“I contend we are both atheists, I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.” (Stephen F. Roberts)
Not only the existence of this quote but especially its abundant popularity among atheists is simply additional evidence that the average atheist is compelled more by ill-thought slogans and rhetoric than consistent rationality and critical thinking. (We shall disregard the worst of them, who find themselves compelled by fallacious antitheistic censure and invectives, which results from a complete abdication of reason.)
Stephen Roberts was once an acquaintance of mine; I would not be so presumptuous as to think that we were friends but I can say that we were friendly, and we did enjoy conversing. At the time he was a channel operator in #Atheism on the Dalnet IRC network, a channel in which I had spent considerable time for three or four years. He was known as ‘wubwub’ then and I, as always, was known as ‘Ryft’ (my online name for the last sixteen years). I remember Stephen as a good-natured fellow with a fantastic sense of humour who seemed to enjoy debate, as long as it did not go too deep; whenever it did, he was more content to sit back and let the likes of Sastra or KonKan address the finer points. For this reason I cannot fault him too harshly for originating the quote. Even if someone were to examine its merits with Stephen, it is more likely that he would abandon the exercise than pursue it too deeply. Musings and ramblings were his foray, not philosophical precision. If it wasn’t fun then he wasn’t interested, it seemed. And that is his prerogative.
But I do fault any atheist that embraces this quote while passing himself off as a rational and critical thinker, because this quote simply does not hold up under scrutiny. It is delightful rhetoric as far as it goes, but rhetoric never goes very far in the intellectual arena. When we attempt to apply this proposition to the real world, it soon falls apart.
“I contend that we are both atheists; I simply believe in one god fewer than you.” Although this first clause of the proposition per se is nearly acceptable, it nevertheless possesses a minor but obvious difficulty. The one making this statement is an atheist who rejects all gods, and the one to whom he is speaking rejects all gods but one. Please note: How can the latter be referred to as an atheist when he affirms a belief in one God? To affirm a belief in God contradicts the basic definition of ‘atheist’. A commitment to sound reason necessitates that this first clause be deemed erroneous and nonsensical for contending that “we are both atheists” when the one to whom it is speaking affirms a belief in at least one God—the person to whom it is speaking is a ‘theist’, not an ‘atheist’.
“When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.” This is embarrassingly false. In reality, when it is understood why I dismiss all other gods, the error of this clause is starkly evident. For example, one reason why I dismiss the god of pantheism as illegitimate is because, by the pantheist’s own admission, his god is none other than the world in which we live. The god of pantheism is nothing more than ‘nature’, which is an entirely appropriate and suitable term already; to replace the term ‘nature’ with the term ‘god’ is superfluous and obfuscating outside the scope of sentimentality. Now, will Stephen claim that he rejects the God of Christianity because God is nothing more than ‘nature’? I surely hope not, for by that he would commit the straw man fallacy.
But this clause is false on an even larger scale. Why do I reject all other possible gods? Because the Scriptures declare that “there is one God,” that “besides [him] there is no god,” that all other gods “by nature are not gods,” and so forth. My commitment to the truth of Scriptures is ultimately my reason for rejecting all other possible gods. I think we can be quite certain that this is not Stephen’s reason for rejecting the God of Christianity. When one understands the reason why I dismiss all other possible gods, we do not thereby find Stephen’s reason for rejecting the God of Christianity after all. Both clauses of this proposition are, in reality, nonsense and false.
Linkography:
Stephen F. Roberts Home Page – http://www.wildlink.com (accessed 13-Oct-06)
The History of ‘The Quote’ – http://freelink.wildlink.com/quote_history.htm (accessed 13-Oct-06)
23 comments
Comments feed for this article
November 16, 2006 at 1:59 pm
GW
It is a common device to precede analysis of two sentences with three paragraphs, all of which have a consistent theme which the writer hopes to meneuver the reader into accepting: “The author of the quote is a shallow thinker while I am a deeply contemplative, thorough and perceptive thinker.”
It’s balderdash. Naught more than poorly disguised sophistry.
“Ryft” (what a lovely, ironic pseudonym!) criticises Stephen Roberts by saying that a person cannot be an atheist if he believes in a god. While that is true, that is not what Mr. Roberts said. He did not say that the person to whem he was speaking but rather that he contended that they were both atheists. The object of the statement would likely make the same objection that Ryft offers here.
Had Mr. Roberts left it at that, the objection might be well-founded. But he did not. He explained with his second sentence that demonstrates that the supposed “believer” is deluded.
Ryft’s second criticism is largely destroyed already, but perhaps not copmpletely. It needs just one more pass by the bulldozer.
To claim that a person believes in a god because that god told him to do so is inadequate, especially when that god explicitly states, “Thou shalt not have any other gods but me.” The commandment necessarily acknowledges the existence of other gods but jealously insists upon his adherent’s sole devotion. This in turn necessarily requires the believer to reject all other gods save the one.
As Mr. Roberts’ staement necessarily implies, the believer must reject the other gods as meritless. He is already in the hold of atheism, having but one more to reject.
November 20, 2006 at 7:29 pm
Ryft Braeloch
I responded to this comment here.
May 12, 2007 at 10:31 pm
Matthew
You’re right, Ryft, this quote it completely fallacious. Thank you for bringing this to my attention!
To paraphrase (so that we’re not bogged down by your semantic argument with calling believers “atheists”, which is a good point but completely irrelevant to the geist of the quote), Roberts is saying: “We’re one and the same; you and I disbelieve (in one god or another) for the same reason, though you don’t know it!”
Which is, of course, false, as you yourself have proven, Mr. Ryft. He does not believe in gods, simply because there is no physical evidence for them. You do not believe in (other) gods because you deny the validity of evidence, and choose instead to believe in that which is stated in the bible. Thus, Mr. Roberts’ assertion is incorrect.
Nonetheless, philosophy and rhetoric are not the tools which decide that which is true or false, something that anyone can realize after taking an intro to philosophy course. There is no philosophical argument in the world which either proves or disproves the existence of one or more gods. Jingoisms and slogans do nothing–for atheists or religious folks alike–except helping us to avoid the true question, what is the truth?
Where, then, does truth come from? The mouth of god (or someone dictating notes?), or the world around us? Mr. Roberts does not believe in quantum mechanics just because it is in a book; it is in a book because that book reflected the physicist’s best understanding of the universe as of the date of publishing. It doesn’t matter whether the name on the book is Stephen Hawking or John Doe; in science, the name doesn’t matter, just as long as the author puts his money where his mouth is. Does the claim correspond to reality? Can we repeat the experiment and get the same results? YES=GOOD SCIENCE, which means that we’ve discovered a little piece of the truth. NO=Oops, somebody made a mistake, let’s try again (with the appropriate modifications this time). Unless you honestly believe that someone has deliberately gone through the entire universe and planted false evidence, in which case your sense of self-importance is horribly overinflated, seeing as there is no contradiction in the evidence, which would be necessary to lead us to the conclusion that something has been altered.
Likewise, the bible was written nearly 2000 years ago by a group of people who were attempting to explain their world. Alas that our understanding of the world has changed in that time! Unfortunately, if we accept their word as “truth”–because they said so!!!–rather than a (possibly incorrect!) attempt at explaining things, then we’ve simply doomed ourselves to repeating old mistakes. You’ve labeled it as faith, and called it a good thing, but the fact of the matter is that it’s about as “good” as a malignant tumor.
You’ve got a good head on your shoulders, but until you accept that we DON’T know all of the answers yet (which you have not, by your own admission, since you’re convinced of the accuracy of a claim simply because of it’s presence in the bible), you’ll be doomed to writing obscure blog posts on a rather crappy christian site, rather than using your energy to make the world a better place.
You should be ashamed of yourself for using your talent to lead others down the path of willful ignorance, and for increasing the amount of time (not to mention other resources) that must be spent by so many in the world to prevent our society from slipping back into the dark ages (and if you want to call portraying the roll of christianity in medieval Europe a “strawman”, then you just need to go to the bloody library sometime.)
Matthew
PS, I have no quarrel with you, only with your beliefs, and the things that many of those who share them have done with them. So try to resist the urge to be offended by my condescending atheist tone, because there isn’t an ounce of ad hominem in here. Have a nice day!
July 14, 2007 at 4:23 pm
Ryft Braeloch
Matthew insists that philosophy is not the tool for discerning between what is true and what is false. Given his apparent zeal for scientific methodology and what it produces, it would seem safe to assume that he would nominate ’science’ as the tool for such a task. I wonder, then, how he would express this stance propositionally. Perhaps he would state:
If he feels so inclined, Matthew is invited to engage me on this issue. The reader is encouraged to check back and see if Matthew has accepted.
September 24, 2007 at 1:06 pm
Paul
It’s absolutely amazing how one can be worked up into such a frenzy that reason itself is utterly forgotten. Without wasting the time required for a lengthy explanation, can anyone simply answer the following question without proving Roberts right?
“Why do you believe your scriptures have any more validity than another’s?”
October 28, 2007 at 9:41 am
Ryft Braeloch
Much like the abdication of reason exhibited by your post, Paul? Surely you are aware that addressing the man is, by definition, ad hominem (cf. “one can be worked up into such a frenzy”) and pointedly irrelevant. I would invite you to pay less attention to the arguer and more attention to his argument.
And yes, a succinct answer to your question is possible, but the answer I shall pose to you will itself be a question, since (1) our answers would be nearly identical and (2) I would rather just anticipate the ‘question-begging’ fallacy you are itching to identify:
“Why do you believe your epistemology has any more validity than another’s?”
November 27, 2007 at 1:35 pm
DM
You describe Mr Roberts as “a a good-natured fellow with a fantastic sense of humour who seemed to enjoy debate”
then disregard that his comment is valid because it is clearly of a mocking nature. That you’ve read so deeply into it makes me believe that you’re terrified it is true. Then you (ironically) set yourself up against a religion (pantheism) that admits no god and accuse Mr Roberts of using a “straw man” tactic. Also, quoting Scripture as proof of your God is circular logic and you should be burned at the stake for such heresy (note: that’s humor…)
December 15, 2007 at 12:02 am
morals without god
1) i read that as him relating to a fellow god believer when he states “i believe in one fewer god than you”. and since this line is directed at a christian, who believes in one god, one fewer god would be none, WOW!
2) he says all possible gods, and since you denied a pantheist’s god as an actual god, then, by your argument, it’s ok for him to say “all possible gods” since he means “gods”, but whatever this is a bad argument and so is yours
3) did you know that the story of jesus has been done before? and so has the garden of eden. there was actually an extremely and coincidentally similar garden of eden story written in ancient Mesopotamia, not exactly sure in which civilization, but it was definitely written before the bible was. so those stories have just been plagarized, just so you know.
also, how do you know if those stories are true? do you even wonder about how long those stories were told before they were actually written down? and you know what happens when stories are told over and over again by different people. plus, how credible were these people who wrote them down? did they have something to gain from these stories? any personal profit from them? could be, think about it
December 15, 2007 at 2:45 am
Ryft Braeloch
1. I strongly recommend a course in critical thinking skills. Or a modicum of thinking, at the very least. If he is talking to a Christian, then “one fewer god” would indeed be ‘none’ and someone with no beliefs in any gods is an atheist. This, however, negates the first part of your sentence because, so very obviously, for an atheist there is no such thing as “a fellow god-believer”! Think first, then type.
2. Huh?
3. If you genuinely believe that argument is new, you are terribly naive. That amateur nonsense is older than dirt, and confronted with scholarship centuries ago. Do your homework.
P.S. I said this blog is ‘Closed’.
December 15, 2007 at 7:12 pm
Idetrorce
very interesting, but I don’t agree with you
Idetrorce
December 15, 2007 at 9:57 pm
morals without god
Whether it’s a new argument or not, it doesn’t take away the fact that it’s true. jesus, the garden of eden, it’s been done before and they’re all just popular tales told throughout the ages. You’re only a christian because christianity has survived the test of time like Islam, Judaism, etc…The church found a way to popularize their religion and have capitalized on it big time.
You most likely wouldn’t be a christian if you were born anywhere else in the world where christianity isn’t mainstream and you wouldn’t believe in the god you do now. I’m sure you’ll just throw that sentence away as being an old argument; but it’s true, you’re just too weak to admit that you’re faith is completely depended on where you were raised.
I was raised without any favoritism towards or against any type of religion. In fact, I can’t remember a time before I moved next door to a christian family (I was 9) when I actually had any knowledge of an imaginary force guiding the universe around me.
I don’t care if you say it’s closed, I’ll still comment if i like, erase it if you want it truly closed.
December 28, 2007 at 3:36 pm
John
I’d love to reply to much of what has been said by Ryft Braeloch but you respond to all comments by implying that the person making the comment is devoid of reason.
Note: “Much like the abdication of reason exhibited by your post” or “pay less attention to the arguer and more attention to his argument.” or “I strongly recommend a course in critical thinking skills. Or a modicum of thinking, at the very least” and lastly “If you genuinely believe that argument is new, you are terribly naive. That amateur nonsense is older than dirt, and confronted with scholarship centuries ago. Do your homework.”
Nonsense.
December 31, 2007 at 9:54 am
Ryft Braeloch
You are free to reply to anything I have said, for I have not implied that “the person making the comment is devoid of reason.” That is simply false.
1. “Much like the abdication of reason exhibited by your post.” This refers to his post, not his person, and I certainly never apologize for pointing out irrational statements or arguments. If one’s post exhibits irrationality, I am going to highlight it with the hope that (a) the reader is made aware of the poor reasoning and not taken in by it, and (b) the author refines his argument to something rational.
2. “I would invite you to pay less attention to the arguer and more attention to his argument.” This is simply sound advice, encouraging him to avoid fallacious ad hominem argumentation.
3. “I strongly recommend a course in critical thinking skills. Or a modicum of thinking, at the very least.” I would be surprised if you disagreed with this. (Well, actually, maybe not.) It would appear that Mr. Shipman is in dire need of a course in critical thinking, for he refers to an atheist as a God-believer! His critique not only violated the most basic standards of reason but it also defied the very definition of ‘atheist’.
4. “If you genuinely believe that argument is new, you are terribly naive. That amateur nonsense is older than dirt, and confronted with scholarship centuries ago. Do your homework.” If he truly believes his argument is new, he is naive—by definition—precisely because verifiable evidence contradicts such a conclusion (which indicates ‘delusional’ but I chose the more benign ‘naive’). The argument is very old, it is just as nonsensical now as it was then, and the scholarship refuting it needs to be addressed by Mr. Shipman, not ignored.
You may dismiss me if you like, but it is hoped that you would do so with sound, critical reason because your post is public and somewhat permanent.
January 9, 2008 at 3:43 pm
faithkills
The claim that we are all atheists in the sense we all disbelieve other peoples’ fairy tales is the humorous (yet apt) part. Criticizing this is asinine. Or do you suppose he didn’t understand the popular definition of atheism?
You clearly understand why every other religion but the one you were programmed with is false. You understand that they were all mislead by misguided at best or destructive at worst teachings to believe in a fabrication.
When you understand that you are exactly the same then yes his quote will be apt. But you won’t, because that’s the beauty of monotheism/afterlife religions. You have to give up the fantasy of an afterlife, take responsibilty for your own existence AND worst of all, admit to yourself you’ve lived your whole life in intellectual thrall.
You can’t do it. So in that sense the quote is far too optimistic.
January 11, 2008 at 11:39 am
Ryft Braeloch
1. It is indeed typical that we all disbelieve other people’s fairy tales. However, atheism is itself one of those fairy tales that gets rejected, which means that we still are not all atheists. Ergo, not even the humorous aspect can be consistently maintained. At any rate, as any careful reader knows, I admitted that the Quote “is delightful rhetoric as far as it goes,” so you are racing toward a finish line I had already crossed before you. If we leave it as delightful rhetoric, then there is neither harm nor foul. Problems arise only when one pretends that it says something intelligible about the real world. If atheists would only stop pretending that, then there would be no need to critique it.
2. You made some reference to the religion I was “programmed with.” So I was programmed into some religion? Which one, and what age was I? (Please ensure that your response does not commit the Special Pleading fallacy.)
3. I spent the first three quarters of my life as an atheist. It’s your position that I have “lived [my] whole life in intellectual thrall”? I suppose you’re right, although I finally pulled out of that thrall in the last ten years.
January 14, 2008 at 8:01 pm
Anthony Hook
I find it interesting how someone who is convinced their reasoning and mental capacity is so high yet makes barely any points in 727 words. The first paragraph has no logic, makes no points, and attempts to discredit atheists just because they use the quote. The second paragraph also makes no points and sneaks in another jab at Stephen Roberts’s ability to think. Third paragraph is yet another attempt at discrediting; this time on a larger scale. The fourth quote suggests he should of used the word “theist” which would of made the quote less elegant and actually less clear – I think all people know exactly what an atheist is and won’t be confused by the play on semantics here to drive home the core point behind the quote. You finally attempt at making a point in paragraph five but end up as twisted logic. The final quote misses the underlying point behind the quote entirely, makes baseless assumptions behind the reasoning and yet more attempts at discrediting. I would love to argue actual points, but you didn’t make any to counter argue with.
I just find it amazing how someone can convey practically no information in so many words. Amusingly the quote itself conveys more information in two sentences and actually has a point to make. While I welcome debate and appreciate the blog entry enabling feedback (assuming comments aren’t selectively filtered out on a whim) I would encourage you to exercise your own logic and reasoning by reading books by Richard Dawkins. He has a couple of lectures on Youtube also – especially note how he spends his time making clear short logical points, making factual statements and shies away from pointless attempts at discrediting the abilities of others, unless it’s based on a fact gained from statistics (i.e. religious people having lower intellect on average).
January 15, 2008 at 4:33 pm
Ryft Braeloch
It is comments like these, especially the one from Anthony Hook here, that just continues to pour on the evidence that “the average atheist is compelled more by ill-thought slogans and rhetoric than consistent rationality and critical thinking.” Keep them coming, I say. What do we have from Mr. Hook? A drive-by torrent of assertions and, zoom, he’s off again to somewhere else. He does not bother to prove a thing; his statements are to be considered valid and true by virtue of his having asserted them. Classic ipse dixit. Wow, I am so convinced!
But he did recommend that I read Richard Dawkins, of all people (after assuming first that I haven’t), so I guess it’s fitting. At least he didn’t try recommending Hitchens.
As a side note to those reading the comments section, I just want to highlight the (verifiable) fact that I never once snuck a “jab at Stephen Roberts’s ability to think.” The more careful reader is already aware of that, I’m certain, and also aware of the blatant mischaracterizations throughout Mr. Hook’s scholarly contribution.
January 15, 2008 at 6:46 pm
Ryft Braeloch
Stephen Roberts himself has responded to my critique (in the blog that’s actually open, not this closed one).
The relevant post can be found here.
January 16, 2008 at 7:32 pm
Anthony Hook
“He does not bother to prove a thing; his statements are to be considered valid and true by virtue of his having asserted them.”
That’s an ironic statement. You hold that thought and now read both your entire article and your own response to my comment. Where exactly do you prove anything? Or where do you even make a single credible point, other than picking up on the use of the word ‘atheist’ even though the quote itself revolves around one way to intuitively think of atheism. A non-atheist directing the word “prove” at an atheist is laughable frankly.
January 16, 2008 at 8:08 pm
Anthony Hook
Incidentally (and I know this is supposed to be a closed forum, so this is my last post) but if Stephen ever stumbles across this comment it would be nice if you could fix the minor technicality in the first sentence. It’s already a powerful quote, and I’ve already made use of it as it stands, but that would be nice. Without getting into it too deeply; maybe substitute “atheists” for “non-believers” in the first sentence, or some other word that doesn’t have such a rigid definition. And just to reiterate; I never contested this part. I just didn’t care much for taking that obvious aspect of the quote and running with it with such a smug elitist tone when the underlying message is perfectly valid.
June 20, 2008 at 6:01 pm
CJ
Your analysis of the last part of the statement is incredibly weak. You assume that one can know which God is true, and you use scriptures written by jews and christians for jews and christians as somehow being evidence for the existence of the Christian god. However, all religions scriptures claim to be correct. Obviously, though, they cannot all be correct.
I find it amusing that you criticize the ability of others to think when it comes to the slogan, but utterly fail to debunk it.
September 23, 2008 at 1:59 pm
almightybob
Well, if you take ‘theism’ to mean ‘belief in a god’, then a-theism means ‘lack of belief in a god’. Since you lack belief in, say, Vishnu, who for some is a god, this is – tadaa! – lack of belief in a god.
Of course, if you interpret ‘theism’ to mean ‘belief in any god’ then you are right, the speaker is not talking to a fellow atheist but a theist.
September 28, 2008 at 8:22 pm
Ryft Braeloch
Certainly. In colloquial language the term ‘atheist’ usually does refer to one who is ‘without belief in god(s)’. However, I fail to see how this offers any support to the first clause of the Quote, for even under this particular meaning that clause is still unintelligible—which I suspect you to be aware of, given your last sentence.
But again I remind you and the readers that this blog is closed. Discussion of the Quote is still ongoing (albeit intermittently) on my active blog so I would invite both you and other contributors here—like CJ and Anthony Hook—to direct your opinions and criticisms where the discussion is actually taking place. I very rarely check back here for comments. Your contributions are highly valued so, please, do not let them waste away here where the cobwebs are taking over.
“I Contend We Are Both Atheists” – Response to Comments II