Earlier this month I participated in a panel discussion on the nature of God and faith titled “Faith Meets Doubt”. There were three two-person “teams” of Christians, Atheists, and Muslims; I was one of the atheists. In preparation for the discussion, and to clarify my position to the other teams, I wrote an explanation for some labels I had given myself: “gnostic atheist” and “mystic physicalist”. Here, below, is that explanation, slightly edited. Please feel free to critique.
Gnostic Atheist
I am a gnostic atheist, or strong atheist. By that I mean that I believe that the gods that most people refer to when they say “God” do not exist. So, I am an atheist, meaning I don’t have a belief in a god or gods, and I’m gnostic, meaning further that I know (or have a practical knowledge) that gods do not exist. I’ll explain more deeply. When someone asks me if I believe in “God”, and I’m feeling like having a conversation, the first thing I’m likely to say is “what is your definition of `God’?” I’ve heard many definitions of the word “God” and I’ve witnessed abuse of the word due to unclear and conflicting definitions. So in normal conversation, when a relatively clear definition of “God” is not provided, I see the word “God” as an ill-defined, loaded, and distracting word. This is essentially what’s called the igtheist or ignostic position, where the question “Does God exist?” is taken as meaningless. But let’s suppose a definition is provided.
If your definition of “God” is sufficiently weak or simple, for example, if you define “God” to be the causal force that initiated the Big Bang, then I’ll say “Well, that seems like a reasonable belief, but I think you’re abusing the word `God’.” I’ll say that because a person with a very weak definition of “God” usually turns right around and starts applying other unstated assumptions about “God” such as it is also an emotional being that loves you, or influences you somehow. Even if the person does not apply these kinds of unstated assumptions, I do not see the point of calling the “causal force that initiated the Big Bang” by the name “God”. I would expect that force, if it existed, to be physical anyway, so there only seem to be ulterior emotional reasons to want to call it “God”. I therefore reject these definitions.
If your definition of “God” is complicated (and probably involves hundreds of pages of complicated text such as with the Jewish, Christian, or Muslim gods), then from my personal experience and education, including religious and spiritual questing, I believe your god does not exist in the same practical sense that I believe that the Greek and Roman gods don’t exist, nature spirits and fairies don’t exist, and Santa Claus does not exist. I see that people are influenced by religions and superstitions such as astrology for complicated psychological and social reasons that simultaneously benefit and harm them, but I don’t see that any of them have good reasons for their beliefs. I see these gods as superstition, and believe they don’t exist.
In my most philosophical moods and conversations, I reveal that I do not have full faith in either my reason or my perception, and I will never feel I have absolute knowledge since I will always have doubt. Coming from this extremely philosophical position, there are many possible ways that I could be fooled by elaborate cosmic hoaxes that hide the presence of traditional gods from me. Or gods may be things that are very subtle to detect. But it would be silly for me to remain agnostic about the gods that people use in their practical and political lives and their interactions with me. Only in the most impractical philosophical settings am I an agnostic atheist; otherwise I am gnostic — I have practical knowledge that “God” does not exist.
Mystic Physicalist
The term “mystic physicalist” seems to be a fairly good description of my philosophical point of view, although I’ve never used it before this event and the word “mystic” is probably not exactly the word I want to use. “Mystic” describes my attitude and “physicalist” describes my beliefs, or working assumptions. Although “mystic” has spiritual and occult connotations, I am not spiritual and do not believe in spirits, souls, supernatural powers or agencies, or unseen planes of existence. I think they’re possible but extremely unlikely, at least as they are usually understood.
By “mystic” I mean that I retain an awed sense of mystery, whatever my interpretation of reality. I have, and enjoy having and seek out, deep and meaningful experiences, and my mind is blown by the inherent mysteries and paradoxes in questions of existence. I tend to seek out experiences that I think may induce these inspired emotions, and I might resemble more traditional mystics when I meditate in nature or, on rare occasions, do something like take psychedelic mushrooms. These emotions and activities have been important to me in my search for what is true, real, and meaningful.
Some of my experiences would be called religious or spiritual by people of faith, and I called them religious and spiritual when I was younger and theistic, but now I don’t. Now I put as few assumptions and interpretations as possible on these experiences. For instance, when I am in nature and feel in awe and thankful to be alive, I don’t feel thankful to anyone, I simply feel deeply thankful, and that’s true whether or not there are spirits or beings to be thankful to. On the multiple occasions when I was being saved as a Christian, I thought I felt the unconditional love of a god, but now I realize I was feeling love and other emotions in a complicated social and psychological interaction. I still value those “saving” experiences as deep and cathartic and part of my philosophical journey. So I have a mystic’s appreciation for “direct experience of reality” but without the occult interpretations of those experiences.
By “physicalist” I essentially mean that I believe that everything is physical. Unbasically, I mean that I base all of my practical decisions on the assumption that everything is made of physical energy, or matter, that obeys mathematical physical laws and there are no beings or personal forces that interupt that pattern. These are basic assumptions of science, and I believe science has shown again and again that these are the most productive and reliable assumptions about reality. So, again, I don’t believe I have a soul, and when my body dies I expect to be destroyed forever, unless technology advances far enough to be able to replicate the workings of a brain electronically or biologically.
Therefore, by “mystic physicalist” I basically mean I’m an awestruck, mystified, atheist scientist.
