152 lines
12 KiB
Markdown
152 lines
12 KiB
Markdown
---
|
|
layout: post
|
|
title: On Atheism
|
|
categories: ["ideas"]
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
Documenting my current stand and trying to hopefully clear up some misconceptions. This is probably the first article from a potential series that I hope to write, covering some more nuanced topics on the subject.
|
|
|
|
------
|
|
|
|
## Definition ##
|
|
|
|
Simply put, it is the *absence of belief* in God(s).
|
|
|
|
This definition assumes that we have already defined what God(s) is/are. I will get to that later. However, the first point that needs to be stressed is that atheism stands for an absence of belief, rather than a presence of a belief in any premise. In fact, atheism does not claim anything at all for itself.
|
|
|
|
## Froggists ##
|
|
|
|
Lets say there are two friends - Ajith and Vijay. Vijay shows a closed box and claims that there are 4 frogs in that box. Ajith is skeptical of that claim. Vijay says he simply believes in it as it provides comfort and happiness to him. If we were to categorize people who behave like Vijay, we could call them *Froggists*.
|
|
|
|
Now Ajith could say "Hey! that box is too small, and I cannot hear anything. I don't believe you!". At this point he is a *A-Froggist*. This is because he is casting suspicion on Vijay's claim using reasonably good logic. Note that he does not claim the opposite - that there are not 4 frogs in the box. This is similar to the position of an atheist on the subject of God(s).
|
|
|
|
Ajith could also have said "Hey! that box is too small, I canot hear anything, there is on way it can hold 4 frogs". Now, he has become an *Anti-Froggist*. This is *not* the atheist position.
|
|
|
|
## More Definitions ##
|
|
|
|
Now that I've clarified what I consider to be the most misunderstood or misrepresented concept when it comes to atheism, I will now try to lay down the definitions of some of the other terms surrounding atheism.
|
|
|
|
#### God ####
|
|
|
|
With a capital G, is generally understood as some kind of entity that is ascribed one or more of the following properties.
|
|
|
|
1. Benevolent, Kind, Loving.
|
|
1. Onmipresent - Is present everywhere.
|
|
1. Omniscient - Knows everything.
|
|
1. Omnipotent - All powerful with unlimited ability.
|
|
1. Supernatural
|
|
1. Punishes you for your wrong-doings.
|
|
1. Listens to your prayers, accepts offerings and grants favors.
|
|
|
|
#### Religion ####
|
|
|
|
I see this as a logical organization of a set of closely related beliefs. Not every single person in a given organization hold the exact same beliefs. But a majority of beliefs from the religion are held by a majority of people. These principal beliefs that characterize a religion are unique enough that they can be distinguished from another religion.
|
|
|
|
#### Holy scriptures ####
|
|
|
|
The basis of the foundational beliefs of most Religions. Sometimes, there could be more than one such scripture for a religion.
|
|
|
|
#### Theism ####
|
|
|
|
The stance that is characterized by a belief in the existence of God(s) and its influence over people. Theists believe that God(s) created this universe, is present everywhere, sees us all, is all powerful, would punish you for wrongdoings, listens to your prayers, accepts sacrifices in exchange of granting useful wishes, and most importantly, works in mysterious ways!
|
|
|
|
#### Deism ####
|
|
|
|
The stance that is characterized by a belief in supernatural God(s) that played a role in the creation of the universe, but have no effect on the day to day life of human beings. Deists don't belive that prayers work, and that worship is futile.
|
|
|
|
#### Agnosticism ####
|
|
|
|
The stance that is characterized by an acceptance of the fact that the knowledge of the existence of God(s) is unknown. Agnosticism is derived from the Greek word [gnostikos](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnosticism) meaning knowledge. Agnosticism means absence of knowledge. Unless specifically qualified otherwise, all Atheists are Agnostics in the matter of God(s).
|
|
|
|
#### Anti-Theism ####
|
|
|
|
The stance that God(s) do not exist as defined in Theism. Similar to theists, they carry the burden of proof on their shoulders.
|
|
|
|
## Why be an Atheist? ##
|
|
|
|
Many reasons, listing some of them below in no particular order. All of them have the expand on the fact that Atheism is simply an absence of belief in God(s) and is therefore the default position.
|
|
|
|
#### Broad and inconsistent definition ####
|
|
|
|
The definition of God(s) is very broad and does not appear consistent across religions. In such a situation, the default stance of not believing anything makes the most sense. Until all the religions in the world come together to iron out the inconsistencies, a conversation about whether that is true or not would be meaningful.
|
|
|
|
#### Burden of proof ####
|
|
|
|
Going back to the [Froggists](#froggists) analogy, the onus is on Vijay to prove that the box has 4 frogs. That is to say - the burden of proof lies with the theist. Until proven, the default stance is again a rational choice.
|
|
|
|
#### God of the gaps ####
|
|
|
|
Often, the argument of a God(s) is invoked as a way to explain away some unknown that is waiting to be explained by Science. As time progresses, this is becoming more and more difficult, and therefore, in the words of Neil Degrasse Tyson, God(s) of such nature may well be an ever receding pocket of scientific ignorace.
|
|
|
|
## Some FAQs I get asked a lot ##
|
|
|
|
#### Isn't Atheism just another Religion then? ####
|
|
|
|
No. Atheism is the opposite of being in a Religion. Just like 'a switched off TV' is not a 'TV channel', or 'not having any hobby' is not a 'hobby', not believing in God(s) is not a belief, and not subscribing to any Religion is not a Religion.
|
|
|
|
#### Where do Atheists get their morality from? ####
|
|
|
|
Morality, to me feels like an emergent property of a civilization that keeps evolving. As Richard Dawkins said in his book [The God Delusion](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_God_Delusion), there is a moral *Zeitgeist* that keeps shifting in a positive direction inspite of all the teachings from any scriptures. Few centuries ago, slavery was legal in America, women all over the world would not receive most rights that they enjoy today, widowed women in India were forced to jump into fires. All of that has changed now, and we all agree it has changed for the good.
|
|
|
|
Next, the way this question is asked, oftentimes implies that religious people are good, only because of a belief in a God(s) that could punish them for not being good. That, I think is horrible compared to being good on our own. Any time someone asks me this question, my answer is always - if God(s) is proven to not exists, will your behavior turn to evil?
|
|
|
|
Lastly, morality derived from few ancient scriptions could be dangerously outdated and could be harmful. It should be something that is discussed and debated in a society.
|
|
|
|
#### Why are Atheists so arrogant? ####
|
|
|
|
Atheists are not arrogant because of Atheism. Atheists are just like any other person and the proportion of a certain quality in Atheists should be same as the general public. Looking at relative numbers, relative to the group, there aren't any more atheistic kind people, than there are of theists. There aren't more atheistic criminals compared to theistic criminals and so on.
|
|
|
|
#### Hitler and Stalin were Atheists!! ####
|
|
|
|
It is not clear if Hitler was an Atheist. Stalin definitely was, but the reason for 'behaving badly' is not derivable from an absence of belief in a diety. On the other hand, there are lot of examples of religiously triggered violence that has killed millions of people throughout human century, whose root causes are directly derivable from the specific beliefs of the religion.
|
|
|
|
## Why be a Theist? ##
|
|
|
|
I also want to look at some reasons why someone would be a theist inspite of the merits of the default position on this topic.
|
|
|
|
#### Personal experience ####
|
|
|
|
I had an experience with a God that felt real, helped me with (such and such..).
|
|
|
|
This is often the most common reason I hear, and the one that makes the most sense for anyone to be a theist. You cannot argue with personal experience and as long as that experience belongs to this person, and they though it is real, it is really a fine reason to be a theist. No such person is going to ever doubt (realistically) their beliefs, and no Atheist is going to accept personal experience as evidence as they haven't experienced it.
|
|
|
|
To each their own and everyone is happy (theoretically).
|
|
|
|
#### Everything ought to have a root cause ####
|
|
|
|
Take any object and you have a creator of that. Who created this can result in an infinite regress, and a way to stop that is to presume the final Creator of all things is God(s). The problem with this is that we still have to explain why the final Creator exists (who created God(s)?). By exaplaining away the unknowns with God(s), we haven't explained anything as there is one additional thing now to explain.
|
|
|
|
#### Things are designed so perfectly, this cannot be by chance ####
|
|
|
|
This is also known as the *Argument From Design* and [Thomas Aquinas](https://open.library.okstate.edu/introphilosophy/chapter/aquinass-five-proofs-for-the-existence-of-god/) is famous for using this argument. A response to this is the same as the previous one, we still need to explain God(s).
|
|
|
|
Another common false dichotomy here is the assumption that absence of design is random chance. Processes of evolution are already well understood and honest biologists have no problems explaining how something as complex as the human eye came to be from simplicity in the first place. Evolution is not random and natural selection is at work pushing a species to its next stable stage. The process of evolution is also not intelligent, as evident from the fact that, for example, humans have a [Recurrent Laryngeal Nerve](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recurrent_laryngeal_nerve) that connects the throat and the brain via a detour to the heart!!
|
|
|
|
#### Other arguments ####
|
|
|
|
There are other sophisticated arguments in this regard as well, which I acknowledge and hope to cover in the future articles. Adding this disclaimer here so that I do not get accused of only addresses, what a theist might perceive as, weak arguments in their arsenal.
|
|
|
|
However, there is one that I've never come across, but which I feel is a valid reason
|
|
|
|
#### Argument from Anxiety ####
|
|
|
|
Without a belief in an all-knowing care taker, I personally believe all of us will drown in anxiety. My mother wouldn't be at peace when I'm travelling on my bike in traffic, if not for the fact that she prayed to her God(s) for my safety. The more I think on these lines, the more I think Religion might well be a necessary thing to evolve in a civilization. This makes no claims to whether it is true that praying helps or not, but this is a claim to the fact that people are probably better off believing.
|
|
|
|
Ofcourse, Atheists exist and like me, do not feel it necessary to hold this belief. But I would be lying if I do not acknowledge my anxiety right after becoming a theist. Will my parents live another day? Will I survive this journey? Will someone rob me? It is not completely overcome to this day, while I have gotten a lot better at it. It probably takes some maturity to understand and deal with such anxiety from unknowns.
|
|
|
|
## Why be a Deist? ##
|
|
|
|
These were the atheists of yesterday, who could observe that prayers do not work, but couldn't explain away the complex "design" of the the world around them. This stance is undertandable under those circumstances.
|
|
|
|
## Why be an Agnostic? ##
|
|
|
|
Both theists and atheists are Agnostic because the claim of God(s) can neither be proven or disproven (at least that is how it looks so far). Atheists accept their agnosticism. There is also a class of agnostics, who claim they occupy the "middle ground" between atheism and theism. While that doesn't make any sense, I can understand the reason for them saying so, as this acts as a shield under politically charged circumstances - where both parties assume an agnostic is not challenging their stance.
|
|
|
|
## Why be an Anti-Theist? ##
|
|
|
|
Theism is an unfalsifiable claim. Sometimes, it might make sense to directly challenge or provoke theists by assuming this stance that God(s) do not exist. Personally, I don't think Anti-Theism is useful in most situations, as this introduces the burden of proof on both sides, and both sides cannot prove or disprove their stance.
|
|
|
|
## In Conclusion... ##
|
|
|
|
This just serves as a superfluous article outlining my thought process in this matter at best. While writing this, I badly wanted to expound on certain arguments or issues in greater detail. However, I want to budget my time rightly so that I don't spend too much time today on writing this post. Hopefully more follows later!!
|