GodlessRose's Darwin Fish, Spirituality, and Me

The Darwin Fish, Spirituality, and Me

The symbol in the background is called the Darwin fish. It is like the Christian icthus, but with legs and, of course, Darwin's name inside. Darwin is famous for standing for science and against superstition, and the symbol is popular with atheists and other free thinking types. Some atheists disapprove of the symbol, however. They see it as a parody of the icthus, and think it childish and rude to display it. I view it differently. For me the Darwin fish is more than just an impish joke. It is a symbol of personal transformation, of spiritual evolution.

I grew up a Christian. I wasn't pressured into going to church, and I didn't go all that often, but I did show up occasionally. And I prayed and read bits of the Bible. I lived in the Bible Belt (still do) and went to a Southern Baptist church. I wasn't a literal creationist, but I did buy into the day-age version. I wasn't really all that serious about my religion, but I did consider myself a God-fearing Christian and I liked that. As far as I can recall, I never really had any doubts about my faith. It just came naturally.

That changed in my mid teens. I was a bright student, an avid reader, and a fan of science and science fiction. My favorite author was Isaac Asimov. It came to pass one day that I discovered from one of his essays that he was an atheist. I was amazed. The man was brilliant, and had a good-humored charm that shone through his writing. How could such a person be an atheist? I decided to go to the public library and check out some books on the subject. I wanted to know more about atheist thought, to try to make sense out of this. There wasn't a lot at the library on the subject, but there was enough. As I read and pondered the philosophical issues, it slowly, with a mixture of fear and excitement, dawned on me that theism had some serious problems. All the attempts of theists to present a reasoned justification for their faith were failures. Theism had no rational foundation.

For me, the single most persuasive thing was learning about the principle of parsimony (also known as Occam's Razor) and how it applies to the first cause cosmological argument for God. I think it is hard to overestimate the importance of the principle of parsimony. Without that to limit our options, reason becomes nothing but a pointless word game. Given enough imagination, a person can come up with a perfectly "logical" series of excuses and rationalizations to back up virtually any belief. The concepts of truth and falsehood have no meaning, at least for any practical purpose, without Occam's razor.

Proponents of the first cause argument state that everything we see has a cause, but the chain of cause and effect cannot regress infinitely. Therefore there must have been a first cause at some point or nothing could exist at all. That first cause is (a personal) God. There are many problems with this scheme, but a common-sense approach to debunking it is suggested by the question, "Who made God?" If we accept that nothing can exist without being created, or that everything must have a prior cause, then who or what is God's creator or cause? But if God does not need a creator, then why does anything else? The idea that the universe came into existence without a cause is incomprehensible, at least for me, and the idea that there is an infinite regression of causes makes no more sense. But the first cause argument actually does nothing at all to make sense out of this. We are still left with the concept of uncaused existence, except now God has been introduced into the picture.

This is where the principle of parsimony figures in. We are presented with two propositions: either the universe exists without the intervention of any higher intelligence (God) or a higher intelligence was involved. Either way, we are forced to face that the ultimate question of how anything can exist has no answer we can comprehend. (I think causality presupposes existence, so it is not a valid question at all. That is another matter, however.) We just have to accept that what exists exists and get on with life. Since it explains nothing to suppose the involvement of a God, it is more parsimonious to assume that no God was involved.

I recall as a child once being asked in Sunday school why I believed there was a God. I do not remember my exact words, but I replied that it explained how the universe came to be. I now understand that to be a very poor justification for belief.

Of course, a well-read theist would have counter-arguments to make. One might say that since God is the ultimate and infinite, He is self-existing and His existence does not require a cause like the universe does. But the theist has a lot of questions to answer to back such a statement up. What does it mean, exactly, to say that God is the ultimate, and how can anyone truly comprehend the idea of a being with infinite attributes anyway? What is the line of reasoning that leads from "God is the ultimate" to "He is self-existing?" It is not my intention to write an in-depth critique, so I'll just conclude by saying that I find such arguments to be just so much hand-waving. They are not even comprehensible, much less convincing. And of course there are other basic problems with the first cause argument that I didn't discuss.

At some point in my life I had picked up a love of truth. I wanted to understand things, and I believed that honesty and rationality mattered. So God was no more for me. I began calling myself an agnostic; I hadn't read enough yet to understand the precise definition of the term, and I accepted the popular misconception that agnosticism is some sort of middle ground between theism and dogmatic, absolutist atheism. (See What are Atheism and Agnosticism? on my main atheism page for more on this.) I recall experiencing considerable fear at first that I would go to Hell, but giving up on the idea of life after death didn't bother me like it does some people. Although I had never read anything by Epicurus, I suppose I intuitively grasped the idea that "When we are, death is not; when death is, we are not." In other words, death appears to be merely nonexistence, and nonexistence can never be experienced at all. How we live is what matters; death is irrelevant. Isaac Asimov had this to say about it: "Although the time of death is approaching me, I am not afraid of dying and going to Hell or (what would be considerably worse) going to the popularized version of Heaven. I expect death to be nothingness and, for removing me from all possible fears of death, I am thankful to atheism."

It wasn't until several years later that I began reading about religion and philosophy again. I came across a copy of Skeptic magazine at a bookstore, and was instantly captivated. Here were people who shared my love of truth and reason; reading the magazine was like coming home. That led to a renewed interest in atheist philosophy, and it also led me to seriously study the Bible for the first time. That was a wonderful revelation. To see the miriad factual contradictions, to read all the despicable acts that the "all-loving" Yahweh commanded the Isrealites to commit, to see how Jesus promised repeatedly that some of the original twelve disciples would live to see his second coming, to read how Jesus ordered his followers to abandon their families, and then to see how weak the rationalizations of the Christian apologists are, was incredible. (See My Essays on my main atheism page for more on this.) It was truly liberating. Christianity was dead and buried for me. Never again would I hear that nagging whisper in the back of my mind, asking if I had made the right choice.

I have decided to call myself an atheist as well. After looking at the issues more closely, I am not all that impressed by the agnostic form of atheism (the position that it is impossible to know whether or not there is a personal God.) I accept that there is no such thing as absolute certainty, but it is possible for a proposition to be established beyond any reasonable doubt. Why should I accept that it is impossible for the question of God to be resolved beyond a reasonable doubt? People sometimes claim that a negative proposition such as "no personal God exists" can never be proven, but since most if not all propositions have both negative and affirmative implications, this is simple sophistry. Another argument is that the claim of a God cannot be tested, so no conclusion on the issue can possibly be reached. But coming up with untestable claims is no great challenge if you use your imagination.

Consider the idea that the earth is flat. Some people believe that the space program is a hoax intended to hide this fact, and the entire scientific establishment is a grand conspiracy committed to this deception. If you are not a scientist, then how can you really know what science is about? And if you are a scientist, then why should I believe anything you say? You would naturally lie for the conspiracy. If you set up an experiment to demonstrate the roundness of the earth, how can I be sure you didn't use some sort of trickery? After all, magicians perform all sorts of amazing illusions. You may know how to do the same.

This claim of a conspiracy to hide a flat earth is untestable, but that doesn't mean there are no criteria for choosing between the round and flat earth propositions. We can look to our own experiences and what we know about similar phenomena. We know that people have trouble keeping secrets, and we know that the more people involved and the more attention they receive the harder it is to conceal the truth. The huge number of people involved in astronomy, the space program, geology, etc., and the high level of press coverage, would make such a conspiracy incredibly hard to maintain. We also know that some of the most basic teachings of science are that scientists should investigate things, question their assumptions, seek the truth no matter what it is, carefully test their conclusions, and report their findings honestly. These principles would add even more stumbling blocks to the conspiracy, since they would give scientists more motivation to spill the beans. So although the conspiracy cannot be tested directly or ruled out with absolute certainty, there are good reasons to reject the idea.

The most important thing is which of the competing propositions is more consistent with the principle of parsimony, also known as Occam's Razor. In this case we have the idea that the round earth is a legitimate, well-tested scientific theory versus the idea that it is an unsubstantiated myth. Even without knowing any details of the scientific issues, we can reach a conclusion using the principle of parsimony. The first proposition is consistent with what we are taught in school about how scientists are supposed to do things. The second proposition , however, requires that scientists must later learn to disregard those early lessons. It also requires the existence of a huge conspiracy which has operated under the spotlight of the press and enraged religious fumdamentalists for centuries without breaking up or having leaks. The second proposition requires some very big, unproven assumptions to make it work, so it fails the test of Occam's Razor.

So it seems to me that the arguments provided for agnostic atheism are weak; I just do not see a good reason to rule that the God question is inherently unanswerable. Even though it is not directly testable, the principle of parsimony supplies the means to possibly resolve the question. Note, however, that it is not my intent here to advance the position of strong atheism. I am merely arguing that it is possible to reach reasoned decisions about untestable hypotheses such as God. I will not deal with the issue of whather the strong or weak form of atheism is more reasonable in this essay.

Of course, I have been talking about what some people call the "strong" form of agnosticism, so I should consider their "weak" form (simple indecision or lack of an opinion on the issue.) Weak agnosticism does not differ in any practical sense from the more general form of weak atheism. Since atheism is the much older term, it seems to me to me that there is no real reason to use the term agnostic in the weak sense except to obscure the fact that one is an atheist. Although it is more socially acceptable to call oneself an agnostic, I just cannot bring myself to deny my heritage out of simple self-interest. So without even considering the issue of strong versus weak atheism, I find it preferable to identify myself as an atheist.

And I studied the humanist philosophy. That was wonderful. It helped me see a beauty in life that I had never been aware of before, and it helped me to realize, on an emotional level, just how interconnected all people are. (See What is Secular Humanism? on my main atheism page for more on this.)

Here are a few of my favorite quotes reflecting inspiring aspects of humanist philosophy:

It seems to me that humanism offers as much inspiration, peace of mind, and moral guidance as any religion. In other words, it can be as deep a "spirituality" as any. That was a profound realization for me. I had come full circle. I had abandoned spirituality in favor of intellectual integrity, but then my search for answers brought me to another sort of spiritual awareness. In humanism, I've found a sort of �transcendence� based not on altered states of consciousness or hopes of some imagined future life, but on a cultivated awareness of life's wonders and on taking a constructive and imaginative approach to this life.

I have experienced a sort of spiritual evolution over the years. I've gone by stages from Christian to born-again secular humanist. That is why I like the Darwin fish. My own personal icthus grew legs and crawled up out of the murky depths. It left the obscuring myths behind and slowly, falteringly, moved into the clear light of day.

For more information about these issues, see Basic Issues Relating To Atheism on my main atheism page.

Back To My Essays

Home Atheism/Secular Humanism G.U.R.P.S. Vampire: The Eternal Struggle Miscellaneous Personal E-Mail

When I became convinced that the Universe is natural - that all the ghosts and gods are myths, there entered into my brain, into my soul, into every drop of my blood the sense, the feeling, the joy of freedom. For the first time I was free. I stood erect and fearlessly, joyously, faced all worlds. And then my heart was filled with gratitude, with thankfulness - and went out in love to all the heroes, the thinkers who gave their lives for the liberty of hand and brain. And then I vowed to grasp the torch that they had held and hold it high that light might conquer darkness still. - Colonel Robert Green Ingersol (He lived before the word humanism came to be used in the modern sense, but I think he would have concurred with the humanist philosophy.)

Strange is our situation here upon the earth. Each of us comes for a short visit, not knowing why, yet sometimes seeming to divine a purpose. From the standpoint of daily life, however, there is one thing we do know: that man is here for the sake of other men � above all for those upon whose smile and well-being our own happiness depends, and also for the countless unknown souls with whose fate we are connected by a bond of sympathy. Many times a day I realize how much my own outer and inner life is built upon the labors of my fellow men, both living and dead, and how earnestly I must exert myself in order to give in return as much as I have received. - Albert Einstein

The world thinks it must raise itself above humanism; that it must look for a more profound spirituality. It has taken a false road. Humanism in all its simplicity is the only genuine spirituality. Only ethics and religion which include in themselves the humanitarian ideal have true value. And humanism is the most precious result of rational meditation upon our existence and that of the world. - Albert Shweitzer (who may or may not have been a humanist in the modern sense.)

The fairest thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the fundamental emotion which stands at the cradle of true art and true science. He who knows it not and can no longer wonder, no longer feel amazement, is as good as dead, a snuffed-out candle. It was the experience of mystery--even if mixed with fear-that engendered religion. A knowledge of the existence of something we cannot penetrate, of the manifestations of the profoundest reason and the most radiant beauty, which are only accessible to our reason in their most elementary forms-it is this knowledge and this emotion that constitute the truly religious attitude; in this sense, and in this alone, I am a deeply religious man. I cannot conceive of a God who rewards and punishes his creatures, or has a will of the type of which we are conscious in ourselves. An individual who should survive his physical death is also beyond my comprehension, nor do I wish it otherwise; such notions are for the fears or absurd egoism of feeble souls. Enough for me the mystery of the eternity of life, and the inkling of the marvellous structure of reality, together with the single-hearted endeavour to comprehend a portion, be it never so tiny, of the reason that manifests itself in nature. - Albert Einstein

The humanist has a feeling of perfect at-homeness in the universe. He is conscious of himself as an earth child. There is a mystic glow in this sense of belonging. Memories of his long ancestry still ring in muscle and nerve, in brain and germ cell. Rooted in millions of tears of planetary history, he has a secure feeling of being at home, and a consciousness of pride and dignity as a bearer of the heritage of the ages and a growing creative center of cosmic life. - A. Eustace Haydon

This Sorry Excuse for a Site is Under Construction!
And it probably always will be. It has a bunch of dead links and a general reek of incompleteness.
You have been warned...