Atheism and agnosticism thread

[Travis B.]

I assume you all are familiar with the Dawkins flavor of atheism. This seems to be what most people these days think of when they hear of the word "atheism", and may be why many people identify as being agnostic or otherwise irreligious without specifically identifying as being atheists.

However, the matter is that in reality atheism and agnosticism are perfectly compatible with one another, which is known as agnostic atheism or atheistic agnosticism. One can both believe in no gods and simultaneously believe that there can be a god or gods that are beyond proof or disproof. For that matter, the idea that there can be god or gods that can be neither proven nor disproven can support one's atheism, because why should one believe in something concerning the outside world which is unfalsifiable.

This is the basis of my own beliefs in this area - I am simultaneously atheist and agnostic. I believe in no gods, and have observed, directly or indirectly, nothing in the observable world which would serve as positive evidence for their existence, hence I am an atheist. At the same time I believe that one can posit a Deist god, a first mover that constructed the universe and its laws and set it in motion, which cannot be disproven. Because I believe that there could be a god or gods that cannot be disproven I am an agnostic. But I cannot believe in these gods for this very reason, i.e. that they are unfalsifiable.

So what are your thoughts in this department?

[Raphael]

My own thoughts are kind of a work in progress. Anyway, what do you think about

1) the term "practical atheist", used apparently mainly by religious people to describe those who live their lives as if there is no God, independently of their beliefs on the matter; and

2) the claim sometimes made by some atheists that they themselves are agnostic about the monotheistic God in the same way in which they are agnostic about, for instance, Zeus?

[Travis B.]

My own thoughts are kind of a work in progress. Anyway, what do you think about

1) the term "practical atheist", used apparently mainly by religious people to describe those who live their lives as if there is no God, independently of their beliefs on the matter; and

This is how I was as a kid before I developed clear views w.r.t. religion, and how I suspect many kids are. This definitely sounds similar to what is termed implicit atheism.

2) the claim sometimes made by some atheists that they themselves are agnostic about the monotheistic God in the same way in which they are agnostic about, for instance, Zeus?

One thing I note is that the god(s) of Abrahamic religions differs in an important way from Zeus specifically because of the claim of being omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent, which results in the problem of evil, whereas the ancient Greeks never ascribed all three properties to their gods, and thus their gods are less subject to the problem of evil. For this reason it is much easier to not believe in the Abrahamic god(s) than in Zeus.

[Raphael]

One thing I note is that the god(s) of Abrahamic religions differs in an important way from Zeus specifically because of the claim of being omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent, which results in the problem of evil, whereas the ancient Greeks never ascribed all three properties to their gods, and thus their gods are less subject to the problem of evil. For this reason it is much easier to not believe in the Abrahamic god(s) than in Zeus.

Hah! I'm pretty sure that the people who first came up with the Zeus analogy meant it as in "A whole lot of people don't seem to think it's all that likely that Zeus exists, so why can't we have the same attitude about the monotheistic God?"

[Travis B.]

One thing I note is that the god(s) of Abrahamic religions differs in an important way from Zeus specifically because of the claim of being omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent, which results in the problem of evil, whereas the ancient Greeks never ascribed all three properties to their gods, and thus their gods are less subject to the problem of evil. For this reason it is much easier to not believe in the Abrahamic god(s) than in Zeus.

Hah! I'm pretty sure that the people who first came up with the Zeus analogy meant it as in "A whole lot of people don't seem to think it's all that likely that Zeus exists, so why can't we have the same attitude about the monotheistic God?"

Yeah, I know that analogy - I was just turning that idea on its head, that it is easier to believe in Zeus than an Abrahamic god.

[zompist]

However, the matter is that in reality atheism and agnosticism are perfectly compatible with one another, which is known as agnostic atheism or atheistic agnosticism. One can both believe in no gods and simultaneously believe that there can be a god or gods that are beyond proof or disproof. For that matter, the idea that there can be god or gods that can be neither proven nor disproven can support one's atheism, because why should one believe in something concerning the outside world which is unfalsifiable.

This is the basis of my own beliefs in this area - I am simultaneously atheist and agnostic. I believe in no gods, and have observed, directly or indirectly, nothing in the observable world which would serve as positive evidence for their existence, hence I am an atheist. At the same time I believe that one can posit a Deist god, a first mover that constructed the universe and its laws and set it in motion, which cannot be disproven. Because I believe that there could be a god or gods that cannot be disproven I am an agnostic. But I cannot believe in these gods for this very reason, i.e. that they are unfalsifiable.

I'm writing a book on religion now, so I'm full of thoughts.

There's a lot of hair-splitting about "atheist" and "agnostic" which is not much more edifying than explanations of the divine/human nature of Christ. I don't see the advantage of merging the terms; "atheist", however exactly you define it, is a stronger term.

I'm an agnostic, meaning I don't think the existence or non-existence of gods can be proven. (With a caveat, below.) So to me, atheism is also a belief system that makes unfalsifiable claims. It also seems to me that once people create atheist organizations and magazines, or agitate against religion, they're creating an ideology, not just failing to believe in God. And anti-religious bigotry really is a thing, as bad as any other bigotry, especially once given state support.

The caveat is that I'm agnostic about agnosticism too. I just read a book about shamanism, for instance, and early 'scientific' attempts to explain shamanic trances mostly show that the explainers are very limited in their experiences. They've never seen or experienced a shamanic trance, they know nothing about other cultures and worldviews, so they assign it to something very different, i.e. mental illness. (Psychoanalysis was new and hot then, so naturally scholars were excited about seeing these newly discovered disorders everywhere.) Ironically, people began to change their tune when they tried drugs. Gosh, it turns out altered states of consciousness besides mental illness exist.

I don't believe shamans are doing what they say they're doing (e.g. journeying to the spirit world). But I also think atheists haven't addressed their own epistemological failings. You say, for instance, that you've seen "nothing in the observable world which would serve as positive evidence" for gods. Have you checked the whole cosmos? What's your experimental procedure? What proof do you have that your theometer actually detects gods? Are you sure that you're not just repeating Western dogma, which currently happens to be anti-religious?

It's perfectly fine to answer "I don't know" to all the cosmic questions. Or even honestly admit "I don't care"— no one is obligated to study shamans or take LSD. But we should be careful not to mistake not knowing, or not investigating fully, to itself be knowledge.

[Travis B.]

So to me, atheism is also a belief system that makes unfalsifiable claims. It also seems to me that once people create atheist organizations and magazines, or agitate against religion, they're creating an ideology, not just failing to believe in God. And anti-religious bigotry really is a thing, as bad as any other bigotry, especially once given state support.

My thought on this, though, is that it equates "atheism" with the likes of Dawkinsian atheism or Communist state atheism, which I think is unfair. To me atheism is simply lack of belief in any deity or deities, nothing more or less. One can easily be an atheist simply by having never been exposed to religion, and having never formed any religious beliefs. (This is pretty much how I was up until middle school, where my own inklings about religion were that other members of my extended family would go to church and my immediate family would not, but I was not exposed directly to any religious beliefs, for or against.) Atheism does not necessarily mean a positive assertion that "there is no god or gods" (this is distinct from a negative assertion that "I believe in no particular god or gods"); I personally do not believe in any gods but do not believe that there is no god per se. Also, there is nothing about atheism itself which requires one to be, well, "evangelical" (for lack of a better term); there is nothing about atheism that requires one to try to impose one's beliefs on others any more than is the case with any religion.

But I also think atheists haven't addressed their own epistemological failings. You say, for instance, that you've seen "nothing in the observable world which would serve as positive evidence" for gods. Have you checked the whole cosmos? What's your experimental procedure? What proof do you have that your theometer actually detects gods? Are you sure that you're not just repeating Western dogma, which currently happens to be anti-religious?

Of course I have not checked the entire cosmos, of course. I can only ultimately rely on what I can observe and reason about myself. In the case of Abrahamic religions there is always the problem of evil, but that says nothing about the Greek, Roman, or Hindu gods. In general, my starting point is disbelief for lack of evidence, that I need reasonable evidence to believe, and I simply have not seen such evidence. If someone shows me reasonable evidence of some god, e.g. evidence that the universe is actually a computer program with a programmer who created it, I might change my beliefs.

[rotting bones]

I am an atheist (not agnostic) in the sense that I believe every major religion is positively immoral. Refusing to have an ideology can often mean accepting an evil status quo. We should have an atheist ideology because having that is beneficial. Although I'm not a member of any atheist, secular humanist or Marxist club, I support such organizations because they are doing good in the world by lowering social alienation in a manner that doesn't involve traditional religion.

I distinguish the God of the philosophers (omnibenevolent in an abstract sense) from the "divine guidance" that is actually found in scripture. If the former exists, I believe that God will side with me against every major religion in the world. I'm an agnostic about an abstractly good God while being an atheist about traditional conceptions of deity. I know the latter don't exist because they are self-contradictory like a "square circle", being both good and bad at the same time. (There are many traditional conceptions of deity that don't claim to be good, but those are unworthy of worship.)

I actually think the argument from theodicy that God doesn't want to intimidate humans into goodness is pretty good. But the consequences of applying that argument to the real world, given the amount of evil it contains, requires us to give up any notion of a "divine plan" in daily life. The Abrahamic notion of the "Living God" or "al-Hayy al-Qayyum" is a conspiracy theory.

PS. Divorce is forbidden in Sikhism, and homosexuality in Baha'i.

[malloc]

So what are your thoughts in this department?

Speaking pedantically, I would have to call myself agnostic since I cannot disprove existence of gods categorically. Indeed to claim absolute certainly of their nonexistence would itself constitute an unjustified leap of faith. Yet practically speaking, I feel quite comfortable calling myself an atheist. Much like rotting bones, I feel that actually existing religion is both harmful and nonsensical. Even if one can defend the notion of an abstract philosophical god, that does little to make the specific claims of Christianity or Islam or even Wicca any more plausible.

Over the past few centuries, claims of the supernatural have suffered one defeat after another while purely material explanations for the universe have enjoyed resounding success. The space for divine sovereignty and intervention has continually shrunk as our understanding of science has advanced. The discovery of evolution refuted mythological accounts of creation or else forced them into the realm of metaphor. Neuroscience has showed the centrality of the material brain to our cognition and left less and less room for an immaterial soul. The overall trajectory seems clear, enough that I feel comfortable predicting that the few remaining mysteries like consciousness will eventually prove material as well.

The stunning success of AI over the past few years only reinforces my doubts about the supernatural and especially the human soul. If one insists that humans have souls, then either the soul has no practical consequences that would distinguish besouled humans from soulless AI or the tech industry is full of sorcerers binding souls to server farms. Now many will object that the current wave of AIs still fall short of human intelligence and creativity, but the fact that we can automate writing novels and drawing pictures at all speaks volumes about what such activities require: not immaterial souls but merely computational power and data. If the blitzkrieg of AI development continues unabated, we will soon enough have machines with all the same abilities as humans. Where then will the soul hide?

[rotting bones]

Even if one can defend the notion of an abstract philosophical god, that does little to make the specific claims of Christianity or Islam or even Wicca any more plausible.

Try Badiou's Immanence of Truths. He tries to rework Platonic absolutes to refer to infinities instead of ones. This lends itself to an interpretation of absolutes as social collectivities instead of heavenly monarchs. Badiou is a far-left Platonist.

Of course, Badiou's semantic associations with the math are kind of arbitrary, but that was always the case in Platonism.

[Travis B.]

I actually think the argument from theodicy that God doesn't want to intimidate humans into goodness is pretty good. But the consequences of applying that argument to the real world, given the amount of evil it contains, requires us to give up any notion of a "divine plan" in daily life. The Abrahamic notion of the "Living God" or "al-Hayy al-Qayyum" is a conspiracy theory.

The typical argument of theodicy is based on addressing evil as being moral evil, i.e. evil committed by humans with free will ─ but fail to address natural evil, such as natural disasters and diseases with no external cause, which can only be blamed on the divine. Of course, not all gods need theodicy, because not all gods are claimed to be simultaneously omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent.

[Travis B.]

Speaking pedantically, I would have to call myself agnostic since I cannot disprove existence of gods categorically. Indeed to claim absolute certainly of their nonexistence would itself constitute an unjustified leap of faith. Yet practically speaking, I feel quite comfortable calling myself an atheist. Much like rotting bones, I feel that actually existing religion is both harmful and nonsensical. Even if one can defend the notion of an abstract philosophical god, that does little to make the specific claims of Christianity or Islam or even Wicca any more plausible.

To me the reason to be an atheist is that the burden of proof is on those who assert, and I have seen no evidence for the assertions of divinity that I am aware of. But this is by no means incompatible with being agnostic, i.e. to believe that god or gods are beyond proof or disproof.

[rotting bones]

The typical argument of theodicy is based on addressing evil as being moral evil, i.e. evil committed by humans with free will ─ but fail to address natural evil, such as natural disasters and diseases with no external cause, which can only be blamed on the divine. Of course, not all gods need theodicy, because not all gods are claimed to be simultaneously omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent.

You're right. Natural evil is explained as part of a nebulous "divine plan". Traditionally, this was interpreted so literally, some people thought lightning rods were blasphemous.

[rotting bones]

To me the reason to be an atheist is that the burden of proof is on those who assert, and I have seen no evidence for the assertions of divinity that I am aware of. But this is by no means incompatible with being agnostic, i.e. to believe that god or gods are beyond proof or disproof.

A lot of people's lives are so bad that the only way they can muddle though is to insist that all their suffering has some nebulous meaning. Read Benatar's book on antinatalism, for example. This might be why religion is positively correlated with criminality: atheists tend to be relatively well off in today's world. My problem is when conspiracy theories are used to prevent social change that will improve people's lives.

[Ares Land]

I'm an agnostic about an abstractly good God while being an atheist about traditional conceptions of deity.

As it happens, that's exactly my own position -- and it's better put that I could have done myself.
I don't dismiss the idea of the supernatural out of hand either, but there are so many scams and con men out there, and so many ways the human brain can deceive itself that I think the skeptical approach is the prudent one.

Anti-religious militantism bothers me sometimes. My main concerns are, first that it tends to punch down -- most of the anti-religious discourse seems directed at Islam and how much of that is fair concern, and how much is just prejudice -- the other is that it can be simplistic - people like to blame the whole Israeli-Palestinian conflict on 'religion' and feel very satisfied about that... as if things were ever so simple.

[rotting bones]

As it happens, that's exactly my own position -- and it's better put that I could have done myself.
I don't dismiss the idea of the supernatural out of hand either, but there are so many scams and con men out there, and so many ways the human brain can deceive itself that I think the skeptical approach is the prudent one.

I'm not sure prudence is courageous approach. What gives me pause is how often ideas widely acknowledged to be "spiritual insight" prop up the status quo. If people are mistaken that often, should whatever "real spirituality" that might exist be called something else?

Anti-religious militantism bothers me sometimes. My main concerns are, first that it tends to punch down -- most of the anti-religious discourse seems directed at Islam and how much of that is fair concern, and how much is just prejudice -- the other is that it can be simplistic - people like to blame the whole Israeli-Palestinian conflict on 'religion' and feel very satisfied about that... as if things were ever so simple.

That's what materialist analysis is for. Israel was created to be America's enforcer in the Middle East. Nowadays, when politicians want to help themselves to America's tax dollars, they give it to Israel for MORAL BIBLICAL reasons, and get kickbacks through lobbyists.

Regarding Islam, my experience is that atheists direct most actual criticism towards Christianity, and let problems in Buddhism (such as the belief in ghosts in Thailand) slide disturbingly often. I think the Islam thing happens because fascists are always on the lookout for weak enemies that can unite the nation: Cringy teenagers want to rebel against their parents rules, so they put down Christianity. To mollify the powers that be, they assure us that there is something even worse (Islam, why not? They seem religious). The fascists see the kids hate Muslims, so they raise Islam into the position of an existential enemy.

None of this is true or a necessary conclusion. Something people forget is that the West had a similar view of China before the Communist takeover as it does about the Muslim world right now. "China" was once the byword for abhorrent regressiveness.

[zompist]

What gives me pause is how often ideas widely acknowledged to be "spiritual insight" props up the status quo.

That's kinda true, but also kinda vacuous. On average, everything supports the status quo, because stati quo tend to persist. (If they don't, then instead they're "crises" or "civil wars" or something.)

Besides, even if you're a revolutionary, the status quo is not always something you want to go away. E.g. fascists want to do away with the status quo so they can have a fascist state. The enemy of the status quo can be worse.

If anything, spirituality and revolution agree strongly that the status quo-- the situation of the world-- is bad. They tend to disagree on what to do about that.

[rotting bones]

That's kinda true, but also kinda vacuous. On average, everything supports the status quo, because stati quo tend to persist. (If they don't, then instead they're "crises" or "civil wars" or something.)

I don't think this is quite right. There are many large factions that seek to overthrow the status quo even if they happen to contribute to its equilibrium. John Rawls proposed to build an "overlapping consensus" out of the factions comprising civil society. If you refuse to take a stand for any ideology at all, you might be unable to make a positive contribution to the liberal consensus.

Besides, even if you're a revolutionary

Only to the extent that humans hate it.

the status quo is not always something you want to go away. E.g. fascists want to do away with the status quo so they can have a fascist state. The enemy of the status quo can be worse.

That's true. I mentioned earlier that we should seek to make beneficial changes to the status quo. My actual solution regarding atheism is atheist clubs for people who are into that kind of thing. I'm more into board game clubs and learning languages, personally.

If anything, spirituality and revolution agree strongly that the status quo-- the situation of the world-- is bad. They tend to disagree on what to do about that.

Yes, but even that Dr. Justin Sledge guy on the Esoterica channel mentioned how often deeply sincere mystics tend to be conservative. It's all conservative religious revival, national revival over its enemies, etc. One mystic I saw recently claimed that spirits revealed to him that you should be happy with who you are. Sounds nice, right? Conclusion: Transgenderism bad. /facepalm

Maybe Badiou counts as a far-left mystic, but I'm pretty sure he thinks he's rational.

I'd be happy with any support I can get for the ideal techno-utopia. My experience tells me I ought to dissuade people from spirituality if I know what's good for me. The furthest from rationality I'm comfortable with is the kind of "intuition" you get when you are thinking about a chess move, a math problem or how to approach an art piece. You don't need the supernatural to explain that.

[Raphael]

If anything, spirituality and revolution agree strongly that the status quo-- the situation of the world-- is bad. They tend to disagree on what to do about that.

Are you sure that you're not overgeneralizing from Christianity here?

[xxx]

Amen...