playing with words

When someone claims that they are an atheist, there is no mistake as to their viewpoints concerning religion. The word itself, as does the idea, is explicit in its meaning. Unfortunately this is not the case with religious language. Religion often hides itself behind “rational” language when in fact what it is offering is the same argument: there is a god because we desire there to be a god. Atheism relies upon clarity whereas theism relies upon linguistic vagaries. In fact, without vagueness, religion becomes rationally empty: it has no meaning whatsoever. Rather, theism relies upon the individual’s ability to “interpret” his or her theistic belief. This amounts to one saying that every opinion is equally weighted. This also allows the theistic authorities to play upon each individual’s interpretation in such a way as to make it both valid, but limited. For example, starting with the only real authority of the Christian religion, the bible, religious authorities can allow for individuals to both interpret this collection of religious rhetoric and to accept an authority’s interpretation of it as well as is often seen in both catholic and protestant denominations. Because atheism does not rely upon interpretation and unwarranted assumptions, it is simply the lack of the belief in a god or gods, the atheist cannot hide (rationally speaking) behind rhetoric by playing with words and offering implicit conclusions.
Recently, on a radio program that regularly airs on Sunday mornings, there was discussion concerning spiritualism and physics. The discussion centered around four concepts: that there are things that can only be understood outside of mathematics, that the universe has a beginning point, and that infinity is not necessarily infinite. Ordinarily these statements would peak interest in the rational person, but in the context of spiritualism, what the listener was being asked to do was to consider answers that were “beyond the scope” of rational thought, i.e. faith. Although this was never stated outright, the underlying thought was that no matter how much science may prove, it will never disprove religion. Spiritualism is closely related, if not a direct branch of religious thought. Rather than limiting its approach to theistic belief, spiritualism tends to embrace even broader aspects of theistic belief allowing it to reach a broader audience. Nevertheless, spiritualism is religious tenet. Each statement by itself is interesting, but in the context of spiritualism becomes vague and nudges one towards theistic thought.
Mathematics is commonly thought of as being absolute, but no mathematician will make the claim that mathematics is absolute. One only has to consider dividing any number by zero, simple proposition. This tends to cause mathematical meltdowns. However, the fact that mathematics is not absolute is not a weakness of mathematics. Rather, it is strength: a strength that is shared by all the sciences in fact. The sciences are not absolute: while they can prove without a doubt the truth of their premises, the conclusions are at best temporary. It is this openness that science embraces that allows it to continue to evolve. There are things that mathematics will not be able to prove, but this is precisely what drives mathematics forward. In a religious context the implicit conclusion tends to be that the things that mathematics cannot prove can only be proven by theistic belief. Theism assumes a single conclusion by pointing out the nature of mathematical conclusions. Theism relies upon implicit “understandings” that mathematics will not consider at all. That is, until those implicit conclusions are made mathematically explicit.
On the show, it was pointed out that the universe had a beginning. The physicist mentioned the “Big Bang”, which indeed was the beginning of the universe. But in the theistic sense, the beginning of the universe relates back to an Aristotelian concept: that of a first mover. This point was not mentioned although it was vaguely masked by discussion concerning physics. The conversation was vague, not because of the science involved in understanding that the universe had a beginning, but because of the theistic conceptualization of the beginning of the universe. Theism uses and reuses the same old arguments that is has relied upon since the early middle-ages, in this case, the cosmological argument. Intelligent Design is based on the cosmological argument dating back to Aquinas in the 1200’s at least. ID does not refute the Big Bang, but it does refute that the Big Bang can be explained in purely scientific terms. The universe did have a beginning in the form of the Big Bang, and something most likely caused the Big Bang, but this “something” is not necessarily a god, God, or some theistic conceptualization of a creator, which is precisely what arguments such as intelligent design assume. The fact that this point is very seldom ever pointed out by the theist is in itself vague and misleading.
The third idea, that infinity is not necessarily infinite is an idea that was proposed by, among others, Stephen Hawkins. The idea is that the universe may be infinite in one direction while being finite in another. This very convoluted scientific idea was not gone into in great detail most likely because there are very few people that truly understand the concept. But in the context of the theistic program, the implicit idea that was offered once again was that since even infinity is not infinite, there must be “something else”: that something else being a spiritual presence or designer. Again, the reliance upon vague propositions is the cornerstone of theistic arguments. It is simply an unwarranted assumption made by the theist that because a single form of infinity may not be universally infinite that this implies intelligent creation of any kind.
As an atheist, one cannot rely upon vague language, implicit conclusions, and inconclusive evidence to “prove” anything. Playing with language is the tool of politicians and preachers. The atheist may propose that the universe is not universally infinite, but does not have the luxury of vagueness to fall back upon in order to “prove” any point. The atheist is not free to use ignorance as a foundation for disbelief, but the atheist does not have to do such things (as Victor Stenger points out in his book God: the failed hypothesis). The atheist may propose that the universe had a beginning but is not free to imply that this has any meaning whatsoever. Where the atheist must rely upon reason, empirical data and imagination, the theist can rely upon faith, unwarranted assumptions and imagination. By playing with words the theist can make his point: that God exists no matter if that point is empty of any real meaning, invalid, or simply foolish. While the atheist imagines a world where language is the tool of reason, the theist imagines a world where language is unnecessary.
Without the use of vague language the theistic argument is sunk. There are those that claim that science and religion can coexist. I am not one of those persons. As long as science must rely upon clarity, it cannot consider religious propositions. And, as long as theistic arguments rely upon vague language, dubious sources of information and wishful thinking, they cannot truthfully claim to be anything other than hypotheses (weak at best). The recent surge in “spiritualism” does not change this fact. As religion ironically evolves into more open and welcoming forms of ideology, it must ultimately come to terms with this fact. While the theist may find comfort and solace in playing with language, he cannot seriously contend that such linguistic acrobatics hold the same validity as solid scientific argument. To do so is nothing less than misleading and dangerous at best.