I don't have enough faith to be an atheist.
It's a Christian saying I've often heard, and one I've been inclined to agree with. After all, isn't an atheist making a HUGE claim? Isn't he claiming to know that in this entire vast universe, there is no God somewhere therein, perhaps undetectable to our current scientific instruments and means of knowledge? It's as bold a statement as that of a scuba diver swimming at the ocean beach for a few hours with goggles and saying "Nope! I looked - that ring you dropped in the Atlantic on your cruise to Europe? It's not in this ocean!"
Of late, I've been reading a variety of books and watching videos from the mouths of atheists themselves. I'm beginning to realize that while most of us as believers have always assumed that an atheist believes there is no God, in actually, it turns out that most atheists simply do not believe in God. This is a vast distinction because one is an assertion of knowledge ("I believe/know that there is no God"), whereas the other grants a lack of evidence and a lack of knowledge ("I don't have substantial evidence of God")
With the exception of strong atheism (the few who claim absolutely that there is no God) it seems that most atheists simply place the existence of a supernatural being called God in the same category as unicorns, fairies, leprechauns, Thor, Ra, and Aphrodite. They might exist, but the evidence is not conclusive that they do.
In light of that, it may actually take less faith to be an atheist than one might think. One simply has to not be convinced that the evidence for an invisible omnipotent being called God is substantial enough.
The burden of proof appears to be on the one making a supernatural claim. Ancient societies once needed the gods to explain the mysteries of thunder, stars, the sun, diseases, and human reproduction. But it seems that the more scientific understanding advances, the more the supernatural appears to be put out of a job. When everything within the universe can be rationally explained through natural laws, do we need a supernatural orchestra director, waving his baton at forces that were already following their natural course?
Carl Sagan puts the ancient thought this way: "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence". Is it reasonable to base one's faith on a concept or deity merely because such a deity has not been disproved? Is it rational believe on the grounds that such a being might exist? Must we accept that it simply must be supernatural simply because scientific explanations don't make complete sense to us with our current understanding?
What if someone claimed to be a teapot? Would you feel at all inclined to take their word for it? How compelling would their evidence have to be in order for you to agree with them that they are a teapot? Better still,asks Philosopher Bertrand Russell in an analogy known as "Russell's Teapot", what if the person speaking to you claims that there is a teapot - in fact, orbiting the sun? No one could ever see the teapot, you are told, because it is too small to be picked up by our telescopes - but you can see its effect on the universe. In fact millions of people claim to have had their lives changed by the teapot. Millions claim that they feel the teapot talking to them in their heart. Schools and congregations are built to talk about the teapot, books are written on its subject.
What if you simply didn't find the evidence compelling enough? Should you be written off as a fool? On whom lies the burden of proof? Must the non-believer disprove the proposition before being justified in being a non-believer?
Richard Dawkins visually illustrates Russell's teapot in his God Delusion documentary, the first of 2 parts of The Root of All Evil video series. I find his conclusion succinctly amusing:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eQLPwxYHq4I&t=44m47s
Anyone fancy a spot of tea?
No comments:
Post a Comment