Contents
Another legend about atheism is as follows: a person must necessarily believe in something. In life, you often have to believe in a word. The slogan has become fashionable: “People must be trusted!” One person turns to another: «You don’t believe me?» And answering “no” is kind of awkward. The confession “I don’t believe” can be perceived in much the same way as an accusation of lying.
I contend that faith is not necessary at all. None. Not in gods, not in people, not in a bright future, not in anything. You can live without believing in anything or anyone at all. And perhaps it will be more honest and easier. But simply saying “I don’t believe in anything” will not work. It will be another act of faith—believing that you don’t believe in anything. You will have to understand it more carefully, to prove to yourself and others that it is possible — not to believe in anything.
Faith for Decision
Take a coin, toss it as usual. With a probability of approximately 50%, it will fall heads up.
Now tell me: did you really believe that she would fall heads up? Or did you believe that it would fall tails up? Did you really need faith to move your hand and flip a coin?
I suspect that most are quite capable of tossing a coin without looking into the red corner at the icons.
You don’t have to believe to take a simple step.
Faith due to stupidity
Let me complicate the example a little. Let’s say there are two brothers, and their mother demands to take out the trash can. The brothers are both lazy, arguing over who to endure, they say, it’s not my turn. After a bet, they decide to toss a coin. If it falls heads up, carry the bucket to the younger one, and if tails, then to the older one.
The difference of the example is that something depends on the result of tossing a coin. A very unimportant matter, but still there is a slight interest. What is in this case? Need faith? Perhaps some Orthodox sloth will really begin to pray to his beloved saint, tossing a coin. But, I think that the majority in this example are able not to look into the red corner.
In agreeing to the coin toss, the younger brother could consider two cases. First: the coin will fall tails up, then the brother will carry the bucket. The second case: if the coin falls heads up, I’ll have to carry it, but, okay, I’ll survive.
But after all, to consider two whole cases — this is how you need to strain your head (especially the biceps of the eyebrows when frowning)! Not everyone can do it. Therefore, the older brother, who is especially advanced in the religious sphere, sincerely believes that “God will not allow it,” and the coin will fall heads up. When you try to consider another option, some kind of failure occurs in the head. No, it’s better not to strain, otherwise the brain will wrinkle and become covered with convolutions.
You don’t have to believe in one outcome. It is better to honestly admit to yourself that another outcome is also possible.
Faith as a method of speeding up enumeration
There was a fork: if the coin falls on heads, then you have to carry a bucket, if not, then you don’t have to. But in life there are innumerable such forks. I get on my bike, ready to go to work… I can ride normally, or maybe a tire blows, or a dachshund gets under the wheels, or a predatory squirrel jumps from a tree, releases its tentacles and roars “fhtagn!”
There are many options. If we consider them all, including the most incredible, then life is not enough. If options are considered, then only a few. The rest are not discarded, they are not even considered. Does this mean that I believe that one of the options considered will happen, and the others will not happen? Of course not. I also allow other options, I just don’t have time to consider them all.
You don’t have to believe that all options have been considered. It is better to honestly admit to yourself that there was not enough time for this.
Faith is like a painkiller
But there are such «forks» of fate when consideration of one of the options is impossible due to strong emotions. And then the person, as it were, fences himself off from this option, does not want to see it and believes that events will go the other way.
A man accompanies his daughter on a tour by plane, believes that the plane will not crash, and does not even want to think about another outcome. A boxer who is confident in his abilities believes that he will win the fight, imagines his victory and glory in advance. And the timid, on the contrary, believes that he will lose, timidity does not even allow him to hope for victory. If you hope, and then you lose, it will be even more unpleasant. A young man in love believes that his beloved will never leave for another, because even to imagine this is very painful.
Such a belief is, in a sense, psychologically beneficial. It allows you not to torment yourself with unpleasant thoughts, relieve yourself of responsibility by shifting it to others, and then allows you to conveniently whine and blame. Why is he running around the courts, trying to sue the dispatcher? Didn’t he know that controllers sometimes make mistakes and planes sometimes crash? So why did he put his daughter on the plane then? Here, coach, I believed you, you made me believe in myself, and I lost. How so? Here, coach, I told you that I would not succeed. Darling! I believed you so much, and you…
You don’t have to believe in a certain outcome. It is better to honestly admit to yourself that emotions did not allow you to consider other outcomes.
Faith as a bet
Choosing the forks of fate, we, as it were, make bets all the time. I got on a plane — I bet that it would not crash. He sent the child to school — he made a bet that a maniac would not kill him on the way. I put the computer’s plug into the outlet — I bet that there are 220 volts, not 2200. Even a simple picking in the nose implies a bet that the finger will not make a hole in the nostril.
When betting on horses, bookmakers try to distribute bets according to the chances of the horses, and not equally. If the winnings for all horses are the same, then everyone will bet on the favorites. To stimulate bets on outsiders, you need to promise a big win for them.
Considering the forks of events in ordinary life, we also look at the «bets». Only instead of betting there are consequences. What is the likelihood of a plane crash? Very little. A plane crash is an underdog horse that almost never finishes first. And the favorite is a safe flight. But what are the consequences of a plane crash? Very severe — usually the death of passengers and crew. Therefore, even though a plane crash is unlikely, this option is seriously considered, and a lot of measures are taken to avoid it and make it even less likely. The stakes are too high.
The founders and preachers of religions are well aware of this phenomenon and act like real bookmakers. They’re skyrocketing the stakes. If you behave well, you will end up in paradise with beautiful houris and you will be able to enjoy forever, the mullah promises. If you misbehave, you will end up in hell, where you will forever burn in a frying pan, the priest scares.
But let me … high stakes, promises — this is understandable. But do you have money, gentlemen bookmakers? You bet on the most important thing — on life and death, on good and evil, and you are solvent? After all, you have already been caught by the hand on a variety of occasions yesterday, and the day before yesterday, and the third day! They said that the earth is flat, then that a person is created from clay, but remember the scam with indulgences? Only a naive player will place a bet in such a bookmaker, tempted by a huge win.
No need to believe in the grandiose promises of a note liar. It’s better to be honest with yourself that you are likely to be scammed.
Faith as a figure of speech
When an atheist says «thank you» — this does not mean that he wants you to be saved in the Kingdom of God. It’s just a turn of phrase expressing gratitude. In the same way, if someone says to you: “OK, I’ll take your word for it” — this does not mean that he really believes. It is possible that he admits lies on your part, he simply does not see the point in discussing it. Recognition «I believe» can be just a turn of speech, which means not faith at all, but unwillingness to argue.
Some «believe» closer to God, while others — to hell. Some «I believe» mean «I believe as God.» Other «believe» means «to hell with you.»
faith in science
They say that it will not be possible to personally verify all the theorems and scientific research, and therefore you will have to take the opinions of scientific authorities on faith.
Yes, you can’t check everything yourself. That is why a whole system has been created that is engaged in verification in order to remove an unbearable burden from an individual person. I mean the theory testing system in science. The system is not without flaws, but it works. Just like that, broadcasting to the masses, using authority, will not work. First you need to earn this authority. And to earn credibility, one must not lie. Hence the manner of many scientists to express themselves long, but cautiously: not “the most correct theory is …”, but “the theory that … has received wide recognition”
The fact that the system works can be verified on certain facts that are available for personal verification. The scientific communities of different countries are in a state of competition. There is a high interest in making a mess of foreigners and raising the profile of their country. Although, if a person believes in a worldwide conspiracy of scientists, then there is not much to talk about with him.
If someone conducted an important experiment, got interesting results, and an independent laboratory in another country did not find anything like that, then this experiment is worthless. Well, not a penny, but after the third confirmation, it increases many times over. The more important, the more critical the question, the more it is checked from different angles.
However, even in these conditions, fraud scandals are rare. If we take a lower level (not international), then the lower, the weaker the system efficiency. Links to student diplomas are no longer serious. It turns out that the authority of a scientist is convenient to use for evaluation: the higher the authority, the less chance that he is lying.
If a scientist does not speak about his area of specialization, then his authority is not taken into account. For example, Einstein’s words «God does not play dice with the universe» have zero value. The researches of the mathematician Fomenko in the field of history raise great doubts.
The main idea of this system is that, ultimately, each statement should lead along the chain to material evidence and experimental results, and not to the evidence of another authority. As in religion, where all paths lead to the evidence of authorities on paper. Probably the only science (?) where evidence is indispensable is history. There, a whole cunning system of requirements is presented to the sources in order to reduce the likelihood of error, and biblical texts do not pass this test.
And the most important thing. What a prominent scientist says is not to be believed at all. You just need to be aware that the likelihood of lying is quite small. But you don’t have to believe. Even a prominent scientist can make a mistake, even in experiments, sometimes mistakes creep in.
You don’t have to believe what scientists say. It is better to be honest that there is a system that reduces the chances of errors, which is effective, but not perfect.
Faith in axioms
This question is very difficult. Believers, as my friend Ignatov would say, almost immediately begin to «play dumb.» Either the explanations are too complicated, or something else …
The argument goes something like this: axioms are accepted as truth without evidence, so they are faith. Any explanations cause a monotonous reaction: giggles, jokes, repetition of previous words. I have never been able to get anything more meaningful.
But I will still reproduce my explanations. Maybe some of the atheists will be able to present them in a more intelligible form.
1. There are axioms in mathematics and postulates in the natural sciences. These are different things.
2. Axioms in mathematics are accepted as truth without evidence, but this is not the truth (ie, on the part of the believer there is a substitution of concepts). Accepting axioms as true in mathematics is just an assumption, an assumption, like a coin toss. Let’s assume (let’s accept it as true) that the coin falls heads up … then the younger brother will go to take out the bucket. Now suppose (let’s take it as true) that the coin falls tails up … then the elder brother will go to take out the bucket.
Example: there is Euclid’s geometry and there is Lobachevsky’s geometry. They contain axioms that cannot be true at the same time, just as a coin cannot fall both sides up. But all the same, in mathematics, the axioms in the geometry of Euclid and the axioms in the geometry of Lobachevsky remain axioms. The scheme is the same as with a coin. Let’s assume that the axioms of Euclid are true, then … blablabla … the sum of the angles of any triangle is 180 degrees. And now suppose that Lobachevsky’s axioms are true, then … blablabla … oops … already less than 180.
A few centuries ago the situation was different. Axioms were considered true without any «suppose» there. They were distinguished from religious faith in at least two ways. Firstly, the fact that very simple and obvious assumptions were taken as truth, and not thick “books of revelations”. Secondly, when they realized that this was a bad idea, they abandoned it.
3. Now about the postulates in the natural sciences. That they are accepted as truth without evidence is simply a lie. They are being proven. Evidence is usually associated with experiments. For example, there is a postulate that the speed of light in vacuum is constant. So they take and measure. Sometimes a postulate cannot be verified directly, then it is verified indirectly through non-trivial predictions.
4. Often a mathematical system with axioms is used in some science. Then axioms are in place of postulates or in place of consequences from postulates. In this case, it turns out that the axioms must be proved (because the postulates and their consequences must be proved).
No need to believe in axioms and postulates. Axioms are only assumptions, and postulates must be proven.
Belief in matter and objective reality
When I hear philosophical terms like «matter» or «objective reality», my bile starts to flow intensely. I’ll try to restrain myself and filter out absolutely non-parliamentary expressions.
When another atheist joyfully runs into this … hole, I want to exclaim: stop, brother! This is philosophy! When an atheist begins to use the terms «matter», «objective reality», «reality», then all that remains is to pray to Cthulhu so that a literate believer does not appear nearby. Then the atheist is easily driven into a puddle by a few blows: it turns out that he believes in the existence of matter, objective reality, reality. Maybe these concepts are impersonal, but they have universal dimensions, and thus dangerously close to religion. This allows the believer to say, wow! You are also a believer, only in Matter.
Is it possible without these concepts? It is possible and necessary.
What instead of matter? Instead of matter, the words «substance» or «mass». Why? Because in physics four states of matter are clearly described — solid, liquid, gas, plasma, and what properties objects must have in order to be called that. The fact that this object is a piece of solid matter, we can prove by experience … by kicking it. The same with mass: it is clearly stated how it is measured.
What about matter? Can you clearly say where is matter and where is not? Gravity is matter or not? What about the world? What about information? What about the physical vacuum? There is no common understanding. So why are we confused? She doesn’t need it at all. Cut it with Occam’s razor!
Objective reality. The easiest way to lure you into the dark philosophical forests of disputes about solipsism, idealism, again, about matter and its primacy / secondary in relation to the spirit. Philosophy is not a science, in which you will not have a clear basis for making a final judgment. It is in science that His Majesty will judge everyone by experiment. And in philosophy there is nothing but opinions. As a result, it turns out that you have your own opinion, and the believer has his own.
What instead? But nothing. Let philosophers philosophize. God where? In subjective reality? No, be simpler, more logical. Bio-logical. All gods are in the heads of believers and leave the cranium only when the believer recodes his thoughts into text, pictures, etc. Any god is knowable because it has the form of signals in the gray matter. Chatter about unknowability is also cognizable as a slight mental … originality.
Reality is the same eggs as «objective reality», side view.
I would also like to warn against the abuse of the word «exists». From it one step to «reality». The remedy: to understand the word «exists» exclusively in the sense of the existential quantifier. This is a logical expression that means that among the elements of a set there is an element with certain characteristics. For example, there are dirty elephants. Those. among the many elephants there are dirty ones. Whenever you use the word «exists», ask yourself: exists… where? among whom? among what? God exists… where? In the minds of believers and in the testimonies of believers. God does not exist… where? Anywhere else, except for the places listed.
There is no need to apply philosophy — then you will not have to blush for believing in the fairy tales of philosophers instead of the fairy tales of priests.
Faith in the trenches
«There are no atheists in trenches under fire.» This means that under the fear of death, a person begins to pray. Just in case, right?
If out of fear and just in case, then this is an example of faith as a painkiller, a special case. In fact, the very statement is doubtful. In a critical situation, people think about a variety of things (if we consider the evidence of the people themselves). A strong believer will probably think about God. So he projects his ideas of how he thinks it should be onto others.
Conclusion
Various cases were considered when it was supposedly necessary to believe. It seems that in all these cases, faith can be dispensed with. I am always ready to listen to additions. Perhaps some situation was missed, but this will only mean that for me it was of little importance. Thus, it turns out that faith is not a necessary component of thinking and, in principle. A person can consistently eradicate manifestations of faith in himself if such a desire arises.