h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

This article makes a number of – to me – strange assumptions. Whether deliberately or unconsciously it characterises atheism as a kind of religion, with ‘beliefs’ and ‘practices’. The whole point is that it is no such thing.
First of all atheists (at least, this atheist) do not ‘believe that god does not exist’. That suggests that we accept there is a god but choose out of perversity not to believe in him. It sounds like a nit-picky point, but I think it’s important to try and spot the hidden assumptions that lie beneath what people actually say.
Atheism is not, as far as I am concerned, a leap of faith, any more than my fairly solid conviction that the moon is not made of green cheese is a leap of faith. I see no reason to suppose that it is made of green cheese and an abundance of evidence that it is not. To have ‘faith’ that it is would seem to me to be not only not virtuous, but actually silly. Would I do better to keep an open mind, based on the outside possibility that we are all the subjects of a gigantic, universe-wide Capricorn One-type hoax? I don’t think so. And if a million people – or a billion – announced that it had become a matter of deep personal conviction for them that the moon was made of green cheese should I reconsider my position on that basis? I don’t think so – it wouldn’t be the first or last time that a billion people had believed something false to be true on no good evidence. And would my common sense conviction that the moon was not made of green cheese have to be characterised in that context as a ‘leap of faith’? I don’t think so.
When I read that the ‘practitioners [of atheism] are sometimes despised as people without moral centres, but this is not necessarily the case,’ I’m afraid I have to laugh. Does anybody seriously suppose, looking at a world of six billion people with a shared history of living in communities that goes back hundreds of thousands of years that there is no other conceivable way in which an instinct for co-operative, ethical behaviour could possibly have developed other than a huge invisible spirit threatening us with torment in an afterlife? If a moment of common sense reflection doesn’t convince you then you might try reading ‘The Evolution of Co-operation’ by Robert Axelrod, ‘The Origin of Virtue’ by Matt Ridley, or of course the book with one of the most misunderstood titles in the world, ‘The Selfish Gene’ by Richard Dawkins. There is no mystery about the emergence of altruism, it’s just a bit complicated, like calculus, harpsichord playing or the digestive system.
As for the idea that atheism ‘lacks marketing focus’ well, I’m afraid you’ve lost me completely there. Even I, a convinced atheist, have a little more respect for Christianity (and its fellow religions) than to see it as being purely a business venture, though it’s not hard to see, watching American TV or the history of the Vatican, how such an idea could have got about.
Atheism is not a business, and it is not a religion. It is merely a refusal to accept an enormous improbability which there is no evidence for, and rather a lot against. And furthermore, it is a refusal to be sucked into going along with it just because an awful lot of other people do.
The last sentence of the entry puts me in mind of the (allegedly) true story of a man who went into a Bond Street jeweller to buy a crucifix for his niece. The shop assistant laid out the available choices and ‘We basically offer two types. These ones here are just plain, and these ones over here have a little man on them.’

Perhaps it is better put that 'an atheist does not believe that God exists'? I am also sure that morality can exist without religion, conversely, I am sure that a number of acts which I would consider as grossly immoral have been committed in the name of religion, but that opens up a whole new avenue of debate.

Hmmm. Interesting points, DNA. Especially your take on believing "that god does not exist."

As a fellow atheist, I disagree just a bit. "God" as he is defined by the Judeo-Christian religions, has become such a part of our culture, such a widely-belived-in fictional character, if you will, that we (or most of us) are raised thinking of him as a real person, much the way we see Santa as a real person. Therefore most of us in the Western world at some point make a conscious decision that we no longer believe. That is, we grow up thinking he IS,and then, suddenly or gradually, come to renounce him before shifting into a more comfortable position of just knowing it is a powerful myth.

Different atheists are at different points along this path of knowledge. You are probably at a much different point than I am, and I am at a much different point than GargleBlaster.

It is all a matter of symantics. Yet symantics, as you know, help define and communicate our thoughts and beliefs, and therefore symantics are important.

No two atheists are alike in their beliefs, just as no two Christians are, or no two Buddhists are. For some, atheism is not a belief system at all. I myself dabble a little bit in some eastern philosophies, and a bit in ancient pagan beliefs (without the Gods). Others may be humanists, or Taoists. Others may believe strictly in what pure science can teach us. And still others may be at the stage of defining what they DON'T believe, and not yet to the stage of defining what they DO believe.

I acknowlege the fact that there may be gods. I do not actively worship them (except in times of extreme pain or stress - "Oh god! God!"), but then I don't go out of my way to defile churches/mosques/temples etc either. This counts me out as an Atheist.
I also acknowlege the fact that there may indeed be no gods at all. Which counts me out as an agnostic as well. Where the hell (sic) do I stand?

It seems my use of the word "faith" in this article has caused quite a stir among atheists, and, I imagine, the fact that the word has been co-opted by the religious types is the reason for the apparent aversion. When I talk about faith, I'm not talking about the blind faith that refuses to question or even listen. The definition I'm using is this, quoted from Merriam Webster's: "3. something that is believed especially with strong conviction." I believe with strong conviction that the sun will rise tomorrow, because I understand the processes behind it, and because I don't know of any danger to those processes. But as a pair of movies with really cool special effects have shown lately, a stray asteroid can prove me wrong. Given the present information, there is no reason to believe in an invisible man, and there is enough reason to believe that the world was created entirely out of natural processes, but since we still haven't quite worked out the mechanism for those processes, there is still a seed of doubt. It is that seed of doubt that fuels the agnostics (apart from a general wishy-washiness that DNA has expounded on elsewhere ) and manages to keep the lemmings in line. An atheist "believes with strong conviction" that natural processes are the ONLY mechanism for life, even if they aren't yet fully understood. At least, that's how my version works. That also seems to be the biggest difference between an agnostic and an atheist. An agnostic doesn't have a strong conviction about anything.

As for the bit on marketing, that paragraph was just a setup for a joke about a holiday for atheists that I made up, complete with a cute and cuddly icon for bumper stickers and children's plush toys. The joke found its way to the cutting room floor, but the setup remains, and I agree that it seems pointless. It was originally a flippant statement to be taken as such, but the editors decided they wanted to make the article serious, and therefore that comment appears so. But these are decisions that are beyond me.

I still disagree. I do not have "a strong conviction" that God does not exist. I just don't believe (or am not convinced) that there is a God and if something proves me wrong I might change that decision. If someone has faith in something, they believe it with (excuse the next bit) heart and soul. The are absolutly certain what they believe in is right and if someone has a fixed view they are likely to ignore logic (and maybe evidence) against it (e.g. Christians). Therefore I do not have faith in my beliefs - I just believe them (fully) until I am proven wrong or I see a better explanation. And I am not agnostic. I do not question if God exists. As DNA said, I am convinced there is no God - as I am convinced of everything I "believe". Using the word "faith" makes someones beliefs seem set and therefore we are as bad as the enemy .

You are convinced of what you believe, but you don't have any faith in it? It's pretty much two ways of saying the same thing. But the word "faith" has been tainted by its assosciation with Christianity, so I think that's where your aversion comes from. As far as I can see, the only thing you and I disagree on is that simple little word, but if you insist otherwise, then we can agree to disagree. But I don't think "faith" necessarily implies a prefix of "unshakeable."

Mr. Cynic, an agnostic is someone who claims we CANNOT know whether or not God exists. An agnostic believes we know only through experience, and since we as humans cannot directly experience God, then we cannot know him. Agnostic is not synonomous (<sp&gt with someone who questions their faith in God. Agnostics believe that they themselves cannot know if God exists, and therefore neither can anyone.

"If something proves me wrong I might change that decision" you say. Sounds to me like you ARE an agnostic, at least for now.... it is the definition of the word itself which you are uncertain of.

And, -I- never said that those who believe differently from myself are "the enemy." I believe strongly, as I've said in other forums, that the myths of religion are an analogy for greater truths in the universe; that we are all connected, that life is something special that goes beyond a simple mix of chemicals. I will admit that great harm has been done in the name of the Judeo-Christian religions. But it has also been a life-raft for countless thousands when things went badly for them. One should judge no individual or institution by the sum of the harm it has done, no more than one should judge by the whole of the good it has brought. It is the nature of things that the two go hand in hand.

I agree with GargleBlaster on one point; life is more than what we immediately see. Does that mean I believe in a "higher power" as described in the Great Books of the Western Religions? No. But neither does it mean that I am entirely lacking in faith of any sort. Heart and soul; you say it like it's a bad thing. But it is what defines our humanity.

I think that I feel where DNA is going here. My parents, both being Roman Catholics, chose to have me baptised a Roman Catholic too. But at a certain moment I have simply abandoned that belief, NOT because I *believe* there is no such thing as a God, but because I *know* there is no such thing.

Whenever I'm asked about my religious stance, I state that I'm not sure whether or not I would be an atheist. Why would I be so careful?

I *think* that there *might* be something (or someone) much more powerful than man, and that 'power' *might* be partially responsible for our existence, but then again, it *might* just as well have nothing to do with it. But whatever the case, there is absolutely *no* Power that deserves the praise that any of the so-called gods 'known' from earthly religions are granted by their followers.
That's something I'm absolutely sure about; if there were any kind of god guarding us, the things that we call 'religious wars' would never have been allowed to happen. Most religions that are now in existence, would have been eradicated as soon as such a god had found out about them, because most of them are built upon false assumptions, twisted truths and a lot of intolerance with regard to other religions.

Does that make me some kind of anti-social or uncivilised animal? Absolutely not! I don't think we need a god of whatever form or stature to be civilised human beings. Indeed, some of the most inhumane acts in our history are done in the name of some kind of god.
I would not want any part of that.

The word atheism as it is commonly used, sounds like a contradiction: a religion without a god. I'm not part of that either. To me there is no god, and I don't need a community to help me 'believe' that.

Am I an atheist? In the pure linguisticly correct sense of the word, I *am* an atheist: a person without a religion, or even a person without a god. In any other way, I really wouldn't know.

Oh my - here comes a long posting:
Firstly, GB, I don't dislike the word 'Faith' because of Christianity, I dislike the word 'God' because of Christianity. I disagree with using the word 'faith' as I hate faith. I understand Faith means 'instinctive belief' (or something along those lines). The definitions of all these words aren't accurate - but if you say a 'leap of faith' it doesn't give the impression that it has been though out through logic - it seems that you have had inspiration to your beliefs. That may be correct for how you became atheist but for me it was a gradual process and I could not describe it is a faithful leap. And GB, I agree that different people turn atheist for different reasons in different ways, but I won't agree that all atheists make this leap'O'faith. Phew. That was my first point .

Now...agnostics... another definition. I agree with your definition of an agnostic but I am not one. There are different levels of indecisiveness. An agnostic would not make a decision, as he does not believe it can be known whether God exists. I however made a decision similar to DNA - I have been through many, many hours of length debates (a two hour one tonight) about God, belief and purpose. I have thought this out to myself, studied and so on. After going through a stage of agnosticism, I decided "there is no God. I do not believe a God exists" - DNA calls it being "convinced"; I call it having a belief. I do not keep my options open - I am convinced there is no God...but...as I said, my decision is changeable. I make sure I am always testing my decision. I will not stick to it. Over enough thought my beliefs will change. They will alter. I am still sure of them though but I allow for questioning and I allow for change. I welcome change in fact . The main thing is that I believe in what I am convinced in - not what I am told or have come up with through faith.

When I said "the enemy" I was joking - hence the . I did not mean that I see the faithful as my enemies but unfortunately I do not respect their beliefs much. I can't do much about it - I am not the zenful type. But I meant that as a joke.

I totally disagree that faith is what defines our humanity - I see that faith is what defines our ignorance. In my search of belief, I discovered that peoples beliefs are much less flexible that we give them credit - most people will stick to their beliefs after a certain point. I therefore dislike faith as it can easily interfere with the truth.

(I have noticed I used the word 'he' quite often. Feel free to replace it with 'she' and sorry for the inconvenience )

Mr. Cynic, I'm going to say something that sounds like it could be sarcastic, but I assure you it is not at all, so please please don't read it that way. Hey, have I ever lied to you?

It is also a personal question: therefore, I won't ask you to answer. I will simply ask you to think about it. So here it is:

Have you ever been in love? I mean really, truly, in love? You may ask what one has to do with the other, so here's my answer: love is, ultimately, a "leap of faith", as you call it. You weigh the facts, look at the evidence, realize that it is impossible to know in advance if someone will turn out to be good for you for your whole life, and then just sort of leave it up to faith, hard work, and good fortune.

You say that faith defines our ignorance. I stick by my belief that it defines our humanity. Ultimately, I think we all need to believe in something. In the face of all logic, which tells us we live for a while, then we die, and a whole lot of stuff, some good, much of it bad, happens in the middle.... in the face of all this, we choose to go on and enjoy life as if the inevitable end will never happen. We choose to fall in love, and some of us choose to marry, in the face of a logic which tells us that very, very people find true love and happiness; about half of marriages end in divorce, and a good number of those that don't end in misery.

You speak of faith interfering with the truth, but there are truths that are greater than those which we can define with logic. Some (myself included) would say that love----that most illogical of feelings---is the greatest truth any of us will ever know.

I hold fast to my belief that there are things which logic and reason cannot explain. I believe very strongly in the things which can't be seen, I believe there is a power in the universe which we rarely glimpse and can only faintly begin to understand. I don't believe there is a sentience to this power, which is why I claim to be an atheist. But I DO have faith, a great deal of faith, in all sorts of things.

P.S.

About the much-discussed "leap of faith" phrase used by GB...

I think (correct me if I'm wrong, GargleBlaster) that what GB is saying is this: those of us raised as Christians were taught from the time we were infants that belief in God gets us into Heaven. Everlasting life with nothing but happiness. Now, this is a difficult concept to give up. No matter how much we doubt it, many of us went through a stage where we were afraid to give up completely on the belief in God out of fear that it MIGHT be true. No matter how much we doubuted, the tiniest possibility that there might indeed be eternal happiness, and that we might be turning our backs on this, terrified us.

So for many of us, there was a period of time spent riding the fence, not really believing, but afraid NOT to believe, "just in case." And, in fact, I know several people who look like they may go through their whole lives riding that fence, just in case.

For at least some of us who became atheists in our adult lives, there was a period where we finally decided to let go, to give up the possiblity of a heaven, because we knew we were really lying to ourselves when we said we might believe. There isn't a good phrase to describe this process, so GargleBlaster refers to that one moment, that defining moment, which probably followed years and years of thought and struggle, as "a leap of faith." It is the moment of turning away completely from something deeply ingrained in our culture for several thousand years.

Definition, as bluDragon points out in another thread, is everything. In philosophical debate, it is necessary to first define your terms before you debate them, so that everyone is talking about the same thing. But personal experience colors everything, and therefore the definitions themselves sometimes have different perceptions behind them.

I like this discussion. And your ideas are mighty good, billypilgrim.

For me it was quite simple: I never struggled much with the transition from "believing" to "not believing". I was about 17 or 18, and far from emotionally or mentally mature, when I decided that gods do not exist. But ok, that may be different for each of us. YMMV

If there is a form of "afterlife", in my opinion it can't be granted on something as arbitrary as "believing in a god", especially since I've already decided that a god can not exist. So, either there is an afterlife and I will get my share of it whether I believe or not, or there is no afterlife at all. Either way, I haven't lost my chance of an eternal existence in happiness. I'll just find out when the time comes.

Your point on love is a bit harder. In some cases it might be a kind of faith that makes us decide to take a gamble with our feelings, for better or worse. But in other cases it might be instinctive as well. How much do we know about all the forces that are in effect in our universe? We haven't even come to understand 10 per cent of our own potential, so can we really dismiss anything at this point? And that gets us to a point where others can turn my words against me, saying that we can't dismiss a god either. They might be right, but that doesn't alter my conviction yet.

There is one statement of yours that I must strongly object to, though: the statement about not having much respect for people who do believe. I think we must respect whatever one believes. We are all free people, and allowed to believe what makes us feel comfortable. Whatever one believes or does not believe doesn't make one more or less human.

Correction: the statement about not respecting believers much wasn't from billypilgrim, but from Mr. Cynic. Please accept my apology for misquoting that.

billy is close to the mark on the "leap of faith" argument, even if she misreads where it comes from. My transition to atheism began from religious-yet-open-minded background to the long questioning phase, much of which was spent as an agnostic, before I finally read enough about various religions enough that even the tenuous belief of an agnostic vanished. The one thing all religions have had in common is that they were impossible to argue against. In ancient Greece, who was to say that the gods didn't congregate at Mount Olympus? We can scoff now, thanks to satellite pictures of the area, but Olympus was inaccessible to people, so they could never know the difference. Similarly, how can one disprove the existence of Asgard or Valhalla? They're other planes of existence that we cannot access, so how do we know they're not there? We understand the evolution of religious beliefs, so we say that those beliefs were simply made up to explain the unexplainable. But how do we know? How do we know, without a shred of doubt, that the dead spirits of the ancestors of the Sioux nations don't talk to them when they're stoned on peyote?

The answer is that we don't. Sure, we know that people see things that aren't there on peyote... or are they? Does it activate the imagination, or does it sensitize the user to the spirit world? There are some good, logical reasons to believe that is not the case, but can it be absolutely proven that spirit guides are simply a construct of the imagination? No, because logic cannot answer all questions. Logic is a thing of man, and as such, is not infallible. When logic fails to provide an absolute answer, people make assumptions based on what information is available. An assumption is another way of saying "a leap of faith."

Centuries ago, the popular logic said that the earth was flat. The earth was the center of the universe. These were assumptions made that people didn't question. Similarly, atheists believe there is no god, and (most) do not question it. That doesn't make it any truer than the flat-earth argument. They argued based on what they knew of the world, and we as atheists do no different. However, to assume that we have all the information is to make the same error of hubris that those people made. Perhaps new information will come along and make us all look like fools.

So what am I saying, agnosticism is the only one that is right? Well, I guess so. But I have faith that no new information will come along and prove the existence of some sort of god. I have faith that when I die, I will simply cease to exist. I have no faith in an afterlife. I have faith that, eventually, research into the origin of life will finally be able to fill in the gaps, and that it will be inequivocable proven to be entirely natural. I don't expect everyone to agree with me on all these points, but I think you atheists in this forum can agree with at least some of them. But can I prove any of this? The only way I can prove there is no afterlife is to die, and then I won't be in a position to bring back information, so for now, I have to take a "leap of faith."

Ok...billypligrim - I think this IS a conflict of definitions. I would not classify the hope one gets instinctively as faith. I agree that love is often dependant on hope but I don't think 'a leap of faith' must be made to go for what your feelings tell you - especially if you feel love because you have spent a great deal of time with someone and slowly fallen with love with them, as you have got to know them. The main disagreement I have with you is what the word 'faith' means. I understand it to be belief without a need for logic or evidence. I also feel that when one says someone has 'faith' their beliefs are pretty set and they would be reluctant to change them.
If you define faith as hope then maybe it is what defines our humanity. But maybe it is the diversity of will that defines our humanity? Or maybe they both do .
Again - I say faith interferes with the truth, but not if faith is hope. If faith is what I interpreted to be above, I stick to that statement.
I don't believe strongly but am unsure of other powers. I don't think I can state that there are such invisible powers at the moment.
As I said in an earlier post, "I won't agree that all atheists make this leap'O'faith". Yes - maybe many atheists made a leap of faith from belief/agnosticism. But not all do. I don't think it's right to say that all atheists do nor is it correct that all atheists have faith in their beliefs.

Now, The Mummy - I did not say I have no "respect for people who do believe". I said (about believers) "Unfortunately I do not respect their beliefs much. I can't do much about it". I did not say that I hold little respect for those who do believe but that I have found no way to respect their views. I've talked to a few more zenful than I (well actually, most people are ) but billypilgrim is one. She respects all beliefs. I don't. Maybe I will eventually but I have found no way to at the moment.

GB, I would not call an assumption based on logic that you dare do doubt "faith". I disagree that assumption is another word for "leap of faith". I also don't think that faith is simply "a strong conviction".
The belief that the Earth was flat was a very good assumption. The earth looked pretty flat and they had no way to prove otherwise. BUT, they had faith in their assumption. Those who stated contrary to popular belief were branded heretics.
"Similarly, atheists believe there is no god, and (most) do not question it." - maybe most atheists do not question it and maybe then they can be said to be faithful. But I do question it. I try and test my beliefs. I still believe them but I dare to put doubt against them. I'm not agnostic though as I still believe strongly but allow for change.
I don't expect information to come along and prove there is an almighty deity. But I do make sure that just because I don't expect it I shouldn't be unwilling to accept it. If there is a God and he gets pretty pissed off by those that didn't believe in him/her, I should definitely be one that goes off to eternal damnation . I have no faith in what will happen once I am dead and finally, I hope that the origin of life was entirely natural but I don't have faith that it was.
*Looks worried at the long posts that may follow this one*

long posts????

er...mine is about to be posted in the 'definitions' thread.

Take a look. There are some parallel points, I think.


}:=8

Hi Mr. Cynic.

You're right. I quoted your words incorrectly, and I apologise for that. It's just a bit hard to quote from three messages away, especially since I first took it to be from a different message and from a different person at that.

However, my argument still stands. Everyone has the right to believe whatever they want, and it is not the place of any atheist to mock those beliefs in whatever degree or for whatever reason.

I agree with your stance, The Mummy.

It is impossible to be certain that God doesn't exist. We aren't sure what sort of being we are looking for, were it is or how it could come into being. If someone said, God is an organic life form that lives on Mars, scientists could look, and say "No, that is not possible", and go on to say how if God was there, there would haveto be certain trace elements in the atmosphere and so on, even if he lived underground.

If we knew he did exist, we could see the form and specifics of his exisistence. If someone states the specifics, we can disprove them, or say whether more research is needed. Until someone comes up with specific ideas of what god is, so it can be disproved, we can never say "god doesn't exist".

This is a logical response.

I think if Mr Cynic had taken a coldly logical approach, all he could state is his uncertainty, or that it is very unlikely that god exists.

To move from "it is unlikely" to "it is impossible" surely must require a leap of faith, since evidence can only supports the first.

Unfortunately, Mr Cynic's response seems to be reactionary. In my experience, there are people who firmly disbelieve in God. They are passionate about it. They also tend to be very intelligent, but bitter and cynical people. They feel betrayed by life, for promising a god which turns out to be an empty promise. This produces bitterness, and this emotive response causes the reaction of denying the existence of god.

To sum up this little heap of thoughts, the leap of faith required to believe in god, from insufficient evidence, is no different to the leap in faith required to believe in no god.

I think it *is* possible to be certain that God doesn't exist, and in fact I am actually exactly as certain that God doesn't exist as I am that, were I to take my pen, hold it a foot above the floor, and let go, it wouldn't stay there.

However. This is entirely referring to the ideas of God that I've heard thus far in my life; and, of course, someone could well come up with an idea of what God is that it's *impossible* to disprove. On the other hand, the very fact that it's impossible to disprove is pretty good proof that it's not true... because what's the chance of someone just randomly coming up with something that's impossible to disprove?

Now, if someone could come up with some definition of God for which there existed some actual *proof*, that would be convincing. But I think that's impossible, otherwise some religion or other would no doubt have done that by now, since having a God which actually might exist would no doubt help it to spread a little more effectively.

Therefore, there aren't any definitions of God which, by the above logic, can't actually be proved impossible.

QED

26199