By
Sean Ewart
Sean Ewart
There is a silly term which I have come
to adopt and that is: Atheist. What a nonsensical word! I can offer
no proof that Jesus is not god. I cannot refute the various
fantastical claims of the Muslims – did Muhammad fly to Jerusalem
at night with the angel Gabriel? I have no idea. I can't even refute
the stories of the Greeks. Medusa, for all I know, may have turned
people into stone with a single glance. And Santa may in fact live at
the North Pole and fly around the world delivering presents to those
who believe in him. I have absolutely no evidence to tell me
otherwise. The word “atheist,” which literally means “without
god,” is a term applied loosely. The truth is that I have no idea –
and neither do you.
I have frequently conversed with
members of the faithful regarding matters of dogma. When I assert,
proudly of course, that I am an atheist, I am immediately asked to
provide my evidence. “Where is your proof that Yahweh did not
appear to Moses in a burning bush?” they ask. “Prove that there
is no god,” they challenge me sardonically, as if they know I am
destined to be crushed upon the rocky coast of reason. And, to be
fair, these sudden believers in evidence and logic – for they
needed nothing of the sort only moments before when I asked about
their faith – have a point. I hang my head and say, quite
truthfully, “I have no proof.”
No I cannot prove that god does not
exist, and that is the essential problem with the term “atheist”
- without context and explanation it is just another statement of
belief, unsupported, unsubstantiated and meaningless.
“But wait!” I look up at my
smirking counterpart, quite certain that they have brow beaten me
into submission and perhaps even saved my soul. “I am, in fact, not
the one making a claim to knowledge. I can't tell you how the
universe was created, I don't know for sure how life began, I have no
deep insights into the nature of consciousness or the fundamental
moral laws. That being said, I can observe the accumulated evidence
which science provides. I don't know how the universe begun but I can
observe its expansion. I don't know how life started, but I can plot
its progression. I don't know the parameters of consciousness, but I
can explore the mechanisms of the brain. I don't know what
fundamental moral laws there may be, but I can apply philosophy and
science and see the consequences of my actions.” I take a deep
breath, sip my latte (these conversations almost exclusively take
place in coffee shops) and continue. “Really, its you, the
religious, who is making the claim. You say that you know that god
created the universe, and life, and consciousness, and morality and
yet you can't offer a shred of evidence to support this. How the hell
do you know this?”
My counterpart invariably looks taken
aback. “But without god, how do you think we got here?”
I close my eyes and try not to laugh.
“I have no idea! I mean, I have some good evidence and a few
working theories – evolution to start with – but at the end of
the day I don't claim to have some higher understanding of the way
things work. All I know is that, neither do you. You believe that
Native Americans are really the 12 tribes of Israel; that when you
die you get 72 virgins; that god created the universe in 6 days. And
you believe this without evidence. The point is, I am only as much an
atheist towards your god as you are towards, say, Zeus or Baal. You
can't prove that those gods are not real, but you don't believe them
because you think that there must be better answers out there. I
don't believe that god exists because I haven't seen evidence leading
to that belief, and because I am not satisfied by the tired tales of
iron-age mythology and the ramblings of modern day con-men.”
The religious person across from me now
looks dejected. “Well, that just doesn't do it for me,” they
mutter. “It just feels right.”
And I guess that's about the extent of
it. Faith feels good. Did Muhammad fly with Gabriel to Jerusalem? Of
course not. But whereas atheism is really nothing more than a
profession of NOT-knowing the mysteries of the universe, faith is a
profession of knowing – almost everything! And even in the face of
evidence, the truly faithful refuse to adjust their beliefs; 40% of
Americans believe that the world was made by god less than 10,000
years ago for Christ sake! That's after humans had migrated to the
Americas from Africa... go figure.
At the end of the day, I feel the same
way about god that I do about Santa. I can't prove Santa doesn't
exist, but I really really doubt it. So when I say I am an atheist,
all I mean is: I don't know everything there is to know about the
universe. I subscribe to the Gospel of Doubt:
I acknowledge what I do not know,
seek to understand what I do not understand and patiently wait for
good answers. Because there's no point of asking, “why am I here?”
if all I get is bullshit.

What you are describing is agnosticism, and not atheism. There is nothing wrong with people of any faith position embracing some level of agnosticism. In fact, it has been shown that deep faith is more likely in someone who has been free to wrestle with deep doubt.
ReplyDeleteI disagree. Agnosticism denotes a level of uncertainty which I believe is overly generous in the case of religious faith. I am no more or less agnostic about god than I am about Santa - in other words, in as much as I am an A-Santa-ist I am also an Atheist. Doubting doesn't mean that you ignore a substantial lack of evidence or that you accept all suppositions as equally viable.
ReplyDeleteReally what I have described here - purposefully - is scientific skepticism.
I feel that your decision to take the side of atheism, rather than agnosticism, is a byproduct of growing up in a Western culture and language that appears to encourage a mindset in an "either-or" mentality. There certainly seems to be a dogma, one that is against uncertainty, one that creates false dualities, one that follows typical Aristotelian logic, etc..
ReplyDeleteTo begin, you certainly did not demonstrate scientific skepticism by citing a statistic (40% of Americans believe...etc) I have no idea where you found this "statistic", but there is no reason to assume that it is accurate in anyway, or that is has any pull in this argument. Also, I am not suggesting that the statistic is wrong in any way, but it certainly does not help your case for "scientific skepticism"
However, I do not wish to further analyze your article, because it has become apparent that you are unwilling to accept an agnostic view of reality. With buying into the "either-or" mentality (which is expressed throughout your written work), you tend to ignore the benefits of a broader scope that could be full of varying perspectives.
Most of your arguments do not leave room for a rational counter-position that opposes your own, merely because your original posts are designed to create the framework that you are most comfortable with operating in and ignore many different perspectives that could shed light on issues that are certainly more complex or transcendent than you may wish to give credit to.
This is where I got my statistic from: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/12/20/40-of-americans-still-bel_n_799078.html
ReplyDeleteFor future reference, while I frequently do post sources with my articles, sometimes, for smaller posts, I will leave them out. However, people are always welcome to ask me where I got my information from.
I am not sure where you got the idea that Western philosophy tends towards an either-or dichotomy. The fact that Atheists are one of the most hated groups in America (look it up) shows that America is still plenty friendly towards religion - whereas the militant extremism of Israeli settlers or Islamic jihadists are decidedly not routed in Western ideology.
The point being: people all over the world have extreme ideas - My view is that I don't know everything; I don't think that makes me an extremist ... but then, who am I to judge?