Debate or Battle?

Right now I am reading a book on the Arthurian legend which deals extensively with the clash between Christianity and the pagan religions. It is a fictional book and so much of what happens isn't necessarily historical, but it got me thinking about religion a little more than I normally do.

Today I read a blog post on religion written by an atheist. About once a month I come across a post like this. They revolve around the everlasting debate on whether or not there is a god or gods. If you read enough of them you start to notice a pattern.

First, and most obvious, is the realization that most people are so firmly set in their beliefs that posts such as these set off some sort of explosion in their minds which forces them to quickly set about blasting each other not logically, but in a way which reminds me of elementary playground arguments. "You're dumb!"

"Nuh uh, you are! And you smell!"

Typically, these genius arguments come not from the original poster but from the follow up commenters, of which there are often hundreds. The amusing part is that they are usually trying to prove that their beliefs are more logical and intelligent without using actual logic or intelligence.

Second, as in this most recent post, they try to prove that the other side of the debate is more arrogant, which apparently, in their minds, translates into "wrong". It is here that you start to realize that the reason for these "debates" seems to have less to do with whether or not there is a god and more to do with winning. Most of these people don't seem to understand that you can't win, ultimately, without some kind of proof. The amusing part about this is that neither side has said "proof" and yet both sides constantly point it out is if they can win without it but the other side can't.

Third, the only group that seems to remain cool and rational through the whole debate is that of the Agnostics. Throughout the gnashing of teeth and throwing of rocks they simply affirm that both sides may be right and yet they may also be wrong. This seems to upset both sides more than true opposition and so the temporarily set their differences aside to achieve the total destruction of the fence sitters. Once the agnostics, eyes wide with amazement and incredulity, back out of the brawl the other sides return to their old alliances and continue to try to blast holes in each others' defenses.

Fourth, the tenacity and vehemence with which each side tries to prove the other wrong often causes the fighters to lose sight of the foundation upon with they stand. For the faithful, it is the use of Jesus as a weapon. The other side, knowing the Jesus is supposed to be a loving and forgiving character, is quick to point out the flaw in statements like "Me and Jesus are going to punch you in the face and burn your house down!" This is a dramatization on my part, but it seems that this is the gist of many statements thrown out in the heat of battle.

On the side of the Atheist, although many of them do not claim that label, it is the collapse of their foundation which is supposedly built on logic. They begin to fail quickly, even as their faithful counterparts do, when theory and logic are replaced by insults and anger. Come on guys, that's no way to win a debate. I was never in debate in high school, but I'd be willing to bet that you've lost as soon as emotion begins to play the leading role in your arguments.

This brings me to my fifth and final point. Both sides of the debate quickly become so entrenched in their opposing holes that they lose sight of this one ultimate truth. Neither side is willing or able to give the other what they are ultimately looking for. The faithful demand a leap of faith while their opponents demand proof. The faithful have no proof, and the other side refuses the leap of faith. This seems to have always been true, both sides seem to know it, and yet they continue to beat their heads against it.

Maybe in the end it just comes down to a difference in the way we are wired. By which I mean, do different peoples' brains simply operate in fundamentally different ways? Science has shown that they do, from person to person, which in most other aspects of life we find to be rewarding. Some people like to sit in cubicles crunching numbers all day while others feel the need to paint, to build, or myriad other paths in life. We accept and often reward these differences in our personal abilities and yet when it comes to our differences in theological belief we act as if there is only one answer, that there can be only one truth, one path.

The truth is that none of us have the answer, we are just hoping to find it or we're hoping that the answer we've already found is the right one. It's hard for people to admit that something they've invested their life in, much less their heart and soul, may not be the correct path. It's perfectly rational to want to prove that something you've spent so much of yourself on is not wrong. Is it not also rational, or at least hopeful, to believe that maybe there isn't just one answer. Maybe there are many paths to the truth.

On a side note but at least a little related, any of you who were hoping for more vampire books from Ann Rice can stop waiting around. Apparently, after many decades of being an Atheist, she has found god and has devoted her writing to the Christian faith. I'm betting that the rest of the vampire fiction genre was overjoyed to hear this.