Today in what is more or less a discussion class in school(Social Religious Education) we had to position ourselves in accordance with our own view, or supposed view, on the idea of the existence of a deity, not primarily focusing on the school's most humble Roman Catholic one(hmm). Ironically enough, non believers were told to sit on the right wing of the room.
We went, or nearly went, around in a circle when people gave their reason(s) for their respective position. Two things stick in my head which I will get of the way briefly.
(i)The first being one particular persons' claim that whether or the not there is a god, that we should act as if there is, as it gives us someone, or something, to answer to with regards our morals. The teacher proceeded to then say he would have no moral qualms with robbing a bank should he not harbour the aforementioned belief. Though he admitted this was a reductionist claim to make. I thought it polite not to give my own personal response on a degree too insulting as I would eventually, as the saying goes, get my turn. Though I will outline my position here nonetheless - Is it not an insult to human solidarity to say that we need a divine judicial court to prevent us from doing wrong? I am by no means a moral exemplar but the idea that I was any more discouraged from commiting any sort of atrocity when I did have a certain belief would be an insult not just to me, but to my family. I feel this is the kind of response everyone should adopt when told, more or less, that they are immoral without biblical supervision. We must be aware of the moral zeitgeist innate in our own perception of society, not the so called moral code set down pre-medieval times.
(ii) Another class member also stated that whilst the theist belief may not be one he finds plausible to adopt, his outview leaned towards a karma-type system wherein this could be a way of deciding morality and non-morality. My own response to this would be that while it is impossibe to disprove "justice" as a universal law which irons throughout society scientifically, it is one that can be disproved in the sense that we can see the injustice around us and before us. An easy example is that surely Hitler deserved a more horrifying death than the one he did suffer? The idea of karma simply doesn't hold up in my perception primarily because it poses that our own universe actually cares about us, which I simply cannot see any degree of evidence for. It is in fact, a direct contradiction to my own sympathy towards Camus' Adsurdism which whilst my knowledge is limited on, I find it both compelling, morally superior and above all, rational. I would not say this of the person who said this in the class, as it would not be true, but I feel there is an arrogance in saying that the laws of physics and nature vibrate towards justice.
The main point of this was to outline a thought that entered my head on the subject. It can be said that we are all, more or less, agnostic. In that we cannot prove or disprove 'God' in the same way we cannot prove or disprove pink unicorns, Santa Claus, the flying spaghetti monster, a tea pot in space, and so on(shamelessly plucked from 'The God Delusion'). Though I will say this, does it not depend on how you define God, to say whether or not it can be proved or disproved? My own aim here is to outline how I believe it is feasible to disprove a Catholic, or Christian God, for example.
Let us take into account a god which cannot be disproved. The god of many of the Founding Fathers of the American Constitution. I am talking in particular about Jefferson, Adams, Franklin and Paine. This god, in simplified terms, flicked the first domino of our existence, but has since found more consuming things to occupy itself with. It cares nothing for our continued existence, much less about whether or not some of us are homosexual, or whether we eat pork, or whether or not our foreskin has been bladed off, or more commonly hacked off with a stone. This god cannot be disproved by its' very definition. To say that this god set the laws in place but has since taken no interest is a losing game from the outset. A deist could say the proof exists in us, and the lack of any other form of proof, is in fact further proof. It is what I call a logical circle. This god cannot be proved, or disproved. We can be nothing but agnostic towards deistic beliefs.
A Christian God is a bit different, is it not? A Theism such as this has the inherent arrogance to say not only that the Deist God is there, but he is infact still here, and takes great interest in the things I mentioned above. That is to say, a Christian should believe that the deists are partly right, but would go one step further to say he has revealed himself through the prophecies, the scriptures, the magificence of the Earth, and so on. This is why I believe, very plainly, why it is possible to be an atheist with regards this God.
Those who are raised Christian, as I was, are told that God is omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent(yet of course we still have free will, privacy and there is still a lot of evil in the world). The main reason I say that He can be disproved is because of the obvious lies, and obvious contradictions, within the book He supposedly penned. I will be brief and touch only on the points which are most obvious; there is no recognition of dinosaurs existing, there is no reason to believe that there was a Noah's Ark, or that there were ever Jewish slaves in Egypt, or that there ever was a Jesus of Nazareth, I could go on but I won't. As well as this, Jesus claims in the New Testament that his return, admist galactic warfare and chaos, will come soon, "I tell you the truth, this generation will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened." [Luke 21:30-32]. As well as this, very simple things like the Virgin Birth are only mentioned in two of the Gospels.
My point is this, if the God of the Christian religions is what they claim him to be, then why is his own book littered with lies, contradictions, fallacies and obvious tripe? In other words, why do the claims he make not stand up? This is not a scientific attempt at a disproof by any means but I feel that the points I have raised are something which have to be considered when judging your own definition of god, atheist and agnostic.
This is why I believe it is possible to be both an atheist and an agnostic.
No comments:
Post a Comment