It's funny, but I realized that when I talk about myself in relationship to atheists I often sound like a post-civil rights white person trying to minimize the gap between myself and another group.
I don't have anything personally against atheists.
Some of my best friends are atheists.
I even like Ricky Gervais. He's an atheist, you know.
All of this aside, I have tried in vain over the years to understand atheism. I've written about it several times, and whenever I do, I get a bucket of responses from atheists. And of course if I'm ever feeling disconnected from my non-believing brothers and sisters, I really have to go no further than the comment board on The Huffington Post (it seems they have quite a fascination with my articles there).
Try as I may to get atheism, I still don't. I do, however, see where agnostics are coming from. In fact, I identify myself quite often as a Christian agnostic. This is from the website, Infidels.org on the origin of the word:
"Thomas Henry Huxley invented the word agnostic in the Spring of 1869... Huxley first used the word agnostic at a party at James Knowles's house on Clapham Common prior to the formation of the Metaphysical Society... He [Huxley] took it from St. Paul's mention of the altar to 'the Unknown God.'"
There's also the notion of "deep knowing," which some people claim supersedes the vagueness of agnosticism. But again, in considering the actual etymology of the word, the type of knowledge Huxley is talking about is a cerebral, intellectual knowledge, not a gut feeling, regardless of the strength of conviction.
So by this definition, we're all agnostic, really.
And that's why I struggle to understand atheism.
Etymologically, atheism has similar Greek roots to agnosticism, coming from the words "a-theos" which means "no God" or "without God." This implies the same kind of certitude that a religious fundamentalist might claim is arguing they "know without any doubt that God exists." Based on what? Either of you? There is no way to prove or disprove the existence of God. Especially when we can't even nail down what exactly it is we're talking about.
For some, God is an anthropomorphic "other." For others, as philosopher John D. Caputo suggests, it's not that God exists as some independent metaphysical entity, but rather God "insists, so that the rest of creation might exist."
Put another way, God is the impetus, the spark, the divine breath, the "inspiration," if you will from which all the rest of creation finds meaning. But God is not to be found "elsewhere." It's more like light in that way, conspiring with the physical world to create something that makes sense. Yet to borrow a scientific concept, when you're seeing an object, what you're actually seeing is the light, or more specifically, the result of the interaction between the light and the observed object.
But you don't see the thing itself; you see the light. But the light is the means by which we find meaning in all that we see.
Pretty amazing understanding of God if you ask me. But how do you measure it? How do you prove it? Or disprove it?
One of the cornerstones of science is the scientific method, which is the process by which phenomena are understood and measured based on observable data. And I can see why someone who leans heavily on the scientific method would say that, since the idea of God is not directly observable in the ways defined by the scientific method, it's a non-issue.
But here's the thing. At one time, atomic particles were not observable, given the instruments at our disposal. Neither was dark matter. Or gravity, for that matter, which still cannot be directly observed: only measured as it affects other objects. It's not a "thing" that can be pinned down.
Sound familiar?
I respect the process and constraints of the scientific method. It has been critical to so much of the advancement we've made as a species. but to say that even science is entirely constrained by the scientific method is to ignore the creative imagination required to stretch the boundaries, to imagine what might be, beyond what is now understood to be. It's this kind of imagination that pushes humanity to create new tools that have allowed us to observe things we never knew existed before.
But all of those things -- and I'd argue, much more we've yet to discover -- have been a part of creation, despite our inability to observe or even conceive of them. Making room for those possibilities, seem, to me, to be at the heart of science as much as the rigorous processes defined by the scientific method.
In my graduate studies, I learned that every time you formed a hypothesis (God is), you were also required to develop a null hypothesis that says the opposite of your hypothesis (God isn't). Keep in mind that there are no "facts" in science, but rather hypotheses (educated guesses) and theories (hypotheses that have been supported by science, but that may ultimately be disproved). Now, I'm not a scientist, but it makes perfect sense within this model to have the "null hypothesis" that God doesn't exist.
However, to leap from that to certitude of God's non-existence is to violate the principles of the scientific method, isn't it? Even Aristotle conceded that the boundaries of science prohibited it from testing certain metaphysical phenomena such as the existence of God.
It seems to me, to paraphrase Paul (like Huxley), that we risk becoming that which we hate in staking claims of certainty on either side of this issue. In pushing back primarily against religious fundamentalism, atheism risks embracing the very fundamentalism it resists. And in doing so, it abandons the very principles of science it claims as the basis for non-belief.
I can work with a null hypothesis on the existence of God. There's room for dialogue. It creates space for creative imagination on both sides, whereas fundamentalism of any stripe seeks to draw lines of distinction (ie, division) and to stem conversation for the purpose of "being right."
I don't know if God exists. You don't know if God doesn't exist. But if scientists can not only coexist on both sides of a hypothesis, but even use that difference to promote progress, it seems we can and should apply similar principles to the public forum.
Follow Christian Piatt on Twitter: www.twitter.com/christianpiatt
David Lose: Atheists and the F-Word
American Atheists | Welcome Free Thinkers
Atheism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
How do you know that the universe is not a thinking entity itself? So if someone claims it is, and many pantheists do, then it must be an equal possibility to all others just because of the ability to make the claim. Now here is why I REJECT all claims of deities,
1.Occham's razor would say the explanation to a gap or problem would be the one with the least complicated baggage. It is why a car mechanic checks the battery first and doesn't take the engine apart as a default.
Now, between the choices of any god being real, or the provable history of humans making up gods, which seems more likely as a viable explanation?
2. Thoughts require a material process. While not physical things themselves, it is like running is not a physical thing itself, but requires material legs to observe the act of running.
Given those two things above, it makes it clear to me no matter how "technical" "we don't know" may be, it also shows how fleeting the reality would be given that context.
We are all entitled to make whatever claims we want, but none of us are entitled to our own facts.
Neptune is not required to make a hurricane, why should anything about the universe or life in it be any more in need of any modern god?
Pretty much the most important part of the post, although it does sort of undercut some of the criticism against atheists (since they are, after all, agnostic by default).
Sound familiar?"
Scientific theories of gravity, atoms and dark matter are explanations for observed phenomena. The phenomena were always there, and god was the explanation until we came up with something much, much better. God is not out there waiting to be discovered as the Ultimate Explanation for Everything. God was what we came up with when we didn't know any better. We don't need the god hypothesis any more.
Our knowledge of the physical world has given us tremendous power. We are now able to split atoms to make electricity, extend human life by decades, fly through the air, communicate with the other side of the world instantaneously, send spaceships to other planets etc etc. All of this would have been viewed as impossible magic 300 years ago. And it is worth pointing out that the preceding 10,000-or-so years of religious seeking after god prior to that did not offer any advancement toward those things.
Some atheists may think that I am taking a path of "iron age mythology"...however, one point in history is neither inclusive or exclusive of reality. The trouble with most people is that they tend to think in terms of periods of time, (i.e., decades, centuries, etc.), when all those times lived were no further back than yesterday. What I mean by this is - man didn't disappear from generation to generation. Your mother, father, grandmother, grandfather, and relatives for centuries back were living and carried the experiences day by day forward into your world today.
Some atheists like to think that science will be the prove all to end all...but, it won't and never will be. As man's knowledge expands, with regards to science, it become far more difficult to disprove God's existence. Yet, the closer man gets the further away he is...that's the irony.
If gods have retreated so far they no longer even inhabit the universe, then what can we conclude about the existence of all those gods? What does that even mean after such an unbroken history of retreat? After all, the last claims of your Christian god's existence were made several thousand years ago, in primitive oral and written story telling. If you claim the Bible is evidence of your god's existence, I would just say evidence doesn't get flimsier than that. It truly is evidence of nothing.
Quit worrying when an atheist baits you with whether or not you are being "intellectually honest", etc. For an atheist there really is no such thing as absolute "truth", "honesty", "right or wrong", "good or bad", etc. Those attributes, for them, are merely social restraints and conventions created by man for the purpose of controling the actions and behaviors of mankind.
Morals fall into the same category for them. They are operating from a double standard. A standard which they truly feel exempt from with the exception of legality and social acceptability.
And, if they would be "intellectually honest" with themselves then they would agree that they don't even believe in the emotion of "love". For them it should be nothing more than social evolution at its highest order. Their thinking can escape and deny God at every turn...but, they can't escape their own God given emotions.
Maybe, you should give me your definition of what honesty is for you, and then give me your definition of what intellectual honesty is for you. There is nothing wrong with sanctimony when used appropriately.
It seems as though to me that you wish to apply a higher standard when in effect you disbelieve any true higher standards which are not man-made. Whereas, I believe that if all standards are merely the creations of man then they are of no value with the exceptions of maintaining a peaceful existence among humans.
Therefore, you want to hold CodyGirl's feet to the fire for not meeting up to your fictitious standard of intellectual honesty. That seems to be extreme irony to me. And, for me that begs the question of where do you get off making any pretense of setting a criteria to begin with for judging the honesty of another individual?
Not only that but I think atheists tend to be more moral than believers. Certainly in the US there are far more believers in jail than atheists. There is no shortage of reasons to behave in an ethical manner if you are an atheist. We just don't need to be told what to do by an all-powerful being who will punish us if we are bad. (It's interesting mind you that God often waits till they are dead to punish bad people.)
I'm afraid I don't follow your reasoning on denying emotions. There are plenty of nonreligious reasons for them as well.
After man is given a glorified body, then will he be able to see God.
Oh, and one more question. What exactly is a "glorified" body? Are we talkin' body builder types, cuz I can start tomorrow with the crunches and weight training. Or is it more like being a supermodel? That one could be a bit tougher for us ordinary folks who weren't born with Kate Moss' genes.
Gosh, this religion stuff is so confusing!
Heaven most certainly does exist. It simply can't be breached until the return of Christ, and at that time only those who are holy will enter. As far as, a "glorified body" I would like to think it would be somewhat modeled after mine. At 6'5'' and 220 lbs. I like to think I'm a pretty good speciman. Not mention, I'm just fairly handsome...as they say.
However, letting go of vanity and ego no one truly knows what a glorified will be. The Scriptures speak of a New Jerusalem which will be the creation of the Kingdom of Christ, which will be Heaven on earth. And, the Scriptures speak of another Heaven which is the domain of God. "Yes!" We will be able to trascend both, and the Face of God will be seen no matter where, (i.e., direction), we are standing.
I enjoy your sarcasm! I know you prefer to think of yourself as an accidental bi-product of a cosmic chain of events where no god is/was involved. And, I know that for you there is no absolute "truth", good or evil, right or wrong, etc. - just this existence and what you know of it...no purpose in life and no purpose in death.
*facepalm*
Here's the third and fourth sentences on atheism at wikipedia:
> Most inclusively, atheism is simply the absence of belief that any deities exist. Atheism is contrasted with theism, which in its most general form is the belief that at least one deity exists.
See also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weak_and_strong_atheism
Atheism and agnosticism are not mutually exclusive - atheism is a belief position (lack of belief), while agnosticism is a knowledge position (lack of knowledge). An agnostic can have belief (without knowing for sure) or lack belief (without knowing for sure).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnostic_atheism
see also http://atheism.about.com/od/aboutatheism/p/atheism101.htm
To quote Nas, "Is you stupid?"
No one claims to know definitively that God exists, we just don't think his existence is very probable. It is absolutely not a claim based on certainty. You yourself are an agnostic atheist about Thor and Zeus and Vishnu, etc...
“Your accusationÂs of my being "intellectÂually dishonest" are pure bunk."
Easily refuted.
The most fundamental component of intellectual honesty is that one must not allow their personal beliefs to interfere with the search for truth.
You discarded this in your post:
“DJ: You ask this: "Would you ever possibly waver from your commitment to the premise that God exists?"
The answer is NO. There is nothing that can or will cause me not to believe in God."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/social/CodyGirl/right-vs-left-stereotypes_b_860504_88296789.html
Therefore, you are intellectually dishonest. Q.E.D.
Why is it so important to you to try to paint me as "intellectually dishonest"? My personal credibility is not an issue in this discussion. You can evaluate & accept or reject any or all of the ideas & opinions that I put forth here & it won't alter reality one iota.
Because I am offended by people who pretend to be interested in open discussion, when all they are really doing is proselytizing; I consider it immoral.
I can live my life without the belief in god (and live it very morally. Thank you!)
Who cares? Atheism doesn't mean "a-theos". It means a-theism. Theism is the belief in deitie(s). Therefore, a-theism means no-belief in deities. Atheists like myself generally don't say "there is no god". We say "we don't believe there is a god".