Faith, Religion and Atheism

[yrieithydd]

cartesiandaemon and I appear to be having TGGD in comments on other people's journals. This seems unfair the owners of those journals, especially the_alchemist as her post was about vegetarian food in India, but to an extent to mr_ricarno even though it is rather more relevant to his post on a debate on the place of faith in national life, so I thought I'd bring the comments and response together on my own journal!


purplepiano wrote:

I know it's more fashionable these days to define people by positives, but "non-meat-eater" would be more precise.

To which cartesiandaemon responded:

That's an interesting thought. Suddenly, I want to compare my being atheist with being vegetarian. Both are things I don't do. Both I feel should naturally be the default and in theory everyone should do it, and the omnivores and theists should be the exception[1]. But I hadn't quite thought of vegetarian like that.

So I said

and also many other things for which I think there is no evidence,

That sounds to me more like agnosticism than atheism per se!

omnivores and theists should be the exception

Historically that makes no sense as I'd say that omnivores and theists have tended to be in the majority! But we probably should argue this on a post about vegetarian food!

So cartesiandaemon responded:

Like my other comment, perhaps a matter of insufficient definition. For the record, I think:

* There is no evidence that a God exists.
* In the absense of evidence, I assume something isn't there.
* In theory, if there was good evidence, I would change my mind, but I really don't expect this to happen.
* Most people would call this position "atheist" though a lot would say "agnostic"

Historically that makes no sense as I'd say that omnivores and theists have tended to be in the majority! But we probably should argue this on a post about vegetarian food!

I even put in a footnote trying to disclaim this. It's not important, it might not apply here really, though there have been complete changes in society I hope we can keep even though the other way used to be universal.

In response to mr_ricarno's faithworks post, cartesiandaemon wrote:

I would agree with most of that, but inevitably repsond to that which I don't:

I was somewhat disagreed with about the difference between factual and moral beliefs. I couldn't explain well the difference. And I don't know exactly what constitutes secular humanism. But I feel I may disagree with her humanism being a faith.

On some level all things I think are believed. But I think there may be a difference between things I strive toward, things I observe in life, and things that have worked so far and I make a leap of faith to assume will continue to be so.

Which caused me to opine:

But I feel I may disagree with her humanism being a faith.

Why? Where does `our right to be individuals,' to come from? It's not something which has been held by all societies everywhere. Why is she more right than Professor Weston in Out of the Silent Planet* who thinks that individuals can be sacrificed to the greater good of ensuring the continuance of Life?

*The first of C.S. Lewis' Sci-Fi trilogy which I re-read last night!

On some level all things I think are believed. But I think there may be a difference between things I strive toward, things I observe in life, and things that have worked so far and I make a leap of faith to assume will continue to be so.

Yes, and? That's true for me as a Christian too.

to which cartesiandaemon replied:

I've rewritten this about ten times trying to be succinct, and I'm not sure I'm correct.

* I'm not saying her humanism is correct (nor that she wasn't obnoxious).
* I think faith can mean different things. I suspect the people in the debate didn't have a clear common definition which didn't help.
* I think a common meaning would be the same as religion.
* By common usage, a number of morals don't count as a religion, and I think she thinks her opinion there fit into this category.
* I can't define religion well, but claiming something that isn't, is, has a number of connotations that could be aggravating to anyone, but I don't understand enough to discuss in a bullet point.

So, I quoth (drawing in his other comment):

I think a common meaning would be the same as religion.

Maybe this is where the problem is. A) what is a religion? b) is it synonymous with faith? Yes there is overlap, but I think religion implies worship which does not make sense in the case of atheism. They are also tied up with the question of worldviews and basic assumptions. What bugs me about the Toynbees and Dawkinses of this world is that they do what they accuse their opponents of doing and do not/cannot/will not see this. We all have basic axioms about the world which are prior to evidence. Logically, agnosticism is the only position, we can neither prove nor disprove the existence of God (which is part of why I was objecting to your vegetarian/atheism should be the norm comment on the_alchemist's journal). It is not true to say there is no evidence for the existence of God. Maybe there's nothing you regard as compelling and perhaps I'd rather talk about `evidence of the God's existence' rather than `for' but we don't believe in God on the basis of no evidence. For me, the Christian story, and what I've taken to referring to as the ILPDRaAoOLJC is a large part of it. But also little things like the fact that ice floats and the wonder of the world. Maybe you interpret the evidence differently but that doesn't mean it isn't there.

I think I'm going to put these comments together into a post on my journal rather than cluttering up other people's comments!

[ET attribute the first quote to the right person]

Comments

[yrieithydd.livejournal.com]

I would say that the puddle analogy is more akin to the universe having conscious beings problem than the ice-floating question myself.

I know these are not absolutely conclusive proofs for God's existence, that is what I was hoping to imply with the distinction between `evidence of' and `evidence for'. I am not convinced one can create a case of evidence for the existence of God which would stand up in court as it were, but I do not think that is how God works. But I will also say that I am incapable of proving that I am not in the Matrix, or even that I could prove that someone was my friend logically.

I believe that the Christian story makes sense of the world in a way that other things don't. It's not that I believe in God in the abstract, but in the God who reveals himself in Christ.

[ixwin.livejournal.com]

I see the puddle analogy as being about why beings like us exist, rather than why any conscious beings at all exist. A universe in which ice sank would be hostile to water-based lifeforms (which is what I understood the ice floating to be about), but I don't see that it would rule out conscious intelligences of some sort (who would be equally fascinated at other quirks of those materials that permitted their existence). Whereas an entirely empty, or entirely uniform, universe wouldn't generate anything we'd identify as life; so why the universe isn't like that is a trickier question (though one with several possible answers as provided by other commenters here and elsewhere).

[yrieithydd.livejournal.com]

A universe in which ice sank would be hostile to water-based lifeforms (which is what I understood the ice floating to be about), but I don't see that it would rule out conscious intelligences of some sort (who would be equally fascinated at other quirks of those materials that permitted their existence).

The point, AIUI, is that life as we know it wouldn't exist if ice didn't float and that H₂O is unusual (unique?) in having a solid form which is less dense than its liquid form.