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

Re: (cont'd...)

[tacit.livejournal.com]

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).

I don't believe that even in the best cases, people who live with beliefs that directly contradict science are "no harm, no foul." Such beliefs do have an effect; they impact society in a number of ways, some of them subtle and others not so subtle. People act in accordance with what they believe to be true, not what is actually true, and people who believe things without evidence at best open the door to those skilled at manipulating those beliefs. A person who believes X without evidence will also often believe Y without evidence if he or she can be persuaded that Y is a consequence of X.

And unfortunately, some times that may indirectly involve people in harmful things even if they themselves do not believe in harmful ways. It may be a matter of donating money to the local church, whose board of directors work for laws barring blacks from marrying whites. It may be in simply turning the other way when someone else who holds similar beliefs acts in destructive ways. It may be even more passive than that, such as not supporting (or even wanting to think about) things which might threaten the unsupported belief.

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.

I do think that some people create a distinction between "things which can be evaluated empirically" and "things which can not," and attempt to put religion into the category of "things which can not be evaluated empirically." Such people will often say that using logic, evidence, or Ockham's Razor to evaluate claims of the supernatural misses the point, and that such attempts are using the wrong tool for the job.

Yet these same people will, often as not, then seek to have it both ways, and to make empirical claims based on their untestable, non-empirical beliefs--"God healed my Aunt Rosie's cancer," "God helped me get a promotion at work." Statements like these are empirical claims, and as empirical claims are subject to empirical analysis. (If God was the agent of Aunt Rosie's recovery, why does God play favorites? Why did God not cure Sue's cancer, when Sue lived a more virtuous life than Aunt Rosie? And what about Uncle Carl, who was a right royal bastard who despised God and everything religion stands for, yet whose cancer also went into remission? And if God can cure cancer, which sometimes goes into remission on its own anyway, why can God not make the war veteran whose leg was amputated grow a new leg--is that outside God's ability?)

You can't have it both ways--claiming that religion is outside the realm of empirical evidence or reason, then simultaneously making empirical claims to support a religious belief--yet that is, it seems to me, most often precisely what happens when people try to separate the realm of faith from the realm of empirical fact.

Re: (cont'd...)

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

Fair points all. My thoughts are more correllaries than disagreements, i think.

I don't believe that even in the best cases, people who live with beliefs that directly contradict science are "no harm, no foul." Such beliefs do have an effect; they impact society in a number of ways, some of them subtle and others not so subtle.

This is undeniable. What we believe affects what we do, and everything we do -- in at least some infinitessimal way -- affects everyone else.

My thoughts on this, though, is that i don't necessarily feel this is a bad thing. Yes, people do all kinds of negative things in the name of what i'll call "non-scientific" (meaning "incompatible with reality #1") belief. I think many also do positive things, though, in both small and large ways. Similarly, while non-scientific beliefs can make people susceptible to manipulation, it can at other times make them more impervious to it. Belief-based organizations can amass resources and use them for bad ends, but thoroughly rational organizations also do that all the time, too.

I think what's important here is that people endeavor to do the same with their non-scientific beliefs as they would seek to do with their rational pursuits: keep their effects positive. This is why i believe far more in the importance of compassion than i do in any one flavor of spirituality, or in the fruits of science/logic. I believe its important that anyone, regardless of deist, agnostic or atheist philosophies, check those ways of life against the metric of compassion. If a church that claims to be based on Christ's teachings (which were very much about compassion and philos) is making political moves to hurt people, then the people of that church must speak up. Similarly, if the progress of technology that is claimed to be for the good of all is coming at a human cost somewhere, it needs to be checked.

Those who sync their #2 with #1 do have the advantage that they can operate on a huge common ground of established purely rational thought. Maybe this gives an automatic edge when dealing with others, and perhaps that edge could be thought of as compassionate. Saying, though, that making decisions firmly grounded only in reason prevents people from being manipulated, misguided or evil is a big stretch, though; with complex issues like social decisions and advanced technological questions, there is plenty of room for the base axioms/criteria upon which the logical process is based to differ wildly between people and cause the same kinds of problems.

You can't have it both ways-- ...

Yes, i agree. If you want to step into the discipline of science, you need to play by that discipline's rules. One can say "God healed my Aunt Rosie's cancer," but if so, it must be accepted that this is a statement of faith, and you can't expect others (whose beliefs may differ) to agree with you. When someone steps outside of the self, they are stepping outside of their #2, and it's critical to recognize that. Often (but not always), one can at least count on #1 as a starting ground for discussion, and people can share #2s, but they can't just expect another person to buy into it.

Sadly, as you said, this often happens anyway. :) I don't mean to suggest that i espouse that.

I guess my question is more on this part:

Such people will often say that using logic, evidence, or Ockham's Razor to evaluate claims of the supernatural misses the point, and that such attempts are using the wrong tool for the job.

How do you feel about this statement, independent of the people who misuse it, i mean? Do you think the point i was trying to make is a sound one in this independent sense, or is there something about it that seems unsound to you?