Inspired by the Atheism Thread

[Daniel_]

I've been reading the atheism thread with interest and one thing that occurs to me is that on multiple occasions, self confessed theists have told me what atheism is, and what I (or others like me) believe.

So - I'd like to post what I feel about atheism, god, and godlessness.

If I believe anything, I believe in Occam's Razor.

Put simply, I believe that in any situation, the simplest answer is the most reasonable in most cases.

I find that the testable observations of science make more sense to me than the untestable explanations presented by theists.

As soon as a theist can offer me an explanation that holds as much water as those of science, I'll accept that I was wrong about God.

The converse does not in my explanation seem to be true very often (that a theist will become an atheist when sufficient science is explained to them in simple terms).

Please do not post here telling me what atheists believe, or what theists believe, there's another thread for that, please tell me what you feel about your own belief (or lack thereof).

Thanks.

[levite]

I believe in God, partly because I see what I perceive to be the effects of the hand of God at work in the world around us (nature, people, etc.), and partly because I have had moments where I personally feel the presence of God with me.

I have no need to convince anyone or prove anything, so I don't really think about "evidence" or "proof" about God. What other people believe is their business, not mine.

[Willravel]

By my understanding, most theists don't believe because they think they can prove there is a god (creationists and the like are, in fact, in the extreme minority, even in the US). No, most simply have a different basiss upon which they build their understanding of the universe. Where you, Dan, and I may be somewhat pragmatic, skeptical, and scientifically based, someone similar to levite has a perception that don't require real evidence (the type of evidence that would be admissible in court). He has made the decision to see things in a certain way, and that way happens to be different than you and I.

Sometimes it's the way someone is born, sometimes it's the way someone is raised, and sometimes it's simply a decision: for whatever reason, there is simply a belief that is.

I also have sets of beliefs, even as an atheist, such as my morality and my subjective impressions about life (my philosophy). I can't really explain why I am a secular humanist, but I am and that's just how I am. It feels right. Levite should correct me if I'm wrong, but I suspect his faith in G-d is similar.

[jewels]

I believe there may be a higher power I'm hesitant to call God.

I don't profess to know what it is, but I don't discount the possibility that the the answer could be in whales, dolphins or some other ancient underwater creature, an alien science project ... I'm open to all possibilities until there's proof otherwise.

That said, I do have much pride and often celebrate in the heritage of my ancestors, but I absolutely do not believe in any organized religion.

I've formed my ideas based on the religion I grew up in, weekly stoned bible studies and church frequenting during high (prep) school, many stoned hours writing personal philosophy and - yeah okay - judgments formed after years and years of watching the hypocrisy of nearly all churchgoing people I've met.

This is my perspective, but my judgment contributes to my personal beliefs, and does not impact my respect for anyone else's.

[Martian]

I think I touched on my own beliefs in the Atheism thread, but I will be more than happy to put them down here for any who's interested.

First of all, I believe that I know very little. This is my starting point. For all the 24 year's worth of knowledge I've accumulated, there are thousands of years worth of teachings out there that I will never get around to in my lifetime and there are millions of years worth of phenomena and principles and mechanics within this mortal coil of ours that I will never be able to study and comprehend.

From this I draw the conclusion that for me to assume that I can guess the answer to the biggest question we as a species are faced with (the origin of the Universe) is simply misinformed and more than a little conceited. I don't have enough information to draw a conclusion from and anything I attempt to give as an answer is wild speculation. There's no basis for it.

But then, I don't know everything, as has already been established. Therefore it's entirely possible that other individuals might know something I don't. Given that, it would be equally arrogant for me to dismiss their beliefs; I know that they've thought about their own answers, probably at least as much as I've thought about mine. Their answers are clearly valid and meaningful to them, so who am I to say that they're wrong? I don't know that they're wrong anymore than I know that they're right. The only thing I know is that I know very little.

This is why I try to approach all beliefs on equal footing, whether they're Christian or Judaic or atheistic. Each is deserving of respect; I may not share your opinion, but I will certainly respect your right to it and even acknowledge the fact that I cannot say with any certainty that you're wrong.

Interestingly, this means that the only time I will come into conflict with someone's religious beliefs is when that person refuses to show me or another person the same respect. You don't have to believe what someone else believes in order to respect their right to draw their own conclusions. Assuming that you hold all the answers and that other people are too stupid or too badly misinformed to find the 'right' answer on their own is, I think, the absolute pinnacle of arrogance.

And that's what I believe.

[Charlatan]

I am open to the possibility that there is a god or a higher being I just think it is highly (extremely) improbable. As I reason out the possibility of god it just doesn't make sense to me. Everything I have seen and experienced suggests that there is no god and no reason for a god.

I am content in the view that morality rises from our collective experience. That there is no life after death, only death and that the meaning and purpose of life, whatever it might be, is to be found in the life you live and the people you live it with.

[onesnowyowl]

Originally Posted by levite

I believe in God, partly because I see what I perceive to be the effects of the hand of God at work in the world around us (nature, people, etc.), and partly because I have had moments where I personally feel the presence of God with me.

I have no need to convince anyone or prove anything, so I don't really think about "evidence" or "proof" about God. What other people believe is their business, not mine.

This is pretty much how I feel. My beliefs are a little more complicated--for instance, I believe that God has a feminine component, historically represented as the Great Goddess, or Mary in Christianity. I believe the Goddess is the one who intercedes for us on a day-to-day basis--she is our Mother. At any rate, hers is the presence I have felt, as well as the presence of Jesus. Yet these are things I would never be able to explain to someone and expect them to understand. All of these moments are deeply personal and reinforce my belief, but there is no way for me to prove that they occurred, and as such, I don't expect them to carry any weight with other people.

But I do know what has happened to me, and I know what I see in the world around me, and I know what is true to me. My belief system is a weird amalgamation of mainline Protestantism (go Episcopalians!), crossed with a fair bit of Wicca and a healthy dose of Buddhism.

Spirituality is something that comes from within us, and as such, it is something that is up to each individual to define.

[Baraka_Guru]

I am on the fence with Occam's Razor. I am willing to accept such a position, which easily gels with my generally Buddhist/humanist beliefs, but, on the other hand, I don't want to be so hasty.

In Critique of Pure Reason, Kant writes, "The variety of beings should not rashly be diminished." This in response to Occam's position. It would be a shame to pass on an opporunity for great wisdom on a whim or out of impatience. The path of simplicity, or of least resistance, isn't always the best one.

I'd rather do the work than pass it up.

[ShaniFaye]

Originally Posted by levite

I believe in God, partly because I see what I perceive to be the effects of the hand of God at work in the world around us (nature, people, etc.), and partly because I have had moments where I personally feel the presence of God with me.

I have no need to convince anyone or prove anything, so I don't really think about "evidence" or "proof" about God. What other people believe is their business, not mine.

This pretty much sums it up as far as I go too. I feel sometimes that non believers are much more interested in proving non existence than I am in proving existence

[Halx]

To explain why the theists have little drive to prove, while the atheists are all too eager; its because an atheist's position is one of logic. One uses logic to make a point, to judge, or to convince. Its not worth the trouble applying logic to god because you just can't translate it from person to person.

Verily, that is my "proof" - the conclusion of atheism is more consistent than that of theism.

[miko]

As an agnostic, I always got the feeling that theists have the personal need to believe. They need to believe there is something bigger than them. They need to believe that there is life after death. They need to believe it isn't just over when you die. They need an explanation for everything (hence the bible). They need to believe there is a reason everything happens, like losing a loved one. They need to believe they are not alone in this big scary world. They need someone to turn to for answers when there is no one else. They need to have values set for them and for those around them. They need to feel safe and protected.

Personally, I don't need any of that. At this time, anyway.

I think the only reason that non-believers have any interest in proving anything is that we are constantly bombarded with believers beliefs. Most non believers don't give a hoot what you or anyone else believes. We just go on with our daily lives minding our own business. Until believers start preaching, trying to convert, saying simple things like "god bless" at the end of an email, etc. Believers don't understand why this is annoying.

[roachboy]

i came to a position of agnosticism tending toward atheism from inside the judeo-christian tradition by way of folk like kierkegaard and, especially, pascal. nominalism.

on those terms: if human understanding is finite and this god character the inverse (infinite), it follows that human understanding would have no access to or understanding of this character.

worse: the set up of that relation relies on inversions of categories and entails no knowledge. it is just as arbitrary as any other such statement.


general: our understanding of the world is limited and circumscribed by the effects of assumptions that we use to organize information.
i operate with the assumption that there is much that we do not know and that what i know is much smaller a set than what we know and i am ok with that.
i do not think that we do not and cannot know anything about the world, but we work with severe limitations that we impose on ourselves often without realizing it.
tinkering with this problem and ways to deal with it is why i like philosophy.

i don't grant any particular privilege to occam's razor, mostly for the reasons baraka guru outlined above but without the kant quote.
i'd probably have put up something from wittgenstein.
it's all the same, really.
occam's razor is an aesthetic commitment. that's all it is.

what unifies believers who are firm in their belief and atheists who are firm in theirs is anxiety in the face of radical, irreducible uncertainty.
i dont think either group can deal with it: so they each, in opposite ways, try to eliminate it.
i think that's weakness and its reverse in arrogance, but i don't particularly care about it.
i don't see this as a fundamental issue.
i see it as a consumer choice.

[Hain]

Originally Posted by roachboy

if human understanding is finite and this god character the inverse (infinite), it follows that human understanding would have no access to or understanding of this character.

This is the exact reason I am agnostic, and disbelieve almost all perceptions of what God thinks or is. If this thing is infinite, how dare we even begin to believe we can understand the motivations, understandings, and feelings of being as large as this?

[filtherton]

I think that on the subject of occam's razor, there is only a difference of interpretation between some theists and some atheists. God is a much simpler explanation for everything than particle physics if you presume that god needs no explanation.

The reason I say "some" is that I think it is a mistake to assume that there is anything about the words "atheist" or "theist" which imply anything meaningful about the motivations and justifications one has for being an atheist or a theist.

Not all atheists are atheists out of a commitment to rationality. Not all theists are theists because of a commitment to irrationality.

[Daniel_]

Originally Posted by roachboy

occam's razor is an aesthetic commitment. that's all it is.

Whilst I realise that Occam himself may have meant it this way, I was using the phrase in a general way - I had thought that was cear from context that I as open to convincing that God exists, but that to date nobody has ever explained to me their belief in a way that sounds convincing.

As I said in the earlier thread - belief isn't a choice, it's an atribute. People with belief don't need proof, anymore than I need elevator shoes (being already tall).

Proof or convincing arguments seem to me the theistic equivalent of a walking stick - for those who do not have the attribute of faith, the assistance of proof can produce similar results.

I'm not saying that there's no God, or that theists are wrong, I'm saying that the feeling that there IS a God is one that I've never had.

[roachboy]

Whilst I realise that Occam himself may have meant it this way, I was using the phrase in a general way

if i understand this correctly--and i'm not sure i do--the claim regarding the razor would still obtain--all that would change is that you could be surprised by it. not meaning to be snippy with this, but---what else could it possibly be BUT an aesthetic commitment?

unless you imagine that there is some correspondence between it and phenomena in the world---but i'd argue that is also an aesthetic commitment.

I had thought that was cear from context that I as open to convincing that God exists, but that to date nobody has ever explained to me their belief in a way that sounds convincing.

uh...ok.
i'm not the one to help you with this, however.

belief isn't a choice, it's an atribute

that makes no sense.
you mean belief is like--say--having a nose?

all it seems like your saying really is that faith and proof are different from each other--which is entirely unobjectionable--and that faith can precede and condition the results generated by any given proof--in the way any axiom can--so....

all this is in pascal.
he was a smart guy--you might enjoy the pensées.

[Jinn]

I'm agnostic because I know that by the rules of logic I cannot prove OR disprove the existence of any diety. Thereby, it'd be silly for me to adamantly hold either position.

It's too much of an inconvenience on my life to adhere to the rules of any religion, as it is too much cognitive dissonance to believe in something I cannot see, feel, hear, touch, or know.

On my deathbed, I'll probably "convert" to as many religions as I can, in the "just in case" sense of it. Presumably some that allow this type of "deathbed confessional" (Catholicism), and probably one of the Judeo-Christian variants (because I'm more familiar with them).

I won't be converting because I actually believe them, but more because it doesn't hurt to try, in the event that I really was wrong about my disbelief in deities. And for ONCE in my life, I might actually "need" that comfort that Christians so love - the comfort of knowing people will be happy in Heaven, etc. In my daily life, I've never 'needed' that comfort.

[Daniel_]

Originally Posted by roachboy

if i understand this correctly--and i'm not sure i do--the claim regarding the razor would still obtain--all that would change is that you could be surprised by it. not meaning to be snippy with this, but---what else could it possibly be BUT an aesthetic commitment?

unless you imagine that there is some correspondence between it and phenomena in the world---but i'd argue that is also an aesthetic commitment.




uh...ok.
i'm not the one to help you with this, however.




that makes no sense.
you mean belief is like--say--having a nose?

all it seems like your saying really is that faith and proof are different from each other--which is entirely unobjectionable--and that faith can precede and condition the results generated by any given proof--in the way any axiom can--so....

all this is in pascal.
he was a smart guy--you might enjoy the pensées.

Belief is an atriibute, because you either have it or not. Just like a nose.

I've come to this realisation by talking to many people with faith. They almost always say that they cannot explain how they know that there's a god, but that they just FEEL it (or similar expressions).

One of the things that always puzzles me is how almost all of the people who KNOW Jesus died for their sins were born to Christian parents, whilst all the ones that KNOW that Mohamed is the true Prophet were born to Islamic families.

My atheism is my rational response to the thoughts I have had about the world around me - I was raised in a Christian way, and attended several churches until I was about 18, but then stopped going - so in a way, I'm a Christian Atheist.

My confusion about "TRUTH" is that all the religions in the world are mutually exclusive. They all seem to be human constructs; even if you accept that the people who wrote the various holy books were sincere and were documenting their own heartfelt belief that they HAD spoken to God, the way that these faiths have been practiced in the intervening times has been affected by non-divine influences.

I guess that the thing I mis-trust is that if in historic times various prophets claim to have had messages from god delivered into their hands, why is it that the messages are so confused now, and that God has not sent any prophets for centuries?

Unless the Mormons are right, and they had one?

If there is a God, why are the messages so confused?

Also, as an asside - long ago, the scriptures or many religions tell us that Gd (or some divine entities) caused miracles on earth - there's different stories, but we've got powerful examples of massive wrld changing miracles in Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, etc. etc.

So how come now the best that Jesus can do is appear on a tortilla chip, or the best that Vishnu can do is manifest as a deformed baby by the Ganges that lives for 10 days?

I supose that before I can acquire faith, I need to know which faith is right, and why the wrong ones have been allowed to carry on by an omnipotent, omniscient, loving creator. If this is what God is, why not just reveal the truth to everyone at the same time in an unambiguous way?

EDIT

Oh - and I left a bit out. Looking back I see that you called Occam's Razor aetheitic - I mis-read that as atheistic, and answered accordingly. You are quite right, William of Ockham was writing about aesthetics in the litteral sense.

[Mantus]

God is a philosophical creation.

I see philosophy as a pursuit of understanding subjective concepts though subjective devices.

I believe that human being understand the world though relativity: the relationship between objects and ideas. Subjectivity is a quality attributed to things outside the realm of experience. If our world concept can be seen as a spiderweb of connected objects and ideas than subjective concepts are those items within that web which are added by our mind to fill in missing links.

Philosophy is a way for us to explore far past the objective limits of this relative network. God is one such philosophical device. It is a placeholder for everything we don't understand. A temporary link to connect dots that have a link we don't yet perceive. We can be very creative with such devices.

In the end everything, including experience, requires faith. We never have a complete picture of the world around us. Philosophy is very much a necessity for living a fulfilling life. There are times when "spirituality" is the best attribute we can give to the experiences in our life. In this case Occam's Razor plays against the atheist because much like theists they dive into the complexities of scientific theories.

I see life as walking a fine balance between faith and perception. At times going with your gut is the best course of action; accepting the spiritual allows us to fully experience a moment rather than lose it to scientific analysis; opening our minds to contradicting possibilities gives us the right answer; and thinking outside the box leads us to the right perspective.

How does one live like this? To begin we have to have faith in the most important variable of all: ourselves. We are the center of our relative universe. If we don't have faith in ourselves than all else becomes suspect and looking for other sources of truth - outside ourselves - will only lead to pain.

So I start with a simple statement: "I'm" and work my way from there using both perception and faith.

[Ustwo]

Originally Posted by filtherton

I think that on the subject of occam's razor, there is only a difference of interpretation between some theists and some atheists. God is a much simpler explanation for everything than particle physics if you presume that god needs no explanation.

In that case I assume particle physics needs no explanation.

That was easy.

God isn't a simple explanation for anything. Its an amazingly complex explanation.

[filtherton]

Originally Posted by Ustwo

In that case I assume particle physics needs no explanation.

That was easy.

God isn't a simple explanation for anything. Its an amazingly complex explanation.

I won't argue that you aren't free to assume that particle physics needs no explanation. Those pesky particles seem to just plug along with little regard for our ability to understand their underlying mechanisms. You'd be doing something very unscientific to something very scientific (if you exclude string theory). It wouldn't make much sense in the context of particle physics, but you could do it.

Theists don't necessarily care to explain god, I imagine many deem it impossible. Scientists, at least the optimistic ones, think everything can be explained. They don't necessarily think that an explanation will ever be forthcoming, just that one exists. This way of looking at the world clearly violates Occam's Razor; assuming that everything has an explanation is essentially assuming the universe has infinite complexity, which isn't very simple at all.

If one really wanted to be down with Occam they'd assume that there was at least one thing that was completely unexplainable, a kind of "final explanation" of some sort. They wouldn't have to call it god, of course.

That's if one really wanted to be down with Occam. I think his razor is a bit overrated.