Defining terms

a·the·ist (ā'thē-ĭst): someone who denies the existence of god

skep·tic (skěp'tĭk): a person who questions the validity or authenticity of something purporting to be factual.

Atheist: Faith is defined as a firm belief in something with no proof.

Skeptic: Good point. I should use the word belief instead of faith when I am talking about positing something that I believe to be built on logic, and faith when we fill in the gaps. I appear to be sloppy with the definitions of those two words. Sorry. 

Atheist: I would argue that the best way to find truth is through logic. The large majority of things cannot be known with 100% certainty.

Skeptic: I agree. Would you also agree that there may be gaps or flaws in our logic as well that we might be sincerely ignorant of, but truly overlooking? It is so easy to see the flawed thinking of others that leads people to motivate their logic from some twisted perversion, even if it is to cover fear, chase power, and act selfishly, retaliate and so on. It is not always easy to see this in ourselves. I would agree that religion is one of the areas that abounds with this type of "faith to fill in the gaps" delusional phenomena.

I also believe that this logic gap poisoned to some degree by emotion abounds everywhere in the human psyche with perhaps extremely few exceptions. Perhaps not in pure science as it is defined, but certainly among scientists.

Here is a crude example of flawed logic we might examine this topic closer with: An alcoholic man with a family might put chasing his alcohol passion above his children, wife, and so on, but stand on the logic that “the pressure of life”, "bills", or the “nagging wife” drive him to drink. Logic would tell me that he learned to make a poor social connection to the value of social relationships and he has substituted that with a relationship with alcohol. In a self delusional spiral he reinforces his flawed view with the very thing that is perhaps causing his relational starvation.

Let me say that I base that on the belief that we need appropriate relational nourishment in order to feed our consciousness (Whatever that is) the same way we need food, and that like food, some of us get relational junk food or experience relational starvation and as a result, develop a social disease that feeds on the host like a parasite. (Please do not think I am saying there are no physical chemical ramifications to behavior, just that there is also a relational one) As people, we seem to have a poor relationship with pure logic. It gets bent to suit our personal biases in so many cases. That is the only point I am trying to make here.

That example above might not be the best, but the point I am trying to make is the same as yours, The large majority of things cannot be known with 100% certainty. By the very nature of life and existence we must fill in the gaps sometimes in order to move forward.

Here is where I believe there may be a flawed logic in the scientific arena:

Do I believe in evolution? Yes. Why? Because it appears to me that there is overwhelming and irrefutable evidence for it. Do I believe that evolution is the reason for the origin of life? No. Why? Because no one has yet to zap a beaker full of proteins and so on and produce a living thing. All life, at least as far as I can tell so far, came from life. We can bend the river of life, but we have yet to make a river of life. I do not have a clear enough picture of life’s origin to make an absolutely clear statement about it, but as far as I can tell so far it always does come from something living.  

Perhaps we should define a theory of “God” as the original parent, and leave out all the “gap” toothed suppositions that seem to emerge from what we call scripture. We don't have to start with claims that TOP (The Original Parent) is perfect, loving, or any other attribute for that matter except what we can see through the expression inherent in life. We might then be able to approach the possibility that there is TOP and test it using logic and truth. We would then be free to look squarely at life for the attributes of that TOP, and support for the theory could be based on evidence, instead of those who expect blind faith distorted with human perversion as the basis for truth.

All I am saying is that we may be throwing out the baby with the bathwater if we rule out the idea called "God" because of the twisted emotional ramblings of people with dark faith.

Atheist: Every idea I hold has a logical proof behind it.  Therefore... I have no faith.

Skeptic: I go through life without a healthy suspicion that my motives can and probably do cloud my logic. I would like to believe that I am not distorted, but I believe that would be an area of faith. I do not know the depths of my own self well enough to make absolute statements like that.

Bookmark: