If you’ve read any of this blog, you’ve probably guessed I’m an atheist–that gross word people use to describe us non-believers. But I think I’ve said before that atheism isn’t what’s important to me; I’m more concerned about skepticism in general (rather than just being skeptical about gods)…because atheism alone can lead to those annoying people who say “I’m not religious, but I’m spiritual”. I know because I used to be one of those annoying people…
And spirituality still involves faith: believing something to be true without evidence, despite evidence to the contrary, or even believing something for which there can be no evidence. There seems to be only one reason why we would give in to this type of thinking; because it feels good. People only have faith in things they want to be true. And so, when you use faith you fall into a dangerous mode of thought where you let your emotions get in the way of seeing objective truth.
This is where I found what’s important to me (and why I love Carl Sagan so much)…I realized that I’m far more concerned about what’s true than what feels good. This takes much more discipline than faith, though the spiritual gurus would have you think different. Spirituality is constantly trying to convince people that faith is a virtue and that it takes a disciplined mind to make faith work.
I have never known anyone, not one person, either religious or spiritual who is happy…truly content, and content because of their faith. What I see is people constantly needing to remind themselves of their faith; day in and day out they need to repeat to themselves what they believe…as if they are deeply unsure if it really is true. They need to gather in large groups with others of similar faith to reassure one another that this is what they all believe. Not only do I find this deeply unsatisfying, but doesn’t that also seem like a ritual of self-denial?
This is why I want truth. Truth isn’t something you need to recite. The truth simply is…whether you want it to be or not…good or bad. The truth about the world around you is there whether you choose to accept it or not, whether it hurts you or not, whether you want it or you don’t. Truth doesn’t promise to always makes you happy–but isn’t there something so very selfish about wanting only what makes you happy to be real? What the truth will always offer you is understanding and that is something that stays with you.
March 18th, 2009 at 5:37 pm
Its that bicameral mind thngy again
March 18th, 2009 at 7:48 pm
I hate preachy atheists. So that I am not confused with them, I call myself an agnostic. But I agree with you, some of the religious seem to be trying really hard to convince themselves that they are right.
March 20th, 2009 at 4:08 pm
I am pretty sure you would find my opinion more irritating than anything else, since it is kind of the opposite of what you are saying. But it seems to me that truth is not a reasonable goal. To believe in truth takes as much faith as anything else. It seems like a lot of skeptics are all about evidence until it come down to our basic ideas about the universe that are based entirely on a few unprovable assumptions. We can accept these ideas because they make certain aspects of life go smoothly and they make us feel good, and they seem to be consistent. But consistent with what? We have no idea how much of our reality IS basically unknowable. For anyone to declare an absolute truth is certainly a statement of faith.
March 20th, 2009 at 5:11 pm
@Laura: I think you’re on that infinite loop of unprovable-everything that is similar to what I was talking about in “Boromir’s Solipsism” (where you also commented). My point in that post was that this type of thinking is useless, since the only way to learn about the universe to opperate as if there is objective truth; and that is what science gives us…a tool to view the universe from beyond our own senses.
I’m not sure why you state that our basic ideas about the universe are based entirely on a few unprovable assumptions. What are these basic ideas you talk of and why are the unprovable?
Faith is thinking something is true without evidence. Truth is something knowable you can claim is real based on evidence. As I said in my other post, when I hear people argue over what evidence is and what the concept of truth is, I don’t hear true honest philosophical questions; I hear a scrambling desperate effort to prop-up deeply held beliefs.
@Rick Stiles: I’m not really into the hardcore atheist campaign; especially when a lot of atheists I know subscribe to other forms of pseudoscience and superstitious nonsense. But being agnostic seems, again, pointless…there are a great number of things we can’t say whether we know are true or if they exist, but why be agnostic about all of them? I don’t know of any evidence for or against invisible pink unicorns, but why should I be agnostic about them? Isn’t that a bit tedious? Do you really feel agnostic about these sort of claims, or are you just unconfortable being associated with the term “atheist”?
March 23rd, 2009 at 7:44 pm
@Rick #2 I understand where you come to the conclusion that avoiding conflict is a worthwhile goal…but I dont share your opinion, truth is truth and when you are right you are right ..stand up for it.
@SEM This is an extremely complicated topic…i share your views but,…never underestimate the power of 3.5 billion years of evolution to drive people to seek comfort in large groups who think the same way.
I wish i could elaborate but i am terribly sick and god aint helping.
March 23rd, 2009 at 7:47 pm
cough …hack (expires)
March 26th, 2009 at 10:10 pm
the only way to learn about the universe to opperate as if there is objective truth; and that is what science gives us…a tool to view the universe from beyond our own senses.
I’m not sure why you state that our basic ideas about the universe are based entirely on a few unprovable assumptions. What are these basic ideas you talk of and why are the unprovable?
Ignore me here if you don’t feel like discussing this.
But as you say, the only way to learn about the universe is to opperate as though there is objective truth.
While science gives us tools to see beyond our senses, we have no context in which to place anything that we learn through science.
Our unknown unknowns are vast. Beyond vast, infinite. And the consistency of result that science is based on means very little if we are only looking at a tiny piece of the model. There are any number of hidden variables that at any time could shift for any reason. Because they never have is no proof that they never will. Infinity divided by anything is still infinity. We can learn about the universe as though there were objective truth, but that doesn’t mean that what we learn means what we think it means, or that objective truth exists. For the individual, there is no objective truth, as even through science, there is nothing but our own perceptions, interpret them as we will. (On the other hand, it is true that to talk about the individual is as abstract an idea as objective truth because you can’t have an individual outside the human species; there is always the context of the rest of us.)
The basic ideas I mentioned are causality, and the existence of anything outside our own experience.
They are unprovable because, logically, the best we have got is correlation, and the assumption that it isn’t just a hallucination.
You probably think that is an inane point and not worth worrying about. But you must admit, that in such a closed system as human consciousness, we can’t know for sure about anything outside the system. I just try to acknowledge that. I really don’t have any deeply held beliefs. I’m not even really agnostic. I feel like it barely matters considering how fleeting my life is. I am just interested.
March 28th, 2009 at 11:06 am
Good grief Laura,
Why bother posting at all, when the the entire world wide web could shut down at any moment due to a random fluctuation in the Planck length.
But mebbe you’re right ,if we dont currently know every thing then I guess there is no point in learning anything.
I would point out that observing life the universe and everything is a pretty neat way of putting those observations and indeed ourselves, into context, …but then I probably just hallucinated your entire line of reasoning, so what would be the point.
May 25th, 2009 at 12:03 pm
I came across your blog after spending the day with a group of people who insisted that the only way to find truth was through “faith”. They branded me narrow minded and “closed” when I suggested that the best way to find truth was to use evidence based thinking and the scientific method. They all smiled at me in that way they have and said they’d pray for me. My heart sank. Finding your blog has made me feel a little less alone. Thanks.