Higher Power the one sure thing in AA
Member
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 144
While many people in AA choose their higher power to be God (Abrahamic model, as in the God associated with Catholicism, Christianity, Ortho. Christianity, Protestantism, etc.), I understand that members are encouraged to select their own HP for the sake of recovery.
I used to be a Christian. For about four years I was very devout. Went to church every week, evangelized, etc. Eventually, I struggled with the concept that non-Christian things (not bad necessarily) held higher place in my heart than the actual Christian faith. I won't list these things, but readers can assume that they were questionable enough to be condemned in my churches. I decided that if I was going to try to maintain a faith in a manner that did not line up with how it was supposed to be done, then I should consider changing my affiliation. Eventually, I met some really negative people in the faith that just completely turned me off to the organization of Christianity, but not to a God type force itself.
I still believe that there is a force higher than me, but I don't believe it is as simple as a human-shaped deity. I don't denounce the Christian faith; yes, I get angry with it sometimes, but I don't believe it's bullcrap. However, it just isn't for me, and I'm glad I got to have my share of experience with it before making such a decision.
My HF is the elements of the earth and nature itself. I get so relaxed and centered when I take a walk and breathe in the fresh air, thinking of the spiritual things that might propel it and what might happen with the weather in the days to come. I choose not to look at weather forecasts (unless I need to, i.e when planning a camping trip or something) because I would rather wait to see how things will be, and appreciate the randomness of nature.
As said, I think the whole point of a HF is to take the addict's mind off of himself/herself and focus on anything that may produce much needed (and sometimes alien) motivation for recovery. A lot of people choose God because, in the Christian faith, he is portrayed as being forgiving, loving, and healing, all things that addicts generally love or want. These are things I long for, since I feel I never really knew the gift of loving and accepting myself as I grew.
I used to be a Christian. For about four years I was very devout. Went to church every week, evangelized, etc. Eventually, I struggled with the concept that non-Christian things (not bad necessarily) held higher place in my heart than the actual Christian faith. I won't list these things, but readers can assume that they were questionable enough to be condemned in my churches. I decided that if I was going to try to maintain a faith in a manner that did not line up with how it was supposed to be done, then I should consider changing my affiliation. Eventually, I met some really negative people in the faith that just completely turned me off to the organization of Christianity, but not to a God type force itself.
I still believe that there is a force higher than me, but I don't believe it is as simple as a human-shaped deity. I don't denounce the Christian faith; yes, I get angry with it sometimes, but I don't believe it's bullcrap. However, it just isn't for me, and I'm glad I got to have my share of experience with it before making such a decision.
My HF is the elements of the earth and nature itself. I get so relaxed and centered when I take a walk and breathe in the fresh air, thinking of the spiritual things that might propel it and what might happen with the weather in the days to come. I choose not to look at weather forecasts (unless I need to, i.e when planning a camping trip or something) because I would rather wait to see how things will be, and appreciate the randomness of nature.
As said, I think the whole point of a HF is to take the addict's mind off of himself/herself and focus on anything that may produce much needed (and sometimes alien) motivation for recovery. A lot of people choose God because, in the Christian faith, he is portrayed as being forgiving, loving, and healing, all things that addicts generally love or want. These are things I long for, since I feel I never really knew the gift of loving and accepting myself as I grew.
Member
Join Date: May 2008
Location: London
Posts: 337
Originally Posted by RobertHugh 
It certainly occurred to Bill Wilson when he wrote the Big Book. There's this whole chapter entitled "We Agnostics." It's a good read for the non-believer.
Belief in God is not a requirement to work the steps of AA. Never has been.
Truth is, I still don't know what I believe in. One thing I was sure of: I was powerless over alcohol. Not power-challenged, power-compromised...powerLESS. I was always going to drink. So I was pretty willing to try anything to survive.
I fully understand that alot of people don't subscribe to this sort of absolute thinking. That's fine-- I didn't for years.
But, as laid out in the text book, AA begins with absolute powerlessness. So it follows that we try to connect with power that can solve our problem, otherwise we continue to drink and die.
If you don't identify with that sort of powerlessness, if there is still belief that self control can help, I completely understand why you wouldn't seek a higher power with desperation.
Belief in God is not a requirement to work the steps of AA. Never has been.
Truth is, I still don't know what I believe in. One thing I was sure of: I was powerless over alcohol. Not power-challenged, power-compromised...powerLESS. I was always going to drink. So I was pretty willing to try anything to survive.
I fully understand that alot of people don't subscribe to this sort of absolute thinking. That's fine-- I didn't for years.
But, as laid out in the text book, AA begins with absolute powerlessness. So it follows that we try to connect with power that can solve our problem, otherwise we continue to drink and die.
If you don't identify with that sort of powerlessness, if there is still belief that self control can help, I completely understand why you wouldn't seek a higher power with desperation.
12-Step Recovered Alkie
Join Date: May 2010
Location: West Bloomfield, MI
Posts: 5,797
Heh, I skipped it that chapter for along time because I didn't fancy myself even an agnostic.... (turns out I am - lol) Swallowing agnosticism was tough enough on my ego - but I agree with ya Harry. 
Member
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 3,095
Originally Posted by HarryB
Some people just outright don't believe in God or want WANT there to be a God, we're not just "unsure".
But then I found myself in that hopelessness of chronic alcoholism, unable to stop drinking, unable to live with or without booze. And I became willing to lay aside my prejudice and try to do what had worked for others. I didn't want to rely on a supernatural power, but I was willing to try that if that's what it took.
And years later, the reality of tapping into that power is the central fact of my life. Still don't know what I believe in, but I can't deny the simple reality of my own experience.
Member
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: New England
Posts: 5,285
Keith, I am glad for you that you have come to a belief in God...as a former atheist though, don't you think its reasonableness to see this aspect of AA as very off putting to an alcoholic who is also an atheist. Perhaps they would get help earlier if they didn't have to come to terms with both their alcoholism and their atheism.
Grouch and Brainstorm
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: New Jersey
Posts: 238
Both atheism and a devout belief in God are clearly-defined absolutes (God is used here as a place holder for a creator/supreme being/spirt of the universe/insert your own term here).
Both beliefs are based in that which cannot be proven or disproven. Said another way--there is no scientific proof that there is a God, but conversely, there's no scientific proof that there isn't a God.
I'm willing to consider both possibilities, which I guess makes me agnostic. However, my powerlessness over alcohol and my hopeless state prompted me to be hopeful that there might be a power that could restore me to sanity. I want there to be a God, so on the off-chance that power is there for me, I'm clearing as much as I can that might block me from it. And in that process, you know what happened? I was relieved of the obsession to drink. I've got a foothold of belief.
There's an interesting question in all this: does the atheist simply not believe in God, or actively not want there to be a God?
Both beliefs are based in that which cannot be proven or disproven. Said another way--there is no scientific proof that there is a God, but conversely, there's no scientific proof that there isn't a God.
I'm willing to consider both possibilities, which I guess makes me agnostic. However, my powerlessness over alcohol and my hopeless state prompted me to be hopeful that there might be a power that could restore me to sanity. I want there to be a God, so on the off-chance that power is there for me, I'm clearing as much as I can that might block me from it. And in that process, you know what happened? I was relieved of the obsession to drink. I've got a foothold of belief.
There's an interesting question in all this: does the atheist simply not believe in God, or actively not want there to be a God?
Member
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: New England
Posts: 5,285
Interesting question..I was born believing in God I honestly can't remember not believing which is somewhat strange considering my mom is an atheist and my dad a very lapsed Catholic.
From what I gather from conversations with my mom she neither believes in God nor wants to believe in God, as she has said, if there is a God then why do bad things happen...she has an advanced case of a degenerative disease and is addicted to her pain killers and drinks to much. She also views believers with scorn and in general mocks faith. That's my experience with Atheism.
From what I gather from conversations with my mom she neither believes in God nor wants to believe in God, as she has said, if there is a God then why do bad things happen...she has an advanced case of a degenerative disease and is addicted to her pain killers and drinks to much. She also views believers with scorn and in general mocks faith. That's my experience with Atheism.
Member
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 3,095
Originally Posted by LaFemme
don't you think its reasonableness to see this aspect of AA as very off putting to an alcoholic who is also an atheist.
It comes down to this choice. Be off put, open my mind, and recover for good and all, or be comfortably smug in my beliefs (disbelief) and continue drinking. That choice is mine. I only made the choice to consider the possibility of a spiritual solution when the pain of drinking became to great to go on.
Booze forced me right to God. And if somebody else can get sober without being forced to God, I think that's just fine.
What I think needs to made clear, is that many of us who eventually recovered through AA's spiritual approach did not start off liking that idea very much. At the end of my drinking, I did not have the luxury of deciding which style of recovery best defined me as a person. I just wanted the pain to stop.
There's nothing more futile than listening to someone who can't stop drinking, continually relapses, proclaim that AA is not for them.
Member
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 3,095
Originally Posted by LaFemme
Perhaps they would get help earlier if they didn't have to come to terms with both their alcoholism and their atheism.
I got help earlier for years w/o confronting my atheism. Problem was, all that help didn't solve the drink problem. It didn't fix my alcoholism. Dr.'s, counselors, meds, treatment, CBT, DBT, MRT, rehab, jails, divorce, health trouble, relapse prevention, Gorski's trigger matrices, cognitive self-change, etc. None of those things forced me to confront my atheism.
So, in truth, all of those things prevented me from the help that I apparently needed.
I think I know what you're saying LaFemme. That maybe we could help more people in AA if we didn't scare them off with the God thing? Hang around a little longer, and you may find that we actually help fewer people by avoiding the God thing. We let them hang around for years, continually relapsing and never recovering, because we encourage an easier, softer way that hasn't worked for us.
Member
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Somewhere
Posts: 138
Originally Posted by keithj
I got help earlier for years w/o confronting my atheism. Problem was, all that help didn't solve the drink problem. It didn't fix my alcoholism. Dr.'s, counselors, meds, treatment, CBT, DBT, MRT, rehab, jails, divorce, health trouble, relapse prevention, Gorski's trigger matrices, cognitive self-change, etc. None of those things forced me to confront my atheism.
I still fail to see how you need a certain style of believe about the supernatural to stop a behavior. Fat people lose weight by eating less and working out, not hoping a supernatural force will do it for them. Once the physical addiction phase of alcohol is over its a behavior issue, the only thing that can stop you from drinking is you.
My opinion on that matter (so far) is that I think AA is helpful in that you are around others that have had similar problems and can use it to reinforce in your head why you don't want to drink (behavior modification). I don't think it is the best system that is possible, to think that would be putting a sort of divinity on it. I do feel that many AA members do think it is divine and most of that has to due with the spiritual aspect, it relates back to a similar style of belief in a religion.
12-Step Recovered Alkie
Join Date: May 2010
Location: West Bloomfield, MI
Posts: 5,797
Originally Posted by 24hrsAday
I often say "God as i do not understand Him"
....another is "a God of my misunderstanding"
I like the humility aspect of both.
Grouch and Brainstorm
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: New Jersey
Posts: 238
Originally Posted by keithj
Hang around a little longer, and you may find that we actually help fewer people by avoiding the God thing. We let them hang around for years, continually relapsing and never recovering, because we encourage an easier, softer way that hasn't worked for us.
Member
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Akron OH
Posts: 57
Originally Posted by RobertHugh
Both atheism and a devout belief in God are clearly-defined absolutes (God is used here as a place holder for a creator/supreme being/spirt of the universe/insert your own term here).
Both beliefs are based in that which cannot be proven or disproven. Said another way--there is no scientific proof that there is a God, but conversely, there's no scientific proof that there isn't a God.
I'm willing to consider both possibilities, which I guess makes me agnostic. However, my powerlessness over alcohol and my hopeless state prompted me to be hopeful that there might be a power that could restore me to sanity. I want there to be a God, so on the off-chance that power is there for me, I'm clearing as much as I can that might block me from it. And in that process, you know what happened? I was relieved of the obsession to drink. I've got a foothold of belief.
There's an interesting question in all this: does the atheist simply not believe in God, or actively not want there to be a God?
Both beliefs are based in that which cannot be proven or disproven. Said another way--there is no scientific proof that there is a God, but conversely, there's no scientific proof that there isn't a God.
I'm willing to consider both possibilities, which I guess makes me agnostic. However, my powerlessness over alcohol and my hopeless state prompted me to be hopeful that there might be a power that could restore me to sanity. I want there to be a God, so on the off-chance that power is there for me, I'm clearing as much as I can that might block me from it. And in that process, you know what happened? I was relieved of the obsession to drink. I've got a foothold of belief.
There's an interesting question in all this: does the atheist simply not believe in God, or actively not want there to be a God?
If this were another forum I might accuse you of beating up the infamous *strong atheist strawman*, but it seems that you genuinely may not have encountered any other kind of atheism or perhaps haven't talked with many atheists personally.
Firstly, agnosticism and atheism actually deal with different claims entirely. Agnosticism pertains to the truth value of certain metaphysical claims, it is more about what can be known than it is about the acceptance or rejection of a claim such as "God exists". One can easily be an agnostic theist, or an agnostic atheist. I am considered an agnostic atheist amongst my peers on most sites that actively discuss religion and philosophy. I don't believe than any deities or divine beings exist, but I also do not pretend to have absolute knowledge of the universe which would be a requirement for making the counter-claim that it is impossible that any such being exists. Take note that I would also be just as agnostic about the claimed existence of a very sneaky leprechaun who evades all observation by scientific instruments; don't get the idea that I am a closeted theist.
Now on to atheism specifically. Atheism need not be a claim of its own! Indeed there is a type of atheism that claims "God(s) does(do) not exist". Known as positive atheism or strong atheism, this kind of claim is rarely seen coming from anyone who has given an ounce of thought to their position. Almost no one who professionally debates or writes books about atheism or atheist/humanist philosophy has espoused this view since the mid 1800's. In short, strong atheism is mostly used as a strawman by believers to shift the epistemological burden of proof(not the legal burden of proof, I only clarify because people equivocate the two often).
Atheism is a rejection of belief in the existence of a deity, or deities. When a person makes a claim like "X exists", there is a burden of proof that goes along with that claim. It is a claim which would extend ontology(a positive claim), and can be safely rejected until supporting evidence is presented. To say that the rejecting party also cannot disprove a negative counter claim(a claim which would restrict ontology), therefore both claims are equivalent in some probabilistic way, is a textbook example of the fallacy of shifting the burden of proof. If the onus were allowed to be shifted in such a way, we would need to treat all ultimately unknowable claims as equally probable. This is how the "Flying Spaghetti Monster" business got started. It is an existential claim equivalent in its extraordinary nature to that of most god-beings, yet it is a recent construct, a deliberate parody that we know does not truly exist. This allows us to examine the absurd consequences of applying very weak standards of evidence and/or logical fallacies(like shifting the burden) to an exceptional claim; anyone not suffering from confirmation bias will be forced to concede the existence of all beings, objects, and events of an equally extraordinary nature which could be verified under those same standards.
I personally am a big fan of the Dawkins belief scale(not so much a fan of Dawkins himself though.) It is a spectrum of belief, or lack thereof, ranging 1-7.
1 Strong theist. 100 per cent probability of God. In the words of C. G. Jung, I do not believe, I know.
2 Very high probability but short of 100 per cent. De facto theist. I cannot know for certain, but I strongly believe in God and live my life on the assumption that he is there.
3 Higher than 50 per cent but not very high. Technically agnostic but leaning towards theism. I am very uncertain, but I am inclined to believe in God.
4 Exactly 50 per cent. Completely impartial agnostic. Gods existence and non-existence are exactly equiprobable.
5 Lower than 50 per cent but not very low. Technically agnostic but leaning towards atheism. I dont know whether God exists but Im inclined to be sceptical.
6 Very low probability, but short of zero. De facto atheist. I cannot know for certain but I think God is very improbable, and I live my life on the assumption that he is not there.
7 Strong atheist. I know there is no God, with the same
conviction as Jung "knows" there is one.
I would be a 6.
To answer your final question. I reject the claim that at least one deity exists, pending further evidence to support or warrant such a claim. I will always be open to the possibility, and I would really be quite thrilled if the existence of such a being were to be verified outside of anecdotes and subjective personal experiences. I actively WANT there to be a God or Gods. I just don't think that it is very likely.
Sorry for the enormous post!
Member
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 343
The whole "HP" notion kept me away from AA for many years: I did not know that there were options other than those I was taught in my Protestant upbringing. I certainly could not grasp the notion of spirituality! I really, really, really wanted to stay sober, though, and I knew that AA was right for me. I just struggled so with Steps 2 & 3.......Still, I kept plugging away at it, just trying to remain open-minded. In retrospect I see that I was "unlearning" my concept of God, the one that had damned & judged & punished me. In its place I developed a relationship with something far greater....not an interventionist or diety, but with a spirit. this represented a shift in my thinking, in how I viewed the world. In the process I came to understand spirituality as my place in the universe. If I could draw a picture it would be of something non-descript, gray (or at least neither black nor white), and constant. The only ebb and flow is my relationship with it, in my choice to join with spirit or to choose ego in opposition. I have probably used terms such as "God" or "HP" when I have spoken in meetings, the purpose being to facilitate conversation. Perhaps that has sent a misleading message. I do credit spirituality with my sobriety, but not because a diety swooped into my life & made me sober, playing gatekeeper to the temptations and risks. Rather, it has been choosing to align with spirit that has made living sober worth the while.
A work in progress
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: South Jersey
Posts: 16,633
AA is a very specific program of recovery, which has worked successfully for thousands of alcoholics, many of whom were unsuccessful in recovering any other way. The "method"--what worked for them--was in the Twelve Steps.
There wouldn't be much point in eliminating the key ingredient (reliance on a power greater than oneself) just to attract people who find the key ingredient unacceptable. It would be like eliminating the most effective ingredient in a cancer cure to make it appeal to those who dread the side effects. Sure, you might attract more patients because it is less unpleasant than having your hair fall out and having a temporarily compromised immune system, but if it made the treatment less effective, what would be the point?
Anyone is free to work on sobriety in a way that doesn't involve the Steps. Many people here do. Many people find success. But if nothing else works, it seems a little silly from the point of one's own self-interest not to try it with an open mind. AA isn't interested in making anyone believe in a diety. It is interested in promoting recovery from alcoholism by a method known to work for many otherwise "hopeless cases", which involves surrendering the ego to forces greater than oneself.
There wouldn't be much point in eliminating the key ingredient (reliance on a power greater than oneself) just to attract people who find the key ingredient unacceptable. It would be like eliminating the most effective ingredient in a cancer cure to make it appeal to those who dread the side effects. Sure, you might attract more patients because it is less unpleasant than having your hair fall out and having a temporarily compromised immune system, but if it made the treatment less effective, what would be the point?
Anyone is free to work on sobriety in a way that doesn't involve the Steps. Many people here do. Many people find success. But if nothing else works, it seems a little silly from the point of one's own self-interest not to try it with an open mind. AA isn't interested in making anyone believe in a diety. It is interested in promoting recovery from alcoholism by a method known to work for many otherwise "hopeless cases", which involves surrendering the ego to forces greater than oneself.
Member
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: New England
Posts: 5,285
LOL Mat...I needed a dictionary to get through your post:-) But thank you for it...I especially like the scale at the end (I'm a 1). And it is understanding the many levels of belief that I can see how someone who is a 6 or 7 would be put off by the HP concept of AA...maybe those people are going elsewhere for their recovery and the 3, 4, 5's are the one's that struggle so much with the HP concept in AA.
Member
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: SoCal CA
Posts: 1,319
Although I claim to be atheist, I look at it as I if I don't have a horse in the race. I don't care if there is or there isn't a God. I don't care if people want to put up a cross on government land, I don't care if people want to sing Christmas Carols. You can believe whatever you like as long as you aren't trying to sell it to me or trying to save me. If you do I will give you my opinion on the subject. If believing in a higher power helps you get sober that is awesome. I have found that there is only one thing I can consistantly believe in and control, and that is me. It's a very egocentric philosophy, but it has helped me get to where I am in life, it has helped me lose weight, it has helped me make money, it has helped me keep a relationship with my wife for over 20 years and raise a great family, and now it will help me stay sober. I just have to put my mind to it. I like to think, what my mind can conceive and believe, I can acheive. So I have no knock on religion and belief and faith, if people can use it to make them better, happier, people that is a fantastic tool. I just tend to stay away from religions and higher powers and such because I don't see a purpose in contemplating, arguing or discussing something that no one can really prove or disprove, and something that everyone has their own opinion on and some will even fight to the death about. On a side note I was raised methodist, and studied religion in college, and took a literary class on the bible. So I wasn't raised without a faith in God, and I have discussed religion and faith alot in the past, so I am not a blind sheep in that regard. I apologize that I hijacked the thread and pushed in a different direction, it won't happen again. This place is here to help us all get and stay sober, and I shouldn't have commented in this thread.
Grouch and Brainstorm
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: New Jersey
Posts: 238
Originally Posted by Mat
Well...(long post incoming)
If this were another forum I might accuse you of beating up the infamous *strong atheist strawman*, but it seems that you genuinely may not have encountered any other kind of atheism or perhaps haven't talked with many atheists personally.
Firstly, agnosticism and atheism actually deal with different claims entirely. Agnosticism pertains to the truth value of certain metaphysical claims, it is more about what can be known than it is about the acceptance or rejection of a claim such as "God exists". One can easily be an agnostic theist, or an agnostic atheist. I am considered an agnostic atheist amongst my peers on most sites that actively discuss religion and philosophy. I don't believe than any deities or divine beings exist, but I also do not pretend to have absolute knowledge of the universe which would be a requirement for making the counter-claim that it is impossible that any such being exists. Take note that I would also be just as agnostic about the claimed existence of a very sneaky leprechaun who evades all observation by scientific instruments; don't get the idea that I am a closeted theist.
Now on to atheism specifically. Atheism need not be a claim of its own! Indeed there is a type of atheism that claims "God(s) does(do) not exist". Known as positive atheism or strong atheism, this kind of claim is rarely seen coming from anyone who has given an ounce of thought to their position. Almost no one who professionally debates or writes books about atheism or atheist/humanist philosophy has espoused this view since the mid 1800's. In short, strong atheism is mostly used as a strawman by believers to shift the epistemological burden of proof(not the legal burden of proof, I only clarify because people equivocate the two often).
Atheism is a rejection of belief in the existence of a deity, or deities. When a person makes a claim like "X exists", there is a burden of proof that goes along with that claim. It is a claim which would extend ontology(a positive claim), and can be safely rejected until supporting evidence is presented. To say that the rejecting party also cannot disprove a negative counter claim(a claim which would restrict ontology), therefore both claims are equivalent in some probabilistic way, is a textbook example of the fallacy of shifting the burden of proof. If the onus were allowed to be shifted in such a way, we would need to treat all ultimately unknowable claims as equally probable. This is how the "Flying Spaghetti Monster" business got started. It is an existential claim equivalent in its extraordinary nature to that of most god-beings, yet it is a recent construct, a deliberate parody that we know does not truly exist. This allows us to examine the absurd consequences of applying very weak standards of evidence and/or logical fallacies(like shifting the burden) to an exceptional claim; anyone not suffering from confirmation bias will be forced to concede the existence of all beings, objects, and events of an equally extraordinary nature which could be verified under those same standards.
I personally am a big fan of the Dawkins belief scale(not so much a fan of Dawkins himself though.) It is a spectrum of belief, or lack thereof, ranging 1-7.
1 Strong theist. 100 per cent probability of God. In the words of C. G. Jung, I do not believe, I know.
2 Very high probability but short of 100 per cent. De facto theist. I cannot know for certain, but I strongly believe in God and live my life on the assumption that he is there.
3 Higher than 50 per cent but not very high. Technically agnostic but leaning towards theism. I am very uncertain, but I am inclined to believe in God.
4 Exactly 50 per cent. Completely impartial agnostic. Gods existence and non-existence are exactly equiprobable.
5 Lower than 50 per cent but not very low. Technically agnostic but leaning towards atheism. I dont know whether God exists but Im inclined to be sceptical.
6 Very low probability, but short of zero. De facto atheist. I cannot know for certain but I think God is very improbable, and I live my life on the assumption that he is not there.
7 Strong atheist. I know there is no God, with the same
conviction as Jung "knows" there is one.
I would be a 6.
To answer your final question. I reject the claim that at least one deity exists, pending further evidence to support or warrant such a claim. I will always be open to the possibility, and I would really be quite thrilled if the existence of such a being were to be verified outside of anecdotes and subjective personal experiences. I actively WANT there to be a God or Gods. I just don't think that it is very likely.
Sorry for the enormous post!
If this were another forum I might accuse you of beating up the infamous *strong atheist strawman*, but it seems that you genuinely may not have encountered any other kind of atheism or perhaps haven't talked with many atheists personally.
Firstly, agnosticism and atheism actually deal with different claims entirely. Agnosticism pertains to the truth value of certain metaphysical claims, it is more about what can be known than it is about the acceptance or rejection of a claim such as "God exists". One can easily be an agnostic theist, or an agnostic atheist. I am considered an agnostic atheist amongst my peers on most sites that actively discuss religion and philosophy. I don't believe than any deities or divine beings exist, but I also do not pretend to have absolute knowledge of the universe which would be a requirement for making the counter-claim that it is impossible that any such being exists. Take note that I would also be just as agnostic about the claimed existence of a very sneaky leprechaun who evades all observation by scientific instruments; don't get the idea that I am a closeted theist.
Now on to atheism specifically. Atheism need not be a claim of its own! Indeed there is a type of atheism that claims "God(s) does(do) not exist". Known as positive atheism or strong atheism, this kind of claim is rarely seen coming from anyone who has given an ounce of thought to their position. Almost no one who professionally debates or writes books about atheism or atheist/humanist philosophy has espoused this view since the mid 1800's. In short, strong atheism is mostly used as a strawman by believers to shift the epistemological burden of proof(not the legal burden of proof, I only clarify because people equivocate the two often).
Atheism is a rejection of belief in the existence of a deity, or deities. When a person makes a claim like "X exists", there is a burden of proof that goes along with that claim. It is a claim which would extend ontology(a positive claim), and can be safely rejected until supporting evidence is presented. To say that the rejecting party also cannot disprove a negative counter claim(a claim which would restrict ontology), therefore both claims are equivalent in some probabilistic way, is a textbook example of the fallacy of shifting the burden of proof. If the onus were allowed to be shifted in such a way, we would need to treat all ultimately unknowable claims as equally probable. This is how the "Flying Spaghetti Monster" business got started. It is an existential claim equivalent in its extraordinary nature to that of most god-beings, yet it is a recent construct, a deliberate parody that we know does not truly exist. This allows us to examine the absurd consequences of applying very weak standards of evidence and/or logical fallacies(like shifting the burden) to an exceptional claim; anyone not suffering from confirmation bias will be forced to concede the existence of all beings, objects, and events of an equally extraordinary nature which could be verified under those same standards.
I personally am a big fan of the Dawkins belief scale(not so much a fan of Dawkins himself though.) It is a spectrum of belief, or lack thereof, ranging 1-7.
1 Strong theist. 100 per cent probability of God. In the words of C. G. Jung, I do not believe, I know.
2 Very high probability but short of 100 per cent. De facto theist. I cannot know for certain, but I strongly believe in God and live my life on the assumption that he is there.
3 Higher than 50 per cent but not very high. Technically agnostic but leaning towards theism. I am very uncertain, but I am inclined to believe in God.
4 Exactly 50 per cent. Completely impartial agnostic. Gods existence and non-existence are exactly equiprobable.
5 Lower than 50 per cent but not very low. Technically agnostic but leaning towards atheism. I dont know whether God exists but Im inclined to be sceptical.
6 Very low probability, but short of zero. De facto atheist. I cannot know for certain but I think God is very improbable, and I live my life on the assumption that he is not there.
7 Strong atheist. I know there is no God, with the same
conviction as Jung "knows" there is one.
I would be a 6.
To answer your final question. I reject the claim that at least one deity exists, pending further evidence to support or warrant such a claim. I will always be open to the possibility, and I would really be quite thrilled if the existence of such a being were to be verified outside of anecdotes and subjective personal experiences. I actively WANT there to be a God or Gods. I just don't think that it is very likely.
Sorry for the enormous post!
Would love to respond, but my head exploded about half way through your post.
Seriously-- I learned a lot from this, and appreciate you sharing it with me/us.
I've always wanted to say in a meeting, "....my higher power, whom I call the flying spaghetti monster, has relieved me..."
Currently Active Users Viewing this Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
