A Clumsy Debate

I'm getting annoyed about the atheism-theism debates. No, not because I have a particularly strong view on one side or the other, but rather because after offering me a few years of intrigue, the arguments on either side have not progressed an inch. When I started to watch and read about the arguments, it seemed pretty fascinating. Both sides had an arsenal of weaponry to fire at each other - some of it very effective, some not so. But a few years on, I've gradually come to the realisation that neither side wants to move on. Neither side can come up with new or interesting thought processes with which to renew the interest in the debate, and as a result the whole thing has stagnated.

When Richard Dawkins released 'The God Delusion' in 2006, the fight arguably reached its very peak. Open discussions on talk shows and news broadcasts outlined the premise of the conflicting views and further writings added fuel to the fire. It became a real hot topic thanks to a bit of a mainstream breakthrough with Dawkins. Since then, books have been published promoting either side, but few people have truly moved discussion beyond where it was left by Dawkins. Often the focus tends now to be on the effect of religion, or where its place in society lies.

This is acceptable if we are happy to conclude that the arguments of God's existence are irreconcilable. Both sides understand each other's position but a fundamental difference, whether that be in the way people consider the arguments or indeed the very nature of the person themselves, keeps them from coming to an agreement. That's fine. However, people won't let the debate lie, and I'm not talking about the budding new philosophers only just entering the debate and therefore understandably wanting to flex their cerebral muscles on the issue.

Thinkers continue to peddle out the old arguments that have persisted for centuries, and became more prominent in recent years, as if they are something new. Both sides are very guilty of this. For theism, there have been recent speakers such as Ray Comfort and William Lane Craig re-inventing the design argument, with analogies that trace the outlines of Paley's watch. Often the cosmological argument pops in there as well, with almost no alterations made whatsoever. This wouldn't be such an issue, but the theories are tremendously antiquated, with the Cosmological argument put forward by Plato and Aquinas, and the design argument peddled by Aquinas (again) and Paley. That's not to say they're wrong, but they do not need to be re-emphasised as if they are new.

Atheists are guilty of this as well. Take perhaps Ricky Gervais (whom I love), or a few of the trendy thinkers in America at the moment. Though you might argue that they don't have to come up with arguments, but rather defend against them, atheists can often push forward the same mantras that are no longer an interesting idea. Things like "There's no evidence" is completely useless in the modern debate, because clearly a believer isn't arguing with the given premise that God leaves notes of his own existence for everyone to see. There are other reasons by which theists argue. The other big favourites include 'The Problem of Evil', which was part of David Hume's work.

There's nothing wrong with discussing old arguments such as the examples mentioned, but often in debates they don't go beyond the initial mention or summation. We could talk all day about the merits of the cosmological arguments or the problem of evil and possibly reach a few interesting ideas, but that rarely seems to happen unless you push this sort of thing to the real thinkers. Often it's pretenders who have a vague knowledge of the debate and reach little more than the conclusion they started with.

So we must decide where we go with the question of God's existence. I'd love there to be fresh new arguments and theories regarding the debate, but as we've had the same ideas reinvented for centuries now, I think a truly breathtaking new argument on the matter will be once in a handful of generations. Instead perhaps we have to consider moving forward from the debate. As inconsiderate and callous as it seems, it is maybe time to agree to disagree. We should analyse religion. We should analyse atheism. We should talk about both viewpoints' place in a society. We should talk about the moral implications, the social implications of both systems. We should talk about what we can learn from religion, and what we can learn from atheism. But with God's existence, it is perhaps time to let the debate rest and, unless anyone can think of something new, accept the merits of either belief.

I want the encouragement now to be for people to pursue more philosophical questions. Whilst this debate is the shop window, there is so much more inside. I don't know how, but it'd be great if people were coerced, through this age-old conflict, to move onto the other issues of morality, metaphysics and epistemology.