geoff

How would you modify the following (non-technical) atheistic statement of belief to fit your personal beliefs? What would be essential additions?

"In rational inquiry, I assume the existence of the external material world and other minds. I assume the general reliability of sense perception. The most accurate and reliable method for acquiring true beliefs is the scientific method. This method involves observing reality, forming a hypothesis based on observed reality, testing it, and making adjustments to it (or abandoning it altogether) then repeating the procedure (with a new hypothesis) again. Via the scientific method I know, among other things, that the material world is self-existent. It either has no beginning (i.e., exists eternally) or had a beginning that can be explained in purely naturalistic terms. I also know that "evolution" is the process by which organisms (and, hence, families, organizations, people-groups, etc.) develop, and that morality is based upon this evolutionary scheme. From my naturalistic assumptions, I can provide a rational and objectively true and verifiable account for realities such as meaning, rationality, truth, and morality.

I do not believe in the existence of supernatural entities or explanations regarding natural phenomena primarily because naturalistic explanations are sufficient. Secondary reasons for not believing are that there is insufficient or no evidence to substantiate the existence of supernatural entities and because evidence exists that makes it unlikely that such entities exist, and because the existence of such entities is logically impossible (i.e., self-referentially absurd)."

Technos

There's some specific Atheist Creed now? Damn, and all this time as an Atheist I was foolish enough to think that we were mostly morally and intellectually diverse and freelance.

Toto

geoff - I notice that your profile says you believe that Christian beliefs are rational. This was a great relief to me, because your statement of belief looks like a bad imitation of the Christian creed, and I was glad to see that it was not written by a self-styled atheist.

I would in particular object to this part:

"morality is based upon this evolutionary scheme. From my naturalistic assumptions, I can provide a rational and objectively true and verifiable account for realities such as meaning, rationality, truth, and morality."

(not that I'm sure what it means)

tronvillain

I do not assume the existence of an external world or other minds - I simply percieve what appears to be an external world and take the intentional stance about other minds. I do not assume the reliability of sense perception, but most of what I percieve with my sense is consistent, and I can only judge reliability within that framework in any case (let me know when you have another method). I would have to say that the only method for forming true beliefs is observation in combination with speculation, which is what everyone does (though some of us do it better than others). I do not know that the material world is self existent, but in the absence of any evidence, I consider its existence a brute fact. Evolution on the other hand is simply a hypothesis which is supported by the evidence, but it does serve as a large part of the explanation of morality (though it is not the basis of morality). I see no reason to provide a "rational and objectively true and verifiable account" for things such as meaning, rationality, truth, or morality.

I do not believe in the existence of supernatural entities or explanations because talk of the supernatural is meaningless. However, I do not believe in the existence of entities labelled "supernatural" because they are not supported by the available evidence or are logically incoherent, and I do not accept explanations labelled "supernatural" because they are generally extremely poor or totally unecessary.

not a theist

I actually cannot find a single statement in the creed which I do agree with.

Someone7

"God is a donkey"

Vorkosigan

This is not an atheist creed, but a (badly-written) metaphysical naturalist creed. There are many kinds of atheists, and not all of them are metaphysical naturalists.

Vorkosigan

SharonDee

No-no-no. The "atheist creed" (if such a thing were needed) would be much simpler, and can be expressed thus:

"Gods? I don't believe in 'em."

How and why a person comes to such a stance is irrelevant. It's the bottom line that defines.

southernhybrid

Just why would an atheist want/need to have a creed? We're not an organized religion. Must we have dogma in atheism? Doesn't this invalidate the very nature of freethinking? I enjoy discussing things with other atheists and hearing or reading their ideas. I just don't want to be part of any group that tries to narrow my ideas and thoughts. I can think quite well all by myself. The above is your personal philosophy, and you don't need our approval.

geoff

Thanks for the clarification, Vorkosigan. But I wish you would have responded to why it was "badly written"? Which parts? How could it have been written better? (If there are too many "bad parts" to respond to, how about responding to just one or two really bad ones?). After all, the stated intent was to see how this statement meshed with folks' personal beliefs. (Some of you, I think, took the word "creed" a little too seriously; but perhaps the fault for that lies with me and the cheeky way I put it).

Since two of you (which seems to constitute a critical mass) took vigorous exception to the following statement, I'll focus my questions on it.

"From my naturalistic assumptions, I can provide a rational and objectively true and verifiable account for realities such as meaning, rationality, truth, and morality."

Let's focus on just one of those notions: truth. Do you believe that truth can be rationally accounted for? How? (Construe these questions with plenty of latitude...I think I'm catching on to this idea of "freethinking.")