by Zack Beauchamp
A reader continues the debate:
It seems to me that the argument in support for religion, beyond the good it has done in the development of civilization, is that it provides a certain level of comfort. The idea that we are all just worm food when we die is, admittedly, a discomforting proposition. And so it makes sense to me that the comfort religion can provide can be enough "proof" of a Creator. In short, the acceptance of religion can help provide a certain order and establish a set of rules in this complex world that, when wholeheartedly accepted, is an amazingly stabilizing force in one's life. This force can easily be interpreted by many as divine.
The problem for atheists and agnostics is that they can't bring themselves to wholeheartedly accept religion. Logic to them trumps the emotional comfort they could receive with religious certainty. But as a self-identified agnostic, where I find my comfort is in science and the murky unknowns of what we may discover. It's the idea that science seems to be proving that almost anything is possible that made me change my label from atheist to agnostic. If I can't fully understand the collective knowledge of scientists, how can I expect myself to understand, with absolute certainty, God? I'll stick with Mystery.
Another redefines agnosticism in a fashion similar to the above chart:
A doubting but observant Catholic is a Catholic, a doubting but observant Muslim is a Muslim, but a doubting but functional atheist is an 'agnostic'. The labels we attach to non-religious people are thus not analogous to the labels we attach to religious people because they represent the specifics and certainty of their creed, not their self-identification, their lifestyle, and their observances. I'm sure plenty of Catholics don't really believe every word of the Nicene Creed, but all atheists believe there is no god, by definition.
Another:
Your reader compares the existence of God to arithmetic, and then writes:
Outside of pure abstract theism ("I believe that somehow somewhere there is something big and important, which I will refer to as God"), no religious thought can meet even the simplest standard possible. Atheists aren't setting unreasonably high standards for believers.
I thought that atheism means that you *are* disputing pure theism. Atheism at its core is saying that there is no higher power, that there is no hidden meaning to the universe, that all of this is just atoms bouncing randomly. The reader is conflating this issue with "Which religion is right?", which of course cannot be proven logically any more than whether chocolate ice cream is better than pistachio. "I don't believe in God" is completely different from "I don't believe in *your* God." The most fundamental and important step is accepting that there *is* a higher power.
A final reader injects Taoism into the discussion:
Western religion and atheism insist that they alone know the great truth of the universe and that their truth is eternal and unchanging – either an all-powerful God is real and always has been or doesn't exist and never will. Taoism, on the other hand, asserts that the only eternal truth is the Tao and that the Tao is ever-changing, moving through cycles and balancing out over time. To me, a big part of the appeal of Eastern philosophy is that it recognizes that the true nature of the universe is unknown and unknowable without declaring that an all-knowing, all-powerful being is in charge. The idea is to revere nature (the Tao) for what it is and try to align your life with the natural rhythms of energy in the universe.
The reason I can't call myself an atheist is that while I don't believe in the strictly Judeo-Christian God, I also don't believe that it's impossible or even improbable that there is no greater power at work in the universe. Taoism (or Zen, Buddhism, Hinduism and other Eastern philosophies) is compatible with that belief. Science is not a satisfying alternative system of truth for me because no matter how much we learn, there will always be at least one unanswerable question: What came before?
Western religion would say "God came before." Atheists would say "Who cares? All that matters is it's here." A Taoist would shrug, smile and say "Stop trying to explain the Tao. The true nature of the universe can never be known."
(Chart by John Adams)
The Dish 