Sorry for furthering the argument, because it seems your mind is set, but I felt like I had to chime in.
If someone was raised on an island by two parents who never mentioned the concept of god, they would be an atheist, and it wouldn't be a belief.
However, in this case, they (and I) are choosing not to believe in god. To use your example against you, if you a fervently against collecting stamps as a hobby, that certainly is a belief system, although it's conscious opposition as opposed to conscious acceptance.
"Who would go around actively disbelieving in dragons? It’s not active, it’s not a belief that dragons don’t exist; it’s the lack of belief that they do."
If a majority of the population believed in dragons, you were one of the few vocal opponents of belief in dragons, and people wrote whole books on the subject of the ingrained belief of dragons in our society, than I would argue that we are actively disbelieving in dragons, rather than just lacking belief.
However, in the end, no matter who is right, does it really matter whether atheism falls under the constrictions of one word in the english language or not? It's like arguing over whether your walls are burgundy or maroon, there is a right or wrong answer, but the means to determine the answer far outweigh the importance of the issue itself, or even the satisfaction one would gain by being proven right.
arikb
· 2 years ago
"Atheism - The lack of belief in gods as they are conceptualized in human civilization. This is not a proclamation of divine knowledge, i.e. that in all possible existences an atheist is positive that nothing like a God exists, anywhere. That would be stupid. The word is used (or should be) to describe a lack of belief in the Gods that are worshiped throughout our world. It’s a practical definition, based on the theistic reality we interact with every day."
Call me stupid then.
I disagree with the source of your definition, and in case you are the source, I disagree with you.
That point where you are not at all convinced in anything, and you proclaim that you will believe anything given proof but don't actively seek that proof. That point where you fear everything that has to do with belief, because you feel a vehement need to distance yourself from it. That point where you challenge the world to prove to you that there is something out there, hoping in secret that no one steps up to the challenge, because they might have something to say that will shake the foundation of your world. Search yourself. Be honest with yourself, now. That point, where you are now, Daniel, is agnosticism.
It is a local maximum. It is a high energy point. It's like a ball balanced impossibly at the top of a mountain, where all other options lead to faith and belief in something. You, my friend, are balanced at that point, and since it is a very unstable point you are exerting a lot of energy to maintain that point. You are always fighting against the inevitable pull of gravity.
It is not an easy point to reach, and I congratulate you for reaching this point. You had to fight and win against the values that have been infused in you since you were born, against your surrounding, against people who believe in objective truth, against a hoard of people yelling merry Christmas to you and scaring you on Halloween and telling you tales of the easter bunny and the tooth fairy and sin and hell and redemption and atonement. You've done all that. Now it's time to
STOP
close your eyes, and see, Daniel.
You are at the vista now. You can see what lies beneath. It is time to make your choice and decide which way down is best for you. While staying up there is an option, it is also very difficult and not effective for the long run. Search yourself. What do you feel? It's your choice now. I recommend you make it.
I've made my choice. I'm an Atheist. I believe that there is no deity. It is true for me. I do not question this belief, beyond an academic discussion. It is the basis on which I build my life, every day when I wake up and when I lay myself to sleep. And I sleep easy. I don't need to worry about balancing at that fickle point where gusts of wind threaten to sway me this way or that. I am grounded. I've left that mountain and walked along the path I have consciously chosen. I know the mountain is there. I've been there. It has been a hell of a journey, pun not intended. Being a believer has the advantage of packing all those questions about life and meaning and treating them as solved.
Oh, I don't pretend that they are solved. Belief is a tool to deal with them in a consistent manner. I've been up there and I know that they are not "solved". It's just that dealing with them does not bother me on a daily basis. I have my answers for now. My own, personal, subjective truth.
Having walked that path and seen what you see serves me for I know that there is no one objective truth. Everyone has their own. Knowing that lets me interact with people of different beliefs and faiths, because I respect them as human beings and ones that have a right to their belief, even though it differs from mine. I also find myself in conflict with other people at times. It is invariably at the point where they believe that their truth is objective and that they in some way try to force it on me.
So, Daniel, my belief is a belief (ouch). It is not a lack of belief. It's not not-collecting-stamps or not drinking from the empty glass. Those metaphors are broken, because they describe a linear scale from 0 to n, and I'm talking about a vector field where 0 is lack of belief and there are vectors in all directions, which stand for the myriad of beliefs that exist. You can still believe as strongly as your fellow man and have opposite opinions.
I wish for you, Daniel, that you find your path.
Take care,
-- Arik
Tim
· 2 years ago
I think I'm going to take Daniel's side on this one, with one correction. I don't think atheism is a response to theism, I think it was just a fall-back position. If you're not a theist, you're an atheist.
It brings to mind a discussion I've had with numerous people over the words amoral and immoral. An amoral act is one that is passively not moral, whereas an immoral act is one that is actively against some moral code.
Think of three guys involved in a robbery. The immoral one is the criminal, who performs the robbery -- he's actively breaking the law. The amoral one just sits and watches -- he doesn't break the law, but he does nothing to stop it. The moral one is the guy on the phone calling 911 -- he's acting to stop the crime.
The prefixed 'a' in the word "atheist" leaves me to believe (grammatically) that it is more like the word "amoral" in that it isn't an active belief against a god, it's just the lack of belief in a god.
Daniel Miessler
· 2 years ago
> If someone was raised on an island by two parents who never mentioned the concept of god, they would be an atheist, and it wouldn’t be a belief. However, in this case, they (and I) are choosing not to believe in god. To use your example against you, if you a fervently against collecting stamps as a hobby, that certainly is a belief system, although it’s conscious opposition as opposed to conscious acceptance.
See, I don't think it changes at all based on how many people believe in the preposterous thing. Why would it matter? We simply don't believe in these things, regardless of who agrees or disagrees. Our lack of belief does not change based on opposition.
Spanners
· 2 years ago
"If someone was raised on an island by two parents who never mentioned the concept of god, they would be an atheist, and it wouldn’t be a belief."
This argument presupposes that children blindly accept what they're told for life. To illustrate how this cannot logically be supported, let's reverse it. How many people raised by deeply religious parents go on to question the basis of the teachings they have received as children? I'm sure you yourselves know a few who have.
How many of those children were raised in environments that were consciously controlled by the parents to be as close to the 'island' you refer to in an ideological sense? Same answer, isn't it?
I'd suggest that you google up the biography for 'Roy Harper', or look at some 'Atheist Eve' cartoons to get a feel for what the 'island' upbringing does to young minds in the real world. the assumption that a child raised in this manner could not, nor would not question their received wisdom cannot be used to support your agrument.
Daniel Miessler
· 2 years ago
> That point, where you are now, Daniel, is agnosticism.
No, it's atheism -- just atheism in a practical sense. Modern atheism, if you will. Strong atheism (which is what you're talking about) requires either faith or omniscience. I have neither.
Sitting on a rock floating through space when we can't even really explain how light or gravity works is not a good position to be "sure" about what "definitely" does or does not exist -- ANYWHERE in ANY existence. Or, to put it another way, I don't claim to know what is -- only what *isn't*, with respect to the gods that have been manifested throughout the course of human civilization.
Agnostics don't just lack belief; they actually aren't sure about whether or not they should. They're weary of committing to a lack of belief, for whatever reason. I, on the other hand, am quite sure that I lack belief in earthly gods. That's why I'm an atheist, and not an agnostic. Agnostics, in my opinion, are believers who haven't mustered the strength to completely let go.
But that only applies to earthly gods. Once we start talking about what set the big bang into motion, I (along with most other intelligent people) am most definitely agnostic. That is to say that when it comes to the nature of the universe before time and space is unknown to me, and may be unknowable. We just have to admit at that point that we don't have any information, and that virtually everything is a possibility (except for simple, earthly theist explanations).
Richard
· 2 years ago
This sounds superfluous and at most unfounded. You say the belief (belief just means you believe something) in lack of gods is not acceptable because to you, it makes no sense. But then why do people say things such as Christianity are beliefs? Christians believe in something that may or may not exist but atheists just outright say it doesn't and both can willingly believe this. /You/ can believe whatever you want, no one is making you accept atheism as a belief, or dragonism for that matter.
What you should be pointing out that makes no sense is agnostic atheism. That's just something dumb right there.
Dak
· 2 years ago
You confuse religion with belief. I believe that there is no God. That is what I believe. I don't lack any belief on the subject, I lack a positive belief in the existence of god. To say that I just have no belief in it either way is absurd.
However, atheism is not a religion. We don't congregate or organize (if we do, it is to do things that don't involve religion and we just happen to all be atheist). WE have no structure to our belief that god doesn't exist.
Belief is a mental state with either a poisitive or negative value. Not beieving in dragons or magic or God is a negative belief for me. Religion is an organizational strucuture based on the positive belief in a God or other supernatural being. And all religions share some such positive belief You observe your religion, not your belief. Any of your behavior regarding your belief has been instated by your religion.
As for there being religion before there was atheism, that's tricky ground. I believe the universe is more than a few thousand years old and that belief in god is a human creation. Therefore, belief in God couldn't've shown up before the arrival of humans or their ancestor. If you belief that god created adam and eve, then you'll think that religion came first, because God has always existed in your opinion.
i'm not going to make any attempt to disprove your beliefs, but i will say that biologically all thinking creatures are predisposed to belief in religion. This is because learning is a prediction of cause and effect. In general, God is an explanation for that which is hard to explain through logic. We use God to explain why the sun rises, where we go when we die, the point of life, and how the brain (or soul) works. We don't use God to explain why a lightbulb turns on or how a carburator works. When the effect is difficult to explain, that's where God comes in to play. Since many pre-human animals can learn, and thus create mental explanations for things they don't understand, it is conceivable to me that religion does predate mankind.
Alfonz
· 2 years ago
Atheism is not a belief. It is a position based on evidence. Everything we know about the world is inconsistent with the hypothesis of a superhuman being that controls everything.
Theism is a belief, contrary to the evidence. People who believe in God will say, with pride mind you, that it's a matter of having faith, even in the face of overwhelming evidence. Well, I wish them joy of their God. But don't call me stupid.
Brett
· 2 years ago
>> Atheism is not a belief. It is a position based on evidence What evidence? How can there be evidence that God does not exist? Is there similar evidence that other invisible, massless things dont exist?
>> hypothesis of a superhuman being that controls everything Huh? What religion are you referring to? There is a secular religion that denies free-will and says that everything we say and do is already pre-determined by the laws of physics, but it doesnt have any superhuman beings. Im not sure about you, but im confident that i have free-will.
>> even in the face of overwhelming evidence. Again, what overwhelming evidence is there? Evolution? Im a firm Christian, yet i believe that there is plenty of evidence that, when viewed from a certain standpoint, shows evolution. What other "evidence" are you referring to?
Also, one of the definitions of a religion is a "personal belief persued with zeal". Athiesm is a personal belief, and if there was no zeal involved then why are you writing a blog entry about it? All you have to do is check amazon.com for books. Theres over 100 books listed for atheism. I didnt see any books for "no Santa Clause" or "No Dragons". I understand that athiests dont like being categorized as a religion (or belief) because my closest friend is an athiest (actually, hes more agnostic than anything). Here are the technical definitions: theist - firmly believes in God (or gods) with minimal doubt. athiest - firmly believes in no God without any doubt. agnostic - everything in between. May be a God, may not be, basically unsure.
--Brett
Vinay Gupta
· 2 years ago
The problem with this stance is that it assumes what it seeks to prove.
You have to start with the data: human experience. A sense of self (possibly an illusion, for both mystical and neuroscience reasons) and a sense of a world (frequently reenforced by people around us who insist that they exist and experience as we do.)
Given those facts, the question is "now what?" Athesist look at it and say "we rule out this class of explanations based on our experience and that of previous generations of scientists etc."
Which is fair enough, apart from there are a couple of key questions unanswered: why is there something rather than nothing, and why are things the way they are? The extreme shakiness of cosmology, the lack of a decent explanation of such obvious pheonema as "mass" etc. are all problems on a par with "so, why if saints require miracles to be cannonized, can't we have a couple of proto-saints come into the lab and settle this once and for all?"
It's just different areas of ignorance.
Now, just because Science is incomplete and doesn't have answers to some fundamental questions like mass (for example - pick your area!) doesn't mean that Christianity is right: one system has a lot more explanatory power than the other, but neither has a complete model of what is going on.
The only valid stance is agnosticism: all available models fall short of explaining the phenomena we are aware of, and can only be regarded as partial. To abruptly rule out any explanation - rather than simply stipulating that evidence would be required - is grossly unscientific.
Of course, a Christian can point at the existence of the world or the universe and say "this proves that god exists."
Ain't no accounting for how people color their null set.
Brett
· 2 years ago
Im not sure that science and religion should be compared as apples to apples. The burden of science is to find out how things work and try to reconstruct the past to see where it came from (eg. heavy elements came from fusion reactions, etc). The burden of religion is to answer "why are we here". Science has almost no data or tests that show the existance of human emotion or sentience, yet these are things that we know exist. This isnt a downfall to science, it just means that its in an area outside sciences range. Granted, they can scan and see areas of the brain that become active when we are scared or happy, but they have no idea why we get the "butter flies" in our stomachs when we are nervous or why we even have a happy or sad emotion although some of them try to conjure up some feable explaination. Science is a secular discipline, and rightfully so. Would you like to hear your airline pilot say "just have faith that the engines will work?" I tend to like knowing that there is solid science behind it (Unless God Himself built the engine). This doesnt mean that i dont believe in God any less. Anyway, thats the way i see this world from my eyes. Maybe im right, maybe im wrong. The only way to know for sure is to die, and i dont plan on doing that anytime soon. At least, when i die, if im wrong then i will never know it. (grin)
--Brett
Alfonz
· 2 years ago
Brett asks: "What evidence? How can there be evidence that God does not exist? Is there similar evidence that other invisible, massless things dont exist?"
The claim is that God not only exists, but created the universe and everything in it. Big Bang cosmology does not invoke any supernatural creator, and explains the observational evidence, like the microwave background radiation, or the composition of the primordial universe. Closer to home, we have a pretty accurate model of the formation of the solar system, consistent with observations of other stars and planetary systems around them. Again, no God there.
You see, it's not a matter of proving a negative, which of course can't be done. The real test is this: Given everything we know about the universe, which explanation fits the facts?
It's like Groucho Marx said: "Who are you going to believe, me or your lying eyes?"
daz
· 2 years ago
Is it not enough to simply say you are non-religious? Being non-religious does not require you to consider any of the concepts described by religion at all. Therefore you can ignore all of these pointless labels theist, atheists, agnostics blaa blaa blaa. They all originate from mumbo jumbo religion in the first place.
Carol Smith
· 2 years ago
Thank you for your efforts, Daniel. Commonly used and published definitions are indeed unfortunately insufficient and downright inaccurate. If I had my way, dictionary editors/publishers/compilers would rigorously apply the same standard that they apply to each and every OTHER a- prefixed word. As far as I am concerned, there is absolutely no intellectually respectable reason why a different standard _IS_ applied.
I agree that atheism is a lack of belief--or better yet, a state of being WITHOUT theism. However, I prefer to describe my position without using the religiously-loaded words: belief, believe, and faith when there are other perfectly good words which better describe it. I ACCEPT my position of atheism, rather than believe in it (whoops, I used the word, but you know what I mean)--I accept it conditionally. To Richard and Arik who choose not to believe in a god, I say that I don't share their apparent acceptance of gods as the default position. There is no need to actively seek gods any more than there is a need to seek out anything else for which there is no data. Do they busy themselves actively seeking the Flying Spaghetti Monster (PBUH)? ;-)
To Arik and Vinay I say that being atheistic and agnostic are not mutually exclusive positions. I am without theism AND I am without knowledge (a gnostic) of any gods. Furthermore, EVERYONE is atheistic (and agnostic) about someone else's god(s). (Have you ever met anyone who claimed to believe in every god ever posited by anyone anywhere?) Carol in Wisconsin
Rick
· 2 years ago
Interesting...
CB
· 2 years ago
Your definition presents problems because it attempts to deny absolute knowledge and belief at the same time. This is a logical contradiction. In the absence of absolute, or at least empirical knowledge, belief is all that's left.
The analogy with collecting stamps and hobbies is a simpel category error because hobbies and beliefs are two different kinds of things. If one does not believe in some particular idea, theology, or philosophy, they necessarily believe something else, even if by omission. Hobbies are specific absolute activities. Beliefs are positions about general things, usually competing ideas. Saying one does not believe in God is logically the same as saying that one believes there is no God. The lack of absolute certainty only confirms this as a belief.
To be sure you are to be commended for recognizing the absurdity of pretending absolute certitude in regards to the non-existence of God. This is a mistake many atheists do make, relying on perception, experience, and empiricism to generalize a universal concept from limited experience. This allows you to be open to possibilities.
The next step is recognizing that atheism is a belief system, one contingent on secular attitudes and free for the most part from religiously-derived ritual (but not without some secular versions of ritual in certain cases, confirmation of socialization in the form of group meetings, a body of music and writings, and other elements that mirror religiousity).
Without a rational proof or demonstrated evidence, atheism can be no more than a belief system, albeit a highly materialistic one (in the philosophical rather than ethical sense). Acknowledging this allows the individual atheist the freedom to critque their own position as well as others from an intellectually honest perspective, and recognize the subjectivism that all belief systems, however true, are accompanied by.
CB
· 2 years ago
Alfonz writes:
"The claim is that God not only exists, but created the universe and everything in it. Big Bang cosmology does not invoke any supernatural creator, and explains the observational evidence, like the microwave background radiation, or the composition of the primordial universe. Closer to home, we have a pretty accurate model of the formation of the solar system, consistent with observations of other stars and planetary systems around them. Again, no God there.
You see, it’s not a matter of proving a negative, which of course can’t be done. The real test is this: Given everything we know about the universe, which explanation fits the facts?"
The problem with this is that theistic assertions about God as a creator are not intended in most cases (and are clearly not in the Biblical literature) to be scientific ones. This leaves a great deal of latitude in regards to scientific interpretation regarding creation. Sinmply asserting that science has all its "p"s and "q"s in order regarding the development of the universe is not a refutation of the concept that divine intelligence had some hand in it. One may argue the nature of this influence and the various proposed timelines, but the divine influence itself is a metaphysical concept.
Thus the central problem for non-theists in this situation is that they are left with the same uncertain origins concept as theists. "The Big Bang" is a generalization of a cosmic event that for most physicists describe the beginning of measurable time, presuming that science has accounted for all phenomenon that can possibly affect these measurements. What can clearly not be accounted for are the precise moment prior to the Big Bang and what set that in motion.
Analogies are difficult when dealing with such universally central phenomenon but consider an infant separated from their parents and raised by wolves (of which there is at least one documented case, lest someone charge me with fabulism for the sake of an argument). Without any human presence, the only logical conclusion for such a child as they grow and develop is to consider themselves a wolf, however odd-looking and hairless.
In other words, where one cannot speak of or directly experience something, the most direct logical interpretation of materialistic experience relies solely on what is materially perceivable.
However, if a metaphysical cause (in the extra-materialistic sense)is the true source of the phenomenon, the purely materialistic investigator is completely unequipped to discover, much less rule out this cause.
So a scientific assessment of how the universe might have come into existence and developed is useful, but only to explain a purely materialistic universe. Even a useful concept such as Occam's Razor is of little help here because determining the simplest explanation is impossible if one of the explanations is metaphysical. Metaphysicality is not necessarily synonymous with "complexity" even though some who invoke the concept assume so.
CB
· 2 years ago
Vinay Gupta writes:
"The only valid stance is agnosticism: all available models fall short of explaining the phenomena we are aware of, and can only be regarded as partial. To abruptly rule out any explanation - rather than simply stipulating that evidence would be required - is grossly unscientific."
While I appreciate the efforts of agnostics to remain rationally consistent, it should be pointed out that such consistency only works inside a materialistic worldview. The agnostic position is thus the more consistent version of what Daniel posits as the atheistic one, but like Daniel, Vinay disregards the validity of faith as a logical and meaningful action.
This too presents inconsistencies. Many agnostics would ascribe to certain moral and/or ethical codes - say against murder or rape to use obvious ethical violations as an example. In the absence of a complete and empirical proof as to why such prohibitions should exist, one must rely on faith in the limited rational capability to determine these values, beyond the ability to state with absolute certitude that such values are right or true.
Now, to be sure, there are certain lines of reasoning (Kant's Categorical Imperative comes to mind) that could rationally lead one to develop such codes. However, even these philosophical underpinnings are not completely empirical foundations from the materialist sense. One must lean on philosophy (Epicurianism, Utilitarianism, to name a few examples) to make the equations come together. For example, one cannot simply argue that "Suffering is wrong" from a materialistic/empirical perspective, because this is not necessarily demonstrable as a foundational principle (as my exercising in an hour or so demonstrates to me every evening).
Even if one managed to feel some certitude in common and root principles such as values concerning murder and rape, few agnostics are limited to such simple moral codes, and the details always at some point rely on a matter of faith, even if such faith is in one's own limited judgement.
However, this is no evil, if honestly and inquiringly performed. Faith is the process of reaching towards the universal truth ("the evidence of things unseen," as it's put in Hebrews). In the absence of perfect empirical constructs, faith is one of the things that separates us from pure animal instinct. That it can be applied towards irrational and even evil ideals is undeniable, but faith borne of honest and critical inquiry is a faith that ever seeks and accomodates the truth. This is a concept that is regularly found in Christianity (the idea that we humans are imperfect and ever seeking God) but also in classical philosophy (Socrates' maxim that "The unexamined life is not worth living").
Faith is all right. It's better than all right. It moves things. Mountains even. :)
Larry Bennett
· 2 years ago
If you are not at least a Deist, then your nose is buried you know where.
Daniel Miessler
· 2 years ago
"It is both foolish and arrogant to assume that because we don't understand something it must involve a God."
Peggy
· 2 years ago
Atheism is not a belief system, and atheists should not allow themselves to be framed by some deists' perception. Personally, I prefer the term "secular humanist," which IS a belief system in its own right.
I don't "believe" in any gods because I see no evidence for them, just like I don't believe in unicorns and flying red-nosed reindeer. But I don't define myself by my lack of belief in any given thing. I simply don't waste any time thinking about things like this that have very little probability of being real. If, however, some evidence that any of these things were to present itself, I would be happy to study that evidence and revise my opinion.
I don't see why so many theists find it impossible to believe that their gods are so important to people like me that I must frame myself according to those beliefs. I don't BELIEVE there are no gods so much as I just don't waste my time IMAGINING such things exist.
CarlM
· 2 years ago
"Commonly used and published definitions are indeed unfortunately insufficient and downright inaccurate."
I've stayed out of this thread because it is clearly just a semantic argument and has nothing to do with any real philosophical position on anything. But, I have to reply to the line I quoted (not to pick on Carol Smith, but because I think it captures Daniel's feelings too).
If I had to come up with a definition of what a definition is ... (that's what this thread is really about) ... I'd say something like: A word means what the world uses it to mean -- PARTICULARLY if this also coincides with the dictionary definition. It's really as simple as that.
It may be that we want a single word to convey more than it does (and might therefore claim that the definition is insufficient), but perhaps we just need modifiers or full sentences to state what we want to state rather than a single word. As for common usage and dictionary definitions being DOWNRIGHT INACCURATE ... well ... that seems entirely absurd (though I'm willing to listen to arguments why I'm wrong about this). (I understand the prefix "a", but the origin of a word is not the same thing as it's current definition .. and it's current definition is the one that ought to be used if you want others to understand the nuances of what you are saying.)
The thing that puzzles me about Daniel's stubborn position on this is that in an earlier thread on the definition of hacker, he took the side of current usage (though it didn't fit his personal definition).
---
On another note, I don't understand why so many dislike the use of the word belief in a "negative" sense. I BELIEVE that there is no tooth fairy. REALLY. I do. Maybe this is better. I believe that the sentence "There is no tooth fairy" is TRUE. Does making it a positive like that make it better? The stance taken by some seems to be that they don't believe ANYTHING. This becomes a semantic argument again (which I find tedious since people seem so content to use their own definitions). Indeed, I suspect that the TWO issues in this thread boil down to differing definitions of atheism and belief.
CarlK
· 2 years ago
Lost in all this talk about beliefs and absence thereof is what truly rational people base their actions and lives on -- and that is evidence. It is indeed a belief that rationality is superior to irrationality, but it is more of a metabelief, something that applies to determining other matters of belief. Rationality has been shown itself superior to the alternative in every instance that I know of.
Or perhaps we need to be examining more carefully how "belief" is defined.
I have no belief in a God not because it is a belief in some sense, but because I see no evidence of a God, and I see in the absence of evidence further evidence for the absense of such a thing. I simply have no reason to consider the reality of such a thing, and many reasons to think it unlikely. I think that to be a considered position that goes beyond belief.
And that it is entirely accurate to lable my position 'atheistic'.
Brett
· 2 years ago
Carl K wrote: >> truly rational people base their actions and lives on — and that is evidence Agreed. I wasnt sure that this point was disputed.
>> rationality is superior to irrationality Agreed again. I dont know anyone who would disagree with this.
>> I see in the absence of evidence further evidence for the absense of such a thing First of all, lack of evidence is hardly considered evidence in itself. Secondly, what i say is that i do see evidence although some of it is circumstantial. Am i wrong in my stance because you dont see that evidence in the same way? Who defines the "truth" behind the evidence? Here is an example, although i admit its a bit lobsided:
A supercollider takes 2 particles and forces a collision. Here is the way i perceive the differences in the way we see things: secularist: There was no intelligence behind the collision because the 2 particles were only following the laws of physics when the collision occurred. theist and/or deist: There was intelligence behind it because those 2 particles collided for a purpose.
This, of course, is a slightly lobsided analogy because we all know that there is intelligence behind the operation of supercolliders. I only used this example to show that, although things follow the laws of physics, that alone neither confirms nor denies any intelligence.
I suppose that my perception of things tends to make me see design in almost everything. Am i living under a delusion? Maybe, but if God doesnt exist then why does it matter? Im sure that it apparently does otherwise this blog wouldnt be here.
Again, as i said before, i think that direct comparisons between religion and science is faulty. A better comparison would be between religion and philosophy. There isnt a single book in the bible that tries to explain science (eg. gravity, mass, inertia, etc), but the bible is packed with a combination of historical references and advice. The only thing in the bible that is anything close to science is in Genesis where it simply says that God made everything. Granted, some believe that He made it within 24 hours, but most dont believe that at all. Even the Vatican says that its figurative and not literal.
--Brett
CarlK
· 2 years ago
Brett says > First of all, lack of evidence is hardly considered evidence in itself.
Yes it is. It's the dog that didn't bark in a Sherlock Holmes tale. If you have a model of something that would produce evidence if it was true, and you can't find that evidence, then something about that model simply ain't so. It isn't real in any meaningful sense of the term "real". And that is the situation with the "God" model. No matter how you try to adapt that model, there's simply no credible or usable evidence for it. You call the evidence circumstantial; I tell you as one that has investigated a number of claims that much of it is coincidence or error, and more than a small amount of it is fraudulent.
Brett
· 2 years ago
Carl K wrote:
>> First of all, lack of evidence is hardly considered evidence in itself. >Yes it is
When i wrote that, i was referring to the scientific sense. A good scientist will never consider the "lack of something" as meaning "something". There is no actual scientific evidence that the human consciousness even exists, yet most people will agree that it does. Science, by its nature, always proves positives and it can only do that with positive evidences.
>> If you have a model of something that would produce evidence Im sorry, im not sure exactly what model you are referring to that would produce evidence that God exists or doesnt exist? Is this a scientific model? For it to be a scientific model then it would have to be falsifiable. How do you falsify God? Scientifically speaking: If He doesnt exist, then there is no way to falsify it and if He does exist as omnipotent then there would also be no way to falsify it. To do that, you would have to create an environment that could shield against absolutely everything (including God) and the only way to do that would be to know absolutely everything that it would need to shield against and how to do it.
>> more than a small amount of it is fraudulent You are right. There are many people out there who live lives as liberal Christians. They tend to push their views onto others and make claims that cannot be justified. When asked for reasoning they usually start reciting scripture as opposed to a rationalized response. For some reason, whenever CNN (insert TV station here) does a story about Christians these people seem to be picked for the interviews. Even though they do not represent the majority, they do make for entertaining TV. These are also the people who tend to "make up" evidences are view a frog sneezing as a "miracle from God". They are also the ones that say the bible is accurate because the bible says its accurate. I can assure you that they are the minority. I could go on for pages explaining both biblical and secular documents that show the bible (or at least the New Testament) as being relatively historically accurate. The key there is that i use secular documents (both Roman and Jewish government) that historians agree upon.
--Brett
Alfonz
· 2 years ago
CB writes: "Simply asserting that science has all its “p”s and “q”s in order regarding the development of the universe is not a refutation of the concept that divine intelligence had some hand in it."
Or the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
"Thus the central problem for non-theists in this situation is that they are left with the same uncertain origins concept as theists."
This may be a problem for you, but not for an atheist. Putting aside the issues with your interpretation of the Big Bang, I prefer not to know than to make up an answer in order to delude myself, or others, into thinking that I know.
No, I don't know why the Big Bang occurred. It's possible there is no "why". But you don't know either. The only difference is that I can say "I don't know" and get on with my life, and not feel inclined to make up an answer. Believers in God cannot stand not knowing. So they make up this being, for which there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever, because they feel that if they don't come up with an answer for everything, their heads will explode, or something. And they have such a taboo against not knowing that they make a *virtue* out of believing in the universe-creator fairy. Which, by the way, gets constantly demoted as we discover more real things about the world. Believing was much simpler in the good old days when nobody knew any better. Then you could cheerfully say things like "And God created the fish and the birds", and who would argue with that? But now God has been pushed back into hiding behind the Big Bang, and who knows what will be left of Him in a hundred years.
Brett
· 2 years ago
Alfonz wrote: >> The only difference is that I can say “I don’t know” I think that there are many theists that can, and do, say "i dont know". One of the most common misconceptions that many atheists seem to have is that Christians "must know it all". That is very much untrue, although there are the fringe groups that claim to have that knowledge. There are many things that i dont know. I dont know where the big bang came from either, I dont know where God came from, I dont know if ghosts are real, and I dont know if there is life on other planets. I dont know if i will get killed in a car accident on my way home from work tonight. These posts sure would be easier if people would realize that neither side is littered with idiots. I was an athiest until my early 30's, so i have walked both sides of this fence, and i know that there are many logical thinkers in both camps. The biggest difference is in the interpretation of the evidences.
>> they have such a taboo against not knowing ... their heads will explode Sheesh, im not sure what church you attended as a child, but i highly suggest finding a different one.
>> gets constantly demoted as we discover more real things about the world. Seriously? How? What leads to this assumption? The universe came into being from a single point, therefore God must not exist. Evolution took millions of years to get us to where we are, therefore God must not exist. Arent these conclusions a bit of a leap?
Here's a philisophical question: Is science replacing God, or is science showing us how God designed it? This may be a deep thought for some, but i believe that most will understand. This is why i believe that comparing science to religion is faulty, because science cannot answer that question. If someone disassembled a car, they could say that the car works using "natural" laws of physics. This is a true statement. Or it can be taken to another level and say that it works so well to accomplish a purpose that there must have been a designer. The universe works very very well. Is it by design, or just a random fluke?
By the way, we are seriously "out of scope" on this blog. I think the main idea was to determine if atheism was a belief or not.
--Brett
Carol Smith
· 2 years ago
Vinay wrote: "The only valid stance is agnosticism: all available models fall short of explaining the phenomena we are aware of, and can only be regarded as partial."
What available "models"? Please explain to what phenomenon you refer. I am aware of no phenomenon and have been presented with no data to substantiate any model or phenomenon.
I agree that agnosticism is a valid POSITION. No one has any direct, verifiable knowledge. But I also recognize that everyone is an atheist about someone else's theism.
Daniel Miessler
· 2 years ago
Carl,
The point of the piece was to distinguish between a Christian believing in God, and an atheist "believing" in atheism. That's all. I went through gyrations to try and give some support to the notion of atheism not being a belief at all, but instead the lack of one -- therefore clearly distinguishing it from a Christian belief in God.
So while it is semantics, it's not for the sake of it. It was to address a very real issue, i.e. Christians equating the belief in God to the lack of belief in Harry Potter magic. They are not the same. One is an active, highly specific belief, while the other is the default state of "lack of belief" that exists for ALL things without supporting evidence.
CarlM
· 2 years ago
An atheist doesn't believe in atheism. An atheist believes that there is no God. I think that your original premise was that agnosticism was a more logically tenable position. You got distracted by Arik's statement that Atheism is a belief system. I took the time to look up the relevant words:
atheism: the doctrine or belief that there is no God.
agnosticism: (religious sense) the belief that there can be no proof either that God exists or that God does not exist.
belief: confidence in the truth or existence of something not immediately suceptible to rigorous proof.
These are the definitions (of course there are variations of each of these in different dictionaries, but I think that I've given the standard definitions here). Where things went astray (in my opinion) is when people wanted to choose their own meanings for these words. One of the keys to effective communication is to use standard definitions of words. That was my only point in any of this.
Interestingly, I think that MOST people fit the definition of agnosticism given above. I include in this group those who are VERY religious and those who are not at all religious. Agnosticism is separate from both religion and atheism. One can believe that God exists and be agnostic. One can believe that there is no God and be agnostic. Fun with semantics. (Don't get me started.)
arikb
· 2 years ago
Coming back to this thread after a few days of absence, I feel like crying. So many people just confuse the terminology and the concepts... Carl M, you got it right. Daniel, you've created a monster, and I can't but feel like I was an accomplice.
Sources of most of the problems, from my brief 5 minute analysis:
1. Subjectivism in disguise of objectivism. I'm at fault for this one as well. I rely on definitions of terminology without saying what they are to me.
2. Confusion of the following terms: Religion, Theism, Belief, Belief system, Atheism, Agnosticism, Knowledge, Proof, Science. Maybe I missed a few. I would create a baseline of terminology had I thought there's a slight chance everyone here will agree on the terms.
3. Meta - "Belief in Atheism" is one example that comes to mind. Enough said.
Good night, and Flying Spaghetti Monster bless,
-- Arik
Daniel Miessler
· 2 years ago
Ok, so here's my summary of the thread. First off, it was all my fault. I started with the definition of Atheism, but not of belief; that would have saved much time right there. Here's how this post should have looked.
--
Millions of superstitions and imaginary beings have been subscribed to over the course of our civilization. Someone who does not believe in these things does not, by virtue of just NOT being a believer, hold a set of beliefs.
This is to say that belief is a positive act -- a stretch of sorts above and beyond what can be proven and agreed upon by most everyone. You "believe" in God. You "believe" in yourself. They are convictions that cannot be solidly supported through conventional means. Once they can be, they're no longer beliefs. At that point they become facts. You don't believe facts; you accept them.
As such, atheism isn't a belief precisely because it's the lack of one. My favorite illustrative quote on the matter is, "If atheism is a belief, then NOT collecting stamps is a hobby." This is a good analogy because hobbies are active as well. Either you actively have a hobby, or you don't. It would be silly to call someone sitting on the couch doing nothing a (non)-butterfly-catcher.
Beliefs are the same, and that's why atheism isn't one.
Gavin Orland
· 2 years ago
Hi Daniel,
Just to say I agree that atheism is not a belief, it is a lack of belief and the rest is wordplay. By the way it appears the great stamp collecting quotation was by a Max Beran in The Independent:
'Theism' is an abstract noun which refers collectively to each organized religion which espouses the existence of at least one god, and unlike Deism one having a personality who interacts meaningfully with human beings. ‘Theism’ is a label. It itself is not the name of any religion.
The group of theistic religions would include: Xianity, Judaism, Islam, Zoroastrianism, ancient Greco-Roman polytheisms. It would not include: Theravada Buddhism or Chinese ancestor worship or Jainism. These are non-theistic religions.
Theist and atheist alike can agree about which institutional religions are theistic. Institutional religions are reasonably well-defined "objects" (groups, associations) which can be discriminated and counted. Such agreements, shared by supposedly antithetical camps, are for me "the salt which never loses its savour."
Atheism is essentially a viewpoint which denies that any god whatsoever exists. For the Big-4 Near Eastern monotheisms, the atheist claims that of God and Yaweh, Ahura Mazda and Allah, not one of them exists. These characters are fictions just like Gilgamesh and Zeus, Sherlock Holmes and Batman.
• Institutional religion is a praxis. Atheism is obviously not an institution of any kind.
Let's be clear. ‘Theism’ is not the name of any religion. ‘Atheism’ quite obviously names no religion.
Moreover, in the relevant political sense, a religion is a recognizable social unit sharing common cultic practices, mythological (so-called supernatural) commitments, as well as secular ideological claims to power, corporate action.
Atheism embodies no common praxis -- it has no body of believers, no rituals, it has no common symbols, no unitary political ideology. Atheism is obviously not even a voluntary association. Atheism is not a religion in any sense.
Despite its theistic stance, the Boy Scouts of America is not a religion. It is however a voluntary association. Of course there are voluntary associations like the Freedom from Religion Foundation which espouse at a minimum “freedom of conscience” as embodied in the 1st Amendment.
Freedom of conscience demands openness to atheism, agnosticism, indifference to religion -- it proclaims an inherent right of persons to dismiss any alleged claim of supernatural beings or powers over their lives. It is a radical freedom -- without which the other 1st amendment rights would be irrationally truncated.
All Comments
If someone was raised on an island by two parents who never mentioned the concept of god, they would be an atheist, and it wouldn't be a belief.
However, in this case, they (and I) are choosing not to believe in god. To use your example against you, if you a fervently against collecting stamps as a hobby, that certainly is a belief system, although it's conscious opposition as opposed to conscious acceptance.
"Who would go around actively disbelieving in dragons? It’s not active, it’s not a belief that dragons don’t exist; it’s the lack of belief that they do."
If a majority of the population believed in dragons, you were one of the few vocal opponents of belief in dragons, and people wrote whole books on the subject of the ingrained belief of dragons in our society, than I would argue that we are actively disbelieving in dragons, rather than just lacking belief.
However, in the end, no matter who is right, does it really matter whether atheism falls under the constrictions of one word in the english language or not? It's like arguing over whether your walls are burgundy or maroon, there is a right or wrong answer, but the means to determine the answer far outweigh the importance of the issue itself, or even the satisfaction one would gain by being proven right.
Call me stupid then.
I disagree with the source of your definition, and in case you are the source, I disagree with you.
That point where you are not at all convinced in anything, and you proclaim that you will believe anything given proof but don't actively seek that proof. That point where you fear everything that has to do with belief, because you feel a vehement need to distance yourself from it. That point where you challenge the world to prove to you that there is something out there, hoping in secret that no one steps up to the challenge, because they might have something to say that will shake the foundation of your world. Search yourself. Be honest with yourself, now. That point, where you are now, Daniel, is agnosticism.
It is a local maximum. It is a high energy point. It's like a ball balanced impossibly at the top of a mountain, where all other options lead to faith and belief in something. You, my friend, are balanced at that point, and since it is a very unstable point you are exerting a lot of energy to maintain that point. You are always fighting against the inevitable pull of gravity.
It is not an easy point to reach, and I congratulate you for reaching this point. You had to fight and win against the values that have been infused in you since you were born, against your surrounding, against people who believe in objective truth, against a hoard of people yelling merry Christmas to you and scaring you on Halloween and telling you tales of the easter bunny and the tooth fairy and sin and hell and redemption and atonement. You've done all that. Now it's time to
STOP
close your eyes, and see, Daniel.
You are at the vista now. You can see what lies beneath. It is time to make your choice and decide which way down is best for you. While staying up there is an option, it is also very difficult and not effective for the long run. Search yourself. What do you feel? It's your choice now. I recommend you make it.
I've made my choice. I'm an Atheist. I believe that there is no deity. It is true for me. I do not question this belief, beyond an academic discussion. It is the basis on which I build my life, every day when I wake up and when I lay myself to sleep. And I sleep easy. I don't need to worry about balancing at that fickle point where gusts of wind threaten to sway me this way or that. I am grounded. I've left that mountain and walked along the path I have consciously chosen. I know the mountain is there. I've been there. It has been a hell of a journey, pun not intended. Being a believer has the advantage of packing all those questions about life and meaning and treating them as solved.
Oh, I don't pretend that they are solved. Belief is a tool to deal with them in a consistent manner. I've been up there and I know that they are not "solved". It's just that dealing with them does not bother me on a daily basis. I have my answers for now. My own, personal, subjective truth.
Having walked that path and seen what you see serves me for I know that there is no one objective truth. Everyone has their own. Knowing that lets me interact with people of different beliefs and faiths, because I respect them as human beings and ones that have a right to their belief, even though it differs from mine. I also find myself in conflict with other people at times. It is invariably at the point where they believe that their truth is objective and that they in some way try to force it on me.
So, Daniel, my belief is a belief (ouch). It is not a lack of belief. It's not not-collecting-stamps or not drinking from the empty glass. Those metaphors are broken, because they describe a linear scale from 0 to n, and I'm talking about a vector field where 0 is lack of belief and there are vectors in all directions, which stand for the myriad of beliefs that exist. You can still believe as strongly as your fellow man and have opposite opinions.
I wish for you, Daniel, that you find your path.
Take care,
-- Arik
It brings to mind a discussion I've had with numerous people over the words amoral and immoral. An amoral act is one that is passively not moral, whereas an immoral act is one that is actively against some moral code.
Think of three guys involved in a robbery. The immoral one is the criminal, who performs the robbery -- he's actively breaking the law. The amoral one just sits and watches -- he doesn't break the law, but he does nothing to stop it. The moral one is the guy on the phone calling 911 -- he's acting to stop the crime.
The prefixed 'a' in the word "atheist" leaves me to believe (grammatically) that it is more like the word "amoral" in that it isn't an active belief against a god, it's just the lack of belief in a god.
See, I don't think it changes at all based on how many people believe in the preposterous thing. Why would it matter? We simply don't believe in these things, regardless of who agrees or disagrees. Our lack of belief does not change based on opposition.
This argument presupposes that children blindly accept what they're told for life. To illustrate how this cannot logically be supported, let's reverse it. How many people raised by deeply religious parents go on to question the basis of the teachings they have received as children? I'm sure you yourselves know a few who have.
How many of those children were raised in environments that were consciously controlled by the parents to be as close to the 'island' you refer to in an ideological sense? Same answer, isn't it?
I'd suggest that you google up the biography for 'Roy Harper', or look at some 'Atheist Eve' cartoons to get a feel for what the 'island' upbringing does to young minds in the real world. the assumption that a child raised in this manner could not, nor would not question their received wisdom cannot be used to support your agrument.
No, it's atheism -- just atheism in a practical sense. Modern atheism, if you will. Strong atheism (which is what you're talking about) requires either faith or omniscience. I have neither.
Sitting on a rock floating through space when we can't even really explain how light or gravity works is not a good position to be "sure" about what "definitely" does or does not exist -- ANYWHERE in ANY existence. Or, to put it another way, I don't claim to know what is -- only what *isn't*, with respect to the gods that have been manifested throughout the course of human civilization.
Agnostics don't just lack belief; they actually aren't sure about whether or not they should. They're weary of committing to a lack of belief, for whatever reason. I, on the other hand, am quite sure that I lack belief in earthly gods. That's why I'm an atheist, and not an agnostic. Agnostics, in my opinion, are believers who haven't mustered the strength to completely let go.
But that only applies to earthly gods. Once we start talking about what set the big bang into motion, I (along with most other intelligent people) am most definitely agnostic. That is to say that when it comes to the nature of the universe before time and space is unknown to me, and may be unknowable. We just have to admit at that point that we don't have any information, and that virtually everything is a possibility (except for simple, earthly theist explanations).
What you should be pointing out that makes no sense is agnostic atheism. That's just something dumb right there.
I believe that there is no God. That is what I believe. I don't lack any belief on the subject, I lack a positive belief in the existence of god. To say that I just have no belief in it either way is absurd.
However, atheism is not a religion. We don't congregate or organize (if we do, it is to do things that don't involve religion and we just happen to all be atheist). WE have no structure to our belief that god doesn't exist.
Belief is a mental state with either a poisitive or negative value. Not beieving in dragons or magic or God is a negative belief for me. Religion is an organizational strucuture based on the positive belief in a God or other supernatural being. And all religions share some such positive belief You observe your religion, not your belief. Any of your behavior regarding your belief has been instated by your religion.
As for there being religion before there was atheism, that's tricky ground. I believe the universe is more than a few thousand years old and that belief in god is a human creation. Therefore, belief in God couldn't've shown up before the arrival of humans or their ancestor. If you belief that god created adam and eve, then you'll think that religion came first, because God has always existed in your opinion.
i'm not going to make any attempt to disprove your beliefs, but i will say that biologically all thinking creatures are predisposed to belief in religion. This is because learning is a prediction of cause and effect. In general, God is an explanation for that which is hard to explain through logic. We use God to explain why the sun rises, where we go when we die, the point of life, and how the brain (or soul) works. We don't use God to explain why a lightbulb turns on or how a carburator works. When the effect is difficult to explain, that's where God comes in to play. Since many pre-human animals can learn, and thus create mental explanations for things they don't understand, it is conceivable to me that religion does predate mankind.
Theism is a belief, contrary to the evidence. People who believe in God will say, with pride mind you, that it's a matter of having faith, even in the face of overwhelming evidence. Well, I wish them joy of their God. But don't call me stupid.
What evidence? How can there be evidence that God does not exist? Is there similar evidence that other invisible, massless things dont exist?
>> hypothesis of a superhuman being that controls everything
Huh? What religion are you referring to? There is a secular religion that denies free-will and says that everything we say and do is already pre-determined by the laws of physics, but it doesnt have any superhuman beings. Im not sure about you, but im confident that i have free-will.
>> even in the face of overwhelming evidence.
Again, what overwhelming evidence is there? Evolution? Im a firm Christian, yet i believe that there is plenty of evidence that, when viewed from a certain standpoint, shows evolution. What other "evidence" are you referring to?
Also, one of the definitions of a religion is a "personal belief persued with zeal". Athiesm is a personal belief, and if there was no zeal involved then why are you writing a blog entry about it? All you have to do is check amazon.com for books. Theres over 100 books listed for atheism. I didnt see any books for "no Santa Clause" or "No Dragons". I understand that athiests dont like being categorized as a religion (or belief) because my closest friend is an athiest (actually, hes more agnostic than anything). Here are the technical definitions:
theist - firmly believes in God (or gods) with minimal doubt.
athiest - firmly believes in no God without any doubt.
agnostic - everything in between. May be a God, may not be, basically unsure.
--Brett
You have to start with the data: human experience. A sense of self (possibly an illusion, for both mystical and neuroscience reasons) and a sense of a world (frequently reenforced by people around us who insist that they exist and experience as we do.)
Given those facts, the question is "now what?" Athesist look at it and say "we rule out this class of explanations based on our experience and that of previous generations of scientists etc."
Which is fair enough, apart from there are a couple of key questions unanswered: why is there something rather than nothing, and why are things the way they are? The extreme shakiness of cosmology, the lack of a decent explanation of such obvious pheonema as "mass" etc. are all problems on a par with "so, why if saints require miracles to be cannonized, can't we have a couple of proto-saints come into the lab and settle this once and for all?"
It's just different areas of ignorance.
Now, just because Science is incomplete and doesn't have answers to some fundamental questions like mass (for example - pick your area!) doesn't mean that Christianity is right: one system has a lot more explanatory power than the other, but neither has a complete model of what is going on.
The only valid stance is agnosticism: all available models fall short of explaining the phenomena we are aware of, and can only be regarded as partial. To abruptly rule out any explanation - rather than simply stipulating that evidence would be required - is grossly unscientific.
Of course, a Christian can point at the existence of the world or the universe and say "this proves that god exists."
Ain't no accounting for how people color their null set.
--Brett
The claim is that God not only exists, but created the universe and everything in it. Big Bang cosmology does not invoke any supernatural creator, and explains the observational evidence, like the microwave background radiation, or the composition of the primordial universe. Closer to home, we have a pretty accurate model of the formation of the solar system, consistent with observations of other stars and planetary systems around them. Again, no God there.
You see, it's not a matter of proving a negative, which of course can't be done. The real test is this: Given everything we know about the universe, which explanation fits the facts?
It's like Groucho Marx said: "Who are you going to believe, me or your lying eyes?"
I agree that atheism is a lack of belief--or better yet, a state of being WITHOUT theism. However, I prefer to describe my position without using the religiously-loaded words: belief, believe, and faith when there are other perfectly good words which better describe it. I ACCEPT my position of atheism, rather than believe in it (whoops, I used the word, but you know what I mean)--I accept it conditionally. To Richard and Arik who choose not to believe in a god, I say that I don't share their apparent acceptance of gods as the default position. There is no need to actively seek gods any more than there is a need to seek out anything else for which there is no data. Do they busy themselves actively seeking the Flying Spaghetti Monster (PBUH)? ;-)
To Arik and Vinay I say that being atheistic and agnostic are not mutually exclusive positions. I am without theism AND I am without knowledge (a gnostic) of any gods. Furthermore, EVERYONE is atheistic (and agnostic) about someone else's god(s). (Have you ever met anyone who claimed to believe in every god ever posited by anyone anywhere?)
Carol
in Wisconsin
The analogy with collecting stamps and hobbies is a simpel category error because hobbies and beliefs are two different kinds of things. If one does not believe in some particular idea, theology, or philosophy, they necessarily believe something else, even if by omission. Hobbies are specific absolute activities. Beliefs are positions about general things, usually competing ideas. Saying one does not believe in God is logically the same as saying that one believes there is no God. The lack of absolute certainty only confirms this as a belief.
To be sure you are to be commended for recognizing the absurdity of pretending absolute certitude in regards to the non-existence of God. This is a mistake many atheists do make, relying on perception, experience, and empiricism to generalize a universal concept from limited experience. This allows you to be open to possibilities.
The next step is recognizing that atheism is a belief system, one contingent on secular attitudes and free for the most part from religiously-derived ritual (but not without some secular versions of ritual in certain cases, confirmation of socialization in the form of group meetings, a body of music and writings, and other elements that mirror religiousity).
Without a rational proof or demonstrated evidence, atheism can be no more than a belief system, albeit a highly materialistic one (in the philosophical rather than ethical sense). Acknowledging this allows the individual atheist the freedom to critque their own position as well as others from an intellectually honest perspective, and recognize the subjectivism that all belief systems, however true, are accompanied by.
"The claim is that God not only exists, but created the universe and everything in it. Big Bang cosmology does not invoke any supernatural creator, and explains the observational evidence, like the microwave background radiation, or the composition of the primordial universe. Closer to home, we have a pretty accurate model of the formation of the solar system, consistent with observations of other stars and planetary systems around them. Again, no God there.
You see, it’s not a matter of proving a negative, which of course can’t be done. The real test is this: Given everything we know about the universe, which explanation fits the facts?"
The problem with this is that theistic assertions about God as a creator are not intended in most cases (and are clearly not in the Biblical literature) to be scientific ones. This leaves a great deal of latitude in regards to scientific interpretation regarding creation. Sinmply asserting that science has all its "p"s and "q"s in order regarding the development of the universe is not a refutation of the concept that divine intelligence had some hand in it. One may argue the nature of this influence and the various proposed timelines, but the divine influence itself is a metaphysical concept.
Thus the central problem for non-theists in this situation is that they are left with the same uncertain origins concept as theists. "The Big Bang" is a generalization of a cosmic event that for most physicists describe the beginning of measurable time, presuming that science has accounted for all phenomenon that can possibly affect these measurements. What can clearly not be accounted for are the precise moment prior to the Big Bang and what set that in motion.
Analogies are difficult when dealing with such universally central phenomenon but consider an infant separated from their parents and raised by wolves (of which there is at least one documented case, lest someone charge me with fabulism for the sake of an argument). Without any human presence, the only logical conclusion for such a child as they grow and develop is to consider themselves a wolf, however odd-looking and hairless.
In other words, where one cannot speak of or directly experience something, the most direct logical interpretation of materialistic experience relies solely on what is materially perceivable.
However, if a metaphysical cause (in the extra-materialistic sense)is the true source of the phenomenon, the purely materialistic investigator is completely unequipped to discover, much less rule out this cause.
So a scientific assessment of how the universe might have come into existence and developed is useful, but only to explain a purely materialistic universe. Even a useful concept such as Occam's Razor is of little help here because determining the simplest explanation is impossible if one of the explanations is metaphysical. Metaphysicality is not necessarily synonymous with "complexity" even though some who invoke the concept assume so.
"The only valid stance is agnosticism: all available models fall short of explaining the phenomena we are aware of, and can only be regarded as partial. To abruptly rule out any explanation - rather than simply stipulating that evidence would be required - is grossly unscientific."
While I appreciate the efforts of agnostics to remain rationally consistent, it should be pointed out that such consistency only works inside a materialistic worldview. The agnostic position is thus the more consistent version of what Daniel posits as the atheistic one, but like Daniel, Vinay disregards the validity of faith as a logical and meaningful action.
This too presents inconsistencies. Many agnostics would ascribe to certain moral and/or ethical codes - say against murder or rape to use obvious ethical violations as an example. In the absence of a complete and empirical proof as to why such prohibitions should exist, one must rely on faith in the limited rational capability to determine these values, beyond the ability to state with absolute certitude that such values are right or true.
Now, to be sure, there are certain lines of reasoning (Kant's Categorical Imperative comes to mind) that could rationally lead one to develop such codes. However, even these philosophical underpinnings are not completely empirical foundations from the materialist sense. One must lean on philosophy (Epicurianism, Utilitarianism, to name a few examples) to make the equations come together. For example, one cannot simply argue that "Suffering is wrong" from a materialistic/empirical perspective, because this is not necessarily demonstrable as a foundational principle (as my exercising in an hour or so demonstrates to me every evening).
Even if one managed to feel some certitude in common and root principles such as values concerning murder and rape, few agnostics are limited to such simple moral codes, and the details always at some point rely on a matter of faith, even if such faith is in one's own limited judgement.
However, this is no evil, if honestly and inquiringly performed. Faith is the process of reaching towards the universal truth ("the evidence of things unseen," as it's put in Hebrews). In the absence of perfect empirical constructs, faith is one of the things that separates us from pure animal instinct. That it can be applied towards irrational and even evil ideals is undeniable, but faith borne of honest and critical inquiry is a faith that ever seeks and accomodates the truth. This is a concept that is regularly found in Christianity (the idea that we humans are imperfect and ever seeking God) but also in classical philosophy (Socrates' maxim that "The unexamined life is not worth living").
Faith is all right. It's better than all right. It moves things. Mountains even. :)
I don't "believe" in any gods because I see no evidence for them, just like I don't believe in unicorns and flying red-nosed reindeer. But I don't define myself by my lack of belief in any given thing. I simply don't waste any time thinking about things like this that have very little probability of being real. If, however, some evidence that any of these things were to present itself, I would be happy to study that evidence and revise my opinion.
I don't see why so many theists find it impossible to believe that their gods are so important to people like me that I must frame myself according to those beliefs. I don't BELIEVE there are no gods so much as I just don't waste my time IMAGINING such things exist.
I've stayed out of this thread because it is clearly just a semantic argument and has nothing to do with any real philosophical position on anything. But, I have to reply to the line I quoted (not to pick on Carol Smith, but because I think it captures Daniel's feelings too).
If I had to come up with a definition of what a definition is ... (that's what this thread is really about) ... I'd say something like: A word means what the world uses it to mean -- PARTICULARLY if this also coincides with the dictionary definition. It's really as simple as that.
It may be that we want a single word to convey more than it does (and might therefore claim that the definition is insufficient), but perhaps we just need modifiers or full sentences to state what we want to state rather than a single word. As for common usage and dictionary definitions being DOWNRIGHT INACCURATE ... well ... that seems entirely absurd (though I'm willing to listen to arguments why I'm wrong about this). (I understand the prefix "a", but the origin of a word is not the same thing as it's current definition .. and it's current definition is the one that ought to be used if you want others to understand the nuances of what you are saying.)
The thing that puzzles me about Daniel's stubborn position on this is that in an earlier thread on the definition of hacker, he took the side of current usage (though it didn't fit his personal definition).
---
On another note, I don't understand why so many dislike the use of the word belief in a "negative" sense. I BELIEVE that there is no tooth fairy. REALLY. I do. Maybe this is better. I believe that the sentence "There is no tooth fairy" is TRUE. Does making it a positive like that make it better? The stance taken by some seems to be that they don't believe ANYTHING. This becomes a semantic argument again (which I find tedious since people seem so content to use their own definitions). Indeed, I suspect that the TWO issues in this thread boil down to differing definitions of atheism and belief.
Or perhaps we need to be examining more carefully how "belief" is defined.
I have no belief in a God not because it is a belief in some sense, but because I see no evidence of a God, and I see in the absence of evidence further evidence for the absense of such a thing. I simply have no reason to consider the reality of such a thing, and many reasons to think it unlikely. I think that to be a considered position that goes beyond belief.
And that it is entirely accurate to lable my position 'atheistic'.
>> truly rational people base their actions and lives on — and that is evidence
Agreed. I wasnt sure that this point was disputed.
>> rationality is superior to irrationality
Agreed again. I dont know anyone who would disagree with this.
>> I see in the absence of evidence further evidence for the absense of such a thing
First of all, lack of evidence is hardly considered evidence in itself. Secondly, what i say is that i do see evidence although some of it is circumstantial. Am i wrong in my stance because you dont see that evidence in the same way? Who defines the "truth" behind the evidence? Here is an example, although i admit its a bit lobsided:
A supercollider takes 2 particles and forces a collision. Here is the way i perceive the differences in the way we see things:
secularist: There was no intelligence behind the collision because the 2 particles were only following the laws of physics when the collision occurred.
theist and/or deist: There was intelligence behind it because those 2 particles collided for a purpose.
This, of course, is a slightly lobsided analogy because we all know that there is intelligence behind the operation of supercolliders. I only used this example to show that, although things follow the laws of physics, that alone neither confirms nor denies any intelligence.
I suppose that my perception of things tends to make me see design in almost everything. Am i living under a delusion? Maybe, but if God doesnt exist then why does it matter? Im sure that it apparently does otherwise this blog wouldnt be here.
Again, as i said before, i think that direct comparisons between religion and science is faulty. A better comparison would be between religion and philosophy. There isnt a single book in the bible that tries to explain science (eg. gravity, mass, inertia, etc), but the bible is packed with a combination of historical references and advice. The only thing in the bible that is anything close to science is in Genesis where it simply says that God made everything. Granted, some believe that He made it within 24 hours, but most dont believe that at all. Even the Vatican says that its figurative and not literal.
--Brett
> First of all, lack of evidence is hardly considered evidence in itself.
Yes it is. It's the dog that didn't bark in a Sherlock Holmes tale. If you have a model of something that would produce evidence if it was true, and you can't find that evidence, then something about that model simply ain't so. It isn't real in any meaningful sense of the term "real". And that is the situation with the "God" model. No matter how you try to adapt that model, there's simply no credible or usable evidence for it. You call the evidence circumstantial; I tell you as one that has investigated a number of claims that much of it is coincidence or error, and more than a small amount of it is fraudulent.
>> First of all, lack of evidence is hardly considered evidence in itself.
>Yes it is
When i wrote that, i was referring to the scientific sense. A good scientist will never consider the "lack of something" as meaning "something". There is no actual scientific evidence that the human consciousness even exists, yet most people will agree that it does. Science, by its nature, always proves positives and it can only do that with positive evidences.
>> If you have a model of something that would produce evidence
Im sorry, im not sure exactly what model you are referring to that would produce evidence that God exists or doesnt exist? Is this a scientific model? For it to be a scientific model then it would have to be falsifiable. How do you falsify God? Scientifically speaking: If He doesnt exist, then there is no way to falsify it and if He does exist as omnipotent then there would also be no way to falsify it. To do that, you would have to create an environment that could shield against absolutely everything (including God) and the only way to do that would be to know absolutely everything that it would need to shield against and how to do it.
>> more than a small amount of it is fraudulent
You are right. There are many people out there who live lives as liberal Christians. They tend to push their views onto others and make claims that cannot be justified. When asked for reasoning they usually start reciting scripture as opposed to a rationalized response. For some reason, whenever CNN (insert TV station here) does a story about Christians these people seem to be picked for the interviews. Even though they do not represent the majority, they do make for entertaining TV. These are also the people who tend to "make up" evidences are view a frog sneezing as a "miracle from God". They are also the ones that say the bible is accurate because the bible says its accurate. I can assure you that they are the minority. I could go on for pages explaining both biblical and secular documents that show the bible (or at least the New Testament) as being relatively historically accurate. The key there is that i use secular documents (both Roman and Jewish government) that historians agree upon.
--Brett
Or the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
"Thus the central problem for non-theists in this situation is that they are left with the same uncertain origins concept as theists."
This may be a problem for you, but not for an atheist. Putting aside the issues with your interpretation of the Big Bang, I prefer not to know than to make up an answer in order to delude myself, or others, into thinking that I know.
No, I don't know why the Big Bang occurred. It's possible there is no "why". But you don't know either. The only difference is that I can say "I don't know" and get on with my life, and not feel inclined to make up an answer. Believers in God cannot stand not knowing. So they make up this being, for which there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever, because they feel that if they don't come up with an answer for everything, their heads will explode, or something. And they have such a taboo against not knowing that they make a *virtue* out of believing in the universe-creator fairy. Which, by the way, gets constantly demoted as we discover more real things about the world. Believing was much simpler in the good old days when nobody knew any better. Then you could cheerfully say things like "And God created the fish and the birds", and who would argue with that? But now God has been pushed back into hiding behind the Big Bang, and who knows what will be left of Him in a hundred years.
>> The only difference is that I can say “I don’t know”
I think that there are many theists that can, and do, say "i dont know". One of the most common misconceptions that many atheists seem to have is that Christians "must know it all". That is very much untrue, although there are the fringe groups that claim to have that knowledge. There are many things that i dont know. I dont know where the big bang came from either, I dont know where God came from, I dont know if ghosts are real, and I dont know if there is life on other planets. I dont know if i will get killed in a car accident on my way home from work tonight. These posts sure would be easier if people would realize that neither side is littered with idiots. I was an athiest until my early 30's, so i have walked both sides of this fence, and i know that there are many logical thinkers in both camps. The biggest difference is in the interpretation of the evidences.
>> they have such a taboo against not knowing ... their heads will explode
Sheesh, im not sure what church you attended as a child, but i highly suggest finding a different one.
>> gets constantly demoted as we discover more real things about the world.
Seriously? How? What leads to this assumption? The universe came into being from a single point, therefore God must not exist. Evolution took millions of years to get us to where we are, therefore God must not exist. Arent these conclusions a bit of a leap?
Here's a philisophical question: Is science replacing God, or is science showing us how God designed it? This may be a deep thought for some, but i believe that most will understand. This is why i believe that comparing science to religion is faulty, because science cannot answer that question. If someone disassembled a car, they could say that the car works using "natural" laws of physics. This is a true statement. Or it can be taken to another level and say that it works so well to accomplish a purpose that there must have been a designer. The universe works very very well. Is it by design, or just a random fluke?
By the way, we are seriously "out of scope" on this blog. I think the main idea was to determine if atheism was a belief or not.
--Brett
What available "models"? Please explain to what phenomenon you refer. I am aware of no phenomenon and have been presented with no data to substantiate any model or phenomenon.
I agree that agnosticism is a valid POSITION. No one has any direct, verifiable knowledge. But I also recognize that everyone is an atheist about someone else's theism.
The point of the piece was to distinguish between a Christian believing in God, and an atheist "believing" in atheism. That's all. I went through gyrations to try and give some support to the notion of atheism not being a belief at all, but instead the lack of one -- therefore clearly distinguishing it from a Christian belief in God.
So while it is semantics, it's not for the sake of it. It was to address a very real issue, i.e. Christians equating the belief in God to the lack of belief in Harry Potter magic. They are not the same. One is an active, highly specific belief, while the other is the default state of "lack of belief" that exists for ALL things without supporting evidence.
atheism: the doctrine or belief that there is no God.
agnosticism: (religious sense) the belief that there can be no proof either that God exists or that God does not exist.
belief: confidence in the truth or existence of something not immediately suceptible to rigorous proof.
These are the definitions (of course there are variations of each of these in different dictionaries, but I think that I've given the standard definitions here). Where things went astray (in my opinion) is when people wanted to choose their own meanings for these words. One of the keys to effective communication is to use standard definitions of words. That was my only point in any of this.
Interestingly, I think that MOST people fit the definition of agnosticism given above. I include in this group those who are VERY religious and those who are not at all religious. Agnosticism is separate from both religion and atheism. One can believe that God exists and be agnostic. One can believe that there is no God and be agnostic. Fun with semantics. (Don't get me started.)
Sources of most of the problems, from my brief 5 minute analysis:
1. Subjectivism in disguise of objectivism. I'm at fault for this one as well. I rely on definitions of terminology without saying what they are to me.
2. Confusion of the following terms: Religion, Theism, Belief, Belief system, Atheism, Agnosticism, Knowledge, Proof, Science. Maybe I missed a few. I would create a baseline of terminology had I thought there's a slight chance everyone here will agree on the terms.
3. Meta - "Belief in Atheism" is one example that comes to mind. Enough said.
Good night, and Flying Spaghetti Monster bless,
-- Arik
--
Millions of superstitions and imaginary beings have been subscribed to over the course of our civilization. Someone who does not believe in these things does not, by virtue of just NOT being a believer, hold a set of beliefs.
This is to say that belief is a positive act -- a stretch of sorts above and beyond what can be proven and agreed upon by most everyone. You "believe" in God. You "believe" in yourself. They are convictions that cannot be solidly supported through conventional means. Once they can be, they're no longer beliefs. At that point they become facts. You don't believe facts; you accept them.
As such, atheism isn't a belief precisely because it's the lack of one. My favorite illustrative quote on the matter is, "If atheism is a belief, then NOT collecting stamps is a hobby." This is a good analogy because hobbies are active as well. Either you actively have a hobby, or you don't. It would be silly to call someone sitting on the couch doing nothing a (non)-butterfly-catcher.
Beliefs are the same, and that's why atheism isn't one.
Just to say I agree that atheism is not a belief, it is a lack of belief and the rest is wordplay. By the way it appears the great stamp collecting quotation was by a Max Beran in The Independent:
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4158/is...
Regards,
Gavin Orland
Atheism is not a religion for the same reason.
'Theism' is an abstract noun which refers collectively to each organized religion which espouses the existence of at least one god, and unlike Deism one having a personality who interacts meaningfully with human beings. ‘Theism’ is a label. It itself is not the name of any religion.
The group of theistic religions would include: Xianity, Judaism, Islam, Zoroastrianism, ancient Greco-Roman polytheisms. It would not include: Theravada Buddhism or Chinese ancestor worship or Jainism. These are non-theistic religions.
Theist and atheist alike can agree about which institutional religions are theistic. Institutional religions are reasonably well-defined "objects" (groups, associations) which can be discriminated and counted. Such agreements, shared by supposedly antithetical camps, are for me "the salt which never loses its savour."
Atheism is essentially a viewpoint which denies that any god whatsoever exists. For the Big-4 Near Eastern monotheisms, the atheist claims that of God and Yaweh, Ahura Mazda and Allah, not one of them exists. These characters are fictions just like Gilgamesh and Zeus, Sherlock Holmes and Batman.
• Institutional religion is a praxis. Atheism is obviously not an institution of any kind.
Let's be clear. ‘Theism’ is not the name of any religion. ‘Atheism’ quite obviously names no religion.
Moreover, in the relevant political sense, a religion is a recognizable social unit sharing common cultic practices, mythological (so-called supernatural) commitments, as well as secular ideological claims to power, corporate action.
Atheism embodies no common praxis -- it has no body of believers, no rituals, it has no common symbols, no unitary political ideology. Atheism is obviously not even a voluntary association. Atheism is not a religion in any sense.
Despite its theistic stance, the Boy Scouts of America is not a religion. It is however a voluntary association. Of course there are voluntary associations like the Freedom from Religion Foundation which espouse at a minimum “freedom of conscience” as embodied in the 1st Amendment.
Freedom of conscience demands openness to atheism, agnosticism, indifference to religion -- it proclaims an inherent right of persons to dismiss any alleged claim of supernatural beings or powers over their lives. It is a radical freedom -- without which the other 1st amendment rights would be irrationally truncated.