Atheists: Isn't accepting only what we can consciously, concretely, rationalize?

Question

limiting of life and experience? It seems to me that this would lead to a limited and reductionist view of life that leaves out mystery and possibility.

I'm not denying the value of knowledge or rational thought or intellect. Just because I choose not to give those things ultimate meaning, doesn't mean I deny their importance.

Answer 1

Actually, for me it is expanding life and experience. When you take the time to learn the rules, theories, and regulations of things that can't be verified you limit your exposure to what is actually there. In other words, the more time I spend imagining things, the less time I get to spend experiencing real life. The world is filled with all types of different people, places, and things to see, touch, smell, hear and tast as well as learn about.

Why would I waste my time imagining things when I could just as easily learn about something real? Even ideas are good to learn about, they help you to better understand others and give you insight into your own thoughts and thought processes. For me, the known universe is the ultimate playground and laboratory. There's so much to learn and experience and pass on I can't think of a reason to look beyond it.

Then again, it also helps that I already know the answer to the ultimate question is 42. But seriously, intellectual thought on what is real is a very spiritually fulfilling experience for me. I can look at the past and put philosophies in context with the cultures and civilizations that spawned them. Learning what went into making a religion is much more fulfilling than the religion itself. You can never get true answers from learning a religion, but you can definitely find out the truth behind the religion.

Please don't feel offended by my answer, it isn't a knock on you or your beliefs, I just wanted to share my thoughts on the question you asked. Have a great day.

Answer 2

There's no reason to believe something on ins sufficient evidence.

Do I believe that there are other life forms across the universe? I have seen no evidence, so I don't "believe in" aliens, etc. However, given the available evidence and the probability, I would be willing to bet that there was in fact alien life form out there.

Atheists need not be reductionists. Think of the imagination, big picture thinking, and mystery sparked in Einstein's mind as he developed hypothesis of relativity. The reductionist aspect only comes in to play when the idea/hypothesis is formed and the investigation begins. Einstein has the idea of relativity. Either relativity is true or it isn't. So far, the general consensus is that it is true. But we are still trying to reduce it down to its most basic so we all may understand it better. Relativity may still yet be falsified.

Religion is done coming up with new discoveries. What you see is what you get. It also forces one to be satisfied that the ultimate answer is always "it started with God" or "it was God's plan". Atheism will never solve everything, and for every mystery solved, unlimited new mysteries are born. Mystery is eternal in science.

Answer 3

Not necessarily an atheist, but more agnostic...can I answer anyway? Thanks.

You can see a mirroring question toward some religious people, specifically fundamentalists and Christian literalists (not to pick on them, just using them as an example). People who would rather ignore explanations of natural phenomenon and base the natural world entirely as a supernatural's work is just as limiting.

And I'm not sure that no belief in God leaves out all mystery and possibility entirely. Just one (or a few) mysteries and possibilities.

Answer 4

Not at all. Being an atheist just means I don't buy into your myths. It doesn't mean I take a reductionist view of life. I just have a hard time believing in religion, especially when they try to scare me into believing. Your faith may be correct, I doubt it, but I don't know for sure. If it is and god, our supposed father, rejects me then he is a father unworthy of my love and respect. However, all religions just seem too made up, so I am not worried.

Answer 5

This is a frequent concern for people who are not skeptics. They feel awe and wonder at the supernatural and think that our lives must be lacking in those feelings when we limit ourselves only to what there's sufficient objective evidence to believe.

I can understand the concern because I love the challenge of the unknown. I like exploration of new areas. The sense of awe is a deep and wonderful sensation. But I assure you, most of us skeptics experience all of these feelings. Science isn't a bunch of colorless drones spouting out calculations. It's a method to help us organize and understand the results of out deep seated longing to know more about the universe around us. A sunset is not only as beautiful, it's possibly more so when we know what is causing it. And when we look up at the stars at night our wonder and longing for understanding are increased, not diminished, but what we do know about them.
There is so much left to learn and explore in the natural world that we find no need to leave the world we know is here to imagine a supernatural and then spend time trying to figure out what that might be like. There are millions of years of research and discovery left in the natural world and we just don't see the need to look elsewhere for our wonder and consideration of possibilities.

Answer 6

Not at all limiting.

It is possible to accept as fact things that have evidence supporting them and still acknowledge that there is more to learn. I it also possible to understand that what we think is likely to be true based on what is known to date can change as science advances. There is plenty of mystery and unknown in the universe -- how things grow in total darkness and extreme heat, the evolution of stars, black holes, neutron stars, quasars, supernovae, particle theory, quantum theory. . . maybe you are missing out on all the fun.

In my view, the idea that one is bound by rules or ideas written by semi-literate nomads who must have ingested odd substances a thousand or so years ago far more limiting? I think so.

And I'm not even an atheist.

Answer 7

What the, ummmm nooooo, limitations come from religion. You see science continues to test itself, challenge itself, when religion never challenges statements, or translations, or even asks questions that are very important, like why aren't dinosaurs ever mentioned or how come we find fossils of humans over 2 million years old? Or why does Jesus, Krishna, Hermus, and many other "saviors" all have the same qualities such as 12 disciples, immaculate conception, born on DEC 25th, crucified/dead for three days/then resurrected, and so on and so on...........

Answer 8

I think there's always room for possibility. If you're saying this in support of religion, I feel there are far too many particulars taught to qualify it as a possibility though.

Is it possible there's a god (meaning some higher form if intelligence)? Absolutely.

Is it possible there's a god who got a virgin pregnant and had a kid that died on the cross for our sins, and we have a book to use as the how-to guide of life? Nah. And that's leaving out about 99% of the stuff.

Answer 9

That's why I'm getting on well with agnosticism at the moment.

We CAN only be sure of concrete rationalizable (sp?) stuff, it's basic logic. Everything else is faith, or opinion.

Likewise, saying we can definitely accept something more is limiting because it means we are definitely excluding conflicting alternatives.

I think it's best to accept the concrete, and accept the possibility of other stuff.

Answer 10

No I don't see it that way at all. I find life an amazing experience and love the mysteries. I just don't claim to answer the unknown in the universe without any facts or proof to do so. That doesn't take away at all from the fun in life at least for me.