Disclaimer: This was written out of a wish to challenge the verbal paradox that is Atheism. I don’t contest your ideas or ideologies and only wish to bring to the forefront how the definitions don’t agree. What I describe below is Theism and Atheism at it’s most basic, not as how the society sees it today.
Belief. Either you believe God exists, or you believe God doesn’t. There’s no scientific method that says God exists. There’s also no scientific method that says that God doesn’t exist. You are of course allowed to place the burden of proof upon the side that has more far fetched claims, but on what scale do you measure how far fetched each claim is? Yet another problem with picking up the BoP philosophy is that philosophy is not science. It is just a method of approach, like science, a parallel stream if you may. So, even if one finds support for, say atheism, through this method, it can’t be said that we followed scientific method to arrive at this stance of atheism. You followed a philosophical method and that’s very much different as philosophy as a method doesn’t rely upon facts and evidence but suppositions and propositions
Where was I going with this? I do have a point. Now, before getting to that elusive little point, let’s understand what we mean by Onus probandi, the Burden of Proof or BoP in short. When in an argument, the burden of proof lies on the one who chooses to deny the default presumption. In this case, that would be a skewed balance or, if you want to argue about it, an impossible one, wouldn’t it? So let’s make it more interesting. The BoP lies with the one that makes the more unbelievable and ridiculous claim. Sounds fair? And now we get back to the point.
Consider the age old debate between A and B. An atheist and a theist. A believes in science and science alone. B believes in the existence of a God. Any God. The debate goes to a stalemate when they come to a point where neither can B prove the existence of God, nor can A disprove it. They invoke the BoP.
The BoP. Yet another debate. Who bears the burden of posing the most ridiculous claim?
“You expect me to believe that everything that has happened, is and will be happening was scripted out and designed by a God being who apparently has nothing better to do now than the narcissistic indulgence of being worshiped for it? Tell me, is there a claim more ridiculous?”
“Oh, I don’t know, how about saying that all these cool things around us are governed by laws of physics which of course is the nature of the universe which just happened to be so, by no intervention of sentient design and that me here talking to you is the result of a cosmic coincidence of the nth order. That isn’t ridiculous at all”
Ridiculous, the both of them, aren’t they?
Well, not that ridiculous. Not when you flip the perspectives.
“Science has proven the existence of a God unnecessary by giving us evidence clad reasoning behind what was till then attributed to a superior power, including experiment supported theories for Life, universe and everything. While I accept that there are still unknowns, I believe science to be capable of giving us an answer in due time without the intervention of the said God.”
“I accept and thank science for all the knowledge it has laid open to us. But I believe that among the unknowns that science has still been banned entry to, there lies an answer for “Why 42?” and that is a sentient design. For all intents and purposes, such a sentience is God.”
There are two points of interest to be noted here.
Point of note No.1 – The arguments are not that ridiculous once you consider them from their respective perspectives. In their line of reasoning that is dictated by their base, logic and faith, they make a lot of sense for each.
*************Riddle time************
Question: Two cars are going in opposite directions at 120 miles per hour. Neither of them are willing to move an inch off their current path. But when they approach each other, they pass by without any incident, an incident being the crash, crunch and going boom. How is this possible?
Answer: They were on different lanes.
**********Riddle time ends**********
Yes, it was a lousy riddle. But such is the nature of this debate. While the final destinations are supposedly the same for the paths of Science and Spirituality, they do conflict a lot at the initial stages which sparks a lot of debates. The lack of resolution however stems from the fact that the arguments are done along varying paths. While the arguments from one side are supplied by logic, the arguments from the other are provided for through faith. The arguments may face each other, loop around each other but will never hit each other head on. There won’t be or can’t be a counter point to a point but a different point with its own weightage which will again go unopposed. Then isn’t the debate the one that’s pointless rather than the points and claims?
Point of note No. 2 – Both believe. A believes that the past successes, track record and current pace of science is proof enough for its ability to deliver “God” or ultimate knowledge of everything, which it translates to A as and that a sentient designer or creator wasn’t or needn’t be involved. Be believes that there will always be an unknown to science and that that is where God will reside, guiding all of the known till then and the unknown beyond by his laws. Neither are backed by proof. Neither are backed by experimental data. Both have just beliefs guiding each of them.
Considering all these, we go back to the beginning. Our topic. Theism and Atheism, differently similar. Are they not? Both are an approach to the unknown. To enlightenment. Both are systems of belief, dictated by faith in Science or in God. Both have their followers who will never be swayed. Quite similar, are they not? Which brings us to my problem and why I wrote this. My problem is when one claims that his/her path to Atheism was “Scientific Methodology”. It couldn’t be more wrong. Science, from the fringes of the known, looks at the unknown and says, in all honesty and objectivity, “I don’t know”. It does not deny the possibility of existence of a God. It is very much in the realm of the possible in the unknown, anything is. That would be Agnosticism. When you look at the unknown and say, “I know you are in there God”, that’s Theism. And say “No, I know there’s no God”, that’s Atheism. Denial of the existence of something which you don’t know about isn’t science. It’s basically what Religions did to Science when it first reared its head, like when then knew that the earth was flat, they knew that the earth was the centre of the universe. Atheism, I am sorry to say, isn’t science. It may be right, it may be wrong, but it’s a system of belief.
I shall sign off with a quote that symbolises my understanding of God, Science and the Universe.
In the end, have I solved the whole mystery or have I learned just what you were willing to let me know?
The Thought Experiments 