Hello out there. In a way, that feels like a small child standing on the precipice, screaming out into a vast chasm so large that its form can't be deduced, or even inferred. In another way, that's a comforting thought.
This blog exists because I've recently rediscovered the joys of sorting out my thoughts and feelings via the written word. Many thanks go out to the lovely lass who inspired me in this. As this is my first post, I should lay out a bit about myself. I am an atheist and a skeptic. I prefer to identify as an atheist (as opposed to an agnostic) for a specific reason, though both terms are accurate. I don't believe in a god, rather than believing in no god - a subtle but important distinction. Through popular usage, the term "agnostic" has been watered-down from it's original meaning (that metaphysical claims, up to and including the existence of a deity, are essentially unknowable) into a stance of the worst kind of non-committal intellectual shrug. Similarly, atheism has been mischaracterized as an ideological bent against god or a specific religion, every bit as dogmatic as the religions which they decry, which is not necessarily true. Certainly, there are both kinds of people using both titles. My own stance is to follow the evidence to whatever degree of certainty it may allow, and to fill in the blanks with the appropriate "I don't know." In other words, my epistemology dictates my ontology. The evidence, thus far in our exploration of it, doesn't say much regarding how all of this (Life, The Universe, and Everything, to borrow a book title) began. It doesn't indicate an intelligent designer, specifically one who is intensely interested in human life. Therefore, atheism is the term closest to my own worldview.
Regarding the postmodernist viewpoint, I find it to be an inherently disingenuous position. While I appreciate that it has an acknowledgment of human fallibility and of uncertainty, both highly important concepts, it loses traction with me when it fails to allow for an ability to develop any kind of hierarchy of certainty. There seems to be an underlying concept of "Well, you can't really know anything other than that you exist." True enough, as anyone who is familiar with Descartes' conclusion to his methodological doubt (cogito ergo sum), can tell you. However, this does not mean that everything is equally unknowable, or that one can't make reasonable judgments and predictions based upon evidence.
As an example of this, I have had many discussions with my father and his wife regarding evolution versus intelligent design. The stance they keep falling back upon is that both are ideas created by man, and man is fallible due to his having to perceive everything, and because of that we can't really know anything. My response is that evolution is backed by multiple independent lines of evidence, has made many predictions that have turned out to be true, and has changed over time to increasingly fit the evidence, thus expanding upon its explanatory power. Intelligent design, on the other hand, has not withstood the rigors of logic and evidence, even to the point of losing in court (the Dover trial). Their response, which I have encountered many times and ways from postmodernists and is highly indicative of deceptively black and white thinking, is "well, you can't really know anything." The inability to know anything to a metaphysical degree of certitude does not necessitate all ideas being equal. Still, I consider myself lucky that my only daddy issue is that he's a postmodernist and I'm a skeptic. We otherwise get along great.
I have many other interests including music, psychology, medicine, working out, and my cats (yes, I am one of those guys). I'll save those topics for other posts.
Happy New Year!
No comments:
Post a Comment