A Passage from MIT Engineering Professor Thomas Sheridan's Book, 'Respectful Atheism' (believe, reject)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
There are three Barnes & Noble locations in the Buffalo area. Pre-pandemic, I frequented a location near the University at Buffalo, going there on a near-daily basis. The near-UB location has easily the most extensive philosophy section of the three. Since 2021, I've been a regular at a different location, and have had to make do with an inferior philosophy selection. So I've mostly read material from other sections. Today, however, I'm back to my original B&N stomping grounds. Because of the change of venue, I was able to pick up a book I've never before seen or heard of, 'Respectful Atheism' by Thomas Sheridan. Published in 2021, the book was apparently partially inspired by a continuing education course of the same title that Sheridan taught at Tufts sometime (or sometimes, rather--he apparently led the course for multiple sessions) during the 2015-2020 timespan. I found the following passage from the introduction worth sharing:
'Consider a report by Lee Billings in Scientific American in March 2019, quoting a Dartmouth physicist named Marcelo Gleiser, who just won the Templeton Prize. This prize is an annual award of the John Templeton Foundation, which promotes the idea that religion and science are fully compatible (I will have more to say on that controversial issue later).
[Gleiser]: "To me, science is one way of connecting with the mystery of existence. And if you think of it that way, the mystery of existence is something that we have wondered about ever since people began asking questions about who we are and where we came from. So while those questions are now part of scientific research, they are much, much older than science....As a theoretical physicist and also someone who spends time out in the mountains, this sort of questioning offers a deeply spiritual connection with the world, through my mind and through my body. Einstein would have said the same thing, I think, with his cosmic religious feeling....I believe we should take a much humbler approach to knowledge, in the sense that if you look carefully at how science works, you'll see that, yes, it is wonderful--magnificent!--but it has limits. And we have to understand and respect those limits. And by doing that, by understanding how science advances, science really becomes a deeply spiritual connection with the mysterious, about all the things we don't know. So that's one answer to your question. And that has nothing to do with organized religion, obviously, but it does inform my position against atheism. I consider myself an agnostic....
I honestly think atheism is inconsistent with the scientific method. What I mean by that is, what is atheism? It's a statement, a categorical statement, that expresses belief in nonbelief: Namely, 'I don't believe, even though I have no evidence for or against, simply I don't believe.' Period. It's a declaration. But in science we don't really do declarations. We say, 'Okay. You can have a hypothesis; you have to have some evidence against or for that.' And so an agnostic would say, 'Look, I have no evidence for God or any kind of god. What god, first of all? The Maori gods, or the Jewish or Christian or Muslim God? Which god is that?' But on the other hand, an agnostic would acknowledge no right to make a final statement about something he or she doesn't know about. The absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence, and all that. This positions me very much against all the 'new atheist' guys--even though I want my message to be respectful of people's beliefs and reasoning, which might be community-based, or dignity-based, and so on."
Gleiser makes a beautiful statement; however, I would take issue with his use of the word "atheist" and whether atheism is inconsistent with the scientific method. He is quite correct that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. In other words, one cannot logically prove that there is no God, even though no evidence, credible in a scientific sense (more on that later), has ever shown up. And, as Dawkins has maintained, if any such evidence were to appear, it would turn all of science upside down. In the same manner, one cannot prove that there is no pink unicorn or tooth fairy somewhere. So if one wants to argue that being an atheist means 100 percent certainty that no evidence could ever possibly exist, then no one could legitimately use the term. In that extremist sense, I would have to go along with him and claim to be an agnostic.
But it seems to me that if one is 99.9 percent certain that there is no God (of the type cited here, namely the traditional all-powerful, all-knowing, loving being who observes and cares for each individual person), then use of the term "atheist" seems to be entirely appropriate. After all, that is precisely the way that science claims to work: It employs inferential statistics, a null hypothesis. The null hypothesis is a statement or default position that there is no relationship between two measured phenomena or conditions (e.g. Nature exists and God exists), in which lack of relationship is assumed to be true until statistical evidence indicates otherwise. The physicists at the Large Hadron Collider in Geneva examined millions of particle collisions and finally had to reject the null hypothesis to "prove" that the Higgs boson existed. No such data have even been sufficient to reject the null hypothesis that God does not exist; therefore, I regard the term "atheist" to be appropriate for all commonsense uses where one is quite confident in one's disbelief and in keeping with the methods of science.'
I really like the framing of the matter in terms of the null hypothesis. It would be quite the trickster deity that made all components of the universe theoretically discoverable except for its own presence. But this logic is predicated on the idea that a god would in some sense be a part of this universe rather than completely removed from it. Drawing from science as Sheridan does, though, I think the issue of the potential existence of a god or gods is more analogous to the idea that a multiverse could exist. If our perceptual and intellectual tools are limited to making deductions and inductions within the confines of this universe, then strictly speaking, we must remain agnostic about the possibility of the existence of any extra-universal phenomena, gods or a multiversal universe-plex included. The logic of quantum physics may be such that universes should be theoretically birthable an infinite number of times...but we're still extrapolating from a [known, or knowable] sample size of one in that case. I remain open to being convinced otherwise on logical matters pertaining to our ability to 'rationally speculate' about the possible existence of extra-universal phenomena. Cheers.
PS: I obviously don't think Sheridan should have used 'God exists' as one of his two examples of 'measured phenomena or conditions', as that would fall into the alternative category of 'mere assertion'. The book seems to have suffered a bit from shoddy editing (in one paragraph not quoted here, he spells the surname of an anti-atheist author no less than three different ways), but the overall point made in the quoted passage is good enough to not be marred by such a minor error
Last edited by Matt Marcinkiewicz; 11-30-2023 at 10:07 AM..
This modern age we live in, it's hard to figure out
If there's anybody out there talkin' who has a clue what they're talkin' about
There's twisted trends and psychic friends and tabloid UFOs
The wisest man, the best laid plan might still say, I don't know
From there all I'll say that I don't know if there is a God...
But if there is one... it ain't the ones that have been trotted out in front of us thus far.
From there all I'll say that I don't know if there is a God...
But if there is one... it ain't the ones that have been trotted out in front of us thus far.
It's not that complicated. The null hypothesis stuff is basically an elaboration of the common (correct) contention that the burden of proof for god's existence is on theists, rather than having the burden of proof of god's nonexistence (an impossible task, logically) falling on atheists. The default attitude in science is to assume a lack of a relationship between two variables until proven otherwise. That's precisely the attitude he's suggesting we adopt between 'nature' and 'god'. I took issue with his characterization of 'god' as a 'measured phenomenon or condition', as it's more of an 'asserted and unmeasured force' than anything, but there's never been any reason to assume interaction between 'natural processes' on the one hand and 'any posited supernatural entity X' on the other. That's my best effort at clarifying his point. Then in my paragraph of commentary, I pointed out the possible limitations of such thought if we also assume the existence of extra-universal phenomena. If we assume that this universe is all that there is, then no such caveats apply. Basically, deism still seemingly has some breathing room, logically. Theists, on the other hand, have work to do, and there's no reason to believe they'll ever be able to complete the task.
PS: When you think about it, null hypothesis-style reasoning underpins our legal system as well. What is 'innocent until proven guilty' but 'there is no relationship between defendant X and crime Y'...until proven otherwise.
Last edited by Matt Marcinkiewicz; 11-30-2023 at 11:28 AM..
It's not that complicated. The null hypothesis stuff is basically an elaboration of the common (correct) contention that the burden of proof for god's existence is on theists, rather than having the burden of proof of god's nonexistence (an impossible task, logically) falling on atheists. The default attitude in science is to assume a lack of a relationship between two variables until proven otherwise. That's precisely the attitude he's suggesting we adopt between 'nature' and 'god'. I took issue with his characterization of 'god' as a 'measured phenomenon or condition', as it's more of an 'asserted and unmeasured force' than anything, but there's never been any reason to assume interaction between 'natural processes' on the one hand and 'any posited supernatural entity X' on the other. That's my best effort at clarifying his point. Then in my paragraph of commentary, I pointed out the possible limitations of such thought if we also assume the existence of extra-universal phenomena. If we assume that this universe is all that there is, then no such caveats apply. Basically, deism still seemingly has some breathing room, logically. Theists, on the other hand, have work to do, and there's no reason to believe they'll ever be able to complete the task.
1. I agree that deism is more logical than theism.
2. Although my background is science (geology), I don't need or use science to determine that I don't believe in god. I simply came to the point about 5 years ago that I realized I no longer believed, based on my own experiences.
3. And this is most important to me: you said that "Theists, on the other hand, have work to do, and there's no reason to believe they'll ever be able to complete the task". They are incapable of that task. When they talk to an atheist and just keep saying the same stuff the atheist has always heard...there's nothing there to make an atheist change his mind. Piling more of the same crap on top of the crap already there doesn't get them any further along in convincing non-believers. And I don't care how many times they say it. If I don't believe in Adam & Eve, or Noah's flood, or the resurrection...just telling those fables again won't change my mind. It's like watching Lucy stomping grapes...no matter how many reruns I watch of it...nothing changes. But beyond that, some of the most vocal proselytizers (and I mean right here on this forum) are the biggest failures at making any atheist be at all interested in reconsidering their position. The more some of them talk, the more I am convinced they have a lousy product to sell. And part of the reason is that they will excuse ANYTHING in the bible just because it's in the bible. Slavery...if it's in the bible, no problem. Violence against others...if it's in the bible, no problem. Well, such things ARE a problem, regardless of when they happened or where they happened.
1. I agree that deism is more logical than theism.
2. Although my background is science (geology), I don't need or use science to determine that I don't believe in god. I simply came to the point about 5 years ago that I realized I no longer believed, based on my own experiences.
3. And this is most important to me: you said that "Theists, on the other hand, have work to do, and there's no reason to believe they'll ever be able to complete the task". They are incapable of that task. When they talk to an atheist and just keep saying the same stuff the atheist has always heard...there's nothing there to make an atheist change his mind. Piling more of the same crap on top of the crap already there doesn't get them any further along in convincing non-believers. And I don't care how many times they say it. If I don't believe in Adam & Eve, or Noah's flood, or the resurrection...just telling those fables again won't change my mind. It's like watching Lucy stomping grapes...no matter how many reruns I watch of it...nothing changes. But beyond that, some of the most vocal proselytizers (and I mean right here on this forum) are the biggest failures at making any atheist be at all interested in reconsidering their position. The more some of them talk, the more I am convinced they have a lousy product to sell. And part of the reason is that they will excuse ANYTHING in the bible just because it's in the bible. Slavery...if it's in the bible, no problem. Violence against others...if it's in the bible, no problem. Well, such things ARE a problem, regardless of when they happened or where they happened.
This is neither here nor there, but, speaking of science...I like reading about psychology experiments that demonstrate the power of framing effects. Having people interact with a friendly stranger might make the experiment subjects more likely to take the mutually beneficial option in prisoner's dilemma-type situations for example. One of the strongest framing effects is that of adjusting the default; organ donation rates vary massively between countries, and it's based mostly on whether you have to opt in to donate or opt out to NOT donate. I think we could do something similar with our fellow atheists, in that I bet that professed rates of 'hard atheism' (actively professing disbelief in god) would increase significantly if primed with the right New Atheist rhetoric. Whereas 'soft atheism' (simply lacking belief in any god) could be perhaps promoted by passages more like that which I shared here or anything that might induce even brief reflections on the extent to which we simply do not know.
You haven't described what he means exactly by "respectful atheism". If he's talking about not being purposely abrasive and dismissive just because you like yourself some theist chew toys, I tend to agree with that. If he's talking about walking on eggshells to never challenge or wound the tender sensibilities that some theists exhibit, then not so much.
Theists have, by and large, grown accustomed over many centuries to un-earned deference and respect for often risible notions. In the marketplace of ideas, in other words, they have in a broad historical sense mostly gotten a free pass and lots of protection sometimes too (blasphemy laws, for one example).
Just because some theists feel threatened and attacked by simple disagreement cannot be my problem as an atheist.
You haven't described what he means exactly by "respectful atheism". If he's talking about not being purposely abrasive and dismissive just because you like yourself some theist chew toys, I tend to agree with that. If he's talking about walking on eggshells to never challenge or wound the tender sensibilities that some theists exhibit, then not so much.
Theists have, by and large, grown accustomed over many centuries to un-earned deference and respect for often risible notions. In the marketplace of ideas, in other words, they have in a broad historical sense mostly gotten a free pass and lots of protection sometimes too (blasphemy laws, for one example).
Just because some theists feel threatened and attacked by simple disagreement cannot be my problem as an atheist.
Excellent post.
All too many theists don't mind looking down on and speaking down to atheists, but whine when we are even a bit confrontational.
I honestly think atheism is inconsistent with the scientific method. What I mean by that is, what is atheism? It's a statement, a categorical statement, that expresses belief in nonbelief: Namely, 'I don't believe, even though I have no evidence for or against, simply I don't believe.' Period. It's a declaration. But in science we don't really do declarations.
Apart from anything else, scientists DO make declarations of sorts. They make declarations based on the best available evidence available at the time. Just because a scientist makes a declaration that may be true at the time, it doesn't mean it's not subject to change should new evidence come to light: ie evidence that supersedes the previous evidence.
For example, the once accepted steady state universe was superseded by the expanding universe model. For other examples, here's a fairly substantial list:
I declare myself an atheist. If new evidence comes along, convincing enough that a god exists, I'll declare myself a theist, no problem. Some people just seem determined that they don't want to use the word atheist. An atheist is someone who doesn't believe in the existence of god. That's it. There's nothing wrong with it and we don't need to avoid treading on eggshells to say it, any more that a theist needs to avoid using the word theist.
I declare myself an atheist. If new evidence comes along, convincing enough that a god exists, I'll declare myself a theist, no problem. Some people just seem determined that they don't want to use the word atheist. An atheist is someone who doesn't believe in the existence of god. That's it. There's nothing wrong with it and we don't need to avoid treading on eggshells to say it, any more that a theist needs to avoid using the word theist.
Very much in agreement.
What I think a lot of theists don't understand is that those of us who are atheists are, hopefully, as you express, open-minded. If and when evidence convinces me that there is a god, then I'll become a theist or a deist. But babbling on about the same old same old that I've heard since I was 8 is not going to do it.
The short version of Gleiser, he must ignore over 2000 years of science (it has never been a god did it); he either does not understand atheism, or is lying about it; he does not understand absence of evidence CAN be evidence of absence; but he likes mountains.
I do agree that many atheists simply do not believe, but my atheism is based on science, logic and mathematics. And I believe many atheists also use evidence, although it is often subconscious.
And when we turn his own arguments to a god hypothesis (something I find theists rarely do), we find his points are against theism, not atheism.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
