Posted by thor (63.249.67.160) on March 01, 2002 at 01:45:02:
In Reply to: Question of the Week posted by Jim on February 25, 2002 at 13:35:46:
I think atheism is a result of living by occham's razor. That is, if we collect evidence and make conclusions which fit that evidence as closely as possible. Atheism is a natural outcome of this process. Obviously there isn't absolute certainty in the method, but neither is there (deserved) certainty in any religion. But living by the razor has two advantages over other belief systems:
1) accuracy
2) adaptability
Of course atheists such as these would convert if god was found to exist, but as of yet there is no acceptable evidence to that effect.
An atheist who has become so by any means other than the razor is just as deluded as a theist. Furthermore, any atheist who is 100% certain of his belief is also deluded because the razor doesn't promise certainty. The purpose of occham's razor is to handle this "prove the negative" problem. If you see no invisible dragon, then you must assume there is no invisible dragon until evidence indicates otherwise. If you make conclusions based on evidence you don't have, you are essentially making conclusions on no evidence at all. Thus the razor keeps us sane: If there is no evidence of God, we must assume there is no God. Else we could assume anything. One might argue that the existence of the universe is evidence for God, but actually it is only evidence for existence. The difference between atheism and agnosticism is slight, though atheism is truer to the razor.
At any rate, it's not fair to hold atheism to a higher standard of certainty just because it's right. If atheism can be considered flawed, then all religions have the same flaw. I'd argue that no belief or knowledge is exempt from this "certainty flaw", and therefore it is unimportant. My version of atheism holds a special place for God right next to the invisible dragon.
-thor