Received 1.21.2002

How can you prove there isn’t a god, just as you can’t prove there is though? Agnosticism is a better choice because it is a truer acceptance of reality. In reality, you cannot prove there isn’t a god any more than you can prove there is, so why try to stand at an equally, maybe a little stronger, but just as improvable standpoint? 

Justin

My Reply:

Justin, thanks for writing. There are many things that we cannot disprove, but that doesn't necessarily mean that we should not make a decision about whether or not we believe in them.

Perhaps the atheist / agnostic distinction is merely a personal choice based on the weight of one's convictions. In many of the stories I hear about religious people who become atheists, agnosticism is just a stopping point the middle of the journey. It is a comfortable position to have while wrestling with what one suspects is true (atheism) and their religious upbringing.

Part of what convinced me that there were no gods was not just the lack of evidence, but the way religion seems to be a product of our psychology.  Religion is a creation spawned in response to man's biggest hopes, fears and insecurities.  Just think about some of the core ideas in Christianity:

• After death things only get better!
• People who have wronged you will all be punished for an eternity.
• Random evil things that happen everyday in fact play some mysterious role for the greater good.
• The entire universe was created just for man.
• We are created in the image of an omnipotent god and are the objects of his eternal love.

To me these things seem like obvious projections of our humanity and egos.  I realize that more vague notions of a higher power may satisfy fewer of these needs, but they still provide easy answers to some of the big questions that we never be able to answer adequately from our limited perspective in time and space.


This topic has come up before. Here is a link to that letter.

5.8.2001 A philosophy student in the U.K. asks why it is okay for the religious to believe things simply because it is how they feel while atheists must have a thorough understanding of religion and science to defend their beliefs from constant scrutiny.

Reply from another reader.  Received 2.2.2002

Dear Closet Atheist - 
You made a valuable distinction in explaining the choice between atheism and agnosticism as a matter of belief.

Strictly speaking, atheism is an untenable position - to say there is no god is to either make an assertion based on limited knowledge or to claim to know all things. An analogy: one man claims there is a Venusian spacecraft buried somewhere in Alaska while another man says there is not. To prove that there truly is no spacecraft buried one must dig up the entire state - an arduous task. Similarly, to prove there is no god, one must uncover every square inch of the universe.

I don't believe there is a god anywhere. I just can't prove it. (although I can make a pretty good argument that the gods so far "revealed" are not likely candidates for the position of god.)

take care - 
Paul

Reply from another reader.  Received 2.7.2002

Dear Closet Atheist:

Recently you discussed Atheism vs. Agnosticism and how religion is an obvious projection of man's wants/needs. I couldn't agree with you more. For some reason, it is an issue I don't see mentioned often. It seems quite obvious that man created god. Life after death, a higher power to watch over and help you etc, is appealing. God represents a surrogate "Father" and religion is mankind's surrogate family.

Many Atheists take the position of trying to sway others to the reality of no god (just as many Christians do the opposite). It is a position I dislike, I sort of feel that the need to convince others reflects an inner insecurity. However, I wonder if some Christians (and other religions, but my personal experience has been mostly with Christians) are better off with their beliefs, real or not. Ignorance is bliss and I sometimes feel that many people do need religion and a god. God doesn't exist, but maybe it is only the belief that is relevant. Sort of a placebo effect I suppose. It is just a thought though. 

I figure, if it makes them happy, and they respect my differences, they can believe in whatever they want. I am curious of what other Atheists think of this.

Karen

My Reply:

I think you are right, mutual respect is the ideal.  If a person's beliefs bring them happiness or serenity, and they also respect the beliefs of others, then let nobody interfere.  The things about Christianity that trouble me the most are the aspects that I would describe as disrespectful.  Primarily, these are the constant drive to convert others, the frequent assumption that non-Christians are less moral, and the organized efforts to legislate Christianity.

On your last point, I imagine that the people who need religion will eventually find it, and those who don't are more likely to lose it.  In the end, everyone has what they need.