Richard Dawkins has come to define an entire class of atheists who not only think there is no evidence of god, but that the very notion of god is extremely harmful to society and people. I think most atheists may share this sentiment to some extent — for many it's part of the reason they are atheist — but don't perhaps consider it to be their life mission to "disprove religion." The rationale often has something to do with all the "evil" (that's secular-ic evil, not the devil kind) deeds committed in the name of religion, 9/11, crusades, and so on, usually not mentioning that history's worst perpetrators of genocide — Mao Tse Tung, Lenin, Stalin, Pol Pot, Hitler — did not have religion as primary motivation, or that most actually asserted atheism. (Then again, the notion of individual "choice" seems to be absent from anything that chalks bad deeds up to anything but the people that commit them in favor of their religion, their philosophy. Their guns.) And where violence has been deemed to be "in the name of religion", it's more often an excuse than an obvious perpetrator, including the case of 9/11. This newer breed of atheist-on-the-offense certainly has something to do with the surge of discontent with science among religious folks, and all kinds of movements to "defend the faith."

I differentiate between atheists and "science atheists" because "atheism" as a disbelief in deity is a choice of opinion made by millions of people, and as such is a healthy expression of persuasion and world view. "Science atheists", however, believe their disbelief to be much more than a choice. For this group, it is the only option for rationale persons, which suggests of course that science conclusively disproves god.

This is, frankly, absurd to me. I'm not talking about criticism of creationism or of specific theologies here. I'm talking about someone claiming that the nonexistence of god can be known. What could be more dogmatic than a claim to being sufficiently enlightened to know, with certainty, that there is no god? Can a person truly be receptive to new models vying to explain the universe and its dimensions and all its cosmic problems — while in the same breath declaring that, under no conditions, regardless of future discovery, in no way, no how, can there possibly be anything but pure cold chance involved in the formation of all that exists, anywhere, forever and ever, Amen?

Okaaay.

By contrast, I greatly sympathize with agnostics who rightfully think that theology is a study in the unknowable. It's not necessarily a logical positivist take, holding that the metaphysical has no real value whatsoever, but — in my opinion — a proper characterization of the nature of religion. The main difference in this context between believers and agnostics is whether or not they have enjoyed "religious experiences", and whether or not they believe that non-empirical ideas such as experience and emotions can comprise evidence of the unseen, personal or not. And, most importantly, whether they choose to be a deist or not. (Yes, in the end, it is a choice.)

Most scientists are careful to distance scientific inquiry from any notion of "truth". "Science," they will say, "is not the search for truth, but the search for facts." The differentiation is an important one, but not because "truth" cannot be found in science. It's important because "truth" is a vague and highly polysemous term that has different meanings for everyone. Some people even hear "truth" and think things like "joy" or "perfection". But science concerns itself with observation and testing of the world around us.

Of course, approaching the other side of the unknowable are the "science-theists", which I find equally absurd. I firmly reject the idea that science and religion seek different "domains" of knowledge. Religion to me has little to do with knowledge, and science has little to do with truth. But I will delay that for another post.

"Truth" is very much an invention of the human psyche. Note that I didn't say "god", I said "truth". Presuming that there is a god, "truth" is still the word that we humans have given to an abstract idea of what is unchangeable veracity, with all the sparkle that entails. We want to distance the idea of truth from ourselves to some extent as something that we could never quite comprehend, or as an abstract but perfect summary of the way things are regardless of our own personal involvement in them, and usually independent of our own existence. Truth is what is not subjective. Additionally, the word often implies the entirety or what is true, as though it could all be summarized in a series of flawless volumes written in flawless language describing a flawless reality in utter comprehensiveness.

I'm speaking here in terms of truth because it's a nebulous concept that most people — religious, atheist, or otherwise — use to describe an ideal towards which mankind strives. It's also an ideal that most people will readily admit is lofty beyond mortal achievement, by means of learning, prayer, or otherwise: evolved humans are obviously limited in powers of observation and reasoning to the scientist, and created humans are plainly sinful and (intentionally) incapable of knowing the mind of god, if you are a believer in most forms of deity.

Now, what I find most interesting about the concept of truth is that it is termed not only concerning verifiable facts or in transcendent secrets, but also to arts. Literature, music, and the whole of the humanities are not infrequently described as containing truth, expressing it, while still retaining the underlying sense of an elusive whole. A small book I kept close in high school was a copy of Solzhenitsyn's Nobel lecture, a high-minded but revealing treatise (it wasn't really a lecture) about the purpose and nature of art.

Not everything assumes a name. Some things lead beyond words. Art inflames even a frozen, darkened soul to a high spiritual experience. Through art we are sometimes visited - dimly, briefly - by revelations such as cannot be produced by rational thinking.

I doubt any person who has ever been moved to create art or affected by the creations of others can deny the fact that such products of imagination can and do conjure emotions and ideas that seem to defy rational thinking. This is not a claim (by me) of heavenly inspiration in any form; rather, I'm merely observing that raw creativity is not a product of analysis — it may be its opposite, in fact. Whether human creativity is the handiwork of psyche or spirit is not important to my pending point.

Solzhenitsyn discusses the quote from Dostoevsky, "Beauty will save the world", in the context of beauty as truth. (This isn't beauty as "prettiness".)

There is ... a certain peculiarity in the essence of beauty, a peculiarity in the status of art: namely, the convincingness of a true work of art is completely irrefutable and it forces even an opposing heart to surrender.

He ends up contrasting various endeavors that do not convey this sense of "beauty as truth":

It is possible to compose an outwardly smooth and elegant political speech, a headstrong article, a social program, or a philosophical system on the basis of both a mistake and a lie. What is hidden, what distorted, will not immediately become obvious ... Then a contradictory speech, article, program, a differently constructed philosophy rallies in opposition - and all just as elegant and smooth, and once again it works. Which is why such things are both trusted and mistrusted.

Contrasted with real art:

But a work of art bears within itself its own verification: conceptions which are devised or stretched do not stand being portrayed in images, they all come crashing down, appear sickly and pale, convince no one. But those works of art which have scooped up the truth and presented it to us as a living force - they take hold of us, compel us, and nobody ever, not even in ages to come, will appear to refute them.

In spite of the swirlies, I think the gist is convincing. We know "truth" when we hear it; it sways us, it goes unrefuted, it is apolitical at face value, it is not cultural under the surface, etc. And it probably defies summary, whether mine or a laureate's. And that stands to reason.

The humanities — arts, literature, music — all edify, teach, and even produce extraordinary experiences for people everywhere. Few scientists would baulk at anyone claiming to observe "truth" in designs, stories, or other works of art. Truth is an elusive ideal through all of these creations, but we still acknowledge that they enlighten us in moving closer to understanding that truth, whatever it may be. Entire worlds of fantasy are imagined and occupied by millions of people. All these things give meaning to people's lives, and no one takes exception with such personal edification. Well, some do. You know who you are.

I may be naive in my approach to religion, but I fail to see how it differs. One might argue that where works of art are known to be fictitious or imaginary, religion demands to be literal. But what is the criteria for distinguishing between "healthy" edification and "harmful" beliefs? Saying that religious people think their beliefs are "absolutely right" is not enough; I know people that are often (more often?) fanatical about their fantasies and hobbies than about their religion, even devotees. And religious persons are just as often quick to take poetic and moral interpretations of divine scriptures as they are to absolute ones.

I think a thorough comparison of religion and art, with all its aspects and ranges — devotee/fanatic, passive/hobbyist, even founders/creators — would reveal more similarities than dissimilarities, with the most important being that both feed the human need for edification, fulfillment, celebration, whatever. Whether you opt to view religion as an artifact of the human need to believe in perpetual existence, or as divine guidance for happiness, doesn't matter to this point: religion, like arts, fills a mortally strong desire for insight beyond the logical, the computable, or the observable.

I find it not only absurd that a scientist would declare the discovery of god's non-existence, but that religion generally could be discounted as any less valuable to the human race than books, or music, or movies. You may as well try and convince the world that all its not-based-in-reproducibly-verifiable activities — worship, performance, the NFL playoffs — are total wastes of a painfully short life span.

But you'd think that atheists of all people would know better.