In 2006 Professor Bruce Hood of Bristol University asserted that human beings are “hardwired for religion.” This means religion resides in the DNA of everyone. The issue then is the degree not the appreciation of religion.
Some persons describe themselves as atheists which means they don’t believe in God and gods. This should not be interpreted to mean they don’t believe in anything which would imply that life is purposeless. In philosophy this orientation carries the tag “nihilism.” Is it possible to believe in nothing? The answer is no, for the opposite of nothing as reality is something. If person Ab says I don’t believe in anything it means he or she believes in nothing, and nothing is something. If someone says there is no God, it means the person understands the concept ‘God’ and does not accept the understanding he or she. It follows that the person believes in the opposite understanding. An instance: if someone cites an attribute of God as Creator whoever denies it must have an understanding, indeed in-depth understanding of the concept of creation to deny God as THE creator. The same person therefore either says there is no creation, which is in fact the high point of nihilism or if there is creation, no creator exists and possibly, if there is a creator, such entity is not God. Whichever perspective or point of view adopted, the person has exhibited belief in something as in belief in non-existence of creation or a creator or a particular creator which some people call God.
Sample the philosophical principle of “ex nihilo nihil fit” (Latin) translated as nothing comes from nothing. In Ibibio cosmology no individual landed the way a seed of African Oil Bean did. The majestic tree propagates when seeds are spread onto nearby soil. The ones which survive grow to be giant trees, but they came from somewhere. If the atheist says the tree was not created by a cosmic principle by whatever name, he or she does so because of the understanding of the mechanics of reproduction and growth. At the end of the argument the issue will not be that of a creator but the existence of the tree. Let the brain work out how it came to be.
When celebrated British Chemist James Lovelock turned 100 two years ago, a BBC correspondent took him up on his believe – or non-believe – in God. The affable centenarian took cover under the umbrella of agnosticism first explained by Thomas Huxley: God is unknown and unknowable because of insufficient scientific evidence. See? He did not say God does not exist or that God exists. He simply said he did not have enough facts to enable him to take a position for or against. Implied in his position is a simple statement: the concept of God is understood. But existence, and by implication the attributes outlined of and for the entity called God cannot be established. May be atheists should all become agnostics or true believers or join Jewish- American writer who started as atheist, became an agnostic, and ended a Christian.