Continuing to assert that atheism requires faith continues to irritate me. But I understand better the rhetorical splinter that you seem to be caught on. You are equating something "disbelieved" with something "disproved." If you want a definition of my own atheism which helps remove that splinter, at least where my beliefs are concerned, then I will try to file it down.
I believe we are thinking beings with a finite amount of time to seek truth and meaning, should we choose to do so. We must balance the claims that we hear, the possibilities that we imagine, and the evidence that we experience, and reach the best approximation of the truth that we can before we die. The purpose of this quest may be personal, or it may be as big as humanity, or bigger than that. Most of what we seek will remain unknowable to us, but we strive to understand as much as we can.
Because we will die without fully understanding all, we must try to utilize fruitful methods. We can't spend our entire lives compiling evidence against the existence of, say, "trolls who live under bridges." It is reasonable to assume that no trolls exist, until we are presented some evidence to the contrary.
Now you would say, "Aha! Faith! Or at least 'troll agnosticism!' At least you admit the possibility of trolls!" No, not really. I firmly believe no trolls live under bridges. I consider it a rational belief, and a positive one.
Have I disproved trolls? No. But I believe there are none, and believe further that thinking there are none is the only sane and useful thing to think, in the absence of anything like valid evidence that they exist.
It is worth considering the possibility of trolls under bridges exactly this far:
1. Human beings have imaginations and make up stories. (previously proved) 2. Is there any evidence which suggests or proves that "trolls live under bridges" could not be one of those stories? (no) 3. Is there any evidence for the existence of trolls, or anything like trolls, besides human stories? (no) 4. Further consideration of the troll story is a gigantic honking waste of time, and for all practical purposes, we believe trolls do not live under bridges.
It is practicality, not faith, which leads the atheist to disbelieve the existence a creator god, a leprechaun, or any other unsupportable claim.
Saying that we disbelieve in the existence of a creator god is not the same as saying we would discount valid evidence for one, if it were observable. That would be faith, man. That is the part you are missing when you throw that word at me.
See, having beliefs in the absence of evidence is how you're defining faith. But faith as I know it involves ignoring contravening evidence. True faith is blindness. "Faith" is the opposite of "truth-seeking," in my view. I don't take kindly to being accused of it.
And if you think being open to future evidence of a creator god makes us closet agnostics or something, you're wrong. We disbelieve what is practical to disbelieve, and you do it too.
If a four year old told you his teddy bear flew to the Moon yesterday, it's in that class of disbelief. You'd maybe subsequently believe it if the news said NORAD tracked a teddy bear on re-entry. But until something far beyond the scope of all you have observed or learned so far in your life was shown to you, you're going to (rationally, normally, logically and rightly) believe that the kid imagined it. And you don't need faith to hold that belief.
In our short lives, our beliefs will be shaped the best way we can, with the evidence and the time that we have to examine and consider them. Most unsupportable claims are worth classifying in the very big pile of "things I do not believe are true" where they will stay for the rest of my life, unless rescued by some utterly extraordinary evidence.
That's not hubris, it's practical rational analysis.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 2007-12-04 08:26 am (UTC)Continuing to assert that atheism requires faith continues to irritate me. But I understand better the rhetorical splinter that you seem to be caught on. You are equating something "disbelieved" with something "disproved." If you want a definition of my own atheism which helps remove that splinter, at least where my beliefs are concerned, then I will try to file it down.
I believe we are thinking beings with a finite amount of time to seek truth and meaning, should we choose to do so. We must balance the claims that we hear, the possibilities that we imagine, and the evidence that we experience, and reach the best approximation of the truth that we can before we die. The purpose of this quest may be personal, or it may be as big as humanity, or bigger than that. Most of what we seek will remain unknowable to us, but we strive to understand as much as we can.
Because we will die without fully understanding all, we must try to utilize fruitful methods. We can't spend our entire lives compiling evidence against the existence of, say, "trolls who live under bridges." It is reasonable to assume that no trolls exist, until we are presented some evidence to the contrary.
Now you would say, "Aha! Faith! Or at least 'troll agnosticism!' At least you admit the possibility of trolls!" No, not really. I firmly believe no trolls live under bridges. I consider it a rational belief, and a positive one.
Have I disproved trolls? No. But I believe there are none, and believe further that thinking there are none is the only sane and useful thing to think, in the absence of anything like valid evidence that they exist.
It is worth considering the possibility of trolls under bridges exactly this far:
1. Human beings have imaginations and make up stories. (previously proved)
2. Is there any evidence which suggests or proves that "trolls live under bridges" could not be one of those stories? (no)
3. Is there any evidence for the existence of trolls, or anything like trolls, besides human stories? (no)
4. Further consideration of the troll story is a gigantic honking waste of time, and for all practical purposes, we believe trolls do not live under bridges.
It is practicality, not faith, which leads the atheist to disbelieve the existence a creator god, a leprechaun, or any other unsupportable claim.
Saying that we disbelieve in the existence of a creator god is not the same as saying we would discount valid evidence for one, if it were observable. That would be faith, man. That is the part you are missing when you throw that word at me.
See, having beliefs in the absence of evidence is how you're defining faith. But faith as I know it involves ignoring contravening evidence. True faith is blindness. "Faith" is the opposite of "truth-seeking," in my view. I don't take kindly to being accused of it.
And if you think being open to future evidence of a creator god makes us closet agnostics or something, you're wrong. We disbelieve what is practical to disbelieve, and you do it too.
If a four year old told you his teddy bear flew to the Moon yesterday, it's in that class of disbelief. You'd maybe subsequently believe it if the news said NORAD tracked a teddy bear on re-entry. But until something far beyond the scope of all you have observed or learned so far in your life was shown to you, you're going to (rationally, normally, logically and rightly) believe that the kid imagined it. And you don't need faith to hold that belief.
In our short lives, our beliefs will be shaped the best way we can, with the evidence and the time that we have to examine and consider them. Most unsupportable claims are worth classifying in the very big pile of "things I do not believe are true" where they will stay for the rest of my life, unless rescued by some utterly extraordinary evidence.
That's not hubris, it's practical rational analysis.