Think

To Be Or Not To Be ... Part 3

Most believers would argue absolutely convinced that their religion is the "true" one and therefore they have all the rights to deny any other form of worship even if the differences are insignificant.
The truth is that when it comes to divinity, human arrogance is employed to great extends by both theists and atheists. Both groups make similar effort to define extensively the attributes of Almighty and All-knowingly, but nonetheless, fictitious beings in both cases.

With other words, atheists use their imagination to outline beings that are impossible to exist because of their extraordinary attributes. Theists, on the other hand use their imagination to define real beings but so out-of-ordinary that humble common people cannot never perceive them.

And here is where human arrogance undermines both group efforts:

Though the human form and body are fragile and arguably ill-conceived to embody absolutely mighty entities, most of religion, out of overrated human self-esteem would depict their imaginary deities similar to believers.

This likeness might have made sense in early times of humankind when man could relate more to a human form. Today, though, believers have to make great efforts to suppress questioning the piling issues of these aspects of the religion.

Ancient Greek saw the inconsistency and postulated that gods are supernatural which meant that they were fundamentally different from human beings or anything on earth. Despite this, theists consistently describe their gods sharing so many characteristics with humans that it is more than obvious that gods were made in the image of man and not the other way around.

Nevertheless, across the barricade, atheists undermine their philosophy with approaches similar to that of theists. They would look for concrete proofs for divine existence using the limited capabilities and findings of the current human race. Said otherwise, they would accept as absolutely perfect, a measurement carried out with a proven imperfect tool.

Atheist would strongly reject "believe, and not ask questions or doubt" demand as an unacceptable manner in which religious doctrines hide the abundant self-contradictions of their religion. They would say that considering thinking, researching or disputing a fact as sinful is unjust, immoral, unethical and primitive.

Still, atheist seem to be oblivious to the fact that their whole philosophy is based on no less self-contradictory conceptions and claims which if inquired further they would reveal very uncomfortable logical complications.

As the religion protect their inconsistencies with holly threats, the atheists try to divert the thinking minds away from their fragile argumentation attributing certain a priori high scientific and philosophical values to their proclamations. The threat of sin in religion is replaced in atheism by the threat of branding anyone who challenges its philosophy as "ignorant, innately backward, obscurantist, irrational and dangerous".

Even more, one of the most commonly used defenses of their position is that they cannot admit as true what is not endorsed by science. Meaning that unlike the religious followers who blindly believe in divine existence based on hearsay evidences, atheists would accept solely the arguments of science in making their decisions.

„Unacceptable, unless scientifically proven", would be the commonly used syntagm to put an academic spin to a debate and many atheists would resort to it as an end argument.

This may seem a very comfortable and logically secure position. Except that it is not.

To substantiate this position, atheists would have to be proficient in absolutely every field of science. Else, they would have to rely on proofs they do not understand which would put them in a position "to blindly believe". They would have to accept as true the assertions of individuals claimed to be representatives of sciences they cannot comprehend.

And that position will turn them into no less than „blind believers", therefore no different than the religious believers.

In fact, logical inconsistencies are  common in most statements of atheism revealing them as shallowly founded as religious claims it vehemently criticizes.

The above example may seem an overstated, an adversely sought twist of terms but quite seldom within the atheist rhetoric. Another atheist philosophy presumptions is that being embraced mainly by educated people it must be preponderantly logical in its essence.

Then let's forget the minor interpretations and refer straight to the prerequisite for atheism itself: the absolute denial of divinity. This is the fundamental condition without which the entire atheist philosophy becomes groundless. And yet, our limited knowledge and finite minds cannot determine, understand any absolutes that define either elements of reality or the reality as a whole.

Consequently, as troubling this may be, it is logically impossible for us, humans to make absolute truth claims or absolute negative statements. As much as we have tried to find absolutes, so far everything remains relative and consequently, there is no actual reality. Ultimately, there is no authority for deciding if an action is positive or negative, right or wrong.

Therefore to say, "There is no God" would be illogical simply because such statement would imply absolute understanding of the whole universe from beginning to end. Since that is impossible, the most anyone can logically say is "With the limited knowledge I have, I do not believe there is a God."

A very reasonable position which, however, hardly serves the cause. Limited knowledge implies that outside our knowledge a lot is possible, including the possible existence of gods.

But limited knowledge does not seem a reason strong enough to curb atheists' enthusiasm.

To solve the problem, they will resort to another undeniable truth of their philosophy: the absolute success of human science.

Atheists believe that through relentless exploration, research and hard work, one day humans will breach any barrier and be able to know it all and so explain and understand all the mysteries of the universe.

Another seemingly reasonable assertion, if its implications are not considered. One of which may be that the future human they envisage, possessing absolute understanding and knowledge and implicitly absolute power, is the textbook definition of a god.

Therefore, if, through atheists' own assertions, human-gods are possible in the remote future, would it be perfectly logical to accept divine existence in the present?

End of To Be Or Not To Be ... Part 3