I recently commented on an article entitled ‘Why I’m not an atheist…yet’, the response by the author was put into another blog post. I appreciate the time and effort put into this and to the author I’m sorry I haven’t responded earlier.
What I judged to be the biggest factor in the authors decision was the following line:
‘In short, I think I am not an atheist as I do not want to be.’
I did claim this was a choice inspired by faith and not logic, to an extent the author agreed.
“Atheism is about what seems logical”. I agree. God, in many senses, seems irrational. Although I would contend that an event as cosmically powerful as the Big Bang having no outside cause also seems illogical to me. The presence of natural laws, also seem to speak to a universal establisher of such laws. I’m sure you have answers for these thing apart from God. Most proselytizing atheists do. For me, believing in an initial cause and an establisher of the laws that govern our world is not outside of what is logical.
An initial cause and/ or universal establisher of laws is not farfetched. What is a leap of faith is to believe it is one of the few belief systems we use today, considering the vague description of creation in the texts and the need for science to teach us further and truly progress.
No scientist would conclude the Big Bang had no initial cause. Of course there was one, the problem lies with understanding what that was. When a God enters the mix, there are no initial cause or establisher of laws prior to said Gods existence. This is where we are told we can stop thinking and to accept this as the ultimate answer. The end of the search.
If the option is between God and natural process it cannot possibly be 50/50. The odds should be one hundred percent in Gods favour, right? How is there any doubt? God has the ability to perform miracles. All powerful, loving and knowledgeable. Ever present, listening to our prayers.
‘The fool hath said in his heart there is not God’.
Nature cannot speak for itself. So for God to fail in providing any clarification on his involvement, to the extent that the odds of either creating the universe are considered 50/50, although paradoxical Gods chances are further reduced. The case for a natural cause should not be so convincing.
Divorcing with what isn’t true
I like the idea of creationists separating from disproved theories. I struggle to understand where this puts the religion in terms of reputation.
If I was a Christian making my way up to the pearly gates, how would I approach God to ask him why certain passages of Bible scripture were incorrect? Would I be accusing him of lying? Deceit? Would I be punished for observing facts? Thinking logically is a good thing, but I fear for the combination of logic and religion, it is bound to cause a conflict on judgement day.
I incorrectly stated in the comment that atheists would not discriminate against certain sectors of society, which was rightly picked up on. I for one condemn the immoral actions of governments, groups and individuals regardless how big or small. What I intended to say was I would not discriminate against ethnicity, gender or religion as atheism is not a catalyst for such bigotry. Atheists have and will cause harm, but not for atheist beliefs.
I understand neither do all religious people and I am extremely grateful for this. But if a kind, moral Christian accompanied a fundamentalist, homophobic, slave keeping one, which would be ridiculed more at heavens door? I guess it depends on the verses God had fresh in his mind that day.
Spin- By Conor Ogle