[The following is a two-part post, originally appearing at Bloc Raisonneur]

Part 1:

Colorado aerospace engineer and atheist David Gleeson writes in criticism of the Freedom from Religion Foundation’s atheist holiday plaque at the Denver Post’s website. In one sense, I tend to agree with Gleeson that the “enslaves minds” portion of the plaque’s text was, at the very least, a poor public relations move–as though the Foundation was going out of its way to piss off believers in what was, for the most part, a brotherly, pluralistic context (there were exceptions, of course).

What I’m not so sure about is Gleeson’s complaint regarding something about which I had not given much thought: the claims about the nature of reality made in FfFR’s plaque. Gleeson writes:

Asking for reason to prevail is a nice sentiment, but it’s laughable to espouse reason when you completely abandon it yourself.

There are no gods, no devils, no angels, no heaven or hell. There is only our natural world. Really, Dan [Barker, FfRF co-president]?

You’re one-hundred percent sure about that? I must have missed the memo, the one that demonstrates with absolute certainty the non-existence of these supernatural entities.

I agree there is not one shred of scientific evidence in support of gods or devils or heaven or hell, but a lack of evidence only gives us ammunition to disbelieve, not flat-out deny.

Atoms, gravity, the strong nuclear force, and quantum mechanics existed for millennia before humans discovered them.

There are, undoubtedly, a host of other mysteries yet to be unraveled. Perhaps the supernatural is one of them.

Granted, that possibility is remote, but reason dictates the door must remain slightly ajar. The FFRF has fallen into a faith-based trap that is as worthy of ridicule as the beliefs they seek to condemn.

Gleeson is technically correct. One can quibble over whether it is rhetorically significant to distinguish between the sentiments “there are no gods” and “there is almost zero chance that any gods exist,” and that is fine debate to have. I’m more troubled by the final idea in the preceding clip; that the FfRF is falling into a “faith-based trap.” It seems to me that Barker, et. al., are not relying on faith to make their claims about “no gods” any more than one uses faith to claim “gravity makes apples fall from trees” or I can claim, “I am not composing this blog entry on a typewriter.” Sure, there’s technically room for other possibilities, but we are sure enough to say with all practical certainty that gravity does bring the apple to the ground, that I am definitely typing on my MacBook, and yes, there are in all discernible probability no gods.

I fear that Gleeson is in danger of buying the atheism-as-religion or the “fundamentalist atheist” canard. I’ll send the substance of this entry to him and see if he responds to my thoughts. If so, I’ll post them.

Unrelated note: Mr. Gleeson is the first person I’ve seen who publicly uses a “.me” e-mail address. As I’ve noted in my other blog, MobileMe has given me some troubles. I dunno, I just thought that was funny. Maybe he can re-sell me on its regular, everyday usage.

Somewhat related note: Mr. Gleeson’s column includes this at its end:

EDITOR’S NOTE: This is an online-only column and has not been edited.

Yeah, wouldn’t want an atheist sullying the real paper, right? Subscriptions would be canceled!

Part 2:

David Gleeson, who wrote about his concerns about the tactics of fellow atheists for the Denver Post’s website, has kindly responded to my blog entry in reaction to his column. He writes:

I read with interest your blog entry regarding my article. I agree with most of what you say. Let me clarify my position with regard to atheists falling into a “faith-based” trap.

First and foremost, I absolutely DO NOT espouse the position that atheists rely on faith just as theists do. That is to say, if you are a true atheist (and by “true” atheist, I mean someone who merely disbelieves in God or gods), you are not relying on faith simply because you are not advocating a position. You are merely saying, “I do not find the evidence for your position to be credible; therefore, I don’t believe it.” That is all that atheism is, or should be: non-belief in God or gods because of a lack of evidence.

Atheists only fall into a faith-based trap when they themselves advocate a position that is indefensible. And saying flat-out that “there is no God, no heaven, no hell” is an indefensible position. It cannot be proved with absolute certainty that these entities do not exist. Therefore, to say so is a faith-based position that is, as I said, as worthy of ridicule as the faith-based position that these entities do exist. I hope that distinction is clear. The most we can say as atheists – and the most we should say – is that there is not one shred of evidence in support of these supernatural entities, and because of this, we simply don’t believe in them.

(I’m sincerely glad he read my post “with interest” rather than what I might have done if some no-name blogger had written about my work: namely, read it “with arched eyebrow.” So Mr. Gleeson gets points for patience.)

As I mentioned in my original post, I think there’s an important distinction to be made in the “flat-out” declaration of the nonexistence of this or that versus its probable non-existence. I fully understand what Gleeson is saying about ironclad statements being technically “faith-based,” but I think a case can be made that it is a small matter of rhetoric. For example, few would balk if I said, “There are no minotaurs.” Now, I can’t conclusively disprove that there are not, nor have there ever been, minotaurs: there exists a minuscule iota of possibility that a lycanthropic cattle-human hybrid lurks, hiding, say, in Newark. But for all intents and purposes, it seems pretty clear that this is not so because there is not the tiniest shred of evidence.

Likewise, to say, “There is no God” is the same. The possibility exists only technically, just like Russell’s celestial teapot.

Again, Gleeson is technically correct, but I do not feel that he is correct in spirit (irony of word choice noted). Another question, though, which I think gets to the heart of Gleeson’s position, is whether atheists ought to use such rhetoric, and take better care to be less definitively certain about what does and does not exist. Perhaps it may serve to counter the image of atheists-as-fundamentalists if more such attempts were made at this kind of linguistic precision.

Either way, it remains my contention that the vast majority of atheists would change their view if provided with the proper evidence, regardless of how black-and-white their rhetoric. But perhaps I am reaching that conclusion purely by faith. I allow for the possibility.

By the way: Gleeson also addressed my more pressing issue:

Well, Macworld is happening right now [as of original posting]. Here’s hoping for salvation.