Gods, Agnostics and Space Lizards
June 10, 2008 by Michael Nugent
In a comment on an earlier article, Declan Chellar raises two important questions that go to the heart of atheism. They are: what exactly is atheism, and why should an agnostic take what seems to be a leap of faith by concluding that he is an atheist?
As Declan puts it:
‘For me, being a theist means saying “There IS a God and I don’t have to prove it”, whereas being an atheist means saying “There is NO God and I don’t have to prove it.”
By that measure, I consider myself neither, but respect the fact that other people feel the need or desire to be one or the other.’
For many years, I too considered myself an agnostic, and largely on the basis of the definitions that Declan uses. Here are three reasons why I changed my mind.
Certainty versus Belief
I first concluded that I am an atheist when I realized that atheism is not about certainty. At a philosophical level, nobody can be certain about anything. Atheism is about belief, or more specifically, absence of belief, in one particular idea – that gods exist.
Nobody can be certain whether or not George Bush is an alien space lizard, and nobody can be certain whether or not gods exist. Despite this, once I have been exposed to either of these ideas, I either believe them or I do not. I either believe that George Bush is a space lizard, or else I do not believe that George Bush is a space lizard, and I either believe that gods exist, or else I do not believe that gods exist.
There is no middle ground on the question of whether or not you believe that George Bush is a space lizard, or whether you believe that gods exist. Either you believe these ideas, or you don’t believe them. And atheism is about whether or not you believe that gods exist. ‘I don’t know’ is not a middle ground between believing and not believing; it is one possible rational reason for not believing.
Reasons for Believing
There is, however, a large middle ground on the question of why you believe things, how strongly you believe things, and how likely your belief is to be true. And this is the second reason why I concluded that I am atheist.
For example, I believe that I exist, that I have a physical body, that I had cereal for breakfast this morning, and that Carlos Alberto scored the fourth goal when Brazil beat Italy in the 1970 World Cup final in Mexico. I do not believe that David Icke injected a slow-releasing poison into my breakfast cereal, that I am the long-lost son of King Harald of Norway, that George Bush is an alien space lizard, or that gods exist.
Why do I believe or not believe each of these ideas? Well, I assume that reality is broadly as it seems to be, based on applying reason to the evidence of my senses, unless I get new evidence to the contrary, in which case I happily change my beliefs. And, the more important and the more improbable the idea that I am asked to believe, the more evidence I require before I believe it.
I cannot know for certain whether any of the above ideas are true or untrue. But, on a scale of likelihood, the idea that gods exist is the least likely of them, because it is most inconsistent with the laws of nature as I understand them. So, if I was to consider myself agnostic about whether or not gods exist, I would have to consider myself to be agnostic about almost everything that I believe or do not believe.
Why Atheism is Important
The third reason why I concluded that I am an atheist is a practical one. It is because I believe that taking a position on this issue is important. The idea of gods is bad for society, because it spreads irrational dogma that causes good people to do bad things. This affects three practical areas of our lives: the quest for knowledge, treating people fairly, and civic society.
Rational thinking makes the following more likely: Enquiry: an ongoing unbiased quest for knowledge and truth. Empathy: adult ethics, based on relating to other living beings. Equality: a secular society that protects everybody’s rights.
And irrational dogma makes the following more likely: Creeds: accepting, as truth, imaginary answers to big questions. Commands: childish ethics, based on orders, desire and fear. Control: unjust laws that are influenced by religious dogma.
I describe these reasons in more detail in my original post on this topic. Because of them, I believe that it is important for atheists to openly promote atheism, and for agnostics to seriously consider atheism.
Photo: Lizard in the Serengeti by David Dennis (cc)
Please leave a comment below. You can also subscribe to my RSS feed.
Hi Michael I have to say I’m somewhat on your line of thinking. I have to admit my faith has been rocked recently but I like you don’t believe in religions that are based on ’sacred’ texts- as most of the world’s main religions are apart from maybe shintoism. I have an article you might find interesting on my blog if you want to check it out. http://lonesomesparrow.wordpress.com/
I find text based religions too full of holes and philosophical anomalies.
Thanks for that, Declan. Ill check out that article later.
“atheism is about whether or not you believe that gods exist”
By your definition, Michael, seeing as I have no belief in gods, I could be termed an atheist, but it’s not what I would call myself. Still, if you want to see me as an atheist by that definition, I won’t feel insulted.
But that’s just the label on the package and not the substance of the contents.
In terms of substance, we seem to agree on almost everything, expect perhaps on your point that “is important for atheists to openly promote atheism.”
I’m quite happy to air my views here, on my own blog or anywhere, but the word “promote” tastes a bit like Mormons knocking on your door trying to shove God down your throat, but in reverse. Is there such a thing as a “religious emetic”?
You may be right about the word promote, Declan. Maybe ‘promoting atheism’ is not quite the right phrase. The problem is not people believing in gods per se; it is the harmful behaviour that results from people believing in gods. I’ll think a bit more about that.
Michael Shermer, who edits Skeptic magazine, tells this great joke: What do you get if you cross an atheist with a Jehovah’s Witness? Somebody who calls to your door for no reason at all.
I do think the label (atheist or agnostic) is important, because when people who don’t believe in gods call themselves agnostic, it lends a subliminal credibility to the idea that it’s almost a fifty-fifty debate (that there may or may not be gods, but you just can’t tell), whereas in reality the odds that gods exist are closer to the odds that leprechauns, unicorns and Santa Claus exist.
“when people who don’t believe in gods call themselves agnostic, it lends a subliminal credibility to the idea that it’s almost a fifty-fifty debate”
Quite possibly.
I don’t believe in God, but I do entertain the possibility, however improbable, that some kind of being with god-like powers exists in the universe. However, until such time as I meet such a being, I do not believe in that being.
In the meantime, I feel (as you stated) that “government should be secular, culture should be pluralist, and beliefs should be personal.” Don’t you think my position falls within the remit of the third part of that statement?
Your position as you describe it above is almost identical to mine, with one very minor nuance. I would use the word ‘and’ instead of ‘but’ in this sentence:
Instead of : I don’t believe in God, but I do entertain the possibility, however improbable, that some kind of being with god-like powers exists in the universe.
I would say: I don’t believe in gods, and I do entertain the possibility, however improbable, that some kind of being with god-like powers exists in the universe.
(With the proviso that we are loosely using the phrase ‘god-like powers’ as a place-holder phrase, to enable us to deal with the rest of the sentence.)
And yes, of course your position fits in with the third part of my statement about government, culture and beliefs. It’s the other two parts of that statement that are the tricky ones to make happen.
By the way, thanks very much for your thoughts on all of this. I am still teasing these ideas out in my own mind and this process is very helpful for me.
I’d enjoy bashing about some of these ideas with you over a pint of plain when I’m in Dublin or over a glass of Rioja if you are ever in Madrid, Michael.
Thanks for the provocation of thoughts.
Declan
By the way, “Gods, Agnostics and Space Lizards”… great title for a book! Keep that one.
Declan
Michael
‘Nobody can be certain whether or not George Bush is an alien space lizard’
- yes, but in raising this point, you - with respect - exclude the possibility of common sense. Common sense is an acceptible approach to use in formal philisophical enquiry (Aristotle and John Locke, in particular, focused on this subject). Common sense doesn’t say: don’t count something out of hand - but it does say you can only give so much time or so much attention to something, and it does involve critical-thinking. From an everyday, practical point-of-view, if we didn’t apply common sense then we would go mad. Simple as that.
The common sense for discounting that Bush isn’t a lizard (or whatever) is that no sort of argument can be made that he is one.
But some sort of argument can be made for the existence of a God. For example, many people have experienced transcendental / spiritual experiences - which suggest - but do NOT prove - that the divine might exist. There is no proof that Jesus is God, but there is good evidence that Jesus really existed as an historical figure: as a man in what is now the Holy Lands. So there are arguments that make the existence of a divine Christ a lot more likely than the possibility that Pres. Bush is a lizard.
‘There is no middle ground on the question of whether or not you believe that George Bush is a space lizard, or whether you believe that gods exist. Either you believe these ideas, or you don’t believe them’
- but do you not accept that there are some subjects where no definite answers can be provided. That doesn’t mean you deny the argument our-right because the argument is insubstantial (in the sense that no 100% proof can be provided).
For example, do you reject all philisophical theories because these theories cannot be proved?
Do you reject all scientific theories until those theories can be proved?
In many cases scientists have a hunch about something but they just can’t work out the maths at that particular point to give validity to that ‘hunch’. And then there are many theories where ‘proof’ cannot be provided - for example black holes - but that doesn’t mean we discount the theories outright just because ‘proof’ cannot be provided.
‘For example, I believe that I exist, that I have a physical body, that I had cereal for breakfast this morning, and that Carlos Alberto scored the fourth goal when Brazil beat Italy in the 1970 World Cup final in Mexico’
- but how do you know that life isn’t just a dream? I mean Berkeley asked how can the senses be trusted. How do you know that the computer screen in front of you really exists? I understand the point Berkeley is making. But I think that you and I both apply common sense to our lives (if not we would go mad). So, with respect, why do you not apply common sense in comparing the possibility that George Bush is a lizard with the possibility that Christ exists in divine form? So there are different shades of belief based on common sense.
‘I do not believe that David Icke injected a slow-releasing poison into my breakfast cereal, that I am the long-lost son of King Harald of Norway, that George Bush is an alien space lizard, or that gods exist’
- no, because you apply common sense.
‘unless I get new evidence to the contrary, in which case I happily change my beliefs’
- so you reject everything that cannot be proved?
I have met more people who believe in God because they have had transcendental / spiritual experiences of the divine (what they term as ‘divine’) than I have met people who have been to Australia. I believe in Australia. I believe in the existence of God not only because I have had transcendental / spiritual experiences of something that I think is divine in origin (and because I have met others who have had similar experiences) but for a host of other reasons (more clues to God’s existence than ‘reasons’):
- the great poets have evoked things such as the nature of the soul, ecstasy, and so on that are similar to my experiences
- why is the natural world embued with extraordinary beauty when there is no utilitarian reason for it to be so (let-a-alone why it should exist in the first place, and how something can come out of nothing)
- why do people act with unconditional love towards each other (and why unconditional love is such an extraordinary experience - beyond a feeling or a though - when you are on the receiving end of it - as well as giving it)
And more.
‘because it is most inconsistent with the laws of nature as I understand them’
- but what are the laws of nature?
What is light (it has no mass). Is is light made up of particles or rays?
Why do atoms go crazy and incoherent, turning into a soup when frozen to near absolute zero - going against all the rational laws of nature.
How is string theory and the possibility of multiple dimensions beyond the ones we can experience in our 3D world possible?
‘The idea of gods is bad for society’:
- Christ says the second most important law is: ‘love thy neighbour’
- The Good Samaratin
- Corinthians 13 (faith, hope and love but the greatest of these is love .. etc ..)
‘because it spreads irrational dogma’ - with respect don’t confuse non-rational with ‘irrational’. Just because a rational explanation cannot be provided for something doesn’t make that thing ‘irrational.’
‘that causes good people to do bad things’ - what about the good that religious people do because of: ‘love thy neighbour - The Good Samaratin - Corinthians 13.’ The good that ordinary believers do in thier ordinary lives (things that cannot be picked up or reported in newspapers or history books as the bad, sensationalistic things can).
What about the things that anti-theists do, such as Christopher Hitchens who supported the immoral war in Iraq for anti-theist reasons.
Or Rwanda. Or Pol Pot in Cambodia. Or Stalin and the gulags. And so on.
Reading Shakespeare and the most important works of lit. tell us that people do bad things because of human nature not because of religion. Macbeth murders because of ambition. Othello murders because of vanity / jealousy. And so on. They don’t do bad things because of religion. Yes, human nature will twist beliefs or create ideologies to do bad things - but it is human nature that is, ultimately, at fault - not religion (corrupt human nature that we all share - will find some banner or cause with which to unleash itself).
‘Rational thinking makes the following more likely: Enquiry: an ongoing unbiased quest for knowledge and truth’
- St Paul said that we have to ‘work out our own salvation’. Jesus: ‘to be as wise as snakes.’ St Augustine’s works are rooted in Plato; Thomas Aquinas’ in Aristotle. Some of the most famous scientists, writers and poets of the 20th century were devout believers. Rational thinking is part of Christianity - it is NOT a polar opposite as you seem to suggest.
‘Empathy: adult ethics, based on relating to other living beings’
- ‘love thy neighbour’, The Good Samaratin, Corinthians 13.
‘Equality: a secular society that protects everybody’s rights’
- same as above.
‘And irrational dogma makes the following more likely: Creeds’
- same holds for secular dogmas (Facism / Communism and so on).
‘accepting, as truth, imaginary answers to big questions’
- ‘Imagination is more important than knowledge’ Albert Einstein (and don’t forget that Einstein wouldn’t have been able to arrive at his great discoveries without creative-thinking, imagination, intuition and risk - it wasn’t all science / maths).
Best wishes
Joshua Moran
joshuamoran@live.co.uk