Why I'm not purely an Athiest

Atheism is the opposite extreme to theism as both claim to know something without proof. Although I'm nearly certain a "god" doesn't exist as depicted by most mainstream religions, it is still feasible that a higher entity has the capacity to engineer things beyond our current comprehension. Furthermore, claiming there is/isn't a “god” assumes too much knowledge about what “god” is.

Human perception of the universe is biased and always changing... thus to follow a belief “religiously” is ignorant; conversely, to follow a belief “scientifically” is to be willing to relinquish that belief on a whim should contradictory evidence be discovered.

I mostly follow beliefs "scientifically", but this implies that they're likely to alter/improve in the near future. Maybe my strongest belief is that the scientific process will enlighten and lead us.

Many of the old writings and tales from the bible (and other religious writings) offer advice, but they shouldn't be taken as historical facts without scrutiny. It's fine to base moral beliefs on certain aspects or stories (so long as they don't contradict scientific findings), but that moral belief alone isn't "religious". I'm particularly annoyed by those who pick-and-choose which parts to believe. Most religions do not give this "wiggle room". The scriptures either need to be accepted in their entirety as the infallible word of “god” or rejected under the concept that it was merely invented by archaic men (glorified cavemen) who had vastly limited views of the universe. Calling a book "infallible" is an extraordinary claim to uphold because if even one part is falsifiable, then the whole thing must be rejected. It can no longer be trusted.

Even worse is the hypocrisy shown by certain politicians and corporate owner's in America claiming to be "Christian". Jesus would be considered a liberal socialist (if he even existed at all) that advocated for giving up material belongings, freely helping neighbors or those in need, not seeking power or wealth. Some people are walking examples of an oxymoron. Self-proclaimed "Christians" ignore the basic principles of Jesus' teachings and the ten commandments (thou shalt not kill).

If human perception of the universe is biased, and ever-changing, then what explanation can be given to why we have static morals and beliefs even in the face of change? Evolution has determined that it is desirable to have some ideas/traditions which remain static within a multi-generational time span. Society progresses on a much slower timescale, and society could progress faster if people were more perceptive to change; however, evolving too quickly could also be detrimental. For one, it's not a good idea to rush into new methodologies without proven experience, but we also need to accept change when necessary.

"Nothing is as powerful as an idea whose time has come."

The human lifespan is a significant timescale, and as life expectancy increases, this could have implications, i.e. larger conflicts arising due to the increasing gap between the youth and elderly. Religion offers a mechanism for young people to be indoctrinated into conservative groups, allowing static ideas to be retained through generations. This holds back society with a great force on a much larger scale. If you look back at the dark ages, intellectual stagnation (and even some regression) lasted for centuries, but I'm hopeful for the future of reason and logic.

Here's a little humor to close

Superstition and the belief in science vs. religion

Firstly, let me point out that a "superstition" is simply a belief which has not been backed by the latest scientific findings; so a superstition can become scientific fact later, it's possible. Secondly, the term "atheism" is used loosely and often incorrectly. I prefer the more appropriate term "agnosticism", because whether or not god exists is quite literally the last question that science could ever hope to answer, so any belief (true/false) about that subject is a "superstition" per my definition above.  My point here is that you can still be superstitious about things, just NOT the things which science has clearly proven true/false.  Instead of debating unverifiable claims, it's better to discuss what we do/don't know, and how to proceed from there.

Let me also distinguish that science isn't a belief itself, but a (logical) process of hypothesizing, measuring, observing, verifying, debating and accepting evidence.  An appropriate belief would be that

Using the process of science can give us the answers [to everything].

Which I assume is a belief that all modern agnostics intrinsically hold, whether they're aware of it or not.

Also, by definition, people only hold beliefs which they believe to be true (regardless of whether they are actually true), and seeing two or more conflicting beliefs is very bothersome. It's also difficult to accept that others are "wrong" when you think you know the "true answer."  However, one has to succumb to the idea that all beliefs are inherently wrong/biased.  Scientific findings are based on simplifications/models and underlying assumptions about perceptions (that we may not even be aware of).  Science also rests upon the shoulders of philosophy, which still poses many unanswered questions through interesting thought-experiments.

However, a major difference between religion and the "belief in science" (also known as Scientism) is that scientific "truths" are dynamic, and allowed to be challenged with more rigorous science, whereas many religions are static (unless it's one of those pick-and-choose ordeals, in which case the religion is being diluted/debased and should just be disregarded entirely as a fallible source claiming to be infallible).  By our human nature, changing fundamental beliefs is difficult/painful, which is even more reason that scientists need to be able to readily alter/adapt their beliefs based on latest findings. This is not easy because people need some stability of perception. What if tomorrow we discover negative mass particles that behave oppositely to gravity? Our whole world would be turned upside down (haha, that was a pun).

Nonetheless, I personally choose to believe in something which has an effective basis for acquiring knowledge and subsequently verifying it.  So if agnostics want to unite for some common cause, it should be to point out that the process of science is useful/revealing, teaches us about our origins/universe, can save lives, that it's fun/interesting, that anyone can do it, and that it DOESN'T have all the answers, but this is a sandbox for curiosity and exploration.  People's trust in science will follow from there.

Religion and "God"

Many people often ask me what my religious belief in "god" is. So here's my explanation of current views and its history of reasoning.

I wasn't raised with any specific religion, though my grandma in Germany taught me a prayer once that we'd say every night before bed. Interestingly, my grandparents married with different religions (Protestant and Catholic, I believe) and back in their time this was seen as heresy, but they were in love and determined. Today people could care less about "mixed marriages" (the topic today is same-sex marriage). This must've caused some difficulty between my grandparents deciding how to raise their children, because in fact, both of their children (my mom included) turned out to be non-religious. My dad had a pretty different experience. His father followed "Christian Science" and pushed those views pretty harshly (not allowing my dad to enroll in science classes in high school). Neither of my parents followed in the traditional footsteps of their own parents. And obviously, my parents didn't care what religion I chose, so I was free to believe whatever I wanted (though there was an influence toward logic and reason).

Most of my life I believed in some type of higher Being because so many others did too, it just seemed "normal", but wasn't very sure what it meant. During my mid-teens I began to question these things and wondered whether I was possibly an atheist. As I started solidifying my beliefs and aged into my early twenties, my stance changed into agnosticism. The main reason for doing so was in realizing that the claim that "NO god exists" is made with the same lack-of-proof as claiming "god exists". Even arguments like Occam's Razor cannot justify the claim that there is "no god" when lacking proof. Atheists tend to like ideas about proving negatives (see evidence of absence), but that's not very sound logic because it's omitting a possibility when

"some claims cannot be falsified because they are ultimately unverifiable"

It is these unverifiable claims that always seem to linger as humanity holds tightly onto them hoping they are true. Eventually I was left in a stage of not knowing whether "god" existed, but continuing the journey to search for logically sound ways of making progress and accepting that some things just may never be known during my lifetime.

Define "god"

Around age 24, I learned about Ignosticsm. This philosophy talked about how most current religions assume too much about what "god" is.

"God" lacks a clear definition; how do you define "god?"

If you're not really sure where to start, here's something to provoke your thoughts. In an attempt to answer the question myself, assume that one day a Being crosses your path claiming to be "god", and says,

I am god, and I can prove it to you by granting you any wish. What would you ask of me to prove myself to you?

How would you respond? Would you ask him to bring a relative or friend back from the dead? Teleport you to another galaxy? Show you an event from the past/present/future?
Think hard about this for a minute before reading on...



I've tried to think of many questions, but have never been able to pin one that WOULD ACTUALLY PROVE any Being was indeed a "god." This is mainly because any of those acts could plausibly be performed by a more advanced being of our universe, not necessarily a "god" that created it. An entity of higher intelligence could posses the advanced technological capabilities to manipulate space/time/matter far beyond our current scientific understandings or engineering capabilities (a being born in this universe just like us humans). If an intellectual alien species were to have just 1000-2000 years of advancement beyond ours, there's no telling what they could be capable of... NO idea, especially when considering that technology advances exponentially

NOTE:1000 years is a minuscule time frame in comparison to the age of the universe, there could be species out there which are orders of magnitudes more advanced than our tiny minds can even begin to comprehend.

To put this into perspective: if you showed a caveman a lighter, he'd think you were a "god" for being able to create fire in the palm of your hands. If you showed him a modern smart phone, he wouldn't even be able to comprehend its significance, let alone be able to predict its usefulness thousands of years later.

My point here is that it's difficult to distinguish between intra-universe technology and extra-universe "powers". In fact, "playing god" is something we humans do all the time. By farming plants we impose governing rules/restrictions on crops by seeding them in soil, watering them, exposing them to light, harvesting them, etc. for our own benefit/consumption. In a similar way, all of us must also adhere to the governing laws of physics; a cage we're all trapped in, but for what purpose? We can't see what is creating or enforcing these laws, maybe it's a higher intelligence manipulating us, but even if that were true, the Being need not be at the top of the command chain/pyramid to control us in our trapped environment.

Anyway, the definition of "god" (as most current religions define it), assumes too much knowledge about what "god" actually is. I think a major criterion people accept is that "god" is out-of-this-universe. Meaning any Beings that evolved within the universe (ourselves included), no matter how advanced and awesome, wouldn't be eligible as gods. A true "god" would have had to create the universe. But is that really a "god" or just another advanced species? Does it matter? Maybe a "god" is the one at the very top tier of ALL creators, but is that even possible? Who/what created "god" and when does it end? Maybe "god" is that which has always existed, never having been created. These questions may be the very last ones that science can ever possibly hope to answer!

As we humans discover more of the universe, our perspectives change greatly, but "god" will always be used to define the unknown.

THAT is probably the best definition of "god" you'll ever find if you were looking for one...

If in fact I believed the fairytale-esque religious writings/folklore of holy scriptures, I would still venture to say that the "god" in all of these stories is either completely bogus or was a very advanced and strange/irrational being of this universe.

The Greek gods have long since been moved into the category of "Mythology." Why? Because that belief system has no more followers. Thousands of mythological gods have been retired in this way. If you think about it,

“We are all atheists about most of the gods that humanity has ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further.”
― Richard Dawkins, The God Delusion

We can reach the top of Mt. Olympus now and see no evidence of gods up there, but when we reached the "heavens" aka. the sky, people (instead of letting go) found ways to further their deep beliefs in heaven/hell. There are over 2000 man-made religions, all claiming to be correct. In essence, an atheist just believes in one less god than a theist, of which they commonly agree that the other 2000+ are all false gods.

Whenever strong evidence contradicts the original forms of a superstition, that superstition either dies-off (as an untold many previously have), or more likely is shifted to a new pocket of scientific ignorance where it cannot be tested/verified (yet).

Some choose to ignore altogether or demand overwhelming amounts of proof that contradict their beliefs, yet blindly have faith in things they wish to be true.

It's an interesting social dynamic because this shifting attempts to keep the old idea, even though it's now been transformed into a new one, so as not to fully admit the old one was wrong. Scientific ideas do this type of refining all the time, but science is allowed to -- no, required to -- by definition. Religion often wants to have it both ways: forcing people to hold onto archaic beliefs only when it's convenient and beneficial for some agenda/purpose. This type of manipulation is troubling.

One more thing that bothers me greatly is how willingly people will believe so-called "experts" from millenia ago, but not trust current actual experts who are vastly superior in outlook and knowledge.

On a side note, I've learned NOT to dismiss everything from religious texts as completely bogus either. There's definitely some interesting ideas and useful advice to be gained from some of the stories. If people actually followed Jesus' teachings of love, acceptance, empathy, and forgiveness, the world would be a better place, but often religion is interpreted to justify the opposite. And that's another gripe of mine, that religion is open to interpretation and can be used to justify almost anything (in the name of religion).

Fiction vs. Science-Fiction

I once laughed at the bible claiming the Earth was created in 1 week on the basis that it was impossible in general, but when I started to seriously consider it in terms of past/modern human technology and engineering capabilities, it seemed plausible with advanced technology. Don't get me wrong, enormous amounts of evidence suggest that the earth is indeed 4.5 Billion years old forming from after our sun went supernova. But don't take my word for it, just ask the <Sarcasm>  almighty omnipotent Google:

"how old is the earth"

Bam, there's your answer. Our current explanation is that Earth formed after our star went supernova and was brought together by natural physical processes which we understand pretty well. However, in general a planet COULD forcibly be created in 1 week with the proper technology; it's not impossible (it may seem like sci-fi to us presently). Looking at creating the Earth from an engineering perspective, a planet could be created in 1 week. I can imagine that in a few thousand years, great advancements beyond our current technology could grant us the ability to construct planets if we wanted to (and didn't destroy ourselves first).

With great power there must also come — great responsibility.
-Stan Lee

I can envision it now, it could be called "Planetary Engineering." Things like terraforming, creating/harvesting and heating/compressing massive amounts of matter, or crashing smaller planets together could all fit into this field of study. I go even further to imagine that we could produce non-spherical planets, say ellipsoid-shaped. We could have oceans just along the equator region. No atmosphere at the poles (which would be great for space docks because those endpoints of high elevation are already moving faster). Gravity would be oriented normal to the planet's surface only at the equator and poles (pretty cool huh?!), everywhere else on the planet would feel like living on a hillside with the varying slopes depending on your distance from the equator/poles.

Closing Statement

In conclusion, as long as unknowns exist, we will always have a place for the term "god". The definition may change over time as science pushes forward and reveals hidden truths, but I'm doubtful that "god" will ever be disproven entirely. I want to end with a closing statement from Carl Sagan, one of my heroes:

You may need to open this image in a new tab to see the text better.