Introducing Michael Okoko

Let me clarify. I accept that Jesus died for my sins and was raised from the dead, but I have no good basis to accept it in the first place. I essentially ignore this challenge (paucity of supporting evidence) and accept the story anyway.

However, when I see or listen to another Christian push this message as if they have solid proof for its factuality, I get annoyed and tackle the claims of that Christian. We should be honest about not truly knowing if anything of the things we believe in are true.

5 Likes

It was a general genetics course, and there was a module briefly introducing population genetics. We computed allele frequencies using the Hardy-Weinberg equation, but the professor never mentioned we could use the equation to discern if a population was undergoing evolution. You could imagine my surprise when I saw the Hardy-Weinberg equation tied to evolution for the first time in my first evolution textbook (Evolution for Dummies by Greg).

In addition, the population genetics module wasn’t titled population genetics at the time. It was later I realized the connection to and importance of the equation to population genetics.

I do believe they are true because we have good evidence for the resurrection. But that’s another thread. :slightly_smiling_face: Yes, we should be clear about which claims have good evidence and which don’t.

2 Likes

You do not appear to be doing so.

2 Likes

Welcome to the Forum, Michael, it’s great to have you here!

If you believe this, why do you call yourself an atheist? Would it be more accurate to say you are agnostic? Or is it that you believe in God, but you are not aligned with any particular religion?

I didn’t choose the name for myself.

I think so too, but not quite. I think we are all ontological agnostics, because no one really knows who or what God is, so in that sense I am an agnostic. However, in a more practical setting, I would take the atheist position as default - God could be real, but give me some proof. I hope it made sense.

1 Like

“Allele frequency rises, allele frequency drops. You can’t explain that!” - Population geneticist Billy O’Really?

4 Likes

Let’s remember that Frank Schaeffer has written a book with title “Why I am an Atheist Who Believes in God”.

As I see it, Michael is currently uncertain about his beliefs. He is struggling to work it out. What he likes about atheism, is the willingness of atheists to question conventional religious views. And he currently is questioning. But he has not yet settled on answers that he can accept for those questions.

8 Likes

A fair characterization.

5 Likes

There are also Christians who challenge conventional religious views. Most people hold complicated nuanced views.

My understanding of the term atheist has been someone who claims to know that there is no God, which is why I have found the term agnostic to be a helpful distinction

1 Like

I call myself an agnostic. However, many atheists will insist that what characterizes atheism is a lack of belief in God. However, that leaves open several possibilities. You might lack a belief in God because you have made a clear decision not to hold such a belief. Or you could lack a belief in God because you are still studying the question.

1 Like

This is largely inaccurate. Many atheists do not claim to know there is no God, rather they see no reason to believe he/she/it exists, in the same way you see no reason to believe in the existence of Santa Claus.

@dga471, I beg you, don’t split this thread :smile:

2 Likes

Now I understand what you are saying. Unlike people on this forum, who like to think about and discuss these topics, most people I know who say they are atheists don’t seem to have taken much time to investigate the reasons for their beliefs. Other atheists, however, are very clear about seeming to know for sure that there is no God. Whereas people who call themselves agnostic tend to more clearly state they don’t know whether or not there is a God.

By the way, belief in Santa Claus is false equivalence or bad metaphor for belief in God. No one has ever developed a belief in Santa Clause later in life, but many people have developed new religious beliefs later in life.

1 Like

Well historically speaking, @Michelle is right. The term atheist really used to refer to people who say there are no god(s). As far as I know, that is still technically the term used in philosophy. And an agnostic used to refer to someone who didn’t believe but would not claim there is no God.

However, the usage of those terms have been changing within the last 20 years. As we know, languages, like organisms, evolve. And the meanings and usage of terms can switch with society. It is now increasingly recognized that the term atheist really does encompass both what was historically known as an agnostic, and as an atheist.

And the term agnostic is now some times used to refer to people who say that the question of God’s existence is unknowable.

2 Likes

But only some people admit that they do.

2 Likes

I basically shout that from the roof tops :wink: .

2 Likes

Clearly labels never suffice. If we want to understand someone’s views, we need take time to have a dialogue with them, which is true for religion and politics. People like to categorize others, but most people don’t fit into clear categories

2 Likes

I don’t think it matters whether belief in Santa is developed or not. The real question is, how do you know Santa is real or not real? We could ask the same question of any god too.

The funny thing is that I began understand the seriousness of the question, not by reading atheist literature, but reading or watching Roman Catholic versus Evangelical Christian debates. Both sides would argue about Greek or Hebrew syntax, what a certain Church Father said, proof texts and others. It dawned on me that either side didn’t really know who was right. It was a matter of my theology against yours.

2 Likes

I was aware of this. I used a contemporary description of atheism which does not positively claim there is no God, but demands evidence to do so. This, to me, is a sensible position to adopt.

3 Likes

Not just now – that’s how Thomas Huxley, who coined the term, used it. Huxley’s definitions did shift a bit, but he tells the tale here:

When I reached intellectual maturity and began to ask myself whether I was an atheist, a theist, or a pantheist; a materialist or an idealist; Christian or a freethinker; I found that the more I learned and reflected, the less ready was the answer; until, at last, I came to the conclusion that I had neither art nor part with any of these denominations, except the last. The one thing in which most of these good people were agreed was the one thing in which I differed from them. They were quite sure they had attained a certain “gnosis,”–had, more or less successfully, solved the problem of existence; while I was quite sure I had not, and had a pretty strong conviction that the problem was insoluble. And, with Hume and Kant on my side, I could not think myself presumptuous in holding fast by that opinion. Like Dante,

Nel mezzo del cammin di nostra vita
Mi ritrovai per una selva oscura,

but, unlike Dante, I cannot add,

Che la diritta via era smarrita.

On the contrary, I had, and have, the firmest conviction that I never left the “verace via”–the straight road; and that this road led nowhere else but into the dark depths of a wild and tangled forest. And though I have found leopards and lions in the path; though I have made abundant acquaintance with the hungry wolf, that “with privy paw devours apace and nothing said,” as another great poet says of the ravening beast; and though no friendly spectre has even yet offered his guidance, I was, and am, minded to go straight on, until I either come out on the other side of the wood, or find there is no other side to it, at least, none attainable by me.

This was my situation when I had the good fortune to find a place among the members of that remarkable confraternity of antagonists, long since deceased, but of green and pious memory, the Metaphysical Society. Every variety of philosophical and theological opinion was represented there, and expressed itself with entire openness; most of my colleagues were -ists of one sort or another; and, however kind and friendly they might be, I, the man without a rag of a label to cover himself with, could not fail to have some of the uneasy feelings which must have beset the historical fox when, after leaving the trap in which his tail remained, he presented himself to his normally elongated companions. So I took thought, and invented what I conceived to be the appropriate title of “agnostic.” It came into my head as suggestively antithetic to the “gnostic” of Church history, who professed to know so much about the very things of which I was ignorant; and I took the earliest opportunity of parading it at our Society, to show that I, too, had a tail, like the other foxes. To my great satisfaction, the term took; and when the Spectator had stood godfather to it, any suspicion in the minds of respectable people, that a knowledge of its parentage might have awakened was, of course, completely lulled.

2 Likes