Breaking a Promise To Myself...

I promised myself that this little blog wouldn't become another glorified gripe session on the net. Fortunately, I don't think it has become this...yet. However, in the course of my using the Firefox ultra-cool extension called StumbleUpon!, I've come across--been recommended, actually--a large number of atheist websites. I'm not sure why they've been recommended to me through this extension except that I had selected "science" as an interest of mine. So, perhaps whatever the algorithm used to determine recommendations is, it must presume an interest in science precludes the belief that a god or gods may exist.

Of course, I don't think the algorithm is flawed. It's an algorithm, and as such, likely performs its functions beautifully. On the other hand, the feedback/input it gets from its users is probably what I have difficulty with. It does seem to reflect my personal experience with "educated" people rather well. So, indeed, the algorithms are not the problem.

In the above paragraph I use "educated" with quotes to draw attention to the difference between learning as a lifelong pursuit and the sort of training one gets at an institution, the former implying a love of learning that is a good in-and-of-itself, the latter implying a bare minimum of learning as a means to something else, say, a career, or yet further training.

My problem is this--and I run into it a lot at the bookstore (and now, on the internet)--that many "educated" people have mistaken their rather narrow training for the Whole Truth, and call upon science and logic, both tools of approximation, to denigrate or otherwise invalidate the subjective experience of their fellow humans. Many of these people consider themselves atheists.

Now, don't get me wrong, I think it's wonderful if one considers oneself an atheist. When someone can state their beliefs with conviction and coherence and back them up with supporting statements, it's a beautiful thing, a true exercise of the intellect. Likewise, for theists, those who do believe in a god or gods. It becomes a problem, however, when one's beliefs are thrust upon someone else with physical or "intellectual" force. It is here where the merits of the argument become overshadowed by brute power, whether physical or mental.

Historically, as the atheist websites are meticulous in pointing out, many of the Christian Churches have erred along these ideal argumentative lines, and erred greatly. I will not detail the record here. By now, for most readers, it is common knowledge that The Inquisition, the Crusades, the integration of church and state, and many more unjust things have been carried out by those aspousing the Christian View.

When violence is done, it is always the individual who suffers, as it is only an individual consciousness that we can (with the most certainty) ascribe pain to. So I will only consider the question on an individual basis, as that is where the question is most relevant. And in considering the application of the question we must consider the broadest interpretations so as to more scrupulously test the truth value of the argument. For if it can be proven exceptional in at least one case, then, its truth value can be called into question.

Of what does a Christian consist? Broadly speaking and most vaguely, it consists of a person who professes a belief in Christ. Christ is an idea contained in a book, just as "George" is an idea contained in my body, which is to say each is a dynamic psychological entity capable of change and refinement according to the beholder of the idea. Such being the case, the idea of Christ is not a fixed value. Indeed, aside from the psychological analysis, the innumerable denominations and doctrines of Christianity itself suffice to illustrate the point. A Quaker's approach to the idea of Christ in all likelihood differs substantially from that of a Catholic's, and so on with many other denominations.

Now, let us say that I am a Christian and my belief in Christ consists mainly in the meaning I take away from the Sermon on the Mount. I belong to no church, I have no affiliations whatsoever to any particular denomination and, therefore, cannot be condemned for the Church's acts. Can the atheist now in good conscious paint all Christians with the same broad brush? Would he not do better to paint those individuals who are guilty as guilty and not lump the whole lot of them together, innocent and guilty alike? Ought not the atheist qualify his statements about Christians (and theists, generally) more carefully so as not to indict all of them, as they may share the same name but not the same acts?

It would be one thing if the atheists I have in mind considered themselves Machiavellians, but they don't. Oftentimes, their websites are adorned with affiliations to groups or ideas such as "freethinkers", "humanists", "rationalists", or some other term which commonly denotes open-mindedness. But when it comes to the metaphysical question of whether or not a god, gods, or other Absolute exists, I believe neither they nor the theists have gained the upperhand on one another. So long as the notion of infinity, illogical existence, and mystery supersede logical analysis, the question of the existence of an Absolute will not be comprehended by it, either. In short, science and logic cannot yet answer that question, and perhaps never will.

I do understand and concur with very good arguments such as the idea of separation of church and state, the teaching of the theories of science (for instance, the theory of evolution) in public schools, and the social idea of religious tolerance. But these are ideas dealing with the way a society ought to be set up and run and don't necessarily have much to do with any particular individual's religious beliefs, for which, ultimately, there can be neither proof nor disproof.

In a purely deconstructionalist mode, not even the internal coherence of an argument can be truly called into question, since we do not have access to any mind but our own, but only to the flawed and garbled output of that other mind. For instance, in one mind, the first thing to come to mind when the word "boogie" is apprehended may be: "boogie" = to dance enthusiastically; whereas, for another mind: "boogie" = crusty and gooey object picked from one's nose. And so, the phrase, "Can you dig that boogie?" can have two completely different meanings for two different minds (with comical results). There are many other examples one can think of, usually much more pervasive and subtle than the one just mentioned. An easy one is the notion of a term indicating color such as "red". The notion of "red" is almost certainly different in two different minds, though the two notions may overlap to form a common notion of "red". But it's easy to see that what one person calls "red" another person might call "pinkish purple", or better yet, what a color-blind person might call "medium grey". Ordinary language can be quite ambiguous.

This is where humans have become quite ingenius. We seem to have created a language tool that is much less ambiguous than ordinary language. We call this language "mathematics". Mathematics is a tool without which the various sciences would not be possible. Or if they were possible, they would not have the same refinement. Essentially, mathematics is a means of expression. The only difference between mathematics and ordinary language is precision and efficiency. Mathematics attempts to express or represent the world. It is not the world, but a rough symbolic approximation of it.

A science is a collection of theories about a particular topic. Take biology. It is a collection of theories about life. These theories are just that, theories. They are not written in stone, and may one day prove to be inadequate descriptions of life. It is at that point that a theory may be thrown out or, more likely, refined. And so, science is an inexact, though refined, study of the various fields of existence. Science is a tool we use to help understand and further manipulate the physical world. It does not treat of things which cannot be observed. So far, there are physical barriers to science, large and small.

Religion, spirituality, and philosophy are the only fields of study which are appropriate for metaphysical considerations, to the best of my knowledge. Science and mathematics cannot answer metaphysical questions. Maybe one day they will, who knows. I have my reservations.

In conclusion, I fear that many atheists have taken up science and logic/math as a religion of sorts, believing them to be Absolutes which can answer everything or subsume all of existence. If this be the case, they are in peril of becoming what they condemn the Christians for becoming, a hypocritical, self-serving priesthood, who have, despite (or perhaps, because of) their training become close-minded to the possibilities of other physical and spiritual realities.

In the same way that Christians of old (and new) have misused or misunderstood the idea of Christ, some atheists of today (and tomorrow may) misuse and misunderstand science and reason. For a prime example of real-world scenarios, one need look no further than the daily examples which serve to illustrate how our technologies far outpace our ethics. Just because we can, doesn't mean we should.

I believe it is up to the individual to gently instruct or suggest other possibilities to others, and in no case to bludgeon them with it. I've only too often seen arguments through force, whether physical or mental, increase the resolve of the other to remain stubborn in their belief. The changing of one's mind is a voluntary act. It is the sole (and tenuous, at that) freedom afforded us. It is the first that is given, and the last to be taken away.

Some of the language I've seen used and the attitudes assumed on these "freethinker" websites has been anything but that which they claim to be. Through antagonistic, belittling language, I can see no other motive than humiliation and thinly veiled self-aggrandisement, not unlike the type one finds out at recess when one child pokes fun at another who happens to believe in the existence of Santa Claus. I ask: Just because we have exchanged our old beliefs for new ones, must we begrudge or deny others theirs?



© 2006 George Czar

The Bleakness

I was busy working at the bookstore the other day when I overheard some customers chatting, as one often does--innocent of intent, absent of any malicious motive. They were two women of my approximate age, which is to say in their late twenties. Since they seemed remarkable in no particular way, I had no occassion to take notice of them except that I am a bachelor of long-standing and self-effacing repute, and, unfortunately of late, taking to opportunism as a dating strategy out of sheer desparation, which means just about any female within proximity of eye- and earshot is bound to gain my attention no matter how remarkably unremarkable she may be.

One says to the other as they browse the "Da Vinci Code" display: "So, who was Da Vinci exactly?"

At this, my ears perk up. In my desparate state to find a mate, any mate, I take what any rational person would hear as an average or somewhat uneducated question and impart it with all sorts of unqualified meaning. As was the case here, I figured, 'Oh boy, a curious one! How I love those curious ones--willing to learn, and here in my bookstore to boot! Golly-gee, it must be my lucky day!' Somehow, in one fine sweep of the mind, I likened myself to Da Vinci--a polymath, a renaissance man, an artist, a man of great imagination. And I imagined, in this way, that here she was asking about me. Who was I, exactly?

"Wasn't he an artist?" said the same girl.

"Oh," replied her friend, "I don't know. He did some other stuff, too, I think...." Then, for a second, she did some deliberating in her head before finishing, "He's a weirdo."

Snap. Just like that. Leonardo Da Vinci, painter of the Mona Lisa, inventor, civil engineer, sculptor, visionary, etc. = weirdo.

Well, if you can believe, it wasn't the worst commentary I'd overheard in the bookstore. But it was one of the more disappointing--initially, at least. Then, my disappointment soon gave way to hilarity as I chuckled aloud to myself and thought, 'Yeah, she's probably right. Da Vinci is a weirdo.'


© 2006 George Czar