The A Word

Posted on by

atheism_2

Not THAT A word.

This one…

Atheist.

Richard Dawkins writes:

Let us consider the appropriateness or otherwise of someone (call him ‘Philo’) describing himself as a theist, atheist or agnostic. I would suggest that if Philo estimates the various plausibilities to be such that on the evidence before him the probability of theism comes out near to one he should describe himself as a theist and if it comes out near zero he should call himself an atheist, and if it comes out somewhere in the middle he should call himself an agnostic. There are no strict rules about this classification because the borderlines are vague. If need be, like a middle-aged man who is not sure whether to call himself bald or not bald, he should explain himself more fully

For a long time I labeled myself as an agnostic.  Agnostic was a safe word for me. A good place to hide and heal.

People, particularly Christian people, were willing to give me some space, the benefit of the doubt , when I said I was an agnostic. Perhaps they thought agnosticism was just a temporary state. Perhaps they thought I was riding the fence and would, in time, come back to them.

It is time for me to come out of hiding and own up to the truth that I am an atheist.

Practically, I live my day to day life as an atheist. (but then so do many Christians) I don’t pray to a deity. I don’t study a religious text. I don’t check in with God before I do something. I live my life in such a way that God never enters the picture.

Richard Dawkins aptly describes my view:

I cannot know for certain but I think God is very improbable, and I live my life on the assumption that he is not there.

I have learned that most people misunderstand atheism.  They think atheism is akin to Satan worship. Oh my God, you don’t believe in God! Smile    For some reason people believe the worst about atheists.  They have no reason to so so.  Atheists are like many groups of people, diverse and resistant to stereotype.

For me, the God question is about probabilities. Can I state with certainty there is no God? (using the word God in a generic sense) Of course not. But, I can not make an absolute statement about anything. I don’t possess complete, absolute knowledge of anything.  Even if there was proof of the existence of a god how would I determine which god is the real God? Humans believe in a plethora of gods. Which god is the true God?

Atheists are skeptics. Claims of certainty, like the claims of Christianity, are viewed with suspicion. The Atheist says “prove it.” Appeals to faith or the supernatural have no effect on atheists.

When I told people I was an agnostic I often had to explain what that meant. By labeling myself as an atheist I no longer have to explain myself. When I say I am an atheist people know I don’t believe in God. Of course, calling myself an atheist brings a whole new set of cultural and social problems that I have to deal with.

I am the same Bruce, just with a different label.

Related posts:

  1. Word Games
  2. What Do I Mean by the Word Abuse?
  3. God’s Word, Used as A Tool to Control and Destroy
  4. Microsoft Word 2010 Keyboard Shortcuts
  5. What Does It Mean to Be an Atheist?
  • Becky

    Guys, here is where I'm coming from more clearly.

    It would be impossible to fully elaborate in this on a blog entry. But, according to the Big Bang theory which virtually all cosmologists accept, the universe began at a specific point in time. There were fifteen physical constants such as the speed of light, the strength of the weak and strong nuclear forces, various parameters associated with electro-magnetism, the force of gravity, etc.. The chance that all these constants would take on the values necessary to sustain complex life form is almost non-existent. And, yet that's exactly what is observed.

    Did nature form itself, and come from essentially nothing?

    The only way to get around this wild improbability is the multiverse hypothesis of which there is essentially no proof, or as some have discussed the possibility of direct extra-terrestrial intervention.

    Granted this all does not conclusively show there was, is a creator, but for people to conclude that even the possibility of God is essentially nil, or to compare theists with people who think there may be leprechauns hanging out in the garden, I just don't know what to say.

    • http://deconstructingmyselfdma.blogspot.com/ D'Ma

      Granted this all does not conclusively show there was, is a creator, but for people to conclude that even the possibility of God is essentially nil, or to compare theists with people who think there may be leprechauns hanging out in the garden, I just don't know what to say.

      I don't think anyone here is saying that. For the most part what I think we are all saying is that it's not impossible that there is a God. We just don't know. And that even if there is such a God it does not naturally follow that he is the God of the Bible. We simply do not have evidence of who/what that creator is. There are many theists who believe there was a catalyst(i.e. God) who made the big bang and then just stepped back to watch it all unfold. This is hardly the Christian god. Just as it is difficult for you to understand how someone can conclude that even the possibility of God is nil based on "creation", it is equally difficult for them to understand how you can conclude that there definitely IS a God just because we don't know how it works.

      • Amy C

        I like that D'Ma. :-)

      • Becky

        I understand, D'Ma.

        For me, it was the witness of creation that first drew me to God, and after that my own experience, and the testimony of the church to the resurrection of Jesus Christ that led me to Christian faith.

        My undergraduate major was cultural anthropology focused in comparative religion and philosophy. I reason that God exists, and He has a purpose for us in this life. No other belief system has spoken to me, or made sense like the Christian gospel.

        I'm by no means saying that there is no truth in other world views or philosophies. I don't believe this, but every contradictory idea cannot be equally true.

        There is always an element of doubt in faith. This is normal. We don't walk, so to speak, by empirical sight. God can't be confined, and studied in a test tube.

        I can tell you D'Ma that even if I am wrong about all of this, I have no regrets in how I've lived my life. A relationship with God in Christ has been precious to me.

        But, each person needs to be persuaded in their own mind, D'Ma.

    • Anonymous

      "The only way to get around this wild improbability is the multiverse hypothesis of which there is essentially no proof, or as some have discussed the possibility of direct extra-terrestrial intervention."

      Only way. Assertion. Because you and I are only aware of 2 ways doesn't mean there can't be 30 or 300 possible ways.

      Wild improbability. We don't know. Theists say something had to cause the universe, but nothing had to cause God. Whence cometh the 'wild improbability'? Look out toward the horizon. Do you see any curvature? Isn't it wildly improbably that the Earth is spherical? Yes, until more and better means of assessment are developed through science.

      Essentially no proof. There are indications based upon empirical observations. Multiverse is one hypothesis. It has a way to go before becoming a theory in the way science uses the word theory (hint, does not mean someone's best guess). What empirical observations support the God hypothesis?

      Apparent fine tuning is accounted for by the fact, established by multiple independent disciplines, that via evolution we have fine tuned ourselves to the environment we find ourselves in, as have all the other life forms on this planet. Had some of the 'fine tuned' constants been different, we would be different. The fallacy is in the egoistic presumption that WE (exactly as we are) are the purpose of the universe. As someone elsewhere has said, if a puddle could think like a theist, it would marvel at how the ground around it was perfectly formed to hold it.

      • Becky

        Well, ex relayman,

        We'll have to agree to disagree in this.

        But, I'm not alone in my observations. Dr. Stephen Hawking, probably the most brilliant physicist and cosmologist who has ever lived has stated in his work, "A Brief History of Time,"

        "It would be very difficult to explain why the universe should have begun in just this way, except as the act of a God who intended to create beings like us."

        As far as I know, Dr. Hawking is not a Christian believer, though.

        I really think that if the witness of creation does not pull us toward the knowledge of God, probably nothing else could ever suffice.

        As the Psalmist says,

        1 The heavens declare the glory of God;
        the skies proclaim the work of his hands.

        ExRelay, I wanted to be an astronomer when I was young. It was my interest in science and the cosmos that first drew me to the Lord.

        • Anonymous

          Yes, of course we can only agree to disagree. I would not even bother to reply (I usually concede the last word to the theist, really being averse to prolonged disputation) had you not quote mined Stephen Hawking. Quote mining is a dishonest practice used to misrepresent what some one has said. Had you refrained from this dishonest tactic, this response would not have occurred. From what I have experienced of you, I deem you a truthful person who has merely trusted a web source for this. Similarly, I deem most Christians good people who have merely trusted stories of men written into books as the word of God.

          Your citation: "It would be very difficult to explain why the universe should have begun in just this way, except as the act of a God who intended to create beings like us."

          The full context: "This means that the initial state of the universe would have to have had exactly the same temperature everywhere in order to account for the fact that the microwave back-ground has the same temperature in every direction we look. The initial rate of expansion also would have had to be chosen very precisely for the rate of expansion still to be so close to the critical rate needed to avoid recollapse. This means that the initial state of the universe must have been very carefully chosen indeed if the hot big bang model was correct right back to the beginning of time. It would be very difficult to explain why the universe should have begun in just this way, except as the act of a God who intended to create beings like us.

          In an attempt to find a model of the universe in which many different initial configurations could have evolved to something like the present universe, a scientist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Alan Guth, suggested that the early universe might have gone through a period of very rapid expansion. This expansion is said to be “inflationary,” meaning that the universe at one time expanded at an increasing rate rather than the decreasing rate that it does today. According to Guth, the radius of the universe increased by a million million million million million (1 with thirty zeros after it) times in only a tiny fraction of a second.

          (A brief history of Time, Stephen Hawking, 1988)"

          The line preceding your quote says 'if the hot big bang model was correct'. The hot big bang would mean that the rate of expansion of the universe started at a maximum rate and has only decreased since. The ensuing paragraph embodies a post big bang scenario with the rate of expansion growing rapidly rather than starting at maximum and serves as counterpoint to the hot big bang. Hawking's survey of the evidence coerces his thought toward the latter, and negates any impact of the quote mine so beloved by Answers in Genesis. It was a big prize for them to force the atheist to seem to say what he did not mean. We enter the area of pious fraud, which has plagued Christianity through the ages.

          These posts are for the spectators to evaluate what each of us has said, as it seems clear that obstinacy is equitably distributed between us.

          • Becky

            Exrelay, I would not say that the quote is negated. But, I agree with you that it is always good to read someone's entire work.

            I want to clarify with you that I am not a special creationist, and am not drawing my info from "Answers in Genesis."

            I shared this quote from Dr. Francis Collins book. Dr. Collins is the scientist who pioneered "The Human Genome Project, " the study of DNA.

      • http://fallenfromgrace.net Bruce Gerencser

        Thanks for sharing this. I found it to be very helpful.

        Bruce

        • Anonymous

          Bruce, I want to put it out here that my little exposition re the big bang and Hawking is merely what a plain reading of the full context gives to me. My read on what hot big bang means might be mistaken, but clearly he eschews it, hence the next paragraph. I do not own the book and likely don't have the smarts to understand it if I did. This is also by way of full disclosure, so that I don't commit sciolism.

          Thought I would also take a moment here to share a little of my warped humor, based on the Biblical story of Elijah and the prophets of Baal. Christians say for God to give us tangible evidence today would violate our 'free will' (and this didn't violate 'free will' when it was done?), or that the Bible says God is not to be tested ( mmm daggone if it don't also say test God somewhere else), or that God has His own reasons, too mysterious for us to comprehend, for staying hidden. Boy if stuff like the prophets of Baal episode would happen in the modern world, belief would become more plausible.

          Alright, now for my pathetic little construction, pointed at contemporary apologetics. Once God's people witnessed the defeat of Baal. Now they use Baal arguments in the absence of real evidence. Except you need to insert the letter n in the middle of Baal to see my meaning. (I told you it was pathetic) One real advantage of the internet is that I don't hear the groans.

          • http://fallenfromgrace.net Bruce Gerencser

            Don't quit your day job :)

            or night job. :)

            You ever get the feeling it is impossible to nail some people down on anything when it comes to the Bible?

          • Becky

            I don't think belief would become more plausible, Ex Relay, although I agree, I don't see what this would have to do with free will. That doesn't make a lot of sense to me, either. :)

            How could we know for sure that any spectacular miraculous cosmic display was God, really Him, and not some mass hallucination, illusion, trick, even the work of aliens, for that matter?

            There is no more powerful witness that the entire creation, guys. Ex, I also want to respond to something I remember reading before, and now can't find. :)

            You had asked, "Who created God?" Christians believe that God is eternal. He has no beginning or end, and is both transcendent, and also immanent in the creation, and is able to move outside of space and time. God is the ground of all being.

            The universe is not eternal. It has a beginning, and will someday end. I know you can't agree Ex, but for me this has deep theological implications. I really do believe that the entire universe is like a signpost to God for those who are open and looking.

            Alright, Ex, give you the last word, and then I'm outta here.

            Pax!!!!

    • http://fallenfromgrace.net Bruce Gerencser

      When you don't know what to say, say nothing.

      When you are writing about God you are writing, not about just any God, but the Christian God.

      Suppose there was no Christian church, no Bible. Would a human naturally come to the conclusion, based on his observation of nature, that there is a God and that God is comprised of father son, and holy ghost and the son came to die on a cross and resurrect from the dead three days later and the holy ghost lives inside everyone who believes this?

      of course not. Nature, no matter what you believe about it, will never lead a person to the Christian God. That requires religion.

      Bruce

      • Becky

        Bruce, maybe I should be more specific. It was the general revelation of nature that drew me toward the creator, but the more specific revelation given in Scripture, and the church that drew me to the gospel.

        I think someone has to first have a conviction that "God is," and then move from there.

  • Anonymous

    "The Atheist says “prove it.”" An area of fuzziness. There is more than one meaning to proof. Outside of pure mathematics, proof merely means a very strong, perhaps extraordinarily strong, body of evidence. Then, being the cantankerous critters we are, what seems to me to be strong evidence for my idea may appear to you to be weak evidence. We can argue about immaterial things till the cows come home fruitlessly. Bible vs Koran vs the Vedas vs Book of Mormon ad infinitum. Need for a first cause vs no need for a first cause. I see design hence a designer vs order can resemble design without a designer. It is all just words.

    Enter science and empirical evidence. Mathematical type certainty eludes us but we can get to a place called 'beyond reasonable doubt' (BRD). Such things as the sun appearing to rise tomorrow, Newton's 3 laws regulating force and motion, and evolution are BRD. It remains infinitesimally possible that tomorrow the sun won't rise or evolution is false, etc, but it is not reasonable to believe those things. Oh, if it contradicts someone's religious belief, they still doubt, but their doubt is nourished by bias. Scientific method recognizes that scientists too are biased and builds in bias defeating mechanisms.

    Theists want to put all atheists if a box that says 'God is impossible' and challenge us to prove it. Some atheists belong in that box. I don't accept that box. My stand is, that the God depicted in the Bible, Koran, etc, is about as likely as the sun not rising tomorrow. There is no empirical evidence for any such God and much evidence showing how the various contemporary religions developed from earlier Sumerian, Babylonian, Egyptian, and Greek beliefs. Nonetheless, tomorrow maybe the sun won't rise, and maybe one of the Gods believed in by Christians, Muslims, etc really does exist. These 2 propositions appear about equally likely. Still that is not absolute proof, is it? That is where the reasonable atheist stands.

    The reasonable atheist has BRD, plus the awareness that certainty is unattainable. The theist has a feeling of certainty, without the awareness of its unattainability.

    • http://fallenfromgrace.net Bruce Gerencser

      Great comment. Found myself saying Amen. :)

  • MichaelL65

    Didn't you know that Atheism is just a denomination of radical fundamentalist Islam? Well, that's what The Newt tells me!
    :)

  • Becky

    What would be the difference between an atheist, and an agnostic, then?

    I can understand how someone might be agnostic, feeling that they don't know, or aren't certain one way or the other, but to say with any degree of firm certainty that there is no God, I just can't see how this is possible for someone who thinks about the matter deeply.

    Just looking at the incredible complexity and apparent fine-tuning of the universe toward life, it seems very unlikely to me that there is no creator. Did nature form itself?

    The only other explanation that may be plausible is one proposed I believe by Francis Crick that perhaps aliens may have seeded life on the planet.

    Right now I'm trying to put my Christian convictions aside, and look at this from an objective, purely intellectual point of view.

    • http://fallenfromgrace.net Bruce Gerencser

      So then you are an agnostic? Since you can't say for certain, 100% certain there is a God the best you could be is an agnostic.

      Like the Christian, the atheist weighs the data available and make a reasoned choice.

      I see no proof of God and I certainly don't see the universe as a fine-tuned creation. Certain aspects are but I see way too much randomness to hang my hat on god.

      • http://www.on-the-other-hand.com Lydia Schoch

        Bruce, have you ever blogged about this? The difference between people who see the universe as fine-tuned and those who don't may make for an interesting topic.

        (Or maybe I should blog about it myself! :) )

    • Donna Carroll

      I used to think that creation happened in six literal days. Then when I started to question that I looked briefly into Intelligent Design. Not satisfied with that answer either I researched evolution. I, too, thought that the complexity and apparent fine-tuning of the universe pointed toward a creator.

      As unscientific and unlearned as it may sound, all it took was for me to watch The March of the Penguins to realize that the fine-tuning only seems apparent. I have to say that the creator of the universe didn't finely tune a lot of things if this randomness is what we get out of it.

  • http://ramblingtaoist.blogspot.com/ The Rambling Taoist

    Like you, it took me a while to self-identify as an atheist simply because of the baggage that theists hoist upon the word. I came to realize, though, that it is their baggage, not mine. So, I have no problem now proclaiming that I too am an atheist.

    When I talk with religious adherents these days, I tell them that it's not that I don't believe in THEIR god. I don't believe in any of them. :-)