|
Insane
|
I don't believe because I see no reason to believe.
I suppose you want a longer answer then that though. Here's a bit of an essay that I wrote a few days after I became an agnostic atheist (originally it had hyperlinks and I'm transferring it from a word document to here via cut and paste):
Quote:
My Beliefs
For the past couple of weeks I've been doing a lot of introspection and a lot of reading across various disciplines in order to get some sort of handle on my faith/beliefs. I haven't made a lot of progress in my beliefs and the transition has been somewhat difficult and it what lay ahead will be even more difficult, because of the underlying ramifications that my paradigm shift will undoubtedly induce. I have come up with a few areas of interest that I will continue to study, but so far, my faith has fallen.
A brief word about my previously held beliefs: In the beginning I was a YEC (Young Earth Creationist), a literal 'bible-blinded-bible thumper' (no offense). The word was literal, the word was good, and the word was correct. No smudging the lines. I'd get into verbal masturbation with my friends about the issues pertinent to religion (specifically Christian religion). When I looked at the contradictions in the bible and the absurdities in some of the passages, I would think to myself that it was *I* who had the problem with reading the book. It was either that, or one of the translators along the way; Keep in mind, I believed that the bible was the inerrant word of God-but I didn’t believe that it had been faithfully translated into the modern additions (such as the King James or the New International). As you can imagine, this gave me a lot of wiggle room, but it was intellectually dishonest of me and that intellectual dishonesty finally caught up with me and made itself known-in fact this sort of belief leads to a logical nightmare for some believers.
Somewhere along the line I was introduced to the concepts of skepticism, which made me give up my fallacious belief in all things paranormal (UFO's, psychics, etc). This transition took a while, primarily because it's hard to get a grip on pseudoscience and developing a "bologna detector" takes some time (as well as going over logic). One of the biggest helps in my transition was a book by Michael Shermer, entitled “Why People Believe Weird Things”. Some of the chapters made perfect sense and struck a chord with me, some were interesting, and one in particular was pretty influential. It was a chapter regarding the position of Young Earth Creationists. I didn’t automatically drop my belief after the last page of course. It took some mulling and some further research to find out if the book was accurate.
I got more interested in my faith and Christianity and I felt that I needed to explore the issues of Young Earth Creationism more thoroughly. So I decided to actually read the rather long book. I came to a number of immediate conclusions: I dropped YEC like the cold useless brick that it is, and I stopped my worship of the book, and instead focused on my 'relationship' with God.
* A brief note about YEC’s. Young Earth Creationists have many differing beliefs-as do almost all Christians (if I recall correctly there are more then 2,000 different sects of Christianity in the United States alone). I adhered to the belief that the world was between 6-12 thousand years old, that Adam and Eve were the first humans, that there was a catastrophic flood that wiped out the earth, and that the 6 days of creation (mentioned in the first chapter of Genesis) were literally the way it happened. Consequently I had to disbelieve in science, as the major tenants of practically all the branches of sciences were wrong in my opinion (they had to be in order to support a literal Genesis). I tried not to think of it too much, but when I did I thought that scientists were being “tricked by the devil”. I also tried not to think about my denial of the basic tenants of biology (evolution goes against the bible), astronomy (which shows how old the earth is and the universe), geology (another age of the earth), physics (several earth-aging techniques employee the use of the half-life of radioactive substances, which are measured by physic laws), paleontology (dinosaurs didn’t live with man), as well as numerous other fields that I can’t quite think of anymore.
During this time, I began to get involved quite extensively in the online debates regarding evolution/creationism/bible inerrancy/etc. I found that I couldn't stomach the amount of lies (from my point of view) that the 'scholars' of creationism were willing to tell. I just thought of these individuals as having such little faith that they had to cling to what they wished was true. It was a little sad and at the same time, I realized that their pressuring of the school systems to actually teach this garbage was too much. It reminded me of Machiavelli’s The Prince, and the phrase from that book "the end justifies the means". I certainly didn't think the end justifies the means, especially for good Christians, and I still don't-besides, why would an omnipotent being need to lie in order to propagate a belief system about itself?
It just didn't make sense.
I realize that the majority of these Christian fundamentalists do not know that these are ‘lies’, but they have not taken it upon themselves to further their education on the matter. It reminds me of Glenn Morton’s demon. Basically these Christians would not listen to anything that contradicted their already held beliefs; they had a ‘filter’ that would separate facts that helped their case against evolution/other religions from the facts that would hurt their case.
In any event, I've been going over it and over it in my mind-reading the pertinent philosophical arguments and I've come to the conclusion that I no longer have a belief in God. As a result, I've become a little more nihilistic about the entire set of affairs. In other words, my image of what is the “truth” is that there really isn’t a profound deep mystical reason behind it all. I don’t think mankind has progressed to the point where the world does make sense. By the same side of the coin, I can not be a true nihilist, because I do believe there is truth to be found; a truth as in how we got here, uncovered through the discoveries of science. Not as in a profound purpose-for even with God and living forever, what possible purpose could there be? No matter which way I look at it, with God or without, there isn’t really any purpose; there is no greater goal except surviving. All of this is not to say that I don’t value my life-I very much do-it’s that the purpose for my life is whatever I choose to make of it. The purpose/point is my choice, my design.
What sort of philosophical arguments/reasons do I have for dropping my faith? Well, I'm not going to go into extensive detail, but I will mention a few things that have bothered me for quite some time. This list is by no means exhaustive.
1. First and foremost, I suppose, is the fact that people have been around on this planet for tens of thousands of years (homo-sapiens at least). In that time, numerous religions have come and gone. Billions of people have died a good majority of which did not believe in the same God/Gods. According to some religions, this isn't necessarily a "damnable" thing-but according to others it is. To expand this point a little bit, where does man begin? Does it begin with homo-sapiens? If modern man is the only one with a soul, then why did Neanderthal man bury their dead? Neanderthal man is an extinct species that sprang from the same common ancestor as modern man. They died out when Cro-Magnum man arrived on the scene. Modern man isn’t directly related to them, which means of course, that if modern man is *special* and are the only ones with a soul/religion then why did Neanderthal man have religious practices?
In any event, the tangent on pre-homo-sapiens does not really matter towards this argument. What matters is that if God requires us to believe in him, then why lead so many people down the wrong religious path? If Christianity is the proper religion, or if any one of the thousands are, then that means that more people are either excluded from heaven or are damned in some form. This sets up an evil/cruel God. In any event, the multitudes of different religion make the concept of God/Gods a little hard to take.
2. I don't have the study handy, but if I recall correctly the majority of people, who believe, believe what their parents believed. Indicating quite strongly to me that while we still had the free will to believe what we choose, we will be quite bias in our choosing. In addition, what happens to the beliefs that are no longer believed in? Why should they be any less valid then the current popularity winners? Wherefore art thou Zeus?
If God leads people toward the truth, then again, I have to wonder why so many people just follow what their parents believe. The situation has all the ear marks of indoctrination; if you are brought up to believe a certain thing, then you probably will. This is the same process that produces racism, classism, pseudoscience, and false histories. If you grow up being told that Germany won World War II, then chances are, you are going to continue to believe that (and not question it).
Granted, there is more evidence surrounding World War II than there is for which religion is correct (there isn’t any evidence as to which religion is correct).
3. Christianity, while old to our standards, hasn't been around forever. In addition, the beliefs presented within its tomb are by no means new concepts. They have all similarities and themes of the religions already around at the time. These beliefs were some Zoroastrianism, some Babylonian influence, some roman beliefs (Mithraicism), etc. The story of Jesus rising from the dead was in fact a very common myth in several different religions (such as the story of Osiris, Isis, Horus, and Seth). The ‘virgin’ birth is another example of the multiplicity of common themes among ancient religions; in fact the astrological sign Virgo is named after a virgin birth that predates Mary’s conception. There is also a clear link between the miracle of raising Lazarus from the dead with other previous religious beliefs. It seems quite clear that the bible takes a lot of its material from other religions.
In addition, another problem with Christianity is the character of Jesus himself. It’s often touted that Jesus has more evidence to support his existence then any other historical figure. I wish this were true, but it is not. There are only a few ancient documents that support a literal Jesus, and absolutely no first hand accounts. What we do have are a few lines from a few sources, including Josephus, Tacitus, Pliny the Younger, Thallus, and others-all of which are after the fact and none of which are deemed truly reliable. I have come to the conclusion that a historical Jesus is not a foregone conclusion and could very well be a myth, from a combination of different mythical “God-men” relevant to other religions.
And now we get to the tradition arguments derived from philosophy.
4. The first being The Argument from Non-Belief. Basically it goes as follows: The Christian God of the bible wants everyone to know that He exists (and thus ward off Hell/damnation). God is omnipotent, and would know what it would take to make everyone a believer. Not everyone actually does believe in God. In fact, currently there is no evidence of God, which means there is no real reason to believe in God. That tells us that God either isn’t terribly concerned with us knowing of God’s existence or that God doesn’t exist. If God isn’t terribly concerned with our existence, then why is their religion in the first place? Why damnation, rules, etc? Sigmund Freud had an idea that religion wasn’t created by God; it was created by mankind in order to alleviate the fear of dying-basically a defense mechanism.
In any event, this doesn't leave us in a very comfortable space as you can imagine seeing as God sends unbelievers to hell…
5. The fifth argument is the argument regarding faith. In order to believe in God (most, I'm not sure about all incarnations), we have to have faith. That is all that is required to accept a belief/religion as true. This would lead us to the conclusion that all faiths are equally true (because evidence isn’t given, nor required to have faith). This would be fine and dandy if they didn’t contradict each other. In other words, since there is no evidence of which religion is correct, then all religions are equally valid. How can we make a choice between them all?
Unless of course there is some evidence as to which religion is the correct religion…But the truth of the matter is that even within religions, there are differences of opinion as to what to believe. If people who believe in a specific religion can’t get it right, then why should we pick that religion? The sad fact is that most, if not all, religions can’t seem to get it right…
6. The question of omnipotence and God. If God is omnipotent, then God has free will. Yet if God is omnipotent, then God will know absolutely everything before it occurs, which means God can't change the future (God knows everything) and God has no free will. In addition, if God is omnipotent/the perfect God, then there would be no need to create earth/planets/etc, because that would suggest an imperfection (something God needed/wanted/etc) for which God had to fix by creating.
7. If God is to be worshipped, then in my opinion, it should be because God is all good. Yet God can not be all good because evil exists. God either created evil or isn't all powerful. The question of evil becomes even more muddled when we believe that God sends people to Hell. How could God be all good, if God is going to send people to a place of eternal torment? It can’t be to punish those people, because the punishment would be in order for them to learn from their mistakes-yet this punishment is eternal. That’s not punishment, that’s sadistic torture.
And God is good? If God were truly good, he wouldn’t have created the people in the first place! God knew exactly how their lives would shape up, exactly what events, produced what and exactly what it would take for those people to believe. Yet those sinners didn’t believe. The rebuttal of “free will” doesn’t hold up, because God knows everything, created everything, and set everything into motion. In order for God to be omnipotent/omniscient everything would have to go exactly as God had planned. So why does God plan for some people to go to Hell?
8. As I had been a Christian, I could easily point out numerous contradictions in the biblical text-that don't match science, or even itself in some places. This plus the very nature of God in the bible has made me rethink my supposed allegiance to this being. Think about it: God is all good and heaven is a place of infinite happiness-right? Well, how ignorant will I have to be in order to be happy in heaven while my friends are roasting in a pit downstairs? I could ramble on and on about my opinion of the bible, but I will be digressing from the point of this diatribe. Suffice it is to say, I still respect Jesus-a man who IMO was a pretty decent fellow- but I don't consider him God.
9. This isn't something that I necessarily agree with yet (the idea that all of the incarnations of God are contradictory in some sense), but I've often made a stink about the impossibilities of proving a negative. For the most part it still holds true-but it doesn't for most conventional versions of God and here's why: It's only possible to prove a logically consistent thing true. Most versions of God are not logically consistent, and the Christian God isn't even scripturally consistent. The underlying premise of proving/disproving something is that the something in question is logical. I could "disprove" a square circle by pointing out that such a thing could not exist logically.
10. With all of the natural discoveries in the world, God is sort of left holding the bag when it comes to supernatural explanations. Even if you don't accept Hawking's Wave Function of the Universe theory you should be able to realize that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence and that our *current* ignorance doesn't mean that it is naturally inexplicable how the universe came into being. At most you are left with the God of Deism, who created and then went out for pizza. This type of argument is often called a “God of the gaps” argument. It means that whatever science can’t currently explain is due to God’s intervention. Primitive man couldn’t explain lightning, so it was believed that Zeus was throwing thunderbolts at us. It has only been in the past hundred years or so that electricity has been explained and there is no reason to suppose that God is currently creating every lightning bolt. So the explanatory power of God shrinks a little. “God did it” now consists of a few miracles not currently understood very well by science (such as how the big bang started).
So where does that leave me?
Currently that leaves me as an agnostic atheist, subject to change of course. What an agnostic atheist means is the following:
An agnostic doesn't think the God question is truly knowable. An atheist is someone without a belief in a God, equivalent to saying "I don't believe in unicorns" (or invisible pink unicorns).
My Response to Common Arguments for God
I’m only going to deal with five, Pascal’s Wager, the cosmological, the ontological, the argument from morals, and the argument from personal feeling.
1. Pascal’s Wager is basically a flawed gambling premise. Pascal’s notion was that if God exists, and you believe, you go to heaven. If God does not exist and you believe, you’ve lost nothing in believing. If God exists and you don’t believe, you go to hell. Finally, if God does not exist and you don’t believe, again you lose nothing. In other words, it’s better to believe and be wrong, then not to believe and be wrong.
The problem though is that Pascal was automatically assuming that Christianity was the proper religion to believe in. He discounts the fact that there are literally thousands of other religions out there, with thousands of other Gods out there. You can not worship them all, as belief in some violates holy commandments in others. So, say you accept the tenants of Hinduism (believe in their Gods, practice their rituals) and Christianity turns out to be the ‘correct’ religion-you are now damned to Hell for believing in false Gods.
2. The Cosmological argument is a first cause argument. Everything in the universe has a cause, so the train of logic goes that the universe (the Big Bang singularity) had to have a “first” cause- i.e., God. The trouble is that this is an argument from ignorance, because its validity stems from the fact that we don’t truly know if everything has a first cause. In addition, if everything has a first cause, then what caused God? If God is eternal and has always been here, then why can we not make this assumption about the universe itself? Also, as mentioned earlier, scientists are just now coming close to possible beginnings that do not require an omnipotent being (wave function theory).
3. The Ontological argument is basically semantics and empty rhetoric. It states that since we can imagine a perfect being the perfect being has to be real, because otherwise it wouldn’t be a ‘perfect being’. It’s an interesting argument, but the fact is, how do you imagine a perfect anything? In addition, you can turn the question around and say “aren’t several beings more perfect then a singular one?” Or say I can imagine a perfect being perfectly not existing. In any event, it’s not really a solid justification-its word play based on an idea of our ability to imagine a perfect being (which isn’t possible, because the moment you start defining the ‘being’ it can be shown to be not perfect).
4. The argument from morals is another interesting argument, but it again is fatally flawed. The basic premise is that in order to have ‘right’ and ‘wrong’ there has to be an absolute right and wrong. These morals have to come from a higher source then man, otherwise they are arbitrary and dependent on the man who is deeming the right and wrong-in other words, they wouldn’t be “absolute”. The problem with this argument is that the premise isn’t true; i.e., there isn’t an absolute right and wrong. In order for there to be one, everyone would have to know what the absolute morals are-the fact that different societies and cultures disagree about laws/morals/etc is more then ample proof that there isn’t any absolutes. Morals are based on what the specific society has considered to be the ‘rules’, which are further based on the logical human principles of “I’ll treat you as I want to be treated”. Those principles are based on evolutionary principles plus intelligence-what helps an individual survive and a population survive is a good guideline.
5. The final argument for God that I’m going to discuss is the argument from personal feeling. In this argument I will be dealing with my own feelings, as it would be impossible for me to describe or apply reason to someone else’s feelings. This argument entails that a person knows that God exists due to a feeling that God does exist. This feeling is similar to being watched and a deep seated ‘gut’ feeling that God exists. It’s hard to rationalize this specific line of evidence away, due to its nature, and will take a while for it to finally dissipate, if it ever does really dissipate. I believe it will primarily due to the fact that I’ve had other deep seated feelings about other erroneous creatures before. When I was in High School I believed in UFO’s rather extensively, I thought aliens were coming to earth and abducting people-the whole nine yards. I had a very similar deep unquestioning attitude towards that belief that I had towards the belief in God. I suppose ultimately this belief springs from the notion that “hope springs eternal”.
Death and all that is dear to me
Naturally the question comes up, what happens when I die? Where do I get my values from and what’s important?
My newfound reaction to the question of death is that I don’t know. I’m hoping that there is something to look forward to, of course, but in all probability there will probably be nothing. Death, for me, will be similar to the experience of before I was born. There will be nothing and I will feel nothing. It’s sort of a hard concept to actually grasp, seeing as all of our experiences require our brains to interpret some sort of stimuli, and death is the eradication of all interpretation by our brains of stimuli. So I’m thinking that death will be a big blank. I’ll go about my struggle for life and my body will give up and the next thing I’ll experience will be similar to sleep-with the absence of waking up.
The concept actually frightens me to tell the truth. Unfortunately, just because I wish it was not true, doesn’t mean that it will magically become not true. It’s something that I will have to learn to deal with. On the one hand, there is no Hell, nor the fear of punishment of any sort. On the other hand, there is no prolonged existence. If I actually got to choose, I would pick an afterlife-even if it meant that I would be suffering in Hell for eternity, because I would derive some solace in the fact that a few of my loved ones would be in Heaven.
Values are a tricky thing and for me, the honest answer is that I receive my values from both society and my previous religion. It would be dishonest of me to claim that I could undue 25 years worth of religious values (or even societal values) in the span of a few weeks. In addition, in order to have any sort of credibility or a reason for others to trust me, I have to stick to those values that I deem important. In reality there is no reason to deviate from my previous values, there is no point in becoming a liar or harming others, as it would catch up to me, in addition to the fact that neither of those two positions hold any sort of curiosity to me. Also, my values must match the legal values of this United States, or else I will be punished in reality.
In any event, my values and morals have not really changed, seeing as I find them honorable and intellectually stable.
For the longest time, I thought that love was the best reason to believe in the existence of God, for what reason could there be for the emotion so powerful? Unfortunately I could assign the gift of love to just about anything and have the same explanatory power as “God”. In reality, love is a product of evolution, survival, plus intelligence. Other creatures ‘mate for life’, which to me indicates some sort of emotion similar to love (penguins, by the way, don’t always mate for life). Does this mean that love is any less valuable then I had previously thought? No, and on the contrary, it is more important. If love was an attribute prescribed by God and we are only able to marry one person (at least in the Christian tradition) then how could you love another person after one relationship has gone bad? Also, if love is an attribute given by God, then that takes away our freewill. In a very real sense, it would lessen the value of love, because it was forced upon you. Personally, I feel that love has an element of choice to it. In addition, I think it’s in line with keeping with our survival as a species. Cave women would have had a much more difficult time caring for their children if the cave men did not find themselves emotionally attached to them.
In essence, I do think that love is more then mere lust, more then just a choice, more then just an engraving in our DNA to ensure our survival, it’s an unexpected result of all three. It’s also a result that provides us with a purpose for life. A purpose is the single most valuable commodity in this world. That’s one thing the concept of God doesn’t give us-a purpose. All the concept of God does is pushes the purpose onto God. An omnipotent being can not have a purpose-a set plan-because that would limit an omnipotent “all powerful” being. Even if this were not the case, ascribing a purpose to God makes the purpose arbitrary and the result of a whim.
I prefer to define my own purpose and my own standards-because I certainly haven’t heard any word from above as to what I’m supposed to be here for.
|
|