Welcome. Like others, I don't have time to go through every question in detail, but I'll do the best I can in a few minutes.
1. What is the predominate belief of your family and friends?
Evangelical Christian.
2. What is your general location? (If U.S. please use northwest, northeast, etc.)
Southeast
3. Have you changed your beliefs in the past?
Used to be a Christian. Slowly moved to something closer to deism. Now, I'm more of an agnostic atheist.
4. What is your highest level of education?
College grad, BA in English
5. Many people have argued that the “big bang” implies a finite universe. Some people (myself included) believe that a finite universe tends to have more theistic leanings. How would you respond to this?
From my understanding, some theorize that the universe may be kind of like individual planets, that is, if you travel in one direction long enough, you will end up back where you started. Even if it is "contained" in this way, it could still be expanding in circumference (if that's even the right word), thereby making the distance one would have to travel to reach the starting point greater over time. I don't think if we one day found that the universe was certainly finite, that we would then have to imply a god or some higher entity to "contain" it or maintain it in some other way. Earth is finite, but those on this side of the Enlightenment find quite reasonable, natural explanations for how our planet developed and no longer look to the heavens for an explanation. Likewise, even if our universe is finite, there's no sense in saying the universe is any different than anything else in the natural world. There could be multiple universes or some other explanation that we can't yet fathom. But bringing a god into the equation raises questions that never needed to be raised in the first place and further complicates the most basic questions about life and the universe.
7. How would you respond to the fine tuning argument?
That we have already discovered several planets that are probably the so-called Goldilocks zone. That we happen to be in such a zone for supporting life is unremarkable, given the sheer number of potential planets in the universe.
8. Do you believe in IDT (Intelligent Design Theory), TOE (Theory of Evolution), or other? (Seems like a weird question but there are some atheists that believe that we were designed by aliens)
Evolution by natural selection.
9. Based on the question above, what would you say are the general points that back up your belief in this?
That 99 percent of our DNA matches that of chimpanzees is a good start. That our human bodies and unborn children show some of the same relics of our evolutionary past. The fossil record. Skulls discovered that show our prehistoric past.
10. How does a belief in [response above] relate to an atheist/agnostic belief?
It's related, of course, but there are other reasons for my non-belief. The problem of evil or intense suffering being one. The moral-trainwreck of vicarious redemption is another.
11. Do you believe that morals are relative/preference? Please Explain
This is a field of inquiry that science hasn't investigated enough in my view, but generally, I think that we can define certain actions or moral codes to be more favorable to societies than others, even within certain groups that we may look unfavorably upon. We can look at the ancient Mayans, for instance. They practiced, what to us is the detestable practice of human sacrifice to an even more detestable angry and blood drinking god. Even though we wince at such barbarity today, the Mayans, within their own society, indeed had codes of ethics that held the society together, otherwise, we may never have known about the Mayans because their society would have imploded without certain codes of ethics. Lying, for instance, will get a person in trouble in almost any society on the planet, no matter how weird or cruel certain practices within those groups may appear to us. Stealing would be another example. In contrast, people generally award individuals for displaying noble, generous or benevolent characteristics within individual groups. They may not display these characteristics to people in rival groups, of course, but they do within their own in-groups. I think this makes a strong case that we can point to some kind of objective moral or ethical framework among in-groups. Germany, of course, remained in tact even under the Nazis because within Nazism, people were generally decent to each other, or else, Nazism would have crumbled long before it did.
Certainly. They are fair questions. Believers, it seems, often think that there are some questions or issues that unbelievers haven't mulled over in great or enough detail. As if we unbelievers haven't really worked out the implications of the finite universe claim or how something came from nothing. Of course, some unbelievers are just as ignorant on why they disbelieve as believers on these questions. It's good to see you are at least thinking about these issues. You have gotten farther than many of your fellow theists, including nearly all of my believing family and friends.
1. What is the predominate belief of your family and friends?
Evangelical Christian.
2. What is your general location? (If U.S. please use northwest, northeast, etc.)
Southeast
3. Have you changed your beliefs in the past?
Used to be a Christian. Slowly moved to something closer to deism. Now, I'm more of an agnostic atheist.
4. What is your highest level of education?
College grad, BA in English
5. Many people have argued that the “big bang” implies a finite universe. Some people (myself included) believe that a finite universe tends to have more theistic leanings. How would you respond to this?
From my understanding, some theorize that the universe may be kind of like individual planets, that is, if you travel in one direction long enough, you will end up back where you started. Even if it is "contained" in this way, it could still be expanding in circumference (if that's even the right word), thereby making the distance one would have to travel to reach the starting point greater over time. I don't think if we one day found that the universe was certainly finite, that we would then have to imply a god or some higher entity to "contain" it or maintain it in some other way. Earth is finite, but those on this side of the Enlightenment find quite reasonable, natural explanations for how our planet developed and no longer look to the heavens for an explanation. Likewise, even if our universe is finite, there's no sense in saying the universe is any different than anything else in the natural world. There could be multiple universes or some other explanation that we can't yet fathom. But bringing a god into the equation raises questions that never needed to be raised in the first place and further complicates the most basic questions about life and the universe.
7. How would you respond to the fine tuning argument?
That we have already discovered several planets that are probably the so-called Goldilocks zone. That we happen to be in such a zone for supporting life is unremarkable, given the sheer number of potential planets in the universe.
8. Do you believe in IDT (Intelligent Design Theory), TOE (Theory of Evolution), or other? (Seems like a weird question but there are some atheists that believe that we were designed by aliens)
Evolution by natural selection.
9. Based on the question above, what would you say are the general points that back up your belief in this?
That 99 percent of our DNA matches that of chimpanzees is a good start. That our human bodies and unborn children show some of the same relics of our evolutionary past. The fossil record. Skulls discovered that show our prehistoric past.
10. How does a belief in [response above] relate to an atheist/agnostic belief?
It's related, of course, but there are other reasons for my non-belief. The problem of evil or intense suffering being one. The moral-trainwreck of vicarious redemption is another.
11. Do you believe that morals are relative/preference? Please Explain
This is a field of inquiry that science hasn't investigated enough in my view, but generally, I think that we can define certain actions or moral codes to be more favorable to societies than others, even within certain groups that we may look unfavorably upon. We can look at the ancient Mayans, for instance. They practiced, what to us is the detestable practice of human sacrifice to an even more detestable angry and blood drinking god. Even though we wince at such barbarity today, the Mayans, within their own society, indeed had codes of ethics that held the society together, otherwise, we may never have known about the Mayans because their society would have imploded without certain codes of ethics. Lying, for instance, will get a person in trouble in almost any society on the planet, no matter how weird or cruel certain practices within those groups may appear to us. Stealing would be another example. In contrast, people generally award individuals for displaying noble, generous or benevolent characteristics within individual groups. They may not display these characteristics to people in rival groups, of course, but they do within their own in-groups. I think this makes a strong case that we can point to some kind of objective moral or ethical framework among in-groups. Germany, of course, remained in tact even under the Nazis because within Nazism, people were generally decent to each other, or else, Nazism would have crumbled long before it did.
Quote:I just want to get a better understanding of beliefs that run quite contradictive to mine. Please don’t attack my belief; I respect your beliefs and I hope that you respect mine.
Certainly. They are fair questions. Believers, it seems, often think that there are some questions or issues that unbelievers haven't mulled over in great or enough detail. As if we unbelievers haven't really worked out the implications of the finite universe claim or how something came from nothing. Of course, some unbelievers are just as ignorant on why they disbelieve as believers on these questions. It's good to see you are at least thinking about these issues. You have gotten farther than many of your fellow theists, including nearly all of my believing family and friends.
Our Daily Train blog at jeremystyron.com
---
We have lingered in the chambers of the sea | By sea-girls wreathed with seaweed red and brown | Till human voices wake us, and we drown. — T.S. Eliot
"... man always has to decide for himself in the darkness, that he must want beyond what he knows. ..." — Simone de Beauvoir
"As if that blind rage had washed me clean, rid me of hope; for the first time, in that night alive with signs and stars, I opened myself to the gentle indifference of the world. Finding it so much like myself—so like a brother, really—I felt that I had been happy and that I was happy again." — Albert Camus, "The Stranger"
---
---
We have lingered in the chambers of the sea | By sea-girls wreathed with seaweed red and brown | Till human voices wake us, and we drown. — T.S. Eliot
"... man always has to decide for himself in the darkness, that he must want beyond what he knows. ..." — Simone de Beauvoir
"As if that blind rage had washed me clean, rid me of hope; for the first time, in that night alive with signs and stars, I opened myself to the gentle indifference of the world. Finding it so much like myself—so like a brother, really—I felt that I had been happy and that I was happy again." — Albert Camus, "The Stranger"
---
