On Atheism and Agnosticism

Great Debates
1

Of late, I a finding myself on the fence between, Atheism and Agnosticism. Specifically, I am not sure which I am.

On the once hand, in looking at the observable evidence, it seems like a pretty credible theory that there is no god. If I apply the same standards for belief that lead me to believe other theories (evolution or the like, for example) the conclusion seems pretty solid.

On the other hand, I can state that I don’t truly know that there is no god. That the question at present seems too big to be answered conclusively.

So the question is this; Agnostics: are there deeper levels to the “we don’t know” stance that I simply have not encountered yet, or would I simply be hedging my bets assuming that there turns out to be a god later? Atheists: How much of the belief that there is no god is taken on faith? Also, assuming that there is no god (and this is where it gets sticky for me), what is the motive to lead a (for lack of a better word) moral life? Is it fear of punishment and reward? Enlightened self-interest?

On balance, I am pretty sure that I am leaning in to the Atheist camp, but do have concerns about how this will still enable one to lead a moral life. I have had the imprinting of being told that there was a force outside myself that had standards of behavior, and so will probably not go become an axe murderer, but also could foresee areas where my behavior would be quite different if I thought that what was happening now in my little life would be all that would matter.

In any event, I am most interested to hear the thoughts of others.

2

It’s a fallacy to suggest that morality only springs from belief in God (or to put it another way, that believers are only moral because they believe that God will punish them).

In the ‘natural’ world, it could be suggested that the only thing stopping me from brutally murdering strangers in the street is the law that says I mustn’t, but is that really true? no!:- I don’t murder people in the street because it seems to me that this would be a horrible and unnecessary thing to do.

3

What is the conclusively solid proof that you have found that there is no God?

I would say that for any belief system (atheist or religious) is based on faith.

4

In fact it could even be argued that you might do some things better if you believed that this life is all that there is…

5

Right! And this is the area that I want to look at. At the moment, it may be that I am simply in the middle of working these issues out for myself, and this is the sort of thing that I could use input on. Can you elaborate as to why this is so?

Also Meatros I do not think that the Atheist perspective is in quite the same camp as a religious belief system. Here is why: Based on observable phenomenon, it seems a reasonable theory that there is no god. I have never seen a burning bush, or heard god speak to me. Nor has anyone that I know. The are no cases that I have ever encountered where someone claiming to have encountered a god-like force has ever been able to back up this claim. In the same way that observable events and evidence lead me to believe that organisms evolve from comparatively simple forms, in to more complex ones (to use a glaringly obvious scientific example), I am also forced to adopt the theory that there is no god.

6

I class myself as an atheist. I don’t buy into the whole “how can you say for certain that there isn’t a god” thing.

Why should I give it any credence at all. As far as I’m concerned it’s just a fairy tale that lots of people believe. No evidence at all has ever been put forward to show away god whatsoever. I view it in the same light as I do stories about elves and hobbits.

I don’t disrespect people with religious beliefs. Each to his own IMO.

7

I call myself an atheist rather than an agnostic. I don’t believe in a god because I’ve seen absolutely no evidence that one exists. If I say I’m agnostic, in that I don’t discount the existence of god because it hasn’t been absolutely disproven, I also would have to be agnostic about leprechauns, Bigfoot, the Loch Ness Monster, little green men, and the tooth fairy. None of those has been absolutely disproven either, but I feel pretty safe in discounting their existence.

As for morality, you said it in the OP: Enlightened self-interest, or the Golden Rule. Do unto others and all that.

8

i guess id class myself as agnostic, though more because i havent had the desire to give the question of does god exist serious consideration.

If god does exist then fine but i dont feel any need to worship him, and dont mond if others choose to worship him, i believe its each persons choice.

If God doesnt exist then fine also, difinitive proof would change my life in no way as far as i can see.

m.

9

The problem with the assertion that there is a god, there isn’t a god is a philosophical one, one of faith. There could be no proof either way; God (if there is one) is an omnipotent being-can do anything. If this is true, then just because science has explained how it has done it doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist. Nor does it mean it does.

As I said, it’s a philosophical question, not a scientific one and as such is purely faith.

10

Also Ferrous-I agree with the absolutely disproven thing, but God hasn’t been remotely disproven (or proven for that matter).
In my opinion the debate is circular on scientific proof regarding God. Which puts it in the realm of faith. AFAIK science hasn’t tried to tackle the question of God, the beginning of the universe, evolution-sure; but whether there is an omnipotent being out there that on some level is responsible, no science hasn’t answered that question.

11

I see about the same amount of evidence to believe in the theory of a God as in the theories of David Icke or Von Daniken.

I do, however, find the complexity of life and the universe denotes that there is some inbuilt pattern-forming propensity in existence. Its an unformed thought, but about the only higher power I can SEE is complexity.

12

You may wish to read any or all of these (all by Paul Kurtz, all fairly short, and all fairly cheap):
[ul]
[li] A Secular Humanist Declaration[/li][li] Humanist Manifesto 2000[/li][li] Humanist Manifestos I and II[/li][/ul]

If you want a detailed exploration of montheism and supernaturalism, check out The Transcendental Temptation - again by Paul Kurtz. Amazon has a large sample of this book available on their site.

13

—Of late, I a finding myself on the fence between, Atheism and Agnosticism.—

You can be both: they aren’t strictly speaking, opposite sides of the same fence. atheism/theism has to do with belief in god. Agnosticism/gnosticism (at least as it pertains to god, since it need not) has to do with knowledge of god’s existence.

Many theists are agnostics: they don’t claim to know that god exists: they believe that he does, usually on faith, which to them is very important in their theology (that it be faith, not knowledge, by which god is a part of their lives).

—Atheists: How much of the belief that there is no god is taken on faith?—

I am an atheist, and I have no such belief. I do not have a worldview based on atheism, because to me atheism is not a view on which anything can be based: it is simply a description of what I am in relation to theists. It is a term not unlike “non-racecar driver”: it tells you what I am not, not what I am. To find out what I am, you’d have to find out more about me, the actual person. There is no “me, the atheist” to find out about.

—Based on observable phenomenon, it seems a reasonable theory that there is no god.—

Why? In the abscence of evidence, what is the need or purpose for this sort of theory? Things that don’t exist do not leave behind them evidence of their non-existence for us to examine. The supposedly ineffable can’t, by definition, be effed. :slight_smile:

One might say “based on (currently) observeable phenomenon, I see no reason to believe in god.” But concluding that there is no god seems to step into the realm of belief, not knowledge.

14

–On balance, I am pretty sure that I am leaning in to the Atheist camp—

I think it’s misleading for atheists to form camp. Atheists should camp out wherever their actual positive beliefs are: atheism is not a foundation on which positive agreement should be built.

—but do have concerns about how this will still enable one to lead a moral life.—

Perhaps your real question is “previously, my intent of leading of a moral life has involved god, and I’m not sure how to go about it in the abscence of this belief.” If that’s the case, then have no fear: plenty of people are very moral without god beliefs of any sort, because the desire/choice to lead a moral life is itself something that must stand on its own: even if there is a god.

—foresee areas where my behavior would be quite different if I thought that what was happening now in my little life would be all that would matter.—

Explain: then we can discuss the specifics. I don’t doubt that losing a particular theology, even a diffuse and vaguely imprinted one, might change one’s opinions about what is and is not moral, because many theologies have specific accounts of morality that involve certain fundamental principles (for instance, that sex is particularly taboo) grounded on faith in a god’s word. But this is true of any morality, ultimately.

15

Apos-I think you said it much better than me when you said:

One might say “based on (currently) observeable phenomenon, I see no reason to believe in god.” But concluding that there is no god seems to step into the realm of belief, not knowledge.

16

In philosophy, that’s called the epistemological hegemony of Evidentialism, and is a part of the so-called Enlightenment Thesis. It’s basically the assertion that a belief is warranted only if “it is proportioned to the evidence”. Holders of Enlightenment Evidentialism often toss out Clifford’s famous quote: “It is wrong always, everywhere, and for anyone, to believe anything upon insufficient evidence.” (The irony, of course, is that there is insufficient evidence that he is right.) They also are known to say that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

Postmodern epistemologies usually concede that the EE view is naive for many reasons, not the least of which is the circulus in demonstrandum nature of empiricism itself. There is no difference in principle between the argument that the Bible is true because the Bible says so and the argument that logic is valid because logic says so. As a matter of fact, it might well be that empirical evidence is the weakest of all evidence types with respect to such ontological questions as the existence of God because such evidence calls upon a subset of its metaphysic to recapitulate a superset.

I recommend reading Hume and Plantinga to get a better idea of whether you’d rather proceed toward atheism or agnosticism. If you aren’t careful, you could be rejecting a strawman of what God is. There’s an awful lot out there, and it’s a shame to make any kind of decision one way or the other without having a look at it. Many people before you have already done a lot of the grunt work in this area, and you could save yourself from reinventing the wheel.

17

On the question of godless morality, look at Mortimer Adler’s Ten Philosophical Mistakes, Chapter 5. Another good book, tho much longer and more technical, is Alisdair MacIntyre’s After Virtue.

The basic idea is that if you truly seek what’s best for yourself, you will end up following the usual rules of morality anyway, for the most part.

18

—The basic idea is that if you truly seek what’s best for yourself, you will end up following the usual rules of morality anyway, for the most part.—

I would say that if you want to be moral (with your particular understanding of moral), then it’s already too late for you: you cannot cease wanting to be moral no matter what else you believe.

—There is no difference in principle between the argument that the Bible is true because the Bible says so and the argument that logic is valid because logic says so.—

Actually, isn’t the whole point of Godel’s theorem that logic can’t even say so? The Bible is at least a “complete” book: it can contain all sorts of diverse claims, including those about itself (though these would have to be read in afterwards as applying to the whole Bible) that it can prove by begging the question (which is not at all strictly invalid, just not very convincing). Logic is composed of a collection of premises that don’t even refer to “logic” explicitly in the same circular fashion, and so can’t even self-support the validity of “logic” (though it seems a little nonsensical to ask whether logic is valid, since validity is a logical concept already)

The difference, of course, is that most people will agree to the premises of logic when having a discussion as being good ground rules without needing to be convinced, while not everyone will agree with the premises of Biblical infaliability right off the bat. That doesn’t make discussions that are premised on Biblical infalibility any less valid, but it does make them less universally applicable.

19

Religion(s) aside for the moment, isn’t it fair to say that God is many things to many people, while logic (like mathematics) transcends various human cultures and beliefs?

Mathematics is an imperfect tool and does not nearly explain the universe (not yet, anyway). Logic is similarly flawed. Alas, there seems to be a general agreement about methodologies of mathematics and logic among people at large regardless of their personal systems of belief. Yet faith among the theists seems to be an accepted fact based not on emperical evidence but, well, personal belief.

I.E. We can demostrate with great consistancy that A(B+C) = AB + AC

But we cannot show that Lib under function Faith, F(Lib), must behave similarly to F(QS).

F(me)! :smiley:

20

To clarify, I do not think that disbelieving in god would lead me to a “godless immorality”, perhaps the opposite. I might dare more, or work harder to address injustice. I don’t know. I guess that I am sort of thinking about my grandmother (who is currently on the last leg of her fight with cancer). There are a lot of things that she wanted to do in her life that she did not. She seems to be ok with this, because she really feels that she is going on to some afterlife.

My concern is that I don’t seem to be buying that, and yet (because of early imprinting) seem to still behave as if I will still always have time to do the things that I want to do. As if there is some immortal part of myself not bound by time.

So my concern with this issue, on that level, is not so much that I am worried that I will become an immoral creature. I guess that it has more to do with how I use my tie here, if that is all that I am going to get.