I want to write this post as a warning to myself: If someone seems all to sure of their position, take it with a grain of salt. My thirteen posts prior to this one are very one-sided, far from being fair in terms of presenting both sides equally. Hopefully I can take a more balanced approach in future posts. Philosophy of any kind should be a communal quest towards truth, not a bashing of differing viewpoints.
Can one be an intellectually honest atheist? Of course. Atheism, at least the kind that is contemplative (as opposed to those who are atheist because they want it to be true. Or for pragmatic reasons) will be atheist because they find the arguments for theism less than convincing. I am a theist because I find the arguments for theism to be convincing to me. Or perhaps it's that I cannot accept what the alternative entails from a metaphysical perspective. But I need to be open to those who hear the same arguments I hear, see the things I see, and don't feel the same way. Surely there are atheists who ask if a theist can be intellectually honest in the same way I pose the question to the opposite party.
This seems to relate, however vaguely, to the concept of 'burden of proof.' Concerning the existence of God, is the burden of proof on the theist or the atheist? It's an interesting question in a way, because both alternatives seem odd at first glance - and it's almost surprising there is no middle ground (one can be agnostic, of course, but that doesn't mean that agnosticism could be true. Either God exists, or he doesn't). If God exists, then this world would presumably be his creation. But yet one has to understand the difficulty in even imagining such a being as God, and keep oneself in check from believing something comforting simply because it's comforting. To put it better - the believer will be skeptical that he is not tricking himself - because sometimes it seems too good to be true. If God doesn't exist, then everything has happened by blind, mechanical chance, and everything that this entails. The atheist, however, has to rely on other means to explain phenomena in the world - which in the most dogmatic cases resorts to ignoring valuable lines of evidence against his or her worldview. If any of this has to do with burden of proof, i'm not sure, but I do believe the burden is on the theist. In other words - one should not believe in a deity because he has not heard evidence to the contrary. In even other words - one should not default to theism, even though many (most?) do.
If someone is too sure of their atheism, I will question whether they have adequately and honestly dealt with all arguments, as well as reconciled empirical phenomena to a naturalistic (if they hold this) viewpoint. If someone is too sure of his theism - I will wonder if he experiences doubt. If he says he does not, and never has, then he most likely has never questioned his childhood upbringing. I will wonder whether he doesn't find his vantage point too good to be true. It's important to remember that people much more clever and much more well-read have followed the same path of doubt and questioning, and have, and will, continue to come down on opposite ends of the spectrum.
Perhaps the best opinions to consider are those who have gone back and forth at some point in their lives - people who have let the evidence sway them from their ideologies, in one way or another. In the end, however, the choice has to be yours. I do hope, however, that whatever people choose it will show an impact on their way of live. Belief, or lack of belief in a divine entity, is no small thing, and it should show itself in one's life.
In the end, people are seeking truth, and people should not forget that the quest for this truth should allow the evidence to carry them wherever it will.
No comments:
Post a Comment