Some time ago, someone asked me if i was a christian. To this i replied: "no, im an atheist, why?"
the person in question was so shocked he/she gaped and stared for about a full 30 seconds.
I wonder why i illicited such a knee jerk reflex from simply expressing that there was NO god. As an atheist, i profess the same amount of confidence that god-fearing folks have in that god exists. Why then have i chosen this admittedly aggressive stance?
In the past, i used to label myself an agnostic which was a far more neutral position. It was a position which allowed me to consider that God was an untestable hypothesis and therefore inherently outside the testable realms of science. It would hence be a hypocrisy on my part to assume the atheistic position that there was definitely no god. As scientific experimentation aims to elucidate natural law, we have found time and again that natural law obeys no law of man and scientific dogmas have fallen, only to be replaced by newer models of understanding that were tweaked to allow new phenomenon to be comprehended within the new framework. To say categorically that A is A and will always be A is therefore a contradiction to the spirit of science. Afterall, without the theory of electricity, even the simplest appliance like a lightbulb would definitely have fallen into the "impossible" category.
I have long held that position - however after reading richard dawkins excellent book, the "God delusion," Dawkins very successfully challenged some of my core beliefs about the scientific method.
I shall clarify my beliefs:
The first 3 statements pertain to my beliefs on conventional religion, the next 3 are expressions of my world view.
1)There is no God - God in this case is likened to a person, a spirit, a being, a benign metaphorical cloud or an energy.
2)God, according to conventional religion, must have an intention for us in the world. This intention can either be good or bad - ie, christians have a loving god and satanists have a god of brimestone and hellfire - they are both catergorized into belief in a supreme being with a purpose.
3)This being is of immense power and capability and further, constantly uses his powers to affect human activity.
4)My beliefs allow for a God, or natural force which is benign, cannot be detected and generally has no other concerns for us other than the fact that we are but specks in his peripheral vision. This vision of god may manifest itself as an appreciation of the natural order of the universe. Attempts to understand this god may itself be futile as there has always been a natural tendency for humans to give everything a purpose and a value.
5)I accept that life without god given purpose is still beautiful. In fact it can be every bit as purposeful. Arguments that life is essentially pointless without a guide are flawed as they taken in a very narrow context that typically flows as such:
"so, you believe that after you die, theres nothing?"
"yup!"
"so why do you bother to work or do anything? since ultimately, nothing you do matters, and by extension of YOUR beliefs, nothing that anybody does matters on a long enough timescale?"
To answer this, i argue that purpose is what you make of a situation. Just as the purpose of gravity is to hold us down, you could argue that in relation to gravity, we are essentially pointless. Afterall, it hardly matters to gravity whether we exist or not. Similarly, to state that life is purposeless is to ignore the proposition that life can simply be for living - and much productive work can be derived from it. I believe that within humans, there will always be certain traits which are worthwhile goals. These include the care of other human beings for example, with palpable results. These goals are tangible enough to be irrefutable. To argue otherwise is to pick a verbal argument over semantics.
6:Absolute morals are not necessary for the world to exist. The world conforms to our moral standards and knowledge of "morals" is only an expression of what we have come to be conditioned with. As a case in point, Is it moral to eat another man? to that we would certainly hear a resounding "NO" from most of the civilised world - yet the same question posed to a savage brought up in a culture of cannibalism would provoke a shocked reaction mainly because prior to the question, there wouldn't even be any doubt , to the savage, as to be legitimacy of the practice. His world view would not even have anticipated that "new" moral. Likewise, our morals represent an evolution of morals in which a perfect standard has never existed.
The first 3 statements will form the basis of my God seeking hypothesis. They reflect sentiments as given by conventional religions.
The latter 3 of my statements deal with a world post-god and how it can still be as beautiful as before without the blinkers of religion.
As mentioned before, it would be inherently unscientific to state that something is impossible. However, scientific thought cannot be understood in such simplistic terms. That understanding of the scientific method would by logical extension, propose that nothing is impossible. A quick mental exploration reveals that an extension of that mentality would be to state that it would be a plausible hypothesis: that tiny invisible and undetectable imps jump from my hand to push a cup as i move to shift its position.
No reasonable scientist would ever entertain such a notion. Clearly, to adopt a post-modern "there is no truth" attitude toward science is unsustainable. Instead, scientific thought must also contain an element of plausibility. It is this element of plausibility which has not been fulfilled in my god seeking hypothesis. To restate the scientific method, to the atheistic scientist: what matters is not the absolute plausibility of an event but that it possess a sufficiently high enough degree of probability to make it a valid hypothesis. This carries the caveat that lack of probability does not also automatically exclude further testing. Indeed to give scientists credit, globally there have always been efforts underway to prove the god hypothesis.
An atheistic scientist therefore says with conviction that god does not exist until the day comes that god becomes a likely probability. He says this with the same conviction that he pronounces all his other statements such as: gravity pulls objects with mass. No protest has ever been heard over such statements - yet they do not preclude physicists from constantly probing the gravity hypothesis. To date, we still do not understand what gravity is.
In conclusion, i believe that to limits of my own intelligence and reason, i will continue to reject religion or at least hold it in a position of such little probability that it would make any attempt to resolve religion into a position of agnostic "maybe," an attempt to run away from the true nature of reasonable science.
I have so much more to write. yet time is precious. in any case, many of my arguments are similar to those found within the "god delusion" so do pick up a copy to set you thinking. It contains arguments which are far more solidly constructed and well thought out than what is expressed here.
It has the advantage of being a full fledged attempt to honestly approach the subject of atheism and also includes detailed arguments over the implausibility of god on which my argument hinges.
However, should there be any objections that you might raise on my treatment of the subject, feel free to look me up to discuss them in depth. It is likely that i will be misunderstood here based on my quick and dirty treatment of the subject without further detailed explanation of my beliefs.
I have also not finished fully clarifying the second proposition of living without a god. Maybe i will get do to that one day.
*for people who will find this post offensive - it should be no more offensive than any of the other numerous articles that focuses on the greatness of god. i reserve no judgment on alternate belief systems.
I shall clarify my beliefs:
The first 3 statements pertain to my beliefs on conventional religion, the next 3 are expressions of my world view.
1)There is no God - God in this case is likened to a person, a spirit, a being, a benign metaphorical cloud or an energy.
2)God, according to conventional religion, must have an intention for us in the world. This intention can either be good or bad - ie, christians have a loving god and satanists have a god of brimestone and hellfire - they are both catergorized into belief in a supreme being with a purpose.
3)This being is of immense power and capability and further, constantly uses his powers to affect human activity.
4)My beliefs allow for a God, or natural force which is benign, cannot be detected and generally has no other concerns for us other than the fact that we are but specks in his peripheral vision. This vision of god may manifest itself as an appreciation of the natural order of the universe. Attempts to understand this god may itself be futile as there has always been a natural tendency for humans to give everything a purpose and a value.
5)I accept that life without god given purpose is still beautiful. In fact it can be every bit as purposeful. Arguments that life is essentially pointless without a guide are flawed as they taken in a very narrow context that typically flows as such:
"so, you believe that after you die, theres nothing?"
"yup!"
"so why do you bother to work or do anything? since ultimately, nothing you do matters, and by extension of YOUR beliefs, nothing that anybody does matters on a long enough timescale?"
To answer this, i argue that purpose is what you make of a situation. Just as the purpose of gravity is to hold us down, you could argue that in relation to gravity, we are essentially pointless. Afterall, it hardly matters to gravity whether we exist or not. Similarly, to state that life is purposeless is to ignore the proposition that life can simply be for living - and much productive work can be derived from it. I believe that within humans, there will always be certain traits which are worthwhile goals. These include the care of other human beings for example, with palpable results. These goals are tangible enough to be irrefutable. To argue otherwise is to pick a verbal argument over semantics.
6:Absolute morals are not necessary for the world to exist. The world conforms to our moral standards and knowledge of "morals" is only an expression of what we have come to be conditioned with. As a case in point, Is it moral to eat another man? to that we would certainly hear a resounding "NO" from most of the civilised world - yet the same question posed to a savage brought up in a culture of cannibalism would provoke a shocked reaction mainly because prior to the question, there wouldn't even be any doubt , to the savage, as to be legitimacy of the practice. His world view would not even have anticipated that "new" moral. Likewise, our morals represent an evolution of morals in which a perfect standard has never existed.
The first 3 statements will form the basis of my God seeking hypothesis. They reflect sentiments as given by conventional religions.
The latter 3 of my statements deal with a world post-god and how it can still be as beautiful as before without the blinkers of religion.
As mentioned before, it would be inherently unscientific to state that something is impossible. However, scientific thought cannot be understood in such simplistic terms. That understanding of the scientific method would by logical extension, propose that nothing is impossible. A quick mental exploration reveals that an extension of that mentality would be to state that it would be a plausible hypothesis: that tiny invisible and undetectable imps jump from my hand to push a cup as i move to shift its position.
No reasonable scientist would ever entertain such a notion. Clearly, to adopt a post-modern "there is no truth" attitude toward science is unsustainable. Instead, scientific thought must also contain an element of plausibility. It is this element of plausibility which has not been fulfilled in my god seeking hypothesis. To restate the scientific method, to the atheistic scientist: what matters is not the absolute plausibility of an event but that it possess a sufficiently high enough degree of probability to make it a valid hypothesis. This carries the caveat that lack of probability does not also automatically exclude further testing. Indeed to give scientists credit, globally there have always been efforts underway to prove the god hypothesis.
An atheistic scientist therefore says with conviction that god does not exist until the day comes that god becomes a likely probability. He says this with the same conviction that he pronounces all his other statements such as: gravity pulls objects with mass. No protest has ever been heard over such statements - yet they do not preclude physicists from constantly probing the gravity hypothesis. To date, we still do not understand what gravity is.
In conclusion, i believe that to limits of my own intelligence and reason, i will continue to reject religion or at least hold it in a position of such little probability that it would make any attempt to resolve religion into a position of agnostic "maybe," an attempt to run away from the true nature of reasonable science.
I have so much more to write. yet time is precious. in any case, many of my arguments are similar to those found within the "god delusion" so do pick up a copy to set you thinking. It contains arguments which are far more solidly constructed and well thought out than what is expressed here.
It has the advantage of being a full fledged attempt to honestly approach the subject of atheism and also includes detailed arguments over the implausibility of god on which my argument hinges.
However, should there be any objections that you might raise on my treatment of the subject, feel free to look me up to discuss them in depth. It is likely that i will be misunderstood here based on my quick and dirty treatment of the subject without further detailed explanation of my beliefs.
I have also not finished fully clarifying the second proposition of living without a god. Maybe i will get do to that one day.
*for people who will find this post offensive - it should be no more offensive than any of the other numerous articles that focuses on the greatness of god. i reserve no judgment on alternate belief systems.
No comments:
Post a Comment