Godless (18 page)
Most religionists, who are normally quite capable of analyzing everyone else’s ideas with careful precision, suspend the rational process when they approach their own beliefs. Suddenly, everything is possible, even probable. “The bible says it, I believe it,” some say. We who doubt are accused of an “
a priori
bias” against miracles or a “prejudiced denial” of the supernatural, when we are merely following the process that all humans use to learn anything. If I say that I possess an honest inductive conclusion that all ravens are black or that people do not resurrect from the dead, based on careful observation of the world around me, then is it fair to say that such views are based on an
a priori
dismissal of any and all possibilities?
a priori
bias” against miracles or a “prejudiced denial” of the supernatural, when we are merely following the process that all humans use to learn anything. If I say that I possess an honest inductive conclusion that all ravens are black or that people do not resurrect from the dead, based on careful observation of the world around me, then is it fair to say that such views are based on an
a priori
dismissal of any and all possibilities?
When ministers who are untrained in science make cosmological pronouncements that contradict science, why are they granted more credibility than professional physicists, mathematicians or biologists? This certainly is not because they are qualified—it is because, like quacks, they are
believed
qualified. Some ministers may know something about science or have specialized knowledge on certain subjects, but they have no special edge. I know. I used to be one, and I have met more than 1,000 ministers personally. There is nothing there. No advantage, no inside track, no superior abilities or sublime knowledge. Ministers are only successful if people want them to be. There are no preachers alive who could succeed without a following, without gullible people willing to call them “Pastor,” “Reverend” or “Father.”
believed
qualified. Some ministers may know something about science or have specialized knowledge on certain subjects, but they have no special edge. I know. I used to be one, and I have met more than 1,000 ministers personally. There is nothing there. No advantage, no inside track, no superior abilities or sublime knowledge. Ministers are only successful if people want them to be. There are no preachers alive who could succeed without a following, without gullible people willing to call them “Pastor,” “Reverend” or “Father.”
Many ministers have earned respect as decent human beings working to lessen violence and improve humanity, and their contributions to the betterment of the world are applauded by all of us, believers and atheists alike. But this could be said about anybody. Ministers have no corner on compassion, no corner on charity. There are thousands of exemplary atheists who do not turn their good deeds into an excuse to pastor (shepherd) other human beings, or to stand up weekly before their “flock” and pontificate, or to advertise to the world how great their (non)religion is. Many atheists walked shoulder-to-shoulder with Baptists and Methodists in the civil rights marches. Most atheists I know contribute to charity and work for social causes. Ministers, priests and rabbis are not automatically better people.
When I was an ordained minister I was considered an authority on the bible and Christianity. I never pretended to be the greatest theologian or bible scholar in the world (I was a soul winner), but no one ever objected to the “wisdom” of my sermons and my ministry was quite fruitful. My credentials were never challenged. Since I was a “man of God,” I automatically got respect. But now that I am an atheist, all of this seems to count for nothing in the eyes of believers. My opinions are now “foolishness,” they say. It appears that Christians are not honest when they ask unbelievers to give the bible a chance. I gave it all the attention it could possibly require, more than most of them have done. Many atheists know far more about the bible than most Christians. Many of us have given Christianity (or Islam or Judaism) more than a fair shake and have done all the work that, if we were believers, should have earned us the respect granted so easily to others. But the only thing that would impress most believers is an attitude of belief. I was considered a leader, but only as long as I led people where
they
wanted to go (which was heaven). If I were to walk back into one of those churches, would they listen to my preaching now? Would they want to hear what I have learned about the bible?
they
wanted to go (which was heaven). If I were to walk back into one of those churches, would they listen to my preaching now? Would they want to hear what I have learned about the bible?
I used to be one of those true believers, and I know that my motives were well intended. I wasn’t trying to deceive deliberately, or to avoid truth. I was a victim myself. Many Christians are fine people who want the best in life. They are trying to do what is right as best as they know how. When I preached the gospel I was not knowingly spreading deception. I was just caught up in an erroneous way of thinking, seeing only what I was allowed to see and forcing facts to fit a preconceived (ill-conceived) worldview.
People are invariably surprised to hear me say I am both an atheist and an agnostic, as if this somehow weakens my certainty. I usually reply with a question like, “Well, are you a Republican or an American?” The two words serve different concepts and are not mutually exclusive. Agnosticism addresses knowledge; atheism addresses belief. The agnostic says, “I don’t have a knowledge that God exists.” The atheist says, “I don’t have a belief that God exists.” You can say both things at the same time. Some agnostics are atheistic and some are theistic.
Agnosticism is the refusal to take as a fact any statement for which there is insufficient evidence. It may be applied to any area of life, whether science, UFOs, politics or history, though it is most commonly invoked in a religious context as it was first used. The word
agnostic
was coined by Thomas Huxley, who attached the prefix
a-
(not, without) to
gnostic
, which is from the Greek
gnosis
(knowledge). One common fallacy about agnosticism is that it is a halfway house between theism and atheism—but that cannot be since it performs in a different arena. If you answer the question “Do you have a belief in a god?” with a “yes” (by any definition of “god”), then you are a theist. If you cannot answer “yes” you are an atheist—you are without a belief in a god.
agnostic
was coined by Thomas Huxley, who attached the prefix
a-
(not, without) to
gnostic
, which is from the Greek
gnosis
(knowledge). One common fallacy about agnosticism is that it is a halfway house between theism and atheism—but that cannot be since it performs in a different arena. If you answer the question “Do you have a belief in a god?” with a “yes” (by any definition of “god”), then you are a theist. If you cannot answer “yes” you are an atheist—you are without a belief in a god.
Another fallacy is that agnostics claim to know nothing, making them equal to skeptics (à la Hume) who claim that nothing can be known to exist outside the mind. Although there may be a few who continue to push philosophy to this extreme, most contemporary agnostics do claim to know many things that are supported by evidence. They may possess strong opinions and even take tentative stands on fuzzy issues, but they will not claim as a fact something for which data is lacking or something which data contradicts. Agnosticism is sensible.
It turns out that
atheism
means much less than I had thought. It is merely the lack of theism. It is not a philosophy of life and it offers no values. It predicts nothing of morality or motives. In my case,
becoming
an atheist was a positive move—the removal of the negative baggage of religious fallacy—and that is rather like having a large debt canceled. It has brought me up to zero, to where my mind is free to think. Those atheists who want to go beyond zero, who want to actually put some money in the bank—and most of them do, I think—will embrace a positive philosophy such as humanism, feminism or another naturalistic ethical system. Or, they will promote charity, philanthropy, learning, science, beauty, art—all those human activities that enhance life. But to be an atheist, you don’t need any positive philosophy at all or need to be a good person. You are an atheist if you lack a belief in a god.
atheism
means much less than I had thought. It is merely the lack of theism. It is not a philosophy of life and it offers no values. It predicts nothing of morality or motives. In my case,
becoming
an atheist was a positive move—the removal of the negative baggage of religious fallacy—and that is rather like having a large debt canceled. It has brought me up to zero, to where my mind is free to think. Those atheists who want to go beyond zero, who want to actually put some money in the bank—and most of them do, I think—will embrace a positive philosophy such as humanism, feminism or another naturalistic ethical system. Or, they will promote charity, philanthropy, learning, science, beauty, art—all those human activities that enhance life. But to be an atheist, you don’t need any positive philosophy at all or need to be a good person. You are an atheist if you lack a belief in a god.
Basic atheism is not a belief. There is a difference between not believing there is a god and believing there is no god—one is the absence of belief and the other is the presence of belief. Both are atheistic (absence of theism), though popular usage (“Everybody believes in something”) has ignored the former. George Smith, in
Atheism: The Case Against God,
calls it the difference between “implicit” and “explicit” (or “critical”) atheism. Michael Martin, in
Atheism: A Philosophical Justification,
calls it “negative atheism” versus “positive atheism.” Others describe it as “soft” versus “hard” atheism. I like to call it lower-case “atheism” versus upper-case “Atheism.” Although there is certainly a subset of hard Atheists within the set of atheists, basic atheism is the
absence of belief
in a god or gods, whether that absence is due to a critical rejection of theistic assertions, to unfamiliarity with the subject (as with a baby or with a nontheistic culture), or to noncommittal agnostic/ skeptic principles.
Atheism: The Case Against God,
calls it the difference between “implicit” and “explicit” (or “critical”) atheism. Michael Martin, in
Atheism: A Philosophical Justification,
calls it “negative atheism” versus “positive atheism.” Others describe it as “soft” versus “hard” atheism. I like to call it lower-case “atheism” versus upper-case “Atheism.” Although there is certainly a subset of hard Atheists within the set of atheists, basic atheism is the
absence of belief
in a god or gods, whether that absence is due to a critical rejection of theistic assertions, to unfamiliarity with the subject (as with a baby or with a nontheistic culture), or to noncommittal agnostic/ skeptic principles.
Atheism and nontheism are the same, though, of course, they may carry a different stigma in today’s society. Smith suggests the term
anti-theists
for “Atheists,” the subset of atheists who positively deny the existence of a god. Of course, most atheists will sometimes speak of “denying” god or informally state that “there is no god.” It may not be unjustifiable to think of a “lack of belief in god” as a relaxed “belief that there is no god” when repeated attempts to prove theism continually fail. However, even the atheists who “deny” the existence of a god (which I often do in casual conversation) will have to back off when pressed against the philosophical wall, and admit that a lack of belief is not a belief.
anti-theists
for “Atheists,” the subset of atheists who positively deny the existence of a god. Of course, most atheists will sometimes speak of “denying” god or informally state that “there is no god.” It may not be unjustifiable to think of a “lack of belief in god” as a relaxed “belief that there is no god” when repeated attempts to prove theism continually fail. However, even the atheists who “deny” the existence of a god (which I often do in casual conversation) will have to back off when pressed against the philosophical wall, and admit that a lack of belief is not a belief.
In the western world, “God” is the Judeo-Christian deity and “god” is any of the others. Give me a definition of a god and I’ll tell you whether I am a theist, atheist or Atheist (anti-theist). I am definitely anti-Yahweh-ist and anti-Zoroaster-ist since these creatures are self-contradictory and absurd, and since there exist natural explanations for the origins of those myths. If you define “god” as a natural species of superior extraterrestrials orbiting Proxima Centauri then I am an atheist (soft, negative atheist), via agnosticism. I have no present basis for belief in such things, though I am open to evidence. If you want to identify “god” merely as the principle of “love” (or some other semantic twist of fuzzy liberal theology), then I guess you could call me a “theist” by that limp, impersonal definition—though I would avoid the word because it would be meaningless and confusing. When you speak the word, “god” and “God” sound the same. Naming a natural phenomenon “god” is ambiguous since it traditionally implies a superior being or transcendent mind. If “god” is just a synonym for some other natural concept for which we already have a good label, then it can be—should be—thrown away.
There are some who avoid the word
atheist
because of the popular stigma attached to it. In a context where they might be labeled and possibly misunderstood, they prefer to be called rationalists, agnostics or nontheists. I am not opposed to this. I think there can be some very good reasons for keeping views private, such as family harmony or job security. Some atheists join the Unitarian-Universalist Church for that reason. (Unitarianism, a creedless religion, can make a great cover, especially if you are running for public office.) Some people just have a distaste for
any
label. On the other hand, there are atheists like myself who view the stigma as an advantage, as a chance to be on the cutting edge. If you are discussing religion and you are an atheist, why not say so? Some of us atheists figure that the word has suffered from bad press and it is time to correct the image. That’s why I wrote the song “Friendly, Neighborhood Atheist.”
atheist
because of the popular stigma attached to it. In a context where they might be labeled and possibly misunderstood, they prefer to be called rationalists, agnostics or nontheists. I am not opposed to this. I think there can be some very good reasons for keeping views private, such as family harmony or job security. Some atheists join the Unitarian-Universalist Church for that reason. (Unitarianism, a creedless religion, can make a great cover, especially if you are running for public office.) Some people just have a distaste for
any
label. On the other hand, there are atheists like myself who view the stigma as an advantage, as a chance to be on the cutting edge. If you are discussing religion and you are an atheist, why not say so? Some of us atheists figure that the word has suffered from bad press and it is time to correct the image. That’s why I wrote the song “Friendly, Neighborhood Atheist.”
Although “atheism” is a negatively constructed word—“not theism”—this does not mean it is a negative concept. It is a double negative. Consider other positive ideas that are constructed as negative words: nonviolence, independence, antidote, antibiotics. Since a belief in a god is irrational and potentially dangerous, atheism—the lack of such belief—is positive.
Since leaving fundamentalism I have noticed that contrary to what I used to preach, most atheists seem to be deeply concerned with human values. Why is this? Perhaps it is because any person who has the impulse (and the courage) to be identified as an atheist in today’s society must be deeply motivated by something. Maybe it is:
• Anger at religious immorality
• Disgust with superstitious anti-intellectualism
• Fear of the dangers of Christian intolerance
• Dissatisfaction with the way religious divisiveness interferes with true compassion
• Empathy for the victims of sectarian bigotry
• Outrage at the hypocrisy of believers
• Impatience with the churches that actively retard social progress
Whatever the moral motivation may be it likely originates in a mind that is deeply concerned with fairness and compassion, love for real human beings and concern for
this
world, not merely a rational approach to truth that rejects arguments for a supernatural being. My own rejection of religious morality (if that is not a contradiction in terms) is a by-product of the drive to discover a better system of ethical principles (not code of rules) for my species and me.
this
world, not merely a rational approach to truth that rejects arguments for a supernatural being. My own rejection of religious morality (if that is not a contradiction in terms) is a by-product of the drive to discover a better system of ethical principles (not code of rules) for my species and me.
“Have atheists ever built any hospitals?” I am sometimes asked. Yes, they have. The obvious example is the Soviet Union, with an officially atheistic government, where hundreds of hospitals were constructed. In the United States, university hospitals (such as the one in my city of Madison, Wisconsin) are entirely secular, built with tax dollars from all citizens, atheists as well as theists. Atheists tend not to flaunt their views like many denominations that name their institutions “Baptist Hospital” or “Saint Mary’s Clinic.” Of course, most of these religious hospitals receive public money, and they all charge the same high rates so there is very little “charity” offered. The religion gets the credit but the taxpayers get the bill. Until religious bigotry is lessened, how many believers would choose to go to First Atheist Hospital?
Two nonbelieving brothers from Baraboo, Wisconsin, who wisely used their name rather than their religious opinions to identify their work, built the famous Ochsner Clinic in New Orleans. University College Hospital in London was founded by people who were disappointed with the way sectarian hospitals were giving preferential treatment to members. (Atheist philosopher Jeremy Bentham was involved in the early planning stage.) One of the members of the Freedom From Religion Foundation, Dr. Edward Gordon, was an atheist physician who donated his time and money to bring free medical care to poor villagers in the mountains of the Philippines. He climbed those hills and tended to those people, working alongside Catholic doctors who often charged for their services, never thinking he would receive any other reward than the satisfaction of helping others.
Other books
Not First Love by Lawrence, Jennifer
Innocent in New York by Sterling, Victoria
A Charmed Life (Halloween LaVeau Book 5) by Rose Pressey
KissBeforeDying by Aline Hunter
Raine Falling (Hells Saints Motorcycle Club) by Marinaro, Paula
Three for a Letter by Mary Reed, Eric Mayer
From the Elephant's Back by Lawrence Durrell
Ignatius MacFarland by Paul Feig
