Atheism 24 - I Don't Wike It!

 It seems that the greatest number of objections I receive to my little diatribes involve points that I thought I had previously covered rather thoroughly.  In the interest of brevity (I don't think anyone will read through a whole sermon) I have allowed room for a good deal of second guessing.  I don't receive too many comments regarding evidence I may have missed or overlooked, and I have yet to receive a comment questioning my use of logic; far more comments are questions that seem to me to have been rather thoroughly answered and my questioners simply seem to not like the answers given.

For the most part, these objections stem from my assertion in "Why Atheism?" published on October 2 of 2021 that the only three reasons for being an atheist are (1) something traumatic happened for which they blame God, (2) they don't care for all this sin and consequences stuff, or (3) their egos are too big to allow for a God that's bigger than them.  I suppose that if I were a Lewis or MacDonald or Chesterton or Warner, these issues might not come up (okay, maybe they come up for Warner 😊).  All of these are men of great learning who speak and write with a great deal of authority.  I confess to none of that.  I am a simple layman who merely passes along those ideas that my logical brain insists must be true.  I further confess that I often fail to take my own advice.  I struggle with these issues as much an any reader who may peruse these pages.  Still, if I have any hope at all of being of some small service to my fellow homo sapiens, I fight on, even when the fight is inside my own head.

I have, from time to time, referred to all three of these reasons under the umbrella statement "I don't wike it!"  I admit that is a childish turn of phrase, but I use it to convey a childish idea.  I doubt any reader had the least problem understanding clearly my point of reference in using the phrase.  It is the phrase used by a small child when she wishes to do (or not do) something and has no plausible reason for her behavior.  It is an excuse; the excuse of last resort.  It's the phrase that is used when all reasonable excuses have dried up.  The child, even to her own mind, has not one single reason for failing to clean up her toys or eat her broccoli or go to bed at the prescribed 9:00pm, and so her only response is essentially a plea to her mother to retract the requirement simply based on the child's desire.  "I don't wike it!" only means "I don't want to!"  Of course, the good mother refuses to yield to this excuse because she, unlike the child, knows that there is far more at stake than merely the child's desire.  There are also the good habits to be formed of pulling one's own weight and eating good food and getting plenty of rest, habits that will serve the child for years after the transient desire for self-determinism has faded.

If only the childish desire for self-determinism actually did fade.  If only we could actually outgrow it.  But we rarely do.  Some few among us may have accomplished this feat, but most of us continue seeking self-determinism our whole lives, and this proves a great stumbling block to accepting the way of Christianity.

"I don't wike it" demonstrates the distinction between "proof" and "persuasion."  Proof is objective, facts and reasoning being what they are. Persuasion is more subjective.  The proofs may be readily available, but the observer must decide for him/herself whether to be persuaded by them.  "I don't wike it" means "I admit you have the proofs, but I've chosen not to be persuaded."  There are a growing number of people who cannot be persuaded that the earth is round, regardless of the multitudinous proofs available.

I've been pondering these matters for several decades.  I've twisted and turned the ideas in my head every direction I can think of, peering into each facet searching for flaws.  In this blog, I have repeatedly invited readers to respond in civil discourse.  I've gone out of my way to read books written by learned authors with differing opinions, looking for pearls of wisdom that may make me reconsider my position on various bits of philosophy and, more specifically, theology.  I find myself terribly disappointed when Big Names of Atheism such as Dawkins, Harris and Fitzgerald put out publications that contain nothing more than the same old tired arguments that have long since been dismissed by objective thinkers.  Frankly, my faith has been strengthened by many experiences over the years, not the least being the frequency with which the counterpoint consists of nothing more than "I don't wike it!"

Pax