|
A few days ago I was thinking about the origins of my intellectual pursuits - specifically, my decision to further explore logic, reasoning, empiricism, critical thinking, skepticism, and atheism. I've tracked it down as far as I can recall.
Atheism
This one is the easiest. Like everyone, I was born an atheist. And since then I've never been convinced a god exists, and therefore have never held a belief in a god's existence. It really is that simple. When I was told about God, it seemed to me another story like Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny. Sometimes the story would be interesting, but I never actually believed a god existed.
edit: To clarify, I am referring to atheism to mean "not" "theism" (the prefix 'a' meaning not, and then theism - so not-theist or a-theist). When born I lacked beliefs in gods existence, and I still lack that belief to this day. That's the point. You can debate semantics on atheism / agnosticism. I am not referring to active denial or claiming disproof or anything of the sort. I accept the possibility of gods existing just I have not been convinced of it from the evidence yet (I also happen to not believe I ever will).
Skepticism
I distinctly recall the first event where I directly questioned what I was taught. As a child, my parents brought my brother, sister, and I to church every Sunday. We children would participate in "Sunday School" where we would engage in activities and learn more about the religion of Christianity. The moment I remember where I started to really question the existence of God surfaced in one of these Sunday School events. Here is what I remember from it:
One of our teachers, a lady with glasses in her mid 30s or so, was sitting down in a chair, while all of us children were sitting on the ground around her.
She stated something like "God is everywhere even when you cannot see him. He is on this chair with me, he is on the floor with you, and he is all around all of you" and signaled with her hands where God was.
Most of us children looked around the room for a few seconds following her hands and pointers. I immediately thought "I don't see him" but knew it would be inappropriate to interject. I stayed quiet for the remainder of the lesson.
I wonder what other children at the Sunday School thought on that same day? Did any of them genuinely believe in God? Did they even know what it means to believe in God at that time?
Sometime later on, I don't remember if it was the same day or some days after, I remember having a discussion with my mom in the car showing my skepticism of what I was taught that day. I was questioning the authenticity of what was contained in the Bible to some minor degree. I think I asked something silly like "How could the Bible be written if people didn't know how to write back then?". Of course I was factually mistaken there, but I remember that as one of my first times I voiced my skepticism about gods and religions.
Later on as a teenager, when we had a dial-up internet connection in the old days, I remember participating in many chat rooms on a wide variety of topics. I remember one chat where people were discussing Creationism vs Evolutionism. I was barely taught anything about evolution at the time. Throughout the discussion I was looking up information on the arguments they were using and found a slew of websites showing Creationist's arguments and rebuttals to them. These were key resources in the debates we engaged in. It was a fun experience for me as I challenged myself and others to learn more about what we're discussing.
Along the way I picked up on what logic, reasoning, and empiricism is about, and found a community called The Secular Web (http://www.infidels.org) where I found many other like-minded individuals. This pushed me into skepticism on many other topics than just religion, such as the paranormal. I started to understand the components of arguments, what makes a valid argument, and how an argument can be considered sound. I also learned all about logical fallacies and applied them to a wide array of topics.
Concluding thoughts
Isn't it odd that I trace the origins of my skepticism and my active acknowledgement to my atheism to my upbringing in being taught about God? What was it about that time and who I was that led me to being such a skeptic?
All I know is, I'm very thankful for those experiences since it has made me a stronger person today. Without them, I may not have ever agreed with the statement that "knowledge is inherently valuable". I've become someone who is fascinated by problem solving and challenges to the mind in many degrees. And I wouldn't have it any other way.
(For anyone who is religious - I do not mean this as an attack on your beliefs. This is my reflections and memories on what pushed me to being the atheist and skeptic I am today. If your beliefs comfort you, encourage you to be a better person, contribute more positively to the world, and so on - great! My beliefs do the same.)
 
|
You don't mean this as an attack on those with religious beliefs, but you sure do put in a few indirect jabs here and there.
|
I find it interesting that as my love for reason and logic grew, my faith in God fell. I'd say I'm only really hanging onto my faith by a thread at the moment. I take new information that operates against what the Bible says as such: if it can provide more persuasive force than a two thousand year old tome, then I believe in it.
|
good that you have critical thinking as a teenager. you have good points in your post. hopefully you can gain more knowledge and share it here ! :D
|
United States10328 Posts
On August 14 2012 13:32 EscPlan9 wrote:
Atheism
This one is the easiest. Like everyone, I was born an atheist.
Really? I'd say that when you are born, your mental faculties are not nearly sufficient for you to hold any sort of belief in whether God exists or not; you're agnostic at the time, because you simply can't process anything as abstract as "does a God exist."
|
On August 14 2012 15:07 ]343[ wrote:Show nested quote +On August 14 2012 13:32 EscPlan9 wrote:
Atheism
This one is the easiest. Like everyone, I was born an atheist. Really? I'd say that when you are born, your mental faculties are not nearly sufficient for you to hold any sort of belief in whether God exists or not; you're agnostic at the time, because you simply can't process anything as abstract as "does a God exist."
Agreed. It's just nitpicking, but yeah. There are even some concepts in religion that deal specifically with babies or young children that pass away, as they couldn't yet have the understanding of the world and of themselves to evaluate the possible existence of God. Perhaps more accurately people are born agnostics at first and then go on to develop an actual theistic stance.
|
Sorry, I don't think you satisfied the title of your blog. You didn't explain at all the formulation or development of a conviction. You just announced a belief that isn't that different in type from any other belief. Nowadays it's described as the Cult of Reason, but it starts off in your young years as the Cult of Yourself.
In John Gardner's Grendel, the dragon says: Of course, I'm not a skeptic. Skepticism is the beginning of faith.
|
On August 14 2012 13:32 EscPlan9 wrote:Like everyone, I was born an atheist.
I'd argue that people are born superstitious. How do you think religion came about in the first place? People wanted to try explain something they didn't understand, and naturally assume that there is an higher (or outside) power. Your statement is the equivalent of saying: "Like everyone, I did not understand maths when I was born." Well, of course not, your brain doesn't function to that level yet.
|
Hah, wow this brings back memories only mine was much more of a strict upbringing in the bible (though not from my family, who are religious, but don't like talking about it nor do they go to church).
I went to a catholic primary school. Now most people right now are thinking 'holy shit, thats really bad etc'. No, it was a fantastic school, teachers were mainly awesome and every tuesday there was mass, even though I wasn't allowed to take communion because I wasn't catholic. We had at least one class a day of RE, and frankly it helped me develop an understanding of the bible like no other. We were asked to talk about the meanings of the stories, of jesus' actions and of course other bible related things. We NEVER touched creationism, I think maybe one class we studied it, but we usually focussed on the teachings of Jesus, which in my eyes is an amazing thing for anybody. I remember believing in God, mainly because everyone else did. I also went to sunday school at a baptist church, which further educated me on the bible and eventually even went to a bethel church. I believed that there were no differences between the worship of God, and it was kind of cool to go somewhere every now and then (I didn't go all the time) and just sing and pray.
I then went to a Church of England secondary school. At this time I started to question the legitimacy of God, however I never once questioned the lessons it taught me, as they were something which was unarguable, they gave me literacy, the ability to tell stories in a good way, and also think about the meanings behind the words. Needless to say, RE in that school was mediocre. We studied other religions (which I lapped up as it was super interesting to me) and talked about why they believed different things, never once been told that they were wrong in anyway. I definitely had a great upbringing with religion, but I never truely believed, instead believing in science at the same time. We were taught evolution in science, and told different creation stories in RE, they were kept seperate......the way it should be.
Around 12 I stopped going to church and the like, but I still maintained a prayer before any exam. People sometimes mocked, but I knew I wasn't really praying to god, instead I was meditating on what I was about to do, calming my mind and my body and pretty much aced tests left right and center. At 14 I stopped believing, and tried to get discourse on the matters with my mom, but she would have none of it and told me to believe what I wanted to believe. I stopped believing all together when I reached 17. At this time, my younger brother who was 10 developed cancer. That, coupled with the fact I was studying philosophy of religion and why it seems that there is no religion, meant that I gave up the ghost, but still maintained prayer (I tried without it before an exam...lets just say it wasn't good).
My brother recovered, but instead of praising God for it, I praised science, and I still do as my brother is on his way to being a professional soccer player. (this was 7 years ago). My mother however recieved a bout of faith as she was going to step into a road as she was seriously depressed by my brothers condition back then, but she felt someone pull her back when she was going to stop, and that also coincided with the day she decided to wear here crucifix one more time. A good thing that happened...otherwise I'd be a wreck.
I still hold the core values that were taught to me from my religious education, I still keep in mind love thy neighbour, and all that jizzle jazzle, but I don't believe they were given to us by god, instead they were given to us by individuals who were ahead of their time, and the only way they could get other people to agree was by promising more than life, and eternal suffering is something no one does wrong.
@Gangnam style
It is argued that a basic understanding of math is present at birth, just that we aren't aware of it. The same goes for language. I call bullshit, but people do hold to that cannon of thought.
|
The point at which I stopped believing in God was when I realised that the only reason I believed was because someone else told me that I should, that that was the only way of things, and it was the only way to be happy.
And even if a God does exist I think he's a total jerk and I don't like him regardless.
|
On August 14 2012 15:07 ]343[ wrote:Show nested quote +On August 14 2012 13:32 EscPlan9 wrote:
Atheism
This one is the easiest. Like everyone, I was born an atheist. Really? I'd say that when you are born, your mental faculties are not nearly sufficient for you to hold any sort of belief in whether God exists or not; you're agnostic at the time, because you simply can't process anything as abstract as "does a God exist."
I had a feeling this would come up. I am referring to atheism as the opposite of theism. The 'a' prefix meaning "not", and 'theist' being "a believer in a god". So I am a non-theist, or not a theist, or simply, an atheist. That's why I specifically mentioned I have not been convinced god exists since birth - that's exactly what I mean by atheism. People have tried to convince me, but it's a matter of faith in god's existence. And I do not have faith in gods existence.
When you are born, you do not have any beliefs in any gods. Therefore you are not "a theist" at birth and therefore are an atheist.
Agnosticism is a epistemological position claiming knowledge of god is impossible. Atheism is not strictly the denial of gods existence. I do not claim to have proof gods don't exist. I just am not convinced they are due to lack of evidence.
|
On August 14 2012 15:57 Jerubaal wrote:
Sorry, I don't think you satisfied the title of your blog. You didn't explain at all the formulation or development of a conviction. You just announced a belief that isn't that different in type from any other belief. Nowadays it's described as the Cult of Reason, but it starts off in your young years as the Cult of Yourself.
In John Gardner's Grendel, the dragon says: Of course, I'm not a skeptic. Skepticism is the beginning of faith.
What conviction is it you are referring to? It's just me reflecting on my earliest memories of doubting gods existence and how I became interested in critical thinking in the first place.
|
On August 14 2012 15:58 Gangnam Style wrote:Show nested quote +On August 14 2012 13:32 EscPlan9 wrote:Like everyone, I was born an atheist. I'd argue that people are born superstitious. How do you think religion came about in the first place? People wanted to try explain something they didn't understand, and naturally assume that there is an higher (or outside) power. Your statement is the equivalent of saying: "Like everyone, I did not understand maths when I was born." Well, of course not, your brain doesn't function to that level yet.
I believe religion came about for basically the reasons you said. I however do not believe that at birth we are seeking supernatural explanations for things in the world. We would be just experiencing the world. At that time, we are lacking in any beliefs of gods existence.
Pertaining to your analogy, okay, so at birth we do not understand math. Arguable, but I'll go with it. Later on when we learn about math, we are convinced of it. So at birth you did not "believe in math", but later on you became convinced it had factual basis. I have not been convinced of god's existence, so I still lack that belief that I've lacked since I was born.
|
On August 14 2012 14:42 PH wrote:
You don't mean this as an attack on those with religious beliefs, but you sure do put in a few indirect jabs here and there.
I apologize, I'm sure I do. The purpose of this entry was my reflections on when I first actively realized I was not a believer in god (and still have yet to be convinced) as well as how those early beginnings led me to where I am now.
I used to be a much more hostile person to theists when I was a teenager. I'm 28 now. I've humbled myself a lot and acknowledge that during those times, I thought I knew everything. At least I learned from it... though it's still tough to discuss in detail why I got into critical thinking and actively claimed that I do not hold any belief in gods without implying something negative. I dunno what else to say about it...
|
The neutral state is not atheism, it's ignorance. Atheism is a positive and irrational statement, just like the belief in god.
To put it simply, "is there a God" is a question you cannot answer, and yet both believers and non-believers alike answer with certainty.
Remember that atheism is the rejection of the belief in God. When you are born, you simply "don't know", which is the most logical answer.
You feel that you're being skeptic when in reality you've just crossed all the way to the other "side". 
|
Interestingly enough, the more I pursue logic and further my ability to think and reason, the more I grow to love God 
Decent blog, minor jabs at theism but eh, can't say it bothered me too much. Good to see you're not another firecracker atheist looking to bite my nooby theist head off :D
|
On August 14 2012 20:31 Kukaracha wrote:The neutral state is not atheism, it's ignorance. Atheism is a positive and irrational statement, just like the belief in god. To put it simply, "is there a God" is a question you cannot answer, and yet both believers and non-believers alike answer with certainty. Remember that atheism is the rejection of the belief in God. When you are born, you simply "don't know", which is the most logical answer. You feel that you're being skeptic when in reality you've just crossed all the way to the other "side".
It's semantics so I'll just agree to disagree on the one definition some of you will cling to. Either way I am referring to lacking the belief in gods, not the rejection of gods. To me it is not a neutral position: I have evaluated the evidence and I am not convinced. Therefore I am not a believer in it and therefore I am not a theist.
For more information on the controversy and complexity involved on the definition of atheism, wiki is a fine place to start:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism#Definitions_and_distinctions
|
I also think a lot about Religion, Atheism and Skepticism. However, I don't think Skepticism and Atheism can work together. Skepticism means to question everything, especially the axioms. What can we know about life? Can we even know anything about it? Is the Atheism axiom really better than the god axiom? Isn't Relativism a good way to describe everyone's own truth? I really don't know. My only conclusion is that if there is some kind of absolute truth, then we are wrong most of the time. I can only be sure of me making mistakes. I never can be sure if I am right. I can only try to get as close to something that makes sense somehow, as possible.
EDIT: If you agree with Kant, that you cannot come to an objective statement in metaphysics (even theologians say that you cannot prove god in a scientific way), then maybe there is a question like: Does it then make sense for me to think about metaphysics at all? I just love skepticism, because you never ever really say that anything is true, so you can never be wrong. XD
|
On August 14 2012 21:22 Ludwigvan wrote:
I also think a lot about Religion, Atheism and Skepticism. However, I don't think Skepticism and Atheism can work together. Skepticism means to question everything, especially the axioms. What can we know about life? Can we even know anything about it? Is the Atheism axiom really better than the god axiom? Isn't Relativism a good way to describe everyone's own truth? I really don't know. My only conclusion is that if there is some kind of absolute truth, then we are wrong most of the time. I can only be sure of me making mistakes. I never can be sure if I am right. I can only try to get as close to something that makes sense somehow, as possible.
Again, the definition of atheism I am referring to does not have any axioms. I have evaluated the arguments concerning Gods existence, and I am not convinced. Therefore I lack the belief and therefore I am not a theist. And that's what I mean by atheist. This is something nearly every atheist understands. You can read more on the controversy and complexity of the definition of atheism in many places, wiki is a fine place to start:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism#Definitions_and_distinctions
About epistemological relativism and ethical relativism, I disagree with both. I do not believe that right and wrong is a matter of taste and up to the individual, nor do I believe that truth and falsehood is merely a matter of perception.
Regarding the epistemological relativism, I think Thomas Nagel explains my feelings about it the best in his book Last Word:
... Subjectivism is not just an inconsequential intellectual flourish or badge of theoretical chic. It is used to deflect argument, or to belittle the pretensions of the arguments of others.... The actual result has been a growth in the already extreme intellectual laziness of contemporary culture and the collapse of serious argument throughout the lower reaches of the humanities and social sciences, together with a refusal to take seriously, as anything other than first-person avowals, the objective arguments of others.... It is there as a source of irritation in the background--though I don't seriously hope that work on the question of how reason is possible will make relativism any less fashionable.
On the logical side, epistemological relativism (truth in the eye of the beholder, etc), is self-defeating. If it is claiming that all truth is relative, then what about that claim itself? And if you submit that this subjectivism also applies to itself and is not meant as an objective claim, I again defer to philosopher Nagel who summarizes my response:
"There may be some subjectivists, perhaps styling themselves as pragmatists, who present subjectivism as applying even to itself. But then it does not call for a reply, since it is just a report of what the subjectivist finds it agreeable to say. If he also invites us to join him, we need not offer any reason for declining, since he has offered us no reason to accept."
About ethical relativism, it implies that anything one does is ethically permissible because it is only a matter of taste essentially. It equates "I enjoy vanilla ice cream" and "I enjoy stealing from people". Ethics is a much more complicated matter for sure as we cannot empirically demonstrate something to be objectively wrong. My ethics are based off a mix of virtues, consequences, rights, and responsibilities. There is a tremendous amount of literature out there disputing which ethical theory is "the best". To me it's a matter of making oneself aware of different ways of analyzing ethical situations to take many factors into consideration. This is so when it comes time to make an ethical decision, you have done a lot of rehearsal ahead of time. Plus, with all these considerations of consequences, rights, and responsibilities in mind, it will help shape you into a more virtuous person.
EDIT: If you agree with Kant, that you cannot come to an objective statement in metaphysics (even theologians say that you cannot prove god in a scientific way), then maybe there is a question like: Does it then make sense for me to think about metaphysics at all? I just love skepticism, because you never ever really say that anything is true, so you can never be wrong. XD
I disagree somewhat on your sentiment regarding skepticism "never really saying anything that is true". Skepticism is about questioning nearly everything, sure. But it isn't just a matter of asking "is that so?" but evaluating the evidence. The initial skepticism is what brings me to evaluating the evidence and then deciding if it is true or not. I then can say something like "there is no evidence" or "not enough evidence" to believe X. I am making an assertion there of a sort. You can try to show me new evidence and I can accept it or reject it. I could be mistaken upon seeing new evidence - so I could have been wrong.
|
The division between negative and positive atheism is flawed, because it suggests that the concept of God has always been there and that as such, "not believing" is a neutral state.
However, a neutral state is one where the concept of God is absent; the question "is there a God?" is then introduced, and it is from there that an opinion can be made. But in the end, the first state was the state of ignorance. It is absurd to call the middle-ground between believing and not believing "a-theism".
People really have a problem with claiming their ignorance when it really just is the sea we live in.
Now, you say that you "evaluated the evidence", but what evidence is there? I've had quite a lot of interest in the matter lately and I've never been able to find convincing "evidence" for either sides.
|
It's been used a million times but just putting it here for people who're still claiming atheism is always a positive claim, when it's not. Were it a positive claim, the term would be used by no one, and thus be pointless. So on to the old, unoriginal, but remarkably useful example.
A jury is asked to determine if a person is guilty of a crime. They have 2 choices, guilty or not guilty. There are 3 ways to evaluate the decision:
The person was responsible: Guilty.
Unsure either way: Not guilty.
The person was not responsible: Not guilty.
This makes sense as it is essentially a belief stance by the jury, and until they know beyond reasonably doubt that the person was responsible, they have no choice but to claim not guilty. The person might be entirely innocent, but he would still be found not guilty.
Likewise, when assessing the claim of a God or Gods the default position would be something along the lines of "I don't have enough evidence to say" or in other words, not guilty for the analogy. Not a theist. The very definition of an atheist. Within that claim there are probably a few people would claim they know there is no God and so be gnostic atheists and there would be a lot more who simply don't hold the position of a God existing because there is insufficient evidence, an agnostic atheist. You even get agnostic theism!
Gnostic stances relate to an analysis of claims of knowledge, where theistic positions are an analysis of claims relating to belief in deities. It's not a one or the other situation.
|
On August 14 2012 22:00 Iyerbeth wrote:
It's been used a million times but just putting it here for people who're still claiming atheism is always a positive claim, when it's not. Were it a positive claim, the term would be used by no one, and thus be pointless. So on to the old, unoriginal, but remarkably useful example.
A jury is asked to determine if a person is guilty of a crime. They have 2 choices, guilty or not guilty. There are 3 ways to evaluate the decision:
The person was responsible: Guilty.
Unsure either way: Not guilty.
The person was not responsible: Not guilty.
This makes sense as it is essentially a belief stance by the jury, and until they know beyond reasonably doubt that the person was responsible, they have no choice but to claim not guilty. The person might be entirely innocent, but he would still be found not guilty.
Likewise, when assessing the claim of a God or Gods the default position would be something along the lines of "I don't have enough evidence to say" or in other words, not guilty for the analogy. Not a theist. The very definition of of atheist. Within that claim there are probably a few people would claim they know there is no God and so be gnostic atheists and there would be a lot more who simply don't hold the position of a God existing because there is insufficient evidence, an agnostic atheist. You even get agnostic theism!
Gnostic stances relate to an analysis of claims of knowledge, where theistic positions are an analysis of claims relating to belief in deities. It's not a one or the other situation.
Exactly what I was going to say except put so much more eloquently.
A lack of belief is not a positive claim.
|
So, why don't you call yourself Nontheist, then? The wording would make more sense. How do you know that you can trust your logic or reason? Some believers say that you are only convinced by something, because you believe it. Knowing that something is true means believing. It doesn't matter if the arguments are reasonable or not.
I don't know if relativism is right or wrong. My instincts tell me that relativism also means that I ought to tolerate the intolerable. However, that doesn't mean, that I would trust my instincts. Reason tells me that if I am probably wrong most of the time, then others are too. Look in the history books. Would you say someone was ever right? I don't know how you ought to judge it, btw. Ethically I am a Singerian. Because traditionally I trust reason more than instincts. But, if this is right or wrong is not possible for me to decide. It's just my best guess.
|
On August 14 2012 21:56 Kukaracha wrote:
The division between negative and positive atheism is flawed, because it suggests that the concept of God has always been there and that as such, "not believing" is a neutral state.
What you're referring to may be more specifically called "implicit atheism", which is an unconscious lack of belief - that is you have never even been introduced to the idea of gods, so you cannot possibly believe in them. It still is a form of atheism. And as I was introduced to ideas concerning gods and arguments for and against their existence, I have consciously formed the belief that "I do not know if god exists, but if god exists, the evidence has not been convincing". So I now have an explicit atheist stance.
Now, you say that you "evaluated the evidence", but what evidence is there? I've had quite a lot of interest in the matter lately and I've never been able to find convincing "evidence" for either sides.
If you're really interested, you should do some research. Just google or wiki "Arguments for God's existence" or "Arguments Against God's Existence" sometime.
Example arguments for God's existence:
* Cosmological Argument (first cause, unmoved mover, etc)
* Ontological Argument (argues by definition)
* Teleological Argument (watchmaker argument, argument from design, argument from improbability, intelligent design, etc)
* Argument From Reason
Example arguments against God's existence:
* Problem of Evil (for definitions of god that include omniscience, omnibenevolence, and omnipotence)
* Perfect Creator Problem (for definitions of god that includes perfection)
* Other than that, it comes down to lack of empirical evidence as well as lack of logical arguments to believe in god (and is the reason I consciously do not hold belief in a gods existence).
|
On August 14 2012 22:05 Ludwigvan wrote:
So, why don't you call yourself Nontheist, then? The wording would make more sense..
Read lyerbeth's response above. I'm fine with my position being considered "nontheist", I just do not choose to identify with it since pretty much no one has heard of the term. Like if I was given a survey on my religious beliefs, there would not be an option for "nontheist". I disagree it "makes more sense", since atheism and nontheism mean the same thing. Nontheists can also be atheists who positively assert that is no god afterall. However, it may be less confusing due to some old dictionary definitions of atheist specifically stating rejection of gods existence. Fair enough.
How do you know that you can trust your logic or reason? Some believers say that you are only convinced by something, because you believe it. Knowing that something is true means believing. It doesn't matter if the arguments are reasonable or not.
You really should read Thomas Nagel's book Last Word! Here's another great summary of my response by Nagel (man am I glad I saved a text file back from when I used to argue this stuff all the time lol):
-----------
If someone responded to every challenge to tea-leaf reading as a method of deciding factual or practical questions by appealing to further consultation of the tea leaves, it would be thought absurd. Why is reasoning about challenges to reason different? The answer is that the appeal to reason is implicitly authorized by the challenge itself (my emphasis), so this is really a way of showing that the challenge is unintelligible. The charge of begging the question implies that there is an alternative--namely, to examine the reasons for and against the claim being challenged while suspending judgment about it. For the case of reasoning itself, however, no such alternative is available, since any considerations against the objective validity of a type of reasoning are inevitably attempts to offer reasons against it, and these must be rationally assessed. The use of reason in the response is not a gratuitous importation by the defender: It is demanded by the character of the objections offered by the challenger. In contrast, a challenge to the authority of tea leaves does not itself lead us back to the tea leaves.
-----------
Back to your response...
I don't know if relativism is right or wrong. My instincts tell me that relativism also means that I ought to tolerate the intolerable. However, that doesn't mean, that I would trust my instincts. Reason tells me that if I am probably wrong most of the time, then others are too. Look in the history books. Would you say someone was ever right? I don't know how you ought to judge it, btw. Ethically I am a Singerian. Because traditionally I trust reason more than instincts. But, if this is right or wrong is not possible for me to decide. It's just my best guess.
Keep searching and exploring. You'll eventually come to some "tentative answers" to differing degrees of certainty (that may change when introduced to new arguments or new evidence).
|
On August 14 2012 22:00 Iyerbeth wrote:
It's been used a million times but just putting it here for people who're still claiming atheism is always a positive claim, when it's not. Were it a positive claim, the term would be used by no one, and thus be pointless. So on to the old, unoriginal, but remarkably useful example.
A jury is asked to determine if a person is guilty of a crime. They have 2 choices, guilty or not guilty. There are 3 ways to evaluate the decision:
The person was responsible: Guilty.
Unsure either way: Not guilty.
The person was not responsible: Not guilty.
This makes sense as it is essentially a belief stance by the jury, and until they know beyond reasonably doubt that the person was responsible, they have no choice but to claim not guilty. The person might be entirely innocent, but he would still be found not guilty.
Likewise, when assessing the claim of a God or Gods the default position would be something along the lines of "I don't have enough evidence to say" or in other words, not guilty for the analogy. Not a theist. The very definition of an atheist. Within that claim there are probably a few people would claim they know there is no God and so be gnostic atheists and there would be a lot more who simply don't hold the position of a God existing because there is insufficient evidence, an agnostic atheist. You even get agnostic theism!
Gnostic stances relate to an analysis of claims of knowledge, where theistic positions are an analysis of claims relating to belief in deities. It's not a one or the other situation.
Thank you for clarifying what I've been trying to for a while here :D
I feel like the point of my post has devolved into debating semantics endlessly. Though I guess there isn't too much to say about my blog post since it really was just me reflecting on my earliest memories of conscious skepticism towards gods existence and how that led me to critical thinking and so on...
|
On August 14 2012 22:00 Iyerbeth wrote:
It's been used a million times but just putting it here for people who're still claiming atheism is always a positive claim, when it's not. Were it a positive claim, the term would be used by no one, and thus be pointless. So on to the old, unoriginal, but remarkably useful example.
A jury is asked to determine if a person is guilty of a crime. They have 2 choices, guilty or not guilty. There are 3 ways to evaluate the decision:
The person was responsible: Guilty.
Unsure either way: Not guilty.
The person was not responsible: Not guilty.
This example is flawed in its core, because of two reasons :
- It is a matter of decision, not a matter of opinion, and thus...
- ... the third choice is absent.
A fixed example : "is this color blue?"
- "It is."
- "I do not know."
- "It is not."
The philosophical current that uses atheism and agnosticism as two different layers of analysis deals poorly with deism and is based on this two-choices system, which as I just stated is fallacious. Opinion is not action.
On August 14 2012 22:23 EscPlan9 wrote:
What you're referring to may be more specifically called "implicit atheism", which is an unconscious lack of belief - that is you have never even been introduced to the idea of gods, so you cannot possibly believe in them. It still is a form of atheism. And as I was introduced to ideas concerning gods and arguments for and against their existence, I have consciously formed the belief that "I do not know if god exists, but if god exists, the evidence has not been convincing". So I now have an explicit atheist stance.
See above.
"Unconscious lack of belief" is an absurd position, in the sense that... it makes no sense. You cannot doubt something that does not exist in your own paradigm.
On August 14 2012 22:23 EscPlan9 wrote:If you're really interested, you should do some research. Just google or wiki "Arguments for God's existence" or "Arguments Against God's Existence" sometime. Example arguments for God's existence: * Cosmological Argument (first cause, unmoved mover, etc) * Ontological Argument (argues by definition) * Teleological Argument (watchmaker argument, argument from design, argument from improbability, intelligent design, etc) * Argument From ReasonExample arguments against God's existence: * Problem of Evil (for definitions of god that include omniscience, omnibenevolence, and omnipotence) * Perfect Creator Problem (for definitions of god that includes perfection) * Other than that, it comes down to lack of empirical evidence as well as lack of logical arguments to believe in god (and is the reason I consciously do not hold belief in a gods existence).
As you said, neither of those is satisfying. How can we give a definitive and certain answer and yet claim it as "rational", when it is merely an intuitive opinion?
|
On August 14 2012 23:17 Kukaracha wrote:Show nested quote +On August 14 2012 22:00 Iyerbeth wrote:
It's been used a million times but just putting it here for people who're still claiming atheism is always a positive claim, when it's not. Were it a positive claim, the term would be used by no one, and thus be pointless. So on to the old, unoriginal, but remarkably useful example.
A jury is asked to determine if a person is guilty of a crime. They have 2 choices, guilty or not guilty. There are 3 ways to evaluate the decision:
The person was responsible: Guilty.
Unsure either way: Not guilty.
The person was not responsible: Not guilty.
This example is flawed in its core, because of two reasons : - It is a matter of decision, not a matter of opinion, and thus... - ... the third choice is absent. A fixed example : "is this color blue?" - "It is." - "I do not know." - "It is not." The philosophical current that uses atheism and agnosticism as two different layers of analysis deals poorly with deism and is based on this two-choices system, which as I just stated is fallacious. Opinion is not action.
You're moving from a belief claim to a knowledge claim.
I believe this colour is blue:
-"It is"
-"I haven't seen it/don't know"
-"It is not"
Two of those in assessing the belief claim do not believe the colour is blue.
The fact that opinion is not action is exactly why not believing in God is not always a positive claim. That can be backed up and reasoned which is an entirely different measurement to asking only what someone's stance is on the belief claim.
I think EscPlan doesn't want us to discuss the semantivs in this thread though, so whilst I'd happily discuss further in PM, I won't address it further here, though I understand if you want to respond to it here first too to get the same chance to explain your position.
|
haha, great. The fixed example is much more logical. In a jury you want to protect the alleged murderer, so you say he is not guilty. But you mean, that you don't really know sometimes. well done, Kukaracha!
|
My mom also participated in those AOL dial up internet chat rooms, but she was discussing the difference between her husband and the guys on the chat room. Often i'd wake up to blood sporadically on the carpet, but nothing like the morning my dad read her messages over her shoulder. He picked up the tower of the computer and threw it at her as hard as he could. It hit her just above the eyebrow and knocked her unconscious and when I found her pale laying there in the morning with a pool of her own blood soaked into the carpet, I knew god existed.
God Bless You and your quest, my fellow TLer.
|
My bad.
Arguments against the existence of god usually focus on the definition of God, so if you change the definition you can worm out of i, but then a christian god doesn't exist.
I strongly agree with reading up on those things
|
I was an atheist but over time but I found that agnosticism is the best position in regards to the supernatural. Firstly, atheism is the opposite of theism which has a couple of problems. Atheism is an assertive position which doesn't suit a skeptic, it acknowledges the opposite position and sounds like i'm against something. However as an agnostic i'm not against god and not even condescending as my intellectual sphere is limited to a box about the concept of god dusting away in the "i don't know apartment".
Secondly the agnostic has no obligation to either proof or disproof as often theists or atheists are. It's a neutral position with no ideological baggage, it's not controversial to disclose and enjoys respect from through most people in the a][theist spectrum.
Thirdly it's the most honest position because of the core values drawn from a noble scientist and the cool attitude of skepticism.
|
|
|
this pretty much describes exactly why the notion of a god that watches over us and judges us is absurd
edit reuploaded
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/MnXoH.jpg)
|
^ Yes that is the Problem of Evil in one of its oldest forms. It only pertains to certain definitions of god as I mentioned. The most common response is God gave humans free will. Then there are counter-objections (such as natural disasters, presupposing we truly have free will, etc), and counter-counter-objections, and counter-counter-counter-objections and so on. Its worthwhile to do if you haven't before, but I'll pass on engaging in it for now and just say although I believe the Problem of Evil is a strong argument against certain definitions of gods, it does not disprove the existence of gods in general.
You can continue to debate semantics in here if you would like, but I will be opting out. I'll check in occasionally to see if there's discussion I feel like responding to.
|
It's pretty comical that people like Platinga still try to come up with arguments for the existence of God when every single form of such inanity always falls short and more penetratingly, misses the point. I honestly think that all attempts at this stupid question just reveals that these people are just really insecure about their faith.
|
On August 14 2012 23:30 Iyerbeth wrote:
You're moving from a belief claim to a knowledge claim.
I believe this colour is blue:
-"It is"
-"I haven't seen it/don't know"
-"It is not"
Two of those in assessing the belief claim do not believe the colour is blue.
The fact that opinion is not action is exactly why not believing in God is not always a positive claim. That can be backed up and reasoned which is an entirely different measurement to asking only what someone's stance is on the belief claim.
I think EscPlan doesn't want us to discuss the semantivs in this thread though, so whilst I'd happily discuss further in PM, I won't address it further here, though I understand if you want to respond to it here first too to get the same chance to explain your position.
I wasn't clear enough : in my example, all three are unsure of the color as I imagined it halfway between blue and green. :p
But to put it more simply, let's say the question is "do I have keys in my pocket?" I could very well have them or not, there is no way for you to know. As such, the most logical answer is that... you don't know.
To say that in this example, two people do not believe there are keys in my pocket is a fallacious claim often used by proselytist atheists. How can the person who doesn't know... not believe that there are keys in my pocket? If it were so, than wouldn't his answer not be "I don't believe you have keys in your pocket"?
The trap here is the negation. A negation is a positive claim, unless you consider that the object in question is naturally absent from the world (or that absence is the neutral ontological state, which is a nonsensical proposition). If you do so, than you're clearly biaised. Note that the interrogative form of the question is also neutral, whereas most ocurrances use a biased start such as "God exists", which is a positive claim and thus a terrible way to start asking questions.
I won't even expand on the comparison between knowledge and belief, but to be brief, what we call "knowledge" are mostly beliefs. In fact, while we might gather knowledge inside our axiomatic system, keep in mind that the axioms are by definition believed and fundamentally unprovable. I'd say that the difference between knowledge and belief is very, very small.
On August 15 2012 00:14 OptimusYale wrote:My bad. Arguments against the existence of god usually focus on the definition of God, so if you change the definition you can worm out of i, but then a christian god doesn't exist. I strongly agree with reading up on those things
The more accurate the cult, more skepticism it should draw!
|
I knew my head would explode after reading a few pages of this thread, as it is with every other religious debate, yet I still opened it because I enjoy reading well constructed arguments.
I reject faith in an omnipresent, omniscient, absolute being but I try to respect those that do believe. Whatever floats your boat, right?
|
I wasn't clear enough : in my example, all three are unsure of the color as I imagined it halfway between blue and green.
But to put it more simply, let's say the question is "do I have keys in my pocket?" I could very well have them or not, there is no way for you to know. As such, the most logical answer is that... you don't know.
To say that in this example, two people do not believe there are keys in my pocket is a fallacious claim often used by proselytist atheists. How can the person who doesn't know... not believe that there are keys in my pocket? If it were so, than wouldn't his answer not be "I don't believe you have keys in your pocket"?
The trap here is the negation. A negation is a positive claim, unless you consider that the object in question is naturally absent from the world (or that absence is the neutral ontological state, which is a nonsensical proposition). If you do so, than you're clearly biaised. Note that the interrogative form of the question is also neutral, whereas most ocurrances use a biased start such as "God exists", which is a positive claim and thus a terrible way to start asking questions.
I won't even expand on the comparison between knowledge and belief, but to be brief, what we call "knowledge" are mostly beliefs. In fact, while we might gather knowledge inside our axiomatic system, keep in mind that the axioms are by definition believed and fundamentally unprovable. I'd say that the difference between knowledge and belief is very, very small.
This just isn't...true at all.
The question is: do I believe there are keys in your pocket? If I have no idea whether or not keys are in your pocket, how can I answer "yes" to that question? I can't. The answer is neither "I do believe there are keys in your pocket" nor "I believe there are no keys in your pocket. The answer is, "No, I do not believe there are keys in your pocket".
|
But your disbelief is positive, unless you're implying that a neutral state is one where I don't have keys in my pocket.
It's a very simple grammatic fallacy. Because the english language doesn't usually use the term "disbelieving" (and even that word is not the exact opposite of "believing"), most automatically assume that believing is the only positive state and that negation is a negative claim by nature - which is nonsensical since they are two opposite answers to a neutral inquiry.
But since the original state is a state of neutral ignorance, then both claims are positive as they defend a new position.
|
On August 17 2012 03:47 Kukaracha wrote:
But your disbelief is positive, unless you're implying that a neutral state is one where I don't have keys in my pocket.
It's a very simple grammatic fallacy. Because the english language doesn't usually use the term "disbelieving" (and even that word is not the exact opposite of "believing"), most automatically assume that believing is the only positive state and that negation is a negative claim by nature - which is nonsensical since they are two opposite answers to a neutral inquiry.
But since the original state is a state of neutral ignorance, then both claims are positive as they defend a new position.
The negation here is: "I believe there are no keys in your pocket".
I agree with you; that claim is a positive statement.
However, that negation is not disbelief. That negation is still belief in the negative.
Disbelief is something completely different: "I do not believe there are keys in your pocket". It is NOT the negation, and it is not a positive claim.
|
The english language has a negative bias, and the term "disbelief" is the only way to go throught that.
|
On August 17 2012 23:26 Kukaracha wrote:The english language has a negative bias, and the term "disbelief" is the only way to go throught that.
I don't think I understand your point.
Are you trying to say that atheists use the "do not believe" instead of "believe not", even though that's not really what they think, just to make use of this "negative bias" that the English language has?
Or are you just arguing semantics here and saying that atheists should say they "disbelieve" instead of that the "do not believe"?
|
This is for fun don't take me seriously.
Hi, I'm a theist that wanted to keep and open mind to everything, and I challenged myself to study science in order to seek the truth of our world, the more I have learn,
the more science reinforces my belief that god has created everything within our solar neighbourhood.
As I understood, in christianiy, Jesus has performed some Unbelievable feats such as turning water into whine, summoning bread to feed ppl, and resurrection, that's a pretty impressive list. But my god preformed better feats.my god provides shelter, food, water, for all life since the begining of creation. it sacrificed itself and reincarnated likely 3 times in the process of the act of creation, and it also has the ability to destroy the earth and will use that ability when the time is right. would you agree something capable of such feats to be consider a god?
Well I consider such a being to be god, not only because of my god's amazing feats,
I'm a sun wordshiper,for Several other reasons. First of all, I can see the sun unlike some other gods i could mention, I can actually see the sun. I'm big on that, if I can see something, it kind of helps the credibility along. So everyday I can see the sun, as it gives me everything I need; Heat, light, food, flowers in the park, reflections on the lake, an occasional skin cancer, but hey. At least there are no crucifixions, and we're not setting ppl on fire simply because they don't agree with us.
Now you must be thinking wait a minute how did the sun do all those amazing feats you mention a minute ago?
well here is my argument in proving my god created everything in our solar neighbourhood including us.
let's take Human as an example:
Premise 1: All Naturally occuring elements besides Hydrogen and Helium are created in the center of a star via fusion reaction and supernova when the star reaches the end of its life.(theory of supernova)
premise 2: Heavy elements exist in our solar system.(empirical)
Premise 3: our sun is most likely a 3rd generation star in our solar neighbourhood given the amount of heavy elements exists in our solar system.(2)
Premise 4: planets also formed from the ashes of the last supernova along witht he current sun (Solar nebula theory)
Premise 5: Sun radiates just the right amount of energy in form of heat so earth exists in the habitable zone where liquid water can exist.(emperical)
Premise 6: Abiogenesis occured around 3 billion years ago.(Primordial soup theory, 5)
Premise 7: evolution takes place (theory of evolution, 5,6)
premise 8: Human is a product of evolution.(5,6,7)
therefore Human and all the solar system is a product of the original star that went supernova combine with the current sun's radiation of energy(1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8)
Sun worship is fairly simple. There's no mystery, no miracles, no pageantry, no one asks for money, there are no songs to learn, and we don't have a special building where we all gather once a week to compare clothing. And the best thing about the sun, it never tells you you are unworthy. Doesn't tell you you are a bad person, who needs to be saved. Hasn't said an unkind word, literally. and of course you shall not pray to the sun, because that would be delusional. The only doctrine in this thing is to survive and evolve and be technologically advanced enough to out live the sun when the sun burns out of fuel.
If you look at the closest genetic relative to human beings- the chimpanzees- we share like 98+% identical DNA, we are smarter than a chimpanzee. Let’s invent a measure of intelligence that make humans unique. Let’s say intelligence is your ability to compose poetry, symphonies, do art, math and science, let’s say. Let’s make that as the arbitrary definition of intelligence for the moment. Chimps can’t do any of that. Yet we share 98/99% identical DNA. The most brilliant chimp there ever was, maybe can do sign language. Well, our toddlers can do that. Everything that we are, that distinguishes us from chimps, emerges from that 1% difference in DNA. It has to because that’s the difference. We built the Hubble telescope, and that’s in that 1%. Maybe, everything that we are that is not the chimp is not as smart compared to the chimp as we tell ourselves it is. Maybe the difference between constructing and launching a Hubble telescope and a chimp combining two finger motions as sign language- maybe that difference is not all that great. We tell ourselves it is. Just the same way some of us we arrogantly think we have to save the planet, We tell ourselves it’s a lot. Maybe it’s almost nothing.
(by the way the planet doesn't need any saving, earth will be there for a long long time, the people, are fucked, difference)
Imagine another being. That’s 1% different from us. In the direction that we are different from the chimp. Think about that.
We have 1% difference and we are building the Hubble telescope. Go another 1%, 10% 100% What are we to it? We would be drooling, blithering idiots in its presence.
That’s what we would be. So, the notion that we’re gonna have a conversation with god? When was the last time you stopped to have a conversation with a worm? Or a bird? Well, you might have had a conversation but I don’t think you expected an answer, alright. and Would that same worm even know that we’re trying to communicate, much less that we’re intelligent. So, we don’t have conversations with any other species on earth with whom we have DNA in common. To believe that my god who created the solar system is gonna be interested in us, enough to have a conversation? Our arrogance knows no bounds.
Maybe, just maybe the day comes when our sun stop shining and shink after it finish burning all the hydrogen and helium and human still kicking without the sun's radiation energy.
Maybe then would god recognize our specie as worthy of communication.
|
On August 18 2012 00:59 APurpleCow wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2012 23:26 Kukaracha wrote:The english language has a negative bias, and the term "disbelief" is the only way to go throught that. I don't think I understand your point. Are you trying to say that atheists use the "do not believe" instead of "believe not", even though that's not really what they think, just to make use of this "negative bias" that the English language has? Or are you just arguing semantics here and saying that atheists should say they "disbelieve" instead of that the "do not believe"?
To put it simply, while ideally we do perceive the concepts of "yes", "neutral" and "no", whenever those are applied in most languages they become "yes", "absence of yes", "disagreement with yes".
For example, you agree and "don't agree". Know and "don't know". Believe and "don't believe".
I believe this comes from the fact that language is not logically built but structured around millenia-old "common sense".
|
On August 18 2012 02:30 Kukaracha wrote:Show nested quote +On August 18 2012 00:59 APurpleCow wrote:On August 17 2012 23:26 Kukaracha wrote:The english language has a negative bias, and the term "disbelief" is the only way to go throught that. I don't think I understand your point. Are you trying to say that atheists use the "do not believe" instead of "believe not", even though that's not really what they think, just to make use of this "negative bias" that the English language has? Or are you just arguing semantics here and saying that atheists should say they "disbelieve" instead of that the "do not believe"? To put it simply, while ideally we do perceive the concepts of "yes", "neutral" and "no", whenever those are applied in most languages they become "yes", "absence of yes", "disagreement with yes". For example, you agree and "don't agree". Know and "don't know". Believe and "don't believe". I believe this comes from the fact that language is not logically built but structured around millenia-old "common sense".
To go back to the thing that started this fight, the difference is the claim of the miraculous. The best example is believing in unicorns (or a famous one, a teacup in orbit).
If I asked you do unicorns exist, would you answer that you do not know if unicorns exist or not? It is quite unlike the key example since there is no reason to disbelieve you given the closeness of evidence. You could just show the keys. The answer to the claim of almost anything else is naturally negative.
Do you believe that the tooth fairy exists? No I do not believe the tooth fairy exists. However, to a theist, that is OBVIOUSLY a faulty line of reasoning. There is no way to disprove the tooth fairy. I am making a positive statement. If you want to define it as such, then yes, that is a positive statement, however I (and most atheists) believe that the neutral state is disbelief in things that have no evidence.
|
The problem is that you're not using logic. You're using common sense (which is really a terrible tool that made us once burn "witches" and believe in flying dinosaurs). There's no logical way to prove that things naturally "don't exist".
You're simply dissmissing what sounds "weird" and unlikely in your own experience (which is terribly small).
I could describe an okapi, and I'm sure that some people wouldn't believe me, simply because it's doesn't sound like a likely animal. But it is in no way a rational behaviour, it's actually part of our survival instinct (with many other shortcuts our brain uses daily to keep us focused on everyday life).
|
The beginning of this argument was "what is the natural state", atheism, theism, or agnosticism? The natural state, except when you're really really young and believe literally everything your parents say, is negative. People naturally disbelieve unless someone introduces and provides evidence for a concept.
And even though you can't disprove "God", you can disprove gods that claim anything. The only unassailable god at this point is the god that created the universe, however that god is absolutely useless. You start out assuming god existed and created the universe. Why not just start off with the assumption the universe existed. Much simpler idea. Unless, of course, you believe gods can do something in the universe. In that case, it should be testable. And it has been. Prayer doesn't do anything and the universe seems to always follow certain rules that never seem to be broken.
|
There are many possible "gods", especially from a deistic point of view, that are neither provable or unprovable, so this doesn't lead anywhere...
And the natural state is ignorance, not a negative or a positive one. And before you disagree, please read the previous posts, I've repeated myself quite a few times already.
|
The only possible "gods" that you can neither prove nor disprove are gods that are defined as such or gods that for some reason aren't intervening at this time but "have the capability". And again, what's the point of positing their existence? Pretending gods exist only leads to lack of questioning and strife.
|
As an atheist I don't think I can provide a good answer, but for many the existance of god is simply a part of their spirituality which consists essentially of metaphysical questions. You may say : "but it's bad to give definitive answers!" but really... who doesn't? I've come to find people equally stubborn on both sides of the fence. The USSR was a very good example of atheistic biggotry and dogmatism.
I've actually come to dislike even more the proselytistic fringe of atheism that considers that mankind has "achieved" something and that science is a perfect form of analysis; it's not even that hard to imagine an even more rigorous procedure (completely systematic and automatic analysis of complex data by future supercomputers?) and it is deeply ironic to mock your ancesters for their short view when they're really just as blind and full of themselves.
|
The internet is great for causing opinions to stray to one extreme or the other. I don't consider myself any smarter than my ancestors, just more priveleged. Originally religion seems to have been for trying to explain the world. Monasteries were centers of learinng. Some of the smartest were also the most religious. However, as society learned to explain more and more of the world, most faiths and religions stayed stagnant and had to try to discredit the things we were learning about the world such that their old explanations could still stay true. That is what I don't like.
|
It is true that a portion of every religion does this, and the more archaic the cult, the more immobile it will be, but there are many christian scientists for example. The reason for this is that christianity in the western sphere (or at least in some parts) has adapted and people have kept what they believe is the core of their faith (love, sacrifice, charity).
Also note that whether religions exist or not, there will always be a conflict between conservative and progressist people, which is a good thing in a certain way as it mantains a certain balance between immobility and constant revolutions.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
