Whatever the ins and outs of the PM’s religious comments on Saturday, there’s a frisson in the blogosphere in their wake. I’ve never discussed my atheism much here; simply mentioned it as an aside.
As a child of seven I remember announcing that I didn’t believe in God. This was because the stories I’d been told at school just didn’t add up in the physical world I was experiencing. Strange to think that at such an early age, I was questioning such things as angels, virgin birth and ascension.
I tried hard to reverse this and joined my local anglican church as that was where my peers went. I was confirmed and was a server at the Sunday services. You can’t say I didn’t try. But, by the age of fifteen, I realised that I was simply lying to myself. You either believe, or you don’t – you can’t choose.
I recall a couple of years ago getting into a heated debate – albeit unintentionally – on a motorcycle forum regarding Christianity. Okay, it was off-topic, but someone kicked off the conversation and I was interested enough to contribute. I made the mistake of daring to challenge the provenance of the new testament scriptures; who wrote them and when, and the apparent references to earlier religious mythology. What I thought was an interesting theological debate rapidly became a frenzied attack on atheism. One participant made the oft repeated fallacy that atheism is a religion and that atheists who deny this are unable to see the elephant in the room.
For the record; there is no elephant and atheism is as much a religion as baldness is a hair colour. Christians, for example, do not believe in the Norse gods nor those of ancient Egypt or Greece. When they express their disbelief, is there an elephant in the room? No, of course not. My disbelief in Yaweh is no different and comes from the same process of thinking and logical reasoning. The difference between us is that there is one more god on my list.
So, what type of atheist does this make me?
There are degrees of atheism. Weak atheism:
Weak atheism (also called negative atheism) is the lack of belief in the existence of God or gods, without a commitment to the necessary non-existence of God or gods.
and there is strong atheism.
Strong atheism, sometimes called positive atheism, hard atheism or gnostic atheism, is the philosophical position that deities do not exist. It is a form of explicit atheism, meaning that it consciously rejects theism.
Upon being told that there is a god, the weak atheist is likely to respond with “prove it.” The strong atheist will actively engage in refutation. Frankly, for the most part, I can’t be bothered. I guess that makes me a weak atheist, which tends to fit comfortably with my general “live and let live” approach to life.
For once I’m coming to Bliar’s defence: what he said on Parky doesn’t equate in any way to: “God told me to invade Iraq”. This kind of media distortion isn’t helpful and doesn’t do
the “cause” any good either. The Bliar is entitled to believe what he wants, just like you
and me are, period. As regards God’s judgement, we should be allowed to judge firstly.
Another weak atheist.
Comment:
lbhh @ Mark.
Concerning whether atheism is “the same†as religion, I don’t argue with elephants, especially those close enough to be in the same room.
However, I see Longrider states: “My disbelief in Yaweh is no different and comes from the same process of thinking and logical reasoning.â€
I’m of the view, based largely on the philosophy of science according to Karl Popper, that one can neither prove nor disprove the existence of god (especially in the context of creator of the universe). The issue is outside science. On the basis of logic as applied to the existent universe, the issue is also outside logic.
Accordingly, I recon atheists are about as logical in their view as theists: ie not.
The scientific and logical view is agnosticism: ie “One doesn’t know whether there is a god.†Or rather “Science contributes nothing to belief/disbelief in a god, and logic contributes nothing to the issue that is not present in the initial premises.â€
That does not stop me liking and respecting many people who have firm religious views and also many who have atheist views (soft or hard).
Best regards
Nigel, Ah, yes, the tricky matter of attempting to prove the existence or non-existence of God. Quite simply, you can’t and I make no attempt to. Trying to prove non-existence is illogical; it is beholden on those who assert existence to prove their case. Nor, for that matter am I trying to use science one way or the other.
Therefore logical reasoning looks at what is available – the evidence. There is none. Nothing at all. Therefore, sans evidence, the logical conclusion that I draw, is that I don’t believe. I simply cannot believe in the existence of something that has no physical evidence to substantiate it. I can accept archaeological evidence that supports some of the old testament stories, just as I can accept geological evidence of the same, but as none of this provides evidence of anything other than human or natural occurrences, I do not accept the assertion of supernatural intervention – that is perfectly reasonable and logical. I don’t believe in Santa Claus, the tooth fairy or the pink unicorn – the evidence for the existence of these myths is equally robust and my disbelief, based upon the lack of evidence is equally logical.
As I say in the original piece, if I am to believe in an omnipotent, omniscient being; provide me with some evidence. Otherwise, I won’t believe you. There is nothing illogical in that position. After all, I haven’t asserted that gods don’t exist, or can’t exist (although if that were the case, I’d expect there to be some evidence of the possibility and I’m not holding my breath). If God wants me to believe in him, turning up and introducing himself would be a start. Otherwise, I draw the reasonable conclusion that he is nothing more than the consequence of ancient Hebrew myth. Just as Zeus was the product of ancient Greek myth and Horus ancient Egyptian and no one is suggesting that they exist… 😉
Longrider replies: Didn’t see the Parky interview, so can only comment on what was subsequently discussed – even then, my comment was reserved, somewhat. I don’t for one minute believe the “God told me thing” anymore than I believed the same story of Bush last year. I don’t have a problem with Blair’s belief. I do, however, have a problem if it spills over into policy.
This particular piece, though, isn’t about Blair – it’s about someone far more important than that… lbhh