Which group is more arrogant, atheists or non-theists?

Forums: Philosophy
Email this Topic • Print this Page

I posted this on another forum as well.

I recently had a conversation with my girlfriend (Christian, I am agnostic) about which group is more arrogant in their foundation: theists or non-theists (agnostics/atheists).

My girlfriend called me arrogant a while back when I told her I fully expect us to understand the nature of the universe on our own accord and that I believe we evolved from seemingly nothing. She also thinks I'm arrogant in thinking that it is possible that we are the only intelligent species in the universe, which I'll give a sub-argument for real quick:

= In the 14 billion some-odd years that the universe has existed, you would think that an intelligent life form would have evolved that would be able to contact us (or have us contact them). The truth is, SETI is coming up dry and so far there is no sign of intelligent life outside of Earth. This alone is an obviously weak argument, but if you think about it, it makes sense. Look where we (an "intelligent" species) is headed. We are depleting the Earth at an alarming rate and I would not be surprised if human beings started to die off in less than 5 or so generations. We are also heading towards World War III, which will likely include some form of nuclear holocaust. It is very easy to imagine an intelligent life form such as us whiping themselves out of existence in these same ways.

= I also believe that the downfall of any ecosystem beings once a single species surpasses evolution/natural selection. They are no longer limited by the resources that are immediately in their area and natural selection no longer occurs. This causes evolution to stop, which is (in my opinion) an extremely important aspect of any species being non-parasitic to the environment they live in.

Back on topic. I believe that a theist thinking that there is an infinite being catering to their needs (listening to their prayers, answering some prayers, creating them, sustaining them, etc) is far more arrogant than the non-theistic view that we came about through evolution/natural selection. My logic in this is that an infinite being does not need to create anything because it is lonely/wants to love something. A being that lacks something is finite because an infinite being would not be lacking anything.

Obviously I have brought up a few issues. What are your thoughts (feel free to comment on anything I've said)?

Topic Stats
Top Replies
Link to this Topic

Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 3,422 • Replies: 59

No top replies

Theism aside, there are plenty of intelligent non-human creatures already on earth, and how do you know that anything outside of earth would even want to contact us? If I were an extra-terrestrial intelligent life-form I would avoid us at all costs.

And the human race is not about to wipe itself out. Seriously now. Even with lack of resources and WWIII (which is probably not happening anytime soon), there are WAY too many of us. It might make living a little tough, but annihilation would probably be impossible at this point.

And no species will ever be able to survive without a natural environment of some sort. Unless you're going to redefine what we mean by "life form".

And not all theists think that. Arrogance is a personal attribute.

0 Replies

Our definitions of intelligent are obviously different. It's obvious that we are the most intelligent specie on the planet. Obviously I don't know that anything outside of Earth would want to contact us, but I can assume that they would want to know if there was another intelligent life-form out there.

The human race wiping itself out is up for debate, but it is quite evident that we are depleting Earth's resources at a ridiculous rate. Once we are out of resources, we are finished. The problem is that there are WAY too many of us. Human overpopulation is a byproduct of surpassing natural selection and plays a large role in resource-depletion.

I'm not quite sure what you mean by this:

Quote:

And no species will ever be able to survive without a natural environment of some sort. Unless you're going to redefine what we mean by "life form".

It's obvious that not all theists think that, just the same as the fact that not all non-theists think that way. I'm making generalization about the foundation of theism and non-theism.

0 Replies

I suppose there are two ways for religion or the opposition to it can reflect arrogance. One is the assumption that we know all that need be or can be known about the universe. The other--a far greater arrogance--is the belief that we may or should coerce others to believe as we do.

0 Replies

Overpopulation is a controlled loop - when there are too many, a bunch die, and then there aren't too many anymore. And there isn't really any evidence to say definitively that we are the most intelligent species on earth or that our definition of intelligence is really applicable.

Personally, I see nothing wrong with arrogance, provided it is well-founded, which most arrogance isn't. I always thought theism was rather depressing if it declared that we already knew everything we could know about the universe. There's no limit to what we can (and can't) know.