AboutAustin Cline Expertise I can address questions regarding atheism, agnosticism, skepticism, humanism, religious philosophy & history, and arguments both for and against theism. I am also familiar with many of the skeptical and atheist resources in print and on the internet.
Experience I have been an atheist and a secular humanist for many years. I actively run a site about agnosticism & atheism and attempt to help people understand more about these topics. I have made extensive study of both philosophy and of a wide vareity of religions.
Organizations I belong to the Freedom From Religion Foundation and the Council for Secular Humanism.
Education/Credentials I have a BA from the University of Pennsylvania and an MA from Princeton University. I have also studied in Germany and Switzerland.
Awards and Honors Phi Beta Kappa and a Fulbright Scholar.
I'd like to ask you how do you explain some near-death experiences lived by a
few people all over the world ?
I've just read an article on this, such an experience has turned an atheist into
a believer.
See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Howard_Storm
While the history of science has proven the universe to be far more mysterious
than any human being could've imagined,( the quantum mechanics world is a good
example ), don't you think applying a purely materialistic world view in
understanding the reality of life could be, not only inadequate and simplistic,
but also have potentially grave consequences ?
Thank you for your time.
ANSWER: 1. All aspects of near-death experiences can be explained naturalistically. Every type of report can be reproduced at will mechanically or chemically in labs.
2. Theists become atheists and atheists become theists for a variety of reasons. The conversion itself is proof of nothing; what counts is the quality of the arguments. Having an experience that you personally cannot explain, and then deciding to "explain" it via god is not a good reason to do anything.
3. There is nothing "new" about trying to explain cognition via supernatural means; on the contrary, this is the "explanation" traditionally accepted by most of the world. Ultimately, though, such attempts fail because they don't "explain" anything: they don't make any events more comprehensible and there are no tests that can verify or falisfy the claims.
4. No, there is no good reason to think that there are "grave consequences" to applying a materialistic approach to the study of the natural world. That's the only approach to have proven successful - modern science has produced more knowledge and benefits in the past couple of centuries than any religions in the previous couple of millennia. This sounds like a thinly-veiled reference to Pascal's Wager, which probably qualifies as the worst, least logical, and most poorly thought-through argument for theism in existence. It's not only an insult to the intelligence of non-believers, it's an insult to the convictions of sincere believers. So, I hope that's not what you had in mind.
---------- FOLLOW-UP ----------
QUESTION: Am I to infer from your reply that you assume atheists are generally more intelligent than people who believe in God ?
I've come to understand that not all atheists are materialists. It seems there are atheists who believe in some kind of spirituality, so I'd like to know whether it's concievable for you to somehow consider death not as the end of everything ?
ANSWER: "Am I to infer from your reply that you assume atheists are generally more intelligent than people who believe in God ?"
That conclusion is not implied in anything I wrote. However, atheism is correlated with higher education levels.
"I'd like to know whether it's concievable for you to somehow consider death not as the end of everything ?"
Memories and personality are both completely dependent on the physical brain - when the brain dies, they die. Since they are the basis for who I am as a person, then the end of them means the end of me. There is no evidence for anything surviving nor any reason to think that anything survives - but if anything does, it's not me.
---------- FOLLOW-UP ----------
QUESTION: After studying religion, I've come to the conclusion that there is a misunderstanding around what people call " God ". For me there is a God, but this God is not something " supernatural " or seperate from the Universe, but rather it's the very fact of the Existance. That's the only way I can think of Him.
Stephen Hawking and James Hartle have proposed a very interesting definition of the universe as a " mathematical entity", "self-contained" and "timeless" to get round the need for a creator. That is to say it is an entity beyond time and place, it may go thru phase transitions but has never been created, and it will always be.
These are all attributes of God, arn't they ? So I consider this "timeless entity" itself as the creator, or God if you will. If you rewind the cosmic film from the evolution of life on earth back to the very begining of the universe you can see actually everything has come from that One Unique Thing.
Although our knowledge may be very incomplete as of yet, and even though we may never be able to wrap our minds around all of its complexity, but at least we can trace this same pattern in the world around us. I guess that's the reason why physicists have been trying to explain all the 4 fundamental forces of nature in one single equation as " The Grand Unification".
One might say the concept of God can be defined as " The Universe understood in all of its depths", or in other words that is " The one unique reality", which means when we study the physical sciences in fact we're studying the characteristics of God.
So religion itself may not be wrong but our interpretations of them are certainly inadequate.
I'd be pleased if you could give me your comment on this.
Thanks.
ANSWER: "...it's the very fact of the Existance. That's the only way I can think of Him."
Why call it "God"? Why is it male? Why capitalize Existence and Him? Why not just accept the universe as it is instead of trying to force religious categories onto it?
---------- FOLLOW-UP ----------
QUESTION: Does it really make any difference what we call it ? The important thing is that it's just there. It's inside of you and me and everywhere. Many religious scriptures use the term " Him " simply because there's no such word as " It " in their original languages.
The reason I call it God is just a logical result of the beautiful harmony that I'v found between the characteristics of the Universe and the descriptions of God in monotheistic texts, especially when it comes to the correlation between the idea of a unique God and observation of this same unique pattern in physical world.
" He is the One and only GOD. "
" The Absolute GOD. "
" Never did He beget. Nor was He begotten. "
" None equals Him. "
" You're all from Him and will return to Him "
" Nothing is like Him "
" He is omnipresent "
" He is the reality of heavens and the earth. "
" You can find his signs inside of you and in horizons "
" There are signs of Him in nature for those who reflect "
( From the Koran)
I would never have accepted this if I had found blatant contradictions in them.
Once you have found a definition for God, there are many gaps that can be filled. For instance, if everything in the Universe is the manifestation of God, then we must accept that also includes our " conscience ", and our " rationality ". Thus religous teachings must be vetted and adapted thru both conscience and rationality. What religous leaders have been doing, though, is the exact opposite. For them, these are the human conscience and rationality that must be conditioned by religion. They want you to shut off your " conscience " and your " brain " and adopt and follow their texts literaly and blindly, since the human brain is incapable of investigating and defining God :)
That, I think, is the root of all abuses: wars, killings, torture, barbaric punishments, oppression of women, you name it !
And this is, I believe, the challenge of our lives to correct the errors of our past generations.
For me all the monotheistic texts that urge man to worship a unique creator with the above descriptions are the expression of the same idea at different times. I don't divide them into seperate religions and categories. And that unique God of course, is not a supernatural creature observing us from above, but " the unique reality of existence ".
That's what I'm trying to understand God by looking at the Universe with rational eyes.
P.S. Since this is only an explanation of my previous post and not really a question, you don't have to send a reply if you don't want to, but thanks for your time anyway.
ANSWER: "Does it really make any difference what we call it ?"
Absolutely - if we care about clear and coherent communication. You aren't communicating clearly or coherently if you apply a label like "god" to something unless that label adds something relevant and you explain what that is. Otherwise, you're just adding ambiguity for no good reason.
"Many religious scriptures use the term " Him " simply because there's no such word as " It " in their original languages. "
I've studied many languages and have never encountered one without a third person neuter.
"I would never have accepted this if I had found blatant contradictions in them."
I, on the other hand, find nothing believable in any of them.
"Once you have found a definition for God,"
You claim that you are trying to look at the universe through rational eyes, but that would entail first finding a "god" and then trying to learn what its nature is, not seeking out a definition that happens to please you.
---------- FOLLOW-UP ----------
QUESTION: Ok, I see. I also discussed the same idea with a new-born Christian on this website, he rejected it as the result of a " humanistic reasoning ".
So, just one last question: Do you consider the abstract complexity of the Universe to be beyond the realm of human understanding ?
P.S. Are you a materialist atheist ?
Answer "I also discussed the same idea with a new-born Christian on this website, he rejected it as the result of a " humanistic reasoning "."
It's been my experience that few Christians have any idea what humanism ism.
"Do you consider the abstract complexity of the Universe to be beyond the realm of human understanding ?"
It's possible, but there's no current reason to think that that's the case.
