Non-Religious Answers to Religious Questions

Samaris

Out of sheer curiosity, does anyone else wonder if they might be wrong? In my view, as well as a tool for control that it undoubtedly is, there does seem to be a driving force in humans to explain "why IS". Why do we think? Is there a unifying life force that could be thought to be a deity? Is personality down to some sort of invisible soul or is it just electrical firings in unique brain development in each human? Was the Big Bang a spark of creation (to use a rather loaded term - sorry) or just a random chance/part of the universe's possibly-eternal expansion/contraction recycling mechanism? Why -are- humans so capable of great good or great evil and what qualifies as either, given there's a loaded religious history to those terms/concepts?

Ofc, this doesn't have to be explained by Catholicism or Hinduism or any specific religion, it could be as nebulous as "well, there might be something, just not a god with a personality and a name"

Are there any mysteries of life that make you wonder if maybe there is something in it?


Just interested if any of this has given others in here cause to wonder?

Peregrinus

I'm not an atheist myself but, to be honest, I don't see that the thoughts you outline would pose much of a challenge to atheists.

Atheism is defined negatively. If you lack any belief in a god or gods, you can justifiable identify as an atheist. It's perfectly consistent to say "look, there are questions that I don't know the answer to, and there may be questions that I think we can never know the answer to. I just don't find 'god' a particularly appealing possible answer to those questions". You would still be an atheist.

You can even go further and say "I conced that 'god' is a possible answer to some of these questions, and I can't refute that answer - I think as an answer it can be neither proven nor refuted". Such a person is more likely, perhaps, to identify as an agnostic, but there are those on this board who would say no, he's an "agnostic atheist" - an atheist because he lacks any belief in god, and an agnostic because he concedes there are questions where we can't ultimately know if "god" is the answer.

Someone will be along shortly to post a much-loved diagrammatic representation of the varieties of atheism. I don't have a copy of the diagram myself, but it may help to explain matters.

There are of course other atheists who would say "I am absolutely convinced there is no god, and I deny that god is a plausible answer to any reasonable and meaningful question. And as for your talk of sparks and unifying life-forces and other such mystical nebulosities - faugh! Pish and tush to you, sir!" Such persons are also atheists, but they're not just atheists. They'll typically also identify - or will be identified by others - as philosophical materialists, not only lacking any belief in god but affirming a belief that the only reality is that which is material and (in principle) empirically observable. If that's their belief, then of course they will be untroubled by the question you pose since their confident answer to it will be "no".

In a sense, we're just arguing about the definition of a word. To be an atheist®, do you have to strongly assert that there is definitely no god, or is it just enough that you don't hold to a belief that there is? I'm saying that a definition which includes the latter is fine, and I suspect most who post on this board will share that view. But ultimately there are no language popes; you can define and use the word how you like, and who is to say that you are wrong?

Are their atheists who ask themselves unanswerable philosophical questions about the reason for existence and the meaning of life and the fundamental mystical unity of all living things? I'm sure there are. It doesn't mean they have to stop calling themselves atheists, though.

nozzferrahhtoo

Wow what a lot of questions in your post. Each one could be answered not by a single post but by several TOMES of text. Forgive me if I address only a minority of what you asked

Samaris wrote: »

Out of sheer curiosity, does anyone else wonder if they might be wrong?

All the time. And not just on the subject of a god's existence but on ALL things I believe. And I make it an exercise to periodically review things I believe to be true and try to ask myself if it is possible I am wrong about them. So even when I find myself NOT wondering if I am wrong about something.......... I then force myself to!

It is not to show up their pathetic lack of arguments (well ok not JUST to show them up ) that I ask theists for any arguments, evidence, data or reasoning to back up their claims. I do it ALSO because IF there is a god and I am wrong in thinking there is no basis for thinking so......... then I WANT to know that.

I am not emotionally invested in there being no god, or in there being a god. I AM emotionally invested in knowing what is true. In all things. And if there is a god, or any reason to think there is a god, then I am GENUINE (though some of the people I have made look bad would doubt that) in my desire to be made aware of my errors/ignorance.

Samaris wrote: »

In my view, as well as a tool for control that it undoubtedly is, there does seem to be a driving force in humans to explain "why IS".

We are quite well versed in the reasons why we have that drive though. Evolution has strongly selected for that kind of thinking. There are concepts like "The intentional stance" and "Agency detection" and "Theory of mind" in how our brain works that roundly and strongly explain why we have such drives.

An analogy might help. It could coherently be written that "There does seem to be a driving force in humans to get infections". This can be coherently parsed out, even though it is rubbish. We seem to go through life being entirely great at finding and contracting infections.

But the reality is that nothing about us has evolved to get infections. We have attributes that have evolved for other VERY good reasons, and infections have evolved to take advantage and commandeer those things.

Similarly I do not think we have a driving force towards these "whys" per se, so much as OTHER attributes about us have evolved that are being commandeered by certain ways of thinking, certain memetic infections if you will.

Thinking "why is that happening" or "why is that doing that" and then both quickly followed by "and what is it's intention towards ME" is simply something evolution has moulded us to do. Because the detection of agency and motivation simply kept us alive. And a lot of theistic memetic infection uses that tendency to great effect.

Samaris wrote: »

Are there any mysteries of life that make you wonder if maybe there is something in it?

Not really no. But there HAVE been many such thing, some of which you listed, that very much DID make me wonder at the time. But as soon as I set time aside to DO that wondering, and all the study and research and conversations doing so entailed, the effect wore off quite quickly.

But it did leave me quite strongly aware of how anyone who does not go to that level of thought on such things may find it convincing, or maybe just simpler, to take the easy explanation for them which the "there is someone or something higher than ourselves at work here" narrative offers nicely.

looksee

It also depends on the definition of 'god'. If god is taken to mean something external, something other people can share, then no, that is religion, I think. However the brain has an infinite capacity to play tricks on us and having a 'god' as a way to explain things you cannot understand is the brain's solution to that problem.

In much the same way that a gambler can be convinced that the next throw of the dice is the one that is going to make his fortune, so a person can believe that if they appease the being that they have created they will achieve life eternal.

The parallels between luck, superstition and religious belief are pretty much identical. Some people need to do a little ritual of actions before they leave the house or go on a stage or a football pitch, it gives them comfort and removes from them the responsibility to do well. How is religion any different - do the rituals and your soul will be saved even if you fall from the 'straight and narrow path'. It gives comfort, and there is nothing wrong with that. However, going for a cycle, doing something creative, looking after someone else, seeing a job well done, and so on, can also give comfort and satisfy the ritual and the feeling that you are doing the 'right thing'.

If it helps people to have this personal god, then what harm? However if you need to justify and validate your personal god by persuading other people to share your god, then you are looking for power and authority over others, 'my god is better than anything you can dream up for yourself'. Other people will agree and accept that god, it saves them the bother of creating their own. The instinct to be part of a group or tribe is also very strong and it is as good a basis as any for fitting in and being part of the group.

Even being here and agreeing that there is no god is part of that desire to identify with others of the same view.

smacl

Samaris wrote: »

Out of sheer curiosity, does anyone else wonder if they might be wrong?

I work on the basis of probability, whereby the understanding of our universe as given by science, based around observation and subject to intense scrutiny, is our best guess at the truth at any given point in time. This understanding is doubtless wrong in some aspects and most certainly incomplete.

If you compare that to religious belief, it is lacking evidence, not subject to scrutiny, and not subject to revision by new observation. This doesn't make it false, but does make it highly improbable. It is also subject to significant subject bias; we would like our religious belief to be true, because if it was true and we adhered to its rules, we would become immortal. Unfortunately, there is nothing to suggest that wanting something to be true influences whether it is true,

In my view, as well as a tool for control that it undoubtedly is, there does seem to be a driving force in humans to explain "why IS". Why do we think? Is there a unifying life force that could be thought to be a deity? Is personality down to some sort of invisible soul or is it just electrical firings in unique brain development in each human? Was the Big Bang a spark of creation (to use a rather loaded term - sorry) or just a random chance/part of the universe's possibly-eternal expansion/contraction recycling mechanism? Why -are- humans so capable of great good or great evil and what qualifies as either, given there's a loaded religious history to those terms/concepts?

Ofc, this doesn't have to be explained by Catholicism or Hinduism or any specific religion, it could be as nebulous as "well, there might be something, just not a god with a personality and a name"

Are there any mysteries of life that make you wonder if maybe there is something in it?

Just interested if any of this has given others in here cause to wonder?

Life is full of mystery, and personally I value a sense of wonder and imagination hugely. It is very important for us to speculate what might be or what could be, as this is how we learn. At an individual level, our minds are tiny and limited, so what one person can ever hope to know if a lifetime is a tiny fraction of our accumulated knowledge as a species, which is in turn an infinitesimal fraction of all there is to know. Thus all of our lives should always be full of mystery whenever we take time to stop and think about it.

tl;dr Regularly wrong and always profoundly ignorant.

pH

Samaris wrote: »

Why -are- humans so capable of great good or great evil and what qualifies as either, given there's a loaded religious history to those terms/concepts?

As you can probably imagine a great deal of thought has been given to exactly these questions. From modern writers have a look at the following :

Sam Harris - The Moral Landscape (or Waking up)
Daniel Dennett - Freedom Evolves (or breaking the spell)
Steven Pinker - The better angels of our nature (or the blank slate)

Samaris

Thank you for the answers - and some points I will mull over!

Shall be travelling down the country so will be back along later post-travel and post-mulling Not just posting and fleeing, honest!

oldrnwisr

Samaris wrote: »

Out of sheer curiosity, does anyone else wonder if they might be wrong?

Ofc, this doesn't have to be explained by Catholicism or Hinduism or any specific religion, it could be as nebulous as "well, there might be something, just not a god with a personality and a name"

Well if I'm wrong then that means that some kind of god exists. So the question becomes which god?
If we're going to dispense with all existing religious concepts of god, like Catholicism or Hinduism as you say, then that just leaves us with vanilla concepts like theism or deism. The question then becomes so what?
If we're going to propose a god with no moral code, no requirement for worship, no suggestion of an afterlife, then it what way does a god existing actually make any kind of difference.
You see the things that make people convert or deconvert are questions surrounding the soteriological (claims related to salvation) or eschatological (claims related to the end of the world / fate of your soul) claims of different religions. All religions propose some kind of continuation of existence after death and most propose some kind of barrier to accessing said afterlife, be it faith, good works etc. If you remove these claims or features of a religion then it makes little practical difference whether a god exists or not and so the question of if I'm wrong becomes meaningless.

Samaris wrote: »

Why do we think? Is there a unifying life force that could be thought to be a deity? Is personality down to some sort of invisible soul or is it just electrical firings in unique brain development in each human? Was the Big Bang a spark of creation (to use a rather loaded term - sorry) or just a random chance/part of the universe's possibly-eternal expansion/contraction recycling mechanism? Why -are- humans so capable of great good or great evil and what qualifies as either, given there's a loaded religious history to those terms/concepts?

Doubt and uncertainty are important. As Richard Feynman once said:

"You see, one thing, is I can live with doubt and uncertainty and not knowing. I think it’s much more interesting to live not knowing than to have answers which might be wrong. I have approximate answers and possible beliefs and different degrees of certainty about different things but I’m not absolutely sure of anything and then many things I don’t know anything about, such as whether it means anything to ask, “Why we are here?” and what that question might mean. I might think about it a bit and then if I can’t figure it out then I go on to something else.

But I don’t have to know an answer, I don’t have to…i don’t feel frightened by not knowing things, by being lost in the mysterious universe without having any purpose which is the way it really is as far as I can tell possibly. It doesn’t frighten me."

The problem with uncertainty is that it can lead some people to feel that you need to have an answer to questions like the ones above. However "I don't know" or "it's not possible to know" are perfectly valid answers. As Neil deGrasse Tyson points out:

"... there is no shame in not knowing. The problem arises when irrational thought and attendant behavior fill the vacuum left by ignorance."

As Nozz mentions in his post, we do have good explanations already for why we have a drive to explain things. We also have well developed explanations for your other questions like why we think and what causes personality. However, when we are faced with a question to which we don't know the answer it's best to deal with it on its own terms and not assume it's connected to some kind of systemic answer (i.e. that god is responsible).

You see, the idea that not knowing, for example why we think, means anything other than we don't know is a dangerous idea. Neil deGrasse Tyson explains here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HooeZrC76s0

I hope this answers your questions but as Nozz has already commented, the topics you've introduced could take reams of books to properly answer so it's hard to distill into something which is still coherent.

Samaris

It is, and I rather went all out with the questions!

Mostly I think I've solved them to my own satisfaction over time, even if occasionally the answer is a shrug. But I've thought about all of them over time, mostly during my own journey towards atheism. Interesting comments from Richard Feynman, he makes some good points in that.

Some things will probably stay societal, even if the religious aspects fade out entirely, like the whole "good" and "evil" thing, I think. Meaning might change a bit to accommodate other interpretations over time. It's interesting to see what questions other people had occur that they felt the need to answer (or at least wanted to answer) and that religion didn't answer any more.

I know a few people who would call themselves Christians while disliking the Catholic Church and who would lean more towards "something", perhaps a sort of life force or what makes up a "soul". I don't subscribe too much to "Christianity is what separate Christian sects say it is" since, like the question raised above about "well, which God?", they can't all be absolutely right. And organising religion seems to be a sure-fire way to corrupt it. Something my very Catholic father once said that stuck with me was when I asked him if Catholicism was true and if so, what did that mean for all the good people that were born into other religions. He, surprisingly, looking back at it, said that it was possible that all Gods were aspects or points of view of the same God (a pretty obvious conclusion looking at the Abrahamic religions especially). CS Lewis used a similar idea in the Narnia series. Stuck with me for a long time, not least as other supposedly loving Catholics were happy to tell a small child that the rest of her family were going to hell (such charmers!).

Anyone else have/had issues with ingrained Catholic guilt over the whole thing? :P It's very hard to believe in something one doesn't, but Catholic guilt doesn't need belief if it's been ingrained thoroughly enough at a young age!