The problem with all of this is that too often we boil things down to a question of whether one believes or disbelieves in god. We make it an argument between faith and reason.
In my opinion this is a moot issue.
Both faith and reason have their respective places in our lives, but we try to make it an argument of whether or not it is less noble to accept something on the basis of pure faith than it is to demand tangible evidence as a prerequisite of our belief. Both sides have solid arguments and the likelihood of one side objectively winning out over the other is very slim.
I think that a more important question is what is god.
To me god has become an ambiguous catchall term that serves a lot of different functions to a lot of different people. If we are talking about an anthropomorphic deity that is completely autonomous that exists somewhere far off in the ether of space or an alternate dimension who created the universe and will inevitably judge us for or virtues and transgression when we die and subsequently determine our eternal destiny I say of course that god doesn't exist, never has.
But if you are speaking of god as a convenient way of referring to that aspect of individual and collective consciousness that transcends the ego and has the ability the influence and act upon that which is seemingly beyond our reach as far as our ego is concerned, then I say yes, absolutely.
But this is not religion. It is psychology, and physics, and yes, a little bit of faith, because we aren't quite at that point where cognitive psychology can show hard evidence of such things, but we are close.
By standard definition I am an atheist, but I do use the term god in regard to my beliefs more as a matter of semantic convenience than anything else. Does that mean that I believe in god?
Well I don't know. I think it's a question that needs some refinement, but for most people's purposes the answer is No.
|