Atheism - A Faith Choice
It occurred to me recently that believing in a 'supreme being' is portrayed by many as an 'opt-in' position. That a person of faith has somehow chosen to depart from scientific reasoning. Moreover, once a political position has been linked to a religious virtue it is effectively invalidated and not appropriate for widespread adoption.
In reality, while there might be a lack of 'scientific evidence' to support a 'supreme being', there is absolutely no way science can prove there isn't one. As it was explained in a book I once read, in order to know there isn't a God one would need to know 'everything'. Which means one would need to 'be' God in order to know there is no God. As a person of faith I found this oddly reassuring. Atheism, it seems, is not a neutral position.
Another thing I stumbled across was The Oath of Non-Allegiance. Although I've not signed it yet it does resonate with me. This oath is closely linked to one of my personal principles of 'understanding why' a principle or practice exists. Obtaining agreement from a person that has signed said oath entails remembering and articulating why an idea has merit.
The downside of this oath is one is relying entirely on one's own experience and reasoning to evaluate an idea. Which can be exploited by manipulative rhetoricians to brainwash and subvert followers. I'm thinking specifically of 'cult' religions or political ideologies that start with a grain of truth and pervert it for self profit. Or, coincidentally, when an atheist argues there is no God due to lack of scientific proof.
In reality, while there might be a lack of 'scientific evidence' to support a 'supreme being', there is absolutely no way science can prove there isn't one. As it was explained in a book I once read, in order to know there isn't a God one would need to know 'everything'. Which means one would need to 'be' God in order to know there is no God. As a person of faith I found this oddly reassuring. Atheism, it seems, is not a neutral position.
Another thing I stumbled across was The Oath of Non-Allegiance. Although I've not signed it yet it does resonate with me. This oath is closely linked to one of my personal principles of 'understanding why' a principle or practice exists. Obtaining agreement from a person that has signed said oath entails remembering and articulating why an idea has merit.
The downside of this oath is one is relying entirely on one's own experience and reasoning to evaluate an idea. Which can be exploited by manipulative rhetoricians to brainwash and subvert followers. I'm thinking specifically of 'cult' religions or political ideologies that start with a grain of truth and pervert it for self profit. Or, coincidentally, when an atheist argues there is no God due to lack of scientific proof.
Comments
Post a Comment