Do you ever doubt your atheism?

[SteelCurtain]

If ever given reason to doubt my worldview, I would be right on board. In fact, any time I see something that conflicts with what I "know" to be true, I evaluate the evidence in as unbiased a way as I can manage, and adjust accordingly.

[paulpablo]

At first thought, that may appear to be a paradoxical question; like asking, "Do you doubt your disbelief in X?" With certain propositions, however, that is not a meaningless, nor fruitless inquiry to initiate. I have grown increasingly convinced that God, as an idea in its purest form, the free, unconditionally necessary, infinite source of our existence in this particular Universe, is one of those propositions. I am reluctant to use the term Being as this seems an unfortunate presumption, but that this state of affairs--which has historically and in measured respect been the God of true religion--in fair terms, a necessary mechanism on which all rational and empirical experience depends upon, seems to have a mounting case, no longer merely the crowning achievement of philosophy, but apparently also the crown that physical science so desperately seeks: A theory of everything.

But ah, I digress. I could go on but the point is, in atheism, what I am willing to call God, may be a middle ground where two polar opposites can meet, fully aware that in no way does this Ideal of Reason alter any of the functions of our Universe, but instead serves as the systematic unity by which we can perceive reality for what it is, the source of which makes that unity in consciousness we understand as the Self or the Ego possible. At what point of understanding does true religion earn the respect that its name is supposed to represent?

I'm an atheist to the point where I think the existence of god is plausible, but I also think the idea of him using any of the religions of this earth as a form of communication to our planet laughable.
I don't concern myself with God because he hasn't tried to communicate with me.

The only time I ever doubt my total disbelief in all religions is when I have little tiny bouts of OCD and superstitious thoughts which I'm pretty sure all humans suffer with. These thoughts are in the same ball park as thoughts like "Was I unlucky today because I walked under that ladder"

[XK9_Knight]

Your question reminds me of a conversation I was having friend not long ago. It was a conversation on logic and rationality. I was saying that certain truths can be obtained by shear logic alone and, as my friend put it, “logic is an attempt to look back at nature and project forward,” and is essentially fallible and it’s truth deducing ability is only to be trusted to certain extents. I’ll write out a bit of the talk for you…

“Look,” I said, “If I were to throw a brick at that window it would not hit the window and transform into a rabbit!”

“How do you know that?” (You can see where empiricism comes into play?)

“Because it doesn’t follow logically. Not all conceivable things are possible.”

“How do you know it’s not possible?!”

“Because anything put into action (anything contingent) is acted upon by an outside source. There is an enormous series of sequential events that follow logically and necessarily.”

I then said science functions on the same principles and, at which point he said, “No, science isn’t logical,” and at the he realized what he said and the conversation ended. (Lol!)

Have you read Aristotle’s “Metaphysics?” You might enjoy it. Aristotle deals at length with the principle of “First Cause,” probably better known as “the argument of sufficient reason.” That seems to be where you’re heading, is it not? Check it out.

[Mudhammam]

Thanks. At some point in the not too distant future I plan to take a little detour into the Greek writers, probably starting with Homer, and moving on through Plato, Aristotle, etc.

---

Rhythm, undoubtedly you're correct that consciousness cannot be compared to other functions in nature so as to give us a feeling of superfluous importance. But one major difference in favor of our superiority I think it is fair to admit, is that consciousness, specifically ours, creates meaning, for everything, even for the very distinction between the alleged importance of certain functions in the first place.

[Dystopia]

I do doubt my atheism since I'm not 100% sure no gods exist or can exist. Questioning what you believe or don't believe isn't harmful, it can only bring benefits. Everytime I question my atheism I end up reaching the same conclusion - 'God probably doesn't exist'.

I consider that questioning your beliefs is the best way to strengthen them, in the case of atheism, refuting critics and loopholes is the way to make your belief or lack of thereof valid, if you can't overcome the critics then your belief is very fragile. It doesn't mean atheism as the lack of belief in gods or the belief no gods exist is perfect, but it certainly has less flaws than theistic/religious beliefs.

My doubts are minor and quite small, if someday theists bring up compelling evidence my doubts might be significant, but I don't see that day coming anytime.

I try to imagine all possible scenarios in case I'm wrong - If god does exist, I'm almost sure it wouldn't be the Christian/Abrahamic god, and there probably wouldn't be an afterlife either way, but let's imagine there was - I don't think god would actually judge me based on my atheism but rather on the conducts I had during my lifetime. If I'm right and there is no afterlife and no god, then there's nothing to worry about.

[Eel_LahjicK]

I doubt my atheism like I doubt I'll ever win the Powerball. (when I never play)

Powerball was 50m here last Thurs.
I bought $50 worth of tickets and won $11!

Wow! A $50 investment, and you got a return of $11. Sounds like you got lucky; you must of been praying to get that much!

[The Grand Nudger]

one major difference in favor of our superiority I think it is fair to admit, is that consciousness, specifically ours, creates meaning, for everything, even for the very distinction between the alleged importance of certain functions in the first place.

Except that "meaning" might just be more self important mental masturbation. Point to some meaning? Show me that it exists in some manner without reference to our conception of it? Perhaps to a plant, "meaning" is a chemical cocktail leveraged for effect (and perhaps, for us, it is the same) - a GLV scream "means" stress (and that's another thing we've discovered that plants are capable of, communicating and interpreting those signals - then acting upon them). Don't get me wrong, I also think meaning is important; but I -would- think that...wouldn't I. It's troublesome to describe some ability we have (or think that we have) as though it has importance beyond our having it- even the importance of meaning. Things that you and I wouldn't accept as ascribing "meaning" to things don't seem to be any worse for wear on that percieved difficiency. Meaning, to me, just seems to be another strategy, indicative of what -we- are, and how -we- operate, not indicative of whatever we ascribe "meaning" -to-. I'd say the same things for those plants as well. The GLV doesn't -actually mean- "stress" (because GLVs are just chemicals)- it's just a useful way for them to interpret the signal which would otherwise be noise.

[Mudhammam]

Touche. I suppose one may ponder, "Is the following question--'Is the ability to produce subjective meaning an objectively meaningful function?'--meaningless to ask?"

And is the answer to the latter question a subjective or objective determination? It would seem the former...

[FallentoReason]

Apparently not, if we (thinking things, whatever you want to put in that box) all went the way of the dodo most of the photosynthesizers wouldn't notice. If they all went they way of the dodo, we'd notice - right before we followed them.

Our dependence on them has no bearing on the qualities each respective species possesses. It's like saying the engineering feats of a Ferrari are undermined by the fact it depends on oil to run. Well no, it still rightly has merits.

Interestingly, this vine is incapable of producing it's own nutrients. It's what we in the biz call an obligate parasite. The seedlings have roughly 72 hours after germination to find a host plant or they die. Perhaps even more interestingly, they seem to prefer particular hosts more than others. Tomatos are a favorite (and that's why they're a favorite of mine). Perhaps even more interestingly, they have been shown, both in the field and under lab conditions, to consistently "choose" a favored host rather than a quicker, easier host. They locate these choice cuts by means of chemical signatures in green leaf volatiles (GLVs). They will even choose a synthetic alternative (distilled GLV) over the actual host from which those GLV are distilled if the concentration of GLV is higher in the synthetic, or the actual host plant is inhibited from producing them (or the vine inhibited from detecting them). Let me stress this, because it can;t be overstated. They have a 72 hour death clock....and will actively pass up a food source if they detect a favored host, utilizing their built up nutrients and phototropism to spiral out until they find whatever it is they were "looking" for. Sometimes......this causes their death. More often than not, it leads to them locating and exploiting a much better food source.

They make choices (or what we can only conceive of as mechanically identical to choices), responding to environmental stimuli - gambling with data. All of this without any "thought" to speak of (or at least no mechanism that we would traditionally associate with thought) - and it works.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuscuta

This reminds me of the sunflower, which always points towards the sun. Now, I wouldn't say it's "aware" of the sun, or it "chooses" to point towards it. I'd say it's photons being causally related to bits of the sunflower which then mechanically make it do its thing. Likewise with your example, it's merely a matter of perhaps certain chemicals present in its environment to which it then causally "responds" to. But thoughts or beliefs..? Not present as far as I can see.

Notable for the purposes of this thread because it has been demonstrably shown, again in the wild and under lab conditions - to possess kin recognition. Animals use this ability for a variety of reasons (social, competitive, reproductive). In the case of Sea Rocket, it's competitive (more accurately, the lack of competition in their case). In the presence of it's kin it "politely" curbs root growth and cooperates with it's neighboring siblings, maximizing the overall uptake of nutrients by members of it's specific genetic lineage as a unit. In the presence of non-kin members of the same species (or other species of plants) - it shows no such regard, aggressively invading it's neighbors rootspace.

Again, I'm sure certain chemicals are present to which the plant then causally reacts to.

Now, for something completely down to earth - and the final installment (for now..or until such time as I make a thread about this stuff...lol)- corn and lima beans.

Corn and Lima beans display a set of behaviors so impressive that it make make us stop and wonder just how impressive our own behaviors are. When attacked by a particular species of caterpillar, both of these plants begin to emit a chemical signal that lures parasitic wasps, who, upon locating the source of the plant signal, find a wonderful place to set up shop - eventually annihilating the caterpillars. They don't emit this signal when they are attacked by aphids or beetles.
http://www.plantphysiol.org/content/121/2/325.full

So, they are apparently - somehow- "self aware". They "know" when they are being attacked. Not only that, they have some idea of whats attacking them. To further compound this little mystery they then produce a signal which attracts a specific predator - that then preys on this specific predator itself. That is some mind bogglingly complex stuff right there. Now, I;ve used quotation marks in alot of this - because the words in them are useful for conveying what the plants are doing, but not so useful in that what they are doing bears no real analogue to the manner in which we do similar things. What stands out, is that the same -effect- is achieved. I don't want to insinuate that we aren't better "thinkers" - objectively, we are- however, and this is a big however, "thinking"...or the effect of thought, awareness, choice, planning, etc doesn't seem to be something that plants are incapable of. Some of them do seem to possess that ability (or something similar to a similar or identical effect- and at what point thinking, or thought, or consciousness is not considered an effect - I wouldn't know)- and all the while they possess abilities that we do not.

So no, I don't think we have a "leg up", we simply have legs (and they do not).

And once again, I'm sure chemicals are at play here, especially when this plant sends off a "signal" of its own.

Now while all these little gimmicks do seem impressive, there isn't a conscious entity behind any of it. They're all simply complex machines capable of receiving an input and then causally producing something as an output. And as for whose more superior, I think it all depends on what our standard for judging would be - a different topic altogether.

[Mycroft]

[/quote] I think Spinoza settled this a long time ago.