Argument against atheism

[Perhaps]

Hehehe, I have an "argument against atheism".

It isn't an argument of technicality, or an argument for the existence or non-existence of gods at all. Let's see if you guys can help me whittle down my thoughts into a compact sound byte that describes the sort duality in my perceptions that lead me to being a myth loving but militant anti-theist.

As has been mentioned by many posters, atheism is not a worldview, it has no value or merit in and of itself extended beyond a lack of belief in gods. I do feel that the notion or concept of a god could be extremely useful as a focal point for positive beliefs, regardless of the veracity of the claims (and even with full knowledge of their factual inaccuracy). I do feel that there are many things in the natural world that can very easily be leveraged to form a workable worldview, and that the addition of mystery, magic, or the numinous even if it's approached only as a metaphor can re-enforce those positive beliefs, that workable worldview. The stumbling stone thusfar has not been belief itself, but the god's that we have manufactured as a focal point for those beliefs. It's not beyond possibility that we may be able to do better. Especially if we retain the approach under the stairs, and behind the curtains, that we are intentionally constructing a myth so as to be useful, not contradictory with reality in our interpretations, and open to revision and change. In short, constructing a useful myth out of truth that is not to be taken dogmatically, but instead as a means of communicating complicated ideas in ways which have been shown to be appealing to us (through the example of types of religions and types of gods that have enjoyed wide support throughout time). If we want to use the god concept, lets own it, lets improve upon it, lets not fall prey to repeating our history surrounding the concept. I wouldn't argue that it's something that we need, or something that we should do. I do believe that it's something that would enhance some of our lives, that it's something that we could do.

As an example; The notion of the connectedness of life has a great vehicle in the concept of energy binding us all, flowing through us all, and ultimately being shared by us all. If all of the superstition and baggage that comes along with the notion of "shared energy, shared life force" could be removed and re-tasked as a poetic description of a thing worthy of worship and reverence, imagine the possibilities. A life affirming faith, for a change. Not just our own but all life, as the source and spring of our own. This sort of definition of the divine could be useful in my opinion, as long as we do not insist upon taking it literally and creating a sort of authority out of it. If we understand these manufactured gods as concepts that we as a species have found useful in describing this or that feeling. That familiar sense of awe when considering something greater than ourselves. I've heard it said that god can be shorthand for truth, well, let's make it so rather than attempting to shoehorn truth into a preconceived notion of a god. I read a great book about the sort of religion that I would definitely be behind, called A Religion of Nature. One of the authors described how every benefit of religion that can be conceived of can be drawn from the observable world (and argued that this is probably exactly what we did in the first place). That religion and gods could be religious without being dogamtic, could be faithful to a god without insisting that the god actually existed.

Obviously this isn't really an argument for any specific god, or any specific faith, but a practical set of beliefs that could very easily be described as a religion. The acknowledgement of the usefulness of concepts which could be very easily be described as "gods". Take the good, leave the bad, be honest about what we've done, and leave it open for improvement. Now, one might argue that this religion would still be atheism, that these would be atheist's gods. I suppose that this is true. But I do feel that there might be a way to retain the magic that these sorts of narratives can have (and that many of us remember from our childhoods) without literally believing in magic. To that effect a religion with these sorts of gods as the focal point may be more useful than a worldview which has no such focal point. This isn't to say that atheists don't find the "divine" in other ways, other areas, simply that we know that mythical and legendary narratives are effective, and we might be able to leverage them in a way that is both honest, practical, and filled with faith and reverence for concepts which would do a great service to us and our continued existence here. You might be able to draw from this little rant that I have a great respect for what we attempted to do with religion and gods (in my optimists view of it all). Similarly it's pretty easy to see why I'm so disappointed with what we actually did with these concepts. I wish we had done a better job, and I think that we probably could do a better job if we were so inclined, and that this sort of exercise could be very useful for us.

(Looking back at this post it's no wonder to me that we spoke before we wrote. So much easier to let it roll off the tongue than write it down)

Very interesting ideas. I would say your second paragraph describes the views of pantheism - a single energy running through us all - unity - oneness - the perception of awe and wonder at the things we consider greater than ourselves.

[amkerman]

"God" wouldn't be physical in nature, it would be a force of the universe like gravity. Necessarily if it was a material thing it couldn't be correctly called "God", since everything in the physical universe was created by unphysical universal forces and any definition of "God", at least contemporary notions, presuppose that "God" created the universe, not the other way around.

---

that was in response to whateverist's response to Perhaps, just FYI

[The Grand Nudger]

Perhaps- It has a current which runs alongside pantheism yes, the difference in that in my explanation of this there is always the single caveat that none of it is literally true.

Amker- I thought we've explained fairly well why anything, absolutely anything, could be termed god, and similarly why nothing can be termed god if one were a stickler for a literal interpretation of the concept. I don't understand why you insist on restating the most useless portion of any of your comments as though it might somehow miraculously acquire a meaning or value through repetition.

[Epimethean]

So the Big Bang was "unphysical?"

[Minimalist]

So consciousness defines existence? My ability to perceive pain proves that i exist?

Let's be clear, I don't care if you exist or not. I know you exist because you are wasting pixels with absurd "arguments" about whether you exist or not. You do...and if you slam your fucking hand with a hammer the pain will prove it to you.

This is a perfect example of why I hate philosophy. It obfuscates. It wastes time. It's why this joke is so funny.

"How do you get a philosopher off your porch?


-- Pay for the pizza."

[Shell B]

"unphysical universal forces" That was a brainfart, if ever there were a brainfart.

[Perhaps]

I'd say philosophy is the way we first grasp what may eventually become science. Most of science was the domain of philosophy until ways were found to decide things empirically. Consciousness is something I expect will gain more sure empirical footing eventually.

Very much agreed.

That being said, I do agree that any God which man claims to know or understand can be determined false by methods which man also knows such as science. If, however, God is objective and simply exists outside of our conscious being we cannot apply something that is subjective to ourselves - namely science - to the outside existence.

You just lost me. You seem to begin by saying that anything which man may say god is, can be shown not to be so. With you so far.

I'm not sure what you mean by the premise: if god is objective (material?) and outside of our conscious being (but possibly an aspect of our unconscious being?). I need clarification here.

The conclusion seems false by any interpretation I can think of. I don't think of science as being anything that is "subjective to ourselves" and I'm not at all sure what that phrase means. But by "outside existence" I assume you mean the objective world, whatever is and would be whether or not anyone were there to perceive it. If that is what you mean then I think that is exactly what science is for. It is our formal attempt to exclude what is subjective from our understanding of what is objective.

In the world of existence there are objective things which exist regardless of consciousness - I would say these things are what consciousness formed out of (laws of physics mainly). There are also conscious beings which exist - namely you and I. As conscious beings we suppose reality as it pertains to our perception. It can be viewed either way - but I choose to say that our perception determines our reality which is ultimately caused by the objective things outside of our conscious existence.

To summarize that - there are very few objective things which exist outside of ourselves. Our consciousness allows us to perceive subjective things based upon the few objective things in existence. (This could all be discussed, but I'll accept that this is just my opinion and my argument is based on my opinion.) If God is of the objective world - outside of our conscious existence - then our subjective methods of analysis (based on our perception of the world of existence) can not accurately describe or capture God. We only know what we perceive.

There are two fields of subjtivism and objectivism. Those which pertain to existence - which I am discussing - and those which pertain to conscious beings - those which you are discussing. Science falls into the later - it allows conscious beings to sort out what is subjective between conscious beings (for example color) and that which is objective (the fact that we are all on the earth). Science cannot be applied to the broad discussion of existence, for it itself falls into the subjective category of consciousness.

If we do apply a subjective analysis to an objective existence then we create a warped view of something which is outside of ourselves entirely. This warped view could be disproved using our subjective analysis again, but the objective existence still remains, no matter how we choose to subjectively view it.

I am fully aware that just as an objective existence outside of ourselves cannot be disproved, it also cannot be proven. It all comes back to the discussion we had pages back about metaphysical solipsism vs. objectivism. Once one assumes the answer to this discussion then they are able to construct the rest of their thought processes and beliefs.

I assume that there is an objective world and that is what effects my field of consciousness to give rise to perception. Is the objective world exactly as it is perceived? I have no way of knowing. But our manner of perception has been at least as useful for interacting with the objective world as that of every other creature that still survives, and given the degree of our domination of the biosphere some might even say more so.

Now if God is not a part of the objective world, then I would say He either does not exist at all or He exists only in our psyches. If He is part of the objective world then I see no in principle reason why we should not be able to discover Him scientifically. Are you suggesting some other place for God to be?

I agree with the first paragraph. If God does not exist objectively then you are correct. If, however, God does exist objectively then it does not follow that it could be determined by the use of science, for reasons stated above.

[Edit:] I would like to also add a question for any who feel they wish to answer. It relates to a thought experiment I've been constructing for the past month or so. Assuming evolution is true, is there an end goal to evolution? Does it conceivably have a purpose or reason? If the answer is no then does that simply mean that evolution is and that the process of natural selection will never end even as 'perfection' is reached?

Not in my opinion. I don't think evolution has any teleological intentions. But how should I know really?

Thank you, teleology is one of the things which literally make my brain hurt, but I'm determined to try anyway.

---

Perhaps- It has a current which runs alongside pantheism yes, the difference in that in my explanation of this there is always the single caveat that none of it is literally true.

True, personally though, it's still interesting to see rational people come to a similar conclusion.

---

So consciousness defines existence? My ability to perceive pain proves that i exist?

Let's be clear, I don't care if you exist or not. I know you exist because you are wasting pixels with absurd "arguments" about whether you exist or not. You do...and if you slam your fucking hand with a hammer the pain will prove it to you.

This is a perfect example of why I hate philosophy. It obfuscates. It wastes time. It's why this joke is so funny.

"How do you get a philosopher off your porch?


-- Pay for the pizza."

Perspective is a beautiful thing

[Blam!]

"God" wouldn't be physical in nature, it would be a force of the universe like gravity. Necessarily if it was a material thing it couldn't be correctly called "God", since everything in the physical universe was created by unphysical universal forces and any definition of "God", at least contemporary notions, presuppose that "God" created the universe, not the other way around.

---

that was in response to whateverist's response to Perhaps, just FYI

Unphysical universal forces? On what grounds where do you shew that kind of excretion from, bible?

[Whateverist]

I do feel that the notion or concept of a god could be extremely useful as a focal point for positive beliefs, regardless of the veracity of the claims (and even with full knowledge of their factual inaccuracy). I do feel that there are many things in the natural world that can very easily be leveraged to form a workable worldview, and that the addition of mystery, magic, or the numinous even if it's approached only as a metaphor can re-enforce those positive beliefs, that workable worldview.

It might help to brain storm what we in fact we find mysterious and what we revere.

The stumbling stone thus far has not been belief itself, but the god's that we have manufactured as a focal point for those beliefs. It's not beyond possibility that we may be able to do better. Especially if we retain the approach under the stairs, and behind the curtains, that we are intentionally constructing a myth so as to be useful, not contradictory with reality in our interpretations, and open to revision and change. In short, constructing a useful myth out of truth that is not to be taken dogmatically, but instead as a means of communicating complicated ideas in ways which have been shown to be appealing to us (through the example of types of religions and types of gods that have enjoyed wide support throughout time).

I agree that dogmatic belief is the culprit but I'm not sure how you can generate faith while cynically constructing and promoting known falsehoods. Perhaps the beliefs could be there just as a formative tool for kids but structured as you say so as not to conflict with science but only to generate positive values and habits of mind.

The notion of the connectedness of life has a great vehicle in the concept of energy binding us all, flowing through us all, and ultimately being shared by us all. If all of the superstition and baggage that comes along with the notion of "shared energy, shared life force" could be removed and re-tasked as a poetic description of a thing worthy of worship and reverence, imagine the possibilities. A life affirming faith, for a change. Not just our own but all life, as the source and spring of our own.

A good place to start and lets face it the transition from inorganic to organic is, at least for now, pretty mysterious. The transition between the two as a religious topic was explored a little by Vonnegut in "A Cat's Cradle". Perhaps we should call our new religion "Bokononism" out of respect? Some reverence for the not-wholly-understood processes that support us all shouldn't be too hard to drum up.

You might be able to draw from this little rant that I have a great respect for what we attempted to do with religion and gods (in my optimists view of it all). Similarly it's pretty easy to see why I'm so disappointed with what we actually did with these concepts. I wish we had done a better job, and I think that we probably could do a better job if we were so inclined, and that this sort of exercise could be very useful for us.

Yes and I also acknowledge that it is riskier to put forth something that you assert has positive value than it is to criticize the short comings of such assertions. Bravo. Sometimes I think it is the disappointment we feel as atheists that drives the surly exterior.

But back to your suggestion. Another thing we might tap is the right brain. If you watched the video I posted by Ian McGilchrist you might recall toward the end how he described its contribution as a sacred treasure while the contribution of the left brain should be that of a faithful servant. We might begin by acknowledging that there is in fact within us a capacity to perceive connections and significance greater than that which we wield with our conscious left brain. We can hope to be open to its wisdom. I think we want to be.

[downbeatplumb]

"God" wouldn't be physical in nature, it would be a force of the universe like gravity. Necessarily if it was a material thing it couldn't be correctly called "God", since everything in the physical universe was created by unphysical universal forces and any definition of "God", at least contemporary notions, presuppose that "God" created the universe, not the other way around.

---

that was in response to whateverist's response to Perhaps, just FYI

So your "god" is just physics.

Doesn't this make you a deist rather than a theist?