Eric P. Metze

Look closer.

Agnosticism is often thought of as scientific because it appears open to new ideas. It implies that there is a possibility that evidence might exist that would prove that deities are real; we just haven’t found that information yet and we may never find it. Well, atheists aren’t that different. They haven’t seen evidence for deities and therefore they do not believe in them. But every true atheist is philosophically scientific, and new evidence will lead to new conclusions. So, if ample (and credible) evidence was uncovered that proved that deities do exist, then all true atheists would become theists. That’s no different than people claiming agnosticism.

There is, of course, that old argument that the difference is over belief and knowledge. Well, if you believe there are no gods, that makes you an atheist. If you believe the answer can’t be discerned, that makes you an agnostic. Though one claim refers to belief, the other claim refers to a belief about knowledge. And if you truly believe that there is even a possibility that deities might exist, then you are not an atheist. One cannot claim “I know X” and “I can’t know X” at the same time without being logically inconsistent.

Having personally gone through theism and agnosticism, I fully understand why people would want to call themselves agnostic atheists. It has a (slightly) better connotation to it than atheism, it sounds more open-minded, and it appears to be more scientific. But the truth is that claiming agnosticism gives credence to the idea of theism, and that is the polar opposite of what a true atheist believes.

Q: What is the meaning of death?

A: Organisms are giant machines, and they require a lot of energy. All day, every day, most organisms spend their time concerned with the consumption and excretion of biological material. And since they constantly reproduce, they are introducing more of these consumers into the environment.

Birth brings about mutations, which brings about change and leads us down the path of evolution. Without birth, nothing would evolve. And without death, we would completely engulf the planet in just a few generations.

And so, the meaning of death is to bring balance to the ecosystem by ensuring that future organisms have a chance to evolve.

Q: Why has evolution programmed us to believe we have immortal souls?

A: Because (in a sense) we do have immortal souls: our DNA. Every strand of DNA in every living cell of every organism is a genetic history lesson. We share our respiratory, circulatory, digestive, system as trillions of other animals, and we are related to all of them. Our billions of human ancestors lived, learned, died, and passed on their knowledge to us. Long before we had speech or writing, we inherited the instincts of our parents. Those that didn’t listen to those instincts tended to die off, so natural selection favored those that listened.

Those instincts, those primal feelings that everyone feels (even if their logical side seems to think otherwise), are just the shadows of our forgotten ancestors. Their “souls” live on as our instincts, nudging us in certain directions. What some people call “common sense” I like to call “common consciousness” because we all experience it and it doesn’t always make sense. Sometimes our instincts are useful, like defending ourselves from attack. Sometimes they are harmful, like letting religions or politicians exploit our fears. But for the most part they have proven to be highly successful in keeping us alive long enough to pass those instincts onto the next generation.

Though the idea of immortality is a bit exaggerated (because all things must come to an end), we *are* part of an unbroken chain that stretches back almost to the origin of the Earth, 4.6 billion years ago. And considering most humans don’t live beyond 80 years, 4.6 billion years is (practically speaking) eternity.

Q: Is the human mind capable of grasping the universe?

A: I don’t think the human mind is capable of fully understanding it, but only because we were not evolved for such advanced thinking. It doesn’t make a difference in our lives whether or not we can grasp these concepts, so the tendency towards advanced mathematical or theoretical thinking isn’t bred into us. That’s not to say that we can’t begin to understand these concepts; we just have to use metaphors and other tricks to come to an understanding.

Try this. Imagine a rock in your head. Visualize it. Now imagine two rocks. Easy to see, right? Now imagine four. No problem. Now imagine eight. Don’t just imagine them, visualize them. Now imagine sixteen…now thirty-two…now sixty-four…lost yet? Can you actually see sixty-four in your head or do you see a six and a four next to each other?

Now consider how insignificantly small 64 is compared to, say, 6,400…or 6.4million…or 6.4trillion. We understand the concepts of these things but we can’t truly grasp them. And if we can’t grasp the number of starts in our own galaxy, how could we possibly understand that there are billions of stars in billions of galaxies across trillions of light years?

I don’t think we’re stupid, but we aren’t even capable of understanding most of what this universe has to offer. It shouldn’t be seen as a shortcoming, though. The fact that we are even able to understand concepts like a billion (even if we don’t fully grasp them) is a miracle of nature.

Q: If you could ask God any question, what would it be? and what would be the question that God asks in response?

A: Eric: Why are you so explicit in the Bible but so silent in nature?
God: How would I get people to read my book if they knew the ending?