The Folly of Atheism

As Dr. Dawkins puts it, agnostic in principle and atheist in practice. We have to be agnostic, ultimately, to a certain extent where the question of the existence of a deity is concerned (just as we do about any other claim, be it unicorns or Russell's Teapot), i.e. we can't close our minds completely to the possibility since there's no proving a negative.

But that doesn't mean we cannot, do not and should not proceed under the reasonable assumption that these things do not exist, even if some claim that they do.

 

Saying "there's no proving a negative" is incorrect. Many times a negative can easily be proven.

And in those cases where the negative is so universal as to be unable to be proved...a person should just refrain from making an assertion using that negative.

Nothing wrong with saying, "My guess is there are no gods." There is lots wrong, though, with asserting that there are no gods.

How would one "proceed under the reasonable assumption" that there are no gods?

Perhaps you meant we should proceed as though there are no vindictive, petty gods like the one described in the Bible...which we almost all do, even the supposedly devout.

 

Well, yes. We don't have many other proclaimed gods that could potentially have such an impact on our lives. Culturally speaking, it's the Abrahamic variety that impact us the most, although in other parts of the world this is likely to be very different. India has its own gods with their own implications for how people live.

 

Yup. I agree.

And it is the Abrahamic type of god that causes the most problems.

I definitely live my life as though that kind of god does not exist. I'm in a heap of trouble if I am wrong...but if that kind of god exists, so is everyone else.

As for a creator god...no problem. Just live. Which is what I do.

 

I guess I see what you're getting at. Belief in a pure creator god with no goofy rulebook (a deistic god, I suppose) doesn't impact how we live, just as accepting the scientific consensus on the solar system or, say, being a flat-earther does not by itself really impact how we live.

I tend not to think about that kind of a god for rather the same reason - it doesn't influence anything outside of the mind of the believer. I would only point out that such a god is not something based on evidence and is basically a god of the gaps, but someone disagreeing with me about that is probably not going to be the sort of person who wants public schools to "teach the controversy" in science class

 

Actually your second statement is possiblyan example of your first statement being wrong.

Let us see. Clearly explain what exactly you mean by supernatural without using the word natural. Explain how the supernatural functions, where it resides, and describe its relationship with time, space, matter, and energy. Is it conscious, and if so, what is its basis for consciousness?

See if you can get theists you know to clearly explain what they mean by god.

I once went to a formal debate between an atheist and a theist over whether god exists. The definition of god they used was "an unembodied mind outside of time." They went on to debate for two hours without ever addressing their definition's reasonableness or internal consistency.

Sure the words fit together grammatically. Separately, they all mean something, relatively easy to define. We come up with a phrase and build arguments around it, and think that because the sentences are grammatically correct, and the logic is valid, somehow we have said something meaningful.

Look at what happens when we closely consider the concept of a timeless unembodied mind.

I have a problem nailing down what the phrase unembodied mind outside of time could possibly mean. I can build an argument around it, but it is really just gibberish.

My mind is my experience of what my brain is doing physically. Without the brain, I would have nothing to experience. Even if I can somehow accept my experience at face value, and divorce the mental experience from the physical experiences that attend it, I would not be able to make that experience sensible without time.

What are thoughts and self-awareness without before, during, and after? There can be no memory, no hope, no learning, no anger, etc. Within the temporal framework my thoughts develop; my attention moves from topic to topic, from mental image to mental image. I order information and concepts by similarity or difference, by pertinence and importance, and then rearrange them as my thinking develops.

I have awareness of the universe in response to (after) sensory experience. I can think multiple things at once, but that is based on the temporal experience of during, which depends on time. None of my mental experiences can happen without time.

Even the discreet concept of timelessness is meaningless to me. I can abstract from an image of a line, a sphere, or a plane to being at all times at once, but that leaves intact the basic temporal relationships, before, during, and after. Without time, I have none of these three. I can conceive of what it means to have no before or after. Without during, however, I have no idea how there can be any relationships of any kind.

Absolutely I can manipulate the parts of the idea in language, but so what? "'Twas brillig, and the slithy toves did gyre and gimble in the wabe." Just because I know the toves were slithy, and that the wabe is the place they were gyring and gimbling does not mean that the statement makes any sense.

We might as well admit that "timeless unembodied mind" is just code for "We have no clear idea what we are talking about."

 

Thanks for the compliment and taking time to read and respond.

Sorry I didn't intend to say science had proven the existence of God either way. What I am referring to is the way science pushes "God as a cause" back by expanding our knowledge of what is known. There is an evolution to "God as a cause" that matches our collective understanding of nature. At first people thought thunder and lightning were caused by God but then we studied the phenomenon and found a natural cause. People used to believe that breathing air into and out of our body was the Hebrew Ruach or breath of life, spirit. Now we know that breathing is a way for our body to bring oxygen into our blood and distribute it through our body. This tendency to explain away natural events as supernatural events dulls curiosity and often puts humanity at a disadvantage. It doesn't prove or disprove the existence of God but it shows a pattern I can identify. For some, God now exists outside our dimension, he initiated the Big Bang. The science is unclear there so that's where God lives. He used to live on top of a mountain, then in the clouds but now she's multidimensional.

I just think that if God actually existed there would be more unity among his followers because his communication with them would align them more. There are as many ideas about the nature of God as there are people because the concept of God exists only in the minds of people. Some people think he is against them eating pork, others think he hates homosexuals or loves America. In reality people create a doctrine that fits their needs and then use God to justify it.

Oh yeah morality is certainly practical. I'm just saying that there is nothing in religion that is practical for me. (You are correct about practical value at the root of moral law - one could argue that slavery is illegal today because of Christian efforts. Debts are eliminated after seven years because of religious ideas etc.)

There was a certain practicality in more tribal situations and I would argue religion was essential to the formation of civilization. In a tribal society order is maintained by social pressure with the superstitions of religion forming the core tenets. When you don't have a police force religion helps to maintain order.

What I'm referring to is more that as a model for understanding the nature of reality I find it unhelpful for me. Just like in the situation in point 3 Religion makes very defined statements that can be proven incorrect but many will cling to these statements regardless. I keep coming back to the concept of sin for this because as a model for motivation of human behaviour it's pretty inadequate and I found it personally damaging. Psychology is much better at understanding this because it's not designed to give us absolutes that must be followed. It's making models that change based on experimentation and observation. Morality becomes practical when it makes sense.

Also there are morally questionable things in the bible. God kills like 24,000 Israelites because one man is having sex with an inferior and the scourge ends when he and the inferior are pierced through the genitals while having intercourse resulting in their death. Is this morally defensible?

It's not the most popular biblical story but it's Numbers Chapter 25.

Religion deals in absolutes quite often yet it's not difficult for a society to bend things to fit their doctrine. Look at how American slaveowners were able to use the bible to subjugate slaves or the way the Boers of South Africa thought of themselves as the children of Israel on a hostile land surrounded by inferiors. One could even argue that Nazi genocide against Jews has a religious root.

Religion is often about tribalism which often dehumanizes people outside the tribe.

And now that I have clarified these other points, typed them out, deleted them started over etc I'm back to not having any time left.

 

But I have defined my atheism in a previous post on this thread already. Do I need to start every post with a profession of unfaith? I also talked at length about the other atheist beliefs I've encountered.

The quite long post of mine you are quoting two sentences of was not about what atheists believe or don't believe - been there, done that already- it was about usfan's overgeneralisation of atheists by constant use of the qualifier "most". It was mainly about the tiny size of the atheist demographic, the disproportionate public hostility it contends with and the frankly ridiculous exaggeration of its influence in a theist majority world.

There was also a little about the fact that the "Godless Evolution" perception is primarily an American thing.

I honestly have no idea why you replied to my post. Nothing you've written is relevant to it.

 

My Dad very firmly believed in God. He refused to look for evidence of God because the bible taught him to have faith that the bible is gods word and was all a person needs. Note that Psalm 1 tells you to read scripture to become like a tree that is planted. It doesn't say to go find a scientific doctrine and, as the story of doubting Thomas indicates looking for evidence of God defies faith.

I would argue that faith is integral to the way we operate. You can't prove the sun will rise tomorrow but you probably still pay your mortgage and go to bed early when you are scheduled to work. This simulation could be unplugged at anytime.

Well people like you and I who use rationality to understand the world would like to think so but for all we know this simulation is being run by a petulant child who insists that we praise him and follow an arbitrary set of rules that don't always have practical value. For all we know he's running this simulation under the blankets with the lights off so his parents don't know he's up after bedtime. His mom might make him turn off his universe and go to bed any moment now. (See we can only try to understand what is outside our universe in terms of what is inside the universe because we are a subset of this system.

The only thing I know for certain is that I exist in some way because I'm experiencing this (cogito ergo sum). Everything else is just me trying to make sense of the universe because my brain is no longer occupied by hunting and gathering.

 

One would have to proceed as though there is no good god rewarding moral behaviour either. There would be no divine plan. There would be no Moral Absolutes, no Good or Evil. We'd be completely on our own, fully accountable for our own actions. Rising or sinking by our own lights, individually and as a species.

And it would make the in-group/out-group tribalism thing humans inflict on each other a little bit harder to justify. A lot harder actually. Divine sanction is a very powerful weapon. Nobody could say "But it's the Word of God, so I'm right and you're wrong" without theism. They'd have to come clean and say "I'm right and you're wrong because I think I'm better than you." Just doesn’t have the same morally righteous ring, does it?

 

The definitions I've been given is a being or force outside of the laws of nature. It is not bound by natural laws in any way. It can bend or break them to its purpose and that is why miracles are possible. It is supernatural.

 

What I had to say WAS relevant...whether you can see it or not.

BOTTOM LINE: You seem to be inferring that most atheists do not "believe" there are no gods.

If I am wrong...I apologize.

If I am correct...you almost certainly are wrong, big time.

 

Yet you come across it, Ecco, because what you hear isn't "I have come to no conclusion on the existence of gods, but I've concluded there is no god" it's "I have come to no conclusion on the existence of supernatural forces like ghosts, esp, The Universe, Native American magic, reincarnation or quantum woo, but I've concluded there is no personal god."

 

Where have I said anything about "most atheists" or inferred they do not "believe" there are no gods?
Where have I questioned the validity of anyone's perception of their own spiritual beliefs or lack of them?
NOWHERE.
If someone tells me they are an atheist because they believe in The Universe but they don't believe in God, I take them at their word. As I've already stated, I'm a strong atheist- not a militant one. I don't do proselytisation.
Yes. You are dead wrong.

 

I thought you'd understand what I meant in my first sentence. It was a bit tongue-in-cheek, a bit sarcasm. More clearly, I could have written...

I don't like to provide definitions for words since they are already defined. However, I will state that all things considered supernatural are the figments of man's imaginings - ghosts and gods. However, the reverse is not true. I don't consider Batman and Mary Poppins to be supernatural.

Why. Ask 100 theists and get 100 explanations. However, that clearly illustrates the fallacy of dumping all theists into one group. However, it is something they like to do when they assert that most people believe in god.

It's essentially a generalized fallback position. Christians say their god is "eternal". On the other hand depictions of gods often look just like the people who created them.

 

I was responding to a poster who linked to this:

 

Okay show me any unembodied mind not timeless or anything that would likely demonstrate that is possible in real life then we can consider one outside of space and time as we know it, and a working theory backed by scientific evidence that there is anything outside of this universe. If you can't then any such consideration is mute.

 

In your #685, you wrote:

This was in response to usfan's:

I’ve read this over a couple of times and it can be interpreted in two ways…and the way I interpreted it was that very few atheists (a tiny, noisy minority of them) are the dogmatic kind…which I considered, “The kind who “believe” or guess there are no gods.”

That "very few are" seems to be one of the atheistic meme’s around the Internet…and it sounded to me as though you were selling it here.

If not, like I said…I apologize.

I guess we can agree then that most people who use the descriptor “atheist”…do so because they DO INDEED “believe” or guess there are no gods…or that it is more likely that there are no gods than that there is at least one.

Either of those is a “belief” or guess.

 

I've not noticed your definition...and since I deal with many people here, it is easy to confuse who said what about their position.

And we all seem to agree that there are varying definitions...that different people mean different things.

So...why not make use of this new thread I started to define it...and be able to link back to it if you are asked.

http://www.politicalforum.com/showthread.php?t=495618&p=1067095895#post1067095895

 

I see. I would have thought my use of the word "proselytise" would have clued you in to what I meant by very dogmatic, but apparently not. Perhaps it's because I don't see simple statements like "I believe/don’t believe in god" as dogmatic. This from Vocabulary.com:

Dogma means the doctrine of belief in a religion or a political system. The literal meaning of dogma in ancient Greek was something that seems true. These days, in English, dogma is more absolute.

dogma - Dictionary Definition : Vocabulary.com

1
n a doctrine or code of beliefs accepted as authoritative
“he believed all the Marxist dogma”
Type of:
doctrine, ism, philosophical system, philosophy, school of thought
a belief (or system of beliefs) accepted as authoritative by some group or school
n a religious doctrine that is proclaimed as true without proof
Synonyms:
tenet
Types:
article of faith, credendum
(Christianity) any of the sections into which a creed or other statement of doctrine is divided
Type of:
church doctrine, creed, gospel, religious doctrine
the written body of teachings of a religious group that are generally accepted by that group

This bit is key to my use of the term dogmatic:
a doctrine or code of beliefs accepted as authoritative
It's the "authoritative" bit, hence my linking "very dogmatic" to "proselytising".

 

So you have a starting statement that sounds like it makes sense, and makes it appear you have a clear concept of what you are discussing. Let us see if there is enough included to discuss the possibility of such a force or being.

• What does force mean if it is not bound by natural laws that define what we include in our concept of force?
• Since the supernatural is not bound by natural laws, is it bound by supernatural laws? If so, what are they?
• A force is energy interacting with matter; does a supernatural force reside in the physical universe and affect physical matter?
• Can a supernatural force exist independent of matter? If so, how?
• If it is not in the physical universe, where is it?
• Can natural forces oppose supernatural forces? If so, what decides which prevails?

 

Lol! Great questions Marcus! I've written them all down and will ask theists and agnostics. If I get answers I'll get back to you. I personally can't imagine a being or force outside the laws of nature myself and that's why I'm a dull, unimaginative hard atheist. The natural laws are quite enough to be going on with, thanks - I can't get my head around most of them, let alone throwing supernatural ones into the mix. Yikes!

"Can natural forces oppose supernatural forces? If so, what decides which prevails?" No idea, but my head is singing a medley of "When Two Sides Go To War" and " It's The End Of The World As We Know It" just thinking about it.

 

Wasn't trying to ignore you but we seem to be at an impasse. All I can do is refer back to the article which explains my position accurately. You don't agree, that's fine. I think it's because I see an important distinction between a person who says "I can't know if God exists therefore I don't believe in it" and a person who says "God does not exist and I know it". I would be the former. Am I committed to the position? Well I don't ever want to be so committed to any position that I wouldn't change it when I learn something new. I am constantly refining my understanding. I have identified as a agnostic atheist for a long time though.

I often avoid really definitive statements because there is always a risk of becoming dogmatic.

Just as I believe a religious person who tries to find evidence to prove god is missing the point (biblically) I also think a person who tries to follow science who makes really definitive statements is also missing the point. The theory of relativity for example, is a theory full of lots of evidence, observations experiments etc but it's still a working model that is refined and modified as new data is added to it. Religion, on the other hand, says "God created the world. " It's a definitive statement. You can't really add anything or take anything away.

 

So your definition of supernatural is an entity that can create the universe. If you are going to use supernatural as a broader brush then perhaps you should define the broader brush.

 

There is every logical reason to believe that the universe originated through order and laws, not by accident. There is no logical reason to believe that intelligence or consciousness had anything to do with it.