How I rationalize my atheism

[RestlessSoul]

Would one plus one be two, without God having to say so?

Or indeed, would one plus one be two, if no human consciousness were there to count it?

 

[Audie]

Or indeed, would one plus one be two, if no human consciousness were there to count it?

Of course it would.
Why answer with a quip other than
to dodge my question which btw actually has some worthwhile thought behind it.

 

[Kharisym]

The worth of an argument is measured by its power to persuade intelligent, unbiased minds.

Would you expect your argument to persuade an agnostic to adopt hard atheism with an argument based on a lack of knowledge (We know nothing except that logic can apply to it) and an questionable application of Occam's Razor to eliminate one of the two possibilities?

When making a statement to someone or a group, its important to frame that statement to the audience. My OP isn't built to convince others to my view, but rather is a statement designed to elicit challenges to my beliefs. For a theist or agnostic, I'd have to change the presentation, add things for what that particular audience may need, and could drop things that aren't important to them.

I fully agree that 'occams razor <END>' is not a convincing argument for an agnostic--I would need to add details regarding *why* it should be sufficient. The problem is, why I consider occam's razor to be a reasonable tool deals with my philosophy on how we know and what we know--epistemology is a whole other cannoli.

Short and sweet: For non-omniscient things, nothing can be absolutely known and even the most basic conjectures have some possibility of being wrong. To this end, there must be a level at which a conjecture is sufficiently likely based on existing knowledge that the possibility of it being wrong can be dismissed. It is this point at which the 'maybe wrong' part can be dismissed where one can be said to believe the conjecture. To convince an agnostic I would need to 1) Convince them this question is worth thinking about (many people are agnostic out of not caring), 2) Convince them that nothing can be perfectly known (prove my epistemology is correct), and 3) Convince them that the conditions I establish are sufficient for dismissing the possibility of it being wrong as sufficiently unlikely (My claim meets my own epistemology).

 

[YoursTrue]

I tried my hand at crochet a while back and will probably try again, but my dyslexia really messed me up trying to count my loops and get the end knots right. If you know how to crochet, my hat is off to you.

First of all, I'm a female homo sapien, although some think based on my posts I suppose, that I'm a male. (I'm not.) I think under the circumstances that if I WERE a male I'd hesitate to crochet, although I've read that some men do crochet. I think it's laudable.
I find directions in magazines sometimes hard to follow -- some of my relatives used to go to classes with expert teachers making sure they did the right thing. I never did that. Right now though i don't have too much time to crochet. Although I would like to.
Speaking of counting, I have certain items I have to count and by the time I get to 30 I get lost and have to go back again.
One of my relatives is a research scientist, and in a way I think I would have enjoyed the particularities of research, but maybe in the future. There is so much to learn in life that can be enjoyable. Now there's not that much time. Take care.

 

[Audie]

First of all, I'm a female homo sapien, although some think based on my posts I suppose, that I'm a male. (I'm not.) I think under the circumstances that if I WERE a male I'd hesitate to crochet, although I've read that some men do crochet. I think it's laudable.
I find directions in magazines sometimes hard to follow -- some of my relatives used to go to classes with expert teachers making sure they did the right thing. I never did that. Right now though i don't have too much time to crochet. Although I would like to.
Speaking of counting, I have certain items I have to count and by the time I get to 30 I get lost and have to go back again.
One of my relatives is a research scientist, and in a way I think I would have enjoyed the particularities of research, but maybe in the future. There is so much to learn in life that can be enjoyable. Now there's not that much time. Take care.

" Homo sapiens"

 

[YoursTrue]

The tl;dr of my argument is to show that 1) We currently cannot know anything about what's outside our universe, which 2) renders anything we can say about what's outside our universe an exercise in pure logic, therefore 3) Occams razor is applicable as a tool for defining what the most likely state would be barring all other things equal (and all things are equal in a system of complete unknowns, as established by 1).

Forgive me if I go beyond the tenor of this thread, but some of your statements encourage a reply from me. I am glad you said we cannot know anything about what's outside our universe, that makes sense to me. YET people do conjecture how it was formed, based on, I suppose their sense of logic and probabilities regarding energy. I say energy because I'm likening it to mass and density. But who knows? Maybe it's not and some better educated person here can straighten that out.

 

[YoursTrue]

Hmm. I'd have to believe in a drunken god. We all act stupid with enough booze. Could you imagine God waking up with a killer hangover and going 'what the **** did I just create' as he stops cuddling the universe.

While I don't like to use that type of language, I will say that God DID regret making mankind as it got worse and worse, according to the Bible. He wasn't drunk. But the sad story is that leaving things up to humans to decide or figure out is not working too well, insofar as *I* see things. Not saying others will agree, but from the perspective I have now, I realize that mankind is not meant to rule itself. Now the question remains -- and I leave that up to you. On the other hand, when I was driving today and saw a beautiful sky and a beautiful body of blue water, I thought, how beautiful. How nice that we (I) human beings can see such pretty things that are so pleasing to our eyes and senses.

 

[ppp]

While I don't like to use that type of language, I will say that God DID regret making mankind as it got worse and worse, according to the Bible. He wasn't drunk. But the sad story is that leaving things up to humans to decide or figure out is not working too well, insofar as *I* see things. Not saying others will agree, but from the perspective I have now, I realize that mankind is not meant to rule itself. Now the question remains -- and I leave that up to you. On the other hand, when I was driving today and saw a beautiful sky and a beautiful body of blue water, I thought, how beautiful. How nice that we (I) human beings can see such pretty things that are so pleasing to our eyes and senses.

Despite all of it's issues failings, secular law is so much more moral than any alleged divine law.

 

[F1fan]

While I don't like to use that type of language, I will say that God DID regret making mankind as it got worse and worse, according to the Bible.

I know, the Bible describes God as a total screw up.

He wasn't drunk. But the sad story is that leaving things up to humans to decide or figure out is not working too well, insofar as *I* see things. Not saying others will agree, but from the perspective I have now, I realize that mankind is not meant to rule itself. Now the question remains -- and I leave that up to you. On the other hand, when I was driving today and saw a beautiful sky and a beautiful body of blue water, I thought, how beautiful. How nice that we (I) human beings can see such pretty things that are so pleasing to our eyes and senses.

Most humans are doing quite well despite God being such a screw up.

 

[RestlessSoul]

Of course it would.
Why answer with a quip other than
to dodge my question which btw actually has some worthwhile thought behind it.

Your question did have some value, which is why I responded to it; not with a quip, but with a question. A question deserving a more thoughtful answer than “of course”.

I’m not mathematically inclined so my understanding is necessarily limited, but the philosophy of maths and how it relates to nature, divinity, and consciousness has exercised great minds from Kepler to Dirac to Penrose.

 

[RestlessSoul]

I know, the Bible describes God as a total screw up.


Most humans are doing quite well despite God being such a screw up.

Most humans are doing quite well? I’m not convinced.

 

[RestlessSoul]

I don't see any need for a rational justification of atheism.

Atheism is self-justified because it is the logical alternative to an unnecessary and unsupported belief.

Claims that there would be a need of an "uncreated creator" are nothing more than attempts at having meaningless answers to questions that are not necessarily meaningful themselves.

I think you just offered a rational justification for your atheism right there.

Which, having faith only in reason, atheists are inevitably driven to do.

 

[Audie]

I think you just offered a rational justification for your atheism right there.

Which, having faith only in reason, atheists are inevitably driven to do.

Always playing equivocation with the word
" Faith".
Seems there would be more respect for your highest value.

 

[Brian2]

I don't see any need for a rational justification of atheism.

Atheism is self-justified because it is the logical alternative to an unnecessary and unsupported belief.

Claims that there would be a need of an "uncreated creator" are nothing more than attempts at having meaningless answers to questions that are not necessarily meaningful themselves.

Atheism is unsupported, but theism is supported through both the experiences of humanity and a reasonable look at the universe and what exists in it. It is theism that does not need justification even though it is justified, and atheism is only justified by the imagination of atheists who think (with no support) that a God is unnecessary and unsupported.

Claims that there would be a need of an "uncreated creator" are nothing more than attempts at having meaningless answers to questions that are not necessarily meaningful themselves.

Showing an atheist that there is a creator is an attempt to bring meaning where none exists.
And it is after all the alternative to an unnecessary and unsupported denial of a belief.

 

[Brian2]

That's a good explanation, especially that it's a choice. And I agree that it's a choice. But I think the relevance to the rest of us would be in why to choose this view. What are the advantages and disadvantages of choosing such a 'supernatural' pretext?

I cannot help but think that whatever state was occurring before the Big Band would have been 'supernatural' simply because what I would call 'natural' is defined by and contained by the 'laws' of the universe that resulted. Whatever happened before that point is beyond the limitations of those laws.

But this is all an issue that comes from speculating beyond what is here and now. Which is all in keeping with the natural universe. So why would we want to impose a possible supernatural pretext to that?

Reasons for the supernatural can be seen in those things which are most hurtful in life and the desire that the end of life for us and others is not really the end.

 

[LuisDantas]

Atheism is unsupported,

That is neither true, nor the proper question to attempt to answer.

Instead of asking whether atheism is supported, we all should ask whether it is reasonable in itself (yes); whether it is reasonable to avoid it (no); whether the alternatives are worth pursuing (not really); and whether theism specifically and most of all monotheism of the Abrahamic variety are acceptable alternatives (definitely not).

but theism is supported through both the experiences of humanity and a reasonable look at the universe and what exists in it.

Entirely untrue. What little justification exists for theism as a belief is emotional and aesthetical in nature.

The most significant fact about theism and attempts at justifying it is really that the attempt to justify it is made in the first place. That betrays a serious confusion about the role and nature of deity-concepts. They are by nature personal and need no external justification. The flip side is that they are not suitable for external use either.

It is theism that does not need justification even though it is justified, and atheism is only justified by the imagination of atheists who think (with no support) that a God is unnecessary and unsupported.

Sorry, but you are just saying nonsense here.

Showing an atheist that there is a creator is an attempt to bring meaning where none exists.

I guess that is often true. Some theists do in fact seem to believe that they might somehow do such a thing.

And it is after all the alternative to an unnecessary and unsupported denial of a belief.

You mean respect for truth where you write "unnecessary and unsupported denial of a belief", I must assume.

 

[LuisDantas]

I think you just offered a rational justification for your atheism right there.

Which, having faith only in reason, atheists are inevitably driven to do.

You are construing a strawman here. Atheists are people, not some sort of "reason elementals" from D&D or somesuch.

 

[Brian2]

Objective reality is the world external to the self, which we know about through our senses. It's the same thing as nature (in its wide sense). And it's what the physical sciences explore, and have had great success in exploring.

Are we still on the same page, or do you define "objective reality" differently?

I would say that objective reality is what people have experienced even if not all people have experienced what others have and even if science cannot say that what people have experienced is real.

It's simply the case that 'supernatural' is derived from Latin words meaning 'above' and 'nature' (in the sense I've been using 'nature'). It means 'not in nature' so to me it means 'not in reality'.

Therefore the only way it's known to exist is as a set of concepts / ideas / things imagined in an individual brain. That would be consistent, I'd suggest, with the observable fact that there are hundreds if not thousands of religions, many or most of them claiming to possess the genuine knowledge of the supernatural, yet claiming incompatible things.

By contrast, if they were making claims about reality then we could simply check those claims by examining reality and seeing which is correct. But there's no objective standard for supernatural belief, is there?

Sounds true to me.
We all believe or deny individually. We all have our own individual beliefs and/or faith.

I think it's correct to say we haven't found a culture on earth that didn't have supernatural beliefs of one kind or another. It follows, does it not, that religion is something humans do by instinct. I subscribe to the idea that because the human brain has evolved to provide an instant explanatory narrative to whatever it observes, this has meant supernatural narratives to explain things like weather, thunder, drought, famine, plague, good or bad luck in hunting, fishing, war, love, and so on. It has also operated to give a sense of control over such things, even if that control is in truth imagined, such as both sides in the two world wars praying to their respective versions and understandings of the Christian god for success in war or at least survival.

As you say, religion is something that humans do by instinct. And yes we do look for meaning and order and answers both to what we see around us and the bigger questions in life.
Giving up on the big answers is akin to denying science.

I'd wonder if you were then the generator of the supernatural, and the world external to you was not.

And I would wonder if you are the generator of your own non supernatural reality through denying what I might see.

 

[joe1776]

...To convince an agnostic I would need to 1) Convince them this question is worth thinking about (many people are agnostic out of not caring), 2) Convince them that nothing can be perfectly known (prove my epistemology is correct), and 3) Convince them that the conditions I establish are sufficient for dismissing the possibility of it being wrong as sufficiently unlikely (My claim meets my own epistemology).

It seems that our disagreement is very basic. It's about argumentation.

The quote above indicates a bias on your part: You think of the typical agnostic as someone who doesn't care and doesn't understand that most of our beliefs are based on probability.

If you can't write an argument that would be likely to persuade an intelligent agnostic who does care, and understands that certainty is rarely possible, then you have created an argument that would only be found persuasive by people who already agree with you. And that, IMO, is simply an easy way to confirm our bias.

 

[KWED]

Is simpler always better? I'm thinking no. A story, for example, doesn't fit with the simplest solution is always preferred. It is my view that God creates this existence like an author writes a story. So Im not sure if occam's razor applies here. But I could be convinced otherwise.

Occam's razor is not just "simpler is better". It is better described as "The explanation that requires the fewest unsupported assumptions is better".
It is a tool to be applied to arguments or claims, not to art or food or holidays or whatever.