Negative atheism? (Introduction)

by dhw, Wednesday, December 10, 2014, 19:34 (3636 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID (under “Evidence for pattern development; mulling”): My intent upon being invited to this website was to challenge the concepts of atheism and agnosticism as negative approaches to the issue of "why is there anything", Leibniz famous question.
dhw: Much as I abhor militant atheism (just as I abhor religious fundamentalism), I think “totally negative in their approach” is a negative approach in itself.-DAVID: Perhaps I am too blunt in my statement, but not being able to reach a conclusion, to me is a negative result.-In that case you will have to call atheism a positive result.
 
DAVID: I understand that you faithfully study all sides, but agnostically cannot bring yourself to a conclusion. Being unable to commit, for me is a negative result.
Again, one up for atheism. But your claim was that atheism and agnosticism were a negative approach to the issue of why there is anything. One might therefore argue that both theists and atheists approach the subject with closed minds: one says the reason is God, the other that the reason is the behaviour of matter. Only the agnostic approaches the question with an open mind, and since when was open-mindedness a negative? -DAVID: I think there is enough evidence for the necessity of a first cause. That evidence says it must be supernatural, but it is unacceptable to you. Because you can't imagine it, or because you just don't want to believe it, or you demand more positive proof?-I agree that there has to be a first cause, but the evidence does not say it must be “supernatural”. It merely says that so far we don't understand what constitutes nature. The first cause may be mindless or mindful energy. It's true that I can't imagine it, or eternity or infinity, but that applies to both alternatives. “Not wanting to believe” is inapplicable, since I see no reason to believe either way. Deep down I do not believe positive proof is possible for either (“more positive” suggests we already have some positive proof, but we don't).
 
dhw: An atheist has made up his mind that there is no God, but that doesn't stop him from asking how we got here, or why there is something.
DAVID: But he insists on sticking to natural material causes, and won't admit to looking at anything else.-You insist on sticking to immaterial causes, and won't admit to looking at anything else. The agnostic keeps a positive open mind.
 
dhw: Agnostics may have made up their minds that they can never know whether there is or isn't a god, but they can still try to find out why there is something.

DAVID: But only if they (as you do) look carefully at all possibilities.-Of course. Most people probably couldn't care less.-dhw: Nobody knows the answers, but the one brand of seeker seems to me no more and no less negative than the other.
DAVID: We disagree in degrees of difference.-Ah, but that is only because you stubbornly insist on agreeing with yourself!