Do you believe in God

Free Will.
The world is conceived, and Man is given the gift of free will.
It's pretty simple. And it's a lot easier to defend than the idea that someone up there is managing the details.

 

I'd say I'm around 90%+ skeptical of God's existence. The more I learn about science, the less 'necessary' God seems to be. Of course, there's always the whole "Where did the Big Bang come from?" question. Perhaps the best way I could classify myself is as an Agnostic atheist. I think I would be classified as a 'weak atheist.'

 

Check out what came before the big bang. Check out inflationary cosmology. Check out gauge symmetry. Check out string theory (which I'm about to do) and then come back and clean up my thinking on the subject at hand.

And don't worry about being a 'weak atheist'. There are weaker folks around.

 

Pretty simple: I don't believe in a god that has the "ability" to be "involved." In other words, our concept of "involvement" is a human construct, which is limited by our capacity to comprehend these concepts only in human terms. And I don't believe there is a deity that exists in human terms. The world is far too complex for that.

I do believe there is a higher force, or power, that makes the world work the way it does. Nature is too complex and ordered and beautiful for it to be the effect of random chaos, or scientific reasoning. The human body itself is far too complex, the environment is far too complex, the interdependency of all living creatures is far too complex to be created in human concepts, or by some humanly personified Supreme Being. Hell, there's still so much that we don't know about the world, despite all our advancements ...

There IS a higher force that brings us all together -- I firmly believe that. We are all connected, and the universe is all connected.

But I don't believe it has anything to do with "God's plan" or God being "involved." Those are human concepts, based on a human-centric view of the world. The world is so much bigger than that. It's a humbling thought. But it's a beautiful thought; there's so much still out there to look forward to.

 

I actually know a decent amount about inflationary cosmology and string theory. The toughest part of string theory, IMO, is trying to think in 10+ dimensions. I had a great seminar in cosmology, and I had to do a presentation on parity symmetry in particle physics for the class. It was an awesome class. I learned a ton in that class.

 

Great! And, seriously--what are the odds? Does that puzzle you, or did you learn something that made you feel it was all logical and not at all mind-bending? (The one out, to my mind, is if you buy in on the billions of parallel universes theory; which I don't.)

 

I read a thing in Time going back and forth between that famous big-mouth British aetheist (whose name I choose not to remember) and a scientist who does believe in God (whose name I cannot remember). The Brit was talking about how ludicrous it was to believe in God and yet was espousing the parallel universes theory -- something for which there also is no scientific proof but simply gives those who choose to deny God's existence an allegedly scientific "out" to support their contention.
It struck me that he was every bit as faith-based as those who have religion.

 

I think many atheists call themselves agnostic, because "atheist" is such a loaded term (and generates responses like yours above).

I consider myself an atheist. While I do not actively believe in any god or gods, I don't discount entirely the possibility that some higher power could or might exist.

Bertrand Russell had some great thoughts on atheism vs. agnosticism...

Here there comes a practical question which has often troubled me. Whenever I go into a foreign country or a prison or any similar place they always ask me what is my religion.

I never know whether I should say "Agnostic" or whether I should say "Atheist". It is a very difficult question and I daresay that some of you have been troubled by it. As a philosopher, if I were speaking to a purely philosophic audience I should say that I ought to describe myself as an Agnostic, because I do not think that there is a conclusive argument by which one prove that there is not a God.

On the other hand, if I am to convey the right impression to the ordinary man in the street I think I ought to say that I am an Atheist, because when I say that I cannot prove that there is not a God, I ought to add equally that I cannot prove that there are not the Homeric gods.

None of us would seriously consider the possibility that all the gods of homer really exist, and yet if you were to set to work to give a logical demonstration that Zeus, Hera, Poseidon, and the rest of them did not exist you would find it an awful job. You could not get such proof.

Therefore, in regard to the Olympic gods, speaking to a purely philosophical audience, I would say that I am an Agnostic. But speaking popularly, I think that all of us would say in regard to those gods that we were Atheists. In regard to the Christian God, I should, I think, take exactly the same line.

 

I used to have a pastor who said he didn't have enough faith to be an atheist. I think that's a pretty good point.

 

I don't say this to be flip, but I think I'd want to know my questioner before I answered that question. In several countries your non-belief would be considered a kind of evil proselytizing. In theory, given a non-hostile audience, your answer strikes me as correct. For you.

 

At the time, my mind couldn't 'get around it.' Now it makes more sense to me. String theory does solve a lot of problems that some of the other theories have, I know that. To tell you the truth, I have to update my knowledge of some of the distinctions between the competing theories. But I do remember finding it compelling. The 'multiverse' theory is interesting.

Yeah, what are the odds that this discussion would turn up on SJ? Thanks for bringing it up!

Like I said, when I first started learning about some of this stuff, I had a lot of trouble 'conceiving' it, being a puny 3-dimensional being and all. Ha. It still takes a good day for me to try to 'get it.'

Seriously, I believe that Hawking has achieved so much incredible work partially because of his ALS. And I don't mean that in a patronizing or unsympathetic way. I hope a cure is found tonight and he is totally cured. But these types of concepts require long, deep thought, IMO, and because of his physical constraints Hawking has to use his mind more. It's like someone who is blind developing heightened hearing, etc, IMO. His mind is incredible. He is constantly thinking about all of these things, and we all have benefited from his - and many other great theorists - amazing work.