In my last entry, I indicated that one of the purposes of this blog was to have something I could point to – a particular article here and there – whenever I wished my friends to better understand my stance on a particular topic. Shortly after posting that entry, the idea that I may be asked to reciprocate entered my mind. And I shuddered.
I understand that there is some level of hypocrisy here. Here I am, wishing my friends to better understand some issue from a non-theistic point of view, while at the same time, I am at least a tad bit unwilling to go read an entry of theirs which explains why "God loves you". Now I think it is more or less understood that, generally speaking, people try to stay in circles where everyone else more or less subscribes to their views. If they were to ever venture outside of that circle, they will do so with varying levels of a closed mind – from the locked, to the shut, to the only slightly ajar. Very few enter with the doors to their minds straining open, the windows unlatched and curtains billowing. I would have to position myself in the "ajar" category, and I will explain why it is not completely open as this entry goes on.
When most people – be they theists or otherwise – are about to enter a discussion which appears to go completely contrary to their views, I believe they shut down some levels of their mind – close them (see door analogy in paragraph above). They do not expect to hear anything that will shake their views and therefore adopt a dimissive attitude, making it far more likely that they will gloss over something that might call into question one aspect of their belief or another. If they were to hear something that contradicts their position, they may:
- Dismiss it as being nonsensical
- Believe that the person was misrepresenting some aspect of it
- Consider that it "must reconcile with their views" but there was something that they themselves did not understand, and eventually will (because they intended to further research or discuss it) or won't (because they accept that they won't understand everything but what they believe is right)
But should only the other side wish to better understand YOUR take of the world (spiritual or otherwise), you will be only too happy to oblige, hoping they would truly consider your every word. What I am saying is that all of us – ALL OF US – are generally unwilling to fully reciprocate.
So, it is with this mindset that I expect my friends to read my blog and it is likely with this mindset that I approach contrary views. But exactly what variant of this mindset either I or my friends have (the level of openness and the situations that arise which make the door shut tight) is, I think, dependent upon where we are on the "Logical Path" and whether we're still moving along it.
Consider the Logical Path as a long and winding road, and at the end of it, is the logical conclusion of whether or not God exists, and if he does, what the belief structure surrounding him should be and where our place is with him. Now, this is the LOGICAL CONCLUSION – i.e. you get to this conclusion based ENTIRELY on logic and available evidence. Some people may say this is a far-fetched notion, but I dare say, it cannot be any more far-fetched than the existence of an omnipotent being asking his creations (humans) to sacrifice other types of his creations (animals) as an offering to him/her/it. However, while I can assert that the Logical Path DOES end in the Logical Conclusion, I will admit that I am uncertain whether any human being, can, in their lifetime, ever travel the full length of the Logical Path – either because there is insufficient time to or because we do not have the cognitive capacity to attempt such. There are so many aspects, theories and nuances relating to a framework where a supreme deity may exist, do we have the time or ability to consider all of them? I dare say no – at least not currently. And although I do not personally know the person who is farthest along the Logical Path, I would still venture to say that he agrees with me.
I am certain that all of us have travelled along the Logical Path whatever our philosophical leanings, but I think that the relationship we have with the Logical Path differs depending on whether we are believers, atheists or angostics.
Believers, I think, traverse the path a while, and then make a "leap of faith" where they essentially jump from the path of logic into, quite frankly, unknown territory. The gap between the path and wherever they end up is, at least to the rest of us, filled with unanswered questions – unanswered either because the leaper did not have the knowledge to answer them, the evidence was generally unavailable, or because the leaper never even considered the questions to start with. For the non-theists, this Gap of Unanswered Questions is untenable – it essentially means that there are questions that, had they been answered, may have resulted in your changing the trajectory of your leap of faith or even make you refuse to leap at all.
I would have to say though, that believers often do not even realise when they are making these leaps or that they are making these leaps at all. This is because people of faith often consider that the existence of God is "obvious" because of one thing or another. For example, I have heard a fervid believer in the Christian God talking to someone about an autopsy he had seen – probably on television – and saying that when the person was opened up, he was amazed at the complexities of the human body. "How can you not see God in that?" And I think – how can you? Isn't that like a child waking up on Christmas morning, seeing presents under the Christmas tree and considering this irrefutable proof of the existence of Santa? There was a leap of faith there – between the seeming existence of intelligent "design" and the conclusion that an intelligent creator must be the source. There are many considerations on the Logical Path between the two that did not appear to enter into the equation – and therein lies the problem (for non-theists such as myself) and the leap (for the believers). Of course, this is all not to say that believers cannot return to the path during various points in their lives to walk along it a bit more, before making the leap once again (shorter leap, but still very much into the unknown).
Atheists, I think, just step off the path at some point. Being on the path means that you are considering the possibility that God may or may not exist. Atheists believe like theists believe that God does not exist. There is no leap of faith into a complex construct of how a deity works, but there is a conclusion based on the same incomplete evidence. And once again, they may return to the path every now and then to walk along it, make some considerations, then step off it once again.
Agnostics – at least one such as myself – always remain on the path. Sure, sometimes we aren't moving along it, but we stay there. We do not believe in God – hence no leap of faith – but we do not entirely dismiss the possibility that God exists – hence we try not to step off of the path. So this is where I am – always on the Logical Path – and I try to make a couple of steps forward every once in a while. Because I am on the Logical Path – which involves... wait for it... "logic"... I expect that people should be able to relate to what I have to say. I am not asking them to make assumptions about the unknown spiritual realm of some construct or the other – I am simply asking them to consider one aspect or another from a purely rational point of view with only the evidence that is available. Come – walk with me along this path.
The problem I have with most people – theist and non-theist alike – is that they are all crowded around the first few stretches of this path, constantly making their leaps or stepping off the path to go take a drink by the bar.
The believer who is still idling near the starting line is usually so because either:
- Their knowledge of bible is incomplete and in a surprising number of cases, wholly inaccurate, with limited attempts to understand the merits of the various interpretations of scripture and how much/which interpretations are consistent with/contradict the others. They do not have a full understanding of their own beliefs and have never seriously reconcile these beliefs to their fuzzy understanding of the bible.
- They have a good understanding of the bible and which interpretation they accept and have a strong construct of their beliefs, however... they have never reconciled the constructs of their belief with logic and have never considered how much what can be proven reconciles with what they believe.
The second is the far more dangerous of the two, I would have to say. Arguing with the first person is frustrating – because how can you argue with someone who does not fully understand their own view point? Arguing with the second person however, is downright futile – how can you argue with someone who refuses or limits the consideration of logic? It would be like arguing in a vacuum – where any argument you make has merit whether it makes sense or not.
The first person, however, can easily fall into the realm of theism or non-theism. There are a surprisingly high number of atheists/agnostics who are actually the first person. The difference – whether they become a believer or a non-believer – has no foundations in logic whatsoever, but in indoctrination or some "significant event" in their lives. Some people grew up in environments which did not shove religion down their throats – either their parents had little or no faith or were actually non-theistic themselves. I would suppose these children may become the same as adults, automatically considering all religion absurd without actually analysing them. (Oh and yes – all religion is absurd. The only reason you don't think yours sounds silly is because you're so accustomed to hearing it.)
It is actually these atheists/agnostics who annoy me quite a bit. If they were to attack the bible, let's say, they will pull out a stream of verses that appear to contradict each other, or do not appear to fall in line with our current cultural morality. While the bible does have some contradictions as well as morally questionable standards, a lot of the verses that may be identified as such can be explained once put into the contexts of the passages from which they arose. Not all. But some. Yet the fact that some atheists/agnostics have not bothered to go to the second level after identifying these verses – seeking their explanations by Christian Apologists, and then third level – formulating a logical response to them or concluding that, in particular cases, the verses are justifiable – is unbearable for me.
But returning to my place on the Logical Path and my willingness to reciprocate – yes, you may make your case for God, and there may be a moment when my mind will shut down on you. It is not necessarily because I am stubborn. It may well be because I encountered your argument a few years ago when I was not as far along on the Logical Path – I dealt with it and I have since moved on. Unless you're going to present a new aspect of it, I'd rather not listen. And if you're not going to pay attention to anything I have to say, we'd better end this conversation right now. Because shouting over the long logical distance that divides us is far too cumbersome anyway.
I understand that I may sound a bit condescending here, and wish to temper this by admitting that there are several things that I might have considered along the Logical Path that I have since forgotten or did not fully understand at the time I was considering them. And there are far more considerations I have not fully explored. This therefore feeds into the other purposes of this blog – to clarify my own views and document them lest they become fuzzy once again. Because there is nothing worse than traversing along the path for quite some time only to realise that the winds of time have blown you farther back than you are willing to admit, even to yourself.
No comments:
Post a Comment