on emptiness

In my years as an undergraduate, I had a professor who I particularly admired. She was creative, jubilant, passionate, and fiercely intelligent. I took as many classes as I could with her, and each time was a tremendous learning experience. She was impressive on so many fronts, with one tiny exception that remains a blemish in my otherwise idyllic image of her. In describing her spiritual outlook, she said something akin to the following (I'm paraphrasing in lieu of an eidetic memory) :

I called myself an atheist for a while; I was quite vocal about it. But after a while I just found it too boring. To think that there's nothing out there, and this is it? I needed something more.

At the time, being a little more undecided in my religious affinities and having a sort of schoolboy crush, I thought this was very reasonable. In a world with so many uncertainties, why not side with the more interesting possibilities? Perhaps I too would pursue something less "boring." But that time never really came, as I mulled over the idea and found it gradually less appealing.

One of the main reasons I can't subscribe to my professor's reasoning is the inherent logical fallacy at work. Before I point out the flaw, let me just say that I hate to reject her statement based on logic, since it wasn't a logical argument in the first place; it was an offhand comment about her exploration of that which she found interesting. I even agree! Theology is incredibly interesting. I do want to refute the logic behind her statement, however, because I do see it used by many people as their reason for being religious.

The fallacy: An idea being interesting or favorable does not, in any way, lend credibility to its argument. This is effectively a version of Pascal's Wager, which claims one should believe in Christianity so that one can go to Heaven. Similarly, the idea that spirituality is more interesting and uplifting than atheism seems to lead a lot people to religion. That's a nice sentiment, but it doesn't make God any more believable.

What if I told you about a Utopian land here on Earth? Call it what you will, but it is equal to or greater than your understanding of Heaven. The land is rich with every food and crop known to man, and people are never hungry. Everyone is born a genius, and work is split evenly among all people. No one feels jealousy or resentment, and only kind words are ever spoken. People know only love and mistakes are unheard of. It is perfection for perfection's sake.

As wonderful as this land may sound, you could not believe such a place exists on Earth. In fact, the more wonderful it sounds, the more skeptical someone is likely to be. In realistic terms, something is not believable simply because it is pleasing. By these standards, why should a man believe in Heaven? Why should a woman believe that an omniscient being is watching over us? There are many reasons one can argue for spirituality, and I accept that one's interest in an idea can lead to a pursuit of it. However, I can't accept an idea's favorability as reason for its credibility.

I originally wanted to include "Nicolas Cage stops making terrible movies," but I ran out of room on the right.

But all this aside, I want to refute the very notion that atheism is boring. Anyone who claims that the lack of a sentient creator is dull, depressing, or a dead-end should look into just how marvelous a godless universe is. To think that all elements of our universe have become the way they are without a designer, that circumstance alone had set off a chain of events to create what we have now, is wildly fascinating. I'll need another blog post, on a day when I'm feeling decidedly more scientific, to elaborate on how a godless universe is truly awesome. For now, I'll just refer to an age-old argument that is usually cited as "proof" of a creator:

The watchmaker argument (or "argument by design") states that upon seeing a watch or other complicated human invention, one recognizes that the invention must have an inventor. It follows that the infinitely complicated universe must also have an inventor. Faulty logic aside, I would like to posit that this is a great argument for why an atheistic universe is so fascinating. When considering how complex and brilliant our universe is, it's far more interesting to believe there was no designer, no inventor. A watch without a maker is, as far as I'm concerned, very far from boring.