On Psalm 109 and Faith

[Alex]

I've never believed in a god or anything supernatural (being bluntly honest, to me defining god as "the universe" is absurdism) so I can't speak to the benefits of a "conversion." All that happened was eventually I found the nerve to tell my parents I thought it was a crock.

On the topic of labels, I've said previously that if you want to get technical I'm not an atheist. I don't know there is no god, no supernatural entity. So, technically I would be agnostic. It is simply that in the absence of any evidence or reason to assume such an existence I live my life as if there is none (just as I live on the assumption that all the other infinite things for which there is no evidence or reason to assume don't actually exist). I can't recall if I saw someone else say it or I made it up but I refer to this as pragmatic atheism.

As for benefits, to me I see it as not wasting time on things that don't matter. You reference Pascal's Wager in your post (why not believe in God since if you're wrong there's no penalty and if you're right the reward is huge) but the flaw in that is too glaring to me to ignore. Namely that it isn't a binary choice of believe in god or not but rather believe in the wrong god or not. Sure, I could choose to belief (if "choice" is truly possible) in a god that accepts all, but my definition of god does not create such a god. So even if I choose to believe odds are I'll still get it wrong (what if the only people who have it right are one of those uncontacted Amazonian tribes, may decision of faith will not have served me any purpose).

Plus, the big harm I see in the magical thinking of religion (faith in that for which there is no evidence simply because it feels - or someone has convinced you it is - right) is that it conditions people to believe in magical thinking in other areas of life where it most definitely has harmful impacts (water dowsing, psychic healing, and homeopathy are orders of magnitude reasonable, based on available evidence, than god. Also, and while this is not true of everybody, religion misused removes the possibility of debate as a social tool. Received wisdom can not be argued.

Yes, the tools of science can and frequently are misused but it contains within itself a process for debate and while it can be slow it generally works.

Ultimately, though, I just don't see the benefit of believing something to be true simply because it makes me feel better to believe it. And if I did, there are things I'd believe in long before I got around to worrying about what happens after I die. Such as believing that if I'm fat long enough I will eventually gain the power of flight and invisibility (which, from my point of view, isn't any more silly an idea than the thought that God created the universe so that Jews would have somewhere to live).

As for proselytizing atheism, I honestly don't care what other people believe up until they start trying to use those believes as a tool for managing other people (and this is true of religious and non-religious thought). That said, I do like to explore what people, including myself, believe. But me saying "I think you've got it all wrong" does not mean "I think you should change just because I think that."

[flippyshark]

Another note on labels: Richard Dawkins (surely the world's most famous atheist at the moment) posits a 1 to 10 scale of belief, where 1 denotes Ï know there is a god,"" and 10 denotes Ï know that there is not a god." Dawkins points out that the majority of believers have no problem listing themselves at position 1 - they proudly say that they are certain in their knowledge that a god exists, but very few atheists put themselves at position 10 - most acknowledge that we don't yet know enough about the universe to say. Dawkins himself says he is something like an 8.7 - he regards the probability of a deity as vanishingly small. I would feel comfortable putting myself at a 9.

Morigoon - speaking only for myself, I find it refreshing to be invited to even talk about these things openly. In my day to day life, there are very few people who are even interested enough in the topic to engage in a conversation.

Oh! Gotta go!

[flippyshark]

OK - As I was saying:

In my face to face life, I'm never invited or encouraged to talk about this stuff, so it's delightful do so here. I hope I don't come off as proselytizing. I value your input as much as everyone else's.

[€uroMeinke]

I think a trap non-believers get into is the presumption that belief in God is something singular. The various philosophical "proofs" of God seldom provide evidence of the vengeful God of the old testament, or the forgiving God of the new, or even the pantheon of Hindu or polytheistic faiths. Perhaps there are some other 1-10 scales to rank your belief in God on omniscience, omnipotence, benevolence, and singularity.


For myself I take an Occam's razor approach and find the belief in God to be unnecessary for me to live my life and make decisions. But should I have some numinous experience with the mysterium tremebdom, who knows? I can only live out m own life based on my own experiences, I know people who believe they have experienced God as a very real way, and its as fruitless for me to convince them their experiences were not real as it is for them to discount my own experiences.

[flippyshark]

Indeed, the numerical score is of limited utility, mostly just as a way to clarify how I'm using terminology.

Happily, from my own perch, belief is not a precondition for enjoying the numinous. I've brushed against that and want more of it.

[Ghoulish Delight]

I'll try to respond to some of this without too much parroting of what flippy and Alex have already said very well.

Yes, when you get down to it I am technically an agnostic in that I am perfectly willing to accept the possibility that I might one day be handed proof of the existence of a being capable of the things purported by religious folk. However at this point I prefer the term atheist just because "agnostic" to most people seems not to imply, "I do not have any reason to believe a supreme being exists, and won't until presented with evidence," but rather most people seem to take it to mean, "Oh, so you believe in some sort of supreme being you just don't believe in any of the versions codified by organized religion." The latter simply does not fit.

As for the benefit to me in "conversion", see flippy's post. I tried the agnostic thing for a while. But eventually I grew weary of the constant mental dissonance it caused. I found myself continually redefining this nebulous belief in "something greater than me" over and over to try to make it fit what my experience in the world was telling me to be true, that no matter how amazing, beautiful, infinite, spectacular, breathtaking, etc. my experiences, none of it required a supreme being to have occurred. And so I just felt like I was lying to myself, playing mental games simply because I felt like I was supposed to believe in something. Until I just stopped because it was unnecessary.

Yes, the infinite is difficult to ponder. Yes, the existence of something beyond the infinite is something that makes sense. However, there is nothing that says to me that that "something" is any more likely to be something remotely resembling any amalgamation of god figures humans of convinced themselves of than it is to be an all powerful teapot. No more likely to care one bit about, or have the ability to interact with, my daily life and thoughts than I'm able to care about or interact with the firing of a particular single neuron in my brain.

As I've said, I find value in the fact that religions are attempts to synthesize into easy-to-passs-on form theories about how people should comport themselves in order to maintain a functioning society. No less valuable in that sense than the Magna Carta, the US Constitution, what have you. But (parroting Alex some), mistaking the origin of those for magic leads to poor conclusions and prevents people from evaluating things objectively. Yes, we can all cherry pick that which works and that which doesn't, but to my eye, if you are not accepting that what you're cherry picking from is of entirely human origin, that it is the result of an entirely non-supernatural process of evolving into social beings, then you drawing your conclusions starting from a false premise, the same false premise that all of them started from, and aren't likely to improve much on their flaws.

[Morrigoon]

This is fascinating. So where would you guys each rank yourselves on that scale?

[lashbear]

Just popping my head in, I'd say about 7-8. Considering I used to be a 1, that's quite a shift for just one Pastor to facilitate, wouldn't you say?

I would say "So?, their loss", but they've gone on to become a religious juggernaut in the Australian Christian Scene (c)(tm)(please donate 10% at the door for using this term) so I don't think my departure caused much loss to them at all.

Bitter? Much? Heck, not me !!

[Alex]

The criteria for intermediate values on Dawkin's scale aren't well defined so it is hard to be very precise in placing myself on it. But since it is his scale and I am very close agreement with him on the major points (1. I've had no personal experience that suggests the existence of such an entity; 2. I see no gaps or contradictions in our understanding of the universe that suggest no other possibility than that such an entity exist in order to be reconciled; 3. The existence of such an entity would contradict everything we think we know about the nature of the reality around us; 4. When examined, every real world evidence of such an entity claimed has proven vaporous; 5. The odds of such an entity existing seem vanishingly small.) so I guess I would be near an 8.7 as well.

Perhaps helpful would be to look at how "atheist" I am on other items.

Unicorns: 7 on the existence of the form, 9 on their magical properties. The existence of unicorns would not violate any physical properties of the universe. However, the initial reports of such creatures are known to be the result of faulty observation and it is unlikely that there remain many large mammals to be discovered but it does still happen leaving open the door for discovery of a creature matching the physical description of unicorns.

Homeopathy: 9.2. A theory that exists entirely within the realm of scientifically testable hypotheses and yet fails conclusively. The theory was developed from philosophy rather than evidence based need and its validity would violate everything we know about reality around us.

Sub-atomic structures: 2.0. Theory derives entirely from observation and filling gaps. Allows for predictions about the reality around us to be made that are then demonstrated through testing. However, much of it relies on indirect observation which heightens risk of misinterpretation of root cause or that only a subset is being described and in a way that is technically incorrect (like how Newtonian physics is correct within its realm but missed relativity and quantum mechanics). Also, ultimately I am relying on the expertise of others as the expertise necessary for personal discovery is quickly beyond me.

Kennedy Assassination Conspiracy Theories: 6.5. If forced to choose I still fall on th side of accepting that Oswald was a lone gunman. However, many conspiracy theories do not lie outside the realm of physical possibility though suffer for relying on questionable evidence or simply Argument from Personal Incredulity. However, I would not be at all surprised if I eventually have to accept I'm on the wrong side of this one.

Quality Full House Episodes: I've seen them all so personal experience argues solidly against the evidence of any good episodes of Full House. Bob Saget and David Coulier are involved and so any quality resulting would violate known physical properties of the universe.

[flippyshark]

GD brings up another good reason I avoid the agnostic term. A lot of people think of it as meaning someone just isn't sure, or is still "seeking." I'm pretty sure, just not dogmatic.

Also, I hope that by embracing the term atheist, I can make do my little bit to remove the still considerable stigma that gets attached to that word. (certainly here in the South.) There are plenty of decent, compassionate non-believers out there, and the more open they are, the more the world can see that 'atheist' is a perfectly cromulent thing to be, even if it isn't their cup of tea.