Atheism (Agnosticism)

by dhw, Thursday, August 21, 2008, 09:17 (5937 days ago) @ George Jelliss

George wrote: In his latest new thread on "The Arts" dhw begins with: "Atheism presupposes that there is nothing beyond the physical world, which is why it puts its faith in science (i.e. the study of the physical world) to explain everything." - I'm sorry that you found this bald summary offensive, and am grateful to you for keeping your complaint separate from the arts, which was my intended focus. The comment in fact came at the end of my thread, which was an appeal for help in understanding certain phenomena that seem to defy physical explanation. It was not intended as a criticism, and was certainly not meant personally, but since you have objected so strongly, I'd like to take it a little further. - One needs to distinguish between the belief and the believer, and I will happily withdraw the word "presuppose" if that is what has caused the misunderstanding. The atheist belief is that there is no God, and theism is the belief that there is a God. You have done your research, and have decided that on the available evidence, atheism is the belief you wish to embrace. But if you still have an open mind about there being something beyond the physical world, that area of open-mindedness is not atheism. - Dawkins has given a more detailed account of what I was trying to summarize: - "An atheist in this sense of philosophical naturalist is somebody who believes there is nothing beyond the natural, physical world, no supernatural creative intelligence lurking behind the observable universe, no soul that outlasts the body and no miracles ... except in the sense of natural phenomena that we don't yet understand. If there is something that appears to lie beyond the natural world as it is now imperfectly understood, we hope eventually to understand it and embrace it within the natural. As ever when we unweave a rainbow, it will not become less wonderful." - Dawkins' combination of belief and hope (that unexplained phenomena will be embraced "within the natural") is what I meant by the atheist faith that science will explain everything. If he is right, and there is nothing beyond the natural, physical world, I would have thought it was fair to say that theoretically science may eventually fulfil his hope. It would be interesting to know, George, if there is anything in Dawkins' explanation of atheism with which you disagree. - I have deliberately left in the last sentence, which I like enormously. In my experience, there is no difference between theists, agnostics and atheists when it comes to aesthetic appreciation.