What follows is a good example of why my daughter rocks.
She and I drove by a church today that frequently has "witty" sayings on their sign. This week, the sign said, "Did you make God smile today?" I pointed it out to my daughter, but she missed it.
"What did it say?" she asked.
"It said, ‘Did you make God smile today?’"
She paused and asked, "How would you know?"
…
Exactly.
In the now defunct blog Smoke & Mirrors, Moonflake answers Hemant Mehta’s (The Friendly Atheist) list of questions that are commonly asked of atheists. I particularly like the answer to the question, "Would the world be better off without religion?"
Moonflake answers:
Depends how you got to that point. I don’t think the world would be better off if you banned religion outright. But it would certainly be better if we all became sufficiently advanced in our moral and critical thinking to realise that we did not need religion, and just got on with the business of being better humans.
I think that’s a spot-on answer. Religion shouldn’t have to be banned. In a perfect world, humanity would realize that it’s… well… smoke and mirrors, and could be free to focus on the real world and real people, without using 2,000 year old dogma as an excuse to act badly.
It’s a great vision for the future.
Lately, I’ve been hearing more and more stories in the news and on blogs about religious people speaking out on quite a few topics… from a religious standpoint. Whether the topic is competing religions, education, church-state separation, politics, science, or human rights, it seems that religious folks, be they Protestant, Muslim, Jewish, Catholic, Mormon, or some offshoot, seem to feel that they have sole access to universal truths and anyone who disagrees with them is immoral, unpatriotic, or just plain evil.
Some Christians in the United States are frequently lamenting how they are persecuted… how their religious rights are being curtailed… how their freedom to worship is being stripped away… how their religion is prohibited in any public setting. Many Muslims seem to spew outrage over words and pictures they feel disrespect their beliefs… over opposition to their teachings… over perceived persecution or unfair treatment.
Yet, at the same time, these religious people will attempt to push their beliefs into public policy, into education, into government… all the while seemingly completely unaware of their own hypocrisy; not seeing how their adamant proclamations of superiority are exactly the same as the adamant proclamations of competing religious claims.
Why is that? How is it that some religious people seem completely closed off to the very notion that there are competing ideologies? How is it that some religious people will dismiss conflicting ideological claims without even the passing wonder if their own claims could just as easily be dismissed? How is it that one argument can be discarded as absurd when referring to one religion but that same argument can be held in high regard when referring to another? Why does religion seem to generate so much unrest… so much controversy… so much intolerance?
I’ve created a partial list of ideas with my interpretation of each one. It is by no means complete, nor is it absolute. Based on what I’ve seen, heard, read, and experienced, this is simply my understanding about some of the consequences of religious teachings and religious beliefs. Feel free to correct, debate, or add to any and all of my points.
This is one of the most pervasive problems with religions, in my opinion, and it’s always been a problem. If there is a phenomenon that isn’t understood… for which science has no current answer… the religious answer is “God did it.” Case closed. From the origin of the universe to the intricacies of biological development, “God did it” is a common refrain heard from religious proponents.
It’s not a real answer. It’s the religious way of saying, “I don’t know and I don’t care.” By attributing the cause to an invisible, all-powerful, undetectable entity, religion absolves its adherents from any investigative work… from any intellectual responsibility… from any curiosity.
Probably every deistic religion teaches its adherents to not question authority, whether that authority be a minister, the bible, the Pope, or God. The bible is true. The Qur’an is true. The Book of Mormon is true. L. Ron Hubbard’s missives about Xenu are true (for the right price, anyway). All these religions make absolute claims on the truth. If these claims are questioned, the questioner is branded a heretic… a non-believer… an enemy of God. Obviously, some religions are more strict about this than others, but the truth claims are still the same.
Question God’s motives when hundreds die in an earthquake and the likely answer is something about how He works in mysterious ways… that He has a plan… that all suffering is for a reason. In other words, it’s God’s will. Don’t question it. The Catholic concept of Papal Infallibility is a perfect example of discouraging the questioning of authority. Both Christian and Muslim religions claim that their holy books are the Word of God. In the case of the Qur’an, the claim is that the words (in their original Arabic) are the exact transcription of Allah’s words to Muhammad. If ever there was a demand to not question authority, that’s it.
The problem is that questioning authority is, in my opinion, necessary for a healthy, honest society… especially when the authority figure is making claims of a questionable nature. That doesn’t mean that every time an authority figures makes a statement, he should be challenged. Questioning the skydiving instructor when he says to pull the cord to open the chute probably isn’t prudent. Questioning the priest who says that 10% of your income has to go to the church because God needs your money… that’s a different matter.
When questioned about the existence of God, a common religious response is something like, “God is all around you” or “God is self-evident.” If pressed further on the issue, the responses become more like, “Just look how beautiful the trees are. That can only be God’s work.”
Another response about claims of Jesus’ divinity is the “Lord, Liar or Lunatic” argument (“Lewis’s Trilemma” originally popularized by C. S. Lewis). Logically, it’s flawed, yet I’ve heard it used multiple times in religious discussions that I’ve had in the past year… with complete sincerity.
These are just two examples of how religion twists the ideas of logic and evidence. “Trees are beautiful” is not evidence. Lewis’s Trilemma is not logical. Most of the apologetic arguments for the existence of God have huge gaps in logic (ontological, cosmological, etc). The fact remains that no actual evidence exists to support the existence of God, yet defenders of religious faith will present heaps of what they claim is evidence… because they don’t seem to understand what evidence really is.
The fallback argument is, of course, that it’s just a matter of having faith… which is no evidence at all.
Narcissism and a self-righteous feeling of superiority are byproducts of any religion that claims to be the only true religion. Teaching adherents that they are special because they alone hold the truth and they alone will be saved by an all-powerful god and that they alone are holy in the eyes of that god is a surefire way to create a feeling of supremacy. Teaching that humans are a special creation of an omnipotent creator who watches over them with love and mercy is a surefire way to generate strong feelings of narcissism… especially if the creator is the “right” creator.
These feelings frequently manifest themselves in politics, where religious politicians cry about being persecuted, all the while attempting to gain special privilege for their own religion of choice despite the unconstitutionality of their end goal. Another good example is Christians claiming that the United States is a “Christian nation” because they feel that their beliefs are somehow special… true as opposed to those other religions… solely worthy of influencing government policies (again, despite the Constitution)… even necessary for the United States to succeed. It’s completely false, but they cling to it because “they’re special.”
The narcissism and feeling of superiority create, maintain, and worsen divisions among people of differing beliefs. “I’m better than you” doesn’t make for strong relationships.
Hand in hand with the previous point is the point that religion advocates intolerance… partly because of the previous point, but also because some religious tenants explicitly promote intolerance. Islam makes the news on a regular basis for this, but Christianity is no slouch, either. From homosexuality to sexism to disbelief, religions have forbidden people for breaking the (ever changing) rules and have condemned, damned, and killed people for doing so. And even though we don’t live in medieval times, most religions still do at least some of those things.
The nature of the major holy books is that they can be read, interpreted, and cherry-picked to back up almost any position imaginable… not just love and kindness, but also slavery, racism, pedophilia, bigotry, discrimination, murder, genocide, and a host of other positions that, without the holy books, would be not only morally reprehensible, but virtually unthinkable (they’re still morally reprehensible, but sadly, all too thinkable). If a religion’s tenants say that unbelievers should be killed or that people who don’t follow the rules will be tortured for all eternity or that women are inferior or that homosexuals are abominations, it doesn’t leave much room for tolerance and kindness.
Those religious people who are tolerant and loving cannot espouse all the teachings of their religion. They must, in order to maintain their faith, cherry pick certain parts of the bible and follow certain parts of the church’s teachings while rationalizing away other parts or ignoring them altogether. Taking religious teachings as a whole would put them in an untenable position.
I’ve written about this before but it bears repeating… often. Religion, particularly versions of Christianity, certainly do not promote moral behavior. Sure, Christianity offers the whole “carrot and burning-in-hell-for-eternity stick” scenario for encouraging good behavior (which is morally questionable on its own), but based on Christian principles, you can ignore the carrot for as long as you like and simply ask for forgiveness later… with no consequences. That’s about as far as you can get from encouraging moral behavior… to the point of implicitly condoning immoral behavior.
“Go ahead and do your worst,” Christianity says. “Just ask for forgiveness and place you faith in Jesus later and all will be well.”
Of course, if you don’t ask for forgiveness and place your faith in Jesus, then you get the fiery pit… forever. Interestingly enough, Islam doesn’t teach eternal punishment. There’s a “Hell” if you will, but it’s not eternal. It seems that, in this particular case, Islam is a much more merciful religion than Christianity. In Islam, simply asking for forgiveness doesn’t get you out of the punishment, either, so it lacks Christianity’s flaw in that regard. Of course, that doesn’t free it from its own promotion of immorality, including debasing women and pedophilia.
Religious rules can frequently be irrelevant or immoral in their own ways as well, and if you add multiple interpretations and cherry-picking to the mix, things get even more muddied. Certainly, you can dig out some gems of wisdom and kindness from religious doctrine, but you have to work through mountains of rubbish to find them.
Religion promotes inaction by encouraging prayer. It’s as simple as that. Other than possibly creating a calming effect on the person praying, prayer does nothing. “Prayer,” as the saying goes, “is the best way to do nothing and still think you’re helping”… or “The hard work of one does more than the prayers of millions”… or “Nothing fails like prayer.”
Sometimes bumper sticker wisdom says it all.
Say what you will about the debate on whether religion and science are compatible, the main opponents to scientific research are bible-thumping members of fundamentalist religions. They will deny scientific data, no matter how overwhelming, if it conflicts with their ancient dogma or challenges their ideological loyalties. From the time of Galileo to present day arguments about evolution and global warming an stem cell research, the people on the front lines of denialism are almost exclusively hyper religious.
Evolution versus creationism is probably one of the most publicized debates in this regard. The creationists want their mythology taught in science classes even though it isn’t science by any stretch of the imagination. They’ve tried to couch it in scientific language, calling it “Intelligent Design,” but it’s no more scientific with it’s fancy name. They reject factual data about the age of the universe, the age of the Earth, the age of fossils, the process of evolution, the effects of natural selection, and the unequivocal lineage of humans from ape-like ancestors.
Some of that can be credited toward a belief in a 6,000 year old Earth, but much can be credited to the narcissism addressed earlier. How can a religious believer admit that humans are just the most recent product of the evolutionary process and not a special creation of a loving, caring, all-knowing god? If the holy books are supposed to be true, contradictory facts must be eliminated… either by ignoring them or attempting to discredit them.
Religion is a self-perpetuating hindrance to honest, ethical, and yes, moral living. Despite a religious influence, many people still maintain just such a life… by compartmentalizing their beliefs, cherry-picking which doctrines to follow (“cafeteria Christians”), or simply ignoring doctrines altogether in favor of simply calling themselves “spiritual.” Those who lead a good and moral life do so not because of religious teachings, but because of an innate sense of morality combined with societal norms defining appropriate behavior.
Religion clouds the issue of morality… and many other issues. The disadvantages far outweigh the benefits. The promotion of perpetual ignorance is reason enough for religion to be abandoned. Sadly, that probably won’t happen in my lifetime. Religion doesn’t need the truth. It needs followers.
As Nietzsche said, “Faith [is] not wanting to know what is true.”
Sometimes bumper sticker wisdom says it all.
One of the biggest reasons that I dislike religion is because it is considered infallible and therefore can not be questioned. There are so many reasons to dislike religion from the hypocrisy of those in leadership, silly superstitious beliefs, etc. Of all the things to dislike, I think it is the unquestioning nature of religion I hate the most. Don’t question the priest, don’t question the Imam, don’t question the bible. Everywhere you turn are "answers" but no questions. This leads me to the title of this article.
I received this comment recently on an article I wrote:
"CCB says:
you’re ignorant. go to church you sick pig. find god in your life, maybe then you’ll have different views."
Oh…I’m sure I’d have different views alright. I wanted to start this article with the obvious comments:
…but I didn’t want to take the easy road, so I’m not going to make any of those comments, *ahem*.
You, CCB, are the reason this website exists. Well, maybe not "you" specifically but people like you. When you suggest I go to church, which one should it be? Muslim, Christian, Jewish, or is any God ok, as long as there is one in my life? I have a sneaking suspicion that two out of those three Gods would not be on your approved God list. Your unquestioning and insulting nature is what fuels this site and those like it. You may not like my style of sarcastic humor but you can’t argue with the facts of the article you commented about.
The Pope was involved with a cover-up of child rape. The Pope did ignore rape allegations. The Vatican will not accept responsibility for it’s lack of oversight of priests. These are facts. You may not like them but they are true.
So, CCB (if that is your real name… and if it is, it’s a weird name) thanks for reading and keep the insightful comments coming.
Lovingly,
Craig
I have had many theological discussions with Christians and inevitably at some point during our discussion the comment, “you’re taking the meaning out of context” is dropped. I think that a contextual understanding of the bible and Christianity is important also. Let me take this opportunity to try and put the bible and Christianity in it’s proper context.
There is plenty of terrible un-Godlike behavior in the new testament, but for sure it is easier to quote better examples of God’s loveless actions from the old testament. I have had people tell me, “…well yeah that’s the old testament but the new testament is much more peaceful”. I will be taking quotes for most of this article from the old testament. I will be doing so because the old testament is particularly brutal. If you are a Christian and you believe the inspired word of God is infallible (and you have to), why does it matter that only the brutish old testament is mentioned? Having been written first, it has the distinction of being perhaps more timely and therefore more accurate (disbelief appropriately suspended) to the events that it describes.
Let’s start with the bronze age’s answer to Las Vegas, Sodom and Gomorrah. God was not happy with the evil taking place in the twin cities so he decided to rain down upon them “burning sulphur.” This is odd and cruel at the same time. Odd because if you were God, do you think burning sulphur would be the best way to completely wipe out two cities? Cruel because it involves burning men, women and children. Wouldn’t a 30 mile wide plasma beam be more efficient or at least more humane? It’s also a lot more cool than… burning sulphur.  Keep in mind bronze age construction had advanced from an earlier technique of packed clay walls to actual bricks made from mud. Mud bricks don’t burn well, in fact heat is what is used to dry them. Weird God would choose such an incredibly inefficient way to smite people… unless the bible was written solely by men who didn’t know what a plasma beam or anything else more advanced was than… burning sulphur. Hard to keep this story any more in context than that.
Next, let’s talk about God’s quirky sense of humor. Just imagine if you had a neighbor whose name was, oh I don’t know, ahhhh… Abraham. Let’s say some “guy” showed up at Abraham’s house one day and put a gun to Abraham’s head and tried to force him to kill his son, ahhhhh… Isaac. Then right before Abraham did it the “guy” stopped him and said “Wait! I just wanted to see if you’d do it!” Would we think this “guy” was funny, smart, all knowing, all powerful, peaceful, kind, or loving. No, we’d think this “guy” was vicious, cruel and twisted. I think you get the point. If God was omniscient, he would have already know what Abraham was going to do or he’s just a malevolent jerk who gets off on yanking mankind’s chain. Not very Godlike… unless God was a creation of mankind who from time to time does suffer from these character flaws. Hard to keep this story any more in context than that.
Now, Exodus 2:29-30 :
At midnight the LORD struck down all the firstborn in Egypt, from the firstborn of Pharaoh, who sat on the throne, to the firstborn of the prisoner, who was in the dungeon, and the firstborn of all the livestock as well. Pharaoh and all his officials and all the Egyptians got up during the night, and there was loud wailing in Egypt, for there was not a house without someone dead.
Does anything here strike you as odd? Yeah I know, “why should God kill the children for the wrongs of their parents?”. Sure that’s unforgivingly evil, but that’s not even the “odd” part. I’m talking about killing the firstborn of the livestock! The livestock? Here is context for you. Throughout the bible, God has penalized mankind by killing his children and/or his livestock. In an earlier article I quoted Leviticus 26:21-22.
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.
God sure has a thing for killing livestock… or does he? Seems to me far more likely that mankind in the bronze age recognized how valuable livestock was to the other bronze agers of the time and decided to use livestock as leverage in the good book. Sounds again like mankind was truly doing the story telling here. Hard to keep this story any more in context than that.
I could go on…but I think it is clear that contextually these stories and most likely the entire bible, were man made from start to finish. How modern day rational people can’t see that the bible is riddled with un-Godlike, but very human, behavior is astounding to me.
…Sometimes a burning bush, is just a burning bush.
Let’s suppose you had knowledge of an impending storm that had the potential to destroy everything in its path. This very same storm was 24 hours away. What would you do to spread the message to your family, friends, and neighbors? You might phone them, email them, drive to find them or tell everyone you know to spread the word. All rational, sensible actions to take. Would you quietly call just one person and tell him to secretly meet you so that he could pass your message on for you?
This is exactly what we are meant to believe God did. With our eternal salvation on the line, God chose to speak in secret with one person at a time (Moses, Abraham, Joseph Smith, etc.)Â in order to spread the word. Convenient that for most of God’s or his minion’s appearances there weren’t many or any witnesses.
We are told that Jesus was born by an immaculate conception. Says who, Mary? How difficult would it be for a woman who may have bore another man’s child without the knowledge or, I’m assuming, consent of her husband to lie? Is this really that difficult to believe? Remember this was the bronze age, a time period filled with illiterate and ignorant people ruled more by superstition than reason. Imagine further that to keep up the subterfuge upon his birth, the child is told he is the son of God and was born from a virgin mother. The lie becomes a self fulfilling prophecy.
Am I suggesting this is what happened? No. I don’t know and neither do you or anyone (I’m talking to you Christians) who suggests they do. I do believe that this is FAR more plausible a foundational story for Christianity than Jesus being born of a virgin mother, curing the blind, walking on water, dying on the cross and resurrecting three days later thereby washing away all my naughty deeds. This leads us to the title of this article, religion is a setup.
Why would a God purposely put into motion a set of circumstances so preposterous, so witness-less, and then penalize mankind for not following it blindly; and by blindly, I mean just on faith. Think about it. If you were going to hold people eternally accountable for their actions, wouldn’t you at least give them reasonable assurances that what they were being asked to do was what you truly intended for them to do? You wouldn’t leave your true meaning shrouded in mystery . Your expectations would be clearly defined and verifiable.
You would never couch something so important in riddles and decades old hearsay. If there truly was an all powerful and all knowing God, he/she wouldn’t either.
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:
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)
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)
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)
There’s been a lot written in the atheist and skeptic blogospheres lately about Dale Neumann, who killed his 11-year-old daughter Madeline by refusing to take her to the doctor, instead choosing to pray for her recovery. He’s been charged with second-degree reckless homocide (back in March of 2003) for his daughter’s death from undiagnosed diabetes. Madeline’s mother, Leilani, has already been convicted of second-degree reckless homicide and faces up to 25 years in prison, according to an MSNBC article.
On Thursday the July 30th, He was the last person to testify in his trial, stating that he felt that he couldn’t take his daughter to the doctor without disobeying God. He evidently read from the bible during his testimony, preaching to the jury about his faith and God’s ability to heal.
Dale Neumann said, “Who am I to predict death when death is an appointed time for all of us?”
From the MSNBC article…
Dale Neumann told the jury he didn’t seek medical help for his child because “I can’t do that because Biblically, I cannot find that is the way people are healed.”
He added: “If I go to the doctor, I am putting the doctor before God. I am not believing what he said he would do.”
[…]
Prosecutors say he should have taken the girl to a hospital because she couldn’t walk, talk, eat or speak.
Instead, Madeline died on the floor of the family’s rural Weston home as people surrounded her and prayed.
Prosecutors say that she couldn’t walk, talk, eat, or speak and should have been taken to a doctor. Lynn Wilde, who testified in Newmann’s defense, said that she thought Madeline had the flu and that she looked a little pale and was weak. She also made noises and moved her head.
Wilde, a loyal member of Neumann’s Bible study group, testified for the defense as Neumann’s attorney tried to show the father didn’t know how ill his daughter was. Wilde said the five adults and three other children at the home prayed and took communion in an effort to heal the girl. She went home and took a nap, expecting the Neumanns to call later and say Madeline was fine and walking again.
“I believe in the power of prayer,” Wilde testified.
Madeline died about two hours later, whereupon someone called 911.
Two points come to mind. First, the instantaneous one, is that both parents should be locked up for murder. Neither should get off on an insanity plea, though, in my opinion, they are both clearly insane… also negligent, abusive, ignorant, and immoral. Their daughter would probably still be alive had they sought medical treatment when she exhibited symptoms. She would have had an even better chance had she received regular checkups prior to developing outward symptoms.
That’s the point that most of the blog entries I’ve read have emphasized and I agree.
The other point that came to mind (and some blogs have probably brought this up, too) is that, if other religious people believed what they profess to believe, they would all do the same thing that the Neumanns did. If they believe in a god who is all-powerful, loving, and benevolent, who can heal the sick and perform miracles, who created the very universe by simply willing it to be so, who listens to and answers prayers… then why would they do anything other than pray for their sick loved ones?
Lynn Wilde said, “I believe in the power of prayer.” How many other religious believers make the same statement of belief? How many profess to believe it absolutely? Yet how many of them act as if they believe it absolutely? I doubt the numbers are very large.
Most people take sick children to the doctor. Most people go to the doctor themselves when symptoms indicate something serious. Most people take pain medication when they have a headache. Most people behave in a rational way that has nothing to do with believing in an all-powerful, loving deity… despite any claims to religious belief they may profess.
So I have to conclude that, when people actually act on their professed religious beliefs… when they trust in the “power of prayer” and their benevolent, loving deity to do what’s right for their children… when they refuse to get professional medical treatment for serious health conditions, instead choosing to do nothing but pray… when they put their full trust in their almighty god to save them… people die and they get convicted of murder.
They should be convicted, but it underscores my point… that most people who claim to be devout religious believers and who claim to put their full trust in their god really aren’t and really don’t. They put their trust in other people… doctors, nurses, firemen, policemen, engineers, scientists, teachers… friends.
That’s where the trust really belongs, anyway.
Frequently, 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.
My new favorite web comic is xkcd. It’s a sometimes geeky, almost always insightful, and always funny comic drawn with mostly stick figures by Randall Munroe, a CNU graduate with a degree in physics. Who knew physics geeks could be funny?
So the comic below was just brought to my attention by a friend who’s also an xkcd fan and I thought I’d share it here since the subject of the comic is perfect for Rationality Now. It addresses (somewhat) the issue of why atheists give a rip about what other people believe. See if you can follow along. I’ll elaborate in a future post.
Oh… and go visit xkcd. It’s funny and they have geeky t-shirts.
