I’ve written a lot about religion on this blog. In fact you might even say it’s a favourite topic of mine. So far most of my vitriol has been aimed at bigots who hide behind Christianity, in particular the Catholic Church, but I have made reference to radical islam a few times either. Truth be told the only reason I do not attack islam more often is because I do not want a 747 through my living room. I have just redecorated and find that huge explosions are not good for the decor.
However the one faith I’ve not criticised yet is atheism. It is time I right this wrong, if for no other reason than to confirm that I am an agnostic, not atheist. Many may claim that atheism is not faith but this, I believe, is a fallacy. Secular Theology is a form of atheism and yet also, paradoxically, a religious philosophy. Equally some forms of Buddhism reject the existence of God and thus would conform to the definition of atheism and yet Buddhism is considered to be a religious belief system. The video below, which inspired this post, highlights what I believe is the fundamental weakness of an atheist argument.
His statement is that faith is flawed because it is the belief in something not backed up by evidence or fact. In that he is correct. However the logical extension of this is that atheism is flawed because it is the belief in something not backed up by evidence or fact. If atheism is defined as the rejection of theism, and thiesm is the belief in the existence deities, then atheism can be defined as the belief in the nonexistence of deities. Until an atheist can find me irrefutable evidence that God does not exist they are no less guilty of blind faith than those they criticise.
Many of the scientific theories used by atheists to attack theism are still viewed as theories due to a lack of conclusive evidence. Science states very few things to be “facts”. Of course imperial evidence does lend a lot of strength to these theories but although I subscribe to the theory of evolution I would still not be arrogant enough to call it fact. Scientists often disprove long-held theories which is why science has such a sceptical view of “scientific facts”. Blind faith in science is still blind faith.
However, even if one were to accept every single scientific theory as fact (and although I tend to reserve a modicum of healthy scepticism this is, by and large, the position I hold) at best the combination of these facts only serve to disprove certain elements of religious texts. This does little to further the atheist argument since it is known and accepted that religious texts were written by men. Men are fallible and capable of error.
Some atheists accept this and attempt to clutch at straws by maintaining that since science can prove that creation could have occured without a God that proves God does not exist. The flaws in this rationale are countless. Firstly it assumes that creation is God’s only purpose. To assume that we can definitively state what a divine being’s purpose is would have to be the epitome of arrogance. Secondly even if we were to take that giant leap of faith with the atheists the argument fails because that assumes that things only exist because they have a purpose.
One need only look at the world around us to see countless things that exist but are not “necessary”. Personally I’ve always wondered what purpose wasps serve. Although it may once have had a purpose, the appendix is now useless so why haven’t we evolved sufficiently not to have them? What about the portions of our brain which we do not apparently even use? What purpose do they serve?
Atheism is no better than religion and arguably even more arrogant in its insistence that those who reject atheism are somehow stupid. This is why I chose the path of agnosticism, recognising that we mere mortals are simply not intelligent enough to know whether or not God exists. Of course some mortals are not even intelligent enough to embrace their own stupidity and instead reject the only sensible choice.
Recent Comments