Old Topic #1: Atheism

Here is the "atheism" discussion as posted originally on facebook.

I wrote:

Ok... based on that NPR story from yesterday, as well as my reading and dealings with people, I'd like to pose this question:

Is it possible for human beings to be intrinsically atheistic?

I don't think it is, and I'll tell you why.
First, human beings are, by nature, social creatures. We need people. Anyone who separates themselves from people does so by a conscious choice (hermits, monks, etc), or else because of a severe mental or psychological disorder. This means that, on the whole, people are "created" to be communal - we need relationships, just as we need food and water. If we are separated from other humans against our will (some form of solitary confinement, be it physical or mental), we do not lose this need to be connected to another conscious and caring being. Atheism, at its very core, is a conscious acknowledgment of our "alone-ness" in the universe. It is my opinion (though it needs work, of course) that if people intrinsically desire to not be alone, we cannot also intrinsically believe that we are alone.
Second, humans have an innate sense of certain important things being outside our control - our births and deaths, for instance - and though we fight continually to gain control of these things, we ultimately cannot. We must accept, to some degree, that we cannot control everything. The degree to which we accept this premise must correspondingly be filled with something - in other words, we need someone or something to be in control of that portion of our lives of which we are not in control. This is why even a staunch atheist will shout "oh, God!" as their car crashes. We intrinsically need to believe that we have not "given up" that control to something which isn't even conscious of having control (ie, nature); hence most of us turn to God, while atheists turn to Luck and Chance.
Lastly, atheism is a very arrogant stance. I have heard it said that only someone who has a cursory understanding of science will allow it to negate his or her belief in God. If you know nothing, God exists; if you know much, God exists; but if you know something, God does not exist. This is the obvious reaction of someone who knows enough to know they know more than someone else, but who doesn't yet know enough to realize that they really know nothing at all. Unfortunately, many people fall into this category, but it is a conscious thing - not at all unconscious or inherent in the human brain, but instead the product of a little bit of "education" and human arrogance (which stems from it). Arrogance, and atheism, stem from that little bit of knowledge which is enough to make someone consciously convinced that they know better.

So those are my thoughts. Perhaps I'm wrong, but hey, I'm just trying to start a discussion :-)

With love,
K

Steve replied:

Thanks for starting the first official discussion thread going :-) You make some interesting points.

This may sound pedantic, but the first thing is that one has to be careful when it comes to definitions of terms, particularly that of 'atheist.' Do we take this to encompass a rejection of theism alone, or of deism also?

Secondly, there's something I'd not really considered until reading this and reflecting on my past philosophies. At one point, I'd considered myself atheist. However, my stance at the time was that I saw no evidence pointing to a god in my 'world model,' so I concluded that there was no reason to introduce one. This never reached the point of saying that science proves definitively the lack of existence of a god. However, in acknowledging the lack of evidence of necessity for a god as a working rejection of one, the view was stronger than strong agnosticism, because I genuinely believed that there was no god. However, I was open to being convinced to the contrary. In that sense, I was approaching it in a very 'scientific' manner - that is, it was very similar to my current view of evolution: I stand completely convinced of its validity, but if someone comes along with some groundbreaking alternative, I'd be ready to drop that model for a more insightful alternative. So, ultimately, I am trying to determine whether my viewpoint back then was 'weak atheism', or some variation on 'strong-agnosticism.'

Considering your argument along the 'alone-ness' line: one could argue that that we evolved the need to not be alone (that is, to be apart from humans), and consequently being more alone (from humans) makes us more likely to invent a fictitious god to fill that gap. This hypothesis would fit with the strong beliefs that have arisen from the nomadic Jews, or the reclusive ascetic. However, this overlooks the immanence of God within society, for it is here (where we are spared from this traumatic deficiency of social interaction) that God can be most keenly felt by many of us.

Another starting point is to focus on 'purpose.' The concept of 'purpose,' and the desire for it, is uniformly comprehended by all of humanity. I personally would find it harder to live, for a limited time, feeling that my existence is purposeless than I would to live without social contact for a time. But then, if I consider being completely alone in the universe, all purpose would cease. The two concepts (purpose and society) are very deeply tied, and therein lies a clue to God and His immanence among us. I cannot find purpose solely in seeking my own ends, even if I do it within the familiar and pleasant buffer of society.

Steve

I replied:

I just found this story. Interesting.