Change of self-identification

[andrewducker]

I've long identified as an agnostic, due to my acceptance of the fact that when it comes to matters of the supernatural, I just don't know.  I felt that this lack of total belief in something was worth highlighting - that I wasn't just taking a standpoint without any evidence, but was keeping an open mind.

However, over here I ended up finally admitting something I've been feeling for a while - that this position is (in normal, day-to-day life) a cop-out.

While agnosticism seems on the surface to be the only totally rational approach, presuming that something with no evidence might be true is only ever applied in the matters of religion. With no positive evidence of the supernatural, it seems a tad pointless to even bother thinking about it, let alone adopting a fence-sitting position.

I mean, I _might_ exist purely in a virtual simulation running inside a computer system run by AIs that won the war against humanity. But with no positive evidence that this is the case, I wouldn't claim to be agnostic on the matter.  So why claim agnosticism on the matter of gods, demons, souls, free will, giant sky cows or any other claims for which there is no evidence?

My basic position is that these things do not exist, and in fact I spent 99.99% of my life treating these ideas with all the contempt they deserve (except in fiction, where I think they're great).  So, yes, atheism for me.  Odin - I deny thee!

Comments

[channelpenguin.livejournal.com]

There is no god but me, before no idol bend thy knee...

:)

[opusfluke.livejournal.com]

As Robert Wilson put it the only viable method is to be sceptical of everything including scepticism. Or as a certain A. Crowley put it:
"We place no trust
In Virgin or Pigeon
Our method is Science
Our aim is Religion!"

[pseudomonas.livejournal.com]

I spent a few years moving from theism to deism to agnosticism to where I am currently, which is weak atheism (though with your reservations on not wanting to rule anything out for sure). I can't see myself going for strong atheism, it requires too much faith. I found the changes of identity and self-definition quite a bit deal as well, especially the agonisticism - atheism one, even though there wasn't much of a philosophical shift - I was an agnostic who used as a working model that there was no god or gods; there are many agnostics who conversely use a theist (usually religious) working model whilst conceding that the existence of the deity in question is not provable either way.

[kurosau.livejournal.com]

My only problem with this whole matter is that spiritualism isn't really about evidence, or even scientific inquiry. It's about spiritualism and belief and faith and more stuff I can attach without using a comma.

Or, to put it another way, if you need the evidence then I think that proves you're an atheist.

Now, I'm not saying I think you're wrong for thinking the way you do, or that being an atheist is bad or what not, I'm just illustrating what I believe to be a fundamental disconnect in how people perceive spirituality when they aren't spiritual, or vice versa.

For the flip side of this point, take a look at the ID movement, and how people think some semantic hand waving makes it a scientific hypothesis, even when easily contradicted by basic logic.

Also, IIRC, part of being a dutiful scientist is acknowledging that if you can't prove if something exists or doesn't exist, it could be a possibility. As this is inherent in the whole attitude behind scientific skepticism, I don't see it as being a 'fence sitting' attitude.

Also also (is that like Post Postscript?), there's the fact that there's usually no particular need for you to choose one way or the other in many arguments, and fence sitting is perfectly reasonable in light of that. I mean, it isn't like you're taking a fence sitting position on the nature of slavery.

[opusfluke.livejournal.com]

Science is like that. There's a religious faith in Big Bang even though the theory is so stretched out of shape Occam would have shredded it for hamster bedding by now and of course there *has* to be a Higgs-Boson or else the Standard Model falls apart so there is one so there. Want to upset a "real" scientist? Tell 'em Einstein said ether was essential to Relativity and watch their dogmatic streak snarl at you. Fundamentalist bating is one of my favourite hobbies.

[andrewducker]

There's plenty of evidence in favour of the Big Bang theory - the information from COBE about cosmic background radiation seems to confirm it fairly well. It's not certain by any means, but it does seem rather likely, from what I understand.

And Einsten was occasionally known to be wrong - not that that should be a surprise to anyone :->

[andrewducker]

Can you explain why "spiritual" things are different to "non-spiritual" things - why does one require a burden of proof before believing what you're told and one doesn't? Should I believe anything I'm told so long as the person adds that what they're saying is spiritual in nature?

[kurosau.livejournal.com]

That's pretty simple. Nothing requires a burden of proof to believe. Belief doesn't work that way. The concept of attaching burden of proof to believe is purely a construct we've created to handle the world. It happens to be particularly useful in categorizing it.

I'm going to try to answer your question with another question.

Why am I here?

People are spiritual, and in being spiritual they're asking simple questions (why am I here?) and also deeper ones (can I define myself and therefore be happy without anyone else's intervention)

At their root, these questions are usually highly personal, relating more to the person and their interaction with the world than any actual architecture setup to control a religion. As a result, spiritualism isn't something easily defined, and as it is ultimately subjective, I'd say it can't be analyzed.

My point is just that you've decided that because you have no proof, there's no point to you not stating that you're an atheist. Thing is, the inverse is just as true. Since spirituality is such a personal thing, the concept of proof doesn't really define it. Rather, you're defining it with your concept of proof.

[kurosau.livejournal.com]

Additionally, I'm speaking of the process of belief rather than the validity of religion, which is the controlling factor here. It doesn't matter if you can't prove a religion, so why people believe is more important to this topic, in my opinion.

[opusfluke.livejournal.com]

There in is Aristotle. Why define *body* and *non-Body* as an argument? I get drunk I change my mind. Is that the mind changing? Or the brain? Unity is the way I see it as a functional construct. "I" get out of the way when "the body" steps in to get me home, safe, heal, etc. "I" get out the way when "I" feel the urge to write tales. Will "I" survive physical death? Not al that bothered as "I" is a verb and to be honest "I" have met a lot of other "I"s changing shifts going to sleep/waking up over the years, and they babble and even argue. But "I" still get the coffee and baccy out of Safeway and by Hell wish I cul delegate that to another "I" as it's tedious. As to death- I hope oblivion or enlightenment. Anything else is Hell in the Classical sense (to be abandoned and bereft).

[cx650.livejournal.com]

An often overlooked item in Christian teaching tells us to "test everything to see if it is of God". If you are not convinced, all it means to me is that you have yet to experience something which satisfies you. If you are happy as you are, it is not for me to say that you are wrong. I was an atheist myself for many years, 'people in glass houses' etc. Being an atheist doesn't make you a bad person any more than being a committed Christian makes you a good person.

Greetings of your preference at this celebratory time of year.

[cx650.livejournal.com]

P.S.

I think I might be one of the nuts your journal contains.....

[andrewducker]

And the more the merrier!

[andrewducker]

I entirely agree with this, by the way. Should I encounter something persuasive _of course_ I'd believe in God. I'm somewhat envious of the fact that you have...

[surliminal.livejournal.com]

Actually this is one of your more intersting posts about religion, but as usual, you're wrong :-P

What you're talking about is presumption, or onus of proof. Very familiar idea in law as in science. In any situation where we can't ever gather evidnece to know something 100% sure, we have a choice of presuming x is true until proven false (by 50% = standard of probabilities; or perhaps "beyond reasonable doubt"); or x is false until proven true .

The default set reflects the state of society, usually at the time it was first set. In law eg the presumption in England (though not France) is innocent until proven guilty because that was seen as protection against arbitrary royal power (then - now "state" power.)

Religious attitudes are still moderating from when religious belief was the norm, so the discursive assumption you identify (interestingly and accurately- I never thought about it before) is that we assume God exists until proven false. Hence those not sure, usually claim to be agnostic not atheist.

But the default setting is arbitrary. So by reversing it, you are not really making any startling change in your own beliefs nor any great point about society beyond that majority belief in God is on the wane.

The stadard of proof is equally arbitrary (just like pass marks in exams). You could say you're an agnostic if you're only 60 % sure there's no god but atheist if you're 90% sure. that could be a fun game:-)

[andrewducker]

I'm not talking about things that have 50% proof in one direction or the other though. I'm talking about things wherein there is no proof at all, and we are asked to assume their existence for no reason.

It doesn't make any sense to _assume_ anything. If I asked you to assume Odin, or The Flying Spaghetti Monster, or Atlantis or Flying Pigs, telling you that as you'd no proof they didn't exist you might as well assume they did, you'd tell me that this made no sense. And you'd be right.

[darkoshi]

My basic position is that these things do not exist, and in fact I spent 99.99% of my life treating these ideas with all the contempt they deserve (except in fiction, where I think they're great)

I'm rather similar... although I'm not exactly contemptuous of the idea of them.
But life - this existence - seems so weird to me, that I wouldn't believe it either, if I wasn't living it. And so, if this weird thing can be happening... perhaps other weird things could be true too. And it might be nice in fact, if there was something else weird that will make it all seem better someday, when I find out about that weird thing. So I still feel more comfortable calling myself agnostic, than atheistic.

[kurosau.livejournal.com]

I'm adding this down here so that our previous chain doesn't become absurdly long. Feel free to reply wherever you like.

Simpler Version (I can't articulate well if I'm not speaking simply)

Points

Can you disprove an unfalsifiable belief?
Can someone's opinion ever be wrong? We're talking right or wrong here, not wrong ethically or what not.
What do you call it when someone has an opinion?
What do you call it when they force that opinion on you?

Arguments

Belief is an opinion. You cannot disprove someone's opinion. If they like the Backstreet Boys, then no matter how much you tell them that their opinion is wrong, it still isn't wrong. Therefore, Belief doesn't require proof. If you need proof, you likely aren't talking about Belief, and are therefore likely a Non-Believer.

Belief is an opinion. Scientific facts can be analyzed and proven/disproven (to a degree). Ergo, Beliefs are not scientific facts. In order to categorize and understand the world, we examine it with the scientific method. Therefore, Belief is of little to no importance in understanding the world from a scientific perspective. As a result, it is also of little help to analyze Beliefs with the scientific method, using what we currently understand about Science and Belief.

Forcing your opinion on other people is generally a bad thing. As a society, we choose to live by the scientific method, because that method appears to provide the best for the most. Therefore, we should keep Belief from strongly influencing Science.

Finally, Philosophy is where Science and Belief meets. I'd wager that's why Philosophy split apart into equal parts religion and science at some point in the past. We can philosophically analyze the nature of religion and Belief, allowing us to apply a faux scientific method to the analysis of Belief.

There's nothing stopping you from arguing, analyzing, critiquing, or attacking someone's Belief. It just doesn't do any good, that's all. That's why I think that being agnostic isn't in any way a cop-out. You don't need proof to believe something, unless part of your belief system is that you need proof for something.

Finally, I'll say that I think this disconnect is why atheism vs. religion is going to get us all of nowhere. Everyone is arguing on the wrong sides of the argument, and will keep going around in circles because people just don't grok what the other side has to say. You're the immovable object, religion is the unstoppable force. Better get ready to surrender to each other.

[pickwick.livejournal.com]

I'm finding your posts interesting, but they do seem to be long-winded justifications of "I just believe it, so you should just accept it".

Everything you say could be applied to people who believe in aliens, or people who believe God is telling them to kill other people, or people who believe in omnipotent flying teapots. We tend, instead, to think of all of these people as weird or insane. It's only when the completely unverifiable thing with no proof that someone believes is along the same lines as a major religion that we're expected to live with it and admit that because there's no absolute scientific proof, that they might be right.

[andrewducker]

People's purely aesthetic opinions are, of course, inarguable.

But when they start talking about events in the real world as if they were history "God did X." or "God told me to..." or "God wants me to..." or "People were created by God." then they're not talking about aesthetics, they're telling you that something happened. Claiming that something happened, with no evidence that it did, is generally considered to be a sign of mental illness.

You're basically saying that there are opinions that are backed up by facts and opinions that are backed up by nothing, and opinions that are backed up by nothing can be anything at all. Which is correct. But then you say we should treat people's opinions that are backed by nothing as if they held some kind of weight - and that just seems bizarre to me. Sure, they can hold them in their own heads, but if they share them with the outside world then they should expect people to point out that their opinions are baseless. Should people wish to continue to hold beliefs that they know are based on nothing, then that's up to them - I can't see why they would though.

[surliminal.livejournal.com]

I like most of that. I'm reminded of how Philip Pullaman in his Dark materials books has a science of Experimental Theology - based on what Physicas was originally called at Oxford which was Experimental Philosophy.

I by the way have no religious beliefs at all :)

[laserboy.livejournal.com]

Hurray for atheism.

[mirukux.livejournal.com]

With no positive evidence of the supernatural, it seems a tad pointless to even bother thinking about it, let alone adopting a fence-sitting position.

i've always equated 'agnostic atheism' to refer to that kind of stance. yes, there's evidence to suggest there was a big bang, but what caused that event? no-one can ever prove any theory postulated about this question, so it's not something to be bothered (or worried) thinking about (as it has no effect on anything else in reality). unless i've got my termanology wrong?

[soon_lee]

Getting splinters in my ass here, but I figure that 'absence of evidence' isn't proof of absence.

[xquiq.livejournal.com]

FWIW I've come to a similar conclusion of late.

Agnosticism seemed so much more religion-friendly, but at the same time, I no more believed in God than the tooth fairy, so my stance became somewhat daft.

I'm gradually becoming more open about my atheism - as opposed to prevaricating around 'I dunno' - and I must note that I have encountered a few people who seem to find admitted atheism an aggressive position in and of itself.