Why Atheism?
« Slim Your Reader, Go on an RSS Diet || 17 Tricks to Reclaim Your Stolen Attention »
“Isn’t it enough to see that a garden is beautiful without having to believe that there are fairies at the bottom of it too.” - Douglas Adams
I’m an atheist. I’d like to tell you why. Most of the arguments for being an atheist point to how it is more scientific or probable. I’m sure you’ve heard those before, so I’m not going to touch them. Instead, I’d like to focus on the reasons atheism can lead to a greater quality of life.
That said, I’m not here to convert anyone, just expose people to different ideas. I’m not on a crusade against religion. I’ve read many different books on various world religions. Even if I disagree with some of the founding points, the exposure to those ideas improved my philosophy towards life.
Common Arguments Against Atheism
I’d like to start by giving my rebuttal to many of the common arguments against atheism. I’m not even going to touch the circular logic of going to Hell or blasphemy. But here are some of the supposedly sensible objections to denying the existence of a god:
Morality
Morality doesn’t need to come from the threat of divine punishment. Religion can do much good, but it can be twisted to do evil as well. I believe ethics come from society. It comes from the basic principles of respecting the rights of others, service and altruism. You don’t need a god to explain morality anymore than you need Zeus to explain lightning bolts.
Afterlife
Another common objection is that in not believing in a god, you believe death creates infinite nothingness. I don’t have space to fully explain different theories on the life and death, but this doesn’t need to be so. Atheism only suggests that death is a current unknown.
Scott Adams suggested another possibility in his book God’s Debris. Your consciousness is based on a pattern stored on neurons in your brain. If this is the case, dying would simply pause the pattern and it would resume sometime in the future. With no delay being seen from the observer this would essentially mean you couldn’t experience death.
I’m not arguing that this theory is the way reality works, just that atheism isn’t surrendering to a nihilistic view of life. Instead, it is opening yourself to many different possibilities.
Meaning
This is an argument I’ve never quite understood. It basically goes that if you don’t believe in God, isn’t life meaningless? I think this is a rather weak argument since it assumes that meaning can’t be self-determined. It also assumes that without an invisible spirit watching you, life doesn’t have a purpose.
I pick a meaning for my life and I believe it is just as satisfying without conjuring a notion of a god. I believe a god can actually become a distraction from meaning since it causes you to focus on a divine overlord instead of what really matters - the other people and beings you share the world with.
Atheism for a Greater Quality of Life
Aside from being an atheist, I’m also a vegetarian. Beyond putting myself in two self-selected minorities, many of the arguments I’ve seen against vegetarianism are similar to those against atheism. A common cited reason people I know don’t want to eat meat is because they enjoy it too much. They don’t want to sacrifice.
This is hard to explain until you’ve tried both sides, but I don’t see avoiding meat as a sacrifice. Instead I see it as an opportunity to live a healthier life, reducing my chances of many chronic diseases and giving me more energy to do what I love. I also see it as removing the environmental and ethical discomfort in supporting an industry with questionable practices.
Similarly, I think a lot of believers don’t rationally believe in a god. But they don’t want to sacrifice the comforting notion that a being greater than themselves is watching down on them and helping them out.
But in focusing on that one benefit, you miss on the potential benefits of not believing in a deity:
- Freedom - The mental freedom to explore your world, learn and challenge your own assumptions. Instead of rejecting evidence that doesn’t fit your notion of a god, you can embrace everything with curiosity.
- Self-Reliance - Temporarily focusing on a god may keep you happy, but what about the long-term? Instead of expecting divine intervention to let everything work out, I focus on my own abilities and reasoning to improve my experience of life.
- Beauty - I believe beauty lies in the unknown. It lies in the things you can’t explain. That is what atheism really means. Instead of resorting to weak explanations of a deity creating the world, you see all the beautiful aspects of nature you currently don’t understand. Why tarnish evidence that the universe is larger and more magnificent than we ever realized by placing an invisible man in front of it?
Pantheism and Rational Spirituality
So far my arguments have been against the traditional notion of a god. That is an invisible, all-powerful being that not only created the universe but also, through conscious force, interrupts the rules of nature, that he himself created, to perform miracles for the benefit of one planet amidst billions of billions of stars.
The alternative to that doesn’t need to be a cold, hyper-rational, if-I-don’t-see-it-it-doesn’t-exist mindset. Pantheism (or as Richard Dawkins refers to it as “sexed up atheism”) is another choice.
Pantheism literally means “God is all.” It is the belief that the universe itself is god. That nature, humanity, science and truth are the reflection of god. In the most basic sense, this isn’t any different from atheism or science. But while atheism emphasizes what the atheist doesn’t believe in, pantheism presents the alternative.
I’m a follower of rational spirituality. Although it may sound like an oxymoron, rational spirituality means that truth, and your understanding of the world, enhance your appreciation of it. Instead of supplementing an unemotional scientific perspective with superstition, you find the emotional beauty in science and reason.
Read a book on evolutionary biology or quantum physics and it you soon realize how mind-blowingly amazing the universe actually is. The wonders of the New Testament, in my opinion, pale in comparison to how evolution works, the possibilities of string theory or quantum entanglement.
Appealing to a Higher Motive
God can serve a purpose in causing us to aspire towards something greater. But I don’t believe a theistic god is the only (or even the best) possibility here either.
Even beyond just appreciating nature and the world for beauty, you need an ideal to strive towards. A motivation that gives your life purpose and your broader actions meaning. An answer to the question, “What does it all mean?”
Finding your higher ideal is an incredibly personal task. It is a task that can’t be delegated or avoided by reading a holy book. I can’t tell you what your higher ideal should be. All I can show you is what mine is.
My higher motive is based on three separate principles:
- Truth - Complete understanding is the first part of my higher ideal. This means that there is intrinsic purpose in seeking the truth. And that faith or any suspension of the rational mind I possess is an inherent evil towards this goal. I don’t believe a lie at the most basic level can ever be superior to what reality actually is.
- Service - The second aspect of my higher ideal is service and morality. This means that there is intrinsic purpose in serving the greatest good and respecting the rights of others. Any act that harms the greatest good or infringes on the personal rights of another conscious being is inherently evil.
- Challenge - The final aspect of my higher ideal is that the pursuit of both truth and service is supposed to be challenging. Pain and struggle are not goals in themselves, but moving through challenges has intrinsic meaning if it moves you to greater truth and service. This means that no matter what happens to myself, there is a meaning in it if I choose to find it.
The two elements of rational spirituality and appealing to a higher motive do a far more elegant job of fulfilling me than adopting a specific religion and worshiping a god. Better yet, my beliefs are self-correcting. By placing the highest emphasis on truth, I am always willing to change my beliefs if evidence shows them to have errors.
Should You Become an Atheist?
I didn’t write this article to convert you. I fully expect not to have converted anyone who was already set in their beliefs. But just as I read religious and spiritual books to enhance my philosophy, hopefully this could do the same for you.
Further Reading for Atheism, Rational Spirituality and Higher Motives
Atheism:
- The God Delusion
- Letter to a Christian Nation
- God is Not Great
- The End of Faith
- The Blind Watchmaker
Science:
Spirituality and Philosophy:
- Buddhism Plain and Simple
- Tao Te Ching
- The Bhagavad Gita
- God’s Debris
- The Courage the Live Consciously (article)
Arjun Muralidharan said,
August 21, 2007 at 11:20 am
I’m happy to see you handle the topic with some sense and see the point of having religions as well.
I won’t agree with your beliefs, though, as I’m a devout Hindu. You never asked anyone to agree, of course
Why am I a religious Hindu? I live in Switzerland, hardly have any contact with India except my annual short vacation to Grandma and am a strongly westernized person.
Especially in this scenario, my Religion is a tool that I can use to gain perspective on life.
If I get too confused and overwhelmed with life, I take refuge in my religion, which is defined in a simple sentence:
God is one, the paths are a many. So Hinduism defines itself only by stating that ther *must* be something we can’t control.
Whether you decide to mark it as unknown or inexistent, or you decide to acknowledge it (and in some cases, fear it), it’s just a tool.
It’s a means of explaining things we couldn’t explain back then. Science has progressed os much that people can legitimately begin doubting anything religions say.
So it’s become a choice, because we’ve become smarter than our religions. But choosing to follow the principles laid out in a religion can help - or create havoc, as you say.
Jeff Seely said,
August 21, 2007 at 12:15 pm
Excellent article, Scott.
The single most important step is personal growth for me was becoming an atheist (around the age of 17). Never did I feel so liberated. Religion, for me, severely restricted my worldview(s). It was my biggest roadblock to conscious living.
Another huge step in personal growth occurred a few years later, when I realized I could still benefit from learning about religious/spiritual worldviews. Intellectually, I’m a dyed-in-the-wool atheist, but in terms of how I experience life, I might draw upon a few tips from a book on spirituality. It’s a healthy balance that doesn’t resort to “being so open minded your brains fall out.”
I think atheism can be a great worldview to adopt, even if temporarily just to test it out. For many, the arguments behind the nonexistence of god are too uncomfortable and troublesome that they just ignore them. In my experience, anything that causes cognitive dissonance is a compass telling you where you need to grow intellectually.
For example, Imagine that you are overweight and you refused to look in the mirror because it caused you too much discomfort. That’s not healthy! Although it hurts a bit at first, it’s better for you to stare your fat gut straight in the belly button and accept your 200-pound reality, which will put you in a better position to lose weight (which takes effort, and which is the reason why some people choose to avoid acceptance… they’re lazy).
Likewise, I think it’s a sign of intellectual laziness if you refuse to look at any of the arguments of atheism because they would cause too much cognitive discomfort if you sat down and took them seriously, even for a moment.
Billy Bob the Meat-Eating, Jesus-Loving Stereotype said,
August 21, 2007 at 12:46 pm
Scott, this is all nice and good, but there is a reason why things evolved this way. As you present a case, then I present another one, knowing that none of us will ever know if we are right or not until we die! But I won’t use baseless emotional rebuttals like detractors usually do, I’ll present the HARD evidence that atheists relish. Especially since I love your blog..:)
The concept of God, and our ability to eat meat, has served us well. That’s all there is to it!
We developed our big brains ONLY BECAUSE we ate meat: the other species that could have become “us” died out because it was vegan. So while I appreciate the core essence of veganism and its multiple health effects on the human body, realize that vegetarianism is only a choice that has become popular in the last couple of decades and that being eat-meaters allowed us to be who we are today. It’s a choice that I respect very much.
However, if 40,000 years ago our ancestors had decided to pass on the meat, we wouldn’t be here today. I’m very grateful they didn’t.
Religion has served us VERY well. Whether it’s a delusion, or a space in our brain that makes us think of a higher being, or something we developed to feel safe, it has served its purpose and kept us alive. That’s all the evidence that’s needed! Whethere true or not, who cares?! Why go against EVOLUTION, especially since atheists are so gung-ho on the concept?
FYI, the books you have up there in the Spirituality section talk about GOD all the time! Who do you think the Tao Te Ching refers to when it talks about “The One?” What do you think the Buddhists talk about when they talk about a “state of Being?” Why do they call Prajapati (in the Bhagavad Gita) the “Creator?” Oh, I see. That’s just “spiritual,” while the core tenets of Christianity, Judaism, and Islam are not, right?
Hmmm….
It is a symptom of this society to think that it knows better than the books that have existed for THOUSANDS of years and that have enabled progress. If a book has existed for THOUSANDS of years, and has brought JOY to countless millions, there must be SOME value in that. That’s about enough evidence as there can be. It served it’s purpose, so let it be.
My question to you or anybody else is: Where does the 2.36% of the population that is atheist get their values from? Seriously, I’d like to know.
People like to focus on the negative as an argument against religion (crusades, wars, scandals, etc), as though only negative things happened if religion was present. Striving for such a high goal as the actualization of the human soul is BOUND to have many visible failures. This is a soul we’re talking about! Of course there’s going to be colossal failures!
On the other hand, if people take the New Testament literally, like HALF of the American population (!) there will be problems, because it was never meant to be taken as a literal representation. There are plenty of fruitcakes and radicals our there that can distort ANYTHING.
Furthermore, I will admit there are certain limitations involved in ALL religions (we need rules, don’t we?), but I believe all these all lead to a higher quality of moral life.
In the end, it’s always good to hear multiple POVs, and I’m glad you present them. Be open to them yourself as well, and I’m sure that you will make more and more distinctions as an atheist as you go along. But the fact of the matter is, people who are really religious and spiritual don’t need to prove it to anyone.
Carl Jung, when asked if he believed in God, said “I don’t believe in God. I KNOW.”
MC said,
August 21, 2007 at 3:44 pm
This post isnt “why” your an atheist but a post “why you should” also become an atheist.
Kali said,
August 21, 2007 at 5:23 pm
I went to a Christian high school, so its a relief to see different perspectives. Good job, Scott.
ZHereford said,
August 21, 2007 at 5:40 pm
Very interesting article Scott.
Have you ever read Pierre Tielhard de Chardin’s theory that we are in an evolutionary progression towards greater consciousness culminating in a single or final unity with Divine Consciousness? I find it very compelling. From a purely logical perspective, given that man is unable to affect much on a grand scale, I find it hard to imagine there not being a Higher Intelligence at work.
Oh well, to each his own.
JohnPlace said,
August 21, 2007 at 7:05 pm
A truly excellent article, Scott. I was raised Christian, and I find many of the same comforts within organized religion that can be found within your world view, which is really a key point, I think: the idea that one system of beliefs is not necessarily superior to another, but rather that the important part is what you *do* with what you believe.
Of course, at this point, someone is likely to point out the obvious conflict between the Christian view of salvation and its absence in atheism, but for the record, that’s not really my point, nor would I seek to engage is such circular logic here.
This is one of the most well-reasoned articles on atheism that I’ve ever read, Scott. And every Christian could stand to read it, if for no other reason than to challenge their own pressupositions about what atheism means.
Truthteller said,
August 21, 2007 at 7:27 pm
This was brave of you Scott to take a public stance on your beliefs. As a popular blog writer you run the risk of losing a few viewers. That just shows me that you have as they say ‘the courage of your convictions’.
Although I don’t share your belief, I admire the clarity of your argument.
And likewise, I won’t bother to change your beliefs either!
Eduardo
Scott Young said,
August 21, 2007 at 9:53 pm
Comments, comments oh my!
Honestly, I expected a pretty vocal reaction from this post.
And no, I don’t expect to change your worldview in a 1400 word essay. Either to vegetarianism or atheism. But hopefully it can help you reexamine your own stance on religion and the role it plays in your life.
Billy Bob,
Thanks for the negative feedback. Everyone else was being too damn nice to disagree with me.
Yes it is likely we evolved brains through an omnivorous diet and evolution created a mind tuned to the notion of a God. But eating meat isn’t a necessity (or even a desirable factor) of healthy living, just as worshipping a god isn’t.
To each there own. All I’m glad is that I made you think! (at least enough to retort)
Arjun,
I enjoyed the Bhagavad Gita. There’s a reason I listed it at the end of the article. I don’t believe in Krishna, but many of the concepts still work without a divine spirit. Goalless action, meditating on Brahma (universal perfection) and duty are all useful ideas.
I didn’t add the New Testament to the bottom because I haven’t had a chance to read it. But I expect there will be similar metaphorical goodies even if I don’t subscribe to the literal interpretation.
JohnPlace said,
August 21, 2007 at 11:08 pm
Per your last comment, Scott, do read the New Testament. It won’t take you very long and it contains some truly golden life lessons, whether you’re a Christian or not, similar in effect to some of the other books mentioned.
Andre du Plessis said,
August 22, 2007 at 5:41 am
Some brilliant books you mentioned there. Nice post.
Took a bit of a “leap of faith” there if you’ll excuse the pun.
Andrew Ruban said,
August 22, 2007 at 10:27 pm
Dear Scott,
Similarly to what others have already commented, I admire your well argued and generally respectful article. It’s a real treat for me to be able to have witness such an open and respectful dialogue between bloggers from different belief groups.
I was raised in a christian house-hold and appreciate so many of the values and morals that christianity has to offer.
I can’t even begin to explain the number of times that religion has opened my eyes to truths and ideas unheard of in our secular world.
There were times of strong trouble, joy, worry, happiness, isolation or even during the “normal” times that having a simple conversation with God is simply the greatest gift.
I openly recognize and apologize for the Church’s faults and hypocrisy. I especially symapthize with people who have had certain religions imposed on them since birth.
That is why, I must thank Jeff Seely who has made me realize that I might in fact be too afraid to ever truly let go of religion and what I have learned to love from it.
Scott Young said,
August 22, 2007 at 10:35 pm
Great to hear from you again, Andrew!
Take the good and leave the bad. That has been my approach to looking at the teachings of everyone. Here, bad being anything that doesn’t match up with your reasoning and personal experience. I would say that 90% of most religions I can see as useful, depending on how you view the information.
I suppose the same would be true for people of other faiths viewing my words.
-Scott
beajerry said,
August 24, 2007 at 11:32 pm
Well written and succinct.
AL said,
August 26, 2007 at 1:51 pm
There was a professor who taught at a university. He was a brilliant man and highly regarded as the foremost world expert in his field of study. Every student was required to pass his class in order to graduate from the university. At the beginning of the semester the professor handed out his requirements for passing and the textbook he wrote. He said he wanted all the students to pass and they easily could if they followed his guidance.
He showed that he wanted all to pass by having open discussion during his lectures, staying late to answer questions, and even meeting with students on the weekend when they wanted to understand the material better. He always had time for students who wanted help.
Some students tried to meet the requirements with their own experience by researching other books, articles, and even asking questions of professors who didn’t know the material. At the end of the class these students understood some basic concepts but did not meet the requirements and failed the class. Other students thought the requirements were unfair and tried to get the professor to change them. The students even held public discussions on what could be done about the requirements they didn’t like. The professor didn’t change the requirements and these students also failed. Other students studied the material, asked the professor questions, and sought him out for guidance regarding the subject matter. These students found they easily passed the class, like the professor said, because they simply following his guidance.
The God of Christianity has laid out the requirements for life and given us a textbook (the Bible) for guidance. He is always available for questions and wants everyone to “pass”. We may live a good life, which is noble, but that doesn’t fulfill the requirements God has. Reading other books and seeking other spiritual (or non spiritual) resources for guidance will always cause us to fall short because these other sources don’t have the wisdom of the “expert” (God) and it is his “class” we have to pass. Disagreeing with what God requires of us may seem freeing because we don’t have to follow His rules, but it doesn’t change what he requires. It is easier to do what He asks and seek to understand than to fight against the requirements that aren’t even difficult.
No one would think it unfair if a professor conducted his class like the one described above. In fact, most would applaud him for such dedication to his students. But a loving and caring God acting in a similar manner is seen by some as an overlord and uncaring because he doesn’t bend the rules. I encourage people to use the same logic in all areas of life.
The book Mere Christianity by C.S. Lewis goes in great detail about the logic in following the Christian God. If you really are seeking truth, I encourage you to read it.
The Bible says “You will seek me and find me when you seek me with all your heart.” – Jeremiah 29:13
Scott Young said,
August 26, 2007 at 2:27 pm
AL,
The problem with the logic is that it is circular. You rest your metaphor on the assumption that God exists. Since I don’t subscribe to that assumption (and reason causes me to heavily doubt it), the rest of the argument falls apart.
What if the actual God is Shiva? Would you then not be learning from the wrong book? What if the actual God was Satan and this is all an elaborate illusion to deceive you before you experience a life of torment? What if he was a Giant Robot who preferred we use our logic, and liked people to doubt it’s existence.
Personally I think all those examples are ridiculous. But I think a Christian God is equally ridiculous, just as I don’t believe in Santa or the Easter Bunny. You can’t use the Bible to (rationally) defend the Bible.
If you want to believe in a God, I prefer emotional arguments, since they are the ones you truly care about. I made my emotional arguments for atheism above. They are the only ones worth debating because any rational arguments for theism are horribly weak and circuitous at best.
Dave Nelson said,
August 29, 2007 at 4:18 am
I will be finishing reading the God Delusion later tonight which has been a very interesting read. I was atheist prior to picking the book up but it’s true that being atheist doesn’t necessarily close your mind to the possibility of life having purpose or meaning but for me it just removes supernatural interference from that equation. Who’s to say that life doesn’t continue in a parallel universe or another cycle of life, these things are not scientifically proven or disqualified but accepting that anything is possible allows you to change your philosophy of life to something that is more fitting for you. For me the concept of heaven in the traditional sense is just too much like fantasy, I feel that atheism is growing more common, certainly in the UK where I live and it would be nice to believe that this is a consequence of society as a whole growing up through scientific understanding and starting to put away childish ideals. As you say it’s not your intention to convert people and I don’t believe that this is even possible, everyone can only find these answer in yourself, but in the face of the growing power of religious zealots it’s important that atheist like ourselves band together to stand up for what we believe in and provide those stuck in a religion a way out to free their own minds if they need to.
ryan said,
August 29, 2007 at 4:04 pm
Thank you Scott. I have been contemplating on whether or not to just turn atheist. I still do not know but your article has given me a nice view of things. I am only 16 and i think god is just an illusion people believe in to make them feel better and give them hope, but if you really think about it has god ever done anything to help you that you didn’t do on your own.
Scott Young said,
August 29, 2007 at 4:23 pm
Ryan,
Atheism isn’t an answer. It just accepts that God isn’t the right one. I suggest doing what I did and reading many different philosophies until you can distill what makes sense to you. I’ve found Buddhism and other Eastern philosophies (stripped of superstitions) to be useful. As well as other traditionally Western philosophies practical.
You may never reach a final answer, but going iterations to distill ever better ones has always been my goal.
-Scott
max night said,
August 31, 2007 at 9:45 am
I dont concern myself with the concept of god or other spiritual standpoints. I live the way I want to live. whatever happens when we die we’ll just have to grin and bare.
Paul Pop said,
September 4, 2007 at 12:15 am
@AL
When reading your post, I was thinking to myself about how much of an asshole the teacher sounded like. Being an atheist, I was quite amused that that was an argument for god.
You have to change your story a bit to mirror reality… here we go:
At a university, a student prints out copies of class requirements for a class at the school and distributes them to the other students… saying that they all must pass to graduate. The only problem is that professor is no where to be found and after searching through every single room in the college, there is no classroom… the only connection they have with him is through this one student. All logic points to no such class… However, many of the students, paranoid over failing, follow the requirements anyway. Because the requirements are quite limiting and other are arguable, a handful of students choose to follow their own path… Right before graduation… the school loses power… None of the underclassmen can see a thing… But when the lights come up… all the seniors are gone… Who graduated? No one knows…
I am still missing a whole bunch, but that is a wee bit better if I say so myself.
Cheers,
Paul Pop
Paul Pop said,
September 4, 2007 at 12:20 am
Ouch… I should have reread that before posting. Please ignore my numerous errors.
Gideon said,
September 4, 2007 at 2:53 pm
I think it’s fine and dandy to be an atheist. I’ve actually written a defense of it myself.
And I also think you wrote a nice description, yourself.
But I think you need to find better atheist writers. You do yourself a disservice if they are at the top of your list. Harris is an absolute hack, and Hitchens on this particular issue is just shrill. This is not to say there are not legitimate, and not that they do not bring them up, critiques of religion. But they are not doing anything new, creative or even in many ways - correct. Dawkins is a bit tiring as well - I rather like many of his books. But the God Delusion is just… well, he needs to stick to his field. It’s almost all bad straw man arguments and gross generalizations.
If you’d like to read some good texts on atheism, I suggest the Cambridge Companion to Atheism which I have sitting right next to me (I needed it to slap around Harris in a presentation I did last week, he quoted quite a few “facts” largely out of context in “Letter to a Christian Nation.”)
Personally, I’m a panentheist in a large sense, a deist in some sense, an existential humanist in many senses, a Buddhist in much of my outlook, and a liberal Jew in another. That being said, my girlfriend and some of my best friends are atheists. So don’t mistake this for bashing atheism.
I don’t have a problem with atheism. I have a problem with poorly written polemics that anyone educated with a decent degree of religious studies, theology or philosophy of religion would tear down quite quickly. It’s fine and dandy to blame everything on religion, except that the most horrible atrocities of all time have all been created by “non-religious” institutions - Communists, Fascists, etc. Harris claims they were not rational, but.. so what? Since when are human beings, especially in large numbers, rational? Is that even possible? At one point Harris says “I know of no society in human history that ever suffered because its people became too desirous of evidence in support of their core beliefs.” He may as well of added “or any at all.”
Personally, I’m rather fond of the UK’s chief rabbi’s, Jonathan Sacks, response to Dawkins:
“I only wish I had as much faith as the learned professor. It would be nice to believe that if you cured people of believing in God, you would thereby have cured them of hate, violence, anger, injustice, cruelty and the urge to control, exploit, dominate and oppress.
Nothing in history suggests such a thing. On the contrary, if people do not commit evil in the name of God they have never been short of other reasons to do so: race, the war of classes, the political system, the march of progress, the Darwinian struggle to survive.”
The books have problems. Big problems. These guys are the Pat Robertson’s of atheism. I’m sure you can do better.
s427 said,
September 7, 2007 at 10:52 am
@Scott:
Agnosticism is another interesting standpoint. Philosopher Bertrand Russell wrote an interesting essay defining it :
http://humanum.arts.cuhk.edu.hk/humftp/E-text/Russell/agnostic.htm
Freely available online and very worth reading.
@Billy Bob the Meat-Eating, Jesus-Loving Stereotype:
It seems to me that by trying to use evolution as a proof for the necessity of believing in God, you simply miss the whole point in evolution : change. Assuming that religion did serve some purpose in the history of mankind does not mean that it will always be a necessity. The fact that a children book does serve some purpose in the history of one person does not mean that this book will always be necessary to the development of this person. The child grows up and becomes an adult, and he starts to read adult books.
Considering the whole history of ideas throughout mankind’s history, it seems striking to me that all great ideologies (myths, religions, philosophy, pseudo-sciences, science) serve one big purpose : they try to explain the world we live in. And, well, with all due respect to our ancestors, we have to admit that in the beginning they did not have much clues. Their consciousness slowly emerging in a world full of mysteries and dangers, they had no choice but to begin the long process of exploring and understanding everything they saw around them. So they forged myths, explaining where the world came from and why it was here. Not surprisingly, their myths reflected mostly what they knew : every man has a father, so the world must have a father too ! Let’s call him God ! This wasn’t much of an explanation (does this father have a father too ?), but it was reassuring and allowed mankind to focus on other issues. “Why is it raining today ? - Ah, this is because God is angry.”
Soon these myths took a more structured shape. They were enhanced with rules, rituals, hierarchies and so on. Religions were born. They greatly helped to structure mankind’s emerging societies (and gave them reasons to expand, conquer and destroy societies that did not share the same set of beliefs). But when it came to really understand how things work, religions were not that convincing. So some people began to try to think by themselves. Philosophy was born, giving mankind some new tools, which allowed for a better thinking : reason, logic, mathematics, and so on. Of these tools, science was born. And science discovered why it is actually raining today. It’s not an easy question, but we can safely say that God is not needed to answer it.
So yes, ideas evolve, and sometimes they die. Mankind’s way of thinking evolves. IMO, religions and myths were not much more than drafts, or placeholders waiting for better explanations. And the fact that all “great books” about god(s) are very ancient is merely an indication that they were created for the same purpose : helping mankind to learn to walk.
As for the question of where atheists get their values from, I suggest you read Russell’s essay I mentioned above (you can read it online, just follow the link). And please consider this : throughout history (and today is no exception), religions have been used to justify love as much as hate, war, torture and persecutions. So if the Bible itself allows such a wide range of contradictory interpretations, where do YOU find the values to choose one interpretation rather than another ? Well, this may shock you, but I think that the answer is : not in the Bible. You find them in life. In education, in society, and in yourself.
To me it is perfectly clear that religions are merely an excuse for justifying actions (good or bad) that probably would have taken place even if religions did not exist. The fact is, mankind is a social species. We need one another to live, and we develop rules to help us living in society. It can take the form of religion or it can take other forms : human rights, laic laws, philosophy, common wisdom, and so on.
The necessity to have moral values is inherent to society (or human nature if you prefer). Religions simply reflect this fact.
Scott Young said,
September 7, 2007 at 2:17 pm
s437,
Great comment, I couldn’t have said it better myself. Despite my defense of atheism I’m not hostile towards religion or theism specifically. I’m mostly trying to present an alternative viewpoint.
-Scott
caffryne said,
September 12, 2007 at 6:09 am
have you considered that God doesn’t believe in atheists?
Jim said,
September 13, 2007 at 10:23 pm
It’s astounding to how poorly people can write about the philosophical underpinnings of atheism. You’re largely regurgitating the baseline cultural prejudices of the world within which you live. You are as blind to your own assumptions as medieval Catholic priest.
You’ve got a morality to guide and you blithely dismiss the need for a god to justify it. But you refuse to scratch any further to figure out where it comes from. Did your beliefs just come to you? Why would your ‘morality’ hold any more weight than one which favored slaughtering or enslaving unbelievers? Because yours is better? Or because yours ‘respects the rights of others’? Your so called morality is merely the reflection of the society within which you live.
At the same time, the appeal rationality is well and good, but it is only good for what its good for. If we assume that the universe is fundamentally knowable, the combination of the human senses and rationality are the key to this understanding, and that nothing of consequence can exist beyond that which is understandable. Implicit in that belief is the arrogance that human intelligence is unique.
The danger of skepticism is not the faith that it destroys, but rather the faith that it creates.
Scott Young said,
September 14, 2007 at 6:08 am
Jim,
Good points. I’m aware that morality is largely culturally relative. Although I believe there may be some basis for broad concepts of morality hardwired into us (selfish altruism), moral philosophy is far from an exact science.
The universe may not be fundamentally knowable. But you can’t use that as an argument to believe in a God. An unknowable universe doesn’t raise the likelihood that a God exists.
I’m tired of battling arguments where people use philosophical hand-waving to say how you can really believe anything. This may be true, but to go backwards and then justify a belief in a deity after the hand-waving is nothing short of hypocritical.
My arguments aren’t that Atheism is the only solution and God definitely does not exist. I would be a fool if I thought I could prove that. I am merely proposing that there are many different possibilities which may be more likely from a rational perspective and are not spiritually empty.
Kevie said,
September 26, 2007 at 2:28 am
I’m a pantheist, and I always figured I had more in common with Christians than athiests, since Christians at least believe in something. Actually I kind of admire Christians because unlike me they have the courage to pick a team to root for and stick with it.
Frankly I’ve never understood atheism. It strikes me like someone who’s never had an orgasm and figures that orgasms must be some kind of mass delusion. I also think that people are going to be equally screwed up whether or not they continue praying to something imaginary. Human nature being what it is, if atheism were to suddenly sweep the nation it would just turn into another religion with Richard Dawkins as its prophet.
So now I read your blog post and I find out that I’m athiest too? Damn you, you blindsided me!
Scott Young said,
September 26, 2007 at 5:29 am
Kevie,
That was exactly my point. That Atheism doesn’t have to be an emotional vacuum, and that pantheism and rational spirituality are nice complements.
I don’t really consider it to be a virtue to “have the courage to pick a team to root for and stick with it.” This smells more of intellectual and philosophical cowardice and conformity than courage. That said if you thoroughly review all the evidence/thought and decide Christianity is correct, then I can respect your philosophical journey, even if I may disagree with the result.
Kevie said,
September 27, 2007 at 11:38 pm
So much for my attempt at a funny line.
As far as “thoroughly reviewing all the evidence/thought and deciding Christianity is correct”, what am I, buying a car?
Scott Young said,
September 28, 2007 at 7:09 am
Kevie,
I got your humor, I just wanted to reinforce my less-funny point.
And I’d think that buying into a philosophical system is a little more important than buying a car… maybe that’s just me…
-Scott
Kevie said,
October 2, 2007 at 2:02 am
It is more important, but I can’t imagine anyone who’d give themselves over to a religious or mystical point of view through an intellectual process like you describe. The only good reason to adopt a religion is that you fall madly in love with it!
dominick avellino said,
October 2, 2007 at 7:43 pm
god and religion to me is a uncareing way of turning over to a beleif ,what is my ever changing connection to myself and all things.i am to expansive to hold on to a beleif or a god with rules and demands. the whole idea of religion and god is an unwillingness to question anything. I don`t know is an amazingly expansive place. I know is very small
Reality Handbook said,
October 4, 2007 at 2:07 pm
I agree with most everything in your post. But I also think that you’re not accurately reflecting the views of most atheists. For instance, you say that:
“Atheism only suggests that death is a current unknown.”
I don’t think that’s representative. Atheists as a culture are very tied in with a materialist/functional interpretation of the brain, and the belief that when those cells die then existence ends. (Though Dawkins gave a great speech called “Queerer than we can suppose”, which if he had that kind of attitude more of the time I might give him the benefit of the doubt.)
My bias is to call myself a “scientist”. I like the word, I like the methodology, and it seems like a better way to say that you want to see the models of the universe go through an iterative process by which they are continually improving… rather than make some foregone conclusion about areas currently unknown. “Atheist” doesn’t mean that; note that if you declare yourself an atheist and then overwhelming evidence of God arises, you’d have to change your affiliation. A scientist wouldn’t have to (though you can always admit surprise at an experimental result…)
But a lot of atheists call themselves scientists, which bugs me only if they stop being scientific! You point out that as string theory and the mysterious mechanics of the universe are unveiled, we can be astounded by what emerges. Yet what happens when those findings start to validate aspects of theories that have been derided by anti-”mysticism” movements? I’ve written this argument up elsewhere…
Llewellyn said,
October 6, 2007 at 12:38 pm
I feel that to be truly rational about God or lack of a God, the simplest and most honest view would be simply ” I do not and cannot know if there is a God or not.”
By definition, if a Designer exists He or She is probably beyond our ability to measure.
Also, just because you can have a moral sense and succeed in life seemingly without God does not mean there is no Designer. This is like expecting the designer of a car to personally fix every defective model that comes off the production line. One would expect a very good designer to enable the car to run well without necessarily needing his personal intervention.
My feeling is that atheism is a belief, like all religions. One cannot know or prove an argument for or against, as your original assumptions to prove or disprove your argument may be wrong in the first place.
Sam_Zen said,
October 11, 2007 at 4:49 pm
Religious people have the tendency to stick labels, good, bad, heaven, hell etc.
And so the term atheist is a name religious people give to a non-believer.
So I don’t call myself an atheist, agnost or whatever.
I’m very lucky that as a child I was never indoctrinated according to some church.
Neither that I was pushed by my parents or teachers to be an atheist.
And it certainly increased my quality of life. I cherish my mental freedom.
So I repect other peoples thought too. (But this respect is almost always a one-way-traffic)
I’m fully responsible for my own deeds, instead of hiding behind some doctrine, that tells you what to do.
I’ve found my own rules of civilised behaviour, I don’t need some list of commandments for that.
And I’m glad we’re in this century now, instead of a few ago, because then some writers here certainly would have been arrested by the Inquisition and burned on a pile.
At this moment there are big global tensions between religions, and the atheist are the victims in between.
Like a jungle village Hollandita in Colombia, in the middle of a civil war. They try to stay neutral and peaceful, but then get shot by all parties involved, the paramilitary, the army and the guerilla.
winyourmind.com » Blog Archive » Share Your RSS said,
October 15, 2007 at 3:42 am
[…] H Young If you want to know why I read Scott’s blog, check out the article Why Atheism. I don’t consider myself an atheist, but Scott demonstrates his willingness to be open, and a […]
Jason Smith said,
October 15, 2007 at 10:35 am
I think you are probily the most rational atheist I have ever heard. You make positive and compelling arguments against the existance of a higher deity. I don’t agree with your point of veiw but that is ok to. You are and exceptionally educated and wise person with all the earthly wisdom of the many greek philosiphers. If everybody were as smart as you there would be no need for religion. Christianity is not for the wise and your self-righteousness would definately hinder your ability to fully understand the need to believe in a higher deity or to fully take advantage of what my God has to offer. God bless you sir and I will be praying for you and your wisdom. Think about this if I am wrong then so what I rotting in a hole for all eternity but I you are wrong you spend all eternity in hell as well as anybody foolish enough to join you. By the use of the internet you will be responsable for the souls of thousands.
Jason
Jode said,
October 17, 2007 at 1:47 pm
I am an atheist with a large number of religious friends, and I have often had to deal with several of the issues that have surfaced in this discussion.
First, I do not think one can ‘decide’ to be an atheist. If you Believe, then you Believe and the best you could attain is pretending to be an atheist. If you do not Believe, then you can attend as many services as you like but you won’t truly be a member of whatever religion you are practicing. Many theists with the best of intentions have come to me to ask what changed my mind, and how they could convince me to “come back.” The truth is simply that when I searched deep inside of me, I discovered I don’t Believe. This is an issue that I cannot change my mind about. I cannot decide to Believe any more than a theist can decide to stop Believing.
Second, just because Richard Dawkins of the world are famous, that doesn’t make them the representative atheist. Several of the authors are what I refer to as “angry atheists,” and in a sense they have turned atheism into a religion by ‘evangelizing’ their own beliefs. Not only do I believe that this is pointless (see above), but I see no reason to try to erode theist’s beliefs. Simply stated, you don’t often hear from us (atheists such as Scott and myself) because we just aren’t as noisy as the angry atheists.
Third, you don’t have to be religious to be a good person. Many religious people came to understand their value system and morality through their church, so it seems they have a hard time imagining how an atheist might come to be a good person without this influence. Scott touched on this, and I agree. The value system and morality has more to do with the community you were raised in and the self-awareness that you have attained as an adult than it does in a book. As for those who are concerned for my soul (such as Jason), I will live my life as a good person, and should I be wrong, hope this is good enough for whomever is making the decisions.
Jode
Scott Young said,
October 18, 2007 at 5:25 am
Jode,
Better said than I could. I completely agree.
-Scott
STeve Cornell said,
October 21, 2007 at 7:10 pm
Eight reasons I am not an atheist
1. An atheist assigns himself to life without ultimate purpose. Yes, atheists enjoy many smaller meanings of life– like friendship and love, pleasure and sorrow, Mozart and Plato. But to be consistent with his atheism, he cannot allow for ultimate meaning. Yet, if the atheist is honest, he will admit to feeling that there is something more to existence -something bigger. Someone said, “The blazing evidence for immortality is our dissatisfaction with any other solution.” According to Scripture, God has, “set eternity in the hearts of men” (Ecclesiastes 3:11). To maintain his position, the atheist must suppress the feeling that there is more to life than what is temporal. But the atheist encounters many other difficulties.
2. The atheist must also suppress the demands of logic. He is like the man who finds an encyclopedia lying in the woods and refuses to believe it is the product of intelligent design. Everything about the book suggests intelligent cause. But, if he accepted such a possibility, he might be forced to conclude that living creatures composed of millions of DNA-controlled cells (each cell containing the amount of information in an encyclopedia) have an intelligent cause. His controlling bias against God will not allow him to accept this.
3. Yet, ironically, the atheist has to believe in miracles without believing in God. Why? Well, one law that nature seems to obey is this: whatever begins to exist is caused to exist. The atheist knows that the universe began to exist and since the universe is, according to the atheist, all there is, the very existence of the universe seems to be a colossal violation of the laws of nature (i.e., a miracle). It’s hard to believe in miracles without God.
4. An atheist must also suppress all notions of morality. He is not able to declare any quality to be morally superior to another. Such admissions require an absolute standard of goodness and duty. Without this, there is no basis for an atheist to declare peace better than war or love better than hate. These are simply alternative choices without moral superiority. The atheist is stuck believing that morality has no claim on you or anyone else.
5. In fact, the atheist must conclude that evil is an illusion. For there to be evil, there must also be some real, objective standard of right and wrong. But if the physical universe is all there is, there can be no such standard (How could arrangements of matter and energy make judgments about good and evil true?). So, there are no real evils, just violations of human customs or conventions. How hard it would be to think of murderers as merely having bad manners.
6. The atheist must also live with the arrogance of his position. Although he realizes that he does not possess total knowledge, his assertion that there is no God requires that he pretend such knowledge. Although he has limited experience, he must convince himself that he has total experience so that he can eliminate the possibility of God. It is not easy to hold the arrogant assertions required by atheism in a society that requires blind tolerance of every ideology.
7. The atheist must also deny the validity of historical proof. If he accepted the standard rules for testing the truth claims of historical documents, he would be forced to accept the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead. The account of Jesus’ resurrection is strongly validated by standard rules for judging historical accuracy. The extensive manuscript evidence of eyewitnesses to the resurrection is presented in an unbiased, authentic manner. It is the atheist’s anti-supernatural bias that keeps him from allowing history to prove anything.
8. Finally, the atheist must admit that human beings are not importantly different from other animals. According to the atheist, we are simply the result of blind chance operating on the primordial ooze, and differing from animals by only a few genes. Yet, the wonders of human achievement and the moral dignity we ascribe to human beings just do not fit with the claim that we are no different than the animals. The realities of human creativity, love, reason, and moral value seem to indicate that humans are creatures uniquely made in the image of God.
The atheist’s problem with belief in God is not the absence of evidence but the suppression of it. This is what scripture teaches. “For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities–his eternal power and divine nature–have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse. For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools” (Romans 1:20-22).
Steven W. Cornell,
http://thinkpoint.wordpress.com/2007/04/02/harris-and-dawkins-promote-atheism/
Scott Young said,
October 22, 2007 at 5:25 am
Steven,
As the atheist you describe, you get a lot wrong when trying to claim what I believe. The majority of the beliefs you ascribe towards me are false and the ones I’d agree with, I would put a different emphasis than you.
But I suppose I have probably made some incorrect assumptions in my views of theists, so I’ll forgive errors made misunderstanding what I believe.
-Scott
eigode » Scott Youngのサイトはハウツーもののコンテンツが豊富 said,
October 24, 2007 at 10:38 pm
[…] Why Atheism? […]
Chris Jones said,
October 29, 2007 at 10:39 am
I was just wondering how you explained away the kalam cosmological argument which is:
1. Everything that began to exist has a cause.
2. The universe began to exist.
3. Therefore there must be an uncaused cause of the universe: namely God.
First, it is easy to show that everything that began to exist has a cause. That is a basic fact. The only way to disprove this would be to find something that began to exist that doesn’t have any cause for it.
Second, it is also easy to show that the universe had a beginning. And the reason that the universe must have a beginning is that it is bound by the laws of time. And it is impossible to traverse and infinite anything.
To demonstrate this let us imagine that you have an infinite number of tiles and they are all laid out in a line, stretching infinitely in either direction. The question is how would you start at the beginning and arrive on the tile that you are on today? The beginning is infinitely in the past and thus the beginning is an infinite distance from today and if you started at the beginning each tile you crossed wouldn’t bring you any closer to today. Today would just be infinity plus one farther away from you, which is still infinity. And so it is impossible and illogical for the universe to not have began to exist.
Because of this there must be something (God, whatever your definition of Him is) that exists outside of the bounds of time and outside of the bounds of anything finite. And there is another conclusion that we can draw from this. If God is the cause of the universe, the reason that He created it would have to be a personal reason. Since there can only be two ways to explain an event: scientifically and personally, and science can’t offer an explanation since the beginning of the universe was “nothing,” the only option left is to give a personal explanation.
I would just like to know what you think of this. And if I have made any mistakes in my reasoning process, please point them out to me, and show me the specific points that you disagree with. I know that you said that you weren’t trying to change anyone’s beliefs, but I am trying to change yours. Because I like a lot of what you have written and I think that you have some very good insight into a lot of these subjects, but I don’t see how you can believe something that is as completely illogical as this is.
Also do you not believe in “god” because of how other people define him and thus your perception of him is based on their definitions? Or do you just not believe in any “god” no matter how he’s defined?
Scott Young said,
October 30, 2007 at 6:05 am
Chris,
1) That assumes that the Universe had a beginning. Our notion of time is so fixed, that perhaps at a grander scale “beginning” becomes more relative.
2) It is entirely based on how you define “God.” For my arguments I define him as:
A sentient entity that is:
a) Omnipotent
b) Creator of the Universe but has the ability to interfere in the Universe at any time
If you define the word “God” as my friend Steve, of course I’d believe he exists.
Chris Jones said,
October 31, 2007 at 8:00 am
In answer to the first point. Is not “time” just a measurement of change? And since you cannot traverse an infinite number of steps or changes, can we not safely make the conclusion that you have to find something that is not bound by the laws of anything finite (i.e. time) for the cause of everything finite (i.e. time and the universe)?
And if we make the assumption that maybe we don’t understand the concept of time fully, is that not just grasping at straws, for which there is no proof or evidence to even suggest such a conclusion? Are you actually willing to change your views when presented with undeniable evidence for the existence of “God” (i.e. someone who exists outside of the bounds of time and anything finite, and was the cause for the universe, time, and everything else finite)? Or will you continue to grasp at straws? A crazy person can claim that nobody else understands things as perfectly as he does and thus that is why they don’t perceive the world as he does.
Well as I didn’t want to end on a negative note, I want to commend you on your choice to be a vegetarian/vegan. If you look at scientific studies on meat, you will find that meat isn’t healthy and has no benefits for the human body that can’t be received from eating fruits, vegetables, and grains.
Scott Young said,
November 1, 2007 at 5:30 am
Chris,
Then what created God?
The problem isn’t with whether a God exists or doesn’t exist. The problem is believing that somehow answers the question of the universe.
-Scott
Chris Jones said,
November 1, 2007 at 9:04 am
Scott,
God by definition wasn’t created. He is the uncaused cause of everything.
And it does answer the question of the universe. Now other “answer” or “supposition” gives as complete a description of how the universe came into existence and fits the evidence as that God created it.
Also if we come down to the end of life and we find out that you are right, I have lost nothing and also gained nothing, whatever was going to happen to you also happens to me. But if however we find out that I am right I will have gained everything and lost nothing, but you will have gained nothing and lost everything. Your views require nothing, while mine just require belief and make your life better for the lifestyle that it promotes.
And if you believe that your views are correct beyond a reasonable doubt, why not just commit suicide (not that I’m suggesting you do that)? You will reach your “higher” state that much sooner. Is that not correct?
Here is more information on the wager:
http://www.joneschris.com/reasons-i-believe-in-god-no-1-pascals-wager
~Chris
Scott Young said,
November 2, 2007 at 6:54 am
Chris,
Saying God is defined as being without cause is just a cheat. If creationists believe it is too improbably that all the myriad of life arose out of random chance, then it is infinitely less probable that God as conventional theism defines it was created.
And where do I believe that after this life we reach a “higher” state? I don’t remember writing that, perhaps you could point me to it.
I’m fully aware of Pascals Wager. That’s exactly the kind of thinking I fight against. Putting fear above truth. In my mind, that is the only way to guarantee you’ve lost whatever “soul” you might have.
Chris Jones said,
November 2, 2007 at 8:47 am
Scott,
Saying God is defined as being without cause isn’t cheating. It’s the only logical explanation. God by definition is self-existing, and exists outside of the bounds of time and natural laws, because He created these things. We don’t live outside of the bounds of time, otherwise we would be able to go back and forth in time to any point that we wanted to. But we cannot do this and thus there must necessarily be someone who can because nobody can traverse an infinite amount of anything, time included. The rest of the thought you are absolutely correct on…God would be infinitely more improbable to happen as life just spontaneously happening.
I’m sorry I didn’t bother to go back and check that…you didn’t say that we would reach a “higher” state. But you did say that maybe we wouldn’t experience death at all. And I guess my point is if you aren’t going to experience it, why not just “kill” yourself and thus get that event out of the way, because you’ll get wherever you’re going that much faster.
Also Pascal’s Wager isn’t putting fear above truth. First of all, there is abundant evidence for God in science, life, knowledge, etc. And second, it’s just illogical not to bet on something (i.e. eternal life) when you have no chance of losing if you do bet and a chance of losing everything if you don’t.
You also have to argue against the law of biogenesis, among a myriad of other proofs, which hasn’t yet in any circumstance been shown to have any exceptions.
Evan said,
November 7, 2007 at 9:35 pm
Hey, very diplomatic article about atheism. I can tell you do value relationships.
I was born into a Christian family and raised that way, now, after a good savage beating from the world and its editorial pages, I think I’m mostly just confused. There’s too many viewpoints out there to process, and I can’t pretend to have any defensible basis for picking one (can’t argue, see below), so I prefer to default to the one I was raised to believe.
Life has taught me that expressing a worldview will just cause people to argue with me, which I’m no good at; don’t have the will for it, so I give up on it. I never could do evangelism. First I couldn’t find a way to convince anybody else, after all that I can’t find a way to convince myself in the face of constant opposition to that belief.
I still call myself Christian and I’d like to be one, more than any other worldview - in fact, I feel there’s sort of an immovable part of me that’d nag me about going to hell if I ever became an atheist. (I’m a bit like Charlie Brown or George Costanza that way.) But I think I’ve learned that Christianity is entirely unarguable on anything but its own terms - not sure if that’s a good argument for faith or not - so there’s no way to justify that belief on the planet I’m placed on, other than it’s my identity by birth, so might as well carry that forward. I can’t take the atheist gambit, because honestly, I don’t have enough confidence that I’d be right. So I just default.
On bad days, I think I believe that I’ll be confused about this until I die, at which point I’ll go to hell for not believing.
Chris Jones » Reasons I Believe in God, No. 5 - The Teleological Argument said,
November 11, 2007 at 12:20 am
[…] comment on a blog post that a person wrote on why they believe in atheism, which you can check out here (I’ve written some comments on it too, if you would like to read those*). Anyway in one part […]
Journey to Financial Freedom » Why do you believe in God ? said,
November 24, 2007 at 10:26 pm
[…] this post I was totally inspired by Scott H Young, and he’s writting Why Atheism ?, I agree with him in all the mostly important things that he says about this topic, even the one […]
Boss said,
November 25, 2007 at 5:41 pm
“Atheism for a Greater Quality of Life” just made me laugh.
God bless
Tuffy said,
November 25, 2007 at 9:57 pm
Scott,
50% chance you are right and 50% chance you are wrong, you get nothing either way.(after this life)
A believer wins regardless and I am a believer Thank you God.
Scott Young said,
November 26, 2007 at 6:51 am
Tuffy,
You’re paraphrasing Pascal’s Wager. The problem is that it ignores all the other possibilities. (Such as a God that approves of skeptics over believers)
Pascal’s Wager screams against every rational thought in my head and appears to be nothing more than intellectual cowardice.
-Scott
Boss said,
November 26, 2007 at 10:54 pm
a spiritual man must put faith above his intelligence to comprehend it
Sarah Joyner said,
December 6, 2007 at 10:32 am
Scott,
This might sound a little crazy, but hear me out. I have a challenge for you: study the body. I mean, completely study the body in depth. Study each body system, especially the nervous system. Study this with the amount of energy you use to fight against the being of God. If you already have a good understanding of the body and its functions, i encourage you to look at it again. In our body, in a normal body, EVERYTHING works together and works together for the good of itself. Our body is so amazing. Our brain, our liver, our muscles. There is no way that you can study the body without believing in some “higher power”. Personal testimony: I felt like you when i was younger, but became a believer while taking two Human Anatomy and Physiology classes in college. Read the personal testimony of the “Growing Pains” actor, Kirk Cameron. He was also complete Atheist but started going to church and completely found God. It is remarkable. Well, Scott, I urge you to atleast take me up on my challege. If you do it and still feel have the same views, well, all the best to you. I completely will respect your decision.
Oh, and science does not always explain everything. Since you are so science-based, Explain how my grandmother can have cancer throughout her body, and three months later she is cancer free. No chemo or radiation…only prayers. Hmm…interesting, huh?
Scott Young said,
December 7, 2007 at 6:56 am
Sarah,
Two points:
1) I wouldn’t put myself as a militant atheist so you’re statement, “with the amount of energy you use to fight against the being of God.” I’m not really fighting against anything. I just happen to feel God is highly improbably and emotionally dissatisfying.
2) The fact that there is beautiful, complex and intricate things in nature says nothing about the existence of God. I agree with you that the human body is marvelous, as is the amount of stars in the universe and the variety of animals on this planet. But to believe in an intangible concept of beauty or perfection in the universe is very different than believing an all-powerful invisible man, not only created that beauty but punishes you for sins and rewards you with a life in the clouds after you’re dead.
I must state for the record that my argument against God isn’t the argument that anything unscientific or anything I can’t explain doesn’t exist. As I tried to argue in the article, I see the world as being more beautiful, since I have nothing to append to its existence to make it so.
And Sarah, actually science has a lot of documentation, not only on the effect of prayer (in double blind trials it didn’t work) but on the placebo effect and the effect of optimism. That sounds a bit uglier, although more reasonable.
Boss said,
December 8, 2007 at 12:17 pm
I don’t believe in unicorns, but then I haven’t written any books called The End of Unicorns, Unicorns are Not Great, or The Unicorn Delusion. Clearly the atheists go beyond disbelief; they are on the warpath against God. And you can hear their bitterness not only in their book titles but also in their mean-spirited invective.
Scott Young said,
December 9, 2007 at 3:23 pm
Boss,
Now there I’d actually agree with you. I feel the God/Anti-God debate has become rather mean-spirited, and I disagree with many of those authors who claim religion is the source of all the worlds ills. Some awful things have been done in the name of religion, but I would say good old human nature is more to blame for that than believing in a deity.
rj in missoula said,
December 10, 2007 at 9:07 pm
Hey Scott, great article.
I always enjoy reading others points of view regarding God and religion, and appreciate it most when it’s done in a non-confrontational way that gets people talking and exploring the issue. I have a very different opinion and like you, I’m not trying to sell you on the belief of God.
One of the most intriguing issues about atheists that I read from your article is, even like religion, they have created different types of names for the different ways they express their atheism. I was extremely fascinated by that piece of information and would never know that there where different viewpoints on the atheism belief.
And seeing how you, as well as others who wrote in, and people I personally know who are atheists, often times they express they are atheists predominately because of their negative experiences with religion and then equating religion with God.
Religion is mans creation - NOT Gods, but either way it seems that because RELIGION has defined a heaven and hell, a fear in God for all of the WRONG reasons, and all of the other components from the catholic church and other religions that seek to deny people from being creative and having passion in life as well as understanding that God is love and we are here to realize our full potential. Every religion in the world has perverted the Bible to fit its own agenda and sell whatever idea they wanted to sell while all at the same time rolling in a healthy dose of paganism to spice it up some.
God is not some wizard in the sky or clouds, a Being that that determines how you think and what you think, and limits your creativity as a human-being as many religions in the world would have you believe.
Even though I do believe in God and his son Jesus, and all of Their wonderous creations, I still create a profound freedom, self-reliance, and find more beauty in the world every day. I have these things as much, maybe even more so, with God than I certainly ever would without God. For sometime I did question the existence of God and went on a research campaign to prove He didn’t exist, and I’m now always reading others opinions on this subject. I’ve read much on evolution and the bang theory and other fantastical idea’s of how the earth and human-beings were developed and all I found were scientists and super-intelligent people who had a lot to say about nothing. Many (not all) of whom seemed more angry and pompous about their atheist beliefs to the point of diliberatly over-complicating their explanations to an incomprensible nonsense that logically didn’t even prove back to whatever theory they were trying to establish.
My God doesn’t limit me from expressing myself fully and achieving my highest desires, and He isn’t sitting somewhere “out-there” with some magic wand waiting to give anyone divine intervention THAT is a RELIGIOUS concept not Gods. God wants everyone to prove he exists except that sadly those who are convinced he doesn’t exist already, due to their exposure to the Religous systems of the world, have made their determination he doesn’t exist based on man-made religious idea’s and fantastical creations of heaven and hell, and the bang and evolution theory by some scientist with formal education. Anyone who picks up a Bible can determine these places such as pergatory, heaven, hell are not any places of God, about God, or where God is going to send people someday if you do/don’t behave.
It’s interesting to see that you believe your higher ideal/motive/purpose is something that can’t be delegated or avoided by reading a Holy Book. Well I believe you are 100% right on that account. I took on the task of personal development pursuing my higher ideals/motives/purpose, and, reading the Bible doesn’t interfere with it as you have presumed it might be for you, or any atheist because it appears that any pre-conceived idea of a Creator is something that prevents you from exploring these pursuits to their fullest.
Although my higher ideals are similar and even if they are laid out exactly as you have them being truth, service, and challenge, I fail to see how that would prevent me from realizing these aspects of life if I believe in God as a Creator.
On some level, I can only imagine, that there must be an inherent struggle with holding onto a belief of atheism. It would seem to me that to hold the belief of atheism in light of all of the evidence pointing toward a Creator that on a daily basis somewhere in your sub-conscious you are suppressing the very idea of a Creator. Then using the believe of no Creator you allow yourself or give yourself permission to realize higher ideals? I don’t know it’s just a speculation on my part, but I tend to think that it would be a struggle internally within your mind.
On a daily basis I don’t evaluate everything I do based upon God, and yet I hold some of these same ideals that you do, and regardless of whether they are the same or not it just seems that atheists spend a lot of time denying a Creator so they can justify expressing themselves more freely. If you come back down to the basics of society and the laws we have in place wouldn’t we all be expressing ourselves to our fullest capacity within the laws that society has set up for us anyway? And I say this in all sincerity if you believe you have a moral obligation not to kill someone than wouldn’t that belief stand in the way of pursuing any higher purpose? It’s still a belief and you have to believe one way or the other. Either you kill freely or you understand that you can’t due to the laws we have and if you’re caught you’ll be in prison where you have even less freedoms than you do now.
God gave everyone the ability to worship Him or not. We are not robots and he gave us the ability to be free moral agents. Living here in the US I can see others express various religious beliefs and many more express nothingness too. I think living in a country that allows freedom of religion/or not and seeing others points of views can help everyone intelligently pursue or not pursue their ideals.
Too many people live life today holding onto beliefs others gave to them so in many instances I believe atheism serves its own purpose to allow those who are frustrated with the inablity to “see God” here and now another outlet to express that frustration and give themselves peace of mind.
Scott Young said,
December 11, 2007 at 8:30 am
rj in missoula,
Thanks for the great comment. You wrote a lot so I feel I need some response:
1) I’m not really against religion or God per se. My attack is more on the notion that questioning your beliefs is morally wrong. Many (not all) theists believe that questioning God’s existence or coming to the conclusion that a god doesn’t exist is punishable by an eternity in hell. This seems like a far worse version of hell to me where one cannot even have freedom within their own mind.
2) Am I struggling to suppress the notion of God? Not really. I believe the theistic arguments of a conscious deity who pays attention to your thoughts and created the world in seven days to be rather farfetched. But do I believe there is a quality in the universe that can’t be understood rationally? Yes. That’s called pantheism though, and that isn’t the type of philosophical viewpoint I’m arguing against.
3) Depending on how you define “God” you could cast me either as an adamant believer or complete skeptic. When you have the ability to define “God” as anything you want, then he or she can exist in the light of any evidence. This is why I avoid the word “God” when describing a universal quality in different philosophical viewpoints.
Einstein and other physicists encounter this problem when they make reference to God. Few of them actually believe in a supernatural conscious being, but see “God” as representing the total harmony of mathematical laws. Those are very different things and while they may have the same emotional effect, they imply completely different natures of the universe.
Lindsey said,
December 13, 2007 at 4:55 pm
Hi Scott,
I am quite curious–
I am on a quest to understand more about Christianity—not religion–but just about Christ and God.
My first step is reading the Bible in it’s entirety. And not just reading it lightly, but really taking time to sit and unlock the mystery to it.
It is my understanding that athiesm is affirming the nonexistance of God (yes, I looked that up on Wikipedia.
)
I happened to read in a blog earlier that you have not yet read the Bible in its entirety.
I was curious as to why you would choose to be athiest without having really read about the God you want to reject. (I really do not mean this sentence in a negative way–just in a curious way)
I really would love to know.
Thanks so much–
Scott Young said,
December 14, 2007 at 6:50 am
Lindsey,
First off, to say Christians have a monopoly on God is a bit of an exaggeration. I have read books studying hindu and buddhist philosophies. Hinduism is also theistic.
As for the Bible, I have read parts of it, if not the whole thing. I think of it as an interesting story and metaphor, but not representative of reality. I’d like to read the Bible sometime soon, but unfortunately my understanding of the universe doesn’t wait until I gather all possible evidence.
Jon said,
December 19, 2007 at 8:37 pm
Scott -
I’m just a first time reader, and have really enjoyed a couple of the articles on your site so far. I came across this one and was intrigued. I’ve read through the chain of comments above, and the one that stuck out to me as a strong rebuttal was Steven Cornell’s. You’ve given excellent arguments against the majority of the other comments, but didn’t really answer that one on a point-by-point basis - could you perhaps address where you felt you were misinterpreted and speak to the points that were made in that post?
In my exploration of life and the meaning thereof, I’ve come across many arguments for both sides - I found that set of arguments particularly compelling, and just wanted to hear your side of things!
Thanks so much,
Jon
Scott Young said,
December 20, 2007 at 7:06 am
Jon,
My lack of response is usually due to time constraints, rather than having been backed into a corner. Let me see if I can address some of Steven’s points:
1. This assumes that ultimate meaning is required by god. Read a book by Ayn Rand. You don’t have to agree with her philosophy, but you can see that she makes a very clear case about the ability for a person to have purpose without a god.
2. I’m not an expert on evolutionary theory, but I’ve read a dozen or so books about the topic, and the logic of evolution is unerring. Intelligent design fails to answer the most important question: “who created the creator?” Evolution has an answer by leaving a conscious entity of immense complexity out of the picture.
3. What about the Big Bang? A cause need not be started by a conscious force, just as the pi is caused by the division of a circumference of a circle by its diameter.
4. Morality and ethics without a god require more thought, but they don’t become meaningless. I’m sure most current philosophers of ethics would be disturbed by the idea that there work is meaningless without an invisible judge watching over them.
5. If we both agree in an objective reality, then we can both agree on definitions of good and evil. I can’t say that the sky is green when it is blue, if it isn’t. If there can be an absolute measure of truth, then there can be an absolute definition of morality. Not to say that there isn’t gray areas or considerably more complexity than most religious systems of ethics would claim.
6. This is a false counterattack. I never said that God was impossible. Only highly improbable based on current evidence and emotionally dissatisfying. To be fair, I could reverse this argument by saying that a believer must be arrogant because he believes in a god without complete knowledge.
7. Sorry I’m not even going to argue this one. Historical evidence? Cite something reasonable before you make ridiculous claims.
8. What can I say, I’m a vegetarian. I don’t believe we are as different from animals as we would like to admit. Clearly there humans have a richer depth of consciousness, but that does not mean we belong in a completely separate category, just a different spot along the continuum.
How’s that?
-Scott
Stephen said,
January 7, 2008 at 11:58 am
Hi Scott,
I came across your blog when I did a google search on how to give up television. In addition to a well-written and informative article on giving up tv, I found a wealth of helpful articles to read, enjoy and learn from. The only article that troubled me was your article on atheism, because I happen to (try to) be a Christian. I didn’t agree with much of what you had written though I note that many of my objections have been covered in the posts above. What I did want to mention was how happy I am to see a dialogue between atheists and theists that remained respectful and friendly at all times. You don’t need to look very hard to find dozens if not hundreds of Internet forums in which religion is discussed with nastiness and poison spewing forth from both sides. It is testament to the quality, I think, of your character that you have attracted a readership that, whilst not everyone is always in agreement, they can meet in an atmosphere that is respectful, warm, honest and sincere. Congratulations mate, thanks for all the advice and keep up the good work. Best wishes, Stephen
Scott H Young » Review of The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged said,
January 14, 2008 at 11:18 am
[…] discussing my own atheism, many people claimed that rationality meant rejecting everything that could not be proven. This is […]
Tracy said,
January 16, 2008 at 8:32 am
Interesting posts. I respect everyone’s right to their own opinion but I’ve always struggled with atheism. I find such joy from my relationship with God. I’ve been a Christian for a long time but a praying-every-day Christian for just about 3 years. I am amazed at the joy it brings me. Since relationship with God is based on faith, I sometimes wonder if those who do not believe could not possibly understand those who do because they have not felt the presence of God. I feel I have. And experiencing that just increases your faith.
Scott, it seems your views are more against organized religion than with God. I believe the two are very separate-religions are run my men who are fallible, not perfect. Also, I don’t look for divine intervention to help me out in life. I do believe in it (as a hospice volunteer, I have seen some amazing things happen) but the God I know expects me to do my very best always, not to expect him to carry me through. In fact, if I ever get desperate and find myself trying this route-guess what? No help from above.
I also feel I have the right to explore and question, even the Bible. If I did not, I wouldn’t be using my God-given brain. I don’t even feel badly about it. The only true commandment Jesus gives us is to love one another, and I definitely try to do that.
Frankly, since life is merely perception, things happen for whatever reason we attribute it to. If I think I am a successful because I’ve worked hard, then I am a success because I’ve worked hard. If I think I am blessed because of my faith, than I am blessed because of my faith. What difference does it really make? Except of course on the battlefield. Because as it has been said many times, “There are no atheists on the battlefield.” Just joking here, I respect all opinions and feel I can grow from thinking about them, even if I disagree. Cheer-Tracy
Naseer said,
January 29, 2008 at 10:53 pm
Scott,
I’ve just read through your initial article and the ensuing thread of comments and your rebuttals. It’s amazing how civilized this whole discussion has been. That in itself shows there’s a chance for rational people to get along. Have you had any secret death threats that we haven’t seen?
I see that the theist side has been well-represented by my Christian brothers-in-faith. I am Muslim myself, following what I believe to the final revelation of God’s religion on Earth. (Talk about a currently massively misunderstood religion…) My arguments will hold as much weight as those of all the others since they are all based on a plane other than rational, and you’ve shown that you understand that. So, as some have asked: how can you really refute that until you’ve experienced it, or rather as we believe God desires, to have attempted to seek it? What I mean is, I’m trying to understand how athiests grow up to be so without having been fully exposed to God and finding no solace there. (I’m re-reading this and find I cannot convey my confusion properly).
I guess in analogy: how can the blind man tell the seeing that there is no such thing as color differences? You can admit that you don’t perceive as others do and therefore have difficulty understanding what they mean by red or green or blue… This is, of course, assuming we’re staying away from the belief that we can rationalize religious faith and read about it. Am I saying that you have to dance with the Derwishes or meditate with the Sufis before you can give up… maybe, I don’t know…
And also this assertion (perhaps not yours) about saying that looking at the record of world religions and the problems they’ve caused, it’s better to stay away from them and be more balanced as a rational being — I’ve never understood it because most of the conflicts have always been rooted in power and territory (on this plane of existence). I do agree that it’s shameful that the world’s Faithful have been poor examples for those who have trouble in finding God…
Hope some of this resonates somewhere, because after reading the long thread of arguments and counter-arguments, my age-old sentiments (questions) concerning athiesm were bursting to come out… maybe I should have waited to write that at a better hour.
I would end with “Keep the Faith” but that doesn’t apply here… I guess it’s more like: “Get the Faith, and then drop it, and then decide there is none to be had.”
Scott Young said,
January 30, 2008 at 6:26 am
Naseer,
If I may have license to clump your argument into another category, I’d say it is the familiar “Orgasm Argument”.
The basic argument here, argued by theists is that an atheist arguing that God does not exist is like a man who has never experienced an orgasm arguing that the experience of an orgasm does not exist. The a-orgasmist has similar objective evidence to refute the claims that the atheist does.
My rebuttal is twofold:
1) Let’s separate “Feeling of God” from “God”
2) Let’s avoid “secret evidence” arguments
1) Separating “Feeling of God” from “God”
As I stated in my introduction, my attachments to the word “God” are highly specific. Namely, God is:
-A conscious being that thinks, although with infinite power, in the same way humans identify as “thinking”. (i.e. Universe=God is a false statement by this original definition)
-That God is directly involved in the affairs of human beings either through their creation (deism) or currently (theism).
Those two descriptions don’t pinpoint a subjective feeling. They describe something objective, like President Bush or a unicorn. The statement, “The non-believers in unicorns are missing my essential feeling of unicorn-ness, therefore their reasoning that unicorns do not exist is flawed.” This is a ridiculous counter-argument since unicorns have specific, objective properties that should be verifiable (under ordinary circumstances) equally by two different outside observers.
The feeling of God is quite different. My claim of atheism isn’t that I don’t believe that there is something greater, more beautiful and higher that we should use as our principle of life. My only distinction is that I don’t attach this feeling of God-ness to specific objective properties that my reasonable evidence claims does not exist.
Does the “Feeling of God” exist? Undoubtedly. I’m not arguing that you are lying about having that experience. My argument is that theists are mistaken (or at least wagering on an extremely unlikely proposition) that this feeling is directly attached to an all-powerful, conscious creator.
Pantheism, or the belief that “God is all” is closer to my current beliefs, since this coincides with the “Feeling of God” without proposing objective details that are difficult to justify.
2) No “secret evidence” arguments
The other flaw in this reasoning is that using “secret evidence” arguments may not be logically unsound, but doesn’t leave much room for intelligent discussion.
Saying you have special access to evidence of God (as a super-conscious being, not as a subjective experience) simply closes off any room for debate.
Could you imagine a lawyer going before a judge and claiming that “My client is innocent, but I can neither lucidly explain or present evidence that he is not guilty. However, I ask that you trust my evidence over the air-tight case of the prosecution.”
Your personal beliefs are your own (and should be), but if you want to discuss them with others, “secret evidence” arguments aren’t going to persuade.
blogrdoc said,
February 16, 2008 at 2:39 am
I’ve thought about the idea of God for sometime and, I can say that there is no rational argument for the case of the existence of God.
However, to assert that the nature of reality can only be fully captured within the dimension of human understanding is a bit presumptuous.
I went for coffee today and I stood in line. After a while, another lady came along and asked “Are you in line?” I said “yes!”. And then I thought… I suppose I should ask the person whom I *assume* I am standing behind is in line as well!
My point is… in my humble, entirely fallible human reasoning… if one wishes to fully try to understand the nature of reality… we must be willing to question *EVERYTHING* (including the limits of our capacity to grasp it’s borders). How do we KNOW that human intellect is an appropriate yardstick by which to characterize the universe? I suspect that (as most athiests pooh-pooh the bible based arguments as circular reasoning (as I would concur)), should one go about using one’s human mind as the yard-stick, one would come to circuitous conclusions of similar validity. We humans *do* come with brains and intellect; and to *rely* on the solely to explain the nature of the universe - clearly one will come to the self-fulfilling conclusion that there is no greater being.
And to those of you who think that your religion is the *ONLY* valid religion, consider this: religion inherently separates the soul from the temporal body. At the point at which the soul is breathed upon this body, and considering that there are billions of potiential bodies to choose from, there is a rather significant probablitiy that your soul could have been breathed into a body that grew up on the other side of the world; in which case you wouldn’t at all believe what you believe now.
So what do *I* believe? I believe that you are what you are and if it ain’t broke donR