2.26.2007

I Believe in the Awe-Inspiring Natural World

nature
(Photo credit: vjack)

Following up on my post about the importance of atheists articulating what we do believe, it is time for another addition. I believe in the natural world and use the word "reality" to refer to the natural world. That is, I believe that the natural world exists and that it is all that exists. Thus, I am a materialist in the philosophical sense (i.e., I reject all notions of a supernatural realm). Far from being the nihilism with which atheists are frequently accused, this is an awe-inspiring worldview.

Many atheists probably share my belief that the natural world is all that exists, however it is not synonymous with atheism. One can be an atheist and still believe in ghosts, monsters, demons, etc. However, I do not. I believe that ghosts, angels, demons, etc. are fictional constructs which do not exist in the real (i.e., natural) world.

Truth is not a democratic construct, so the fact that the majority of people believe in something like angels has no bearing on whether angels actually exist. Truth is not based on wish fulfillment so the fact that millions of people desperately want there to be angels does not mean that there are. Truth is not subjective in the sense that it would be absurd to claim that angels exist for some people but not for others. They either exist or they do not; they do not.

2.20.2007

Do Christians Really Believe?

Sexta/Viernes/Friday-POSER-Deus - Dios - God
God (Photo credit: Caio Basilio)

I think that many atheists take it for granted that the vast majority of Christians believe what they say they believe. The fundamentalist Christians really do take their bibles literally, hate homosexuals, oppose abortion, etc. The liberal Christians really do care about the environment, hope to reduce poverty, and wish their fundamentalist brethren would think before speaking. But what if we're wrong? What if many, even most, Christians do not actually believe much of what they profess?

Aaron at Kill the Afterlife has a great post about the recent tornadoes in Florida and how at least one pastor has responded. He raises many excellent questions about the nature and limitations of faith, prompting me to add my thoughts here.

After several tornadoes killed 20 people, damaged over a thousand homes, and destroyed a church in Lady Lake, the pastor of this church called for his parishioners to praise their imaginary god. Aaron notes that this pastor seems to forget about the death and devastation his god just caused, focusing instead on how his parishioners presumably managed to escape unharmed. He points out that this pastor is trying to have it both ways: his god did not cause the storm but did save the congregation. The absurdity here and the refusal (or inability) of most believers to see it makes me want to scream.

The crux of Aaron's post is the following:

Theists never really expect their faith to actually do anything other than make them feel better emotionally. The object of their faith didn't create those tornadoes, nor will it actually rebuild their church and their town. Appropriately, these faithful will not blame the devastation on their God. Yet strangely, once these flesh and blood people finish rebuilding their community, they will scramble to be the first to thank their God for fixing everything!

At the very least, these people will claim that God gave them the hope and/or emotional strength needed to rebuild their town. They will do anything to make their imaginary friend appear necessary. Who are they trying to convince, anyway? Perhaps themselves?

As I read this, I can't help wondering how much of what they profess is actually believed by these Christians. If their god did not send the tornadoes and if their god will not actually rebuild their destroyed town, what good is their god? Aaron is right that these people will thank their god and that they will claim that their strength to face adversity came from this god. But why doesn't their god actually do anything to help like the god described in the Christian bible is reported to have done?

Could it be that these Christians find hope, emotional strength, and the courage to face adversity in the act of believing itself? Perhaps many Christians know (at some level) that their god is fiction but they find their belief useful in some way and maintain it for that reason. This belief would be fragile, require faith, and would need frequent reinforcement, justification, and defense. We could almost characterize this as a form of intentional self-delusion, except that proper indoctrination would minimize the degree of intentionality. Could this help to explain the massive disconnect between what Christians say they believe and how many live their lives?

Alternatively, perhaps many Christians do not actually maintain these beliefs but simply the charade of belief. In other words, they know their god is imaginary and do not actually believe but maintain a deliberate facade of belief because it is useful. There would be nothing delusional about this whatsoever. The appearance of belief serves a function, and the appearance is maintained without necessarily requiring much in the way of actual belief.

Ted Haggard certainly did not live in accordance with what he claimed to believe. If he actually believed what he claimed to believe, it is extremely difficult to explain his behavior without resorting to mental illness. However, if he did not believe what he claimed to believe, he might be little more than a skilled con-man.

2.13.2007

I Believe That No Gods Exist

Following up on my post about the importance of atheists articulating what we do believe, it is time to begin. I start with a small but important step. While atheism refers to the lack of theistic belief and does not require an active rejection of theism, I go an additional step in my personal beliefs. I believe that there are no gods of any kind. At least, I believe that there are probably no gods.

Many atheists will undoubtedly join me in this additional belief that there are no gods, but it is not necessary that they do so in order to be counted as an atheist. Still, this will be a familiar position to anyone with even minimal familiarity with atheism.

What makes me willing to take this additional step? After all, theists are correct to claim that one cannot prove the nonexistence of their particular god (or anything else for that matter). Thus, it is technically possible that some sort of god exists, right? Not so fast. Before we can determine whether the existence of some particular god is possible, we must know what is meant by "god" and what properties this god is presumed to have.

What is a god?

According to George Smith, author of Atheism: The Case Against God, all modern conceptions of monotheistic gods include at least two common properties. First, god is presumed to be supernatural. Second, god is presumed to be unknowable. Can a being with these properties exist?

Following Smith's excellent analysis, we realize that saying a being is supernatural tells us almost nothing about the being. We know that it is somehow apart from nature, but we have learned nothing about what it is. If a child asks me what a horse is, and a reply that a horse is a being without wings, the child is unlikely to be satisfied. In the same way, attempting to define god with the attribute of "supernatural" tells us nothing.

Far worse, the idea of a supernatural being may well be incomprehensible. We know of nothing that exists outside of nature. It is highly suspect that we can even entertain such notions. This brings us to the notion that god is inherently unknowable, somehow beyond the grasp of human understanding.

Many believers will be all too happy to proclaim that no human can possibly know the mind of god, that "god works in mysterious ways," or that we cannot possibly understand "god's plan." Such claims not only fail to tell us anything about what god might be; they tell us that attempts at understanding are likely to be futile.

Part of why I do not believe in any sort of god is that this undefined and unknowable entity makes no sense to me. I have yet to encounter an intelligible concept of god that is not logically incoherent. Since it is logically impossible to believe in something that has no definition and no informative properties, here I am.

Where is the evidence?

In all cases of human belief except for one, there is an expectation that evidence is required to justify belief. The one exception is in matters of religion. No other sort of belief claim is so routinely viewed as being exempt from this evidentiary requirement. And yet, this is precisely what must happen when one is dealing with an undefined and unknowable entity such as god.

Because believers refuse to commit to any sort of definition of god, they can change the rules at will. "Well, that might be evidence against that sort of god, but that isn't the god I believe in." Never mind that they appear to have no idea what the god they supposedly believe in truly is (i.e., the properties of this god).

I see no reason to grant an exception to the requirement of evidence, especially when I am expected to believe in something unknowable and without definition. After all, how could I even know if I believed in this unknowable and undefined entity in the first place?

Spotlight on the Christian god

I tend to focus on the Christian concept of god because it is the one with which I am the most familiar due to my upbringing and the culture in which I live. This concept of god suffers from the same flaws I have discussed above.

I am familiar with the arguments which have been offered to suggest that this sort of god might exist, and I have found them lacking. Thus, I see no reason to believe in this sort of god. Nothing more than the exercise of reason is necessary for me to conclude that it is far more probable that this god does not exist than it is that this god does exist.

There is absolutely no evidence to support the existence of the Christian god or any other sort of god. Thus, believing in any god would be irrational. While no human can claim to be 100% rational, I certainly strive toward rationality rather than intentionally turning my back on it. The absence of evidence does not equate disproof of existence, it certainly makes it more likely, especially when the very concept is declared to be unknowable.

Update: Like most humans, my positions on certain issues change over time. For a more current take on what I believe about gods, see Do You Believe That My Preferred God Does Not Exist?

2.10.2007

Then What Do You Believe?

believe sign

Religious believers often have questions when encountering an atheist. I realize this can be annoying at times, but I'd encourage you to view religious believers with questions as a good thing. While some are little more than tactics pushed by their pastors aimed at converting us, others do seem to be sincere attempts to understand how someone could possibly not believe in their preferred god. This is an opportunity we probably shouldn't squander.

Many of the questions I'm used to hearing from Christians reflect a lack of scientific knowledge (e.g., "Then how did we get here?" or "Then why are there still monkeys?"), a lack of moral development (e.g., "If there is no god, why should we be good?"), or just a lack of imagination (e.g., "Then what do you worship?"). Setting those aside, there is at least one question I think atheists should be eager to receive and willing to provide meaningful answers: Then what do you believe?

A Christian who recognizes that atheism refers only to the lack of theistic belief and not to some broad agenda, philosophy, or alternative religion, sometimes asks an excellent question: "I understand that you do not accept the existence of any gods, but I'm curious about what you do believe." I hate to see atheists angrily dismiss this question as irrelevant, provoking, or as a desperate attempt to set up some sort of apologetics trap that will soon be sprung on the unsuspecting atheist because it is not necessarily any of these things (though it certainly can be). It might even represent a genuine attempt to understand atheism or the worldview of the particular atheist being questioned.