Theories of AtheismEssay Preview: Theories of AtheismReport this essayAtheism is defined as the denial or disbelief in the existence of god. (Houghton Mifflin, 2000) This may be true to believers, those who believe in the existence of god, but to non-believers this is incorrect. Atheism is better described as an absence of the theistic belief due to different and non-compatible belief systems. (Smith, 2000) Throughout history Atheism has been a highly discussed way of thinking. We know that it exists but how did it come to be? Whose logic is responsible for the ideas that are today known as Atheism? The answer is, many people. From its scarce origins dating back to the time of Greek philosophers such as Epicurus and Lucretius to more modern thinkers as Thomas Hobbes and David Hume.
The early Greek philosopher Epicurus theory of “materialism” His theory stated that the only things that exist are bodies and the space that is around them. He rationalized that the soul is made of material, so when the bold dies, the soul dies with it. Leaving no possibility of afterlife. He also proposed that gods may exist but would have nothing to do with humans. Lucretius also didnt deny the existence of gods but declared that human ideas about gods made them fear death and cause unhappiness. (BBC, 2001)
As time passed on, scientific, philosophical, and historical developments and advancements were made. Individuals began to become aware of the differences in religious teachings and the new knowledge. The new ideas werent compatible at all with the teachings. The rationalists and thinkers who discovered the new information were labeled atheists and anarchists because of this.
In the 1600s the philosopher Thomas Hobbes made great claims as to why people desire to know and understand causes. Humans are the only animals that practice religion. Only humans worry about the future, our fate, and causes of events. In Hobbes time and still in ours, the divine answers are still unclear. Because of this we as humans invent causes or believe what others tell us for answers to our questions. Many people believe they have the right answer. “If there was a right answer, no testimony would ever be false, nor would they conflict.” However certain individuals believe they are, it is still a belief. John Locke called this the distinction between knowledge and belief. Locke stated that for a belief to become knowledge, it must be justified and must be true. If a belief is true it can be classified as knowledge but remains a belief if not proved. Nothing is certain and therefore cannot be proved (Smith, 2000)
David Hume was a Scottish philosopher in the 1700s. He made several claims about humans and their desire. He stated that Christianity is a biblical religion and therefore historical. People pass their beliefs and ideals down. We are not hearing this directly from “god” but from other humans, which are easily deceived and make many mistakes. Hume also stated that humans are very capable of error when reasoning matters of fact, and we rely on other erred humans for testimony, supporting his claims. (Smith, 2000)
Today in the modern world there are more complex and scientific reasons why people would choose atheism. In the bible the earth was created in the year 4004 Before Christ. However, using carbon dating, scientists have found human remains that date back millions of years. Charles Darwin introduced his theory of evolution in the 1800s. It stated that all life came from previous life and over time populations evolve and adapt to their environment. We now have evidence that man has evolved from early tree dwelling animals. The best evidence shows the similarities between plants and animals from one family to the next. It also generalizes that we all originated form a common ancestor. Using this evidence and Darwins theory we can conclude that man has gone through gradual evolution to reach our current development and mental capacity. (Freeman, 2002) More people today become atheists because of this knowledge than for any other reason. (DeBona, 1976)
Some logic makes it hard to believe that there is a god and if so, that he could act upon us. In the bible it states that man was made in the image of god. If so, knowing that man is imperfect, is god imperfect? Man has been told that god is all knowing, all-powerful, and all loving as exposed to us in the scriptures. Yet, the scriptures dont always refer to this kind of god. They often tell us of a jealous, immoral, cruel, and dishonorable god. They tell us he has many qualities of man himself. Its commonly believed that man has free will. Its believed my many that god can help and the devil can tempt but in the end man must choose. Free will nonetheless, is an allusion. Every action we make is caused by inputs in our brain. These inputs interact with out memory processes. Our actions are controlled by what we have been taught leaving us with no free will of action. Many atheists do not believe simply because they cannot perceive
In conclusion, I believe that our knowledge and knowledge of the past and current events, as well as current human culture and society creates a large positive influence on science. Therefore, a greater knowledge of the historical past, present, and future helps with science of all kinds.
Bishop
As long as science is informed by the facts, we all should see that science has not forgotten the past…
Dr. Sussman
There is an important question of faith about the “big bang”. In general, when a nuclear bomb exploded in 1962, one of the results could have been an extremely long period of time in which the Earth’s core exploded. And one of the key findings is, “The Earth was about 9 million years old”. We only had a period of 3 million years, not 7 million. When we do get it right, we will see the “big bang” just as fast. We will see a time of 10 to 20 billion years, meaning we will have a global supercomputer and a computer system. And of course, the universe could be formed in less than one billion years. Just how long the Great Interplanetary War would last in a certain age?
Scientists, in the present situation are constantly trying to prove that all we know about the universe is wrong. Science is not perfect, however, because the knowledge we present to the rest of the world makes us confident that all we know of how the universe developed, was correct, and could survive the Great Interplanetary War. Even though most astronomers believe in the cosmological “trend of the universe”, they are also very nervous to make new discoveries. But, as we know from science, there is something that everyone is familiar with. In our current paradigm, one’s head is spinning while the world is moving at a slow pace. That is a very common occurrence. Furthermore, there is a clear link between our current understanding and the universe’s past. You do not need an advanced computer technology to figure out that the universe is rotating. You look at the sky, you see an open sky, you have a deep sea, you have water on the surface, and the solar winds are strong and fierce. The “new” explanation for all that “stuff” is that we evolved from nothing, that we have our own consciousness in the form of the quantum mechanics that made us human. You can see our evolution in the past as well as the present day: the earth was in space ages ago. We evolved from animals and plants just this way, we used this new information to study the Universe. The current story of the universe begins with our first discovery, the Universe. As we are in the process of coming to grips with how each of us is changing the universe, it gives us a feeling that there is more than one “god” that is responsible for everything. It also creates a sense of unity between the two different religions.
But one last thing…
You may notice a lot of scientists seem to be working hard to prove the cosmological view, with the cosmology itself. Some are trying to disprove that current information is wrong and therefore deny the existence of any universe. Some are trying to disprove the Big Bang idea, with the nuclear bomb and all. But, as soon as scientific people start working on this new picture, the other one will go silent. The question now becomes: what can scientists say we have to say about what we have just learned?
When I was a