Why do I hang around atheists and agnostics so much? Why am I more comfortable with them? Am I being too biased? Should I feel more uncomfortable than I do with some of the opinions I hear expressed?
Well, the first question at least is easy to answer:
I am an agnostic.
It's something I've known for a long time (over ten years), and it's a label that hasn't changed or shifted much since then. But, of course, I keep thinking it should. Perhaps I am just a "fence-sitter," and need to commit to one side or the other. Perhaps there really are no agnostics- for example, George Smith claims this in The Case Against God- and thus I am just deceiving myself about what I am. Perhaps my judgment is wrong, and I am ignoring obvious evidence of God's existence or non-existence.
But I feel, and still feel, that both theism and atheism require a certainty that I do not have. I don't know how many atheists would become theists tomorrow if they had a powerful theistic experience. I don't know how many theists would become atheists if they were confronted with scientific proof that God did not exist. And though I like to think that I would react to overwhelming proof for any side by joining that side, I can't know for sure.
(Besides, even if I were confronted with overwhelming proof and converted, how could I know it was really the proof that convinced me? Perhaps I just happened to be in an emotional state that day. Perhaps I secretly want a god to exist, or want to be an atheist, and that played a part in my decision. Perhaps I want the comfort of a god, or the freedom of a godless universe).
Which leads, of course, into the second consideration:
Why am I more comfortable with atheists and agnostics?
Probably because- well, might as well admit it, to myself if no one else. Because I think they're right. Because I enjoy the logic behind the arguments they make. Because I haven't, myself, had a theistic experience, or indeed any kind of experience, that convinces me that a god exists. Because I enjoy the sarcasm that they sometimes direct against self-righteous or arrogant theists.
But they might not be right; I could be convincing myself because I want to believe in their arguments. Perhaps logic isn't the end-all and be-all. Perhaps I haven't had a theistic experience because I haven't prepared myself to have it (something that seems to hold true no matter the religious doctrine is that religious experiences do not come and find skeptics). And I know that not all theists are self-righteous or arrogant- though it can sure seem like it- so can I really approve the sarcasm directed at them?
So: Am I being too biased?
Probably the most important question on here, and, unfortunately, the one I can answer with the least certainty (ha! as if much certainty exists in my mind at this point!) I like to think that I'm not being too biased, that I really am looking at this objectively and choosing to associate with those who make the most sense to me. But the very subtlety of not wanting to be biased makes this hard to be certain of. I can examine every corner of my thoughts, subject every word I write or say or think on the matter to the most rigorous examination, and satisfy myself, and in the end it won't matter, if I think that I'm doing it so well that I wouldn't see the most glaring contradictions if they tried to hit me over the head.
On the other hand...
The very thought that I'm being too biased could be the left-over remnants of theistic conditioning (or, since I don't really think I had any theistic conditioning from my parents, the last remnants of the theistic culture around me). Why should religion be treated on a special ground of its own? Religious beliefs are often not discussed in mixed company, but why? Why are they unquestionable?
I remember how upset I was when, at about nine or ten, my father told me that animals were dumb. I cried hysterically. Later my father apologized and said that he just meant they couldn't speak, but I don't think I believed him even then.
Why bring this up at all? Why say such a thing at all? Well, my father was worried because I regularly read books about animals, made up talking animals as imaginary friends, and wrote stories from the perspectives of animals. He was concerned that I might actually think animals could speak, or that I could end up believing my imaginary friends were real.
But if I had been speaking to God, and making up stories about God, and reading books about God... would he have intervened? He denies it. He said that he wanted to leave me alone to make up my own mind about religion.
But what is the difference between imaginary animal friends and God? Why is one protected and the other not? There seems to be no rational answer, just as there is no rational answer for why some people despise fantasy, or think role-playing games are satanic. When I ask them, they don't really know. They never seem to have thought about it; they've just accepted religion's protected status in such discussions and let it go.
Or is that another of the opinions I should be wary of?
Yes, some of the opinions I hear in the company of infidels bother me. Some snipe at theists, or each other, for reasons that I can't understand, inferring insults that I cannot see. Some hold what to them are fully justified political beliefs that I cannot grasp. Some of them manifest a hostility towards theists that makes me shiver. And some of them are simply incomprehensible.
Strangely, this objection is probably the easiest to answer.
I know that no group of people I'm going to associate with are going to all hold opinions I'm going to agree with all the times. Why should I expect that to happen with atheists and agnostics? Granted, it does seem as many of them are more hostile to theists than I am, more certain they're right, and more politically leftist than I am. But there are explanations for all of these, quite often given by the infidels themselves. They may have had bad experiences with theists. They may have spent a much longer time than I have examining the evidence for a god, and not come up with anything. They may be fans of certain political philosophers or figures, which explains their choice to follow certain systems.
Perhaps I feel that, say, a Christian should be given more consideration than some atheists show. On the other hand, the theists don't deserve more consideration than atheists. (The idea that they do is, I think, a true remnant of theistic conditioning, and the idea that religion is beyond questioning). If I am critical of infidels, why should I spare theists the questions?
Ultimately, if I want to keep a balance in my own mind and make sure that I don't "tilt too far" towards either atheism or theism, then I am responsible for it myself. No one else can look into my mind and tell me when one way is too far. No one else, likely, even cares about the balance but me. And perhaps I am worrying about it unnecessarily. I have managed the balance for ten years. There is no reason I should suddenly lose it tomorrow.
(Of course, there's no reason I shouldn't, either...)
So: Why do I stay in the company of infidels? I enjoy it. That, at least, is one answer I can definitely give. If I lose my enjoyment, then I will at least have one definite reason to avoid it.
All that worrying, only to find out what I already knew: that I am responsible for the maintenance of my own mind, and that I am probably going to go on worrying about biases and truth for the rest of my life (unless something changes). But at least I got it down in a semi-coherent form.
