Suspending Reality

[Dutch Uncle]

Very few adults choose to be religious without having been taught it as a child.

Very few adults choose to be socialized without having been taught as a child.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

I align more closely with agnostic, though labels have weaknesses

Agnostic is the logical reply since both theism and atheism require believing without facts. I believe there is more to existence than our mortal one, but there’s no evidence of it. Just the mystery of whence the Universe originated. The origination of life is a secondary mystery that may be solved first.

 

[Kafka]

I agree...it is a perfectly decent description of atheism.

But the choice of using "atheist" is A CHOICE.

You've made it.

From what I can determine from your earlier response to my question...you believe it is no more likely that there are no gods...than that there is at least one.

You indicated you do not believe it is more likely that there are no gods than at least one.

It just seems to me that considering that...the choice of "atheist" is unusual.

Agnostic is available...and probably comes closer in the mind of the public to what you are describing as your position.

I no longer use a descriptor. I state my position. Here it is:

I do not know if any GOD (or gods) exist or not;
I see no reason to suspect that gods cannot exist…that the existence of a GOD or gods is impossible;
I see no reason to suspect that at least one GOD must exist...that the existence of at least one GOD is needed to explain existence;
I do not see enough unambiguous evidence upon which to base a meaningful guess in either direction on whether any gods exist or not...so I don't.

(When I use the word "GOD or gods" here, I mean "The entity (or entities) responsible for the creation of what we humans call 'the physical universe'...IF SUCH AN ENTITY OR ENTITIES ACTUALLY EXIST.)

I think most people reading that would term it an agnostic position...not an atheistic one. But I do not need to characterize it.

Anyway, I thank you for answering my question. Obviously each of us is free to use whatever we prefer to describe ourselves...and I appreciate you telling me that you prefer "atheist."

I disagree with "agnostic" per Huxley's original definition. Huxley should have known how inference works. In science (as an example) one always tests an hypothesis by testing against it NOT being correct. The hypothesis: "God exists" is thus tested by testing against the null hypothesis "God does not exist".

I have merely done that and arrived at the point where I fail to reject the null hypothesis because I fail to see sufficient evidence.

If someone told me that there was an invisible 1' tall giraffe in my kitchen pantry I would fail to believe them. I would NOT be "agnostic" about this claim. I would fail to believe it. It "could" be true (remember it's invisible and small enough to fit), but since there is no evidence sufficient for its existence I fail to believe in its existence. I will go so far as to say you are the exact same way. If a stranger came up to you and said this you would not say "Hmmmm, that's a possibility!" and be "agnostic" about it. You simply would fail to believe it.

It is the exact same thing with God.

Hence I don't choose "agnostic" but rather atheist since I am without a god. Perhaps information could come to me to provide me with ample evidence of God's existence but so far it has failed to manifest.

 

[Cypress]

Agnostic is the logical reply since both theism and atheism require believing without facts. I believe there is more to existence than our mortal one, but there’s no evidence of it. Just the mystery of whence the Universe originated. The origination of life is a secondary mystery that may be solved first.

Makes sense to me.

A perfect storm had to align to create complex matter and biology in this universe. Maybe it's sheer coincidence, maybe not.

Something switched on in homo sapiens brains about 50k year ago that caused us create symbolic art and start practicing ritual shamanistic religions.

Earlier archaic Homo Sapiens did not do that, and neither did other humans (Homo eragaster, Homo Neanderthalis, Homo Heidelbergies, Homo denisovans), though their brain sizes were reasonably comparable or even larger than Homo Sapiens.

I think religion is instinctual, and we don't really know why yet

 

[Dutch Uncle]

Makes sense to me.

A perfect storm had to align to create complex matter and biology in this universe. Maybe it's sheer coincidence, maybe not.

Something switched on in homo sapiens brains about 50k year ago that caused us create symbolic art and start practicing ritual shamanistic religions.
Earlier archaic Homo Sapiens did not do that, and neither did other humans (Homo eragaster, Homo Neanderthalis, Homo Heidelbergies, Homo denisovans), though their brain sizes were reasonably comparable or even larger than Homo Sapiens.

I think religion is instinctual, and we don't really know why

Agreed about perfect storm. It would explain why life is so rare.

As for Homo sapiens, and all intelligent creatures, I favor the Red Queen Hypothesis. As soon as life begins, it competes to survive. Intelligence would be a winner. https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/earth-and-planetary-sciences/red-queen-hypothesis

A slight disagreement; religion is a dogmatic approach to spirituality. I agree that there’s a natural, perhaps instinctual, part of human beings to be spiritual. Like other traits, it may be stronger or weaker in different people. Except for angry, militant atheists, most atheists seem to have spiritual beliefs of their own.

 

[Ross Dolan]

I disagree with "agnostic" per Huxley's original definition. Huxley should have known how inference works. In science (as an example) one always tests an hypothesis by testing against it NOT being correct. The hypothesis: "God exists" is thus tested by testing against the null hypothesis "God does not exist".

I have merely done that and arrived at the point where I fail to reject the null hypothesis because I fail to see sufficient evidence.

If someone told me that there was an invisible 1' tall giraffe in my kitchen pantry I would fail to believe them. I would NOT be "agnostic" about this claim. I would fail to believe it. It "could" be true (remember it's invisible and small enough to fit), but since there is no evidence sufficient for its existence I fail to believe in its existence. I will go so far as to say you are the exact same way. If a stranger came up to you and said this you would not say "Hmmmm, that's a possibility!" and be "agnostic" about it. You simply would fail to believe it.

It is the exact same thing with God.

Hence I don't choose "agnostic" but rather atheist since I am without a god. Perhaps information could come to me to provide me with ample evidence of God's existence but so far it has failed to manifest.

Thank you for giving me your rationalization for using "atheist" as a descriptor.

I gotta be honest with you. It seems to me that you are using "atheist" as a descriptor because you either "believe" there are no gods...or "believe" it is more likely that there are no gods than that there is at least one. My guess is that most people who use it as a descriptor do it for those reasons also.

I call your attention to the fact that mostly you used "God." Only once did you use "a god."

May seem insignificant...but it is not.

As for your, "If a stranger came up to you and said this you would not say "Hmmmm, that's a possibility!" and be "agnostic" about it. You simply would fail to believe it."

Nonsense. I would not just "fail to believe it"...I would consider the person to be nuts. I would certainly be of the opinion that it is MUCH, MUCH, MUCH more likely that the giraffe did not exist...than that it does.

I kinda do that with the Christian God and the Judeo-Christian Bible. I do not know if the God exists or not...or if the book is the "word of the God"...but I can make a guess about both...and I strongly suspect that god does not exist...and I strongly suspect that the book does not represent the "word of that god."

Here is what I think about the book:

My guess, for what it is worth, is that a very self-serving history (of sorts) of the early Hebrew people...a relatively unsophisticated, unknowledgeable, superstitious people who had many enemies in the areas where they lived. Their enemies worshiped barbarous, vengeful, wrathful, unforgiving, demanding, murderous, petty gods. And to protect themselves from those gods, they invented an especially barbarous, vengeful, wrathful, unforgiving, demanding, murderous, petty god...and worshiped it. The story seems to be a necessary mythology. The mythology served a needed purpose at that time and I can easily understand why the ancient Hebrews felt about it the way they did.

The fact that modern theists feel the way they do about it...is disappointing and disheartening.

Interesting that you infer you are intellectually superior to Huxley as regards this topic. Could be.

 

[Kafka]

Thank you for giving me your rationalization for using "atheist" as a descriptor.

I gotta be honest with you. It seems to me that you are using "atheist" as a descriptor because you either "believe" there are no gods...or "believe" it is more likely that there are no gods than that there is at least one.

You are free to tell me what you think is the content of my mind, but I will merely point out I have been clear and consistent that my position is a lack of belief.

I suppose there are those who make a hobby of NOT stamp collecting, but that isn't me.

I call your attention to the fact that mostly you used "God." Only once did you use "a god."

There is no difference. God is merely one of many gods. All equally unlikely.

May seem insignificant...but it is not.

I strenuously disagree. It is insignificant. Perhaps you have a sui generis definition that does not comport with how one uses the word "God" or "god".

I would certainly be of the opinion that it is MUCH, MUCH, MUCH more likely that the giraffe did not exist...than that it does.

So you would characterize your position with regards to said giraffe as "agnostic"?

My guess, for what it is worth, is that a very self-serving history (of sorts) of the early Hebrew people...a relatively unsophisticated, unknowledgeable, superstitious people who had many enemies in the areas where they lived. Their enemies worshiped barbarous, vengeful, wrathful, unforgiving, demanding, murderous, petty gods. And to protect themselves from those gods, they invented an especially barbarous, vengeful, wrathful, unforgiving, demanding, murderous, petty god...and worshiped it. The story seems to be a necessary mythology. The mythology served a needed purpose at that time and I can easily understand why the ancient Hebrews felt about it the way they did.

I cannot disagree with that characterization. Sounds pretty reasonable.

Interesting that you infer you are intellectually superior to Huxley as regards this topic. Could be.

No, I simply disagree. Last I checked Huxley was not a god and hence I am allowed to disagree with him.

It denotes no superiority. Just a disagreement with another human being.

 

[ThatOwlWoman]

Atheism is a whole bunch of things.

But if you are saying that NO people who call themselves atheists have "beliefs"...I am going to suggest that you are wrong.

There ARE people who call themselves atheists who "believe" there are no gods...or who "believe" it is more likely that there are no gods than that there is at least one.

I suggest that the preponderance of people who use the descriptor "atheists" has oine of those beliefs.

Most atheists I know (including the one I am married to) don't discuss metaphysical things though in terms of belief. Mr. Owl, for instance, merely says "There's no evidence that there are gods/spirits/souls/an afterlife." He never states "I don't believe in" those things because that could indicate that they do, in fact, exist but he is denying it.

Some atheists *are* fairly militant about the whole subject. As you pointed out earlier, IMO that comes from defensiveness.

 

[Cypress]

Agreed about perfect storm. It would explain why life is so rare.

As for Homo sapiens, and all intelligent creatures, I favor the Red Queen Hypothesis. As soon as life begins, it competes to survive. Intelligence would be a winner. https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/earth-and-planetary-sciences/red-queen-hypothesis

A slight disagreement; religion is a dogmatic approach to spirituality. I agree that there’s a natural, perhaps instinctual, part of human beings to be spiritual. Like other traits, it may be stronger or weaker in different people. Except for angry, militant atheists, most atheists seem to have spiritual beliefs of their own.

I believe that evolution might ultimately favor intelligence. Predators have to be intelligent. Chimpanzees, dolphins, wolves are all intelligent.

I don't see any Darwinian basis for symbolic art, religion, abstract spirituality. No other archaic human species needed it.

I tend to think a random genetic mutation in homo sapien brains happened around 50k years ago, but that is a guess.

You are right about the nuance between religion and spirituality, but in the way I was writing about it it is distinction without a difference. Homo sapiens ever since the first shamanistic rituals believed in a transcendent reality beyond our mere perceptions of the physical world.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

I believe that evolution might ultimately favor intelligence. Predators have to be intelligent. Chimpanzees, dolphins, wolves are all intelligent.

I don't see any Darwinian basis for symbolic art, religion, abstract spirituality. No other archaic human species needed it.

I tend to think a random genetic mutation in homo sapien brains happened around 50k years ago, but that is a guess.

You are right about the nuance between religion and spirituality, but in the way I was writing about it it is distinction without a difference. Homo sapiens ever since the first shamanistic rituals believed in a transcendent reality beyond our mere perceptions of the physical world.

Agreed.

How archaic? Lots of figurines and tokens. Even if they just had a lucky rock, it would indicate an awareness of spirituality.

Modern man has been around about 300,000 years. Modern thinking man is thought to have been around for 30,000 years but that's a tough case to prove. The Red Queen hypothesis can fit in there. Being smarter is being able to think outside the box, beyond reality. It's not a big leap to think that a man who can kill a tiger by laying a tiger trap after visualizing the plan would also be interested in painting or drawing that visual.

Religion is a set of procedures. It's dogmatic. No doubt many tribes had their rituals be it dancing, children becoming adults, marriage, etc Those would be dogmatic. Simply understanding that there is something greater than oneself is more spiritual. No dogma necessary.

 

[BidenPresident]

Most atheists I know (including the one I am married to) don't discuss metaphysical things though in terms of belief. Mr. Owl, for instance, merely says "There's no evidence that there are gods/spirits/souls/an afterlife." He never states "I don't believe in" those things because that could indicate that they do, in fact, exist but he is denying it.

Some atheists *are* fairly militant about the whole subject. As you pointed out earlier, IMO that comes from defensiveness.

"Militant atheist" is a cliche like "angry negro."

 

[Dutch Uncle]

Most atheists I know (including the one I am married to) don't discuss metaphysical things though in terms of belief. Mr. Owl, for instance, merely says "There's no evidence that there are gods/spirits/souls/an afterlife." He never states "I don't believe in" those things because that could indicate that they do, in fact, exist but he is denying it.

Some atheists *are* fairly militant about the whole subject. As you pointed out earlier, IMO that comes from defensiveness.

Mr. Owl sounds more like an agnostic than an atheist. No evidence is correct. It's a matter of faith either for or against.

Agreed on defensiveness. Most militant atheists are young, male and Euro-American. There's a good link between militant atheists and anarchists too.

 

[Cypress]

Agreed.

How archaic? Lots of figurines and tokens. Even if they just had a lucky rock, it would indicate an awareness of spirituality.

Modern man has been around about 300,000 years. Modern thinking man is thought to have been around for 30,000 years but that's a tough case to prove. The Red Queen hypothesis can fit in there. Being smarter is being able to think outside the box, beyond reality. It's not a big leap to think that a man who can kill a tiger by laying a tiger trap after visualizing the plan would also be interested in painting or drawing that visual.

Religion is a set of procedures. It's dogmatic. No doubt many tribes had their rituals be it dancing, children becoming adults, marriage, etc Those would be dogmatic. Simply understanding that there is something greater than oneself is more spiritual. No dogma necessary.

Homo sapiens have been around 200k years at least. Symbolic painting and clay fertility figurines only blinked into existence in the last 50k years in the upper Paleolithic. And it seemed to have occurred worldwide, from Europe, to Australia, to Indonesia.. Earlier homo sapiens from the lower and middle Paleolithic did not demonstrate a need for shamanistic ritual. And none of the other human lineages (Neanderthal, homo Heidelbergiess, Denisovans) showed any need for it.

It's still a great scientific question about why spirituality and symbolic art blinked into existence in the upper Paleolithic.

I can see the evolutionary advantage of having the intelligence to fashion better tools and weapons. I just can't see the evolutionary advantage of creating abstract symbolic art and practicing shamanistic spiritual ritual

 

[Cypress]

Most atheists I know (including the one I am married to) don't discuss metaphysical things though in terms of belief. Mr. Owl, for instance, merely says "There's no evidence that there are gods/spirits/souls/an afterlife." He never states "I don't believe in" those things because that could indicate that they do, in fact, exist but he is denying it.

Some atheists *are* fairly militant about the whole subject. As you pointed out earlier, IMO that comes from defensiveness.

I don't think there is any direct evidence of deities or a transcendental reality either.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

Homo sapiens have been around 200k years at least. Symbolic painting and clay fertility figurines only blinked into existence in the last 50k years in the upper Paleolithic. And it seemed to have occurred worldwide, from Europe, to Australia, to Indonesia.. Earlier homo sapiens from the lower and middle Paleolithic did not demonstrate a need for shamanistic ritual. And none of the other human lineages (Neanderthal, homo Heidelbergiess, Denisovans) showed any need for it.

It's still a great scientific question about why spirituality and symbolic art blinked into existence in the upper Paleolithic.

I can see the evolutionary advantage of having the intelligence to fashion better tools and weapons. I just can't see the evolutionary advantage of creating abstract symbolic art and practicing shamanistic spiritual ritual

Blinked into existence or items over 50K didn't survive the glaciers?

Again, all we know is that the oldest items recovered are that old.

Art is a product of visualization. Visualization is the ability to see in one's mind something that doesn't exist in reality such as planning to kill a tiger by digging a pit and putting sharp sticks in it. There's clearly an evolutionary advantage to intelligence. Human intelligence has the ability to visualize the future, project ahead. If I can draw out a battle plan in the sand for you, how much of a stretch is it to draw something else?

 

[Dutch Uncle]

I don't think there is any direct evidence of deities or a transcendental reality either.

Agreed. Zero evidence of magic, miracles or anything that defies the laws of physics.

 

[Ross Dolan]

You are free to tell me what you think is the content of my mind, but I will merely point out I have been clear and consistent that my position is a lack of belief.

I suppose there are those who make a hobby of NOT stamp collecting, but that isn't me.



There is no difference. God is merely one of many gods. All equally unlikely.



I strenuously disagree. It is insignificant. Perhaps you have a sui generis definition that does not comport with how one uses the word "God" or "god".



So you would characterize your position with regards to said giraffe as "agnostic"?



I cannot disagree with that characterization. Sounds pretty reasonable.



No, I simply disagree. Last I checked Huxley was not a god and hence I am allowed to disagree with him.

It denotes no superiority. Just a disagreement with another human being.

Hummm...I wonder how that bolded part plays out with regard to my contention that you DO either "believe" there are no gods or "believe" it is more likely that there are no gods than that there is at least one.

Would you be so kind as to inform us.

 

[ThatOwlWoman]

"Militant atheist" is a cliche like "angry negro."

That's true. But like all cliches there's some truth in the phrase. We've all seen threads started by atheists mocking or disparaging religious beliefs. IMO though most atheists consider the topic a null set and don't bother arguing or discussing it. They only get involved if a religionist gets in their face and insists that they are "sinful," "evil," have no morals or conscience, and/or are going to hell.

Ironically, the most ethical, compassionate, moral people I know personally tend to be atheists.

 

[ThatOwlWoman]

Mr. Owl sounds more like an agnostic than an atheist. No evidence is correct. It's a matter of faith either for or against.

Agreed on defensiveness. Most militant atheists are young, male and Euro-American. There's a good link between militant atheists and anarchists too.

No, he is not agnostic, which IMO is defined as "Yeah, there could be god/heaven/hell/soul/afterlife but I don't know for sure." He flatly states that there are no such things, based on the fact that there's no evidence for them. He's the same with the Loch Ness monster, "Champie," Big Foot, Area 51, and other beloved myths.

 

[ThatOwlWoman]

Homo sapiens have been around 200k years at least. Symbolic painting and clay fertility figurines only blinked into existence in the last 50k years in the upper Paleolithic. And it seemed to have occurred worldwide, from Europe, to Australia, to Indonesia.. Earlier homo sapiens from the lower and middle Paleolithic did not demonstrate a need for shamanistic ritual. And none of the other human lineages (Neanderthal, homo Heidelbergiess, Denisovans) showed any need for it.

It's still a great scientific question about why spirituality and symbolic art blinked into existence in the upper Paleolithic.

I can see the evolutionary advantage of having the intelligence to fashion better tools and weapons. I just can't see the evolutionary advantage of creating abstract symbolic art and practicing shamanistic spiritual ritual

It's possible that the earliest humans did have spiritual beliefs but did not exhibit them via carvings, paintings, or other craftwork that has survived through the ages. Neanderthal remains have been found with flowers/pollen and artifacts. We can speculate that this means they believed in an afterlife, or it could merely be a sign that the individual was loved and cared about.

Neanderthal Burials Confirmed as Ancient Ritual

ETA: I forgot about this rock art, estimated to be at least 77,000 years old, found in Africa.

The Ancient Rock Art of Africa