Regarding Contradiction

It seems that the most common objection to syntheism is that theism and atheism cannot overlap or coexist due to the law of non-contradiction. Surely, one cannot meaningfully believe in god and also not believe in god, assuming "believing in god" means the same thing both times. This seems like very little to ask; to assume such a thing. For many people this really isn't too much to ask at all, like those who only talk about their beliefs with people with the same beliefs, or those who don't talk about religion at all.

However, some people find that whether or not they believe in god is such an important question that they want to talk to as many people as possible to get the broadest perspective to inform their decision. They want to look at the past of belief in god, the present and even its future. After all, god is claimed to transcend all of time and space, so we wouldn't want to limit our search to just our time and our culture. When I search to this extent I find that believing in god does NOT equal believing in god, from time to time, culture to culture, and person to person. The ideas of belief and god are so varied that to align oneself with belief in either direction could mean any number of things to another person.

Some people wonder why I care so much about what other people think. Many think that one should decide for himself what god means and whether or not he believes in one, regardless of others' interpretations. I do agree to this to some extent. Each person is responsible for taking in their experiences, and coming away with some level of knowledge that informs our future actions. However, you really don't need to say or even think "I believe in god" to do these things; you could just do them. Imagine a child who never learned any language, coming face to face with a powerful being and knowing without any doubt that his experience was real. He believes without any need for words to describe his belief. Now imagine that he wants to tell his mother about his wonderful experience. It is only then that he absolutely needs language to convey these things to her. This is exactly why I care so much about what other people think "belief in god" means, because it is only in interactions with other people that I have any need for such an utterance. What other people think words mean is exactly what one should care about when trying to speak meaningfully with them.

Why then, would I support a position that maintains a level of ambiguity in terminology? After all, language itself assumes one phrase should mean the same thing with some level of consistency in order for people to communicate at all. If the child and mother had completely different ideas of what the sound "god" corresponded to, the intended message would not be received by the mother. As a matter of fact, I agree that language *should* be standardized. I find that variations in context and meaning are responsible for many terrible misunderstandings and tragedies. At one time I even discouraged the use of slang in an effort to reduce this language barrier. However, I have come to accept that language is varied and constantly evolving (perhaps even for the better in some cases). The reason I support this position is because it is a reaction to the ambiguity I find already in the language of theism, not because I am trying to create more ambiguity. Syntheism is an acceptance of the fact that the language of theism is forever in motion, and a contextualist resolution that recognizes different definitions.

Where do I find these ambiguities? I hear it from people who say things like, "It doesn't matter what kind of god you believe in, as long as you believe in god." I read about Hindu and Jewish cultures, who continue to practice their religion, yet refer to their gods as metaphors. I find it in Christians who describe their actual beliefs in metaphors, and atheists who find great comfort from theistic metaphors. It is evident in pantheism, metaphysics, and Taoism. (I hope to focus on each of these in more detail and share my findings in the future.)

My position on contradictions is that they cannot exist. A proposition is either true or false and cannot be both. I find many theistic and atheistic positions to be false, yet I also find many of each to be true. They aren't true just because someone believes them and I'm not trying to hurt anyone’s feelings, but because I find theistic and atheistic worldviews alike to be accurate depictions of reality. This is a conflict that no dictionary can simply resolve, and syntheism arises as the most accurate position I can honestly agree with.

Other questions I would like to eventually address are "Is metaphor a type of truth?" and "At what point is it justified for one culture to tell another culture that their use of language is incorrect?"