Ash's recent posts

Recent public posts (showing 1-6 of 6).

I mean to say, emotion gives us(athiests and thiests) the most beautiful things in our life, and allows us(athiests and thiests) to make moral decisions. They can also lead us towards decisions of faith in God and understanding the universe in ways outside of scientific method. You trust emotion to balance decisions of a moral nature and you make some of the most important decisions about life based on emotions eg marriage and love. Yet you think it is ridiculous to put faith in that which emotion can reveal about the universe through choosing to believe in God.

I had a deep love for Santa Clause when I was a kid, but that did not make him real (despite all the evidence—images everywhere, he was at the mall, and presents miraculously appeared under our tree!). It is perfectly reasonable to maintain the icon of St. Nick because of what he represents (generosity, joy, etc), but it would be delusional for me to maintain a belief in his objective existence based on my positive emotions about him.

Emotions evolved as a mechanism to influence behavior that would promote reproduction and survival, not to teach us what is real. Yes, our emotional life is incredibly important; as rgb pointed out, we literally require love to thrive. Yes, emotions guide our sense of right and wrong. But no, emotions do not reveal anything about the nature of the universe. Rather, emotions are our response to the universe and to our concepts regarding it. That is an important element in the construction of meaning, but not knowledge; the two are very different. Emotions simply do not confer knowledge...if anything, they have a solid track record of distorting reality.

Don't get distracted by rgb's use of the term "junkie" (which I'm sure he used in the spirit of humor)—his underlying point is valid. I used to be involved in mystical practices that led to "spiritual fireworks", and while I wouldn't say I was "addicted" to them, they certainly kept me coming back for more. They made me feel connected, enlightened, and important.

I'm sure that a lot of devout believers have a similar set of emotional responses to religious practice (especially devotional prayer, group singing and dancing, and other semi-trance inducing techniques). The emotions are real, but they are derived from the exercise, not from the object of belief. But it is really easy to make that mistake...after all, it feels very real.

The idea of giving up those experiences can seem very unattractive. Why give up the ecstasy, the perfect love, the certainty of immortality? I imagine that a life without those things might appear dreary, empty, and even terrifying.

All I can say is that a life without those things can be meaningful, fulfilling, and joyous. Belief in a god is not necessary to feel love, compassion, wonder, or gratitude. It is not necessary in order to be courageous, honest, or generous. But you do lose something: certainty. Atheists do not believe that anyone "up there" is watching out for them, or that they can gain divine guidance when they feel lost, or that a life of eternal bliss awaits them and their loved ones. But the loss of certainty is more than made up for by the gain of reason, the freedom to inquire, the openness to the new and unexpected, and the (potential) dedication to making our one life the very best it can be.

Nothing happens without a first cause , the big bang requires a Big Banger

It is perfectly reasonable to say that the Big Bang was the result of vacuum fluctuations or thru interactions between multiple universes a la string theory. Chances are, the truth of the matter will be far more fantastic than we have even yet imagined. But there is no reason to say that the Big Bang required a purposive agent...you can believe that if you like, of course, but it isn't the only, or even best logical choice because it doesn't actually explain anything.

And because the issue is, at this time, untestable, the hypothesis cannot count as evidence for the existence of a god. Even if it did, there would be no guarantee that the creator in question would be anything like the god you believe in. Further, if the universe required a creator, then it follows that the creator needed a creator, which regresses into infinity. But if you argue that the creator didn't need a creator, then it is reasonable to suggest that the universe didn't need one either.

Trusting in God is not a matter of proof or scientific analysis. Regardless of sacred text or total lack of sacred text belief in a higher power is a personal choice

Of course it's a matter of personal choice as to what to believe. However, not all choices have equal merit. A major theme in this conversation is the issue of epistemology—how do we know what we know? One can choose to believe anything they want, but in light of the reliable examinations of the universe that do not show any signs whatsoever of a deity, it is reasonable to suggest that the choice to believe in a god is not a good one.

Saying that you believe in a god implies that you are, at some level, concerned with what is true...after all, you must admit that it would be foolish to have "absolute trust in God" if that god doesn't actually exist; it would be a tragic waste of your resources if that were so. Atheists are no different—we also are concerned with what is true and want to spend our limited personal resources wisely. This is why questioning the basis of our beliefs is worthwhile.

By the sound of it, you have a lot of emotional capital invested in the belief of a god's existence—I would argue that that level of commitment should be underwritten by something that can give you confidence that your choice is worth your time and energy. And don't say "faith" because that is circular logic (i.e. "My belief is justified because I have faith in what I believe"). Rather, I'm speaking of information that supports your faith...do you have a reason to trust that a god exists?

This is where an atheist would say that you might have reasons, but no good ones. Here is a thought experiment. Let's pretend that some weird event occurred that eliminated the Bible and all knowledge of Abrahamic religion, but left us with our scientific knowledge about the universe. In this situation, it would be very unlikely that continued exploration of reality would result in the conclusion of a god. Scientific models do too good of job explaining nature, and use reliable methods that transcend culture.

Moreover, we can show that the idea of a god is a culturally manufactured construct, even if one that our human brains have a susceptibility to accept. Think about it: countless gods have been created of every shape and size—in such an arena, there is no reason to think that one god has any more veridicality than any other. The evidence is the same for all of them: zero. But at the same time, there is ample evidence that the concept of gods follow clear lines of development in human cultures.

You are right that it is a choice; no one here argues that. The question is, upon what are you basing your choice? That is where we are talking and where theists continue to fall short.

Atheism may be lack of belief in God, in your case because of deficiency of scientific proof. But to have this lack of belief you must have the belief that the only knowledge worth counting is that derived from scientific procedure.

I'm sorry to jump in here at the middle. but I have to say...the scientific method has earned our confidence a thousand times over—it is the single, yes single method yet devised for producing reliable information about the nature of reality. The confidence we have in the method is not arbitrary or grounded in "belief", but in the consistent success it has had in developing a growing model of nature that is robust, useful, and frequently surprising. Put simply, there is no other method that matches science for developing an understanding of reality.

Religious belief, on the other hand, is grounded in subjective imagination, a tool which might be inspiring and even beautiful, but certainly not too reliable. This is why faith in the supernatural requires suspension of reason—its foundations are removed from observable, testable phenomena, while its models lack the ability to predict or explain anything we can see in nature.

If we can agree that "knowledge" is factual information that corresponds with reality, then not only does science have the only consistent track record of success in expanding our knowledge, but religion has a profoundly poor one—since the vast majority of its models about nature have been shown to be factually wrong (e.g. the Aristotelian model, creation myths, and on and on), it is not unreasonable to assume that its ideas about gods are equally fallacious, especially in light of the complete lack of any observable evidence for their existence.

Something to keep in mind is that the naturalistic perspective is not just due to a lack of evidence in the supernatural, but to the positive evidence for a god-free world. We don't just see a lack of evidence for a god, but we also see evidence for a world without a god. In other words, nothing is lacking without a god—there are no gaps in our knowledge that are best explained by the supernatural. Based on the knowledge we've gained thanks to science, we can say with confidence that nature is self-organizing, self-sufficient, and fully capable of existing without a god.

PS: @Dan
Well said...we rail against religions mostly because of what they do rather than what they believe. But of course there is often a significant correspondence between the two. I don't think its enough to try to counter harmful actions, we also have to confront the underlying ideas behind them. I think this is why the "New Atheists" rile people up so much, they aren't just presenting a naturalistic worldview, they are undermining the very foundations of supernatural thinking.

* Chances are good that the publisher named the book, not the author.

* Dawkins et al. aren't trying to "convert" people, only pointing out the irrational beliefs and often factually false assumptions behind theistic religion.

* While his message of atheistic mysticism didn't appeal to you (which is fine, of course), there are those for whom it does. The point here being that it is possible to enjoy a spiritual, even mystical life without any supernatural beliefs, which is a somewhat unique position within the atheist movement.

@Lisa,

I don't think Judaism got the "sacred cow treatment", I suspect that Harris simply doesn't see it as the threat that Christianity and Islam represents. In America at least, the Jewish community tends to be very pro-social and supportive of a scientific view of the world. No doubt Harris thinks their superstitious beliefs are equally as preposterous as any other, but considering that there are fewer religious Jews than atheists in America, he likely sees that faith as already heading in his preferred direction.

Hm...True, I didn't read it until I was in my 20s. I guess I just got to it too late :)