Question for the Atheist

You make an excellent point. The concept of "God" or a higher power means very different things to different people. There is no universally agreed upon definition.

Having a definitive stance on belief or non-belief in "God" is highly dependent on what is being referenced or imagined. These are very personal choices and interpretations we all have to wrestle with. Oversimplifying the question doesn't help.
 

VisualBrian said:
I agree that there are various reasons cited for a lack of belief in a god (for me it is simply that I don't have sufficient evidence for the claim) but that doesn't change the fact that Atheism is a lack of belief in a god. That is the only question addressed by Atheism. I do not "dismiss religion" or overlook the "truth of narrative, poetry and everything we know by intuition and feeling". I simply do not find these things convincing. The reasoning people use is varied, but the result is simply Atheism, a lack of belief in a god.
Click to expand...
And I want to point out that no Atheists who I know explain or justify their Atheism with science or lofty reasoning, and neither do I. And looking into the heavens and saying, "Nn-nope, I don't see Him" is just a meme.

Atheists understand that (generally) believers don't see "Him" either, not as some ancient being sitting on a cloud or a sky-throne, or whatever. We understand they see Him in all things, and not as an actual being in a traditional sense.

Atheism means no belief in a god...period. That's the definition of Atheist, and it doesn't go on to say "science" or whatever.

Speaking of, I also want to point out it's well-known that the very famous astrophysicist, researcher and author, Neil deGrasse Tyson, is a devout Christian whose faith does not conflict with his science, and vice-versa.
 
VisualBrian said:
Albert Einstein's religious views have been widely studied and often misunderstood. Albert Einstein stated "I believe in Spinoza's God". He did not believe in a personal God who concerns himself with fates and actions of human beings, a view which he described as naïve.
Religious and philosophical views of Albert Einstein - Wikipedia
According to Spinoza, God is the natural world. Spinoza concludes that God is the substance comprising the universe; that God exists in itself, not outside of the universe; and that the universe exists as it does from necessity, not because of a divine theological reason or will.
Ethics (Spinoza book) - Wikipedia
Click to expand...
:) Yes, Spinoza's God. Einstein was a spiritual man, as shown in the following quotes.

Science without religion is lame. Religion without science is blind. --Albert Einstein

Everyone who is seriously involved in the pursuit of science becomes convinced that a spirit is manifest in the laws of the Universe — a spirit vastly superior to that of man, and one in the face of which we with our modest powers must feel humble. --Albert Einstein

The more I study science, the more I believe in God. --Albert Einstein

But he did not believe in a PERSONAL god --as shown below

I do not believe in a personal God ... --Albert Einstein, in a letter 1954
 

Naturally said:
Atheists and Theists aren't that different, in that each has their own culture and arguments.

Many atheists think that their atheism is the product of rational thinking. They use arguments such as “I don’t believe in God, I believe in science”
Click to expand...

Honestly, I have literally never heard this coming from an atheist. I've only ever seen it when theists want to make a point. I have to question if anyone has actually said it.

Science is about experiment and results, and confirmation of results through peer review. How can someone not agree with science that is well done? Frankly - given the means - any results can be performed by just about anyone to confirm the findings. How can they not be true?
 
VaughanJB said:
Honestly, I have literally never heard this coming from an atheist. I've only ever seen it when theists want to make a point. I have to question if anyone has actually said it.
Click to expand...
That's ninety percent of all they ever say, that their atheism is the product of rational thought and belief in the science of science, as if belief in a personal god is not universally known to be based on faith. As if science is not as corrupt as religion.
 
gruntlabor said:
That's ninety percent of all they ever say, that their atheism is the product of rational thought and belief in the science of science, as if belief in a personal god is not universally known to be based on faith. As if science is not as corrupt as religion.
Click to expand...

True for most in my experience. But I don't think science has been shown to be as corrupt as religion sometimes has been. But neither is it a bastion of dependability. There have been many abuses of the peer review process. By contrast, religion which trades in trusting authority has been shown to be susceptible to being coopted to elect people who are morally corrupt with no respect for law. All one has to do is hint of establishing a Christian nation, something antithetical to anything the Bible espouses, and the pews will turn out in droves.

At the highest levels, science depends on much more than rationality, careful observation and a command of the knowable facts. Intuition and imagination is noted by many of those who have made the greatest contributions.
 
-Oy- said:
Neil deGrasse Tyson on God.

Click to expand...

The way he talks about god it is clear he expects what that is to show up for us as easily as a chemical compound, a new nematode or an electrical current. If there is a god substance no one has ever demonstrated that. Maybe it is time to stop asking physicists for help with philosophy, let alone theology.
 
officerripley said:
Trying to believe in it.
Click to expand...

Well as someone who never really tried I can't say too much. Trying to believe sounds tough.

But I do think that making sense of what it is to be a human being is something hard to encompass without some non word for something more than we can conceptualize. I come to this realization late in life with no need or desire to nail down a definition. But the entry point for me is consciousness, what it is and who we are. I think beyond what we experience on a personal level there is more to it. If I was looking for a place to tuck a god it would be there, but I don't think god is a being apart from the cosmos. I guess that means I don't think the cosmos is a cold dead, inanimate place ruled by the laws of physics.

Of course the laws of physics are descriptive, not prescriptive.
 
Last edited:
MarkD said:
True for most in my experience. But I don't think science has been shown to be as corrupt as religion sometimes has been. But neither is it a bastion of dependability. There have been many abuses of the peer review process. By contrast, religion which trades in trusting authority has been shown to be susceptible to being coopted to elect people who are morally corrupt with no respect for law. All one has to do is hint of establishing a Christian nation, something antithetical to anything the Bible espouses, and the pews will turn out in droves.

At the highest levels, science depends on much more than rationality, careful observation and a command of the knowable facts. Intuition and imagination is noted by many of those who have made the greatest contributions.
Click to expand...
I'm not nit-picking, but rationality, observation, and knowledge are what scientists who achieve the highest levels rely on to further science using their intuition and imagination. For example, when they ask themselves "Will my idea work?", even if it's an idea that seemed to just fall out of the sky, I think you'll agree the answer is based on what they know, what they've observed, and what seems logical.
 
Murrmurr said:
I'm not nit-picking, but rationality, observation, and knowledge are what scientists who achieve the highest levels rely on to further science using their intuition and imagination. For example, when they ask themselves "Will my idea work?", even if it's an idea that seemed to just fall out of the sky, I think you'll agree the answer is based on what they know, what they've observed, and what seems logical.
Click to expand...

I think what they ask themselves is what observation would lend support for my theory, and how does that mesh with what we think we know in the relevant fields. Science is great for understanding how things work so we can use that to do things like a challenging surgery or land a ship on Mars. Science doesn't answer every question but where it applies it is the gold standard.

Where science applies is the empirical realm of stuff. But we know from the inside that we are more than just stuff. So once science has learned all there is to know about stuff we will be no closer to understanding who we are.
 
Last edited:
MarkD said:
So once science has learned all there is to know about stuff we will be no closer to understanding who we are.
Click to expand...
We're quickly learning more and more about how we work, though, mechanically speaking (ie, what makes us tick).

I'm confident that will lead to understanding who we are, and, ultimately, why we're here.
 
Naturally said:
You should believe complicated life began with an explosion out of nowhere and we evolved from fish. That's what smart people believe.
Click to expand...

I may have given you the wrong idea. I happily believe everything there is good reason to believe where empirical evidence is concerned. Of course heavier elements were cooked in ancient large stars. Life certainly did explode once life could replicate and evolve.

My best guess is that the first life emerged naturally but I admit I do not know. The only alternative I can imagine to thinking abiogenesis is the way of it is to imagine consciousness as an ontological primitive able to shape things to some extent. Of course I could be wrong and in fact there really was a cosmic watchmaker who assembled the DNA structure and set it loose. But I don’t have any firm justification for any such opinion.

But I would point out that the assumption that matter, energy, time and space are the only primitives which cannot be doubted is also an unjustified opinion. To each his own but let’s not suggest we know more than we do or can.
 
Murrmurr said:
We're quickly learning more and more about how we work, though, mechanically speaking (ie, what makes us tick).

I'm confident that will lead to understanding who we are, and, ultimately, why we're here.
Click to expand...

You’re not alone. Many are exuberant about how far science can take us but I have my doubts.

Mapping activity in the brain to observable outcomes does nothing to explain how the stuff of the brain allows us to exercise intention or experience consciousness. This is the mind-body problem. How do thoughts and other mental phenomena linked to the brain interface with the stuff science studies? No one knows and I can’t imagine the experiment that could sort it out. But I’ve heard three theories for how the brain effects consciousness: emission, transmission and permission.

Emission is the one that fits with a physicalist view of the cosmos. Physical processes give rise to forms of matter and energy which leads through chemistry to life which evolves ever greater capacity for cognition (without which sensory input is irrelevant) which finally gives rise to consciousness. Just as our gut gives rise to digestion this theory imagines the brain as emitting consciousness.

The second alternative is to imagine that the brain acts as a receiver, channeling consciousness that is out there somewhere already. This strikes me as a kind of Idealism and the least likely since it doesn’t take into account how evolution can shape the consciousness we experience which it obviously has.

The one I favor is the last, that brains filter consciousness which is always already there as a field of potentiality, independent of anything physical. This is better in that it acknowledges the independence of consciousness but can explain how brains can evolve to better access and tailor the consciousness which manifests for each being.
 
MarkD said:
You’re not alone. Many are exuberant about how far science can take us but I have my doubts.

Mapping activity in the brain to observable outcomes does nothing to explain how the stuff of the brain allows us to exercise intention or experience consciousness. This is the mind-body problem. How do thoughts and other mental phenomena linked to the brain interface with the stuff science studies? No one knows and I can’t imagine the experiment that could sort it out. But I’ve heard three theories for how the brain effects consciousness: emission, transmission and permission.

Emission is the one that fits with a physicalist view of the cosmos. Physical processes give rise to forms of matter and energy which leads through chemistry to life which evolves ever greater capacity for cognition (without which sensory input is irrelevant) which finally gives rise to consciousness. Just as our gut gives rise to digestion this theory imagines the brain as emitting consciousness.

The second alternative is to imagine that the brain acts as a receiver, channeling consciousness that is out there somewhere already. This strikes me as a kind of Idealism and the least likely since it doesn’t take into account how evolution can shape the consciousness we experience which it obviously has.

The one I favor is the last, that brains filter consciousness which is always already there as a field of potentiality, independent of anything physical. This is better in that it acknowledges the independence of consciousness but can explain how brains can evolve to better access and tailor the consciousness which manifests for each being.
Click to expand...
Just one example: while studying what the SARS CoV-2 virus does to humans at the cellular level, researchers looked at receptors in the brain they hadn't studied very closely before. They observed them at work, watched how they responded to various chemicals both natural and introduced. This sparked a path of study and research with the potential to find causes of abnormal (and criminal) behavior not previously understood or even studied, and more effective, less dangerous, invasive, and/or confining treatments in the field of mental health.

That's neuroscience, and I am confident it will at least contribute to explaining consciousness (it is a goal). Maybe one day it will be possible to tailor people's consciousness to make them kinder, more confident, maybe even smarter - able to utilize or maximize all the functions of our brains.

And neuroscientists would argue that the most vital parts of the brain are receivers, literally.

Several branches of research was born from studies of the COVID virus, including heart, gut, lung, vascular, and brain functions, and that research is fathering other branches of research.

The matter that humans are made of is found in abundance in the cosmos. Remember that line from a song "We are stardust"? Humans contain 6 elements; hydrogen, oxygen, carbon, nitrogen, calcium, and phosphorus. Only hydrogen isn't a stellar element. So, yes, there is research about the (literal) relationship between humans and heavenly bodies, and it isn't all theory. It's observable and measurable.
 
Murrmurr said:
That's neuroscience, and I am confident it will at least contribute to explaining consciousness
Click to expand...

Contribute in some way, perhaps. Maybe. But is there a reason in that to think consciousness is just a physical or biological phenomenon in advance of concrete evidence? That is just confidence in the assumptions you make at the outset. I start out seriously doubting it and that no line of research will change that. But it being my hunch isn't evidence anymore than is yours. I seriously doubt we'll know who was right before we check out so no need to sweat it.
 
Last edited:
You could buy all elements and gases the human body is made of in exact amounts and proportions at the "grocery store", mix them all together and you still couldn't "pull a rabbit out of your hat" ... not even if you sprinkled in start dust. Although it might look like a guy I went to school with kinda sorta.

I'm not shocked we are composed of elements and gases found in the cosmos. We travel the same road after all. My vehicles are composed of many of the elements and gases I am ... but have a bit more road tar and bugs than I do ... I think ... and arguably more plastic maybe. The Jeep is named Ruby and the Volkswagen, Candy. They both have "birth certificates" and "name tags" issued by the state which uniquely identify them. Not sure what their beliefs are. They just let me know when they need to be "fed". And my body will some day return to the same earth as theirs. Although our "sparks" are different ... all will be gone.
 

Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top