A Question for Atheism
Recently I have been pondering both the concept of existence and arguments such as Anselm’s Ontological Proof. In doing so, I have found that the idea of being created is key to many of my thoughts. But what necessitates creation?
Being an evangelical Christian, I hold to the doctrine of creation ex nihilo, wherein God brought all that exists forth from nothing. This solves, for me, the problem of existence: where we came from. Of course, one could pose the question of where God came from, but for the Christian God falls in another realm, the supernatural, which is a matter of faith.
I recognize, however, the appeal of atheism. In an effort to understand it better, I wish to pose a question to anyone reading this who may be an atheist: How do you explain the fact of existence? Is it that we exist without having been created (just as Christians believe God simply exists)?
To make it clear, I am not trying to start a flamewar here. I am honestly curious about how atheists would answer this question. If I don’t know what the other side of a debate believes, I cannot call myself an educated person. If some of you could help explain the atheist viewpoint to me, I would greatly appreciate it.
Edit (4/1/08): A good comment by NOK shows me that I have not been specific enough. By existence, I mean the fact that anything exists at all. We know that something exists, as we are having this discussion. (Either we exist or something imagining us exists.) Even if we are talking above the scope of the universe, we know that things exist there. (If we accept M-theory, for example, we accept the existence of branes that collide to produce universes.) So my question is how do we explain the fact that anything at all exists, or can it not be explained?
Dear Jim,
As atheism is not an organized belief system, I suspect you will find many different answers to your question depending on the atheist you ask. It’s also important to be quite specific about what you mean by existence, but I’ll try to answer your questions as best I can.
Do you mean our existence as human beings? Evolution provides a simple, rich and well-supported explanation for most scientifically minded atheists (and theists for that matter).
Do you mean the existence of the universe itself? Big bang cosmology does the job in a similar way, though you may find some more varied answers to that question.
Do you mean what came before the universe? If so, this is a difficult question, because words that have a temporal connotation like “before” don’t really make sense when you’re not talking about the universe because time is a part of the universe. In a sense, there was no “before” the universe. We can’t really talk intelligently or intelligibly about anything outside or beyond the universe without applying ideas, rules, logic etc. of this universe.
As for Anselm, his argument is meant to show that thinking something than which a greater cannot be thought necessitates that thing’s existence in reality. However, this is a semantic claim that does not hold any bearing on things actually existing in the world. Aquinas points this out in his Summa Theologica Ia, qu. 2, art. 1. He also notes that “the fool,” by simply saying God does not exist, has shown that it’s possible to believe God doesn’t exist. He may believe wrongly, and Aquinas surely thought so, but there’s no logical contradiction in him believing it as Anselm tries to prove.
Yours In Reason,
NO’K
A good comment, and I have duly edited my post in an attempt to be more specific.
Yes, I did not mean to imply that atheism was a monolithic entity. (Just as no one should ever imply that Christianity, or Islam, or any other large stereotype of people is monolithic.) Not knowing who to address it to more specifically, however, I resorted to atheism in general.
When it comes to “existence,” I mean it very broadly, as I stated in my edit. Perhaps this means that we have to go back to “before” the universe, which, as you say, is very difficult. It remains, however, that something existed from which the universe was created (such as the “branes” in M-theory). How do we explain that existence, or is an explanation not needed or impossible?
Finally, I also did not mean to get Anselm mixed up in the matter. As far as I can see, his Ontological Proof has little bearing on my actual question. It was used simply as a means of introduction.
Thank you for your reply.
This basically boils down to “Where the heck do physical laws come from”. As much as scientists reject certainty it seems pretty obvious that we have dependable regularity from things that came from the basic structure of our universe (although at the bottom it is rather… random).
The big bangs explanation can be shorten to (note- may be wrong) “nothingness is unstable”. Why? We don’t know. What rules governed that?
Scientists responses are either 1)we don’t know, 2) we may never know 3) stop bothering me or 4) if given more money… we’ll take a shot at it!
Unfortunately for theism, it has the same problem. Where did god come from? The fact is we are simply incapable of imaging how reality came to be… and we don’t have enough information to make good guesses.
I would say it is more “where does the physical world come from” rather than “physical laws.” But, yes, that does seem to be the question. And you’re right, theism does have the same (very valid) problem, but I won’t go into my answers to that now.
“It remains, however, that something existed from which the universe was created”
Well, Jim, that’s the thing. How does one support this conclusion?
At best, this conclusion is usually supported by a group of premises that center on the idea of cause and effect. Even taking cause and effect as some kind of rule of the universe (an idea that is itself troublesome philosophically since Hume and troublesome empirically since quantum theory) it is still only a rule in OUR universe.
As soon as we start talking about things “outside” or “beyond” the universe, how can we say how things must operate there (if there is such a “there”)?
I can attempt to provide an account of the existence of things (particles, stars, planets, organisms, etc.) from the big bang forward with the support of scientific evidence, but outside of that, I’m not sure if we can even formulate a question that makes sense. Not that we shouldn’t try!
Yours In Reason,
NO’K
Indeed, my sentence was badly worded. Let us say that the question remains as to how the forces that caused the universe exist. But you’re right, it is speculation, whether one adopts an “atheistic” or “Christian” worldview.
Or “Pastafarian” as that particular critique is meant to point out. As an atheist in general, and a philosopher in particular, I am very careful with speculations. They are, by definition, conjectures absent evidence. I try not to make such conjectures, especially about something as grand as the existence of a deity. Good luck to you in your journey. If I have one thing to tell future students, it is that I’m not concerned with what you think, but why you think it in the first place.
In Reason,
NO’K
Hey Jim, it appears this discussion is down to simple presupposition. I gather your worldview holds that god is the first cause and put the big bang in motion, whereas cosmologists would say, “we can wind the big bang model back to the planck epoch, but the theory breaks down at that point. Everything “prior” to that is hypothesis at this point. But we’re working on it.”.
Given the work that’s going on right now in high-energy physics at places like CERN, I’m hopeful that we will have the big bang fully modeled in the next decade. The Large Hadron Collider goes live later this year and it will be our first up-close glimpse at what the universe looked like during the big bang.
My point is that putting god in places within reach of scientfic discovery will only lead to that god being pushed back further and further into the gaps of our understanding. A wise religion would simply leave their god completely out of the affairs of everything inside and outside the universe, untouchable in any way. Having a god that creates universes or designs life or causes earth-covering floods simply puts that god’s deeds up to scientific scrutiny… and I can’t think of any examples of deeds which have survived the careful inquiry of science, but many examples of deeds that have been factually discounted.
Cheers!
Okay, I don’t want to be offensive, but let’s look at facts here. You believe a book that thinks it rains because the sky is a sea, thinks the earth was made only 6,000 years ago, we have proof that isn’t so, your book says the earth is flat and is geocentric, we know that’s not true, your book disproves of magic and yet uses it, your book says that when someone kills all the animals and people when he’s angry he’s still all merciful, We do know it was written by ignorant men. Is there even an argument here? You’re basing your life on what would be technically labeled a work of fiction. Why would you trust the very flawed sinners condemned by your god? By being a christian you no longer believe in your god’s original faith plan therefore you are already condemned to hell. Think about it! If I add to the constitution like your bible is just and extension of the torah, Then I will be arrested and they don’t care about the fact that I changed it.
The fact is Jim, that just because we can’t explain something yet does not mean we have to seek mythology like ancient people to explain science. Your religion brings only more questions as science seeks to solve them.
I like to believe that if I live right that I will die in the ground and a great oak will grow from me, because like the philosophy of unbuntu everything is connected and I would never want to live forever it’s a paradox anyway.
Isn’t it enough just to be alive and be free? Life’s about experience, not where you think you’re going. You’re spending life preparing for something that’s not going to happen. Always getting ready for something. You can’t live like that.
Sorry for any mistakes it’s not well written!
Some good discussion here, I like it!
NOK: I like how you think, quite clear and rational and definitely well researched. I see that you’re coming from a very modern rational framework, have you read any of the more postmodern critics of the scientific hermeneutic (Nietzsche, Kierkegaard, Lyotard, etc)?
In response to your comment: “My point is that putting god in places within reach of scientific discovery will only lead to that god being pushed back further and further into the gaps of our understanding.” I would say you are utterly and completely correct, but only if you look at it from the scientific perspective. Science is only looking for the Natural and will only accept natural explanations. Thats written directly if not explicitly into its hermeneutic. The scientific method is essentially proposing a hypothesis then proving it right or wrong based on repeated tests and collections of measurable data. This assumes that the world is orderly, and that these results are not influenced by anything beyond the natural laws it seeks to explain. Both of those are generally good assumptions, but the hermeneutic discards the supernatural right from the very beginning. Hence why science will never discover God.
withafunnyheart: That actually was pretty offensive. It would be akin to me saying to you: “Atheism is what people believe if they aren’t smart enough to understand an infinite being like God and simply want to live immoral lives.” That statement is way oversimplified and honestly patently ridiculous. I think you might find it interesting to find a well educated and smart Christian that you can respect as a person and ask them to honestly tell you why they are a Christian.
Oh, actually I guess my big paragraph should be addressed to Darron, but I guess it applies in someways to NOK as well. Its late…
One more comment with regard to NOK’s discussion of things beyond the natural. I think he makes a good point, can we even formulate something that makes sense beyond the natural realm? I would say yes, but it can’t be done with scientific language, and certainly not with objectivist logic. I think that we begin to get closer to things beyond the natural when we move beyond the modern hyper-rationality and allow for existential truth. I personally would go on to argue that religion (particularly Christianity) gives us the framework and the language to explore the supernatural.
@Darron S: You stated “My point is that putting god in places within reach of scientfic discovery will only lead to that god being pushed back further and further into the gaps of our understanding” and in that I agree with you. If you’ll see my post from a few days ago (“On Science and Christianity”), I hope that will be evident. In no way do I wish to make God an explanation in science as that would, indeed, be foolish. In fact, I wasn’t seeking to do anything with God here, but to understand how atheists would address the fact of existence. And I have received some very good answers from you and others.
@withafunnyheart: You are exhibiting a grave misunderstanding of what it means to be a Christian and whether or not Christians can engage science. I would refer you, too, back to the post I wrote a few days ago. Just because we believe in a book that might validly be called a myth (though not in the typical definition of myth) does not mean we dismiss science, etc.
“Isn’t it enough just to be alive and be free?” Yes, you might say so. But Christians might reply either that we praise God for this very fact or that the problem of pain in the world forces us to look beyond that simple fact. But enough on that, it is a subject for another time.
You’re looking at the formation of existence from a biased anthropomorphic perspective. The bias comes from the assumption that there HAD to have been some sort of creator. In other words, you start at the beginning, and you add something that is similar in nature to yourself. From that point, nature, the universe, and everything falls into that perspective. The problem is that you are adding more then what we know to exist. We know that this universe exists, but we don’t know that a god exists. So starting from the assumption that a god exists creates a bias.
On the other side, I start with no bias. I start with what we know to exists and work from there. I’m not adding anything, and I’m not taking away anything. Since I’m only dealing with what IS, then there is no bias.
@Jake: I was actually attempting to avoid starting from that perspective, at least in this particular post. You say you start from “what we know exists.” I am asking why it exists, not who created it. Has it simply always existed? (That’s a valid answer, as far as I can tell.) Do we assume something had to have created it? (That’s my response, as you know.) Is there another explanation?
You observe, as I do, that there is existence. I simply want to know how we explain that existence. Again, the fact that we can’t finally explain it well, as others have stated in these comments, is a valid answer for me. If we “start with what we know exists and work from there,” where do we end up at when asks how to explain existence?
This sounds as if I’m trying to bait you because I come from a Christian perspective. I’m not. I truly want to know how you would answer that question.
Jim, sorry for asking for more clarification, but are you asking WHY we exist, or HOW we exist ? We don’t know exactly how we exist. We may figure that out sometime in the future, but right now we just don’t know. My point earlier was that it’s important not to make assumptions based on our bias.
As for WHY we exist, well again, that goes back to what I said about having an anthropomorphic perspective of the formation of the universe. Your bias assumes that there is a reason for our existence. I personaly don’t make that assumption. I exist because I exist. The meaning behind that existence I create myself daily.
I am asking how we exist, not why. My Christian worldview does give me the why of our existence; in the words of the Westminster Catechism: “Man’s chief end is to glorify God, and to enjoy him forever.”
So I am asking how we, or anything exists, and how that existence is explained or not explained. Your answer, “We don’t know exactly how we exist,” is perfectly acceptable to me. Indeed, I have a similar response when asked how God exists.
Thank you for taking the time to reply to my question, it has helped me with my own thoughts.
I have been an atheist all of my 73 years and because of that I do not worry about all the things
that can not be proven at his time. I think that only people who have been indoctrinated into religion have these worries. It seems really simple for me to decide which of the two sides to believe. I really cringe when I hear what the religious people believe about how everything happened and other supposed facts of the bible. Common sense dictates that the scientific view is the easiest to swallow, at least for me.
The definition of atheism is simple, no belief in any god(s) or supernatural entities.
Since I have never seen any god(s) or anything supernatural, I naturally believe they don’t exist. All religious people pray about just about everything, if they were truthful they would all say that it doesn’t work. I will be a believer when “God” suddenly decides to show up for work and actually does something credible. My proof would be: all amputees with their limbs regrown, all cancer
gone forever, all human problems corrected, etc. Until then I am content to
go on as I am, being a good living person without regrets or worrying about an imaginary Hell or Heaven. I put it all down to
freethinking.
@Aspentroll: Thank you for your comment. Unfortunately, I think you’re making assumptions about what God has to be in order for you to have “proof” he exists. Christianity has a vastly different conception of a God who, while still good, is in no way obligated to give us everything we pray for. However, that is neither here nor there in the current discussion, so I will leave it for another time.
@ Jim : I understand that you as a xian would say that you don’t know how your god exists, but that just goes back to the bias problem. You start with a bias and form a conclusion, even if that conclusion is that you don’t know. So even though you and I may come to the same conclusions about the nature of existence, it’s your side that’s adding more to the equation then what needs to be there. Saying ” god did it ” is like unto wishful thinking. It doesn’t really answer anything, and because of it’s subjective nature, only serves to muddy any type of reality with which your god hypothesis is injected into.
The purpose of this thread isn’t too argue about the existence of God or assumptions, it was merely to ask a question, which several people have provided a clear and concise answer too. As to assumptions about God existing or not, I’ll may take that up another time, or I may not. Either way, there are many, many extremely intelligent people on both sides of that debate and I don’t think the issue will be settled soon, or ever, by either of us.
As to “why we exist”, I recall reading in a book (the name of which escapes me) the idea that life exists to fight entropy. This idea of favoring order over chaos is tantamount to life. Maybe that’s our whole purpose; to stop and even reverse the gradual decay of the universe into chaotic nothing.
If I were religious I would constantly wonder, if a supreme being really did create the universe just for humankind, why is most of the universe so hostile to us? We can only really survive on a portion of the surface of this planet, and we can only go up about 2 miles before the conditions become to harsh for unaided survival. Seems like a bad design to me if it were really made for man. Sorry, my mind wanders… =)
@Daron S: The idea of life fighting entropy is tempting, though many might not accept it. I think what it really shows is that as humans we seek purpose for our lives, no matter what that purpose is.
As far as the conditions on earth, we could turn the whole thing around and say: Isn’t it amazing that God created a universe so vast and beautiful, yet uninhabitable, but then deemed it good to make a place in which humans could survive? There’s no reason we should think of the universe as having been created simply to give man a place to exist.
Hi Jim, you said:
“@Aspentroll: Thank you for your comment. Unfortunately, I think you’re making assumptions about what God has to be in order for you to have “proof” he exists. Christianity has a vastly different conception of a God who, while still good, is in no way obligated to give us everything we pray for. However, that is neither here nor there in the current discussion, so I will leave it for another time”.
Which of the many, many concepts of religion are you talking about? There are so many different ways the Pastors, priests etc flog their views.
I’ve read the bible and can’t believe the number of contradictions that appear in it. Some people(fundies)have to believe all of the bible and are controlled by their beliefs to the point where they actually give money to people like Benny Hinn, Pat Robertson, Peter Poppov etc.
This is why I can’t get interested in something that tragic. There will have to be some miracle from this god of yours such as amputees actually growing back their limbs after they have prayed for this to happen. And maybe..just maybe I would take off my devil suit.
Ah, the old amputees argument. Yes, I’m familiar with it. But if you think about, demanding proof that God exists in a certain way is almost illogical. For example, if the only way that you will believe that God exists is if an amputee grows a leg back, and it happens, doesn’t that make you the god instead of God? In the end it comes down to what you say and want.
Yes, there are, unfortunately, many different beliefs on the bible. This doesn’t necessarily mean it’s wrong, however. Any subject (from politics to science to religion) will have many different beliefs, but that doesn’t mean the subject is wrong. Of course, some of those people undoubtedly have mistaken beliefs, but it doesn’t nullify the subject as a whole.