I just finished a great little book called Atheism: A Very Short Introduction by Julian Baggini. It summarizes nicely the main arguments about why atheism is a logical, ethical, and healthy worldview; and you can read it in a couple sittings.
The book closes with a great couple of paragraphs that express an idea that I have thought of often, but have not been able to put into words quite as well as Baggini does:
Many atheists throughout history have compared their belief with a form of growing up. Freud, for instance, saw religious belief as a kind of regression to childhood. With religion, we are like children who still believe that we are protected in the world by benevolent parents who will look after us. It is no coincidence that God is referred to as father in the Judaeo-Christian tradition.
Atheism is the throwing off of childish illusions and acceptance that we have to make our own way in the world. We have no divine parents who always protect us and who are unquestionable good. The world is instead a big and scary place, but also one where there are opportunities to go out and create lives for ourselves.
The loss of childhood innocence is a double-edge sword. There is something to lament and something to fear, hence the dark tinge of an atheist belief system which is akin to this loss. But it is also the precondition for meaningful adult lives. Unless we lose our childhood innocence we cannot become proper adults. In the same way, unless we cast off the innocence of supernatural world views, we cannot live in a way that does justice to our natural as finite mortal creatures. Atheism is about moving on and taking the opportunities that life affords, and that carries with it risks of failure and the rejection of reassuring illusions.
It is this realism that means atheism cannot ever be presented as an undiluted, positive joy. Real life is about accepting ups and downs, the good and the bad, the possibility of failure as well as the ambition to succeed. Atheism speaks to the truth about our human nature because it recognizes all this and does not seek to shield us from the truth by myth and superstition.
So what will it be? Will you take "the blue pill"or "the red pill?"
Why is this notion that “the world is ... a big and scary place, but also one where there are opportunities to go out and create lives for ourselves.” thought of a being only according to atheism. Even Mormonism as well as many other belief systems postulates this.
ReplyDelete“Real life is about accepting ups and downs, the good and the bad, the possibility of failure as well as the ambition to succeed” is also within the province of the Mormon and other religions’ dogma.
How can anyone say with any degree of ABSOLUTE certainty, or just plain ol’ certainty that, “Atheism speaks to the truth about our human nature”, and only atheism? Don’t the Mormons et al “speak(s) to the truth about our human nature” as well?
Double edge sword? Don’t you really mean different sides of the same coin -- the coin of dogmatic, biased convictions in a particular belief system attempting to postulate and peddle their own brand of Truth -- Atheists, Theists, Mormons, Catholics, Christian Scientists, etc, etc, etc?
Atheists as well as most theists of any sort are all in the same boat as far as asserting absolute certainty. It is very important to realize that atheists toot only their partisan brand of scientific postulations that coincide with their desired beliefs just as the theists toot only their brand of both science AND metaphysical esoteric, postulations and historical/scriptural accounts that support their desired beliefs. No one is any the wiser than their own conjecturing, if indeed that is all it is, i.e., “conjecturing”. The scientific method can only apply ‘proofs’ with regard to the physics of our current, known dimension of time and space. And even many scientists, atheistic and theistic, conjecture and theorize that there are very feasibly many more dimensions and realities that lie outside our capacity to discern, observe or measure the phenomena therein. Hence, the notion that there is a ‘supreme being’ or beings, a ‘spirit world’, or other ‘worlds’ beyond our puny capabilities to comprehend is very tenable and reasonable to imagine. con’t
con’t
ReplyDeleteThink of this scripture, in a ‘scientific’ way:
“Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, ...”
Would that more ‘educated persons’ could think beyond their own preconceived notions of “It’s impossible; it’s not rational.”. But rather think ‘scientifically’ :
“ 10 But God hath revealed them unto us by his Spirit: for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God.
11 For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God.
12 Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God.
13 Which things also we speak, not in the words which man’s wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual.
14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.”
Wouldn’t it be wiser and more prudent to think and come to an understanding of what “Spirit”, “spirituality discerned”,“Spirit of God” really means. Wouldn’t it be wiser and more prudent to think beyond what is normally considered “foolishness unto them”.
It’s not too difficult to put Dawkins and his ilk ‘in their place’ when you thoroughly examine their almost rabid disdain for anything which has to do with or suggests ‘a god’ or some such reality beyond their own human understanding. Talk about a childish, short-sighteded, simplistic, dummied down world and existential view! “Nope, if I can’t understand something and put it into the box of my own tactile world or have the capacity to readily measure it, then it doesn’t exist. No siree; I don’t believe it! If I can’t thoroughly understand something then it’s gotta be just all Santa Claus and Tooth Fairy. There’s no other explanations or possibilities of other types of existences or realities other than our own, mortal human one.”
How arrogant that they impugn what I *know* because of what I have *experienced* personally, and not just me, but many others I am sure. But if for some reason they can’t have *that* ‘toy’, or it’s not in their toy box, then according to them nobody should have it either, or if someone says they do then they’re lying, or the toy is just stupid nonsense or imaginary. Grow up you people, and understand what truly is in the realm of all possibilities. A lot more than any of us can possibly ever realize, other than, for some, just glimpses and snippets of other realities.
"How can anyone say with any degree of ABSOLUTE certainty, or just plain ol’ certainty that, “Atheism speaks to the truth about our human nature”, and only atheism? . . . Atheists as well as most theists of any sort are all in the same boat as far as asserting absolute certainty."
ReplyDeleteOK, let me respond to that bold assertion:
Fundamentalism is believing that you know something with absolutely certainty that is universal. There are fundamentalists of all stripes - religious, political, scientific, and atheist. To avoid the charge of fundamentalism, you must be able to say that your beliefs could be wrong, and that you could change your mind given enough evidence.
Many religions fall into this fundamentalist category. But so do many democrats, libertarians, communists, capitalists, vegetarians, Mormons, Catholics, transcendentalists, New Agers, scientists, and - yes - even atheists. However, I'm not a fundamentalist since I do not say I'm certain of my beliefs, and am willing to change my mind if there is evidence to. Many atheist aren't either. We just don't believe in God because there isn't good evidence. You don't believe in fairies for the same reason. That doesn't make you a fundamental a-fairyist, does it? Of course not.
Atheism is a subset of naturalism that asserts there is only one sort of stuff in the universe, and it's all natural stuff. Natural material stuff is all we have ever been able to interact with. Everything else (supernatural immaterial stuff) is not stuff at all. As Thomas Jefferson would say, "To talk of immaterial existences is to talk of nothings." Show me good evidence of this immaterial non-physical supernatural stuff, and I will believe.
Also, atheists do not claim absolute certainty that God does not exist. Even Richard Dawkins doesn't claim to know with absolute certainty that God doesn't exist. However, you also can't know with absolute certainty that invisible pink unicorns don't exist either, or that The Flying Spaghetti Monster isn't the true and living God who created the universe. There is no evidence of such fantastic and mythical creatures and deities existing. But they, in theory, could exist. We can't prove that they can't. But there is no evidence they exist. Therefore we withold belief in them.
Science, similarly, is based on evidence, and not dogma. Just because we don't understand something, doesn't mean it's not understandable. It only means we haven't figured out that particular mystery yet. Science revels in mysteries because it gives them something to do. Scientists explain mysteries by natural means.
However, saying something is explained by a supernatural agent is no explanation at all. It just pushes the mystery back to some mysterious force that is "beyond human understanding."
Saying the scientific method is based on dogma shows your ignorance of how the process works. It's actually the exact opposite of dogma. Scientific conclusions (theories) are tenative and based on convergent lines of evidence which support it. Evidence comes first, conclusions come second (unlike dogma where conclusions come first and evidence is selectively chosen to support it). If evidence is discovered that contradicts prior scientific beliefs, then beliefs are scrapped and the scientific process starts over. It makes predictions that can be tested, verified, and - most importantly - falsified.
How do you test, validate, and falsify religion, faith, or New Age woo woo that (as you say) is "beyond human understanding?" Nobody has show any evidence of the supernatural other than anecdote. And that is zero evidence - which is the same amount of evidence that exists for invisible pink unicorns. But who am I to say that they don't exist either? Show me one, and I will believe.
“Saying the scientific method is based on dogma shows your ignorance of how the process works.”
ReplyDeleteI am very well aware and knowledgeable how “the process works”, Josh, aware in more ways than the standard, perhaps.
Where did I state that “the scientific method is based on dogma”? You need to re-read what I wrote; I never made any such statement and I think you missed a lot of the points I was attempting to make. I spoke about the *dogmatic posturing* of many atheists, which is characterized by an authoritative, arrogant assertion of unproved or unprovable principles. In other words, Science is not dogmatic, but there are those who try to present it dogmatically according to their own biases and obdurate opinions, which does science -- valid science, a disservice.
A standard, dogmatic atheist statement is, “There is no scientific evidence for a Creator.” Well, duh! As Peter Murphy stated in his essay, ‘Dogmatic Atheism and Scientific Ignorance’:
‘There is no scientific evidence for a Creator’ is a scientifically inept statement. Science assumes all things have naturalistic explanations in accord with Occam’s Razor. Claims that science has found no evidence for a Creator implies that scientists are engaged in research to prove or disprove a Creator. Dogmatic atheists peddling this slogan open themselves up to a simple question that exposes their ignorance and presumptions: What scientific research going on now is specifically looking for evidence of a Creator? (The answer is none.)”
Making reference to “flying spaghetti monsters” and “pink unicorns” and placing them on the same tenable level as a ‘creator’ or some sort of intelligence beyond our world, i.e., ‘God’ or a god, or gods, in not very apropos, don’t you think?
My point is simply that of course all things have naturalistic explanations and many people (of whom I am one) have had experiences that, sure, in the final and pure analysis stems from a natural cause, but the nature of the experience was such that, yes, it was beyond my understanding, but the mechanics (the science!) of it, not the content or context of the experience itself.
Listen, I am assuming that God, or whomever or whatever you want to call ‘it’ had something to do with what I experienced, or at least infers that there is some sort of power and intelligence (‘God’ being the term I use) beyond our limited, everyday human perception. Further, God, or this notion that denotes something like that doesn't approach us on our terms, we approach Him/Her/It on His/Her/Its terms. We don't invite ourselves to the party, and neither are we capable of crashing it; we get an invitation. Unfortunately, though, a lot of people don’t ever get an invitation, or in other words, have a real, significant “beyond human understanding” experience of a spiritual or ‘religious’ sort. Somes do and somes don’t; what else can I say, other than it is what it is and it ain’t no isser.
Cali- Obviously you think the door is open to God (or something beyond our understanding). It's true that the universe is steeped in mystery, that's not a good reason to believe in another mystery (God) but it is good reason to open minded.
ReplyDelete"Listen, I am assuming that God, or whomever or whatever you want to call ‘it’ had something to do with what I experienced, or at least infers that there is some sort of power and intelligence (‘God’ being the term I use) beyond our limited, everyday human perception."
This is the crux of the issue. That is a large assumption. And I simply believe the naturalistic explanations of such experiences are satisfactory. At the same time, I think "spiritual" experiences are important and rank with the most interesting human experiences there can be. I don't think it demeans or lessens the importance of them to think they are a part of the natural human experience. I think it's fascinating.
Anonymous said: “I think "spiritual" experiences are important and rank with the most interesting human experiences there can be. ... I think it’s fascinating.”
ReplyDeleteYes, “fascinating” but sometimes begging anxiousness -- there’s anticipation, but I don’t get to see the whole picture, just a snippet.
"What scientific research going on now is specifically looking for evidence of a Creator? (The answer is none.)”
ReplyDeleteLet me just rephrase that: "What scientific research going on now is specifically looking for evidence of an (invisible pink unicorn)? The answer is none." What evidence could you find of something that doesn't exist? "The answer is none."
But scientists are discovering answers to the origins of the universe and of life in it. Only science doesn't need to posit a supernatural creator to explain our origins when a natural explanation will do. Scientists look for answers; not supernatural assertions, since that doesn't answer anything.
"Science is not dogmatic, but there are those who try to present it dogmatically according to their own biases and obdurate opinions, which does science - valid science - a disservice."
I agree with you here 100%. Bias or dogma have no place in science. I wish it wasn't so common in politics, the news media, and religion either. But the fact is that all humans are biased. Scientists are humans, so they can cling to their pet theories sometimes like all of us do. The method they use, however, is the best tool we have to weed those biases out of our search for understanding. Most of the time they do this (if the process is done well, the method is autocorrecting).
I'd just caution you to not lump so many people (like all atheists - "What's wrong with you people?", "Dawkins and his ilk", and scientists) as dogmatists. I try to avoid dogma; I left religion because of it. Most atheists I know and read try to avoid dogma as well (even the one's who are lampooned as being "militant"). They are not so militant if you read them carefully. Usually what they say is that they don't believe because evidence is lacking. That's not dogmatic. And scientists, on the whole, are probably some of the most undogmatic people because they understand the scientific method which eschews dogmatism and bias. But we can all have our biases and fall into dogmatic thinking from time to time. Even scientists. Even atheists. Even me. Even you.
Peace.