Atheist perspective: I do not claim my atheist views are based on evidence

An acquaintance recently asked for my thoughts on a clip of political commentator Dinesh D’Souza claiming the difference between a Christian and an atheist is that the atheist will say, “My position is based on evidence.”

First, I understand where D’Souza is coming from. I have personally observed many atheists state their views are based on evidence and therefore are undisputed. I have always thought this approach to be arrogant because when it comes to interpretation of something as astounding as a higher spirit, I consider “evidence” to be arbitrary.

Responding to D’Souza, however, as an atheist, I do not claim my atheist views are based on evidence, but rather are based on my interpretation of the world.

A primary reason why I focus on the word “interpretation” is because I consider every human to interpret the world in his or her own unique way. I specifically note this with Synesthesia, a rare neurological condition where senses cross paths. I was watching a documentary about Synesthesia where a young woman named Hannah claimed that letters always appear in certain colors to her, even if others say the letters appear black. Hannah said a’s always appear red, b’s appear green, and so forth. When she writes her name she says the letters are colored like a sunset.

Personally, when I look at letters in a book, all I see are black letters. So how am I supposed to react to Hannah’s claims of what she sees? Do I call her a quack? And vice versa, does she call me a quack?

The cases of Synesthesia are extensive and unique, and show that people interpret the world differently. Who am I to say that my interpretation of the world is superior and undisputed?

Some atheists will say their evidence is based on scientific studies, but I keep in mind that science is evolutionary and therefore cannot be viewed as set in stone. What is considered “fact” today can change tomorrow. I particularly note this with Geophysicist and Meteorologist Alfred Wegener, who proposed the theory of continental drift in 1912. This theory is now widely taught in schools throughout the world.

When Wegener first introduced his theory, the science community did not approach him with a neutral response of, “It could be possible,” but instead scoffed at him and even held symposiums to prove he was wrong. It seemed as though many scientists would not let someone threaten their “superior knowledge,” or even suggest that their existing claims could be wrong.

Low and behold, results of future studies supported Wegener’s theory and eventually continental drift and plate tectonics became a major breakthrough and were widely accepted in the 1950s. Sadly, Wegener had died in 1930 as an uncelebrated scientist.

So, to sum up,  I do not claim that my atheist views are based on “evidence,” and I am suspicious of anyone, theist or non-theist, who uses the reason of “evidence” to claim their views are superior. But I am more concerned about how much a person uses his or her own personal views to force others to follow their policies.

On a final note, I think D’Souza is sugar coating Christians in his presentation. Many Christians are certainly headstrong in their views and will also claim their views are based on “evidence.”

Lauren Ell is an American blogger born and raised in Southern California and is currently based in Sweden. She discusses Epilepsy, Politics and Fun. Professionally Ell is an Online Marketing Consultant and Virtual Assistant. She is also founder and president of Republican Atheists. Connect with Lauren on Facebook and Twitter.