Atheism

My Atheism.

Table of Contents
My Purpose and Process
Definitions
Creation of Theism
Mortality
Finding Meaning
Morality
Evolutionary Benefits
Circular Logic
of Religious Texts
of Faith
of the Anti-Evolution Argument
Sexism of Christianity
Agnosticism
Bibliography

My Purpose and Process

This is an essay I have been intending to compose for several years now. I want to write about my atheism, explain my thoughts, beliefs and reasoning. I want to do this primarily for myself. Atheism is one of my strongest beliefs and yet the words often fail me because I have not organized the thoughts. Now I will attempt to do this. Some of my thoughts will be a direct criticism of Christianity, the religion I have the most hands-on experience with, growing up in a typical (in this way) middle class American family, who raised me as Christian (Presbyterian), and other topics will attend to the issue of a broader atheism, inclusive of all religions, deities and spirituality.

First I am going to begin with a few of my own thoughts, that have been formed over the years through the reading of various religious texts, such as the Vedas, Upanishads, Dhammapada, Bible and others as well as philosophy, namely existentialism, which has significantly contributed to my understanding of my atheism. Some of my thoughts are merely reflections upon human nature and what I understand of that based on what I observe in everyday life. Following this initial explanation of where I currently stand, I will elaborate this essay through research and extensive (hopefully) reading of academic articles, philosophy and religious texts as necessary, but primarily articles pertaining to atheism. Through this process, I hope to refine, expand and explain on paper my own beliefs.

Definitions

What is atheism? Here are a few definitions found easily via google:

First, the etymology:
Middle French atheisme, from athee-atheist, from Greek atheos-godless, from a + theos-god. (Merriam-Webster’s Online Dictionary)
Greek “a-theos”: without-god (www.reasoned.org/glossary.htm)

Definitions:
a. a disbelief in the existence of deity; b. the doctrine that there is no deity. (Merriam-Webster’s Online Dictionary)
The doctrine or belief that there is no God. (wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn)
The lack of belief in a god and/or the belief that there is no god. The position held by a person or persons that ‘lack belief’ in god(s) and/or deny that god(s) exist. (www.carm.org/atheism/terms.htm)
Atheism is the view that there is no God or gods. It actively asserts that the evidence in the world indicates that there is no divine being(s). It is the opposite of theism, which asserts that there is a God or gods. Atheism is also distinct from agnosticism, which declares that the evidence is inconclusive as to whether there actually is a God or not. (www.theologicalstudies.citymax.com/page/page/4378925.org)
Atheism is a lack of belief in a god or gods. (www.strongatheism.net/intro/lexicon)
Atheism is a doctrine that states that nothing exists but natural phenomena (matter), that thought is a property or function of matter, and that death irreversibly and totally terminates individual organic units. This definition means that there are no forces, phenomena, or entities which exist outside of or apart from physical nature, or which transcend nature, or are “super” natural, nor can there be. (www.atheists.org/Atheism)

Creation of Theism

I’m not sure where to begin my analysis, so I will start with this, atheism only exists because theism was created first. As we can see, identity can only be created when opposing forces exist. People are only tall, because others are short. People are only “sick,” because others are “healthy.”1 If theism did not exist, atheism could not have been created because the conception of atheism as a term and classification is dependent upon the conception of theism. This relates to the definitions above that include two parts, first, atheism can be defined as “a lack of belief in a god.” This is where we would all stand if theism had not been created. No one would have a belief in a god, yet this would not be deemed atheism, it would be neither theism nor atheism. In this sense, the world’s people would hold what is now known as an atheist viewpoint without being atheist at all.

So, we can see that theism was first created by man. It was created across the globe, in every shape and color. Explanations for the world, nature, mankind, the universe, this is what religion provides. Some speak of “ancient mythology” as though it is an amusing collection of out-dated stories, obviously disconnected from reality. We are above that and yet, all current religious texts contain very similar types of fantastical stories. Here I say “similar” only in that each religion contains colorful stories, tales and myths. I will return to this point later and discuss the extent of the similarities between Christianity and various religions in a more specific way.

As I was saying, it is clear that thousands upon thousands of religions have been created by man, across the globe and across time. Some have been massively successful, such as Christianity, Hinduism, Buddhism and Catholicism, and many others remain local or smaller scale. Within the few, huge, dominating religions, infinite possibilities exist for the development of “sects.” Where a defined sect does not exist by name, surely a vague difference will develop in different locations and times. I compare the development of religion to language in this way. It is inevitable that different dialects develop over time. Some of these dialects will be barely noticeable and easily understandable between two groups. Others will grow to such an extent as to be completely unintelligible between two groups of the same “language.” Thus, the confusing, gray area of dialect and language becomes an issue. This happens the same way with religion. Differences will always develop, continue to develop, and develop to different extents.

Why does man create religion? Why is religion a cross-cultural, cross-time, natural human phenomena? Many reasons and I will begin to explain what I see here.

Mortality

Every religion that I know of has an opinion and statement of the nature and quality of the afterlife. What it is, where it is and how it will be. (Give specific examples with quotes). Aside from religion, man is obsessed with death and the afterlife and this can be seen through the many different types of ceremonies and traditions surrounding death. This, too, is a cross-cultural and cross-time phenomena. Because we can conceive of our own mortality, as opposed to other animals, who, most would agree, do not consciously conceive of their own mortality, we are always going to look for ways to extend ourselves. Whether this is by putting in place a slab of (hopefully) indestructible or at least very long-lasting rock to represent us, by developing the concept of the immortal soul, or even by the spreading of ashes amongst the favored forest of the deceased, thereby giving the matter back to the earth and uniting the body and earth symbolically and ritualistically. Humans must grapple with one of the most difficult (perhaps the most difficult) issues to grapple with when we face the fact of our mortality. The animal’s instinct is to survive and ours is the same, but our instinct is complicated by our understanding of mortality. As a result we tend to attempt survival in this lifetime, but also beyond our lifetime. The thought of non-existence is a great and natural discomfort to most and this is a huge reason for the development of religions.

Finding Meaning

Beyond the afterlife. There is more to religion than providing an answer for post-life, although that is one of the founding insecurities that leads to the creation of religion. It provides answers for today, too. It is a way of giving meaning. In addition to being capable of conceiving our mortality, we can also conceive of our insignificance. (Explanation of why/how we are insignificant). These areas are in many ways connected, but they have some distinctions. Immortality is a way of attempting to overcome both mortality and insignificance. But insignificance demands us to create a meaning for ourselves in this lifetime, as well. Religion extends purpose beyond this lifetime because this lifetime is not enough to fully overcome our feelings of insignificance. Insignificance cannot be overcome solely by immortality either, there has to be more of a purpose than living forever. In other words, insignificance is overcome only through a combination of both purpose in this lifetime and immortality, or purpose infinitely.

Christians give themselves significance by providing each Christian with a list of moral and immoral acts and also by endowing upon the individual the goal of spreading Christianity, the word of God, the truth of the universe, the light. The ultimate goal of the Christian is to “do God’s will” and this gives each Christian a purpose, freeing them from the difficulty of creating a purpose. However, in the same way that we all invent purposes and goals for ourselves, by saying the choice you have made is “God’s will,” you exalt your position over another’s. If we all work within our finite minds, how can one mind conceive of the infinite? It becomes a dangerous assertion insofar as it eliminates the necessity of further reflection. Anything in an individual’s mind can be justified as “God’s will,” rather than seen as what it truly is, a product of the finite human mind. We all make decisions and goals, but for one to say, “My decision is God’s will,” is a dangerous and intolerable arrogance. Simple proof of this can be found in the endless wars done in this or that God’s will. It allows the finite human mind to believe it possesses the infinite knowledge of what should or must be done.

Let us separate for a moment from Christianity and speak of spirituality in general. These people do not necessarily abide by an established system of morality as a follower of a set religion would. They often say vaguely that they believe in a “higher power,” a “greater force.” What is this higher power then? In a recent conversation, I was asked if by being decisively atheist that I was implying a lack of belief in an inherent order to the universe. Atheism does not deny or affirm by definition the existence of an order to the universe, it denies the existence of an inherent meaning to any order that can be observed. I can observe the intricate order I see on the planet, and the fragile, but beautiful balance of nature. I can appreciate this without endowing it with a higher power or meaning. And that is exactly what the spiritual person does. The spiritual person gives nature, the balance and the order, meaning, significance and purpose. Spirituality is still an attempt to explain the unexplainable, our existence. Even if this spiritual person does not believe in the existence of the afterlife or the concept of the soul, saying that there is something, an entity “beyond the human” is still a way of giving meaning and answers to every daily activity. It is the suggestion that despite our individual mortality, there is something greater that makes our own mortality not insignificant, but rather a significant and integral part of a greater whole. And this whole is given value by the spiritual person and that the whole now contains value, means that the individual, too, contains value as part of it.

Morality

Religion is used to give us answers. If someone “greater” doesn’t tell us what is good and bad, how do we know? The fact is that we don’t in every situation, because the concepts of absolute good and evil don’t exist and were created by man in an attempt to both give meaning by developing a code for living, and give us answers to questions that arise naturally in the human. As I wrote in another brief essay on the point on life as I see it (briefly, happiness), I see tangible evidence in human behavior to disprove the existence of good and evil. This evidence is found here: most people think that they are right. And everyone thinks different, conflicting things, always and within every imaginable concept, opinion and belief.

Christianity more than any religion I have discovered tends towards black and white explanations such as the concept of good and evil, life in sin on earth and the afterlife, heaven and hell, god and the devil, black and white dualisms are everywhere and Christianity will always tell you what is right. The simplicity of this dualism seems so blatantly to me a human construction. I’ve come to feel this way so strongly that to think people actually accept the simplistic dualisms in Christianity is almost absurd to me. But, I should withhold these comments, because I need to explain myself pragmatically, and not become emotional and critical as I have an unfortunate tendency to do. Of course we would love to simplify everything, life, earth, humanity, the afterlife into simplistic terms that a God has given to us. But again, this leads to a dangerous arrogance. We are finite, and yet the Christian asserts knowledge of the infinite by believing it is God who says abortion is wrong, it is God who believes this person should be president, or we must go to fight some religious war because it is God who has called us to do this. In the same way that saying the choice you have made in your vocation was “God’s will” or “your calling,” saying that God doesn’t like Harry Potter, asserts that your finite mind knows the truth of the infinite. And in the same way as stated above, this results in a dangerous exalting of the believer’s opinions and a dangerous, irrefutable arrogance in the believer’s finite mind.

What is more, is that when you analyze the codes of morality you can understand them as a product of the biological instinct to further the species. Thou shalt not kill is the most obvious. No, the Bible does not tell us to have sex with as many people as possible to create as many children as possible, but it does set up many guidelines for creating an ideal (limited always by our finite minds) functioning family unit and by extension, society: honor thy father and mother, thou shalt not steal. Ultimately, this is, as I have said, the result of the biological instinct to continue the species. It is not because it is the “right” way to do things, as is pronounced. It is because of the way we are wired as a species.

Of those who are pro-life here in America today, what do you think the percentage is of those people who are religious? What percentage do you think are Christian? And Catholic? Many Catholics do not even believe in birth control. Can you convince me that this is not a morality established from our biological instinct to survive, procreate and continue the species? Although it has originated with our biological instincts, this is an example of human misinterpretation by over-extension of a basic, biologically founded principle, thou shalt not kill.

It is sinful to commit suicide. It is also against the law, which is another topic, but very interesting and mind boggling in some ways to me. It is understandable that both the law and religion have established a rule against suicide and abortion (there are different laws on abortion and laws against are still highly debated and pushed for by many pro-life campaigners) if we understand it as a consequence of biological instinct to preserve and further the species.

I have begun reading an article that attends to the biology of ethical behavior. This article works to prove what I have been suggesting that the biological instinct is the root of all morality, as Zindler says here, “ethical behavior- regardless of who the practitioner may be- results always from the same causes and is regulated by the same forces, and has nothing to do with the presence or absence of religious belief” (Zindler 1).

Zindler makes several important points within his first section, discussing the psychobiological foundations of human morality. First, we are social animals and he states that, “natural selection has equipped us with nervous systems which are peculiarly sensitive to the emotional status of our own fellows” (Zindler 1). I agree with this statement. I sometimes think of myself as especially human in this way because I sense (only through social comparison) that I have a particularly high capacity for empathy- feeling and experiencing the emotions of other humans. This is what makes me, or anyone, cry at a wedding of a person they have never met and the instinct that makes me or others want to help others and find joy in doing so. Zindler supports this statement that we are peculiarly sensitive to the emotional status of other humans with evidence. The main point of evidence is that we are social animals and this is quite clear by simply opening your eyes and looking out your window: we talk, we interact, we form relationships, tribes, societies, etc. The second and third points address the importance in humans of “emotional suggestibility” (seen in the way that we react to another’s emotions) and “attachment imprintability” (“Imprinting is a form of attachment behavior, and it helps us to break through the ego barrier to create ‘significant others’ whom we can love as much as ourselves”) (Zindler 1). These two aspects of human psychobiology, Zindler continues, are still very much compatible with our inherent selfishness or in other words, “to a large extent behaviors which satisfy ourselves will be found, simultaneously, to satisfy our fellows, and vice-versa” (Zindler 2).

Furthermore, both Zindler and Cohen make the important comparison between human morality and animal morality (though for animals, it is not deemed moral or immoral behavior). “Are we to believe that if we had never received a revelation from God, or even if there were no belief in God, a mother would never have learned to love her child, men and women would never have loved each other, men would never have placed any value upon honesty or truthfulness or loyalty” (Cohen 2)? Similarly, Zindler poses the same rhetorical question using animal behavior as further proof for the biology of basic morals:

“Among the societies of our nearest primate cousins, the great apes, social behavior is not chaotic, even if the gorillas do lack the Ten Commandments! The young chimpanzee does not need an oracle to tell it to honor its mother and to refrain from killing its brothers and sisters. Of course, family squabbles and even murder have been observed in ape societies, but such behaviors are exceptions, not the norm. So too it is in human societies, everywhere and at all times” (Zindler 2).

Not only do animal societies follow the same rules of moral behavior as humans, but they even show similar examples of altruistic behavior. Baboons, for example, have been observed to sacrifice themselves for the benefit of the troop (Zindler 2). This evidence leads Zindler to his conclusion that:

“The heroism which we see acted out, from time to time, by our fellow men and women, is far older than their religions. Long before the gods were created by the fear-filled minds of our less courageous ancestors, heroism and acts of self-sacrificing love existed. They did not require a supernatural excuse then, nor do they require one now” (Zindler 2).

Circular Logic

of Religious Texts

Let us discuss the value of religious texts. A person of a religion, follows a divine text. When you say, how do you know this to be true? They will say it is the holy word of god, as written in the Bible, or whatever text you would like to choose. This kind of circular logic simply doesn’t work, because in their terms, their logic in infallible. Because there is none. The Bible is divine, therefore, everything it says is true and right. Well, how do you know the bible is the word of god? It has been written by people, the same as you and I, people who make mistakes. God did not write the bible. But the assumption that the Bible is the word of god cannot be refuted because it is never proven in the first place. It is accepted as true and divine without justification. The only justification for the divinity of the text is in the text itself, according to its followers.

of Faith

And this relates to the concept of faith in general. Faith is acceptable as a personal ideology, but it is limited to just that, something personal. When we are conversing with one another, we use reason to create a dialog. You can’t support your religious views to another person by saying, “I just have faith.” That will mark the end of the conversation, because fine, you have faith, I don’t. But that isn’t a conversation. You can’t come to any mutual conclusions or reach any compromise, consensus or understanding. Faith is not a reasonable argument because every conversation requires us to use reasonable arguments to respond to one another, building and continuing our thoughts and conversation together. Faith is not a reasonable argument and can only be a personal ideology.

of the Anti-Evolution Argument

Something around just less than half of the United States does not believe in evolution. What is the argument or support for the non-existence of evolution? Nothing! Those who do not believe in evolution do not have any reason, all they can say is “I don’t believe it.” Now, if their god can do everything, why can’t their god create evolution? Aside from that, this is just an extension of the flaws of using faith as an argument (you can’t). There is no support other than their minds. Or, maybe they do have support. Like born-again Kirk Cameron who shows us how the banana is clearly the ideal food created by god for human consumption. The way it has five sides to fit into the palm of our hand. And how the top pops off just like a soda tab for easy opening. It is easy to chew and nutritious. Clearly this was created by god for humans to eat. Little does Kirk seem to realize, the wild banana is hardly existent anywhere in the world. What we eat now is far from wild, it has been modified by humans for decades. Good work, Kirk.

Sexism of Christianity

The horrible sexism of Christianity and the Bible is another topic I intend to discuss. To me, the blatant evidence of this should be enough to dissuade anyone of the truth of the Bible, but that assumes that they 1) understand and are open to viewing the blatant sexism of the Bible and 2) do not want to uphold the patriarchal system of today’s society. Unfortunately, many men and women alike want to uphold the patriarchal order and continue the subjugation of woman. This is another essay waiting to be written, although I surely couldn’t explain the depth and pervasiveness of these issues to the extent that Simone de Beauvior already has so eloquently and thoroughly.

Agnosticism

Agnosticism is another topic I need to discuss to complete this paper. The modern understanding of agnosticism is vastly different from the term’s origins. An agnostic can be a theist agnostic or an atheist agnostic. The term itself has nothing to do with religion and it didn’t when it was created either. Agnosticism has developed from the concept of universal skepticism and before that, Pyrrhonism of which, “the absolute skeptics professed doubt of the validity of every reasoning process and held that no assertion is more valid than another, that against every statement the contrary may be advanced with equal reason” (O’hair 1). Agnosticism is “un-knowing,” the basis of which stems from the assertion that all objects, ideas, and experiences rely upon our senses which are inherently relative and subjective. Nothing can be known, not reason, science, religion, art, trees, the table, or your own existence. Nothing exists truly except doubt.

I was excited to discover the founder of “modern” agnostics was Henry Agrippa, a strong believer in god and his faith. “He argued that it is dangerous to trust human studies, foolish to be proud of them, that all is dubious except god’s word and that truth is accessible to men only by faith in Jesus Christ and the enlightening grace of the Holy Spirit” (O’hair 2).

In the beginning of agnosticism, most published philosophers were supporters of religion, using the argument that nothing can be known here on earth, by our senses, to support the argument that god is absolute truth and above our subjective existence.

My problem with this sort of absolute skepticism is explainable. I can understand and agree with the argument that nothing can truly be known. I have said this before myself and even above in this essay. Everyone thinks they are right, and everyone thinks contradicting things. In one sentence of observation, this is enough evidence to show me that no one has truth figured out and that truth does not exist. But living involves acting, acting involves decision making, and decision making requires opinion, assumption, and judgment.

When you say, nothing is knowable, so you are wrong, it is similar in some ways to the faith argument. The person using the “you don’t know because, ‘you can’t’ or because ‘faith is’” argument resorts to a point blank, end of conversation, and unreasonable, unarguable argument. It doesn’t go anywhere.

And whether you decide yourself to be an absolute skeptic or an agnostic, you will still hold opinions, because, as stated above, they are a fact of life. We hold opinions and make assumptions and judgments. This is unavoidable. In my opinion, a person should not say, “I don’t know, so I’m not going to pick.” Life doesn’t work that way. Simply stating that nothing is knowable, doesn’t make us void of opinions. And despite recognition of the inherent subjectivity of knowledge, we will still form opinions based on our experience, observation, and thoughts, in spite of our attempts to do otherwise.

And here is a twist to add to the absolute skeptic or the agnostic, how do you know it is unknowable if everything is unknowable? Wink, wink, nudge, nudge. In a more serious tone, the inherent flaw of the agnostic position (as defined above, not necessarily as generally understood) is in the assertion that nothing can be asserted. They have caught themselves in an inescapable contradiction. To assert that nothing can be asserted, negates the argument altogether insofar as it is an assertion itself.

Here again, we see proof for the fact and necessity of conclusions. Not all conclusions, however, have a direct effect on our immediate action. There are countless unnecessary-for-daily-life conclusions that we, as thinking beings, will undoubtedly come to. This led Herbert Spencer, an English philosopher and agnostic, to arise at the conclusion of an unknowable power, but also of the necessity of thought, whether useful or not, knowable or unknowable:

“[Spencer] put forward the idea of an unknowable power. He further held that certain ideas are innate in each individual mind, established in the race by numberless verifying experiences of our ancestors, and hence necessities of thought. Among these were space and time, force, consciousness, self (ego), matter, motion, and rest. Behind the ego (and non-ego) is an unknowable reality from which all things have sprung” (O’Hair 7).

Bibliography

Cohen, Chapman. “Morality without God.” American Atheists, Inc. http://www.atheists.org/Atheism/cohen.html

Ed. Martin, Michael & Monnier, Ricki. The Impossibility of God. Prometheus Books: Amherst, 2003.

O’Hair, Madalyn Murray. “See the Tree? A Review of the Agnostic Position.” American Atheist, September 1985.

Paulos, John Allen. Irreligion: A Mathematician Explains Why the Arguments for God Just Don’t Add Up. Hill and Wang: New York, 2008.

White, Stephen R. A Space for Unknowing: The Place of Agnosis in Faith. The Columbia Press: Dublin, 2006.

Zindler, Frank R. “Ethics without God.” The Probing Mind, February 1985.

Zindler, Frank R. “Religion, Hypnosis, and Music: an Evolutionary Perspective.” The Probing Mind, October 1984.

Zindler, Frank R. “Spirit, Soul, and Mind.” The Probing Mind, February 1985.