Levels of Theism/Atheism

I once had the inclination--rightly, at the time, I considered it courageous-- to watch a debate between two atheists and two theologians in front of an Islamic crowd separated into sections of men and women. At the time I found myself cringing at the points being made by the two atheists and cheering away at the one-liners and sound bite logic of the two theologians. One particular point that I cheered was addressing a point made by the atheist speaker as to how he is expected to believe in a god, when theists cannot even choose which god. The theologian returned the point, demanding for him to show me multiple atheists that believe in the same atheism. Though I applauded the point at that time, latter I thought of how silly I was to applaud such inconsistency in logic. To be united under the banner of atheism IS to be united under one belief (or nonbelief in this scenario) as there is no grey area, you either believe or you do not. The conflict is of course what is implied by such a stance. Theism begs the question of what god do you believe in? Atheism, however, is not riddled with the same questions; no one asks what god do you not believe in. 

Given this, there are things implied in atheism. And as Dawkins has pointed out, there may even be levels of your theism ranging (according to him) in seven levels from hardcore, i know there is a god, theism to hardcore, i know there is no god, atheism. I'm not sure of my opinion on Dawkins' levels of theism, yet i do tend to separate the question of theism into three branches. 

1) The Argument For A God
2) The Argument For A Particular God
3) The Argument For Worship of A Particular God

Argument number 1 is the question of whether the universe, life, etc could have arisen by natural causes or whether some form of intervention was needed. The argument need not be for something divine like a good god. Intervention could have come from something out of a fable or Hollywood screenplay. The point of the question is whether or not intervention was needed to have a universe or life within a universe. This is the question that i place the least amount of faith in my capacity to answer. I tend to subscribe to naturalistic causes, but would be kidding myself to act surprised to the contrary. My answer is simply that i am unsure, and i am happy with such an answer. Our minds run on 'cause-and-effect' software and therefore i am capable of assigning all types of potential scenarios, nevertheless, it is not my duty to reveal the initial cause. On the contrary it is the causer, i.e. the interventionists', role to make itself known to me (that is, if they wish to be acknowledged for their work). If the interventionist decided to play the role of the anonymous charitable giver, than he or she should not fret when the wheels of or mind begin assigning the wrong causes. There are two particular objections that i will address here: the objection that the interventionist did make itself known in the past and the objection that "we" are the proof of its intervention. To the first question i would simply reargue, as other have, that any deity who claims authority by making their presence known to semi-stupified desert people and tribal leaders throughout the past ages is either sloppy or incompetent. I can not be held responsible for my skepticism if evidence is to be so sloppily delivered. Is it too much to ask such a god-type to visit us today, to hold a public announcement or speak with the community to somehow demonstrate its superiorness? Alas, if the causer wishes to be known, then burden of proof falls upon the cause to make itself known. I certainly cannot prove that something does not, not-exist. But that supposed "something" can certainly prove to me that it does exist. I'm not asking for parlor tricks from our conjurer, but to stop hiding among outdated textbooks written by confused and superstitious cavemen. 

To the second objection that we are, in fact, proof i.e. the DNA within our genome is proof enough that there is a designer/interventionist i would simply state that I am unimpressed. Such argument falls victim to the fact that it is only one of many possible scenarios, each of unequal probability. That i am complex and alive is not sufficient proof for anything. There is much complex life in this world (dare i say universe), there is complex non-life, there is noncomplex life, there is noncomplex non-life. All of this is subject to a lowest common denominator of proof. I am one, of many,possible outcomes. That i am typing this essay on a mac computer located in a specific longitude & latitude and period of time is just as much the outcome of complexity as the undiscovered science of the beginnings of life, time and space. The why and how is incalculable for anyone not willing to reach into their bag of religious magic. I, for one, cannot settle for such a mental path of least resistance and thank god (whatever that means) that the scientific community cannot either. Science is a process of rolling up ones sleeves and working, not of settling for comfy, undemanding, conclusions. I am in no rush to fill our void of knowledge. 

Argument For A Particular God: Will finish in time


Argument For Worship of A Particular God: This is the easiest of all levels of theism/atheism for myself. I absolutely, positively, unconditionally, unequivocally, beyond a shadow of a doubt, do NOT believe in a god worth worshiping. In fact, the very definition of a god seeking, much less demanding, to be worshiped is sufficient reason to not worship it. There is nothing lacking within this definition. It's subjectivity is perfectly rational and concrete; it cannot be wrong because it's not subject to anything other than my own judgment. I refuse to worship anything powerful enough to be called a god but callous and arrogant enough to want to be worshiped.