chansen
Strong atheism, explained
Posted on: 11/13/2013 12:09
This was posted to Quora, and it's really quite well done, I think. It explains better than I can one of the arguments why, while I simply don't believe in any gods and explain that I'm an agnostic (weak) atheist, I lean toward strong atheism.
We start with a common question posed to atheists:
Since we can't know 100% of the knowledge of the universe, what are the grounds for atheism?
Atheists believe there is no God. But wouldn't knowing that or having a reason to believe it mean you'd have to have looked everywhere in the universe without finding God?
Many have provided the negative atheism point-of-view answer, some of them very articulately. Here is the POV from a strong-atheist's perspective-
Suppose we are given a system of 7 squares to observe. All of them are covered with wooden boards.
Now, the religious guy says- all of these boards have pink dragons under them-
We ask how he knows this and he asks us to trust him. He says he has had a vision, an epiphany. He asks us what we think is under the boards? We say "We don't know, we're gonna look.". He just mocks us and says "See? You don't know. It must be fire-breathing pink dragons." But we ignore him and conduct research into it. After some research, we are able to uncover 1 of these boards and see this-
Now, armed with the new knowledge that the square is black, we accelerate our research. Some of us have an inkling that all the squares are black, but we do not declare that because we still don't know. The religious guy is angry now and is condemning our research and trying everything in his power to stop us.
Sometimes he puts on his more mild mannered personality and says- "Well, the other 6 squares definitely have some kind (may not be specifically pink) of dragons under them." But we carry on our research further and uncover another square and see this-
We are all surprised now, in a good way (except the religious guy). Motivated, we really get into the research now. Some of us think the first half of the squares might be black and the other half be white but we are not sure. Meanwhile, the religious guy comes back and tells us how we were wrong when we thought all the squares are black and therefore, the remaining squares definitely have huge winged reptilian creatures (which he claims some people earlier metaphorically described as pink dragons).
We try to explain to him that the all black squares was only a hypothesis and we weren't going around printing that in textbooks, we were conducting appropriate research into it, but he just ignores all of this and warns us about how the winged creatures will breathe fire upon us and kill us all if we don't agree they are there under those squares. Ignoring him, we continue our research into our 7 squares. Slowly, we uncover all but one square and it looks like this-
By now the religious guy is furious. He has labelled us as a cult- "aDragonists". But he calms down and puts on a more rational-looking face comes on TV and argues that the last square really has a creature that can fly and generate heat in some ways and that heat gives of radiation of certain wavelength that makes it look pinkish; all the things about pink fire-breathing dragons was just metaphorical to make it easy to understand. He also talks to us about how children really like dragons and they would be sad if they find that the last square has no dragon. He explains how that last square being a dragon brings joy and hope to so many children and asks us if we hate children?
Now we are still trying to understand what is under that last square, some of us have an intuition that it's a shade of gray between the 2 neighboring squares. But we're not sure yet, we are researching in that direction, but we haven't put it in textbooks yet. Maybe the square is indeed a dragon, or maybe it's yellow- butrationally we predict it might be gray. Then again, we're not gonna declare it because we have been surprised in the past.
Then, a friend of the religious guy comes on Quora and asks "Since we can't know 100% of the knowledge of the 7 squares, what are the grounds for aDragonism?" The weak-aDragonists try to repeatedly explain how it's not the case that they believe there is "no dragon" under the square, just that they are not ready to accept it's "nothing else but a dragon" until we uncover the boards. Meanwhile the original religious guy who said it's a dragon is killed by another religious guy who claims it really is a blue unicorn. The unicorn guy drove 2 trucks into the dragon guy's 2 houses, thereby killing him and his family.
Sam Harris goes on TV and says that the unicorn guy is violent. He is bashed for being intolerant and bigoted and we all decide we should be accepting of each other's dragons and unicorns; after all it does no harm.
We just shake our head and get back to peeking under that wooden board.
Comments
Arminius
Posted on: 11/15/2013 13:10
Hi Neo:
A new world religion?
A striving or a quest rather than presenting facts. Striving for higher awareness and consciousness. For the Divine Union.
A few years ago someone proposed that the United Nations endorse a common religion that has planetary and cosmic unity as its goal, and is based on the practice of contemplation or meditation.
The motion was rejected.
WaterBuoy
Posted on: 11/15/2013 13:33
"based on the practice of contemplation or meditation."
Would that be too close to thought , reason and knowledge? The emotional powers wouldn't allow that would they?
Recall the sociopathic Caesar's attitude towards thinking demons ... such hard beliefs stick and are hard to redact ... alter? Crazy qlues ...
Thus the desire of philosophy (passion for knowledge and wisdom) became subtle force like light ... that separates the gravid, fecund and attractive forces of the cosmos!
Is gravid force constant while light is isolated as mahaineim? Consider that once beyond the Solar Systems lighter fringes that Explorer 11 and Pioneer 11 rapidly de cell eire'ted ... an intuitive force considering the constant? Einstein considered the weaker and stronger neural forces but this could be mis pelt or just struck on another tune of aÐ'm-ism lesser powers we'd rather not know and our roots are forgotten ...
Oh the things we don't wish to know as below us ... can you imagine the content of the convoluted Shadows ... gammaleils gift? Close to Lil'ethe ... a small separate vaccuous entity of wandering power ... volumeless and mess less ... nothing toit!
Thus the beginning a dark formless void needing a mandrelle ... mantra? The scion was lifted ... and some considered it graft ... but de vine crept ... odd thing that almost like conspira-torial bullus ... bo'loch? Confusion connection that those that don't wish will never see as apocalyse ... and the abstract goes on ...
Neo
Posted on: 11/15/2013 15:38
Hi Neo:
A new world religion?
A striving or a quest rather than presenting facts. Striving for higher awareness and consciousness. For the Divine Union.
I agree, and in just a few words we could probably define a new world religion as the learning and actively putting into place the "art of living". This art of living would necessarily and by definition have to include the other facets of human life, such as economics, politics, music and art, science and religion, etc.
Arminius
Posted on: 11/15/2013 17:26
Yes, Neo, agree. This "art of lIving" would include all aspects of human life, not just religion.
Who knows, maybe even strong atheists like chansen will become believers in the art of living—if we leave God language out of it.
GeoFee
Posted on: 11/15/2013 19:10
May we not say the new religion has been within us from the beginning. Far too much, as I see from where I sit, it has been obscured by the preferring of "newer" religions over the original. A broad assortment of priesthoods and temples. Adam and Eve kept company with the Divine Unity resident "within". Till that day in which the boundary of separation was crossed to explore the promise of power. An exploration now set to be consumated.
Now we see the harvest of ideas fallen far from the mark. Where we expect tranquility we find chaos. That chaos deepens by each refusal of Divine Unity, which is source and substance of human being in the world. Self-determination has reached epidemic proportions. The world is tossed and turned by the confusion of tongues, on fire with hunger and thirst for power.
As the temperature of history rises, there is an evaporation. Persons longing for remedy are drawn into awareness of the Divine Unity. There is an exodus of sorts. Everyday another person chooses for the Divine Unity. Every day the Divine Unity is expressed as free, responsible, creative and courageous human activity. In this way, solace and encouragements are made tangible among those who suffer the oppressions of self-determination.
The new religion will not be achieved by definition and program, it will be realized and lived. First in the person, then in the association of persons and then out into the world as healing authority. This authority is exercised freely and opens a way of deliverance from servitude to the gods of power, property, profit, prestige and privilege.
The forms are dissolving or falling away. Let us long for the revealing of that which cannot be shaken, the life of God "within" us, each and all (but not all and each).
George
Arminius
Posted on: 11/15/2013 19:41
Yes, George, the Divine Union is what we achieve when we go deeply within.
I think people achieved it thousands of years ago, hundreds of years or decades ago, even now. One can get there within or without a belief system. Finding IT does not depend on what religion we belong to, or what language we use. For those who don't mind God language, it is God within. Those who mind God language can call it the Divine in us.
The Divine Union is, or ought to be, the ultimate goal of everyone, because it is discovering who and what we ultimately are.
We are divine children living a divine life in a divine world.
-Rumi
Azdgari
Posted on: 11/16/2013 00:53
With regard to the OP's analogy, I think it's worth pointing out that "God" isn't the dragon in the box. The dragon in the box is a supernatural, usually God-related, explanation for something in the universe. For example, saying that "God" or "Satan" cause lightning would be analogous to saying that a particular box contains the dragon. It is an argument against "God of the gaps" rather than theism in general.
WaterBuoy
Posted on: 11/16/2013 07:55
O'''! The extremes of the entendre approach allegory of a great thinning ... ethereal gasp! The thorn of incarnation is live/evil and thus the physical gods see it their responsibility to eliminate the poor. We might ask in the imaginary infinite ... what would a mortal god know? It's a question that's out there like dark and light all about us as ru'agh winds of idealism ... the words of Christ that might be oppressed lightly ... until the reflection is initiated; a spectre of thought? Could this be at the foot of the crossing, or hybridization of two haves of soul ... the heart and mind to behave as mellowed, or medium whine? Polity of emotions (terrorism and madness) on the horizontal score wouldn't allow a vert Ego entity like an unseen entity, ET'ihc ... they wodin, would they?
Did you know Amy-Jill Levine relates the biblical foot to the gyn-etaels (jinn-talus)? Research all the incidents of foot and fete that show up in the ground of learning in the biblical score ... always one ahead of the man-god ... like Sam's-Unes thing above his shoulders ... allows for angst where normal people are represented as mire Tau's (Toa's; end of foot) very difficult complex to explain as it is not simple conception ... in vergen space that's like a bubble of thought burst by emotions as Eros ... something a person of wisdom in-duces! Like a thorn in the back side ... a painful incarnation? This is why you cannot tell a real man truth ... a hu'myrrh-like satyr is acceptable under the Shadow of the tree tho' ... myth can cut difficult Eire ...
Now would a greater cognizance suggest more data, intelligence, knowledge when approaching a god of wisdom that is far from (beyond, myth) the land of lies and corruption? This sounds like the devil going against a decision to avoid that tree in the garden ... double negative entendre, or trippled up? Hoo' son third base; we don't know ...
Such remains a swamp, a mere metaphor of Goshon, terminating nihlism ... a stream of darkness? You just never know what's in that po'eLLe ... upened in the floe like Dante's characters of hades ... dipping the upper 5D ... the 6th or Seth being lost to them ... as things they didn't wish to know ...
Perhaps best to cultivate the damned spot ... like Lot's dot' Ur off in the hills for a spell ...
Rev. Steven Davis
Posted on: 11/16/2013 08:08
With regard to the OP's analogy, I think it's worth pointing out that "God" isn't the dragon in the box. The dragon in the box is a supernatural, usually God-related, explanation for something in the universe. For example, saying that "God" or "Satan" cause lightning would be analogous to saying that a particular box contains the dragon. It is an argument against "God of the gaps" rather than theism in general.
Generally speaking, when you have to start explaining the analogy (whether it's a theistic or atheistic analogy) it means that the analogy has failed. You also contradict yourself with this post, since earlier in the thread you said this wasn't an argument, but now you say that "it's an argument against 'God of the gaps.'"
Having over the course of my life spoken from both an atheistic and a theistic perspective, I still consider this (whatever it is) to be very weak. Not sure why you and chansen are so taken with it.
WaterBuoy
Posted on: 11/16/2013 08:17
An analogy can crank the head ... that thing that the bible said that Samson had above the shoulders of men ... carries a peculiar odour ... like a phi'chi'r muon knows ... it ain't over until chi OEM's ...
Is that a simple Din or alternate chaos from emotional dissonance ... that be a foggy thought Eris'n ...
Is that a hazy bo'mere of a line?
Many would sooner approach the analogy blindly ... when the script states much understanding is beneficent when in de pool!
Some still grip the one-line version though ... an unbalanced solarity ... solemnity?
Azdgari
Posted on: 11/16/2013 13:12
Generally speaking, when you have to start explaining the analogy (whether it's a theistic or atheistic analogy) it means that the analogy has failed.
Hardly. An analogy can be mis-applied no matter how good it is. In this case, Chansen never bothered to explain how it was being applied in the first place.
You also contradict yourself with this post, since earlier in the thread you said this wasn't an argument, but now you say that "it's an argument against 'God of the gaps.'"
It's not an argument against theism. It is an argument against god of the gaps. Any analogy can be used as an argument. More than an argument, it's an expression of an idea, one of which a lot of theists I've talked to online seem to be ignorant. Are you one of them?
Having over the course of my life spoken from both an atheistic and a theistic perspective, I still consider this (whatever it is) to be very weak. Not sure why you and chansen are so taken with it.
It's not a strong argument at all. It's an explanation of what non-believers in supernatural intervention have to deal with. As such, it is worth dismissing by those who believe in supernatural explantions for things that happen in our world. All such explanations are worth dismissing for the same reason.
Rev. Steven Davis
Posted on: 11/16/2013 13:48
I suppose then, Azdgari, that you shouldn't have used the words "not an argument" earlier in the thread.
As to the possibility of my being ignorant about the "expression of an idea" my response would be that no honest theist can be ignorant about the concept of the "expression of an idea" since the very concept of a God whose nature cannot be fully grasped is by definition the "expression of an idea." As to whether I am ignorant in other ways or in general terms, I would acknowledge that there are many areas in which I am, indeed, ignorant. As to the colloquial use of the word - which is primarily as an insult - I would say that I am not ignorant.
WaterBuoy
Posted on: 11/16/2013 15:49
Is it easy to be ignorant when speaking of the unknowable as if it were mortal?
That's right up there with passion ... when struck by it you just don't know ... and thus when in a loving mood sort of ignorant!
When people think they are loving ... give eM a cold shower or a dunk'n ... that give rise to sharper senses if you doon't overdo it! If you chill outtoo much you'll be numb as the fridgid sorts ... no warmth at all towards the alien ...
Just testing yah ... to see how you respond ... and see if your one of the walking somnolent sorts ...
Azdgari
Posted on: 11/17/2013 00:39
I suppose then, Azdgari, that you shouldn't have used the words "not an argument" earlier in the thread.
I suppose that you're correct in this.
As to the possibility of my being ignorant about the "expression of an idea" my response would be that no honest theist can be ignorant about the concept of the "expression of an idea" since the very concept of a God whose nature cannot be fully grasped is by definition the "expression of an idea." As to whether I am ignorant in other ways or in general terms, I would acknowledge that there are many areas in which I am, indeed, ignorant. As to the colloquial use of the word - which is primarily as an insult - I would say that I am not ignorant.
I didn't ask if you were ignorant of expressions of ideas in general. I asked if you were ignorant of the idea being expressed by the analogy in the OP. Perhaps I should have worded my post more clearly...though looking over my post again, the grammar I used simply cannot mean what you took it to mean if one reads it strictly.
Rev. Steven Davis
Posted on: 11/17/2013 00:58
You're correc t. I missed the word "one" in your post, and read it as a more general comment.
WaterBuoy
Posted on: 11/17/2013 08:46
So much is lost in translation or transmutation of thought ...as emotionally most people have their minds hardened to ideas and thoughts as shunned by those trying to cut down the garden of Eden ... including the tree of logic ... which came to be know as a reasonable tree as in a logic network ... something that was severed when people were createdat a moment of losing, or Lucen it.
In Roman times loving anything other than war (Mars) was a sin ... it interfered with the outrageous activity of destruction. Caesar called this the Lucifer Complex ... when a man would stop and think "this isn't esse ante you'L rite" and it wasn't if you look at all the useless blood shed just for the phun and gain of madness for possessions!
Now this is a mental rendering of word of thought, considered obscure ... so don't read IT! You could be breaking gods law as a critter of pure emotion ... he didn't wish to know but perhaps his miss esse ... Mrs. God I've thought ... and chi spun around ... sort like a Ka Na or Ego mentioned in another thread (string theory) ...
Such is the abstract fringe of the dark lady, always tormenting god(s) vacant mind ... and heh a'gape as the artistic rendering of "The Scream" ... :-o ...
So many Luce ends to tie together, like net working with the Great Phi Chi'r mon ... leading to Eros've Charon ... aLbeit the spelling as pelted may vary ... word of God is like that ... sheer chaos ... but it becomes plain when viewed from beyond ...
Get beyond yourself people ... con jugate a myth ... conjugate with the alien ... not a physical thing as declared by plate Onyx ... rendered down as Plato's Niches by Rome who despised philosophizing about anything physical ... so Plato and 'Iz Buddha moved on ... to hymn loch? Imagine a whine as hung in space ... gross harmonics (whisperin the pines) that mire mortal could not conceive of without mental wanderings ... OBI's? Get oude wit'cha ...