What Atheists Believe

[volinbham]

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.

To me this makes his argument weaker - he's injected what he hopes the case is (or isn't in his case) onto his other arguments for not believing.

That's entirely equivalent to one of faith believing because they hope it is true and like the consequences if it is true.

The other part of the argument and where I see atheists stray is the linking of specific religious beliefs with the notion of a creator.

CHs portrayal of a daily watching, highly interventionist and eager to punish for eternity God may be consistent with many religions but none of that has to be true for a Creator to exist (or to have existed). By going from the core question (Creator?) to attacking specific religious doctrine inconsistencies you get a strawman attack on the core question.

Personally, I don't buy the daily involved, highly intereventionist view.

 

[volinbham]

Wrong.

We can go into this debate again, but I'm not sure it is worth it, as we both are firm in our stance.

Maybe one more time .

Do you believe man has the ability to eventually understand all the mysteries of the universe using "reason"?

 

[Tenacious D]

The answers would certainly have an effect.

Unless the being required a further relationship, none. I don't want to plead for help or special consideration; simply want to know what I would need to do to be considered a righteous person in the eyes of said being.

I would not call that much of a relationship; however, I would accept.

What if your righteousness could only be achieved via relationship, the formation of which rested squarely upon your (continual) plea of (total, complete and utter)helplessness and (the desperate and unavoidable) need for special consideration?

Would you still pursue and desire it?

If those were truly required, perhaps your respective outlooks on relationship are irreconcilable and cannot coexist (at least, insofar as things now stand).

 

[cd12]

what do you have to lose by believing?

what do you have to lose if you don't?

 

[therealUT]

What if your righteousness could only be achieved via relationship, the formation of which rested squarely upon your (continual) plea of (total, complete and utter)helplessness and (the desperate and unavoidable) need for special consideration?

Does this being specifically tell me this or do I "learn" this through hearsay. If the being specifically tells me this, then I do what I'm told.

 

[Vercingetorix]

I fully trust that you would prefer to know this, but what evidences may sufficiently prove it to you, in any regard, if such is even possible?

I suppose evidence could come from either of two different directions. If I were to be persuaded that one of the religious models of the universe were true, and that it provided a truthful account of the supernaturally directed creation of the world, then I would have to give credence to what that religion said about the afterlife. That doesn't really rise to the level of "evidence," but it would at least be heavy circumstantial evidence.

Alternately, evidence about the afterlife could come from science -- new findings about what happens to the brain after death, perhaps. Insights into exactly what consciousness is. Or maybe even something from way out in left field, like beyond-a-doubt proof that somebody had died and still been able to carry out Harry Houdini's promise to his wife that he'd contact her from beyond the grave (although I can't imagine how you could actually prove it to the satisfaction of the scientific world). I don't expect to see it, but it's theoretically possible that science could eventually shed even a little more light into the black box that is death.

And given these evidences, what role would faith then play, thereafter?

I can't imagine any circumstances in which faith would play any role in my thinking, if by faith you mean an unsupported leap from evidence over to belief. Even if God himself appeared to me, declared that everything in the Bible was true, and explained to me exactly what happens when we die, that wouldn't then be faith on my part, it would be a conclusion based on observation.

The closest thing I've experienced to "faith" in my adult life was when a friend and I had been on a three-day backpacking trip in California, and despite his grumblings that we hadn't made any arrangements for being picked up, I had absolute faith that my wife would be waiting at the trailhead with the best ice-cold beer she'd been able to find in the town nearby. And even that wasn't really faith, but more like a strong confidence based on prior observed behavior.

(I was right!)

 

[Tenacious D]

Does this being specifically tell me this or do I "learn" this through hearsay. If the being specifically tells me this, then I do what I'm told.

S/he tells you - but not audibly, instead through intuition, meditation, reflection and text.

 

[therealUT]

S/he tells you - but not audibly, instead through intuition, meditation, reflection and text.

Not through text (as this would presumably be written by a person); however, I will accept intuition, meditation, and reflection. I meditate and reflect often; often I am actively searching for such a being while engaged in these activities. So, for it to actually happen would strike me as extremely rare and significant (yet, the fallacy is it still could be self-imposed).

 

[Tenacious D]

I suppose evidence could come from either of two different directions. If I were to be persuaded that one of the religious models of the universe were true, and that it provided a truthful account of the supernaturally directed creation of the world, then I would have to give credence to what that religion said about the afterlife. That doesn't really rise to the level of "evidence," but it would at least be heavy circumstantial evidence.

Alternately, evidence about the afterlife could come from science -- new findings about what happens to the brain after death, perhaps. Insights into exactly what consciousness is. Or maybe even something from way out in left field, like beyond-a-doubt proof that somebody had died and still been able to carry out Harry Houdini's promise to his wife that he'd contact her from beyond the grave (although I can't imagine how you could actually prove it to the satisfaction of the scientific world). I don't expect to see it, but it's theoretically possible that science could eventually shed even a little more light into the black box that is death.



I can't imagine any circumstances in which faith would play any role in my thinking, if by faith you mean an unsupported leap from evidence over to belief. Even if God himself appeared to me, declared that everything in the Bible was true, and explained to me exactly what happens when we die, that wouldn't then be faith on my part, it would be a conclusion based on observation.

The closest thing I've experienced to "faith" in my adult life was when a friend and I had been on a three-day backpacking trip in California, and despite his grumblings that we hadn't made any arrangements for being picked up, I had absolute faith that my wife would be waiting at the trailhead with the best ice-cold beer she'd been able to find in the town nearby. And even that wasn't really faith, but more like a strong confidence based on prior observed behavior.

(I was right!)

By its very definition, does the production of evidence rescind or at best, subdue the need - and purported value - of faith?

Conclusive evidences and the certainty which they afford, while understandably valuable in a great many contexts, seem to be diametrically opposed to, and the natural enemy of faith.

"Once the playwright appears on stage, the play is over" - so to speak (I can't recall who said this originally).

 

[Vercingetorix]

That is what I mean by the arrogance of man - it must fit our way of thinking to be real. Given the vastness of the universe and the relatively minimal amount of time man has been a part of it I find it almost silly to believe that some system of "knowing" created by man is magically capable of grasping everything.

The traditional Christian approach to the unknowns in every system that I talked about upthread is this:

1. The part that you can understand, you had better understand because you're going to be tortured forever and ever if you get it wrong.

2. And the part that you can't understand, well, who are we to question the mind of God? See #1.

I don't expect to understand everything, of course, but if I'm really being dangled over an eternal burning lake of fire, then I do expect to be given adequate information about what the judgment is going to be based on. Otherwise God is simply a thug, and any worship of him is basically at the point of a gun.

 

[Tenacious D]

Not through text (as this would presumably be written by a person); however, I will accept intuition, meditation, and reflection. I meditate and reflect often; often I am actively searching for such a being while engaged in these activities. So, for it to actually happen would strike me as extremely rare and significant (yet, the fallacy is it still could be self-imposed).

And what do you discover during your meditation and reflection, if anything?

How is this g/God intuitively evidenced, if at all?

 

[Tenacious D]

The traditional Christian approach to the unknowns in every system that I talked about upthread is this:

1. The part that you can understand, you had better understand because you're going to be tortured forever and ever if you get it wrong.

2. And the part that you can't understand, well, who are we to question the mind of God? See #1.

I don't expect to understand everything, of course, but if I'm really being dangled over an eternal burning lake of fire, then I do expect to be given adequate information about what the judgment is going to be based on. Otherwise God is simply a thug, and any worship of him is basically at the point of a gun.

And that's not worship, at all, IMO.

 

[rjd970]

Maybe one more time .

Do you believe man has the ability to eventually understand all the mysteries of the universe using "reason"?

I don't know, and neither does anybody else. Reason and evidence has gotten us this far, and the continual means by which it edits what is and isn't truth is its greatest strength.

I do know, however, think it is the absolute best method we have for determining truth. Simply saying something must be true precisely because it fits in certain unexplained mysteries, and also by definition can't be explained through reason/rationalization/evidence is inaccurate. It opens the door to saying anything may be true, given the requisite passes for deterministic verification.

I can say I believe a ghost visits me every night when I am in bed and helps me fall asleep. If I were to claim that in every day conversation, on a date, in an interview...etc, I would immediately pay a price. Now, I could go on to say this ghost exists outside the bounds of human reason, it is metaphysical, and I feel it to be true, therefor I don't need evidence. That doesn't, in the least, make it more plausible then it being a figment of my imagination.

 

[volinbham]

The traditional Christian approach to the unknowns in every system that I talked about upthread is this:

1. The part that you can understand, you had better understand because you're going to be tortured forever and ever if you get it wrong.

2. And the part that you can't understand, well, who are we to question the mind of God? See #1.

I don't expect to understand everything, of course, but if I'm really being dangled over an eternal burning lake of fire, then I do expect to be given adequate information about what the judgment is going to be based on. Otherwise God is simply a thug, and any worship of him is basically at the point of a gun.

This is where I think the debate gets muddled.

I personally believe in a Creator. I do not buy the (insert religion) specific teachings.

I also see no reason to believe a Creator is something that monitors each of us constantly, keeps some scorecard, intervenes routinely and then directs us to some fate after we die. In particular, the notion that some Creator is actively going to punish us for violating a rule (eating pork) is entirely ludicrous to me.

I personally see it as more of a system Creator and we are part of that system. There is some energy (for lack of a better term) that is supra-natural and we occaisionly tap into that (some more than others). As for the afterlife, who knows?

 

[rjd970]

To me this makes his argument weaker - he's injected what he hopes the case is (or isn't in his case) onto his other arguments for not believing.

That's entirely equivalent to one of faith believing because they hope it is true and like the consequences if it is true.

The other part of the argument and where I see atheists stray is the linking of specific religious beliefs with the notion of a creator.

CHs portrayal of a daily watching, highly interventionist and eager to punish for eternity God may be consistent with many religions but none of that has to be true for a Creator to exist (or to have existed). By going from the core question (Creator?) to attacking specific religious doctrine inconsistencies you get a strawman attack on the core question.

Personally, I don't buy the daily involved, highly intereventionist view.

I don't know how much of Hitchens you have read, but he came to the conclusion that there wasn't a God long before he claimed to not like him. Personally, I am more of the Sam Harris school. While pointing out the implausibility of specific beliefs has merit, the real meat of the question is the reason one has for the belief.

FWIW, Hitchens separates the argument against religion with that of a creator. Those who believe in an omnipotent creator must explain for his failures and clumsiness, those who believe in a prayer answering God must explain for his inconsistencies and sadism.

...that is the VERY short cliff notes version, but you get the idea.

 

[volinbham]

I don't know, and neither does anybody else. Reason and evidence has gotten us this far, and the continual means by which it edits what is and isn't truth is its greatest strength.

To use the atheist tactic - is this belief in reason falsifiable? If not, isn't it an article of faith in an off itself?

I do know, however, think it is the absolute best method we have for determining truth. Simply saying something must be true precisely because it fits in certain unexplained mysteries, and also by definition can't be explained through reason/rationalization/evidence is inaccurate. It opens the door to saying anything may be true, given the requisite passes for deterministic verification.

I'm not saying reason can't eventually explain it - I've never argued that. I'm am saying that I can easily see how some (many) things may not be explanable using this system but that is no reason to dismiss them outright (as many atheists using this tact do)

I can say I believe a ghost visits me every night when I am in bed and helps me fall asleep. If I were to claim that in every day conversation, on a date, in an interview...etc, I would immediately pay a price. Now, I could go on to say this ghost exists outside the bounds of human reason, it is metaphysical, and I feel it to be true, therefor I don't need evidence. That doesn't, in the least, make it more plausible then it being a figment of my imagination.

I think the "evidence" is there. The history of man is littered with the evidence. If you begin with the premise that all that "evidence" is a figment of the imagination; a psychological response then it completely eliminates it as evidence.

I huge difference to me between the "ghost" and "flying teapot" analogies is that neither of these examples are so widely backed and experienced by virtually all of mankind throughout it's history. You may still say these are psychological creations of being human but I think the argument that something is going on here is much greater than either the ghost or teapot argument.

I remember a similar discussion with an atheist that dismissed the entire history of man with regard to spiritual connections and a Creative force. In the next sentence he expressed his BELIEF that String Theory was likely the explanation! I mean come on - that is view is not "reason" in any terms. He found things he like in String Theory (highly unproven and virtually untestable) but completely dismissed tons of human experience.

 

[Vercingetorix]

By its very definition, does the production of evidence rescind or at best, subdue the need - and purported value - of faith?

Conclusive evidences and the certainty which they afford, while understandably valuable in a great many contexts, seem to be diametrically opposed to, and the natural enemy of faith.

I don't think there's any value in faith whatsoever. The capacity to fervently believe something despite insufficient evidence is one of the worst characteristics of the human race.

"Once the playwright appears on stage, the play is over" - so to speak (I can't recall who said this originally).

Ah, but if we're talking about a Christian perspective, then the playwright is all over the place in the Bible. Old Testament, New Testament -- every other chapter there's a tangible manifestation of God. I've long maintained that the emphasis on faith in modern Christianity is a way to bridge the gap between God's constant physical manifestation in the Bible and his apparently total lack of manifestation in the world around us.

 

[volinbham]

I don't know how much of Hitchens you have read, but he came to the conclusion that there wasn't a God long before he claimed to not like him. Personally, I am more of the Sam Harris school. While pointing out the implausibility of specific beliefs has merit, the real meat of the question is the reason one has for the belief.

FWIW, Hitchens separates the argument against religion with that of a creator. Those who believe in an omnipotent creator must explain for his failures and clumsiness, those who believe in a prayer answering God must explain for his inconsistencies and sadism.

...that is the VERY short cliff notes version, but you get the idea.

The last first:

Why should a Creator had to have been perfect? I just don't get that. The alternative to a creator is basically random chance. Seems to me the toughest question is what created the Creator but we basically ignore that for random chance so I see that basically as a draw.

On the first, I would have to wonder if he didn't implicitly start with a distaste for a highly involved God when deciding there isn't one. If he doesn't believe in one at all why bother to get bent out of shape about how bad it would be if there was one - it is an impossibility.

 

[Vercingetorix]

This is where I think the debate gets muddled.

I personally believe in a Creator. I do not buy the (insert religion) specific teachings.

I also see no reason to believe a Creator is something that monitors each of us constantly, keeps some scorecard, intervenes routinely and then directs us to some fate after we die. In particular, the notion that some Creator is actively going to punish us for violating a rule (eating pork) is entirely ludicrous to me.

I personally see it as more of a system Creator and we are part of that system. There is some energy (for lack of a better term) that is supra-natural and we occaisionly tap into that (some more than others). As for the afterlife, who knows?

There are two separate debates to be had:

1. Is there a God?

2. If God exists, who is he and what does he want from us?

Even as a self-described "negative atheist," I don't think it's that much of a leap to #1. Comparing the big bang theory with the second law of thermodynamics will get you most of the way there. I haven't yet read a convincing, layperson-accessible explanation of why the two don't contradict each other that doesn't sound like quasi-religious rationalization to me.

#2, though, is the unbridgeable gap and the unanswerable question.

 

[volinbham]

There are two separate debates to be had:

1. Is there a God?

2. If God exists, who is he and what does he want from us?

Even as a self-described "negative atheist," I don't think it's that much of a leap to #1. Comparing the big bang theory with the second law of thermodynamics will get you most of the way there. I haven't yet read a convincing, layperson-accessible explanation of why the two don't contradict each other that doesn't sound like quasi-religious rationalization to me.

#2, though, is the unbridgeable gap and the unanswerable question.

I guess I'm somewhere between. I'm a believer in #1. #2 is almost irrelevant to me. I'm probably closer to a "karma" or Dao position on it. I really don't believe God knows me or of my existence. When I do pray or engage in other spiritual activities it is to try to tap in the force/energy or whatever that provides some guidance and generally positive effect.

 

[IPorange]

Even as a self-described "negative atheist," I don't think it's that much of a leap to #1. Comparing the big bang theory with the second law of thermodynamics will get you most of the way there. I haven't yet read a convincing, layperson-accessible explanation of why the two don't contradict each other that doesn't sound like quasi-religious rationalization to me.

Quantum physics is hard to put into layperson terms, don't you think? Doesn't mean it isn't true. It's very human to try to break everything down to a simple level. Not everything breaks down.

Yet even still, a lack of evidence or explanation is not proof of anything.

 

[BeecherVol]

Leave for a couple hours and this thread takes off like a wild fire.

 

[therealUT]

There are two separate debates to be had:

1. Is there a God?

2. If God exists, who is he and what does he want from us?

Even as a self-described "negative atheist," I don't think it's that much of a leap to #1. Comparing the big bang theory with the second law of thermodynamics will get you most of the way there. I haven't yet read a convincing, layperson-accessible explanation of why the two don't contradict each other that doesn't sound like quasi-religious rationalization to me.

#2, though, is the unbridgeable gap and the unanswerable question.

Quantum physics is hard to put into layperson terms, don't you think? Doesn't mean it isn't true. It's very human to try to break everything down to a simple level. Not everything breaks down.

Yet even still, a lack of evidence or explanation is not proof of anything.

Personally, I think the Second Law of Thermodynamics is just intellectual laziness and near-sightedness.

 

[Vercingetorix]

Quantum physics is hard to put into layperson terms, don't you think? Doesn't mean it isn't true. It's very human to try to break everything down to a simple level. Not everything breaks down.

Yet even still, a lack of evidence or explanation is not proof of anything.

I feel like I have a reasonable Physics 101 grasp of the law of entropy, enough to smell the ad hoc-ness of most of what I've read about the big bang vs. the second law of thermodynamics. I also have a commonsense appreciation for exactly what the unadulterated big bang theory requires -- that there was a big explosion in space, and out of that explosion just randomly coalesced things like stars and galaxies and the works of J.S. Bach and high definition television and Tennessee football and Scarlett Johansson. It really isn't that difficult for me to imagine that a prime mover or great organizer or something outside the system is responsible for some of that order.

Quantum physics is indeed the part where you start to think that not only is no explanation for the universe ever forthcoming, but that knowledge itself is basically impossible.

 

[rjd970]

I think the "evidence" is there. The history of man is littered with the evidence. If you begin with the premise that all that "evidence" is a figment of the imagination; a psychological response then it completely eliminates it as evidence.

I huge difference to me between the "ghost" and "flying teapot" analogies is that neither of these examples are so widely backed and experienced by virtually all of mankind throughout it's history. You may still say these are psychological creations of being human but I think the argument that something is going on here is much greater than either the ghost or teapot argument.

I remember a similar discussion with an atheist that dismissed the entire history of man with regard to spiritual connections and a Creative force. In the next sentence he expressed his BELIEF that String Theory was likely the explanation! I mean come on - that is view is not "reason" in any terms. He found things he like in String Theory (highly unproven and virtually untestable) but completely dismissed tons of human experience.

This is where it gets confusing for me. By citing evidence (history of mankind) then you are playing by the rationalization rules. If the whole claim is outside of evidence, why does any evidence matter?

God/Creator myths were formulated by man as an attempt to explain and bring meaning to the world and their surroundings. I don't find anything significant about that. The fact that man has a need to find order and patterns in his surroundings is not evidence of a creator in the least, it is evidence of how the homosapien brain works, and why we have garnered such a great evolutionary advantage.