what do y'all think? (the atheism thread)

[froopy seal]

Originally Posted by stimpee

Douglas Adams summed my atheistic attitude perfectly when he described himself as a radical atheist. Read the full interview here: http://www.atheists.org/Interview%3A__Douglas_Adams (its also in his final book, The Salmon Of Doubt - great book btw)

It begins like so:
AMERICAN ATHEISTS: Mr. Adams, you have been described as a “radical Atheist.” Is this accurate?

DNA: Yes. I think I use the term radical rather loosely, just for emphasis. If you describe yourself as “Atheist,” some people will say, “Don’t you mean ‘Agnostic’?” I have to reply that I really do mean Atheist. I really do not believe that there is a god - in fact I am convinced that there is not a god (a subtle difference). I see not a shred of evidence to suggest that there is one. It’s easier to say that I am a radical Atheist, just to signal that I really mean it, have thought about it a great deal, and that it’s an opinion I hold seriously. It’s funny how many people are genuinely surprised to hear a view expressed so strongly. In England we seem to have drifted from vague wishy-washy Anglicanism to vague wishy-washy Agnosticism - both of which I think betoken a desire not to have to think about things too much.

People will then often say “But surely it’s better to remain an Agnostic just in case?” This, to me, suggests such a level of silliness and muddle that I usually edge out of the conversation rather than get sucked into it. (If it turns out that I’ve been wrong all along, and there is in fact a god, and if it further turned out that this kind of legalistic, cross-your-fingers-behind-your-back, Clintonian hair-splitting impressed him, then I think I would chose not to worship him anyway.)

Thanks, Steve. Once again, DNA has added a valuable insight to my life. Hereinafter, I will proudly call myself a radical atheist (the term 'radical' befitting my ever-growing beard).

Originally Posted by stimpee

I too believe strongly that there is no God (or G-d or god). I find the idea just so utterly ridiculous. May as well believe in fairies at the bottom of the garden. But I'll not get into those arguments willingly because I truly do not care one way or the other what people believe in as long as it doesnt fuck up my daily life and/or friends/family around me.

Full ack.

[Andrea]

Back from the land where the smell of horse-droppings is still mixed with exhaust fumes from camions...


and where the winter dark is even darker, the wet is even more wet and the cold is creeping in to the bone from the very first centigrade below zero.



Sorry if I´m a bit of topic but this is the only way for me to describe how I feel...

Last week we had a gathering at the concrete as well but not as pleasant as the gatherings at the National Theatre these days.



Deep in contemplation I was sitting there and pondering about this opportune "What is God" question, while I was watching my father in that tiny wooden box. I was wondering if there was anybody on Earth who had a clue why we got the intellect to think about and searching for the meaning of our lives, if many of us have to depart this life without the answer anyway.
However, at some point I think I came to a conclusion that "God" must have been the universal synonym for the "Unknown" throughout the history of mankind. That this "Unknown", no matter how we try to explain everything around us, is still around, both in our spiritual and our scientific world. We name the unknown "God" and "Lord" or "N" (in mathematics) but names make people associate to different things so I guess this is the main reason for the conflicts between the fanatics. The ostrich-heads in the sand really need a major upgrade like a software in a computer, just as much as old scripts, like the Bible itself. I may be naive but I do believe one day we will find a general term/concept that fits everybody. We need to handle the "Unknown", things that is beyond the bounds of human knowledge, there is no doubt about that.

As a matter of curiosity, apropos of the "Unknown", while I was sitting and contemplating at my fathers funeral, I was totally unaware that a few hours later, during a dinner with relatives I haven´t seen in 30 years, I would find out that I´m actually a relative of one of the famous Hungarian poets, Kölcsey Ferenc, who also wrote the Hungarian national anthem.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ferenc_Kölcsey
What a coincidence, what a surprise and what an amazing timing! I mean is it Richard Dawkins memetics or genetics or the "unknown" that made me be interested in art, music and poetry so intensively during the last few years? The wonder is that none in my family ever was writing poems or was interested in literature or art so deeply so nobody ever told me about this until now, and I still can´t recall how or why I started to paint and write lyrics for a couple of years ago. Kinda 'Spooky Action At A Distance' eh?
And this is only one of the funny coincidences with an excellent timing among many others in my life. It´s like I have to pinch myself sometimes to be sure I´m not dreaming. Whatever power it is I have a deep respect for it but I´m still not religious, at least not that I know of.

[bryantm3]

i really don't think there's much difference in not believing in G-d and believing there is no G-d. i think it's more the fact that many atheists don't want to appear to have positive beliefs and be like theists. if you don't believe in G-d, you're an atheist. if you believe there is no G-d, you're an atheist. either way it doesn't make you any more or less valid or intelligent in your belief system, although i disagree.

[Sean]

Originally Posted by bryantm3

i really don't think there's much difference in not believing in G-d and believing there is no G-d. i think it's more the fact that many atheists don't want to appear to have positive beliefs and be like theists. if you don't believe in G-d, you're an atheist. if you believe there is no G-d, you're an atheist. either way it doesn't make you any more or less valid or intelligent in your belief system, although i disagree.

I get what you're saying, but there is a difference regardless of how insignificant the semantics may sound on a superficial level. It's not that I "don't want to appear to have positive beliefs", it's that I actually DON'T have any positive beliefs associated with gods or religion. I choose to live my life and shape my philosophies around knowledge rather than beliefs. So the conclusions I have reached regarding gods and religion are informed conclusions.

Meanwhile, others out there may not be actively pursuing knowledge in regards to how the biological and social evolution of our species led to the advent of gods and religions, and as such, may very well reach their conclusions about god's non-existence based solely on a personal, unsupported belief about it.

Yes, in both cases, you have people who say god doesn't exist. But their philosophical approaches in reaching their conclusions are very, very different.

[Deckard]

Originally Posted by bryantm3

i really don't think there's much difference in not believing in G-d and believing there is no G-d. i think it's more the fact that many atheists don't want to appear to have positive beliefs and be like theists.

Before I start, I want to say to you bryant that I fully understand that it can look suspiciously as if some of us are being a bit sneaky or even dishonest about this question. That we want to profess one part of the definition of atheism but not be lumbered with the bit that supposedly implicates us as having a belief system. After all, faced with a firm positive belief that god does not exist, the theist (along with many who view themselves as an in-the-middle agnostic) would then be quite right to shift the responsibility for providing evidence onto atheism, which should then justifiably be treated as a rival belief system. And on that basis, you could quite reasonably attack it. But really and honestly, it's simply the case that I don't share your belief in god. I don't believe. I lack that belief. And that's it.

I'm going to try to minimize the use of category labels here, because I want to concentrate on this important distinction - between not believing in god and believing there is no god. If you get to the end of it and feel I'm an agnostic but not an atheist, then that's fine, that's up to you. I've already outlined in this thread why I consider my theistic position to be atheism rather than agnosticism (agnosticism is my gnostic position!), so I won't go back into the argument here except to say that it's one that can be debated separately. For now, I want to focus on the fundamental difference between the two positions you mentioned.

As Sean said, semantically the difference might seem minuscule, but in fact it's more than merely saying something different; it's actually meaning something different. The distinction between the two statements is crucial in terms of what the person is or is not assuming to know. It's common to mistake the two statements "I believe X does not exist" and "I do not believe X exists" as being one and the same. Both appear very similar, but in fact the first is a hypothesis, and the second is a rejection of a (different) hypothesis. As such, it's my view that those who use the statements interchangeably will find that they are either:

(1) taking a looser definition of the word 'believe' than I am
(2) or committing a logical error.

Dealing with these one at a time:


(1) Defining 'believe'
My dictionary defines 'believe' as 'assume to know' or 'accept as true'. The difficulty is that in day-to-day usage, the word believe is often used in a weaker way - people sometimes use the word to indicate that they are merely 'fairly sure' of something. And unfortunately this can make all the difference to this argument. For example, when I say I don't believe god exists, I'm saying I don't assume to know that god exists. I lack the belief in god that you possess. I reject your hypothesis that god exists. However when I also reject the other hypothesis that 'god does not exist', that's because I don't assume to know that for certain either. I don't assume to have that knowledge. (And the reasons for that I'll explain a little later.)

The confusion arises because, despite not knowing for certain that 'he' does not exist, I live my life 'as if' god does not exist. Now some mistakenly assume that living as if there is no god and positively believing there is no god are the same thing. My view is that no human being can know for certain that there is no god. Yes I lead my life 'to all intents and purposes' as if there is no god, just as I lead my life to all intents and purposes as if there are no invisible unicorns or trans-dimensional devils. The reason I live 'as if' there is no god is because it's impossible to prove the non-existence of anything. I refuse to believe in your Christian God only in the same way that I refuse to believe in Nagaraja, the Hindu snake god, or indeed in anything else the human mind can dream up. Only in that sense am I believing (assuming) that god doesn't exist - but to term it like that requires a much looser definition of the word believe than we normally employ, so we just need to be aware of that.

(2) The logical error
For the sake of dealing with this second point, let's settle on one definition of 'believe' - any one, it doesn't matter which - so that we can examine the logical error. Let's take the common definition of believe as 'assume to know'.

Essentially, we are dealing with two hypotheses, and their counterpart rejections:

Hypothesis 1: I believe god exists
(Rejection of hypothesis 1: I do not believe god exists)

Hypothesis 2: I believe god does not exist
(Rejection of hypothesis 2: I do not believe god does not exist)

As a theist, you would presumably accept hypothesis 1 and reject hypothesis 2.
Douglas Adams, quoted earlier, has effectively rejected hypothesis 1 but accepted hypothesis 2.
My position (and I think Sean's position) is that I reject both hypothesis 1 and hypothesis 2.

Now I might well live my life as if god doesn't exist, but that doesn't mean I feel sufficiently qualified or knowledgable to posit for certain that god does not exist.

[contd...]

[Deckard]

So we reach the question: why might someone lack a belief in god, but not believe in a lack of god?

There are several possibilities.

One is that they might never have come across the concept of god before. Perhaps they're too young. Or perhaps they've been too isolated. Unlikely in this day and age, I know, but it's possible enough to demonstrate the logical error in assuming the two statements to be the same. Denial pre-supposes something to deny, and in this case, there would be nothing apparent to deny. Another possible reason is that a person might be undecided. In that case, they lack a belief in god. Again, never mind the category labels for now, whether or not you think this counts as agnosticism - just recognize that this person would lack a belief in god, without having a belief that 'god does not exist', so this is perfectly possible. A further one is that they may simply be indifferent to belief in god, for whatever reason. Or they might just think the idea of the supernatural absurd and the claims of the theist absurdly overspecific and presumptious. Again, no belief in god, and no firm belief in the non-existence of god. Just a lack of belief. In none of these cases is it necessary that the person positively believes or claims to know that god Does Not Exist.

My own reason for lacking a belief in god but not believing in a lack of god can be summed up in an argument that runs along this path...

1. It seems realistic to suppose that there are limitations to human comprehension.
2. We are not in a position to be able to say "this is all there is."
3. God is a human-posited Being that is supposedly beyond human comprehension.
4. If a realm beyond human comprehension exists, then by definition we cannot say or know anything about it.
5. We can say nothing about the non-existence of a god.

This by the way is pretty much how I'd have responded to Douglas Adams' atheist comments - a man who I otherwise greatly admire, but who I suspect, on this issue, allowed his over-enthusiastic defiance of/rebellion against religion to carry him into a more strident but intellectually shaky position than he might otherwise have adopted.

If you're not already bored to tears, this will finish you off Those 5 points in more detail:

Point 1) It seems realistic to suppose there are limitations to human comprehension.
Brain capacity/cognitive ability is one thing. We will probably make great advances in this area in centuries to come, but for now it places a constraint on what we can know. However, irrespective of brain capacity, there are other limitations placed on us from living in the Universe in which we do. Some of these limitations - such as the physical constants, the speed of light, etc - may place a fundamental limit on what we're ever able to discover. But even if we were able to conquer those physical constraints, there are other factors that may place a fundamental limit on what we can ever comprehend. Being creatures of a very specific number of dimensions of time and space, it seems reasonable to me to think that, beyond a certain point, humankind is as destined to ignorance as the fictional characters of Flatland. Consequently.....

Point 2) We are not in a position to be able to say "this is all there is."
Yes this life may be all there is for humanity - this organic body, this brain-based personality and this strange attribute we call consciousness may be all there is for each of us for the few decades that we're lucky to be alive. Yes the observable Universe may or may not be all humankind can ever observe. But it does NOT follow that all the things we're capable of discovering or comprehending represent ALL of "everything" there is. Because, by definition, we would never know.

Point 3) God is a human-posited Being that is supposedly beyond human comprehension.
If we are defining god as the ultimate Being, as we usually are, he would have to encompass not just the realm that we can comprehend, but also the realm that we cannot - not so much in a different parallel realm, but rather in a greater more all-encompassing realm. Our inability to comprehend infinity tells us just how far beyond human comprehension such a Being must be. Generally, when we're talking about the concept of a god, we're talking about something and/or somewhere and/or some-(?) that we accept as being fundamentally beyond our ability to comprehend.

Point 4) If a realm beyond human comprehension exists, then by definition we cannot say or know anything about it.
Yep, the famous tautology. We cannot say what this aspect of reality contains, and we cannot say what it does not contain, because we are incapable of knowing anything about something that's being posited as being beyond human comprehension, including whether or not it even exists. The entire question is off the page.

Point 5) We can say nothing about the non-existence of a god.
Since we cannot know anything about the area beyond human comprehension, and since god is supposed to occupy such an area, we cannot possibly confirm his absence (nor his presence, but that's not the point of this particular argument).

As such:

- I label myself an atheist because I do not believe in God, I have no belief in God
- But nor do I have a belief that god 'does not exist' - because I feel that question cannot be answered by any of us.
- By placing the concept of god outside the realm of human comprehension and evidence, I am asserting that this hypothetical being is unknowable. By doing this, I am also an agnostic. Anyone else who places god outside this realm (which, I should think, is almost everyone in the modern world) will, by my reckoning, be similarly agnostic.

But as I say, category labels weren't the main point of this post. If you think I'm not a true atheist, then that's entirely up to you, but be aware that many people who share my position also call themselves atheists and refuse the narrow definition of atheism foisted on them by self-labelled agnostics and theists. The main point here was to elaborate on the specific nature of my position and to let you know what I am claiming and what I'm not.

[Deckard]

Andrea - God as a synonym for "the unknown" is a good point, and the history of mankind - with an ever-retreating/less interacting God - makes that painfully apparent.

A nice claim to fame btw. Yes it could be genetics or memetics or coincidence - there's plenty there to choose from! Was your father particularly creative or musical?

[jOHN rODRIGUEZ]

Originally Posted by Deckard

Andrea . . . Was your father particularly creative or musical?

????

[Deckard]

Originally Posted by Deckard

Andrea . . . Was your father particularly creative or musical?

Originally Posted by jOHN rODRIGUEZ

????

Just curious in light of what Andrea mentioned about genetics/memetics.

Originally Posted by Andrea

As a matter of curiosity, apropos of the "Unknown", while I was sitting and contemplating at my fathers funeral, I was totally unaware that a few hours later, during a dinner with relatives I haven´t seen in 30 years, I would find out that I´m actually a relative of one of the famous Hungarian poets, Kölcsey Ferenc, who also wrote the Hungarian national anthem.

What a coincidence, what a surprise and what an amazing timing! I mean is it Richard Dawkins memetics or genetics or the "unknown" that made me be interested in art, music and poetry so intensively during the last few years?

[bryantm3]

Originally Posted by Deckard

tons of stuff

makes sense to me. i think the bigger difference, though, is whether you try to spread the belief that you do not believe in G-d, while believing other belief systems are incorrect, or you just accept it as your own personal non-belief, that is the biggest difference— if that's what you're trying to say, then i can see the difference. either way i don't think G-d really cares whether or not you believe in him as long as you don't hurt anyone else and work to better the world, but i can't really speak for G-d (no one can). i also don't really accept you defining G-d as a christian G-d, being that i'm not christian— but i think we have the same G-d no matter what religion you are, so i guess he could be a christian G-d, muslim G-d, jewish G-d, hindu G-d, whichever— it's like different ways to eat: hindu people don't eat beef and love curry, and i don't eat pork and love smoked salmon, but regardless we're getting the same proteins and carbohydrates that everyone else is getting.

but i'm getting off track. if your (non) belief system differs because you don't believe you have a hold on the truth, whereas dawkins thinks he does, i have infinite respect for you.