undermining genuine freedom.

Unsubstantiated and Dubious Claims

Default Position of Atheism

The content criticizes atheists for treating atheism as a default position without evidence, suggesting that atheism inherently requires evidence.

“They think it’s the default position, but any of that, what were you going to say? I’m sorry. No, I was saying that’s not how they treat their atheism either.”

This claim ignores the principle that the burden of proof lies with those making a positive claim. Atheism, defined as a lack of belief in deities, does not posit a new entity requiring evidence but rather a rejection of insufficient claims about the supernatural.

Hell and Free Will

The explanation of hell and free will presents a logical contradiction by asserting that people have free will to choose or reject God while simultaneously facing eternal punishment for making the “wrong” choice.

“Why can’t I choose not to have free will then? It’s like setting up a challenge for my kids. I know most will fail with eternal consequences.”

This statement illustrates a false dichotomy: the choice is not genuinely free if one option leads to eternal torment. True free will would imply that choices are made without coercive threats.

Need for Substantiation and Mapping Belief to Evidence

Lack of Empirical Support

Many claims made in the content lack empirical support and rely heavily on anecdotal or analogical reasoning.

“If God would write my name in the sky while I’m standing there looking there, if you come and stand in front of me and say, I exist. I mean, it’s a ridiculous standard.”

Dismissing the need for empirical evidence as “ridiculous” does not substantiate the claims made. Rather, it highlights a reluctance to engage with evidence-based reasoning.

Testing Alleged Promises

To assess the validity of religious claims, particularly those involving alleged promises of God, it is crucial to propose testable methods.

“And as one wag put it, if God stood in front of you, you wouldn’t go to God, you would go to a psychiatrist.”

This hyperbolic dismissal prevents meaningful engagement with the concept of evidence and testability. Proposing controlled studies or examining historical instances where divine intervention is claimed could provide a basis for assessment.

Logical Fallacies

Ad Hominem and Appeal to Ridicule

The content frequently employs ad hominem attacks and appeal to ridicule, which undermine its logical coherence.

“The problem here is psychologically, volitionally, an unwillingness to acknowledge any evidence against their view.”

“As one wag put it, if God stood in front of you, you wouldn’t go to God, you would go to a psychiatrist.”

These statements attack the character of skeptics rather than addressing their arguments, reducing the credibility of the position presented.

False Analogy

The analogy comparing religious belief to criminal justice and dietary choices is flawed.

“You can choose to eat poorly. And then you get fat. Oh, that wasn’t my free choice because I never wanted to get fat.”

This comparison oversimplifies complex theological and existential choices, failing to capture the nuances of belief, coercion, and consequence.

Conclusion

The content “When Atheists Say, ‘That’s Not Evidence’” by #STRask demonstrates several logical inconsistencies, cognitive biases, and unsubstantiated claims. Addressing these issues requires a rigorous approach to evidence, clarity in defining terms, and an understanding of logical principles. By mapping one’s degree of belief to the degree of available evidence and proposing testable methods for religious claims, a more coherent and compelling argument can be made.

---

Feel free to discuss these arguments further in the comments section.