Rationality Now Rotating Header Image

Philosophy

The Pale Blue Dot

Feb 17th, 2010
by dlgilbert.
6 comments

About twenty years ago, Voyager 1 looked back toward it’s launching point and took the now famous “Pale Blue Dot” photograph. The arrow points to us. That’s Earth… from about 3.7 billion miles away, which is just a little bit outside our solar system. In the grand scale of the universe, that’s hardly any distance at all. Given that our sun is one of about 200 billion stars in the Milky Way galaxy which is, in turn, one of an estimated 125 billion galaxies in the universe, Voyager 1 was sitting virtually on top of Earth when it took this picture.

We live on an mind-bogglingly tiny speck of dust.

Voyager 1 - Pale Blue Dot

Carl Sagan was much more eloquent than I, of course. His words in 1996 (from Wikipedia)…

Look again at that dot. That’s here, that’s home, that’s us. On it everyone you love, everyone you know, everyone you ever heard of, every human being who ever was, lived out their lives. The aggregate of our joy and suffering, thousands of confident religions, ideologies, and economic doctrines, every hunter and forager, every hero and coward, every creator and destroyer of civilization, every king and peasant, every young couple in love, every mother and father, hopeful child, inventor and explorer, every teacher of morals, every corrupt politician, every “superstar,” every “supreme leader,” every saint and sinner in the history of our species lived there – on a mote of dust suspended in a sunbeam.

The Earth is a very small stage in a vast cosmic arena. Think of the rivers of blood spilled by all those generals and emperors so that, in glory and triumph, they could become the momentary masters of a fraction of a dot. Think of the endless cruelties visited by the inhabitants of one corner of this pixel on the scarcely distinguishable inhabitants of some other corner, how frequent their misunderstandings, how eager they are to kill one another, how fervent their hatreds.

Our posturings, our imagined self-importance, the delusion that we have some privileged position in the Universe, are challenged by this point of pale light. Our planet is a lonely speck in the great enveloping cosmic dark. In our obscurity, in all this vastness, there is no hint that help will come from elsewhere to save us from ourselves.

The Earth is the only world known so far to harbor life. There is nowhere else, at least in the near future, to which our species could migrate. Visit, yes. Settle, not yet. Like it or not, for the moment the Earth is where we make our stand.

It has been said that astronomy is a humbling and character-building experience. There is perhaps no better demonstration of the folly of human conceits than this distant image of our tiny world. To me, it underscores our responsibility to deal more kindly with one another, and to preserve and cherish the pale blue dot, the only home we’ve ever known.

A very small stage, indeed.

Reality, Death, and Family Cats

Jan 20th, 2010
by dlgilbert.
No comments yet

There’s a great post on Unreasonable Faith by guest blogger Vincent Skolny (of Avangelism.com) about kids, their understanding of death, and the nature of reality.

He writes about his three-year-old daughter’s understanding of death as it relates to a recently-deceased family cat… and herself.

A small excerpt from the conclusion:

Death isn’t confusing at all: We’re gone and won’t be seen anymore. What makes death confusing and confuses children is pretending that dead people (or cats) are really somehow still alive. Or anything other than what they are: dead and gone.

Reality is seldom as confusing as lying about it.

Religion seems to be an extremely complex avoidance of the simplicity of reality. Sure, if you get down into the details of biology, astronomy, geology, paleontology, and other sciences, there are some pretty tricky details but, in general, reality is pretty straightforward. Obscuring it with unnecessary supernatural explanations seems a bit silly.

Vincent’s daughter’s understanding of death fits Occam’s Razor perfectly.

(Just trivial FYI: The cat pictured in the index icon for this post… you won’t see it in the RSS feed, just on the site homepage… is my recently deceased cat Pokey, who lived for about 18 years old and was a wonderful, wonderful companion.)

I love xkcd

Jan 19th, 2010
by dlgilbert.
No comments yet

xkcd is such a great web comic, not just for the humor, but for the insights. It’s also wonderfully techie and appeals to the geek part of me.

Today’s comic is one of the funny and insightful ones (reproduced with the original title text for your hovering enjoyment).

I believe the truth always lies halfway between the most extreme claims.

What I love about it is the mocking of the idea that the truth is always somewhere in the middle of two opposing positions. It’s not. Sometimes, one side is right and the other is just wrong.

Flat Earth versus spherical Earth… faked moon landing versus actual moon landing… evolution versus creationism… germ theory versus spontaneous generation… etc. There are myriads of examples of issues where the truth does not lie somewhere in the middle.

Of special interest to me, of course, is the evolution versus creationism issue… where creationism and intelligent design have no basis in scientific fact while evolution holds all the evidential cards. Saying something like, “Evolution happens, but man is God’s special creation and was made in his present form” is not only incorrect, but there’s no valid reason to even suggest it. Some might say it fills a spiritual need in people. Perhaps that’s true, but so do many other things… like pizza.

I don’t mean to be smarmy (much), but the issue is that people fill their lives with meaning in thousands of different ways, some mundane and some grandiose. Isn’t it better to create meaning and purpose in your life based on something that is real? Family and friends come instantly to mind and I can say that they provide a huge amount of purpose in my life. Charity, kindness, curiosity, nature, and many other things (Yes. Pizza, too) all bring some meaning and purpose to my life. Why would I need to add something make-believe to all the joy and wonder that already exists in the real world?

I have plenty of meaning and purpose now… without a compromise.

Bertrand Russell on God and Religion

Jan 1st, 2010
by dlgilbert.
No comments yet

A Facebook friend linked to this video (3:25 in length) and I thought it worth sharing. Bertrand Russell answers some questions (in 1959) about God, religion, and why he’s an atheist.

As a side note, when I was 13 and starting to seriously question religious faith, Bertrand Russell’s book Why I Am Not a Christian was the first book I ever purchased on the topic. The essays it contains put me on the path to understanding that intellectual honesty is better than blind, obedient faith and that ethics and morals based on rational concepts are far, far better than simply following vague, archaic laws from questionable holy books.

Russell famously said, “I am as firmly convinced that religions do harm as I am that they are untrue.”

I am in agreement.

Religious Irrelevance

Nov 7th, 2009
by dlgilbert.
1 comment

Horse Crossing While watching the riders at a 4-H horse show today (my daughter is a 4-H member), I started considering the role that religion plays in people’s everyday lives. I don’t live in the most religious area of the country (South-Central Pennsylvania), but even so, on my commute to and from work, a total drive time of about an hour, I can count twelve churches, seven church signs at township borders, a church-run thrift store, and up until about a month ago, a “Jesus is the only way to God” billboard… and that’s a drive that’s mostly highway and rural farmland.

Thinking about the social events I attend, the work I do,  and the conversations I have, it’s worth noting how little of a role religion plays, at least on the surface. At the horse show today, it was all fun and games: costume contests, relay races, apple bobbing, and the like. Everyone was having a terrific time, the weather was gorgeous, the horses were all behaving, and the conversations were light-hearted and good-natured. There was no mention of God, no intrusion of religion, no proselytizing… nothing. There were, perhaps, a few gasps of “Oh my God!” when a horse gave an unexpected buck or a rider lost balance enough to give a scare to the crowd, but I saw no bowed heads in silent prayer and certainly no obvious prayer circles, invoking heavenly protection from the forces of gravity on airborne, equine-launched riders.

It was a secular event. Most activities, for the vast majority of Americans, are secular activities: PTO meetings, birthday parties, book clubs, company meetings, family get-togethers, horse shows, sporting events, movie nights, grocery shopping, gardening, housework, fishing… the list goes on forever. The biggest display of religion that you’re likely to find at these types of activities is, perhaps, saying a prayer before eating. Your mileage may vary somewhat depending upon where in the country you live, but generally speaking, religion is only at the forefront at religious events like church services, funerals, and Saturday morning, door-knocking proselytizing by groups like the Jehovah’s Witnesses.

Almost all other religious activity is private… personal… internal.

Why, then, does the religious right insist on foisting their religious proclivities on others? Why lobby to ban gay marriage? Why insist on inserting Christian-specific clauses in legislation? Why put monuments of the Ten Commandments on government property? Why put up billboards that go well beyond advertising a religious organization, but condemn anyone whose belief differs from their own?

I don’t know the answer. I can only speculate.

There is, of course, the altruistic ideal of saving the unsaved masses from a lifetime of eternal torment in Hell. Perhaps some are motivated by that, but I doubt if it can account for the massive attempt of the religious right to assimilate all the unbelievers.

I think a more likely cause is the self-righteousness of fundamentalist religion… the unwavering faith that, as believers, they are, indeed, divinely special in the eyes of an almighty creator and are therefore granted unique privileges and special consideration in this world. They are overtaken by the notion that they are favored by God and therefore have righteous superiority and holy authority over the lives of others… and the infinite wisdom and enlightenment of their deity to decide what is best for everyone in public and in private.

Keep in mind that I’m not referring to those believers who quietly go about their business, say their prayers, attend their church services, and are privately devout. I’m talking about the minority of believers who are outward fundamentalists and vociferously insist that the rest of us fall in line, do what we’re told, and worship in the exact way they tell us… and respect their authority. They’re the ones who would turn our country into a theocratic nightmare, banish all non-believers (or “different” believers), and tell the scientists to back up the bible… or else.

They don’t like that religion is irrelevant in almost all the activities in which other people participate. It’s almost as if they’re secretly jealous and want to cover it up by proclaiming their beliefs to be the right ones… the important ones… the only ones. They want their religion to be everywhere, not just in religious activities, but in secular activities as well. If we let them, they’ll do it, too.

…and ruin a perfectly good horse show.

Outside the Chapel Doors

Oct 20th, 2009
by dlgilbert.
5 comments

Taking care of the world - health care and climate change For the past few days, I’ve been mulling over the issues of health care and global warming (or climate change, if you prefer) in the context of who opposes the issues. It seems that almost every person who opposes (meaningful) health care reform and who denies global warming is either very conservative and/or very religious (usually both)… and I’ve been trying to figure out the correlation, if there is one.

A friend suggested that it’s because both demographics tend to just follow the “party line,” whether it be delivered from the likes of Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck or from Republican politicians like John Boehner and Sarah Palin. I think that may be true in some instances, by why did those people start denying climate change in the first place?

I’ve seen climate change deniers cherry pick evidence, offer irrelevant evidence (it snowed early this year!), distort existing evidence, make up evidence, cite faulty studies, and quote scientists in unrelated fields of study… all in an attempt to discredit scientific studies showing that our planet is, indeed, warming, that it is doing so at a far more rapid rate than historical trends would indicate, and that human carbon emissions are very likely having a significant impact on the warming.

I’ve seen people use the same types of tactics in an effort to stop any meaningful health care reform, too. I’ve seen accusations of fascism. I’ve seen absurdities about “rationed” health care and “death squads.” I’ve seen outright lies. I’ve seen alarmist cries of socialism (as if there aren’t tons of government run programs that fall into that category already).

The only connection I can easily make (which doesn’t necessarily make it valid) is that both issues would cost money to solve and both issues would require legislation of some sort… a change in the status quo. Conservatives may want to discredit climate change because they don’t want to have to pay to mitigate it. They don’t want to pay for any changes in our health care system because they don’t want any changes to what they already have. Personally, I think that has a lot to do with it. Opponents are basically saying, “If it’s going to cost me money or change what I’ve got, I want no part of it.”

That connection seems obvious to me.

What seems less obvious is what I’ve been mulling over in the past couple days and I’d love to hear feedback on this.

In the demographic in question, most (not all) are right-wing conservatives and very religious people (frequently, the two go hand-in-hand). I’ve made the claim before that religions (monotheistic religions in particular) are narcissistic by their very nature. Thinking of human beings as a “special creation” of a loving, caring god is the epitome of self-aggrandizing conceit.

Providing affordable health care to everyone in the country (or the world, for that matter) is an altruistic endeavor. For those of us who have good health insurance coverage, wanting to provide coverage for those who cannot afford it or who cannot obtain it puts the focus on something other than ourselves.

Mitigating global warming is something that is good for the entire world, not just our country. Looking at the big picture (again, outside our own self-interests) indicates that taking care of the issue now, regardless of costs involved, will benefit the entire world in the long run. It may cost our country some money. It may cost us money personally. But if we don’t consider just ourselves… if we consider that we’re part of a larger, global community… it seems that the proper course of action is to deal with the problem now.

In both cases, the solutions require us to think of the bigger picture… to think of the well-being of others… to consider the impact on the world, not just ourselves and not just our country. With the religious mindset that a god is watching over us and protecting us because we are very special to him (on a personal or a national level), there’s no need to do that… nor a reason to. Indeed, US Representative John Shimkus (R-IL) says just that.

The earth will end only when God declares its time to be over. Man will not destroy this earth. This earth will not be destroyed by a flood.

(video)

I’ve heard someone (who is very religious) say that he struggles with the idea of paying for other peoples’ health care because he already donates 10% of his income to the church, so he’s already doing his part (it wasn’t that cut and dry, but that was the gist of it). I can understand that viewpoint, but it falls directly in the middle of the “I’m special because of my religion” mindset. Why does the altruism end outside the chapel doors? In addition, what makes inside the chapel doors more deserving of financial support?

I also understand the position that the government is notorious for its inefficiency with our tax money. There’s really no argument there, but that’s no excuse for neglecting people. That’s no excuse for refusing to clean up after ourselves. That’s no excuse for ignoring global environmental problems. That’s no excuse for being dishonest, deceitful, and disingenuous about the issues. That’s no excuse for falling back on the claim of divine right.

Let me know what you think.

Herding Cats and Situational Etiquette

Oct 13th, 2009
by dlgilbert.
2 comments

In the atheist community, there are two sure things. The first is, of course, that atheists don’t believe in any gods. The other thing is that a lack of belief in any gods is pretty much the only universally common attribute of atheists. Atheist groups sometimes have trouble gaining or keeping members because, as the president of my local group, the Pennsylvania Nonbelievers, says, organizing atheists is like herding cats.

Because of this incredible variety in attitudes, outlooks, worldviews, political leanings, and philosophies, it’s no wonder that atheists don’t always agree on everything.

One point of disagreement is commonly at the forefront of atheist discussions… how to grow our community. How do we let other people know it’s okay to be an atheist? How do we get rid of the stigma associated with the term “atheist” and turn it into a positive? How do we go about criticizing religion, superstition, and pseudo-science without shooting ourselves in the foot?

In one case, there are outspoken, in-your-face atheists. They’ll wear “There is no god” t-shirts or accessories that proudly proclaim their atheism. They’ll bring up the topic constantly (sometimes in what some people consider inappropriate circumstances) and argue about it. They almost seem to be looking for a fight.

In other cases, there are proponents of science and critical thinking. They tend to focus more on education, whether it be astronomy, biology, or skepticism. They’re sometimes bold, but usually polite (but not always), and though they don’t shy away from outspoken criticism of archaic religious dogma, they tend to see atheism as the result of clear, rational, scientific thinking… not vice versa.

Other atheists tend to be quietly comfortable with their beliefs, and though they don’t go out of their way to bring them up, if questioned (or if the subject presents itself), they’ll happily (and amicably) discuss the matter, offering criticism where it’s due, but keeping a friendly tone and listening to the opposing views.

Of course, none of these are absolutes. People are combinations (or eclectic hodgepodges!) of these basic types and it’s probably rare to find someone who always fits in one single category.

I tend to be a combination of the science category and the friendly category. Why? I’m not an “in your face” kind of person. I’m friendly by nature and I like making people smile. I’m generally very good at gauging a situation to know what’s appropriate and what’s not appropriate, so the idea of wearing a t-shirt that proclaims “ATHEIST” to work or to a 4-H meeting or to anything other than an atheist gathering seems incredibly rude to me… in much the same way I would find it rude for someone to wear a t-shirt saying “CHRISTIAN” or “MUSLIM” or “Abortion is murder!” on it in those same situations. For me, it’s far more appropriate to wear a pro-science t-shirt… and I think that’s a much better starting point for a discussion.

However, if someone brings up the topic of religion or asks me about it, I have no qualms about discussing it, but I’m not out “looking for a fight” in order to tell someone they’re wrong and start “preaching the gospel” of atheism. To me, that seems silly and counterproductive. Many (most?) atheists dislike fundamentalist evangelism, especially the “in your face” kind, and if someone is just out looking to start a fight in order to “preach” about atheism, it strikes me as the same thing.

If someone says that the Earth is 6,000 years old, I’ll question them. If someone tells me that vaccinations cause autism, I’ll question them. If someone claims that religion is the only source of morality, I’ll question them. If someone tells me that this country is a Christian nation or that Obama is a fascist or that evolution isn’t true or that the moon landing was faked… I’ll question them. I’ll do what I can to educate people or at least provide them with pointers to get the information they need to make rational decisions.

What I’m not going to do is walk up to people and, out of the blue, say “I’m an atheist and if you believe in Christianity, you’re wrong.” To me, that’s sort of what a t-shirt proclaiming “ATHEIST” says. It’s a chip-on-the-shoulder dare to Christians or Muslims or Hindus. It won’t win friends. It won’t win converts. It won’t educate. It only aggravates.

…and I think that’s rude.

I feel pretty! Oh, so pretty!

Aug 5th, 2009
by dlgilbert.
No comments yet

Narcissus I’ve read a number of accounts where atheists are accused of being narcissistic, because we supposedly set ourselves up higher than God… more important… smarter… too independent. We think we’re better than God, so the claim goes. I’ve always found that very odd since, by its very nature, atheism generally indicates the opposite view.

We’re not special. We’re animals, very much like all the other animals on this planet. We’re not the "pinnacle of creation" but are merely evolutionary products who continue to evolve as time slowly marches inexorably past. We are born. We live. We die. There’s no grand plan. There’s no heavenly purpose. In the grand scheme of universal timelines, we’re so monumentally insignificant that it’s hard to see how we could feel very self-important… though the accusation still remains.

Perhaps it’s because theists think of us as rejecting God or rebelling against Him… as actually believing in God, but simply finding ourselves "disinclined to acquiesce to his request," somehow thinking ourselves superior or far too dignified to pay homage to His greatness. If that’s the case, it’s quite odd. It’s not that atheists reject God. It’s that we don’t believe he exists. Rebellion is not something that can be staged against a nonexistent entity. Superiority is not something you claim against… nothing.

Maybe it has to do with a truth claim. Perhaps theists feel that we’re smug and self-satisfied in our self-proclaimed ultimate knowledge of God’s non-existence… what with all our "science" and "facts" and "evidence" and that sort of thing. But that, too, seems odd, since atheists with a sense of rationality don’t make such an absolute claim to the truth. Certainly scientists don’t! We leave the claims of absolute truth to the theists… to the Christians, the Muslims, the Jews, the Mormons, the Catholics, the… you get the picture.

We know that the non-existence of God can’t be proven, but we also know that there’s no evidence at all on the theist’s side of the fence. We also know that there is quite a bit of evidence that points toward God’s non-existence, but that there is no (nor can there be) unequivocal proof of that negative hypothesis. What we can do is base our thinking on naturally observable, testable data and go from there. Supernatural beliefs (and yes, that includes a belief in a god) don’t advance our understanding of the universe. They don’t help our survival. The don’t benefit the human race. They show us nothing about how our world works.

On the other hand, theists (fundamentalist ones, in particular) tend to believe that humans are God’s special creation, unique and cosmically important… much more important than mere animals. So important, in fact, that the universal laws were created just for man’s existence, all of them so finely tuned that just a tweak of the stellar dial in either direction and we’d be snuffed out. So important that God made a planet just for us… a virtual Garden of Eden (though we evidently borked that up long ago) created to house His epitome of perfect creation. He listens to each of our prayers and loves every one of us as individuals. He helps guide our lives, helps us through tough times, bestows his grace and attention to us, and chastises our misdeeds with a loving, caring hand.

Now I’m sure not all theists think that way, just as all atheists don’t think the same way I do. There are arrogant atheists just as there are arrogant theists. Humans are, by nature, narcissistic to some degree. It’s in our DNA. However, theist and atheistic beliefs are fundamentally different.

Theists tend to believe they are God’s special creation. Atheists tend to believe they are cosmically insignificant.

It’s easy to see where the label of "narcissist" should be applied.

God Hates Children

Aug 3rd, 2009
by Craig Woods.
3 comments
God told me to!

In the Indian village of Solapur, residents mark the birth of a new child by tossing the newborn from a 50 foot Muslim shrine onto a sheet below. The bizarre tradition is over 500 years old.

God has ordered some pretty despicable things to be done during his tenure over mankind. The destruction of entire cities, blights, plagues, multiple smitings, disease, pestilence, and genocidal floods. It’s an impressive resume by any mass murderer’s reckoning to be sure but there’s more! God loves to torture and kill children or gutlessly order his minions to torture and kill children.

Every night on the evening news we hear about murder, rape or any number of brutal crimes being committed.  Horrible to be sure but society does become immune. Rarely is the water cooler abuzz with talk of any but the most disgusting of these crimes, unless a child is involved. Our society finds, rightfully so, that crimes such as this involving children are of the most heinous nature. It’s a fact that more often than not, child predators are the first to be beaten or killed by their fellow inmates once incarcerated. Even criminals agree that these choice individuals are fair game for a rather rude introduction into our penal system. God help himself should he ever take up residence within the American penal system, for he would certainly be due a beating.

God has always had a special place in his heart for children. I suppose that’s why he at times singles them out for his own particular brand of cruelty and barbarism. Jesus may “love the little children” but God…not so much. Here’ s some of God’s greatest hits:

  1. In the name of God, Jewish males have the grand fortune of being subjected to ritualistic genital mutilation.
  2. Children who fall ill are medically neglected by those of the Jehovah’s Witness cult.
  3. Children are tossed off buildings in parts of India for good luck.

These are examples of a modern day misinterpretation of God’s will by man, you say? These are not actions that God would ever have endorsed, you say? Nice try. These are actually rather “meek and mild” examples of God’s depravity. We can look to God’s divinely inspired instruction manual, the bible, for some of his most horrid and genocidal greatest hits.

    Do not withhold discipline from your children; if you beat them with a rod, they will not die. If you beat them with the rod, you will save their lives from Sheol.
    (Prov. 23:13-14)
    Pardon me if I don’t begin singing, “My God is an Awesome God”. God is not only in favor of strict discipline but he fully endorses all out beatings.
    From there Elisha went up to Bethel.  While he was on his way, some small boys came out of the city and jeered at him.  “Go up baldhead,” they shouted, “go up baldhead!”  The prophet turned and saw them, and he cursed them in the name of the Lord.  Then two shebears came out of the woods and tore forty two of the children to pieces. (2 Kings 2:23-24 NAB)
    God  only knows what he would have done had the small boys taken his name in vain. Maybe he could have resurrected them and killed them twice. …”my God is an awesome God”…(keep singing, keep singing).
    If even then you remain hostile toward me and refuse to obey, I will inflict you with seven more disasters for your sins.  I will release wild animals that will kill your children and destroy your cattle, so your numbers will dwindle and your roads will be deserted. (Leviticus 26:21-22 NLT)
    NO, not the cattle!! Yes in God’s eye the loss of children is equated with the loss of one’s livestock.
    I could continue in this same vein, citing example after example of God’s pitiless hatred for those who are weak and guiltless but I think you get the point. I haven’t even begun to touch on all of the instances where God ordered the death of children for the inequities of the parents or their parent’s parents. God’s big on generational smiting.
    A society can often be judged on how it treats its weaker members. How a civilization treats its handicapped or helpless children can tell you a lot about that civilization’s foundational morality.  Christians love to suggest that God provides society with a moral compass and that atheists are immoral. Well I don’t kill, mutilate or maim helpless children. I don’t order others to do what I don’t have the guts to do myself, while holding eternal damnation over the heads of my witless  accomplices and I don’t worship anyone who does.
    If these forementioned acts are the acts of the loving Christian God then I want nothing to do with him or his ignorant, mentally retarded followers who would support such cruelty. Make no mistake, to be a Christian means you DO support these acts. The bible is allegedly the inspired word of God and is therefore infallible. You simply CAN’T be a Christian without believing God is omniscient and  omnipotent. If you truly consider yourself to be a Christian you are a willing supporter of all of these vicious decrees.
    …”my God is an awesome God”…(keep singing, keep singing)

Positive Atheism

Jun 17th, 2009
by dlgilbert.
No comments yet

Life, The Universe, and EverythingFrequently, the writings of atheists tend to be critical of religion, theistic beliefs, and dogma rather than positive toward non-belief. It’s a necessary tack to take on a regular basis when confronting religious activism in politics, education, health care, and science. I do it myself. However, sometimes it seems that there isn’t enough written about the positive aspects of atheism… how non-belief is beneficial rather than how theistic beliefs are harmful. Sometimes we’re so busy defending against theistic politicking that we forget about extolling the virtues of atheism.

So here are what I find some of the benefits to be (with occasional criticisms thrown in for reference).

Leaving religion behind lets me actively seek out answers, digging into the world around me to uncover evidence showing how the world works, how it came to be, and where it’s headed. It removes the easy non-answer of “God did it” and opens up the door to a world filled with awe-inspiring explanations based on factual observations… observations untainted and uncheapened by the simple-minded tenants of unfounded faith.

Religion provides an easy way out to the difficult and complex questions about the workings of this world and our surrounding universe. As an atheist, I reject that excuse for intellectual laziness. Searching for real answers provides, for me and many other nonbelievers, far more wonder, awe, and appreciation for nature and our physical world, both visible and invisible, than does the feeble act of claiming supernatural causes.

By allowing me the freedom to discover knowledge about the smallest particles explained by physics, microscopic biological forms, the living, breathing nature around us, our solar system, our galaxy, and our universe, atheism frees me from the dogmatic shackles of religious intellectual bondage and provides me with extraordinary delight in our very existence. I have no need to reconcile observable evidence with ancient texts or untenable beliefs nor do I have a need to reject or explain away evidence if it contradicts the prescribed dogma of theistic organizations.

Leaving religion behind allows me to behave in a way that is truly moral, acting in a way that harms no one and benefits everyone… myself, those around me, and those inhabiting our planet… without being threatened and coerced by a fear of infinite torment. When mistakes are made, I can ask forgiveness from those harmed and then move on without being damned and without obsequious groveling to an invisible master.

Atheism allows me to follow a morality based on reasoning and logic instead of vague, outdated rules and proclamations that were made for a more primitive, unenlightened time. It gives me freedom to treat others with respect regardless of their race, religion, sex, or nationality… freedom, also, to unhypocritically speak out against those who do harm, who espouse bigotry and intolerance, and who promote hatred and violence either through words or deeds.

My mistakes are my own and cannot be dismissed or forgiven except by those whom I have wronged. Therefore, it is always in my best interest to treat others well and do what I can to bring out the best in them. Atheism removes the moral escape hatch provided by religion, making it exponentially more important for me to behave well… now and in the future. I cannot pray and be forgiven. I do not believe there is a benevolent, all-knowing creator who can absolve me of my sins. Only those who have been harmed by my actions can do that.

Since there is no eternal paradise after death, I have this one life to experience as much joy and happiness as I can. My joy and happiness depends, in large part, on my interactions with others. It also depends upon my understanding of the world around me. What makes someone happy varies from person to person, but for me, in addition to the people in my life, it includes a love of the outdoors, animals, science, astronomy, literature, music, food, dancing, writing, and a myriad of other things, none of which have any reliance upon the supernatural (science-fiction and fantasy novels notwithstanding).

Atheism is freedom. Not the freedom to do as I please, but the freedom to act in a way that is globally pleasing… the freedom to act morally… the freedom to see the world as it is… the freedom to wallow in the vastness of the universe… the freedom to be intellectually honest…

…the freedom to think.

← Earlier Posts