An Atheist's Creed

Your beautiful wording describes my personal beliefs regarding atheism exactly. It is so well written that I would be unable to think of anything more to add. IMHO, what you wrote should be universally adopted as the "official" declaration of atheists. Well done!

I hope you don't mind that I reproduced your creed on my blog. It sort of resonates with some of the content on mine, I've sort of recomposed some of the Bible texts into secular forms myself.

Here is your creed on my blog (I will remove it if you don't want me using your creed):
http://irrationaltheorist.blogspot.com/2008/04/atheists-creed.html

You might also be interested in my redoing of Genesis creation in a secular form:
http://irrationaltheorist.blogspot.com/2008/04/how-we-got-here-and-where...

Or my redoing of Proverbs into a secular form:
http://irrationaltheorist.blogspot.com/2008/04/secular-proverbs.html

Your creed just reflects my ideas on the art of living. Chapeau!

Although it is your personal creed, I think it is so well formulated that it is applicable to many more of mankind.

Very profound, well thought out. I doubt if anyone else could sum up the Atheist outlook better.

Look, for instance, at 'Against the Supernatural as a profound idea' on this site. Your belief in a 'material' universe that conforms to 'naturalistic' laws and principles strikes me as a string of buzzwords posing as profundity.

How do I know this? I've read pages of analysis. I've looked the words up in the dictionary. I've questioned these notions on this site and received no intelligent reply. What have you done to question your creed, I wonder? Has your vaunted scepticism ever been applied to your own notions?

I have more doubts besides, but for now I'd better focus on these.

If you really do choose to live the 'dignified and exhilarating life of a free-thinker... without fear of contradicting any dogma' you should have no problem with me questioning your terminology, and little problem giving me an intelligent reply. I wonder if I'll get a reply at all.

Which statements in the atheist creed, not that anybody actually chants this mindlessly every sunday morning like Christians do with their creed or anything, but which statements should we be skeptical of? I mean, if I had to choose something to be skeptical of, I suppose I could examine these ones:

I am in awe of the beauty, vastness, and complexity of nature and the universe, and the fact that all arose purely by the working of natural laws.

Well, perhaps I'm not exactly "in awe" of it or anything, but I do understand most of the complexities of it and I do percieve the beauty and vastness of it.

I believe in the power of ideals such as peace and justice and shared humanity to inspire us to create a free and just world.

Perhaps I find inspiration for freedom merely from the fact that it helps technology along. Free people are more creative than enslaved people are, and that is why I promote the ideals of freedom.

I believe in kindness, love, and the human spirit and their ability to overcome challenges and adversity and to create a better world.

Well, I do believe in the existance of kindness, love, and the human spirit, sure. I don't exactly know how they supposedly overcome adversity and challenges though, perhaps it is in fact intelligence + self esteem instead (could define that as being "the human spirit" but why can't that be more broadly "the machine spirit" instead of human centric?), but I'm not going to rule out that kindness, love, and the human spirit create a better world however.

My question to you Arthur, is, why does any of this "Creed" (nobody really mindlessly chants this every day or anything I bet) necessarily bug you?

Firstly, my problem is not that this 'creed' is an actual creed; I'm well aware that no-one is chanting this every morning.

Your first question was 'Which statements in the atheist creed... should we be skeptical of?' I was thinking mainly of the first one, that we should believe in a purely 'material' (as opposed to 'spiritual'?) Universe. I don't see how you could have missed this; my post was fairly short, I quoted from the first statement in the creed and I referred to the article 'Against the Supernatural as a Profound Idea'. I thought it was clear which statement I wanted to question.

Let me be clear about the exact nature of my doubts, however, because my point is easily misunderstood. The creed tells us to believe in a 'purely "material" universe that conforms to "naturalistic" laws and principles.' My doubts go deeper than a straightforward disagreement. I am NOT saying that this statement is false, but that it is confused. I am NOT saying that the Universe contains 'supernatural' elements; I am saying that the very distinction between 'natural' and 'supernatural', 'material' and 'spiritual', and so on, is misleading. It fails to help us understand the world and muddles our thinking. It is unhelpful and redundant. We should not use it as a criterion.

Hopefully that should put my contention beyond misunderstanding. But why would I think this, you may wonder?
- There seems to be no profound, non-arbitrary, useful way of creating the distinction between 'natural' and 'supernatural', 'material' and 'spiritual', and so on.
- I've seen that looking up words like 'material' or 'physical' in the dictionary gives a fairly flimsy account of their meaning. This is a serious problem if they are to guide our thinking.
- I've asked believers in the notion on this site about it and never gotten a satisfying reply. When I finally got a definition and pointed out a few conceptual loose ends, I never got a reply at all.

My doubts are well-explained in the article 'Against the supernatural as a profound idea' (not that I wrote it!) on this site. Rest assured that I agree with almost everything in it, so consider it a representation of my actual views. If you hope to debate this with me, you'll have to read, understand and analyse it. It's here:
http://machineslikeus.com/news/against-supernatural-profound-idea

Strangely, the end of your post asks WHY any the creed 'bugs' me at all. I thought I was among sceptical thinkers. The creed itself tells us to go wherever knowledge and curiosity take us. They take me here. Do I need a special reason to ask questions? Nonetheless, I suppose I can think of a few.

- Our basic beliefs are very important; they determine how we think and see the world. This makes questioning the basics all the more important.
- Beliefs that are popular (like the 'creed') have great influence in the world; if we hope to understand the world we must understand them. I am interested in atheist philosophy and hope to understand it better.
- We ought to be sceptical. I presume that we both believe this.
- Think of all the creeds that you don't believe. Presumably you've analysed them and found them wanting. What analysis have you for this one? Whatever the answer, an answer must be given on pain of special pleading.

Just to summarize, my problem is that I am becoming increasingly sceptical of the usefulness and meaningfulness of a distinction between 'material' and 'spiritual', etc. This isn't a mere argument from ignorance either; it's the product of analysis. What I'm looking for is an analysis to counter my own. If you want to debate this, read 'Against the Supernatural as a Profound Idea' to understand my views and see what you think. Until then we have nothing to discuss.

I already read the article and do agree with Paul's analysis.

Ah, yes, you did read it didn't you. Then why didn't you understand my questioning sooner, and why did you imply that you agreed with the entire creed when you, also, don't buy into some of its terminology?

I'm also confused by your claim that you agree with the article; the article's conclusion was that the word 'supernatural' should be abandoned, but your comment contradicted this by trying to wring some meaning out of it and using it to support an argument. Am I missing something?

If you agree with the article's analysis, I think that you should also agree that all-too-much atheist philosophy (and theist, too) is confused by this kind of terminology. You don't have to look far to find atheists proudly declaring their disbelief in the 'supernatural', but your view and mine is that this is a confusion. Look at Mano's declaration, for instance:

'I believe that the material world governed by natural laws is all that exists, and I reject all things supernatural, which includes the soul, ghosts and spirits, the afterlife, reincarnation, any form of spiritualism, and so on.'
(Found here: http://machineslikeus.com/news/why-people-believe-god-1-fog-theological-...)

This kind of talk is so widespread that I have difficulty NOT finding it.

If you agree with 'Against the Supernatural...', do you agree that talk like this isn't as profound as it's cracked up to be? This was my original point - I denied that the creed was 'very profound' for this reason, and said that some of it was 'a string of buzzwords posing as profundity'. If you agree with the article, you should agree with this. If you do, why didn't you object to the creed yourself?

This creed is not very profound, well, unless you happen to believe in the supernatural. A lot of people believe in the existance of the supernatural and hence a lot of people will think this creed is profound. Like I said, nobody really chants this creed or anything like that.

Why not, you might ask? I mean, a lot of religions have creeds and those people mindlessly chant them once a week. They do it to re-affirm their faith in the supernatural. Atheists don't need to re-affirm their disbeliefs in the supernatural, however, and I think that is mainly because the supernatural is not a default belief to have. It requires a lot of calories in order to constantly be deluding oneself to believe something that has no physical evidence of existing, and since belief in the supernatural is therefore not the default for the human mind, well, that just means that affirming non-belief in the supernatural is not very profound.

However, I can still agree with much of the statements of this creed without thinking it profound.

My main contention, that atheists should stop speaking of the 'supernatural' at all because the word is misleading, is left untouched and I'd like to press it further. I sense a number of contradictions in what you've said that I'm curious about.

You tell me that the word 'Supernatural' is unhelpful. So far, so good. But then...
- Why do you try to make the word meaningful in your response to 'Against the Supernatural...'? That's disagreement, not agreement.
- Why were so slow to recognize my questions when you already agreed with me? You preferred to ask WHAT I was questioning, WHY I should be sceptical at all, and talking irrelevantly about whether the 'creed' is chanted every morning. You seem to be dragging your heels here. Are you avoiding something or just not reading my posts very carefully?
- Why haven't you objected to its use by fellow atheists yourself? If you believe what I believe, why aren't you doing what I'm doing?
- You keep using the word yourself. You speak of atheists' 'disbeliefs in the supernatural'. This disagrees with 'Against the supernatural...', but you don't seem to have noticed this. Atheists should no more have specific views on the 'supernatural' than they should on 'slithy toves'.

I've asked all the above questions once already and you've studiously avoided them. You don't seem to be directly answering my questions at all. Care to start?

The one question you did try to answer was whether the creed was 'profound', but you're clearly using the word in a different way from me. I meant something along the lines of 'meaningful content', (as in 'Against the Supernatural...') whereas you seem to mean something like 'cause for intellectual surprise'. I'd argue that whether something is profound cannot be relative, but you seem to disagree.

I can see a shameless double standard emerging in what you're saying. If a theist says that 'God is supernatural' you're happy to avail yourself of the analysis in 'Against the Supernatural...'. In principle, that's fine; so am I. When a fellow atheist uses the word, however, you forget that you don't believe in its use, and fail to question the powerful conclusions that are supposed to result. Perhaps you find the word too useful as a buzzword to be worth abandoning. That's a double standard; nonsense is nonsense regardless of whose mouth it comes from.

Your posts so far seem to be dissembling your actual views, which don't strike me as clear at all. Am I missing something?

Arthur,

You claim to have looked the words up in a dictionary, yet you misspell the word "skepticism" by spelling it "scepticism." I really think that all you want to do is ramble on and argue. Why is that? I am sorry to write this, but you are either trying to appear intellectual, or you have nothing better to do.

I can understand conducting a reasonable, constructive argument, but your comments appear rude and argumentative for the sake of just arguing. Why not just agree to disagree and leave it at that, instead of imposing your belligerent negativity for the whole world to see.

Perhaps you believe that your questions reflect some "profound" thinking on your part… but it does not. It simply comes off as just arrogant belligerence with no substance—pseudo-intellectual bullying someone for the sake of bullying. Your statements are nothing more than a meager attempt to slam someone else's thoughts in public for your own personal amusement.

Mano never attempts to be malicious; he is just stating his views in a very reasonable and polite manner. However, your intentional belligerence is expressed by your last two sentences... "If you really do choose to live the 'dignified and exhilarating life of a free-thinker... without fear of contradicting any dogma' you should have no problem with me questioning your terminology, and little problem giving me an intelligent reply. I wonder if I'll get a reply at all." Well, this may not be a reply from Mano, but it definitely is a "reply."

I am getting tired of these endless rants from those who argue to try to prove something that they can never quite get around to proving. BTW, what exactly is it that you are trying to prove? Reading through your rant was confusing at best, but it still proved nothing.

Albedo

What I am questioning is the supposed profundity of words like 'supernatural', used often by atheists and theists alike. I am not exactly trying to 'prove' anything, merely to get others to question their own ideas, although I do think that I've presented enough analysis in my posts to make a good case.

If my last post sounded rude, I apologize; I was trying to get Quantum to focus on my arguments more closely because I thought that his responses were getting increasingly evasive. Notice that he hasn't yet replied.

'You claim to have looked the words up in a dictionary, yet you misspell the word "skepticism" by spelling it "scepticism."'
The fact that a small spelling mistake is your first criticism suggests that you don't see much seriously wrong with what I've said. I never boasted that I had looked every word up in the dictionary, just the words I was criticizing. Besides, the word 'scepticism' can be spelled either way.
(http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Scepticism)

'Why not just agree to disagree and leave it at that...'
I'm far too interested in learning to do something like that. I'm sure Mano would agree.

'...pseudo-intellectual bullying someone for the sake of bullying'
I apologize if my questions were phrased offensively. But they were still questions. If this really is 'bullying', surely Mano and Quantum can stick up for themselves.

'Mano never attempts to be malicious; he is just stating his views in a very reasonable and polite manner.'
Absolutely. I admire Mano's courage for posting his thoughts so publicly on the internet. If he really wants to be 'reasonable', however, I think that he should question them more.

'Well, this may not be a reply from Mano, but it definitely is a "reply."'
Yes, but what I am interested in is a reply with analysis and reasoning to counter my own ideas; a debate. That was what I asked for in my initial post. All I see here is a complaint about the way my questions have been phrased.

'BTW, what exactly is it that you are trying to prove?'
My ultimate aim is to convince others that terms like 'natural' and 'supernatural' are misleading.

'Reading through your rant was confusing at best, but it still proved nothing.'
If my own posts are confusing, read 'Against the Supernatural as a Profound Idea'. It's well-written. If you think that it's 'proved nothing', do you have any concrete criticisms? On it's own, this is a rather context-free, stock complaint that would fit no matter what I had said.

Most of your post is effectively an ad hominem attack, claiming that I am a rude, belligerent, pseudo-intellectual bully. Let's assume for the sake of argument that I AM a rude, belligerent bully. That doesn't mean that I am wrong. To show that I am 'pseudo-intellectual' you need to analyse my arguments, not my spelling.

Hi Arthur:

I would define natural and supernatural in epistemic terms--how we go about understanding them. Anything that is under the domain of science should be considered 'natural'. If it is (in principle) possible to formulate models that accurately represent a particular system, then that system is 'natural'. Something is supernatural if it is not uniform and does not conform to any mathematical model.

You have a good point that we throw around terms like 'supernatural' without defining them properly. Most of us have a general agreement as to what is supernatural (even the ancient Hebrews knew something was up if Mary was both pregnant and a virgin). Although defining a term like supernatural is tricky because it basically means there is some part of it we can't understand.

Andy

If a phenomina is explainable by scientific scrutiny then it is a natural phenomina. If it is unexplainable by scientific scrutiny then it is supernatural. As a naturalist atheist, I believe that all processes are explainable by scientific scrutiny and thereby there is nothing that is unexplainable. I also believe there are things that have yet to be explained, however, that they will eventually be explained if people keep scrutinizing it.

From the atheist credo stated by Mano: I believe in the power of ideals such as peace and justice and shared humanity to inspire us to create a free and just world.

I believe in kindness, love, and the human spirit and their ability to overcome challenges and adversity and to create a better world.

Ideals? Peace? Justice? These are intangibles and awfully hard to pin down without some sort of benchmark. These are not scientifically quantifiable or measurable or even strictly rational constructs. They are, in a word, spiritual ideas.

And what does it mean to reject the idea of a spiritual element or aspect of the universe and then to say, "I believe in the human spirit."

Surely the atheist ideal -- as I've heard it expressed -- is never to say "I believe" but only to say "I know."

I agree with the posters who have suggested some confusion in this credo. It reminds me of Sam Harris's desire to cobble together a modern global philosophy based on neurology, philosophy and Eastern mysticism.

If you're going to expunge the spiritual, why not just expunge it? Why dress it up as something else?

You can be an atheist and believe in non-humanist ideals (IMO) such as war and injustice, rudeness and hate too, and perhaps you can believe those things do whatever you want to believe they do. It has nothing to do with religion, nor does using the words "human spirit" to describe the desires that humans possess have anything to do with "spirituality", same word but a different meaning entirely.

Why can't atheists believe or disbelieve something? Isn't atheism just the "disbelief in the existance of a god or gods"? That doesn't preclude one from, say, believing in the existance of a lot of other things. I, for instance, believe in the existance of ESP, or more specifically, the ability to implant nanochips into people's brains in order to give them extra sensory perception or to be able to communicate their thoughts without speaking them, but that doesn't mean I believe in gods though and it falls under the perfectly natural processes allowed by nature too.