To believe, or not to believe?
That most certainly is the question.
Founding Member
To believe, or not to believe?That most certainly is the question. |
Founding Member |
When the issue turns to science "against" faith, it is critical to thoroughly understand science, and for this we have to understand exactly how theorems and theories are treated.
It's simple: A theorem is proposed by some person or group of individuals. Others then are expected, encouraged, even paid, to attempt to "break" the theorem, to try and show that it is not true - to "falsify" the theorem. If this can be done, then the theorem must be modified such that it survives that test, or else it must be discarded. A theory can only be constructed from those theorems that have yet to have been proven false.
An existing theory is expected to be tested whenever an opportunity occurs for a new method of testing, a new way of thinking about the situation, a new event related to it occurs. This is the heart of science.
The repeated testing and re-thinking of these theorems can never "prove" them. The word "proof" is used for a logical structure in science, not as a measure of validity of a theorem or theory. Instead, as a theorem undergoes this continuous testing, human confidence in the theorem grows. It's not certainty - certainty has no place in science. But humans can, and do, operate well with confidence as the underlying guide.
Here's a mundane example that makes the point. When you walk across a bridge, you cannot be certain it will not collapse. It might! But you can be confident that it will not, based on your knowledge that bridges rarely do this, and other factors such as watching a car go over the bridge first - if it made the trip, you probably will too. But then again, you might not. So clearly, you use confidence, not certainty, as a guide.
So confidence is the measuring stick with which we see if the bridge is long enough to span the water and keep us from drowning, won't fall out from underneath us, won't suddenly come loose from its piers, and for all other works upon which apparent consequences rely. I believe that if you think about it, you will find that all that you do, all that you are, rests upon confidence. I know that this is so for myself. I have no certainties.
Science is fairly described as a confidence building scheme.
Science builds inter-related theorems repeatedly such that confidence in those inter-related issues becomes greater; when the theorems fail to interlock, the entire issue loses confidence. This, in my opinion, is the root of the respect that science deserves, though perhaps does not have in some quarters.
Moreover: Issues of faith rest upon confidence also - everything does, as I said earlier - the key thing is that faith is an internalized issue and not one which can be exported, and most particularly not one which can be subjected to test by theorem.
This makes it essentially untouchable by any individual outside of one's self - and that's why many atheists rail about faith and proof - they mean evidence by which they can subject faith to tests which could result in falsification, the holy grail, if I might, of science. But this is absurd. One's internal beliefs cannot be tested. No matter what they are.
Atheists tend to be individuals who, by reason of confidence, have taken the scientific world-view (which is only a set of theorems, of course) as "fact". They're confused, but there you go. They do not like the idea that the confidence they have is subject to challenge, but that's a problem that comes because they're weak on reasoning and the very nature of confidence. The scientific world view ranges from slightly tentative to highly so, with nothing in the entire structure having the status of fact.
Some issues are viewed with great confidence, it is true - they have been tested many ways, they are part of interlocking theorems of immense complexity, and they have never, thus far, failed to bear up under scrutiny. But that cannot say that this will always be so. Newton's "laws" of motion are a perfect example: They work well, and held up under a huge number of tests for many, many years... but they are now known to be a simplification of the situation, and we have replacement "laws" which work for all known cases. Those may well tumble down someday also. And any scientist worth their weight in beach sand would give their eyeteeth to be the one to knock the current theorems down into the dirt of intellectual discard.
I work in a very straightforward manner: I look for confidence, I work to build it, but I recognize it for what it what it is. I will give the "faithful" their due and say that I cannot know that what they claim is true or false from external data; that for me to experience what they tell me they are experiencing may be no more than a matter of "putting my eye to the telescope", yet I know that in the end, I will only have myself to back up my own faith - I cannot know if the Jesus or God that may speak or otherwise manifest itself, should that indeed occur, isn't a product of my own imagination, which I know to be all-powerful in the sense that it can deceive me utterly. Therefore, I choose - actively - not to accept that which is without external confidence, preferably multiple layers of same. I accept with regret the idea that all I see and perceive may be false, however I choose confidence as my world view and it works very well.
I will not turn inward for my worldview. For this reason, should there be a god, my acceptance of this will come from observation of external manifestation, not inward voices or feelings. Such events would have to be convincing, and of course, I assume that they would be.
Now, I think I've made it clear that I don't know if there is a god or gods. I don't know if the sciences are valid, either. I don't think you can know. Having said that, I have no confidence that there is a god; there is no compelling evidence, and in fact, I've not encountered non-compelling "evidence". The Christian god-story appears to have all the marks of a fairy tale, frankly. But I don't know.
I feel no personal or particular need for a god; the idea that the world is a complex, unplanned place does not bring any fear to my heart, nor does the idea of death frighten me in any way. I have no reason whatsoever to have any confidence in the position that life would continue in any fashion beyond death, and I have high confidence that it in fact will not, this brought to me courtesy of science, of course. I find the issue very interesting, as I do the entire idea of religion. Interest is not sanction, however, and I would make that point very strongly.
At this juncture, the issue becomes, can I live a good life without the predigested ethics, morals and behaviors that religion brings to the table?
The answer, I believe, is an uncompromised "yes". In fact, morals and ethics derived by reasoning seem to me to be much more solid than those brought by fiat from some book.
So am I worried? No.
And there you have it.
Theism is, according to Webster's, "belief in a god or gods". The prefix "a" has the meaning "without". The word atheism then clearly means "without belief in a god or gods".
Agnosticism is characterized by the position "I don't know if there is a god or gods". Yet if you look closely at this, you will see that it deals with a different question - knowledge - and does not in any way derive a third category of belief such that it would stand apart from theism or atheism.
The issue of knowledge stands separate from belief because the concept of a god is that of a supernatural being, and knowledge of a supernatural being is by its very nature undefined. A supernatural being must exist outside our natural laws, else it cannot be supernatural. The agnostic is reacting to this inherent inability of the characteristics of the god-concept to be known when they take their stance. Knowledge, or the lack of it, does not address the issue of belief, though it does provide an intellectual basis for choice.
In the end, no matter the state of the agnostics knowledge, one can always ask the agnostic: "Do you have a belief in god?" and they must answer yes, or no. In so doing they commit to either the stance of theism, or that of atheism.
There are atheists that take the position "There is no god." I find this position untenable, as it takes the stance of a known issue - the factual state of "nonexistence" - and assigns it the role of a descriptor of the unknowable - the supernatural - which I think is a nonsensical position to put forth. Individuals who take this position are certainly atheists, as they are without a belief in a god or gods. However, I am most certainly not among their number.
My position is that I do not know if there is a god or gods. It does not appear to me that it can be known. I do not believe that anyone else knows, either - but that is a presumption on my part and I do recognize it as such. I have no belief that there is a god or gods, and in addition I can comfortably state that I have insufficient knowledge of the issue to draw any final conclusion.
I am an atheist.
There are theists who (in a most profound error) attempt to take morals and ethics as the exclusive domain of theism, in a conceptual theft so extreme it is nothing less than absurd. To do so requires that the theist take the stance that the atheist is not capable of understanding the underlying concepts and/or implementing them in the form of codified morals and ethics and subsequent behavior. Such a stance is completely untenable.
In fact, there can be moral, immoral and un/amoral theists. Similarly, there can be moral, immoral and un/amoral atheists. There can be ethical and unethical theists. Similarly, there can be ethical and unethical atheists. To determine the actual case, one must learn a great deal about the individual in question.
As a result, the position of belief in a god or gods, or the lack of it, has no inherent domain over an individuals morals and ethics.
My morals and ethics are derived from compassion, reason, and knowledge. I believe that this is more or less the case for most people, whether they be able to articulate it or not.