introduction
For my first ever post(s), I want to speak directly to the two main target audiences of my blog: traditional theists and atheists.
I cannot stress the following enough: I consider both of your worldviews to be, generally speaking, equally wrong.
I’m not saying this to achieve a non-committal form of centrism on the issue of God–I am not trying to do that. I’m not saying this to create the illusion that I am “above” the God debate—I am not “above” the God debate. I’m not saying this simply because I’m a contrarian who has nothing better to do than to incessantly disagree with people—I am not just a contrarian. I’m saying this because I genuinely believe that between atheism and theism there is a better alternative.
Now that I have offended both of you, I’d like to ask you to be patient with me as I dedicate this post (and it’s second part) to demonstrating precisely why I believe this.
In fact, the purpose of my entire blog is dedicated to this singular mission—all my posts are dedicated to the singular mission of showing why both atheists and traditional theists are wrong. All my posts are dedicated to introducing a new alternative, a via media between traditional theism and atheism. This alternative is Pantheism, specifically non-dual idealism akin to the philosophies and/or religions of Advaita Vedanta, Zen Buddhism, Taoism, Sufi Islam, Christian Mysticism, etc. However, I understand not everyone has the time, or the disposition, to read over 30 separate +2500 word essays in order to be convinced of my new alternative. Because of this I’ll make a proposition to the reader: read just this one post. If I can convince you that I have something truly worthwhile to say in my critiques, and I’m not just another partisan hater seeking to bash one side or the other with unreasonable and biased arguments, you’ll promise to read my blog beyond this one post (or at least read the second part of this post, where I go after the atheists). If I fail then you can ignore this blog and never scroll on it again. Deal? Good.
Diagnosing the Problem: Theists
Sorry theists, in order to make my arguments against atheists make the most sense, I have to go against you guys first. I promise my critique against the atheists is actually harsher than my critique against you guys.
With that out of the way I can proceed with my critique. My main problem with the theist is summed up in the following expression: unmerited objective belief.
There is one major attitude which I am referring to when I make this accusation—the attitude of inordinate confidence in a belief that possesses little to no rational justification. In short, the “cardinal sin” of the traditional theist is the willingness to regard “faith” as sufficient justification for objective belief in God.
As has been shown throughout the entire history of Western philosophy—there is simply no good rational argument for the existence of the anthropomorphic, Abrahamic God. There is simply not a definitive, singular, silver bullet that can, beyond a shadow of a doubt, absolutely prove the existence of God.
If you’re a theist reading this right now, and you’re starting to get impatient with me please just read the next two sentences before you quit on me: even the most reluctant theist will have to agree with what I will say.
Sentence one: we know for a fact that no absolute proof of God has been invented, because if there was such a proof, then no one would be an atheist—if an absolute proof of God really existed, atheism would have become extinct, and the existence of God would be as evident as the existence of the Sun, because everyone would have been convinced by the absolute proof.
Sentence two: I’m not saying good attempts haven’t been made to prove the existence of God, I’m just saying that, clearly none of them succeeded in absolutely proving the existence of God beyond a shadow of a doubt if the debate about whether or not God exists still rages on.
If you’re still with me, thank you.
The fact that there is no absolute proof of God shows us one thing: that, ultimately, more than reason, belief in God depends on a leap of faith.
This is the problem with theism. Now what I mean by this is not that faith is completely illegitimate—there are many instances where faith, not reason, is the default standard of belief. Moreover, I think faith is a beautiful thing, and I am not disparaging those who choose to live a life conducted by a leap of faith—I think, in many respects, that is a noble mission. My problem is that faith is inherently personal—therefore, faith cannot ever be a sufficient justification for public belief, it can only be a justification for private belief.
Analysing the matter from a theological Christian perspective (what I presume to be the most common form of theism in my audience), we actually discover that faith is actually a gift of grace from God. Therefore, even from a Christian theological perspective we can surmise that faith is something enjoyed privately (a sign of the relationship between you, as a unique soul, and God). Faith, thus, is not public; faith is not a communal activity, it concerns the individual soul of a person, not the soul of a community. A person is judged before God as a single individual, not as a group. One walks the path of faith alone, as the solitary knight of faith.
All of this to say the following: if faith is not public but private, then faith cannot justify public belief but rather can only justify private belief—therefore whatever “Truth” that faith is able to reveal to the private individual cannot be shared by another person unless that other person also goes through their own individual faith-experience which reveals to them the same “Truth.”
Ultimately, this tells me one thing: faith cannot justify objective belief, but only subjective belief. Why? Because objective beliefs are public, shared by all—like the belief that 2+2=4, or that all bachelors are unmarried, or that all triangles have 3 sides. Objective beliefs, for instance, can be proven beyond a shadow of a doubt through the use of pure reason, and therefore are easily transmissible to others, i.e., they are public. Moreover, objective beliefs can also come from empirical evidence, and therefore even outside the realm of pure reason we can derive a pretty solid consensus for the belief of certain things like the fact that the earth is round, that the earth rotates around the sun, etc.. Thus, even empirical facts, which cannot be formally proven, can still have so much overwhelming evidence that supports them that they are virtually unquestionable, and as such they gain the status of objective belief.
Contrastingly, a subjective belief is private, shared only with oneself—like the belief in God. Subjective beliefs cannot be proven beyond a shadow a doubt through the use of pure reason, nor can they be supported beyond reasonable doubt through science, and therefore, instead they rely on a personal experience of conversion, a personal experience of spiritual epiphany, a transfiguration of the self, i.e., a leap of faith.
Ultimately, the problem with theists is when they outstep their boundaries and claim that faith can be used as a justification for objective belief, rather than subjective belief. When theists rely on personal faith as a good testament for convincing others of the objectivity of the Truth of God and Scripture, they are committing an error, because the “Truth of God and Scripture” is only a subjective Truth.
I should clarify: the problem is not that theists want to share their beliefs with others—I have no problem with that. The problem is that theists think they can convince others of an objective Truth (a truth for all of us), when in reality faith can only justify a subjective Truth (a truth for the self).
In essence, the root of the problem is this: faith cannot rationally oblige people to adopt a particular belief; only reason can do that. If I were to make a claim that unicorns are real because of a leap of faith, I would be entirely entitled to that belief, i.e., it would be a subjective private Truth. However, no one else but me would be rationally obligated to accept the truth of my belief. Why? Because only rational arguments can rationally oblige someone to change their point of view. Faith cannot do this.
Faith is not the source of rational obligation; faith is only the source of super-rational obligation, i.e., faith transcends reason. The theist can only claim the Truth of their beliefs from a subjective, private sense; he cannot obligate another man to accept a certain Truth merely on account of faith.
That’s it for the my critique of the theists, check out my next post for my critique of the atheists.
Leave a Reply