An interesting, perhaps ironic situation I find myself in.
Whenever I wind up in church, I find myself having a crisis of faith. I listen to the inaccuracies, misinterpretations and outright lies the pastor and congregation feed back and forth to one another and think "I know this stuff is wrong. All of it. At best, some of what they're saying is correct but taken out of context. At worst, it's outright lies. I don't believe anything that they're saying." Except, of course, that I really do believe some of the core tenets of the faith, but like I said, associating with believers shakes my faith to its core.
I often cruise through Atheist, Pro-Evolution and Anti-Fundamentalist blogs. Quite a few are funny, although it's often scathing anti-fundie humor. Bay of Fundie, Fundie Watch and Evolved Rationalist, I'm looking at you. Sometimes it's more thought provoking analysis of the divide between theists and atheists, like Dangerous Intersection. Wandering through those sites, seeing the arguments put forth, I realize that there really isn't any concrete evidence for the faith I have. However, a common argument put forth really brought things into perspective for me. The argument, in its most basic form, goes something like this:
1 - The theist has no logical basis for his faith (cue long queue of examples of failed proof)
2 - The burden of proof for the existence of god lies with the theist (tea, anyone?)
3 - The theist fails to prove god via logical or rational means
4 - The theist should now dispense with the belief in a deity
Now, it's that last one where I see the logical flaw in the argument. I heartily agree that anyone who wants to convert others to their mode of thinking should do so through reasoned discourse. However, the core problem with the argument is the belief that faith is rooted in rationality. Faith can be rooted in emotion, tradition, or just about anything, but I've rarely seen it rooted in logic. Most belief I've seen personaly is a combination of emotion and tradition, sometimes with a smidge of denied self interest ('my business relies on my image as a pillar of the community, but I am not fundamentally dishonest enough to go to church without believing, ergo I must believe, so I do').
However, all that led me to really look at why I believe. I agree with the atheists; there is no proof of god. At the same time, I really don't see any good proof of not-god either. The best proof of not-god I've personally seen has a glaring flaw in that it is fundamentally circular. It presupposes a failure condition in the argument, then assumes that argument is meaningful. To use examples from the preceding link, my immediate response to premise 1 in argument one, or premise 3 in argument 2 is "Why?". Maybe it's a factor of growing up with too many anti-heroes, but why does 'good' mean 'kind'? No, seriously, someone shoot me a link on that, if you have one.
OK, so I don't see any positive proof for god, but I don't see proof for not-god either. I dislike making what are or may be important decisions for emotional reasons, so I have to avoid that if possible. However, I do believe in personal choice in matters of belief where all evidence is equal, so I have justification in making a choice. With the knowledge that there is no proof of god, and the likelihood is that there never will be, but there may someday be proof of not-god, I therefore choose to believe in god.
What, a fellow can't be perverse?
Ship from Blade Runner 2049 by George Hull
7 hours ago