I've been considering a way to approach the possibility of a blog for a few weeks now. Should it be personal? Limited to a topic? Funny? Serious? Introspective? Analytical? I still don't know exactly, but I have a few ideas.
For the subject of this, my first post, I'll write about something that's been on my mind a lot lately:
Identity and Atheism.
Unfortunately, this is a subject of contention, mostly between atheists and theists, but also a semantic dispute even amongst those who share nearly my exact beliefs on the subject.
I am an atheist.
The following link should provide anyone wondering with access to the line of contention involving the definition of atheism.
It seems to me that the split is over an inconsistency which is both trivial and unnecessary. In particular, there are people who want to believe that identifying with atheism indicates exclusively an active disbelief in the existence of god(s), or strong atheism: people who believe god(s) do not or cannot exist. These people want to distance themselves from those atheists they feel are making the same mistake as the theists they already don't identify with: Having faith in an unproven and possibly inexplicable premise.
On the other side of this are atheists who define it as passive disbelief in the existence of a god(s), or weak atheism. They believe that atheism includes anyone who doesn't believe because of apathy, ignorance, agnosticism, or skepticism.
By these definitions, whether you're strong or weak atheist regarding any definition of god, you're still an atheist. There's no reason to muddle it with esoteric distinctions which only serve to alienate the less educated (myself included) in the atheist community.
In previous explanations of my beliefs online, I have indicated that I can be either strong or weak atheist, depending on the proposed definition of 'god.' Regarding the character God as displayed in all three major monotheistic religions and in the works of many philosophers and theologians throughout history, I am a strong atheist. I am a naturalist and a skeptic, and the very definition of that being (super/contranatural, omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient, personal, existing outside of space and time, and containing infinitely insurmountable superiority in all qualities simultaneously) is both logically inconsistent and contrary to all of empirical human experience with the natural world.
My conclusion that this god cannot exist is resultant from a process of thought I will no doubt completely miscommunicate here, but here is my attempt anyway:
Strong Atheism is a refutation of a positive existence claim of god(s), using any definition, by theists. It is NOT a positive claim in itself, and asserting otherwise is either philosophically disingenuous or actively ignorant. In order to empirically evidence the existence of god(s), one of two criteria must be met: Either they have to show direct empirical evidence of the existence of said god(s) (and also evidence that what they're showing signifies the god they believe in, as opposed to any of the thousands of other concepts), or they have to show why it's necessary for such a being to exist using a working natural model, which is downright absurd, considering that any proposed model could be determined to work once you accept the addition of an agent capable of forcing it to.
Nearly all of the philosophical effort in apologetics concentrates on the latter, because tucked away in the definition of the god they are trying to evidence is a nasty little bit of inexplicability in the will of this being which prevents anyone except Him from showing he exists. How convenient. So we see an influx of theists finding any scientific model they can and either dismissing it outright (evolution by natural selection, big bang) or mutilating it in the attempt to support their predetermined conclusions (quantum mechanics, thermodynamics). Note: If you truly believe reality exists as a dualistic natural/supernatural model, all of your attempts to use the scientific method or evidence gathered by others using it to validate this are ultimately fruitless anyway.
Taking into consideration their definition of god, and the fact that working models exist which do not necessitate said god, I conclude that that god does not exist. The process goes like this:
The definition of that god is infinitely inexplicable.
Any working scientific model which includes that god is then also infinitely inexplicable.
We have working scientific models which don't include that god. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lambda-CDM_model
Those models are likely more empirically accurate simply because they don't require inexplicability. (Ockham's Razor)
Please note that this is not proof of the nonexistence of god, and any real evidence provided which conclusively shows the existence of god would completely derail it. I'm waiting.
Regarding any other definition of god(s), I am a weak atheist.
Now, there might be many people who completely agree with my conclusion and still decide to criticize identifying with atheism. Possibly they see overarching social qualities of outspoken atheists they do not agree with; maybe they simply do not want to be identified with atheism because of a strong current of mistrust and stereotype. No one has really been able to adequately explain to me how they can share basically the same conclusions I do and not be “atheist.”
Yes, there is a difference between 'atheist' and 'agnostic.' Yes, there is a difference between either of those and 'skeptical.' But for some reason there are prevalent misunderstandings of these as automatically exclusive (or inclusive) stances.
I am skeptical, I am agnostic, and I am atheist.
I can admit to agnosticism and still be an atheist.
I can remain skeptical of atheism and still be an atheist.
I can take a position with neither absolute knowledge nor faith.
And most importantly...
I can and will change my stance as new evidence comes in. Intellectual atheism is an admittedly tentative position, theism is not. That's the relevant difference. And calling yourself “agnostic not atheist” while sharing the same views as I doesn't mean you're somehow more prepared to deal with a change in what we know about our environment. It only means that when that change comes, you've manipulated yourself into a position so that you can be perceived as having been “not entirely wrong.” Saying "I don't know with certainty if the sun will rise tomorrow, so there's no point in betting it will" doesn't make you more aware, it means you are either unable or unwilling to accept that accounting for possible error in understanding doesn't require giving it the same credence as possible correct understanding.
I am using this as an introductory post because I see absolutely nothing wrong with identifying as an atheist. It's not a fantastically large part of who I am either practically or personally, but it is there. I'm not intentionally reminding people of my atheism to pat myself on the back, I'm not bragging about it, and I'm not out to convince nor do I think it makes me better than anyone. The only reason I write about it at all is so that, maybe, someone will read this and think "huh, maybe I should check that out for myself."
Yes, I'm aware that we don't know everything. That hardly means we don't know anything.
No comments:
Post a Comment