|
Word Gems
exploring self-realization, sacred personhood, and full humanity
Profiling The Atheist,
by Michael Tymn
return to the main-page article on "God"
Editor's note: the following is from Michael Tymn's blog
Profiling the Atheist
Posted on 12 November 2018, 9:35
During my lifetime of more than four-score years, I have met many people who call themselves atheists. Usually, when they find out about my interest in afterlife studies and the fact that I have authored six books dealing with the subject, not to mention a hundred or more magazine and journal articles and more than 200 posts at this blog, they react with some surprise – often with a puzzled smirk, occasionally with a self-righteous sneer or a scoff, as if to say, “You don’t really believe in that stuff, do you?”
Not one to shy away from discussing the subject, I usually counter with a comment that I do believe in an afterlife, if not with absolute certainty at least with a conviction that meets the preponderance of evidence standard of our civil court system, and even goes well beyond that to meet the “beyond a reasonable doubt” standard of our criminal justice system. There is still about a 1.2 percent doubt there, so I say that I am a 98.8-percent believer and 1.2-percent doubter, meaning I am still a skeptic to some small degree.
However, I point out that by the standards of most religions I might be considered an atheist. That is to say that I doubt the existence of an anthropomorphic (humanlike) God, even though I call myself an unorthodox Christian and see Jesus as chairman of the board, or at least one of the directors, on the Other Side, assuming it is possible to give terrestrial names and imagery to celestial beings and matters.
Like so many other words today, “atheist” is subject to different meanings and interpretations, but for lack of an accepted word that means a person does not believe in the God of orthodox religion but believes in an afterlife, I’ll stick with it in this post.
“I believe in science,” is often the smug reply by the atheist, to which I respond that I also believe in science. If the person pursues the science road, I sometimes stress that I am familiar with the scientific method and probably have more experience applying it than anybody he or she knows. In fact, I might even claim the Guinness world record for applying it. No, I never wore a lab coat outside of a couple of college classes, I explain, but I had more than 40 years experience in insurance claims and litigation management, which involved weighing evidence and making decisions in countless claims and law suits as to whether to settle a claim, and for how much, or proceed to court. It’s referred to as courtroom science and not laboratory science, but courtroom science is more applicable to psychic phenomena than is laboratory science.
I must have applied the scientific method to at least 50,000 automobile accidents, products liability claims, industrial and commercial accidents, malpractice claims, construction accidents, and sundry other injury and damage claims over those 40-plus years. If there was nothing else I learned from those many years, it is that the science involved in most disciplines is far from exact. The plaintiff’s attorney would get a doctor, engineer, toxicologist, metallurgist, psychologist, whatever discipline was involved, to give his take on the evidence while the defense attorney would get an expert of equal standing to dispute the plaintiff’s expert. If there can be such inexactness in medicine, engineering, psychology and other disciplines in which they fancy themselves scientists, why can’t there be inexactness in psychical research? In response to this question, the atheist simply shrugs.
If the atheist shows some interest, which is rare, I try to get across the point that the afterlife I have come to accept is not the humdrum heaven and horrific hell of orthodox religion, but involves a much more active lifestyle than that espoused by the churches. But it has been my experience that most atheists are stuck in the muck and mire of scientific fundamentalism and will have none of it, just as much as evangelicals are stuck in religious fundamentalism. Over the years, I have developed a profile of the typical hard-core atheist. He or she may not have all of the characteristics indicated below, but here are 21 fairly common characteristics I have observed.
The atheist:
1) was likely brought up in a religious family, quite often in an evangelical family;
2) had problems with parental authority when young and was often rebellious;
3) while in school, adopted science teachers and professors as substitute parent figures and quickly divorced religion in favor of the “intellectual” reductionist approach of the teacher or professor;
4) cannot now believe anything that can’t be replicated and validated by science;
5) believes that it is necessary to prove the existence of God before considering the evidence for an afterlife;
6) believes wars, famine, poverty, premature death, etc. are evidence that there is no God, as a benevolent God would not permit such things. No God, no afterlife;
7) had an inferiority complex most of his or her life, but now sees his “intellectual” atheism grounded in science as making him/her better and smarter than all his/her friends who still suffer from religious superstitions;
8) has never really studied the evidence for the survival of consciousness but finds it convenient to parrot people like James “The Amazing” Randi and Michael Shermer by saying it is all fraudulent;
9) assumes that celestial ways and means must meet terrestrial standards, thereby further assuming that science has it all figured out;
10) attempts to put on a courageous front in his or her belief that life is nothing more than a march into an abyss of nothingness, but is really shaking in his or her boots, especially in his/her old age, when the courage turns to bitterness and despair, i.e., the pretend courage is really bravado;
11) doesn’t fully grasp the difference between evidence and proof;
12) assumes that the afterlife is nothing more than angels floating around on clouds and strumming harps for eternity;
13) fails to recognize that the evidence coming to us through psychical research and parapsychology is not always consistent with religious dogma and doctrine;
14) thinks that television “ghost hunting” programs are what psychical research and parapsychology are all about;
15) accepts the debunker’s explanation that all psychical phenomena are the result of fraud, hallucination or self-delusion;
16) believes everything he/she reads concerning paranormal phenomena at Wikipedia is the straight scoop;
17) assumes that psychics, if real, should be able to pick winning lottery numbers and be totally correct in everything he or she says;
18) stresses the “misses” in the testing of psychic phenomena, while ignoring the “hits,” even though they are far beyond chance;
19) assumes that if spirits exist, they should be all-powerful and able to more effectively communicate;
20) says we should “live for today” and not concern ourselves with what happens after death;
21) fancies him- or herself as a self-appointed guardian of truth in the war on superstition.
|