“Without proof, belief is still belief – even if you believe in nothing.”
- Xenocrates
Is Atheism a religious belief? Most would argue no, since atheism is purportedly anything but religious. However, of late I’ve been observing a pattern among atheists that has made the entire movement frightfully indiscernible in motive from the very religious proponents they seek to rebut. The trouble lies in the fact that the argument between the two camps is about insubstantial belief – something that is unquantifiable one way or another. As a result, both sides of the fence are making all of the same mistakes – which is why their motivations must be called into question. That is the point of this post. Nonbelievers and people with imaginary friends, follow me for a moment. I have a few things I want to pick your brains about.
The Personality of Atheism
Atheists are not intrinsically bad people. Many of them are just individuals who’ve become frustrated with the fallacies and bigotry of religion in their genuine quest to find answers. It could happen to anybody quite frankly. In fact, many of the people who are openly atheist actually grew up in strong religious circles. Of course, what usually happens is that during the teen years, they started to ask questions that no one could answer. That’s when they pretty much stopped drinking the Kool Aid™ – so to speak.
However, along the way many of them have become cold, cynical, vitriolic and calculating towards their theist counterparts. This is despite the fact that the original premise behind the atheistic movement is one that encourages open thought and debate born out of humility while eschewing bigotry and fundamentalism. This I can work with. Today however, a lot of it is becoming something else altogether and quite frankly, that bothers me for all the same reasons overzealous Christians do.
Atheists have tried so hard to separate themselves from religious movements, that they have become anything but. They’ve got their own gatherings, teachings, ritualistic argumentative techniques, pamphlets, websites, evangelists and yes, even radio and TV broadcasts. In fact, in the recent Bill Maher film “Religulous“, he makes no bones about being an evangelist of doubt. Others like the Rational Response Squad act as a support community for fledgling Atheists just “coming out of the closet.” If the whole idea of atheism hasn’t started to smack of hypocrisy by now, read on.
The Deep Thinkers
The people who become atheists are usually more left brain reliant than those who are more inclined to be religious (which is also why the average atheist is likely to be male). This gives all atheists a clear cognitive advantage over most theists. Being predominantly left brained means they’re more rationally inclined and thus better able to formulate what appear to be solid, compelling arguments. It’s really nothing more than needless brain gymnastics, but I’ll get to that in another post.
These deep thinkers can see logical flaws in traditionally accepted arguments that are often overlooked by most theists. The average layman is often no match for a scientist in a game of logic. This is why most times, the average theist is no match for the average atheist in a full-on religious debate. Most theists don’t feel inadequate enough about their belief to question it (and to be honest, they are by extension quite gullible). So when a religious subscriber goes up against an atheist, most of the times it’s the same thing as pitting Bambi against Godzilla.
An atheist’s heavy reliance on logic often inhibits that emotional propensity that would facilitate any meaningful religious subscription. So if religion is right, people who are likely to become atheists would be doomed by virtue of being insufficiently right brained to possess the capacity for any religious affinity. That makes most discussions about the utility of religion utterly meaningless with most atheists – yet people do it anyway. (More on this later).
There is nothing inherently wrong with being a deep thinker. It’s a very useful skill to have – especially when it comes to sniffing out con-artists, zealots, fascists, bigots, right-wing fundamentalist presidents and every baddie in between who comes “in the name of the Lord“. The problem however is that deep thinkers have tendency to think that because they’ve thought so much about an issue, they couldn’t possibly be wrong – and thus the inherent arrogance of Atheism presents itself.
The Arrogant
Not surprisingly, many of the people who are atheists are also members of the scientific community. So it’s not hard to see where some of the arrogance comes from. Unfortunately, their strong cognitive affinity is also what often gives them the propensity to observe everything in tunnel vision. They’ve spent so much time observing a problem one way, that they often forget that it can be observed in another – and this is usually what frustrates them.
Remember when scientists thought that Evolutionary theory was airtight? This is not unlike the religious pundits who assert with impunity that one religion is better than another. It’s the same kind of arrogance – just a different source. After fielding hundreds of questions that exposed clear gaps in theories proposed by Darwin and his contemporaries, scientists later had the good sense to remind themselves that sequence does not necessarily imply causation as no one lives long enough to see evolution in action. That’s why it’s still just a theory.
Even so, people often forget that nothing is absolutely certain. Anyone who has faith in science should know that even proof can be overturned. The better scientists out there always temper their declarations around this idea. Yet, the arrogance persists among atheists who frequently quote science as their Bible of sorts. Even with science, we can’t know everything for certain. That’s why we have faith that our empirical proof is trustworthy.
Even so, we’ve only certified our proof to be trustworthy so far. We have faith that the proof will remain true for all instances throughout the universe. But on more than one occasion, that proof has failed us, because we realised that we didn’t fully understand it. That’s why our trust in science is based on faith – regardless of the method or degree of meticulous scrutiny. As such, science is nothing more than a well structured religion. This is where the duplicity of Atheism exposes itself.
The Duplicitous
I’ve discovered that in most cases, Atheists primarily attack religions that won’t fight back (anymore). Atheists have gone ballistic on Christianity (and so have I) – but have been rather slow about attacking Islam by comparison. This is not hard to understand. While most Christians will at most hurl verbiage back at them, Muslims are not timid about going on the offensive with a view to draw blood for the smallest insult – even if it costs them their own lives.
So I’ve got to ask: Are there any atheists out there who are willing to die for the cause? Most probably not. It’s highly likely that they subscribe to the notion that death is final and therefore one should live their life to the fullest. Therefore that most certainly does not include blowing one’s self up for nothing. Pun intended.
Christianity is easy to attack because it is passive and ubiquitous – like how Microsoft Windows is preyed upon by hackers who avoid Linux. 1200 years ago though, atheists would never do that. They’d run the risk of being burned alive at the stake. They, more than anyone else, are grateful for freedom of speech – which they simultaneously use to attack other’s freedom of religion. Fascinating, isn’t it?
That is why I’m curious about the following things: Why do unbelievers issue a challenge to folks who are religiously aligned to commit blasphemy? Why hurl foul language at those who believe just because they want to? How does that make one who chooses not to believe any better than the zealots who do? To what extent must those who choose not to believe commit the same ideological crime as those who choose to? Why debate the idea of belief with a believer, when the only difference is the method of the belief? Speaking of debates;
The Futility of Debating Belief
I’ve been in many religious debates and in retrospect, I’ve learned that for the most part, they serve very little useful purpose. My eyes were opened when I first realised that most of these debates are driven by the same forces. People who believe in a thing don’t necessarily do so because it makes sense. They do so because they choose to. This goes for both atheists and religious pundits alike. This is what automatically renders such debate pointless.
You can’t use logic to convince someone who chooses to believe to drop their faith. Similarly, you can’t convince someone who uses logic to convince themselves not to believe to emotively connect with spurious ideology. So unless there an obvious and risible reason to engage in such debate (such as the imposition on the freedoms of others), the debate is most probably a waste of time. After all, these debates are all about speculation, not fact.
Is Atheism a Belief?
Some atheists may be wondering at this point; “You’re talking about belief. So what does this have to do with atheism?” Everything, quite frankly. Being an atheist doesn’t mean that one is absolved of belief. It only means that (as one atheist so aptly put it), the belief is limited to “one less god” than their monotheistic counterparts ascribe to. Believing in no god of any sort is still a belief. It is just as unquantifiable as belief in one.
I know what you’re thinking: “But the burden proof lies on those who posit that God exists”. Does it really? Not quite. Neither side of the argument has any credence over the other since both require evidence beyond our capacity to produce. You can’t unequivocally prove or disprove God using empirical evidence as it is subject to interpretation. There is no right or wrong answer with interpretation since it is entirely subjective.
Here’s the problem; Where one person sees chaos, another may see harmony. We can debate both terms until the universe expands into infinity – but it won’t make a difference. The bottom line is that both ideas are still theories. There is no way to substantially and unequivocally quantify either. The godless infinite universe is a theory. The finite, God created universe is also a theory. Until we build a spaceship that can traverse space/time – they will remain just that: Theories.
What do we know about theories? They help us to make sense of the universe. However, they are nothing more than speculations based on (possibly misinterpreted) observations of our universe. So when we debate theories, we can’t do it under the premise that they are infallible. Otherwise these kinds of debates will all fail for the same reason. Without proof, belief is still belief – even if you believe in nothing.
The Debate is Debatable
So if these are just theories, why get into debates about it? The motive is simple. Each side of the fence cares only about validating what they believe – not to the other party, but to themselves. Each debater is only concerned about stating his point and convincing the other that their point is the only valid one. Neither has any intention of conceding any point because it would put a dent in their own belief system – and neither side wants that.
This is what creates debates that go round and round in vicious, often hostile cycles. Both parties are debating speculative points. Neither side can unequivocally prove what they chose to believe. Both sides are trying to indoctrinate each other. Neither side is prepared to learn anything from the other. This is the definition of deadlock where both parties have become intertwined in an endless, circular battle of “pin the tail on the fallacy“.
Finding a way out of such discussions is hard, as ego quickly becomes the primary motivator on both sides. That’s when the ad hominen remarks start to fly, particularly when the offending debater runs out of ammunition. It never fails. This is why, more often than not, the only people who bother with such debates in the first place are those who care less about its futility and more about justifying their opinion to themselves. Concordantly, such debates are rarely useful for anything more than ego propping and chest beating.
The Closed Minded Attitude
Someone who is compelled to believe one thing (or has already made up their mind to hold on to a particular concept) has no reason to be engaged in a debate of any kind. Why debate an idea that relies on faith when you’ve already made up your mind? It’s a useless waste of time for both parties. The exercise is useful for nothing more than meaningless brain gymnastics (which I will demonstrate in later posts).
For example: One atheist told me recently that he “has no room in his life for God“. If that is so, why argue with a theist about whether or not God exists? How is that different from a Muslim who says “Allah or death” or a Christian who says “Jesus is the only way“? Isn’t that the same kind of close minded attitude? If someone declares that there is a God (in whatever nonsensical manner he goes about doing so), how is an atheist who chooses to argue with him any different from a theist who proactively goes out to promote their faith? Isn’t that the same thing?
I’ve long discovered that debating the existence of God with atheists often proves to be just as fruitless as debating the Sabbath with Seventh Day Adventists, the credibility of Joseph Smith with Mormons, the definition of the Soul with Jehovah’s Witnesses, the duplicity of the prophet Mohammad with Muslims and any key point of contention with any other flavour of faith out there. Yes. I’m using the right word when I say “faith“. Get over it.
Irrespective of what people believe, they have already been deeply rooted into what they believe. Unless they have an open mind, the debate is useless. All religious debates are about speculative ideas. So the motive that many atheists have in their debate is not very different from that of many people who subscribe to religion. Thankfully, this is obviously of course, not a description of all atheists.
The Ulterior Motive
Some atheists disbelieve in God because they genuinely have doubts about the far flung nature of religious belief. Unless you were socially programmed by your parents as a child, it does require a great deal of suspension of rationality to believe in a 5,000 year old mythology imbibed from the Egyptians – and that is understandable. You can tell who those atheists are, because they don’t dictate what they believe. They ask questions. Their motive is driven by genuine humility, curiosity and a desire to learn.
Other atheists however have gone off the deep end and are indistinguishable from your average run-of-the mill religious zealot. They’re the ones who hurl obscenities at religious pundits, infringe on others’ freedom of religion and generally hate (and I’m not using the wrong word here) virtually anyone who has even so much as an imaginary friend. They are bothered by the irrationality of behaviour tied to religion because they see it as a threat to society, even in its most benign and inconspicuous form.
The atheists in the latter category scare me quite frankly, because they often obscure the atheists in the former. Just as how people have used religion to justify horrific behaviour in the past, these anti-Christs can use very compelling logic to justify why religious subscribers are dangerous to society. It’s really not hard to do, since a good logically structured argument is always compelling, whether it is pro or anti-religion, and irrespective of whether or not it actually makes sense.
Just as how a religious zealot in a position of power can incite a war that claimed the lives of thousands of people with an ulterior motive, a strong atheist in a position of power is not very far away from inciting a violent, anti-religious revolution under the guise of social reform. This is why I fear aggressive atheists for all the same reasons I fear aggressive religious pundits. If they could get their hands on a pen that is mightier than the sword, then may God, (irrespective of whether he exists or not), help us all.
Conclusion
Atheists who are just unconvinced about the existence of God are the true representatives of the movement. I think a good healthy provocative discussion is useful for keeping everyone relatively critical to avoid deception. I think it’s good that people are provoked into keeping an open mind about things. Chalking up everything that we can’t explain to mythology does defeat the object of cognitive evolution. We are too old a civilization to still be doing that. However, we mustn’t use that knowledge to believe that our ape brains have limitless potential.
Atheists who go about challenging the right of others to practice their religion in peace, provoking anger through indoctrination, hurling obscenities at religious pundits who question their motive and openly mocking religion for sport are not true atheists. They are bullies – plain and simple. They are no different from the Muslims who use fear to spread their religion, or the Christians who destroy families “in the name of the Lord“.
Atheism is a means for these bullies to compartmentalize their hostility, thus justifying their inexcusable behaviour. Such atheists are dangerous for all the same reasons religion can be dangerous, because they’re doing exactly the same thing – just under a different banner.
Atheism and Religion are two sides to the same coin. They have two views and opposing faces. However, they are each derived for the same purpose and motive; the innate propensity of mankind to attempt the act of making sense of his universe. It doesn’t matter what you choose to believe in that context as it has little or no consequence without motive.
Motive more than anything else defines what we believe. One may choose to believe that there is no God because it makes their life easier. It does free one from the responsibility of thinking that their past deeds are going to catch up with them. It is truly liberating. On the other hand, one may believe that God exists because it makes life more soluble. It does inspire hope to think that there is life after death. Motive gives both sides of the fence traction and purpose. It has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not it is quantifiable, provable or justifiable.
Every religious person who chooses to believe can give you a reason (not necessarily a sensible one) but a reason none the less, why they believe. Every non-religious person can do the same. So the question is really not what you believe, or how you came to believe, but why. The best way to answer this question is to ask yourself:
How would I feel if there really was (in the case of Atheists) or wasn’t (in the case of theists) a God?
In answering this question, some atheists would respond that they would choose not to worship a tyrant. Some theists would respond that they would feel a sense of hopelessness. Either way, if we had the capacity to truly and honestly answer that question, then the real motive behind of our belief would be immediately exposed.
15 comments
Comments feed for this article
February 21, 2009 at 11:45 pm
Aristotle The Geek
# “Is Atheism a religious belief?”
Atheism is the refusal to believe in a supernatural entity – God, or to put it plainly, anything supernatural. If that is a religious belief, so be it; after all, what’s in a name? The main point is that it means adopting a rational, scientific attitude towards life – that is all that matters.
# “However, along the way many of them have become cold, cynical, vitriolic and calculating towards their theist counterparts.”
That, in my opinion, has more to do with the discrimination and the “burn in hell” tirades they might be facing, or might have heard other atheists who “came out of the closet” facing, than anything else. I haven’t had to deal with that stuff, though.
# “I’ve discovered that in most cases, Atheists primarily attack religions that won’t fight back (anymore). Atheists have gone ballistic on Christianity (and so have I) – but have been rather slow about attacking Islam by comparison.”
You have covered your bases by using “most cases,” and therefore are correct. And that’s because they don’t have a death wish – they don’t want to get stabbed like Theo Van Gogh, or have their heads chopped off. But don’t let Christianity off the hook just yet. Hope you have heard about this.
# “They, more than anyone else, are grateful for freedom of speech – which they simultaneously use to attack other’s freedom of religion.”
I don’t know your political leanings. I, on the other hand, am a libertarian. And for me “freedom of speech” has a different meaning compared to what the law in most countries says. As long as someone doesn’t use physical violence, or issues threats where violence is imminent, anything goes as far as speech is concerned – abuse, slander, libel, defamation, hate speech etc etc etc. So atheists and Christians are more than welcome to trade insults. But let’s draw the line there. It follows then, that abuse is not an attack on freedom of religion. If that were the case, the Bible is then an attack on every other religion. And so is every other religious book.
# “I’ve been in many religious debates and in retrospect, I’ve learned that for the most part, they serve very little useful purpose.”
You are right. Nothing can convince a man who does not want to be convinced – either way. The change, from theism to atheism, or the reverse, has to come from within. Arguments give food for thought, nothing more.
# “This is why I fear aggressive atheists for all the same reasons I fear aggressive religious pundits.”
The communists did try it in Russia. And Belarus is still doing it. So are the Iranians, but on religious grounds. But this – enforcing your beliefs on others – comes not from atheism, but from the inability to comprehend the meaning of freedom, from the inner dictator.
The bottom line is – believe what you want to believe, but don’t try to legally enforce your beliefs.
February 25, 2009 at 5:24 am
Alamanach
Very good post, I liked that.
February 26, 2009 at 8:07 pm
LoneWolf
Nice balancing act, there’s not much room for disagreement. It probably won’t affect readers one way or the other.
They’ll just read the post and go blank since you successfully balanced your self on a tight rope, not sure if that was your aim.
February 28, 2009 at 10:46 pm
xenlogic
For a topic as epic as this one, you have to lay the ground work for the imminent assault later. Tossing everything into one post is a bad idea. Stuff just gets lost in the exegesis. Small portions digest a lot easier.
March 1, 2009 at 8:40 am
Ben Myers
I feel that those of us who come down on the side of evangelism are often unfairly demonized (pun intended). People get mad and argue that we use the same tactics as religion without reflecting on the fact that it is not the tactics that I oppose, but the beliefs themselves. If were to turn this same energy to eradicating the world of homophobia, racism, AIDS, world hunger, etc. people would say “right on” and give us a pat on the back. But when we turn it to opposing a system that produces untold suffering, bigotry, irrational voting patterns, awful foreign policy, squanders human capital and makes people wake up early on Sunday (and you have to raise your susceptible children to unquestioningly believe the same thing), people say “there is a time and a place.” There is never a time and a place where people should be sheltered from having to provide reasonable justification for their actions. If religion was benign, I would be right there, but it is far from benign and is one of the worse social diseases we have.
In his fantastic book, “The Secular Conscience,” Austin Dacey explains that “susceptibility to public criticism is the price of admission to public debate. Religious conscious [should] not get in free”. The thing is that I think Christians know this. I know that I did when I was a Christian. I knew that there were questions that I simply could not answer and I actively avoided them. I would never get into conversations with atheists, because I knew they could always “win” and I was forced to deal with my cognitive dissonance. It is the duty of those of us who do not support the system to not give religious people cover. We have to make them answer the questions, for any belief system needs to be accountable. Atheism should be held accountable as well, the difference is that we don’t answer these questions with faith, but instead with reasons which can be defended or not. If not, we can let go of any idea.
I did not ask to be put on a planet with 5 billion people who believe in something that there is as much evidence for as Big Bird.
As far as the certainty of atheism goes, yeah I am pretty certain that I am ok attacking religion. People who advocate that atheism is a belief have not really thought it through. For the sake of argument let’s just imagine there were only 100 mutually exclusive religions (there are way more in fact). These religions can’t all be true because they all rest on the fact that the others are wrong, and this is usually a central tenet. If I subscribe to one I have a 1% chance of being right. In reality, the chances are much smaller of getting the “right one.” Even if I was wrong, say Islam turned out to be the “right” one, I am sure Allah would be happier that I railed against Christianity as opposed to worshipping Jehovah. Maybe I would get a “lighter sentence.” It is not a zero sum game we are playing. The concept of god is not a yes/no switch. People seem to assume that the choices are atheism or their religion. So yes, it is technically possible that I am wrong, but it is equally likely that any religious person pulled at random is wrong. A more sensible alternative is that this whole thing is a charade/con.
March 1, 2009 at 9:52 am
Mike
Just passing by. Btw, your website has great content!
March 7, 2009 at 4:50 am
Alamanach
“Without proof, belief is still belief – even if you believe in nothing.”
Come to think of it, couldn’t we also say that with proof, belief is still belief?
If A then B is B.
If ~A then B is B.
~A
Therefore, B is B
March 7, 2009 at 9:03 am
xenlogic
Yes actually. That line could’ve also read “Even with proof, belief is still belief as proof is subject to interpretation“. Unfortunately, saying it that way defeats the purpose of the sentence when the target audience is inclined to read it one way as opposed to another.
March 7, 2009 at 9:32 am
xenlogic
Sir Aristotle,
I concur. But rationality can be found in theism as well. Not all theists subscribe to loose doctrine and the religious ambiguity purported by zealots.
That may be true. However, if we are going to be rational people, we must continue to uphold rationality, at all costs. Stooping to the level of zealots makes those atheists no different from the zealots they disagree with.
The ills of religion aren’t partial to any specific religion. Religious zealots are dangerous. Whether they subscribe to Allah or Jesus is moot. Theo Van Gogh’s case is unfortunate, but his sacrifice awoke the rational minds of The Netherlands to not simply turn a blind eye to the people who they have let invade their culture. Northern Europe needed a wake up call to the infestation of religious extremism. It must be stopped. Unfortunately, there can be no remission without the shedding of blood.
I disagree. You can attack with verbiage just as much as you can do with physicality. The right to freedom is not a right to oppression.
As far as I know, the Bible doesn’t hurl expletives at other religions. If you know different, I am open to enlightenment. I know Christians who have, however, attacked other religions. Christianity doesn’t led itself to much open mindedness. I can’t speak to other religious texts, as my exposure to them is limited.
I concur.
March 7, 2009 at 11:26 am
xenlogic
Sir Myers,
How we disagree is usually more important than why. I can (and have) disagreed with Christians about its teachings for decades. However, if I were to use the same dirty tactics Christians use to query other beliefs, I’d be nothing more than a hypocrite and the message would be lost.
…and this is why I think it is critical that rational thinkers effectively differentiate themselves form those they seek to criticize. Hypocrisy defeats any argument put forward, no matter how logically sound it is.
Religion is intrinsically benign. The people who use it to commit evil are not. Religious zealousy is propagated by the same psycho-social phenomenon that causes people to be fiercely loyal to a team, a club, a fraternity, a social network, a country, a political party or any other demographic. You can find oppression based on loyalty anywhere you go. It’s just that religiously motivated oppression is more conspicuous.
Of course they do. That’s how we know many are outright hypocrites. It’s the hypocrites in atheism who are harder to spot.
I wish all atheists were this honest. Unfortunately, such has not been my experience. Human nature governs our behaviour irrespective of what we choose to believe.
If you really think about it, this is probably the strongest argument that atheists can use. When I first started to argue against religion, I found that these contemptuous flaws were my greatest point of frustration.
I have come to that conclusion many times – but not just of religion. I at times think that religion is but one of the products of man’s inherent propensity for ideological representation, leading us to where we are today. However, political, social, cultural and philosophical ideology all suffer from the same deficit: They are all driven by environmentally induced preference – not rationality. This is why I had a problem with atheism. I think the voices of the few honest people who had genuine doubt are being drowned out by others who appear to have an ulterior motive – which is not unlike what happens in religion. For example:
When they first rallied for removing religion from schools, it was a sign to me that the people who subscribe to anti-religious views are not quite as benign as they claim to be. Why not just establish a school that promotes secularism instead of bearing down on those that promote theism? Every child is a blank slate. So there is nothing to indoctrinate them from. Anything they are taught constitutes social programming of some kind. Thus picking one over another is a personal choice. Atheists who object to the theistic teachings in school should only be concerned about their own children, not everyone else’s.
This hypocrisy exposes atheist pundits as committing the same ideological sins as their counter-parts. They would have been better off saying that “I don’t want my child to believe in religion“, leaving other people free to allow their children to be otherwise programmed. Attempting to remove religious programming from the system altogether however, infracts on the rights of those who wish to subscribe thereto. So it doesn’t matter whether you’re atheist or religious. Your motive says everything about what you believe but lends no credibility to it whatsoever.
April 14, 2009 at 11:11 pm
Atheism Exposed: Skepticism « The World According to Xenocrates
[...] Some theists have argued that such atheists are simply being stubborn and are too overtaken by their own self importance. While that may be true in many cases, there is enough evidence to the contrary. Personally, I think many atheists are genuinely in search of the truth and prefer to think that some god could exist. It certainly beats the idea that everything ends with death. However, as I mentioned before, motivation has a lot to do with belief. [...]
June 14, 2009 at 1:16 am
AW
Ahhhh, the old ‘Evolution is just a THEORY!’ trope.
Do us all a favour: check out the SCIENTIFIC meaning of theory, and have a look at the Wikipedia page on evolution.
It doesn’t mean what you think it means.
Seriously, if you want people (especially atheists) to respect your opinions, you should have at least some awareness of one of the most over-explained issues in this entire science-religion debate.
Quick Summary: The Theory of Evolution, like Germ Theory and the Atomic Theory of Matter, is an explanation that accounts for certain observations made of the universe. A law is a mathematical (or quantitative) description of an observation made about the universe (i.e. an equation, which describes the relationship between two things, but doesn’t say WHY they’re related.)
Basic summary: The LAW of gravity is f=K(g*G)/r*r, or, in english, “The force of gravity between two objects is equal to their masses multiplied by each other, divided by the square of the distance between them, times a constant”.
The THEORY of gravity would be an explanation of why this reationship existed – why the constant K is what it is, and why it’s the inverse square as opposed to inverse cubed, or whatever. Einstein’s Theory of General Relativity (think of spacetime as a rubber sheet distorted by mass) is an okay description of this phenomenon, but we know it has flaws, and needs to be replaced by a Quantum Theory of Gravity.
Evolution is much more completely understood than gravity, in part because all the things that participate in evolution (organisms and their genome) exists on levels of reality we have full access to. Gravity is much more fundamental, and thus much more difficult to observe/measure/study.
Wow. Long post.
Anyway, hope this helps.
June 14, 2009 at 4:42 am
xenlogic
Umm… thanks? *scratches head*
October 20, 2009 at 8:16 am
Blake
Atheism is the lack of a belief in a deity. That is all it is. Nothing more. Anyone who says it is a religion is ignorant.
October 22, 2009 at 5:02 pm
Richard Reinertson
Your thoughts fall almost entirely in line with mine, and are well articulated. Most atheists I’ve encountered are as likely as theists to promote their beliefs at the expense of intellectual honesty and personal integrity.
I do however take issue with your statement that “the theory of evolution is only a theory.” I’m confident that more knowledge of the evidence justifying the theory and of the actual definition of the term “theory” as used in science would modify your thinking.
I was curious about your repeated use of the term “imaginary friends.” I might check out more of your site to see if you elaborate on that reference elsewhere. I suppose I might fall into the category of people who have imaginary friends, except that the people I talk to who are not physically present are not imaginary. I have confirmed my telepathic communications with a couple of people on different occasions. I would probably be a theist even without this personal, anecdotal evidence, but the evidence definitely supports my beliefs in a spiritual dimension, which in turn supports my beliefs in “God” – though I have little use for religion. Of course one generally sees only what supports one’s beliefs – by the same token some things that are in fact true may never be noticed UNLESS one chooses to look for them.
One of the challenges of having our thoughts confined within a human brain is that some parts function better than others in different people, and also once a neural pathway is traveled to the extent that it becomes a 12-lane neural highway, it’s nearly impossible to find a side path, even though a side path might lead to the Promised Land.
I like to think that my strenuous reality checking and exhaustive self-searching have brought me within close proximity to “objectivity” in my chosen field of inquiry.
The universe is a very big place, and we still know so little.