mood: explanatory
music: Mute Math – Reset
A break from the long-windy preachy entries, of which there is at least one more in the near future.
I want to answer some of the comments I’ve been getting (in person) about some of the things I’ve been writing, and also my beliefs in general. The comments have been, I feel, mostly positive – in the sense of I’m not being condemned for being a repulsive sinner bound straight for the depths of hell. On the other hand, I have been taken to task a few times for my apparently dogmatic and evangelical attitude, and my use of the word “atheist” – it is these two comments specially that I wish to address, and they are related.
First, on my use of the word “atheist”. The word means, literally, “non-theist”, which would certainly describe me. It can also mean an absolute disbelief in the existence of God, which does not describe me. Allow me to explain:
“Belief” has several definitions, but the one I’m concerned with is “the acceptance of a statement as true”, and it’s important to realize that “acceptance” lives on a continuum – it’s not an all-or-nothing proposition. One can have, and often does have, varying levels of uncertainty about a proposition one thinks to be true. For instance, I accept as true that smoking causes cancer with a fairly high degree of certainty, but I would abandon this belief overnight if new evidence arose to disprove it.
When I call myself an atheist, I am saying that I do not believe that God exists, with a fairly high degree – but not absolute certainty. This certainty comes from observation and experimentation (both self-performed and performed by others) about the natural world. The universe appears to operate in a non-random fashion, and this is where I get my belief that the best way to understand our universe is through experimentation and observation. Through the testing of hypotheses, we gain more complete knowledge of How Things Work.
However, the fact that uncertainty exists is what (usually) leads me to preface the word “atheist” with “agnostic”, and I do not feel that this is inaccurate. “Agnostic” means a belief that nothing is known or can be known about the existence or nature of God. Christianity invariably paints of picture of an interventionist God who is perfectly happy to change the course of human events, and on these occasions God moves (at least partially) into our box, and does things that can be tested, observed, and measured. Prayer for healing is a perfect example. This is the atheism part of the equation – I do not currently have any evidence to support a belief in a God, and I feel (for various reasons) that the existence of such a being to be highly unlikely. It is, however, not impossible that God could exist, either choosing to not reveal Himself, or revealing Himself in such a way as to be undetectable by any scientific, empirical method – and this is where my agnosticism comes from. It is impossible to hold an opinion on someone or something that is outside the realm of the natural, and thus impossible to detect. Hence, “agnostic atheist”. I will point out, however, that almost no Christian allows God to remain “outside the box” – as soon as you say that God has any detectable effect in this world, you’ve moved his actions into the realm of testable statements about reality; moved Him “into the box”.
On the subject of dogmatism, what I really think people mean when they say that is “fundamentalist” – they’re saying that I hold my atheistic viewpoint to be incontrovertibly true. I need to show that this label is wrong, because it’s fairly common.
Fundamentalists know they are right because they have read the truth in an unchanging holy book and know in advance that nothing will budge them from the truth. The truth of the book is an axiom, not the end result of a process of reasoning. I am no more dogmatic or fundamentalist when I say I believe there is no god as I am when I say that Iowa grows a lot of corn. It’s an opinion formed from the evidence that I have access to currently. My belief in the non-existence of god is not fundamentalism, and it is not dogma, because I know what it would take to change my mind, and I would gladly do so if the necessary evidence was made available to me. Do not conflate fundamentalism with passion.
A final word – why I write these entries. First and foremost, let me emphasize strongly that I am not trying to convert anybody to atheism. I’m not out to show people that their faith is wrong, that they’re stupid for believing, or that I have all the answers. I’m with C.S. Lewis when he says “I am not asking anyone to accept Christianity if his best reasoning tells him that the weight of the evidence is against it.” Very many incredibly intelligent people, whom I respect (Tom Clegg comes immediately to mind, as does Josh McDowell, Kamper, Gary Morgan, and others.) have strong faith in Christ, and I would be wrong to fault them for that. What you believe is not as important as how you treat others.
I write these these entries for three reasons: one, because writing things out helps me to understand and organize the information in my mind. I feel it is important to have a logical basis for the things I believe in, and writing things out in my own words helps to organize my thoughts. Two, because I like writing about the things that interest me. And three, because I want other people to read these and engage me in conversation about them. There’s no point in only talking to people who agree with you (which I do). I want to know the truth, and that is all, I think, that any of us are after. If somebody thinks I’m wrong, I’m all about hearing why.
This isn’t nearly as short as I’d like, but I’m okay with that.
Exit, stage left.
Sparks