Practical Matters

When I talk to my believer friends about atheism, we invariably get to a point where my friend is just incredulous that I don't "...... believe in SOMETHING".  This is often followed by a conversation about science being a religion or the idea that when drilling into a person's philosophy, there must come a time (or spot?) where faith must take precedence because we "can't know". Well, my answer is that as you push past that point in one's psyche, you get to a place where your heart has to sit with the idea of what to do when you don't have enough information to confirm something.... you are in a philosophical "null space".  I think the human tendency (or desire) for closure causes people to "fill in the blank" ... to either make up or adopt a scenario that they personally can live with... to guess, based on the information they DO have.  This leaves space for all manner of wishful or magical thinking to occur.  I think this is the place where atheists and theists part company.  It is my best guess that the two camps split here because one group (the theists) want to "get on with things... to settle on an explanation and move on to practical matters, whereas the atheists are forever second guessing the solutions, always looking for ways to ferret out the error that might cause them to be wrong.  Atheists don't like to be wrong, but they'd rather know about errors than get caught sideways by an arguement they haven't thought of before.  I think atheists (myself included) are more uncomfortable with getting caught sideways than anything else, so we are constantly seeking verification.  Theists seem to be more comfortable with having an answer and not second guessing it.  In some (all?) theistic belief systems, there appears to be active discouragement of verification through a number of mechanisms, including the powerful implication that lack of faith is ultimately damning.  I think this is a diabollically clever way to ensure commitment and, to a certain extent, complacency on the part of the adherents.  

Am I being condescending in my implications that theists prefer to stay with an idea, not constantly interogating the crap out of it?  Not intentionally.  But it is interesting to consider which group is more confident of their oppinions.  In a way, this is what it all boils down to.... a sense of certainty.  A personal estimate of the confidence one places in one's "data" and one's ability to determine/"know" [the TRUTH].  In that respect, theists seem to me to be overly assured, and sometimes sassy about it (not that atheists aren't equally guilty of cockiness).  Posturing happens on both sides and causes no end of animosity.  We should all keep a handle on our egos in this regard and we can, if we accord others common courtesy and respect (assuming that the other person isn't violating some universal human moral code).  And this is where big problems arise-it is the day-to-day practical matters that highlight and activate our differences.  For instance, what do we teach our children in public schools; evolution, intelligent design or , , FSM?  My thought is that we should be teaching a course on the benefits and perhaps hazards of critcal thinking AND the benefits and hazards of Magical thinking and let the chips fall where they may.  If we provide these two knowledge bases, perhaps our children will be able to sort out a more amicable set of belief structures than our generation could ever hope for.