Leaving Theism

[StevePr]

A recent story on ABC Nightline on March 28th was titled “A Church for Atheists?”. It is still available for viewing on the ABC News website. It is a story which explores a regular Sunday gathering of a humanist society. In an interview with a member family which included a little girl (about 6 years old?), the girl says a couple times that she is a free-thinker. Her dad says that he grew up as a Christian but now he thinks everything can be explained by science, so he is atheist.

As a cradle Catholic myself, who is also a well educated and practicing physicist and engineer, I have also struggled at times with the logic of believing in God when I deal with scientific evidence in my daily work.

But watching that Nightline show made me curious about how and whether an atheist deals with the concept of free will. Granted, not all atheists accept the same premises, but we have an occasional columnist in our local paper who was once an active Evangelical, fundamentalist preacher who is now a very vocal atheist. He also refers to the “free-thinking” mentioned by the girl in the Nightline story.

Where in the scientific model of the physical universe does an atheist get his “free-thinking” from? In my several decades of academic and professional scientific study, I have never come across a free-thinking atom or molecule. I’ve never seen reference to a free-thinking asteroid or volcano. When Isaac Newton described his laws of motion and gravity, he didn’t ascribe free-thinking attributes to the planets in their orbits. If the atheist is simply a particular complex physical arrangement of the same material described by science in the stars and planets, where then does the atheist get his free-thinking from?

Modern science is a description of the way the universe is, in all its dimensions of space and time. To the scientist, the universe is simply accepted as existing as it is, without any source or cause of its existence proposed or denied.

The idea that any of us can be a free-thinker within this universe is something which is not denied by science but it also cannot be described by science.

Free thought presumes an independent agent of cause. If an atheist argues that he has chosen to be an atheist, or has chosen to write a message on a discussion forum or an article in a newspaper, then he is arguing that he has caused some part of the universe to be that otherwise would not have been. This is a creative act (causality) at some level.

The true atheist cannot, to be consistent, accept the existence of a creative agent for any part of the universe. He also must accept that his atheism itself is just part of the way the universe is - not caused by any truly free choice on his part. By his own logic, a person “considering” atheism is not really considering it in any meaningfully independent sense - rather, his process of consideration is also just part of “the way the universe is”.

Any system of logic is based on certain fundamental premises which implicitly contain all the conclusions which can be derived from that system of logic. A person who argues that he is considering atheism, and believes that his thought process and final conclusion are truly free acts, has already assumed enough to disprove atheism. To assume free thought is to assume the existence of at least one creative causal agent (oneself). There are, of course, many different ways to formulate theism, but it seems the most basic element of any theistic system is the existence of a creative cause - something which the free-thinking seeker of atheism has already assumed a priori.

It is interesting to me that I have not yet come across anyone claiming to be an atheist who truly acts in a way completely consistent with the logical implications of his atheistic system (I have to acknowledge the same is true of the theists I know, as well). Atheists I have known act as though they have a free will, which is a fundamentally theistic concept.

 

[geekborj]

Much to my own chagrin, I am considering leaving Christianity for a strong agnostic / weak atheist position (basically the thought is that God could exist, but it’s very unlikely). As you might imagine, I am not at all happy about this turn of events, and I am very willing to be persuaded back into the Church. I’ve laid out my argument below – and would really appreciate any responses or criticisms you have.

Fair enough. It seems that you are leaving your faith because of rational reasons alone. Remember during your analysis that man cannot live by pure reason alone. A world with a god is a world that frees us from Reason but at the same time uses Reason for an even greater purpose.

I commend you for having a synthesis below of your becoming an atheist. This is so far the most clear presentation of one’s new belief system aside from theism.

Some Important Assumptions I’m Making:

1. Reason is the process of creating explanatory accounts. We come up for different explanations for phenomena, and then we adopt the best ones. Good explanations possess (1) explanatory power, (2) simplicity, and (3) coherence.

Correct. Thus, with experience via our human senses, we come up with what we call Science.

1. “God” is the being that Christians refer to when they use the word “God.” He is omnipotent, omnibenevolent, and omniscient.

There is a major flaw in this assumption/premise. The God of Christians is MORE THAN A BEING. He just seems to be a being because that is the best description that we can come up with Him. Thus, the second sentence, plus Almighty.

Reducing God to a “being” makes him limited to the time and space.

1. Strictly speaking, it is impossible to disprove the existence of God. However, if we establish that the existence of God is highly unlikely, it would be rational to live assuming He does not exist.

True. Because it is possible to prove His existence. The second sentence highly depends on the “if we establish” which is false. The establishment of God’s existence can be seen as the Creator and the grand Designer. But then, these are indirect proofs. On the same difficulty, pure reason can never present a finite argument on the fundamental questions of our existence (matte, space and time, energy, etc). God can be found there.

The explanation of Science is simply a “discovery” of the Great Design this World is made of. The Laws of Nature are simply the Word of God when he said, “Let there be…” God is found in every Law of Nature that we discover and shall discover in the future.

Syllogism:

*Major premise: *The simpler philosophy is the rational position.

No. As Einstein says it: “Theories have to be simple; but not that simple.” It should be enough. But your statement is almost in the right mark.

• Atheism and Christianity have roughly the same explanatory power. In other words, I don’t think that Christianity explains any phenomenon better than atheism (although there are several phenomena that neither explain well).

There is a problem with these statements. It looks like that Atheism is the only “philosophy” that OWNS Science. No, BOTH Christianity and any other belief system (e.g. atheism) believes in Science. Only that for Christians, Science has to be consistent with Faith, not the other way around.

-Neither philosophy is self-refuting (approximately equally coherent).

I strongly agree with this.

-Therefore, we should prefer the simpler philosophy.

I remember a saying: “Choose not what is easy, but choose what is right.”

*Minor Premise: *Atheism is a simpler philosophy.

-At the very least least, atheism posits one fewer object in the universe (no God). And, most types of atheism posit many fewer types of objects (no souls, no objective moral laws).

Atheism in fact posits a lot more object – ad infinitum. This is due to the idea that it cannot fully explain without stopping fundamental questions on our existence. Atheism simply stops at “because it simply is” unless burdened with infinite causes. Christians, answers: “because God said so.”

I believe that with the Christian God, Science just becomes more meaningful and interesting.

*Conclusion: *Atheism is the rational position.

Thus, atheism is an attempt to stop Man from looking further than what we can sense. This belief system reduces Man to a “rational animal” without a Will (thus Soul). Atheism is the very Forbidden Fruit in the garden of Eden.

Please don’t stop your search for the Truth. God will open the door to those who knock. Give God the benefit of the doubt.

 

[cpayne]

Atheism is the belief that God does not exist (correct me if I’m wrong), so doesnt that mean atheism is a belief? Or in other words, an opinion?

According to Dameedna, atheists don’t “believe” certain things; they Know. Sort of mystical, isn’t it?

Anyway, to get back to something else: Jbehan hasn’t posted back in for about a week. Jbehan, are you still out there? Still following along? How’s your decision coming?

 

[Dameedna]

Atheism is the belief that God does not exist (correct me if I’m wrong), so doesnt that mean atheism is a belief? Or in other words, an opinion?

I have already tried to explain how an athiest percieves it. People get caught up in the language, Can you really KNOW anything? That doesn’t help to understand the athiest view, it just brings comfort to the person trying to fit an athiest in a box of the believers making.

There are as many “options” for reality as can be created by the human imagination. For an athiest, none of those options is even remotely possible, so that leads them toward a lack of belief in any of them.

The Athiest lacks any belief in any option presented to them so far on this planet. Having no viable option, they become an athiest.

Athiesm, isn’t really a choice, though I know I’ll get nowhere with a believer trying to argue that, so I’ll just state it for now. It’s just a conclusion one reaches, a realization one has when every other possible option is rendered invalid.

Give an athiest a probable, or valid option and they would have no issue with believing in something.

 

[olipoli]

The Athiest lacks any belief in any option presented to them so far on this planet. Having no viable option, they become an athiest.

Athiesm, isn’t really a choice, though I know I’ll get nowhere with a believer trying to argue that, so I’ll just state it for now. It’s just a conclusion one reaches, a realization one has when every other possible option is rendered invalid.

Give an athiest a probable, or valid option and they would have no issue with believing in something.

Science is an option.
Also, like most things, we believe science it before we understand the reasoning or probability of it being true. We have faith in what scientists tell us. Science, when creating new theories, also uses imagination. We don’t know for sure if there really IS a universe out there. Science is a belief. A philosophy.
Belief is not confined to organised religion.
How you view the world, that is your belief.
And every human has a unique way of viewing the world. Atheists, according to you, believe that no view of the world is viable (basically that everyone is wrong). This is a belief, and also self contradictory, unless they say that everyone is wrong but themselves, and that can hardly be a logical statement when they don’t know what everyone truly believes.
If Atheism is a conclusion, then it is a belief.
And what is your view of a viable and valid option?

 

[punkforchrist]

Hi jbehan,

I know I’m a bit late to the game here, but I wanted to comment on this:

jbehan:

Atheism and Christianity have roughly the same explanatory power. In other words, I don’t think that Christianity explains any phenomenon better than atheism (although there are several phenomena that neither explain well).

It seems to me that atheism stands or falls based on the congency of this claim.

Does God exist? I suppose you are looking for logical reasons to believe. I assume, then, that you agree that there are universal standards of reason. We often take for granted the objectivity of, say, the law of excluded middle, or the various other logical and mathematical axioms. In fact, the denial of universal standards is self-defeating. “There are no absolutes”, is itself an absolute claim, so it seems most reasonable to conclude that there exists absolute truth.

So how is truth known? Is it mind-independent, or does it reside in the intellect? We might ask a broader question: how do we know anything at all? For any subject S, there is a causal relationship R for any external object O that is known. For example, if you and I are sitting at opposite ends of a table, then my eyes act as a bridge in the causal relationship between your sitting across from me and my seeing you sitting across from me.

With that said, abstract objects do not stand in causal relations. As much as I would love it, modus tollens cannot mow my lawn. It’s simply not that kind of object that would carry any exertion. Hence, it would follow that we could have no knowledge of abstract objects, or of truth particularly, if truth is mind-independent. But since we do have knowledge of at least some truths, it follows that truth must reside in the intellect.

This is where it gets really interesting. If truth resides in the intellect, and yet there is absolute truth, then it follows that there exists an absolute intellect! This, of course, sounds suspiciously like God. The reason we are able to know any truths is that God created the world, and the world reflects the rationality that He imposes on it by His sovereign governing, and our thinking is meant to reflect His. What do you think?

My understanding in light of the above is that atheism is unable to account for even the preconditions of knowledge. Hence, theism has more explanatory power than atheism. It seems that the best proof of God’s existence is that without Him, it is impossible to prove anything.

I do pray that God will comfort you in your time of questioning. Just know that you’re not alone and that you are loved.

 

[MindOverMatter]

Okay, you believe he doesn’t exist. I know he doesn’t.

.

Nobody knows anything. As children, we generally accept statements made by people we trust; and as adults, we judge reality according to our subjective experience and prejudices.
I disbelieve in santa, not because i can prove that he doesn’t exist, but because such a concept is not “worthy” of belief. In otherwords, the quality of belief is poor according to my philosophical prejudice. Santas explanatory power is weak. Also, santas roots, has always been understood as an urban myth of sorts. Very few rational adults, if any, have ever really taken it seriously.

 

[Contarini]

Major premise: The simpler philosophy is the rational position.

**Your major premise is not always true. Life is seldom simple.

Someone–not I–wrote about the fallacy of Occam’s Razor (which this statement basically is).**

Occam’s razor is not a fallacy and was not invented by Occam (it’s used by Aquinas as well). However, like a literal razor, it can shave beards or slash throats, depending on how you use it!

Occam was the Sweeney Todd of philosophy, if you get my meaning. . . . .

Edwin

 

[Dameedna]

Nobody knows anything. As children, we generally accept statements made by people we trust; and as adults, we judge reality according to our subjective experience and prejudices.
I disbelieve in santa, not because i can prove that he doesn’t exist, but because such a concept is not “worthy” of belief. In otherwords, the quality of belief is poor according to my philosophical prejudice. Santas explanatory power is weak. Also, santas roots, has always been understood as an urban myth of sorts. Very few rational adults, if any, have ever really taken it seriously.

See, I try to express how it feels and as I said in my first post some bright spark will always say “you can’t KNOW”. You are right. I do not know if Santa exists

Yes…I accept this. I do not know.

But, to try and “understand” the athiest, we need to recongize that most people do not say “I don’t believe in Santa”. Most consider him figment of human imagination(with a legend of Saint Nic attatched). They can’t prove it, but would they honestly waste their time trying?

Only if Santa(according to a humans revalation) decided we need to do certain things, to make Santa happy.

The likelihood of Sanata is so small, it doesn’t warrent debate and I would never teach my own kids that Santa exists. I’m so sure of this, I would never lie to them about it. My kids,won’t have a Santa christmas. It’s ridiculous.

Same as God…to the athiest. You don’t 'believe" God doesn’t exist, anymore than you “believe” Santa exists. There is a difference between an idea that holds merit and one that does not even if neither can be proven.

Go with the “knowing” argument all you want, doesn’t change the way an athiest feels or the reality they live under, which is what I was trying to share. They just lack belief in everything you present to them, and it seems almost silly to consider it(for most), in the same way you feel about Santa.

Hence the latest athiest ploy of the theology and study of pastology and the Lord of the flying spaghetti monster.

God is that ridiculous to them conceptually, and it is only out of a base human respect that most joke about it, behind your backs. They dont’ want to hurt you. What they cannot know, doesn’t matter. The entire idea, is ridiculous.

 

[Dameedna]

Science is an option.
Also, like most things, we believe science it before we understand the reasoning or probability of it being true.

No, we learn about the scientific method, we see for ourselves(in high school for me) how the scientific method works.

What we have “faith” in , is the people that follow it. Thankfully the scientific community is so 'brutal" in it’s desire for truth and knowlege, that belief usually doesn’t enter into the fray, and they have the mechanism to bypass it , even when it does.

I do not “believe” in the scientific method. I’ve learnt it, I’ve used it and it has contiuously worked for humanity because it bypasses our desires, and cuts to what we are capable of understanding.

Science, when creating new theories, also uses imagination. We don’t know for sure if there really IS a universe out there. Science is a belief. A philosophy.

To a degree yes, and to a degree no. We can’t “know” there is a universe, but since “we” and our minds are all we have to observe with and work with that’s where I start. Since the universe and our reality is all we can study, the scientific method enables that without our more basic “human” desires to get in the way.

We cannot “know”. But we do a much better job of understanding within the scientific method, than we do with pure human desire or so called reason.

Belief is not confined to organised religion.
How you view the world, that is your belief.
And every human has a unique way of viewing the world. Atheists, according to you, believe that no view of the world is viable (basically that everyone is wrong).

No, I didn’t say that.

self contradictory

Before I address anything further, I guess we should stop here.

 

[littletommy]

Hello and Greetings to all,

I would like to first off thank you very much for taking a stand, and telling people how you feel about what's going on.  That is something we all need to do.

 Years ago, I was always confused about evil in the world.  I was also confused about why my life was so painful.  I have a mental illness and it caused me much trouble in my relationships with other people.  I was very bitter and angry at God, and I was seriously cursing him out and blaspheme came out of my mouth on a regular basis.  I was also jealous of "Normal" people and how they seemed to have everything I didn't have - things such as girlfriends, money, cars, etc...  I was smoking dope on a regular basis, and I was throwing my life down the toilet, so to speak.  

 Life got better, and it got worse- it's that way for all of us, isn't it?  But I've learned an important principle over the years.  There is a God- and he loves us with an everlasting Love.  I know that's hard to believe in this world of pain and heartache, but it's a truth I have personally experienced for myself.  I know that's a highly subjective word- experience, and believe me, I know the frustration of not having prayers you pray answered.  But God is not a cosmic Santa Claus, out there to grant our every whim and desire!  Rather, he is a rational, loving, intelligent being who wants us to have a relationship with him and those he created.  That is why he created this world, so that we could understand this.  I hope and pray that you will be able to understand that he does love us, and is concerned about us.  May God grant you peace as you choose whatever road you may choose.  Have a good day...

Tommy

 

[EasterJoy]

I would question the following point, and make the obvious objection that the most simple explanation is to be preferred only when it accounts for the facts equally well. After all, you do not have to study things for very long to come to the conclusion that there is nothing about Schroedinger’s wave equation that is particularly simple.

I would suggest that you may be avoiding having to admit what Christianity actually says.

Atheism and Christianity have roughly the same explanatory power. In other words, I don’t think that Christianity explains any phenomenon better than atheism (although there are several phenomena that neither explain well)

What does atheism tell you about the problem of suffering in the world? Nothing. What help is it in transforming your own suffering from mere reaction into response? None. Many forms of atheism go so far as to argue that there is nothing other than reaction, that we do only what physical laws dictate that we do.

Which position is the better explanation of what love is, from a purely experiential standpoint? Atheism makes love into a veiled form of mutual self-interest, rather than a sharing in the life of God.

There is this advantage to atheism: it lets you off the hook. It doesn’t require you to recognize and live the divine life within you. Because if you admit that God is in you and you are in God, then you have to respond to that by handing it all over to God. That’s a tall order.

Atheism says “the world can be a piece of ****. Just deal with that.” This is not to say that there aren’t atheists with a very high standard of morality or an appreciation of beauty. Far from it. It is not, however, a philosophy that admits to the existence of a life higher than the rational mind. It has no real answer to suffering and no real accounting for beauty, except that these are the stuff we must use to muddle through.

Among other things, Christianity says, “You are not imperfect. The world is not imperfect. You and the world are, rather, incomplete. You need God. You are made in the divine image, but that cannot be realized unless you accept your ultimate inherent poverty. God has given you the choice to accept that poverty, to accept that life outside God is, by its definition, impossible, and to be filled with His life, or to live as if you can deny that inescapable truth. What you choose to do about that has consequences. The only thing imperfect about you or the rest of the world is your refusal to recognize these most basic truths.”

There are a lot of people who would rather abdicate Life than to admit that they actually have to live it.

That’s my two cents.

 

[BlaineTog]

What does atheism tell you about the problem of suffering in the world? Nothing.

Um, actually, Atheism has a much more emotionally satisfying answer to the problem of pain than Christianity does: pain is bad.

 

[ribozyme]

What does atheism tell you about the problem of suffering in the world? Nothing. What help is it in transforming your own suffering from mere reaction into response? None. Many forms of atheism go so far as to argue that there is nothing other than reaction, that we do only what physical laws dictate that we do.

That’s my two cents.

How is atheism easier? I am not able to derive comfort from a belief in a benevolent God. I often feel alone and neglected in life and do not have any hope in eternal life.

 

[olipoli]

No, we learn about the scientific method, we see for ourselves(in high school for me) how the scientific method works.

What we have “faith” in , is the people that follow it. Thankfully the scientific community is so 'brutal" in it’s desire for truth and knowlege, that belief usually doesn’t enter into the fray, and they have the mechanism to bypass it , even when it does.

I do not “believe” in the scientific method. I’ve learnt it, I’ve used it and it has contiuously worked for humanity because it bypasses our desires, and cuts to what we are capable of understanding.

To a degree yes, and to a degree no. We can’t “know” there is a universe, but since “we” and our minds are all we have to observe with and work with that’s where I start. Since the universe and our reality is all we can study, the scientific method enables that without our more basic “human” desires to get in the way.

We cannot “know”. But we do a much better job of understanding within the scientific method, than we do with pure human desire or so called reason.

No, I didn’t say that.

Before I address anything further, I guess we should stop here.

Well, I remember learning that the moon orbits the earth long before learning how large masses curve spacetime. We believe the scientific method works before we understand how it does (how could it be the other way round?).

Also, I quite like science, and all it has to offer. It is basically a means of finding the Truth, and I agree with that. In fact, science has strengthened my belief in God. I just don’t think the Truth is limited to science, or rather, that the scientific method can’t comprehend the Truth on its own. Of course, not knowing the Truth quite just yet, I may be wrong, and science may well capable of understanding everything on its own.

But I disagree with the notion that belief doesn’t come into the fray. If a rational man, for instance, disagreed with the scientific method for logical reasons, he won’t bother to use that method of deduction any more. It would be a logical choice. Same goes for anyone about any philosophy, tool, whatever. If you truly had a lack of faith in what you were doing, would you continue doing it? (Atheists have a lack of faith in God, for example) However, I’m certain scientists do believe in the scientific method, as they use it.

The scientific method is based on reason, unless, ofcourse, I’m mistaken. But I only half agree with you about desires, because, whilst I think you are correct, I haven’t quite managed to understand them yet, so there I abstain.

“The Athiest lacks any belief in any option presented to them so far on this planet. Having no viable option, they become an athiest.” Yep, you did.
So, it is self contradictory.

 

[ribozyme]

But I disagree with the notion that belief doesn’t come into the fray. If a rational man, for instance, disagreed with the scientific method for logical reasons, he won’t bother to use that method of deduction any more. It would be a logical choice. Same goes for anyone about any philosophy, tool, whatever. If you truly had a lack of faith in what you were doing, would you continue doing it? (Atheists have a lack of faith in God, for example) However, I’m certain scientists do believe in the scientific method, as they use it.

The scientific method is based on reason, unless, ofcourse, I’m mistaken. But I only half agree with you about desires, because, whilst I think you are correct, I haven’t quite managed to understand them yet, so there I abstain.

The scientific method is a method of induction, not deduction. Yes, the scientific method does require one to believe in induction and causality so it does require some “faith.”

 

[olipoli]

The scientific method is a method of induction, not deduction.

Apologies :doh2:

 

[richardwy]

Much to my own chagrin, I am considering leaving Christianity for a strong agnostic / weak atheist position (basically the thought is that God could exist, but it’s very unlikely). As you might imagine, I am not at all happy about this turn of events

This is being foisted upon you?

Even so, try Saint Augustine’s “Confessions” Read slowly. Pencil in hand. Augustine was a bright guy. Big thinker. Honest guy too by my lights.

 

[BobCatholic]

The fact of the matter is that strong atheism fits the definition of a belief without even a little fudging.

Actually, strong atheism is a religion. Sure, it is a nontheistic religion (then again so is some Buddhist sects, Scientology, Confuscianism, and a few others…)

It has theology: “There is no God.”
It has a moral code: “Do whatever you want.”
It has dogma: “There is no God.” (“Atheism is not a religion” could also be one…)

 

[BobCatholic]

Um, actually, Atheism has a much more emotionally satisfying answer to the problem of pain than Christianity does: pain is bad.

That’s a massive oversimplification to the point that it ignores the good things about pain.

If someone’s hand is on a hot stove, the pain tells them to “TAKE YOUR HAND OFF THE STOVE NOW!” It is a good thing, it prevents further pain from happening.

If the first guy says something nasty about a second guy’s mother and the second guy gives the first guy a fist in the face, the pain tells him “NEXT TIME DO NOT TALK BAD ABOUT SOMEONE ELSE’S MOTHER”

Atheism has no satisfying reason why one should be unselfish. After all, under such a worldview, life is about survival of the fittest, there is no reason for hospitals, charities, being nice to others…just use your strength to overpower the weak who stand in your way.