I don't know why, but I've always had no problem with an objective reality. By which I mean, the world is the way it is whether you like it or not, so you might as well learn to like it.
As a (young) theist, I heard my rebellious friends say that there must not be a god because the world is so terrible. But that seemed like absurd reasoning to me, and it still does (there are bad reasons to be an atheist). The world is what it is, and either there's a god or there's not, but whether you approve of the world or god has no baring on their existence.
In regards to morality, people often say if there's no god then there's no objective morality, as if that's some terrible thing. Sorry folks, but the fact is that there are as many different views of morality as there are minds in the universe. God or no god, morality is subjective. Just because certain individuals are better suited at enforcing their ideals does not make their opinions more relevant. If anything can prove a moral, it's reasoned thought; make a case that your priorities are justified and then show how the given action interacts with your priorities.
Concepts like good and bad are always subjective. That is a fact of definition. I actually see this as one of the harms of religions; they tell people what to do and when asked "why" they say "because god said so". It is better to reason your morality because it makes sure you follow the purpose rather than blindly running the errands you are told to. It allows you to progress. And progress is always my top priority.
Saturday, March 6, 2010
Why I Don't Believe in Souls pt. 2
Any honest person will admit that it's always POSSIBLE that there is something else going on beyond our understanding. But a look at the basic evidence tells us that the mind exists as a structure. There is a reason why neurobiologists are the least likely scientists to believe in a soul; because they understand how the mind works on a physical level. I understand that the average person might not be familiar with the level of studies we've done on the subject, and might think that we don't know enough to say for sure that the soul isn't energy, but let me put it this way;
The mind is what the brain does. Getting you from one place to another is what a car does. To say that the mind can exist with just energy and no biological structure is like saying that gasoline can drive you to work without a car. That is the level of absurdity of believing in a mind that is made of only energy. It's not some advanced fringe science, it's basic physics.
When I realized this, I was embarrassed by how obvious it was. But more embarrassed was I to realize that I already knew the answer, but had ignored it for so long because I didn't want to let go of my beliefs. It wasn't believing in no soul that was closed minded, it was believing that there was a soul even though I knew enough to know why I was wrong. That was why I decided to stop calling myself an agnostic, and start being a skeptic; because believing is something because you're not sure it's wrong is intellectually lazy and dishonest.
The mind is what the brain does. Getting you from one place to another is what a car does. To say that the mind can exist with just energy and no biological structure is like saying that gasoline can drive you to work without a car. That is the level of absurdity of believing in a mind that is made of only energy. It's not some advanced fringe science, it's basic physics.
When I realized this, I was embarrassed by how obvious it was. But more embarrassed was I to realize that I already knew the answer, but had ignored it for so long because I didn't want to let go of my beliefs. It wasn't believing in no soul that was closed minded, it was believing that there was a soul even though I knew enough to know why I was wrong. That was why I decided to stop calling myself an agnostic, and start being a skeptic; because believing is something because you're not sure it's wrong is intellectually lazy and dishonest.
Why I Don't Believe in Souls
I used to. I believed in souls more profusely than anything else really. Specifically, I believed that the human mind was more than just matter. As the mighty Yoda put it, "Luminous beings are we, not this crude matter." Although the concept of a soul is usually very obtuse (because tangible definition of it is usually easily proved false, so people who want to believe in it say it is incapable of being defined). As Alan Watts put it; "Most people feel that they are something or other about halfway between their ears and a little way behind the eyes, inside the head. That is what you call the ego. That's not what you are at all, because it gives you the idea that you are chauffeur inside your own body".
That's pretty much what I felt; that my mind used my body but was somehow separate. Then a friend asked me the question; "Do you think tree's have souls?". She was religious and probably thought they did, but for me to answer that question rationally I had to figure out what it took to have a soul and whether trees had it. So, the first thing is to define a soul (uh oh!);
While the substance of a soul is always in debate, you can see it based on it's effect. It brings about a personality in it's owner. A soul has emotions, memories, priorities. A soul is the thing that thinks and feels and cares about things. But here's the trick;
By then, I had learned enough about the brain, and brain chemistry, to know that each of these aspects is controlled by the structures and chemicals in the brain. Sure, energy is there, but it's not the key component. In fact, it's more of a bi-product. If you put small amounts of alcohol or any number of other chemicals in the system, the personality changes until they're gone. If you limit oxygen, preventing the proper chemical (chemical, not electrical) exchanges in the brain, the personality changes. And the most blunt fact of all; If you damage or remove the physical structures of the brain, the parts of the mind that they control are proportionately damaged or removed. Do double-blind tests running different types of energy through the brain (electric, heat, etc.) and you will see no personality change until the energies are strong enough to effect the physical processes or structure. Yet with a basic understanding of brain physiology you can remove entire parts of a person's mind with a scalpel, while leaving the types of energy running through the brain entirely the same.
(Continued in Why I Don't Believe in Souls pt. 2)
That's pretty much what I felt; that my mind used my body but was somehow separate. Then a friend asked me the question; "Do you think tree's have souls?". She was religious and probably thought they did, but for me to answer that question rationally I had to figure out what it took to have a soul and whether trees had it. So, the first thing is to define a soul (uh oh!);
While the substance of a soul is always in debate, you can see it based on it's effect. It brings about a personality in it's owner. A soul has emotions, memories, priorities. A soul is the thing that thinks and feels and cares about things. But here's the trick;
By then, I had learned enough about the brain, and brain chemistry, to know that each of these aspects is controlled by the structures and chemicals in the brain. Sure, energy is there, but it's not the key component. In fact, it's more of a bi-product. If you put small amounts of alcohol or any number of other chemicals in the system, the personality changes until they're gone. If you limit oxygen, preventing the proper chemical (chemical, not electrical) exchanges in the brain, the personality changes. And the most blunt fact of all; If you damage or remove the physical structures of the brain, the parts of the mind that they control are proportionately damaged or removed. Do double-blind tests running different types of energy through the brain (electric, heat, etc.) and you will see no personality change until the energies are strong enough to effect the physical processes or structure. Yet with a basic understanding of brain physiology you can remove entire parts of a person's mind with a scalpel, while leaving the types of energy running through the brain entirely the same.
(Continued in Why I Don't Believe in Souls pt. 2)
Why I Don't Believe in God Pt. 3
Agnosticism/Pantheism;
For years after I stopped lending serious thought to specific gods, I still believed "There is something more going on". Of course, like myself at the time, what people usually mean when they say that is "there is something supernatural going on". Because our expanding knowledge of how life, the universe and everything works isn't good enough to satisfy the idea of "something more".
We want to believe that there's 'something more' to a rainbow, but for some reason "light traveled almost 100 million miles through space, from a mass of hydrogen that is constantly collapsing and exploding simultaneously and has the mass of over a million earths, entered our atmosphere and was refracted through millions of falling droplets of water at an angle that caused each drop to reveal different portions of the spectrum of light to show as it fell, causing a stationary rainbow effect" apparently isn't as interesting as "there's a pot of gold at the end."
The view that I've come to see is that the answers given by rational inquiry are always more interesting that the ones we've made up. And more importantly, they allow us to discover questions we had never known to ask before, and find answers that can change our lives in unexpected and wonderful ways.
But back then, I thought it was more open minded to believe anything. I thought that human knowledge was too limited to answer any important questions, and that believing otherwise was being closed-minded and self-centered. I still believed that a god was possible, and even probable. I also believed in psychics, astral projection, etc. But that all ended with a question about trees...
(Continued in Why I Don't Believe in a Soul)
For years after I stopped lending serious thought to specific gods, I still believed "There is something more going on". Of course, like myself at the time, what people usually mean when they say that is "there is something supernatural going on". Because our expanding knowledge of how life, the universe and everything works isn't good enough to satisfy the idea of "something more".
We want to believe that there's 'something more' to a rainbow, but for some reason "light traveled almost 100 million miles through space, from a mass of hydrogen that is constantly collapsing and exploding simultaneously and has the mass of over a million earths, entered our atmosphere and was refracted through millions of falling droplets of water at an angle that caused each drop to reveal different portions of the spectrum of light to show as it fell, causing a stationary rainbow effect" apparently isn't as interesting as "there's a pot of gold at the end."
The view that I've come to see is that the answers given by rational inquiry are always more interesting that the ones we've made up. And more importantly, they allow us to discover questions we had never known to ask before, and find answers that can change our lives in unexpected and wonderful ways.
But back then, I thought it was more open minded to believe anything. I thought that human knowledge was too limited to answer any important questions, and that believing otherwise was being closed-minded and self-centered. I still believed that a god was possible, and even probable. I also believed in psychics, astral projection, etc. But that all ended with a question about trees...
(Continued in Why I Don't Believe in a Soul)
Why I Don't Believe in God Pt. 2
(Continued from my previous post, which explained why I stopped believing in only christianity)
Universal God/Polytheism;
So, my next belief system was something like "All the monotheistic religions are describing different encounters with the same god". This idea basically comes from recognizing the similarities between the different monotheistic religions. Really, they're all the same in their basic general ideas. But what really got me out of this way of thinking was science. One thing that almost all religions have in common, certainly all of the mainstream religions, is that their gods have the minds of a human. God apparently cares about who you lust after, who you kill, who is elected into office. God seems to have something to say about everything, and always seems to agree with the person speaking for him. No one says "god is against gay rights, but I think he's wrong". People said what THEY thought, and then quoted some religious text to support it.
But here's the trick; the universe is huge. Think about how huge it is for a moment.... Yeah, you're not even close. There are more galaxies in the universe than there are stars in our galaxy. If you look at the earth in volume, including everything below the crust, only about 10% of the earth is habitable by humans. More of the earth is made up of bacteria than humans. If you honestly think that the person who created all this actually cares whether or not you wank off to a picture of Charlize Theron, you're ridiculously self-centered. Thinking that such a being would care about the human race in general is ridiculously self-centered.
(Continued in Agnosticism/Pantheism)
Universal God/Polytheism;
So, my next belief system was something like "All the monotheistic religions are describing different encounters with the same god". This idea basically comes from recognizing the similarities between the different monotheistic religions. Really, they're all the same in their basic general ideas. But what really got me out of this way of thinking was science. One thing that almost all religions have in common, certainly all of the mainstream religions, is that their gods have the minds of a human. God apparently cares about who you lust after, who you kill, who is elected into office. God seems to have something to say about everything, and always seems to agree with the person speaking for him. No one says "god is against gay rights, but I think he's wrong". People said what THEY thought, and then quoted some religious text to support it.
But here's the trick; the universe is huge. Think about how huge it is for a moment.... Yeah, you're not even close. There are more galaxies in the universe than there are stars in our galaxy. If you look at the earth in volume, including everything below the crust, only about 10% of the earth is habitable by humans. More of the earth is made up of bacteria than humans. If you honestly think that the person who created all this actually cares whether or not you wank off to a picture of Charlize Theron, you're ridiculously self-centered. Thinking that such a being would care about the human race in general is ridiculously self-centered.
(Continued in Agnosticism/Pantheism)
Why I don't believe in God pt. 1
As with every supernatural belief I used to hold, my reason for ceasing to believe in god is simple; every reason I used to have to believe in god has been demonstrated to me to be an inadequate basis for the beliefs I had.
As many secularists will point out; the first thing you have to do when examining whether a god is real is defining it. Many believers hate this, I know I did, but you can't justify belief in something if you're not willing to make statements about it. I'll give you a series of the types of gods I believed in and the basic arguments that led me away from those beliefs.
Christian God;
I was brought up to believe in the christian god, Jesus, the flood etc. It wasn't a fundamentalist upbringing, it was more like some sort of modern apologetic belief. When I was a child I had already deduced that the flood couldn't have actually happened, based simply on the usual facts that there would be signs of it across the entire world and that two of every animal could not survive together on a boat for 40 days. Probably out of tolerance, my parents never tried to force me into a belief that my religion was right and all others were wrong, they taught me to respect others' beliefs. But the basic ideas that brought me out of christianity were the ideas that I knew it wasn't literally true and that I could not rationalize a belief in christianity any more than any other given religion.
Side note- Jesus
During grade school I learned about tall tales. Pecos Bill, etc. I learned how they were often based on actual people and events, but they were embellished as time went on as people exaggerated the details. My teachers never talked about the bible, but when you hear that someone is walking on water and turning water to wine that's actually significantly less impressive than lassoing a tornado. Frankly, I'm surprised that Jesus hasn't been said to do much more grandiose acts. But anyone who has played the game telephone or been present both at an event and at the retelling of it knows that any story repeated verbally is a story changed. If you think that people could pass down the story of anything accurately for over a generation then you're just not paying attention.
(I'll be posting this in multiple entries to make it more readable)
As many secularists will point out; the first thing you have to do when examining whether a god is real is defining it. Many believers hate this, I know I did, but you can't justify belief in something if you're not willing to make statements about it. I'll give you a series of the types of gods I believed in and the basic arguments that led me away from those beliefs.
Christian God;
I was brought up to believe in the christian god, Jesus, the flood etc. It wasn't a fundamentalist upbringing, it was more like some sort of modern apologetic belief. When I was a child I had already deduced that the flood couldn't have actually happened, based simply on the usual facts that there would be signs of it across the entire world and that two of every animal could not survive together on a boat for 40 days. Probably out of tolerance, my parents never tried to force me into a belief that my religion was right and all others were wrong, they taught me to respect others' beliefs. But the basic ideas that brought me out of christianity were the ideas that I knew it wasn't literally true and that I could not rationalize a belief in christianity any more than any other given religion.
Side note- Jesus
During grade school I learned about tall tales. Pecos Bill, etc. I learned how they were often based on actual people and events, but they were embellished as time went on as people exaggerated the details. My teachers never talked about the bible, but when you hear that someone is walking on water and turning water to wine that's actually significantly less impressive than lassoing a tornado. Frankly, I'm surprised that Jesus hasn't been said to do much more grandiose acts. But anyone who has played the game telephone or been present both at an event and at the retelling of it knows that any story repeated verbally is a story changed. If you think that people could pass down the story of anything accurately for over a generation then you're just not paying attention.
(I'll be posting this in multiple entries to make it more readable)
Introduction
Hello! My name is Adrian and I am an atheist. But I wasn't always so. I'm making this blog to depict the arguments for my previous beliefs, and why I left them for a secular way of thinking. Why? Because there are a lot of people who think that being secular means you're closed minded. I want to show people that the reason I don't believe in any given thing is often because at one point I did and eventually I was proven wrong.
Being open minded doesn't mean lending credence to every idea under the sun, it means being willing to admit when you are wrong and changing your beliefs based on new evidence.
I also feel that there are deeper layers of meaning behind analyzing reality rather than analyzing your own made up fairy tales. Philosophies are only useful if they can be shared. I believe in the spreading of knowledge and ideas, and ideas can't be spread if they aren't accessible to others.
I hope you enjoy my blog and feel free to post comments, especially if you disagree.
Being open minded doesn't mean lending credence to every idea under the sun, it means being willing to admit when you are wrong and changing your beliefs based on new evidence.
I also feel that there are deeper layers of meaning behind analyzing reality rather than analyzing your own made up fairy tales. Philosophies are only useful if they can be shared. I believe in the spreading of knowledge and ideas, and ideas can't be spread if they aren't accessible to others.
I hope you enjoy my blog and feel free to post comments, especially if you disagree.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)