But I’m Still Not an Atheist

It may be unpardonable to some of you reading this, but, despite my deconversion from Christianity and my deep contempt for the evangelical church, I am still not an atheist. Don’t worry, this isn’t come kind of “gotcha” moment where I have lured you in just to blindside you with some kind of slick evangelism trick. To be clear: I think the Bible is fully untrustworthy and is not a source of spiritual knowledge or ethical principle. Likewise, I believe that the God represented by the modern church bears no relationship to any reality that can be perceived and is, like His supposed “Word,” unreliable as repository of ethics, love, knowledge, and ultimate truth. On these and other grounds, discussed elsewhere, I am not a Christian. Nor am I a Jew, a Muslim, or an adherent of any other religion. But the simple fact remains: disbelieving the God of the Bible and those other faiths does not mean that I believe in the utter absence of anything transcendent, higher, other, unexplainable, or above our current understanding.

First of all, a definition. While Wikipedia may not be the best source of scholarly information, it is a good jumping-off point and source of basic understanding, so I will start there. “Atheism is in the broadest sense an absence of belief in the existence of deities. Less broadly, atheism is a rejection of the belief that any deities exist. In an even narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities. Atheism is contrasted with theism, which in its most general form is the belief that at least one deity exists.” So, to my mind, atheism is the firm assertion that there is no god or gods. Many atheists who take the time to think more deeply into their philosophy (for lack of a better word) would say that they do not have to prove the lack of any god, for the burden of proof is on the theist to provide proof. In any case, it is impossible to prove a negative, to prove that something doesn’t exist, so the burden is on the theist to provide concrete evidence.

For me, this just doesn’t hold water. To say that the known religions are nonsense and that we have no observable evidence of any deity whatsoever does not conclude the issue. An analogous example, one that you might roll your eyes at but I have seen posited by legitimate scientist recently, is that of finding extraterrestrial life. OK, don’t label me a crackpot just yet. I know I wrote about ghosts earlier, but I’m using this to make a point, not to audition for Ancient Aliens. For decades science has searched for life elsewhere in the universe. None has yet been found and a number of theories have been posited as to why. It could be that no life exists elsewhere in the universe. Or perhaps it is just too far away. Maybe any alien life that does exist is at a different stage of development and isn’t able to interact with us or reveal themselves just now. Could be that aliens have seen us and just don’t want any part of what we have to offer. But my assertion is that maybe the fact that we are judging “life” by our standards means that we just don’t know how to see them; we are looking in the wrong place for the wrong signs. We are defining all life by our standards and may be missing something that simply doesn’t comply with our notions. We don’t see proof because we simply don’t appreciate it as proof.

So, back to the subject at hand. The fact that we don’t see any definitive evidence for god, gods, The Force, whatever, may just mean that we do not possess the tools to see them. But the simple inability to see and understand does not mean that nothing else exists. For this reason alone, I am happy to label myself agnostic rather than atheist.

Referring back to our friends at Wikipedia, “Agnosticism is the view that the existence of God, of the divine or the supernatural is unknown or unknowable. Another definition provided is the view that ‘human reason is incapable of providing sufficient rational grounds to justify either the belief that God exists or the belief that God does not exist.” We simply don’t have the tools. This is not unheard of. Bacteria and viruses were unknown before the microscope. The vastness of the universe was unknown before the telescope. The American continents were unknown until Columbus, or the Vikings, or… whatever. Ignorance of bacteria did not mean people didn’t get sick. Their reality was not contingent upon human observation.

I believe there is danger in absolute certainty where there is not enough evidence. Atheists are quick to point to the believer’s unwarranted faith as irrational. They would say there is no evidence for God and that the Bible itself is so rife with contradiction, plagiarism of other faiths, scientific denial, and outright untruths that it cannot be used to as evidence for a transcendent God. I would suggest that absolute disbelief is on identically shaky ground. In fact, hard atheism is equally as untenable as evangelical Christianity in my mind as certainty can’t be guaranteed no matter how strongly one believes. That actually sounds a bit like faith to me.

Perhaps my background in belief is so strong that I simply, psychologically, can’t let go of the need for “otherness.” I accept that. I also am perfectly happy to say that I don’t have all the answers and I may not even be equipped to search for them. To me there is a certain joy in the idea that there may be more out there than we can perceive, but that there is adventure in the investigation.

18 thoughts on “But I’m Still Not an Atheist

  1. “But the simple fact remains: disbelieving the God of the Bible and those other faiths does not mean that I believe in the utter absence of anything transcendent, higher, other, unexplainable, or above our current understanding.”

    no evidence of such a thing at all. we should be able to find evidence if this force/entity does anything at all. If it does nothing, then can you define it?

    Liked by 1 person

    • Thank you for engaging with my post! I think the point I wanted to make was not to define anything but to be honest about where I am in my journey and my reasons why. I simply don’t think that, for me, true atheism will ever be possible and I wanted to share my reasoning for the sake of constructive conversation.

      Like

      • i understand. I do have a question: is there a reason that you don’t want to conclude that there is nothing like a god/force out there?

        For example, I lose nothing if I conclude that there are no animate teapots even though I’ve not searched the entire universe. The probability of said teapot is essentially nil.

        Like

      • Good question! I don’t leave the issue open out of fear of reprisal from some unknown deity. It is simply that I can’t be intellectually honest with myself and say that I’ve reached a firm conclusion. I’m happy with being unsure and having room to explore openly.

        Like

  2. I would suggest that absolute disbelief is on identically shaky ground. In fact, hard atheism is equally as untenable as evangelical Christianity in my mind as certainty can’t be guaranteed no matter how strongly one believes. That actually sounds a bit like faith to me.

    I 100% agree with this. It actually seems like the most reasonable perspective to me, if I am to be honest.

    Like

    • Thanks for getting in touch. I’m fully agnostic. I don’t know what’s out there and I’m comfortable with that. This blog is about my journey out of evangelical Christianity and my thoughts along the way.

      Like

      • Thanks for the quick reply.

        But I feel as though I’ve asked “Are you a vegetarian?” and you’ve replied “I like potatoes”. I’m not sure we’ve addressed the question at hand.

        So I’ll respectfully ask again:

        Are you a theist…?

        Like

      • Haha, sorry if I was vague. I am not a theist in the sense that I do not positively assert that I believe there is a god or gods. Nor am I an atheist in that I deny the very idea of a god. Again, agnostic, however nebulous that term may be, is the only description that fits. I don’t know, probably will never know, but am open to either possibility, considering neither is provable. I hope that helps. What is your take on the issue?

        Like

      • Like you, I’m not a theist. And if one is not a theist, one is not a theist.

        Thanks to the ancient Greeks, we have a less cumbersome way of saying that. “DeconversionBlog and I are a couple of not-a-theists” doesn’t roll off the tongue.

        If, for example, we were not symptomatic, we’d be described as “asymptomatic”. If we were not chromatic, we’d be categorized as “achromatic”. Were we not symmetrical, we’d be “asymmetrical”. And if we were (and I suspect we are) not typical, we’d be known as “atypical”.

        Likewise, since we’re not theists, we’re atheists. There’s no third option to a binary proposition. One either IS “X” (and thus, an X-ist) or one is not (ergo, an “a-X-ist”).

        God deniers (“Nor am I an atheist in that I deny the very idea of a god”) are only a subset of atheism. I can appreciate that you don’t affiliate with that end of the bench in our heretical dugout. But that doesn’t disqualify you from wearing the team jersey. 😉

        Xάρις…

        Like

      • Haha, thanks for letting me onto the team. Semantics nearly got me! One point, though, regarding the a-prefix issue: gnosis means knowledge, so a-gnosis is equally valid per your point. In any case, words are tricky and can never fully capture the nuance within a discussion such as this. Thanks for your input and for being reasonable!

        Liked by 1 person

      • Belief is a subset of knowledge, much as vegetarian is a subset of potato-eaters (re: my earlier remark).

        So yes, we appear to be agnostic atheists (in general). There are agnostic theists as well though, so “I’m agnostic” doesn’t address the “Are you a theist?” question.

        Thus I bristle. 🙂

        Thanks for sharing your valuable time…

        J. Gravelle
        StupidAtheist.com

        Like

  3. I like that you admit that maybe your background in theism has predisposed you to belief in a “something” out there. I identify as an agnostic and I’d often wondered if I can’t let go of the “god” concept just because a part of my brain is molded around that idea and it can’t quite let go. Thanks for your breakdown of agnosticism and atheism. It helped me clarify some things. =)

    Like

    • Thanks so much for the response! I definitely think that our background may color our current thinking but I don’t necessarily think that is a bad thing so long as we are aware of our predispositions and are willing to be open minded. Always glad to help when I can!

      Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s