The Arrogance of Theism


ImageA legion of faithful sheep will attest to the incongruity of this title. These many would attempt to correct me, saying, “ O, son, I think ya made a misstake and fergot to add the a- in front of that theism werd their.” Or,“We sa jus little sheeps on da pasture following our savia wit grace and love.” But, despite the subtle perception of theistic worship(in all its shades), I have not made a mistake, and I will attempt, in the sentences that follow, to bring the reader behind that thin veil of piety which shrouds these believers in sanctity, and seems to make their beliefs off-limits to the illuminating light of critical reasoning. I will also take on the task of showing that, since atheism is a merely an effect of the reasoning faculty, it is entirely just.

In order to develop an accurate concept of the opponent, I will give an accepted and relevant definition of theism. Theism is the belief that there is a god or gods which created the universe, its laws, and its life, and that these god/gods play an active part in reality; having a will which can be adhered to, being able to perform capricious miracles, and harboring a care for mankind. Theism colors its gods in the light of kings and despots; bestowing a few morsels of their infinite wealth upon those within their court who kiss their ass the most, calling this grace, and punishing those who do not bend and salute every waking second of their life to them by punishments varying in violence from death of a first born, to eradication by fire. Any lesser definition of god/gods is not theism, rather pantheism, or a deism of some sort. 

A search of theology for answers pertaining to the existence of Yahweh or Zeus will only find vague  trails of base logic into forests of loose concepts. Out of this forest these scavengers contend that they have found irrefutable evidence for the existence of their Yahweh.The theist apologists of yesterday and today have a devious method of ‘proving’ their Yahweh, or their Allah, through simplistic algorithms which, at best, only leaves the possibility of a pantheistic god of sorts, some  impersonal entity incapable of miracles, some first cause, which could just as well have a cause itself. They jump from the assumptions arrived at through the Cosmological Argument, for instance, and say that the uncaused cause, must be Yahweh. Well, I can make an equally foolish jump and say that the uncaused cause was a flying bowl of tuna, and that we should thus worship that fish, that we should sacrifice everything to that fish, or else burn unto eternity. This jump, though, would be arrogant, it would constitute an overstep of reason, and as soon as I believe that my tuna is absolute truth to everyone equally I become an arrogant priest. What makes my tuna religion any different than Christianity, or Islam, or Judaism, or Zoroastrianism, or Hinduism, accept the lack of millions of tuna worshiping adherents?

Any person who believes that this jump is justified, who makes this jump, whether with knowledge or due to ignorance, and who evangelizes that this nether region of logic is truth, is fitting of the label ‘Arrogant’. (Arrogance being here defined as an offensive display of superiority or self-importance; an over bearing pride.) They have to believe that the universe revolves around planet Earth, and that the world revolves around man, and they have to found their beliefs on their perceived capability to know truth without external evidence. This is Narcissism, arrogance, hubris, and, of course, as true as a pile of horse-shit is palatable, despite the masquerading and pious facade of the believer.

Conversely, atheism is a scion, not of an overarching arrogance such as birthed theism, but of pure reasoning. Reason being that faculty which, through incremental steps, scales the mountains of obscurity and declares, upon the peaks, “Men do live on the antipode, the Pope be damned.”Atheism negates man’s immortality, it does not enfranchise morality, it says the universe is cold and impersonal, and it does not attempt to describe the ineffable. An atheist  simply states that, in light of the lack of evidence for, and the piles of evidence against, I cannot honestly believe in a theistic, personal god. Now one must here question with the same integrity whether this is arrogance, or something closer on the spectrum to piety.

Does the atheist overstep the capabilities of  logic? Must he take the form of a lion, destroying and devouring all opposition, in order to spread his ‘truth’?Does he formulate a region of demons and unquenchable fires which is reserved for all those who believe in a theistic god? Must he commit to a holy war, where men kill and rape righteously, in order to gain a parcel of land that he deems holier than any other piece of land?  The atheist, in most cases, is willing to receive criticism of his behavior and his beliefs, he believes in the accuracy of the scientific method, and concomitantly he understands that any personal conviction which doesn’t stem from empiricism is likely frivolous. Does this sound like the behavior of an arrogant person? Conversely, the theist is convinced of the truth of his perception even though such perception lacks an external origin. A believer in religious myth will say that the evidence lies within. They agree that their reasoning is subjective, but assert arrogantly that their paradigm conforms exactly to the objective universe. Does this sound like a portrayal of humility? I leave this to the reader to decide.

Advertisements

About monolithicprotozoa

Nought what you thought
This entry was posted in Uncategorized and tagged , , . Bookmark the permalink.

9 Responses to The Arrogance of Theism

  1. You won’t find me disagreeing with your assessment here. Religion ruins everything and it starts the ruination with reasoning ability of the adherent.

    • I agree with you in a sense, religion causes such ruin, but theistic belief is only a symptom of a darker plague. I am referring to the inclination to have faith without any clear reason or evidence to. This inclination is slavish and it transforms erect individuals into wretched slaves. Blind faith does span far beyond theism, as is evident in the long history of tyrants also known as human history. A tyrant is only such because his armies are full of weak conformists. A world in which every man and woman had the courage to abide by the dictates of their own clear logic would be a democratic world. Consider me as an ally, for I stand with you in opposition to the forces of theism, but my sword is aimed much deeper: at the roots of the disease of which belief in god is merely an effect.

      • You’ll find on my blog the very same aim of the cutting edge. My endeavor is to expose how we think, the machinations of it. I hope this leads to a better way of thinking for all humanity.

        Those tyrants may be described as vain, yet this is not the full of it. Their thinking is the problem. To see humans as assets to be used on a whim is to miss the point altogether. We think in linear ways about the world where sheeple are on one end of a scale and tyrants on the other. This is not how the brain works at all. It is not linear.

        When we empower the ‘lower’ humans with critical thought we remove much of what is abused and taken advantage of by tyrants. Removing the enablers of their non-critical thinking is a good step. That is, remove religions. When the human is then forced to think for themselves, more will stand against tyranny. This is my thought on the matter.

        Science is quite often demonized by religion, so it stands in the way of any solution(s).

      • Yes I agree with you exactly there. The branch seems to defend the roots, it is therefore necessary to cut off the bastard. Remove the shroud of religion, with all it’s intricate weavings of fairy tales and happily-ever-afters, so
        that the rotten core of non-scientific belief can be open to scrutiny by the public, and subsequently stomped out.

      • Indeed, I agree. The problem is wrong thinking. Remove the shroud of respect that religion gives it and there is no where for the cockroaches to run.

      • Don’t insult cockroaches by relating them to the cognitive malfunctions which induce such pseudo-truths as Christianity and the divinity of royalty. Lol

      • hahahahaha mea culpa

  2. I must say, as substantially as I enjoyed reading what you had to say, I couldnt help but lose interest after a while. Its as if you had a good grasp on the subject matter, but you forgot to include your readers. Perhaps you should think about this from much more than one angle. Or maybe you shouldnt generalise so considerably. Its better if you think about what others may have to say instead of just going for a gut reaction to the subject. Think about adjusting your very own believed process and giving others who may read this the benefit of the doubt.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s