My Atheism and a Basic Primer on Skepticism and "finding truth"
Religion and the supernatural caught in the filter
This is not meant to be comprehensible philosophical discussion on skepticism, argumentation, or truth. It is just a brief and incomplete explanation of a few terms that are often misunderstood.
We’re going to focus on theism, atheism, agnosticism, and faith.
I was once an evangelical Christian. I “converted” to Christianity sometime around 1989. I taught classes on the foundations of the Christian faith, taught apologetics, and, at times, debated atheists. I’ve “preached” (taught) as a lay person in front of some decent size congregations. I maintained that belief for nearly twenty-two (22) years.
I now consider myself a skeptic and an atheist. I am also agnostic.
For some, the agnostic label surprises them. I’ll give a cursory explanation in a moment.
Because of my background, specifically teaching apologetics, my move to atheism has been met with surprise and with dismay by some.
As one Christian friend said to me, “Hey Matt. Bums me out that you disbanded your faith….”
My contention is not that I did not disband or leave my faith. Rather, I moved to or adopted a more reasonable method for evaluating truth claims. This led to, what I consider, a more rationally warranted viewpoint. I don’t consider faith something to lose. I consider skeptical inquiry to be a positive step and atheism to be the most intellectually honest conclusion of such an inquiry.
As I developed and maintained more solid reasons for what I believe. Faith in god and any supernatural claims are unable to pass through the filter of skepticism and reason.
Nearly every time such a conversation is had, a number of misunderstandings arise. I’ll address those with a glossary of terms and a discussion on skepticism versus cynicism.
A Casual (non-exhaustive) Glossary
Theism:
The belief that there is a God/gods - supreme being or beings.
Atheism:
The belief that there is not a God/god - supreme being or that the evidence is insufficient to arrive at a god conclusion.
Agnosticism:
A lack of knowledge as to whether there is a God/god or any gods.
Faith:
The explanation given when good reasons or evidence is not available.
Theism, Atheism, & Agnosticism Are Not Three Choices
Theism and atheism are about what you believe. Gnosticism is about what you know.
I have not searched every corner of the known universe to see if God is there. Even if I were able to, I don’t know of a good method to even detect a god, if one were there.
Even a super powerful being, one who does magical things and appears to know all, is not necessarily a god. How would I accurately access that?
Because of that, I am an atheist and an agnostic.
I believe that good evidence for any gods has not yet been demonstrated but I don’t have absolute knowledge. While I am confident that no gods exist but I cannot take the “hard atheism” position. ie: I know there are no gods.
Should good evidence be presented, I would be forced to alter my belief.
I have run into theist who confidently make the claim that they know there is a God. Typically, they appeal to personal revelation as their final method of certitude.
While I appreciate their confidence, I consider their position to reveal of lack of understanding of knowledge and/or an unwillingness to admit their own capacity to be incorrect.
Most will admit they could be wrong about things - just not this thing. I’m not doubting their belief but I remain skeptical of their knowledge claim.
I could be wrong about God or gods. The most confident theist could be wrong as well.
Regarding my definition of faith:
My definition dovetails fairly accurately with the biblical definition of faith.
Hebrews 11: 1 - “Now faith is confidence in what we hope for and assurance about what we do not see.”
No one appeals to faith when it comes to most of our decisions. I choose to go through green lights, rather than red lights, not because I have faith but because we have laws and historical precedent that we can safely do so.
That doesn’t mean your reasonable confidence cannot be mistaken. Someone could run a red, lights could theoretically malfunction, etc.
Some apologists (defenders of faith) will suggest that my willingness to go through a green light is also faith. But, in this they are being dishonest or gamey. I refer to this as parlor trick apologetics.
Rather than engage honestly, they are seeking a “gotcha”. It fails to give credence to the nature of the claim and very real/tangible evidence to believe that claim.
God/supernatural claims simply do not have similar evidence.
Skepticism is NOT Cynicism
This topic deserves its own article.
The current political realm we find ourself in has party, Republicans, hostile to science and to skeptical inquiry. Democrats are nominally better - but only nominally. The are not outright hostile to science but, from a funding perspective, are not particularly friendly.
A recent example: Trump and Marjorie Taylor Green both intimated or outright claimed that the NOAA created the recent hurricanes that hit Florida and/or that hurricane response is politically driven.
Watching people who, otherwise, function normally in this world, accept and repeat those and other claims is both remarkable and grotesque. It is not an example of skepticism but political cynicism.
Cynicism is skepticism minus an epistemology - a grounded method for determining what is true. I’m refraining from a discussion on whether we can absolutely determine any truth or any discussion of solipsism for now.
As Carl Sagan pointed out, Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
I’ll again point to parlor trick apologetics. Some dishonest apologists claim and then attack this quote as Sagan indicating that, by extraordinary evidence, he is suggesting that the evidence must be as extraordinary (wild, outside the realm of the normal) as the claim.
Rather, it is obvious that Sagan was pointing out that the bigger the claim, the more solid and confirmed the evidence should be.
If you are claiming that the NOAA is generating hurricanes, you should be required to present compelling, verifiable, evidence before ANY REASONABLE person believes you.
When I point this out, I’ve had those who believe the claims say that they are skeptics, like me. But it is intellectually dishonest for conspiracy theorist to give themselves the “skeptic” label. A skeptic would require evidence for the claims. Conspiracy theorist often start with belief and attempt to shift the burden of proof to the true skeptic.
Bad Arguments
There are a number of poor arguments for God or the supernatural. I’ll cover some of these in more detail in later articles. I mention these two because they are the most recent I discussed with some theists/supernaturalist I know.
First cause:
There must have been a first cause, therefor God.
I’m unsure whether there was a first cause. We don’t yet have enough knowledge. We could just as easily claim a highly charged biscuit or leprechaun started it all. The most reasonable answer we have, right now, is, “I don’t know.” People don’t like that answer but it is the answer that gives us the best starting point to discover anything.
I don’t know may be one of the most beautiful acknowledgements we can make as human beings. It opens the door to discovery.
Given that we have not established the possibility for a god to exist, smuggling a god here is not reasonable.
We know the natural world and natural (materialistic) processes exist and occur. Currently, unless provided another method of testing, naturalistic processes are the only explanations we can consider or test.
It is therefore more reasonable to conclude that, whatever the origin of the universe (whether there was a first cause or whether energy and matter has always been), that it was entirely natural.
Our inability to comprehend the source is NOT an argument or evidence for a cause that has no evidence of even being possible.
I’ve felt God, God spoke to me, God has blessed me, God cured my dog', etc.
How do you know whatever happened was due to god? Maybe it was a genie or cosmic consciousness or coincidence or hallucination or a retelling of the story enough times to make it more remarkable.
It isn’t just those who make God/god claims. This is true for new age beliefs, the secret (the Law of Attraction), cosmic vibrations, ghosts, spirits, mediums, reiki healing, etc.
We know that people make mistakes. We know that memories are HIGHLY fallible. We know that people lie or embellish. These are all candidate explanations that track well with our observations in the real world.
Before I can grant any credence to personal revelation or experience, including my own, I need good reason to move past the above, well-documented, common and natural explanations. Even passionately held beliefs can be based on misapprehensions.
There is more to discuss on any/all of these topics but, I just realized that I’m over 1,000 words.
Let me know what you think.
###
Great exposition! I forwarded you piece to Miki and Peter. Be well,
J