So, on that note, lets make sure we all know what Atheism means. It does not unilaterally mean that those who are Atheists necessarily believe that god does not exist. The oxford dictionary definition for Atheism is very direct, the belief that God does not exist. However, that is a rather simplistic definition for a very complicated position and in fact, there are two distinct positions that Atheists can hold.

Many believe that Atheism is the absence of belief in the existence of gods. Simply put, they choose not to believe in what religions say. But, they are not going the next step and saying that God/gods do not exist. They simply, and very scientifically state, we do not accept your assertion. There is no proof. There is no evidence. Therefore we do not accept your statement that God exists. They do not then make the next step and say “we also say emphatically that god does NOT exist”.

The second position is of course the stronger of the two. They go ahead and state that god in any form doesn’t exist. Those are two separate and very distinct positions. One of them is a belief. One of them is good healthy scientific reasoning.

To say that you do not belief in the assertions of a religious order is a very valid position to hold. I myself do not believe in any of the statements of the Church of Scientology. Not one. Nor do I believe any tenants of the ancient Norse, Roman, Greek or Egyptian religions. Though the last four are very cool, I simply don’t believe in them. Does that make me an atheist? Partially, yes. But the definition for Atheism is very broad. It leaves no room for uncertainty. It doesn’t say ‘absense of belief for one god’ but rather all gods.

But those that hold to the oxford definition, to them I say you are simply wrong. Or rather, you have a belief system. Like it or not, you believe that God does not exist.  It is virtually impossible to ever say something does not exist from a scientific viewpoint. Just not possible. So, if you hold the ‘belief’ that god does not exist then you have a belief system and not a scientific view. I believe one is called “weak atheist” and the other “strong atheist”. To me, one is called scientific and one hypocritical.

Does it really make sense to have a belief system wherein you are stating that another belief system is wrong? I find it to be hypocritical.

Now, I’m sure all the Atheists who read this will be up and arms. And if I have mis-spoken or presented something in error, by all means state it. The point of this posting is simply to attempt to better define the Atheist view. And to try to show some light on a very difficult topic. The term atheism really has lots of meanings when you talk to different people. Add in agnosticism, a term coined by a Professor Huxley in 1876, to largely mean those that believe there is no proof either way for the existence of a deity, and you’ve got a real mess on your hands.

I try to make things simple. To boil down all the arguments to the most simplist of levels. Either you believe God does exist, believe he doesn’t exist, refute the assertion of one or the other while making no statement yourself, or simply throw your hands up in despair I don’t know please leave me alone about it.

The point here is, dont’ assume you know what someone believes just because they say they are an Atheist. They may be stating they are based on one of two possible definitions or some other definition that may exist. Question them, find out what they really believe, and then have your discussion.

It’s long known that philosophers have been debating this topic for many years. Part of this debate is the concept of free will, do we have it or not. I am not going into the philosophical arguments of determinism. That has been widely covered by philosophers and websites of both eastern and western traditions. What I find to be most curious is the astronomical argument in favor of it.

Now, I may be speaking a bit out of school here. I’m not astronomer or philosopher. And whereas the implications of one argument having anything to do with the other are great, I am making no assertions that the two disciplines are in anyway arguing for or against the other’s position.

That said, this is what the astronomers are talking about. It all goes back to the double-slit experiment and a man named John Archibald Wheeler. In a nut shell, after a photon of light passes through a double split, a researcher can change how the particle was detected. You really can’t boil down a scientific theory to one sentence and have it hold water, for an in-depth write up of it look here.

What this has to do with determinism is this. I recently read another article, which I have been desperately trying to find again on the Internet, where two scientists propose a test of this proposition. Again, this is really a growth from an idea from Wheeler. A double slit experiment on an astronomical scale.  Basically, take two very large telescopes and conduct this experiment with light emitted from another star.

The basic argument here is the path of the particle to the telescope is already determined when the light left the star in the first place. It already knew which telescope was going to detect it. It was determined.

Now, I’m sure I’ve gotten some of the above points incorrect. I’m no scientist. I am sure of the end result of the experiments, I am not sure of the exact nature of the experiments. The end result is, if true, the workings of the universe were all determined to occur in a very set way.

What does this mean? In a nut shell, it means the universe is pre-determined to act out it’s life from start to finish. What’s astounding to me is that this may very well be a scientifically provable position. What would the implications of that be to religion and our place in the universe? All sorts of questions ranging from Free Will to Atheism come under fire.

I am waiting on bated breath to see what may come of such experiments. Whether or not this turns out to be true could radically redefine our understanding of the world. The “final theory” or theory of everything that scientists have long been seeking, many think that string theory is a candidate, may one day show that determinism is part of our universe.

I am often reminded of one my favorite quotes from Peter O’Toole in a 1985 movie called Creator where he said, “it’s said that once science peers over the great mountain of mystery, it will find religion has been sitting there all along”. I don’t know if that will be true, and I’m not a religious person, but it’s something to think about.

Read about determinism in philosophy here: http://www.mb-soft.com/believe/text/determin.htm
Read about determinism in science here: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/determinism-causal/