I know you are, but what am I?

Old, but still wonderful.

So, why do I call myself a naturalist? Because that is what I am: circular. I am a collection of atoms, arranged in a quite small, not so intelligent package. These tiny, tiny, particles are from times and places so far removed from me, I cannot accurately fathom their origins. I do get to make use of them for a short time. Afterwards they decay, out of my form and into something else. Perhaps, some become a part of a fungi in a few years or stretch over an event horizon in a few billion. I say all this in attempt to rationalize my circularity, and also to give some context.

When asked, I give a variety of answers defining my belief structure. Naturalist, agnostic and atheist have all been in the rotation, mostly in that order. Naturalism is defined here as:

The view of the world that takes account only of natural elements and forces, excluding the supernatural or spiritual.

So naturalism as a world view is atheistic, and rejecting of dualistic metaphysical world views. That said, I do not completely rule out the possibility of the "supernatural." Many things we once thought supernatural, have been shown to have a natural cause. I prefer the term "naturalist" because it has the word natural in it, and I am enamored with the natural universe. Plus, it gets odd looks when people incorrectly interpret it as "nudist." In addition, it does not carry the stigma that the term "atheist" does. At least, not until you explain it, as Damion correctly pointed out.

What of atheism? In the comments of one of my previous posts, Thomas asked my thoughts on the re-branding of atheism. I do not think we need to throw out the term "atheism." The "New Atheists" have put us in the spotlight, and now we have the chance step up and define who we are. Atheists are quite diverse, as is population in general. However, what needs to be focused on is our similarity. We are a part of the same communities. We live, love and give.

We also need to push the immense wonder of the universe to the forefront. So much exists that religious world views sweep under the rug. These facts are inching out and begging to be understood. We are past the time of easy answers and cheap wonder. The universe does not need myth to be amazing. The reality illuminated by science is quite incredible all on its own.

“...He made the stars also.” Genesis 1:16 kjv

Image credit. Nasa

The heavens are an ever-evolving symphony, with movements and sonatas dating back aeons, and stretching forward longer than we can fathom. We are just a piece, a single note, among trillions. The fact that you are here, and can even comprehend the tiniest bit of cosmology is incredible, the fact that you are one of many results of all of the cosmos is wonderful. We are links, tied together, in a multidimensional chain stretching out through time and space farther than any eye can see, and on the fringes of what our mathematics and scientific investigation can tell us. These are facts that exist, facts that invoke an emotion deeper than anything I can accurately describe. It is something deeper than anything I have felt during my short existence.

"How is it that hardly any major religion has looked at science and concluded, "This is better than we thought! The Universe is much bigger than our prophets said, grander, more subtle, more elegant?" Instead they say, "No, no, no! My god is a little god, and I want him to stay that way." A religion, old or new, that stressed the magnificence of the Universe as revealed by modern science might be able to draw forth reserves of reverence and awe hardly tapped by the conventional faiths."
— Carl Sagan (Pale Blue Dot: A Vision of the Human Future in Space)

A simple response

This will be the first of "What is Atheism?" posts. Though I mostly intend to use this blog to post positive and inspiring aspects of our natural world, examining atheism/naturalism and its opposition is also something I find interesting.

A response to to Terry Mirll:

Judging from Terry's Mirll's letter, there seems to be quite a bit of misunderstanding surrounding atheistic world views. I will attempt to correct this distorted characterization, not in a defense, but rather to educate.

Getting past the somewhat sardonic introductory paragraph, we get to the first assertion, and what can ultimately be defined as the thesis. “Philosophically, atheism is founded on a contradiction.” He then goes on to defend his premise by proposing that the “standard” atheist will defend his/her self using the problem of evil. Mirll then goes on to tie this back to the thesis, suggesting that the problem of evil depends on the existence of a god.

The first problem is Mirll is taking a hypothetical example, and asserting it as universal. Not all atheists come to their disbelief the same way, nor do they hold the same reasons for their atheism. The same is true of religion. If I asked a certain type of theist why is theism true, I could get the response: “Because Joseph Smith's writings are true.” It would be not only false, but also disingenuous of me to suggest I could disprove all theism simply by showing that Joseph Smith was a fraud. Anecdotal evidence, and straw man arguments are not great ways to contend worldviews.

The second issue is Mirll's explanation of the problem of evil itself. The problem of evil is for the 'omnigod' of Christianity. It goes as such:

If an all powerful, loving god exists it would, by nature, prevent evil.

Evil exists.

Therefore an all powerful, loving god must not exist.

It supposes the existence of a god to determine a true/false result, it doesn't hinge on it. It is also not an issue for an evil or indifferent god, which is why it is generally not used as an argument for atheism, but rather an argument against Christianity. It has some shortfalls, and strengths which are discussed at length many other places. If it were self contradictory, Plantinga would not have had to formulate his free-will defense.

Therefore, his conclusion is ultimately false. Atheism is not faith-based, nor is it a religion.