Just recently UbiRat posted One Year Hurrah, celebrating the first anniversary of this blog. I suppose I am the ‘resident atheist’ until a proper one comes around.
Reading that post gave me cause to reflect on my association with this site, my contributions, and impact.
I wasn’t impressed.
Why not?
Well the first thing is that it’s been a tough year. This is my second year at Uni and it hasn’t been the most organised. Changes in home and Uni schedules has meant less free time, a problem happily compounded by my volunteering at a local school to get some teaching experience. All this has meant less time staring into the ether and contemplating life, the universe and why pies are so fattening… as well as chasing down background research. So my input hasn’t been as exacting as RevD‘s or as prolific as the Rat’s.
There is another issue. Our esteemed host, Mr Rat, and the mighty RevD have produced some impressively knowledgeable, challenging and enticing pieces of writing on here. What is absolutely evident is the passion they have for their subject and the sheer depth of knowledge they display. This makes mounting an effective discussion and where needed, a challenge, hard work for someone like me.
And that in part is what this site is for in my eyes: open, friendly and challenging discussion on one of the major societal aspects and impacts in human history.
Back to the title
I am not a passionate sort of chap.
I am not religious in anything. I don’t hold any truck with any of the religions I have experienced, so I declare myself an atheist as I cannot accept, at this moment in time, the evidence of the existence, now or in the past, of a god and of that god having a relationship with this planet.
Atheism is however a belief system, something no doubt the atheist will debate for years about. It’s a simple definition for me because while the statement is not one of belief (‘there is no god’), the justification is; as it stands we cannot prove or disprove the existence of a god so therefore you can only believe that there is or is not one. And there is the belief system kicking in for atheists.
I am not passionate about my atheism either, its almost an apathetic atheism with just enough energy to deny the existence of a god but that’s about it. So I don’t have the breadth of knowledge, the depth of passion or the conviction of writing that Rat and RevD do.
Passion
Passion is something which is intrinsically linked with religion. Just read the articles on here.
Read any thread on any online media outlet forum where religion and its position in society is discussed. Ask the Jehovah’s Witnesses in for a cup of tea and a chat. Go and see a Gospel choir. Listen to Dawkins or Hitchens. Passion is everywhere. Passion has its benefits and its pitfalls, as I am sure you are all aware, but it is not necessary to engage in religious activities, be you pro- or anti-.
I don’t have a passion for religion or belief structures… but the intellectual challenges that people like UbiquitousRat and RevDMac set with their passionate posts, complimentary comments and deep questions are infectious and enjoyable. I suppose that’s why, despite my lack of credentials or passion to contribute to this site, I will come back for more and I heartily recommend you do too.
Passion is optional.
Well, if you need a ‘proper’ and passionate, atheist, I’m one 😛
Further, let me say that I disagree with you. Atheism is not a belief system. Atheism is a lack of a belief and while it may be the consequence of a belief system or a part of a belief system calling it a belief system in and of itself is to miss what it is.
Rationalism or logic may lead one to atheism, but there are also religious systems like some versions of Buddhism which are atheist and there are people who don’t believe in a god for reasons that have nothing to do with rationalism or logic.
Saying ‘atheism’ is a belief system seems akin, to me, to saying a word is the same thing as a letter or a number is the same thing as mathematics.
Its a standard Atheist response and one that I am slowly building up a series of arguments to.
The point for me is once you go beyond the lack of belief in deities, you then end up with the why of that lack of belief. And that’s when the belief system comes in. You cannot disprove the existence of a god, no more than you can prove it. In deed in another post on here I commented on the mathematical proof that it was probably more likely a god exists and created life on this planet than it happened as described by scientists. Therefore if you lack proof, you only have belief to fall back on.
The old “unicorn” argument doesn’t hold water either, as shown by the rediscovery of the coelocanth. When you add in interpretation and poor analyses or descritption Unicorn’s could exist, just not how mythology has evolved. Its a difficult thing but I am not convinced that Atheism is a lack of belief, but it is definitely a lack of belief or a denial of the existence of gods.
Still this doesn’t counter the point that atheism IN AND OF ITSELF is not a belief system. It’s a singular lack of belief and there can be many reasons to hold the position or none at all.
For example, in countering your point that ‘You can’t disprove god’ one could go to the system of logic, which is a system, and counter that by pointing out the burden of proof, why it works the way it does and using the standard reductio absurdum of Russell’s Teapot, the Flying Spaghetti Monster or the Invisible Pink Unicorn which – equally – can’t be disproven but are equally ridiculous to believe in as a god.
For atheism to be a denial of gods there would have to be a case for them and, alas (for theists) there is no such case, just a parade of rather tired fallacious reasoning.
Logic IS part of my belief system and as such inevitably leads me to atheism, but the two are by no means one and the same though I would argue that anyone who subscribes to logic should be an atheist.
quite frankly, all people have a belief system. Whether in any form of god or not is beside the point. If we take Cameron’s recent pronouncements on a lack of morality (or not) in this country, that is a statement of belief. Trotting out the Vienna Circle’s overweening confidence in logic is simply a belief in another way of providing a more or less systematic framework ( or paradigm, to borrow Kuhn’s phrase)for said beliefs. Given, also, the late Anthony Flew’s early embracing of the Vienna Circles assertions that religious language is essentially meaningless, and his change of belief towards the end of his life, and the assertions made in the strength of logic’s dismissal of a ‘God’ concept becomes weaker. Modern Humanism is, perhaps, the most robust form of atheism, and its Manifesto is full of negative asertions re: traditional theistic beliefs.
on a more personal note, I often find that assertions against various belief systems (religious or not) usually involve ‘Aunt Sally’s’
oops phone fritzed:
and lack of understanding. Which is why sites like this help in meaningful dialogue.
Argument from Authority aside, Flew’s degrading mind is not a great argument for religious thought.
@ Grim: after a short delay, in which I was inspired to finally read Flew’s account of his journey from Atheism to Deism (not Theism per se, or even Christianity). I would suggest that it might be fairer to also do him the favour of reading it rather than relying on the much exaggerated calumny of those, such as Dawkins, who has an issue with anyone who used to be an Atheist, but now professes belief in God, e.g. McGrath, with whom he shares an expertise in Biology.
You may find it here: http://www.amazon.co.uk/There-God-Notorious-Atheist-Changed/dp/0061335304/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1314288543&sr=1-1
You may also find the two appendices – by Roy Verghese and Tom Wright – highly thought provoking, although the introduction by Varghese is a little less restrained than the appendix which he wrote.
Apologies for not getting back sooner. Well, this is kind of proving the usefulness of the site.
@Grim the problems with any kind of approach to trying to rationalise the world is that it is doomed to perspective and prejudice built into the observer/commentator. It has been seen time and again down through human existence. Logic has been proven unapplicable to certain situations; for instance that natural systems are in effect chaotic and unpredictable and when Logic is applied to them it is found wanting. At some point it is far more “logical” to assume that Logic itself will be found to be broken and another human comfort blanket in the drive for understanding, than it is for Logic to be seen as the last great philosophy.
Its fine not believing in the Spaghetti Monster until you find one. Then your whole system of approaching the world loses its foundation. Its far better to view everything in a more balanced perspective and always allow for opportunities for you to be wrong. We have to remember, as Atheists, that there has been a far longer and better established case for gods existing, than for them not to. Add in that modern Atheism is driven from the Enlightenment, in of itself greatly flawed and more revered than understood and applied, then as Atheists we need to come up with better arguments than “Prove it”, especially as non-affiliated mathematicians have already proved in probability that God probably does exist, and is far more likely to have done than for life itself to have occured randomly on this planet.
The great thing will be is next year Stephen Hwakings will produce another new book casting another mathematical angle on the whole thing, supporting Atheism, as he did with his last one citing mathematical proof of the existence of a soul, and that something can indeed come from nothing *.
@RevD – the problem with Flew is that he has become a part of the whole mythos of the theism vs atheism debate, and without some sort of revelation we cannot discount a sudden attack of mortal, uncharacteristic fear as a reason for his conversion. Or indeed capriciousness, after all he had nothing to lose in changing his mind.
* I believe its this one: http://www.amazon.co.uk/Grand-Design-Stephen-Hawking/dp/0553819224/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1314698189&sr=1-1
@FH: absolutely. I was simply suggesting that reading his book thoroughly (instead of skimming it (as I had done previously) or ignoring it) shows that he believed that he is being consistent to his own conviction of following wherever the evidence led, and that this move to Deism had formed over a number of years, and focused on 3 key points: a reinvigourated cosmological argument under Swinburne; the evidence suggesting ‘fine tuning’; and believing that Science points to an Intelligence behind the Universe.
I don’t disagree that fear may be there, Flew presented his case as a journey of reason whilst acknowledging the difficulties around Revelation of any sort. He also commended the former Bp Tom Wright’s defence of a historical Jesus (and consequent claims) as the best on the market.
I say, again, well worth the read.