Positive Atheism?

[Gilbert_Keith]

At a Positive Atheism web site the following quote from atheist biologist Richard Dawkins is given.

“The total amount of suffering per year in the natural world is beyond all decent contemplation. During the minute that it takes me to compose this sentence, thousands of animals are being eaten alive, many others are running for their lives, whimpering with fear, others are slowly being devoured from within by rasping parasites, thousands of all kinds are dying of starvation, thirst, and disease. It must be so. If there ever is a time of plenty, this very fact will automatically lead to an increase in the population until the natural state of starvation and misery is restored. In a universe of electrons and selfish genes, blind physical forces and genetic replication, some people are going to get hurt, other people are going to get lucky, and you won’t find any rhyme or reason in it, nor any justice. The universe that we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but pitiless indifference.”

– Richard Dawkins, “God’s Utility Function,” published in Scientific American (November, 1995), p. 85

Question: If this is what positive atheism is like, what is negative atheism like?

Or, to give the atheists their due, what would be better proofs that positive atheism is possible?

 

[Mirdath]

They’re usually called ‘weak’ (positive) and ‘strong’ (negative) atheism nowadays. Strong atheism is belief in the non-existence of God – it still involves faith. Weak atheism is not logically or philosophically ‘weak’ as the name may suggest; rather, it is non-theism without the direct statement ‘God does not exist’. It’s hard to differentiate from ‘strong’ agnosticism in many ways.

As to proofs, the burden of proof in logic lies on the positive position (nothing to do with positive atheism here). In debate, the assertions ‘God exists’ and ‘God does not exist’ are positive; hence, weak atheism is a much stronger position as it makes no such assertions. It does not have to prove itself right; it can only be invalidated by being proven wrong. So it’s plenty possible

 

[Gilbert_Keith]

Mirdath

I agree with much of what you say, but not all. I think there is a philosophical affinity between weak atheism and strong agnosticism, so that it is sometimes hard to tell one from the other. But the psychological difference between them is practically nil. That is, both positions result in a person having no relationship with God. What positive effects can that have on a person’s life?

The intent of starting this thread, which apparently was not made clear, was to find some basis for a psychologically “positive” position from which atheism could view the world and our place in it.

Dawkins in that opening quote offers little in the way of a “positive” attitude that results from atheism. I would say rather that his view of the world and man’s place in it is downright negative.

So if atheists are going to argue that their view is positive (in the sense of upbeat) I’d like to know in what ways that is possible.

 

[Valke2]

You could argue that atheism allows for one choosing to make this world a better place without the threat of condeming anyone to eternal hell, and out of motives that arise from something other than the false promise of a better life in the next world.

Or that an atheist is not shackled with unsupportable dogma that allow one to believe that they are doing God’s work and that other’s are acting against God. That an athiest is not given a set of irrational (in that they cannot be support by logic) beliefs which permit or require one to kill those that do not share his or her beliefs.

 

[Mirdath]

I agree with much of what you say, but not all. I think there is a philosophical affinity between weak atheism and strong agnosticism, so that it is sometimes hard to tell one from the other. But the psychological difference between them is practically nil. That is, both positions result in a person having no relationship with God. What positive effects can that have on a person’s life?

Several. The primary one, though, is accountability: there’s no God to credit for your good, no Devil to blame for your evil. You’re there, you’re wholly responsible for your actions, and you’re not going to be able to shrug off the consequences, both good and bad. Realizing that tends to make people a lot more aware of what they do, and more likely to think harder about the consequences before acting.

The intent of starting this thread, which apparently was not made clear, was to find some basis for a psychologically “positive” position from which atheism could view the world and our place in it.

Oops! Sorry, I knew ‘positive’ and ‘negative’ described different non-theist stances and thought you meant that

Dawkins in that opening quote offers little in the way of a “positive” attitude that results from atheism. I would say rather that his view of the world and man’s place in it is downright negative.

He’s concentrating on the negative side for most of that, yes. I don’t agree with Dawkins much – he’s a brilliant scientist but self-righteous, argumentative, and rude when it comes to theology – in which, as a strong atheist, he seems not to recognize that he has faith in his own way, in the nonexistence of God.

So if atheists are going to argue that their view is positive (in the sense of upbeat) I’d like to know in what ways that is possible.

There’s the personal accountability I mentioned above. There’s realizing that if you do good, it’s not because you’re afraid of what will happen to you if you don’t do good but because you have that good within you. Instead of faith in God, there’s faith in people, the belief that as a society we try to generally improve ourselves. There’s no fear that demons are tearing at your heels constantly, trying to drag you down with them. And there’s the knowledge that this time on earth is all we have, so we might as well make the best of it in the face of a universe that could do as well without us as with us. We’re here, we’re pretty awesome, so let’s go!

 

[Gilbert_Keith]

Valke2

You could argue that atheism allows for one choosing to make this world a better place without the threat of condeming anyone to eternal hell, and out of motives that arise from something other than the false promise of a better life in the next world.

Or you could argue that atheism condemns us to eternal nothingness, with no assurance that our lives have any meaning beyond the creature comforts we share with other animals. Is that positive?

*Or that an atheist is not shackled with unsupportable dogma that allow one to believe that they are doing God’s work and that other’s are acting against God. *

Or that an atheist is shackled with the unsupportable dogma that he is somehow morally and intellectually superior to those who do God’s work (a view routinely expressed in the writings of virtually all of the worlds most famous atheists) including Richard Dawkins.

That an athiest is not given a set of irrational (in that they cannot be support by logic) beliefs which permit or require one to kill those that do not share his or her beliefs.

Or that an atheist views that right and wrong are whatever he says they are, which means he can define good as evil and evil as good and not be accountable to any higher law than his own indomitable ego … for examples … Stalin, Hitler, Mao, etc.

These so-called “positives” are offset by numerous negatives.
For example, the view that one can be truly kindly as an atheist but brutal as a theist is contradicted by the fact that theists give generously of their time and labor to help others. What evidence is there that atheism produces the same kind of dedication to helping the poor, tending to the sick, visiting the imprisoned, etc. Indeed, where is it found in atheism as such that these things are at the “positive” heart of atheism?

 

[Suat]

These so-called “positives” are offset by numerous negatives.

Is that not true for all situations? If you look hard enough, you will always find both positives and negatives. Whether or not you view something as positive or negative depends on what you want to see.

You seem want to view atheism as negative, so you focus solely on the negatives. It is likely that you focus solely on the positives of theism. If that works for you, then great, but please do not think that atheists lead lives filled with voids and depression.

 

[Jake_Ellison]

Chritians often say you only need to look around you to see Gods work. Don’t all the natural wonders seen around us clearly show God’s finger print?

Do you accept Dawkins view of an indifferent universe?

 

[Gilbert_Keith]

Mirdath

Instead of faith in God, there’s faith in people, the belief that as a society we try to generally improve ourselves.

I don’t see why religious people shouldn’t have the same faith in society along with their faith in God. One does not preclude the other. In fact, the love of Christ impels us to love one another.

There’s no fear that demons are tearing at your heels constantly, trying to drag you down with them.

Fear in itself is not a negative. Wouldn’t you rightly fear walking through a mine field? One cannot overcome one’s enemies without knowing who they are. The atheist does not know from which direction he is being attacked. That is not a positive, but a negative. He should read C.S. Lewis to get a handle on the demons, and then learn the prayer to Saint Michael.

 

[Gilbert_Keith]

Suat

You seem want to view atheism as negative, so you focus solely on the negatives. It is likely that you focus solely on the positives of theism. If that works for you, then great, but please do not think that atheists lead lives filled with voids and depression.

No, it is actually the atheists who stress the voids and the depressions, as Dawkins does above, as did Bertrand Russell, Clarence Darrow, the grandfather of them all … Nietzsche … and so many others …

If I focus soley on the negatives it’s because I’m having trouble finding the positives. That’s what this thread is about … finding the positives. Atheism simply says “No god.” It doesn’t say anything else because it doesn’t have to. After saying “No god” each atheist is allowed to make up his own positives and negatives according to his own whims, with no ultimate authority to which he is accountable but his own indomitable ego.

That in itself seems to me an insurmountable Negative. How does any society get along with any kind of a moral code honored by its members when, if every member of that society was an atheist, it would be impossible to agree upon any moral code? Or, more likely, the moral code that would be agreed upon would be the moral code that was rammed down their throats by the strongest and most dominating of them all.

 

[Mirdath]

I don’t see why religious people shouldn’t have the same faith in society along with their faith in God. One does not preclude the other. In fact, the love of Christ impels us to love one another.

There’s nothing saying you can’t have both. Some of us just don’t need the faith in God to be able to love one another

Fear in itself is not a negative. Wouldn’t you rightly fear walking through a mine field? One cannot overcome one’s enemies without knowing who they are. The atheist does not know from which direction he is being attacked. That is not a positive, but a negative. He should read C.S. Lewis to get a handle on the demons, and then learn the prayer to Saint Michael.

Fear is not a negative, but irrational fear is. The thought that supernatural creatures are out to control your life would be thought ridiculous and paranoid by anyone right up until you say the magic word ‘devil’ – but there’s nothing about that word that makes it suddenly reasonable.

One doesn’t need demons to realize that there are dangers in more than the physical sense, and to know where those dangers are. We can be our own devils and our own angels. If your psyche is under attack in any fashion, leafing through The Screwtape Letters isn’t going to help you out much in any way except by taking your mind off it for a little while.

No, it is actually the atheists who stress the voids and the depressions, as Dawkins does above, as did Bertrand Russell, Clarence Darrow, the grandfather of them all … Nietzsche … and so many others …

Nietzsche had the best sense of humor and the most sheer hope for humanity out of any philosopher I’ve read. His message was not one of depression and emptiness, but of always running ahead, striving to better and improve ourselves in spite of the pitfalls that lie in our paths. I’d highly recommend you read Also Sprach Zarathustra before making such statements.

Would you like me to start pulling out depressive Christians? There’re a lot of names in that box too.

 

[Gilbert_Keith]

Mirdath

Would you like me to start pulling out depressive Christians? There’re a lot of names in that box too.

I see. And would “Jesus Christ” be one of those names you’d like to pull out of that hat?

 

[Gilbert_Keith]

Mirdath

If your psyche is under attack in any fashion, leafing through The Screwtape Letters isn’t going to help you out much in any way except by taking your mind off it for a little while.

Apparently that was your reaction. But you’re not everyone, are you?

 

[Gilbert_Keith]

MIrdath

Nietzsche had the best sense of humor and the most sheer hope for humanity out of any philosopher I’ve read.

You evidently have’t read Nietzsche. Or if you have, why didn’t you read the part where he hopes for the abolition of man?

Doesn’t sound positive to me.

 

[Gilbert_Keith]

Mirdath

Some of us just don’t need the faith in God to be able to love one another.

And some of us believe that our love of others is perfected by our love of God.

 

[Mirdath]

Mirdath

Would you like me to start pulling out depressive Christians? There’re a lot of names in that box too.

I see. And would “Jesus Christ” be one of those names you’d like to pull out of that hat?

No, and you sound just like Dana Carvey (‘well, isn’t that special’) . Jesus may have had his sad moments, but considering he was about to be tortured and crucified I’d think there was some justification, no? That’d have me feeling pretty down at least. But on the whole, Jesus seems to’ve been a pretty upbeat kind of guy, preaching love for both neighbors and enemies, serving others, and telling even the most downtrodden, shamed people that no matter how bad their current situation was, they had something to look forward to and could make their lives better now at least internally.

Apparently that was your reaction. But you’re not everyone, are you?

I’ve never claimed to be. Inspirational reading does many people good when they aren’t feeling up to life, but blaming one’s own deficiencies on demons doesn’t hold water.

You evidently have’t read Nietzsche. Or if you have, why didn’t you read the part where he hopes for the abolition of man?

Doesn’t sound positive to me.

Sounds like you just skimmed it. Nietzsche wasn’t for abolishing humanity; rather, in his vision, Man will pass away on the arrival of the overman – humans will have become something greater, and there will be no need for the old, less perfect trappings of mere humanity. I think it’s a great example to look up to, and very positive. The message is we can do better and become more perfect if only we try.

And some of us believe that our love of others is perfected by our love of God.

If you feel you need that, okay – but not all of us do feel a lack without faith in God.

 

[Gilbert_Keith]

Inspirational reading does many people good when they aren’t feeling up to life, but blaming one’s own deficiencies on demons doesn’t hold water.

Christians are not allowed to say “The Devil made me do it.”

We have free will. At least Catholics believe in free will and taking responsibility for their sins and owning up to them and their consequences.*

 

[Mirdath]

Christians are not allowed to say “The Devil made me do it.”

We have free will. At least Catholics believe in free will and taking responsibility for their sins and owning up to them and their consequences.

In principle, that’s true; in practice, people shift the blame. A man lusts after a woman – but oh no, even if it’s his sin it’s really the fault of the woman for wearing a revealing top that inspired his lustful feelings. Personal accountability for one’s own wrongs means that won’t fly.

 

[Gilbert_Keith]

In principle, that’s true; in practice, people shift the blame.

I don’t think I’ve ever heard a Catholic say “The Devil made me do it.” So I’d say in practice Catholics don’t shift the blame, and that’s why they go to confession … to confess *their *sins, not the devil’s or someone else’s.

At any rate, that’s one of the positive things about Catholicism … we own up to our faults.

 

[Gilbert_Keith]

… but not all of us do feel a lack without faith in God.

If that is so, what are *you *doing here at Catholic Answers?

You see, I think that when an atheist shows up here, he is looking for something. Maybe he doesn’t know it’s God he’s looking for. But just the effort he makes here signals some lack in his life that can only be fulfilled by searching at Catholic Answers. If he was content without faith, why would he waste his time at Catholic Answers?