Have you ever had someone tell you that they are a “Rational Thinker”? They then will go on to describe things that they think are silly, like god, religion, and whatever else strikes their fancy at that moment. They like to use demeaning terms while they do it. “I don't believe in the sky bully,” is one I have heard recently.
Religion and the belief in the supernatural is not silly. Just at the moment is the most rational thing to believe in. Why? Because it is something we don't need much faith to believe in.
A few decades ago a couple of people did an experiment that they said proved the existence of cold fusion. Nobody could replicate the experiment, yet millions of people without any scientific background believed in cold fusion.
On the flip side of the coin millions of people around the world experience the supernatural every day and yet people still persist in saying that it isn't real. I have never been to Australia, but when I talk to someone from there I do not simply presume that they are lying to me.
I have had experiences I cannot explain. Well, I can and do explain them, but I mean that I can't apply accepted scientific explanations to them. As a scientist I like to add those experiences to my pool of knowledge and look for patterns. I do not try to explain them without a clear picture to work with. In the absence of a working model that explains all of the evidence independently I am forced to look to religion, in my case ancient Sumerian religion, for a model that fits.
This all boils down to the dog bite argument. More people have reported seeing a ghost than have reported being bitten by a dog and we do not doubt that dogs do occasionally bite.
The term “supernatural” refers to things that we have not explained with science. That doesn't mean that we will never get a handle on it. If we can see it, then we can measure it. If we can measure it then we can look for patterns. Once patterns emerge we can do experiments and come up with theories as to what is going on. We will start with wild theories that only roughly explain the facts. From there more and more exact theories will come to explain the phenomena that we see.
A long time ago alchemy, medicine, and astrology had their roots in the supernatural. Over time alchemy turned into chemistry and continues to be explored for more useful tools. Astrology gave way to astronomy, astrophysics, and cosmology. Medicine has touched the supernatural in so many different ways over the years and each has contributed to our present understandings. Necromancy, herbalism, exorcism, witch doctoring, and faith healing are all places where scientific progress has found seeds to grow. Medicine still looks to the practices of so called primitives for new miracle drugs. It would be foolish to think that we have found out everything that we do not understand from the supernatural after it has benefited us so much in the past.
So what is so rational about “rational thinkers”? The only unassailable faiths are those of agnostics and those who don't care. You cannot disprove the argument that the supernatural might or might not exist. Waiting for more evidence before making a decision is a perfectly valid stance. Those who do not care about the supernatural can have a god rain down lightning in front of them and they will not become religious. They will become annoyed.
Don't get me wrong. I like atheism and atheists as a whole. I'm simply unwilling to take that leap that says that everything I have seen and experienced, been taught, and learned about second hand is wrong and that there is a completely counterintuitive answer that explains everything. I also can't be convinced that there is no god with arguments that only work against Abrahamic monotheism.
Let me show you what I mean. God is supposed to be all knowing, seeing, and loving, and yet there is evil in the world. That statement has four premises and quite a number of implications. Many of these implications do not apply to polytheists.
First let us look at free will. If God is all powerful then he can create a system involving free will that does not involve evil, and yet he does not. God knew at the beginning of time that he was setting us up to make decisions that would result in evil and yet he still did it. If god is all knowing then all of our decisions are predetermined or he can't know them.
This doesn't mean that free will doesn't explain how all four premises can be correct, it disproves free will. Disproving free will doesn't disprove God. It doesn't disprove gods either.
The free will argument also doesn't even apply to a system with a series of gods who share those four premises unequally. We can still have free will even if we are pulled towards numerous fixed outcomes. So long as we have at least one choice in life with two outcomes we have made a choice. My gods give me many such choices. Even so, even if there was no such thing as free will, then one or more gods could still exist.
Now about those four premises. Let us call each into question in turn. If God is not all knowing then perhaps he doesn't know about the evil in the universe. He can be all powerful, all loving, and still have evil in the universe if his all knowledge does not extend to things that are evil.
Polytheists have several counter arguments. Our gods do not have to be all knowing. Our gods could be all knowing as a group and yet not know everything as individuals.
Next is the all loving argument. This is a common argument used by “rational thinkers”. How could an all loving god allow evil to continue. Well that serves to call into question whether God is all loving not whether he exists.
If God is not all loving then he could simply accept evil because he doesn't care that it exists. He could even be responsible for it. Another aspect of being all loving is that God is described as being wrathful and vengeful. This is not something that you would say of an all loving god.
Polytheists don't generally argue that our gods are all loving. Each god has their interests, and has the capacity to love strongly, but do not tend to love everything. Even if they loved nothing they still can exist.
Now we call into question his all powerfulness. Evil could exist, but God could be powerless to stop it. Perhaps he can stop some of it, but isn't powerful enough to stop all of it. The polytheist answer is simple. Our gods can be immensely powerful, but we do not presume that they are all powerful.
This is not an argument that atheists usually go for, but it is a valid one. If God isn't all powerful is he a god? Well, that would depend on your definition of god. Powerfulness doesn't define all gods.
Many monotheistic religions have the all powerful god create the universe. If an all powerful god created the universe, then he had the power to shape everything in the universe. Infinite power implies the ability to create the universe, and the ability to control everything in it. If everything in the universe conforms to an all powerful will, then that all powerful god is all knowing. If everything in the universe is according to his will, then what is evil?
What if there is no such thing as evil? If you have multiple gods you certainly have things that each individual god dislikes. These things are evil to that god to one degree or another, but they aren't universally evil. Evil is a slippery concept to define. It's like art and pornography. You often can't describe it, but it is something you get a feel for when you see it.
Atheists do not touch this argument. Many religions act like they have the monopoly on morality. If a non religious person calls into question the existence of evil or the nature of evil they quickly become framed into part of the definition. Atheists do not tend to like the assumption that the only reason that they are good is because they fear the consequences.
Polytheists don't have to worry about the above problems. We also don't have to answer questions about the one true religion because if our pantheon of gods exists then that already shows that many gods exist, and indicates that more might exist. We can look at the whole world full of religious people and point in every direction when indicating people who have experienced the supernatural.
I respect people of faith. I have studied physics and science. How could I not? I have little faith myself. Don't get me wrong, I'm rather religious. I'm not a man of faith though. I am religious because that is the most logical answer to all of life's little questions. I was raised in a religious family. Religion was simply the easy solution.
OK, so if I'm not talking about religious people who am I respecting for their faith? Atheists! Not simply the people who are atheist because they are angry at god. That's just silly. I'm also not talking about people who willfully don't think about the problem. I'm talking about atheists who genuinely believe that there is nothing more to the world than what they can see themselves with the obvious exception of things that they are told are there in a non religious context.
Imagine growing up in a world dominated by the religious. You have religious parents, perhaps they even raised you to be religious. You know people who have had religious experiences, and perhaps even have seen a ghost or have had some other similar relatively common experience.
. . . And yet you not only don't believe in the “supernatural” you actively believe the opposite to be true. You have no evidence that says it is imposable. You discount all experiences from credible unrelated witnesses from different backgrounds and religions.
Now that's faith!
How much faith does it take to simply believe what you are told without reservation?
Return Home