So what exactly IS Atheism?
The scientist/philosopher Carl Sagan wrote:
“For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.”
Atheism is characterized by an absence of belief in the existence of gods. This
absence of belief generally comes about either through deliberate choice, or
from an inherent inability to believe religious teachings which seem literally
incredible. It is not a lack of belief born out of simple ignorance of religious
teachings.
Some atheists go beyond a mere absence of belief in gods: they actively believe
that particular gods, or all gods, do not exist. Just lacking belief in Gods is
often referred to as the "weak atheist" position; whereas believing that gods do
not (or cannot) exist is known as "strong atheism".
It is important, however, to note the difference between the strong and weak
atheist positions. "Weak atheism" is simple scepticism; disbelief in the
existence of God. "Strong atheism" is an explicitly held belief that God does
not exist.
The Atheist position is that the Universe is understandable and explainable in
the naturalistic terms of science and mathematics. There is no need for a god
in order to explain the Universe, or reliable evidence to show that any god or
gods exist. Atheism is more than just a belief paradigm; it is a conclusion
based on the lack of any empirical evidence for any gods. Reality rules.
Richard Dawkins expressed it well:
“The universe that we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but pitiless indifference.”
Some people claim that it takes more faith to be an Atheist than to be a
believer. This is false. All it takes to be an educated Atheist is
understanding rational logic and what scientific evidence is, not unquestioning
faith or beliefs. Atheists know that the process of evidence and logic can also be applied to subjects such as evolution and the Big Bang. This may remove some of the ‘magic’ from the Universe, but for many it can create deep feelings of amazement and wonder of the world around us.
As you should know by now I’m an atheist. During my time on this ball of spinning rock we call ‘Home’ I’ve moved from indifference in my childhood, to scepticism in my teens, to outright hostility in my 20’s. As I’ve matured (no giggling in the back there!) my hostility has lessened. I’m still highly sceptical and I will still challenge religious arguments though in a less hostile way. I am however coming to the conclusion that if we allow the religious forces in the world to gain power in too many places we could very well be in for dangerous times ahead.
We are in desperate need of a New Enlightenment.
About Me
- CyberKitten
- I have a burning need to know stuff and I love asking awkward questions.
28 comments:
CK said, "We are in desperate need of a New Enlightenment."
Here, here!! and Huzzah!! And here I thought I was screaming in a vacuum all alone, well, where I live, I am, but it's so nice to know there are others out there like me. I am not an Atheist, but I too fear dangerous times ahead if religious forces continue in their grasp for power and control over our lives. Keep religion in the churches, and out of my face, off my body, out of my bedroom and out of my kids' textbooks and classes! I have spoken! ;-)
V V said: And here I thought I was screaming in a vacuum all alone.
Me too.... Isn't it nice to find people of a similar mind? One of the (many) reasons I started this Blog was to see if there were any likeminded 'souls' out there - I've certainly come across precious few IRL.
So.. HUZZAH indeed.
Maybe I'll write that book after all...............
Some people claim that it takes more faith to be an Atheist than to be a believer. This is false. All it takes to be an educated Atheist is understanding rational logic and what scientific evidence is, not unquestioning faith or beliefs. Atheists know that the process of evidence and logic can also be applied to subjects such as evolution and the Big Bang. This may remove some of the ‘magic’ from the Universe, but for many it can create deep feelings of amazement and wonder of the world around us.
In other words:
Everyone else is illogical, uneducated and easily amused by a "magical universe". Don't worry, I'm not offended.
:)
First, I agree that some of the religious developments taking place in the world could spell dangerous times ahead. And I don't just mean Muslims, although the rioting in Paris is another example in a long series of instances of Muslim violence. I am also concerned about the cozy relationship George W. Bush has with Christian fundamentalists in the USA.
Second, I'd like to respond to the remark, Some people claim that it takes more faith to be an Atheist than to be a believer. This is false.
I don't want to argue over which position takes more faith. But does atheism require any faith at all? I certainly believe that it does — indeed, it takes a considerable amount of faith.
The second law of thermodynamics says that the energy in the universe is slowly dissipating into a state where it can no longer do any work. This implies that there was a starting point — a time when that energy first came to exist in a useful form.
Where did that energy come from?
We could ask the same question with respect to matter — where did it come from? But this is literally the same question, since matter and energy can be converted into each other.
Two further questions. How did inanimate matter become alive? And where did consciousness come from — how did human beings make such a radical leap?
I know you're not impressed by the "God of the gaps" position. Your rejoinder is, whatever questions science can't answer now, it will eventually answer.
The point I'm making is, that is an expression of faith. "Science can't explain where matter/energy came from, nor life, nor consciousness. But it will … just give us enough time, we'll figure it out."
Believe what you want: just be honest enough to admit that it is a belief — a faith.
Q
cyberkitten:
"We are in desperate need of a New Enlightenment."
Did you know that the Council for Secular Humanism just held a conference called "Toward a New Enlightenment," or did you come to that on your own? :)
BTW, there's a type in your title.
haha, I misspelled "type."
holy crap, I swear I'm not doing this on purpose.
"typo." Sheesh.
JA said: Did you know that the Council for Secular Humanism just held a conference called "Toward a New Enlightenment," or did you come to that on your own? :)
I did know - but only after I Googled "New Enlightenment" - thinking that I couldn't POSSIBLY be the only one thinking along these lines. But I did come to that conclusion on my own (prompted by my reading & what's going on in the world @ large.
JA also said: BTW, there's a typo in your title.
Oops... I'll sort it in a minute.
Q said: Where did that energy come from?
The Big Bang
Q also said: We could ask the same question with respect to matter — where did it come from? But this is literally the same question, since matter and energy can be converted into each other.
The Big Bang. As you rightly point out energy & matter are indeed the same thing. Matter is just 'frozen' energy which is why you can convert between them.
Q also asked the question: How did inanimate matter become alive?
No one (IIRC) is entirely sure yet. But think of it this way: All of us are basically 90%+ water plus a hand full of chemicals. Personally I think that the transition from non-life to life has something to do with complexity. On the border of life we have viruses, just over the border we have simple single cell creatures like bacteria. Bacteria can quite happily exist on their own and are multiple times more complex than viruses. Viruses are incapable of reproduction without a host to infect - there's something 'missing' in their make-up. I think the answer is there - at the boundary.
Q also asked: And where did consciousness come from — how did human beings make such a radical leap?
I think its a complexity issue again. The Human brain went through a period of rapid growth some X million years ago (I can't recall the correct figure). At some point along that explosive path we became fully conscious. But its not like a light switch, either on or off. Its more like a dimmer switch (no pun intended) where greater complexity leads to greater levels of consciousness.
Q made the point: I know you're not impressed by the "God of the gaps" position. Your rejoinder is, whatever questions science can't answer now, it will eventually answer. The point I'm making is, that is an expression of faith.
Yes it is. I agree with you. There is a fundamental metaphyisical underpinning to science - an act of faith if you will - that the Universe is basically understandable (after all it might not be). But if you don't start off with such a belief that what's the point of finding things out in the first place? If the Universe is basically unknowable then why waste the time exploring it. Having the belief (or hope) that we CAN understand the Universe seems to me a very sensible idea. So yes, that IS a belief.
But I think you might be confusing Atheism with Scientism. After all, as you rightly pointed out, many Scientists believe in God - but they are still Scientists. Many Atheists are Scientists too. There is a link between the two ideas - but they are not the same thing.
Almost forget: The "God of the Gaps" argument.
That's a really dangerous one for Theists if you think about it. If God exists in the gaps of our understanding.. What happens when the gaps close? As we find more stuff out - and as we understand more - the gaps disappear, and so does God. I don't think that either side of the debate should be happy with the 'Gap' idea.
Sadie Lou said: In other words:
Everyone else is illogical, uneducated and easily amused by a "magical universe". Don't worry, I'm not offended.
:)
Theism is (practically by definition) irrational & personally I find it highly illogical - which is probably one reason why I find some of the arguments presented here and elsewhere difficult to understand. I have also found a great deal of misunderstanding 'out there' which may (at least in part) be due to a lack of education.
As to being (or not being) offended... I'm certainly not going out of my way to offend you or anyone. However, I would be very surprised if some of the points of view/arguments I (and others) put forward did not offend you (and others) to some extent - after all your basic beliefs are being questioned. Some people can find this offensive in itself.
However, I am rather impressed that you keep coming back for more. I'm sure we can both learn from the exchange of ideas.
Your rejoinder is, whatever questions science can't answer now, it will eventually answer. The point I'm making is, that is an expression of faith.
Hold on here. One doesn't have to believe that science will eventually know the answer to believe that the answer to every question we don't know is "God."
Ooh, I didn't know I had to decide if I was a weak or strong atheist. What am I if I'm a passive non-believer in Gids? I don't believe there could possibly be such entities, but equally I don't bother looking for evidence to back up my belief.
How come I'm not blogrolled now you can do it? I've commented on every one of your posts you miserable so & so...
(slinks away to Blogroll Mrs A)
(rotflmao)
Cyberkitten:
(1) Matter and energy came from the Big Bang? Not so! There had to be something to go bang in the first place; as I understand it, an infinitesimally small, tightly compacted particle of matter which rapidly expanded to provide the raw material for everything that exists today.
But where did the infinitesimally small particle of matter come from? Scientists do not believe that the cosmos is eternal. There was a time when nothing existed; and now things exist. Just saying "the Big Bang" begs the question.
(2) I know scientists think life can be reduced to mere complexity: that if you organize matter in a complex enough sequence, it has the property of life.
I doubt it; but setting that speculative issue aside, there's still a problem. Scientists can't explain how that degree of complexity could arise spontaneously. Once DNA exists, it is self-replicating. But science has been unable to close the gap between the simplest combinations of molecules to explain how something as complex as the first strand of DNA ever came to be.
RNA is relatively simple, but also highly unstable. Some scientists think RNA arose first and generated DNA, but they can't explain how the RNA remained intact long enough to do so. You should study this out; it sounds like you're unaware of the problem.
(3) I commend you for being honest enough to admit that your worldview requires at least some faith. If you had denied it, I would have had reason to question your intellectual integrity.
(4) If science ever explains where matter/energy came from, and how life came from non-life, and how consciousness arose, I am quite prepared to abandon my faith and join you in your atheism. Until then, I am content to continue believing in a Creator.
(5) Theism is not irrational. That's just prejudice on your part. You haven't looked as deeply at these issues as you think you have.
Q
(2) "So it might be that the earliest things that actually fit that definition were little strands of nucleic acids. Not DNA yet—that's a more sophisticated molecule—but something that could catalyze some chemical reactions, something that had the blueprint for its own reproduction."
It's true that we don't know how it happened, but nobody claims the first molecule of life was a full DNA molecule. Link: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/origins/knoll.html
If science ever explains where matter/energy came from, and how life came from non-life, and how consciousness arose, I am quite prepared to abandon my faith and join you in your atheism. Until then, I am content to continue believing in a Creator.
Why does a Creator get to be the default hypothesis? If science can't figure something out, it doesn't automatically follow that God did it.
Theism is not irrational.
Maybe something like Deism or Pantheism is rational, but most forms of theism are irrational. In fact, most religious people will admit this. They'll admit there are paradoxes (free will vs. omniscience, the problem of evil, a stone He cannot lift) and that it takes faith to believe anyway.
Q said: I commend you for being honest enough to admit that your worldview requires at least some faith. If you had denied it, I would have had reason to question your intellectual integrity.
Thanks!
Q said: If science ever explains where matter/energy came from, and how life came from non-life, and how consciousness arose, I am quite prepared to abandon my faith and join you in your atheism. Until then, I am content to continue believing in a Creator.
That's a pretty amazing statement. Is your faith then based on our lack of knowledge in these areas (very much a "God of the Gaps") or do you believe that we can never explain these issues in a satisfactory way?
Lastly Q said: Theism is not irrational. That's just prejudice on your part. You haven't looked as deeply at these issues as you think you have.
I think that we're going to have to agree to disagree on that point. Theism is faith based and is therefore irrational. It is not, certainly as far as I am concerned, based on Reason. I'm presuming that you think/believe that Theism is rational? You're going to need to explain that one to me a bit more I'm afraid.
You can either argue that here.. Or later when I Blog on the existence (or otherwise) of God.
I'd put myself in the "weak" atheist crowd, though that makes me sound like a girly-man. I definitely lean in the "strong" atheist direction though. Until I started reading Laura at Sarchasm, Great White Bear and Jewish Atheist, I wasn't able to get into a lot of discussions like these. Thanks to all of you for changing that.
I definitely don't believe in God. And I knew that from my earlist conscious memory. I went to church (Methodist) until I was about 6 because of the encouragement of my very religious grandfather. But after just a few too many logical questions posed by me during bible class, we were encouraged to not come any more.
I'd have to agree with CK's assertion that faith, by definition, is irrational. Faith is belief that does not require proof or evidence. Proof and evidence are the very basis of reason. This is not necessarily a criticism by me of faith. I'm just saying, call it like it is. If you are religious and have faith, that's fine. Just don't try to make it into something it is not. That's one of my main criticisms of Intelligent Design. You are trying to use reason and science to justify your faith.
dbackdad said: But after just a few too many logical questions posed by me during bible class, we were encouraged to not come any more.
Don't I know how THAT feels... (chuckle). It happened to me a few times in College... and then at work. We had a Christian Debating Forum on our IT System which has now been 'temporarily' closed (for almost 2 years) because a few of us were actually & actively debating things. They REALLY didn't like it.
dbackdad also said: This is not necessarily a criticism by me of faith. I'm just saying, call it like it is.
Indeed. If a belief is recognised as 'irrational' then labelling it as such is just a statement of fact - rather than a prejoritive statement.
dbackdad said: That's one of my main criticisms of Intelligent Design. You are trying to use reason and science to justify your faith.
I see that the ID/Evolution case in Dover is over. I'm intrigued at what the result will be. Some of the statements from the Creationist side were just too hilarious.... I wonder if Hollywood will make it into a movie?
Inherit the Wind Part II -- Revenge of the Faith. Ha-ha-ha!!
Cyberkitten:
• Theism is faith based and is therefore irrational.
I guess this is your way of evading the questions I raised, since you make no attempt to respond to them. As I said before, intoning "the Big Bang" as your personal mantra is not an adequate response.
At least Jewish atheist, unlike you, shows some awareness of one of the issues I raised. He is clearly more rational about his atheism than you are.
I've decided not to return to your blog. Every assertion I have made has been rational. Moreover, I have pointed out that about 40% of (rational) scientists believe in God. Yet you persist in saying that theism is irrational.
That's just your prejudice and I'm fed up with being insulted.
Q
Q said: "... I have pointed out that about 40% of (rational) scientists) believe in God. Yet you persist in saying that theism is irrational." -- that's your argument? So rational people can't have irrational beliefs? Sounds like you need to read Jewish Atheist's baloney detector.
Q said: That's just your prejudice and I'm fed up with being insulted.
I'm sorry that you feel that I'm insulting you - It was certainly never my intention. However, I maintain that Theism is irrational & I have yet to see any evidence (and not just presented here) to make me think otherwise.
Merely saying that apparently rational people hold these views does not in itself prove they are rational. An argument/assertion is shown to be rational by using reason to arrive at it. If you can show me a resonable line of argument that arrives at the existence of God then I will change my view & say that Theism is indeed rational.
But as you have given up on me I guess that unless someone else wants a 'go' at it then I shall continue in my point of view.
Any "belief" is irrational, that's why it's a belief and not knowledge.
What we believe can never be totally rational - we fill in the gaps from our personal experiences, wishes, fears & opinions.
CK even you can not say you "know" there is no God, just that you have not seen any evidence of him/it/them & therefore belive it is unlikely.
Q you can agree that belief is by nature irrational & most faiths specifically point that the lack of knowledge is why you need faith & belief.
now kiss and make-up, you know you want too.
CK it was incredibly rude of you to call all theists irrational & all atheists rational. that's obviously not so, say sorry:-) Maybe you should read through your posts before posting them in future & try to avoid patronising language, I know it's not the tone you mean to take.
Not
sorry, don't know where that final "not" came from. please ignore it
Mrs A said: CK even you can not say you "know" there is no God, just that you have not seen any evidence of him/it/them & therefore belive it is unlikely.
That's exactly right. I do not believe in God. However, I do not 'know for a fact' that He does not exist. Isn't that what I've been saying all along? I certainly intended that to be the 'message' I was trying to convey.
Mrs A also said: CK it was incredibly rude of you to call all theists irrational & all atheists rational. that's obviously not so, say sorry:-) Maybe you should read through your posts before posting them in future & try to avoid patronising language, I know it's not the tone you mean to take.
Did I say that all theists were irrational? I don't think I did. I said that Theism is irrational because it's based on faith, not reason. That seems plainly obvious to me. Nor do I believe I said that all atheist are rational. I know that I'm certainly not! I do however believe that atheism is a far more rational viewpoint that theism... and there I was thinking that I'd made myself very clear. Obviously not.
Great discussion, wish I'd have gotten here earlier. I'dve dug out all my old Erich Fromm books!
dbackdad is a GIRLIEMAN!!!! sorry dbd.. couldn't resist!
GWB: I've been called worst. :-)
Which Fromm book do you recommend the most? I've read bits and pieces online but have not read any of his books.
Post a Comment