Posted on April 19, 2008
What Atheism Offers: Life’s Mysteries
One of the profound and fundamental misunderstandings theists have of atheists is the belief that the latter lead a cold and narrow existence, unconcerned with the mysteries of the universe. Anything that can’t be immediately, rationally known must be rejected. Wonder is sapped from life. What’s happening when this view is articulated, however, is an unfortunate assumption about the very idea of mystery. The theist defines mystery as “the unknown filled by unfounded imagination.” The atheist sees it differently.
Analogies often best illustrate distinctions, so imagine a mystery novel constructed from the theist’s perspective. A body is found in an alley, shot through the heart. The detective called in clears away the uniformed officers, squats next to the deceased, and inspects the wound. He gathers details — short range, low caliber — and announces, “This is clearly the work of a goblin, armed with a wand, and angry with the victim because he failed to perform the proper appeasement ritual.” With that, the detective stands up, gets in his car, and heads home to perform the ritual himself, so as not to suffer the same fate.
Besides being awfully short, this would make for a rather frustrating novel. Yes, the story the detective has told can be made to fit the facts — though there are some inconsistencies — and a large mythology exists going back countless generations about goblins, magical deaths, and mystic rites designed to prevent them. In short, we can’t entirely rule out the detective’s explanation. But does that make it valid? Does it warrant a satisfying “The End” and a year long wait for the next book in the series? Of course not.
Why, then, should we reject the detective’s theory? Why shouldn’t we afford it the same respect we’d give to one that included a .22 pistol, an unhappy wife, and an overheard fight the night before? Because, when examining theories about the world, we naturally demand evidence. The goblin story isn’t good enough because it has a strong air of simply being made up. While no facts immediately dismiss it, no facts can be found to explicitly support it, either. And we’d hardly claim that the detective who won’t accept goblins doesn’t appreciate mysteries, is cynical, or is intellectually arrogant.
The atheist is no different from the modern detective. Rather than investigating corpses, though, he examines the awesome beauty and wonder of the universe itself. How did this all come into being? Why am I here? What should I do now that I am? What is right, what is wrong? This are huge questions and ones we may never answer. Yet this doesn’t mean they should be approached from a religious standpoint or seen as gaps in knowledge that can only be filled by unfounded imagination.
For theists, the answers are easy. How did the universe get here? God did it. How did life come into being? God. How are we to live? The son of god told us twenty centuries ago. The believer can spend a fulfilling lifetime trying to understand god but that doesn’t make his answers anything more than made up gap filling. He’s posited goblins with wands and accuses anyone who rejects these little monsters of being elitist and intellectually overreaching.
The theist rejects the atheist’s stance, saying that the only honest position is agnosticism, because we can’t know the absolute truth of god’s non-existence. Here, again, we are presented with a misunderstanding of terminology. An atheist rarely makes the flat out claim “There is no god.” Rather, he says, “I don’t believe in god.” An agnostic, on the other hand, says, “I’m not sure whether I believe in god. I could go either way.” Therefore, far from being an intellectually arrogant argument, the atheist is merely saying “Nobody has a good reason for believing in god and, without reasons, we shouldn’t believe things about the nature of reality.” This has been the claim of scientists and philosophers since these fields arose from the sea of human ignorance in distant antiquity. The theist soundly rejects this tradition. His argument, when stripped of its theological veneer, becomes nothing more than “Because we can’t know everything, I can believe anything.”
And that’s not an acknowledgment of mystery. It’s only muddy logic.
If you enjoyed this post, please consider subscribing to my blog’s feed. You’ll get all my latest essays, short fiction, and novels.
If you like this, you might want to check out these posts, too.
- What Atheism Offers: Justifying a Life’s Purpose
- Free Short Story: “Let Sleeping Gods”
- How to Dismiss Intelligent Design
- “I Am Legend” and Those Awful, Incredulous Atheists
- What Atheism Offers: How Should the Atheist Act?
GenreBanners.com Banner Exchange
Visit My Website
July 20, 2008
Permalink
Hi Aaron. Nice post. I found it at the carnival. Congratulations on getting the top spot. Sean has a good eye!
This was really good:
Because, when examining theories about the world, we naturally demand evidence. The goblin story isn’t good enough because it has a strong air of simply being made up. While no facts immediately dismiss it, no facts can be found to explicitly support it, either. And we’d hardly claim that the detective who won’t accept goblins doesn’t appreciate mysteries, is cynical, or is intellectually arrogant.
As I said elsewhere today, the question that needs to be asked of theists (if one bothers asking anything) is why they have chosen, as adults, to set the bar of evidence so low in this one area of their lives. The almost certainly don’t in other sectors.
Well, it was nice discovering you. Keep up the good writing!
Visit My Website
July 20, 2008
Permalink
Thanks, Evo. I think the reason the evidence bar for religion is so much lower than other beliefs or claims is entirely cultural. We’re conditioned, from childhood, to see religion as distinct from general truth claims. Because it has so much history and because it is of such central concern in the lives of so many people, we lower that bar for it. If we were brought up to not grant it this privilege–and to instead see it as yet another statement about the nature of reality that needs to be judged by whatever standards we typically use–it’s more readily collapse in on itself.
I think it’s also important to recognize that the bar isn’t usually universally low for all religions, just for the most prominent one in a given culture. Muhammad on his flying horse sounds just as made up as the goblins to a Christian. If only religious believers could turn that incredulity they have for other faiths on their own, we’d have far fewer faithful.
Thanks again for the kind comment. I’m glad you liked the article.
Visit My Website
July 23, 2008
Permalink
Not to piggy-back off Evo, but I agree, your post is excellent (and I also have visited via CotG). The final paragraph presents a pristine response and argument to the very questions many atheists are asked everyday. I like your comment analogy as well regarding setting the bar low for evidence. It is as if lowering the bar is also lowering the standards of ones religion. It would be far easier for me to accept a literal version of the creation than to ask “What does this really mean?” Minus the lack of evidence, this low bar leaves us with accepting something blindly without contemplating what more the story has to offer. Religion has discarded the quest for knowledge and has settled on the easy route. Thanks for the post!
Visit My Website
July 23, 2008
Permalink
What’s been the single most frustrating belief I’ve run into time and again as I write these articles and engage in these arguments is the epistemological privilege society affords religion. We can spend all our time pointing out the inaccuracies in scripture or the logical problems with the idea of God, but until we can undo the notion that religious beliefs are different from other beliefs, none of it will matter.
I spent a good portion of the last year studying the religion clauses of the First Amendment. The attitude is very much on display there. Our system of laws sets religion apart, granting it special status. Don’t want to education your children? What’s your reason? If it’s secular (if you object to spending valuable time in school that might otherwise be used in the fields or in the workforce, say), you’re out of luck. But if your God tells you it’s a sin to educate a kid past the fifth grade, our legal system will bend over backwards for you (Wisconsin v. Yoder being the pertinent case here).
Our entire culture assumes this distinction without a genuine difference. And religious believers have somehow managed to make their lower epistemological standards something to be proud of. They have faith, which is better and more pure than reason. Making stuff up in the name of God is noble. It’s the central problem of religion and one we all seem to be making very little progress toward fixing.
Thanks for the comment, DB.
Visit My Website
August 8, 2008
Permalink
This are huge questions
Visit My Website
August 8, 2008
Permalink
“This are huge questions” should be “these are huge questions” I presume. (Sorry for the double post…)
I can’t tell you how much I appreciate all these articles. Thank you for being so articulate and outspoken.
(And for The Hole, too, I’m just about to embark on part 1…)
Visit My Website
August 8, 2008
Permalink
Thank you, Branstrom. I always hope, as I write them, that the articles do some good.
I hope, too, that you enjoy The Hole. I just finished writing it a couple days ago and launched my new novel this afternoon. Let me know what you think.
Visit My Website
August 8, 2008
Permalink
I wish you would have it played out like a radio theater podcast. That would probably be enjoyable, don’t you think? I could try recording the first part with a couple of friends perhaps… my cousin has some audio equipment ^_^ (I’m only half serious, but the serious half is very enthusiastic.)
Visit My Website
August 8, 2008
Permalink
I take that back – not as a radio theater. Just read aloud, maybe by the author himself? You should investigate it, anyhow.
Visit My Website
August 9, 2008
Permalink
A good friend of mine actually started doing just that. Trouble is,
he’s in the Navy and got awfully busy. He had to stop after the first
five parts. I’ll maybe see about getting him to start up again (he
has a much better voice than I do).
As an aside, I was wondering why you were using the Disqus comments
system when I turned that off some time ago. Turns out there was a
problem where Firefox was showing a very old version of the site.
I’ve fixed that. So you might want to visit again to see what’s new.
Visit My Website
September 15, 2008
Permalink
Great work here, sir. (Followed a link from Zeldman.com comments.)
Visit My Website
September 15, 2008
Permalink
Thanks, Erin.
Visit My Website
July 19, 2009
Permalink
I am very impressed by the contents and style of the essay. I recommend everyone to read these short articles.
Ahmed Mir
Visit My Website
July 19, 2009
Permalink
Thank you. I'm glad you found them helpful and enjoyed them.
Visit My Website
July 19, 2009
Permalink
I am very impressed by the contents and style of the essay. I recommend everyone to read these short articles.
Ahmed Mir
Visit My Website
July 19, 2009
Permalink
Thank you. I'm glad you found them helpful and enjoyed them.