semantics, philosophy, definition-of-atheismIs it atheism if one holds that there is a higher “being” that has set the system up but does not care about individuals’ actions?
That is what I think based on the complexity and sophistication of time and life. I think that the “creator” entity is so far removed from us in sophistication, that our ability to “understand” it is more unlikely than ability of a fly to understand how computers work.
From the standpoint of practical choices, I don’t see how life’s choices would differ between the true atheist (no God period) and the [there must be some sort of design/creator-entity who it is impossible to understand or relate to].
Please point me to some work if there is any on the subject. If there is a specific name for this type of belief, please let me know.
What you describe is closer to the Deism of Thomas Jefferson and others than to Atheism. The main issue with Deism as a whole is that it makes, even more so than Theism does, an untestable statement. There is simply no way to completely disprove it, even though at some point it becomes a completely moot point.
And that is precisely the case here. We have pretty good hypotheses regarding abiogenesis and how the Universe came about (although in both these cases neither have been demonstrated to the satisfaction of the scientific community). The new crop of hypotheses in this field are in fact testable (there’s even testable predictions coming out of the multiverse interpretation of Quantum Mechanics now, which was the primary weakness of that hypothesis before). Which means that we have in hand testable hypotheses for these things that do the last thing that was left for a Creator to do: create the Universe and Life. So between a testable hypothesis and a non-testable hypothesis which cover the same subject, you’ll forgive me if I prefer the testable one, especially when the alternative doesn’t explain anything (Godditit is not an explanation).
No, you just used the term “higher being” instead of God. Its the same thing. We are not flys, your analogy is bad.
From a practical standpoint we know that flies and computers exist and we know why the former can’t understand the latter. We don’t know that any “higher being” exists, and in what form it exists if it does exist, and are therefore unable to ascertain our ability to understand it.
However, would we even be able to worship a being who is completely beyond our understanding? The problem is that when we make statements like “set the system up” and “does not care about us” we are making statements about our understanding of your “higher being”.
That is what I think based on complexity and sophistication of time (?) and life.
This is just argument from ignorance. You should go and read more about the apparent complexity of life and then re-visit your question.
Edit (16/02/11):
First you must define what you mean by higher being: a supernatural entity (i.e. a deity) or some other material entity (i.e. immensely advanced alien beings)?
If it is the former then, no, you are not an atheist. If it’s the latter then, yes, you are an atheist.
A good place to start would be the dictionary to find out exactly what these terms mean, and then you could move on to Wikipedia as a starting point for further investigation.
I think the answer depends on some unspoken definitions of the higher being about which you speak. Are there things on the cosmos that are greater than us, either as individuals or as the collective humanity? Of course. Is it possible for us to know them? I think that depends on what is meant by “know”. If you’re trying to imply anything other than a general understanding of the natural forces under which it operates, then you’re probably talking about something more suited to philosophy and theology than science and, as such, it’s not really expressing a disbelief in god, despite your lack of use of the word ‘god’.
Think about the language some theists use to define god. Sometimes they’re self-contradictory: omniscient, omnipotent, and omnipresent at the same time. Other times they use definitions that are designed to squelch a greater understanding, such as “god transcends logic”. One of the appealing aspects of ignosticism is that it holds that all definitions of god are woefully insufficient and therefore we’re not really in a position to know if it exists one way or another. While I agree with this position, the moment the supernatural is invoked, I think it’s fair to day that this higher being does not exist. That said, let’s not confuse the supernatural (which is to say, something that is not bound by natural forces) with attributes that are simply not fully understood based on current scientific knowledge.
So, to get back to your question and my initial comment about definitions: does your higher being have supernatural attributes?
All content is licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0.