I am still working my way through the whole Moral Argument for the Existence of God. I've read a multitude of philosophers' and theologians' ideas on the subject, and I believe I'm coming to the conclusion that morality neither confirms nor denies the existence of God - it is a concept that stands on its own. I have yet to see if I can support that.
Anyway. When mulling matters of spiritual significance - particularly the existence of God - the more I pull away from my Christian roots, the more I ask myself a question: "What am I freeing myself to?"
I am well aware of what I am freeing myself from - dogmatic fundamentalist Christianity, which I am increasingly convinced cannot be entirely reasonable. The harder question is what I am becoming: something without a label. To say atheist is to speak too soon - while my arguments may lean in that direction, I am not there yet. To say non-Christian theist is to speak with too much authority. While as an engineer, I am drawn to the seeming telos (purpose) exhibited in the universe, I also see order arising from purely natural processes. I am sans conclusion.
This limbo dramatically affects one of the fundamental elements of meaning in life: self-definition. Who am I? Losing the label of Christian, all I can call myself now is human. While such a perception engenders all the self-determinant freedom that humanists promise, I can't help but feel empty when once I defined myself as so much more - a Child of God who would be rewarded in Heaven. Atheism hardly has a concept to replace that.
Nonetheless, intellectual honesty demands that we divorce our search for truth from any fantasy we have attached to the result of our quest. The theist, therefore, must justify that the conclusion of God's existence is not motivated by the desire for an afterlife and supernatural reward. If this heavenly result is an a priori desire attached to the thesis rather than an a posteriori claim after having already proved God, the theist must question the validity of their quest for truth: was their conclusion informed by desire and longing or by reason?
Similarly, the agnostic or atheist that seeks to claim logic as the root of their beliefs must also search themselves to determine if their hope for a reality without God did not motivate their conclusion against him. Defining the Christian, Islamic, or Judaic God as non-existent necessarily forces us to restructure traditional morality according to a paradigm of reality that affords an immense amount more personal freedom and self-definition. If this desire is an a priori motivation for the atheist, he must, with the same rigor required of the theist above, determine if his conclusion was based on desire or reason.
Such introspection leads me to honesty, but not to meaning or self-definition. I am no closer to answering what I am freeing myself to.