I read it the other day in an interview with a liberal agnostic: “It’s presumptuous to be an atheist”. This is probably the most presumptuous thing that I have ever read. What else can you call it when someone tells a group of people what they should believe? It is equally presumptuous for an adherent of a religion to thunder about the truth of God, or the wisdom of Allah, or the infallibility of Jahweh, or the omnipresence of the Rainbow Serpent.
At some point in every belief system based on religion comes the point at which we stop trying to find out more because it is the will or the doing or the ineffable nature of a supernatural being. This is superstition. That is not a value judgement; it is simply the definition of superstition.
Atheism is a belief system. It is the only belief system that is compatible with science. With an atheist viewpoint, one can continue to investigate the intricacies behind any phenomenon without reaching the block of a god whose works passeth all understanding. Nor does one encounter that comforting bottom line of the agnostic, “Of course, there could be a god doing all this,” followed by a self-conscious chortle.
Agnosticism is the ultimate in political correctness. It is having all of the bases covered. “I’m an agnostic – the personification of tolerance.” It is the belief equivalent of a knowing smirk. It is the excuse for lacking conviction. It is the ability to retract any statement to which anyone takes exception by shrugging and saying, “Well, I don’t know if I really believe that,” then being friends with everyone again.
Agnosticism can underlie a perfectly reasonable set of beliefs. The ability to recognise the limits of one’s ability to know may be useful. If an agnostic postulates a supernatural presence based on evidence and intellectual process, it may be reasonable. However, the default acceptance of a deity created in the millennia-old crucible of power struggles for the tribal minds of those who must be controlled for political ends is intellectually indefensible. A true thinker is not an agnostic who accepts the possibility of the Christian God because that is in the essence of the society in which she was raised.
Similarly, it is unreasonable to have a belief in a deity because someone else believes in that deity. Richard Dawkins converts few people to atheism with his hostility toward theists. However, his points are based on evidence and an argument that can be explained and followed. When one asks believers in a god what are the foundations of their beliefs, the outcome is that it depends on faith. There the argument is expected to rest. The protagonists should now shake hands and heads with a due appreciation of the transcendent nature of higher things.
But faith is the antithesis of reason. The existence of a god lies in faith. In the absence of evidence, faith contradicts the logical process. Just as I reject an illogical argument, a premise based on no evidence, or any subjective assertion with no support, I must reject faith as a basis for a belief. This is why I must reject agnosticism for an agnostic viewpoint admits of a precept resting entirely on faith.
It is not presumptuous to be an atheist. It is the only reasonable world view of a person who is prepared to assert the value of reason.
Categories: Uncategorized | No Comments »