Arguing with atheists is like panning for gold in a bathtub.
This one line poem is certainly provocative, and probably dangerous. First I would like to concede that I cannot prove that God exists. Secondly, and equally, I don’t think that is a proper understanding of reality to conclude that God cannot exist. Thus the chasm between theists and atheists. Actually, the term “God” is so loaded for people I would like to suggest a different tack. I think the issue boils down to an argument between subjectivity and objectivity. I find that the predominant view of atheists that I have met or read about seem to take an objectivist view, what I would call scientific reductionism. While this view can be very helpful for understanding part of reality, it specifically rules out any subjective reality. While this seems eminently reasonable to most modern people of a scientific bent, it ignores the most basic experience of human life: that humans are subjects, subjective. If folks would argue that people are not subjects or subjective, then we don’t have much to talk about, and perhaps all that we do have to talk about has been predetermined in the infinite cascade of objective cause-and-effect. The philosophy or arguments that preclude or exclude subjects or subjectivity destroys both humans and God in a single stroke. Now, while it seems quite easy in terms of simplicity or Occam’s razor, to just eliminate God, the “Subject”, from the equation, eliminating oneself and all other subjects seems much more dangerous, even foolish. I can probably appreciate absurdity as much of the next person, probably more. However, scientific reductionism comes to a nice clean and neat end when it reaches absurdity, which perhaps ironically, it inevitably does. It can go no further. I wish to go further. This requires uncertainty, even absurdity. However, I think that this is where the gold is found. Panning for gold can be a long and tedious process, and it may not even pay off for many, maybe even most. Nonetheless, such gold cannot be found in a bathtub, the proverbial scientific reductionist billiard ball world.
One last note, on the concept of arguing. Arguing is often seen as an intellectual exercise. Unfortunately, the intellect has its limits, and there are places for which it is not an adequate instrument to explore. These are the matters of the heart, of subjectivity, of life itself, which cannot be reduced to a machine, at least not with the unintended consequences of killing life. Residing in the heart, centering our experience around the heart, living a wholehearted life, is a way existential enterprise. There is meaning, and we discover that meaning through our subjective faculties. I must surpass or transcends mere intellect. I must literally vote with my life, my life force, the subjectivity that is mine. Ultimately, talking about or arguing about things is inadequate. What we do matters. How we live our life matters. Ultimately, our life is our message. If someone else’s life seems argumentative with our own message, then so be it. A certain amount of conflict and absurdity is necessary in life. I don’t think many would argue with that. Though feel free to pan my views…
