![]() ![]() |
ThoughtsFaith
"I wish to propose for the reader's favourable consideration a doctrine which may, I fear, appear wildly paradoxical and subversive. The doctrine in question is this: that it is undesirable to believe a proposition when there is no ground whatever for supposing it true. I must of course admit that if such an opinion became common it would completely transform our social life and our political system; since both are at present faultless, this must weigh against it." I've decided to allow myself one quote, and one only in order to force myself to express this in my own words. And that was it.
IntroductionI am an atheist. I am an atheist for one reason, and one reason only - I see no reason whatsoever to be anything else. It is a default position from which no evidence has been presented that would cause me to move. I make no comment on the beliefs of others - this page expresses my own view of the world, and the reasons why I personally do not see faith as a good thing. In this page, I'm mainly referring to the christian religion, because that is the one with which I have had most contact. However, the points are generally applicable to any belief system which does not offer objective proof of any supernatural component. I am normally fairly reticent about my beliefs, or lack thereof. I don't usually volunteer information. Partly this is because I like a quiet life, and partly because others often seem to be getting something out of it which I don't want to break for them. Usually when confronted with a religious situation which I cannot avoid, I tend to clam up to avoid causing offence. As this is not that far removed from my natural state, this tends to pass unnoticed. I find concrete evidence of religious activity rather depressing. Churches especially, and even more especially if the architecture is gothic and intricate. I find myself wondering where human society could be if all the effort that had gone into the design and construction of that incredibly detailed building had gone into something of more immediate use. But I also realise that most people do not share this view, and so I tend to keep quiet. However, you chose to click on this link, and in so doing you expressed an interest which makes all the difference. My thoughts on the subject of faith are essentially that it is an unnecessary evil. By its very nature, it is the persistent belief in something that cannot be proven either by introspection or by external observation. I do not feel that this is a solid enough foundation to want to base my life around it. Faith is only required to support arguments that cannot stand on their own merits, and if they cannot indeed stand scrutiny, then we are better without them in my view. Reasons why I do not believe
The Existence of GodAs to the question of whether God exists, as far as day to day living is concerned, I am convinced that he/she/it does not. I see no evidence of any such thing in the world around me, and I do not see many things which I would expect to see if that were the case. I also don't give any credence to the idea of an observing-but-not-intervening God - it can't be disproved (unless you take the quantum mechanics viewpoint that it is impossible to observe something without affecting it).If you postulate a God which put some form of initial impetus to create the Universe (lit: that which contains everything, which makes the idea of a separate God and Universe a little strange), and then takes no further involvement then that too is not disprovable, but it isn't particularly useful either. My general response to that one is 'so what?'. This variety of God would run counter to ideas about Heaven and Hell, and all that stuff, and is therefore rejected by many religions anyway. We live in a universe with vast numbers of galaxies, and more stars than we can comfortably fit into our minds. I find the idea of a being which is capable of creating the universe we observe, having a deep and personal involvement with the interrelationships of one particular species, on one particular planet utterly unbelievable and heading into laughable territory. My views on this are not fixed. All I require to change my mind is evidence. Admittedly, given the nature of the claims involved, I'll need a lot of it, and it will need to be pretty damn convincing. The absence of such evidence is in itself highly convincing in the other direction. The EarthThis planet is old. If you don't believe me (and I strongly recommend that you don't believe a word I say but check things out for yourself), head out into the countryside and have a look at some geography. Look at the folded and twisted structures in the rock. Think long and hard about how they got that way. Look at the way the upper surfaces of the rock are slowly eroding, to form finer and finer particles that are washed down in the stream. Look at the beach. Have a look at some sandstone. Have another look at the rocks.If after completing this, you are still convinced that the earth has been around for thousands of years as opposed to millions, and you aren't resorting to the argument that it was created with these features in place, then I suspect our positions may be too far apart for meaningful communication to take place. If you are taking the view that the Earth was created in the form we see it, with apparently ancient geological features already in place, then I cannot prove you wrong, but the date of that creation becomes completely arbitrary. It could all have been created last Tuesday and you couldn't tell the difference because you would have been created with all your memories in place. It therefore isn't an argument which gets us anywhere useful. I chose the above argument rather than the more scientifically valid radio dating system because it is something you can simply go out and look at rather than requiring loads of electronics. It's not as though the margin we're discussing here is small . . . EvolutionHave a look at the skull of a baby chimpanzee (ok, so this isn't that easy). Compare it with the skull of an adult human. You'll find that they are remarkably similar, bordering on identical, apart from the size. Have a look at the development stages of a human foetus. You'll see gills and a tail at various points along the way. In fact, have a look at any land mammal, and you should notice more than a few similarities. Is it really that shocking to say that one species may have evolved from another? Darwin's theory incidentally was the 'survival of the fittest'. Evolution was the observed phenomena he was trying to explain. I think the only reason the question is even still debated is that evolution of anything large requires significant time to be noticeable.Here's an analogy as to how I see evolution working: Imagine a rough and crumpled surface, such as a mountain range with valleys. The very bottom of a valleys represents a fully viable organism, perfectly suited to its environment. The tops of the peaks represents a completely unviable mutation with a life expectancy of zero. A mutation is a random move in position on this surface. There will be passes between the peaks, and small valleys or pockets on the hillsides themselves. Take the species at the bottom of one valley. If a mutation occurs, then a new individual appears at some distance from the species they are a member of. If the mutation is large, then there is a good chance that they will be a long way away from the rest of their species, and quite a way up a hillside to boot. Chances of survival are low. If the mutation is small, then they have a much better chance of survival as they will still be in the vicinity of their peers, and still close to the valley floor. If they do survive (and they may not - life is like that), then their mutation may propagate into the rest of the species, and the average position of the species may move slightly. This means that for one species (in a valley) to randomly mutate (move), and end up in another stable location (valley) in a single jump is incredibly low. However a series of small jumps may allow the species to move and arrive at another stable state, or splinter so that two separate species are a result. Because large moves are almost always unfavourable, progress is very slow. Examples of this in action:
Other interesting points on evolution:
A Basis for Atheist MoralityWithout any superior being to define moral and immoral behaviour either by direct inspiration or via text passed down in earlier times, morals must be derived from first principles. Below are the principles on which I choose to base my life.
Some consequences of this;
And that's about it. Seems incredibly simple, no? Actually it isn't. More complexity than you would dream existed can be hooked onto the definition of 'harm', and the judgement between degrees of harm. What is harmful to one individual may be enjoyed by another.
|
![]() |
Copyright © 2006 Mike Sandells. Last Modified: 12.7.2006 |