Rational atheism

[bunny]

For those who are atheists - have you reached that position due to a constructive argument establishing atheism as the most likely state of affairs? Or do you believe that it is the "default" position and should be adopted until evidence is provided to the contrary? (Or something else?)

[bocablkr]

[ QUOTE ]
For those who are atheists - have you reached that position due to a constructive argument establishing atheism as the most likely state of affairs? Or do you believe that it is the "default" position and should be adopted until evidence is provided to the contrary? (Or something else?)

[/ QUOTE ]

Everyone is born an atheist - the so called default position. You have to be taught to believe in God. The evidence presented to me was laughable - thus no sale.

[Lestat]

Everyone is an atheist. I presume you are an atheist when it comes to Zeus and Thor. So yes, atheism is the default position until you are talked into believing in a specific god.

I consider those like myself, who were brought up to believe something for which no evidence exists, to be rational atheists. Even despite other's efforts we didn't buy into it.

[HedonismBot]

Was it really laughable? Please detail.

[CORed]

I would consider myself to be a rational agnostic, rather than a rational atheist. I would hold that the existnce and nonesistence of God are unprovable and the most rational position is to admit ignorance. I will admit that there is a residue of my religious upbringing that kind of wants there to be a God. However, I think it is unlikely in the extreme tht the Christian world view (or that of any other traditional religion, for that matter), is correct. I find it very hard to believe in a benevolant God. If God exists, I would hold that he is either malevolant, or more likely, indifferent to the fate of humankind, or of any individual human.

[chezlaw]

I think there's some confusion about rational beliefs. Rational people are those that strive to achieve beliefs that are:

logically consistent.
fit with the evidence.
recognise any assumption.

Atheists (assuming we mean a lack of belief in god) can be rational purely because its a lack of a belief that doesn't contradict these three conditions. There's no onus to have a belief that doesn't help meet these conditions.

Theists (including christians) can be rational as well.

People like to invoke a fourth condition about simplicity/elegance (ockhams razor) but it tends to cut both ways and can often be used to merely to decide which of two rational positions we prefer.

chez

[bocablkr]

[ QUOTE ]
Was it really laughable? Please detail.

[/ QUOTE ]

Who created us? God.
Who created God? - He was always there. /images/graemlins/laugh.gif
Did he create everything? Yes.
Then how do you expain the evidence for evolution? I don't know. /images/graemlins/laugh.gif
Is God powerful? - He is all knowing, all powerful and good.
Then why is there evil, why doesn't he stop it? Evil is the work of the Devil and/or it builds character. You need evil to appreciate good. /images/graemlins/laugh.gif
Where does God live? Above us, in heaven.
You mean he is floating around above us? Can we see him?
No, he is made of energy - he has no body. /images/graemlins/laugh.gif
Why should I believe in one religion's God vs another - they all can't be right. No they can't - mine is right. /images/graemlins/laugh.gif

[Lestat]

nice.

[bunny]

[ QUOTE ]
Everyone is born an atheist - the so called default position. You have to be taught to believe in God. The evidence presented to me was laughable - thus no sale.

[/ QUOTE ]
In the case of a life-long atheist, from an atheistic family, privileged, well-educated and intelligent. If they suddenly develop a belief in God; a belief they deny for many years but which refuses to go away. Would you still consider them to have been taught? Perhaps you would say that their psychological makeup was such that they craved God and subconsciously persuaded themselves?

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Everyone is born an atheist - the so called default position. You have to be taught to believe in God. The evidence presented to me was laughable - thus no sale.

[/ QUOTE ]
In the case of a life-long atheist, from an atheistic family, privileged, well-educated and intelligent. If they suddenly develop a belief in God; a belief they deny for many years but which refuses to go away. Would you still consider them to have been taught? Perhaps you would say that their psychological makeup was such that they craved God and subconsciously persuaded themselves?

[/ QUOTE ]
the source of the belief is not relevent to whether or not the person is rational to hold it.

chez

[bunny]

[ QUOTE ]
the source of the belief is not relevent to whether or not the person is rational to hold it.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]
My question was whether he would still consider this person to have been taught to believe in God

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
the source of the belief is not relevent to whether or not the person is rational to hold it.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]
My question was whether he would still consider this person to have been taught to believe in God

[/ QUOTE ]
Okay but unless the person lives in isolation then if educated they will be exposed to ideas. How they resond to that exposure will depend partly on how rational they are and party on other factors such as emotional needs and level of credulity.

chez

[New001]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
the source of the belief is not relevent to whether or not the person is rational to hold it.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]
My question was whether he would still consider this person to have been taught to believe in God

[/ QUOTE ]
It may be impossible to separate or determine for sure, but would said person have developed this same belief if he had zero exposure to religious material? If the answer is no, then I think he was "taught" in some way.

[bunny]

[ QUOTE ]
the source of the belief is not relevent to whether or not the person is rational to hold it.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]
Thinking about it, this seems a strange claim. Can you explain why you believe this? Surely if I am a meteorologist, make measurements, run simulations, etc etc and form the belief that it will rain late tomorrow this would be rational. On the other hand if I had a dream that told me it would rain tomorrow and woke up believing it will rain tomorrow, this would be irrational. The difference is the source of the belief no?

[Lestat]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
the source of the belief is not relevent to whether or not the person is rational to hold it.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]
My question was whether he would still consider this person to have been taught to believe in God

[/ QUOTE ]

This might sound condescending, but since the reality is that God does not exist, any belief has to be learned from an outside source, no?

I do think some people are pre-dispositioned to want "more than this". So they turn to something that will give them that.

[bunny]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
the source of the belief is not relevent to whether or not the person is rational to hold it.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]
My question was whether he would still consider this person to have been taught to believe in God

[/ QUOTE ]
It may be impossible to separate or determine for sure, but would said person have developed this same belief if he had zero exposure to religious material? If the answer is no, then I think he was "taught" in some way.

[/ QUOTE ]
I agree.

[Sharkey]

Atheism is itself a faith, because no mere human can settle the issue of the existence of God through reason alone.

[bunny]

[ QUOTE ]
This might sound condescending, but since the reality is that God does not exist, any belief has to be learned from an outside source, no?

[/ QUOTE ]
This isnt condescending and is at least internally consistent. I guess I was more semantically interested in whether deluding yourself counts as being taught.

[ QUOTE ]
I do think some people are pre-dispositioned to want "more than this". So they turn to something that will give them that.

[/ QUOTE ]
I would go further - I think all people are predispositioned in this way. Some have got over it and others will just believe anything.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
the source of the belief is not relevent to whether or not the person is rational to hold it.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]
Thinking about it, this seems a strange claim. Can you explain why you believe this? Surely if I am a meteorologist, make measurements, run simulations, etc etc and form the belief that it will rain late tomorrow this would be rational. On the other hand if I had a dream that told me it would rain tomorrow and woke up believing it will rain tomorrow, this would be irrational. The difference is the source of the belief no?

[/ QUOTE ]
Not really, I know it sounds counter-intuitive but look at it another way.

The rational process should go like this:
I dream it will rain.
If my dreams are reliable then it will rain
If my dreams are reliable then I am a poker god
I'm not a poker god
my dreams are unreliable
rationally my idea it will rain must not form a belief that it will rain.

or
I dream it will rain.
If my dreams are reliable then it will rain
If my dreams are reliable then I am a poker god
I'm not a poker god
my dreams are unreliable
rationally my idea it will rain must not form a belief that it will rain.
aha but I am a meteorologist.
I can test the idea that it will rain tomorrow.
I believe the test is reliable.
Test confirm it will rain
I rationally believe it will rain.

In both caes the source of the idea is a dream but it is the existence of a reliable verification process that determines rationality of the belief.

Same with belief in god, the idea can come from anywhere but its the consistency etc. with other beliefs that will determine the rationality of the person holding the belief.

chez

[bunny]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
the source of the belief is not relevent to whether or not the person is rational to hold it.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]
Thinking about it, this seems a strange claim. Can you explain why you believe this? Surely if I am a meteorologist, make measurements, run simulations, etc etc and form the belief that it will rain late tomorrow this would be rational. On the other hand if I had a dream that told me it would rain tomorrow and woke up believing it will rain tomorrow, this would be irrational. The difference is the source of the belief no?

[/ QUOTE ]
Not really, I know it sounds counter-intuitive but look at it another way.

The rational process should go like this:
I dream it will rain.
If my dreams are reliable then it will rain
If my dreams are reliable then I am a poker god
I'm not a poker god
my dreams are unreliable
rationally my idea it will rain must not form a belief that it will rain.

or
I dream it will rain.
If my dreams are reliable then it will rain
If my dreams are reliable then I am a poker god
I'm not a poker god
my dreams are unreliable
rationally my idea it will rain must not form a belief that it will rain.
aha but I am a meteorologist.
I can test the idea that it will rain tomorrow.
I believe the test is reliable.
Test confirm it will rain
I rationally believe it will rain.

In both caes the source of the idea is a dream but it is the existence of a reliable verification process that determines rationality of the belief.

Same with belief in god, the idea can come from anywhere but its the consistency etc. with other beliefs that will determine the rationality of the person holding the belief.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]
In the first case you end up not believing though. So you are not evaluating two different beliefs, rather one idea and one belief.

To clarify - I have certainly been in the position of believing something which had I gone through the process you outline above I would have discarded. The point is I didnt go through that thought process - I continued to base my belief on a poor source.

I would maintain that a belief held in this way is irrational because it is held for bad reasons. A cross-checked, analysed and multiply confirmed belief is a rational one to hold because it is held for good reasons - the source of the belief is the difference between the two.

[Prodigy54321]

default

[bunny]

[ QUOTE ]
Atheism is itself a faith, because no mere human can settle the issue of the existence of God through reason alone.

[/ QUOTE ]
I would think no mere human can settle the issue of the existence of God through any method.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
the source of the belief is not relevent to whether or not the person is rational to hold it.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]
Thinking about it, this seems a strange claim. Can you explain why you believe this? Surely if I am a meteorologist, make measurements, run simulations, etc etc and form the belief that it will rain late tomorrow this would be rational. On the other hand if I had a dream that told me it would rain tomorrow and woke up believing it will rain tomorrow, this would be irrational. The difference is the source of the belief no?

[/ QUOTE ]
Not really, I know it sounds counter-intuitive but look at it another way.

The rational process should go like this:
I dream it will rain.
If my dreams are reliable then it will rain
If my dreams are reliable then I am a poker god
I'm not a poker god
my dreams are unreliable
rationally my idea it will rain must not form a belief that it will rain.

or
I dream it will rain.
If my dreams are reliable then it will rain
If my dreams are reliable then I am a poker god
I'm not a poker god
my dreams are unreliable
rationally my idea it will rain must not form a belief that it will rain.
aha but I am a meteorologist.
I can test the idea that it will rain tomorrow.
I believe the test is reliable.
Test confirm it will rain
I rationally believe it will rain.

In both caes the source of the idea is a dream but it is the existence of a reliable verification process that determines rationality of the belief.

Same with belief in god, the idea can come from anywhere but its the consistency etc. with other beliefs that will determine the rationality of the person holding the belief.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]
In the first case you end up not believing though. So you are not evaluating two different beliefs, rather one idea and one belief.

To clarify - I have certainly been in the position of believing something which had I gone through the process you outline above I would have discarded. The point is I didnt go through that thought process - I continued to base my belief on a poor source.

I would maintain that a belief held in this way is irrational because it is held for bad reasons. A cross-checked, analysed and multiply confirmed belief is a rational one to hold because it is held for good reasons - the source of the belief is the difference between the two.

[/ QUOTE ]
The source of a belief is a thought, you cant believe something if you've never thought of it. Its the process you go through before taking on this thought as a belief that determines rationality.

chez

[Sharkey]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Atheism is itself a faith, because no mere human can settle the issue of the existence of God through reason alone.

[/ QUOTE ]
I would think no mere human can settle the issue of the existence of God through any method.

[/ QUOTE ]

The best things in life don’t require that kind of settlement.

[HLMencken]

[ QUOTE ]
Atheism is itself a faith, because no mere human can settle the issue of the existence of God through reason alone.

[/ QUOTE ]

How did you settle the issue, then? You seem to have the whole God/universe/meaning of life question pretty well answered while most atheists concede that they don't have the answers (after all, atheism merely means a-theism, i.e. not subscribing to a theistic belief that has the answers). So, in actuality, it is theists that have deduced they know the answers, but you claim that man is not capable of evaluating the question reasonably? So, how did you do it?

[MidGe]

bunny,

If you are still interested in atheist motivations for their atheism an article by Sam Harris entitled "An Atheist Manifesto" is a good and articulate introduction. It does go over many issues that have been voiced here and gives a reasonable explanation of the atheist position.

The article can be found here (http://www.truthdig.com/dig/item/200512_an_atheist_manifesto/).

Enjoy!

[tolbiny]

[ QUOTE ]
Atheism is itself a faith, because no mere human can settle the issue of the existence of God through reason alone.

[/ QUOTE ]

Atheism is not faith (well for some it might be)- just as i don't have faith that there isn't an invisible man standing in the corner of my beroom. Because there is no evidence for God's existance (outside of the universerve existing) i shouldn't have to explain why i don't believe in invisible yellow elephants. Its not a belief system, or a rigid set of ideals, and it only comes up when fundementalist christians go around dragging [censored] behind their pickup trucks because they were taught that there is only one right way to live.

[MidGe]

To quote from the article I linked to in my previous post:

[ QUOTE ]
Atheism is not a philosophy; it is not even a view of the world; it is simply a refusal to deny the obvious.

[/ QUOTE ]

[bunny]

[ QUOTE ]
bunny,

If you are still interested in atheist motivations for their atheism an article by Sam Harris entitled "An Atheist Manifesto" is a good and articulate introduction. It does go over many issues that have been voiced here and gives a reasonable explanation of the atheist position.

The article can be found here (http://www.truthdig.com/dig/item/200512_an_atheist_manifesto/).

Enjoy!

[/ QUOTE ]
Thanks - it's a good article imo if other theists are looking for a cogently argued critique of theism. It has a slight bias towards discussing religion as understood in the united states.

[Sharkey]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Atheism is itself a faith, because no mere human can settle the issue of the existence of God through reason alone.

[/ QUOTE ]

How did you settle the issue, then? You seem to have the whole God/universe/meaning of life question pretty well answered while most atheists concede that they don't have the answers (after all, atheism merely means a-theism, i.e. not subscribing to a theistic belief that has the answers). So, in actuality, it is theists that have deduced they know the answers, but you claim that man is not capable of evaluating the question reasonably? So, how did you do it?

[/ QUOTE ]

No question is ever settled rationally without an infinite regression, therefore the rational criterion cannot be satisfied.

It all comes down to faith: in God, in oneself and in a fair deal at the poker table.

[Sharkey]

[ QUOTE ]
"Atheism is not a philosophy; it is not even a view of the world; it is simply a refusal to deny the obvious."

[/ QUOTE ]

What a laughable quote. It would require being God to make the conclusion "obvious".

[atrifix]

[ QUOTE ]
after all, atheism merely means a-theism, i.e. not subscribing to a theistic belief that has the answers

[/ QUOTE ]This is not the way the term is typically used in philosophy. Atheism usually refers to the denial of God, whereas agnosticism refers to the denial of theistic arguments.

[moorobot]

[ QUOTE ]
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Atheism is itself a faith, because no mere human can settle the issue of the existence of God through reason alone.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


I would think no mere human can settle the issue of the existence of God through any method.

[/ QUOTE ]
So how, exactly, can a mere human know that we can't know, that is, how, if we are such flawed creatures,how can we flawlessly know that we are flawed? If we know nothing about this god, how do we know so much about this god that we can't determine if she exists or not? How can we know through reason alone that we can't know through reason alone? If it is not known through reason alone how is it known? Seriously, it seems to me at least that in making these types of statements we are presupposing from the beginning that our conclusion is false: we are denying the power of our reason using our reason; if reason cannot tell us their is not a "greater being" than it can't tell us what that the methods for finding/not finding god are; these comments and atheistic arguments are equally invalid if these arguments are correct, and if these arguments, when logically true, completely undercut themselves, they are nonsense.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Atheism is itself a faith, because no mere human can settle the issue of the existence of God through reason alone.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


I would think no mere human can settle the issue of the existence of God through any method.

[/ QUOTE ]
So how, exactly, can a mere human know that we can't know, that is, how, if we are such flawed creatures,how can we flawlessly know that we are flawed? If we know nothing about this god, how do we know so much about this god that we can't determine if she exists or not? How can we know through reason alone that we can't know through reason alone? If it is not known through reason alone how is it known? Seriously, it seems to me at least that in making these types of statements we are presupposing from the beginning that our conclusion is false: we are denying the power of our reason using our reason; if reason cannot tell us their is not a "greater being" than it can't tell us what that the methods for finding/not finding god are; these comments and atheistic arguments are equally invalid if these arguments are correct, and if these arguments, when logically true, completely undercut themselves, they are nonsense.

[/ QUOTE ]
Its not about knowing that we don't know but believing that we don't know. There are lots of good rational arguments that support the belief that we don't know but its hard to justify the belief that we do know. Therefore it is generaly recognised that knowledge is impossible to the extent that anti-skeptical arguments all tend to involve lowering the bar on what counts as knowledge.

chez

[Bork]

[ QUOTE ]

Its not about knowing that we don't know but believing that we don't know. There are lots of good rational arguments that support the belief that we don't know but its hard to justify the belief that we do know. Therefore it is generaly recognised that knowledge is impossible to the extent that anti-skeptical arguments all tend to involve lowering the bar on what counts as knowledge.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

What are the default necessary and sufficient conditions you take to be the true criteria for knowledge?

What counts as knowledge is not widely agree upon among philosphers, though they do mostly agree on some vague conditions one of which is justification.

What I really want to know is what do you think the conditions are for justification? Your previous posts suggested a reliable cognitive process is necessary for rationality(justification?) but that doesn't seem at first glance to fit well with your skepticism.

[Bork]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Atheism is itself a faith, because no mere human can settle the issue of the existence of God through reason alone.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


I would think no mere human can settle the issue of the existence of God through any method.

[/ QUOTE ]
So how, exactly, can a mere human know that we can't know, that is, how, if we are such flawed creatures,how can we flawlessly know that we are flawed? If we know nothing about this god, how do we know so much about this god that we can't determine if she exists or not? How can we know through reason alone that we can't know through reason alone? If it is not known through reason alone how is it known? Seriously, it seems to me at least that in making these types of statements we are presupposing from the beginning that our conclusion is false: we are denying the power of our reason using our reason; if reason cannot tell us their is not a "greater being" than it can't tell us what that the methods for finding/not finding god are; these comments and atheistic arguments are equally invalid if these arguments are correct, and if these arguments, when logically true, completely undercut themselves, they are nonsense.

[/ QUOTE ]

They are not denying the power of reason with reason. They are denying the scope of the power of reason. Those who argue like that think reason is at least generally reliable(useful for finding truth) but don't think it can give a verdict on God's existence or lack thereof.

You can logically and consistently argue that knowledge of certain things is impossible without undercutting logic. You would run into consistency trouble if you presented a logical argument for the claim that knowledge of any kind is impossible(or if you presented a logical argument against the validity of logic).

Its fallacious to suppose that since humans can't discover whether or not God exists that reason itself is flawed. It may just be reason allows us to see the limits of reason.

[ffredd]

[ QUOTE ]
Atheism is itself a faith, because no mere human can settle the issue of the existence of God through reason alone.

[/ QUOTE ]
An atheist believes that there are no gods.

A person who has faith in something needs to believe in it, and therefore ignores evidence against it, and usually also internal inconsistencies in it (e.g. when the bible contradicts itself).

I'm sure there are atheists who have faith in their atheistic beliefs, but most of us aren't like that. Show us the evidence and we'll believe.

[MidGe]

[ QUOTE ]
Atheism is itself a faith

[/ QUOTE ]

Atheism is not a faith.. it is the absence of faith.

[Pilket]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Atheism is itself a faith, because no mere human can settle the issue of the existence of God through reason alone.

[/ QUOTE ]
I would think no mere human can settle the issue of the existence of God through any method.

[/ QUOTE ]

This has always been my line of thinking with a slightly different take on it. I am agnostic. I believe that there is a power out there greater than ourselves however I will never be able to understand or grasp it's meaning until I meet them face to face. Even then, they'd probably beat me heads up. God tilts the weak.

Pilket

[AceofSpades]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Atheism is itself a faith, because no mere human can settle the issue of the existence of God through reason alone.

[/ QUOTE ]
I would think no mere human can settle the issue of the existence of God through any method.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is easy, people do it everyday. It really depends on the definition of God. If I define God as a Volleyball shaped being that resides permanently within my bedroom, then if God is not there, it does not exist.

Saying you can't disprove God really depends on your definition of God...

[aeest400]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Atheism is itself a faith, because no mere human can settle the issue of the existence of God through reason alone.

[/ QUOTE ]
I would think no mere human can settle the issue of the existence of God through any method.

[/ QUOTE ]

This has always been my line of thinking with a slightly different take on it. I am agnostic. I believe that there is a power out there greater than ourselves however I will never be able to understand or grasp it's meaning until I meet them face to face. Even then, they'd probably beat me heads up. God tilts the weak.

Pilket

[/ QUOTE ]

Does this same type of reasoning apply with respect to the Easter Bunny? As far as the "power out there," what measureable difference is there between its existence and nonexistence? Are orphans or lovers better off with it there? Or are you just referring to time/space/matter?

If I were perfect I wouldn't give a crap what anyone thought about me. And I'd come up with one commandment that covered all ten.

As far as atheism being a "faith," that may be true on a certain equivocated use of the term. I also have "faith" that I'm typing on a thing called a "keyboard." Unlike god, I have no reason to disbelieve in its existence.

[Sharkey]

[ QUOTE ]
I also have "faith" that I'm typing on a thing called a "keyboard." Unlike god, I have no reason to disbelieve in its existence.

[/ QUOTE ]

That’s called “blind faith”.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Its not about knowing that we don't know but believing that we don't know. There are lots of good rational arguments that support the belief that we don't know but its hard to justify the belief that we do know. Therefore it is generaly recognised that knowledge is impossible to the extent that anti-skeptical arguments all tend to involve lowering the bar on what counts as knowledge.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

What are the default necessary and sufficient conditions you take to be the true criteria for knowledge?

What counts as knowledge is not widely agree upon among philosphers, though they do mostly agree on some vague conditions one of which is justification.

What I really want to know is what do you think the conditions are for justification? Your previous posts suggested a reliable cognitive process is necessary for rationality(justification?) but that doesn't seem at first glance to fit well with your skepticism.

[/ QUOTE ]
If we claim to know P then P must be true and the trueness of p must be guaranteed by that which leads to the claim of knowledge. So if I say that I know P there must be some process by which I can demonstrate that P cannot be false.

Its a bit clumsy but that is what knowledge is generally taken to be. Anti-skeptics have largly conceeded that knowledge is impossible and have lowered the bar by talking of true-justified-belief which is all good stuff but saying that a belief is knowledge if it is true is kinda missing the skeptics point.

As for reliability there are two areas of concern. Deduction is reliable because if A implies B deductively then we know P where P = 'B is true if A is true'

Given that deduction is reliable it is always possible that any deductive proof is wrong because there is an error in the proof. This is a real problem but a much lessor problem than using an unreliable method of proof.

chez