Today I read my good friend Jacinda's latest post on her blog and I hope she doesn't mind me continuing the discussion here. This morning I've had too much coffee to concentrate on my homework.
Jacinda and her husband Matt are American Christians. They are very devoted and are more devoted, I would say, than most of the Christians we are used to in New Zealand. I have to add here, that for this I admire them.
Jacinda writes:
I recently read a couple of books about atheism because I am always interested in different belief (or in this case non-belief) systems. I didn't read them extremely closely, partly because I don't want to devote a ton of time to them and partly because the arguments in the first one were disappointingly weak. The books I chose were: What Is Atheism? A Short Introduction by Douglas E. Krueger & The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins. They were interesting and now I have a better understanding of atheism and its beef with specifically Christianity. But especially in Krueger's book, I felt that while he gave many reasons why he believes Christianity to be false, he doesn't every say why he believes atheism is true. I was hoping to read a book that would give me the answer to this question: "Atheism is true because..." but the author only gave answers to "Christianity is a crock because..." So that was a big disappointment. It was pretty hostile toward Christianity as well, but I guess I'm biased, even though I tried really hard to read it with an open mind.
My comment is this:
Now that I work with scientists I have more of an insight into the true world of atheism. By nature, scientists are cynical. I get a little tired of how much they moan about and make fun of religion and alternative health (those are the big ones), however I now understand the fact that arguing a point and producing evidence is the very core of a scientist's career and success. Being an atheist is about anti-believing in things, not believing in atheism, if you get my drift. So the passionate scientists (usually) who write books such as those have one aim: to disrepute all the evidence that Christians have for believing, because they don't believe it is truly evidence. It's a very interesting conundrum...
However after posting that comment on Jacinda's blog, it got me thinking more (blame the coffee). Scientists make careers out of proving things by finding rigorous data to support their claims. When they (we) can't find enough rigorous data to support our claims, we resort to disproving the opposite of the claim as another way of supporting the original claim.
So, by that logic, does that mean that scientists are clutching at straws, by simply trying to disprove claims of an existent god? At the same time, the proof by which God-fearers claim to live by is rather scant in the eyes of the cynic. It's usually emotional, from my experience e.g. "I know God exists because I can feel His love and guidance", which is fair enough for those people. While this emotional evidence may seem completely worthy and indestructible from the believer's point of view, it is not hard to understand why scientists (and cynics in general) find it difficult to stomach this 'evidence'.
As a digression, there are also many scientists who do believe in God, or some other form of higher being, which I think is rather interesting.
What annoys me, and most cynics/ non-believers/ scientists, I would say, are those religious people who claim to be better than the non-believers simply because they have the love of and belief in their God. I appreciate that they may want others to be exposed to their world, but I don't appreciate it if those 'believers' don't even act like good citizens. How is it that I'm a non-believing, respectful citizen, but because you have your God, you are better? Some scientists are annoyed by the mere fact that 'those people' can belive in something whole-heartedly for which concrete evidence does not exist (hence the alternative health arguements also).
However, going back to my original comment, scientists are put on this earth, you might say, to do their best to prove and disprove anything at all. With that in mind, the scientist/ cynic vs. believer/ I'm-better-than-you debate will continue to provide me (and others) with much entertainment for a long time.
Like I said, blame the coffee. I am not responsible for what I have written. I am not trying to offend anyone, it's really just a lot of drivel. Inspired drivel, I might add.
;)
4 comments:
I really wish we could see each other in person because I know our conversation would be immensely satisfying for me! (-: I really liked your post and thought the points you brought up were very interesting...things I hadn't thought of before. You sort of touched on it a little, but I always wondered why it seems that most of the time you hear atheists trying to bash Christianity and I wonder, if you don't believe it, why are you devoting your entire life to refuting it?? I'm sure these are just the vocal atheists and that there are much more amiable atheists out there! I like this conversation.
I miss you! (-:
i'm glad... i'd hoped you wouldn't be offended in any way :) i miss you too, i've been so crap lately, i really need to write!
I believe that the atheists who write that kind of book and devote so much time to it and the 'bible-bashers' are both at the extreme ends of their beliefs. In between are the ordinary people who go about thier daily lives helping others and not harming anyone . Be it believers or non-believers, they are the rocks of our society.
I believe you drank too much coffee.
Perhaps I have too.
Most of the people where I live believe that civilised society is based on the teachings of Christus, and had he not existed we would be all living like lawless savages, you must pay church tax every month and not work on sundays or you will not make it into heaven, people have crucifixes in thier gardens(Exodus 20:4) and the Christian Democrats control the government.
Yet if I ask somebody if the pope really needs thier 70 euro a month more than they do, or that if God was paying a touch more attention to the suffering of the palestinians rather than who´s mowing the lawn on sunday then the world might be a better place I´m ridiculing them.
I think discussion is a good thing, I think when it comes to religion there needs to be more of it, I think we need a radical atheist or two to try and balance the thousands of radical christians, I think moderate opinions don´t provoke discussion like radical ones do, I think too much when I´m overcaffeinated.
Post a Comment