Theologic: Refuting Atheism as "Logical"

This idea came to me today while I recalculating GPAs. It took me so long to jot down the notes that I had to call it a "lunch break" and ended up not actually eating. So I hope it was worth it.

__

I'm sure that anyone who catches the sight of this title and who probably also knows that I believe in a "god" would expect an entire litany of earthly properties inexplicable by science alone, all sorts of proclamations about the awesome improbability of life itself, the beauty of it, yada yada.

I hope you know me better than that.

There is certainly a wide spectrum of those who would consider themselves atheists, I realize that. Most of them would be considered agnostics by a lot of outside standards. Conversely, a lot of agnostics could be argued as atheists. By some standards even I would fall into those categories (though I try not to fall at all). Some self-titled atheists believe vaguely in a higher order, but not a sentient, omnipotent entity, not a "person-god" as is common in western religion. Some atheists believe there is quite a lot of layered mystery in the universe, but do not consider it "higher", or even paranormal. A disturbing number of general atheist types have revoked specifically the religion of their upbringing, including its historically violent rise to power, which is a faction I could easily be considered part of, but we part ways where they use this momentum to reject god itself. Personally I find this shortsighted. since they make a point to deny specifically the god of their religion, and in doing so accept all of the terms and features attributed to god by the very religion against which they rebel. Does that make sense? It's not the belief, but the lack of analysis that I take umbrage with.

And again, to a fundamentalist in any religion, others of a different faith are just as good as atheists. So here is what I mean: for the purpose of this essay, an "atheist" is a materialist, a total reductionist. And atheist is one who specifically refutes even the possibility of some higher order, who negates the existence of a soul, who claims that even love is nothing more than a rush of neurotransmitters, that life was a chemical accident, that science is the only truth, all "transcendence" is a function of human subjectivity, etc.

Those are the most extreme of atheistic ideas, the materialist. I'll use them for the argument, not to build a straw man, but to cover all bases, from farthest left to farthest right.

Then there is "god". I use lower case god, and quotes, to get as far away as possible from the connotation of the Judeo-Christian god. He's in there, but not what I'm talking about. Ok, I'll drop the "god" quotes because they are annoying and I'm sure you know what I'm saying by now.

Also, I am certainly not setting out to say that atheism is illogical. The point is that atheism, like theism, is neither logical nor illogical. I'm saying that in trying to saddle the cosmic "what" and "how", logic is both useless and irrelevant. And no, the irony doesn't escape me that I would use logic to point this out. I hope only to dismantle the erroneous belief that atheism is logical, intellectual, while belief in a higher power is emotional, cultish, and ignorant.

Fundamentally, we do not totally know the true nature of our universe (here the scientist would agree with me much more enthusiastically than the zealot). The problem is that logic relies on evidence, but evidence is only good if you know what you are trying to make evident.

In a courtroom trial, both the prosecution and the defense must state their aims before going any further. What good is exhibit A if you don't know the charge?

In the same way, all attempts to prove or disprove god fall flat, because they first presume to know the nature of god. For example, there's a pretty funny lecture on the internet about intelligent design. I will try to find it. As an actual theological argument, though, it's not much though, because it argues that we are too dilapidated to have been intelligently designed, and in doing so presumes that everything god creates would be perfect, or even good.

Given that, lets accept for a second that we don't know the reason we exist because we haven't been able to prove anything. It's a question mark. I hope you can at least accept a question mark, broad enough for literally every belief you could possibly have.

Now picture that the universe is a closed cardboard box. Inside that box is the ultimate truth, is the why-are-we-here. Christianity says there is a red rubber ball in that box, Judaism says there is a wooden spoon in that box, Islam says there is a tiny kitten, whatever. But atheists say there is nothing in the box (or science could be in the box, it doesn't matter) that the box simply assembled itself through a random but meaningful accumulation of cardboard particles, and trust me, that's okay.

The problem is that as a culture we are trained to think in opposites, in contrast, in dichotomies. There is black and white, yes and no, up and down, substance and absence. And our popular mode of thinking is that there is either cosmic substance or there is cosmic absence. There either is a higher force, or there is not. So, for every possible option, there is a corollary absence. For every spoon, or ball, or kitten, there is a not-spoon, a not-ball, a not-kitten. You add all of these up, and it seems far more likely that there is "nothing" there than there is specifically one of these things.

It looks like of like this: (forgive me, I never took statistics)

It could keep going. Add up the totals there, it seems in this case that "Nothing" has an infinitely greater chance of being in the box than David Duchovney.

To a materialist, "Nothing" is the great big counterpoint to any and all supernatural possibilities. It is infinitely more probable that any one belief, yet powerful enough to hold its own against all beliefs, and and it is this notion which falsely ties together materialism and reason.

But get this: Nothing is not nothing.

Nothing is Something.

Nothing is not the absence of belief, it is a belief, pro-actively made. It's strength is derived when two ideas contrast each other.

The key point is this:

Ideas have opposites. Not things. Absence and substance are only opposites in concept. In reality, substance has no opposite.

A chair has no opposite.

A table has no opposite.

A tiny kitten has no opposite.

Outside this box, we must think in ideas. Unable to see through the box, ideas are all we have. That is why spiritualists and atheists alike find it so easy to draw the neat line between something and nothing.

Inside the box, however, is not an idea, but a reality. Even if that reality is nothing. In this case we are dealing with real substance, "nothing" is not the opposite. Nothing is only one of the possibilities, including all the various incarnations of "nothing" that people think up.

So it really looks more like this:

Inside that box there can only be substance, again, even if that substance is nothing. Nothing has weight. Nothing is exactly equal to all other possibility.

The ultimate purpose of religion is to shake that box long and hard, to listen for clues and make compelling and educated guesses as to its contents.

Ludicrous is the religion or the individual who stands back and points resolutely at the box (especially if it is only hearsay and they have never themselves touched it!) and says with utter certainty that "X is in the box", because no matter what, you're hedging 100% of your bets on an infinitely small chance, and that certainly is illogical.

To say "I shook the box and heard nothing" has a great deal more reason behind it, because it stakes no guaranteed claim and speak only from experience, which is all we ever have to speak from beyond studying what the great shakers and listeners of our time heard themselves.

There is, of course, always the option to stand back and say "I have no idea what's in the box" but what a hard thing to do when it is so close within your reach!

It may seem now, from my little flimsy percentages, that I believe it far more likely that something exists than nothing. Not so. Because once you start adding up the disparate substances, you are back to the Idea-of-substance (real life objects cannot be added to each other like a chair added to a fork). Each separate answer to "what's in the box?" must be considered individually to maintain their substance-hood, for you cannot weigh an idea (all anything!) against a substance (the lone nothing). It's nonsensical.

And I'm sure there are those who reject the box metaphor all together, who say there is no interior and would rather fold it up into a piece of flat cardboard. But know that if you do this, you are not refusing theology in the name of science. You are refuting science. You are negating Darwin, you are killing Nietzsche and the big bang. You are refuting every possible cause, refuting even that we were ever caused at all.

You are welcome to do that, of course, but it's trying a bit hard, if you ask me.