When faced with information, there are two options; either it’s true, or, it’s false. That doesn’t mean that we have to side with one of those options; but, due to humanity’s innate predisposition of being easily influenced and convinced, and sticking with it, that is what happens a lot of the time. When someone is convinced that they know a truth, they develop a belief. The difference between belief and knowledge, is that belief can be false.
So, how do we tell apart what is true or false? Well, humans are rational creatures, and can only determine this via logic. We cannot know if something is true or not without irrefutable proof. In most cases, we can find arguments supporting any claim; however, an argument can be invalid. God exists – it is written so in the bible. In this case, it may be true that the bible claims god exists, but the claim “God exists” is still not proven true, since the claim in the bible itself has never been irrefutably proven, regardless. Perhaps other claims in the bible have been proven, but that does not validate all the other claims within it. If some Christian says that he knows it to be true, because god himself has told him so, or that he feels it to be true, then I ask: How do you know it to be true? How do you know it wasn’t the message of someone or something else? How do you know that your feelings aren’t betraying you?
Irrefutably valid arguments are very rare in concepts not conceived by humans, and this is something that most don’t realize. We have developed a scientific method in order to understand better the workings of the universe, and for the most part, it works considerably well, taking into account our limited comprehensive abilities. We put forth hypotheses, and try to find valid arguments to prove them. However, even the top scientists have to admit that science can never 100% determine if a theory is true; there is always the possibility that it can be wrong. This is because we do not have the capacity of conceiving arguments that take into account every possible counter-argument, nor do we have the ability to infallibly validate all of them. We are limited. It is believed that gravity is a constant force, and although everything we have observed seems to point to that conclusion, we weren’t able to observe the effects of gravity until we had the means. There is also the possibility that gravity might change in the future; however, we can’t know that at the moment. Though we can think/assume that it’s probable that gravity will still be the same tomorrow, since it’s been constant for a long time.
Probabilities are very good. It helps us get around life without constantly having to prepare for every possibility. We can assume that things are or will be a certain way if the probabilities are in favor. Most of us don’t think too directly about the probabilities of everything though, it’s mostly done in the back of our minds. But because beliefs also form the same way, we often subconsciously believe or expect things to be or happen a certain way, and we are left surprised or disappointed(if hope was involved) that we are wrong. Beliefs can also be very dangerous, and I’m sure you can think of many examples.
As humans, it’s impossible for us to think of every possibility, so isn’t it better to remain open to possibilities other than what we assume? In many ways, beliefs are irrational. To think that something can only be one particular way, is illogical if you realize how limited we are in perception. The only kind of fact we can be sure of, are the ones that we have observed within a concept we’ve created. If I say that “Hello” is a greeting, and you understand the concept of English language, then you can know that statement to be true, within that concept. But beyond established concepts, there is no way to know for sure.
Atheists shouldn’t feel superior in logic compared to theists, because like theists, they have a belief(for ‘strong atheists’ at least); they believe that there is no god. If you wish to be logical, then you cannot dismiss the possibility that god exists, not without irrefutable proof. No such proof has been discovered yet. An argument atheists use often is the giant spaghetti monster. There is no proof that the giant spaghetti monster exists, just like no proof that god does; however, there is also no proof for god’s non-existence. A belief’s counter-belief, is still a belief, and just because one has no proof, does not make the other more plausible, since it doesn’t have any proof either. It is the case of Theism and Atheism. Well then, you say, if both are illogical, what isn’t? The answer is: Agnosticism.
In simple terms, Agnosticism is basically admitting that we don’t know. That is not to say that it’s unknowable(depending on the form of agnosticism), but that we currently don’t know the whole picture enough to be convinced of it being any way. It is like a void of belief. It’s also being open to any possibility. After all, how can we know reality beyond what we see and feel? How can we know the one truth? That is why I feel agnosticism to be the only real logical position in spiritual views. However, some forms of agnosticism do have beliefs, such as the belief that the nature of reality is unknowable. The kind I’m espousing though, is called Weak Agnosticism: the view that the existence or nonexistence of spirituality, as well as deities, is currently unknown but is not necessarily unknowable, therefore one will withhold judgment until/if any evidence is available.
It is unfortunate that most people hold on to their beliefs. Doing so brings about false or incomplete conclusions that show up in many areas, including science, and we get a lot of closed minded folk. I think keeping it real, and being open to other possibilities would benefit us in many ways.
Believing is being convinced of knowing the truth. In reality though, we don’t have the means of truly knowing. Expecting is related to believing. If you expect something to be a certain way, it is because you believed it would be so. You can assume, without believing. You can act upon assumptions or what you think is probable, regardless. Belief is not needed.
Also, Skepticism is always a good asset in any case. Often, popular claims are found to be false later on.
*A lot of people aren’t pure theists or ateists, as they do have a certain amount of skepticism regarding their own views, but there are plenty who are, including very influential people.
