5 Answers

  1. First, I would not define atheists as those who need objective proof of something. An atheist is, first of all, a person who denies the existence of gods, and his reasons for this may be different.

    Secondly, even if we agree that many atheists deny the existence of gods because their existence is unprovable, then here we would rather not talk about objective (a very vague concept), but about consistent proof. A consistent proof of the existence of God is impossible, since God is an internally contradictory concept. In this sense, phenomenology is the opposite of religion or any metaphysics in general; its call “Back to things!” suggests that we move away from abstract metaphysical concepts (one of which is the concept of God) and turn to the immediacy given to us in our primary, a priori experience. This experience may not be objective, but it may well be consistent.

    Third, there is a very interesting area of phenomenology of religion, where religiosity is understood much more broadly than we are used to. In short, for representatives of this trend, the source of religiosity is the universal experience of the “sacred” for all people, not limited to any religion or culture. In this sense, even an atheist is religious, since he is a human being.

  2. I think many atheists, including myself, have never heard this word, so phenomenology is not a problem for us that we need to solve for some reason. 🙂

  3. What exactly do you mean by “phenomenology“? I know two or three different meanings of the words “phenomenology” / “phenomenological”.

    A) In one sense, phenomenology is a kind of idealistic direction in philosophy. It seems to have some applications in the field of humanities, etc. But this is not accurate, let the humanities explain better here 🙂

    B) In another sense, the term “phenomenology” in physics sometimes refers to special models (or classes of them) that connect the studied objects and phenomena with indirect observed results (sometimes this connection is very complex). For example – “phenomenology of elementary particles”.

    C) There is also a concept of “phenomenological theory“in physics. This is the case when the model describes a particular class of phenomena “as is”, without trying to fully deduce the causes and mechanisms based on fundamental laws.

    What do you think are the problems here? (Maybe the only problem is that people should not throw all sorts of abstruse words out of the clear context?:)

    And most importantly, why do atheists necessarily need to solve all these problems?

    To begin with, not every atheist is a “professional” philosopher or physicist. If he is not, then why should he personally solve all the problems of philosophy or individual physical theories?

    If we talk about phenomenology in the sense of (A), then I will note that most atheists are materialists and some obscure problems of obscure idealistic schools do not really bother them:)

    If we talk about phenomenology in the sense of (B), there is no “trouble” to be seen here. Well, there are a lot of indirect experiments and observations in science. To interpret them, you need to perform complex calculations. Hmm… What's the “problem”?

    Phenomenological theories in the sense of (B) – they are always built on the basis of objective experimental data. So there are no special problems with the quality of evidence. Well, yes – physicists and atheists (too) don't know everything, of course. Again, what is the special “problem”here? Do you think scientists and atheists think they know “everything”? These religious people often believe that they have access to some special “truth” that explains everything in the world. Atheists don't think so. Yes, there are many things I don't know and don't understand. And in general, a person's mental abilities are limited. You won't be able to remember the exact coordinates of every grain of sand on the beach. This is certainly unpleasant, but quickly “solve” will not work 🙂

    To accept some universal explanation for all cases of life, such as “It is so because it is the will of God” – this is not an option. The atheist considers such explanations harmful. After all, instead of discovering Ohm's law, you could simply say ” The current flows in the conductor because it is the will of God.” It seems like this explains everything and you don't need to think any further. And so you can “explain” anything at all. But such “truth” does nothing, it only creates the illusion of knowledge. For example, I can ask our imaginary “theologian physicist” – ” And what current will God command to flow in this conductor, eh?”And, guided only by his general principle of explaining everything 'through God', the 'theologian' will not be able to answer anything concrete. Well, maybe he will say something pseudo-clever like “We are not given to understand the thoughts of God.” A normal physicist will be able to answer. Because it knows (or introduces) the concepts of potential difference and resistance, as well as the law that connects them with the current strength.

    In general, atheists do not need quick and incorrect solutions to all problems of cognition. If you can't solve the problem properly , you need to recognize that there is an open problem and live with it further.

  4. The absence of something or someone does not need proof. It is necessary to prove the existence of God. We do not prove the absence of a theorem that does not exist

  5. They don't solve it, but it's already been solved a long time ago, and not only by atheists. All this is declared schizophrenia. There is nothing else to add, say, write, or show by hand.

Leave a Reply