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.

Right vs. Left or Ignorant vs. Educated?

The political spectrum is a complicated phenomenon. It has been over simplified in recent years, particularly in places like America. It is generally understood that people on the political right (at least in America are) anti-taxation (or at least claim to be so), pro-small government (again, in theory), anti-abortion, pro-capital punishment, hawkish in foreign policy, and against socialism of any kind (except socialized defense spending, on which they often prefer extensive socialism, though generally without realizing it). Those on the left are understood to be more dovish on foreign policy, pro-choice, anti-capital punishment, and slightly more in favour of some socialist policies such as government organized health care and social security. Of course, the two political parties in the United States are often perceived to generally represent these two wings and many people identify with the each party’s position to varying degrees. This over simplification of course neglects many of the historical foundations of the political spectrum. Most Americans, I would suspect, are ignorant of who Voltaire or Adam Smith were, or what the Magna Carta generally stated. They are also likely ignorant of the fact that both Democrat and Republican are really varying brands of conservatism. Nevertheless, in many Western countries there is a spectrum of parties that allow most voters to roughly align themselves with relative comfort. The vitriol in political debate seems to have strengthened in recent years. One remembers the strong right to left divide in the United States during the Bush years of the first decade of the century, and in Canada in the recent election there was much hatred of both the Conservative leader Stephen Harper and his Liberal counterpart Michael Ignatieff by voters from opposing parties, and much deliberate misinterpretation of what they each stand for. One can certainly understand disagreement with party positions that do not represent ones vision for one’s country if not condone the hatred with which much of the disagreement is directed.

But what I find unfortunate is an emerging discrepancy in education versus ignorance within the right to left spectrum. In most basic terms, it is becoming increasingly difficult to be an educated, enlightened, open-minded person and to find a conservative party with which you may feel comfortable. To be sure there are ignorant stalwarts on both sides of the political spectrum, but there appears to be much more organized ignorance on the right than the left. The political right, particularly in the United States, is ridiculed in much of the rest of the Western world, not for its specific political positions, but rather for the preposterous voices attributed it often puts forward. Anne Coulter, Rush Limbaugh, Glen Beck, Sarah Palin, these are all names that most educated, intelligent and rational people smirk at regardless of their political bent, again not necessarily because of their political leanings but rather because of their pure ignorance. One classic example of this is the issue of creationism. In America, it is relatively rare to find Democrats who push the issue. In Canada, you would be hard pressed to find a supporter of the Liberal, New Democratic, or Green parties who believes in creationism. Yet, a large number of Conservative party supporters seem to. As I’ve written elsewhere, even the Conservative appointee as Minister of State for Science, Gary Goodyear, is a creationist. Yet, creationism is known to be false. Anyone who is actually open minded to the facts and evidence, is educated in science and biology, who wants to know and understand the truth has to accept that evolution happened and creationism did not. So, why do so many conservatives refuse to accept that fact? Other issues such as taxation policy are a completely different matter. If you are a conservative and you happen to believe that corporate taxes should be lowered and government spending on healthcare should be reduced, then that is an opinion that holds some validity. It may or may not better for the country to do so, but the opinion cannot be rejected outright as completely false (unlike creationism). So, I wonder, why have conservatives become synonymous with deliberate ignorance. I don’t think they necessarily realize that they have done so, but it has become increasingly difficult to hold and support conservative values in counties where this has happened.

It seems that it has become exceedingly difficult in some countries, the United States in particular, to be a conservative, to vote conservative, and yet to be an intelligent, educated, rational person who accepts evidence based reality. If you vote Republican in the U.S. (assuming you take them to be the conservative party even though fiscally they are anything but conservative), then you are casting your vote along with people who believe the ten commandments should be emblazoned on public buildings, who think gay marriage should be illegal, who often think the earth is 10,000 years old, and who think that the invasion of Iraq in 2003 had anything to do with terrorism. What is one to if you do want to vote conservative but reject all those issues as known fallacies? (To be fair, perhaps the gay marriage issue should not be lumped in with the rest as it is an opinion (though an exceedingly ignorant one) where as the others are indisputably wrong to anyone who examines the evidence and thinks rationally).

Whence Morality? Part II

A few follow-up thoughts to my “Whence Comes Morality” blog of August 7th, 2010. Any atheist or agnostic has likely faced the claim or question of the religious that, without God, you have no basis for morality or even for moral behaviour. In a recent discussion involving the two Hitchens brothers, Christopher and Peter, the latter claims that “morality is what you do when you think no one is looking”. At first glance this seems to be a decent definition. We may note how children will behave one way when they know someone is watching and another when they believe they are not being observed. We may even go so far as to think that a child that behaves well when they think no one is watching is a “good child”, or is moral.

But I have some problems with this definition of morality, as is evident in my prior writings on morality. I believe morality is a human construct. But that is really beside the point. What I find surprising is that a person of religion would claim this as a definition of morality (as the religious so often do). Surprising because, of course, the religious believe that someone is always watching their behaviour. Therefore, for a religious person who believes that definition, their morality has never in their whole life been put to the test, or more accurately, they have never had to make a moral decision. All of us have, at some point in our lives, been faced with a decision that we believe involves a clear choice of right versus wrong when no other human is watching. Perhaps we’ve had the opportunity to steal money without anyone finding out, or to lie knowing that there is no way anyone will ever know. The religious, however, if they truly believe this claim about morality, are never in such a position. God is always watching. The temptation to steal the money is not quite the same because they will always be dealing with their belief that God knows what they did. It is not a choice of morality, it is a choice of whether they want to get in trouble with their religious father figure or not. This whole conundrum is ludicrous really. On the one hand, you have the religious claiming that morality is what you do when no one is watching you, but on the other hand by that very definition they themselves are never called upon to make moral choices. There is always someone watching.

I hope that any religious person could honestly ask themselves what they would do if they really believed God wasn’t watching for a few minutes. If you really had carte blanche for a few minutes, what would you do? I believe the religious are unable to answer this question because it is too hypothetical to their beliefs. But the point is, perhaps the religious’ claims that morality comes from God are true – for them. Perhaps without God they would not live moral lives or make moral decisions. I find that frightening. But, extending that to the non-religious is quite illogical and demonstrates an inability to connect observation to reality. Many are the occasions that I’ve been told by the religious that I cannot have morality without a god. It is a blind statement, typical of someone who hasn’t really thought it through but rather is reciting something they’ve been taught, and also typical of someone who hasn’t really made independent observations and then drawn conclusions (one of the mainstays of my fundamental beliefs about having a healthy relationship with the world we live in). How can someone seriously suggest that atheists have no morality without god? Do atheists actually live less moral lives than the religious? Take any objective measure of morality such as antisocial behaviour: murder, theft, fraud, dishonesty. Do atheists observably engage in these behaviours more than the religious? If you look at the prison population then the exact opposite appears to be true. Atheists represent a tiny minority in prisons, much smaller than their respective representation in the population at large. (Perhaps atheists are just good at not getting caught). So, how can one legitimately make such a claim? It demonstrates a significant inability to detach one’s preconceptions from reality and observations. As a former Christian myself, this is easy to understand. My mentality used to be exacting the same. I would recite Biblical claims about morality or human behaviour (isn’t one of my favourite such fallacies now “The fool says in his heart there is no God,” as though it were an observable fact that atheists are more foolish in life than the religious!), regardless of what the data actually said.

One of the fundamental arguments in the debate as to whether morality originates from gods or humans is whether morality is objective or subjective. Traditionally, in this debate, Christians tend to argue that morality originates from God and is objective. Their argument, at least as I have witnessed, is that without God there is no standard by which to objectively distinguish right from wrong. I have two significant problems with this argument. Firstly, it completely overlooks the history of Christianity. Morality in the Bible, the guiding moral book for Christians, is anything but objective. Morality (stemming “objectively” from God, remember) starts with the barbaric Mosaic law in which stoning one’s child for disobedience is required. It the progresses to the Christian morality (but under the same God of course), that simply claims to revolve around love. Stepping outside the Bible and into modern American Christianity, one finds even more bizarre twists and turns in the “objective morality” handed down from God. Abortion is wrong but capital punishment is right. Stem cell research is wrong, but gun possession is right. Taxation is wrong, but tithing is right. This first problem, of course, stems from another fundamental problem with religion that is simply overlooked by the religious themselves and that is the fact that the deity evolves with the culture of the times. No one, introduced to Christianity for the first time, and asked to read through the Bible objectively would ever conclude that the god Yawheh of the Old Testament and the god Jesus of the New Testament (or even the god “Father” of the New Testament) are the same personality or deity. This is overlooked by those that believe the religion, and is often justified as another characteristic of a mysterious and wonderful (albeit misogynistic, genocidal, jealous, and barbaric) god.

But the second, and more relevant problem I have with this point of view is that morality is, by definition, a human quality. We define morality as humans, which ironically makes it both objective and subjective. Morality, in the grand scheme of the greater universe, is subjective, but within human society it is objective. We all agree that killing another human is wrong. (Well, this gets complicated quickly. We don’t all agree that at all. A good many people believe killing is justified in some circumstances, often the most fanatically religious most fervently so). At least, we all agree that murder is wrong. That murder is wrong is an objective quality. There is no argument within human societies about murder being wrong. It is a black and white, objective issue. But, outside of humanity, murder is not wrong. That makes it subjective to humans, quite distinct from other issues which are not subjective to humans. Electrons hold a negative charge, whether we as humans say they do or not. Once humans no longer exist, electrons will still hold a negative charge. But once humans no longer exist, murder will no longer be immoral because without humans there is no way of even defining murder in the first place, let alone defining right from wrong.

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.

Forget Cedar Wood, Scarlet, And Hyssop. Just Wash Your Hands

Image courtesy of Google Images.

God is omniscient. God created the earth and everything in it. God is loving.

These three pillars of the Christian religion could hardly be denied by any legitimate Christian. I am normally hesitant to cherry pick parts of the Bible in an attempt to make any point. Examine a work of literature in whole if you are going to critique it. Doubtless those who do believe in God will assume that I am cherry picking here, and that there is some “logical” reason why the following path of reason doesn’t apply. But, as I state, one could hardly deny the three claims above if one were to accept the God of the Bible.

God is omniscient. He knows everything and he always has known everything. He has known all along that there are microbes in the soil, on our skin, in our digestive tracts, in our feces, everywhere. He has always known that microbes not only exist but that they are one of the fundamental health threats to primitive humanity. (One wonders whether Christians believe Jesus walked around with all this knowledge in the forefront of his consciousness or if he somehow limited himself to being a genuine first century Jewish man with only the knowledge appropriate to that). How many hundreds of millions of infants in the history of humanity have perished due to microbial infection? How many billions of good young men and women have contracted some easily preventable infectious disease and died prematurely and left families devastated and without means? What single best action is everyone in the modern world aware of to prevent this fate themselves? You’ve heard it since pre-school: wash your hands. Simple hand washing is probably the single best action that can be taken in the prevention of communicable diseases. Simple, cheap, and very effective. Yet, mentioned no where in the Bible. (There are, of course, verses in the Bible that deal with ritual washing and so on. Leviticus 15:11, for example, states: “Anyone the man with a discharge touches without rinsing his hands with water must wash their clothes and bathe with water, and they will be unclean till evening.” (Almost seems like an attempt at modern medicine, doesn’t it? But then you realize there is no universal prescription for hand washing on a regular basis. It is not at all clear from reading the Bible that you probably should wash your hands after going to the bathroom and before eating. Given the critical nature of this simple action to the well-being of a primitive tribe living in ancient times, you would think that a God, providing the only written book to his chosen people, would have ensured that one command, above all else, was crystal clear. Instead, pages and pages are devoted to tedious agricultural laws and requirements. Dire consequences are spelled out for those who deviate from specific sexual guidelines (none of which seem particularly inclined to prevent STDs, by the way), and all sorts of ridiculous rules about the uncleanliness of women during their period are introduced (despite the fact that there is really nothing particularly infectious or unclean about this normal, regular physiological function). In any case, had the god of the Bible actually passed on this simple piece of personal hygiene advice, you would expect it to have been followed and therefore you would expect to observe the followers of the Bible suffering far less infectious disease than other primitive societies. But, of course, you do not observe this because it didn’t happen.

Why did it not happen? Did God decide that it wasn’t that important? Perhaps, due to his mysterious ways, God decided it was OK for hundreds of millions of people to die prematurely even while it was unacceptable for people to work on Saturdays. Are we really to accept that this all-loving deity, whom Christians refer to as a father figure, covered all manners of detailed trivial instructions on how his earthly children should live their lives, but knowingly withheld all information that might have helped them live a healthier life, that might have helped countless offspring survive infancy? What kind of abusive father figure would actually behave that way towards his children whom he apparently loves?

No, this is simply one more piece of evidence supporting the fact that deities are man-made rather than the other way around. A deity’s knowledge is always limited by the knowledge of their creators. You never see a deity offer a tidbit of knowledge that might help his people make leaps and bounds forward in health, technology, or even simple education. I can hear the Christian argument already: God is a loving father who wants his children to discover things on their own without being given all the answers. Rubbish. The simple fact is, God is man-made. The god of the Old Testament is completely limited by the people of the time. There is not one piece of information in the Bible that couldn’t have originated from the people of the time. There is not one technological, scientific, medical, or even agricultural fact that was further advanced than the people of the time and might have helped them in their daily struggle for survival. Quite the opposite might be true in fact. All the countless resources and time spent building tabernacles, paying priests, sacrificing healthy and useful animals, not working certain days, warring with tribes of rival religions, and so on, would have been much better allocated towards more productive undertakings in helping primitive societies in their daily struggle for survival.

God is omniscient. So he must have known about microbiology and the benefits of hand-washing at all times. God created the earth and everything in it. Including bacteria, viruses, and all other microbes. God is loving. He loves humans more than any other creatures, judging by the amount of time and effort (not to mention self-sacrifice) dedicated to them. How to fit these “facts” together?

Don’t Think, Just Follow The Code

Image courtesy of Google Images.

The following is a transcript of Don Cherry, a Canadian ice hockey commentator who has a regular segment called Coach’s Corner during the first intermission of hockey games on the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation’s (CBC) show Hockey Night in Canada. This particular broadcast was made on June 10th, 2011, and was originally transcribed from this link, starting at about the five minute mark.

“Now, I hope we got a little time for this. I’m sitting with you [Ron McLean] watching, you know how I get made fun of: “There’s a code. Oh, that silly code, you know. There’s a code in every sport, and you and I are watching the Red Sox, and I saw Ortiz throw his bat, and I went wild and you kind of looked at me like I was nuts and everything. But watch Ortiz throw the bat. [Video transitions to baseball replay]. This is a big thing in the States right now. This has been going, well you’ll see it the second time [video repeats]. He throws it. This is a big thing in the States right now. In the papers, the U.S. day to day, and Giordaro, what is his name? [Ron McLean interjects] (unintelligible), he just goes nuts on the whole thing and he got up the next time, we’re not going to show it, he got dinged. The next game he got dinged. And he made a little apology, he said: “You know, I,...380 home runs and I throw my bat once.” You DON’T DO IT [yelling]. You don’t, there’s a code that you people don’t know about. Because you saw that and say: “So what? He threw his bat.” It’s the same thing as when I got ripped, what did they say? Entertainment. Watch Ovechkin same thing, he doesn’t do it anymore. I tried to tell you about all this stuff. There’s a code in hockey of how you act, kids, and look at this, he never, ever did this again [video of Alex Ovechkin worshiping his “hot hockey stick”]. Bruce [Boudreau] talked to him and everything. There’s a code in hockey, there’s a code in baseball, and be sure to follow it or you’ll really get it like Ortiz did.”

The first thing that I hope strikes the reader is the appalling grammar and perversion of the English language that comes through even in writing that has been edited for clarity (for example, the term “everythink” to “everything”). Christopher Hitchens has stated that anyone who can really speak properly can write, but then goes on to ask how many people have really speak properly. But, this is besides the point.

The “code” that Mr. Cherry speaks about is a real entity in the sporting world. During the recent Stanley Cup finals in ice hockey, there was an incident in which one player was accused of biting another players gloved finger. The accused player was ostracized as being classless, even though all around him other players were witnessed punching opponents in the face, slashing the back of their opponents’ legs with hockey sticks, and hurling verbal abuse at each other. But, biting is considered outside the code, while all of these other disrespectful actions are considered within the code. There is no rhyme or reason to the code in some sports such as ice hockey. The code simply evolves, much like a religion, over time. Certain actions are considered disrespectful while others, seemingly equally as bad, are not. In ice hockey, for example, yelling obscene insults about an opponent’s wife is perfectly fine. Saying anything racist is not.

The “code” that Mr. Cherry refers to, and demands that kids learn and obey, is really a code of conduct. In his baseball example, a player is ostracized for tossing a bat to the side after hitting a home run (despite the fact the bat was not thrown dangerously, it was merely tossed to one side rather than the other). The reality in that case is that the action was perceived as cocky by the player. This is a laughable offense in the world of professional sports where the participants are applauded for being cocky in most scenarios.

In Mr. Cherry’s world, people should not question. Do not question the code, just respect it. Don’t question why it is unacceptable or disrespectful to throw a bat or to kick an opponent, but it is acceptable (and tough) to punch an opponent in the face or hack him with your hockey stick. Don’t question it, just respect it, or else. (Note the introduction of fear into the equation indicating that there will be dire consequences if you ignore the code).

The similarity between some sports and religion is an interesting topic that probably deserves further attention, but at this point I thought I would introduce the topic with the “code”. What is the equivalent to the code in religion? The law. Don’t work on the Sabbath, but it’s OK to have slaves. Stone your children to death for disobedience, but don’t eat pork. Marry as many women as you can afford, but don’t marry a non-virgin. Don’t wear clothes made of more than one fabric, but do cover your head at all times. And most of all (you can hear Mr. Cherry’s gravelly voice interjecting here)...DON’T DO IT. Be sure to follow the code or you’ll really get it. And whatever you do, don’t question the code.

Haphazard rules with a good dose of fear and you are ready either to establish a major league sport or found a religion.

To infinity…and beyond.

Image courtesy of Google Images.

One of the unavoidable issues one must face head on during or following a shift from being religious to embracing atheism is one’s future death. Many religions promise an afterlife. Indeed, there are those who hypothesize that religion in its most primitive forms originally developed as our species gradually evolved to consciously acknowledge our impending and unavoidable death and in an attempt to escape that prickly part of reality. Whether this is the case or not, however, it does seem clear that most modern popular religions make promises of, if not escape from death outright, an even better alternative than life itself once one passes over to “the flip side”. The religion of my past, Christianity, is infamous for its promises of an afterlife full of either reward or punishment, depending on performance (or at least belief) in this life. But, as one moves away from religion and accepts that we are mammals, restricted to all the nuances of the carbon cycle that we share with all other living things, then there is no alternative but to accept that you will one day die and cease to exist.

I remember, for myself, this was a bit of a stumbling block as I made my move away from religion. It seemed a bit harsh luck to find out that one’s eternal reward wasn’t real after all, and the idea of simply ceasing to exist was at first a bit frightening and somewhat depressing. Mixed in with this, of course, was the relief of knowing that there was no threat of hell either. I wouldn’t be suffering an eternity of pain, loneliness and despair just because once, as a child, the unforgivable thought: “There is no holy spirit,” had crossed through my consciousness (within a few minutes of discovering that that was the only unforgivable sin).

Now I have accepted quite readily that there is no afterlife. It has been quite a relief actually, and has certainly helped me appreciate this one life for what it is. One mustn’t put anything off until after death anymore! One thought, admittedly not my own, that initially helped was the realization that I had not been alive for all of time until my birth and that hadn’t bothered me in the least. Not being alive ever again after my death should be no more frightening or depressing. One shouldn’t feel cheated for no longer having the chance of an afterlife, but rather ecstatic that one exists at all.

Along this line of thought, I started to think a bit about death and the loss of loved ones. Though one’s passage into oblivion could hardly be bothersome to oneself (at least once the actual passing is over with), there is, obviously the potential for sadness and loss amongst loved ones that are “left behind” (temporarily of course). In this light I began to look at my own death in a whole new light. I realize that the solar system, including earth and all life on it, will be obliterated in a few billion years when our sun expands into a red giant and then fizzles down to a white dwarf. Then, for all eternity (as far as we know), there will be nothing as far as our solar system is concerned. Ultimately, to put is bluntly, we are all royally fucked. My present view of death is that at the moment of one’s death, time accelerates immediately to that obliteration. Time, of course, does not accelerate after someone’s death. We have all seen a loved one die and then go on to live many years or decades ourselves. But, that is how time is viewed from our living perspective. Not that time, or anything else for that matter, can be viewed from death, but in a sense the only logical view is that as one dies, everything instantly ceases to exist. In a sense my thinking is that eventually all life will end, so as far as I’m concerned when I die, it happens instantly. My best visualization of this process mimics that moment in the original Star Wars movies when Han Solo engages the hyper drive and every light source in view seems to accelerate at a terrific speed (on that rare occasion when the Millenium Falcon’s hyper drive actually functioned properly).

I have no logic or reason to support this notion of death but, given that the end of all life on earth is a statistical certainty, it seems a close enough approximation of reality. In some ways, this view (or really more of an acceptance of the future reality) could be seen as sad. Every living thing on earth will one day be gone. Every parent knows that their child will also on day die. It is incredibly difficult to look at your young child and accept that. But, it is also a remarkably calming visualization when you think about it. Life is special. It is rare. And, it is short. Cherish every moment.