The Rational Atheist

[Unknown Soldier]

We all know that some atheists can be as irrational as any theist. I think that one of the reasons for this irrational thinking on the part of both atheists and theists is the reliance on belief or the lack of belief as the basis for their respective points of view. None of us as far as I know can choose to believe or not believe in truth claims that we become acquainted with. Belief comes and goes with the passage of time in unpredictable ways as we experience strong emotions. So relying on belief to describe one's view of God's existence is a rather vague and unstable basis for one's thinking.

So I at least have decided to describe myself as an atheist not as merely a person who lacks belief in Gods but as a man who has good reasons to be skeptical about the objective existence of any Gods. Although reasons to doubt that Gods exist beyond the imagination are legion, one argument in particular I think is particularly compelling:

A real God would have knowledge and power that no man or woman could possibly have while an imaginary God would have nothing more than what the crafty men who created him have. So when we investigate the Gods including Yahweh and Jesus, what knowledge and power do we see? I've never seen anything more than what people have, and in some cases much less. Logically then, I conclude that no God exists except in the pages of myth and in the minds of lonely and struggling people. I am an atheist for that reason.

See how much more compelling that is than the weak: I'm an atheist because I lack belief in Gods? A definition like that makes you sound like you're afraid to prove it.

IMO, there is no proof that will satisfy everyone, or even most people. We observe the universe we live in, and we decide what we think of as likely. If you don't have many doubts, you are deceiving yourself.

OTOH, my cat is blocking this screen and making it difficult to post this. I have seen God, and He has has orange fur.

Are you are rational atheist? Why or why not?

 

[lostone]

I am not sure that there is any such thing as a rational human being. Based on what I observe, and what I read of the opinions of other people, the possibility of the existence any commonly accepted God(s) is low. It's my opinion, a judgment. A bet.

 

[TomC]

I am not sure that there is any such thing as a rational human being. Based on what I observe, and what I read of the opinions of other people, the possibility of the existence any commonly accepted God(s) is low. It's my opinion, a judgment. A bet.

This is kinda how I went from good little Christian boy to atheist. Objective observation of the humans around me demonstrated that there cannot possibly be an almighty benevolent being. I thought that made me a hard atheist, although I've since developed much more nuanced views.
Tom

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Are you are rational atheist? Why or why not?

It's true that I am the most rational and an atheist. It's also true that I seek truth. But if you look at the behavior of truth seekers, they leave much to be desired, are irrational, and quite rude. Truth seekers are like a cult. And even with some rational atheists, there is some irrationality.

That's why I prefer the term superb poster!

 

[Infinite Monkey]

Are you are rational atheist? Why or why not?

There's something a bit interesting about this question in that it involves self-applying the quality of rationality to the entirety of the person answering it. Nobody's completely rational- we have access to rationality, but only filtered through subjective experience.

Am I a rational atheist? Sometimes, but I'm also irrational at times, and it's difficult to self-analyze without bias. Ultimately it doesn't really matter, my atheism is what it is, and unless I find a compelling reason to believe in gods, rational OR irrational, that's just how it's going to stay.

Philosophical inertia! Is that rational? I don't know.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Are you are rational atheist? Why or why not?

There's something a bit interesting about this question in that it involves self-applying the quality of rationality to the entirety of the person answering it. Nobody's completely rational- we have access to rationality, but only filtered through subjective experience.

Am I a rational atheist? Sometimes, but I'm also irrational at times, and it's difficult to self-analyze without bias. Ultimately it doesn't really matter, my atheism is what it is, and unless I find a compelling reason to believe in gods, rational OR irrational, that's just how it's going to stay.

Philosophical inertia! Is that rational? I don't know.

A recent article I took in determined that there is no cognitive benefit to being "religious." People were asked to describe their level of "religiosity" over their lives and then given cognitive skill tests. The experiment attempted to determine whether there truly was a cognitive advantage to being religious, as is so regularly suggested owing to alleged community support, happiness, etc. It turned out that there is no cognitive benefit in later years and rather a small negative correlation between religiosity and cognitive ability. But I digress.

The main point I took from the article is that the experiment was flawed because it compared apples to oranges. People were "asked" to self describe their religiosity. Their level of religiosity was never observed and documented whereas their cognitive ability was actually tested for and observed and documented. No doubt if people had been asked to self describe their cognitive ability there may have been a completely different outcome.

Let's face it, over the generations being religious has been something perceived as positive. But is it? And how religious is any person unless that level of religious affiliation is actually objectively observed and documented, same as we would do for any other species? Hardcore christian religionists, for example, will say the bible is such a wonderful thing when 99 percent of them have never read the thing yet would likely report their level of religiosity as being very high. Lots and lots of apples and oranges.

 

[Shadowy Man]

The main point I took from the article is that the experiment was flawed because it compared apples to oranges. People were "asked" to self describe their religiosity. Their level of religiosity was never observed and documented whereas their cognitive ability was actually tested for and observed and documented. No doubt if people had been asked to self describe their cognitive ability there may have been a completely different outcome.

was the article claiming it was a scientific study? Might as well have had the cognitive ability self reported also.

 

[Unknown Soldier]

Are you are rational atheist? Why or why not?

There's something a bit interesting about this question...

Let me correct my question: Are you a rational atheist? Why or why not?
I used the wrong word I formatted in bold.

...in that it involves self-applying the quality of rationality to the entirety of the person answering it. Nobody's completely rational- we have access to rationality, but only filtered through subjective experience.

Yes. I know that. The term "rational atheist" is an abbreviation for "a person who is an atheist as a result of using reason to conclude that Gods don't objectively exist." I assumed that my readers would understand what I was saying.

Am I a rational atheist? Sometimes, but I'm also irrational at times, and it's difficult to self-analyze without bias. Ultimately it doesn't really matter, my atheism is what it is, and unless I find a compelling reason to believe in gods, rational OR irrational, that's just how it's going to stay.

That's interesting. I tend to be slow to rely on self reflection too. As you say bias can result in a skewed image we have of ourselves. So I don't insist I know what I cannot know about myself. That's why I don't insist that I'm "purely" atheistic possibly having some God belief in me.

Philosophical inertia! Is that rational? I don't know.

What is "philosophical inertia"?

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

What is "philosophical inertia"?

Philosophical inertia means "an unwillingness to jettison old concepts and modes of thought in the face of utterly changed circumstances."

 

[Infinite Monkey]

Yes. I know that. The term "rational atheist" is an abbreviation for "a person who is an atheist as a result of using reason to conclude that Gods don't objectively exist." I assumed that my readers would understand what I was saying.

Is it necessary to conclude that? All I ever had to do was conclude that I don't personally believe they do. I'm not sure how rationality affects lack of belief. The best "rational" reason I can think of for that is that a lack of belief in one thing frees up my thoughts and time for things that are important to me. It's enough.

What is "philosophical inertia"?

Just an offhand term for being perfectly happy with my current mindset vis-a-vis the existence of gods- it would likely take some energy to overcome thart inertia to bump me into anything different. Works the same for another other element of one's philosphy too- once your ideas on politics, spirituality, culture, etc are formed into a coherent system, they tend not to change much unless bumped by an outside force. It seems like you're putting a lot of time and effort into rationalizing your atheism (not a criticism!), but from my perspective, rationality isn't really required to lack a philosophical element like theism.

Works the other way too. One can construct rational reasons to believe in anything, including gods. But theism doesn't require rationality. Neither does atheism. But applied rationality takes time and effort, and atheism seems like such a small yes/no position to invest this in, given that the "rewards" for doing so are few to none. In the end, if you're an atheist, you don't believe, and that's that.

 

[steve_bank]

see the logic. So if a rational atheist is one who becomes atheist by rational thinking, then an irrational atheist is what?

Reason and logic alone do not equal truth.

One can rationally choose religion, or irrationally choose religion. Same with humans making. any conclusion or choice.

Soldier's thinking is 'I made a rational logical decision to identify as atheist therefore I am a rational aheist'.

 

[Unknown Soldier]

What is "philosophical inertia"?

Philosophical inertia means "an unwillingness to jettison old concepts and modes of thought in the face of utterly changed circumstances."

Thank you. I should have looked it up, but I assumed it was a personal term.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

The main point I took from the article is that the experiment was flawed because it compared apples to oranges. People were "asked" to self describe their religiosity. Their level of religiosity was never observed and documented whereas their cognitive ability was actually tested for and observed and documented. No doubt if people had been asked to self describe their cognitive ability there may have been a completely different outcome.

was the article claiming it was a scientific study? Might as well have had the cognitive ability self reported also.

Link:

The negative link between religiosity and intelligence remains stable over time in older adults

 

[Unknown Soldier]

Yes. I know that. The term "rational atheist" is an abbreviation for "a person who is an atheist as a result of using reason to conclude that Gods don't objectively exist." I assumed that my readers would understand what I was saying.

Is it necessary to conclude that?

No. Of course not. I just happen to prefer views based on reason rather than mere emotion or random belief.

All I ever had to do was conclude that I don't personally believe they do.

That's fine if you want to see atheism that way. To simply lack belief in Gods seems too weak for me. I lack belief in ghosts, so should I identify as an "a-ghostist"? Besides, if I spent a night in a spooky mansion, I'd feel at least a bit anxious.

I'm not sure how rationality affects lack of belief. The best "rational" reason I can think of for that is that a lack of belief in one thing frees up my thoughts and time for things that are important to me. It's enough.

I'm not sure how rationality affects belief, but belief doesn't matter to me as much as reason does.

It seems like you're putting a lot of time and effort into rationalizing your atheism (not a criticism!), but from my perspective, rationality isn't really required to lack a philosophical element like theism.

Actually, I realized that there's a dearth of reasons to believe in Gods and good reasons to be skeptical about them a long time ago. I was never completely sure that I completely shook belief in them though. So I'm wondering if anybody is actually completely free of theism.

Works the other way too. One can construct rational reasons to believe in anything, including gods. But theism doesn't require rationality. Neither does atheism. But applied rationality takes time and effort, and atheism seems like such a small yes/no position to invest this in, given that the "rewards" for doing so are few to none. In the end, if you're an atheist, you don't believe, and that's that.

Some theists harbor doubts about the existence of Gods yet have reasons to believe in them. Are others theists merely because they say they lack doubt?

 

[Jarhyn]

So, I find the OP unreasonable insofar as it makes the tacit assumption that belief ABOUT some class of things is equivalent to belief in that class of things existing in reality.

I could have some belief about the behavior of some chemical that had never and will never be synthesized in the observable universe. This chemical would, strictly speaking, be non-existent... Yet I could still have correct beliefs about it "were it to exist", because chemicals are bound to behaviors based on their electromagnetic properties.

I would not need to rely on the existence of it to describe its function. It COULD end up being found synthesized, and my knowledge about chemistry in general would predict, perhaps without error, what I would see when I saw it.

Atheists do not need to believe in a god existing so as to understand what qualities such a thing has any more than chemists would need to observe a chemical to know how it behaves given its components' electromagnetic properties.

As such someone can be rational in believing "about" gods without needing to believe IN a god.

 

[abaddon]

It's a post to @Infinite Monkey, but hopefully he or she doesn't mind if I take a turn at answering this.

To simply lack belief in Gods seems too weak for me.

It seems "too weak" because you're not considering the positive belief in naturalism which precludes supernatural gods. So a naturalist doesn't need explicit reasons for why gods don't exist, the implicit reasons are there in naturalism.

You've assumed that atheism is nothing else than a "lack of" for some or many atheists, because you didn't consider most atheist's actual philosophy, naturalism. That's quite a stupendous omission.

I lack belief in ghosts, so should I identify as an "a-ghostist"?

But why do you lack belief? Is it because you think nature is explained well-enough by science and doesn't need spiritual entities to help explain it?

Besides, if I spent a night in a spooky mansion, I'd feel at least a bit anxious.

So would most people regardless of their beliefs. We've evolved to be nervous of unfamiliar, dark places. It doesn't logically follow, from a dark mansion feeling "spooky", that a person harbors a secret belief in ghosts, anymore than feeling fear from fantasizing about hell means the person has a little bit of secret theism.

Actually, I realized that there's a dearth of reasons to believe in Gods and good reasons to be skeptical about them a long time ago. I was never completely sure that I completely shook belief in them though. So I'm wondering if anybody is actually completely free of theism.

The dearth of reasons results in a lack of belief in gods. The dearth of reasons to believe in gods is from an abundance of reasons to be skeptical about them.

That's how it is for atheists in general.

Not fully shaking a contradictory belief results in cognitive dissonance. That's a problem to solve, not wallow in. If you're keen on reason, then try applying reason to solve this problem. Last time this was suggested to you, you chose to reject reason and side with belief and feelings and impulses. You wanted to say "it's YOU PEOPLE too!" instead of working out your personal problem. Try if you can to reconsider that self-harming response.

Some theists harbor doubts about the existence of Gods yet have reasons to believe in them. Are others theists merely because they say they lack doubt?

You're straw-manning other atheists. Nobody has said they're atheists merely because they "lack belief". The lack of belief in god comes from the presence of other beliefs. They're naturalists AND atheists. The latter "ism" is a side-effect of the former. The former is a philosophy, a belief-system, but the latter is not.

 

[Shadowy Man]

So I'm wondering if anybody is actually completely free of theism.

Yes they can be. Especially if they never had it in the first place. Not everyone’s background is the same as yours.

 

[Worldtraveller]

So I'm wondering if anybody is actually completely free of theism.

Yes they can be. Especially if they never had it in the first place. Not everyone’s background is the same as yours.

Exactly. Although I was dragged to church for a couple years when I was young, I was too young to understand what was being said (and my aunt that dragged me to church was pretty abusive, so not much of what she did had any lasting effect on my development). My dad, who raised us, was mostly a-religious. I think he was just to busy to try to go to church and didn't have strong beliefs (neither did his parents) so we grew up without religion, but also without the idea of being atheist.

So I got interested in religion around 12-13 years old, attended a few different churches 2-3 times each, and started reading the bible (I think i read 2 different versions the summer after I turned 12), and concluded it was all bunk....and that the Silmarillion was a much better 'old testament'.

 

[Unknown Soldier]

To simply lack belief in Gods seems too weak for me.

It seems "too weak" because you're not considering the positive belief in naturalism which precludes supernatural gods.

I'm familiar with naturalism. Unlike a naturalist, I don't insist there can be no Gods but argue that they are not likely to exist.

So a naturalist doesn't need explicit reasons for why gods don't exist, the implicit reasons are there in naturalism.

I prefer to spell out why I think no Gods exist.

You've assumed that atheism is nothing else than a "lack of" for some or many atheists...

Many atheists describe their atheism as total lack of belief in Gods, a position that I'm skeptical about.

...because you didn't consider most atheist's actual philosophy, naturalism. That's quite a stupendous omission.

In an online forum, omissions are inevitable.

I lack belief in ghosts, so should I identify as an "a-ghostist"?

But why do you lack belief?

I'm not completely sure why I lack belief in ghosts. I used to believe in them, though. I think I started doubting their existence when I left Christianity.

Is it because you think nature is explained well-enough by science and doesn't need spiritual entities to help explain it?

That is probably one reason I don't believe in ghosts.

Besides, if I spent a night in a spooky mansion, I'd feel at least a bit anxious.

So would most people regardless of their beliefs. We've evolved to be nervous of unfamiliar, dark places. It doesn't logically follow, from a dark mansion feeling "spooky", that a person harbors a secret belief in ghosts, anymore than feeling fear from fantasizing about hell means the person has a little bit of secret theism.

I disagree with you there. I think that emotion can be a basis for belief. So I might fear God while knowing why He's likely a myth.

Actually, I realized that there's a dearth of reasons to believe in Gods and good reasons to be skeptical about them a long time ago. I was never completely sure that I completely shook belief in them though. So I'm wondering if anybody is actually completely free of theism.

The dearth of reasons results in a lack of belief in gods.

It can. Another possibility is that a dearth of reasons to believe in God may greatly weaken theism pushing it into the subconscious where it may lurk.

The dearth of reasons to believe in gods is from an abundance of reasons to be skeptical about them.

I'm not sure if I agree with you there. I think that the number of reasons to be skeptical about Gods' existence is not necessarily related to a dearth of reasons to believe in them.

That's how it is for atheists in general.

I suppose. I don't have any statistics.

Not fully shaking a contradictory belief results in cognitive dissonance. That's a problem to solve, not wallow in. If you're keen on reason, then try applying reason to solve this problem.

It's really not a problem for me to experience some cognitive dissonance. In fact, my cognitive dissonance may be telling me I'm wrong and that a God might exist which is very possible although unlikely.

Last time this was suggested to you, you chose to reject reason and side with belief and feelings and impulses.

I don't recall "choosing to reject reason and siding with beliefs and feelings and impulses" whatever that may mean. Being a rational atheist that would be out of character for me. I think I did argue that I have some theism that's based in emotions that are involuntary.

You wanted to say "it's YOU PEOPLE too!" instead of working out your personal problem. Try if you can to reconsider that self-harming response.

Why not at least consider that theism can exist in the psyche along with atheism?

Some theists harbor doubts about the existence of Gods yet have reasons to believe in them. Are others theists merely because they say they lack doubt?

You're straw-manning other atheists. Nobody has said they're atheists merely because they "lack belief".

That's not true. Atheist Dan Barker of the Freedom From Religion Foundation has said that he's an atheist because he lacks belief in any Gods. Yes, he obviously has reasons to be skeptical, but by his definition he's an atheist lacking belief in God.

And how do you know what nobody ever said?

The lack of belief in god comes from the presence of other beliefs. They're naturalists AND atheists. The latter "ism" is a side-effect of the former. The former is a philosophy, a belief-system, but the latter is not.

Well, I'm defining atheism as a result of arguing against the reasons to believe in a God. I can live with other definitions but prefer my own definition, of course.

 

[steve_bank]

I don't think naturalism says no gods can exist.

I think it s more like there can no supernatural. Anything that exists is by definition natural.

If ghosts are real and I see one, then there is a causal link between the ghost and my perception, even if I can not discover what that link(natrual law) is.