What is Atheism IV: Atheism is not…

There are many misconceptions of atheism. Those who are not atheist, by definition, believe in a god (or at least in the concept of theism). Most people who are not atheists, I would suggest, believe in the personal, meddling, prayer-answering God of the Bible. Atheism for them, therefore, is an evil detestable concept. There is no need to understand it for it stems from Satan and is a path that leads away from God – precisely what they are trying not to achieve in their lives. I believe that failure to even try to understand someone else’s point of view, close-mindedness, is the root of much evil in this world. The conflicts in the Middle East, the tensions between the predominantly Christian West and the predominantly Muslim East, and even conflicts within personal relationship such as a marriage, would all be eased somewhat simply by a genuine attempt to understand the other party’s point of view. There are very, very few circumstances in life where one side of a conflict is simply evil and out to destroy all that is good. Yet, that portrayal is common (necessary even?) in wars and much of our society.

So, depending on your particular beliefs, it may be of some benefit to read my personal opinion, as an atheist, of what atheism is and is not. I spend a fair bit of time engaging with both atheists and believers in a religion. Almost without fail, the religious misunderstand atheism, often deliberately so, and almost always are disinterested in learning about it and actually understanding it. It is easier to fear, hate, and reject than it is to learn, understand, and then perhaps politely disagree.

Atheists don’t believe in anything. This is a common perception among the religious. I have been told that I don’t believe in anything if I’m an atheist. There is a tragic video available on the internet in which one of the world’s more famous atheists, Richard Dawkins, interviews one of the world’s more fanatical and close-minded believers in religion, Yousef Al-Khattab. In this Yousef tells Richard Dawkins that he doesn’t believe in anything. This was actually one of the first places I encountered this attitude, but since then I have encountered it personally many times. My answer is thus: atheists do not believe in gods but that does not mean we do not believe in anything. If I did not believe in anything, then that would mean that I don’t believe in: human rights, education, the scientific method, my family, love, environmentalism, and forgiveness. However, I do very much believe in these things. The difference, perhaps one of semantics, is that I do not believe in anything for which there is no evidence. That, perhaps, is a more accurate statement about many atheists. I see no problem with not believing in things for which there is no evidence. There is evidence for all of the things I list above, and for a great many more things that have a positive influence in the world.

Atheists proselytize in just the same way that the religious do. Proselytizing is defined as the act of attempting to convert people to another opinion and, particularly, another religion (Wikipedia), or as inducing someone to convert to one’s faith or to recruit someone to join one’s party, institution, or cause (Merriam-Webster). None of these definitions fit what an atheist could do in conversation about atheism with the exception, perhaps, of the final one. Atheists cannot, by definition, attempt to convert someone to their faith (atheism is not a faith) or religion (atheism is not a religion), or party, or institution. It is possible that atheists could be defined as proselytizing by attempting to convert someone to their opinion or cause, but even that would be unusual among atheists. Most true atheists that I know are interested in rational discussion in which people arrive at their own point of view or opinion so long as it is reasonable and rational. I do, of course, actually believe that if everyone was capable of thinking completely rationally, reasonably, and used evidence to support their beliefs, then everyone would logically end up as an atheist, or at least as an agnostic. But that is quite different than preaching to people that they should convert to atheism. If I meet someone of religion who has rationally and reasonably examined their religion and still manages to explain in a logical manner why they believe in it, then I respect that person’s belief and have no interest in trying to convert them to atheism. That is in direct opposition to most people of religion. I have yet to meet anyone of religion who does not, as an underlying theme, hope that eventually I will join their faith (and therefore be saved).

Atheists have no basis for morality. This seems to be a universal (though I hate using that term inappropriately to define something in human behaviour which could by definition be no more than global) assumption and position of the religious towards atheists. Since you don’t believe in a god, you have no basis to form moral decisions. You might behave morally, presumably ultimately because you are afraid of going to prison in a country in which the laws are based on Christian morality, but as an atheist you have no inherent basis for morality. [Before I continue, I simply have to address as a side note the notion of a country based on Christian or Biblical morality. There is no such country in the world, thank goodness, and I hope to never see one, let alone live in one. For Americans in particular, this is a point of significant debate. So many Christians argue that their country was founded as a Christian nation (“one nation under God”, et cetera), and the debate about the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, and the intentions of the founding fathers can go on fruitlessly for hours. In reality, though, one need only read the Bible to recognize that even the most extremist Christian politicians such as Michelle Bachmann, Sarah Palin, and Mike Huckabee don’t actually want their nation’s laws based on the Bible. Read through the Old Testament books dealing with the law and then ask yourself if you really want to live in such a country. If you think the New Testament is any better, then ask yourself how a nation would be built around the concept of neighbourly love. How would you imprison someone for not loving their neighbour? Would I get a ticket from a policeman each time I drove by someone with a flat tire without helping them out? Would the laws in a Christian nation require that you hate your mother and father? Would marriage of a divorcee be illegal? Would lust be enough for imprisonment? If you lost a lawsuit to a large corporation, would you be required to pay more than the settlement amount? If you found an old man and forced him to carry something for you for one mile, would he then be required by law to carry it for you for two miles? If you were the victim of theft, would you be required by law not to try to get it back? These are all the darker sides of a hypothetical Christian nation that no one ever considers.]

But perhaps the first place to start with this issue of atheists having no basis for morality is to look at what morality really is and where it comes from. Morality can be defined as a set of behaviours or beliefs that differentiate right from wrong. My understanding of the religious claim of no morality amongst atheists is that, since we have no god to tell us what is right and what is wrong, then our morality is subjective rather than objective and as soon as you make morality subjective then anything is permitted or justifiable. My understanding of morality, however, is that it does not originate from a deity. (How could it when there are no deities?). Morality is a human construct. It originates from within humanity. We, as humans, have decided that things like murder and rape are immoral. Further, I would point out that morality is in fact much more subjective among the religious than it is among atheists. I have yet to find many religious people who can’t find some way of justifying killing another human being. Whether it is through capital punishment, a “just” war, retribution for a horrible act, or sanctioned by their own deity, most people of religion, at least if they accept the Bible to be true, have to accept that at some point killing other humans has been moral. So sometimes killing other people is immoral and sometimes it is moral. That, to me, is a subjective definition. My position is that killing other humans is immoral in all cases. That is pretty objective. I can’t find a scenario in which it would be moral to do so. (That is not to say I wouldn’t be tempted to do so in certain circumstances. Often in a conversation like this, someone will ask me what I would do if someone kidnapped and harmed or killed my own child. My answer is that, as a parent, of course I would feel like killing the perpetrator, especially if it increased my chances of recovering my child. But that would not make it moral). So, in my opinion, morality is actually less subjective among atheists than it is among the religious. But whether it is subjective or objective is not really the point. Morality is a human quality. We, as humans, invented it. Animals do not seem to have morality. They may have certain acceptable behaviours, but they are incapable of defining certain behaviours as right or wrong. It is likely that human morality varies a bit through cultures and has likely changed a bit over the time that humans have existed. But some basics have likely always been part of the human moral code. How could murder, within one’s own tight knit group, ever be considered moral? If it were, then people would be killing each other on a whim each time it was convenient to do so. Human society could not function. Perhaps in the distant past when humans had yet to form into clans, this may have been the case, but in order for humans to function in cooperative groups there needs to be some understanding that killing each other without reason is wrong. Somewhere along the line, people must have wondered where this feeling of “wrong” came from and, as religion evolved, ascribed it to a deity. The deity must have told us that murder is wrong, otherwise how else would we know that it is so? But the reality is that the knowledge that it was wrong was already there. If all that is not enough, then just look at behaviours of atheists and religious people. Murder rates are not higher among atheists, theft is not higher, rape is not higher, child abuse is not higher, tax fraud is not higher, none of the behaviours we might consider immoral are more common among atheists than among religious people. In fact, there are an overwhelmingly higher proportion of Christians in American jails than there are atheists. Atheists might make up somewhere around 10% of the American population (depending on your statistics source) but don’t make up anywhere near that percentage of the prison population. Some statistics cite it as low as below 1%. Maybe atheists are just better at not getting caught…

Atheists should not be allowed to teach children. Actually, most atheist teachers aren’t interested in teaching about atheism. They are interested in keeping their personal views and beliefs out of the classroom as much as possible and teaching the curriculum. I think a much stronger case can be made against having Christians teach (especially when it comes to science) than can be made against having atheists teach. What is a Christian teacher to do when they come across some curriculum that contradicts their personal beliefs? (For example: evolution, conclusions bases on evidence, etc.). An atheist teacher never has this problem because, so long as the curriculum is based in evidence and truth, then the atheist teacher is happy to teach it.

If you’ve been brought up in a religion, or find yourself believing a religion, then perhaps you’ve never given much thought to treating atheists with respect. Perhaps you’ve never thought about trying to understand atheism. Perhaps, if you are from a very fundamentalist religion, you even see atheism as evil or learning about atheism as a path to the devil. It is not. It is simply a way of looking at the world we live in. In particular, it involves looking at the world we live in and accepting it for what it is, based on the evidence that is available to us. Most atheists have managed, or at least try on a regular basis, to set aside their innate fear of death or hope for an afterlife, have set aside the stories they were told as children which are not based in evidence, and have set aside any familial or social pressures to conform to a religion that may be dominant in their culture. Consider, before you blindly reject atheism and atheists, how you would feel if someone of a different religion than your own rejected yours before they fully understood it. Suppose you are a Jew and you ran into a Christian who was horrified by your habit of drinking blood from Christian children. Suppose you are a Muslim and you run into a Christian who can’t understand why you want to strap a nuclear bomb to your back and walk into Manhattan. Suppose you are a Christian who meets a Muslim who hates your ideology of thinking that carpet bombing children in other countries is the path to world peace. All of these misperceptions would, of course, outrage anyone of those respective religions. The above listed misperceptions about atheism are no less outrageous.

Never Miss a Marketing Opportunity

When I was a child, my family attended a church in which the minister, an American Baptist, never missed an opportunity for an altar call. In fact, his every sermon, no matter the topic, always rounded to a call for anyone who had not yet done so to physically come to the front of the church and accept Jesus as their personal saviour. This was perhaps one of the least intellectual and instructional churches I ever attended. The whole message revolved around a one-off opportunity to become a Christian. From then on, nothing really mattered. Perhaps it’s understandable, acceptable even, for a minister to make an altar call from the pulpit once a week on Sunday morning. After all, what else do you expect to hear when you attend church? Why should that be offensive in the least in a church service?

But, there are times when it is offensive. I witnessed one such occasion a few years ago. I attended the funeral of a young man who had been killed suddenly in an accident. The funeral service was in a community hall in the town where this man had lived. It was packed full of everyone in the community. I suspect everyone was there whether they knew the deceased or not. That fact was clearly not lost on the minister who conducted the service as he saw a golden opportunity to proselytize. The service proceeded as one might expect, with some stories and anecdotes about the young man’s life. This young man had grown up in a semi-religious family and had never really taken religion too seriously. He liked to party and have a good time and was not someone you would ever suspect of being a Christian if you met him. At the funeral this fact was initially unspoken and left alone, but sure enough the minister couldn’t pass up an opportunity to save a few souls. Eventually he rounded on the topic of where this young man had now taken up residence for eternity. At a funeral, with relatives including in this case the young man’s pregnant wife sitting crying in the front row, the last thing one needs to think about is the possibility that their husband, son, brother, father, was now in hell being tormented by Satan himself. The minister at this particular funeral decided to go the alternate route, and confidently proclaimed that this young man had confessed his faith to the minister not a year or two before his death. He was, even now, rejoicing with God in heaven, the minister confidently announced. Then he went on to deliver the meat and potatoes of his message, all about the deliverance from death to those who accepted Jesus. I was immediately back in my childhood church.

This is wrong on so many levels, one isn’t sure where to begin. Firstly, there is the obvious problem with the minister acting as eternal judge of the man’s soul. Who is he to judge? I thought Christians believed that God sat in judgment of the deceased. Clearly, though, this minister was astute enough to recognize the potential doubt about the eternal destiny of the deceased. He sensed that the family needed that worst part of Christianity: false hope. He also felt, presumably as a result of the very fact that this young man was not particularly religious, the need to publicly leave no doubt as to his fate. Secondly, why turn a funeral, where people are emotional, weakened by grief, and vulnerable, into an opportunity to enlarge your flock? I remember feeling genuinely sickened at the thought of this minister hoping to cash in on the fear of death so palpable at the funeral with an enlarged congregation. This goes to one of the main reasons I originally rejected Christianity’s claim of truth. Truth is self-evident. It does not need a salesman. In science, for example, teachers might educate students on facts and evidence, but they feel no need to convince and sell their truth to students. Yet in religion this sales pitch is an absolute requirement because the ridiculous ideas passed off as truth by the religious are as laughable as a late-night info-mertial unless they are properly marketed. And thirdly, though this didn’t really hit me until later when I had a chance to really think about it, if this minister was so confident that the young man, who had so clearly lived his life as he pleased without religion, was no in heaven, then why the need for others to make an even more public and sincere profession of faith. Once the bar for admittance is established, why waste energy over-shooting it? Without even realizing it, this minister had effectively said to his community: “Don’t worry about coming to church, don’t worry about living life as a Christian, don’t worry about any of that. Just swing by my office sometime and proclaim your faith, then go about your life as you please. That’s all you really need for admittance to heaven." Talk about shooting yourself in the foot with your own message.

I watched as this young friend of mine was lowered into the ground in a wooden box. Those around him sang about the glory, grace, and love of God. I drove home late at night and looked out into the darkness and realized that the only thing that remained of my friend was now out in that darkness under six fee of earth. That was it. He no longer existed beyond a broken body. It was very tragic and devastating. I have almost never felt such a profound sadness and sense of loss. But it was also very real. The young man's life was over. It was his turn. He had positively affected many lives and there was much to be thankful for. I appreciated having known him. And my own mortality became more focused and real. I recognized that all life is at once valuable and fragile.

Kicking The Habit

Image courtesy of Google Images.

Was it Malcolm X that thought quitting cigarettes was more difficult that kicking a cocaine habit cold turkey? Surely tobacco, smoked in little chemical riddled white tubes, is one of the most addictive substances known to humanity. Why else would anyone deliberately inhale known carcinogens and other substances that slowly destroy virtually every organ system? Yet, as addictive as smoking is, I say it has nothing on religion. God is the most difficult habit of all to kick. [I must give credit where due for my title. When I was in high school, a teacher who had once been a member of an order of monks, gave a lecture entitled: “Kicking the Habit,” describing both the process of walking around a cloister with his feet brushing his habit with each step and the process of giving it all up. I’ve always thought was a great play on words and worth repeating here.]

Why is God so hard to give up? In my experience in relating to the religious, and Christians in particular, even in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary, people are very, very reluctant to give up God. Belief in God seems to linger much more stubbornly when faced with educated, rational thought on the topic than any other belief (well, with the exception, perhaps, of creationism). Anyone who has gone through university and taken some science courses has had to set aside preconceived notions about the nature of the world we live in and accept certain truths that are supported by evidence. Usually, this is an exciting and interesting process of discovery. But it seems that the process of “discovery” in terms of religion simply hardens hearts and minds towards reality and instead strengthens resolve to believe. Cherry-picking evidence to support the notion of the existence of God is rampant and indeed necessary to anyone who is going to continue to believe in God after a thorough scientific education. That anyone, for example, could still in this day and age believe that the earth appeared out of nowhere within the past 10,000 years with all the current species already in existence in their current form is preposterous. It is also extremely stubborn. But even leaving aside the fundamentalists who cling to the creation story, any believer in God has to set aside all sorts of rational thought about the effectiveness of prayer, the origins of our own species, the problem of evil, and so on.

Why? Why is it such a difficult habit to kick? I hypothesize that there are two main reasons. The first is essentially fear of death and the second is unwillingness or inability to accept that one’s whole life has been a fairly tale. Fear of death is a big one. Pascal’s Wager is alive and well in the 21^st Century, and I often come across former Christians who know they are now atheists, who know with all reason that there is no God, and yet who still occasionally have momentary panic at the terrible thought of going to hell if they turn out to be wrong. Hell is one hell of a motivation. Without the concept of an afterlife, Christianity would likely either never have gotten off the ground, or would have remained a small Pauline sect of Judaism. On occasion I’ve asked the odd Christian whether they would honestly still be a Christian if they knew for certain there was no afterlife. Without fail they all immediately say yes, which is not surprising. When you’ve got Big Brother watching over your shoulder 24-7, you can’t afford to let him suspect that you’re only in it for the goodies. But deep inside, would they? Why would anyone live their life as a Christian if there was no afterlife whatsoever? It makes no sense at all.

The fear of accepting that one’s whole life has been a fairy tale is also a strong motivation for staying true to the church. Any atheist who was once a Christian has gone through the process of this realization, and it is a difficult process. Often it is quite sudden, but it is not easy to realize that the person you’ve been talking to every night in bed, the person you’ve been leaning on for comfort, the omnipotent being that has been helping you make decisions about career, marriage, and every other aspect of your life, simply doesn’t exist. Why, you’ve been talking to yourself all these years! There was no one there! That is a very difficult concept for anyone to embrace, no matter how much the evidence supports it.

Never Really Cared for Collecting Stamps Anyway

I recently wrote a post about why atheists don't keep their views to themselves and another post about whether atheism is arrogance. As usual, any idea I can say or write can usually be said or written better by someone else. Today I saw this video and thought it was a succinct summary of these issues...

Got the Silly Thing in Reverse

 Image courtesy of Google Images.

In follow up to my recent post about responding to “evidence for God” raised by a Christian, and in particular the issue of life existing despite what seems like overwhelmingly small odds, I came across an analogy that I think fits quite well. It shows how the religious tend to go about things backwards when trying to examine evidence to make it fit their point of view.

Picture walking out into your yard in winter and finding a small natural hole in the ground. The hole in the ground has some natural features to it such as branches and bumps. That day it rains and then freezes and then you go back outside and now notice that there is a piece of ice fitted perfectly into the hole in the ground. You pull the little piece of ice out of the ground and notice that it perfectly matches the hole’s shape. There are little bumps wherever there were little holes, and there are little dimples in the ice wherever there were little bumps in the ground. No one would seriously be tempted to think that some higher intelligence must have place that piece of ice there by design because we all understand the relatively simple science of how water flows to fill a hole and then freezes to the shape of the mold. Yet, for some reason, when life is observed, the immediate reaction by some is to assume that it was placed there by the design of some higher intelligence (i.e. God), because they do not understand the science of evolution and life formation. The hole in the ground was there. Given that it rained and then froze, and given the nature of water, there is no other possibility but that ice will form in the shape of the hole in the ground. By analogy, the earth exists with the conditions of temperature and chemical composition that it has. Given the nature of biological life, there is no other possibility but that life will form in the way it has. (Of course, there are lots of possibilities of how life might have ended up, but that it formed at all is the given in this example). The whole point of view of the religious is in reverse. Yet again, they form the conclusion and then find evidence to support it.

[I owe whoever authored this analogy the credit for coming up with it. To date I have not found the source, but will update it when I do so].

Another more philosophical example is one I came across in written conversation with a Christian. After voicing what I considered a reasonable point of view about an issue, I was told by this person that it was ironic that I (as an atheist) was the one that had the “Christian” point of view on the issue while the Christians he had engaged with did not. Again, the whole point of view is in reverse. His assumption that a point of view of tolerance, love, and rational thought is a Christian one, and that therefore it was ironic that an atheist held that position, is in backwards. The position assumes that all goodness originates from Christianity and God and therefore it is impossible for an atheist to be “good” without having adopted some of the Christian message. Pure bunk. I’ll expand on this example with a few more details for interest sake.

The conversation in question involved an questioning by the Christian in question (whom I think is a very open-minded, liberal thinking, almost non-Christian) about the response to the assassination of Osama bin Laden by American troops. He was basically questioning the celebrating people were doing over someone else’s death, even if that someone else was an evil person. (This is a very simplified summary of his position, but adequate for my purposes here).

I responded by writing: “Finding a reason to justify killing other humans is easy, but never right, and either "side" can always claim outrage at the actions of the other in their justification. The only logical position I can take is that killing humans is wrong under any circumstances.”

A number of Christians then responded as well and some of their responses were downright crazy (or as another ex-Christian has called it, funny-mentalist). Although it is lengthy, one such response should be included in full here:

“I think that as a Christian who accepts the Bible as the being the word of God..the actual inspired preachings/teachings/words​ of God, I cant help but come to some different conclusions than many of you.

I think that God's justice is a combination of his love and his wrath. We can not read parts of the Bible..the love parts, and ignore the anger of the Lord.(in case you think its only the old testament that talks about his Wrath its mentioned 10 times just in James, including James 1:18 "The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of people, who suppress the truth by their wickedness").

Paul says this wrath of God “is revealed.” The Greek word is apokaluptetai, a present passive indicative. It denotes a continuous revelation of the wrath of God. Just as the righteousness of God is continually revealed in the preaching of the gospel, the wrath of God is also being revealed continuously. These are two parallel yet antithetical revelations. [Reverend P. G. Mathew, M.A., M.Div., Th.M.]

The Bible tells us to Fear the Lord...not just snuggle in for some love. We should fear the justice of God because if we lose touch with the fact that we also deserve His justice then we are in a heap of trouble.

I think that when God had his people march around the walls of Jericho singing, dancing and shouting praises to Him as the "walls of a nation" were cast down, he was sending a clear message that it is ok to rejoice when God shows his power and his justice. It is ok to rejoice when God brings to an end the reign of the wicked.

When a man makes it his life's mission to attack a people group that God claimed as his own (Israel) and those who stand beside them (to this point the US..who knows for how much longer)...then it is ok to rejoice when God chooses to reveal His power over the wicked. I dont think we take this event and rejoice that a man had been cast into an eternal fire of damnation, but we can rejoice that the reign of tyranny, oppression and murder has come to an end.

Osama Bin Laden was a gifted and powerful speaker (much like Hitler) who was VERY influencial in a continual pattern of leading people into a life of Direct Contradiction to the teachings of Jesus Christ. Many young lives were lost because of his teachings and I for one rejoice that he is no longer able to influence young men with his poison to hate, kill and make choices that condemn themselves to the fires of hell.

(for the record im not saying that [name of original commenter] was saying that Osama should have been left alone, in love. I am saying that although i DO NOT think chanting in the streets and having weekend parties is the right way to take this news....i rejoice in the fact that God has shown his Justice [and i do believe that God can chose to use the US Navy Seals as the tip of his sword] It reminds me of how valuable his mercy is to me personally!”

[Bolding is my addition. I thought the bolded section needed highlighting for its intense…craziness. No other word will suffice.]

In response, then, I wrote:

“Against my better judgment, I feel the need to comment again. Wow. If I needed any illustration of my point about how easy it is to find a justification for killing people (or celebrating the death of people), I think I got it. It is just as easy (and illogical) to find a justification for hating George Bush for killing tens of thousands of people as it is to find a justification for hating bin Laden for killing thousands. It all depends on which doctrine of hate you happened to be raised on.”

Now for the irony…my Christian acquaintance wrote, in response to me:

“It is a little weird/ironic, don't you think, that YOU are the one arguing vehemently for what (I believe) is the actual response that Christ would argue for? Perhaps there are no Christians, except atheists :) (Or agnostics - not really sure where you'd place yourself and I certainly wouldn't want to place anyone else).”

An astounding statement. It is ironic that I, as an atheist, are making the argument that Christ would make. Got the silly thing in reverse! Whether “Christ” would make such an argument or not, I have no idea nor interest. What I do know from observation is that not many Christians would make such an argument while I think many atheists would. The presumption that anything that anyone says that is leaning towards peace and forgiveness (not that I have any forgiveness for Osama bin Laden, please understand), and rational thought about the conflicts in the world we live in, must stem from God. Are you joking??? The same god that was so blood-thirsty and condoning of genocides in the Bible? The same god that is willing to send people off to an eternity of hate, suffering, and pain because of the culture they happened to be brought up in? No, my statements are utterly rational and in line with my atheistic beliefs. There is nothing Christian about what I said. The Christian message in this case is much nearer that of Anne Coulter, a certifiable funny mentalist:

“We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity.”

Please, put the silly thing in forward gear and start thinking for yourself.

Evidence-Chasing

Anyone who knows me or has read much of my writing knows that I try to put value on evidence. I always have in my daily life, and have always tried to approach life in a rational way. My logical, evidence-based approach to life is probably just part of my personality, and one that does occasionally drive people around me a bit crazy. Humans are emotional beings. We often make snap illogical decisions in life that have profound consequences. I’m no exception, I’m still an emotional person too, but I do think I have a more evidence-based approach to life than most. This is probably the biggest factor in eventually leading me to leave the Christian faith. Sometimes I think people think this means I think I am always right. It doesn’t, of course, though I can understand why I sometimes come across that way. When you try to align your beliefs and opinions with evidence, and then back them up with evidence when challenged, it can appear that you are close minded because you’ve already examined your positions quite carefully. Often, though, I’ll realize that my position on something is not evidence-based and then I must alter my position.

One of the very difficult things to do in life, however, is to really objectively examine evidence without bias. We all have biases, and we are all tempted all the time to try to make our observations of evidence fit our conclusion or opinion about something. On a simple everyday level this happens all the time in the world of sports. Any fan of a sports team will typically make observations fit their held belief that their team is best. This might manifest itself as bias in observations of officiating during a match, or ignoring evidence that doesn’t support a held opinion that a particular favoured athlete is the best at what they do. In the world of sports this probably doesn’t matter so much and does lead to the exciting, passionate, and endless debates about who really is the better team or player. However, in the world of science or religion, this is not a good approach. Making evidence fit a preconceived opinion or belief is disastrous in science as it can easily lead to false interpretation of results or findings. This happens all the time in science, but fortunately the process of modern science is relatively good at catching mistakes. An example is the “finding” some years ago that child vaccinations lead to an increased risk of autism. In 1998 The Lancet, a highly regarded medical journal, published a study that found an increased risk of autism among children exposed to routine vaccinations. It is generally accepted now that this is not the case, and that the lead scientist had allowed his biases to cause a misinterpretation and some bad science. The Lancet has since retracted the publication, but unfortunately this mistake has had major implications in the health of many young children as their parents have foolishly avoided vaccinating their kids against some diseases that are easily preventable. This is an example of some major consequences of a relatively minor bit of evidence-chasing.

In religion too, this sort of thing happens. Sometimes the consequences are even more profound. Sometimes the result of evidence-chasing is that thousands of children are raised to believe something that is not true, and perhaps even worse, to turn into evidence-chasers themselves (think of the common rejection of evolutionary biology in high schools in the U.S., for example). To someone with an education in science, spotting evidence-chasing among things like creationist opinions is relatively easy, but it can crop up as a much more subtle way that might initially appear like authentic rationalism even when it is not. I recently encountered an example of this in an exchange I had with someone on the internet with respect to their writing. In fairness to this person, they will remain anonymous as I have not gained their permission to use their opinions in this example. My example requires a bit of background.

There are a number of websites that act as forums for people who have left Christianity and embraced agnosticism, atheism, or who have simply stopped believing in the god of their upbringing. On one such website recently, a Christian started to make comments. He then reported on his experience on this forum on his own blog in an article that talked about his experiences in an atheist community. I felt that his post on the blog was deliberately intended to be a bit inflammatory and deliberately designed to not give people (“the atheists”) on the webpage the benefit of the doubt. A photograph was attached to the blog, one which showed a large crowd of people (the majority of whom were incidentally non-white; Time magazine’s O.J. Simpson legacy of skin darkening sadly lives on) shouting and holding their hands in the air with thumbs pointed down. I can’t imagine for a moment that the photo is either a group of atheists or a group of former Christians. It is clearly just a group of people protesting something loudly. I think the photograph was attached with the intention of supporting the overall impression that “atheists” (it was not a group of atheists per se that the blog author had engaged with, but a mix of former Christians) are unreasonable, loud people who like can't be reasoned with, much like any large group of protesters. To be fair, there were a number of impolite and unreasonable comments made towards this person on the web page forum, but I felt they were done out of frustration at a persistently dogmatic point of view. Again, the web page is not an atheist website and a number of the people he engaged with were not atheists. This was pointed out to him a number of times by various people making comments on his blog but, as far as I know, he never acknowledged the error or misrepresentation.

The crux of his blog post was five points about atheists that he summarizes from his experience on the (non-atheist) web page. As you can see, some Christians have a real problem distinguishing an atheist from anyone who isn’t a Christian. Briefly then, his five summary points of the views of atheists, where:

1. Christians are idiots.
2. Atheists are morally superior to Christians.
3. God is evil.
4. The Bible is a bunch of bunk.
5. Anyone who would question non-belief is not wanted.

I don’t need to go into the details of his explanations of these five points because they are not really what I want to discuss, though he does attempt to justify them reasonably and back them up through his experiences in the exchanges he had. My point is not to refute or critique his blog posting in general, but rather to establish the background of some serious evidence-chasing at the end.

I wrote a comment expressing my point of view on these five points as follows:

I would agree with points 2 - 4. Points 1 and 5 I would disagree with.

1. Christians are not idiots. An idiot is typically considered to be someone who is mentally deficient. It is further normally intended as a derogatory term, though technically it need not be. To claim that a large group of people are idiots (presumably of lower I.Q.) based on their religious beliefs is inaccurate and likely easy to disprove. I have met many highly intelligent Christians and many atheists of lower than average intelligence. What I would say about Christians, though sweeping generalizations are often inherently unfair, is that they are typically irrational, ignorant (often deliberately so), illogical, and very dogmatic, specifically when it comes to thinking about and discussing their religious beliefs. Unlike idiocy, none of those descriptions are derogatory. They are simply descriptions. But, in my pretty extensive experiences in relating to Christians and in having been one myself, I would state that the most accurate description of Christians is that they are typically not actually interested in discovery and truth, but rather in making any piece of information gathered to fit a preconceived conclusion and world view that they have decided from the outset will never fundamentally change.

2. Yes, with a qualifier. I would say more accurately that atheism is morally superior to Christianity rather than comparing individuals. One need not delve into the darker parts of Yahweh's character and instructions to decipher how horrendously evil his morality is. One need only think of the notion of teaching children about hell without a shred of evidence to support it.

3. Yes, assuming that you are talking about the Biblical god Yahweh. God, of course, doesn't exist as an entity, but the concept of him is horrifically evil, and his entire raison d'etre (within the Bible, not in reality) is to allow people to control other people. That in itself is an evil notion. I can't imagine anyone reading the Bible with an open mind and coming to any other reasonable conclusion. If humans behaved in the way God condoned in the Bible, they would make Hitler look like a normal political leader.

4. Without doubt. The Biblical contradictions with established science are astounding, sometimes amusingly so. The book was clearly written by men who had the knowledge you would expect of the times that it was written. Many events in the book are so physically impossible that they have to be taken as allegory by any rational human. Once you start taking the book as figuratively then you realize that they whole thing can be discarded as fiction. Further, the contradictions within the book itself make it completely unbelievable.

5. Certainly not. Questioning anything and everything is always a good idea. Though, in practice I'm not sure how you question non-belief in a phenomenon. A more logical approach is to question belief. I don't believe in the tooth fairy, but I also don't feel any need to question why I don't believe in her. The question never has reason to enter my consciousness. If someone presented themselves to me as an honest believer in the tooth-fairy and presented some evidence in support, then I would examine the evidence and my position. Same with Christianity and God. But I have yet to see any evidence ever presented in support of the existence of the Biblical God.

Now we finally leave the background and get to the real point of evidence-chasing. In response, the individual in question stated:

Thanks for the comment; it seemed very well-thought-out.  One question for you... in my short amount of time studying these things (I'm trying to start with fundamental scientific questions about God and atheism and the existence of god before I delve into questions about Christianity more deeply), I've run into several strong points of evidence about the existence of a god (not necessarily about the Christian God).  How do you deal with these issues:

1. The laws of nature: that nature obeys laws (and has regularities) is evidence that there is a God.
2. The existence of the cosmos: that there exists any universe at all, and that it is fine-tuned for the existence of life, is evidence that there is a God.
3. The presence of life: that there is life at all is evidence that there is a God.  Scientists Fred Hoyle and Chandra Wickramasinghe calculated in the early 1980s the probability of life forming, and placed the odds at one in 10^40,000.
4. Human consciousness: The existence of consciousness in humans is something that science cannot explain.

The first three of those questions were things that Antony Flew cited as reasons he stopped being an atheist, after years of being a prominent atheist, and started believing in a god (deistic).  The last question is just one that I have tacked on, because it's something that troubles me.

These are things that I cannot yet reconcile with an atheistic viewpoint, and I wonder how you've answered them?

As you can see, this is no run-of-the-mill Christian evidence denier that we’re dealing with. This is not someone whose first attempt at debunking atheism is to run to the tired old arguments in support of creationism. Learning to examine the evidence and then form your conclusions is relatively simple when dealing with things like Noah’s flood or talking donkeys, and at first glance you might be tempted to think this individual has genuinely examined the evidence and finds a few major pieces of evidence in support of a god. But, this is nothing more than basic evidence-chasing yet again. My response to these four points:

Perhaps I can assume from your response that you accept that lack of evidence is a valid reason to reject the notion of deities, and your position is that there is evidence and therefore you accept the notion of a god. In response to your four points:

1. I don’t see how the laws of nature are evidence that there is a god. Regularities occur in nature. There is gravity where there is mass. So what? Why does that mean there is a god?

2. We know a lot about the origins of the universe, but we still know precious little about it compared to what remains to be known. Lack of understanding of the origins does not logically provide evidence that the origins were magic (see my comparisons below to phenomena that used to seem like magic to less knowledgeable humans).

3. Hoyle’s numbers are widely rejected by mainstream science. Hoyle also believed that life did not originate on earth but came about by panspermia which is not scientifically supported. But even if you accept that the probability of life forming is slim, life did form. Therefore it must be both physically possible and statistically possible because we do know that it happened. Looking around us and saying that we’re so unlikely to exist that there must be a god who put us here is to go about it backwards. We are here, we know how life evolves given the right conditions, and therefore the probability is, by definition, within the realm of possibility.

4. As with your first point, I fail to see how human consciousness is evidence for a god. I would disagree that science cannot explain it. Neuroscience has a lot to say about the nature of human consciousness, as does evolution. That we have self awareness, prior knowledge of our own death, language, etc., are all within the process of human
evolution.

Even if you don’t accept my explanations point by point, they can all also be dismissed outright since none of these issues is specific evidence for a god, they are simply problems some people have with the, as yet, partly unexplained. Two analogies to help explain what I mean. Firstly, if we were having this conversation several thousand years ago, similar points you might raise as evidence of a god could be: occasionally the earth moves uncontrollably and randomly; sometimes healthy people suddenly and randomly get sick and die; on some nights huge flashes of light shoot from the sky and destroy things on earth, therefore there must be a god. In other words, I perceive all four points as essentially the same argument: we can’t fully explain certain things yet, therefore there must be a god responsible for these things. Secondly, suppose I was having this conversation with someone who believed we are all living within a computer programme much like the movie The Matrix. They might logically try to use all the same four points in support of their belief. In other words, there is no specificity towards deities in your points. Not to mention narrowing it down to a specific god such as the Christian god.

As you can see from my response, I point out that these four points are nothing more than a modern day exasperation at gaps in our scientific understanding. They are nothing more than a modern day version of the Ancient Greeks' formation of a Poseidon hypothesis resulting from observations of ocean storms. The point about Hoyle in particular is classic evidence-chasing. This individual effectively goes about his search for evidence to support his conclusion (that life could not have happened without the intervention of a deity) by wondering: “There must be a scientist out there somewhere who supports this notion. Ah yes, Hoyle, he’ll do.” Rather than examining all the evidence about the beginnings of life, examining how Hoyle’s theories were received in the scientific community, and realizing that he is clinging to one piece of false evidence in support of a pet theory rather than vice versa. So far the conversation has ended at this point and I’ve had no further response.

So, evidence-chasing comes at all levels of sophistication. It can crop up in conversation between two NBA fans in support of their pet favourite team, it can crop up in the study of vaccinations and health published at the highest levels of science, and it can crop up in a personal discussion involving the same old tired process of trying to find a reason to support your conclusion that god exists.

What is Atheism III: Why Don’t You Atheists Just Keep to Yourselves?

 Courtesy of Google Images.

All of us atheists have heard this question. Why do you proselytize your point of view in the same way that Christians (or some other religions) do? If you want to deny the existence of god, if you want to live a selfish life and eventually go to hell then that’s fine, but just keep it to yourself.

My initial, and admittedly somewhat immature, answer to this is that if Christians kept their beliefs to themselves then I would do the same. But I don’t mean that in a petty, tit for tat way. What I mean is that our Western, democratic, secular, capitalist society is in a constant struggle for survival against dogmatic, superstitious irrational beliefs. Our society was born out of struggle to free ourselves from government based on tyranny, oppression, and fear, and religion has been a very significant tool in the past to maintain that status quo for centuries. We don’t want to go back to that again. When the 14 terrorist flew airplanes into buildings in New York and Washington in 2001, most Americans felt that their way of life, their very society, was under attack from religious fundamentalism. And so it was. Those evil men who committed suicide by violently and deliberately taking thousands of people with them died very much hoping that their actions would help bring about the fall of the United States. They underestimated, of course, not only the resolve but the incredible power and strength of the American economy, military, government, and people. This was not like dealing with the crumbling, bankrupt, and demoralized Soviet Union in Afghanistan in the 1980s. In any case, Americans themselves had no trouble rallying around the flag in defense of their incredible country against religious fanaticism. Yet, for some reason, when their great country is threatened by religious fanaticism from within, they have no problem with it. When the fanaticism stems from their own religion, they welcome it and often state that it represents a “return” to how the country should be.

For me, as a Canadian, there is little danger that my country will fall into religious extremism anytime in the immediate future, though there are some frightening recent signs of a regression towards organized and deliberate ignorance (I think of the case of the Prime Minister’s appointment of a man, Gary Goodyear, who does not accept evolution to the position of Minister of State for Science and Technology, for example). But for my friends south of the border in the United States, one could argue that this is already happening. Certainly the danger of it is very real. Just listen to some of the rhetoric that came out of George Bush’s mouth for 8 years. Just listen to some of the things that Sarah Palin says. Or even Barack Obama, with his references to God and prayer, even though I personally think it’s clear he is not truly religious and does so only to be politically savvy. These people operate on the assumption that they live in a Christian country that should be based on Christian values (shudder the thought). Their ideal scenario is probably a country in which Christianity is the basis for governance, and if some people want to live as atheists then that is their right so long as they keep quiet about it and don’t try to introduce their atheistic ideas into government and law. How wrong is that notion in a country based on freedom of religion? Freedom of religion does not mean the freedom to privately believe whatever you want within a Christian country, it means that everyone has the freedom to believe whatever religion they want and it also means that everyone hast he right to be free from other people’s religions. By definition for that to happen, the country itself must be secular. That is why the United States was founded as a secular country. (I have had numerous arguments with people about this, some of whom insist the U.S. was founded as a Christian country. My only response is that they must not have read the constitution).

But I digress. I am not intending to rant about the ongoing battle between Christians and secularists in the U.S. It provides a good example of what I’m talking about, but I’m interested in the issue in a more general sense.

Why do I not just keep my atheism to myself? Why do I feel the need to discuss it, to challenge Christian’s beliefs? Part of the reason I am engaged in discussions of religion and atheism is that I am a formerly religious person myself. I find religion interesting, and, if I’m completely honest, yes there is probably some unfinished cathartic business related to my past. But if I lived in a world that was truly secular and in which freedom of religion was truly respected, and in which rhetoric was limited to reality-based knowledge, then I suspect I would feel no such need. I don’t mean by this that I would only shut up once religion was eradicated. What I mean is that I would shut up about atheism if religious people would shut up about their religion. (This is the bit that appears immature at first). Atheists need to be vocal about atheism, rationalism, and secularism because the underlying assumption amongst religious people (and Christians in particular) is that they want everyone to become Christians, and they want society in general to “return” to Christian values (often disguised, of course, as “family” values). In addition, rational thought is often tossed aside instantly when discussions of religion are involved. It is only through centuries of struggle involving revolution, education, scientific discovery, and enlightenment that we have finally overthrown the antiquated system of living in a country based on religious values. The last thing we want is to go back to those dark ages again.

Christians operate on the assumption that everyone should become a Christian. They are told to spread their good news. Atheists should not stand by quietly and allow Christianity to spread through irrational, illogical, and ill thought-out proselytizing. Especially towards children. If an adult has a discussion with a Christian and decides they want to join up and commit their life to Jesus, by all means do so. But there should at least be a rational voice to point out what it is they are doing. How many of us would shut up and keep our atheistic views to ourselves if we saw a large portion of the adult population being persuaded that the Santa Claus actually exists and that they should act accordingly? And, when it comes to teaching irrational falsehoods to children, there is no need to beat around the bush. It is abusive and wrong.

But, perhaps my most important point on this topic is that atheists do not generally proselytize as the religious do. As an atheist I am not out to convert people to atheism. I am simply interested in making sure that issues are discussed rationally, logically, and with a good grounding in fact-based reality. My comment above about my country’s appointment of a creationist to the top political position on science is not, as many Christians would see it, a rant against religion, but rather a revolt against deliberate ignorance. I have often drawn the comparison that if my Prime Minister appointed a Minister of Health who thought that HIV was transmitted by eye contact, then I would have as much of a problem with that. Ultimately, atheists do not speak out because we are proselytizing, but because we are facing organized and deliberate ignorance. Our society, our scientific knowledge, our freedoms, are all threatened by people who would deliberately choose dogma and superstition over facts and knowledge. If you doubt this, consider the ongoing battle involving the attempted removal of established scientific knowledge from high school science classes simply because that established science threatens some people’s religious beliefs. If that is not the darker side of a democracy, then I don’t know what is: if enough people vote for it, you can decide not to teach science in science class.

In short, believe whatever religion you want. But expect to be able to justify your beliefs and listen to rational, logical explanations for why your beliefs make no sense whatsoever if you want to be taken seriously with those beliefs. Doubly so if you want to introduce those beliefs into governance and law. Triply so if you come anywhere near a child with your dogma.

I’ve had a number of interesting dialogues with Christians on this matter. I’ve had some respectful discussions and some that have degenerated and broken down. One of the more respectful conversations I’ve had was with an intelligent and well-meaning Christian who seems very open to reality in some ways and is also very openly critical of his own religion, particularly the fanaticism that it often invokes. I believe this person truly wants to live in a peaceful and loving world where people respect one another, and it is clear he puts his money where his mouth is and lives according to that wish. Yet, in recent dialogue he made this astonishing statement:

"The odd thing is that even though I could go on all day about these sorts of things, I don't actually really care that much about them. For me, it's sort of a mind-game, and it doesn't matter very much at all what someone says they believe - it matters whether they love, and act lovingly towards others."

[This person did ask me not to share this with anyone, and I sincerely hope that he wouldn’t mind me simply quoting it anonymously here.]

As much as I respect this person’s attitude (and I think the world would in fact be a much better place with more people like them), I also find the underlying reason for it very worrisome. How could someone say that they don’t actually care [about whether God is real or not]? I think it very much matters, given the horrific nature of God. No matter how loving and respectful someone is, if they still believe that we are all by nature sinful, that an omnipotent and omniscient deity is overseeing it all, and that we are all eternal beings who will either suffer in hell or go to heaven (I’m paraphrasing here, I’m not suggesting this particular person believes all this), then I think there’s a real problem.

Ultimately, to answer the question in the title of this post, I think the question itself makes an assumption. If there are those who think atheists should keep their opinions to themselves, then I suspect the either misunderstand atheism, or they assume that their religious viewpoint is the norm. If your modus operandi is that your religion is the one true one, and that ultimately everyone who doesn’t believe it is wrong, then it is probably a bit hard to be open-minded towards people of completely different viewpoints being vocal. Now, some might claim that atheists make the same assumption. Maybe some do. I can only speak for myself when I say that I am not interested in converting people to atheism. I am, however, interested in rational, evidence-based thought and discussion. If I can’t back up my positions with evidence and logic then I shouldn’t hold onto them. Neither should you. When I was a teenager my father, a life-long Christian, once made the astounding statement that he was not interested in Jesus per se but in the truth. If he one day discovered that Jesus was not the truth he would immediately be through with him. (To date my father is still very much a follower of Jesus). But, I do respect that point of view and I think it was genuine. I hold the same point of view towards my atheism. Even though atheism is not a faith or a belief, I would discard it if evidence came to light that there are deities after all (for, by definition, that is what it would take to abandon atheism). I’m not so sure many Christians feel the same way. Would they be able to abandon their fear of death and hell and walk away if they thought that Jesus wasn’t for real?

In summary, as usual, a brighter (in both senses of the word) person than me can sum up my thoughts more eloquently than I can. I have repeated this quote elsewhere already, but I think it is particularly apt for this post:

"The enlightenment is under threat. So is reason. So is truth. So is science, especially in the schools of America. I am one of those scientists who feels that it is no longer enough just to get on and do science. We have to devote a significant proportion of our time and resources to defending it from deliberate attack from organized ignorance. We even have to go out on the attack ourselves, for the sake of reason and sanity. But it must be a positive attack, for science and reason have so much to give. They are not just useful, they enrich our lives in the same kind of way as the arts do. Promoting science as poetry was one of the things that Carl Sagan did so well, and I aspire to continue his tradition."

- Richard Dawkins