Hergest Ridge

Christians often resort to charging hard line atheists with “atheist dogma”. Loosely defined, this is an oxymoron.

I suspect their misunderstanding of atheists is similar to that of evolution. Evolution does not propose that we got something out of nothing, and atheists do not claim to know it all.

The subject of evolution is already described in detail on the Internet and in books of the last century and a half. For deeper insight I recommend Richard Dawkins’ “The Blind Watchmaker” (what ever you read on the subject, make sure it did not come from Kansas.) Here, I shall attempt only at explaining the common misunderstanding of atheists.

I’m sure that I speak for the vast majority of atheists when I say that our core belief is in the evidence, not the conclusion we reach through it. This is an important distinction. Just as there is absolutely nothing dogmatic, fundamentalist, or arrogant about knowing that pi is roughly 3.14, the same is true for an equally firm belief (belief without faith, as in “believing” that most humans have two eyes and one nose) in scientific evidence. Regardless how vocal, outspoken and zealous a mathematician is about claims that pi equals roughly 3.14, he or she cannot possibly be arrogant or dogmatic. Dogma is about filling in the blanks without evidence. There is absolutely nothing dogmatic in scientific evidence, regardless of the zeal in which the facts are wrapped.

But atheists do make conclusions at some point or another, and isn’t this where the dogma comes in? No.

Imagine a crime scene, with a body, and a knife on the floor. No one saw the crime take place, but several hairs have been found around the body, the knife has multiple fingerprints, and the tire marks leaving the residence have been identified. All three pieces of evidence have been matched to Mr. Notsonice and his vehicle. When the detectives visit Mr. Notsonice to inquire regarding potential alibis, they find a blood soiled shirt in his garbage. The blood matches the dead victim.

With sufficient evidence, we have a theory that explains who, where, why, when, and how - fill in your own blanks on why and when. No one need bare witness to Mr. Notsonice’s actions to connect the dots, and get a near complete picture. We deal on these basis every day, and such is the premise under which most atheists are firm in their belief that no god exists. We’ve inspected the evidence, have matched it to a process or event (many times over, in many different cases), and have drawn a theory for a very reasonable conclusion.

There are a handful of cases where evidence suggests we don’t know everything about how we got here, and science is not afraid to admit that such is the case. Only through focusing attention on areas of question can further progress be made, but in the meanwhile, Christians cease the gray areas and there plant their god in absence of hard answers - this is often referred to as gaps in science, and a “Christian God of Gaps.” The Christian status quo is for attributing to god everything without a scientific answer, a practise that makes god unpopular with scientists and atheists. A credible god to be taken seriously requires scientific proof, and need not depend on gaps for his existence, or worse, on blunt contradictions of the natural order.

The bible is not in the least any proof of god. It is an anecdotal account, written by men with their own biases, translated several times by more men with biases, and passed down the line Chinese Whispers, or - depending on your geography - deaf telephone style. You need not read far into the bible to find contradictions that span the whole book. Two creation stories and incompatible accounts of Joseph’s story are but two examples. In addition, the bible you’re holding today was assembled without the more absurd accounts from other saints whom paint Jesus as a mischievous child, prone to abusing his magic like powers through practical jokes.

Stating of scientific facts for the record and clarification cannot by virtue be dogmatic. You could argue that the same cannot be said for drawing conclusions on the evidence, but if such is your best objection, I suggest you take the plea bargain. That which you call proof is either an anecdote, or, circumstantial evidence at best.

As not to give satisfaction to a lost soul passing through here once just to call me an atheist fundamentalist, I like to point out that I know what it will take for me to change my mind. If you think anyone to be an atheist fundamentalist, chances are that you grossly misunderstand the words you intend on using. Fundamentalism is simplest defined as a “strict adherence to any set of basic ideas or principles.” Unless fact based truth - there is no other kind, but with a Christian audience I wish to be absolutely clear - is fundamentalist in itself, calling me an atheist fundamentalist simply demonstrates your ignorance towards the words you use.

If name calling is what you’re into, the most accurate term you can label me with is infidel. Sure, it’s somewhat derogatory, but then at least you’re using terms accurately to describe my beliefs - beliefs, as that of believing most humans have two eyes and one nose.