A crisis of faith implies that I am struggling, that I am depressed, that I, in some way, anguish to be wrong over the issue.
There are plenty of atheists who see their disbelief as problematic, and wish that they might be proven wrong. I am not one of those disappointed atheists, not because I think that religion is a terrible, viral infection (though I think that).
I am happy that I don't believe, because I think the world is beautiful in its simplicity, in its independence, and in the processes that drive it. Evolution epitomizes elegance, just as physics and mathematics lay a foundation for understanding the universe.
The continuity of the learning process, the ability to expand my consciousness through observation, through research and through reading is fascinating to me, and it opens up a philosophy of living that cannot exist in a world where god is recognized as sovereign, and ignorance is a blessing.
Theists wallow in their ignorance, they say time and time again "it is not our place to know god, and I hope that his mysteries always befuddle me." That is not intellectual slavery, dependence on not knowing, and it seems to me that living life for the sake of god, without a self endowed purpose, would be the worst kind of bondage.
This is Hitchens point, primarily, against the goodness of belief. It is also a point in favor of the goodness of disbelief.
The title of this blog is not an accident (just as man is not an accident), it is evolved, and it is a meme. Atheism is liberation. It is not a life philosophy just as being freed from slavery is not a profession.
Atheism is the enlightened notion that it is possible for me to live for myself.
So I leave you with a thought, while I prepare for finals a little bit:
A theist may claim to see the face of god in a flower. I do not.
I see petals and stem and stamen and pistol, but what's more I see the work of an incredible process, and the simplicity, the elegance, of the processes that govern my universe. I see the beauty of particles forged in the center of stars in the dew on its leaf, in the flesh of its petal and the weight of my palm.
It is my disbelief that allows me to see, clearly, that I am in solidarity with the universe.
2 comments:
For many religious people, God does not remove the powerful elegance found in nature. They see it clearly while believing. For religious scientists, to believe that God made something means nothing scientifically. For them, it adds a layer of meaning onto the beauty of nature. But you might be right: for many religious people, science doesn't matter because religion has all the answers. I prefer to see science as answering scientific questions and religion as answering religious ones.
Mark, I have a very hard time differentiating between "religious" claims and "scientific" ones, though I hear that a lot.
Religious people claim that they are using religion to answer questions about "what happens after death" and "how to be good."
Still, the fact that they employ faith instead of any sort of methodology to find this answer is troubling. If we can't answer a question in a logical framework (and, at this point in time, we can't answer the "afterlife question" within a logical framework) then I have no problem leaving the question alone.
Still, I understand the need religious people have, I think. Or, at least, I understand where the need comes from. I just don't have it for myself.
Post a Comment