This blog post in the New York Times' intriguing philosophy series has reminded me that I haven't stated my position on [Gg]od lately.
I am an atheist. This is not a wholly logical position; I cannot prove that there is no [Gg]od. Technically, therefore, I suppose I could be considered an agnostic. I don't feel that way, however.
I've never seen an argument of the existence of [Gg]od that came even close to convincing me. I certainly cannot recall (nor can I imagine) any that would cause me to care if a creator exists. I have never understood why so much religious philosophical energy has been devoted to trying to establish the reality of a creator of the universe. The far bigger (and largely unaddressed) challenge, in my opinion, is establishing what difference the existence of such a thing should make in anyone's life. If you managed to convince me of its reality you would still not have convinced me that it is sentient; that it has or had intentions; that those intentions are meaningful (or even intelligible) to human beings; that it cares what we do or what we think; that any sort of "relationship" whatsoever is possible with it.
I am an atheist. This is not a wholly logical position; I cannot prove that there is no [Gg]od. Technically, therefore, I suppose I could be considered an agnostic. I don't feel that way, however.
I've never seen an argument of the existence of [Gg]od that came even close to convincing me. I certainly cannot recall (nor can I imagine) any that would cause me to care if a creator exists. I have never understood why so much religious philosophical energy has been devoted to trying to establish the reality of a creator of the universe. The far bigger (and largely unaddressed) challenge, in my opinion, is establishing what difference the existence of such a thing should make in anyone's life. If you managed to convince me of its reality you would still not have convinced me that it is sentient; that it has or had intentions; that those intentions are meaningful (or even intelligible) to human beings; that it cares what we do or what we think; that any sort of "relationship" whatsoever is possible with it.
So I call myself an "atheist" because, even if it is not literally, logically true it communicates a truer message to my audience than would calling myself an "agnostic". I cannot prove with absolute certainty that the sun will rise tomorrow but the probability that it will not seems to me to be so remote as to not make it worthwhile taking my minuscule "uncertainty" into account. For all intents and purposes, the sun WILL rise tomorrow. For all intents and purposes there is NO god.
No comments:
Post a Comment