I think the terms “believe in” and “have faith in” are both equally misleading. People recognize science to be the only logical method to analyze the world around us, and they have trust in the scientific community to expose scientists who stray from using scientific principles. The peer review process has exposed many a fraud -think of the South Korean scientist who exaggerated his progress with cloning and was caught. But trust in science is not absolute, and science does not demand it. Scientists develop working theories to explain a certain set of facts, such as cell theory, the theory of gravity, the theory of evolution, etc., and everyone with a basic education is aware those theories are subject to reform. People’s trust in science would erode quickly if scientists started proposing theories that do not adequately explain facts or are irrational in some way. For this reason, I do not think we can say people “believe in” or “have faith in” science, as both terms carry conotations of blind adherence to doctrine that is not subject to reform. People trust science and the scientific community only to the extent they continue to dispassionately and logically explain our world.
Well that’s a pretty strong statement. I think there are other logical methods to analyze the world around us, but I don’t want to argue this point too much. I absolutely agree that science is one of the most reliable and powerful ways to analyze the world around us. I only have trouble with the word “only” in your statement.
But then, they wouldn’t be scientists any more. If they don’t propose theories that fit the known facts and that can be tested by experimentation they aren’t actually practicing science.
I completely disagree. Having faith in something or believing in something does not connote any blind adherence or inability to be altered or reformed. That’s why there are terms like “blind faith” and “irrational belief”.
Again. Let’s say you “believe in your father.” That doesn’t mean that if your father repeatedly showed himself to be untrustworthy that your belief in him couldn’t change. It just means when your father is faced with a problem or dilemma, your expectation is that he will solve the problem or perform admirably. There’s nothing irrational or blind about it. It’s based on your experience up to that point in time.
You pointed out some very good reasons why people believe in science. They don’t think it is infallible, but they do believe that over time the process of the scientific method (including peer review and duplicating experiments) will produce fewer errors. One of the reasons we believe in science is because it corrects its mistakes when it makes them. Likewise, some people believe in the US justice system, while others do not believe in it.
It doesn’t require a belief that some system, being, or idea is infallible to believe in it.
You mean on this thread, or on other topics? If only from this thread I don’t see how you could have come to that conclusion. This thread is about what atheists/agnostics believe in, not whether or not they should believe in God. I believe in order, so I do try to stay on topic.
So, you believe in self-sufficiency, then? 
However, I think people who claim they don’t believe in anything just aren’t examining their beliefs closely enough. Maybe I’m wrong, but I think it’s really hard for a person to have nothing they find to be inherently noble or nothing they have learned to trust in to the extent that you can say you can “believe in it”.
“Believe in” can be used in a number of ways. It can be used to descibe irrational belief in phantasmagorical enities like “God” “Jesus” or “Krishna.” It can also be used to express your “belief in” the advisability of a course of action. “I believe in brushing my teeth every day.” It can be used as well to express the idea that you “believe in” the logic of an idea or concept. “I believe in democracy.” “I believe in the scientific method.” All three senses of “believe in” are used and all are generally understood except in places where English teachers gather together to analyze the language mistakenly. The original post, I believe, asked what we “believe in” if we don’t “believe in” god. The subsequent confusion that has arisen has been the result of some people answering with the third sense when it was the first that was what was being asked about. Then again you could argue that some people come to the logical conclusion that god exists in which case the distinction I made here is not useful. Good luck, may god smile down upon your efforts etc.
Not sure why you had to add the “irrational phantasmagorical” part there. You can believe in all kinds of things. The point is that the belief generally means that it is not established 100% as fact. Hence, you can believe in relativity since it is only 99.9% fact, or believe in black holes, dark matter, tachyons, etc. You haven’t seen them, and nobody really has.
Your second two senses I’d pretty much put together. “Democracy” and “brushing teeth” would go together. Here you are trusting in their efficacy. The key element is trust.
So, while you think the OP was asking “what do you believe exists if you don’t believe God exists”, I think the real question that was being asked is, “where do you put your trust if you don’t trust in God?”
Which is exactly why I asked the questions I asked: to move away from talking about “believing in the existence of beer” and onto the sort of things atheists/agnostics believe in. Of course, I think theists also believe in things other than just God or gods.
I believe in De bug. All hail De bug!
Hi!
You just summed me up perfectly. I can say with full honesty that I find nothing inherently noble. And although I’ll admit I use science as a guide to get me around in the ‘real world’, I’d have to admit that I doubt that I can trust any input from my senses. For all I know I could be a brain in a vat, or under the control of “Descartes’ evil genius.”
And I don’t think it’s particularly hard to believe that nothing is noble. It was way harder being a Christian. Christ, was a shitty time that was!
I went back and read the original post. Here it is…
The problem is that while “belief in” the scientific method is based entirely on observation and logic, belief in “God,” particularly the Christian concept of God, is based on faith. Two entirely different concepts entirely and in both cases we use the phrase “believe in.” Most of what we “believe in” as a result of our use of the scientific method we will still “believe in” in a thousand years only we will have developed on the basis of what we know now. Or does someone imagine that we will discover that the earth doesn’t go around the sun, or that the moon doesn’t affect the tides, or that organism didn’t evolve over time, or that two times two doesn’t equal four, or that there isn’t tremendous energy in an atom, or that green house gases don’t cause global warming, or that smoking doesn’t contribute to lung disease etc. The OP was nonsense in other words and you guys have been discussing it like it wasn’t. It’s just weak thinking of the kind that allows people to believe that everything is relative when in fact quite a lot is absolute. Sorry, but this is “a bit of a pet peeve” lets say.
Well, I don’t claim that everyone believes in something, although I am inclined towards that position. Nobody can really dispute your claim. However, it’s easy to say “I believe in nothing” without thinking it through all the way. So, while I have to accept your statement as you’re the only one with insight into your own brain (at least until I encounter someone with psionics or gain the divine gift of discernment), you don’t. So I offer this not to dispute your statement, but to give you food for thought:
There are many things you might believe in. It might be the virtue of individuality and free thought. It might be fairness, familial love, or honesty. Maybe it’s intellectual honesty. Before answering “nothing” you might benefit from looking a little deeper or just longer. This may not be a question you can fully answer in just a few hours time.
Or maybe your really believe in nothing? I won’t contradict you about yourself.
Perhaps.
I for one most certainly have not.
I’ll give you that.
Nope.
The virtue of individuality / free thought I find ridiculous, since I have no way of determining whether humans have free will or not.
Fairness? If by “fairness” you mean that eventually the universe will be destroyed by entropy, then … maybe.
Familial love? You sound like an american sitcom delivering an aesop trope.
Ditto for honesty. And what is “intellectual honesty?” Is that when someone is honest enough to admit that they’re an elitist?
You’re right, this is not a question that I have been trying to answer for a few hours, but since I read the Tao Te Ching when I was 16.
My points here are:
- I don’t know why it’s so hard for Christians to believe that someone could believe in nothing.
- The OP’s points are quite valid since they seem to be somewhat similar to my own views, if not fleshed out in all details.
- I really don’t see why it’s so hard for someone to believe in nothing and still live a normal life. Like a Christian, I accept the laws of science as something to understand the world with. I just don’t know why there has to be something more. The acceptance of nothingness and death is surprisingly liberating.
Perhaps this quote from Yang Chu can express some of what I mean by that last sentence:
Why is it easy? It doesn’t seem easy for many people who cling to religious beliefs as the only defense against nihilism.
It would also seem to me that those who say the opposite — “I believe in something” — have not thought it through all the way. How do you know when you’ve thought it through “all the way”? If it’s not a scientific premise to be proven or disproven, it seems too easy to stop too early. Perhaps, if we have anything in common, Mr. Olivaw, each day and each hour we have to reconfirm our belief in something or nothing, as the case may be. It’s an ongoing process. And here, on the internet, when we post about it, we’re posting what we believe to be true at the moment.
Nonsense. This part anyway…
and this…
The capacity for choice is something we experience at almost every moment. If you don’t belive me try choosing the most depraved course of action you can think of for one month, and the next month choose the most intelligent and honourable you can think of. See what happens.
I find it hard to see what you disagree with about this part. Unless you’re talking about genetic enginneering, which certainly has an effect on life but little effect on death so far.
My point is that “capacity for choice” may be an illusion, or, at best, an egotistical interpretation of sensation. For example, we also experience the lack of choice at almost every moment: our organs and cells respond to stimuli unconsciously. Although you can choose to hold your breath, generally we breathe without thinking about it.
Although you may feel that you are making choices, at every moment, your body is making choices for you. I would extend that concept to state that our conscious brain is constructed in such a way as to make us feel that we can make choices about X and Y, just as it’s constructed to make us feel that we can’t make choices about Z, where Z = breathing, most of the time. I still don’t believe that - philosophically or empirically - the freedom of choice has been proven. There are even religious groups, including christians, who believe that all human actions are pre-ordained by god. To me, it seems quite possible that human actions, which are felt in our brains as “causes”, are actually “effects” i.e. reactions to various conditioning and stimuli that we do not fully understand.
Those descriptions of “depraved” and “intelligent and honorable” are entirely arbitrary moral choices that I also consider valueless. For a Neonazi, the most depraved course of action would be to sit at home for a month watching interracial pornography, and the most intelligent course of action would be to kill as many Jews as possible for the following month. Others might disagree about the “depravity” and “intelligence” of his actions. Either way, it would prove nothing about the freedom of choice.
I meant “free thought” as in free from the constraints imposed by having a belief system to tell you what you believe. But, if you think you don’t actually control your own thoughts and you are nothing more than the sum of your physical history (all the processes and reactions that have gone into your physical makeup) and your environment, then I guess I can see not believing in that.
Fairness as in being fair to others. You are courteous when others are courteous. Following the rules of a game when the game has rules, etc. Not the fairness of the universe.
Not everything you believe in has to be universally applicable.
Whatever.
Personally, I find love of a parent for a child and siblings for each other to be worthy of admiration. But hey, I’m just suggesting things to think of.
So you don’t think much of honesty. Alright.
If you don’t know what intellectual honesty is you should look it up. It’s a great thing to use as an insult when debating with people.
Wow. Deep. I’m totally impressed that you read the Dao De Jing when you were young and since then you’ve been pondering what you believe.
Has nothing to do with being Christian. It’s got to do with human psychology. There are reasons for what we believe and the choices we make that come from experiences we have and how we have structured them within our minds. You say you believe in nothing, and I can’t contradict you, but you might be fooling yourself and you’re the only one who can figure out if that’s the case or not.
Hmm. So, because the OP believes what you believe, therefore it’s valid…
I guess if it wasn’t the same it wouldn’t be valid?
Nobody has said you have to believe in something. I just find it most probable that people do believe in something, but it’s something so basic to their belief system that they overlook it when asked this question.
Yeah. Or enslaving.
Think about that question a little bit. Why is it easy to do something without thinking it through all the way…
It’s always easier to do less work. And it’s easier to accept your current schema than to challenge it and deal with the unknown, whether that schema is that of doubt or one of faith. The original position is the easy one.
There is no “all the way”, only deeper, farther, and broader. But see, I’m not suggesting only those who say they believe in nothing should think things through further. If you say you believe in something you should think why you believe it. What is it that causes you to put faith or trust in something else?
If you believe in science, why? If you believe in your country, why? The questions will guide you to understand yourself better. You may discover some of your own biases. You may discover values central to your identity that you didn’t consider before.
But in your case you say you believe in nothing. And you’ve thought deeply upon this since you were 16 and read the Way and Its Power. Well, keep thinking so deeply.
Fair points, Olivaw.
But you’d have to admit, then, that a Christian who believes in something could also be fooling himself. Or he could be believing in the wrong religion. Human psychology may argue that more humans in history have held religious beliefs than those who haven’t. But I don’t think human psychology has ever claimed that humans have to believe in something, or that it’s harder to be an atheist than a theist.
Sorry, that’s my bad. Previously, people in this thread were claiming that the OP was total garbage and ridiculous and not worthy of consideration. My point above was supposed to say that I think the OP is worthy of consideration, which is why I am participating in this thread.
An interesting theory. I guess you’re arguing that atheism is a sort of placeholder answer if someone’s asked about their belief system. However, I’d argue that the right answer would be “agnostic.” I have a feeling that more people in the world (who know what the words mean) identify as agnostic than atheist but I have no numbers to back that up.
Yeah. Or enslaving.
[/quote]
Sure. But the acceptance of religious belief has also been surprisingly enslaving throughout history.
Think about that question a little bit. Why is it easy to do something without thinking it through all the way…
It’s always easier to do less work. And it’s easier to accept your current schema than to challenge it and deal with the unknown, whether that schema is that of doubt or one of faith. The original position is the easy one.
There is no “all the way”, only deeper, farther, and broader. But see, I’m not suggesting only those who say they believe in nothing should think things through further. If you say you believe in something you should think why you believe it. What is it that causes you to put faith or trust in something else?
If you believe in science, why? If you believe in your country, why? The questions will guide you to understand yourself better. You may discover some of your own biases. You may discover values central to your identity that you didn’t consider before.
But in your case you say you believe in nothing. And you’ve thought deeply upon this since you were 16 and read the Way and Its Power. Well, keep thinking so deeply.
[/quote]
Hey, you were the one who brought up “thinking something through all the way,” not me!
I don’t think reading any book at age sixteen is that important. That book challenged a lot of my beliefs at the time, but when I read it now, I’d have to say that I understand it very differently than I did then (I hesitate to say that I understand it “better” now). For me, atheism was not the original position, nor was/is it an easy one to hold. I guess what I’m trying to say is: sure, some people might label themselves atheists without thinking about what that means, while some christians might do the same. Other atheists and christians put more thought into their beliefs. I’m not convinced that either group “understands themselves better”.
However, this is an interesting discussion.
You are being deliberately obtuse or deliberately relativistic, it amounts to about the same thing. Of course it is depraved to start killing some group of people based on their ethnicity. We know that as well as we know anything. And we know that while the experience of choice may be an illusion it is an awfully persistant illussion and one that you can experiment with a lot. Choose courses of action that will promote your long term happiness, or choose to go through life antagonizing people, see what happens, judge what makes you “happier” and make new choices, see how long it takes before you start believing in the ability of choice. Indeed I’m sure that you already do. When was the last time you rationally “choose” to do something diametrically opposed to your intrests?
What you said about the body…
was certainly interesting though. One thinks also of the testosterone storm one goes through in adolescence and wonders how much free thought is possible there. Or how much free thought is possible at the moment of death, or when one is involved in a serious accident. Naturally a lot of what goes on there is predetermined by biology and experience. You would have to be blind not to see that. By the same token though you’d have to be blind not to see that you can in fact make different choices that will affect the quality of your life on a moment by moment basis. Study Mandarin or watch another porno made by the scum of the earth. Do Yoga or drink another six pack and smoke another pack of cigarretes. Hold your temper and try to understand somebody or fly off the handle and start sceaming at them.
You could argue that yoga is not prefferable to beer and cigarettes or that life is not preferrable to death and there would be some logic to it. Only the logic would be directly opposed to the most basic sense in you. The sense that says that while life is a painful, complicated struggle it is also filled with interrelatedness, beauty and pleasure. In the end I guess it is a question of how you think it balances out
The latter.
Sure. I generally do. I can also experiment mentally with the concept that it is an illusion. One of the best examples would be in a dream: often when I dream, I make odd and irrational choices that I cannot understand. Then I wake up and realize it was a dream … and go on to make more odd and irrational choices in my life. Nevertheless, at least some of the time, I can take a step back and ask myself, am I really “choosing” these things I think I’m choosing? Do I really want a hamburger for lunch or am I conditioned to want it?
How are you so sure that this is “the most basic sense”? I have trouble trusting any of my senses implicitly, and even if this was “the most basic” one, I’d still question it.
Oh, sure. I’m not one for blind faith. I think the eyes wide open kind of faith is the best kind. But sure, there are people who prefer to shut their ears and eyes to whatever contradicts their assumptions. But as this thread is specifically about beliefs of atheists and agnostics, I’m concentrating on beliefs that do not concern the existence or trust in any god.
As to the first part, I’m not sure. I don’t know enough about psychology. I do know belief systems and a need to create schema are important in human psychology, but perhaps you don’t need to develop a schema that would constitute “belief in” anything to work. As I said earlier, I’m inclined to believe a belief some things (not meaning a religion or philosophy) is a natural part of cognitive development.
But as to the second part-- No, I don’t think it is any more difficult to be an atheist than a theist, and I’m pretty sure there is nothing concrete on that from the scientific community.
Belief in the existence or lack of existence of God is only one thing you can believe in. What I’m saying is that in order to deal with all the information and choices we make day to day, our mind accumulates and categorizes all our information. Some of this eventually becomes “belief in” something.
No, I apologize. That was cheeky of me. I agree that to OP’s points are worthy of serious discussion.
No, that’s not what I’m arguing. “Atheism” is a possible system of belief a person can come to through their experience. “Agnosticism” can also be a such a belief system, but it does fulfill the role of the “placeholder” belief for someone who has not thought it through, or a person who has thought it through and still believes they lack sufficient knowledge to make a final decision.
What I was actually saying is that there are other things to believe in than just God or gods. Theists don’t believe only in God. They also believe in things like love, happiness, peace, communism, capitalism, etc. Different things you believe in can have different scopes. Likewise, atheists and agnostics don’t just believe “there is not God”, or “it is unknown/unknowable if there is a God (but probably not so far as I can tell)”. There are concepts, ideas, and in some cases even institutions or people that they actually believe in-- not just believe.
How is that surprising? Surrender of will to any system of beliefs is enslaving in some sense. However, just as you feel surrender to death and entropy is liberating (frees you from some burdens of thought, or what have you), surrender to a higher will can also be liberating.
And I think there is no enslavement in either case as long as the person submitting their will does so by choice and with a continued open mind.
But, I’d have to wonder about the basis of your belief in Christianity in the first place. Was your original faith a product of your upbringing and you never developed independent belief? Then perhaps as you grew up and your trust in your parents became more informed and skeptical, there began to be cognitive dissonance between your Christian beliefs and your comprehension of the world around you?
You would have had two original and conflicting “original positions” that would need to be resolved. And if your current atheism (I’m assuming from what you wrote that this is your current position) continues to “not be easy”, it may be in part due an incomplete schema, or a schema still in transition.
I’ll hold off on the “Or maybe it’s not easy cause deep down you really know there’s a God” comment cause this is the atheist/agnostic thread. :scooby:
That I totally agree with. And I think it is profitable for both groups to look deeper at their own beliefs, belief systems, and the things that truly believe in.
Agree. And I’d add that for some people, a “final decision” may actually happen more than once in a lifetime.
I think that the above statement applies pretty well to how I see ‘practical’ matters, such as science, social etiquette, etc. Those tools work well for me without having to consider their philosophical importance or basis. Whether I think that the world is real or just an illusion in front of my senses, I still have to get along with people.
Well, I’d draw a line between “peace” and “communism.” I believe that the first three concepts are useful grammatical terms to describe abstract concepts which many humans agree exist. Buddhists believe that “all life is suffering”, so even happiness is a kind of delusion that can lead you off the path. If you are saying that “believing in love” means something like “having faith that love can raise the human spirit”, I’d disagree, but that’s just me. I can say that I don’t hold any moral values to be absolute: so I don’t believe that “love, happiness and peace” are inherently good.
Communism, capitalism, yes, people can believe in them. I’d really rather skip those concepts for now ~
I guess you’re getting tired of me turning things around, but I would assume that being a Christian is not easy, not because the schema is incomplete or in transition. Maybe it is easy for you. I look at, say, Mother Theresa (not the forumosan ) and think, that would not be an easy life. It seems hard for celibate priests in all religions not to get a little randy at times. For me, the sheer bombardment of Christian beliefs in western culture is frustrating. I have a hard time discussing life with people who see life totally differently from me. Taiwan is a refreshing locale of “cultural autism” where I am free to be an illiterate fish out of water and only permit the information I want to reach me.
Thanks, because if you had made that comment, I would … hey!
I will tell you one thing, though. Even if there is a God and Christians turn out to be 100% right about everything, I’ll be perfectly happy to spend eternity in hell. It must be like paradise after the first billion years. Sadism, masochism … humans can get used to anything.