Why Atheism?
« Slim Your Reader, Go on an RSS Diet || 17 Tricks to Reclaim Your Stolen Attention »
“Isn’t it enough to see that a garden is beautiful without having to believe that there are fairies at the bottom of it too.” - Douglas Adams
I’m an atheist. I’d like to tell you why. Most of the arguments for being an atheist point to how it is more scientific or probable. I’m sure you’ve heard those before, so I’m not going to touch them. Instead, I’d like to focus on the reasons atheism can lead to a greater quality of life.
That said, I’m not here to convert anyone, just expose people to different ideas. I’m not on a crusade against religion. I’ve read many different books on various world religions. Even if I disagree with some of the founding points, the exposure to those ideas improved my philosophy towards life.
Common Arguments Against Atheism
I’d like to start by giving my rebuttal to many of the common arguments against atheism. I’m not even going to touch the circular logic of going to Hell or blasphemy. But here are some of the supposedly sensible objections to denying the existence of a god:
Morality
Morality doesn’t need to come from the threat of divine punishment. Religion can do much good, but it can be twisted to do evil as well. I believe ethics come from society. It comes from the basic principles of respecting the rights of others, service and altruism. You don’t need a god to explain morality anymore than you need Zeus to explain lightning bolts.
Afterlife
Another common objection is that in not believing in a god, you believe death creates infinite nothingness. I don’t have space to fully explain different theories on the life and death, but this doesn’t need to be so. Atheism only suggests that death is a current unknown.
Scott Adams suggested another possibility in his book God’s Debris. Your consciousness is based on a pattern stored on neurons in your brain. If this is the case, dying would simply pause the pattern and it would resume sometime in the future. With no delay being seen from the observer this would essentially mean you couldn’t experience death.
I’m not arguing that this theory is the way reality works, just that atheism isn’t surrendering to a nihilistic view of life. Instead, it is opening yourself to many different possibilities.
Meaning
This is an argument I’ve never quite understood. It basically goes that if you don’t believe in God, isn’t life meaningless? I think this is a rather weak argument since it assumes that meaning can’t be self-determined. It also assumes that without an invisible spirit watching you, life doesn’t have a purpose.
I pick a meaning for my life and I believe it is just as satisfying without conjuring a notion of a god. I believe a god can actually become a distraction from meaning since it causes you to focus on a divine overlord instead of what really matters - the other people and beings you share the world with.
Atheism for a Greater Quality of Life
Aside from being an atheist, I’m also a vegetarian. Beyond putting myself in two self-selected minorities, many of the arguments I’ve seen against vegetarianism are similar to those against atheism. A common cited reason people I know don’t want to eat meat is because they enjoy it too much. They don’t want to sacrifice.
This is hard to explain until you’ve tried both sides, but I don’t see avoiding meat as a sacrifice. Instead I see it as an opportunity to live a healthier life, reducing my chances of many chronic diseases and giving me more energy to do what I love. I also see it as removing the environmental and ethical discomfort in supporting an industry with questionable practices.
Similarly, I think a lot of believers don’t rationally believe in a god. But they don’t want to sacrifice the comforting notion that a being greater than themselves is watching down on them and helping them out.
But in focusing on that one benefit, you miss on the potential benefits of not believing in a deity:
- Freedom - The mental freedom to explore your world, learn and challenge your own assumptions. Instead of rejecting evidence that doesn’t fit your notion of a god, you can embrace everything with curiosity.
- Self-Reliance - Temporarily focusing on a god may keep you happy, but what about the long-term? Instead of expecting divine intervention to let everything work out, I focus on my own abilities and reasoning to improve my experience of life.
- Beauty - I believe beauty lies in the unknown. It lies in the things you can’t explain. That is what atheism really means. Instead of resorting to weak explanations of a deity creating the world, you see all the beautiful aspects of nature you currently don’t understand. Why tarnish evidence that the universe is larger and more magnificent than we ever realized by placing an invisible man in front of it?
Pantheism and Rational Spirituality
So far my arguments have been against the traditional notion of a god. That is an invisible, all-powerful being that not only created the universe but also, through conscious force, interrupts the rules of nature, that he himself created, to perform miracles for the benefit of one planet amidst billions of billions of stars.
The alternative to that doesn’t need to be a cold, hyper-rational, if-I-don’t-see-it-it-doesn’t-exist mindset. Pantheism (or as Richard Dawkins refers to it as “sexed up atheism”) is another choice.
Pantheism literally means “God is all.” It is the belief that the universe itself is god. That nature, humanity, science and truth are the reflection of god. In the most basic sense, this isn’t any different from atheism or science. But while atheism emphasizes what the atheist doesn’t believe in, pantheism presents the alternative.
I’m a follower of rational spirituality. Although it may sound like an oxymoron, rational spirituality means that truth, and your understanding of the world, enhance your appreciation of it. Instead of supplementing an unemotional scientific perspective with superstition, you find the emotional beauty in science and reason.
Read a book on evolutionary biology or quantum physics and it you soon realize how mind-blowingly amazing the universe actually is. The wonders of the New Testament, in my opinion, pale in comparison to how evolution works, the possibilities of string theory or quantum entanglement.
Appealing to a Higher Motive
God can serve a purpose in causing us to aspire towards something greater. But I don’t believe a theistic god is the only (or even the best) possibility here either.
Even beyond just appreciating nature and the world for beauty, you need an ideal to strive towards. A motivation that gives your life purpose and your broader actions meaning. An answer to the question, “What does it all mean?”
Finding your higher ideal is an incredibly personal task. It is a task that can’t be delegated or avoided by reading a holy book. I can’t tell you what your higher ideal should be. All I can show you is what mine is.
My higher motive is based on three separate principles:
- Truth - Complete understanding is the first part of my higher ideal. This means that there is intrinsic purpose in seeking the truth. And that faith or any suspension of the rational mind I possess is an inherent evil towards this goal. I don’t believe a lie at the most basic level can ever be superior to what reality actually is.
- Service - The second aspect of my higher ideal is service and morality. This means that there is intrinsic purpose in serving the greatest good and respecting the rights of others. Any act that harms the greatest good or infringes on the personal rights of another conscious being is inherently evil.
- Challenge - The final aspect of my higher ideal is that the pursuit of both truth and service is supposed to be challenging. Pain and struggle are not goals in themselves, but moving through challenges has intrinsic meaning if it moves you to greater truth and service. This means that no matter what happens to myself, there is a meaning in it if I choose to find it.
The two elements of rational spirituality and appealing to a higher motive do a far more elegant job of fulfilling me than adopting a specific religion and worshiping a god. Better yet, my beliefs are self-correcting. By placing the highest emphasis on truth, I am always willing to change my beliefs if evidence shows them to have errors.
Should You Become an Atheist?
I didn’t write this article to convert you. I fully expect not to have converted anyone who was already set in their beliefs. But just as I read religious and spiritual books to enhance my philosophy, hopefully this could do the same for you.
Further Reading for Atheism, Rational Spirituality and Higher Motives
Atheism:
- The God Delusion
- Letter to a Christian Nation
- God is Not Great
- The End of Faith
- The Blind Watchmaker
Science:
Spirituality and Philosophy:
- Buddhism Plain and Simple
- Tao Te Ching
- The Bhagavad Gita
- God’s Debris
- The Courage the Live Consciously (article)
I support this website partially through affiliate arrangements. Any links that are bold are used to show that arrangement (usually for links to Amazon).
Arjun Muralidharan said,
August 21, 2007 at 11:20 am
I’m happy to see you handle the topic with some sense and see the point of having religions as well.
I won’t agree with your beliefs, though, as I’m a devout Hindu. You never asked anyone to agree, of course
Why am I a religious Hindu? I live in Switzerland, hardly have any contact with India except my annual short vacation to Grandma and am a strongly westernized person.
Especially in this scenario, my Religion is a tool that I can use to gain perspective on life.
If I get too confused and overwhelmed with life, I take refuge in my religion, which is defined in a simple sentence:
God is one, the paths are a many. So Hinduism defines itself only by stating that ther *must* be something we can’t control.
Whether you decide to mark it as unknown or inexistent, or you decide to acknowledge it (and in some cases, fear it), it’s just a tool.
It’s a means of explaining things we couldn’t explain back then. Science has progressed os much that people can legitimately begin doubting anything religions say.
So it’s become a choice, because we’ve become smarter than our religions. But choosing to follow the principles laid out in a religion can help - or create havoc, as you say.
Jeff Seely said,
August 21, 2007 at 12:15 pm
Excellent article, Scott.
The single most important step is personal growth for me was becoming an atheist (around the age of 17). Never did I feel so liberated. Religion, for me, severely restricted my worldview(s). It was my biggest roadblock to conscious living.
Another huge step in personal growth occurred a few years later, when I realized I could still benefit from learning about religious/spiritual worldviews. Intellectually, I’m a dyed-in-the-wool atheist, but in terms of how I experience life, I might draw upon a few tips from a book on spirituality. It’s a healthy balance that doesn’t resort to “being so open minded your brains fall out.”
I think atheism can be a great worldview to adopt, even if temporarily just to test it out. For many, the arguments behind the nonexistence of god are too uncomfortable and troublesome that they just ignore them. In my experience, anything that causes cognitive dissonance is a compass telling you where you need to grow intellectually.
For example, Imagine that you are overweight and you refused to look in the mirror because it caused you too much discomfort. That’s not healthy! Although it hurts a bit at first, it’s better for you to stare your fat gut straight in the belly button and accept your 200-pound reality, which will put you in a better position to lose weight (which takes effort, and which is the reason why some people choose to avoid acceptance… they’re lazy).
Likewise, I think it’s a sign of intellectual laziness if you refuse to look at any of the arguments of atheism because they would cause too much cognitive discomfort if you sat down and took them seriously, even for a moment.
Billy Bob the Meat-Eating, Jesus-Loving Stereotype said,
August 21, 2007 at 12:46 pm
Scott, this is all nice and good, but there is a reason why things evolved this way. As you present a case, then I present another one, knowing that none of us will ever know if we are right or not until we die! But I won’t use baseless emotional rebuttals like detractors usually do, I’ll present the HARD evidence that atheists relish. Especially since I love your blog..:)
The concept of God, and our ability to eat meat, has served us well. That’s all there is to it!
We developed our big brains ONLY BECAUSE we ate meat: the other species that could have become “us” died out because it was vegan. So while I appreciate the core essence of veganism and its multiple health effects on the human body, realize that vegetarianism is only a choice that has become popular in the last couple of decades and that being eat-meaters allowed us to be who we are today. It’s a choice that I respect very much.
However, if 40,000 years ago our ancestors had decided to pass on the meat, we wouldn’t be here today. I’m very grateful they didn’t.
Religion has served us VERY well. Whether it’s a delusion, or a space in our brain that makes us think of a higher being, or something we developed to feel safe, it has served its purpose and kept us alive. That’s all the evidence that’s needed! Whethere true or not, who cares?! Why go against EVOLUTION, especially since atheists are so gung-ho on the concept?
FYI, the books you have up there in the Spirituality section talk about GOD all the time! Who do you think the Tao Te Ching refers to when it talks about “The One?” What do you think the Buddhists talk about when they talk about a “state of Being?” Why do they call Prajapati (in the Bhagavad Gita) the “Creator?” Oh, I see. That’s just “spiritual,” while the core tenets of Christianity, Judaism, and Islam are not, right?
Hmmm….
It is a symptom of this society to think that it knows better than the books that have existed for THOUSANDS of years and that have enabled progress. If a book has existed for THOUSANDS of years, and has brought JOY to countless millions, there must be SOME value in that. That’s about enough evidence as there can be. It served it’s purpose, so let it be.
My question to you or anybody else is: Where does the 2.36% of the population that is atheist get their values from? Seriously, I’d like to know.
People like to focus on the negative as an argument against religion (crusades, wars, scandals, etc), as though only negative things happened if religion was present. Striving for such a high goal as the actualization of the human soul is BOUND to have many visible failures. This is a soul we’re talking about! Of course there’s going to be colossal failures!
On the other hand, if people take the New Testament literally, like HALF of the American population (!) there will be problems, because it was never meant to be taken as a literal representation. There are plenty of fruitcakes and radicals our there that can distort ANYTHING.
Furthermore, I will admit there are certain limitations involved in ALL religions (we need rules, don’t we?), but I believe all these all lead to a higher quality of moral life.
In the end, it’s always good to hear multiple POVs, and I’m glad you present them. Be open to them yourself as well, and I’m sure that you will make more and more distinctions as an atheist as you go along. But the fact of the matter is, people who are really religious and spiritual don’t need to prove it to anyone.
Carl Jung, when asked if he believed in God, said “I don’t believe in God. I KNOW.”
MC said,
August 21, 2007 at 3:44 pm
This post isnt “why” your an atheist but a post “why you should” also become an atheist.
Kali said,
August 21, 2007 at 5:23 pm
I went to a Christian high school, so its a relief to see different perspectives. Good job, Scott.
ZHereford said,
August 21, 2007 at 5:40 pm
Very interesting article Scott.
Have you ever read Pierre Tielhard de Chardin’s theory that we are in an evolutionary progression towards greater consciousness culminating in a single or final unity with Divine Consciousness? I find it very compelling. From a purely logical perspective, given that man is unable to affect much on a grand scale, I find it hard to imagine there not being a Higher Intelligence at work.
Oh well, to each his own.
JohnPlace said,
August 21, 2007 at 7:05 pm
A truly excellent article, Scott. I was raised Christian, and I find many of the same comforts within organized religion that can be found within your world view, which is really a key point, I think: the idea that one system of beliefs is not necessarily superior to another, but rather that the important part is what you *do* with what you believe.
Of course, at this point, someone is likely to point out the obvious conflict between the Christian view of salvation and its absence in atheism, but for the record, that’s not really my point, nor would I seek to engage is such circular logic here.
This is one of the most well-reasoned articles on atheism that I’ve ever read, Scott. And every Christian could stand to read it, if for no other reason than to challenge their own pressupositions about what atheism means.
Truthteller said,
August 21, 2007 at 7:27 pm
This was brave of you Scott to take a public stance on your beliefs. As a popular blog writer you run the risk of losing a few viewers. That just shows me that you have as they say ‘the courage of your convictions’.
Although I don’t share your belief, I admire the clarity of your argument.
And likewise, I won’t bother to change your beliefs either!
Eduardo
Scott Young said,
August 21, 2007 at 9:53 pm
Comments, comments oh my!
Honestly, I expected a pretty vocal reaction from this post.
And no, I don’t expect to change your worldview in a 1400 word essay. Either to vegetarianism or atheism. But hopefully it can help you reexamine your own stance on religion and the role it plays in your life.
Billy Bob,
Thanks for the negative feedback. Everyone else was being too damn nice to disagree with me.
Yes it is likely we evolved brains through an omnivorous diet and evolution created a mind tuned to the notion of a God. But eating meat isn’t a necessity (or even a desirable factor) of healthy living, just as worshipping a god isn’t.
To each there own. All I’m glad is that I made you think! (at least enough to retort)
Arjun,
I enjoyed the Bhagavad Gita. There’s a reason I listed it at the end of the article. I don’t believe in Krishna, but many of the concepts still work without a divine spirit. Goalless action, meditating on Brahma (universal perfection) and duty are all useful ideas.
I didn’t add the New Testament to the bottom because I haven’t had a chance to read it. But I expect there will be similar metaphorical goodies even if I don’t subscribe to the literal interpretation.
JohnPlace said,
August 21, 2007 at 11:08 pm
Per your last comment, Scott, do read the New Testament. It won’t take you very long and it contains some truly golden life lessons, whether you’re a Christian or not, similar in effect to some of the other books mentioned.
Andre du Plessis said,
August 22, 2007 at 5:41 am
Some brilliant books you mentioned there. Nice post.
Took a bit of a “leap of faith” there if you’ll excuse the pun.
Andrew Ruban said,
August 22, 2007 at 10:27 pm
Dear Scott,
Similarly to what others have already commented, I admire your well argued and generally respectful article. It’s a real treat for me to be able to have witness such an open and respectful dialogue between bloggers from different belief groups.
I was raised in a christian house-hold and appreciate so many of the values and morals that christianity has to offer.
I can’t even begin to explain the number of times that religion has opened my eyes to truths and ideas unheard of in our secular world.
There were times of strong trouble, joy, worry, happiness, isolation or even during the “normal” times that having a simple conversation with God is simply the greatest gift.
I openly recognize and apologize for the Church’s faults and hypocrisy. I especially symapthize with people who have had certain religions imposed on them since birth.
That is why, I must thank Jeff Seely who has made me realize that I might in fact be too afraid to ever truly let go of religion and what I have learned to love from it.
Scott Young said,
August 22, 2007 at 10:35 pm
Great to hear from you again, Andrew!
Take the good and leave the bad. That has been my approach to looking at the teachings of everyone. Here, bad being anything that doesn’t match up with your reasoning and personal experience. I would say that 90% of most religions I can see as useful, depending on how you view the information.
I suppose the same would be true for people of other faiths viewing my words.
-Scott
beajerry said,
August 24, 2007 at 11:32 pm
Well written and succinct.
AL said,
August 26, 2007 at 1:51 pm
There was a professor who taught at a university. He was a brilliant man and highly regarded as the foremost world expert in his field of study. Every student was required to pass his class in order to graduate from the university. At the beginning of the semester the professor handed out his requirements for passing and the textbook he wrote. He said he wanted all the students to pass and they easily could if they followed his guidance.
He showed that he wanted all to pass by having open discussion during his lectures, staying late to answer questions, and even meeting with students on the weekend when they wanted to understand the material better. He always had time for students who wanted help.
Some students tried to meet the requirements with their own experience by researching other books, articles, and even asking questions of professors who didn’t know the material. At the end of the class these students understood some basic concepts but did not meet the requirements and failed the class. Other students thought the requirements were unfair and tried to get the professor to change them. The students even held public discussions on what could be done about the requirements they didn’t like. The professor didn’t change the requirements and these students also failed. Other students studied the material, asked the professor questions, and sought him out for guidance regarding the subject matter. These students found they easily passed the class, like the professor said, because they simply following his guidance.
The God of Christianity has laid out the requirements for life and given us a textbook (the Bible) for guidance. He is always available for questions and wants everyone to “pass”. We may live a good life, which is noble, but that doesn’t fulfill the requirements God has. Reading other books and seeking other spiritual (or non spiritual) resources for guidance will always cause us to fall short because these other sources don’t have the wisdom of the “expert” (God) and it is his “class” we have to pass. Disagreeing with what God requires of us may seem freeing because we don’t have to follow His rules, but it doesn’t change what he requires. It is easier to do what He asks and seek to understand than to fight against the requirements that aren’t even difficult.
No one would think it unfair if a professor conducted his class like the one described above. In fact, most would applaud him for such dedication to his students. But a loving and caring God acting in a similar manner is seen by some as an overlord and uncaring because he doesn’t bend the rules. I encourage people to use the same logic in all areas of life.
The book Mere Christianity by C.S. Lewis goes in great detail about the logic in following the Christian God. If you really are seeking truth, I encourage you to read it.
The Bible says “You will seek me and find me when you seek me with all your heart.” – Jeremiah 29:13
Scott Young said,
August 26, 2007 at 2:27 pm
AL,
The problem with the logic is that it is circular. You rest your metaphor on the assumption that God exists. Since I don’t subscribe to that assumption (and reason causes me to heavily doubt it), the rest of the argument falls apart.
What if the actual God is Shiva? Would you then not be learning from the wrong book? What if the actual God was Satan and this is all an elaborate illusion to deceive you before you experience a life of torment? What if he was a Giant Robot who preferred we use our logic, and liked people to doubt it’s existence.
Personally I think all those examples are ridiculous. But I think a Christian God is equally ridiculous, just as I don’t believe in Santa or the Easter Bunny. You can’t use the Bible to (rationally) defend the Bible.
If you want to believe in a God, I prefer emotional arguments, since they are the ones you truly care about. I made my emotional arguments for atheism above. They are the only ones worth debating because any rational arguments for theism are horribly weak and circuitous at best.
Dave Nelson said,
August 29, 2007 at 4:18 am
I will be finishing reading the God Delusion later tonight which has been a very interesting read. I was atheist prior to picking the book up but it’s true that being atheist doesn’t necessarily close your mind to the possibility of life having purpose or meaning but for me it just removes supernatural interference from that equation. Who’s to say that life doesn’t continue in a parallel universe or another cycle of life, these things are not scientifically proven or disqualified but accepting that anything is possible allows you to change your philosophy of life to something that is more fitting for you. For me the concept of heaven in the traditional sense is just too much like fantasy, I feel that atheism is growing more common, certainly in the UK where I live and it would be nice to believe that this is a consequence of society as a whole growing up through scientific understanding and starting to put away childish ideals. As you say it’s not your intention to convert people and I don’t believe that this is even possible, everyone can only find these answer in yourself, but in the face of the growing power of religious zealots it’s important that atheist like ourselves band together to stand up for what we believe in and provide those stuck in a religion a way out to free their own minds if they need to.
ryan said,
August 29, 2007 at 4:04 pm
Thank you Scott. I have been contemplating on whether or not to just turn atheist. I still do not know but your article has given me a nice view of things. I am only 16 and i think god is just an illusion people believe in to make them feel better and give them hope, but if you really think about it has god ever done anything to help you that you didn’t do on your own.
Scott Young said,
August 29, 2007 at 4:23 pm
Ryan,
Atheism isn’t an answer. It just accepts that God isn’t the right one. I suggest doing what I did and reading many different philosophies until you can distill what makes sense to you. I’ve found Buddhism and other Eastern philosophies (stripped of superstitions) to be useful. As well as other traditionally Western philosophies practical.
You may never reach a final answer, but going iterations to distill ever better ones has always been my goal.
-Scott
max night said,
August 31, 2007 at 9:45 am
I dont concern myself with the concept of god or other spiritual standpoints. I live the way I want to live. whatever happens when we die we’ll just have to grin and bare.
Paul Pop said,
September 4, 2007 at 12:15 am
@AL
When reading your post, I was thinking to myself about how much of an asshole the teacher sounded like. Being an atheist, I was quite amused that that was an argument for god.
You have to change your story a bit to mirror reality… here we go:
At a university, a student prints out copies of class requirements for a class at the school and distributes them to the other students… saying that they all must pass to graduate. The only problem is that professor is no where to be found and after searching through every single room in the college, there is no classroom… the only connection they have with him is through this one student. All logic points to no such class… However, many of the students, paranoid over failing, follow the requirements anyway. Because the requirements are quite limiting and other are arguable, a handful of students choose to follow their own path… Right before graduation… the school loses power… None of the underclassmen can see a thing… But when the lights come up… all the seniors are gone… Who graduated? No one knows…
I am still missing a whole bunch, but that is a wee bit better if I say so myself.
Cheers,
Paul Pop
Paul Pop said,
September 4, 2007 at 12:20 am
Ouch… I should have reread that before posting. Please ignore my numerous errors.
Gideon said,
September 4, 2007 at 2:53 pm
I think it’s fine and dandy to be an atheist. I’ve actually written a defense of it myself.
And I also think you wrote a nice description, yourself.
But I think you need to find better atheist writers. You do yourself a disservice if they are at the top of your list. Harris is an absolute hack, and Hitchens on this particular issue is just shrill. This is not to say there are not legitimate, and not that they do not bring them up, critiques of religion. But they are not doing anything new, creative or even in many ways - correct. Dawkins is a bit tiring as well - I rather like many of his books. But the God Delusion is just… well, he needs to stick to his field. It’s almost all bad straw man arguments and gross generalizations.
If you’d like to read some good texts on atheism, I suggest the Cambridge Companion to Atheism which I have sitting right next to me (I needed it to slap around Harris in a presentation I did last week, he quoted quite a few “facts” largely out of context in “Letter to a Christian Nation.”)
Personally, I’m a panentheist in a large sense, a deist in some sense, an existential humanist in many senses, a Buddhist in much of my outlook, and a liberal Jew in another. That being said, my girlfriend and some of my best friends are atheists. So don’t mistake this for bashing atheism.
I don’t have a problem with atheism. I have a problem with poorly written polemics that anyone educated with a decent degree of religious studies, theology or philosophy of religion would tear down quite quickly. It’s fine and dandy to blame everything on religion, except that the most horrible atrocities of all time have all been created by “non-religious” institutions - Communists, Fascists, etc. Harris claims they were not rational, but.. so what? Since when are human beings, especially in large numbers, rational? Is that even possible? At one point Harris says “I know of no society in human history that ever suffered because its people became too desirous of evidence in support of their core beliefs.” He may as well of added “or any at all.”
Personally, I’m rather fond of the UK’s chief rabbi’s, Jonathan Sacks, response to Dawkins:
“I only wish I had as much faith as the learned professor. It would be nice to believe that if you cured people of believing in God, you would thereby have cured them of hate, violence, anger, injustice, cruelty and the urge to control, exploit, dominate and oppress.
Nothing in history suggests such a thing. On the contrary, if people do not commit evil in the name of God they have never been short of other reasons to do so: race, the war of classes, the political system, the march of progress, the Darwinian struggle to survive.”
The books have problems. Big problems. These guys are the Pat Robertson’s of atheism. I’m sure you can do better.
s427 said,
September 7, 2007 at 10:52 am
@Scott:
Agnosticism is another interesting standpoint. Philosopher Bertrand Russell wrote an interesting essay defining it :
http://humanum.arts.cuhk.edu.hk/humftp/E-text/Russell/agnostic.htm
Freely available online and very worth reading.
@Billy Bob the Meat-Eating, Jesus-Loving Stereotype:
It seems to me that by trying to use evolution as a proof for the necessity of believing in God, you simply miss the whole point in evolution : change. Assuming that religion did serve some purpose in the history of mankind does not mean that it will always be a necessity. The fact that a children book does serve some purpose in the history of one person does not mean that this book will always be necessary to the development of this person. The child grows up and becomes an adult, and he starts to read adult books.
Considering the whole history of ideas throughout mankind’s history, it seems striking to me that all great ideologies (myths, religions, philosophy, pseudo-sciences, science) serve one big purpose : they try to explain the world we live in. And, well, with all due respect to our ancestors, we have to admit that in the beginning they did not have much clues. Their consciousness slowly emerging in a world full of mysteries and dangers, they had no choice but to begin the long process of exploring and understanding everything they saw around them. So they forged myths, explaining where the world came from and why it was here. Not surprisingly, their myths reflected mostly what they knew : every man has a father, so the world must have a father too ! Let’s call him God ! This wasn’t much of an explanation (does this father have a father too ?), but it was reassuring and allowed mankind to focus on other issues. “Why is it raining today ? - Ah, this is because God is angry.”
Soon these myths took a more structured shape. They were enhanced with rules, rituals, hierarchies and so on. Religions were born. They greatly helped to structure mankind’s emerging societies (and gave them reasons to expand, conquer and destroy societies that did not share the same set of beliefs). But when it came to really understand how things work, religions were not that convincing. So some people began to try to think by themselves. Philosophy was born, giving mankind some new tools, which allowed for a better thinking : reason, logic, mathematics, and so on. Of these tools, science was born. And science discovered why it is actually raining today. It’s not an easy question, but we can safely say that God is not needed to answer it.
So yes, ideas evolve, and sometimes they die. Mankind’s way of thinking evolves. IMO, religions and myths were not much more than drafts, or placeholders waiting for better explanations. And the fact that all “great books” about god(s) are very ancient is merely an indication that they were created for the same purpose : helping mankind to learn to walk.
As for the question of where atheists get their values from, I suggest you read Russell’s essay I mentioned above (you can read it online, just follow the link). And please consider this : throughout history (and today is no exception), religions have been used to justify love as much as hate, war, torture and persecutions. So if the Bible itself allows such a wide range of contradictory interpretations, where do YOU find the values to choose one interpretation rather than another ? Well, this may shock you, but I think that the answer is : not in the Bible. You find them in life. In education, in society, and in yourself.
To me it is perfectly clear that religions are merely an excuse for justifying actions (good or bad) that probably would have taken place even if religions did not exist. The fact is, mankind is a social species. We need one another to live, and we develop rules to help us living in society. It can take the form of religion or it can take other forms : human rights, laic laws, philosophy, common wisdom, and so on.
The necessity to have moral values is inherent to society (or human nature if you prefer). Religions simply reflect this fact.
Scott Young said,
September 7, 2007 at 2:17 pm
s437,
Great comment, I couldn’t have said it better myself. Despite my defense of atheism I’m not hostile towards religion or theism specifically. I’m mostly trying to present an alternative viewpoint.
-Scott
caffryne said,
September 12, 2007 at 6:09 am
have you considered that God doesn’t believe in atheists?
Jim said,
September 13, 2007 at 10:23 pm
It’s astounding to how poorly people can write about the philosophical underpinnings of atheism. You’re largely regurgitating the baseline cultural prejudices of the world within which you live. You are as blind to your own assumptions as medieval Catholic priest.
You’ve got a morality to guide and you blithely dismiss the need for a god to justify it. But you refuse to scratch any further to figure out where it comes from. Did your beliefs just come to you? Why would your ‘morality’ hold any more weight than one which favored slaughtering or enslaving unbelievers? Because yours is better? Or because yours ‘respects the rights of others’? Your so called morality is merely the reflection of the society within which you live.
At the same time, the appeal rationality is well and good, but it is only good for what its good for. If we assume that the universe is fundamentally knowable, the combination of the human senses and rationality are the key to this understanding, and that nothing of consequence can exist beyond that which is understandable. Implicit in that belief is the arrogance that human intelligence is unique.
The danger of skepticism is not the faith that it destroys, but rather the faith that it creates.
Scott Young said,
September 14, 2007 at 6:08 am
Jim,
Good points. I’m aware that morality is largely culturally relative. Although I believe there may be some basis for broad concepts of morality hardwired into us (selfish altruism), moral philosophy is far from an exact science.
The universe may not be fundamentally knowable. But you can’t use that as an argument to believe in a God. An unknowable universe doesn’t raise the likelihood that a God exists.
I’m tired of battling arguments where people use philosophical hand-waving to say how you can really believe anything. This may be true, but to go backwards and then justify a belief in a deity after the hand-waving is nothing short of hypocritical.
My arguments aren’t that Atheism is the only solution and God definitely does not exist. I would be a fool if I thought I could prove that. I am merely proposing that there are many different possibilities which may be more likely from a rational perspective and are not spiritually empty.
Kevie said,
September 26, 2007 at 2:28 am
I’m a pantheist, and I always figured I had more in common with Christians than athiests, since Christians at least believe in something. Actually I kind of admire Christians because unlike me they have the courage to pick a team to root for and stick with it.
Frankly I’ve never understood atheism. It strikes me like someone who’s never had an orgasm and figures that orgasms must be some kind of mass delusion. I also think that people are going to be equally screwed up whether or not they continue praying to something imaginary. Human nature being what it is, if atheism were to suddenly sweep the nation it would just turn into another religion with Richard Dawkins as its prophet.
So now I read your blog post and I find out that I’m athiest too? Damn you, you blindsided me!
Scott Young said,
September 26, 2007 at 5:29 am
Kevie,
That was exactly my point. That Atheism doesn’t have to be an emotional vacuum, and that pantheism and rational spirituality are nice complements.
I don’t really consider it to be a virtue to “have the courage to pick a team to root for and stick with it.” This smells more of intellectual and philosophical cowardice and conformity than courage. That said if you thoroughly review all the evidence/thought and decide Christianity is correct, then I can respect your philosophical journey, even if I may disagree with the result.
Kevie said,
September 27, 2007 at 11:38 pm
So much for my attempt at a funny line.
As far as “thoroughly reviewing all the evidence/thought and deciding Christianity is correct”, what am I, buying a car?
Scott Young said,
September 28, 2007 at 7:09 am
Kevie,
I got your humor, I just wanted to reinforce my less-funny point.
And I’d think that buying into a philosophical system is a little more important than buying a car… maybe that’s just me…
-Scott
Kevie said,
October 2, 2007 at 2:02 am
It is more important, but I can’t imagine anyone who’d give themselves over to a religious or mystical point of view through an intellectual process like you describe. The only good reason to adopt a religion is that you fall madly in love with it!
dominick avellino said,
October 2, 2007 at 7:43 pm
god and religion to me is a uncareing way of turning over to a beleif ,what is my ever changing connection to myself and all things.i am to expansive to hold on to a beleif or a god with rules and demands. the whole idea of religion and god is an unwillingness to question anything. I don`t know is an amazingly expansive place. I know is very small
Reality Handbook said,
October 4, 2007 at 2:07 pm
I agree with most everything in your post. But I also think that you’re not accurately reflecting the views of most atheists. For instance, you say that:
“Atheism only suggests that death is a current unknown.”
I don’t think that’s representative. Atheists as a culture are very tied in with a materialist/functional interpretation of the brain, and the belief that when those cells die then existence ends. (Though Dawkins gave a great speech called “Queerer than we can suppose”, which if he had that kind of attitude more of the time I might give him the benefit of the doubt.)
My bias is to call myself a “scientist”. I like the word, I like the methodology, and it seems like a better way to say that you want to see the models of the universe go through an iterative process by which they are continually improving… rather than make some foregone conclusion about areas currently unknown. “Atheist” doesn’t mean that; note that if you declare yourself an atheist and then overwhelming evidence of God arises, you’d have to change your affiliation. A scientist wouldn’t have to (though you can always admit surprise at an experimental result…)
But a lot of atheists call themselves scientists, which bugs me only if they stop being scientific! You point out that as string theory and the mysterious mechanics of the universe are unveiled, we can be astounded by what emerges. Yet what happens when those findings start to validate aspects of theories that have been derided by anti-”mysticism” movements? I’ve written this argument up elsewhere…
Llewellyn said,
October 6, 2007 at 12:38 pm
I feel that to be truly rational about God or lack of a God, the simplest and most honest view would be simply ” I do not and cannot know if there is a God or not.”
By definition, if a Designer exists He or She is probably beyond our ability to measure.
Also, just because you can have a moral sense and succeed in life seemingly without God does not mean there is no Designer. This is like expecting the designer of a car to personally fix every defective model that comes off the production line. One would expect a very good designer to enable the car to run well without necessarily needing his personal intervention.
My feeling is that atheism is a belief, like all religions. One cannot know or prove an argument for or against, as your original assumptions to prove or disprove your argument may be wrong in the first place.
Sam_Zen said,
October 11, 2007 at 4:49 pm
Religious people have the tendency to stick labels, good, bad, heaven, hell etc.
And so the term atheist is a name religious people give to a non-believer.
So I don’t call myself an atheist, agnost or whatever.
I’m very lucky that as a child I was never indoctrinated according to some church.
Neither that I was pushed by my parents or teachers to be an atheist.
And it certainly increased my quality of life. I cherish my mental freedom.
So I repect other peoples thought too. (But this respect is almost always a one-way-traffic)
I’m fully responsible for my own deeds, instead of hiding behind some doctrine, that tells you what to do.
I’ve found my own rules of civilised behaviour, I don’t need some list of commandments for that.
And I’m glad we’re in this century now, instead of a few ago, because then some writers here certainly would have been arrested by the Inquisition and burned on a pile.
At this moment there are big global tensions between religions, and the atheist are the victims in between.
Like a jungle village Hollandita in Colombia, in the middle of a civil war. They try to stay neutral and peaceful, but then get shot by all parties involved, the paramilitary, the army and the guerilla.
winyourmind.com » Blog Archive » Share Your RSS said,
October 15, 2007 at 3:42 am
[…] H Young If you want to know why I read Scott’s blog, check out the article Why Atheism. I don’t consider myself an atheist, but Scott demonstrates his willingness to be open, and a […]
Jason Smith said,
October 15, 2007 at 10:35 am
I think you are probily the most rational atheist I have ever heard. You make positive and compelling arguments against the existance of a higher deity. I don’t agree with your point of veiw but that is ok to. You are and exceptionally educated and wise person with all the earthly wisdom of the many greek philosiphers. If everybody were as smart as you there would be no need for religion. Christianity is not for the wise and your self-righteousness would definately hinder your ability to fully understand the need to believe in a higher deity or to fully take advantage of what my God has to offer. God bless you sir and I will be praying for you and your wisdom. Think about this if I am wrong then so what I rotting in a hole for all eternity but I you are wrong you spend all eternity in hell as well as anybody foolish enough to join you. By the use of the internet you will be responsable for the souls of thousands.
Jason
Jode said,
October 17, 2007 at 1:47 pm
I am an atheist with a large number of religious friends, and I have often had to deal with several of the issues that have surfaced in this discussion.
First, I do not think one can ‘decide’ to be an atheist. If you Believe, then you Believe and the best you could attain is pretending to be an atheist. If you do not Believe, then you can attend as many services as you like but you won’t truly be a member of whatever religion you are practicing. Many theists with the best of intentions have come to me to ask what changed my mind, and how they could convince me to “come back.” The truth is simply that when I searched deep inside of me, I discovered I don’t Believe. This is an issue that I cannot change my mind about. I cannot decide to Believe any more than a theist can decide to stop Believing.
Second, just because Richard Dawkins of the world are famous, that doesn’t make them the representative atheist. Several of the authors are what I refer to as “angry atheists,” and in a sense they have turned atheism into a religion by ‘evangelizing’ their own beliefs. Not only do I believe that this is pointless (see above), but I see no reason to try to erode theist’s beliefs. Simply stated, you don’t often hear from us (atheists such as Scott and myself) because we just aren’t as noisy as the angry atheists.
Third, you don’t have to be religious to be a good person. Many religious people came to understand their value system and morality through their church, so it seems they have a hard time imagining how an atheist might come to be a good person without this influence. Scott touched on this, and I agree. The value system and morality has more to do with the community you were raised in and the self-awareness that you have attained as an adult than it does in a book. As for those who are concerned for my soul (such as Jason), I will live my life as a good person, and should I be wrong, hope this is good enough for whomever is making the decisions.
Jode
Scott Young said,
October 18, 2007 at 5:25 am
Jode,
Better said than I could. I completely agree.
-Scott
STeve Cornell said,
October 21, 2007 at 7:10 pm
Eight reasons I am not an atheist
1. An atheist assigns himself to life without ultimate purpose. Yes, atheists enjoy many smaller meanings of life– like friendship and love, pleasure and sorrow, Mozart and Plato. But to be consistent with his atheism, he cannot allow for ultimate meaning. Yet, if the atheist is honest, he will admit to feeling that there is something more to existence -something bigger. Someone said, “The blazing evidence for immortality is our dissatisfaction with any other solution.” According to Scripture, God has, “set eternity in the hearts of men” (Ecclesiastes 3:11). To maintain his position, the atheist must suppress the feeling that there is more to life than what is temporal. But the atheist encounters many other difficulties.
2. The atheist must also suppress the demands of logic. He is like the man who finds an encyclopedia lying in the woods and refuses to believe it is the product of intelligent design. Everything about the book suggests intelligent cause. But, if he accepted such a possibility, he might be forced to conclude that living creatures composed of millions of DNA-controlled cells (each cell containing the amount of information in an encyclopedia) have an intelligent cause. His controlling bias against God will not allow him to accept this.
3. Yet, ironically, the atheist has to believe in miracles without believing in God. Why? Well, one law that nature seems to obey is this: whatever begins to exist is caused to exist. The atheist knows that the universe began to exist and since the universe is, according to the atheist, all there is, the very existence of the universe seems to be a colossal violation of the laws of nature (i.e., a miracle). It’s hard to believe in miracles without God.
4. An atheist must also suppress all notions of morality. He is not able to declare any quality to be morally superior to another. Such admissions require an absolute standard of goodness and duty. Without this, there is no basis for an atheist to declare peace better than war or love better than hate. These are simply alternative choices without moral superiority. The atheist is stuck believing that morality has no claim on you or anyone else.
5. In fact, the atheist must conclude that evil is an illusion. For there to be evil, there must also be some real, objective standard of right and wrong. But if the physical universe is all there is, there can be no such standard (How could arrangements of matter and energy make judgments about good and evil true?). So, there are no real evils, just violations of human customs or conventions. How hard it would be to think of murderers as merely having bad manners.
6. The atheist must also live with the arrogance of his position. Although he realizes that he does not possess total knowledge, his assertion that there is no God requires that he pretend such knowledge. Although he has limited experience, he must convince himself that he has total experience so that he can eliminate the possibility of God. It is not easy to hold the arrogant assertions required by atheism in a society that requires blind tolerance of every ideology.
7. The atheist must also deny the validity of historical proof. If he accepted the standard rules for testing the truth claims of historical documents, he would be forced to accept the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead. The account of Jesus’ resurrection is strongly validated by standard rules for judging historical accuracy. The extensive manuscript evidence of eyewitnesses to the resurrection is presented in an unbiased, authentic manner. It is the atheist’s anti-supernatural bias that keeps him from allowing history to prove anything.
8. Finally, the atheist must admit that human beings are not importantly different from other animals. According to the atheist, we are simply the result of blind chance operating on the primordial ooze, and differing from animals by only a few genes. Yet, the wonders of human achievement and the moral dignity we ascribe to human beings just do not fit with the claim that we are no different than the animals. The realities of human creativity, love, reason, and moral value seem to indicate that humans are creatures uniquely made in the image of God.
The atheist’s problem with belief in God is not the absence of evidence but the suppression of it. This is what scripture teaches. “For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities–his eternal power and divine nature–have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse. For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools” (Romans 1:20-22).
Steven W. Cornell,
http://thinkpoint.wordpress.com/2007/04/02/harris-and-dawkins-promote-atheism/
Scott Young said,
October 22, 2007 at 5:25 am
Steven,
As the atheist you describe, you get a lot wrong when trying to claim what I believe. The majority of the beliefs you ascribe towards me are false and the ones I’d agree with, I would put a different emphasis than you.
But I suppose I have probably made some incorrect assumptions in my views of theists, so I’ll forgive errors made misunderstanding what I believe.
-Scott
eigode » Scott Youngのサイトはハウツーもののコンテンツが豊富 said,
October 24, 2007 at 10:38 pm
[…] Why Atheism? […]
Chris Jones said,
October 29, 2007 at 10:39 am
I was just wondering how you explained away the kalam cosmological argument which is:
1. Everything that began to exist has a cause.
2. The universe began to exist.
3. Therefore there must be an uncaused cause of the universe: namely God.
First, it is easy to show that everything that began to exist has a cause. That is a basic fact. The only way to disprove this would be to find something that began to exist that doesn’t have any cause for it.
Second, it is also easy to show that the universe had a beginning. And the reason that the universe must have a beginning is that it is bound by the laws of time. And it is impossible to traverse and infinite anything.
To demonstrate this let us imagine that you have an infinite number of tiles and they are all laid out in a line, stretching infinitely in either direction. The question is how would you start at the beginning and arrive on the tile that you are on today? The beginning is infinitely in the past and thus the beginning is an infinite distance from today and if you started at the beginning each tile you crossed wouldn’t bring you any closer to today. Today would just be infinity plus one farther away from you, which is still infinity. And so it is impossible and illogical for the universe to not have began to exist.
Because of this there must be something (God, whatever your definition of Him is) that exists outside of the bounds of time and outside of the bounds of anything finite. And there is another conclusion that we can draw from this. If God is the cause of the universe, the reason that He created it would have to be a personal reason. Since there can only be two ways to explain an event: scientifically and personally, and science can’t offer an explanation since the beginning of the universe was “nothing,” the only option left is to give a personal explanation.
I would just like to know what you think of this. And if I have made any mistakes in my reasoning process, please point them out to me, and show me the specific points that you disagree with. I know that you said that you weren’t trying to change anyone’s beliefs, but I am trying to change yours. Because I like a lot of what you have written and I think that you have some very good insight into a lot of these subjects, but I don’t see how you can believe something that is as completely illogical as this is.
Also do you not believe in “god” because of how other people define him and thus your perception of him is based on their definitions? Or do you just not believe in any “god” no matter how he’s defined?
Scott Young said,
October 30, 2007 at 6:05 am
Chris,
1) That assumes that the Universe had a beginning. Our notion of time is so fixed, that perhaps at a grander scale “beginning” becomes more relative.
2) It is entirely based on how you define “God.” For my arguments I define him as:
A sentient entity that is:
a) Omnipotent
b) Creator of the Universe but has the ability to interfere in the Universe at any time
If you define the word “God” as my friend Steve, of course I’d believe he exists.
Chris Jones said,
October 31, 2007 at 8:00 am
In answer to the first point. Is not “time” just a measurement of change? And since you cannot traverse an infinite number of steps or changes, can we not safely make the conclusion that you have to find something that is not bound by the laws of anything finite (i.e. time) for the cause of everything finite (i.e. time and the universe)?
And if we make the assumption that maybe we don’t understand the concept of time fully, is that not just grasping at straws, for which there is no proof or evidence to even suggest such a conclusion? Are you actually willing to change your views when presented with undeniable evidence for the existence of “God” (i.e. someone who exists outside of the bounds of time and anything finite, and was the cause for the universe, time, and everything else finite)? Or will you continue to grasp at straws? A crazy person can claim that nobody else understands things as perfectly as he does and thus that is why they don’t perceive the world as he does.
Well as I didn’t want to end on a negative note, I want to commend you on your choice to be a vegetarian/vegan. If you look at scientific studies on meat, you will find that meat isn’t healthy and has no benefits for the human body that can’t be received from eating fruits, vegetables, and grains.
Scott Young said,
November 1, 2007 at 5:30 am
Chris,
Then what created God?
The problem isn’t with whether a God exists or doesn’t exist. The problem is believing that somehow answers the question of the universe.
-Scott
Chris Jones said,
November 1, 2007 at 9:04 am
Scott,
God by definition wasn’t created. He is the uncaused cause of everything.
And it does answer the question of the universe. Now other “answer” or “supposition” gives as complete a description of how the universe came into existence and fits the evidence as that God created it.
Also if we come down to the end of life and we find out that you are right, I have lost nothing and also gained nothing, whatever was going to happen to you also happens to me. But if however we find out that I am right I will have gained everything and lost nothing, but you will have gained nothing and lost everything. Your views require nothing, while mine just require belief and make your life better for the lifestyle that it promotes.
And if you believe that your views are correct beyond a reasonable doubt, why not just commit suicide (not that I’m suggesting you do that)? You will reach your “higher” state that much sooner. Is that not correct?
Here is more information on the wager:
http://www.joneschris.com/reasons-i-believe-in-god-no-1-pascals-wager
~Chris
Scott Young said,
November 2, 2007 at 6:54 am
Chris,
Saying God is defined as being without cause is just a cheat. If creationists believe it is too improbably that all the myriad of life arose out of random chance, then it is infinitely less probable that God as conventional theism defines it was created.
And where do I believe that after this life we reach a “higher” state? I don’t remember writing that, perhaps you could point me to it.
I’m fully aware of Pascals Wager. That’s exactly the kind of thinking I fight against. Putting fear above truth. In my mind, that is the only way to guarantee you’ve lost whatever “soul” you might have.
Chris Jones said,
November 2, 2007 at 8:47 am
Scott,
Saying God is defined as being without cause isn’t cheating. It’s the only logical explanation. God by definition is self-existing, and exists outside of the bounds of time and natural laws, because He created these things. We don’t live outside of the bounds of time, otherwise we would be able to go back and forth in time to any point that we wanted to. But we cannot do this and thus there must necessarily be someone who can because nobody can traverse an infinite amount of anything, time included. The rest of the thought you are absolutely correct on…God would be infinitely more improbable to happen as life just spontaneously happening.
I’m sorry I didn’t bother to go back and check that…you didn’t say that we would reach a “higher” state. But you did say that maybe we wouldn’t experience death at all. And I guess my point is if you aren’t going to experience it, why not just “kill” yourself and thus get that event out of the way, because you’ll get wherever you’re going that much faster.
Also Pascal’s Wager isn’t putting fear above truth. First of all, there is abundant evidence for God in science, life, knowledge, etc. And second, it’s just illogical not to bet on something (i.e. eternal life) when you have no chance of losing if you do bet and a chance of losing everything if you don’t.
You also have to argue against the law of biogenesis, among a myriad of other proofs, which hasn’t yet in any circumstance been shown to have any exceptions.
Evan said,
November 7, 2007 at 9:35 pm
Hey, very diplomatic article about atheism. I can tell you do value relationships.
I was born into a Christian family and raised that way, now, after a good savage beating from the world and its editorial pages, I think I’m mostly just confused. There’s too many viewpoints out there to process, and I can’t pretend to have any defensible basis for picking one (can’t argue, see below), so I prefer to default to the one I was raised to believe.
Life has taught me that expressing a worldview will just cause people to argue with me, which I’m no good at; don’t have the will for it, so I give up on it. I never could do evangelism. First I couldn’t find a way to convince anybody else, after all that I can’t find a way to convince myself in the face of constant opposition to that belief.
I still call myself Christian and I’d like to be one, more than any other worldview - in fact, I feel there’s sort of an immovable part of me that’d nag me about going to hell if I ever became an atheist. (I’m a bit like Charlie Brown or George Costanza that way.) But I think I’ve learned that Christianity is entirely unarguable on anything but its own terms - not sure if that’s a good argument for faith or not - so there’s no way to justify that belief on the planet I’m placed on, other than it’s my identity by birth, so might as well carry that forward. I can’t take the atheist gambit, because honestly, I don’t have enough confidence that I’d be right. So I just default.
On bad days, I think I believe that I’ll be confused about this until I die, at which point I’ll go to hell for not believing.
Chris Jones » Reasons I Believe in God, No. 5 - The Teleological Argument said,
November 11, 2007 at 12:20 am
[…] comment on a blog post that a person wrote on why they believe in atheism, which you can check out here (I’ve written some comments on it too, if you would like to read those*). Anyway in one part […]
Journey to Financial Freedom » Why do you believe in God ? said,
November 24, 2007 at 10:26 pm
[…] this post I was totally inspired by Scott H Young, and he’s writting Why Atheism ?, I agree with him in all the mostly important things that he says about this topic, even the one […]
Boss said,
November 25, 2007 at 5:41 pm
“Atheism for a Greater Quality of Life” just made me laugh.
God bless
Tuffy said,
November 25, 2007 at 9:57 pm
Scott,
50% chance you are right and 50% chance you are wrong, you get nothing either way.(after this life)
A believer wins regardless and I am a believer Thank you God.
Scott Young said,
November 26, 2007 at 6:51 am
Tuffy,
You’re paraphrasing Pascal’s Wager. The problem is that it ignores all the other possibilities. (Such as a God that approves of skeptics over believers)
Pascal’s Wager screams against every rational thought in my head and appears to be nothing more than intellectual cowardice.
-Scott
Boss said,
November 26, 2007 at 10:54 pm
a spiritual man must put faith above his intelligence to comprehend it
Sarah Joyner said,
December 6, 2007 at 10:32 am
Scott,
This might sound a little crazy, but hear me out. I have a challenge for you: study the body. I mean, completely study the body in depth. Study each body system, especially the nervous system. Study this with the amount of energy you use to fight against the being of God. If you already have a good understanding of the body and its functions, i encourage you to look at it again. In our body, in a normal body, EVERYTHING works together and works together for the good of itself. Our body is so amazing. Our brain, our liver, our muscles. There is no way that you can study the body without believing in some “higher power”. Personal testimony: I felt like you when i was younger, but became a believer while taking two Human Anatomy and Physiology classes in college. Read the personal testimony of the “Growing Pains” actor, Kirk Cameron. He was also complete Atheist but started going to church and completely found God. It is remarkable. Well, Scott, I urge you to atleast take me up on my challege. If you do it and still feel have the same views, well, all the best to you. I completely will respect your decision.
Oh, and science does not always explain everything. Since you are so science-based, Explain how my grandmother can have cancer throughout her body, and three months later she is cancer free. No chemo or radiation…only prayers. Hmm…interesting, huh?
Scott Young said,
December 7, 2007 at 6:56 am
Sarah,
Two points:
1) I wouldn’t put myself as a militant atheist so you’re statement, “with the amount of energy you use to fight against the being of God.” I’m not really fighting against anything. I just happen to feel God is highly improbably and emotionally dissatisfying.
2) The fact that there is beautiful, complex and intricate things in nature says nothing about the existence of God. I agree with you that the human body is marvelous, as is the amount of stars in the universe and the variety of animals on this planet. But to believe in an intangible concept of beauty or perfection in the universe is very different than believing an all-powerful invisible man, not only created that beauty but punishes you for sins and rewards you with a life in the clouds after you’re dead.
I must state for the record that my argument against God isn’t the argument that anything unscientific or anything I can’t explain doesn’t exist. As I tried to argue in the article, I see the world as being more beautiful, since I have nothing to append to its existence to make it so.
And Sarah, actually science has a lot of documentation, not only on the effect of prayer (in double blind trials it didn’t work) but on the placebo effect and the effect of optimism. That sounds a bit uglier, although more reasonable.
Boss said,
December 8, 2007 at 12:17 pm
I don’t believe in unicorns, but then I haven’t written any books called The End of Unicorns, Unicorns are Not Great, or The Unicorn Delusion. Clearly the atheists go beyond disbelief; they are on the warpath against God. And you can hear their bitterness not only in their book titles but also in their mean-spirited invective.
Scott Young said,
December 9, 2007 at 3:23 pm
Boss,
Now there I’d actually agree with you. I feel the God/Anti-God debate has become rather mean-spirited, and I disagree with many of those authors who claim religion is the source of all the worlds ills. Some awful things have been done in the name of religion, but I would say good old human nature is more to blame for that than believing in a deity.
rj in missoula said,
December 10, 2007 at 9:07 pm
Hey Scott, great article.
I always enjoy reading others points of view regarding God and religion, and appreciate it most when it’s done in a non-confrontational way that gets people talking and exploring the issue. I have a very different opinion and like you, I’m not trying to sell you on the belief of God.
One of the most intriguing issues about atheists that I read from your article is, even like religion, they have created different types of names for the different ways they express their atheism. I was extremely fascinated by that piece of information and would never know that there where different viewpoints on the atheism belief.
And seeing how you, as well as others who wrote in, and people I personally know who are atheists, often times they express they are atheists predominately because of their negative experiences with religion and then equating religion with God.
Religion is mans creation - NOT Gods, but either way it seems that because RELIGION has defined a heaven and hell, a fear in God for all of the WRONG reasons, and all of the other components from the catholic church and other religions that seek to deny people from being creative and having passion in life as well as understanding that God is love and we are here to realize our full potential. Every religion in the world has perverted the Bible to fit its own agenda and sell whatever idea they wanted to sell while all at the same time rolling in a healthy dose of paganism to spice it up some.
God is not some wizard in the sky or clouds, a Being that that determines how you think and what you think, and limits your creativity as a human-being as many religions in the world would have you believe.
Even though I do believe in God and his son Jesus, and all of Their wonderous creations, I still create a profound freedom, self-reliance, and find more beauty in the world every day. I have these things as much, maybe even more so, with God than I certainly ever would without God. For sometime I did question the existence of God and went on a research campaign to prove He didn’t exist, and I’m now always reading others opinions on this subject. I’ve read much on evolution and the bang theory and other fantastical idea’s of how the earth and human-beings were developed and all I found were scientists and super-intelligent people who had a lot to say about nothing. Many (not all) of whom seemed more angry and pompous about their atheist beliefs to the point of diliberatly over-complicating their explanations to an incomprensible nonsense that logically didn’t even prove back to whatever theory they were trying to establish.
My God doesn’t limit me from expressing myself fully and achieving my highest desires, and He isn’t sitting somewhere “out-there” with some magic wand waiting to give anyone divine intervention THAT is a RELIGIOUS concept not Gods. God wants everyone to prove he exists except that sadly those who are convinced he doesn’t exist already, due to their exposure to the Religous systems of the world, have made their determination he doesn’t exist based on man-made religious idea’s and fantastical creations of heaven and hell, and the bang and evolution theory by some scientist with formal education. Anyone who picks up a Bible can determine these places such as pergatory, heaven, hell are not any places of God, about God, or where God is going to send people someday if you do/don’t behave.
It’s interesting to see that you believe your higher ideal/motive/purpose is something that can’t be delegated or avoided by reading a Holy Book. Well I believe you are 100% right on that account. I took on the task of personal development pursuing my higher ideals/motives/purpose, and, reading the Bible doesn’t interfere with it as you have presumed it might be for you, or any atheist because it appears that any pre-conceived idea of a Creator is something that prevents you from exploring these pursuits to their fullest.
Although my higher ideals are similar and even if they are laid out exactly as you have them being truth, service, and challenge, I fail to see how that would prevent me from realizing these aspects of life if I believe in God as a Creator.
On some level, I can only imagine, that there must be an inherent struggle with holding onto a belief of atheism. It would seem to me that to hold the belief of atheism in light of all of the evidence pointing toward a Creator that on a daily basis somewhere in your sub-conscious you are suppressing the very idea of a Creator. Then using the believe of no Creator you allow yourself or give yourself permission to realize higher ideals? I don’t know it’s just a speculation on my part, but I tend to think that it would be a struggle internally within your mind.
On a daily basis I don’t evaluate everything I do based upon God, and yet I hold some of these same ideals that you do, and regardless of whether they are the same or not it just seems that atheists spend a lot of time denying a Creator so they can justify expressing themselves more freely. If you come back down to the basics of society and the laws we have in place wouldn’t we all be expressing ourselves to our fullest capacity within the laws that society has set up for us anyway? And I say this in all sincerity if you believe you have a moral obligation not to kill someone than wouldn’t that belief stand in the way of pursuing any higher purpose? It’s still a belief and you have to believe one way or the other. Either you kill freely or you understand that you can’t due to the laws we have and if you’re caught you’ll be in prison where you have even less freedoms than you do now.
God gave everyone the ability to worship Him or not. We are not robots and he gave us the ability to be free moral agents. Living here in the US I can see others express various religious beliefs and many more express nothingness too. I think living in a country that allows freedom of religion/or not and seeing others points of views can help everyone intelligently pursue or not pursue their ideals.
Too many people live life today holding onto beliefs others gave to them so in many instances I believe atheism serves its own purpose to allow those who are frustrated with the inablity to “see God” here and now another outlet to express that frustration and give themselves peace of mind.
Scott Young said,
December 11, 2007 at 8:30 am
rj in missoula,
Thanks for the great comment. You wrote a lot so I feel I need some response:
1) I’m not really against religion or God per se. My attack is more on the notion that questioning your beliefs is morally wrong. Many (not all) theists believe that questioning God’s existence or coming to the conclusion that a god doesn’t exist is punishable by an eternity in hell. This seems like a far worse version of hell to me where one cannot even have freedom within their own mind.
2) Am I struggling to suppress the notion of God? Not really. I believe the theistic arguments of a conscious deity who pays attention to your thoughts and created the world in seven days to be rather farfetched. But do I believe there is a quality in the universe that can’t be understood rationally? Yes. That’s called pantheism though, and that isn’t the type of philosophical viewpoint I’m arguing against.
3) Depending on how you define “God” you could cast me either as an adamant believer or complete skeptic. When you have the ability to define “God” as anything you want, then he or she can exist in the light of any evidence. This is why I avoid the word “God” when describing a universal quality in different philosophical viewpoints.
Einstein and other physicists encounter this problem when they make reference to God. Few of them actually believe in a supernatural conscious being, but see “God” as representing the total harmony of mathematical laws. Those are very different things and while they may have the same emotional effect, they imply completely different natures of the universe.
Lindsey said,
December 13, 2007 at 4:55 pm
Hi Scott,
I am quite curious–
I am on a quest to understand more about Christianity—not religion–but just about Christ and God.
My first step is reading the Bible in it’s entirety. And not just reading it lightly, but really taking time to sit and unlock the mystery to it.
It is my understanding that athiesm is affirming the nonexistance of God (yes, I looked that up on Wikipedia.
)
I happened to read in a blog earlier that you have not yet read the Bible in its entirety.
I was curious as to why you would choose to be athiest without having really read about the God you want to reject. (I really do not mean this sentence in a negative way–just in a curious way)
I really would love to know.
Thanks so much–
Scott Young said,
December 14, 2007 at 6:50 am
Lindsey,
First off, to say Christians have a monopoly on God is a bit of an exaggeration. I have read books studying hindu and buddhist philosophies. Hinduism is also theistic.
As for the Bible, I have read parts of it, if not the whole thing. I think of it as an interesting story and metaphor, but not representative of reality. I’d like to read the Bible sometime soon, but unfortunately my understanding of the universe doesn’t wait until I gather all possible evidence.
Jon said,
December 19, 2007 at 8:37 pm
Scott -
I’m just a first time reader, and have really enjoyed a couple of the articles on your site so far. I came across this one and was intrigued. I’ve read through the chain of comments above, and the one that stuck out to me as a strong rebuttal was Steven Cornell’s. You’ve given excellent arguments against the majority of the other comments, but didn’t really answer that one on a point-by-point basis - could you perhaps address where you felt you were misinterpreted and speak to the points that were made in that post?
In my exploration of life and the meaning thereof, I’ve come across many arguments for both sides - I found that set of arguments particularly compelling, and just wanted to hear your side of things!
Thanks so much,
Jon
Scott Young said,
December 20, 2007 at 7:06 am
Jon,
My lack of response is usually due to time constraints, rather than having been backed into a corner. Let me see if I can address some of Steven’s points:
1. This assumes that ultimate meaning is required by god. Read a book by Ayn Rand. You don’t have to agree with her philosophy, but you can see that she makes a very clear case about the ability for a person to have purpose without a god.
2. I’m not an expert on evolutionary theory, but I’ve read a dozen or so books about the topic, and the logic of evolution is unerring. Intelligent design fails to answer the most important question: “who created the creator?” Evolution has an answer by leaving a conscious entity of immense complexity out of the picture.
3. What about the Big Bang? A cause need not be started by a conscious force, just as the pi is caused by the division of a circumference of a circle by its diameter.
4. Morality and ethics without a god require more thought, but they don’t become meaningless. I’m sure most current philosophers of ethics would be disturbed by the idea that there work is meaningless without an invisible judge watching over them.
5. If we both agree in an objective reality, then we can both agree on definitions of good and evil. I can’t say that the sky is green when it is blue, if it isn’t. If there can be an absolute measure of truth, then there can be an absolute definition of morality. Not to say that there isn’t gray areas or considerably more complexity than most religious systems of ethics would claim.
6. This is a false counterattack. I never said that God was impossible. Only highly improbable based on current evidence and emotionally dissatisfying. To be fair, I could reverse this argument by saying that a believer must be arrogant because he believes in a god without complete knowledge.
7. Sorry I’m not even going to argue this one. Historical evidence? Cite something reasonable before you make ridiculous claims.
8. What can I say, I’m a vegetarian. I don’t believe we are as different from animals as we would like to admit. Clearly there humans have a richer depth of consciousness, but that does not mean we belong in a completely separate category, just a different spot along the continuum.
How’s that?
-Scott
Stephen said,
January 7, 2008 at 11:58 am
Hi Scott,
I came across your blog when I did a google search on how to give up television. In addition to a well-written and informative article on giving up tv, I found a wealth of helpful articles to read, enjoy and learn from. The only article that troubled me was your article on atheism, because I happen to (try to) be a Christian. I didn’t agree with much of what you had written though I note that many of my objections have been covered in the posts above. What I did want to mention was how happy I am to see a dialogue between atheists and theists that remained respectful and friendly at all times. You don’t need to look very hard to find dozens if not hundreds of Internet forums in which religion is discussed with nastiness and poison spewing forth from both sides. It is testament to the quality, I think, of your character that you have attracted a readership that, whilst not everyone is always in agreement, they can meet in an atmosphere that is respectful, warm, honest and sincere. Congratulations mate, thanks for all the advice and keep up the good work. Best wishes, Stephen
Scott H Young » Review of The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged said,
January 14, 2008 at 11:18 am
[…] discussing my own atheism, many people claimed that rationality meant rejecting everything that could not be proven. This is […]
Tracy said,
January 16, 2008 at 8:32 am
Interesting posts. I respect everyone’s right to their own opinion but I’ve always struggled with atheism. I find such joy from my relationship with God. I’ve been a Christian for a long time but a praying-every-day Christian for just about 3 years. I am amazed at the joy it brings me. Since relationship with God is based on faith, I sometimes wonder if those who do not believe could not possibly understand those who do because they have not felt the presence of God. I feel I have. And experiencing that just increases your faith.
Scott, it seems your views are more against organized religion than with God. I believe the two are very separate-religions are run my men who are fallible, not perfect. Also, I don’t look for divine intervention to help me out in life. I do believe in it (as a hospice volunteer, I have seen some amazing things happen) but the God I know expects me to do my very best always, not to expect him to carry me through. In fact, if I ever get desperate and find myself trying this route-guess what? No help from above.
I also feel I have the right to explore and question, even the Bible. If I did not, I wouldn’t be using my God-given brain. I don’t even feel badly about it. The only true commandment Jesus gives us is to love one another, and I definitely try to do that.
Frankly, since life is merely perception, things happen for whatever reason we attribute it to. If I think I am a successful because I’ve worked hard, then I am a success because I’ve worked hard. If I think I am blessed because of my faith, than I am blessed because of my faith. What difference does it really make? Except of course on the battlefield. Because as it has been said many times, “There are no atheists on the battlefield.” Just joking here, I respect all opinions and feel I can grow from thinking about them, even if I disagree. Cheer-Tracy
Naseer said,
January 29, 2008 at 10:53 pm
Scott,
I’ve just read through your initial article and the ensuing thread of comments and your rebuttals. It’s amazing how civilized this whole discussion has been. That in itself shows there’s a chance for rational people to get along. Have you had any secret death threats that we haven’t seen?
I see that the theist side has been well-represented by my Christian brothers-in-faith. I am Muslim myself, following what I believe to the final revelation of God’s religion on Earth. (Talk about a currently massively misunderstood religion…) My arguments will hold as much weight as those of all the others since they are all based on a plane other than rational, and you’ve shown that you understand that. So, as some have asked: how can you really refute that until you’ve experienced it, or rather as we believe God desires, to have attempted to seek it? What I mean is, I’m trying to understand how athiests grow up to be so without having been fully exposed to God and finding no solace there. (I’m re-reading this and find I cannot convey my confusion properly).
I guess in analogy: how can the blind man tell the seeing that there is no such thing as color differences? You can admit that you don’t perceive as others do and therefore have difficulty understanding what they mean by red or green or blue… This is, of course, assuming we’re staying away from the belief that we can rationalize religious faith and read about it. Am I saying that you have to dance with the Derwishes or meditate with the Sufis before you can give up… maybe, I don’t know…
And also this assertion (perhaps not yours) about saying that looking at the record of world religions and the problems they’ve caused, it’s better to stay away from them and be more balanced as a rational being — I’ve never understood it because most of the conflicts have always been rooted in power and territory (on this plane of existence). I do agree that it’s shameful that the world’s Faithful have been poor examples for those who have trouble in finding God…
Hope some of this resonates somewhere, because after reading the long thread of arguments and counter-arguments, my age-old sentiments (questions) concerning athiesm were bursting to come out… maybe I should have waited to write that at a better hour.
I would end with “Keep the Faith” but that doesn’t apply here… I guess it’s more like: “Get the Faith, and then drop it, and then decide there is none to be had.”
Scott Young said,
January 30, 2008 at 6:26 am
Naseer,
If I may have license to clump your argument into another category, I’d say it is the familiar “Orgasm Argument”.
The basic argument here, argued by theists is that an atheist arguing that God does not exist is like a man who has never experienced an orgasm arguing that the experience of an orgasm does not exist. The a-orgasmist has similar objective evidence to refute the claims that the atheist does.
My rebuttal is twofold:
1) Let’s separate “Feeling of God” from “God”
2) Let’s avoid “secret evidence” arguments
1) Separating “Feeling of God” from “God”
As I stated in my introduction, my attachments to the word “God” are highly specific. Namely, God is:
-A conscious being that thinks, although with infinite power, in the same way humans identify as “thinking”. (i.e. Universe=God is a false statement by this original definition)
-That God is directly involved in the affairs of human beings either through their creation (deism) or currently (theism).
Those two descriptions don’t pinpoint a subjective feeling. They describe something objective, like President Bush or a unicorn. The statement, “The non-believers in unicorns are missing my essential feeling of unicorn-ness, therefore their reasoning that unicorns do not exist is flawed.” This is a ridiculous counter-argument since unicorns have specific, objective properties that should be verifiable (under ordinary circumstances) equally by two different outside observers.
The feeling of God is quite different. My claim of atheism isn’t that I don’t believe that there is something greater, more beautiful and higher that we should use as our principle of life. My only distinction is that I don’t attach this feeling of God-ness to specific objective properties that my reasonable evidence claims does not exist.
Does the “Feeling of God” exist? Undoubtedly. I’m not arguing that you are lying about having that experience. My argument is that theists are mistaken (or at least wagering on an extremely unlikely proposition) that this feeling is directly attached to an all-powerful, conscious creator.
Pantheism, or the belief that “God is all” is closer to my current beliefs, since this coincides with the “Feeling of God” without proposing objective details that are difficult to justify.
2) No “secret evidence” arguments
The other flaw in this reasoning is that using “secret evidence” arguments may not be logically unsound, but doesn’t leave much room for intelligent discussion.
Saying you have special access to evidence of God (as a super-conscious being, not as a subjective experience) simply closes off any room for debate.
Could you imagine a lawyer going before a judge and claiming that “My client is innocent, but I can neither lucidly explain or present evidence that he is not guilty. However, I ask that you trust my evidence over the air-tight case of the prosecution.”
Your personal beliefs are your own (and should be), but if you want to discuss them with others, “secret evidence” arguments aren’t going to persuade.
blogrdoc said,
February 16, 2008 at 2:39 am
I’ve thought about the idea of God for sometime and, I can say that there is no rational argument for the case of the existence of God.
However, to assert that the nature of reality can only be fully captured within the dimension of human understanding is a bit presumptuous.
I went for coffee today and I stood in line. After a while, another lady came along and asked “Are you in line?” I said “yes!”. And then I thought… I suppose I should ask the person whom I *assume* I am standing behind is in line as well!
My point is… in my humble, entirely fallible human reasoning… if one wishes to fully try to understand the nature of reality… we must be willing to question *EVERYTHING* (including the limits of our capacity to grasp it’s borders). How do we KNOW that human intellect is an appropriate yardstick by which to characterize the universe? I suspect that (as most athiests pooh-pooh the bible based arguments as circular reasoning (as I would concur)), should one go about using one’s human mind as the yard-stick, one would come to circuitous conclusions of similar validity. We humans *do* come with brains and intellect; and to *rely* on the solely to explain the nature of the universe - clearly one will come to the self-fulfilling conclusion that there is no greater being.
And to those of you who think that your religion is the *ONLY* valid religion, consider this: religion inherently separates the soul from the temporal body. At the point at which the soul is breathed upon this body, and considering that there are billions of potiential bodies to choose from, there is a rather significant probablitiy that your soul could have been breathed into a body that grew up on the other side of the world; in which case you wouldn’t at all believe what you believe now.
So what do *I* believe? I believe that you are what you are and if it ain’t broke don’t fix it!
Jefferson Lee Swindell said,
February 16, 2008 at 5:54 am
Ah, but Scott …
You ARE religious, my friend, and very strongly so.
It’s not that you have a God, but that you have made yourself God!
The quality of YOUR faith is sterling, dear “atheist”.
I could never trust in your system.
Jeff
Scott Young said,
February 17, 2008 at 10:47 am
blogrdoc,
You hit upon an important point. The problem is often described in philosophical circles as the problem of induction. But to say that both sets of faith are equal is a bit of a stretch.
-Scott
blogrdoc said,
February 17, 2008 at 11:29 pm
I would *never* say both sets of faith (an interesting choice of words on your part) are equal. I’m just saying *regardless* of what believe system one decides on, (theistic or otherwise) *some* assumptions are made. Note that the root meaning of the word “religion” is “to tie fast” or “to *rely* on something.”
In my humble opinion, the arguments you present for “rational spirituality” aren’t rational. Quality of life, challenge, self reliance, freedom… These are all very subjective. Is that the point you were trying to make? Not sure.
Please take these comments as food for thought, not at all criticisms. Clearly you’ve established a very successful blog and are a very smart, capable, enterprising person.
My favorite two quotes on science:
Science is the attempt to come up with systematic, coherent and useful descriptions of how the natural world works. - Chris Mack, lithoguru.com
Science always deals with models of reality, not the ultimate nature of reality. - lightandmatter.com
As a PhD in chemical engineering, having done research in fuel cells, nanotechnology and some other exciting fields, I can honestly say that I feel very fulfilled with the level of freedom and challenge in my life. In my experience, there is no correlation between these factors and spiritual beliefs. And as far as self-reliance: I’m armed to the teeth
blogrdoc said,
February 17, 2008 at 11:41 pm
Oh and I forgot my favorite quote about God:
(note: you’ll hate this to the core)
It doesn’t matter if you don’t believe in him, He believes in you.
Scott Young said,
February 18, 2008 at 7:30 am
blogrdoc,
I’ve actually heard that quote before–and no I don’t hate it. Although, I do feel it is a bit funny (no sarcasm).
Actually, you bring up a good point about how my thoughts on quality of life, challenge and freedom aren’t rational. I don’t want to start debating about what is “rational” because then we would be fumbling over semantics, not truths. I plan on writing a full article showing my view of rationality and the goal of a meta-philosophy (or a philosophy for how you handle your major beliefs). So I’m afraid I can’t offer much of a counter argument to that until I can write it in an article.
I think it’s important not to confuse rationality with science. Science is an extremely useful technique for uncovering facts about the objective world. However, science is just one (albeit, incredibly powerful) technique at the rationalists disposal. (Although, as a PhD, I’m sure you are already aware of this)
Scott H Young » How to Win a Debate Without Starting a Flame War said,
February 18, 2008 at 10:01 am
[…] comments from readers who were surprised at how friendly the conversation over Atheism VS Theism in this post. Instead, most of the online (and many offline) arguments I hear, go more like […]
Scott H Young » How to Win a Debate Without Starting a Flame War said,
February 18, 2008 at 10:01 am
[…] comments from readers who were surprised at how friendly the conversation over Atheism VS Theism in this post. Instead, most of the online (and many offline) arguments I hear, go more like […]
Pierre M said,
February 19, 2008 at 10:37 am
Great post. Impressively clear, given the subject. But, I’m even more impressed by you ability to keep the debate almost rationale, clean and friendly.
I’m an atheist too, but I don’t discuss religion often since I have hard time (and maybe some tiredness) dealing with the classic irrational arguments from theists. You do a very good job rationalizing what seem to be, at first, irrational arguments. I just read you post “How to Win a Debate Without Starting a Flame War”, and now I see how you put that in practice. Today, I learn quite a lot.
Good job with you blog.
Pierre M said,
February 19, 2008 at 10:39 am
…and, I forgot to say, thank you very much.
Sam said,
February 20, 2008 at 6:59 pm
I too am surprise at how well people have controlled their remarks in this discussion. I have really enjoyed reading through the comments from both sides.
As for myself, I was raised as a Christian, but I’ve always had this little doubt in my mind. This doubt has grown in recent years as I’ve come to read and think about this topic in more depth. Right now I can’t say that I’m atheist or theist. The two main problems that trouble me when trying to come to a resolution are: the “correct” religion, and the cause argument.
1. The “Correct” Religion
Since there are so many different religions, that all believe they are the only “correct” one, what happens if you were born in one part of the world and indoctrinated in that geographic region’s dominate religion? How could a god condemn someone to hell if they had never even heard of this god to begin with?
Example: Imagine you are raised as a Muslim, and then practiced Islam throughout your entire life, but in turn had never heard of Christianity? How could a god sentence you to hell for being naive?
2. Cause Argument
My second problem is the question of cause. If everything has a cause, for example most religions believe that their god created, or caused, the universe, then what caused their god? The problem with this argument is both sides will just continue to argue in a circle getting nowhere.
For now, I will continue to study this problem. Maybe some day I’ll come to a conclusion, but more than likely this will remain an unknown.
Sam
robotii said,
February 21, 2008 at 10:43 am
Just one minor annoyance here, otherwise this is a really good article.
In the article body you state “The wonders of the New Testament, in my opinion, pale in comparison to how evolution works…” but in the comment reply to a number of readers you admit you never read the new testament. Surely, being rational you should suspend judgement on that until you have read it?
I think you should read it, even though you admit that you don’t believe in the God described therein, as you seem to actually think things through.
Thanks for such a thought provoking article - you can probably guess I disagree with it though.
blogrdoc said,
February 22, 2008 at 1:39 am
@Sam:
I agree completely with your first point. It is totally irrational to believe that there is only one *correct* religion. See my first comment in this thread.
As for your second point, I *speculate* that there is a non-zero chance that the nature of reality contains dimensions beyond human comprehension. It’s like when I took multi-variable calculus in college. An entire universe unfolded that I hadn’t realized existed when I took high-school level calculus. Or when you learn bridge (multi variable) after playing hearts or spades (single variable). The analogies fall short, however, in that these are examples that we *can* wrap our minds around.
Scott Young said,
February 22, 2008 at 6:23 am
robotii,
True, I haven’t read the New Testament, but I haven’t had a chance to read Origin of the Species, either. A little unfair I’m basing my opinions on smaller snippets of the original works, but I’m not really expecting a surprising ending from either of them.
blogrdoc,
I completely agree with you that there may be more dimensions, universes or properties of reality we can barely imagine. Richard Dawkins himself mentioned in a speech that the universe is not only “queerer than we suppose, but perhaps, queerer than we can suppose.”
Piyush said,
February 22, 2008 at 1:43 pm
Very good Scott, always impressed by someone who thinks out side the box.
I was reading your comments and noticed our way of thinking is very similar. Taking the the good and leaving the bad is something that should be applied to everything in life to bring more positivity. This and many other teachings are the true lessons of life which can guide us to higher truth. I’m not an Atheist but nor am I fanatic follower of any other religion. I was born into a Hindu family so I do fallow religious rituals as if it were my duty and to pay respects to ancestors. Always questioning rules or beliefs that I find unnecessary, I’ve come to discover Hinduism ( in it’s purity) to be the most scientific and free religion. I’m not favoring Hinduism because of my background but as a result of delving upon all religions including, Islam, Christianity, Buddhism, Judaism, and even Sikhism. I’ve read books, and attending scholar lectures taking the good and leaving the bad for further enlightenment.
Many people don’t know but, Buddhism and Sikhism, were born in India and can be thought of as branches of Hinduism. Buddha was a Hindu who found higher truth in essence of meditation, which is the core of Buddhism and isn’t applied enough in Hinduism by modern followers, although it’s been an essential part of the Hindu lifestyle for ages, this and Yoga (meant to pronounced as “Yog”) .
With all that said I still do not consider my self a part of any religion nor do I consider my self an Atheist since I do believe in a higher truth/power. I consider my self, much like everyone else is, on the search for this higher truth just like Buddha was. Much of my research has lead me to the teachings of Hinduism, well in depth it’s lead me to connecting every religion to Vedic teachings. There’s so much more to learn. There’s not enough space in this comment, nor is this the place for me to go on about Vedic teachings and the Vedas (pronounced Vade) but I’m starting to believe they are the backbone to most if not all religions and common knowledge.
Scott you seem like an avid reader if you ever want names of books on these topics, the comment box required my email, but for anyone else it’s piyush.shahenshah@gmail.com
Bryan said,
February 29, 2008 at 9:03 am
I find it interesting that you feel you diverge so much from Christian teachings. It seems to me that true Christians are the ones who have turned from the dogmatic faith of childhood and really sought out a truer belief that only comes from that seeking. Rob Bell, an outstanding Christian speaker talks about the difference between knowing about something and truly *knowing* something. I think that both you and I really desire this for people, it is not enough just to know about (and claim to believe) anything be it atheism or Christianity or even fatherhood, it seems at least to me that both you and I hope that people come to really *know* (the greek for this true knowledge is epignosis) that which we claim to believe, be it atheism for you, Christianity for me. Of course I also believe (as a psychologist) that both you and I DO seek social acceptance by knowing that other people believe or *know* what we believe, which for you would mean that you do at some level hope that your beliefs are confirmed in people you respect, and for me it means that I hope this journey of seeking leads people to the God I know and love.
The point of all that was actually a kudos to you! Grace and Peace, Bryan
Scott Young said,
March 1, 2008 at 6:02 am
Bryan,
I actually agree with 90-95% of Christian teachings. Don’t tell anyone though–I think some people have the idea I dance around a pentagram naked each night killing babies.
-Scott
Scott H Young » The Value of Independence said,
May 27, 2008 at 10:01 am
[…] make it no secret that I’m an atheist. But, that isn’t because I follow some secret “Atheist’s Handbook” (if there were such a […]
Scott H Young » Please Show Me Why I’m Wrong said,
May 28, 2008 at 10:44 am
[…] Exists (As well as the spaghetti monster) - So my previous statement of atheism needs to include the caveat that a 10-D universe would include, however disproportionately […]
Ben said,
June 6, 2008 at 7:09 pm
Scott,
I don’t understand how you are open-minded when you have not fully investigated everything…it just seems a man of your thought wouldn’t “subscribe” to somebody as flagrant as Richard Dawkins… He just seems to stereotype more than he actually investigates into scientific research…I guess what I am trying to say is that if a man truly understands wisdom and knowledge he wouldn’t label as so…is labeling not a form of stupidity? Everything is connected so there is not one label for one type of person…Christian or Atheist…I think what we all want is truth..if we can attain the totality of truth then…my mind can’t even comprehend what the totality of truth would be like…I just don’t see how you can label yourself as an atheist, your too open-minded to be labeled as so…to be reduced to a label and then write entire post about it (maybe I misread you)
…keep up the good posts!
Oh yeah, why did you put so many buy “buttons” next to your books haha
Scott Young said,
June 7, 2008 at 8:19 am
Ben,
That’s one of the problems with writing an article. When I use the English language, I’m forced to distill abstract ideas into discrete words, often with varying meanings.
By “atheism” I simply mean that my philosophy doesn’t include a creator. But that’s it. I don’t place further restrictions or accepting what others feel an atheist should believe.
So to answer your question, I don’t label myself. But this article has allowed some people to label me.
-Scott
Oh, and I put “buy” buttons next to my books, so that people will buy them. I can at least be honest about that.
Ben said,
June 25, 2008 at 5:21 pm
Thanks for the well written response. I’m probably going to buy your study-less book, what you say makes a lot of sense, even though your so young you have a lot of wisdom-this is very encouraging. Keep up the good work.
Scott Young said,
June 26, 2008 at 6:17 am
Thanks Ben!
Gerald (Jerry) Landis said,
July 3, 2008 at 7:04 pm
Dear Scott,
I am a Christian having invited the Lord Jesus Christ into my
heart when my father taught in Sunday School “be sure your
sins will find you out.” The heart talks about the real you or
the eternal person which
I truly believe that once we die we will go some place, either
to be with GOD in heaven or to a place of ETERNAL TORMENT.
Christians are not perfect and sometimes they say, “They are not
religious but that is another argument.”
We can choose many different roads or paths in live.
I choose tonight to read your blog to try to get ideas on how maybe
to share ideas for Bible and life lessons with my adult children
and grandchildren.
You certainly gave some wonderful ideas for me to think about
in your blog.
The choices we make in this life will effect us today. Our choice
of where we will spend eternity with effect us forever.
We are more than simple animals whom we love and adore we are
special beings with an ETERNAL SPIRIT. The choice we make to
find or ignore God will affect us eternally.
Because a dollar bill can be counterfiet we still use currency of
some kind. Some call Christians can be fakes but if you look around
you just find someone who is a genuine believer in the Lord Jesus
Christ.
I am going to get off my soapbox
THANK YOU FOR THE EXCELLENT IDEAS ON HOW TO STUDY.
Blessings, Gerald (Jerry) Landis
ps. I am sorry but my PC service is down right now. May you have
a wonderful day and hopefully choose a wonderful eternity.
Steve P said,
August 5, 2008 at 12:11 pm
Hi Scott,
This is a great website. I found it somehow while searching for information on how personality types affect learning, and I’ve been slowly making my way through your articles. As someone who was raised Catholic by Catholic parents and was educated at both a Catholic elementary school and high school, where they give as much credibility to Bible stories as they give to math and science, I found this article particularly interesting.
No matter how many attempts have been made by others in my life to convince me of the existence of an all powerful God, these ideas have never made sense to me. To think that people in this day and age would choose to accept two thousand year old explanations for things, from a time when people had no idea how large the planet is, let alone the size of the universe, and ignore everything we know from science today about how the universe was created, well, I’m sorry but I find it embarrassing. Deeply religious people (referring here to Western religions) love to point to the sky when asked where God and Heaven is, yet how could they possibly know what’s above them when they live their lives with their heads buried in the sand?
We know from astronomy that there is nothing “above” us that resembles Heaven. We know from geology that while the center of the planet is certainly hot, there is nothing down there that resembles Hell. We know from meteorology that there is no old man with a long beard floating around on any clouds. We know that our planet is not the center of the universe, and therefore by extension, inhabitants of this planet are not the center of the universe. We know that it is simply not possible that Jesus or anyone else could have “ascended” into Heaven. Where could he have gone, since as I said, we know from science today that there is nothing resembling Heaven up there for him to have ascended to? Two thousand years ago, when people knew essentially nothing and were wide open to mystical explanations, it would have made sense. To still accept these stores as facts today, well, good grief. Is it any wonder we haven’t advanced beyond where we are today with this nonsense still holding us back?
Where do we go when we die? For the answer to that, you would need to take a long, hard look at what you really are - a biological organism with an ego that loves to think it’s special, even immortal, and a brain that’s on a constant search for meaning, even when there is no meaning to be found beyond a purely impersonal one. We, and everything we see around us, are nothing more than temporary forms of energy, coming and going like waves on the ocean. Imagine if waves were unable to see that they’re just part of the ocean and you essentially have the dilemma of human beings. Where does a wave go when it collapses back into the ocean, when it “dies”? Nowhere, since it was never really anywhere to begin with, and was never even a wave. The term “wave” is just something that human beings come up with because we see something that looks different and separate from something else, therefore we reason that it must be different and separate and we stick a label on it, and as soon as we’ve placed a label on it, we comfort ourselves with the belief that we now fully understand that which we’ve labeled. We’re an embarrassing lot, I’m sorry to say.
Why are we here? We’re here because this thing we call a planet happened to form 4.5 billion years ago at an acceptable distance from that thing we call a sun to support life on this planet as we’ve come to know it. And even then, it took an asteroid collision that wiped out the planet’s original inhabitants, the dinosaurs, before our species came to dominate this world. And yet through ignorance and the biggest “F word” of them all - FEAR - we’ve managed to come up with fantastical stories to explain our existence. We needed someone looking out for us and explanations for things we didn’t understand so we created God. We needed rules to live by so we created God’s Laws. We needed to be rewarded for obeying the rules and punished for our disobedience so we created Heaven and Hell. And now, thanks to these fictional stories having been passed down through the centuries to eager minds looking for the comfort and security of easy answers, these stories have been accepted as facts.
I can only hope that through the process of natural evolution, the God of today will eventually take his rightful place in history books with the gods of yesterday (and oh, how many there have been). Unfortunately, you’ll never get anywhere by trying to have a logical discussion with a God-fearing member of society about whether or not God exists. To these people, belief in God is their golden ticket to the afterlife, where apparently they’ll get to spend all of eternity sitting around telling God how great he is. They believe that the more their faith is tested in this life, the better off they’ll be when they die, so they love it when you try to convince them that they’ve got it all wrong. No matter how much scientific evidence you offer them that God cannot possibly exist, they’ll smile and say something like “I know God exists because flowers are beautiful.” Well, my dog urinates on flowers, and occasionally eats them, although usually not the same ones he urinated on. And those beautiful sunrises and sunsets that religions love to offer as proof of God’s love? I guess it’s pretty silly to think that they’re caused by the planet rotating on its axis, or that the colors we see are caused by different wave lengths of light passing through the atmosphere. A much more realistic explanation is that some old man in the clouds is showing off his art skills.
Having said all this, many people wonder how it’s possible to live without a belief in God. To them, I can only say that I don’t know how it’s possible to live WITH your idea of God. To believe that a god created me as I am and is then ready and willing to punish me for being what he created unless I atone for being what he created, well, all I can say is, good grief.
Take your heads out of the sand, put away your two thousand year old explanations for things, pick up a science book, and read it. I promise you, nothing bad will happen to you when you die.
Scott Young said,
August 10, 2008 at 9:40 am
Steve,
I agree with you, but I think much of the push towards a God has less to do with fact than the presumed side-effects of belief. I think there are important non-material things to believe in, I just don’t think God is the best delivery mechanism.
-Scott
A credit to the Atheist name! « Shining light on ignorance said,
August 15, 2008 at 4:56 am
[…] just found out that blogger Scott H Young is an atheist! (amazing what turns up in the archive section) I’ve found that a lot of self-help and […]
Serdar said,
August 24, 2008 at 2:07 am
My best argument against atheism is the mathmetics itself. Creation of most simple life form or cell which have the capability to feed, reproduce and survive with a very simple RNA is beyond our capability even with today’s advanced technology. Now how can I believe that , nature itself can form such a cell by itself! what is the chances? Zero?
Scott Young said,
August 24, 2008 at 8:18 am
Serdar,
That’s assuming cellular life was the first biological step. Something like a virus is far less complicated. If you started with just a nucleotide soup, getting a few pieces that would be able to replicate themselves (like a crystal) wouldn’t be improbable. I imagine that a cell membrane and eventually eukaryotic cells were much later additions.
Frankly, I don’t think the vague specifics of the beginning of life are the real issue. If evidence for evolution was much weaker, atheists would still grip to it. If evidence for creationism was even weaker, theists would ignore those weaknesses too.
Men decide with their hearts and justify those decisions with their brain, not the other way around, I’m afraid.
-Scott
Dave said,
August 25, 2008 at 4:31 pm
Scott,
Great article. I’m an atheist too. When confronted on my lack of faith, I ask the faithful for direct, non-circumstantial evidence that their omnipotent/omnipresent/omniscient (You’d figure it would be easy to provide with those qualities, eh?) god(s) exist. The burden of proof is on them since they are the ones claiming god exists.
Of course, to date, no evidence has ever been provided to me.
Daniel said,
August 27, 2008 at 1:02 pm
Hi Scott,
Great article, it’s nice to see a practical approach, how atheism can benefit one’s life, as opposed to a scientific or philosophic refutation of the god concept… I was reading the comments and wow, you sure touched the theist’s nerves, which isn’t hard… they’ve been throwing their best irrational, circular arguments at you… sometimes I wonder, did they actually read their comment?… it seems to me that if they did, they would see the errors, but I guess that’s why their theists… anyway, just wanted to give you some support… keep up with the great articles!
Scott Young said,
August 27, 2008 at 1:13 pm
Daniel,
I’m sure I have plenty of beliefs that fail up to logical tests if I looked closely enough. That’s part of being human.
I disagree with many theistic arguments, but I think there is benefit in having some humility to see where my own arguments might fall flat.
-Scott
Ben said,
September 17, 2008 at 1:00 pm
Have you read anything by Donald Miller? Heard of the name? By the way this dialogue in this blog is awesome…I love a good “God” debate haha. The debates seem to ranges from far flung “hearsay” type “arguments” to well thought out logical deductions which are arguably objective. Great Blog Scott! By the way I bought the book about studying more effectively and it has totally reshaped the way I think..I went on Amazon and bought Cal Newports “How to be a straight A student” and it was great as well…as cliche as that title sounded it had some great points. I love being able to write and communicate with others…
Scott Young said,
September 18, 2008 at 6:30 am
Thanks Ben,
Glad you liked the book. Cal and I have talked a number of times, and our blogs have a lot of overlap, so I’m glad you bought his book too!
-Scott
APA said,
October 13, 2008 at 9:42 pm
Good post and even better arguments, especially the one about morality. It is used as a common argument by theists to defend their faith.
Frankly though, I believe the whole issue rests on an individual’s perception of ‘God’. Whether you imagine him to be an old man with a long grey beard living in space or simply as divine energy. Whether you look for ‘God’ as a source of strength during times of mental depression or whether you believe that faith in ‘God’ by itself will get you through all tight spots.
Also there is a not-so-subtle difference between not believing in God and branding religion and all those practicing it as evil. I haven’t read The God Delusion but a few excerpts and reviews I read (though admittedly reviews tend to be a lot more biased than they should be) suggest that Mr. Dawkins regards indoctrination of children as worse than ‘child sexual abuse’.
I do not believe that being atheist is necessary for appreciating the beauty of nature or the unknown. I, for one, believe in ‘God’ strongly (though the word has different connotations for me) and I believe that one’s fascination of the unknown, nature or anything for that matter has little to do with one’s belief in the divine (which is what I associate ‘God’ with). Ever come across the commonly purported myth that one can only ever be a ‘Science person’ or a ‘Humanities person’ but never both? The belief is more rampant than you think, along with the belief in success (at least academic success) due to inherent ‘talent’.
Theresa said,
October 15, 2008 at 1:37 pm
Scott,
You give a very interesting perspective. However, I would say that your article does not really propose arguments “for” atheism in the respect that it demonstrates why one should believe in atheism. Although I disagree with your philosophy (I am a Christian) you clearly demonstrate that even in the absence of the consciousness of God, people can still live moral and meaningful lives.
The points you brought up that are supposedly in favor of religion are actually based on the assumptions that there is no God. It comes from a basic assumption that man invented the idea of a “higher being” to help us live a better life or give our life meaning. But the question of what to believe is not about what is the most beneficial belief system but what is the truth. Of course, that is something that is cannot be definitively proven by either side.
Scott Young said,
October 15, 2008 at 5:20 pm
Theresa,
This post isn’t designed to present rational evidence for why you should or should not believe in a higher being. (There’s plenty of that elsewhere)
Instead, I wanted to write about why I feel atheism isn’t a hollow philosophy emotionally or for meaning in life, as many theists claim.
-Scott
Atheist messages on London buses - Page 2 said,
October 26, 2008 at 9:02 pm
[…] own. In the end, it’s not the views you have, but what they allow you do. True story. Here is a nice article on that as well. I find it to be a much more effective beleif system, for too many reasons to list. […]
Frank Ose said,
October 28, 2008 at 9:48 am
Hi Scott,
It is an indeed enlightening article and I must say that it must have somehow influenced people’s opinions towards their own religion, especially those who devote their life to the so-called deities or god.
After reading your article, I find I’m quite similar to you too despite some minor differences. I’m an atheist and I also practise primitive taoism (developed by Lao Tze and further elaborated by Zhuang Tze).
I seek complete liberty and truth is above all. I embrace the oneness which I believe to be the ultimate truth and also the nature itself. I have never believed in deities and I don’t think they are in existence at all. Either they exist or not, it doesn’t matter. I believe most integrated people will never be influenced by this.
It is great to see people who are freed of all kinds of theologies that impose contraint on one’s freedom. People who attach themselves to deities and all kinds of entrapping belief will not be able to retain their genuine virtue that is granted to us by the nature.
-Frank
Enzo said,
November 1, 2008 at 9:54 am
It does not really matter what any human being thinks or believes or wants to bellieve. What matters is to see the existential reality exactly as it is.
If you can know that no God exists as opposed to merely bellieving God is existing or God is not existing. Then you would have the basis for being an atheist. But you dont have that.
Who are you human being? That you who have no knowledge of your source or end can even have an opinion? Are you deluded. Your very existence as a living being as a person is proof that God exists.
Atheism is the ultimate blinding egoism!
Take 2 months out of your life and visualise scenes from the life of Jesus from the Jerusalem Bible, with eyes closed in silence making yourself every character in the scene one by one. Replay the scene, ask questions of the characters.
Soon you will learn this startling fact:
The only reason you have the abstract 5 senses of sight, sound, smell, taste, touch, plus emotions and consciousness, interacting with the physical material world is for you to in this existential reality, to find and love God and neighbour and to love yourself.
The meaning of life is to seek and find God and to learn what Gods form of love is.
Everything else. Food, clothing, shelter, friendship, goods is secondary to the search and love of God.
When you die, you die alone, you die naked, you die with no possesions. Everyone is equalised by death. Lifes only meaning therefore is between being born and dying and realising why the human has what he has. What the human builds, cities space stations, universities, thats all of absolutely no consequence and is absolutely of no importance whatsoever but is merely a manifestation of a disordered ego that comes from not accepting existential reality exactly as it is.
God exists because I in truth say he does because I experienced God. But your life is to come to the same knowledge or to come to its opposite.
Enjoy your difficult decision about whether or not to search with your authentic heart for God or to dedicate yourself to clever debates and conversations and avoid searching for God.
Kindest regards
Scott Young said,
November 2, 2008 at 8:28 am
Enzo,
Although you might be able to find a valid proof for God in the most general and abstract, you won’t in the specifics. Unfortunately, the specifics are what’s important since they define reality.
Maybe you should re-read the article by assuming I believe that God exists, but my definition is very different than yours…
-Scott
Enzo said,
November 4, 2008 at 7:56 am
Scott
The problem of atheism is also a result of a false philosophy perhaps an ignorant one.
The cosmos with all its stars, planets and even the empty space between planets or the space between two quantum particles and even the particles and elements themselves, plus all bodies of living beings, this all falls into the domain of the material world.
These things specifically exist in existential reality, but these are not God. However this is all that science studies and can ever study and so scientists have made the assumption that nothing else exists, not realising that science cannot study God for God does not exist there where science can possibly reach.
So into this material world I pose the first grand questions of the philosophers.
How is it that things prefer to exist rather than to not exist?
How would it be if these things did not exist?
If they exist what is their origin and why do they exist in this manner and not another manner?
Now if somewhere in this material world there is a living being called Scott and Scott is not responsible for his own origin as were none of his ancestors and all dwell in the mystery of not knowing how it is that they have come to be. Then surely it is clear to see that a living spiritual being is a property of existential reality. If it is the case that you have one spiritual being in the universe called Scott, is it not reasonable that another one called God could potentially exist and who created both Scott and the material world? If there is another living spiritual being in the world called Enzo who writes blogs to Scott, then is it also not a property of existential reality for a relationship to exist? If A relationship could exist between Scott and Enzo, why is it impossible that a relationship could not exist between Scott and God and Enzo? Anyway the question now asked is how is it that a relationship even exists at all in existential reality? Why does relationship exist as opposed to rather not exist?
What does living spiritual being mean?
Can science find proof that Scott exists? The answer is no because Scott cannot be measured nor observed by Science. To measure a neuron firing and to call that Scott is as ridiculous as looking at a waterfall and saying God is the waterfall. To see Scotts body is merely to see matter. Scott is invisible to all other living beings.
Scott can only be observed by Scott when Scott reflects on himself and experiences consciousness. To see Scotts body is not to see Scott. Consciousness is like the screen where Scotts entire life is played like a film. But where is the place from where Scott observes his consciousness? Where is the place from where Scott takes decisions or imagines an action he is about to perform?
The question of does God exist, is flawed from its standpoint. If God does exist, it makes no difference to neither God nor the creation man for then the nature of the relationship is important not the question of existence. This shows that the way to experience God is via the faculty of relationship in the same way as Scott (who is not visible to Enzo) has a relationship with Enzo (who is not visible to Scott).
Would this be true?
Scott is a living spiritual being who created the material world and all other beings? If Scott did not do it why could another greater being then Scott and called God, not do it?
How is it that a living spiritual relationship forming being exists and that it is a property of existential reality?
cjm said,
November 16, 2008 at 3:09 pm
Scott -
Great post and great blog!
You have done an excellent job having this discussion without the negativity that breaks down communication and the flow if ideas. I appreciate how you have articulated your beliefs, but even more how you have moved this discussion in such a positive and productive direction.
My compliments and appreciation to you for that!
One thing that becomes clear in these discussions is that dogmatism, prejudice, hate, shallow-thinking, and destructive attitudes don’t discriminate. But, neither do analytical thinking, deep reflection, generosity, moral behavior, and insightful viewpoints.
There are wrong and destructive attitudes on both sides which only serve to stop communication and prevent healthy discussion.
I feel that on the believer side of the discussion, they do a disservice to themselves and their position by insisting that its a matter of rational proof and apologetics. They rush in ready to fight and relying on tired arguments and faulty logic to win over and defend their love of God. Never seeming to realize that you can’t argue someone into love any more than you can argue a flower into existence.
I would not try to argue you out of your choice of atheism, nor would I try to argue for “proof” that God exists. I don’t think either of those things can be accomplished (in fact I have defended the beliefs of atheists to christians far more often).
If there were a way to prove the existence of God, then it wouldn’t be faith and it wouldn’t be Love - it would become an exercise in reason. It would not be a relationship, it would merely be a fact. Further than that, understanding of God would favor those who have access to and understanding of the proof. As it stands all people approach the question equally - without proof and without barriers.
For God to create Love, there must be free will. For there to be free will, there must be an equal choice. For there to be an equal choice, there can be no decisive conclusion one way or the other regarding the question of God. Otherwise we could only be as passionate about God as we are about gravity. It would become a force we are subject to and not a leap of faith or an exercise in love.
How one defines God is important in this discussion. But I don’t need to have a correct definition of my wife in order to know that I love her. And my definition of her grows and changes the longer I know her. I also may not be able to create any concrete proof that my love exists - but I know more than anything in my life that it’s true.
I couldn’t prove to someone rationally how to fall in love with their soul-mate despite the fact that I have found mine.
I believe that Atheists do themselves and others a disservice when they view faith as a failing of rational thinking and regard those who believe to mentally weak. They overlook their own emotional positions and come to a convenient conclusion on people and ideas that deserve more investigation.
(Scott, you showed a different attitude than that throughout this entire discussion and that is impressive and admirable.)
The tendency to look at the worst traits of people of faith as a basis to reject the ideas involved is an emotional one. One doesn’t have to look hard to see that many of the truly incredible advances in art, history, culture, science and philosophy were deeply intertwined with God and spirituality.
The crusades were horrendous and evil but its wrong to treat that as any honest reflection of the belief systems that were twisted to justify them. Events like that say more about fear, propaganda, xenophobia, greed, politics, engineering, economics, and simple human nature than they do about God.
There are people out there that feel they have a scientific basis for thinking that the earth is flat. No rational person would think that the rest of the scientific community is in any way respsonsible for that backward view. However this is how many people treat people of faith. (Granted, that is an example of something that can be objectively verified, but the point is that we should look for the best thinking, not the worst when engaging a topic)
I do think that people should use their faculties and reason to search for truth with great rigor, scrutiny and depth. I feel that your choice is much closer to honoring God than many who blindly accept without thinking at all. Likewise I believe that people should show faith by acknowledging that if God created the universe, then examination of it will only reveal more about God.
It is a failure of faith to fear science. And it is a failure of science to dismiss faith because of the faithful.
Thank you for your excellent blog. Very inspiring.
-cjm
p.s. I have spoken with both Donald Miller and Brian McLaren in person. They have some interesting insights on this topic. I first recommend McLaren’s book “A Generous Orthodoxy”. Miller’s books focus more on the relationship aspect of belief, but I liked “Blue Like Jazz” from him.
Juan Bielsa said,
November 16, 2008 at 10:25 pm
Any person has its views about life, and all of them must be respected if they respect life itself.
But, for many people life has no sense without religion or mysticism. That is my case as well.
For me, the most important things in this world are love and… PRAYER. So I need transcendence.
But I hate fundamentalisms. The fruit of true prayer is compassion, not violence.
And there are many, many atheists more “religious” for me (that is, more compassionate for others) than many so-called strictly “religious people”.
So, what you say in your blog interests me very much, and the same you as a person, regardless of your ideas about religion. What matters most for me are facts and attitudes.
All the best to you.
From Spain,
Juan Bielsa
Scott Young said,
November 17, 2008 at 11:57 am
cjm,
Thanks for contributing to the discussion.
Definition is very important. I’m an atheist in the sense that I don’t believe in God as he is traditionally defined. However both “god” and “atheist” are just words. Artificial labels designed to reduce complex philosophies down to a single point.
-Scott
Bruce said,
December 22, 2008 at 8:06 am
why should one be compassionate if we believe i that we are just biochemical machines.And that there is nothing after a persons earthly life ceases to exist just a state of eternal non existence.
I see no reason why an aethist should be compassionate when according to him life as no higher meaning.
“Secular humanity” whats That????
To me secularism and humanity cant go together they are like Oil and Water.
“be good for goodness sake” they retort.
I wont be suprised if tomorrow they cry out
“be bad for badness sake”
As the Joker(played by late Heath Ledger) in the latest bateman flick says
“people are as good as the world allows them to be”
Well this applies only to the secularists and not to people who believe that life has a higher meaning and that there is more then this earthly existence.
Well i respect people of all religious beliefs.To me being secular is to respect the traditions and beliefs of all religions and not restrict them completely as is being the done in schools in france.
thank you
And a merry CHRISTmas.(and not the secular X’mas)
Scott Young said,
December 23, 2008 at 1:00 am
Bruce,
This is an old post, so I’m going to go light on the debate:
1. biochemical machines. Why is something less valuable if it is more mysterious? Why does a cause have more meaning if it is biochemical than if it is a ghost?
2. Secular humanity. I’m not an explicit follower, but justifying moral intuitions isn’t hard. Many philosophers borrow the concept of a social contract as the basis of morality. Secular life does not require moralistic relativism.
3. Life does have a higher meaning.
-Scott
Bruce said,
December 24, 2008 at 4:25 am
im not a very smart person so i have not followed what you have said
It would be very nice of you to rephrase it in simpler language.
sha said,
December 24, 2008 at 6:49 pm
u r just being lucky Scott …. u have not encountered calamities in life …. maybe just minor problems of life. In times of calamity (tsunami, hurricane, etc.) who / where would u turn to? By reading news u just feel a great sympathy until u encounter it yourself. I think by just having a great philosophy of life wouldn’t be enough.
Mel said,
January 13, 2009 at 1:10 pm
YAY NECROPOSTING! I can’t help but throw in my two cents here, tho this is an old post. Sorry.
I’m a recently “converted” Baha’i–I use quotations there because it was not a conversion for me. The ideals, thoughts and questioning that are central to the Baha’i faith were something I’ve grown up with. I was agnostic for almost ten years, bordering on atheism, simply because I disagreed with the Christian church. I felt that there was something else out there–be it a “God” or “Goddess” or “Universal Force” or what have you. I didn’t feel qualified to try to put a name to it.
I didn’t realize how much unrest this caused me. As soon as I signed my little card to declare that I was Baha’i (two months ago, now) something clicked. If I get overwhelmed, I can step back and think about a situation. One of the tenets of the Baha’i faith is detachment, and that has been VERY valuable to me these last two months. In fact, most of the ‘commandments’ of the faith are simply common sense, dressed up in prayer. (Which, you’re probably thinking, is why you just stick to common sense and forgo the prayer.
)
We value prayer, but there is no clergy mucking up one’s relationship with Baha. All legal matters are handled by the Universal House of Justice–do some googling if you want to see how well that’s put together, I don’t have the time to type up all the intricacies! We value writing and knowledge–Baha’u'llah, his forerunner the Bab and his descendents wrote SO MUCH it’s amazing–AND the fact that we value writing so much rather than oral tradition means the original value of the ‘holy’ works stays intact. (Unlike the Bible.)
Anyway, what I wanted to share in this post is a basic image from the Baha’i faith you might find appealing–maybe not. Baha’u'llah says that we cannot hope to understand Baha any more than a table can hope to understand it’s carpenter. That image spoke to me–as you mention above, the Christian faith sees one “God” while Hindus see “another” and so on–here, we acknowledge there is a divine presence of some sort but make no attempt to reign it in to the whims of mankind.
So yeah. Hope it wasn’t a waste of your time. Not trying to convert you, just presenting a different (but yet, similar) point of view.
Kevin said,
February 18, 2009 at 12:21 am
Hey Scott…so glad I stumbled upon your site. You have made another huge fan. Looking over your archive, I can’t wait to read all the juicy subjects that speak right to me. I love the way you think and highly respect your intelligence. I’ve bookmarked your site and will be coming back daily to ponder your words of wisdom…thanks for your work. Specifically, I’m really pondering this question about God, and you’ve helped me to start thinking outside the box as far as common arguments for God. What I keep coming back to is that I have a driving desire to know what my purpose is…why do I exist. As far as I know, there is nothing in all of the universe which exists that can be proven to not have a creator (granted, much of it we don’t know whether it was created or not…thus the debate). However, I can give millions (OK…lots) of examples of things that I can prove exist because they were created by a creator. My understanding (if you can call it that) of the scope of science is to use observations like this and experiments to draw conclusions about the larger physical material world. Wouldn’t my observations about existing things which have a creator, while not proving anything, provide stronger evidence in a scientific arena pointing towards the conclusion that the universe had a creator? I’d be thrilled if you were able to help out to a fellow open-minded (yet much less-intelligent) truth-seeker. Thanks!
Scott Young said,
February 18, 2009 at 8:10 am
Kevin,
I’d suggest reading The Blind Watchmaker by Richard Dawkins, as an understanding for the creative (but, unconscious) powers of evolution as an explanation for “design” in nature.
I’m not against the belief in God. I think believing in *something* is important as it shapes our philosophy of life. However, I feel when the claims for that something are too specific, and observably false, you enter into a dangerous territory. Philosophies such as Daoism and Buddhism offer many of the comforts and perspectives of religion without making falsifiable claims. (At least in some sects)
Kevin said,
February 18, 2009 at 10:08 am
Got it. I don’t advocate a specific religion…I actually don’t like religion. What I know of buddhism (much of it) I really like, just like I love the morality of Jesus. I need to look into Daoism…have to admit I don’t know much. I will also look into Blind Watchmaker, thanks for the tip. Right now I’m deconstructing everything I’ve learned, all the assumptions I’ve made. I don’t want to make any ‘leaps’, my goal right now is to honestly look at if that ’something’ exists at all or if it’s something we just created. My goal isn’t to assign attributes to the ’something’, just to examine if it’s reasonable that the ’something’ exists. I’d love to see some kind of follow up on the subject in the future. Thanks again for your service to society…I really like the way you think.
Sofi said,
March 3, 2009 at 1:10 pm
It is always not enough to see a garden is beautiful without thinking what beauty behind it…
Science is not created by this thinking, it is created by thought of “there is always something behind something”…
I’m a Moslem, and I advise you to take The Holy Koran, and you’ll see some explanation, a lot-lot of explanation for people like you…
Sofi said,
March 3, 2009 at 1:27 pm
See Sura el-Muddatsir…
You’ll understand…
haseem said,
April 2, 2009 at 1:31 pm
If i don’t believe gravitation it doesn’t mean gravitation doesn’t exist.
If believe something that doesn’t exist for others, it will become exist at least for me.
So if I doesn’t believe but others, it will become no-exist for me
And every people seems always have arguments for what their believe or not
I believe in God like as a source of all then i let go off my religion, because religion is not God itself
Beieve in God or not for others is not too important for me
But the truth always exist either i believe or not
Because, i think if all in the world either atheist or not living in peace and harmony we don’t need any God, either exist or not.
PS:english is not my firs language
Natalie Lange said,
April 5, 2009 at 8:35 pm
Not that you need more comments, but I’d just like you to know what a feel good article this is. Truly. Thanks for publishing it.
The Growing Minority said,
May 4, 2009 at 9:49 am
@ s437
Just wanted to say that you got it spot on my friend. Thank you for saving me time in my post
Personally, i find it a bit strange that everyone forgets we are still animals. Not in the wild and savage sense, but in a biological sense. We, unfortunately, are not the extremely special beings we like to think we are. We are the beneficiaries of favored evolution. That being said i think the concept of God and religion becomes quite obvious. Animals fear that which they don’t understand, and since we have been granted this great gift of complex thought it is only logical to presume that we, as a species, would create some sort of buffer between ourselves and our fears. Gods and religions are that buffer. Did no one think it quite strange that as our understanding of the world and of nature progressed, our need for many gods to explain natural phenomena gradually diminished. We went from many different gods that explained every minute detail of our world to just one solitary god that serves to explain the emotional and moral conflicts that we face, and that we have yet to explain. Granted this argument is a weak one, but it is an observation that i had many years ago and still pops into my head on occasion when stories of religions zealotry come on the news.
Anyway, great article Scott
HL in WA said,
May 13, 2009 at 11:35 am
Nicely written post, and omg a bunch of comments. I hope you are still reading them, and if you want, skip straight to the link at the end; its the important part, and I believe you will enjoy it greatly.
I have come to understand (not believe, but truly understand) how I and nature are one and the same, and nature is the only ‘god’ force in existance, and neither I nor anyone or anything else are separate from or different than nature/god/existance; all are one. The separation of ‘god’ into a separate punishing parental invisible ‘person’ is so alien from the truth of perfect love, beauty and acceptance that surrounds us - how could each snow flake be so beautiful if this world were not made of perfect love?
I highly recommend taking a moment to watch this TED Talks video from Jill Bolte Taylor, a lady who had the amazing opportunity to actually experience her complete one-ness with the universe, and can share that experience with others in a way I’ve never felt so powerfully before:
www.ted.com/index.php/talks/jill_bolte_taylor_s_powerful_stroke_of_insight.html
Pandera said,
May 23, 2009 at 5:30 pm
I think this post is still going strong because it is one of the few places on the Internet where a real discussion is taking place.
For those that are still reading, please check out this article in Scientific American - it’s great food for thought.
Why People Believe Invisible Agents Control the World - A Skeptic’s take on souls, spirits, ghosts, gods, demons, angels, aliens and other invisible powers that be…
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=skeptic-agenticity
Scott H Young » What the Heck is Spirituality? said,
May 27, 2009 at 10:07 am
[…] I’ve tried arguing: atheism is not a life philosophy devoid of meaning or intrinsic rewards. It’s simply a different […]
Timothy Howse said,
June 5, 2009 at 9:27 pm
What kind of a God do you reject? Can you prove, with 100% certainty, that there is no God?
Scott Young said,
June 7, 2009 at 10:38 am
Timothy,
I can’t prove anything with 100% certainty.
-Scott
Maryan said,
June 11, 2009 at 5:25 pm
The reason why he made this post . He said it was for emotional purpouse . It’s not a case of am right ure wrong . We’ve all seen where that thinking leads to . …
You said its not a case of you dont believe it a case of the belief isn’t there. It really helps me to know that no matter what happens god is watching over me and that he wont give me any burden or trials that I
cant handle . A friend gave me this qoute its ” through the difficulties to the stars ” . Keeping that in mind I hope you stay positive and that you find your way to god if not I wish for your peace in this world .
Love your blog and thanks for the great tips for studying and stuff.
Ali said,
June 16, 2009 at 2:31 pm
Scott,
I respect your views on religion, but I don’t agree with some negatives you have stated. For example, the freedom that comes with religion is just as much as freedom without religion because it enables you to see God’s creations in different perspectives. I believe that all religions have a near-perfect idea on paper, but human nature is what corrupts them. For example, Communism sounds great on paper, but does not work in reality because of human nature. Religion is what got us out of our animalistic nature and refined us. (For some reason your spell-check says I’m spelling animalistic wrong). I think religion was the best thing to happen to us because of its comfort and righteousness. The problem with proving religion is that most of it is truly spiritual. Then again, we can’t prove different dimensions and universes although it is likely they exist. God said our intelligence is too little to understand exactly how he was created and why we exist at all. Personally, I believe that to be true because human intelligence has a limit. The issue is that we can never understand fully why we were created or what the meaning of life is because a question will always follow another question.
StockStalker said,
June 16, 2009 at 8:19 pm
An elightening post. I also recommend Toltec Wisdom of don Miguel Ruiz (esp. the audiobook version). Though this work leans more towards a pantheistic view, it isn’t out to inform, but rather to offer self-help through a deeper understanding of our emotions and the universe that we live in.
Someguy said,
June 17, 2009 at 10:00 am
Most atheists believe in science. But science is just a belief system, so in a sense, it’s just another religion.
I highly disagree when you said that “there is intrinsic purpose in seeking the truth. And that faith or any suspension of the rational mind I possess is an inherent evil towards this goal.”
You see this goal is pointless. We can never rely on our rationale to know the truth, because we rely on our senses to guide our reasoning. And, all of our sensory perceptions are based on the past. The stars we “see” in the night sky, most of them died billions of years ago. The keyboard you’re typing on right now, you touched it how many milliseconds ago it took for the nerve to fire from the tip of your finger to your brain. The thoughts you’re thinking right “now”, you thought it however many nanoseconds ago, etc. Not only that, people (and their reasoning) do change because what we believe now to be the truth, may turn out to be a lie, in the near future.
In many instances, suppressing rationality is the lesser evil. For example, when we’re writing a novel, our rationality presents us with the internal editor, who tries to sabotage our progress. Often times, we find success in doing something counter-intuitive, rather than listening to our thoughts. Also, how do you explain the fact that the people who follow their hearts (where love resides) rather than their brains, are often the people, who get it right. We’re talking Bill Gates (love of computers), Walt Disney (love of animation), J.K. Rowling (love of writing mystery and fantasy novels). Wouldn’t everyone be happier and better off, if they’d shut off their brain once in a while, where thoughts of worry reside? How do you explain the fact that some psychiatric patients get better when they are given a treatment of electric shock to their brain to “fry themselves out of their problem” by resetting and re-aligning everything “up there” in their cranium?
Also, there are certain truths out there, the “unwritten laws of this world”, which the logical mind would never fathom coming up with, because it’s too cowardly to consider abandonning itself to illogic. Two things come to mind:
(1) The arrogant shall fall. The Titanic, anyone? Too big to sink, eh?
(2) One meets his destiny on the road he takes to avoid it. There was a story a while ago, in my local newspaper of two young girls, who decided to take a taxi home late at night, rather than public transit, because they felt it was the safest way to get home. They died in a fatal accident when another vehicle slammed into the taxi they were riding.
(3) He that seeks, his life shall lose it, and he that loses, his life shall find it. For instance, when you make it a point to go out and meet people to find love, you almost will never find what you’re looking for. It’s only when you stop looking, does love find you, like starting a casual conversation with someone on a subway, only to find out that you have much in common. The phrase, “money comes to you, when you least need it,” illustrates this unwritten law so succinctly.
Just about the only thing that I think you got right in the article is the fact that atheism brings you far greater freedom, because you see, the biggest fear that humans have is NOT the fear of dying, NOT the fear that one day, you will lose everything you have and hold dear to, but rather the fear of living life to the fullest, which is why we would sabotage ourselves, when we’ve finally found the freedom that we are looking for.
Carlos said,
June 22, 2009 at 3:50 pm
Before I ask you this question, let me apologize if you already answered this question in your comments. I understand that Atheism is the lack of belief in a god or all gods. However I don’t recall you saying if you either are skeptical in the existence God or if you believe that such a being doesn’t exist. So are you just skeptical or doubtful or do you believe that such a being (specifically the Judeo-Christian God) doesn’t exist.
StockStalker said,
June 29, 2009 at 1:36 pm
God exists…
Here’s actual scientific proof. It’s a little quantum experiment called the double slit experiment. This first video, explained by a cartoony character called Dr. Quantum, gives you the gist of the classic experiment:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DfPeprQ7oGc
This next series of videos (8 parts total), give you the current update:
Part 1 of 8 - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bgnuib0z0vI
The second experiment is a modern twist on the classic experiment shown in the first video. This experiment demonstrates the existence of conscious knowledge of future events in something as simple as an electron and is closely related to the concept of Laplace’s demon:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laplace’s_demon
After having watched those videos, if you accept that:
Particles = matter = matterial world = Devil = lack of faith (b/c you had to observe) = can’t tell the future for beans so as to tame Laplace’s demon.
But WaveFunction = immaterial world = God = faith (b/c you trusted, therefore did not have to observe) = more powerful than Devil = CAN tell the future,
it then becomes natural to surmise that when we die, our consciousness dies. We no longer “observe” the world, hence we return to our native wavefunction state (because “observation” collapses wavefunctions turning them into particles, ie. matter), we become one with the Almighty, because he is a wavefunction, and he is more powerful than the Devil, because he knows the future.