I really do not care if you take offence. You should thank sahewitt's earlier essay for spawning this stream of thought.
Many consider atheism to be a belief system, which is of course contradictory. The definition of belief is an acceptance of something as true, by way of an emotional and often spiritual sense of certainty. As such a belief system is not underpinned by an opinion based on known facts. Belief is the sort of system used to explain ghosts and gods. I have no doubt a good many humanists of the modern day employ the same gut thought in their belief of mankind as god.
But anyone that has worked through the information that is readily available in this current slice of time and concluded god does not exist should not have to suffer the label of atheist nor believer – both being constructs of faith societies.
We think, therefore we are.
God based faith is a perfectly acceptable medium for those that make a conscious effort towards ignorance. And there are a great many that put a lot of thought into building complex constructs to perpetuate this ignorance.
But in this modern world where we have so much knowledge it really does take that leap of faith to ignore the truth before our eyes. The moment you accept evolution as being the journey of life you must have problems with faith. You can wriggle and plot on ways that evolution fits into the genesis stories. But the problem you will always have with that Jewish Genesis account of this worlds creation, is that it evolved from Babylonian stories adopted by incarcerated Jewish slaves. How do you ratify as truth a legacy of stories that evolved via word of mouth over three thousand years ago, stories that evolved through hundreds of successive generations that really did not have a single clue about anything other than agriculture – the great perpetrator of human life on this planet.
It is only in the last four hundred years that man has started building a knowledge that has been underpinned by great thinkers such as Newton and Darwin. And most of what we know today has been learned in the last one hundred and fifty years. If faith is a wilful step of ignorance, actually believing those legendary genesis stories as a truth today is an act of stupidity.
Believers with faith tend to focus on those that prise open their clam shut minds, so it stands to reason Darwin would become the focus for those that scuttle from cover. Anybody that has read the origin of species will know that Darwin knew little of what he was opening the door to and a lot of what he thought was wrong when correlated with what we know today. But we should consider Darwin wrote in a time when most people thought the world was seven thousand years old, that fossils really were the remains of animals that didn’t make it onto Noah’s Ark and that a glowing Caucasian created everything you behold. Which makes Darwin quite remarkable.
But Darwins principle of evolution through natural selection is a seed for thought that can only grow if you open your mind. Believers will make chanted claims such as: ‘Incomplete fossil records’ without the slightest comprehension of what they are talking about. Of course what we know is incomplete. Does that mean we shut up shop and stay ignorant?
A sense for reason will acknowledge that we cannot take a three thousand year old text as a definite truth ordained by a since absent deity. A sense of reason will take a simple truth and look at in context.
We did think the world was seven thousand years old and then it we thought that maybe it was older. Thought evolved as we studied more and came to realise through successive thoughts that the world was four billion years old. Since that time, with the information we have learned in that time, we have come to think the world might be four and a half billions years old. We are big enough to know that any statement of known fact is based on what we know at that time. We know that what we learn may change that, but we are not so ignorant to believe that what we know is right and will always be so, because someone told us so.
We know that the world is probably over four billion years old and cellular life probably appeared very shortly after. We do not know how that occurred. It is very likely we will never know. Of course we will never know anything for certain, we can only take what we learn and shape our thoughts with what we learn.
It was thought that single celled life quickly evolved to multi celled life. But we now know that single celled life was probably the only form of life for almost three and one half billion years of this planets life. We know that repeated meteor impacts almost wiped out life on this planet on multiple occasions and that somehow single celled life evolved only six hundred million years ago into multi celled life.
We do not know exactly when of course. It was about six hundred million years ago. And then multi celled organisms continued to evolve around the simple Darwinian principle of survival, that when resources for propagation fail the best adapted to the environment will survive.
And so through a continuous cycle of growth and changing environment on this planet through hundreds of millions of years, through ice ages and through the absorption of carbons into the ground from all cellular life and then through the shifting plates of this earth’s surfaces and the molten fires of volcanoes that released carbons to create a shield that warmed the earth’s surface that melted the ice. Through meteor impacts that wiped out dinosaurs but not all life, through the continuous flux of weather and temperature and mutation in reproduced cells that in turn perished and sometimes survived. We eventually come to life as we now know it. Which is thought to have branched out from other life forms about six million years ago and further branched out to closer incarnations of Homo Sapien two and one half millions years ago.
We do not know everything of course. And to say we do is just plain wrong. We know evolution is what brought us to this point. Evolution will never change as a substantiating concept for our existence but it would be ignorant to assume what we now know will never change. Just as we build and re-assess our knowledge of all things. Humanities great legacy is the quest for knowledge and understanding, despite its tendency towards belief.
It is a great shame that those with faith have held sway over humanity for so long. And that humanity through this still struggles to wriggle free of belief. But then I suppose there would be little for me to write about.
|
Hi Johnnie Written by jean.day (2366 comments posted) 5th September 2008 |
Well, you haven't offended me, if that is any consolation. You do seem, however, to lump all Christians in with those like Mrs. Palin, who don't believe in evolution. Most of the Christians I know are quite happy to think that the Old Testament of the Bible is not literal truth - but stories handed down over the generations - and manipulated in the New Testament to make that story supposedly more believeable. But for me, all the harking back to the Old Testament in the New Testament just makes me uncomfortable. But as usual, you did a very good job of putting across your point of view, based, as we know, but a very long and detailed study of the Bible. One think I can thank you and Phil and a few others from GW for. Now when I see the words of the Creed, I stop and think, Do I really believe that? I continue to say it - but not quite with blind faith. I recently was writing something that made me do some research on Unitarianism. And somehow, having read about it, it makes a lot of sense to me. Not that I'm about to convert - but at least I am willing to think about it all. |
a challenge Written by fellpony (1717 comments posted) 6th September 2008 |
but a worthy one - I thought you hit the button with "there are a great many that put a lot of thought into building complex constructs to perpetuate this ignorance. " Constructs is the word. There are few minor grammatical nitpicks like sentences without verbs, and few bits of repetition ("six hundred million years ago"), but nothing to seriously spoil another good piece of writing. (Yes I know that was a split infinitive but I want seriously right there, okay?) |
Written by Phil (6963 comments posted) 6th September 2008 |
I'm glad you wrote this, Johnnie. I was a little irked with a couple of responses to sahewitt's piece but didn't have the energy or will to respond fully. What you do well here is set out a thought process that is based on observable facts (as we understand them today) and not an authoritatively given opinion based on ... well ... opinion. Discussion of religion can bring out the worst in in people. For what it's worth, I thought you delivered this pretty well - except perhaps, for the phrase: an act of stupidity While I'm not saying I disagree with the sentiment, it's not perhaps, the language of reasoned argument. Still, you did set out your MO in the intro and it was a clever bit of rhetoric. Much respect for this - the clarity particularly. Perhaps a little too much natural history - perhaps that's just personal taste. Phil |
Written by Phil (6963 comments posted) 6th September 2008 |
On a different topic - split infinitives: rules of grammar aside, to seriously spoil sounds far more natural than to spoil seriously. To go boldy - or - to boldly go? While grammar is very important - is this convention there from habit and convention, or to assist in clarity. Not a challenge, just a question. Phil |
Written by Bottleblondesurfer (3567 comments posted) 6th September 2008 |
I'm so impressed with this essay. I agree it is bizarre to call atheism a belief system. It's like calling bald a hair colour. How can you do it? I thought you were very restrained.It's so easy to attack the inconsistencies of religious belief which just allows them to claim they are persecuted, but your well argued and cogently presented points did more to lay bare the shaky foundations on which these beliefs are built on then a full on attack. The sad truth is, Johnie, that reason will always fail when presented with religious belief, as religion is not hampered by truth or logic, but for what it's worth you at least you took a stance Well written jane |
Written by Fledermaus (3490 comments posted) 6th September 2008 |
Ah. And here I find all the mistakes many atheists as well as believers make when trying to defend their position with science and philosophy: Namely that they claim the KNOW anything. In your piece you quoted Descartes' famous "cogito ergo sum", which was exactly meant to underline that all one can know for certain is that one can doubt about anything. Atheism is a belief system because it beliefs in the non-existence of gods. In that it differs sharply from agnosticism, which makes no claims whatsoever and just doubts the existence of gods. According to logical positivism, that which cannot be confirmed as true or untrue is irrelevant (with respect to science). The (non-)existence of gods is one of those things. One of the great mistakes atheists often make is claiming that believing in the non-existence or falsity of something is not a belief. Of course it is! as soon as you assign a truth value to anything unprovable, you are believing something. |
Written by Phil (6963 comments posted) 6th September 2008 |
| Argument based on opinion. |
I do not believe ... Written by johniebg (553 comments posted) 6th September 2008 |
... you could possibly have read a single word I wrote dearest fledermaus. I think I make it very clear that we can never be certain, as you seem to be. We know a great number of details about the earth and all that has happened on it and we know a great deal of what has evolved on it from extensive fossil records. We also know from the study of DNA that all species on this earth have a common lineage. Are you saying this is not so? We are constantly adding to our knowledge and by the very nature there are some things we make best guesses at, and are constantly changing the detail. As I mention evolution is a given, the exact specifics constantly change and are being added to. By keeping open minds we can come to some very good conclusions that become more accurate the longer we persavere. I certainly was not defending any position, I have no need to defend anything. I am simply stating an opinion. It does get very boring when people roll out the same old mantras of not trusting science and philosophy but then do not substantiate a single point with any arguement whatsoever. Give us some reasoning for your point of view. I will gladly engage. As for Descartes, we are talking a man, a very clever and inquisitive man, that thought the existence of god could be proven by studying a triangle, or was it a square? I do not think I simply stated god does not exist, just that this is what I have concluded. I think our understanding of what god could be is bastardised by what modern religions have turned god into. There is a lot about the human mind and in particular how it manifests consciousness that we just do not know. God could simply be in the un-fettered good humans do, or in the kind deeds. I like the thought of that. If you are at all interested in understanding the Historical origins of Christianity and the foundations upon which it was built then I would heartily recommend you start with anything by Bart D. Ehrman. Readily available at Amazon. But if you believe we can not know anything then I think instead you will find faith welcomes you with a broad smile and open arms. PS You really should read up on the dictionary definition of belief. |
Written by Fledermaus (3490 comments posted) 6th September 2008 |
I did read you piece (else I wouldn't comment). The point is though that you said atheism is NOT a belief. Now according to Longman's a belief is: The feeling that something is true. Now let's consider an atheist's beliefs in quantified first-order logic. NOT (EXIST(Gods)). This can be rewritten to EXISTS(NOT(Gods)), which according to the disctionary definition is a belief. |
Starting from Written by AlisonKim (25 comments posted) 23rd September 2008 |
Interesting piece. Again, good to read others views. I guess all arguements, discussions regarding religions, belief systems and faiths start from the assumption that they are part of everyone's lives. Religion was not part of my life as I grew up. It wasn't part of my family life. I always came to discussions as someone who hadn't ever thought that I automatically had, or had to have, a belief system. A belief system, which didin't automatically equate with a religion, was something that you chose to have. Which makes me wonder if the fact that I never encountered god or gods or spirtual forces as part of my family life (only in RE lessons at school) and did not have them as a part of my personal life, makes my idea that there aren't any a belief system? Curious philosophical question. Cheers. AK |
Only registered users can rate and write comments.
Please login or register.