Atheists are not supposed to be 100% sure that there is no God.
But I am.
The source of the strength of my conviction stemmed from my Christian training, where we were encouraged to have faith, despite a sore lack of evidence. The evidence for there being no God is so strong compared to there being a God that it hardly takes effort for me to believe that no God whatsoever exists. I have that much faith.
Richard Dawkins probably has less faith because he never went to church, which is why he is only 99% sure.
Tuesday, November 10, 2009
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
8 comments:
I'm more in line with Dawkins. I don't think anyone -- including you, my friend -- can be 100% sure of anything. There are too many mysteries of life and none of us has the ability to unravel them. So, while I can say that I'm 99.5% sure there is no god, I'll admit there's a 0.5% I've got it all wrong. ; )
Dawkins is only "99% sure" because that's part of the scientific method being unable to "prove a negative". In fact, the scientific method cannot even prove a positive.
At best we can say "this is all the evidence we have, which leads us to these conclusions". It's all tentative, though, because new evidence can be discovered which contradicts previous conclusions.
Take the example of the discovery of Archaea. It led to a new understanding of the beginnings of life on earth as well as an entirely new domain of life. However, this discovery didn't shatter cell theory or the theory of evolution.
Similar changes in classification are happening often due to genetic evidence. What we thought was a snake before based on looks and dissections might really be a fish, or a lizard, or whatever based on the genetic evidence. Einstein's theory of general relativity didn't negate all the work Newton did on gravity, but rather, supplement it.
This is the scientific method and Dawkins is a scientist, as am I (though obviously not as prestigious as he). I think it's a relatively strong philosophy on living in and observing the natural world. At best, we can say there is no evidence for the existence of god, and contrary evidence to some specific claims (i.e., creation ex nihilo, age of the earth, etc).
But I'm open to it, if I ever observed objective evidence. I guess the good news is objective evidence for the existence of god is unlikely.
As I have pointed out previously, I had a religious upbringing. Although toward the end, certainly, I lost faith, when I was growing up I had faith in jesus (I think, more likely, it was faith in my parents being correct). While this is definitely stronger than Dawkins' Anglican upbringing, I hold the same scientific method attitude as him.
So I don't think it's a matter of being raised with faith.
Until you define what you mean by 'god', you're not saying anything much. Is Taoism atheistic, for example?
I guess I'm mainly talking about the Christian kind of God, a theistic God. For if that kind of God existed, he would have communicated evidence of some kind BY NOW. If there is evidence for His existence, it has to be existing all the time, since humans gained rationality.
The evidence for his existence cannot come at a later date. "Hey presto! I finally here, guys! The I AM is here." It would mean that millions have gone to hell for not having believed in Him because there was insufficient evidence.
The probability for a deist kind of god is higher, but then the term god becomes rather meaningless. A kind of undetectable entity that started it all? That would be a rather lame kind of God.
Does god have to be an entity?
God can be defined into anything we want it to be or not to be, after all it's just an abstract concept.
However, it can get so abstract that it loses all meaning, and might as well not exist.
If your "god" is not an entity, then why call it "god"? If your term "god" is just another word for "the unknown", then why not just call it "the unknown"?
That's what gets me about deists and pantheists. They recognize the fallacies of theists, but they're too insecure to let go of that "god" thing.
I guess that's another advantage of being a scientist, although it's really entry level philosophy (Socrates).
You're 100% sure about a christian god, because the evidence. Dawkins is only 99% sure about any concept of god at all. You don't mean the same thing by 'god'.
Evidence against a christian god doesn't neccesarily apply as contrary evidence to other concepts of god.
Post a Comment