From: “Matt“
Subject: Thoughts From a Non-Stereotypical Christian

Atheism is the default perspective (well...agnostic atheism at least) when you look at it logically. It assumes nothing. The difference between your belief system and my belief system is a mere preference, neither one being better than the other. Where I prefer to overlook and dismiss the inconsistencies, the contradictions, believing what can't be proven, you prefer to maintain logic and refrain from making such an uneducated "leap of faith." I don't get what those fanatics are so hung up about. So you choose to not believe in God. That's your choice.

Although it is refreshing to hear from a Christian who is similarly annoyed as I am with all of the fundamentalist and conservative evangelical emails I receive, that doesn’t mean there is total agreement between us. I’ve disagreed with Matt on minor points before; here, however, I have a somewhat stronger disagreement.

First, I think it is wrong to say that the difference between myself and Matt comes down to a mere preference, where neither is really better than the other. I think that he is taking the difference too lightly, although I think I would agree that we are dealing with a preference.

Matt “prefers” to overlook/dismiss the inconsistencies and the contradictions. But why? If this a “mere” preference with no great import (thus not being better than the alternatives), then there can’t be any great or serious reason for doing so. Did he flip a coin, perhaps? No, I don’t think so — Matt strikes me as being serious in his religion and that, in turn, must come from some seriousness in his philosophical commitments.

Perhaps he thinks that the inconsistencies and contradictions are worth overlooking because of the moral, emotional, or psychological benefits that his religion provides? That might not be entirely unreasonable if we consider the possible analogy of someone who overlooks a mate’s personal foibles because of the emotional and psychological benefits of being in a loving relationship with that person. I don’t know that this analogy really holds, but if so it should make it clear that this is no “mere” preference we are looking at. This is a serious commitment to certain values which overrides other values — values that are acknowledged as good and important, but put in second place for what are hopefully good reasons.

As for myself, I “prefer” (I’m still not sure if that is an appropriate word, but I suppose it is close enough for this context) to stick to values of strict reason and logic even if they may lead to unpleasant or unhappy consequences — like giving up a religion which provides emotional and psychological fulfillment. To use another analogy, I would rather know the truth about having only a few days to live rather than continue on in ignorance. Better an unpleasant truth than a happy falsehood.

Is one better than the other? Well, I think that my approach is better, obviously. If I didn’t, I wouldn’t use it! I could allow that for some people and in some situations, another approach might be better (in some cases, a person might be better off not knowing that their days are numbered). I don’t think, however, that it is correct to say that neither is better than the other. One is better than the other — but which one is better may change based upon very particular contexts. In general, I think that sticking with reason and evidence should be assumed as preferable such that any deviations from it require strong support.

It is because of this sort of thing that I also disagree that atheists “choose to not believe in God.” Given a prior commitment to using reason, logic, and skepticism when approaching truth-claims and given what I currently know, believing in God simply isn’t an option. I don’t “choose” not to believe in any gods because, lacking any good reasons for belief, theism of any sort just isn’t possible.

More selections from the Agnosticism / Atheism Mailbag...