Who is arrogant ?

By WizenedSage (Galen Rose) ~

It appears to be fashionable these days to call atheists arrogant.
Over and over we read how Dawkins is arrogant, Hitchens perhaps even
more so, and Sam Harris is clearly just a "know-it-all" with an
attitude problem. In fact, if you read the postings on this site for a
bit, you will "learn" that we un-famous atheists are arrogant, too.

Now, if expressing an unpopular opinion means that one is arrogant,
then we have no defense. But, let's look at a typical dictionary
definition of the word: "Arrogant; having or showing an exaggerated
opinion of one's own importance, merit, ability, etc.; conceited;
overbearingly proud."

That part about "having or showing an exaggerated opinion of one's own
importance, merit, ability," catches my eye. Isn't it Christians who
claim they are god's "saved?" Talk about "one's own importance!" Isn't
it Christians who claim they KNOW which is the real god and what he
wants from us? Mightn't that be an exaggerated opinion of one's
abilities? I certainly wouldn't claim the ability to identify a real
god, with any certainty. So who is the arrogant one, here?

While the Christian claims he KNOWS with certainty that Bible-god is
the one true god, I humbly submit that different people have claimed
thousands of different gods to be the one true god, we know for
certain that thousands of those were false gods, and so I have no
confidence that I could do any better spotting the real god than those
people did. Do you not see the difference here? The very fact that men
have followed thousands of false gods convinces me that we humans are
hopeless when it comes to identifying which gods are real and which
are false.

But the Christian brushes all that aside, because he knows. And how
does he know? Because people told him so, or he feels it, or both. The
Bible tells him which is the real god, though how the Christian can
tell the Bible is the real "holy" book and not one of the others, like
the Quran, the Bhagavad Gita, etc., he seems unable to explain. But,
generally this doesn't trouble him because he feels the presence of
the one true god within himself. How he knows which god it is that he
feels must remain a mystery.

William Lane Craig speaks of the "self-verification" of the Holy Ghost
within himself being sufficient proof of god for him, and most
Christians would buy this. Call me a nit picker, but I have a problem
with anyone claiming they can feel the truth. I have first-hand
experience on this issue which convinces me that these people are just
fooling themselves. I once felt the presence of a god, and constantly
"conversed" with this god inside my head. I no longer feel that
presence. Obviously, god either exists or he doesn't, and my feelings
have never been able to prove it either way because my feelings have
been on both sides of the issue. In other words, my feelings failed to
prove anything. Now, who is the arrogant one? Is it Craig, who claims
he can feel truth, or me, who has no confidence in his feelings as a
test of truth? It seems that old adage applies here: Faith means never
having to say you're wrong.

Many Christians are so arrogantly certain that they have the truth
that they have no interest in studying further. Many will deny
evolution, although they obviously have never read anything on
evolution that wasn't written by creationists.

Also, home schooling is apparently on the rise in America today. Why?
Because many Christian parents don't want their children exposed to
unapproved information. Christian parents and preachers seem to be
insisting that what people "knew" 2,000 years ago is more important
than anything man has learned since. Most Christian congregations
encourage their members to avoid marrying outside the faith, and some
even frown on members even mingling with non-Christians. There is a
pattern here. It appears that Christians are so sure they have the
truth that they often actively avoid gaining further information. It
seems to me that if one truly wants to find the truth, the real truth,
then he should follow the path containing the MOST information. Isn't
this obvious?

I find that most of the atheists I know are hungry for information. A
great many are science enthusiasts and are well read in world history.
Tellingly, many atheists are also surprisingly conversant in theology.
Now who are the arrogant ones? Are those who are constantly seeking
more information and revising their opinions really the arrogant ones?
That was a rhetorical question – no answer necessary.

So, Christians are convinced they have the truth because they have
been told this (by the Bible, preachers, parents, etc.), or they feel
it, or both, while atheists suspect there is no god. Now, I don't know
of any atheists who think they can prove there is no god. They merely
believe that gods are extremely unlikely, like dragons are unlikely,
and so they don't believe in them.

For myself, I don't believe in gods because I know I cannot trust my
feelings to identify the truth, and I don't know why I should be able
to tell a real god when I see one, any more than those millions
throughout history who have worshipped thousands of false gods. Did I
say, "when I see one?" Yes, and I meant to say that, for that is
exactly the problem, you see. All gods are invisible. How convenient.

As Discordia recently pointed out on this site, the Christian god is
all-powerful and can do anything, anything at all, it appears, except
prove that he exists. Well, he either can't or won't prove it, and it
really doesn't much matter which it is. For thousands of years we
humans have been fighting over which is the real god, or which sect
has the real truth. We have mistreated each other horribly over these
questions, from the Crusades through the Inquisitions, to fighting
over abortion and gay marriage. Given this history, I think we humans
have a right - and maybe even a moral obligation to each other - to
refuse acceptance of the claims pertaining to any god until that god
proves his or her existence. If there's a real god, then he/she surely
would understand this position.

It is because I am NOT arrogant that I make this proposal. It is
because I recognize that I cannot prove whether there is or isn't a
god. Think about it: why in hell should we humans suffer, generation
after generation, for our gullibility - simply because some god can't
or won't prove that he exists such that we can all agree on it? This
is a lousy, unfair deal, and we should simply refuse it. And what kind
of perverse, arrogant god would fault us for refusing to beat each
other up over gods any longer, while he refuses to prove decisively
that he exists?