Sunday, October 17, 2010

A Question of Theism

Theism (of any sort) ultimately is a statement of belief, in which the burden of proof or definition is upon the Theist.
Atheism is also a statement of belief and the onus of proof or definition lies upon the Atheist.

From a certain perspective both of these positions’ commonality are that they’re “systems of belief” (not facts) and they both have an obligation of proof, or to define themselves (ie There is a God. There is not a God).

This is a dichotomous scale with Theism and Atheism being either polar end, and the central “gray area” being degrees of Agnosticism.

I’m wondering if some who claim to be agnostic do so only because there would appear to be no other options available within this paradigm; feeling somewhat lost. To claim to be agnostic is near synonymous with being a sort of seeker, yet I know many who have ‘found’ their position after years of ‘seeking’ and have no other position to refer to themselves but Agnosticism.

Agnosticism is either a position of indecision, or one of having given up or having decided the answer is unknowable. They are still posing the very same question: Does God exist? These positions are fundamentally based upon proof, or lack thereof. All these positions presume the goal (intentional or not) to be proof or definition.

The “Black” polar position of Atheism, the “White” polar position of Theism, the “Gray” positions of Agnosticism (in all its forms) all fall into a particular and singular world view. A Paradigm of Proof.

To the Theist, to the Atheist, and to the Agnostic, it is all a question of theism. Does God exist?
They all share the same question; they just differ as to what the correct answer is.
I’m not suggesting yet another method of discovering the correct answer (if one even exists), but to cease asking the question altogether; to change the question itself.
A completely different perspective would be to move beyond aTheistic one. There is no “statement of belief”. There is also no focus on nor onus of proof or definition. No belief has been stated therefore no proof need be forwarded. This particular ‘position’ isn’t one of proof. The focus is elsewhere.

So what good does thinking about God’s theistic and atheistic nature have? To simply abandon this line of questioning and wondering returns us to a position to this selfsame Paradigm of Proof. It returns us to Agnosticism. (Don’t know. Can’t know. Don’t care).
It isn’t that we need to choose or find the correct answer, but rather, we need to find the correct question. I think the problem we’re facing here is that we’re asking the wrong questions and allowing the wrong questions to be asked. We're missing (or chosen to simply not see) the blantantly most obvious fact.
The question of God cannot be answered.