AgnosticWeb.com

Back to the forum index

Linear

Not all atheists are dogmatic atheists. I am an atheist because I think it is a reasonable position, given the current state of the argument. I've read Swinburne, Paul Davies, John Hick, Keith Ward, Dawkins, Stenger, and so on. The arguments for the existence of God do not work for me and even Swinburne tacitly admits that 'religious experience' is not persuasive unless the experience in question can be confidently linked to an external referent, ie God. Very few philosophers and theologians argue that religious faith can be disengaged entirely from rationality - Kierkegaard and Karl Barth would be the main examples of a tiny band. So theism stands or falls on the grounds of rational argument. It also stands or falls on existential grounds. Is an omniscient, omnipotent God compatible with human dignity, privacy and freedom? Probably not, and therefore atheism is a reasonable position on purely human grounds. - Of course, we cannot know for sure whether theism or atheism is correct, but it is not unresonable to come down on one side of the argument. Agnosticism is not even the suspension of judgement. It contains the hidden assumption that the God-hypothesis is beyond the scope of human rationality, but this itself is an arbitrary and rather sterile assumption.

5941 views

I think this is a really important thread. Someone would have to be a fanatic or else pretty stupid to be a 100% anything - even Dawkins puts himself at 6 on a scale of 7. But the reason you've given for being an atheist raises some interesting questions. I've only read the first few pages of Wilson's tract and his reply to George Jelliss's piece above on the origin of life, but I've had to reassess my own percentages. I see myself as an atheist, because if you ask me "Do you believe in a god?" my answer will be a 90% no. But if you ask me "Do you believe in Chance?" in all honesty I can only give you about a 75% yes. It's much easier to say what you don't believe than to say what you do, and it hadn't really hit me that atheism involves a degree of faith. I sort of agree with what you say about agnosticism, but the choice is not quite so clear-cut once you have to opt for a belief instead of a non-belief.

6007 views

Thank you for this very stimulating contribution. If the website comes to anything, I can imagine lots of people making their calculations ... in my own case with pretty absurd results. If you ask me whether I believe in Chance, I'll have to admit to a 75% no, but if you ask me whether I believe in a personal God watching over me, I'll give you a 75% no as well. Some sort of designer, present, absent or dead? It ought to be,it has to be a 75% yes, but it isn't. Maybe 50%. The figures don't add up. As you so rightly indicate, it's much easier to be negative than positive. - Two more points. The comments made by David and Jake show clearly that my statement on the home page about atheists is an unfair generalization. It may well be that many are simply unaware that atheism entails faith (even Dawkins tells us of his beliefs and hopes, as if belief and hope were not integral to faith). No doubt I shall have a great deal more recanting to do, but that will be good for me and maybe for others like me. - Secondly, though, I think David's indirect dismissal of agnosticism as "rather sterile" is an equally unfair generalization. It depends on the agnostic. Not all of us have given up. "It is not unreasonable to come down on one side of the argument" is a bit like Pascal's wager ... but personally I can't make myself believe something because it's better or reasonable to make a decision. I see nothing wrong in remaining open-minded. As for the argument that an omnipotent God is incompatible with human dignity, privacy etc. (covered in my section on "Religion") I agree totally, but the fact that we don't want something doesn't mean that it isn't there. - Like evolution itself, personal beliefs are an ongoing process, and I suspect that although both of you are atheists, you have only logged onto this site because you too are still searching. Thank you again for these illuminating comments.

5798 views

Further reflection: atheism = the disbelief in any god. If you are, say, a 90% atheist and I argue against atheism, I am arguing against your 90%. Your remaining 10% is not atheist. However, when I say "Atheists believe XYZ", you will say you are an atheist but not a dogmatic atheist (you are 90%) and my generalization is wrong. I'm not sure how to get round this. Any suggestions?

5842 views

ATHEISM: the definition question - Theists and atheists can't even agree on how to define atheism. Theists say atheism is the belief that God doesn't exist. Atheists say atheism is lack of belief in God. (Yes, the term, God, is ambiguous, but that issue can be sidestepped for now by defining theism & atheism relative to whatever definition of God is chosen.) - The basic problem is a clumsiness of the English language, which has two terms: theist & atheist, to label persons in several categories which are sometimes complicated in their relationships. I will try to clarify. - Any rational declarative statement is ontologically either true or false. Epistemologically a statement known to be true is called certain; a statement known to be false is called impossible (at least in the particular instance denoted by the statement). If you don't know if a statement is true or false, three other epistemological categories are added, making a total of 5, which can be listed in terms of percentages of likelihood. - 1.	100% likely = certain
2.	less than 100% and more than 50% likely = probable
3.	50% likely = even probability, or equal chance
4.	less than 50% and more than 0% likely = improbable
5.	0% likely = impossible - These 5 are the epistemological categories that exist, despite the fact that language (at least English) labels them poorly. e.g.
â Certainty is sometimes seen as a subset of probability, rather than a separate category.
â Impossibility is sometimes seen as a subset of improbability, rather than a separate category.
â Anything less than 100% likely is called uncertain.
â Anything more than 0% likely is called possible.
â 50% likelihood doesn't even have a name in English, so we have to make up terms like "toss up."
â The term, impossible, is ambiguous. It can mean: in this particular instance, or under any circumstances.
And this reveals that all five of the categories can mean: in this particular instance, or under any circumstances. We just have to trust context and common sense to determine which meaning is intended. - But setting these language difficulties aside as much as possible, if the truth of proposition X is in question, and the meaning of proposition X is clear, then proposition X is one of the following:
1.	certain
2.	probable
3.	a toss up
4.	improbable
5.	impossible - If proposition X is the existence of God, then (regardless of how God is defined) the categories are conventionally labeled:
1.	theist
2.	theist
3.	agnostic*
4.	atheist
5.	atheist - * Agnostic is another ambiguous term. A soft agnostic says "I don't know." A hard agnostic says, "It can't be known." In both cases, the term is often expanded to label 2, 3, & 4, leaving 1 & 5 to persons who claim certainty. - But the above five categories are only applicable to persons who see enough evidence to make a probability judgment. Sometimes there is no way to judge probabilities. e.g. If I showed you a black box one meter cubed, and asked you if you think there is a book in it, and you had no other info, then you would have no way to judge the probabilities. In this case you could and should abstain from making a probability judgment. So, epistemological abstention is sometimes a legitimate category. - Next question: does the existence of God have sufficient evidence to judge probability? This question would depend on the definition of God, so we must narrow it down in order to go further. I would contend that for any specific brand of theism (Christianity, Hinduism, Sikhism, etc.) a person might rightly claim to have seen insufficient evidence to judge probability for the existence of any of their respective Gods/gods. - So if a person claims to have no belief in God (as defined by some earthly religion), I have no objection. But if he labels his epistemological abstention atheism, then I would ask him to keep it distinct from #s 4 & 5 above, which have also been conventionally labeled atheism. If he contends that his definition of atheism is the only correct one, then I would ask him what he calls #s 4 & 5 above. If he is making up his own language, then I would accuse him of it. - If a person calls himself an atheist by virtue of epistemological abstention, and admits that #s 4 & 5 above can also be called atheism, then I have no problem with him, as long as he doesn't equivocate on the term. But if this person is seen arguing with theists on the probability of the existence of some form of God, then I would assume that he is also a category 4 atheist (possibly even category 5) relative to that form of God, and would ask him to admit that he is one. Otherwise the atheism he is defining is different from the atheism he is defending. And the atheist he is claiming to be is different from the atheist he is showing himself to be.

5629 views

Cary: I'm a panentheist. I'm not exactly sure how I fit into your definitions. I believe there is a universal intelligent force that has created the universe, and managed to code out evolution so that we would arrive. Kind of like Spinoza and Einstein, and I believe that force is represented in a small part by our consciousness and intellect, and that is how 'we are made in the image of God'. Religions had to invent their stories and theology, because it is only recently that science has let us into enough of God's secrets that there is real evidence of Him. I am agnostic in the sense that I have no idea whether God has a personality as humans do, and just how we relate to Him. But I am convinced He exists.

5624 views

David T. - If you are a pantheist, I worry that you will use logic only when it leads to conclusions you like, but abandon it when it leads to conclusions you don't like. Am I wrong about you?

5600 views

Cary: You are wrong, and note that I am a step further than panthesism. I am a Panentheist. I believe the intellectual God force exists within and without the universe. Further I don't buy the multiverse garbage, which we can never prove, but obviates the need to look at the Big Bang as a creation.

5687 views

My apologies for misreading you.
Okay, it looks like we're off to a good start.

5681 views

Then your location within my definitions would depend on how God is defined. Here are some possibilities: - 1. The Supreme Being (that which created the first created thing)
2. The Creator of this universe.
3. The Guy in charge of this universe.
4. The Creator of mankind.
5. The Guy to whom mankind is accountable.
6. Any of several versions of a Being described in a body of literature regarded as Scripture - Of course anyone can assert that any combination of the above are all one Guy, but that can't be proven or disproven. - I would guess that you, as the kind of panentheist you describe, would fit into the above definitions as follows:
1. theist
2. theist
3. agnostic
4. theist
5. agnostic
6. agnostic - How'd I do?

5567 views

Having read David Warden's first post in this thread for the first time, I think my position, as an atheist, is similar to his, but perhaps even more strongly atheistic. The question for me, regarding any belief about anything, is where's the proof? - To believe something is true, and even more to "believe in" it (i.e. with an emotional motivational commitment), I require overwhelming evidence, reinforced by personal experience. Since I have no experience of gods or ghosts, and I find the arguments and evidences and excuses put forward to believe in them completely inadequate, I just refuse to believe in them. It's as simple as that. No faith is involved. - Of course I can't "absolutely" prove the nonexistence of gods or afterlives, though I would have considerable difficulty in fitting such concepts into the scientific worldview that I accept, on the basis of evidence that I consider to be overwhelming and thoroughly consistent within itself. This scientific worldview provides a fully inclusive account of cosmology from the generalities of relativity to the particularities of atomic theory, quantum physics and chemistry and also biological evolution. I have no need for other hypotheses. - There are sufficient unsolved questions of course within this scientific worldview to keep scientists busy for many years to come. If they come up with evidence for gods or ghosts I'll be quite happy to consider it, but it seems unlikely to appear. I look upon this issue just the same as any other speculation, such as string theory or parallel universes or dark matter or theories that the world is run by shape-changing alien lizards. Until the evidence comes in I regard them with various degrees of scepticism.

5698 views

George - Your post appears under mine, but it doesn't appear to address anything I've said.
Do you disagree with anything I've said? - You also bring up the fact that the term belief is ambiguous.
I've started a new thread to address this issue.

5581 views

One of your categories referred to 100% certainty. I'm just pointing out that in reality such certainty does not exist. In practice we are justified in accepting a close approximation to 100% as being certain enough to act upon.

5599 views

By immediate knowledge, I claim 100% certainty of the following:
I exist, I think, I emote, I perceive, I will. - By impossibility of the contrary, I claim 100% certainty of the following:
1. Objective truth and objective reality exist.
2. Some objective truth is knowable.
3. Some truth can be expressed in language.
4. Some declarative statements are true.
5. Logic is reliable for determining the consistency of any 2 declarative statements. - To deny any of the above is epistemological nihilism. If you are an epistemological nihilist, you deny your own justification for making any declarative statement, including your own assertion of uncertainty.

5621 views

Contrary to Cary I don't think it is possible to be absolutely 100% cast iron certain about anything. But this doesn't mean I can't be reasonably certain for all practical purposes. This is not "epistemological nihilism" as he calls it. It is just common sense. - For all I know I could be a figment of the red King's dream, or we could all be part of a computer simulation by some superFrankenstein in a parallel universe. However until evidence of this is forthcoming it is just a sensible assumption to start from that what you see is what you get (WYSIWYG). - Aristotelian logic is a useful tool, but it depends on clear definitions of the terms and clear articulation of the steps in the arguments (such as one finds in Euclid). I would recommend Bart Kosko's book on Fuzzy Logic as a good read.

5593 views

If you want fuzzy logic, you're welcome to it. I have no use for fuzz. I'm here to clarify. Unless you disagree with something I've said, I'm done.

5698 views

Cary may be a formal student of logic. I am an informal logician, but those statements of Cary's are absolutely logical.

5649 views

George has stated "Having read David Warden's first post in this thread for the first time, I think my position, as an atheist, is similar to his, but perhaps even more strongly atheistic. The question for me, regarding any belief about anything, is where's the proof? To believe something is true, and even more to "believe in" it (i.e. with an emotional motivational commitment), I require overwhelming evidence, reinforced by personal experience......... I look upon this issue just the same as any other speculation, such as string theory or parallel universes or dark matter or theories that the world is run by shape-changing alien lizards. Until the evidence comes in I regard them with various degrees of scepticism." - George is absolutely correct. There are two steps. First scientific findings that can be fully accepted, not the string ruminations that go nowhere for 25 years. Also if one does not have a science background, those authors who describe science with an agenda, literally falsifing known material such as Kenneth Miller, must be understood and avoided. - Then the second step depends upon the individual. Does the evidence take one beyond a reasonable doubt? God is concealed, by definition. God will never be proven by science as a result. One has to be willing to accept a preponderance of evidence, and that willingness is the issue.

5572 views

"George is absolutely correct." That's most gratifying to hear! - "Also if one does not have a science background, those authors who describe science with an agenda, literally falsifing known material /// must be understood and avoided." I also like that. - However, where David Turell puts in the name of "such as Kenneth Miller" I would put in "such as creationists" and others associated with the Discovery Institute or the Templeton Foundation. I'm sure David realises that everyone has an agenda. The reason I feel I can trust Kenneth Miller is that his agenda, being a theist, is contrary to my own, being a convinced atheist. Of course to arrive at the truth one has to read all the sources and make one's own judgment, and that's not easy. - There is a quote from Richard Feynman on this that I like: "Science is a way of trying not to fool yourself. The first principle is that you must not fool yourself, and you are the easiest person to fool."

5822 views

I applaud George's response. Read everything on all sides and then try to make your own decisions. One can do no better than quote Feynmann.

5549 views

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'd just like to respond to the implicit presumptions in this statement. I'm an atheist, but that view is a consequence of a considerable chain of thought. I do not start out by taking nonexistence of gods as an axiom. As far as possible I try not "presuppose" anything. I'm an atheist because the evidence for the existence of gods, as I have evaluated it, appears woefully inadequate. - Second dhw defines "science" as "the study of the physical world". Some people do define science in this way, but again this prejudges many issues. I prefer to regard science as the study of everything, i.e. "the world", whether "physical" or not, by whatever means are available and arguable and communicable. - Finally, to summarise dhw, he is saying "Atheism ... puts its faith in science." No it bloody well doesn't! This frankly bigoted attitude to atheists is surely something dhw should have got over by now. There are a lot of Theists who put their faith (i.,e. trust) in science, people like Ken Miller or Francis Collins or Polkinghorne for example. They evaluate the evidence differently. - I would of course argue that their reasoning is flawed, in most cases as a result of the way they have been brought up to believe in religion from a young age. But I wouldn't say something like: "Theism presupposes that there is something beyond the physical world, which is why it puts its faith in the supernatural to explain everything." !

5604 views

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.

5676 views

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.

5553 views

I asked George if there was anything in Dawkins' explanation of atheism that he disagreed with. - George: Yes there is. Try inverting what Dawkins wrote. 
Sorry, George, but that still doesn't tell me which aspects don't apply to your kind of atheism. - I don't want to prolong this discussion if it causes you irritation, but although the rest of your posting is clear enough, I still can't see what you object to in Dawkins' list. Perhaps for the sake of clarification you could humour me and tell me which of these statements you disagree with: - An atheist believes: 
1) There is nothing beyond the natural, physical world.
2) There is no supernatural creative intelligence lurking behind the observable universe.
3) There is no soul that outlasts the body.
4) There are no miracles ... except in the sense of natural phenomena we don't understand.
5) If something appears to lie beyond the natural world, we hope eventually to understand it and embrace it within the natural. - Meanwhile, though, I'm very interested in the implications of your final paragraph, which incidentally seems to tie in with 1) and 5), but don't take that as a criticism! - You wrote: 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. - BBella has talked of sounds and vibrations within the universe, and of a NDE or OBE, and David has also done much research into the latter field. We know that animals sense things which are beyond our human perception. String theory suggests that there may be anything up to eleven dimensions. The implication of all this may be that experiences we cannot comprehend now ... e.g. ESP, OBEs etc. ... are nonetheless real, but only accessible to senses that have in some way been heightened. This does not, of course, in any way mean that every experience of the so-called supernatural is real, but it does mean that theoretically there is no limit to how far we might extend our concept of the natural world. Once again we need to be open-minded about these phenomena, although I agree with you when you say "methods of reason and experiment are the only reliable ways we know of for explaining anything."

5572 views

Discussions of "atheism" cause me increasing irritation. I'm with Sam Harris in thinking that it is an unhelpful term. I'm a rationalist, and that leads me to the conclusion that most of the many types of "god" espoused by the many types of theists have no reality. So I suppose am an "atheist" in respect of those concepts. - Questions of soul and survival after death are a separate question aren't they? There also I find the evidence unpersuasive. Does that make me an "asoulist" or "antimetempsychosist" or something? - Questions of whether there is something beyond the physical universe are philosophical or metaphysical questions that are also not necessarily connected to belief in gods, and turn largely on what you mean by "physical" and "universe" and "beyond" and "something".

5811 views

A suggestion to approach the atheism discussion is to substitute the word "agent" for god, with the understanding that it represents singular or plural without the awkward "agent/agents" usage. Since an agent can be animate or inanimate, it could be Jehovah or the primordial soup of yore.
Next would be a list of necessary attributes that the agent must have. A start: 1) ability to create a stable universe, 2) ability to set the physical constants such that they produce energy and matter, galaxies, stars and elements, 3) ability to produce matter that could support life and conscious intelligence.
Another list could be attributes the agent might possible have. 1) intelligence, 2) consciousness, 3) intent or will, 4) interest in the details
Another list could be unlikely attributes such as 1) jealousy, 2) favoritism, 3) interest in sex with virgins.
I don't know if the idea has possibilities, but I will submit it.

5547 views

Discussions of "atheism" cause me increasing irritation. I'm with Sam Harris in thinking that it is an unhelpful term. I'm a rationalist, and that leads me to the conclusion that most of the many types of "god" espoused by the many types of theists have no reality. So I suppose am an "atheist" in respect of those concepts. - This discussion group is made up of people who do not believe there is a divine force, who do believe there is a divine force, and those who don't know either way. English terms force us to discuss atheism, agnosticism and theism. Perhaps 'atheism' is being perceived as being delivered as a derogatory term. That should not be so. I consider myself a rationalist also, but I have reached a different conclusion than George from the same evidence. He is just as correct as I am. We will never know the 'entire truth' that underlies our reality as we are allowed by our brains and bodies to perceive it. Quantum uncertainty blocks the path of discovery and there are no proposals among scientists that there is a way past that wall. And I agree with George that the helterskelter theologies of the many religions create enormous uncertainty as to the 'truth',and suggest that none of them is any closer to the truth than those of us thinking for ourselves as we offer our opinions here.

5646 views

In case anyone still has an appetite for more on the god/science debate, here is more. The article is from Scientific American about Stuart Kauffman. But there are ten pages of comments after it, and some of them are interesting. I haven't read all ten pages yet. - http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=sacred-science

5599 views

RSS Feed of thread

powered by my little forum