Tenacious D
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Nov 5, 2008
- Messages
- 3,336
- Likes
- 1
Can reason be attributed to non-believers, alone? Is it possible to believe something - or that it may be true - in the absence of supporting evidence?
The first thing you have to do is define your terms. If by atheists we mean so-called "positive " or "strong" atheists, then yes: they would flat-out make the assertion that "I know that there is no god," and they could fairly be said to "believe" that, because of course you can't prove a negative, and there is no existence that a god or gods doesn't exist.
"Negative atheists" say that they don't believe in any gods, but don't go so far as to assert definitely that gods do not exist.
Traditionally, agnostics would say that they don't know whether gods exist or not. Unfortunately this has become somewhat of a weasel word as kind of a catch-all term for people who are uncertain or confused.
I have met someone who in all sincerity claimed to be an agnostic Catholic.
I'd like to call myself an agnostic, but since that word has become so watered down that I think it's probably more accurate to say I'm a de facto negative atheist who's sympathetic to the theistic clockwork universe model. I've tried not to "believe" in anything ever since I started rigorously questioning the doctrine of the church I was brought up in. I find the whole notions of "faith" and "belief" and the absolute certainty they imply to be faintly horrifying.
Of course it is possible. But professing a belief is more reasonable than another in the same absence of evidence is where it goes awry. People are Christian for a reason, people are Muslim for a reason, people believe in God for a reason...and in doing so they are claiming to know things that they manifestly cannot know.
Where the non-believer stands is not having to believe anything until the supporting evidence is argued. Just like the Christian doesn't ask the Muslim to prove Jesus rose from the dead, the atheist doesn't need to show that God doesn't exist. The burden of evidence is on the one making the claim of existence.
You stopped short in your first paragraph, although perhaps unintentionally so - but aren't others atheists for a reason, too? From my own personal experiences (though admittedly limited to several atheistic / agnostic friends), it seems that some choose atheism not primarily because they believe that there is no g/God, or a possibility of one, but rather, because they do not want their to be one. In other words, given the choice between the existence of an all-knowing, ever-present g/God or not - they adamantly prefer for the latter.
Perhaps this feeds back into Vercy's delineation of "positive" and "negative" atheists, if only partially.
If you intend this to be equally and fully applied in either direction - to both theism and atheism - words fail me in expressing the strength of my agreement to this statement.
You stopped short in your first paragraph, although perhaps unintentionally so - but aren't others atheists for a reason, too? From my own personal experiences (though admittedly limited to several atheistic / agnostic friends), it seems that some choose atheism not primarily because they believe that there is no g/God, or a possibility of one, but rather, because they do not want their to be one. In other words, given the choice between the existence of an all-knowing, ever-present g/God or not - they adamantly prefer for the latter.
Perhaps this feeds back into Vercy's delineation of "positive" and "negative" atheists, if only partially.
I'm sort of in this boat but never considered it agnostic - I believe in a creator; I'm not wishy-washy about that belief. I guess I'm closest to being a Deist.
I don't really believe about daily involvement in our lives in any sort of paying attention to everyone and making decisions for them.
Instead I believe:
1) the creative force put all this stuff in motion
2) there are supra-natural forces/powers/phenomena that fall out side of man's "reasoning" at least for know.
3) following up on 3, I see no reason why these things should be determined not to exist simply because man may be incapable of "understanding them". I believe this is the arrogance of man.
4) I believe some people are more attuned to the concepts in #2 and "sense" them more strongly than others.
5) I label my self Christian since that is how I was taught about a creator - I simply view it as the prism through which I sense this greater power. I don't see Christianity as any more of a direct link to the power than any other religion.
6) Heaven and Hell are metaphors - perhaps there is some link to what happens to the soul but as in #5, I don't see being a devout believer of a particular religion as a prerequisite for those outcomes.
Could you point me to the people who don't believe in love or beauty?
Having (seemingly) failed to establish this personal relationship on your own, you now simply rely upon G/god to do bridge the chasm, instead.
If I've accurately represented your position, it is profoundly important - and rare, I believe. Many others simply could not stand upon that uncertain ground, or for very long. Most c/wouldn't tolerate the mystery, and would either feign an experiential awareness or choose outright unbelief, instead.
Given the choice, would you prefer to have a relationship with this g/God, or not, and what do you imagine that experience would look like, if obtained?
You believe that any possible conviction to be unjust, until this g/God makes these things known to you, directly? Not intended to imply anything, just wanted to be certain that I understood your point.
It's an incredibly personal question, and one which you certainly don't have to answer - but I'll offer it, in case you wouldn't mind:
Why is it that you believe that this g/God has seemingly withheld this personal relationship from you, at least to this point, despite the fact that you have earnestly sought it?
Of course. Every model of the universe -- religious or scientific -- has holes of uncertainty in it, places where you just have to sort of throw your hands up in the air. E.g., "We don't know why God had Moses kill all those babies"; "We don't know how some proteins started self-replicating." There are no final answers, anywhere.
I think the rational response to all this uncertainty is to keep your beliefs more along the lines of theories, constantly subjected to questioning and able to incorporate more evidence as it becomes available. I think things, I don't believe them.
It's admittedly difficult for adherents of Western religions to do that, because there's always been an emphasis on absolute belief as an important component of monotheism. You aren't really supposed to be questioning your beliefs all the time.
Yes.
As I stated earlier, belief and disbelief are not choices.
I would prefer to have the relationship. I would simply like to ask a few questions pertaining to morality and salvation, hear his answers, and move on.
You understand my point.
I know not.
When is that ever the case? Like what are some examples of this?
I'd love to be convinced that there's a god. It would be really comforting when I watch my family members die to believe that that wasn't it, that they were going somewhere better, that I would eventually see them again. Unfortunately I can't find any evidence at all to support that belief.
Would his answers affect how you might, "move on"? For instance, what if he said, "Hell is real, and anyone who doesn't believe that is wrong - and I want you to tell people that, despite their protests." (of course, this is just an extreme hypothetical of thousands that exist) - would you?
What relationship would you prefer, once those questions were answered?
What if he sought a relationship, but refused those answers - would you accept it?
You stopped short in your first paragraph, although perhaps unintentionally so - but aren't others atheists for a reason, too? From my own personal experiences (though admittedly limited to several atheistic / agnostic friends), it seems that some choose atheism not primarily because they believe that there is no g/God, or a possibility of one, but rather, because they do not want their to be one. In other words, given the choice between the existence of an all-knowing, ever-present g/God or not - they adamantly prefer for the latter.
Perhaps this feeds back into Vercy's delineation of "positive" and "negative" atheists, if only partially.
I've stated over and over that I believe this requirement while appealing is without full merit because it assumes man's cognitive abilities are wholly sufficient to understand everything. I would suggest that this underlying belief is in itself non-falsifiable!
Christopher Hitchens has said he is not an atheist, he is a non-deist. By that, he means some atheist would like for it to be true, but simply can't accept it. His opinion is not only does he not believe in a creator, but he also thinks it would be rather awful if it were true. He likens it to a dictator, not only watching over your every action, but also your every thought and whim until you die...and really, it doesn't even end there, that is where the fun really begins.
Hitchen's pursuasive argument aside, I see and understand that there are many comforting aspects of religious belief. That said, I also understand that me wanting to believe something doesn't always correlate with it being correct.
I can't speak for every non-believer, but that is where I stand.