Topics like the formation of the universe are always contentious because there isn’t a universally accepted theory, and they can’t all be right. For that reason, it isn’t a bad thing when someone has the humility to not believe in something that can’t be proven. While science only tangentially supports atheism with concepts like evolution, skeptics of all definitions still appreciate their denial of any ideas lacking empirical evidence. The major problem with an idea like creationism is that it reaches a very definitive answer to an indescribably complicated question with relative ease. To an atheist, simplicity is something this crazy world and its own beginning probably won’t have in common.
The basic response is to say that our lack of an answer to the world’s origins does not necessitate putting forth an unfounded one. It’s better to know that you don’t know rather than potentially being wrong.
There are many who would argue against that, defending a creator with anecdotes of divine intervention. However, most of the existing support for these stories reflects a certain selectivity bias. Hopes become reality because prayers were answered. Otherwise, it must not have been part of the plan; it’s a similar psychological process to feelings of luck. To be fair, conceptualizing comfort through religion can be its own kind of initiative for those that need it, but it doesn’t work if your life requires certainty in lieu of confidence.
Not having answers shouldn’t be discouraging, though. As I’m sure it is convenient in trying times to believe that an omnipotent being is guiding the course of history, you can also make the best of the confusion. One of the proudest reasons I have for being an atheist is that it carries with it a sense of self-sufficiency when you don’t have a second life to depend on. At the worst of times, being responsible for your own life is certainly less flattering than an external explanation, but that’s what makes working hard worthwhile.
Lacking an answer with humility is always better than flying the wrong flag with zeal. When my future theological conversations reach the inevitable stopping point of how the universe was formed, I’ll continue to express my lack of awareness for the level of understanding that it represents.
Travis Vail is a fourth-year communication major.
I wonder if the ancient Greeks chided those who questioned the story that the seasons are caused by the sorrows of the harvest goddess Demeter by pointing out that the questioner cannot provide a better explanation. I hope that the Iron Age skeptic replied that the burden of proof is on the one who is providing the explanation and not on the one who raises questions about it.
There was no proof that winters are caused by Demeter’s failure to nourish the earth while she mourns for her daughter Persephone, who spends part of every year with her husband Hades in the underworld. Furthermore, knowledge that the seasons are caused by the Earth’s tilted axis is not necessary to realize this. Rather, this ancient story merely points out that the chance of accurately describing the cause of a natural phenomenon by simply guessing has a low rate of success. It is silly to devise an alternate reality full of mythical places and figures when one can just admit to not knowing the answer.
It is the same with the origin of the universe. Cosmology is not my expertise. I don’t know how close we are to understanding how human life came to be. However, if we cannot answer this question with our current scientific knowledge, it is highly unlikely that the people who wrote the ancient holy books, who knew comparatively little about science, could have gotten it right. Claiming that they got it right because of divine inspiration is a circular argument if the claimant cannot provide proof of it outside of the text itself.
Not believing in any religion does not solve the problem. If the word “god” is to mean anything, one must attribute some traits to this entity. Any attribution of traits will lack proof since no one has observed this god. Saying that a god is merely the first cause of the universe makes the word meaningless. Then, this god is no different from any naturalistic explanation.
The sensible position is that of an agnostic atheist who says he/she doesn’t know the cause, but refuses to believe unproven claims. Unlike a devout theist, the agnostic atheist is open to the existence of gods, but does not believe in any unless proof is provided for their existence.
Zoltan Mester is a graduate student of chemical engineering.
Views expressed on the Opinion page do not necessarily reflect those of the Daily Nexus or UCSB. Opinions are submitted primarily by students.
I would agree that there is no view of the beginning of the universe that can be proven according to the criteria of naturalistic science. I would agree that it is better to say, “I don’t know” than to believe in an unfounded idea. But is the Christian view unfounded?
Both the secular naturalistic view and the Christian view begin with the belief that before the development of the universe we see today, there was chaos. The popular view is that of a Big Bang, which scattered matter in all directions, creating further chaos.
Now, a very basic scientific observation, which is demonstrated over and over, is that chaos, left to itself, becomes more chaotic. It does not, left to itself, become more orderly. So for the universe to develop to have as much order as it does would be more likely if a being of supreme power were guiding the process.
If I and a friend were travelling down a river, and we looked up on the riverbank and we saw a few hundred flowers planted on the riverbank that spelled out “Welcome to Riverside!” I might say to my friend, “Look at that. Someone was sure creative.”
Now suppose my friend responded with, “You don’t know that someone did that. These flowers might’ve just grown that way on their own.”
Do you think a single person listening in would say, “Sure. That sounds reasonable.”
At best, they might say, “I suppose it’s conceivable.”
Maybe. But again, would one person believe it? Not likely.
Yet if you were to add up all of the things that had to occur for the reality we see around us to have come about via “determinism” (chance wrapped up in an important word), it would be far, far more unlikely than for those flowers to just happen to spell out that message.
Why do people believe something so unlikely? One reason and one reason alone: There are those who will believe anything rather than consider the possibility of God.
Me? I have faith enough to believe in God.
I don’t have anywhere near the amount of faith it takes to believe in the alternative.
I see a work of art, I believe in an artist.
yeah! Outcomes aren’t predictable, and even if they were, determinism doesn’t imply intelligent design! We CAN conclude that we are physical systems capable of self awareness, thanks to the information processing capacity of our neural networks, and we are WAY more capable of self-awareness than the universe, which is obviously an inferior computational device with inferior pattern storage capacity, an inferior ability to grow and adapt, inferior in it’s ability to experience… etc.
And it’s not omnipotent or omnipresent etc… that’d be just absurd to propose that.
Why do we have a universe of something rather than nothing? We are fortunate to be in a universe full of mysteries – a playground for the mind. The universe should support live for about a hundred billion more years – perhaps enough time to discover the answers. The best answer I have found so far is in the book “The Origin of the Universe – Case Closed”. Google and download it. The answer makes sense.
a theory by definition is not “universally accepted.” natural laws are universally accepted, scientific theories simply haven’t been proven false.
the burden of proof rests against those who say there is a creator. well, prove it. as far as “when it all began,” several theories exist, the most prominent being the big bang and various versions of it. however, there is no “theory” of a creator because no one has shown any evidence supporting the claim.
the fact that scientists don’t know everything doesn’t imply the alternative = god. science is always growing and new information is constantly being made available for the public.
religion, on the other hand, is largely static. it cannot compete with science. and like i said, it doesn’t have any evidence to support.
this is what i got from high school.
Good sir, I would like to point out that these “natural laws” you say are universally accepted, are in fact, scientific theories. Gravity and electromagnetism are described by theories, as is evolution. I understand your zeal in wanting to support fellow atheists, but logic and consistency are important, otherwise you will give all of us a bad name.
electromagnetism and gravity are scientific laws. unless you mean the multiple theories of gravity (UTH for example) which is a related subject. we can observe gravity.
laws never change, math/science/data exists is behind the science. scientific theory is considered haven’t been proven false, but theories can change overtime (mendelain for example.)
“evolution” as you put it can be observed on a micro-level, in real time, so it is understood to be a scientific law in some biological areas.
im not an atheist. i took plenty of science courses and i found the claims/arguments/theories surrounding
the origins of the universe to be unconvincing and annoyingly conflicted.
something started something, but that’s the only faith i have. im kind of humiliated as a UCSB student by the rather underwhelming “insight” the nexus allows in the opinion section. it is kind of embarrassing to be honest.