Atheists only please. Formerly I was an atheist, but called myself an empiricist. I only trusted . . .?

Question

those things that I could perceive with the five senses, or logically induce or deduce from verifyable fact. Science was my major at the time. I intended to be an oceanographer.

My question is: Are you now an emiricist? Are you distrustful of anything imperceivable? You know radio waves exist because the radio turns on and plays. You know of many things that are incredulous because they're demonstrable.

Is that your basis (as was mine at one time) for determining reality?
.

AnArdRi
Things like radio waves that you otherwise would doubt. If someone told you what a computer could accomplish, but you never heard of a computer before. Because it's demonstrated to you, you accept that it works like they say it does even though you don't understand every interaction going on inside it's polymer chassis.

Samantha,
Did you say you were "given" your five senses?

Who gave them to you?

Did you mis-speak?

Answer 1

Nope. I've never been an empiricist. I've never been a rationalist, either. I do believe that empirical evidence is necessary. I have empirical evidence that radio waves exist. I turn the radio on, and whoa, music plays. How do I know for an absolute fact that the music comes from electronic translation of radio waves? I don't. I have to trust that the people who studied radio waves, created and tested theories regarding waves, found a technological application for radio waves, and eventually sold me that application weren't lying when they said that radio waves are what makes the radio play music.

The greater question here would be how can I trust that what these people are telling me is correct? The answer is simple. I don't have to trust them because I have enough evidence that the system (scientific method) works to trust that system. Does that mean I'll never be fooled? No, it doesn't. What it does mean is that things will eventually be put right. The brontosaurus is actually an apatasaurus and new textbooks must be printed.

So no, my basis for determining reality was never strictly empirical. My basis for determining reality relies on scientific method. It's the best of all current methodologies available. If better one crops up some time in the future, I will do the scientific thing and discard the one that does not work in favor of the one that does.

What it boils down to is simple. What can you trust as a, mmm, vehicle to understand reality? Some people trust religion. Some people don't need trust, they just believe whatever they feel like. Some people trust the scientific method. Some people only trust what they can directly experience. What do you trust? I trust a methodology that not only accepts mistakes, but utilizes them; one that uses both the rational and the empirical.

Answer 2

My basis for reality is evidence. This does not need to extend directly from the five senses, which can be misleading. I am more likely to trust something that comes from evidence, rather than my own senses.

Take dark matter, for instance. We can determine through indirect means that most of the universe is made up of it, though we can't see it in any galaxy we observe. Same thing with subatomic particles. We can only see about 2,000 stars with the naked eye, but billions exist, with billions of predicted planetary systems. I also think it's impossible to figure out what came before the Big Bang, as physical laws may have been different, though I think that it was something.

Sometimes, I suppose that I am an empiricist.

Any notion defined by the supernatural (gods, ghosts, and all things in between) are difficult for me to understand, much less believe in. If scientists don't understand the mechanism for how reality works or have all of the answers (and they probably never will), that doesn't mean that the explanation is supernatural or religious in origin.

I'm curious. If you are no longer an empiricist, what philosophical views have you adopted?

Answer 3

I'd say yes. It's all we can be really. I mean who's to say that tomorrow a deity won't come out of the Sun and communicate with us. It's extremely unlikely of course which is why I don't believe it can happen. Calling yourself an agnostic atheist is basically like saying "Well I don't believe in gods, but that doesn't mean that I completely write-out the possibility." It's slightly on par with saying the same about unicorns or space-teapots, but it's the only way of being intellectually honest: you don't know, don't say that you do. The whole concept of agnosticism is misleading to most people it seems, as most seem to think that being agnostic simply means you're sitting on the fence between belief or disbelief in the Judeo-Christian god when in fact it's merely a lack of definite position on any number of subjects. This is why you'd need another word in there to clear it up - ie: you can't just be 'agnostic', but you can be an agnostic atheist, or an agnostic theist.

Answer 4

You are correct. I am a rational empiricist. However, I don't restrict myself to just my five senses. I know that physical reality is far larger and far smaller than I can imagine with my unaided brain. That's why I use scientific instruments and a lot of mathematics to help me figure out the true nature of objective reality.

I suspect that the root of much disagreement here in R&S is that some people think solipsistically and imagine that their own subjective perceptions are objective reality. Others are able to reason in the abstract and have a much different view of what they think constitutes objective reality.

Yes, I would agree that because God can't be quantified or detected by any known means is my major reason for not being able to accept that he is part of objective reality.

Answer 5

I would think that there would be very few athiests who would call themselves empiricists. My fiance, I believe, is an athiest, yet she studies high energy physics -- "invisible" supersymmetrical particles that have not (yet) been observed, and deals with string theory, which sets forth a theory of the universe which is pretty much impossible.

I think the difference is that in religion, you have an answer (God) and from that seeps forth questions (how does God affect what I observe) Rather than the scientific method, which tests hypotheses for counterexample (I observe something, does this cause it)? So it's not a matter of it being perceived, it's a matter of ariving at the answer backwards that troubles many. Then, when you add to it the fact that (a) "God" has been used as a "stopgap" for lack of human knowledge, (b) "God" has been used as a red herring for human cruelty, and (c) "God's" divinity oftentimes hinders, rather than expands human capacity, you have athiests rejecting the idea that "God" as an entity, exists.

Answer 6

I guess I have to ask why you would believe something that you couldn't perceive or deduce, other than wishful thinking. I'm not saying that this evidence would have to be of the caliber that would hold up to scientific examination, but why assert a belief if you have no reason to? It's interesting to put out new ideas and test them. That's what science is about after all. But I don't see why I would just start believing something unprompted.

Answer 7

I'm not familiar with the word "emiricist" and I think "distrustful of anything imperceivable" is a bit too far. I like to think that I get to put a bit of my own judgment, logic and understanding into the equation of what I believe to be true.

I'm definitely an atheist, but I'm not sure that you've correctly defined my basis.

Answer 8

Am I an empiricist? At work yes, definitely, but in my personal life I'm open to other ways of knowing.

Do I distrust what I can't perceive? No, reason is a valid tool.

I determine what is real through a combination of perception, reason and intuition.

Answer 9

the act of attempting to "determine reality" always ends in failure. A person cannot master philosophy until he or she has realized that we cannot understand the nature of 'reality'. the only thing any one truly "knows" and is absolute 'fact', are reflexive, conceptual ideas like " 1=1 " or " circles are round "
everything else is objectionable.
although one exception is the fact that 'something exists'. it is true because there is no possible way at all that you or I could be experiencing anything if nothing existed.

Answer 10

The problem with believing things to be true that are NOT empirical, testable, verifiable, falsifiable, etc., is that it introduces an infinite number of possible truths. That is why I disbelieve in the idea of a god.

To me, god is in the same category as invisible gnomes living in my brain or all of us living in the Matrix. They cannot be proved or disproved.

We can only concern ourselves with empirical truths... if we don't, then what the hell can be considered prime reality?