I can only imagine the amount of mail Wired will receive this month about the recent article on atheism, all either hailing it or denouncing it, im sure. But I find myself on quite a middle road, not out of politeness, but out of sincere indecision. This is a direct reflection of my own views on God. I could relate to Gary Wolf's struggle with the resolution of atheism. There's a certain kind of arrogance found in both churches of belief, God and atheism (and yes, reason/atheism is a church unto itself) revolving around the assumption that the unknown lies in either's capabilities. I've never bought into the prescribed whim of structured religion and so have always considered myself leaning more towards atheism, But just as atheism is a religion of reason, there is no genuine evidence to disprove a higher power. No, of course it's not going to be some giant caucasion male in the sky with a white beard who brandishes lightening bolts. But to assume that we know so much about the world, the universe, and all the intricacies in between, that we can say "no, there definately is no God" goes against the scientific method used to come to this conclusion. Socrates remained the ever irritating gadfly for a reason. Science is riddled with fantastic ideas that can't be proven anywhere but in theory.
Take string theory for instance, which wants me to believe that there are over 22 dimesions. Do we know this for sure? no. Have I ever seen these 22 dimensions, or time travel, or a neutron star? Of course not. These things exist only in theory, in our imaginations and what we believe to be true, Yet it must be true because logic leads us to these obvious conclusions, right? Right? It was only a couple generations ago, doctors used leaches to suck out bad blood.
I don't side with the religious nuts, God only knows how obnoxious they are. But I'm certainly not an atheist either. The conflict arises between science and religion when science attempts to answer religion's question of "why", and likewise religion attempts to answer science's question of "how". That's where the confusion arises. Both are so set in their ways, and beating their drums so loudly, that neither one realizes that they don't have the tools to address the opposite's questions. So there you have it. A true agnostic argument, by a true agnostic.
Logan FryPhiladelphia, PA
