I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.
Or do you treat Science as a religion and see adherence to atheism as an article of faith? If so, “Thou shalt have no other Gods before me” leads to a strong conviction that there are no “Gods”. Like any other good religion, this is often paired with intolerance of and hostility towards other beliefs.
If you see the Scientific Method as less of a religious creed and more simply as a best practice for evaluating explanations in the context of evidence, you may be more of an agnostic.
Agnosticism suggests that we do not know if there are Gods or not. At a deeper level, it is about having a balanced view about drawing conclusions from evidence.
Thomas Huxley had this to say:
“Agnosticism, in fact, is not a creed, but a method, the essence of which lies in the rigorous application of a single principle … Positively the principle may be expressed: In matters of the intellect, follow your reason as far as it will take you, without regard to any other consideration. And negatively: In matters of the intellect do not pretend that conclusions are certain which are not demonstrated or demonstrable.”
The scientific method strives to propose explanations that can be tested by the acquisition of new evidence. That is, it promotes the practice of forming explanations that have predictive power. Acceptance of an idea is based on the validated success of those predictions. That is, scientific ideas can be demonstrated.
Based on science alone, if the only choice is between believing in Gods or not believing in Gods, the atheism seems an easier choice as absence of evidence at least justifies Occams Razor. Agnosticism, reminds us however that these are not the only two choices.
Having a “conviction” in atheism or a belief ( let’s be honest and call that faith ) that atheists “conclusions are certain” despite not being “demonstrated or demonstrable” is not a “scientific” position. It does not result from the Scientific Method. At least not in my view.
I am a bit of an atheist but I recognize that saying this is an admission of faith, not evidence of my intellect or knowledge. It is a belief—not a proven fact. I should be cautious about my level of conviction.
Agnosticism and the Scientific Method are two very complimentary methods of evaluating evidence. Regardless of my beliefs ( because like all humans, I have them ), when it comes to making statements on the existence of Gods, I think it is a much better demonstration of my intellect to admit “I don’t know”.
Primarily, Roberts is poking fun at the religious people that insist all gods but theirs aren’t real, whatever the reason.
After all, it is a bit silly to say ‘these gods, whose only proof of existence is this collection of ancient stories, are totally made-up, but my god, whose only proof of existence is this collection of ancient stories, is totally 100% real’.
Second, I don’t know that I would call Atheism or Agnosticism a religion. A system of belief in scientific rigors and facts is not really the same thing. While it’s true that you cannot prove a negative, we have no real evidence of any god existing.
And you’d think that a god that could split the seas and turn people into salt, or turn people into dolphins or flowers or whathaveyou, would be somewhat noticeable. If only in the bulls and swans obsessed with courting young ladies.
Great comment. I am tempted to continue the conversation.
Instead, I will finish by saying that, in my view, any system of belief seeking to describe the nature of reality that relies primarily on faith to provide certainty is a religion. Favouring faith over evidence is especially qualifying.
I would consider many of the atheists I have spoken to or read about to be religious by the above definition.
Many of those famous for being atheist certainly meet the criteria. Richard Dawkins has said that he “believes” science can answer any question despite science itself saying that it cannot ( Bell’s Theorem and Godel’s Incompleteness Theorum for example ). PZ Meyers has gone as far as to say that there is no evidence possible that would convince him that God exists ( even Jesus appearing before him I recall ). If that is not religion, I do not know what is. It is certainly not science.
I argued that exact same way with someone very close to me. Their answer was:
But those gods aren’t real!
Nothing you can do if that last conclusion isn’t there.
-Stephen Roberts
Dope.
You disbelieve in those other Gods because your God explicitly tells you to?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thou_shalt_have_no_other_gods_before_me
Or do you treat Science as a religion and see adherence to atheism as an article of faith? If so, “Thou shalt have no other Gods before me” leads to a strong conviction that there are no “Gods”. Like any other good religion, this is often paired with intolerance of and hostility towards other beliefs.
If you see the Scientific Method as less of a religious creed and more simply as a best practice for evaluating explanations in the context of evidence, you may be more of an agnostic.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnosticism
Agnosticism suggests that we do not know if there are Gods or not. At a deeper level, it is about having a balanced view about drawing conclusions from evidence.
Thomas Huxley had this to say: “Agnosticism, in fact, is not a creed, but a method, the essence of which lies in the rigorous application of a single principle … Positively the principle may be expressed: In matters of the intellect, follow your reason as far as it will take you, without regard to any other consideration. And negatively: In matters of the intellect do not pretend that conclusions are certain which are not demonstrated or demonstrable.”
The scientific method strives to propose explanations that can be tested by the acquisition of new evidence. That is, it promotes the practice of forming explanations that have predictive power. Acceptance of an idea is based on the validated success of those predictions. That is, scientific ideas can be demonstrated.
Based on science alone, if the only choice is between believing in Gods or not believing in Gods, the atheism seems an easier choice as absence of evidence at least justifies Occams Razor. Agnosticism, reminds us however that these are not the only two choices.
Having a “conviction” in atheism or a belief ( let’s be honest and call that faith ) that atheists “conclusions are certain” despite not being “demonstrated or demonstrable” is not a “scientific” position. It does not result from the Scientific Method. At least not in my view.
I am a bit of an atheist but I recognize that saying this is an admission of faith, not evidence of my intellect or knowledge. It is a belief—not a proven fact. I should be cautious about my level of conviction.
Agnosticism and the Scientific Method are two very complimentary methods of evaluating evidence. Regardless of my beliefs ( because like all humans, I have them ), when it comes to making statements on the existence of Gods, I think it is a much better demonstration of my intellect to admit “I don’t know”.
Again, this is all just like, my opinion man.
So, a couple of points:
Primarily, Roberts is poking fun at the religious people that insist all gods but theirs aren’t real, whatever the reason.
After all, it is a bit silly to say ‘these gods, whose only proof of existence is this collection of ancient stories, are totally made-up, but my god, whose only proof of existence is this collection of ancient stories, is totally 100% real’.
Second, I don’t know that I would call Atheism or Agnosticism a religion. A system of belief in scientific rigors and facts is not really the same thing. While it’s true that you cannot prove a negative, we have no real evidence of any god existing.
And you’d think that a god that could split the seas and turn people into salt, or turn people into dolphins or flowers or whathaveyou, would be somewhat noticeable. If only in the bulls and swans obsessed with courting young ladies.
Great comment. I am tempted to continue the conversation.
Instead, I will finish by saying that, in my view, any system of belief seeking to describe the nature of reality that relies primarily on faith to provide certainty is a religion. Favouring faith over evidence is especially qualifying.
I would consider many of the atheists I have spoken to or read about to be religious by the above definition.
Many of those famous for being atheist certainly meet the criteria. Richard Dawkins has said that he “believes” science can answer any question despite science itself saying that it cannot ( Bell’s Theorem and Godel’s Incompleteness Theorum for example ). PZ Meyers has gone as far as to say that there is no evidence possible that would convince him that God exists ( even Jesus appearing before him I recall ). If that is not religion, I do not know what is. It is certainly not science.
Far be it for me to question your religious doctrine, but even the fucking Old Testament recognizes rival gods.