Hello from Sunny Philadelphia. At least I think it’s sunny, I’ve been inside all day at the Philadelphia Science Fiction Convention.I was invited to come to the convention to participate on panels — one entitled “Do you believe in Psychics”, tomorrow at noon. Other panels include the future and use of gods in fiction.BUT this time I brought a bunch of Atheist stuff, and placed it on the freebie table to give away. Guess what — most of it disappeared very quickly, because there is a large correlation between Sci-fi and Atheism. In fact, I meet lots of Atheists at these conventions.So here’s the question du jour: How many Atheists out there are sci-fi people, and how many of you know sci-fi Atheists? Should American Atheists sponsor a table at the next convention?
For some real science. I wish I had been there.
http://tsntv.org/
The conference “Beyond Belief”.
There are video links to the discussions.
Here is a news commentary,
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/21/science/21belief.html?_r=1&8dpc&oref=slogin
?We should let the success of the religious formula guide us,? Dr. Porco said. ?Let?s teach our children from a very young age about the story of the universe and its incredible richness and beauty. It is already so much more glorious and awesome ? and even comforting ? than anything offered by any scripture or God concept I know.?
And,
“By the third day, the arguments had become so heated that Dr. Konner was reminded of ?a den of vipers.?
?With a few notable exceptions,? he said, ?the viewpoints have run the gamut from A to B. Should we bash religion with a crowbar or only with a baseball bat??”
Who says scientists can’t have fun?
Thanks to all of you who commented on my son’s situation. I think I am more upset about it than he is. He is taking it in stride and will learn to be more PC in the future.
Always so nice to get helpful comments from this wonderful blog!
hello rainbows4dinosaurs:
i think we are getting away from the topic which is my fault, but i did want to answer your message.
re: “weak” and “strong” atheism – I think that belief is much more complex than just the 2 groups, especially, naming such groups as ?weak? and ?strong?? I do admit kinda embarrassingly that I don?t read as much as I would like to and perhaps your cataorization is a common academic terminology.
Perhaps, when I say there are several types of atheisms, I mean to say that there are several reasons people have reached this conclusion (such as there are several types of deists). Lets take for example freud who was an atheist who felt that the underlying reason of a belief in god had more to do with the psyche than an actual supernatural being; while on the other hand, sartre thought that the idea of god was a logical contradiction. There are also those atheist that have done several different things with there conclusion, such as gould, who expounds the scientific method, to those who expond a sense of social commitment to the other.
re: you not being able to handle cs lewis – I understand that you cant handle cs lewis?s sort of thinking, and as a matter of preference you would rather not read him, but there are others who as you say think his reasoning is sound and his arguments properly discussed and would consider you diluted, but alas, he is dead and I cant argue his case and we will let his work and your work stand side by side.
re: advances in science – I?m not sure whether we agree on the idea that advances in sciecnce has made the idea of god less interesting or necessary?I wont fill your ear with much here, but I think the consensus is that talking about god is interesting to people (this whole website is a huge discussion on god), and necessary to society at large as people feel that it effects people?s everyday lives and to what extent science can be used for.
re: about people changing their minds – So, we agree wholeheartedly that people can change their minds, cs lewis can be an atheist and become a theist and you who were once a theist can now become an atheist. There is some commonality in both of you I suppose, and I am sure you and he were sure before and after your miraculous transformations that you were both positive about the existence or the lack thereof of a god. And perhaps you may change your mind yet again, as perhaps lewis might have done if he had more time? I am glad to know you admit to being wrong once.
re: personal experience – You mentioned that science can be ?summed up as an ongoing effort to circumvent the bias of personal experience? ? those “ongoing efforts” must be done through personal experiences as by its very nature science stipulates that something being studied be an observable phenomena and be able to be tested and retested. Since your personal experience is not important in the grand scheme of things, you place your faith on other peoples experiences who have an authority to circumvent your bias (your experiential life, per se). in one sense, if the scientific community at large said this is your reality, you would be forced to concede along with them, much the same way that a catholic may concede his/her reality to the church?s hierarchy. If scientific concensus can be wrong which has been known to happen, and it is also ongoing, by its very definition, how is it that you can conclude with such certainty there is no god?
ps. pixel: good luck with your son, and i hope he is learning more than just being PC.
Chicagorick:
Re personal experiences there is a point I would add. Science is based on data gathered largely through experiments and it is true that those experiments are set up and observed through the personal experience of the researchers. However a key part of the scientific process is replication. You do not have a good, valid experiment if another scientist can’t pick up your method and do your experiment and despite their own personal experience get the same result.
So science is not as subjective as ?just a bunch of personal experiences? and past findings can be built on to with future research. Hence as rainbows4dinosaurs said science can be ?summed up as an ongoing effort to circumvent the bias of personal experience?.
Oh and don?t worry about going off topic ? we seem to do that a lot here.
chicagorick,
I’m finding it a bit challenging to parse your response. It almost seemed like you’re adding more to my statements than I intended. But upon further thought I think it more likely that we’re just not on the same page.
For instance:
Well then you are not talking about different shades of atheism. You are talking about different arguments for atheism, of which there are many (some better than others.) Please, let’s be clear.
Anyone schooled in the rules of argument and logic should be able to clearly see that Lewis bases most of his arguments on false dichotomies and circular reasoning. Logical fallacies are not simply unflattering interpretations by the opposing side. They are errors in logic, and you can’t hide from them. If there are those who indeed find his arguments persuasive, then it is because their own confirmation bias, their own need to believe at all costs, is so strong that they are willing to ignore, or perhaps they are incapable of perceiving, blatant logical inconsistencies.
Sure you can argue his case – what’s stopping you? If you’ve read any of his work than it is your right to form an opinion on his work, just as it is mine.
Yeah, just like talking about UFOs is interesting to people and talking about astrology is interesting to people and talking about ESP is interesting to people and talking about 9/11 conspiracy theories is interesting to people and talking about the Wicca Magic Love Goddess(TM) is interesting to people… I think you get my point.
As a long time patron, I would say that this whole website is devoted to people complaining about people who won’t shut up about God.
Um, could you be so kind as to refrain from describing my gradual realization as a ‘miraculous transformation’? It feels a bit awkward – perhaps even condescending.
Perhaps. It would have to either involve someone presenting an unlikely amount of evidence for God or an injury resulting in a certain amount of brain damage.
Cute. You know what? I thrive on being proven wrong. It gets me off – really. Prove me wrong, please. (seriously)
Yes, and then those results, as well as the exact methods by which the results were achieved, are published to the scientific community so that they can be repeatedly duplicated and confirmed – over and over and over.
The scientific method can be summed up thusly:
Ask a Question. Form a hypothetical answer based on relevant information. Do everything you can, through double-blind experimentation, to prove yourself wrong. Once you have results, publish them, whether or not those results conformed to your original hypothesis, and allow others in your field to create experiments that again attempt to prove your theory wrong. And it is an ongoing process for as long as science exists. Every truth is provisional, subjected to experimentation and adjusted as new evidence comes to light. As long as a truth continues to hold up, it’s true.
Contrast this method with religious dogma, which simply says “it is true because it is written.”
So which method do you think is our best bet for discovering truth?
I am as ‘certain’ that there is no God as I am ‘certain’ that there are no invisible dragons in your garage. I can not entirely disprove the existence of a herd of invisible dragons in your garage, but do I really have to? Besides, if science does one day find a supreme intelligence behind ‘life, the universe, and everything’, it will, without a shadow of a doubt, look nothing at all like Yahweh or Jesus or any of the other billion mythologies that have plagued our species. Of that I am certain.
“I think it more likely that we’re just not on the same page.”
yeah, i think i find it hard to explain myself and perhaps this is adding to the confusion.
so, yes, there are several arguments for atheism, thank you for clearifying my words. i should have said that instead of that there are several types of atheisms.
since you have been schooled in the rules of argument and logic, you obviously must know that your argument for your belief that there is no god is a belief and therefor not based on any science. therefore your belief in the lack of a god, just as lewis’s belief in god is faulty – perhaps some bias on your part. why do you need to belive at all cost that there is no god? why are you willing to ignore perhaps be incapable of perceiving that science cant disprove the existance of god?
I cant argue lewis’s case as i am not familiar enough with his work to be able to fairly defend his arguments.
(this whole website is a huge discussion on god)
As a long time patron, I would say that this whole website is devoted to people complaining about people who won’t shut up about God.
is that all that atheism is? how sad that the only purpose of your belief, or lack thereof is only to complain about people who talk about god.
…after your miraculous transformations…
Um, could you be so kind as to refrain from describing my gradual realization as a ‘miraculous transformation’? It feels a bit awkward – perhaps even condescending.
and dont you think it is condescending to say some of the stuff you say to others? why is it so troubling to you when people do the same thing you do to others who may not be as brilliant as you say you are?
I am glad you agree that there is something that will make you change your mind.
“ongoing efforts” must be done through personal experiences as by its very nature science stipulates that something being studied be an observable phenomena and be able to be tested and retested.
Yes, and then those results, as well as the exact methods by which the results were achieved, are published to the scientific community so that they can be repeatedly duplicated and confirmed – over and over and over.
The scientific method can be summed up thusly:
Ask a Question. Form a hypothetical answer based on relevant information. Do everything you can, through double-blind experimentation, to prove yourself wrong. Once you have results, publish them, whether or not those results conformed to your original hypothesis, and allow others in your field to create experiments that again attempt to prove your theory wrong. And it is an ongoing process for as long as science exists. Every truth is provisional, subjected to experimentation and adjusted as new evidence comes to light. As long as a truth continues to hold up, it’s true.
Contrast this method with religious dogma, which simply says “it is true because it is written.”
i really dont care about religious dogma, i am interested in your scientific argument that god does not exist. i will throw your definition of the scientific method back to you and hope you can explain scientifically that there is no god. perhaps that will get you off?
So which method do you think is our best bet for discovering truth?
i do not know, but i do not entirely throw out the idea of a personal experience. you just give more credability when others agree to a phenomena.
i am sure you are aware that your certainty is not based on any scientific critiria whatsoever, and that the scientific method does neither support or disprove your belief. of that i am sure. so, tell me why you do not belive in god based on the scientific method. i would be interested to hear this…
chicagorick,
Okay, lets back up a bit.
Again, it is not about the belief that there is no god. It is about the lack of a belief in god. It is very important that you understand this if you are to understand any of the other points I am making. When you tell me that I must be able to disprove the existence of god, you are effectively shifting the burden of proof. It is not the atheist who proposes that there is a supreme intelligence – creator of the universe, active in human affairs, all knowing, all loving, all judging, and scary. If someone makes such a claim, it is up to them to provide evidence. It is no more my responsibility to disprove the existence of such a being than it is my responsibility to disprove the existence of unicorns. That’s what the invisible dragon analogy was all about (not mine – got it from Carl Sagan’s ‘Demon Haunted World’).
Yes, I am fully aware that science can not disprove the existence of God. Nor can it disprove the existence of invisible dragons in your garage, especially if invisible dragon proponents were to claim that “invisible dragons are outside time and space” or “invisible dragons will not be tested,” which is exactly what theists tend to do all the time.
I never said or suggested that I “need to believe at all costs.” You are putting words in my mouth and using them to commit a tu quoque fallacy.
No. For the fourth time, atheism is not believing in a god or gods. That is all atheism is. I was commenting on the purpose of this blog, not atheism itself, and I was being facetious as usual.
Sure.
I was specifically troubled by the religious language you applied to my experience without you having any knowledge of my experience. Just as I am troubled by your insistence to label atheism as a belief system that must be proven. I am trying to correct your misconception.
I never claimed to be brilliant, I am merely asserting my position. Again, you’re putting words into my mouth, only this time you’re using them to erect a strawman.
Do you wish to help me change my mind about something? At this point I’m not even sure what your position is.
And again, to clarify: I merely brought up the scientific method to argue that it is a more reliable method for discovering truth than personal experience – to illustrate that yes, I can discount one man’s personal experience when it comes to whether or not a certain proposition is true. It simply takes more than one man.
So you don’t care about religious dogma? I’m perplexed. What is your position? Where are you coming from?
No I do not – it is not a simple appeal to popularity. It is an appeal to the evidence. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
chicagorick
I just reread your last post and realized that I missed one of your points.
I’m sure there is plenty of bias on my part, but I at least attempt to curb it with skepticism – I don’t need to reject god because of some selfish reason. If god belief were somehow proven true then I would have no choice but to believe, whether I wished to or not.
Like I said, I am plenty capable I perceiving the fact that science cannot disprove the general idea of god (though science has certainly disproved many other ideas surround traditional monotheism including the fact that the universe wasn’t created in six days, the fact that there are no angles in the sky, the fact that there has never been a world-wide flood, and that it is extremely probable that dinosaurs saw rainbows too.)
When theists try to use the fact that one cannot disprove the existence of God as some sort of argument for the existence of God, they are operating under the assumption that both the existence of God and the non-existence of God is equally likely, and this is simply not true – not even close. Belief in God requires acceptance of a long list of unlikely assumptions, many of which contradict our current understanding of the universe. In fact, all of these assumptions are either emotional in nature (Ex: “I feel like God exists”) or they are derived from authoritative assertions based on either questionable evidence or no evidence at all (Ex: “Because the Bible says so.”)
Atheism is a position of economy based on a meritocratic world view (ideas only survive on their evidential merits.) The meritocratic world view assumes nothing, then builds up knowledge of the world from that clean slate. The religious world view starts off with many assumptions, then attempts to defend those assumptions as long as it can, even when the evidence overwhelmingly contradicts those assumptions. In this way, atheism is perhaps the best example of Occam’s Razor in action – we reject belief in God because belief in God requires too many assumptions that can not be supported.
That’s all there is too it.
First of all rainbows4dinosaurs, I want to thank you for your time in answering my often weird questions. I want to apologize for putting words in your mouth, and offending you.
Now, i do request a little more of your time so i want to go briefly to your example –
The question is: is there an invisible dragon in my garage?
The believer says YES, there is an invisible dragon in my garage.
The non-believer says NO, there is not an invisible dragon in my garage.
(Note: the non-believer has taken a position in the negative of the question. Let us be clear, that the non-believer has not said that they don?t know if there is an invisible dragon, neither have they said that they do not understand the meaning of an invisible dragon to be able to answer the question, but rather that there is no invisible dragon in my garage.)
you say that you are certain that there is no invisible dragon.
From our brief conversation you have mentioned that
1. you have determined that the scientific method is the best tool to use to determine truth
2. you are fully aware that science cannot disprove the invisible dragon in my garage
3. you are certain that there is no invisible dragon in my garage
I am asking you, personally, how do you know that there is no invisible dragon in my garage? I am assuming that this conclusion falls outside of the scientific method, by what you have already said. What would you call a conclusion that falls outside the best tool you have for determining truth?
I have not shifted the burden of proof to you as some sort of manipulation on my part. You have made a statement, I am just calling you on it to help me understand why you have come to this conclusion with such certainty and without the help of the scientific method.
chicagorick,
If I may interject…
The skeptic’s position is to assume nothing. ie. that the garage is empty.
WE then look at the evidence in support of the assertion that there is an invisible dragon there. If the evidence is weak or non-existent, then the default position remains ie. there is no good reason to believe there is an invisible dragon in the garage.
We can approximate this conclusion to state that there is no invisible dragon in the garage.
Much in the same way that we might approximate the statement “there is insufficient reason to believe in the existence of gods” to “there are no existing gods”.
Hope that helps..
quick points:
the metritocratic idea is an interetesting hope. but you and i both know that there is no such things as a clean slate in anything. a world view that has no assumptions??
i am not going to argue for the existance of god, so be safe in that knowledge. i am not trying to GET you on anything. i am not trying to manipulate you into making you a believer of any kind. i am not trying to convince you about anything, nor change your mind.
hello heatheNZ – an atheist is not a full sceptic because some atheists have made a statement and have come to a specific conclusion. again, stating that they know/belive that there is no invisable dragon in the garage. a skeptic, perhaps an agnostic, per say, takes the postion that you have mentioned. i hope this helps clarify.
This is the common definition according to theists. It’s an easy position to argue against – but also one that does not describe most atheists. I have yet to meet an atheist that takes this position. However in theory such a viewpoint is a subset of the atheist position.
You may like to read the wikipedia entry for atheism – it describes the situation better than I am able
hi heatheNZ:
do you see how rainbows4dinosaurs position is not what you define as a sceptic (i.e. to assume nothing)? he has taken a position to the negative of the question, i am just interested on how he arrived at his certainty.
Note: the definition you provided for us may help clearify: he is not in the position of number [4] (cf. nontheism). he is not saying that he does not understand the idea of an invisable dragon, but rather that there is no invisable dragon there.
if you go down further the site you took the definition from, you will find a similar thought:
“While it is rare to find a general-use dictionary that explicitly acknowledges “absence of theism” as a true form of atheism, numerous ones recognize the positive definition of atheism, as a “belief” or “doctrine”. This reflects the general public’s view of atheism as a specific ideological stance, as opposed to the simple absence of a belief.[34]“
perhaps you might like to take a stab at the question? perhaps you might state for us how you perhaps disagree with rainbows4dinosaurs? maybe, you would like to take a position? is there an invisable dragon in my garage?
ps. i am not a christian, nor a theist, and i am not taking the position of theists. please understand that.
hope this helps.
chicagorick
No, I am not. This is what I said:
and
Again, you are either putting words into my mouth to help your argument, or you simply haven’t understood me, which may be my own fault.
Let me try again:
If I were to tell you that I am certain there is an invisible dragon in my garage that can not be observed by any scientific instrument, would you seriously take the position of an invisible dragon agnostic? Would you seriously say “well, perhaps there is an invisible dragon in his garage – I cannot disprove its existence, so who am I to say?” I doubt it.
There are many strange and imaginative notions that we cannot totally disprove, but we do not claim to be agnostic about them. Most of us are sure that there are no fairy godmothers, no unicorns, no Zeus atop Mount Olympus, no leprechauns hiding behind the bushes, and no celestial teapots in orbit around Jupiter. We are all, practically, non-believers with respect to these ideas. An atheist simply says that there isn’t any more reason to believe in Yahweh, the risen Jesus, Allah, or the Quantum Love God of the Ramtha School Of Enlightenment than there is reason to believe in Zeus, Thor, Osiris, fairy godmothers, wicked witches, or zombies. We are all, practically, atheists in regards to most of the beliefs historically cherished by mankind. It just so happens that those who choose to use the ‘atheist’ moniker feel the same way about all of these notions, as opposed to just most of them.
As for your question to HeatheNZ about the colloquial use of the word ‘atheist,’ it is true that most dictionaries, especially older ones, tend to define atheism as either ‘the belief that there is no god or gods’ or ‘the rejection of God.’ We have to remember that dictionaries do not provide us with static definitions, they provide us with current usages, and usages are usually determined by the majority (atheists, however they may have chosen to define themselves, have seldom been consulted in these decisions.) In fact, many of my favorite skeptics have, at one time or another, chosen to use the moniker ‘agnostic’ for this very reason.
I suppose that, technically, I am an agnostic too. But in practice it makes more sense to me to refer to myself as an atheist. It has been my experience that if you tell a theist that you’re an agnostic, they tend to regard that statement as some sort of invitation – almost like leaving the front door open. Also, it doesn’t really seem like much of a position at all, for in my view, if agnosticism is to be defined as not knowing whether or not god exists, then we are all (theist and non-theist alike,) technically, agnostics. In my opinion, this is not a tenable position. The theist has taken a strong position on god belief, and his position directly effects my life through his influence in our culture and our politics. I simply feel a responsibility to take a strong position as well.
I hesitate to speak for all atheists but in my experienced when pushed (like the argument in this thread) most will admit to technical agnosticism. We know that we can’t prove there is no god but it is the reasonable default position. I don’t call myself agnostic because that implies (in my mind) not only we can’t know if there is or is not a god but also that those positions are somehow equal or balanced. I don’t think that is the case. In the absence of evidence believing in something fantastic and supernatural is more of a leap that thinking there is most likely no such being.
Do I get extra points for being an Atheist who enjoys Science Fiction and went to Philcon last year and this year, both times attending panels you were in? I should say Hi next time.
I think it would be great for the American Atheists to sponser a table at Philcon next year.
I attribute my agnosticism largely to a steady diet of sci fi between grade 2 and grade 7, when I first remember that I was “agnostic.”
After all the molecules in your body decide to drop their agendas and adjourn, there are three possibilities that you do know for sure.
You will be happier.
You will be in about the same mood.
You will be less happy.
2 out of three is not bad. Beyond that, you know nothing ! You can’t prove God, and you can’t prove not existence.
Heinlein was a strong influence, as was the Kuttner family (Lewis Padgett)