This post is largely a response to certain comments inspired by my previous post, “May Reason Prevail.” First, I never stated that Mr. Barker, does not have a right to post his sign alongside the nativity. That is a matter for the folks in the city of Olympia to decide. I am simply commenting on the content of the placard. With that said, I still think the sign is absurd, despite its appeal to reason.
Ichabod’s question, “What makes an atheist’s view less valid than a non-atheist?” gets to the core of the issue – and raises the subsequent question, “Is validity a necessary component of one’s belief system?” I would argue that it is. Which is why Dawkins’ purple spaghetti monster is a straw man. Now, if Dawkins truly thinks that belief in his mythical invention is equally valid to belief that the world was created by an intentional, intelligent Being, then he is either completely dishonest or completely delusional.
The cosmological claims of theism are simple (not simplistic) and compelling. It is the atheist who bears the burden of demonstrating the validity of conclusions that are not immediately apparent.
Theism is based on the premise that the vast complexities of the macro and micro universe can be explained by a force – God – acting outside of and apart from humanity, nature and time. Moreover, the laws of logic, numbers, and physics are not merely abstract principles floating around somewhere in space; rather they reside in the mind of God. The idea that God has mind distinguishes theists from pantheists, who believe that God is everything and everything is God.
In short, when theists contemplate the origin of things, they see a God of mind and purpose. It is not an irrational leap of faith to believe that the intricacies of our universe, which depend on billions upon billions of complex processes occurring at precisely the same time in an ornately particular manner, are the product of a sentient Being.
Atheists, on the other hand, seem hard-pressed to show how the physical universe came into being through raw chance. And I don’t see how raw chance, regardless of the length of time in which it has to operate, can ever begin to explain the existence of non-physical attributes that possess some degree of universality, such as justice. Even if one could present a cogent argument for justice as a purely social construct, how does one explain the laws of logic upon which justice relies? A fortuitous toss of the dice?
As William of Ockham put it, “all other things being equal, the simplest solution is best.”
And herein lies the rub. All other things are not equal. The kind of God who would create humans capable of experiencing such exquisite emotions as we are (including the anger that wells up at the mention of such a Being) and then creates a universe perfectly suited to our need for sustenance and our desire for beauty and magnificence cannot be merely winked at and forgotten. This kind of God does not settle into the pages of some Middle School science text as a fact to be recalled on exam day. The proper question, really, is not whether such a God exists, but what to do with Him if He does.
As far as solipsism, I would grant that not all atheists are solipsists. It has, however, been my experience that atheists tend not to be convinced as to the reality/truth that exists outside of their own minds. Still, it is unfair to categorize all atheists that way. Mea culpa.
Another great post! I think we may think more similarly than we like to admit. I agree that the defiant-atheist stance is silly. It seems, to me, a basic tenet of disbelief in the concept of god to allow for the possibility of error. That is to say, it seems a stupid atheist who would say absolutely that there is no god. How could anyone know such a thing? In the same way though, how could anyone know the inverse. Your theory of observational and intuitive awareness simply does not hold water. What about the natural world, aside from our own egotism, suggests the existence of a human-like god? Intricacy? Complexity? Certainly the inference can be made as logically as many others concerning the origins of the universe, but it is by no means inevitable. The real problem posed by taking the seemingly harmless leap of faith required here is practicability.
Like James said, faith without works is dead. It doesn’t matter what you believe it matters what you do based on your beliefs. So even if there is something inherent and observable in nature that does tell us a god exists, it certainly doesn’t tell us a lick about what we should do as a result.
So you’re right. Barker’s sign is cocky. No one can know what he claims to know. To act on his advice may produce pleasant results, but his logic is still unsound. But again, by criticizing his actions, you’re throwing stones from a glass house. No one likes to tell other people what to do more than Christians, and as I outlined above, they’ve got no more a monopoly on truth than this guy Barker.