Atheism (Agnosticism)

by George Jelliss , Crewe, Thursday, August 21, 2008, 18:13 (5936 days ago) @ dhw

dhw asks: "It would be interesting to know, George, if there is anything in Dawkins' explanation of atheism with which you disagree." - Yes there is. Try inverting what Dawkins wrote: - "A theist in this sense of philosophical non-naturalist is somebody who believes there is something beyond the natural, physical world, such as some supernatural creative intelligence lurking behind the observable universe, such as a soul that outlasts the body and such as miracles ... although not 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 theists hope eventually never to understand it scientifically or to embrace it within the natural." - I doubt if any theists would agree to this definition. - The beliefs of "theists" are multitudinous. So the unbeliefs of atheists must be equally multitudinous. There is no such thing as the monolithic "Atheism" that you postulate, nor is there any Evil Atheist Conspiracy that many theists fantasise about. Because there is no such thing as a monolithic "Theism". In my experience no two theists have the same beliefs. - I'm a rationalist empiricist. That is to say I base my beliefs on logic and evidence; this process, or part of it, can be called "scientific method". I do not have preconceived ideas as to what is true, or any "faith" that "science" will explain everything. The methods of reason and experiment are the only reliable ways we know of for explaining anything. - What does it mean to talk about something "beyond the natural, physical world"? If it is something we can sense in some way, perhaps using special hitherto undeveloped senses, then surely it must be natural or physical.