Some of the best conversations I have are with my atheist or agnostic friends. They range from heated debates, to tactful discussions about religion when the subject arises, and it inevitably does.
And what I am grateful for is that my atheist and agnostic friends are not idiots, so the conversation is not reduced to the usual questions (to which there are numerous theories, depending on which philosophical school of thought seems more reasonable to you) posed by smug types — if God exists, and he is so powerful, why would He allow for so much evil and suffering in the world? Why doesn't he intervene?
There is nothing wrong with asking those questions, of course. It's using it specifically, and completely as the basis of your argument, with smug arrogance, that immediately outs you as an ignorant, self-serving prat. Because it is disregarding the ideas of free will, of morality, of choice, of human inclination towards evil and selfish desires. Should God only intervene in wars, perpetrated by human beings, and not when an individual behaves immorally in more isolated incidents with less tragic results? At what point should one actually take responsibility for his or her actions, or the actions of others, instead of looking elsewhere to place blame?
I much rather prefer, and enjoy discussing religion with my worldly atheist or agnostic friends, more than the "religious" people I've known. In an ironic way, the atheists/agnostics I know have spent more time thinking about God than those who actually claim to believe in Him. As Immanuel Kant pointed out, the wrong education of one's religion will only produce inward hypocrites, and speaking to many self-proclaimed believers has revealed this to be true. Hence, debates with Julio, my committed atheist friend, over dinner at his apartment is always more meaningful and sincere because his character does not contradict his words.
No comments:
Post a Comment