I don’t think we can evaluate the
proposition that God exists. I’m doubtful if it is even possible to define
“God” or “exists” without having to define into an infinite regress all words
that constitute the definitions. We see
this in that strange term atheism. The
term atheism (French athéisme,
from athée,
meaning atheist, from Greek 'Αθεος,
atheos, meaning godless :
a-, without; + Θεός, theos, meaning god; it has Indo-European roots) is formed
of the Greek prefix α- (a-),
meaning "without" or "not," and the Greek-derived theism (from Θεϊσμός,
theismos), meaning a belief in a god. The literal
meaning of the term is therefore "lack of belief in a god.” The problem is that we are claiming to deny a
belief in “something”. What is that
“something”? It is a thing of some kind
that must therefore exist in some way for us to disclaim a belief in it. Furthermore, isn’t a lack of a belief in
itself a kind of belief?
If I say I don’t believe in unicorns,
you may disagree with my belief of “aunicornism”. But my aunicornism
and your unicornism are coherent beliefs as we both
know that a unicorn is an “animal, with the head, neck and body of a horse, a
beard like that of a goat, the legs of a buck, the tail of a lion, and a long
tapering horn, spirally twisted, in the middle of the forehead.” No such common definition exists for
God. What people who call themselves
atheists reject is a particular conception that they believe that others
believe. For example, I don’t believe in
Zeus, so I am therefore an atheist as regards to Zeus. Atheism comes in many guises, from the
metaphysical atheism of Ludwig Feuerback, the
mythological atheism of Friedrich Nietzsche, the dialectical atheism of Thomas Altizer, the sementical atheism
of Paul Van Buren, the communistic atheism of Marx, the capitalist atheism of Ayn Rand, the psychological atheism of Sigmund Freud, and
the behaviorist atheism of B.F. Skinner.
It is not the atheist who must prove that the Abrahamic
god doesn’t exist or no god exists—a logical impossibility—as they cannot prove
a negative—the existence of what is not.
Rather, the theist must show that there are reasons to believe in his
god in distinction to, say, Shiva. What
fascinates me is how atheists and agnostics yearn for “something” that once was
a belief in God. Thus, the
astrophysicist Carl Sagan professed an almost pious
and awe-struck reverence to the universe as well as a belief in superior alien
beings “out there”—intelligent life in other galaxies. Sigmund Freud mounted a devastating critique
on religion. Yet, he replaced his lack of
a belief in the faith of his fathers with his faith in psychoanalysis. We have no reason to believe that the words
he used-- neurosis, ego, and repression—are any more real than angels, devils,
and souls. Can you prove to me than an
“id” objectively exists? What, then, is
his warrant in his own belief system of psychoanalysis? If the answer is: because it works, how
does it differ from a utilitarian defense of religious faith: because it
works?
Some Christians are so only by
self-definition and are in practice atheists, as they deny the existence of God
by their deeds. Thus, we should make a
distinction between those who believe in God and those who worship that God. Is it possible for a godless person to be
godly? I’ve known people who remain unpersuaded that any kind of god exists while living highly
ethical lives. They are no less appalled
by cruelty as Christians are, and sometimes more so. And their motivation to raise their children
with integrity is not out of a fear of what a mythical god will do to them
after they die, but because they believe moral living is right in its own
right. Even while they continue to
challenge me with their honesty in their business relations and the decency of
their kids, I believe I’m correct in my theism and they are mistaken in their
atheism. But my theistic and their
atheistic beliefs must be regarded as foundational assumptions, not facts.