Why I'm an atheist

[sarahmichigan]

This is going to be kind of anti-climactic since I've been thinking on it for a while and leading up to it, and yet it's going to be short. But here goes.

I'm an atheist because I think the burden of proof is on those who believe in ANY kind of supernatural phenomena. As far as I can tell, material, natural explanations explain the world and how it works and how it came into being just fine.

To me, positing a Higher Being (especially the more specific you get about what this being is like) to explain things is like saying that tiny black fairies contort their bodies to show the time on my digital watch rather than relying on naturalistic, material explantions about electricity and such.

Now, I understand why some people have an intuition that there just MUST be something bigger than us that created the world. That's fine, and I can understand that. (I have trouble figuring out, sometimes, how people go from "some higher being" to "my specific sect or doctrine," but that's another subject.) However, I don't have that intuition.

I remember when I was taking philosophy courses at Western Michigan University, and sometimes the professor would ask, "What's your intuition about that statment or assertion?" This was in the context of many philosophical arguments, not just ones about the existence or non-existence of God. I remember thinking, "Intuition?! This is supposed to be a philosophy course, and not a New Age class about how to fine-tune your ESP."

But really, when it comes to belief in a higher being of some sort, I think a lot of us are going off our gut feeling. My gut says that only the material world exists, and there isn't anything "super" above the natural world. Any weirdness that can't be explained by science can usually be explained by psychology.

Comments

[riffalike.livejournal.com]

I still wish to know where the material in the material world came from.

[simianpower.livejournal.com]

God sharted?

[bernmarx.livejournal.com]

I feel like somewhere along the line my definitions and the common ones diverged, and I'm not sure who's right, but... for me, an atheist is someone who KNOWS there is no Creative Power (God, etc.) while an agnostic is someone who has no conclusive evidence. I wish there were a ready label to distinguish what seem to really be three types of belief:

-- God definitely doesn't exist, and no amount of proof will sway me from that belief
-- The universe can be explained without God, therefore I don't believe in God; if someone manages to develop compelling arguments, I'd change my mind
-- I've never gotten compelling argumentation for the existence of God, but I also accept that there's no current proof for the absence of God; therefore, I'll exclude consideration of his being from my life, pending compelling arguments

The first view is clearly atheist. The last is clearly agnostic. It's the middle one that I'm inclined to call agnostic, but which seems to be called atheist more often than agnostic (and which seems to be your position, yes?).

[http://users.livejournal.com/_earthshine_/]

This is a good breakdown. There's a lot of space in that (possibly multi-dimensional) spectrum between "fanatical atheist" and "open-minded agnostic" (including "open-minded atheist" and "fanatical agnostic" -- the pairings expressed prior are to show the extremes, and not to suggest that atheists are always fanatical or that agnostics are necessarily open-minded). I'm always interested in knowing exactly what an individual means when they claim to be either, because the terms really have come to mean different things to different people.

[sarahmichigan.livejournal.com]

The middle position is mine, yes.

[pstscrpt.livejournal.com]

I don't think last is clearly agnostic. The pure agnostic position can be just as strident as the hard there-is-no-god atheist position, and that is: There is no worthwhile evidence on whether or not there's a god, and you're deluded if you have an opinion on the matter.

My view on whether there's anything at all is basically your third view, but I also think that most (everything but Buddhist and pick-your-own-metaphore) of the mythologies I'm familiar with are pretty clearly just a product of psychology and culture and not based on real supernatural events. When I don't want to get into details, I'll generally say "somewhere between atheist and agnostic" or "more or less agnostic". I've learned that "weak atheist" just confuses people.

I think your #1 should be called antitheist, but it's too late for that.

[tacit.livejournal.com]

The first view is clearly atheist. The last is clearly agnostic. It's the middle one that I'm inclined to call agnostic, but which seems to be called atheist more often than agnostic (and which seems to be your position, yes?).

By that reasoning, Richard Dawkins is not an atheist; he's an agnostic. Nowhere does Dawkins ever say "there is no god;" in fact, the closest he comes is about midway through The God Delusion, where he says "There almost certainly is no god." He also goes on to say (and to repeat in a BBC television interview about the book) that any reasonable person must leave the door open to the possibility that god exists.

Nevertheless, he identifies as atheist. He does not say that god does not exist, but he does say, with great vigor, that there is no evidence to support the existence of god. He knocks down the classic Judeo-Christian reasons for believing in god; he states that god is not necessary to understand or explain the complexity of the physical world; he exposes the logical fallacies and flaws in many arguments put forth in defense of the claim that there is a god; he asks uncomfortable questions of those who believe in an involved and benevolent god, such as "If god is in the business of healing the wounded and curing the sick, then why is it that the miraculous cures attributed to god are always cures of diseases that sometimes get better on their own anyway, but god does not regrow limbs for amputees or heal people born with birth defects?" He shows that many of the reasons that people give to explain why they believe in god work just as well to support the idea that there is a Thor or a Zeus or an invisible dragon in the attic or a teacup orbiting Pluto, yet these same people do not believe in those things. But through all of that, he never says that there is no god--and he does explicitly say that should evidence of god present itself, ten a reasonable person must pay attention to that evidence.

So I would say that by your definitions above, tat makes him an agnostic with zero tolerance for shoddy arguments or flawed reasoning, not an atheist. Yet he would say he's an atheist, using the definition of "atheist" as "one who does not believe that god exists"--by which definition many people you might call "agnostic" can reasonably be described as "atheist" instead. (That is, an atheist need not be one who believes that god does not exist, but rather only a person who does not believe that god does exist.

[http://users.livejournal.com/_earthshine_/]

This isn't anti-climactic to me... just very straightforward. It's a pretty essential stance.

As you probably knew i would, i have some questions and perhaps challenging ideas to throw out there on this. I hope you know that these come with total respect and from a "food for discussion/thought" standpoint, and not meant to imply anything akin to "you're wrong"*. :)

*(Saying "you're wrong" in this context would be kind of silly anyway, as we are talking about improvables here, by definition. It's also just not my style, anyway.)


I'm an atheist because I think the burden of proof is on those who believe in ANY kind of supernatural phenomena.

What i want to do first is ask a question: Can you explain exactly what you mean by "burden of proof", and why you feel it rests with those who believe in supernatural phenomena and not also with those who do not?

This isn't a trick question or anything i ask challengingly, btw. I think i know exactly what you mean by this, but i actually started replying and then realized that i wanted to make sure before i dug into it.

But really, when it comes to belief in a higher being of some sort, I think a lot of us are going off our gut feeling.

I like to explore the ideas in this, but i think in the end, this is the statement that will prevail. When you've got nothing to on either way, intution/gut/guess/preference is really all there is! :)

[guttaperk.livejournal.com]

(1) Icon love.

(2) Gooood comment.


:-)

[sarahmichigan.livejournal.com]

What i want to do first is ask a question: Can you explain exactly what you mean by "burden of proof", and why you feel it rests with those who believe in supernatural phenomena and not also with those who do not?

Something like the Sagan quote about "extraordinary claims need extraordinary proof" combined with Occam's razor. If a naturalistic explanation for life on earth, etc., is sufficient, why do we need to posit a higher being? That, plus most of the philosophical arguments FOR the existence of God tend to bring up as many paradoxes as they solve.

[stacycat69.livejournal.com]

"What i want to do first is ask a question: Can you explain exactly what you mean by "burden of proof", and why you feel it rests with those who believe in supernatural phenomena and not also with those who do not?"

Because it is a lot easier to prove that something exists, whereas proving something does not. For example, using Sarah's black fairy example, if someone proved the existance of the black fairys, we could start believing in them.

To me, God is not something that can be proved. sure, if you prove that it exists, thats a pretty good statement that something else is out there. But, how most people define their "higher power" having proof of that existance would negate the powerful faith effects. I do have the "what if something else is out there" but it in no way conforms to what most people view as "god."

religion is a social construct and institution.

[tacit.livejournal.com]

Can you explain exactly what you mean by "burden of proof", and why you feel it rests with those who believe in supernatural phenomena and not also with those who do not?

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.

If you say, "There is a green spotted dragon living in Lake Michigan," it is on you to demonstrate that there is a green spotted dragon living in Lake Michigan. It is not on others to somehow demonstrate that there is not. If you claim something is true, it's your responsibility to show that it's true, not the responsibility of others to show that it's untrue.

[guttaperk.livejournal.com]

A good and reasonable post.

Most people, whether deist or atheist, are less reasonable in their expression.

Two questions, though:
(1) Your post implies that the main (if not the only) function of religion is to explain natural phenomenon. Is that really your belief?
(2) What place (if any) do you think intuition should have in philosophy or religion?

cheers

adrian.

[sarahmichigan.livejournal.com]

Two questions, though:
(1) Your post implies that the main (if not the only) function of religion is to explain natural phenomenon. Is that really your belief?

No. The main reason I bring this up is that when you have a discussion between theists and atheists/agnostics, one of the first and main points brought up is something like, "But how can you look at the world and believe that there's no creator?" or "How did the world get here if there's no god?"

The main functions of religion, as far as I can tell, seem to be helping people make sense of the world, helping people figure out how to make good decisions, and creating a sense of community.

(2) What place (if any) do you think intuition should have in philosophy or religion?

Some place. As much as I'm a supporter of learning logical deduction and induction and learning to spot fallacies, I also think that intuition is important in most spheres of our life. I don't necessarily think intuition equals illogical though; I think we often have intuition about things that very well may have a logical/scientific explantion, but we just don't have a grasp on that logical/scientific explantion yet.

Not sure if I'm making sense here...

[lefthand.livejournal.com]

I think people need a god to 1. ease their fear of death 2. To lend merit to their otherwise non-notable lives. Participation in a religion gives worth that isn't connected to merit. Thus if you have no intrinsic worth, religion fits the bill nicely.

Since I am not afraid of death (in that I know it is coming and am ok with the life I have led) and I have merit of my own, I have little need of supernatural powers to comfort me or lend me value.

God doesn't add anything to the equation and Ackham's razor takes him out.

[pstscrpt.livejournal.com]

I think people need a god to 1. ease their fear of death
I wish more people would join me in pinning their hopes on medical immortality. Gerontology and nanotech research would probably go faster, then.

[meecie.livejournal.com]

My position isn't too different from yours, but I tend to call myself agnostic, when forced to pick a label.

My take on it is that the human brain just isn't capable of comprehending the universe. The level of complexity is just too high. This isn't, of course, to say that we shouldn't keep trying to learn what we can (otherwise I'd have to quit my job!). But I tend to feel that our sense of mysticism comes from that gap between what we know and what is. I'm not immune to the drive to fill in that gap, either.

So, while I specifically dis-believe a sentient god or gods, I do believe it is quite possible that there are forces at work that we don't comprehend, or that we don't have evidence for (and perhaps never will).

[sarahmichigan.livejournal.com]

I struggled for a while trying to say why I lean toward "atheist" rather than agnostic and even talked this over with J. a bit before posting. I guess "agnostic" would work as well for what I believe, but with such a strong leaning toward doubting the existence of a god, "atheist" just seems more appropriate in my case.

I believe...

[zoe-1418.livejournal.com]

... that there are tiny fairies in my wristwatch.

I hadn't realize it before, but now I do! I like this ever so much. Thanks for the idea. ;-)

[riffalike.livejournal.com]

Tiny fairies serving my informational needs with enforced contortions would actually convince me to wear a wristwatch.

"Hmmm. What time is it? 3pm. Heh heh, torture."

[aackthpt.livejournal.com]

At least one person has disagreed that it should be identified with it, but one thing I like in a strange way about agnosticism is the sense of apathy. It's like saying,"Sure there might be a supreme being, but you know what? I just don't care." It's sort of the same apathy that drives me to just consider debating the subject (of existence) utterly worthless.

I personally have often thought that the golden rule / social contract / call it what you will is pretty much all we have. Then again, I've occasionally had an intuition about there being something larger than ourselves... but I'd call it more of a fabric-of-the-universe sort of god idea than anything else.

Perhaps it is because it sometimes seems the place is overrun with fundamentalists that on top of Occam's Razor I'd like to whip out Sturgeon's Assertion: "Ninety percent of everything is crud."

[simianpower.livejournal.com]

This says it all.

[sarahmichigan.livejournal.com]

heh.

[effy.livejournal.com]

I always feel like an idiot when I respond to your intellectual posts by saying, "I agree," but I do.

I've been an atheist for a very, very long time, and I'm pretty much in line with your reasoning. Looks like you've got quite the debate happening here...

[chimalis.livejournal.com]

As I clicked the link, I saw that there were 81 comments on this post. I didn't read them yet, but I just wanted to say: I'm reading Richard Dawkins's book The God Delusion right now, and will try to remember to discuss it with you when I next see you (if you like).

As far as intuition as part of academic learning, I'm sort of pro this idea. Linguistics involves a lot of semantic, syntactic, and phonological intuition, and above all, morphological intuition. In fact, morphological intuition (a skill gained from reading) is how "good" speakers of English speak and write - without knowing or drawing on "rules" learned in school, but just instinctively. For me personally, spelling and memorization are also instinctive, and I can use intuition to remember names after eight years of not seeing folks or to spell an unfamiliar last name.