![\"\"](\"https:\/\/1.bp.blogspot.com\/-VLl4zVUym6s\/ThEqDdyF9wI\/AAAAAAAABfc\/0Ztu3XzSkdI\/s1600\/turing+mask+atheist.jpg\")
<\/a><\/div>\nThis post is part of the Ideological Turing Test Challenge<\/a>. Go to the tab above for an overview and remind yourself of the voting and commenting guidelines here<\/a>.<\/em><\/p>\n What\u2019s your best reason for being an atheist?<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n The best reason for being in atheist is that there is quite simply no reason not<\/em> to be. I mean this in the most basic terms possible:<\/p>\n Contemporary astrophysics, evolutionary biology, quantum mechanics, etc. all illuminate a world that is beautiful, ordered, and often awe-inspiring \u2014 but totally self-regulating. Furthermore, using reason and structured inquiry as tools to examine mysterious phenomena, whether lightning or the weak nuclear force, has always led to far better explanations than superstitious guesses or assumptions (there\u2019s a reason we discarded the Zeus hypothesis, for example), so I prefer to stick with that method. The absence of any credible evidence for the existence of a god, coupled with the complete lack of a need for such evidence, leads me to conclude that my atheism is both reasonable and justified.<\/p>\n What evidence or experience (if any) would cause you to believe in God? If you believed in some kind of god, what kind of evidence would be necessary to convince you to join a particular religion?<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n This question is a little vague \u2014 what exactly is meant by \u201cGod\u201d? The \u201ccreating\u201d force of the universe? An unidentified supernatural force? The God of the Abrahamic religions? All of these are different concepts. If you mean the first concept, then I don\u2019t think there is any possible demonstration, since we weren\u2019t present at the Big Bang and thus can\u2019t observe what happened, although we can extrapolate conclusions from available physical data (none of which supports the need for an external creating force, incidentally). As for the second, if there were a controlled, repeatable demonstration of some action that was not possible according to the known laws of physics \u2014 say, an object repeatedly moving across the room with no physical explanation, under exactly controlled conditions \u2014 then I might, depending on the context, be swayed toward belief in an extra-physical force of some kind. That would hardly be enough, however, to demonstrate the existence of a \u201cpersonal\u201d god in the Christian or more broadly Abrahamic sense. I\u2019m not sure what would qualify as a demonstration of that particular god\u2019s existence. Perhaps a situation similar to the one described above would suffice, except that the action observed (under controlled conditions and repeatable) would obtain in response to a controlled, observed prayer (\u201cGod, please move this chair from one end of the room to the other.\u201d). Then again, that still wouldn\u2019t definitively prove a god-who-answers-prayers; another explanation might be the existence of paranormal powers as possessed by the pray-er. I can conceive of hypothetical situations that might suggest, quite strongly, the existence of forces or powers above and beyond those of which we are currently aware, but none that would be specific to a \u201cpersonal\u201d god interested in answering prayers, guiding lives, etc. Even if I were to have a Paul-like experience of being \u201cspoken to,\u201d ostensibly by a divine power, I\u2019d be more likely to get psychologically evaluated than see it as proof of god \u2014 even (actually, especially!) if it were repeated.<\/p>\n When you have ethical and moral disputes with other people, what do you appeal to? What metric do you use to examine your moral intuitions\/cultural sensibilities\/etc?<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n As a Kantian, I don\u2019t find this question particularly difficult. The categorical imperative in both its formulations<\/p>\n works quite well as a yardstick of moral behavior, and is applicable to communities and individuals regardless of culture. It allows for societal change and adaptation, since what is socially acceptable\/degrading evolves over time (e.g., Victorian standards of modesty vs. today\u2019s) while still providing a framework for ethical decision-making in the present time and cultural location. It assumes no political or religious background (thus sidestepping the always-thorny issue of getting disparate groups or individuals to agree on premises) and \u2013 unlike utilitarian systems which require a complicated and often impossibly intangible weighing of benefits and drawbacks \u2013 make moral evaluation of actions fairly simple: all one has to do is ask whether the requirements of both formulations are met.<\/p>\n Why is religion so persistent? We have had political revolutions, artistic revolutions, an industrial revolution, and also religious reformations of several kinds, but religion endures. Does this not suggest its basic truth?<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n Rather than its basic truth, the endurance of religion suggests its basic usefulness<\/em> and attractiveness<\/em>. Religion (in most of its forms) performs two very powerful functions: It 1) dictates and enforces morality, along with (and by means of) 2) claiming an existence after death. Death is scary as hell \u2014 pun intended. Ceasing to exist is somewhat beyond the rational grasp of most people, myself included. Since consciousness is predicated on mental function, trying to conceive of not-conceiving is both disorienting and scary. Religion assuages that fear by removing The End from the picture. Death isn\u2019t the end, it says \u2014 no, there\u2019s more, so no need to dread death, dying, suffering, etc. In fact, if you behave correctly, you won\u2019t ever<\/em> die, so really there\u2019s no need to worry at all! It\u2019s a neat little trick, and psychologically it\u2019s very, very attractive. It\u2019s no wonder that people don\u2019t want to let go of it, regardless of whether it\u2019s actually true<\/em>.<\/p>\n The morality-enforcing role of religion derives from its death-defying one: In order to escape death\/eternal punishment, you have to follow the rules. \u201cYou shouldn\u2019t steal because if you do, you\u2019ll die forever\u201d is, it turns out, a much more powerful motivator than \u201cYou shouldn\u2019t steal because it disobeys the categorical imperative and that\u2019s just not polite.\u201d While it would be wonderful if the mass of society did the right thing purely because it\u2019s the Right Thing to Do, the reality is that most people do the right thing because they don\u2019t want to get caught. If they think they\u2019ll get away with something, they\u2019ll probably do it, regardless of whether they \u201cshould\u201d according to deontological morality (the Ring of Gyges would make its manufacturer a multibillionaire). But religion conveniently provides an omniscient watchdog who is always paying attention \u2014 you can\u2019t get away with anything<\/em>. And the stakes are enormously high. So religion ends up being a highly effective enforcer of moral conformity.<\/p>\n Those two functions \u2014 enforcing morality and assuaging fear of death \u2014 are so useful, and so widely appealing, that it really isn\u2019t surprising that religion has endured across centuries and culture. Even if one strain dies out, another pops up along the same basic lines. Each religion\u2019s truth or falsity is largely irrelevant to its success. Rather, how useful it is in performing those two basic functions will determine how strong it becomes.<\/p>\n Voting opens Friday afternoon<\/em><\/p>\n This post is part of the Ideological Turing Test Challenge. Go to the tab above for an overview and remind yourself of the voting and commenting guidelines here. What\u2019s your best reason for being an atheist? The best reason for being in atheist is that there is quite simply no reason not to be. I […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":127,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[32],"tags":[167,168],"class_list":["post-95","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-ideologicalturingtest","tag-atheist-turing-answers-2011","tag-turing-answers-2011"],"yoast_head":"\n\n
\n