Atheism

[mad1]

my first thought was

'Oh dear jesus!'

 

[A_Wanderer]

The only reason that I haven't posted is because I have been on a five week holiday to Central Australia.

I had a decent amount of time to consider some issues, and one which struck me with a lot of force was the problem of evil. Not only does the world contain human evil and natural disasters, but our species is capable of feeling so much suffering. If there is a designer of the universe who has created us with the capacity for so much suffering and faulty enough to continually inflict it upon others I couldn't worship it.

I find more comfort in the idea that our capacity for suffering is an evolved trauma avoidance mechanism, one which exists due to the bottom up population pressures on our ancestors. It stops us from having to rationalise the horrors of the world with the idea of a benevolent God, and leaves the door open to alleviating suffering on an individual level.

I kept coming back to the idea of goodness which Daniel Dennett wrote about in an essay following his heart attack a few years ago, it's quite inspiring and shows a lot about how we are able to be good without God.

http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/dennett06/dennett06_index.html

My attitude is one of atheism and anti-theism (although there is a very small possibility of God, if its existence was demonstrated I would just become an anti-theist). I think that there is more elegance and beauty in understanding the nature of the universe, and actively trying to find out new facts than handing credit to a creator. I think that religion exploits and infects human minds in the same way that advertising does, and gets them to accept the implausible on the basis of faith (for instance saying that there is an intelligence which started the universe is a completely unjustified statement, and any specific claims about prophets and miracles are much the same).

 

[the iron horse]

The only reason that I haven't posted is because I have been on a five week holiday to Central Australia.

I had a decent amount of time to consider some issues, and one which struck me with a lot of force was the problem of evil. Not only does the world contain human evil and natural disasters, but our species is capable of feeling so much suffering. If there is a designer of the universe who has created us with the capacity for so much suffering and faulty enough to continually inflict it upon others I couldn't worship it.

I find more comfort in the idea that our capacity for suffering is an evolved trauma avoidance mechanism, one which exists due to the bottom up population pressures on our ancestors. It stops us from having to rationalise the horrors of the world with the idea of a benevolent God, and leaves the door open to alleviating suffering on an individual level.

I kept coming back to the idea of goodness which Daniel Dennett wrote about in an essay following his heart attack a few years ago, it's quite inspiring and shows a lot about how we are able to be good without God.

http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/dennett06/dennett06_index.html

My attitude is one of atheism and anti-theism (although there is a very small possibility of God, if its existence was demonstrated I would just become an anti-theist). I think that there is more elegance and beauty in understanding the nature of the universe, and actively trying to find out new facts than handing credit to a creator. I think that religion exploits and infects human minds in the same way that advertising does, and gets them to accept the implausible on the basis of faith (for instance saying that there is an intelligence which started the universe is a completely unjustified statement, and any specific claims about prophets and miracles are much the same).

I disagree with you, but I hope you are open to considering the view that a universal God does exists.

And will search and think about this question.

 

[nathan1977]

I had a decent amount of time to consider some issues, and one which struck me with a lot of force was the problem of evil. Not only does the world contain human evil and natural disasters, but our species is capable of feeling so much suffering. If there is a designer of the universe who has created us with the capacity for so much suffering and faulty enough to continually inflict it upon others I couldn't worship it.

This is only true insofar if you believe that there is one central cause for everything else. If, however, you believe that there are (at least) three universal forces working in constant opposition to each other -- a force for good, a force for evil, with human will caught in between -- then it seems like there is room for God without believing that He is the cause of suffering.

Humbly submitted.

 

[deep]

My attitude is one of atheism and anti-theism (although there is a very small possibility of God, if its existence was demonstrated I would just become an anti-theist).

Hello Wanderer


I haven't seen you for a while. I hope you have been well.


I don't recall you allowing for a small possibility before.
The more time passes the more I am convinced everyone is uncertain as to what, if anything happens after we die.


I think quite a few religous leaders know they are frauds.

And many believers are in for no other reason
than their hope that it could be true.

Afterall, what have they got to lose?

 

[PhilsFan]

I disagree with you, but I hope you are open to considering the view that a universal God does exists.

And will search and think about this question.

You do realize that most atheists have considered the view, and have searched for answers, don't you?

I hate the attitude that atheists just haven't considered the other side enough. Based on the demographics of the country, a good amount of atheists probably grew up religious. Me being one of them.

 

[deep]

Peace be upon you my brother

no need to get in anyone's face


I have asked believers,
how they would feel if they learned that everything they believed was not correct. If they would have done anything different, made different choices.


I was surprised by the answer.

 

[Vincent Vega]

I disagree with you, but I hope you are open to considering the view that a universal God does exists.

And will search and think about this question.

I disagree with you, but I hope you are open to considering the view that a universal God does not exist.

And will search and think about this question.

 

[A_Wanderer]

My statement of scientific agnosticism (in line with T.H. Huxley's) hasn't changed in years. The only change in my position is to strong anti-theism, I can't see anything decent in theism because of the horrifying ramifications of there being a designer of the world who cares about human affairs.

What designer would create humans to suffer so much emotional damage from the prevalent behaviour of rape?

What designer would create faulty human brains which lead to depression, delusions, and suicide?

What designer would infest the world with parasites and viruses, entities that only function to replicate at the expense of host organisms?

All of these problems can be reconciled with an atheistical world view. The anguish that people suffer after rape is an evolved trauma system dealing with a severe psychological shock, heritable mental illnesses can be understood in terms of how particular genes effect brain development and operation, and the existence and success of parasites illustrates how natural selection opens up exploitative niches in the world that some replicators are able to rapidly fill.

If there was a God directing the process to make humans it wouldn't only be unnecessary (evolution doesn't require agency) or anthropocentric (as if we are somehow more important to the universe than a falcon, fluke or fungus); I feel that it would make that entity responsible for all the waste and suffering which goes on in the natural world, including human suffering. Some theists disagree and embrace theistic evolution, I don't see how that is a legitimate hypothesis worthy of much respect.

The defence that God has to use natural law (i.e. guided evolution) to achieve its ends suggests that it isn't really omnipotent or it doesn't have an interest in reducing suffering (it appears that it wants to maximise it).

I have a much firmer grasp and admiration for science, and am starting to appreciate the power of philosophy, both of which continue to undercut arguments for belief in any benevolent deity. I am confident in my atheism*, I will defend human goodness and solidarity to the hilt, and I have gotten through some tough situations without ever finding or needing a belief in any higher power.

I find it mildly insulting to be told that my views are unconsidered, I find it dehumanising to be told that all that is good in the world (beauty, cooperation, free inquiry, and good deeds) require, or are indebted to, a belief in God; that type of theism robs us of our decency and is a slap in the face to anyone who thinks we can choose to be good for good reasons.

*With the implausible possibility of a God existing, something which most atheists are intellectually honest enough to admit - as opposed to theists who affirm the existence of the deity as a matter of faith.

 

[U2DMfan]

Before I get into it, I just wanted to ask A_W if he would explain whether he believes his "anti-theism" is a belief system or not.

 

[nathan1977]

What designer would create humans to suffer so much emotional damage from the prevalent behaviour of rape?

The underlying assumption of this train of thought is that whatever happens is intended, which is fundamentally fatalistic. If you believe that the universe is composed of a series of wills set in opposition to each other, as I mentioned earlier, then the question of rape is not, "how could God allow it to happen?", but rather, "how could we?" Omnipotence and omnipresence doesn't mean that God fundamentally works outside of humanity/human nature; it may well be that God joins with humanity to accomplish His will.

I firmly believe that God will not do things that He has asked us to do, and a God Who created us in His image will not right injustice that He wants us to.

What designer would create faulty human brains which lead to depression, delusions, and suicide? What designer would infest the world with parasites and viruses, entities that only function to replicate at the expense of host organisms?

Again, is what is, what was intended?

The fundamental question you're asking is, "Why would an all-knowing, all-loving God allow suffering?" It's a philosophical question as much as it is a practical one, and not one easy to answer. At the same time, as my pastor says, "Okay, let's take God out of the equation all together. Does suffering still exist?" It's an interesting rhetorical question. If suffering exists completely separate from the existence of God, then it is perhaps entirely possible that God is not the cause of suffering; it may well be that He is the cause of whatever redemption there is in it...

Does the fault lie within our stars, or within ourselves?

 

[Kieran McConville]

The same god that would allow free will, must, by definition allow suffering. Does God rape women?

 

[Jive Turkey]

Its easy to explain human inflicted suffering as free will, but what about the parasites A_Wanderer mentioned. What kind of God would create these?

Candiru: Vampire Fish

 

[the iron horse]

The same god that would allow free will, must, by definition allow suffering. Does God rape women?

What would you think of a God that did not create us with a free will?

 

[Kieran McConville]

Its easy to explain human inflicted suffering as free will, but what about the parasites A_Wanderer mentioned. What kind of God would create these?

Candiru: Vampire Fish

Well now we're getting into pop-religion territory, in my view. It's up there with what kind of god would allow people to die in a huge earthquake. The natural world has its own processes geological and biological, and it's foolish to attribute human motive to them, isn't it. Parastical creatures and bacteria and viruses, have their place, they do what they do. The effects when they encounter us may be horrific but they have little bearing on good or evil. A virus or a parasite fish isn't evil, anymore than the lion chasing you back to your jeep is evil. And no, being a good believer won't save you from those things. I would be leery of anyone who implies otherwise.

 

[Kieran McConville]

What would you think of a God that did not create us with a free will?

Not very much at all, Iron Horse. It's a no-brainer. And I cannot see how such a scenario could ever be, anyway. Once we developed sentience, we became creatures of free will. There's no going back from that.

 

[Kieran McConville]

To sum up, it seems to me that the only way a universe free of suffering for us could exist would be if it operated on such a small and limited scale as to be nothing but a little clockwork world with all the rough edges smoothed off. No complex food chains. No conscious agency. I am having trouble imagining it really.

I mean, for a hypothetical: what's worse, a god that sets everything to unfold as it will, or a god who really is nothing much more than a human-like designer, building a padded treehouse for some happy campers to sit around in like chumps. I know atheists like to think that Christianity means a bearded man in the sky, but I don't think there's a bearded man in the sky, I think there's a cosmos in the sky.

 

[nathan1977]

I don't think there's a bearded man in the sky, I think there's a cosmos in the sky.

And I think there's a window in the sky...

 

[the iron horse]

Not very much at all, Iron Horse. It's a no-brainer. And I cannot see how such a scenario could ever be, anyway. Once we developed sentience, we became creatures of free will. There's no going back from that.

"Not very much" is your answer?

So, you prefer a God who creates beings without free will?

I"m guessing you don't believe a God exists, but you answer the question?

 

[PhilsFan]

"Not very much" is your answer?

So, you prefer a God who creates beings without free will?

I"m guessing you don't believe a God exists, but you answer the question?

I don't think you even know what your original question was.

 

[Kieran McConville]

I don't think he does either.

Iron Horse, you asked me what I would think of a god that created people without the capacity for free will. And I said I would not think very much at all of such a god, but even more so that such an occurance strikes me as implausible as frankly, people without free will would not be people in any sense that we understand the word.

And if you, Iron Horse think that I don't believe God exists... what the fuck have you been reading? Do you even follow threads around here????

READ! FOR FUCKS SAKE!

 

[the iron horse]

I don't think you even know what your original question was.

I tried to edit my reply.
After a few attempts, I quit.


Take care

 

[Knuckle]

Ever since I was a young child, I remember thinking that God owed us all at least one "revelation" in our lifetime. Since I was taught that my eternal soul depended upon believing in God; and, at the same time, God had created a reasonably intelligent being that would of course doubt what it had no obvious evidence of, how then, I wondered, could I be eternally damned by a loving God for doubting? I thought, if God just gave us one simple revelation of himself during our life and said, "Here I AM, Knuckle. I am who am. It's all true. Well, that's it. Be good now. Or don't. You have free will now don't forget." That would have been enough for me (and just about every human being I expect).

That just seemed fair to me as a child. It still does. But I'm still waiting to be struck off my horse while riding to Damascus. Then I can start my letter writing campaign to the people of Corinth (even though they'll never listen anyway).

 

[the iron horse]

Ever since I was a young child, I remember thinking that God owed us all at least one "revelation" in our lifetime. Since I was taught that my eternal soul depended upon believing in God; and, at the same time, God had created a reasonably intelligent being that would of course doubt what it had no obvious evidence of, how then, I wondered, could I be eternally damned by a loving God for doubting? I thought, if God just gave us one simple revelation of himself during our life and said, "Here I AM, Knuckle. I am who am. It's all true. Well, that's it. Be good now. Or don't. You have free will now don't forget." That would have been enough for me (and just about every human being I expect).

That just seemed fair to me as a child. It still does. But I'm still waiting to be struck off my horse while riding to Damascus. Then I can start my letter writing campaign to the people of Corinth (even though they'll never listen anyway).

The heavens declare the glory of God;
the skies proclaim the work of his hands.

Day after day they pour forth speech;
night after night they display knowledge.

There is no speech or language
where their voice is not heard.

~Psalm 19

 

[Pearl]

Oh, never mind.

 

[melon]

"As the dog returns to his vomit, so the fool repeats his folly." - Proverbs 26:11

 

[A_Wanderer]

The same god that would allow free will, must, by definition allow suffering. Does God rape women?

What do you mean by free will? I'm not sure that we enjoy the sort of free will and moral choice that we generally think we do, our conscious willing may be secondary to deterministic natural processes.

 

[A_Wanderer]

To sum up, it seems to me that the only way a universe free of suffering for us could exist would be if it operated on such a small and limited scale as to be nothing but a little clockwork world with all the rough edges smoothed off. No complex food chains. No conscious agency. I am having trouble imagining it really.

But aren't complex food chains and conscious agency products of natural law; all life is exploiting energy to reverse entropy, and wherever there is an opportunity in the economy of nature it will be filled. It is so much more parsimonious to reject an intelligence behind it in the absence of evidence and necessity.

I mean, for a hypothetical: what's worse, a god that sets everything to unfold as it will, or a god who really is nothing much more than a human-like designer, building a padded treehouse for some happy campers to sit around in like chumps. I know atheists like to think that Christianity means a bearded man in the sky, but I don't think there's a bearded man in the sky, I think there's a cosmos in the sky.

But is this more than deism, is it a spiritual appreciation and wonder towards the laws of nature rather than the acceptance of miracles and special creation?

 

[Kieran McConville]

On all of your counts, A-wanderer, the answer may well be yes. On the cosmic level I do lean toward deism. On the social level Christianity has no business contradicting science, it is a set of teachings concerning how we might live (or not) as human beings.

And, sorry I'm in a hurry here, by 'free will' I don't mean anything like libertarian freedom if that's what you are wondering: I mean simply will informed by consciousness. Which fairly accurately describes the human animal, yes? It doesn't mean we can do whatever we feel like, it means we have conscious agency that goes somewhat beyond the instinctual.

*although, now I'm uncomfortable about what I said in the first paragraph. Religion has no business quibbling scientifically observable reality... on the other hand it may have plenty of business challenging some of the less humane implications which human beings choose to draw from scientific findings. Empiricism is neutral, but politics most assuredly is not.

 

[Kieran McConville]

But aren't complex food chains and conscious agency products of natural law; all life is exploiting energy to reverse entropy, and wherever there is an opportunity in the economy of nature it will be filled. It is so much more parsimonious to reject an intelligence behind it in the absence of evidence and necessity.

I don't actually know what this means. I assume by 'parsimonious' you mean efficient or something. Elegant? Sure, I can't quibble with that. Leaning toward a notion of god is a human choice (and, done thoughtfully, a perfectly honourable one), and no it can't be proved, and no it can't be disproved. That's all these endless atheism vs god threads amount to in the end.