Theism and Atheism: Where is the Gap?

Today I will argue that although for me classical theism (belief in Omni-God) is an extreme, absurd view, it should not be considered so extreme by many atheists.

I consider classical theism an extreme view because it almost always insists on using methods of truth-seeking that could not have been disproven more thoroughly so far. For example:

Authoritative texts

Content-rich, subjective “experiences” of deep metaphysical truths, moral truths, and invisible beings

“Faith,” which for many believers is described as a virtue that means “strong, unwavering belief in the absence of evidence”

Trusting witnesses and authorities from one’s own traditions but not from competing traditions

It could have been the case that we lived in a universe where such methods worked. But that thesis has been thoroughly disproven by history. We do not live in that world. We live in a world where these methods have done nothing but fail for thousands of years. They work as poorly as seeking oil with a divining rod.

That’s why classical theism is an extreme view for me.

But should other atheists consider it such an extreme view? Perhaps not.

Why?

Because many atheists accept some of these methods of truth-seeking so that they can “support” their own views, but reject these methods when they end up “supporting” classical theism.

Here’s what I have in mind:

If you believe you have direct access to content-rich moral truths through basic intuition, then what, exactly, is your complaint about the Christian who knows that Jesus saves through basic intuition? Jesus may not fit your intuitions, but trust me – they fit the Christian’s intuitions.

If you believe you can reliably test metaphysical theories by running a thought experiment through your head and recording whether it feels plausible or implausible, possible or impossible, then what, exactly, is your complaint about the Christian who runs certain thought experiments through his head and feels that “God is a necessary being” is plausible?

If you believe you have libertarian free will because your inner experience of free will trumps the scientific data for you, then what, exactly, is your complaint about the Christian whose inner experience of God trumps the scientific data for him?

I’m not saying all atheists hold to these apparent double standards, but many do. The first two, in particular, are even widely held by atheistic philosophers, even by self-described “naturalist” philosophers. The first two are often held by scientists, too. So you’re “in good company” if you hold to these double standards, but that doesn’t wish away the double standard.

I think people who embrace such positions are not respecting our true epistemic condition as homo sapiens. Such people are not naturalist enough.

Atheists often say the main difference between atheism and theism is about our paths to knowledge. It’s an epistemological difference, they say.

When I so often encounter the double standards above, I’m not so sure.

And the reason for this is not hard to discern. Theists and atheists share the same evolutionary history, and therefore the same cognitive biases. So without rigorous training against our natural inclinations, we all use roughly the same methods of truth-seeking, no matter how badly they fail. Then we simply assert that these methods support our position rather than their position: they support ethical intuitionism but not classical theism, for example.

It is deeply un-human to admit that “inner feeling epistemology” fails, and few of us do it in practice, even when we try.