What is Atheism VI: Believe it or Not, We Don't Believe God Exists

Many, perhaps most, Christians seem to think that atheists are grumpy, selfish people who are angry with God and who have gone off in a huff to spend their lives as they wish in some sort of mimicking of parent-child relationship gone wrong. This perception stems from the fact that Christians have a very difficult time understanding the point of view that atheists have towards God: that he simply doesn't exist. The parent analogy is a good one because everyone has or had a mother and father at some point. Even if your parents have passed on, they did exist. If you chose not to relate to them, it doesn't change the fact that they existed. So the common habit of applying the father figure role to God leaves Christians unable to appreciate the perspective of someone who doesn't believe in God or gods. My relationship with my own father is not great. Cue the amatuer Christian psychologists who will undoubtedly think they've stumbled upon the reason for my rejection of God. But that is just the point. I have not rejected God. I have rejected the very idea that God exists. I don't go around with a grudge towards God, and hope that I can punish him for my indoctrinated childhood by pretending he isn't there. I actually don't believe he is there. That is the fundamental difference.

This crucial point about understanding atheism is very, very difficult for Christians to grasp. Their whole life they have been told that God is with them in every thought, action, word, every moment. To grasp this  notion that someone else does not believe God exists, is more than difficult.

Sometimes I think in sarcastic terms about what some Christians must think my position on religion is. I assume it goes something like this:

I know that God is there. I know that he is omniscient, omnipotent, and omnipresent, so I know that he sees everything I do and think. I used to be a Christian and I know the Bible well, so I know that there is a heaven above us and a hell below. I know that Satan exists and he is constantly trying to tempt me to sin. Ultimately, Satan would love for me to reject God completely and follow his ways. I know that Jesus existed, was born of a virgin, grew to adulthood and was crucified. I know that he rose from the dead, and that his sacrifice was made so that I might not have to pay the ultimate price for my sins if I decided to accept his gift of life. I know that this life is relatively short, and that an eternity of bliss awaits me if I accept Jesus as my saviour. I don't even have to live a perfect life, I just have to accept him in my heart and try to live the way that I think he would want me to live. 


I know all of this, and yet...I reject it all. I prefer to just do what I want for the next forty or fifty years of life that I have left. I'm OK with giving up an eternity in heaven just so that I can tell Jesus to get stuffed and so that I can do what I want in life without consulting him in prayer. Even though my day to day life wouldn't change that much if I accepted Jesus in my heart, I still don't think it is worth it. I could probably keep the same career, the same family, continue to live in the same neighbourhood, continue to do the recreation I enjoy. I might have to go to church, though that, of course, is not necessary for salvation. All I have to do is believe in my heart that Jesus is my saviour and accept him. I'm a smart man, I have a lengthy education. I plan my finances carefully. But I'm too short-sighted to think that this commitment is worth it. I'd rather trade in all eternity just to have my own way for a few decades.

Is that what Christians think? Is that really what they think my position is?

No. I don't believe that God exists. I think the whole thing is man-made. Religion in its entirety is a human fabrication that developed out of fear of death combined with the benefits of primitive groups of people working together more effectively by believing they were different than everyone else. That they had some common belief. That, and their complete inabilty to explain the natural world around them.

We can do better. We can explain much of the natural world around us. Though there is much knowledge left to be gained about nature, we at least know that superstition is false. We at least know that sitting down, closing your eyes and thinking and speaking a certain way to a deity in the sky has absolutely no effect on the outcome of anything.

I'll say it again in case anyone doesn't quite get it yet. In case someone reading this still thinks I am running away from God and choosing my own path:

I don't believe that God exists.

What is Atheism part V: Don't shine your light in my face please.

In the contemporary "battle" that seems to be going on between traditional religions and what seems to be a popularizing of atheism, one of the more common sticking points is the argument about pushing your beliefs on other people and into society. As an atheist, I hold the position that personal freedom when it comes to religion is an important thing to protect in society. I believe that everyone in society should be able to believe whatever religion they wish, so long as their beliefs and practice of those beliefs doesn't infringe on other people's rights to be free from them. To me, this is the only reasonable approach to a society in which everyone has religious freedom as well as freedom from religion if they so wish. However, this is a very difficult concept to put into practice.

The difficult part seems to be helping the religious understand how to avoid having their beliefs infringing on others' rights to be free from them if they so wish. As an atheist, I believe I have the right to live in society without being subjected to any law that stems from religion. I believe this just as strongly as I believe that a religious person has the right to live in society without being subjected to any law that stems from someone else's different religion. This sounds like a logical and respectful position that most people would agree with, but it is amazing how difficult it seems to be to put it into practice. Most religious people, on the face of it, would initially agree with my position. After all, how many Christians really want some of society's laws to be based on Muslim Sharia law? Most open-minded religious people can understand the mutually respectful position of this position, and that it benefits everyone to not be subjected forcefully to someone else's religion.

I would be quite happy to leave it at that, but the catch seems to come when you introduce atheism into the equation. And, let me be clear, it is the religious who do so. I have no need to force atheism into society in any manner. What I do feel the need for is to protect the above position that religion should not be forced into society. There is a very significant difference. The religious will tend to get defensive, when asked to keep their religion out of the courts, the schools, and other public institutions, and almost universally insist that atheists do the same and keep their atheism out of public institutions as well. On the face of it, some people would think this sounds like a fair arrangement, but it actually represents a gross misunderstanding of what atheism is. Atheism is not a religion.

I find that I often think in analogies and I think one here might be helpful. Imagine that each religion is represented by a different coloured light. Imagine that, instead of religions we are talking about various groups of people who like to decorate society with lights of their favourite colour. And imagine that you find offensive lights of differnt colours. Imagine a large group of people who love shining red lights around, another group who loves to shine green lights around, and another who likes blue. Also imagine that the group who likes red lights finds it offensive when they see blue lights or green lights shining in public. Wouldn't the solution appear obvious? Shine your coloured light as much as you want in your own home or even in your own private club of same-minded people, but don't shine it around society and everyone else will agree to do the same. That should take care of any offensive lights being shone in public, but equally protect your individual rights to enjoy your own coloured light whenever you want. You can even walk around in public thinking about your red or green or blue lights as much as you like. Just don't ask to hang one up in the courthouse, the school, or the legislature.

Now, in my analogy, the atheist is represented by someone who doesn't feel the need to enjoy lights of a particular colour. We don't mind you shining your red or green or blue lights in your own home or in your private club as much as you want. But we don't like coloured lights hanging all over town. So, we ask that you don't do so. In my analogy, the religous attitude towards atheis is represented by someone responding by saying: "Yeah, but you're asking us not to shine our red lights around town while at the same time you are trying to shine your dark lights around town." Doesn't make any sense, does it? How can you shine a light that makes things dark? You can't. If you don't like coloured lights then all you can do is request that others don't shine their coloured lights. There is no dark light you can shine that overpowers the coloured lights.

This is all we as atheists are asking for. Don't shine your coloured lights in our faces. Don't bring them into public institutions. We have no intention or need to "bring" atheism into the public institutions either. It only appears to the religious that we do when we ask them to put out their coloured lights.

Of course, the problem with this analogy, and with the reality of religion in society is that everyone thinks that their particular colour is right and everyone else's colour is wrong.

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.

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

What is Atheism, Part II: What I Believe

Image courtesy of Google Images.

I am a rationalist. I believe that most things, ideas, and thoughts can be divided into absolutes and relatives. An electron is an absolute. The speed of light is an absolute (though, technically of course Einstein showed us that it too is relative, but for the purposes of this discussion I define it as absolute). Gay marriage being wrong is relative. Marriage itself is relative. History is an absolute. Events happened. Nothing anyone ever writes about them will change those events. However, the writing of history is relative. No one ever produces a record of an event that is absolute, but rather puts their own human biases into the record such that the level of relativism may vary, but it remains relative in all cases. And, difficult as it is for most humans to accept, morality is relative. Morality is a human quality, developed by humans and judged by humans. The moral relativism vs. moral absolutism debate is nothing new. Often religious people will argue that morals are absolute: murder is wrong no matter what; Hitler was evil whether he thought we was doing good or not. But I don’t generally think of my view of morality as conforming to either side of the traditional moral relativism vs. absolutism debate. Within human societies, yes, murder is wrong, and that is morally absolute. However, it is only wrong because we as humans have defined it so, which also makes it relative. When a polar bear kills another polar bear, though it is an example of within species killing (murder?), we don’t define it as immoral. We only apply that standard to our own species. Why? That is a very interesting question that perhaps no one knows the answer to. Likely it has to do with the evolution of our species, and the development of morality as a tool to aid in the evolution. How could human societies evolve effectively if killing one another on a whim, and without repercussions, was acceptable? Clearly there would be all sorts of practical problems in that scenario, so we evolved in such a way that things that were literally anti-social and thereby would have prevented the very development of human societies (and humans would never have developed as they did unless they worked together in small groups or societies) were not acceptable and therefore prevented.

I am a physiologist. Physiology does not obey human desire. Should it be unfair that a six-year old cancer survivor is now discovered to have epilepsy does not influence whether or not the child has epilepsy. There is no karma in human physiology (let’s face it, there is no karma period!). Cells and organs function in predictable and logical fashion. I take this view of human physiology to the greater universe. The sun is no less likely to explode into a supernova tomorrow just because certain preordained events in humanity have not yet taken place. The sun will only explode into a supernova according to the laws of astrophysics.

This is not be confused with fatalism. This is not to say that humans cannot influence events. My physiological organs may be less likely to fail and become diseased if I hope that they don’t. I may influence my own lifestyle in a manner that affects that outcome, but that is simply part of the predictable and unalterable set of rules that govern human physiology. Expose cells to a carcinogen for long enough and cancer will develop. Whether the owner of those cells happens to be the father of two young children, gives to the poor regularly, and an all-around nice guy is entirely irrelevant. As is the processes which govern the curing of said cancer. Medicine may help cure some cancers, sometimes even in ways that physiologists do not entirely comprehend, but whether the patient deserves to live or not has no say in the matter. And, importantly, whether the patient has friends and family who pray for him or not is entirely irrelevant (ignoring any psychological placebo effect).

Perhaps none of what I have opined is earth-shattering or original. Perhaps most would even agree. Yet so many do not believe, communicate, relate, and live as though they agree. Why can we, as the human race, not cast aside our superstitions? Why can we not cast aside our view of ourselves as being more important than a collection of cells that develop according to a well established DNA-directed path? Why is it that so many of us accept that an earthquake happens only because two tectonic plates have moved but then turn around and believe that cancer strikes someone or is cured because it is God’s will? (Atheists are often accused of being self-centered, but is there a more self-centered point of view than thinking a cosmic deity interferes with your small insignificant life in minute detail? To paraphrase Christopher Hitchens: you are a worthless being born into sin, but take heart, the universe is designed with you in mind).

So what do I believe? I believe those things for which there is evidence. Everything that is true has evidence to support it. We may not yet (or even ever) be able to observe the evidence, but it is there. Further, I believe that the scientific process has the potential to discover and explain everything. There is nothing that exists that science does not have the potential to explain. That is, of course, different than saying science can or has explained everything. There are many things which science has not explained and there may well be things that science never will explain, likely because we lack the time or resources to do so. Just think of the things that for most of human history have been complete mysteries, but which science has now explained to a good level of understanding: lightening, earthquakes, electric shocks, shooting stars, genetics, aging, muscular contraction, and so on. Certainly there are things that science has yet to explain or finish explaining: the Big Bang or the origins of the universe, life outside our own solar system, dark matter, and so on. But what if we sat back now and told ourselves that those things are inherently unknowable through the scientific method? What might future generations miss out on? That would be the same as sitting back in our caves thousands of years ago and not trying to find out how we could breed and harness cattle, how the sun and the moon and the earth moved, how electricity worked, and so on. What a travesty of loss that would have been.

I do not generally believe in things for which I must rely solely on someone else’s opinion. If all religion was completely erased from human memory today, would any of the same religions appear again tomorrow? No. Religions would appear, of that we can be fairly sure. Humanity has amply demonstrated its need for religions. But would the same stories appear? Would Christianity and Islam develop as The Truth (both of them!) if there were no connection or memory in any human being to them as previous religions? No. And that is why they are relatives, not absolutes. Absolutes do not require humans to define them. Long after humanity has become extinct, electrons will continue to be absolutes. Neither gay marriage nor the opinion of whether it is right or not will. Long after humans are gone, history will continue to be an absolute. If the earth ceases to exist, the events that took place on earth will still have taken place. The stories and interpretations of those events will likely not.

I believe that absolutes and relatives are distinct. This is not always an easy belief system to adhere to. Relatives include many comforting facets of humanity: morality, ethics, capitalism, socialism, law and order, love, hate, friendship. But absolutes include many comforts also: electrons, light, mangoes, cotton, oxygen. This does not, of course, mean that I have no use for relatives. I have much use for morality, ethics, love, capitalism, and socialism. But I do not believe they are universally absolute. This also does not mean that I think there is no such thing as right and wrong. Murder is wrong. Theft is wrong. But they are not absolutely wrong. They are relatively wrong: being relative because their wrongness is limited to our species. We do not gasp in horror when a lion kills another lion and proclaim that an immoral action has occurred. We limit our immoral judgment of within species killing to humanity (and even then most people willingly set aside their horror at killing under certain circumstances). That these things are relatively wrong in our human society is a good thing that allows us to lead predictable, safe, and peaceful lives. I assure you that murder and theft amongst dinosaurs were not absolutely wrong, yet the world continued every time a Tyrannosaurus Rex killed one of its kind or thieved a kill.

What is Atheism? Part I

Image courtesy of Google Images.


This blog is, in name at least, somewhat about atheism, or at least is written from the perspective of an atheist. If one is going to read someone else’s writing, it is often useful to understand their perspective and biases. I realized, therefore, that perhaps I should include a bit more about atheism, starting with some basics.

Atheism, in its simplest definition, is relatively straightforward. The rejection of belief in deities. Note that this is different than the lack of belief in deities. Though each of these might be a valid definition of some form of atheism, the two are not the same. One suggests a consideration of the options, some thought and conclusion, while the other could simply be a position out of ignorance.

But how Wikipedia or the Oxford English Dictionary define atheism might be quite different from how it is defined or, more importantly, perceived in every day life at the local coffee shop, in a classroom, or on an internet discussion forum. And there are plenty of misunderstandings of the word and the concept of atheism out there in the everyday use of the word. While strict definitions might belong in dictionaries and encyclopedias, the reality is that in everyday language each person defines words by their use in context. There are a lot of common misconceptions about atheism, which lead it to often be met with suspicion, distrust, even anger. It is not uncommon for religions people to claim that atheists must have no morals since they don’t believe in anything. Both of those claims, of course, are not applicable to atheists. Most atheists that I now are very moral people and also have a very strong set of beliefs. What most atheists will not do, however, is allow ancient writings to dictate their morals (at least not without some critical thinking) nor believe something without reason.

Having oneself wrongly classified is a pretty common experience in life. Republican. Democrat. White. Hispanic. Rich. Poor. All of these are neat little boxes into which we find it convenient to parcel people and then keep our minds closed about what it is they really believe, what it is they really have to offer in life, what their value to us is. Often, perhaps even usually, the assumptions that go along with those boxes are quite inaccurate. Atheism is no different. Many people have no understanding of what atheism really is. More discomforting, many people have no interest in keeping an open mind or learning about it. In the extreme, some religious people are so convinced that atheism is evil that they are considered synonymous with Satanists, are assumed to be incapable of having morals, should be kept out of the reach of children, and most definitely shouldn’t be allowed anywhere near an educational institution. When someone else’s definition of atheism doesn’t match my own, then I feel no particular offense. I simply would not then classify myself according to their definition of atheism. Clearly I am not a Satanist, and I do have morals. In other words, I refuse to allow other people to define my beliefs and values as a result of a misunderstanding of definitions.

So, how do I define atheism? To return to my first point, I feel that atheism is a position resulting from rational and unbiased examination of the evidence that results in the conclusion that there are no deities (or perhaps that it is extremely unlikely that there are deities). In my opinion, a simple lack of belief in deities (possibly “soft atheism”) is not true atheism because it lacks the conscious thought involved in arriving at that position. Soft atheists might hold their position simply be default. They may have grown up in a household or culture without religion and simply never really considered the possibility of atheism vs. theism. I think most soft atheists don’t put a lot of thought into the matter and simply live their lives. I have no problem with this position per se, though I wouldn’t really define it as true atheism. A loose analogy might be the difference between a cultural Christian and a “born-again” Christian. The former is familiar with many of the notions of Christianity, they may attend church on occasion and even have a healthy respect for the religion, but they probably don’t spend a lot of time thinking about it nor allow its tenets to rule their life.

Hard atheists, on the other hand, are those who have spent a reasonably amount of time and intellectual resources considering the position. Significant rational thought has gone into the taking of a deliberate position of a rejection of belief in deities and often some degree of rejection of religion as a whole. Often, it seems, hard atheism gets a bit of a bad rap as being militaristic or pushy. To be sure, there are atheists out there who advocate quite loudly for their position in society (though for some reason they often seem to get more criticism in doing so than many religious groups who push their beliefs into society much more forcefully). But in its pure sense, hard atheism is just the position that there are no deities. Not the position that there are probably no deities. Not the position of not having bothered to consider the possibility. And certainly not the position that religion must be stamped out and all humans converted to atheism (that is quite a different matter). But a deliberate position based on conscious thought that it is irrational to believe in deities. A deliberate position that recognizes that although belief in deities is a fundamental and pervasive part of human nature, it is an irrational belief.

Atheism often gets a bad rap. I referred earlier to those who consider atheism analogous to Satanism. Many religious people seem to feel that if you reject the notion of deities, then the only alternative is that you have sided with “the enemy” and are following the Devil. I suppose if your entire basic assumptions about the universe are that there is one god and one devil and they are engaged in spiritual warfare over the souls of human beings, then that position, while not logical, is perhaps somewhat understandable. That position gets right into one of the fundamental conflicts between atheism and theism (or more specifically Christianity) in that the conversation about a battle between a deity and his cosmic opponent if you haven’t yet established the existence of the deity to begin with. But, that discussion really belongs elsewhere. The point is, atheism is not synonymous with Satanism or any other non-Christian or anti-Christian position. It is, the rejection of the position that deities exist. Many Christians, in certain parts of America at least, would likely be very uncomfortable with knowing an atheist was teaching their children in school (and, ironically science class in schools). They might feel that the atheist teacher was secretly teaching their children to be homosexual communists. Or that evil business about evolution. It’s funny, really, because atheism is simply an acceptance of what the evidence shows and doesn’t show. I don’t know of too many atheists who have an agenda they want to push on society (other than keeping religious agendas out of society and rational thought in society). Every science teaching atheist I know has an interest in teaching science, not atheism. It is another one of the ironies of many religious arguments – that they accuse others of exactly what they themselves do. In many parts of America, religion is introduced into science class in the form of creationism or intelligent design. Yet, when an atheist simply wants to keep science class on task by teaching science, they are accused of bringing their agenda into the classroom. Blindly outrageous.

Often, in books or on the internet, one will come across an individual who claims to have been an atheist and then converted to Christianity as they heard the Christian message and recognized it as the truth. John Maxwell and the laughable (not because he is funny) Kirk Cameron are a couple of examples. Take Cameron (of anti-evolution banana lore along with his buddy Ray Comfort). He claims to have been an atheist and then converted to Christianity when he heard the Good News late in his teen years or early adulthood. There is simply no way Cameron was a rational, logical, deliberate atheist. I doubt he could recite one piece of scientific evidence in support of anything, let alone atheism (even now in his 40s, let alone twenty years ago when he claimed to be an atheist). No, the truth is, people like the former Mike Seaver were simply drifting along in life without every allocating any intellectual resources towards the consideration of atheism. When the first friendly face popped up and told him the Good News, he just felt warm and fuzzy inside and jumped on the Jesus bandwagon because it sounded comforting. To claim that he was an atheist who then became a Christian is a bit like someone who engaged in the odd fraternal rough and tumble in the basement claiming they used to be a professional wrestler who rejected the violence of their profession and reformed their violent ways. These impostors have only one goal: to deliberately promote their beliefs regardless of what the evidence is. There is no point in engaging in debate with a Ray Comfort or Kirk Cameron, because they have already decided (and often freely admit) that nothing will ever change their minds. Their claims to be former atheists are simply weakly thought-out attempts to discredit a position that they know is threatening to their dogmatic beliefs.

What is atheism? Atheism is deliberate. It is rational. It is anti-dogmatic. It is evidence-based. It is the position that there is no evidence to support belief in deities. Any of them.