How does an atheist handles a question that doubts atheism?

Question

Some say that they are an atheist because religion or a belief in God, left some holes for them. However what about in the reverse. What of those times when the scientific answer is not suitable for you. Do you force yourself to believe it to be true, or do you just accept it because after all it is science, therefore it must be true. What about the times when you have no one to count on, and you don't have confidence in yourself. Do you just accept things as they are, because that is the way that nature is and that is just life?

As if an atheist is going to doubt atheism on Y!A.

So lets assume that you going to marriage counseling and the psychologist says that the fault of the marriage is because of the things that you did. The psychologist says that you fit the text book example of a certain type of person in a marriage. What if you don't agree with this psychologist? Yet how can you not agree, after all the proof of his diagnosis is all documented.

What if you have been described as having this type of personality? In other words do you just accept every scientific answer for true, don't you question all things, including things that come out of science? Are you a fool for science?

Thumbs up Smarty Pants. That is what I don't understand, atheist will say that science explains or will explain everything. That is not so, if that is true then I can also say that religion explains everything, and even that is not true. Science is not going to explain what is the motives behind an action. It can speculate, but the only one who knows is the person. Perhaps this why it is possible to fool psychologist.

KC,
Yeah I've seen some Dawkin's quotes. Enough to challenge you into getting back in place.

Answer 1

Good point. Another thing to think about is the focus of science. I don't know of any studies trying to prove the existence of life after death or a god. Certainly it won't get half the input that physics or chemistry ever have.
Spirituality is a necessary part of our make up according to many psychologists. This part of science (psychology), however is glossed over. Scientific studies have been made into NDEs (ie recollections of death by by Michael B Sabom MD), but this is conveniently forgotten, and rarely discussed. Science is becoming about studying only things of practical importance. Whereas true science will study life, and explain everything, science of today will focus more on one particular area, thus producing a point of view somewhat altered from reality.
Hence science should not be used as a basis for atheism. It has nothing to say about the existence of a spirit or a god or lack thereof. If it is hijacked by any belief (including atheism) it loses it's impartiality, and therefore usefulness.

Answer 2

I'm afraid that in most cases there aren't answers for every little question that pops in our head. Science is young, very young, it hasn't begun to answer everything. We are aware of this. I didn't leave religion for the holes, I left it because the meat of it was wrong. Because it masqueraded around nonsense as though it was fact, and hindered true knowledge.
Whether god exists or not is unanswered, and personally, I don't think it even matters. I know for a fact that all current monotheistic and polytheistic religions have been proven false by science. The earth is not supported by pillars, nor is it flat, we evolved, a rainbow is due to refraction and not because god promised not to flood the earth again, all of the dogmatic nonsense is false. That's a good enough starting point for me. We can work on finding the real answers together as we throw away the ancient nonsense.

edit: What does this have to do with psychology? Psychology is a relatively new science, and thought is little more than the electrochemical interplay in the brain. Without understanding even the basics of how this translates into the word and images we see and hear in our head, we can't begin to understand much of the premise behind psychology. Psychologists can categorize people and behaviors into categories that make sense, but individuals are their own exception to every rule. Yes, Bipolar and Antisocial personality disorders exist, no we don't know why exactly, but we know that they exist and that genetics and environment are partially responsible. I personally subscirbe to the hardware/software school of psychology which suggests that your mind is like a computer without an OS when its born, as we're raised, it generates its OS and application level programs. Sometimes these are coded incorrectly due to poor exposure during the formative years.

Answer 3

Good question.

I am OK with unknowns in my life (e.g. where did the universe come from).

I do not want to make up stories just when I need to believe in something. Sure, it would be nice to believe in a comforting/protecting God. But I can't just MAKE myself believe without good reason.

When I have no one, I go on and do the best I can.



EDIT:
No one should ever blindly accept science. That is why I encourage more/better science education in the world. I am a scientist and I do understand the scientific method.

Claims in science are NEVER dogma (unlike religion). And science is a self-correcting and self-improving system of understand things that can be verified (again, unlike religion).

Answer 4

Atheism is not about science. Atheism does not necessarily use science as a backdrop for its thought. Science does verify the fallacies in the 'book' and prove the facts of this planet and universe.

My personal thoughts are that atheism is questioning then digging for the truth of the questionable.. After you do the investigation of history and early cultures you find the book is no more than myths as is religion in general - written so they are available and consistent to the uneducated. I have never doubted my atheism, I accept things on investigation not heresay. After researching religions I would not accept one as having any truth as each of them is man made. Nature is a true teacher - all comes from the nature of this planet and the universe.

Answer 5

Just because science hasn't yet proven that a god doesn't exist doesn't mean we should abandon logic and reason to search for the answers in a 2000 year old book written by superstitious people in an unstable period of time.

I don't believe we should just give up because the answers aren't readily available. We should continue to search for the answers using logic, reason, and scientific discovery. One day science may discover proof of a god's existence or non-existence. I believe the latter is more likely. Until then people should think for themselves and not believe something just because it's written in a book or taught by their parents. Religious idealism is nothing more than an indoctrination passed on from generation to generation based on faith rather than fact.

Answer 6

i know what you're dealing with, often. For me, i became in no way a good believer. around the age of 14, the place I first began to learn the actual sciences, i began out to comprehend that faith did not make any experience, and technological information did. technological information became self-correcting, and can desire to be question. faith could not. i began out to dedicate further and further time into reading the actual worldwide. i know lots approximately technological information and the scientific approach, and it makes a ton greater experience than some magic guy interior the clouds announcing "poof." i'm 20 now, and have been a public atheist, in case you're able to desire to call it that, for about 3 years now. i'm not ashamed interior the least, and that i'm not apprehensive in besides. Like I pronounced, i became in no way a good believer at first. notwithstanding, i know for a fact that my father and mom are dissapointed in me. They experience I could a minimum of be a deist (believer in god) whether I despise the church. I refuse. i'm reading for my BS in Psychology desirable now, so I comprehend fairly abit approximately human thought and emotion. each and every thing with admire to god is made up. Any god for that remember. My kin continues to be close. i'm an atheist. I fairly have an older sister who's agnostic, and something of my kin are all believers. My father is closest to a deist. He despises the church, yet has god in his existence. My mom, brother, and different sister all have not have been given any difficulty with the church (that's the place my Atheism stems from. background shows that the church is an enterprise used to regulate the masses.) I remember telling my mom for the 1st time that i became an atheist. It became an exciting adventure. Watch the video interior the components record, by using fact it became fairly very like that. She's so lots greater calm now, notwithstanding. I stay in Michigan, a quite conservative state finished of god-fearing church going hunters armed to the enamel.

Answer 7

"Some say that they are an atheist because religion or a belief in God, left some holes for them. However what about in the reverse."

Doubt was the first step to me tossing off the religion I was raised in. Science provided me with a new sense of understanding the world, without stooping to supernatural explanations that I felt demeaned the human condition and asked people to stop questioning.

" What of those times when the scientific answer is not suitable for you. "

Science explains the universe. For deriving meaning and enjoyment in life, I rely on my emotions, socialization, reasoning, good intent, and everything that theists rely on (without the supernatural beliefs). Why do some religions depict science as if it is not enough, or we must have some sort of extrinsic meaning to everything if we are to enjoy our lives? Science shows us an awe-inspiring universe with billions of galaxies and intricate physical processes. Why is it considered faulty or reductive by many religious entities? The more I learn, the more I appreciate the universe and my part within it.

"Do you force yourself to believe it to be true, or do you just accept it because after all it is science, therefore it must be true. "

What are we talking about here? I need a specific example. I don't try to force myself to believe something is true, I acknowledge that it as true as evidence comes along. Also note that as knowledge updates and our understanding improves, I know that I will discard old assumptions -- it's a part of what makes science strong, this flexibility and pursuit of knowledge, even if it goes against what was believed in the past. Science is the only proven way to understand reality. But when it comes to emotional and psychological fulfillment, I rely on things other than science -- such as love, feelings, emotions, and processes that may be rooted in the natural world, but that I enjoy for the sake of it. Science tells us what and how of everything. But cognition makes it meaningful.

"What about the times when you have no one to count on, and you don't have confidence in yourself."

I have family members. There is always someone willing to help me. I don't rely on some kind of invisible deity with cultural roots and no evidence for its existence or involvement in nature. That would feel empty to me. Why would I substitute human companionship for unknowns?

Do you just accept things as they are, because that is the way that nature is and that is just life?

I can understand and accept nature. I can also use nature to my advantage to help myself and others (ex. antibiotics, genetically engineered crops, etc). I have to accept that death is inevitable and that it is final. But that doesn't mean I cannot use nature in some ways to change the status quo. For instance, science has increased human life expectancy by over forty years since a century and a half ago. Science is merely a way that humans can understand the place we live in and use that understanding to help one another.

Your example:

"...fool for science?" No such thing. Always question, provided you have evidence for your position.

As for the question with the psychologist, some aspects of modern medicine is still problematic in the case of mis diagnosis and malpractice. It is a field that is precious, but also prone to human error. If I doubted my psychologist, I would seek a second or third opinion. Also note that some elements of psychology, especially the views of Freud, seem more like conjecture to me, as opposed to something supported by concrete evidence. There are many unknowns when it comes to the human brain. We're still discovering more about this area and genes responsible for human behavior. Study, learn, and listen until a better explanation comes along.

Answer 8

I heard a quote that said, "Fifty percent of what we know now will be proven false in the next hundred years." If God has no answer you like and science has no answer you like, maybe you need to say you don't know or come up with your own theory. Science is often flawed, so don't accept science just because science said so.

Answer 9

Since atheists don't have a "statement of faith" as do most religions, you really can't pose this question. Moreover, atheists need not accept scientific explanations, they just reject explantions of religions that they know (or think they know). As for the science, It is sort of like having baseball players with different batting averages? Which do you choose, even if neither bats 1.000. ?

Answer 10

Science doesn't 'believe' anything that has holes in it. Every theory is tested and observed over and over again until it can be proved as a physical law. Not suitable for me? Like, the law of gravity? Well...I'd like to be able to levitate, but...ya know? And yes, I accept things as they are....as they've been proven. Any theories, I accept the most logical one, but I don't accept it as fact. Gravity = fact. Evolution = theory. Although scientific theory and everyday theory have different definitions. Most folks can't get their head around it. But yes, I take life at face value and try to not let my ego and my mental comfort alter what has been proved, or at least what is reasonable and logical.