August 31, 2011
'Tis better to have...?
I think the core value of this blog is the debate over a much more sinister topic. The question I want answered is this:
Is it better to have believed in a divine being and lost (that belief), or never to have believed at all?
Listening to atheists describe the freedom of not believing in the divine makes me wish I had that psychological option. My life has been so saturated by divine belief that I feel I have no other option than to believe. I have been too well-versed in the dialect of the deists that for every atheistic point, I am ready with a counterpoint.
For example: atheists deny there is a God. They say God cannot exist; maybe they have arguments. I say it's impossible to prove that God doesn't exist. You see, logic is bound by the domain of the physical; spirituality (e.g. a divine being) is metaphysical, so proof does not apply. Therefore one cannot "prove" or "disprove" the existence of a higher power. With this kind of mindset, there is no way for me to doubt the existence of a higher power.
Perhaps I haven't heard all the arguments. The best atheistic argument around is "there is no proof of a God, so there can't be one." I cannot accept this argument because - again - proof does not encompass the entirety of reality. Besides, lack of evidence does not prove lack of existence. If it were that easy, there'd be more people with advanced degrees because writing a thesis would be pretty damn easy.
I'm not trying to revive a tired philosophical debate. I am presenting my internal controversy. I can't possibly make myself think there isn't a God, so I have to believe there is one.
Not to mention I just can't imagine natural evolution being credible. Seriously, the universe started off as gas? Then the gas was compressed and finally exploded? Sounds like my dog after eating day old ham.
Let's keep going. How does a lizard randomly generate wings? How does a lizard think to use those wings to fly? I tie a balloon to my dog, does she think she can fly? No, she is scared shitless of that damn balloon. The lizard that mutated wings would have passed out just looking at them; or tried to eat them. There's no way natural evolution occurred; the damn gas would have just given up after compressing. Fucking molecules.
So, who has it easier here, the atheist that likely was taught by his parents that logic disproves the existence of a divine being, or someone recovering from religion like me that knows all the counterpoints? The atheist has it easy I think. He actually believes there is no God, so he is free to act how he wants. Which brings up another point. If there is no God, what is our moral basis? You see, I can do this all day.
And therein lies my dilemma. I have no argument NOT to believe in a divine being. I can't be an atheist, agnostic, or any other "A" word, other than asshole.
I really need feedback on this one.