This is my blog.
What atheists ought to stand for
Published on February 19, 2006 By Foxjazz In Religion
These opins are my own:
Written by Richard Carrier

It is probably true that almost all atheists stand for the values of reason and freethought. I will attempt to put these values in more substantial terms. There is the belief that inquiry and doubt are essential checks against deception, self deception, and error. There is the belief that logic and proper empirical method is the only way the whole world can arrive at an agreement on the truth about anything. And there is the belief that it is better to be good to each other and to build on what we all agree to be true, than to insist that we all think alike. The words I have put in bold above are the very things I believe all atheists should stand for.

First is the belief that "inquiry and doubt are essential checks against deception, self-deception, and error." Even religionists will sometimes give this value lip service, but very often they do not abide by it. And insofar as anyone cherishes this value but does not live up to it, they are living immorally even according to their own value system. I cannot count the number of times I have heard Christians declare this value as a reason to read the Bible, yet blithely ignore it when I ask them to read the Tao Te Ching. We must accept that we are vulnerable to error in any matter in which we lack all doubt or have not led a meaningful inquiry. The honest atheist will regard willful ignorance and blind faith as the more dangerous of sins.

Contrary to theological polemic, it is not absurd to say that you stand for doubt. You should be open to falsifying evidence for any belief you hold, and you should commit to the rule that you will sway your opinion by the preponderance of evidence, and not by the preponderance of faith, tradition, or desire. Even when your faith in some belief is unusually strong, caution is in order. Rather than reject opposing evidence, and rather than give an unjustified weight to confirming evidence, if you know the facts might be incorrect or incomplete, then you should make a solid inquiry into those facts. You should admit your uncertainty, and accept that the preponderance of evidence must always decide, and only careful inquiry will resolve the matter. All of science has been driven by this principle. It has never been enough for a scientist to have faith in a theory. Rather than employ that faith as justification for belief, the scientist employs it as justification for inquiry. Belief is not declared, one way or the other, until some respectable measure of inquiry has been completed. This is why science makes progress and religion does not. I believe this is more than a method shared by science, history, journalism, and forensic law. This is the way one ought to behave, and I think most atheists would agree.

Next is the belief that "logic and proper empirical method is the only way the whole world can arrive at an agreement on the truth about anything" and that "it is better to be good to each other and to build on what we all agree to be true, than to insist that we all think alike." These are related truths, which atheists are well-suited to accept and adopt, for both are generally rejected by believers in god. It is hard to dispute the fact that almost all atheists stand for science and reason, for high standards of empirical inquiry and rational thought. They believe in perfecting their grasp of scientific discoveries as well as scientific methods, and in honing their ability to apply reason and critical, empirical thought to every field of endeavor, even their daily lives. All the hours and years that theists apply themselves to prayer and devotion and the perusal of scripture, atheists apply themselves to the study of the universe, to the refinement of their understanding of things, and to their mastery of clear and successful thinking and questioning.

It is beyond dispute that whenever there is any outstanding disagreement about any matter of fact, which is not resolved when everyone looks and observes the same things, then the methods of science and logic must be brought to bear to decide the question. For apart from plain observation--if even after that no one agrees on what they are seeing or what it signifies--then science and logic are the only methods we know that can reveal to everyone the same decisive evidence. If ordinary observation fails to secure agreement, and neither science nor logic nor any equivalent standards of empirical inquiry can be applied to a question, then both sides of the dispute must honestly admit their mutual ignorance. For it is dishonest to maintain that someone is wrong when you have nothing at hand to prove it, and logical and empirical methods provide the only known ways to prove anything to everyone (leaving aside, of course, the lunatics and the irrational, who reject all sound reason and principles of evidence). The humility to admit your own ignorance, and the wisdom to not assume too much, are virtues that atheists should not forget to hold dear--even as they always seek to end their ignorance and go beyond their assumptions, with constant questioning and investigation. And this will affect how we treat our fellow humans, because it leads us to the conclusion that it is better to preach the gospel of 'be good to others even when you disagree with them', than to preach the gospel of 'believe in our religion or be damned'. The former brings only peace, life, and happiness, and teaches us the value of respect and negotiation, but the latter brings only division, death, and misery, and teaches only tyranny and hatred.

Comments (Page 1)
3 Pages1 2 3 
on Feb 19, 2006
"If ordinary observation fails to secure agreement, and neither science nor logic nor any equivalent standards of empirical inquiry can be applied to a question, then both sides of the dispute must honestly admit their mutual ignorance. For it is dishonest to maintain that someone is wrong when you have nothing at hand to prove it, and logical and empirical methods provide the only known ways to prove anything to everyone (leaving aside, of course, the lunatics and the irrational, who reject all sound reason and principles of evidence)."


While I agree with much of what you say here, you don't follow your own rules. You speak in 'truths' or proverbs. "A man that does this can't do that", "Someone who says this is that", "This is bad because people do this when they do that".

Those aren't facts. Those are subjective values judgements. When you tout them as being 'scientific' you just emulate the behavior that you condemn in terms of religion. When you say something like:

"Is there a way to reconcile science and religion?
One can be religious without being scientific, or be scientific without being religious. One can't do both, not at the same time. They are two contradictory elements of thinking. Science knowledge is acquired by reason. Religion is acquired by making shit up. Another term one might use is faith. Faith = "making shit up"."


You aren't being scientific, not in the least. You aren't holding to the values you espouse in this article. By claiming that Atheism is "scientific" you ignore the basic laws of scientific thinking; you are claiming that a lack of data somehow proves the non-existence of something. You seem to claim that you can somehow "know" that there isn't a God in a way that goes beyond belief.

That's silly, and unscientific, and unobjective. You make good points here, and at the end of most of them you say something like ' and that's why religion is...'. When you do that you blow your ideas to pieces, since you hailed objectivity and then totally disregarded it and wrote yourself a little proverb as if you were Lao Tse.

The inability to see one's self, to me, is a dead givaway. You can't see what you are saying at all. You can't fathom that what you are doing could be any different than what you BELIEVE that you are doing. That's true danger, and that's just as deluded as any religious fanatic.

Anyone who wants to know where this springs from, feel free to read the previous article: Reconcilliation, wherein Foxjazz pretends to be asking for guidance and then says that those who can accomplish it "lack integrity"; i.e. the ability to both have faith and be scientific.
on Feb 19, 2006
excuse me! this article does not spring from Reconcilliation. It springs from a totally different source.

Humans can hold conflicting thoughts, that is what makes us human. But reconciling two conflicting thoughts where it is not possible, is to lack integrity. It is to say to yourself that since I have no way of reconcilling these two differing ideas, I will just live with them both because I have faith.

That is my whole point. Faith is in no way a reliable or usefult tool for reconcilling conflicting ideas.

I see myself clearly, perhaps it is you that doesn't see clearly.

I never claimed Atheism is scientifict. I have claimed that atheists use science as a tool for gaining knowledge. Religion can't bring us reliable knowledge. There is no reliable tool that religion has in its grasps that can help use gain true knowledge.

And just because I challenge your world view, and therby might create conflict, doesn't mean I mean to do it out of spite or mallace. It just means your challenged, and you need to think about how to reconcile your thoughts in a way that brings peace.

on Feb 19, 2006
Foxjazz, this is a really great article. It comes as close to explaining the atheist argument as I've seen in a long time. My only problem with it, is you still assume that a person can come to a logical conclusion from of a lack of evidence (which is generally the problem I have with Atheism itself).

I freely admit that I cannot prove to you that God exists. However, I can (and have) proven it to myself. On the other hand, you tell me that you use science and logic to come to your conclusion, yet you have to admit that we don't know all we will ever know. With the knowledge we have today, can you really say that there will never be evidence of God's existance?

If you are willing to come to a conclusion that there is no God, simply using the physical evidence known today, you make yourself seem as backward as the engineers who swore that heavier than air flight was impossible, or that atoms are (and will always be) "indivisible".

If you choose to be an Atheist, that is fine, but don't look down on us for believing in God (in spite of a lack of physical evidence to prove it to you), when you use that same insufficient evidence to come to the opposite conclusion.
on Feb 19, 2006
No offense intended, but when you tell people that they "lack integrity", that's an insult. As far as peace, you are the one wandering into the religion section writing article after article insulting religion. I think it is funny that you think I am the one that needs to reconcile my thoughts when you conflict your own statements in every paragraph.

That's peace? Self-conflict, insulting and baiting people in the religion section with you differ with religion. Odd sort of peace. Sounds a lot more like an insecure person trying to cement his made-up reality to me. Then when you insult people's beliefs, you take them to task for being insulted and tell them to reconcile THEIR beliefs with YOURS.

In order to demand that, you need to show that yours merits adoption, and you can't even seem to keep it straight yourself. You are the one that has a problem with religion believing blindly, and yet you zealously seeks to instruct religious people about your own subjective beleifs and holier-than-thou proverbs.
on Feb 19, 2006
A mountain, to someone who lives by a volcano and calls it a mountain, might inspire fear. When they wander onto a messageboard and start ranting about how awful mountains are, most people aren't going to understand. It's easy to sit back and draw a conclusion based on what you have seen, not realizing that you aren't omnipotent and and that your experiences don't define the processes for everyone. You might not even be talking about the same thing.

I think you are talking about volcanoes and calling them mountains. To you, religion has a given definition, but you don't come by that objectively. In your experience maybe religion is this or religion is that, but you are seeing it through your eyes and filtering it through your values. You have the right to say that you BELIEVE that people who are both religious and scientific have no integrity.

You won't be able to convince people that your definition is universal, though, and it isn't a reflection on their intellence that you can't. It's a reflection of your inability to see that your definitions aren't "truth". When you evoke science as your ally in the discussion, you lose all sense of reality.
on Feb 19, 2006
Hm,
a lot of great scientists have been religious persons, Einstein for example.
In my opinion, it is possible be religious and scientific without loosing your integrity: This is, I think, the case when your religious believes don't get into the way of your scientific thinking. I see no problem with saying: 'I use science to draw conclusions about how our physical world works, but I also believe that there are thinks beyond what science can prove.' You can be an integer scientist and still believe in god and the afterlive (for which scientic proves are not possible.)

The loss of integrity, from my point of view, happens then when religion is (mis-)used to judge scientific theories (for example, when the bible is (mis)used to 'prove' that the theory of evolution is wrong). When religious believes get in the way of scientific thinking. (And it drives me nuts when people do this. )
on Feb 19, 2006
Who here believes in the islamic God? If you don't believe in the Islamic God, do you deny the existence of this God you disbelieve in. Do you have faith that that particular God doesn't exist?
I have never set out to prove to anyone that God doesn't exist. That is where every religious entity is incorrect in their thinking. If the religious want to prove that God exists, then they must do so, otherwise they shouldn't speak.

I haven't insulted your beliefs, on the contrary, I respect beliefs. And in many cases those beliefs are not reconcilliable.

If I posit "Hey mister, believe in my God. I have know way to show you that it is a true thing, but you must believe anyway". Does that sound like someone that has integrity as a high standard? That is the question.

But not only does the Christian say this, they say believe not only in my God, but the salvation through Christ. They take it one step further, when there is a proponderance of evidence out against the Christian Faith. Is this what you call integrity?

I am free from all of this sinister fundamental Christian or Catholic Dogma. And being free from all of this, I want to share my freedom with the rest of you. I want to share my peace of mind that I have lived with for the past 15 years. Even if it may offend some of you. I am not frightened about offending you. So I appeal to those who can think, and reason to ask the question. Is what I believe in a real thing, or just a thought and something I was taught based on my heritage.

There is also a preponderance of evidence that where you are born, dictates what you are to believe. Unless of course you learn to think for yourself, and doubt those beliefs based on facts that we live with each day.

Someting else Richard Carrier said:
Morality is the favorite watchword of the religious. It is also a popular polemic to equate atheism with the complete absence of morality, as if a disbelief in god meant at the same time a disbelief in moral standards. Any inquiry into the beliefs of actual atheists in the matter of morals would prove this assumption wrong. Indeed, the atheist is often possessed of stronger moral convictions than devout believers. Abraham, so the Old Testament claims, abandoned his morals at the mere command of his god. He was prepared to commit murder, even kill his own son, and this was proof of his religious devotion. Like him, many a religious man is willing to push morals aside if he thinks his god has asked or allowed him to, if he thinks it is for "the greater good" of god. Not so the atheist. If god appeared to me and asked me to kill my son, even though I would have undeniable proof that god exists and was the supreme creator and the ultimate power of the universe, I would reject his command at once. I would prefer death to the defilement of what is right. To want murder is evil, and if God wanted murder, he would be evil--and no good man accepts a wicked master.
on Feb 19, 2006
has any person, since you have been here at JU, said "Hey mister, believe in my God" with or without proof? I'm wondering what makes you so threatened by other people's beliefs that you would continually try and prove your own are superior.

"I am free from all of this sinister fundamental Christian or Catholic Dogma. And being free from all of this, I want to share my freedom with the rest of you. I want to share my peace of mind that I have lived with for the past 15 years. Even if it may offend some of you. I am not frightened about offending you. So I appeal to those who can think, and reason to ask the question. Is what I believe in a real thing, or just a thought and something I was taught based on my heritage."


And that is where you betray yourself. You aren't here just to express your feelings. You aren't trying to find out how to reconcile the two as you invited in your other blog. You are here because you want to "share your freedom"... which is exactly the kind of zealous proslyting what you berate religion for doing.

Worse, you claim that people should lean toward your beliefs because they are more scientific and logical. Beliefs are beliefs, and using science to validate unprovable subjective beliefs is hypocrisy on either side. You try to persuade by saying that anything else is ignorant or lacks integrity. You are insulting the beliefs of others in order to promote your own beliefs. I think you have that religion thing downpat.

"If I posit "Hey mister, believe in my God. I have know way to show you that it is a true thing, but you must believe anyway". Does that sound like someone that has integrity as a high standard? That is the question."


That is exactly what you are doing, only replace "philosophy" with God. No, it doesn't sound like you hold much in the way of integrity, or at least in honesty with yourself.

on Feb 19, 2006
To clarify, I'm not saying that you can't believe what you believe, or that you can't even try to get OTHER people to believe what you believe. What bothers me is that you insist on claiming that it holds more objective 'truth' and is the choice of people who are more intelligent or scientific.

You admit that science and faith have two different methods, and yet you try and hang your faith on the nail of science to lend it more credibility than other faiths. That's disengenuous, and frankly negates any ability you'd have to question other people's integrity.
on Feb 19, 2006
Excuse me, I thought I was responding to someone with a brain.

I'll remember to not make the mistake of showing any sort of respect towards you again. Obviously you think that I'm a total idiot, incapable of your magnanimus superior intellect.

What a load of hypocritical swill you've unloaded here, Foxjazz. You lie through your teeth about "respecting" beliefs of others, but then you take every opportunity to trash any believer and tell us that we have no right to speak?

Forget replying since I have no more use for your bigotry and stupidity.
on Feb 19, 2006
You are here stating your beliefs. I am here stating I don't believe those beliefs.

AGAIN, to the believers in the world. Atheism IS NOT FAITH. It is not a belief. It is lack of believing in God or Gods.

I enjoy sharing my freedom as you enjoy sharing your belief system with others. I respect others that believe those systems, I don't have verfy much respect for the belief systems themselves. The two things are completely different.

It is unfortunate you have the right to speak unintelligentlly. But we do have freedoms. You just can't speak and keep your integrity intact, because your beliefs aren't founded in facts.

And those that say Science is a religion are LIEING and have no integrity whatsoever.

So you see how it goes. I enjoy telling of my freedom, and of keeping the good in tact, while others condemn me for it.

It also doesn't take superior intellect to be an atheist, babies are atheists until they are taught what to believe in life. And it is the teaching of false beliefs that I am against, no matter how benign they appear to be.

on Feb 19, 2006
"AGAIN, to the believers in the world. Atheism IS NOT FAITH. It is not a belief. It is lack of believing in God or Gods."


No, sorry, that isn't so. You choose not to believe in God. In so doing you believe that there is no God. Perhaps if you could make the point that you had never heard of God that would make sense. Instead you are trying to state that you can come to the scientific conclusion that something doesn't exist based upon lack of data.

If you AREN'T trying to prove that God doesn't exist based upon lack of data, then you must be saying you BELIEVE that God doesn't exist. From that perspective your philosphical beliefs have no bearing on science. You are discussing 'truth', and are as grounded in faith as anyone else. You just choose to have faith in your perceived logic and intelligence.

You are the one touting reason and logic. You, when faced with a decision decided that you would adopt the belief that there is no God. That isn't fact since you have no data to prove otherwise. You simply decided that your belief was more plausible than the one you rejected. You don't "know", you believe.

You can't even comprehend what anyone is saying to you, evidently. No one is saying science is a religion. You just impose your philosphy on science, and claim that anyone that doubts the "truth" of your beliefs are also doubting science. It's a dishonest argument that "lacks integrity"

Babies are ignorant. They have made no decision as to whether there is a God or not. You have, so you can't fall back on the non-existence of belief. You've decided to believe that there is no God. Good for you. Insisting that your belief is scientific is a farce though.

No one is insulting science here. We are ridiculing you for trying to use science to promote your philosophy, when you, yourself state that the two aren't complimentary. No one is condemning you for telling us about your beliefs. We are condemning you for condemning ours, and claiming we have no integrity and are less "scientific" than you are.
on Feb 20, 2006

I tend to think of atheism as a type of religion.

There is no evidence to imply that there is no God.  There is also no evidence IMO to imply there is a God.  We simply don't know.

So most people choose to have faith that there's something (Some sort of God at the very least) and a few people take the opposite route.

I don't have faith in either.  I simply have no idea if there's a God or not.

I'm not an atheist. I don't know either way. I don't proclaim there is no god.

on Feb 20, 2006

You are the one that has a problem with religion believing blindly, and yet you zealously seeks to instruct religious people about your own subjective beleifs and holier-than-thou proverbs.
I gather that you don't have a problem in accusing the author of a lack of integrity!--"disingenuous" by any other name spells...

 inquiry and doubt are essential checks against deception: well put but has nothing to do with atheism which is a doubtless proclamation that god clearly does not exist and just as clearly be postulated as self-deception.  

on Feb 20, 2006
Who here believes in the islamic God? If you don't believe in the Islamic God, do you deny the existence of this God you disbelieve in. Do you have faith that that particular God doesn't exist?I have never set out to prove to anyone that God doesn't exist. That is where every religious entity is incorrect in their thinking. If the religious want to prove that God exists, then they must do so, otherwise they shouldn't speak.


I believe that there is a God. Look around you, your mere existence is proof. Some of us have a difficult time trying to understand and trust what we can not see or explain. I agree that everyone has the right to believe in what is or what is not God, but I am baffled when scientific explanations are used to justify proof of life, God and religion.

What no one seems to be able explain "faith" and "prayer"? As far as I am concerned there is no scientific explanation for faith and prayer. I have stepped out on faith so many times in my life, and guess what, it really truly works. Every time I have ever prayed, all of my prayers have been answered. Faith is trusting what you can't see but you know it will carry you through.

Every culture has a different way or belief system of who and what God is. There is no right or wrong, but a belief in a higher power.
I have many testimonials that says other wise. I have seen true angels, which are from God. I have been blessed with the ability of
premonitions and fore-runners. This is a gift from God, and there are many others just like me.
I believe that man has a certain level of intellegence and God has limited our capacity of knowledge from the unknown. Human nature has a lot of different imperfections, to name a few, Greed, Hatred, Murder, selfihness, bigotry, which are all considered sins. The one lesson which mankind has not conquered is love thy neighbor. God is love. A man without God is a lost sheep. As for the BIBLE, it stands for many things. What does the word bible stand for? ......B...Basic I...Instruction B....Before L....Leaving E.....Earth, that spells BIBLE.
3 Pages1 2 3