I had the same the conversation, no kidding, about a hundred times. It sounds like this : - Do you believe in God ? - No, I am a non-believer. - So, you believe God doesn't exist ? - No, I am a non-believer. - Then... what do you believe in ? Do I have beliefs ? Yes Like everyone else! One can not have studied every subject in the world from cosmology to biology, from arts to politics. And, on subjects I don't know about I have, like anyone, common beliefs, based on preconceptions and prejudices. But I'm trying to find means to manage them, which means that on topics I haven't much studied, I choose not to position myself about any belief. "Belief" in the sense of : "accepting without any proof or argument". I don't say : "I believe". Either I consider having enough evidence, then I say "I know", otherwise I do not consider having enough evidences, and I say "I don't know". It is a good proof of humility to say "I don't know", and it's sometimes difficult. In this way, I am a non-believer, to me it is secondary to know if believing is reassuring, if it gives more sense, or if the world would be better off if we believed. My priority is to know if it's true. The conversation often goes on like this : - Why being obsessed by truth ? Truth doesn't lead to happiness. Indeed, there is no reason to think that truth and happiness are linked by any form of causality, in any direction. It's actually quite the opposite ! I'd be certainly happier if I could resolve myself to believe in an afterlife where I could meet my peers again, relieved from pain. But I can do without it. I have no physical or psychological problem in my life, and I can allow myself to seek truth about the world in priority, even if I risk finding a hurtful truth or vacuity. But if someone thinks that he has to admit first a reassuring version of the world, which gives a meaning to his life, I have no objection for him to turn to religiousness or esotericism. Adding gods, spirits or mystic energies to one's vision of the world might well be a means to reach happiness or a life full of hope, I'm OK with that. My only regret will be to know that this person will not be aware of another form of splendor: the beauty of reality itself. I quote Richard Dawkins: "Isn't it enough to see that a garden is beautiful without having to believe that there are fairies at the bottom of it too?" Then I am answered : - You know, science doesn't explain everything. No, it's true. Science doesn't explain everything. Let's draw a cloud of dots to represent everything we can repeatedly observe about reality. Our measures, our observations, so, our scientific experiments. Then a draw an area, which represent our theoretical models, our equations, our categories, our classifications, so, our scientific theories. Let's say it looks... like this. I take care to leave observations there, which haven't yet been integrated in a theoretical model. There are a lot of things we observe, but don't understand yet. For example, here, galaxies' rotation speed on themselves leaves everyone perplexed. Is there some sort of "dark matter"? I also take care to leave theoretical areas there, predicted by our scientific models but that we still can't observe. Because we don't have the technical or financial means yet. For example, here, for more than 40 years, we widely admitted the standard model of particles, which only holds up if there is a particle no one had ever seen before, the Higgs boson. In 2012 we were finally able to observe it experimentally. White areas are those where we do not know anything, as we have no element. Either because our equipment isn't efficient enough, or because we don't even know if there is something interesting to find there. Scientific research is all about: 1) Trying to understand these areas. 2) Finding means to measure stuff in these other areas. There are zones where we've struggled for centuries, and zones where progress is really fast. And then, there are also zones where we thought we understood, but we didn't, so they draw back. It happens. When, by a misuse of language, I say that I believe in the theory of evolution, what I actually mean is that I think I know, because I consider having enough evidence. When, by a misuse of language, I say that I don't believe in string theory, what I actually mean is: "I don't know." Because I do not consider having enough evidence. No evidence = no reason to believe If I don't know, I don't believe. We don't all have the same "stain", as there may be fields, over there, I think we don't know anything about, while there is actually a whole lot of very serious research that already studied the subject, and that I don't even suspect. And also, there may be things that I consider acknowledged over here, but that are actually... not that solid. But if we color only fields of research on which there are reliable scientific studies, There still appears a general consensus. So, let's take this stain as our working hypothesis. As of now, the diagram is still quite misleading as first, science doesn't explain everything, but furthermore, the scientific method cannot be applied to any subject ! It can only be applied to phenomenons that are measurable and repeatable. This is the domain of knowledge, the rest doesn't enter in the field of science. This is the supernatural, the guardian angels the afterlife, the existence of a god. The fact that the Christ came to the Earth to redeem our sins. etc. But also, what would the universe look like 100 billion light years from us? This is beyond observable universe. All the duration of existence of the universe wouldn't be enough to make information travel to us. Everything that is, by nature, unreachable by us, belongs to the field of belief. It might well be that the domain of knowledge is very little. We will never know. On these topics, I'm not bothered that some people form their beliefs. But I am a non-believer. I won't form or defend beliefs on things we don't know anything about. No evidence = no reason to believe Then, there is one question I am systematically asked : - Is there paranormal phenomenons proved by science? It's difficult to give a rigorous definition of the word paranormal. Etymologically, it means "not normal", "Outside of normal", "Not in the field of our current knowledge", "Outside the consensus of our scientific models". Paranormal is all those little dots that aren't yet included, outside the zone. Therefore, with this definition, there are plenty of phenomenons that used to be considered paranormal at a time, and that ended up to be included in the model of science. Our ancestors imagined that thunder was a sign of divine wrath. During a storm, they guessed that they had done something gods hadn't like. Then we understood that it was only an unload of electricity due to a difference of potential between the clouds and the ground, or between two clouds. For a long time, mere atmospheric ghost lights were mistaken for the souls of the dead, or for spirits of nature. However, this isn't exactly this definition of the word "paranormal" that we use in everyday life. Last year, we hadn't reveal the existence of gravitational waves yet. It was just an hypothesis. No one was finding that "paranormal", while cerebral wave telepathy was considered paranormal by everyone. Today, research is being lead about a possible new species of spider, in Mexico. It hasn't been discovered yet, but no one finds that paranormal. However, everyone finds Bigfoot paranormal. Think about what we tag as "paranormal", it tells a lot about our taste for mystery and for sensationalism. - Yes, but the absence of proof is not the proof of absence. No, it's true. Not having the proof of the existence of something doesn't mean this thing doesn't exist. This is precisely the reason why I'm a non-believer. When there is no proof, I don't say: "I believe this thing doesn't exist" I say : "I don't believe this thing exists". The difference may seem subtle, but is actually crucial! Believing it doesn't exist is a belief. Not believing it exists is not a belief! Maybe it exists, maybe it doesn't, but I don't believe in it, by a lack of evidence. No evidence = no reason to believe I know that for a lot of people, it seems weird to think this way. It may be because of the verb "croire" ["believe"] in french. The word can be used in its common sense : like "I believe I left the truck's keys at my sister's house" [literally] This is more like "I think that..." It can also be used like : "I believe in you" "I believe you can win this race" [literally] This is more like "I have trust in this project" "I think that we can succeed" But this is not these beliefs I'm talking about. I'm talking about the times we use the verb "believe" this way: "I believe that a meteor caused the extinction of dinosaurs". This, is accepting something, because we think we have enough evidence, believing with an inductive reasoning, rationally. Or: "I believe we'll all go to paradise". This, is accepting something without needing evidence. Believing by an act of faith. I wouldn't want to believe in this way, only in the rational way. People always react to this. - Why wanting to be always that rational? First of all, it's not always the case! Love, arts, feelings, all of that isn't rational. Let me remind you that here, we are limited to the statements of the domain of knowledge, in which we're trying to sort the true and the false. Nothing more. And for these cases, it is quite natural to want to index your beliefs onto your knowledge. Everyone does that, all the time, on all kinds of subjects of everyday life. Here, I'm drawing a belief axis about something. From "I don't believe" to "I fully believe". This something can be the existence of a god, of ghosts, of aliens, or the dangerosity of GMO. And, vertically, I'm drawing an axis of knowledge about this something from "I think I don't know" (not enough evidence) to "I think I know" (I think having evidence). It's a continuous scale, not a binary one. This is what we call the "cursor of plausibility" For instance, here is a statement that is well situated in the domain of knowledge: "Trans unsaturated fat increase the risk of heart disease". I place my cursor of plausibility over here: Quite high, because I documented myself a little bit on the subject. I do not put 100%, because it's not that clear, and I'm not a nutritionist. And then, if someone asks me if I believe in it, I answer "rather yes", to make sure I'm rational. A rational position is to index your beliefs on your knowledge. If there are proofs, you have to believe in it. If there are no proofs, there is no reason to believe in it. This, here, is believing in the sense of: "I think there are enough proofs" For me, I'd like for all my beliefs to stay on this rational line. But one can decide otherwise, and make the two axis independent. When I ask the priest of my village why he believes in the Christ's redemption, he answers that he has the faith. He doesn't pretend to have the support of proofs. He acknowledges that he has no material evidence of the existence of God. You have to believe, that's all. His position about the subject is rather there: this is believing in the sense of an "act of faith" and I'm OK with that. You just have not to pretend you have proofs, otherwise, I'll want to ask them from you. There are also subjects on which some people recognize that there are proofs but are in denial. A position that should be here, is "Not believing despite proofs of existence". For example, those who deny the evolution of species by natural selection by principle or by ideology and for who fossils or phylogenetics aren't relevant arguments. I love discussing about all these fascinating topics but only with the people who have a rational reasoning, Becauset the others. even though I respect their position and listen to them carefully, I don't discuss, because I have nothing relevant to add, as they don't care about proofs, while I do. Most of the times, at this stage of the conversation, we are faced to a reversal of the responsibility of the proof, such as: "You who only speaks about proofs, go ahead, prove me that it doesn't exist!" It is not the duty of the one who doubts to prove that it doesn't exists. It's the one who pretends who has to prove it exists. It has to be this way! Because, in most of cases, it is impossible to prove that something doesn't exist ! In the other cases, that's... very difficult. But for my graph to be complete, we should add the possibility to have the proofs that something doesn't exist. Here, I extend a bit my graph, to put on the knowledge axis "I know it doesn't exist" and then, "I believe it doesn't exist". This: belief. That: non-belief. I'll place on this graph the vocabulary used specifically for the belief in God because they're classic, but the reasoning would stay the same for any extraordinary phenomenon. Precision: here I speak about the Theist god as described in the holy writings, the one who answers the prayers, who punishes the wicked, who rewards the faithful, who does miracles, who speaks in your heart. Not only "he exists", but "he intervenes". The position of the one who has no proof is agnosticism. It's very widespread because it is structurally impossible, by definition, to have proofs of God. The position of the one who has no belief is atheism. He doesn't believe that it exists, nor that it doesn't. He doesn't believe. Theism is the position of who believes in the existence of God, and his phyiscal manifestations. At the opposite, the position of who believe in the non-existence of God ... doesn't really have a name. Some distinguish a "strong" atheism (believing God doesn't exist) from a "weaker" atheism (not believing in anything). I don't really like this vocabulary, as in fact, I don't know anyone who would claim to be an atheist and who would place himself right here. I would like to use the word "anti-theism", the etymology is quite revealing, and gives an impression of symmetry. However, in some dictionnaries, this word actually singifies the fact of not liking any religion. To find that Church has a negative effect on society, which is quite different. One can believe, but think organized religions are harmful. But there already exists a term to signify that, which is "anti-clerical". It's the word everyone uses. Then, for my graph, let us keep the word anti-theist, it suits it more. I don't place anything in these two angles, as they are really irrational positions. It seems to me that no one in the world would have this kind of reasoning. Recognize that there are proofs of existence, but despite all of them, believe in its inexistence ? What the fuck? So, here are the different possible positions: I am an agnostic atheist: I don't believe in God, by a lack of evidence. My agnosticism is the cause of my atheism. Agnosticism + rationalism = atheism. I'm an atheist because I'm an agnostic and I'm an agnostic because I'm an ignostic. Ignosticism is the position of who considers that before asking the question of the evidence of a thing, we should properly define this thing. And God... isn't well defined at all. Every single person has a different definition. The priest I was talking about earlier is an agnostic theist. A fideist. He has the faith. A christian apologist who defends the proofs of the existence of God is an evidentialist theist. People who defend the inexistence of God (or who sincerely believe to have evidence of the inexistence of God) are actually quite few. Few people would place themselves here. The truth is, it's really not that easy to prove something doesn't exist. It's often impossible. But it's a fascinating domain I'll probably deal with in a video one day. The names I suggested on this diagram are quite common for the atheists I know But believers often use another vocabulary. Some people find it convenient to redefine the terms this way : Atheists believe God doesn't exist, and those in between who don't come down for anything are agnostic. Here is an example where someone uses these definitions: "But I keep on repeating this: when I say that to people, they say 'yeah yeah but I'm not religious' But you don't need to be religious to have beliefs." - "Yes exactly" "See, when you believe that - certainties But yes, certenties about plenty of things: and, from there if you have no proof it's a belief I say it often, There are people, I was amused, in an interview: 'Are you (to someone rather scientific) Are you a believer?' - 'No I'm an atheist' 'So you're a believer!' He tells me 'no, I told you I was an atheist' So I say 'you believe God doesn't exist' but you don't have any more evidence than who believes that God exists - 'You must be fooling me?' - 'No I'm not, I'm just using precise words. If you told me agnostic, that you reserve your... I'd be OK! But if you say 'I'm an atheist' it means that you're a believer!'" By playing with these definitions, one can make people like me, who claim to be an atheist, look like believers who have an irrational position, with a belief based on no proof. The good old strawman... Patrice... Rather than saying to a non-believer "you are a believer, period", try to know his position on this graph. Then, anyone can use the definition he wants but you won't be mistaken about the real position of the person you're speaking to. You'll avoid imputing motives to him. Because of that, slogans flourish: "Atheism is a religion" "One must believe to be an atheist." etc. Even more with these definitions, the only word that can describe my position is agnostic. Thus, I have no word left to position myself on the axis of knowledge. That is very convenient for apologists, it allows them to avoid debating on proofs. I'll keep on insisting for everyone to use these definitions, which have the advantage of corresponding to their etymology. I specified ealier that all this applies only to the gods as they're described in the writings. Someone who believes in this interventionist god is a theist, with a "T" There are some people who just believe that God exists. He created the universe, and has given no news since. He doesn't care about us. Maybe he isn't even aware of our existence. These people are deists. With a "D". A deist is very close from my own position. A deist has the same opinions than an atheist about paradise, redemption, sins, prayers, miracles, he just does an act of faith about something supernatural and i'm OK with that. He has no pretention that belongs to the domain of knowledge. Deists and atheists almost have all in common. To finish this, I'll take advantage of this graph to plot the path of my own unconversion. If you send me your own graphs, I'll be very pleased. So, I've been to Sunday school since I was a little child. I was a roman catholic. At 7, I thought there had to be some very solid proofs of all I was taught. But being faced to my more and more insisting questions, the priest told me one day: "you know, there is no need for proofs", "you only need the faith", "you only need to believe with your heart, not with your mind". I was relieved to admit, at 9, that you don't need to have evidence, and I stopped trying to understand. But I must have kept inside me this requirement for rationality. My parents managed to transmit the taste of curiosity to me, probably public school as well. As I grew, I was bearing less and less this irrational position. I passionately got into religion searching for proofs of all this, in order to get up here again. But eventually, after noticing the vacuity of theist arguments the only way to reach a rational position was on this side. But I'm still a fan of theology, and the more I go deep in this fascinating subject, the more I discover very humane circumstances of the origin of these religions. But the next part will be in another episode. About other religions, as a child, I never asked myself the question. In my village, I never I had the chance to discuss with a muslim or a shintoist. So I had no particular position on this graph, I just had never thought about that. Today, it seems to me that on this type of religion, the wisest is to remain a non-believer. By default, until we have the proof of the contrary. No evidence = no reason to believe. Even the most fervent of believer thinks this way about all other religions but his. The priest of my village is an atheist himself, regarding Shiva, Allah, Hyambe or the [cami ?] He is an atheist to hundreds of gods that have been praised one day. Actually, he is only one god away from me. It's few. If these graphs inspired you, send me your experiences, I am very interested ! Until then, thank you to all of those who support my project of popular education for critical thinking. Your tips are fuel to videomakers.
