On Belief and Reasonable Positions to Hold...
Over the past couple of years, I've gone into a bit of a more withdrawn "fortress of solitude" mode as I figure shit out. A lot of that has to do with religion. I was raised (which is a polite way of saying indoctrinated) to be Roman Catholic as a child and my family was pretty hardcore about it. I didn't question it too much until high school and became a 'recovering catholic/agnostic catholic" as I grappled with the disparity between knowing how I was born and what others in that religious group thought about people like me.
One of my biggest regrets growing up was not learning proper critical thinking skills. Courses should be taught, in elementary school, around how to think rationally, how to spot logical fallacies in arguments, etc. There are so many examples of "woo" being used in society that prey upon people's ignorance - and in some cases, these people choose to remain willfully ignorant.
After much "soul" searching, I came to the closest approximation of truth that I could find, and that is, if we need to label my belief system as a society, then I'm comfortable with the label of being a Methodological Naturalist. My atheism is a logical conclusion of my naturalism.
I still feel embarrassed/ashamed that, up until the age of 29 or 30 (when I started critically examining my beliefs) I dallied with conspiracy theories, ancient astronaut theory, afterlife stories, etc. - none of which stand up to the scrutiny of the scientific method. I wish I had known about things like the million dollar JREF challenge - that no one, in proper double blind studies, has been able to produce anything supernatural under proper laboratory positions. Another sticking point for me, in giving up my god belief, was the attractive (and selfish) notion of there wanting there to be something "more" after this life - that it doesn't just end. That turned out to be wishful thinking indeed.
So what are my conclusions?
Philosophical Naturalism is a philosophical position that holds that the natural world (matter and energy) is all that actually exists. Methodological Naturalism, is what science is based on, which is that the natural world (being matter and energy) is all that we can address as we're going through life.
That's my position - not that the supernatural doesn't exist - but that there is no reason to believe that the supernatural exists until such time that we can demonstrate it. We shouldn't believe anything until we can demonstrate it in some way. I'm not a Hard Materialist in the sense that I would assert that "supernatural things like gods absolutely do not exist - that it's an impossibility."
My position is that, if gods exist, then either we have some way to detect and identify them - because they manifest in reality in some way - or we don't. If we don't, then their existence is indistinguishable from their non-existence and it's a moot point. If we do, then we should be able to find evidence. And until we do find evidence for one of those supernatural claims, then there's no reason to believe it --you cannot be justified.
So it's not about asserting, with absolute certainty, that nothing supernatural exists. It's about saying that "I'm going to deal with reality and base my positions on evidence and what is demonstrably true."
Then, there's another hurdle for me to clear. Even if there was sufficient evidence (and keep in mind extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence) that there was an omnipotent, "Q-like" being in the universe (ST:TNG reference), there's the matter of giving up your autonomy and choosing to worship this entity or entity. If the Bible or Koran is an accurate reflection of the character of this being, then it wouldn't deserve my respect or worship. The Bible is not a source of morality. That text got one of the fundamental questions about morality wrong: it endorses human sacrifice and slavery - so I would not look to it for anything "good" whatsoever. It's not the "good" book.
I'm reminded of a quote from the 8th Doctor - "I love humans. Always seeing patterns in things that aren't there..." Humans have evolved over the millennia as pattern seekers. It's the over application of this trait to the natural world that causes us to see things that aren't there - confusing correlation with causation.
One of my biggest regrets growing up was not learning proper critical thinking skills. Courses should be taught, in elementary school, around how to think rationally, how to spot logical fallacies in arguments, etc. There are so many examples of "woo" being used in society that prey upon people's ignorance - and in some cases, these people choose to remain willfully ignorant.
After much "soul" searching, I came to the closest approximation of truth that I could find, and that is, if we need to label my belief system as a society, then I'm comfortable with the label of being a Methodological Naturalist. My atheism is a logical conclusion of my naturalism.
I still feel embarrassed/ashamed that, up until the age of 29 or 30 (when I started critically examining my beliefs) I dallied with conspiracy theories, ancient astronaut theory, afterlife stories, etc. - none of which stand up to the scrutiny of the scientific method. I wish I had known about things like the million dollar JREF challenge - that no one, in proper double blind studies, has been able to produce anything supernatural under proper laboratory positions. Another sticking point for me, in giving up my god belief, was the attractive (and selfish) notion of there wanting there to be something "more" after this life - that it doesn't just end. That turned out to be wishful thinking indeed.
So what are my conclusions?
Philosophical Naturalism is a philosophical position that holds that the natural world (matter and energy) is all that actually exists. Methodological Naturalism, is what science is based on, which is that the natural world (being matter and energy) is all that we can address as we're going through life.
That's my position - not that the supernatural doesn't exist - but that there is no reason to believe that the supernatural exists until such time that we can demonstrate it. We shouldn't believe anything until we can demonstrate it in some way. I'm not a Hard Materialist in the sense that I would assert that "supernatural things like gods absolutely do not exist - that it's an impossibility."
My position is that, if gods exist, then either we have some way to detect and identify them - because they manifest in reality in some way - or we don't. If we don't, then their existence is indistinguishable from their non-existence and it's a moot point. If we do, then we should be able to find evidence. And until we do find evidence for one of those supernatural claims, then there's no reason to believe it --you cannot be justified.
So it's not about asserting, with absolute certainty, that nothing supernatural exists. It's about saying that "I'm going to deal with reality and base my positions on evidence and what is demonstrably true."
Then, there's another hurdle for me to clear. Even if there was sufficient evidence (and keep in mind extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence) that there was an omnipotent, "Q-like" being in the universe (ST:TNG reference), there's the matter of giving up your autonomy and choosing to worship this entity or entity. If the Bible or Koran is an accurate reflection of the character of this being, then it wouldn't deserve my respect or worship. The Bible is not a source of morality. That text got one of the fundamental questions about morality wrong: it endorses human sacrifice and slavery - so I would not look to it for anything "good" whatsoever. It's not the "good" book.
I'm reminded of a quote from the 8th Doctor - "I love humans. Always seeing patterns in things that aren't there..." Humans have evolved over the millennia as pattern seekers. It's the over application of this trait to the natural world that causes us to see things that aren't there - confusing correlation with causation.