I have come, after much thought, to the realization that there is (for me at least) a fundamental flaw in the atheist-theist debates that rage on Wondercafe and elsewhere. The problem, as I see it, is that both positions, especially in the extreme forms that tend to start and get involved in these debates, are based on an old-fashioned notion that one's faith is binary: one either believes in God or doesn't. In computer interface terms, it's a checkbox labelled "God" that you click or you don't.

However, here and in the broader world, it is apparent that the question of whether one believes in God is no longer a simple binary one. It is multiple-choice, possibly with more than one choice allowed. In computer interface terms, it’s a radio button with many options or maybe a pick-list, again with many options. And, to keep things really complicated, one of those options is "Other" with a 5000 character (or maybe longer) text box for you to elaborate on that answer.

I will concede that in the days when the debate first raged, it raged in societies where there tended to be one, dominant religious faith (or maybe a couple at most) and there really was a fairly clear line between those of faith and those who lacked it. Sure, once one was established as a person of faith, there was room for detailed doctrinal debate that delineated how you believed and how you practiced that faith, but one could fairly ask "Do you believe in God?" and get a yes or no answer.

Today, however, our religious and cultural pluralism has opened the door to recognizing that neither the theist nor the atheist position is monolithic nor are they the only option. Theist can mean monotheist, polytheist, pantheist, panentheist and probably some that don't easily fit a single word definition. Atheists can be humanists, materialists, existentialists, etc. or some combination of philosophies and there can be as much difference between two atheists as between some atheists and some theists. Then there's the "non-theist" category that falls somewhere in between the two. Traditions that do not focus on or strictly believe in a "God" or "gods" but still acknowledge a "higher reality" or a spiritual dimension beyond the material world of everyday experience. Some Buddhist schools, Taoism, some Hindu schools, and some of the Western esoteric/New Age/spiritualist traditions could be seen as falling into this category. In the end, it doesn't matter how you classify the traditions, though. What matters in this discussion is that in religiously and culturally pluralistic society it's no longer a simple, binary "God" or "No God".

Even since university, perhaps even longer, I have embraced and rejoiced in this diversity. As a UU, I treasure it and consider exploring, discussing, and living in a diverse spiritual world to be important to my own spiritual growth. Therefore, the simplistic debate of "God" versus "No God" no longer holds any appeal or meaning for me. I define my own relationship to the world in non-theistic language but do resort to theistic language like "God" as shorthand at times or if I am discussing with someone who uses that language. For me, what is most important is to hear what people believe, to hear what inspires them, to learn how they think about their relationship to the world and each other. "God" versus "No God" is often framed in negative terms, teaching nothing about what the proponents on either side believe but rather about what they do not believe or what they reject.

What I am looking for, then, in my interaction with others is not simplistic "God"= wrong and "No God" = right (or vice versa) debate, but a wider ranging discussion of what each of us believes and how that belief affects our lives and relationships. Certainly, there is room for debate but it needs to recognize that there is more to spirituality and religion than simply whether one believes in "God" (whatever "God" means in that discussion). It needs to consist of questioning and probing the implications of belief and calling on people to explain how they justify their values or actions in light of what they claim to believe rather than simply bashing them or their belief because they happen to be a theist (or atheist as the case may be).

The "God" versus "Not God" debate isn't going to be settled any time soon and, as an agnostic, I think it ultimately cannot be resolved. I also think that, for many of us, it is now the wrong question. The real questions to be discussed are ones like "What do you believe?" and "How does that shape your life and values?" and "How does your belief enable you to live in relationship to all that is?". And we must be prepared for the answers to be as complex and diverse as we human beings. No more simple "Yes" or "No".

Peace to you on your journey,

Mendalla