I've
heard a lot of falsehoods and fallacies lately from religious people
(termed "theists" by us atheists) about what atheists
believe. They have said, conflictingly I might add, that we:
*Don't
have any morals
*Do
not believe in anything
*Worship
Satan
*Believe
that a God does not exist
It's
interesting to be told what you believe by someone who doesn't know
anything about you, trust me. But all these things are untrue (1).
Let me address them one-by-one.
*Atheists
DO have morals
When
you are free of religious dogma, it's easier for you see the world
the way it really is, and the best behaviours to adopt to make it a
better place. That's why there are so few atheists in prison (a
couple of sources I looked at put the rate at between 0.2 – 0.5% of
the total prison population, way below the rate in the population),
and we are not all being convicted of theft, rape and murder every 5
minutes.
*Atheists
believe in lots of things
Otherwise,
they would be nihilists. Generally, atheists believe in the people
around them. Humanism and philosophy are good starting points.
*Atheists
do not worship Satan
You
can't worship something you don't believe in. Accepting Satan
requires also accepting God. We reject God- we're atheists.
*
(1) Atheists do not necessarily believe that a God does not exist
Man,
here we go.
The
position of believing that a God does not exist is one FORM of
atheism. It is called STRONG atheism or
anti-theism.
I call it that to distinguish it from the normal atheism. There are
also other behaviours commonly associated with anti-theism, such as
bold opposition to organised religion in any form, and campaigning,
debating and arguing for de-conversion.
However,
this strong position
is not required to be an atheist.
The minimum position, and the most common, is WEAK atheism: The
rejection of the claim that a God exists.
I
can categorically assure you that these positions are quite distinct:
*I
do not believe that a God exists. (Position A - weak atheism)
*I
believe that no God exists. (position B - anti-theism)
These
positions, and a third (*I
believe that a God exists - theism)
are all positions on the belief
scale.
Notice no talk of Agnosticism here. Agnosticism is very annoying to
atheists and much misused by others. The knowledge
scale deals
with Gnosticism/Agnosticism. In reality, everyone is Agnostic because
no-one really knows if a God exists. They may claim to know, but we
can never be 100% sure without evidence. Agnosticism
is annoying because it doesn't tell us what someone believes.
Whilst Position A says nothing about whether you know
a God exists. Hence most
atheists are Agnostic Atheists (position A + agnosticism),
to define both their belief and claimed knowledge about God's
existence.
I
hope you can see the difference between positions A and B. There are
2 good analogies I've heard which demonstrate the precise situation
very well and clearly show the difference.
Coins
in a jar
There
is a large jar containing many coins. You are trying to determine if
the number of coins in the jar is odd or even. You can look at it but
not open it, weigh it or count the coins etc. The assertion is made
to you that the number of coins in the jar is even. Do you
accept this proposition?
The
most sensible answer is no. This means that you do not necessarily
think that the number of coins is odd, but rather that you are not
sure that it is even. By saying no, you are not saying “I
think there are an odd number of coins”. That would have
been accepting the proposition that the number of coins is odd.
In terms of logic, there are 2 possibilities: either the number of
coins is even, or it is odd. However we are only dealing with ONE of
these possibilities at a time when we are answering an assertion.
Answering in the negative to a positive assertion that there is an
even number of coins is not a belief in itself- rather, saying “I
reject that assertion” - hedging our bets, getting an opportunity
for more time to find another way of ascertaining the true answer.
+
The
situation is analogous to the existence of God. Here God existing is
equivalent to an even number of coins, and God not existing is like
an odd number of coins. Either God exists, or it doesn't. But we only
deal with one positive assertion at a time. Answering in the
negative to a positive assertion that there is a God is not a belief
in itself- rather, saying “I reject that assertion” -
hedging our bets, getting an opportunity for more time to find
another way of ascertaining the true answer. This is atheism
position A.
+
The Courtroom Trial
A
defendant is on trial, charged with murder. You are on the jury and
must return a verdict on the assertion of the defendant's guilt.
Here
we have 2 possible responses, guilty or not guilty.
These are two logical negations of each other. Again, the real-life
situation is that either the defendant is guilty, or innocent,
but again, in judging the outcome, we only look at one of those
possibilities with our two logical negations – being guilty
or not guilty is the one we examine.
Let's
say that the prosecution do not make a convincing enough case. There
is some evidence, but the evidence that there is, is circumstantial
and you feel that it's not enough to convict the defendant. You would
then logically vote to return a verdict of Not Guilty. Let us
look carefully at the ramifications of this decision.
Does
the Not Guilty verdict you have delivered as a juror, mean that you
think that the defendant is innocent? No, not necessarily. You
may be fairly convinced that he is in fact guilty, for other reasons
that can't be admissible for instance, however, on the evidence
presented, there was sufficient doubt over the guilt to return a not
guilty verdict.
But
surely if you think the defendant not guilty you must think there is
a greater chance of him being innocent? Does the Not Guilty verdict
you have delivered as a juror, mean that you you as a juror have any
responsibility to comment on the likelihood or probability that the
defendant is innocent? Not
necessarily, and no. You have judged that there is 95% (or the
preponderance of evidence or the agreed yardstick) chance that the
defendant is not guilty.
As a juror you have no responsibility to determine the subsequent
probability of guilt, nor innocence. (The latter is a different,
theoretical question, requiring a re-trial with the options of
“innocent” vs. “not innocent” for the jury to return). It is
a “past the post” system for evidence of guilt. There is either
enough evidence to convict, or there isn't.
+
The
analogy: God is on trial, charged with existing in the Universe. You
are on the jury and must return a verdict on the assertion of God's
existence.
Here
we have 2 possible responses, guilty or not guilty.
These are two logical negations of each other. Again, the real-life
situation is that either God exists or it does not exist,
but again, in judging the outcome, we only look at one of those
possibilities with our two logical negations – being guilty of
existing or not guilty of existing is the one we examine.
Let's
say that the theists do not make a convincing enough case. There is
some bible/Koran evidence, but the evidence that there is, is
circumstantial and you feel that it's not enough to prove that God
exists. You would then logically vote to return a verdict of Not
Guilty. Let us look carefully at the ramifications of this
decision.
Does
the Not Guilty Of Existing verdict you have delivered as a juror,
mean that you think that God is innocent of existing (i.e. Does not
exist)? No, not necessarily. You may be of the position that God
may exist, for other reasons, however, on the evidence presented,
there was sufficient doubt over his existing to return a not
guilty verdict.
But
surely if you think God not guilty of existing you must think there
is a greater chance of him not existing? Does the Not Guilty verdict
you have delivered as a juror, mean that you you as a juror have any
responsibility to comment on the likelihood or probability that God
exists? Not necessarily, and
no. You have judged that there is 95% (or the preponderance of
evidence or the agreed yardstick) chance that God is not
guilty of existing. As a juror
you have no responsibility to determine the subsequent probability of
God existing, or not existing. (The latter is a different,
theoretical question, requiring a re-trial with the options of “God
is innocent of exisitng” vs. “God is not innocent of existing”
for the jury to return). It is a “past the post” system for
evidence of guilt. There is either enough evidence for you
to believe God exists, or there isn't.
+
In
many ways, this Trial is the better example for atheism. Because
for us agnostic weak atheists of position A, there is not enough
evidence for us to believe that God exists. Therefore we do not
believe that god exists.
It's
as simple as that. Phew!
Now,
after all that I hope you understand the difference between:
*Not
believing that God exists
and
*Believing
that God does not exist
If
you don't, then by definition you think that NOT GUILTY means
*exactly* the same thing as INNOCENT.
That's just wrong. If you still
don't understand, I may give up hope. It's as simple as that.
No comments:
Post a Comment