Why I am not a believer

[yovargas]

We can all make all kinds of wild guesses for all kinds stuff. But one person's guess is no better than another's and it quickly becomes reasonable to see that we're all just making it up as we go along.

[vison]

I don't say it isn't true. I just say it doesn't make any sense to me.

[nerdanel]

Rodia - I don't think it's idiotic to ask non-believers that. I actually am not sure that there is no reason to think there is an afterlife. We don't really understand how this existence works or what drives us. Even if we accept the Big Bang theory as true, that does not explain how time itself began, and where that original "primordial hot and dense initial condition" (to quote Wikipedia) came from. We don't know what else exists in this universe, and we don't know that this universe is the only one.

Also, although we humans are an evolved form of animal, that seems not to be all that we are. The aspects of our sentient nature that some people call "soul" ... it is simply not clear to me where that comes from and how exactly it is tethered to the body. It certainly could die finally, permanently with the body. But I think whether it does is an unknown.

However, while I think we are free to speculate about this great unknown, I firmly believe that all we can do is speculate. One of the most frustrating things about certain religious traditions to me is their tendency to make absolute pronouncements or characterizations about the afterlife. To me, we do not know and cannot know; and statements about the afterlife presented as absolute truth seem to me to give human speculation more deference than it is due.

[Lidless]

From only knowing what a proton and electron does, is it possible to extrapolate the workings of a jet engine or a Harrier Jump Jet from that? Not really. It would take a lot of understanding. It's the same with the soul / self-awareness and the brain. We are only a fraction of an inch down a long road of understanding on that one.

Though I am loathe to use the word soul, as it has eternal connotations - something distinct and separate from the body. Psyche is a better word for me.

But that's one of the many functions of religion - to give the psyche the idea of an afterlife (and a tool to moderate behaviour so a good afterlife can be attained - the retirement pension scheme that is never awarded no matter how diligently you saved, IMHO).

Even I find it difficult to comprehend my own non-existence though I know I've been non-existent for 15 billion years before so I should be used to it!!

[Rodia]

See, I thought that religious or not, we'd all like to hope there's another day tomorrow, but maybe that's just me. Probably is. But if like Lidless says there's a psyche, or a soul we can speak of, then I think that gives speculating about what happens to it after the flesh dies a lot of sense, especially since it often happens that a clear line between life and death can't be drawn (long term coma patients, anyone? I actually asked my family to just switch me off if there's ever any doubt whether I'm dead or alive, I'd rather take my chances at the existence of Life v.2.0 than have them tearing their hair out over the decision).

And I agree with Nel, though I've often found it's not the religion itself that is so certain about the afterlife, but the believers. All I've gathered from the many different metaphors for Heaven etc. my religion has given me is that it's governed by the same God whom we believe created this Earth, and beyond that, who the hell (ahaha) knows.

(personally I believe in Nangijala, but that's another story)

[Frelga]

I don't know, I would like to find the Big Moot in the Sky, but the thought that this is the only life there is does not dismay me.

This line of conversation got me to wonder - would it be true to say that an atheist is necessarily a materialist?

[yovargas]

I pretty much agree with nel's whole post.

This line of conversation got me to wonder - would it be true to say that an atheist is necessarily a materialist?

Depends how you define "atheist" - Buddhists are technically atheists, for example.

[Lidless]

No.

Buddhists. Aah. yov beat me to that one. There are also practical atheists who live their lives without resorting to the divine. They do not deny the existence of a deity, they just see the concept as useless and are indifferent to it.

I guess your question could have been phrased as "if you don't believe in a soul reality, must you believe in a sole reality?

[axordil]

I'm pretty much a strict materialist at this point. We can't explain all of consciousness through detailed physical models, and it's possible we never will, but the overall direction of that discussion is pretty clear to me. Thus, the whole afterlife/soul by any other name/immortality thereof thing falls into the "wouldn't it be nice" category of thinking for me. It's unfalsifiable, so I don't fret about it. Wasn't it Gascoigne who asked why we worry about what happens after we die, when we don't worry about what happened before we were born? Yet consciousness is by its nature biased towards consciousness. It wouldn't be much of an evolutionary adaptation if it were indifferent to its continued existence.

That's just me, YMMV.

[narya]

Since my reality has no supernatural elements, no elements that are contrary to or "above" the workings of nature, I don't have a belief in souls, spirits, ghosts, guardian angels, demons, or the like.

I was quite upset when I came to understand (in my own version of reality) that there was no afterlife and no grand reunion with loved ones. But now that I've come to terms with the idea, there is a certain amount of comfort. I have a great ride, then when I get off, I no longer exist, so I don't have to go thru that whole thing of regret and watching my still-living loved ones suffer.

Anybody here read "The Lovely Bones?".

And Buddhists run the whole gamut from atheist to believers with pantheons full of deities and demons.

[yovargas]

I don't think the concept of a "soul" need be "supernatural".

[Dave_LF]

I'm just confused when you say there just isn't a reason. Once, people didn't think there was a reason for believing in many things we now know are facts. How is this different? I mean, why not speculate about this great unknown, why rather say it is not true, period?

Saying that I don't believe in something is completely different from saying "it is not true, period". Non-believers can and do speculate all the time; the difference is that they're unwilling to move beyond speculation to belief without evidence. You mention ideas that humans once had no reason to believe but which are now accepted as facts. Ask yourself what changed. In most cases the idea started with speculation, but that speculation was followed up with tests, observations, and reasoning about the results. Speculation can be fun and it might help you write a good novel, but without evidence, it should never turn into belief.

[axordil]

Speculation can be fun and it might help you write a good novel, but without evidence, it should never turn into belief.

I wouldn't go that far. I would say without empirical evidence, all it can be is belief. "Faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen," as the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews notes.

But even to become an article of faith, speculation requires something more: resonance. To be believed in, something must feel believable, satisfying even. And an afterlife/eternal soul does for a whole lot of people.

[Rodia]

I don't think the concept of a "soul" need be "supernatural".

I agree with that.

Dave, I see what you mean, but I also think Ax makes a good point there...maybe the validity of my reasoning is already compromised since I do believe in many supernatural things, God among them, but the idea of my future, complete non-existence is much less believable to me than the idea of an afterlife, impossible to prove as it is. Take away my belief in God, and I think it would still not make sense for me NOT to wonder what happens, and believing that something happens is just as valid a choice as believing that nothing happens at all, I think, so why do atheists so often choose the latter?

And even then, maybe it's only impossible to prove for now, and the future will bring proof. Now, when you say speculation without evidence should not turn into belief...I'm not the brightest bulb out there but logically it would seem to me that belief is unnecessary in the face of fact backed by evidence, no? With proof, belief turns into simple knowledge. Unless you mean to say non-conclusive evidence counts, but then by what standards do we dismiss some of it as irrelevant? I'm sure there have been many studies on the possibility of life after death that have brought forth evidence- not enough to prove it, obviously, but enough to make the speculation worth...er..speculating.

Maybe what my real question is is how do atheists chose which of the traditionally mystical things to dismiss as lacking evidence and therefore not worth thinking about, and which they decide to philosophise upon. An individual's identity comes to mind again, as something intangible. If most atheists consider the afterlife not worth speculating about, do most of them think the same of the notion of, say, universal good? love? friendship? I'm confused. To me those things fall in the same basket as the existence of a (possibly immortal) soul, but like I said I'm not exactly a skilled thinker so I could be missing a crucial difference.

I think if it were clear and proven when exactly a human being ceases to exist, ergo, how the psyche is tied to the soma, I probably wouldn't even wonder about this.

[axordil]

Love and friendship have empirical evidence going for them. Universal good, on the other hand, is more of an abstract philosophical notion. Alas for that!

[Lidless]

And Buddhists run the whole gamut from atheist to believers with pantheons full of deities and demons.

It should be pointed out that devas are not deities such as the Western world would think. These are spirits - people who have died and attained the next level of Nirvana due to good karma. They have nothing to do with creating the world, have very limited powers, and die (and are reborn at +1, 0, -1 level depending, again, on their current karma).

Hence buddhists are not materialists.

[Frelga]

Lidless, that brings up a question of how much "supernatural" ideas a person can believe and still be called an atheist. A Creator, Ruler of the Universe is right out, presumably. How about a deva-type spirit? A localize place deity? "I don't know, maybe there is something out there?" Can an atheist believe in poltergeist, and other "unexplained" phenomena? What about mythical but not magical creatures such as yeti and free market? Can an atheist believe in reincarnation?

Rodia, I don't know how to answer you without a bunch of Pratchett quotes. Which you probably already thought of.

[Rodia]

Frelga! You ask exactly what I was trying to ask, only with less words and more sense.

(and yes actually, and it's funny because Mahima has such a quote in her sig right now: "Seeing, contrary to popular wisdom, isn't believing. It's where belief stops, because it isn't needed any more. " Although one can express many different opinions using Pratchett quotes so maybe you should reply after all, so that I know what you think instead of just guessing. )

Ax, good point. I'll store that away for further thinking.

[Dave_LF]

but the idea of my future, complete non-existence is much less believable to me than the idea of an afterlife, impossible to prove as it is.

But as Lidless pointed out, we all already not-existed once, for billions and billions of years, without even knowing it.

and believing that something happens is just as valid a choice as believing that nothing happens at all, I think, so why do atheists so often choose the latter?

Well; first, in a variation on Occam's razor, I would say that non-being is the default. I don't think a person should believe that something is without evidence. If you look for evidence and can't find anything conclusive one way or the other, it doesn't mean you get to pick whatever belief you want; you should reserve judgment or default to saying the thing probably doesn't exist. If you can't even think of what evidence there could be or where you would look for it, then you can't draw any conclusions at all and there's not much point even thinking about the subject.

Second, I don't agree. There is loads of evidence showing that the mind is a function of the body. Drugs produce altered states of consciousness. Damage to the body--more than that, to specific parts of the body--causes damage to the mind. All this pretty strongly suggests that destroying the body destroys the mind too.

And finally, this is another case where not-believing isn't the same thing as believing-not. I don't believe in an afterlife because I see no evidence for one, no need for one, and because there are simpler explanations for why people believe in it. But I don't precisely disbelieve it either; anything's possible. That said, I consider it pretty unlikely.

And even then, maybe it's only impossible to prove for now, and the future will bring proof.

Then we should change our minds in the future.

Now, when you say speculation without evidence should not turn into belief...I'm not the brightest bulb out there but logically it would seem to me that belief is unnecessary in the face of fact backed by evidence, no? With proof, belief turns into simple knowledge.

I think you're thinking of faith. Belief just means giving assent to a proposition, with or without evidence.

Unless you mean to say non-conclusive evidence counts

I would say that too. Since we don't have forever at our disposal, you do sometimes have to settle for making educated guesses based on partial or non-conclusive evidence. But this doesn't mean anything goes.

I'm sure there have been many studies on the possibility of life after death that have brought forth evidence- not enough to prove it, obviously, but enough to make the speculation worth...er..speculating.

There really haven't. People have tried, starting with weighing bodies before and after death to see how much mass the soul had (none), but they really haven't turned anything up. All the evidence is anecdotal, and the people who tell the stories were by necessity not exactly in their right minds when the events occurred.

If most atheists consider the afterlife not worth speculating about, do most of them think the same of the notion of, say, universal good? love? friendship? I'm confused.

Those things are abstract ideas, while a soul, if real, would be concrete. More importantly, love and friendship are things that can be experienced and recognized here and now. You don't have to speculate about whether there's such a thing as friendship, because you can see it all around (and hopefully experience it yourself!).

Frelga: An atheist can believe in whatever he wants, except a god (because then he's not an atheist anymore). The rules for materialists are a little stricter.

[Rodia]

I disagree with most of what you just said but I can't think of how to explain why so I'll step out of the discussion. Thanks