Do atheists have better chances of knowing the truth about God?
- Thread starter wynn
- Start date
If there is a real, physical god with verifiable, valid evidence for that existence, then yes, Atheists are the ones most likely to find that evidence and accept it's validity, in large part because theists rarely look for such evidence and relying instead on apologetics and argument plus faith they already know something about god. The Atheist is seeing with fresh eyes, the theist is not.
Grumpy
Grumpy
I think you're missing the spirit of the question. It isn't about who would first discover a verifiable god, it's which group would have a better chance of knowing it. Basically, who's more likely to believe it?
As I said, scientists, rather than atheist or theist, as they are the most likely to understand the details of any such evidence. All else would merely be belief based on the authority of the scientists. No one, atheist or theist, who doesn't understand the details of any evidence can actually "know", but merely believe.
And among scientists, acceptance is likely to be fairly even between atheists and theists, as evidence can be demonstrated, which is the power of science.
But why would you assume the evidence would be something a layperson couldn't understand?
Yazata
Valued Senior Member
If the Judeo-Christian-Islamic derived word "God" lacks a reference, if the word doesn't correspond to anything in reality, then my answer is yes. The "truth about God" would be that God doesn't exist, which is what the atheists have been saying.
If the word does have a reference, if something corresponding to 'God' does exist out there, then my answer would be... probably not.
If the existing God has already been revealed in one of our theistic religions, then the answer obviously is no. To know that God, one would need to drop their atheism and accept the true religion.
If the existing god isn't captured, decribed or revealed in any of our theistic religions, then that suggests two questions:
1. Does belief in one of the theistic religions plant somebody so strongly in an incorrect understanding of God that a correct understanding becomes difficult or even impossible? Are people so filled with faith in their errors, that they can't even recognize that their beliefs are errors? And are they so greviously misconceiving God that a correct conception becomes too alien for them to grasp? If so, then maybe atheists would have an edge since they aren't starting with all of the preconceptions.
2. But on the other hand, is the means of knowing "the truth about God" ultimately through intuitive, mystical or some other unconventional non-sensory way of knowing? (Assuming that such ways even exist, which is obviously an open question.) Atheists already have plenty of preconceptions of their own, and if they end up bringing an inappropriate epistemology to the table, then they might conceivably be putting themselves at a serious disadvantage.
And finally, bottom line...
Obviously if somebody rules out the existence of something a-priori, then they are unlikely to ever become an active seeker after that thing, let alone be the one to find it.
Last edited:
If it were that simple, it would have been much more likely to have been found before now.
That isn't true at all. Our understanding of the universe isn't complete, but that doesn't mean there aren't simple answers to our difficult questions.
First, I didn't say it was necessarily so, only that it was more likely. Second, why don't you give me an example then?
What do you think - how many of our resident atheists have read your post ...
If there is a god, no, because knowing the truth in that case would be a matter of god revealing itself to you. If there isn't a god, then they already know the truth.
Which is an argument for there being no such evidence. In any case, the idea that a thing can be both physically verifiable and a god relevant for human beings, is held to be incoherent, by many, including me.
Really? You expect a creator of a universe to be simple enough to have already been found? Seems naive. Those are logically consistent since the physically verifiable is relevant for human beings, and a god doesn't necessarily act through any means other than through humans.
But you have no basis to say it's more likely. Second, give you an example of what?
Last edited:
If that's so then you should be able to provide an example of a recent scientific discovery that a layperson can understand. When even things like General Relativity, which has been around since 1916, is still beyond the grasp of your common layman and even many lay-enthusiasts, there's just no indication that your average atheist or theist would understand something which explains reality even better.
And that's of comparable magnitude to any truth about a god how? I suppose you just expect a god, if found, to be something you can just point a telescope at? It's much more likely that any such discovery would redefine things with at least the magnitude that relativity did, and you can't just point to the fundamental laws of physics.