Continuing on the theme of rigidity and inflexibility.
Let us analyse the constant argument between theists and atheists; a person of faith contends that God is undeniable, while an atheist asks for proofs. I think they are both wrong, proof is definitely required but is absence of proof an undeniable fact?
Ask anyone (or yourself) if they are fair, and they will assert they are reasonability personified. It’s equivalent to the questions:
Do you have a sense of humor? Are you willing to embrace change? Should liberty be for all?
I guarantee you that everyone will answer in the affirmative; but let the jokes turn on you and the self professed sense of humor goes for long walk. Ask someone to move out of their comfort zone and the change does not even make it to the piggy bank. Liberty for all of course comes with riders and addendums.
We all seem to be prepossessed and predisposed to take a stand on something without a leg to stand on. Take age old subjects like theism, faith and philosophy. Topical discussion on health care, immigration, environmental changes, family values, education or everything we have a deep deep bias, once we have decided on our inclination then all other perspectives are obliterated.
I feel fortunate to be a bit more open-minded (at least I think and hope I am!), and the older I get, the more I realize how little I know. I wouldn't dare entertain or admit that I know everything on anything, I may have read hundreds of books on military campaigns but will be probably be shot by the end of the day if I go into the field. Reading books on sailing will not teach you to rig up a boat, watching History channel does not make you a historian, reading Ayn Rand does not make you a philosopher (although you are free to grow a goatee and smoke a pipe), and reading Romeo and Juliet definitely does not make you a lover.
Therefore I fail to understand how anyone could be authoritative on anything which has not been proven beyond a doubt. I am bewildered by this black and white vision of the world, when most of the times everything is so grey. Gautama Buddha abandoned his family in search of nirvana. Gandhi was father of a nation with no empathy for his own son. Alaska, Siberia & Sahara are harsh forbidding places yet they have the greatest natural resources and breathtaking beauty. The list goes on and on and on.
Mention one nation, one faith, one human, one era, one theory, one diet or even one child which does not have their Jekyll and Hyde sides and then, I will accept a absolute viewpoint on any topic.
I agree with you that most people have a hard time to say 'I don't know'.
ReplyDeleteWhat I don't agree with you is that you are equating Athiest's reasonable skepticism to theist's unfounded,unsubstantiated
absolutism. You said "a person of faith contends God is undeniable, while an atheist asks for proofs. I think they are both wrong'.
We atheists do not believe in a god (the one theists claim to exist) not because of some ideology perpetuated by our parents and society when were children but because we have searched and we have not found any evidence. Extraordinary claims need extraordinary evidence.Usually the proof of burden is on the person who claims. Theists are sure about a life after death, about heaven,hell etc but nobody has come back to prove it.
On a scale of 1-10, my skepticism is about 9.8 when it comes to the existence of god. I can't prove there is no god the same way as I can't prove existence of fairy or unicorn. So far no evidence has been found to support fairy or unicorn!
An agnostic is a fence sitter (when it comes to god) who seems to wait for an evidence either way which will never come because
an agnostic is not looking for evidence but rather is satisfied with the status quo.Its a different idealogy.
My point is that atheists may seem rigid to everyone else but we have our good reasons to take a stand but also open to new ideas when logical and strong evidence is presented but so far we have not seen any.
A positive branch of human endeavors that supports openness is sceince. Basic tenet of science is to change course when new information overrules existing theories and this has resulted in technologies which has improved human conditions (for example saving lives through medical research).Science has proven religion wrong again and again.
I know you are thinking 'Exactly.. My point'!!
Peace
Venky
Interesting discussions by both Venky and Arsh; Being an atheist (of sorts) myself and in an attempt to see the other side, Venky's statement comes handy "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence"
ReplyDeleteTo be fair to the theists, it might well be that the extraordinary evidence lies in experiencing spirituality and maybe god, experience cannot alway be conveyed adequately in words, it takes a great mind to concatenate the right words (if words exist)to explain a phenomenon; take for example the photosysthesis process or even gravity; plants have been using sunlight to create energy for themselves for eons, and humans too might have known intuitively by observation that sunlight had something to do with the plant nutrition, however it took a very smart person to theorize the process and formalize his observation as a hypothesis. The same can be said about apples, who to their chagrin fell from the tree watching Newton theorize upon their secret.
In My opinion Atheists will need theists to continuously to challenge their fertile minds at least until such time that collectively we are all able to come to a logical understanding of the God concept; For all we know the god concept might have just been a concept for social governance (as I suspect)but instead in the course of using the concept we stumbled upon the human mind's capacity for placebo and thus treat it as a panacea.