Why I am not an atheist

@Zetherin,

Zetherin;171166 wrote:

But, where are my other options? Either I'm abiding by some ancient, supernatural-driven dogma which outlines my ethical code, or I'm machine-like, emotionless, nihilist who has a penchant for referring to everything in the universe scientifically?

Well you may not be at all. You might be a warm, ethical, and caring human being. Furthermore, I agree there non-theistic philosophies that are perfectly humane. So I am not trying to typecast you. But in the broad scheme of things, I think the division between 'the scientific worldview' and 'the religious outlook' is pretty hard to deny, at least in the modern West. The fact that you automatically characterize religion as 'ancient superstition-driven dogma' speaks volumes, really. It is rather like characterizing science as 'that atomic-weapons-producing mass destruction technology'. I think it is a stereotyped view in itself. It is possible to have deep religious views, and be quite at home in a secular society at the same time (bizarre as that may seem!)

Furthermore, those on the religious side of the argument have a reason to feel defensive, as ipso facto we are understood to be somehow backwards, superstitious, dogmatic, unreasonable, regressive, and so on. But while it is doubtlessly true that some religious people are like that, many are not. Nevertheless, we are certainly typecast like that by many atheists, regardless of the fact that many of us have never set foot in a church in all of our adult lives (and in fact it's a fair bet that the likes of me are more to be feared by evangelical Christians than most atheists, actually, but that is for another thread.....)

Zetherin;171166 wrote:

jeeprs;171160 wrote:
There is no question of values being found in nature, for nature is fundamentally blind and inert.
You've said this in many a thread. This description of nature, which I think you think atheists and those who are not spiritual, share (by default). Can you clarify?

Well, it's in the Origin of Species. Think about what it says in regard to the nature of humanity in the scheme of things. Speaking of the laws which govern the origin of species, it says that these

Quote:

laws, taken in the largest sense, being Growth with reproduction, Inheritance which is almost implied by reproduction; Variability from the indirect and direct actions of the conditions of life, and from use and disuse; a Ratio of Increase so high as to lead to a Struggle for Life, and as a consequence to Natural Selection, entailing Divergence of Character and the Extinction of less improved forms. Thus, from the war of nature, from famine and death, the most exalted object which we are capable of conceiving, namely, the production of the higher animals, directly follows.

(My emphasis.)

So this idea of nature being blind and inert is Charles Darwin's, and is, I propose, the basis for the ethical viewpoint of many scientifically-inclined individuals by default. We are all the outcome of chance and necessity. You can't sugar-coat that. If you are a conscientious atheist, you need to consider from where to draw the basis for an ethical outlook and indeed a philosophy of life, because I really don't believe Darwinism provides it. This doesn't mean it is 'Darwinism or Creationism', though. There are other alternatives.

I think this is the basis for Twirlip's statement that atheists 'have to represent in their own person the values in which they believe'. It is an inevitable consequence of scientific atheism. Hardly any of those who regard themselves as atheists really grasp the consequences of the idea that life is a chemical reaction that got out of hand. I think Sartre, Camus, and Dosteovsky got it. I don't think either Dawkins or Hitchen's have got the imagination to really understand what it means. They are too full of righteous umbrage to think straight. In that respect they are very similar to those they condemn.

1 Reply

@jeeprs,

Twirlip;170999 wrote:

Do we not need specialist disciplines of being, in the same way that we already have specialist disciplines of knowing? And do we fail to see this need, because we persistently mistake being for knowing?

I did find this post easier to follow than your initial, to let you know.

I think disciplines of being vs. disciplines of knowing sounds credible enough to me, at least on its face. If this were all that a religion entailed, then I'd most likely be more open to it.

I will say that I find a sense of being in scientific work and knowledge, if not entirely. I often have an emotional connection in addition to an intellectual connection to molecules, chemical reactions, and discovery. But, I'll admit, it's not entirely there for me: this is one of the reasons I enjoy studying philosophy when I can.

I suppose, for myself (and I only mean to speak of myself here) I just don't find being in any religious or spiritual context, at least in any that I have tried so far. I find being in the enjoyment of living, in art, and in following what I think is moral.

kennethamy;171169 wrote:

Well, the benefit may be, as you say, easy understanding. But the disadvantage is vacuity. Thomas Aquinas said that all ethics is reducible to the principle: Do good, avoid evil. Sounds right to me. Not particularly informative, but right, just the same.

True. I guess I find that once a concept has been expanded that the reduction works just as well. As an analogy, I often think of moral problems as an equation modeling some physical phenomena: At times you're just applying the rules of mathematics, but once a problem is solved you still maintain meaning. (in fact, applying the rules of mathematics can convey deeper meaning)

jeeprs;171184 wrote:

So this idea of nature being blind and inert is Charles Darwin's, and is, I propose, the basis for the ethical viewpoint of many scientifically-inclined individuals by default. We are all the outcome of chance and necessity. You can't sugar-coat that. If you are a conscientious atheist, you need to consider from where to draw the basis for an ethical outlook and indeed a philosophy of life, because I really don't believe Darwinism provides it. This doesn't mean it is 'Darwinism or Creationism', though. There are other alternatives.

To be fair to Darwin, he didn't intend to give a basis for a philosophy of life. He intended to write a book describing the origin of life.

Quote:

I think this is the basis for Twirlip's statement that atheists 'have to represent in their own person the values in which they believe'. It is an inevitable consequence of scientific atheism. Hardly any of those who regard themselves as atheists really grasp the consequences of the idea that life is a chemical reaction that got out of hand. I think Sartre, Camus, and Dosteovsky got it. I don't think either Dawkins or Hitchen's have got the imagination to really understand what it means. They are too full of righteous umbrage to think straight. In that respect they are very similar to those they condemn.

Can you expound upon what you think the consequences of such a world-view is?

1 Reply

@Twirlip,

Twirlip;170905 wrote:

And the values are located in the other, but not in the self?

Either or really - not all values are worth having, or practical to have under the situation.

But that wasn't really what I meant. I think that most people - whatever their religion - are aware of the values you mention. However, most people (as you yourself point out) don't exemplify such things.

God(s) is(are) exemplars. At least that is what we are told about them. They represent a sort of Platonic ideal of things like love, creative energy or power.

So you seem to suggest that because an athiest denies Gods he or she has to become the exemplar - to an extent.

Which is probably why you find it all rather hard work, and cause for despair.

Whereas reconciling yourself to the fact that you are a flawed mortal animal and saying "OK, what enjoyments do I take from that position" might be a better place to start, and if you admire certain people or (stories about) Gods maybe it's because they exemplify values you find important or interesting and you could act likewise.

1 Reply

@Huxley,

Huxley;171187 wrote:

To be fair to Darwin, he didn't intend to give a basis for a philosophy of life. He intended to write a book describing the origin of life.

Regardless of his intentions, it is indubitable that Darwin has been pressed into service for exactly the purpose of providing a philosophy of life. See Evolution as a Religion by Mary Midgely.

Huxley;171187 wrote:

Can you expound upon what you think the consequences of such a world-view is?

Well, Sartre's Nausea comes to mind, but practically any book by Sartre or Camus will serve. It is the realisation of being alone in a purposeless universe, being outcast, being 'thrown' into existence without our choosing, realizing the absurdity of all existence but heroically putting your shoulder to the wheel...that kind of thing.

---------- Post added 05-31-2010 at 07:46 PM ----------

Dave Allen;171189 wrote:

econciling yourself to the fact that you are a flawed mortal animal and saying "OK, what enjoyments do I take from that position" might be a better place to start, and if you admire certain people or (stories about) Gods maybe it's because they exemplify values you find important or interesting and you could act likewise.

Which sounds very much like the origin and import of the Greek Myths.

1 Reply

@jeeprs,

jeeprs;171192 wrote:

Sartre's Nausea comes to mind, but practically any book by Sartre or Camus will serve. It is the realisation of being alone in a purposeless universe, being outcast, being 'thrown' into existence without our choosing, realizing the absurdity of all existence but heroically putting your shoulder to the wheel...that kind of thing.

Self-pity masquerading as philosophy?

0 Replies

@Twirlip,

I don't think that is a very fair characterization. Sarte was offered the Nobel Prize for Nausea, and actually turned it down as a matter of principle. He was the only person ever to have done that. He helped the French resistance during the War. Camus too could never be accused of self-pity. I think in many ways they were admirable. All I am saying is that I think they really 'got' the meaning of atheism much more than many people have since. They didn't have rose-coloured glasses.

1 Reply

@jeeprs,

jeeprs;171195 wrote:

All I am saying is that I think they really 'got' the meaning of atheism much more than many people have since.

Atheism is the rejection of theism, that's all, there's no profound message that searchers fail in their quest to find, it's dead simple, and millions of people get it.

0 Replies

@Twirlip,

I have gone back and read this whole thread now. I think this is the key post and wish to respond to some of the ideas in it.

Twirlip;170999 wrote:

Religions are inner disciplines. For a religion to claim dominion over the inner life of all mankind is as absurd as it would be for a scientific discipline to claim dominion over all of science, and even claim that everyone must be a scientist! On the other hand, to deny the existence of the inner world which all religions investigate is as absurd as it would be to deny the existence of the outer world which all sciences investigate. The inner world is God.

The fact is that in addition to being inner disciplines, religions are also institutions, social movements, cultural conventions, and much else besides. They include inner disciplines, and in fact I think, and I suspect you think, that this is really the most (or even only) important part of them. In fact I think most of the non-theistic contributors would say 'well insofar as it is an inner discipline, and not an institutional power that purports to direct people how to live, then we wouldn't have a problem with it'.

As for 'the inner world is God'. It can be much else besides - a swirl of thoughts and emotions, at least, along with all of the bodily feelings that accompany them. Stay with that idea, though......I am sure it is heading in the right direction...

"to deny the existence of the inner world which all religions investigate is...absurd" - Nevertheless many do. Some are not aware of their inner world in the least, others insist that it is really just the doings of various brain cells and glands, and so on. There is a whole school of thought, quite influential, which explicitly denies that the inner world has any ontological significance whatever. I can't understand the appeal. Kind of like 'dead, and proud of it.'

Twirlip;170999 wrote:

Do we not simply need to develop concepts of inner reality, inner illusion, inner ignorance, and inner mistakes, just as we already have concepts of reality, illusion, ignorance and mistakes in relation to the outer world, in whose existence we do not doubt for a moment, even if we fail utterly to comprehend it?

Do we not need specialist disciplines of being, in the same way that we already have specialist disciplines of knowing? And do we fail to see this need, because we persistently mistake being for knowing?

Well I know that by this stage you will think I am repeating myself, but there really are such disciplines. They are the esoteric paths. Really there are not many people who are up for them. But this is exactly what they do. The Buddhist tradition contains a number of different 'models' of this understanding, maps of this exact territory. But doesn't have to be Buddhist or even 'religious' in the conventional sense.

All I can say is, keep looking. Like no time before in history, there is this abundance of information about these matters available.

Have a look at Nonduality: The Varieties of Expression. Might have some worthwhile sources on it.

0 Replies

@Twirlip,

I think it was G.K. Chesterton who said that the problem with atheism is not that atheists don't believe in God. Rather, it is that atheists tend to believe everything else.

2 Replies

@kennethamy,

One atheist says, "I do not believe in god." And another says, "I do not believe in god's existence." One is about the absence of belief, and the other is about belief in absence. So, an atheist could 'believe in god' and yet, at the very same time, 'not believe in god's existence'. And there doesn't appear to be any contradiction

Another ponderment. Imagine someone says to a forum philosopher, 'I know god exists' and then another fellow says to our forum philosopher, 'I know god doesn't exist.' And the philosopher asks both of them for proof but neither, no matter how hard they try, can satisfy your philosophical demands.

The truth, our philosopher discovers, is that neither really know about god's existence or not.

Could the philosopher then say to the believer and non-beliver alike, "Look, if being ignorant of god's existence is to be agnostic, then it appears that until we know otherwise, you the believer and you the non-believer are both agnostic!"?

Just some fun...

1 Reply

@qualia,

qualia;171213 wrote:

One atheist says, "I do not believe in god." And another says, "I do not believe in god's existence." One is about the absence of belief, and the other is about belief in absence. So, an atheist could 'believe in god' and yet, at the very same time, 'not believe in god's existence'. And there doesn't appear to be any contradiction

Another ponderment. Imagine someone says to a forum philosopher, 'I know god exists' and then another fellow says to our forum philosopher, 'I know god doesn't exist.' And the philosopher asks both of them for proof but neither, no matter how hard they try, can satisfy your philosophical demands.

The truth, our philosopher discovers, is that neither really know about god's existence or not.

Could the philosopher then say to the believer and non-beliver alike, "Look, if being ignorant of god's existence is to be agnostic, then it appears that until we know otherwise, you the believer and you the non-believer are both agnostic!"?

Just some fun...

I think there is no difference between, "I do not believe in God" and "I do not believe in God's existence (or in English rather than philosophese, "I don't believe that God exists"). The first is simply shorthand for the second. I think you may have in mind the difference between, "I do not believe that God exists" which is weak atheism, and, "I believe that God does not exist" which is strong atheism. There is, of course, a logical difference there.

You are asking whether if someone claims to know that p, but it turns out that he does not know that p because his belief that he knows that p is not justified because his belief that p is not justified, whether the person believes that p is true anyway. The answer seems to be, yes. After all, if a person (sincerely) claims to know that p is true, then it follows that he believes that p is true whether of not his claim is true. He could not sincerely claim that p is true unless he believes that p is true, since that is what sincerely claim implies: that he claim it is true because he believes it is true.

1 Reply

@Dave Allen,

Dave Allen;171189 wrote:

God(s) is(are) exemplars. At least that is what we are told about them. They represent a sort of Platonic ideal of things like love, creative energy or power.

So you seem to suggest that because an athiest denies Gods he or she has to become the exemplar - to an extent.

Which is probably why you find it all rather hard work, and cause for despair.

Whereas reconciling yourself to the fact that you are a flawed mortal animal and saying "OK, what enjoyments do I take from that position" might be a better place to start, and if you admire certain people or (stories about) Gods maybe it's because they exemplify values you find important or interesting and you could act likewise.

Although I loved the stories in the Mahabharata, I tend to find stories about Gods, as if Gods were like us, only bigger and stronger and with magic powers, rather hard to suspend my disbelief in, like poorly plotted science fiction, fantasy, or fairy tales.

It's rather that my disbelief in fairy tales about big strong magic gods now extends to fairy tales about individual human selves. These stories, also, don't ring true to me any more. We ask the self to do more than it is ... I don't know how to put this (I fear the wrath of kennethamy!) ... philosophically capable of.

I rather like the idea attributed to Averroes (Ibn Rushd): "He also held that the soul is divided into two parts, one individual and one divine; while the individual soul is not eternal, all humans at the basic level share one and the same divine soul." That makes far more sense to me than expecting all the poor slushy brains in all these bags of skin to do all the things asked of them. But I do very much believe in the importance of the individual (myself, my daughter, and an old friend I haven't treated very well, for example), and I'm trying to grasp the way in which, when we are most being ourselves, we are being God (although God is not being us - 'being' in this sense is not a reflexive, transitive, symmetric binary relation, in mathematical terms), and that is somehow what 'God' means. I don't expect this to be clear, either! It's not yet clear to me. But I expect that it can be made a lot clearer, even almost mathematical.

---------- Post added 05-31-2010 at 02:38 PM ----------

jeeprs;171206 wrote:

I have gone back and read this whole thread now.

Give that man a medal! :knight:

jeeprs;171206 wrote:

The fact is that in addition to being inner disciplines, religions are also institutions, social movements, cultural conventions, and much else besides.

Yes, just as science is a social institution, as well as being a movement of profound intellectual, spiritual, and even moral significance.

jeeprs;171206 wrote:

They include inner disciplines, and in fact I think, and I suspect you think, that this is really the most (or even only) important part of them. In fact I think most of the non-theistic contributors would say 'well insofar as it is an inner discipline, and not an institutional power that purports to direct people how to live, then we wouldn't have a problem with it'.

That would also be my own reaction. I have never belonged to any of these institutions. I am only starting to understand why anyone would even want to.

jeeprs;171206 wrote:

As for 'the inner world is God'. It can be much else besides - a swirl of thoughts and emotions, at least, along with all of the bodily feelings that accompany them. Stay with that idea, though......I am sure it is heading in the right direction...

That's a wise caution, which I have also had to give to myself sometimes! It is all too easy to mistake anything big and new and scary for 'God', when it may be anything but. I do have various images with which I try to form a complete and not-too-misleading small-scale map of the "inner world" in my mind, but, whether heading in the right direction or not, I still have a long way to go.

jeeprs;171206 wrote:

"to deny the existence of the inner world which all religions investigate is...absurd" - Nevertheless many do. Some are not aware of their inner world in the least, others insist that it is really just the doings of various brain cells and glands, and so on. There is a whole school of thought, quite influential, which explicitly denies that the inner world has any ontological significance whatever. I can't understand the appeal. Kind of like 'dead, and proud of it.'

jeeprs;171206 wrote:

Well I know that by this stage you will think I am repeating myself, but there really are such disciplines. They are the esoteric paths. Really there are not many people who are up for them. But this is exactly what they do. The Buddhist tradition contains a number of different 'models' of this understanding, maps of this exact territory. But doesn't have to be Buddhist or even 'religious' in the conventional sense.

All I can say is, keep looking. Like no time before in history, there is this abundance of information about these matters available.

Have a look at Nonduality: The Varieties of Expression. Might have some worthwhile sources on it.

Yes, I already have that site bookmarked, although I haven't looked at it much yet.

I can't see myself as ever having been cut out for the religious life; in an ideal society, I would just be one of those ordinary Joes who is perhaps a scientist or mathematician in the "outer world", but only a layman in the "inner world". (Mathematics sort of crosses the boundary, but for most purposes it can be classed as a science.) But in the world as it is, even to declare a serious belief in the existence of the "inner world" is to be classed as a religious fanatic and scientific ignoramus, or at best a New Age airhead or fraud.

1 Reply

@kennethamy,

kennethamy;171207 wrote:

I think it was G.K. Chesterton who said that the problem with atheism is not that atheists don't believe in God. Rather, it is that atheists tend to believe everything else.

I am not sure what this is supposed to mean. Atheists tend to believe everything else?

---------- Post added 05-31-2010 at 02:21 PM ----------

Twirlip wrote:

Yes, just as science is a social institution, as well as being a movement of profound intellectual, spiritual, and even moral significance.

Science is a movement of spiritual and moral significance? Why do you say that?

2 Replies

@Zetherin,

Zetherin;171341 wrote:

I am not sure what this is supposed to mean. Atheists tend to believe everything else?

I suppose it is to say that when you don't believe there is some standard of truth and morality (God, certainly, since Chesterton was a Roman Catholic, but not necessarily God, but in some standard, a least) then it becomes just anything goes, and a kind of belief free for all. You then have no way of separating truth from falsity. It is akin to something attributed to Dostoyevsky (although that is much disputed) which is, "If God does not exist, everything is permitted" on the grounds that God is the source and the standard of all morality, and that without that source or standard, it does not morally matter what you do.

Anyway, that is the idea. I guess there is truth in it, since if you think about it, unless you have a standard measure for weights (say) anything can weigh anything. But, of course, much depends on what you have in mind by a standard.

0 Replies

@Twirlip,

kennethamy wrote:

I suppose it is to say that when you don't believe there is some standard of truth and morality (God, certainly, since Chesterton was a Roman Catholic, but not necessarily God, but in some standard, a least) then it becomes just anything goes, and a kind of belief free for all.

Jeeprs echoed this same sentiment, and it seems popular. Why do people assume that atheists do not have have standards or ethical values? This seems incredibly strange to me. What does a belief in a supernatural being have to do with believing things are right or wrong? And what about all the other ethical models that are non-religious, like Kant's, and the dozens of others?

Atheism is a "anything goes" system? I had no clue. Are you sure atheism wasn't confused with anarchy?

Quote:

It is akin to something attributed to Dostoyevsky (although that is much disputed) which is, "If God does not exist, everything is permitted" on the grounds that God is the source and the standard of all morality, and that without that source or standard, it does not morally matter what you do.

Maybe it's because people like this are spreading poison like that.

Quote:

Anyway, that is the idea. I guess there is truth in it, since if you think about it, unless you have a standard measure for weights (say) anything can weigh anything. But, of course, much depends on what you have in mind by a standard.

But what is false is that atheists, because they do not believe in God, have no standard. Do these people really believe atheists are sociopaths simply because they don't believe in a supernatural being? That's a rhetorical question in a sense, since I know some people do believe that. And I know this because they have said that to me verbatim. It still infuriates me every time I hear it.

2 Replies

@Zetherin,

Zetherin;171341 wrote:

Science is a movement of spiritual and moral significance? Why do you say that?

I suppose mainly because it is anti-authoritarian in spirit, it shows that there is a hidden power in doubt, it places a high value on reason (too high a value, when science itself is mistaken for a religion, a cosmology, or a total philosophy), it demonstrates that progress in human affairs is possible, and in all these ways it encourages optimism, faith in individual conscience, democracy, international cooperation and mutual cultural understanding, and tolerance for differing points of view and for inconvenient truths. All these values are spiritual and moral, and capable of generalisation beyond the boundaries of science itself. In a word, I think, science suggests (without, of course, strictly implying) liberal values.

0 Replies

@Zetherin,

Zetherin;171350 wrote:

Jeeprs echoed this same sentiment, and it seems popular. Why do people assume that atheists do not have have standards or ethical values? This seems incredibly strange to me. What does a belief in a supernatural being have to do with believing things are right or wrong? And what about all the other ethical models that are non-religious, like Kant's, and the dozens of others?

Atheism is a "anything goes" system? I had no clue. Are you sure atheism wasn't confused with anarchy?

.

Well, I think that people who claim that are not saying that atheists have no standards, or at least not that atheists do not believe they do, but that atheists "really" I(and that is always a term you have to be suspicious of)* have no standard which is any good and does allow them to make clear and settled judgments as to true or false, or right or wrong. No, it is certainly not confused with anarchy, since anarchists is a governmental philosophy, not one about truth and falsity, or right and wrong. And anyway, anarchists know they are anarchists and believe that no government is the best government. If atheist have no standards (or unreliable standards) as it is being argued they certainly don't realize it. In fact, they insist that they do have standards.

*G.E.Moore remarked that people who say that X is not really Y are really saying that X is really Y, but they do not want to admit it.

1 Reply

@kennethamy,

kennethamy wrote:

I think there is no difference between, "I do not believe in God" and "I do not believe in God's existence (or in English rather than philosophese, "I don't believe that God exists"). The first is simply shorthand for the second. I think you may have in mind the difference between, "I do not believe that God exists" which is weak atheism, and, "I believe that God does not exist" which is strong atheism. There is, of course, a logical difference there.

Good stuff, Kennethamy, but just another question (it's not a trap or trick). Could on coherently say, 'I don't believe in x's existence, but I do believe in x.' So, for example, 'I don't believe in the existence of the tooth fairy, but I do believe in the idea of the tooth fairy.' Could we tweak out this conceptual difference in atheism?

3 Replies

@qualia,

qualia;171363 wrote:

Good stuff, Kennethamy, but just another question (it's not a trap or trick). Could on coherently say, 'I don't believe in x's existence, but I do believe in x.' So, for example, 'I don't believe in the existence of the tooth fairy, but I do believe in the idea of the tooth fairy.' Could we tweak out this conceptual difference in atheism?

Do you mean something akin to: I don't believe that Santa Claus exists, but I believe in the spirit of Santa Claus. Here we are saying that while we don't believe that the character actually exists, the values the character stands for, particularly the compassion and giving to the needy bit, we do advocate.

0 Replies

@qualia,

qualia;171363 wrote:

Good stuff, Kennethamy, but just another question (it's not a trap or trick). Could on coherently say, 'I don't believe in x's existence, but I do believe in x.' So, for example, 'I don't believe in the existence of the tooth fairy, but I do believe in the idea of the tooth fairy.' Could we tweak out this conceptual difference in atheism?

I don't see how. After all, the idea of X, and X are different. Believing in Santa Claus is a belief that you will receive Christmas presents come Christmas morning. But the idea of Santa is not going to deliver any presents (not even lumps of coal). Confusing ideas of X with X is a kind of cottage industry on this forum.

By the way, "I believe in X" is ambiguous. It may mean, 1. I believe that X exists. But it also may mean, 2. I trust in X. (As when the hero of that great and cynical musical, How to Succeed in Business Without Really Trying, J. Pierpont Finch, sings romantically and admiringly to himself while looking into a mirror at an image of himself, "I believe in you, I believe in you!"). Of course, if someone believes in X, then he must already believe that X exists. You cannot truth in what does not exist.

0 Replies

Why I am not an atheist

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know