I can't help but be stunned at the birdbath shallow analysis of their own positions that many self-proclaimed 'atheists' are making on the blogs.
James and others keep trying to insist that Atheism is not a belief system, clutching at secular dictionary definitions like straws.
The issue is actually determined by logic, not what a secularist or a Christian chose to write in a dictionary.
Science has no empirically-testable theory to explain the origin of the universe or life. Thus, regardless of all the fluffy debate around the edges of the issue, all discussions about origins ultimately are grounded in metaphysics, not physics.
The 'atheist' bloggers I referred to are more correctly defined as hard agnostics. That's because they don't actually understand what atheism is. It is not a "lack of belief", the word specifically encompasses a declaration that God does not exist. It is a positive declaration. Atheist philosophers like Flew, Nielsen and others have long recognized this point and it is accepted and established in academia.
To be a true atheist, you must do more than lack an opinion on the existence of a deity, you must adhere to a belief that the deity is fictional. Obviously, an atheist cannot empirically prove that, so regardless of how firmly they believe it, or how firmly they "lack" a belief in said deity, their worldview is ultimately faith-based: they have faith that their belief is correct.
If you are willing to acknowledge the possibility - however remote - that a deity might exist, then regardless of how much you doubt the possibility you are, in philosophic terms, a hard agnostic (skepticism being a variety of this). A hard agnostic indeed "lacks" belief in a deity, but leaves themselves a rational doorway such that were a Deity to appear in the clouds and declare his presence to the entire world, the agnostic would not have to perform the mental somersaults that a true atheist would.
Agnosticism is, however, still a faith belief - a position that remains impossible to prove or disprove scientifically. At its core it argues that there is not enough evidence for the existence of God, and the more sophisticated philosophical arguments are based on the impossibility for finite mortals to truly know such an infinite God, if indeed he did exist. Thus the agnostic says that until such time as he is proven wrong he is better to live his life as if God did not exist. He takes it on faith that he is right.
You then move into other explanations of origins like Theism, Deism, Finite Godism, Pantheism, Panentheism, Polytheism etc. All of which are, like the first two, metaphysical.
Download winmail.dat
Recent Comments