From: "Jumper"
Subject: Atheism Cannot Exist

I ... discovered that if I simply replaced the word god with the word unknown, many mysteries will begin to unravel. Indeed, one cannot deny the existence of the Unknown! The Unknown is omni-present. It is often feared, yet it is also an unlimited source of inspiration.

Well, if we replace the word "god" with the word "shoe," we'd also have to say that we cannot deny the existence of the shoe and, hence, we'd have to conclude that "god" exists. But have we really accomplished anything? We could replace "god" with all sorts of nouns, concrete and abstract, but for what purpose?

By adopting idiosyncratic definitions of "god," we can trick people into saying that "god" exists - common examples might be to assert that "god is nature" or "god is the universe" (aren't they omnipresent?). But as far as I can tell, we don't actually achieve anything in doing this except perhaps to create confusion and consternation.

There appears to be some confusion between what "god" is supposed to be and what the concept does, functionally. God is suppose to represent a thing or being that has varying characteristics - omnipotent, omniscient, tosses off lightning bolts, etc. But the concept also has certain functions - like explaining the unknown - which it does either out of design or by accident. Although the function of a concept can legitimately be part of its definition, that need not be the case.

Here, however, I think that Jumper is acting as though the two were indeed identical. Just because "god" is typically used to explain the "unknown" doesn't justify us identify "god" as the "unknown." Whatever is "unknown" is, necessarily, unknown to us - it's not something we can say anything about. Thus, if "god" is the "unknown," we can't say anything about it - hardly a position that is compatible with most traditional theologies. Moreover, one has to ask whether believers really want their "god" to keep shrinking. After all, what is "known" keeps growing at the expense of what is unknown.

Basically, we have to ask what labeling "god" with "unknown" really does for us. What makes more sense: saying "god is the unknown" or simply "the unknown is the unknown"?

The Unknown is there to be discovered, bit by bit, morsel by morsel, by curious minds. It is infinitely generous in that respect! It also reveals itself as an inherent part of human nature - we are ethical beings, for example, whatever our little superstitions happen to be...

It is true that there are many unknown things out there to be discovered - but, as mentioned above, identifying "god" with the "unknown" means that once we discover them, this "god" becomes smaller and smaller. What sort of "god" is that? What kind of relationship can one have with such a "god" - you certainly can't worship it... indeed, that sounds a lot like worshipping ignorance.

The entire majestic systems of philosophy have begun when someone dared to peek into the Uknown and ask the most fundamental human questions - why? how? for what purpose? You see, I could go on like this for a long time, covering every aspect of god, answering question after question

I'll bet that Jumper could go on and on, but I wouldn't count on it making a great deal of sense. Yes, a great deal of philosophy - not to mention religion! - has been produced by people seeking to understand that which they didn't understand, to learn that which they didn't know. Curiosity does indeed drive human beings. But what, if anything, does that have to do with "the Unknown" and why would that justify identifying that which we don't yet know or understand with "god"?

Yet it is obvious from the very nature of the God-Unknown that I cannot indulge in the self-serving arrogance of claiming that I have all the answers. Faced with the Uknown, one has no choice but to remain humble

Actually, I tend to think that simply claiming that the "unknown" is "god" assumes a position of having fundamental answers to at least one fundamental question - and that would undermine the entire project that Jumper appears to be engaged in. It really does appear that Jumper is indulging in "self-serving arrogance."

If god is the Uknown, how can one be an atheist? The existence of the Uknown is beyond dispute! What then remains as the reason for the existence of atheism? The answer is fairly simple: there are too many superstitions out there, and that is why we are atheists!

Here we run up against one of the problems inherent in such definitions of "god." True, we cannot deny that there are things we don't know, but putting the label "god" on the category "things we don't know" can no more eliminate atheism than putting the label "god" on the tree in someone's yard. Yes, the tree exists - but unless the new label "god" communicates something new and meaningful not already communicated in the label "tree," there can still be atheists out there. Theists will be the ones who regard the tree as their god; atheists will be the ones that fail to see anything meaningful communicated by the new label.

Go back to read the First Part of this conversation.

Note: This message originally appeared in the Agnosticism / Atheism forum. Read the whole thread. More selections from the Agnosticism / Atheism Mailbag...