sarahmichigan (![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
sarahmichigan) wrote2007-02-28 12:08 pm
sarahmichigan) wrote2007-02-28 12:08 pm
Entry tags:
Why I'm an atheist
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.
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.
no subject
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!
:)no subject
(2) Gooood comment.
:-)
no subject
:)I like yours, too. "Between Sun And Moon"?
(2) Thanks again. I like exploring these ideas with others of all beliefs; i feel like we all have pieces of the puzzle to share.
no subject
(2) I agree!
no subject
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.
no subject
The reason i ask is because i'm positing what i believe is more "neutral" assertion: if there is no evidence for or against a given hypothesis, then its truth and its fallacy hold equal credit.
What i'm suggesting here is that the use of terms like "burden of proof" or even "Occam's razor" implicitly put your original statement ("I'm an atheist because I think the burden of proof is on those who believe in ANY kind of supernatural phenomena.") into a logical/scientific context. This is of course reasonable, but my question is this: is it a circular argument?
The idea i'm testing here is this:
The disciplines of logic include axioms such as not bringing in irrelevant facts, or accepted practices like assigning burden or proof or applying Occam's Razor. Therefore, to apply these tools to this question is to bias the answer, because the tools themselves are based on a discipline whose purpose and usefulness comes from being able to rule out certain things.
(I hope i'm making sense -- i'm having a hard time articulating the idea.)
That said, trying to "unbias" this doesn't lean us toward the hypothesis that supernatural things exist, either. Instead, the unbiased approach seems to lead just to the neutral stance that, given no substantial evidence either way, both hypotheses are equally "valid".
("Valid" is in quotes because this isn't the "valid" of logical terminology, but just the more conceptual "valid".)
Let's say for a moment that this makes sense (but stop me if it doesn't). We're now at a point where, given no real evidence either way, the existance of anything supernatural/metaphysical/god-like is entirely debatable and perhaps even arbitrary, from a "truth" standpoint.
From here, two things come to mind:
1) That (as
2) Where one goes with a decision that's arbitrary from one standpoint is often determined by changing standpoints -- if there's no more or less "truth" to believing in God or not, the next question seems to be what other factors might lend toward one or the other.
#2 is where things get interesting, in my mind. As you said, it's often just a "gut feeling" or intuition that takes over here. When talking about "beliefs", it's often not really a choice, but more of something intrinsic to our experience and/or makeup. It also leads me to ask the next question, which i think is key (and others have touched upon it):
What is, in your mind, the implicit goal or potential effect of believing (or not believing) in something spiritual?
If it's merely to explain what we see, then we're back to arbitrarity: both hypothesis seem to cover that ground (well, for purposes of this conversation -- i have some of my own questions about that, but they're out of scope here). If, as you said, it's about things like making the world make sense, helping people make good decisions, and bringing people together, then we have a fresh set of criteria with which to weigh the value of belief.
(Of course, that's just an exploratory exercise. It might lead to changes in beliefs, but we are talking about beliefs here... and true beliefs don't just change because we will them to. If we were suddenly all forced to change religion under some oppressive government, we might have a perfectly good reason (survival) to change our to the prescribed belief, but that doesn't mean that we could force ourselves to actually believe it.)
Anyway... curious what you think of all this. Thanks again for (yet another) cool discussion!
no subject
Both important points, to be sure. Personally, I think that the belief that there is no god is strikingly arrogant- a belief that is strikingly similar to the religious belief that "God" fits neatly within the dictates of a particular sect's declarations.
Religious literalism and Secularist-Atheist literalism are intimate bedfellows.
A reasonable summary, except that the term carries a connotation of shared path as much as a connotation of imposed assistance.
I'm a deist, a Christian.
I think that religious belief and unbelief are both positions of faith when dogmatically asserted.
I abhor evangelism.
no subject
Well, i agree with the concept here, but with the clarification that i wouldn't myself say the merely believing there is no God is arrogant. Arrogance is an attitudinal (word?) trait, not something that comes with a belief. A person could be a "hard atheist" but still be very tolerant, welcoming and respectful of others' beliefs... just as there are Christians who can believe very absolutely in the Gospel but not assert any practical superiority over people of other faiths (and i dare say that i personally believe that Christ would want it that way -- but i'm neither the scholar nor the parishoner to suggest that my opinion on that means anything).
:)I would suggest (and maybe this is what you mean, too?) that the arrogance comes when people become forceful (evangelical) or superior about their faith -- be it for or against God in any form. I don't think Atheism, Christianity or most other faiths inherently carry that with them -- i think some people (and in some rare cases, sects) choose to apply that view to their faith.
...and like you, i don't like it much.
:)no subject
I don't think that the arrogance is necessarily global. It may be the only thing that the person is arrogant about. It gives us no logical basis to speculate on their beliefs, character or behavior otherwise.
Neither does my statement apply to statements like "Given the utter absence of evidence, I default to the position of unbelief". Such a statement implicitly admits that the position of the claimant is one of assumption in the context of limited evidence- a position I have absolutely no quarrel with.
No, I am referring to that limited subset of atheists who take the fallacy "The absence of evidence constitutes evidence of absence", and build a firm belief system upon it.
(no subject)
(no subject)
no subject
I don't know that believing or not-believing in the divine has any kind of goal; in a sense, that question doesn't even make sense to me. In terms of effect, I think belief or non-belief has a lot less effect on what people do than we'd like to think. I think good people use God as an excuse to do good and bad people use religion to justify they bad things they do. I think they'd still be good (here, "good" meaning something like "following the golden rule") even if they lost their belief in deity.
I'm glad you're enjoying the discussion, but I'm actually tiring of it a bit; I was putting up the "Why I am a..." posts more for my own reference than to start a philosophical debate. I've done the debates over and over both in college courses and in other settings with believers, and I just tend to get tired of it eventually. I don't mean to say you're doing anything to bother me in particular, and I don't want to be rude, but I'd just rather move on from this discussion at this point.
no subject
It sounds like your original assertion -- that, all things being equal, your instincts just tell you that God/supernaturalia is just a silly idea -- is the essence of it. I can totally go with that, because (as said above), in matters of improvables, that's really all we've got to go on.
Sorry if it wore you out -- i didn't intend to kick off a debate that would strain anyone. Just wanted to throw ideas around. Folks who have opinions/beliefs different than mine but who i also respect are a great source of new ideas and growth for my own philosophies.
Be well!
no subject
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.
no subject
Agreed... i have these problems a lot when talking with people because of terminology. When i start talking about "faith", "god" or "religion", all these connotations come up that (in my case) i don't really include in my own definitions and such. It's definitely tricky.
Re "burden of proof" part: i started to reply, but then realized i'd be repeating what i wanted to reply to
:)no subject
I agree, and add that I'm not sure if God is something that necessarily needs to be proven by anyone until or unless the existence of God is being used as a reason to harm/hurt/deny/harrass/ridicule others. My idea of God (or Goddess) is rooted in the natural. My idea of the spiritual is probably more rooted in the psychological. I don't feel a need to prove that what I believe exists because I'm not trying to convince anyone.
I really hope that was coherent; I'm writing on the fly.
no subject
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.
no subject
no subject
The thesis i'd like to suggest for your (plural) review is this:
To assign "burden of proof" at all is to implicity apply a convention (logical/scientific process) that itself implies a suggestion of belief (that the "more ordinary" is true unless there is evidence otherwise -- "Ockham's Razor"?).
In context of the example, my assertion is that -- if there truly is no evidence either way -- then whether or not there is a green spotted dragon living in Lake Michigan is of no consequence... and therefore, belief that it is present is no more or less "valid" than belief that it is not.
As in my response to
To apply this bias is, of course, perfectly reasonable -- i would not find fault in anyone for leaning toward the hypothesis that there is not a dragon in Lake Michigan. However, all i wish to assert is that doing so is, in effect, to apply a statement of faith: that the observable patterns that led to conventions like Ockham's Razor should also apply to the unobservable.
My suggestion is that a person truly applying no assertions of faith into the situation would treat both hypotheses equally, and simply state that either could be true, and neither bears more "burden of proof" than the other ...until one chooses to analyze the questions within the discipline of logic, which carries certain faiths (axioms, conventions, etc.) with it.
This is a difficult idea for me to articulate, but that's my first attempt.
:)I welcome thoughts and questions from all, and will try to clarify as we go if need be.no subject
That's not the way I would use the word "valid." To me, an idea is "valid" or not based on one and only one criterion: how closely it reflects the actual state of the world. If no evidence exists for or against the green spotted dragon, then we may not be able to determine which belief is the more valid--but that's not the same thing as saying both are equally valid!
As in my response to sarahmichigan above, this "valid" is not the "valid" of logical terminology, because in the discipline of logic, conventions like Ockham's Razor dictate that we bias the evaluation of equally-sufficient hypotheses toward those that are "simpler" or "more ordinary". In more conceptual sense, however, if these biases are removed, there's no reason to assume one hypothesis is superior to the other.
Logic does not make an idea valid or invalid; logic is a tool which is used to determine whether or not it already is valid or invalid. It's not the logic that gives an idea its validity; the idea's validity comes from whether or not it accurately reflects reality. Logic simply offers one way to test whether it accurately reflects reality, that's all.
To apply this bias is, of course, perfectly reasonable -- i would not find fault in anyone for leaning toward the hypothesis that there is not a dragon in Lake Michigan. However, all i wish to assert is that doing so is, in effect, to apply a statement of faith: that the observable patterns that led to conventions like Ockham's Razor should also apply to the unobservable.
Direct observation isn't the only tool that can be used to establish whether or not something exists, and forming an idea about the existence of the green spotted dragon in the lake in the absence of seeing it is not always an act of faith. Evidence can be indirect; for example, the most compelling evidence against the notion of the Loch Ness Monster comes from observations that Loch Ness is a completely landlocked lake with very low available biomass, and hence insufficient food to support a breeding population of creatures whose body mass is claimed to be int he thousands of kilometers; and from the fact that if these creatures exist, one would expect to see the bloated, decaying carcasses of dead sea monsters wash up on the beach from time to time. Indirect evidence is still evidence; direct observation is not the only evidence we have.
In the case f the green spotted dragon in the lake, it might be tempting to believe that we have no evidence either way, so we must decide based on faith. But this is not so. We have an enormous body of evidence which supports models that make predictions like "all animals must eat," "all animals eventually die," "large animals must eat more than small animals," and "stable populations of animals require a certain number of individuals in order to remain stable." We can then apply those predictions o make additional predictions, such as "if there is a green spotted dragon in the lake, it is reasonable to assume it must eat," and then begin searching not only for direct observations of the green spotted dragon, but for things it might eat as well.
If someone comes along and says "green spotted dragons have metabolisms based on magic, and so never eat" and "green spotted dragons are immortal" and "green spotted dragons can become invisible when they choose," we now enter the realm in which the arguments in favor of the green spotted dragon are extraordinary indeed (and contradict a massive body of evidence which says that organisms do not have these properties), and so the burden of proof is now once again shifted to people who make claims that it is possible for organisms to live by magic and without food, and it is possible for large macroscopic organisms to become invisible at will.
no subject
I think this represents an important point of philosophical divergence between atheists and agnostics (and this is an oversimplification): An atheist is seeking to determine all aspects about the universe, even the parts that do not affect his existence, while an agnostic is primarily seeking to determine the aspects that affect him (directly or indirectly). For me, a lot of the stuff about the Big Bang is, "That's neat, but so?" -- unless it can be tied to how I live, how I interact with others, how others interact with me, etc., it's just interesting tidbits (and yes, I know there are ways that the Big Bang affects such things, but much of it doesn't).
I feel that what people believe, spiritually, is only relevant to me if it affects how they interact with me, and especially in a negative way. There are others (theists and atheists alike) who seem to think that merely believing something incorrect is dangerous in and of itself, and I disagree with that. If someone wants to believe that Jesus rose from the grave, and as a result of that belief the person treats me with compassion and respect, groovy... if as a result of that belief the person mocks me and snubs me for not believing it as well, not groovy.
no subject
Without faith, good people do good things and evil people do evil things. Getting a good person to do evil things requires faith.
(no subject)
no subject
Better might be to try to continue the example:
If someone comes along and says "green spotted dragons have metabolisms based on magic, and so never eat" and ... and so the burden of proof is now once again shifted to people who make claims that it is possible for organisms to live by magic and without food, and it is possible for large macroscopic organisms to become invisible at will.
Yes... i agree that within the context of the scientific community, you're absolutely right. I would not support anyone adding this magical immortal invisible dragon to textbooks, thereby implicitly claiming that an organism with these properties is confirmed to exist in the same manner that others have been. Similarly, i do not support anyone teaching ID or creationism or any similar concept in a science class, or in any context that suggests that these ideas are founded on the same scientific basis that evolution is.
But, despite its very very expansive context and very very wide breadth of utility, scientific method is a discipline; it is an institutionalized subset of all possible understandings of reality that has been agreed upon and established because of its utility and wide applicability.
When we leave that subset, the very concepts of things like "burden of proof" vanish. What we are left with is a simple pair of hypotheses:
A) There is no dragon, and its absence explains the lack of evidence for its presence via consistency with established theories, observations and scientific method.
B) There is a dragon, and its earth-shakingly extraordinary properties explain the lack of evidence for its presence within the context of the scientific method.
My suggestion is that outside of the scientific discipline, in the purely open-ended philosophical context, neither of these hypotheses is better at the task of "accurately reflect[ing] reality".
Within the scientific discipline, however, there is convention. This convention is based on the fact that, in the past, consistently more useful results come from efforts that adhere to it. By this convention, hypotheses are not accepted as "true" (or "valid"?) until they have been tested and proven via established/accepted methods. Furthermore, while there is also no such proof that hypothesis #A is true, convention dictates that it is the "safer" and more useful default position, because it is "simpler" and/or lies more probabilistically in line with similar hypotheses that have been proven. It's accepted as a better estimator of reality.
I believe the confusion arises when people use that word -- "reality". I offer the following three interpretations:
1) "reality" = "scientific/reasonable reality": Id est, it is the world that scientific method allows all parties employing it to consistently and repeatably observe.
2) "reality" = "personal reality": Id est, the understanding of the nature of the universe that a person holds.
3) "reality" = "absolute/true reality": Id est, the nature of the universe as it is, regardless of observability or individual belief.
(cont'd next comment -- too long!)
:)(cont'd...)
However, i repeat: this is a choice... or dare i take it a step further, and say that it is an act of faith. Now, this isn't the kind of faith the carries the connotations of God or religion or FSM silliness with it -- i don't mean to suggest that. But, in the strict sense, it is faith: it is the arbitrary selection of a set of ultimately improvable assumptions to establish a personal reality (#2).
By contrast of example, there are others that select a #2 that totally conflicts with #1. These are people who believe that #3 includes things that directly contradict science, and they live with the consequences of that. Some do so peacefully (no harm, no foul, i guess) while others zealously try to convince others to join them (annoying, sometimes harmful) or perhaps even persecute those who disagree with them (harmful and intolerant).
Then, there are many (i think) who have a #2 that is not the same as #1, but also does not conflict with its conclusions. This is something i personally endeavor to do. I believe in the discipline of science/reason, its uses, its very wide context, and its excellent utility as a common ground for working with others (it's probably the best and only real option for that, as universal "common grounds" go). But i do not believe that the #1 is all there is to #3; i try to maintain a #2 that is a superset of #1, believing it to be part of #3, but not that it tells the whole story about #3.
OK, sorry i digressed a little there in the hopes it might help clarify my thoughts.
My point, though, was to suggest that using "burden of proof" or "Ockham's Razor" or similar idea as a basis for "hard atheism" (the belief that there is no God and/or supernatural phenomena) is a judgement call. To say that it is somehow "closer to reality" because of this basis is to propose that true reality (#3) is equal to #1, which is to assert that one has synched their understanding of it (#2) to #1, which is to operate from a standpoint that is already based on an act of faith. That's what i mean to say when i ask if it is a kind of circular argument.
Is that clearer as to what i mean?
Also, i want to close by re-addressing that i'm not meaning to imply any superiority or inferiority of one faith over another here. I truly do respect the belief that there is no God -- the synching of #1 and #2. I seek only to validate my claim that that belief is a belief which, in a neutral philosophical context, is no more or less apt at reflecting true reality (#3) than any other.
Thanks again to all for this discussion!
Re: (cont'd...)
Re: (cont'd...)
no subject
If you're going to assert that there isn't a green spotted dragon living in Lake Michigan, then you do have to provide evidence. You're making a claim, and the fact that you're responding to a ludicrous claim doesn't change that.
To my understanding, Sarah's position is, "I feel the universe can be explained without reference to God, and I feel that 'God exists' is a stronger claim than 'God doesn't exist,' therefore I choose to believe he doesn't exist. If someone wants to change that belief, they're going to have to provide evidence." -- that's not a claim so much as it's an opinion. To me, that's a lot different than, "therefore God doesn't exist" (lack of proof is not proof of lack).
no subject
Just to verify correctness, you mean "weaker" rather than "stonger" there, yes?
...that's not a claim so much as it's an opinion. To me, that's a lot different than, "therefore God doesn't exist" (lack of proof is not proof of lack).
Yes. I'm okay with accepting that within certain disciplines, conventions (like Ockham's Razor) suggest better results are more likely when you assume the simpler or "less extraordinary" of two otherwise equally-supported hypotheses. Confusing those conventions with absolutely true bases for factual conclusions is what i'm suggested be avoided.
no subject
It wasn't a mis-speak, I just meant it in a different-than-obvious form of "stronger"; I meant it as in, "A strong claim is one that requires a good deal of evidence to support." So you do understand what I meant, I just didn't say it all that clearly. :)
(no subject)