Hostility to Faith - Why?

I was asked why I am so hostile to faith systems and the person who asked immediately apologized for fear of having offended me.

My response was: "I am not offended because I am in fact hostile to religion and to any system of faith, not to religious people, mind you, but to religion and faith in themselves".

And then I answered her question:

Religion (faith) hurts people:

It tells them lies about the world and it tells them lies about themselves.

It rails against what it disagrees with, using circular arguments which do not stand up to scrutiny and yet it demands respect and insulation from criticism in the free marketplace of ideas.

It hides behind an illusion of sophistication while in reality it offers, at best, sophism which justifies patently ridiculous propositions and, under its covers of theology and apologetics, offers a shield of lies which provide neither a path to understanding nor a growth in knowledge but, rather, a convenient distracting cover to persist in willful ignorance.

It frightens trusting people into compliance and it provides a forum for manipulators to practice and perfect their skills at the expense of those who trust them.

It demonizes honest inquiry and it punishes honest doubt.

It discourages thinking and it rewards flights of fantasy.

It preys upon the weak and vulnerable, offering false hope in exchange for total subservience.

It gets a free ride while the rest of us carry its weight in extra taxes, all the while insisting that its adherents support it generously with a minimum of financial accountability.

And it inserts itself in the political sphere where it seeks a privileged place to dictate the mores of society, not in accordance with the needs, wishes and desires of the populace but in accordance with its ignorant past.

So I ask you, how can one NOT be hostile to it?

 

Feeling a little cocky - so here goes! …

Occasionally, I am confronted, regarding my atheism, by folks who are not bent on winning me to their beliefs. And it is with these that I have the most interesting discussions and actually walk away with insights, about myself and others.

Normally, the position I take, the only honest one in my opinion, is that, while I have few answers to the 'big' mysteries of life, I have a mechanism to explore them and to grow in knowledge and insight and to shed erroneous notions when they appear outdated and are dysfunctional.

No honest person can claim any valid notion of absolute certainty without presenting credible or testable evidence. And, unless one can do so, one must be open to revision and correction. By definition every faith system fails this test because all faith is built on, ultimately, subjective perceptions whether they be personal or communal.

And lest I be confronted with the sophistry that I've just made an absolute statement and thus contradicted myself, be it known that I make this statement provisionally, knowing that in the long history of human experience it has never been shown to be inaccurate. I am a betting man and I am comfortable with odds like that.

So my position is simple. Human subjective experience is unreliable and there is no reason to posit anything outside of nature which transcends this subjective hurdle.

My atheism is simply the result of this observation. My worldview is built upon that and, what I've found, is that it's this implication of my atheism and not my atheism itself which thinking people find to be unsettling.

Few of us feel comfortable with an uncertain universe: one devoid of inherent meaning or purpose. But our lack of comfort with it does not change it and, at least in my opinion, is not a moral reason to deny it.

I point out that the responsibility to create personal meaning is a tremendous privilege, one not granted us by intent but only contingently by the emergence of our unique cognitive abilities. Because it is contingent it is not guaranteed nor is it of indubitable necessity.

But those of us who have grown comfortable with such a universe, have availed ourselves of limitless possibilities for meaning and happiness and freedom to grow and prosper and to impart the fruits of that to whomever we come in contact with or to savor it for ourselves as we see fit.

No other perspective can be so healthy or liberating and, in my humble opinion, will pass the test of time and true utility.

So my case for atheism is one of potential and possibility and, while it cannot claim certainty of fact, it can claim confidence of procedure and it will make trivial any other perspective by its mere demonstrability - something no other 'ism' or creed has ever or could hope to ever do.

 

LIFE UNTIL DEATH

One thing that has been clear to me since I abandoned any of the trappings of a personal religious life is that life itself has taken on a lot more color with the understanding of its sure terminal quality. Knowing (or at least not having the false assurance to the contrary) that my life is incidental, and not subject to an eschatological focus, has removed a lot of the hesitation which comes from trying to second guess the direction I should take.

I think that the firm assurance that our lives are nothing more or less than what we choose to do with the bag of tricks we find ourselves accidentally vested with, provides us with the opportunity to focus our intentions, not on the "right" path, but the path WE choose to follow.

Similarly, knowing that a mission in life is neither a guarantee nor a talisman which will ward off the non-determined day of my last breath, oddly enough, gives me the breathing room to actually live, dream and work toward realizing the future that I want - regardless of whether I actually achieve it and regardless of whether I even choose to stay the course or change course.

Life is not the anteroom of a better existence; it is not the test or the dress rehearsal. Rather, it is the only shot, the only day in the sun, the only opportunity to see, feel and share the pleasure of being and to be whatever our accidental existence permits us to shoot for. Of course, while I cannot claim this with the absolute certainty of an omniscient perspective (as if such a thing even exists), I can confidently assert that no one in all of human history has been able to put forth a single coherent argument to the contrary, i.e. an argument without special pleading or appeals to flights of fantasy or other modes of delusion , or, at least, self-deception.

And so, I am wholly confident that, when the inevitable day comes when my body no longer functions and I wink out of existence, I won't be cognizant of the things I've done nor failed to do. I won't rue the moment that I acted nor failed to act. I won't face an accounting of my failures nor a reward for my virtues.

Rather, like a candle's flame which when extinguished, simply is no more, I will pass into the eternity of oblivion, of nonbeing and non-existence.

And THAT, I find extremely comforting.

Apologists SHOULD Apologize

My esteemed comrade in arms, John Loftus, who actually was a theologically trained minister and apologist, but who has since seen the light and is brilliantly shining it, graciously classified religious apologetics methods into five categories:

1. Apologetics based on supposed evidence

2. Apologetics based on rationalistic theistic proofs

3. Apologetics based on assuming that which needs to be proved

4. Apologetics based on private subjective experiences

5. Eclectic Apologetics.

He was kind. My labels for these same five classifications are as follows:

1) deceitful bullshit

2) sophist bullshit

3) solipsistic bullshit

4) delusional bullshit

5) plain ol' bullshit

You have to excuse me I'm not eloquent and I only have 6 credits of theological training, half of which was obtained in a private tutorial with a dozing elderly Jesuit.

But the fact remains: it's all bullshit nonetheless, no matter how you cook it, package it or otherwise attempt to make it appealing.

All engaged in apologetics are trying to make sense of non-reality: taking myths created by superstitious ancients and using them as a roadmap for life and a substitute for responsible living. This is why, otherwise intelligent individuals such as Alvin Plantinga, when faced with the contradictions of their theodicies with phenomena such as gratuitous suffering, need to introduce counter supernatural agencies (demons) to explain why bad things happen to innocents such as fawns in a forest fire. I bet you didn't know that devils have nothing better to do than go around hurting fawns in a forest.

And when you think of it, the explanations of the great apologists are not a far cry from the explanations for earthquakes made by a certain Islamic scholar (they are caused by women who flaunt their legs and are otherwise burqa free).

The problem is that the sources themselves are ignorant of empirical facts, inconsistent and contradictory. That's why you wind up with Mark's gospel telling you that Jesus was crucified Passover morning around 9 am and John telling you that he was crucified around 2 pm the day before and the apologists telling you that there is no contradiction because Romans and Jews measured time differently! By the way, the last point is technically true but it doesn't account for the contradiction. Don't confuse me with the facts though, right?

The very best a religious apologist can do is obfuscate the issue of textual and doctrinal inadequacy by hiding behind clever twists of logic of their own or others' making.

But in the end, neither the most devout believer, the most brilliant theologian nor the most clever religious sophist, can claim any more knowledge of what they declare to be supernatural than can the most uneducated, irreligious, earthy street urchin or boor. The former simply does not "know" anything more about the reality they purport to be expert in than does the latter.

It is because of this that anyone claiming expertise in matters of divinity (whatever THAT is is) and the accompanying credentials trumpeted by those same self proclaimed "experts" (unless those studies are along the lines of critical historical, anthropological or sociological analysis) are pretentious at best and deceitful in fact.

And it is because of this that it would always serve you well to question what is presented to you and to subject yours and others' most cherished professions to critical inquiry.

No one has a corner on the truth and, until demonstrated otherwise, no truth needs apologetics to defend it.

Watching Our Terms

We live in a theistic culture, no doubt. By that I mean, although we have an explict constitutionally secular government, the images of our society are built upon religious memes. We talk of things like redemption, the buying back of something lost, for example,  because our culture was spawned in the crucible of Jewish and Christian sysmbolism. This symbolism harkens back to a pristine time, before lost innocence when the world was well and all was as it should have been - albeit for less than a day.

Yet when push comes to shove, we know that there never was a 'fall' from a state of perfection. In reality there is also no redemption because there never was a "demption" a procurement  from which we were  displaced.

Given the inevitability of religiously pregnant tems in our vocabulary, and given that the religious significance of such terms have long ago lost their potency in everyday usage (e.g. goodbye  - which is a slurring of "god-be-with-ye', Thursday which means Thor's day, etc.) we must all the more be careful in theological debate to  set the stage for honest discussion.
 
One bone of contention which I have is the widspread use of the word 'God'  as a proper name. The term means "the good" and is associated with the deity of choice in various religions, but here in western culture, it inevitably means Yahweh, the deity of the Hebrews or his New Testement virginally spawned offspring or his avian counterpart.
 
My beef is this: when I am asked to account for my worldview by a person of theistic persuasion, and especially by one ensconced in an abramhamic faith tradition, I am inevitably confronted with "why don't you believe in God?" Now when one asks a question like this, the mentality behind the question is itself a barrier to meaningful discussion. It is saying in effect:
 
1.  "We both  know that there is an entity named "God"
 
2. We both know that this entity is all loving, all powerful, omniscient, omnipresent etc, etc. in fact, this is so self evident that I don't have to define my term, I can merely invoke it and it is understood.

3. Therefore your lack of 'belief' is really a rebellion , or is a case of your being angry with Him and you are acting out, like a spoiled teenager.

The implication is that all you need to do is eliminate a barrier in yourself and this will resolve the issue.


In reality, they have completely misunderstood the context that must be set for real dialogue and there can be no meaningful communication unless one first levels the playing field:

First off, an atheist does not believe in the existance of any supernatural entities, of any type, and especially those with agency and extra-human ability. We don't believe in gods, fairies, devils, souls, spirits, the Devil etc. They are not even coherent concepts for us. It is important that this fact is stressed and understood, even if it is not a shared view.

"God" or a specific other title of one's choosing to posit one's deity is NOT the jumping off point for the discussion. The realm of the supernatural is a possible starting point and one can posit it and define one's position. Then when the position is clear, an entity with agency can be introduced and defined. THEN and only then can the theist introduce their own particular deity(ies).

The discussion will center where it should, on the plausability, or not, of the theistic position. This is the only acceptable starting point because one cannot be honestly asked to explain one's negation of a belief that is not truly understood or defined.  If the discussion is meant to be meaningful, only after the above takes place can it proceed intelligibly and coherently.

All of that to say this:

When an atheist/nontheist  is making a statement - bearing witness to a phenomenon that runs counter to the opinion of the culture at large in matters of theological import or social import with theological implications, it is important that we DON'T fall into the same trap of stating the phenomenon in terms of "without God" or "without belief in God" because when we stage the presentatrion in this way we are dulling the point of our observation and, in a sense annulling it's premise. After all, if reality did consist of a demonstrable supernatural realm, say the Hindu pantheon, and it were a realm with credibility, we atheists/nontheists would suddenly be the believers and the vast majority of "(Abrahamic) God" followers would be the unbelievers, bound by the shackles of their immutable faith.

With this in mind, in this month's Free Inquiry, the banner article read FACING THE WORST WITHOUT GOD

The article went on to show case after case of nontheists dealing with the very real tragedy of spinal cord injury without appeal for a supernatural fix. Now, if GOD were there it would be stupid to not invoke His help and their soldiering on, working within the confines of naturalistic medical remedies  would be, at best short sighted and at worst defiant. The title of this otherwise inspiring arguement ran the risk of robbing it of its potency just because it was framed as if "He" exists and they chose to get by without "Him".

When framing our positions we must be careful to avoid stating our argument from the improper paridigm which presupposes that which we do not acknowledge. After all, reality is the criterion for our postulates and our articulation of that reality should not be encumbered by unnecessary presuppositions. We need to take a lesson from Laplace, the French mathematician, who presented Napoleon with a copy of his great five-volume work on the solar system, the Mechanique Celeste. Knowing that the books contained no mention of God, Napoleon taunted him, “Monsieur Laplace, they tell me you have written this large book on the system of the universe, and have never even mentioned its Creator.” Laplace answered, famously and brusquely: “Je n’avais pas besoin de cette hypothese-la,” “I have had no need of that hypothesis.”

Credo di no - an open letter to the person who challenged my worldview recently

Well, it's been about a year since I last posted and I'm happy to say that I feel very validated and strong in my perspective. The following was written to present my position to someone who recently challenged me. I like it becasue it distills and presents, quie susinctly how i feel. Enjoy, and feel free to comment.

Regarding gods, spirits, devils or anything else which smacks of the supernatural – I am confident that they do not exist. It is true, as even Richard Dawkins said in “The God Delusion”, we must always leave room for the ever so slight statistical chance that this may be wrong. After all, we can't conclusively PROVE that Shiva, Zeus or Diana DON'T exist.

But, in my humble opinion, because we are not burdened by the associated cultural trappings of their believers WE do not give these possibilities any serous weight. In the same way, when one is free from the cultural trappings (because that is all they are) of western religion, one will be clear eyed enough to see that these spectors are just that and deserve no more credence than we give to any of the dead myths of past societies.

What we can be sure of is that the qualities of deity of every known religion are fabrications of the founders and early proponents of those religions and that their sources of "revelation" are woefully (in my view-happily) inadiquate and easily proven to be inaccurate and humanly flawed. We can also be confident that the supposed mysterious and miraculous aspects of life do have plausible natural explanations and that no one can validly demonstrate a channel of communication or living revelation from a supernatural source which can show this to be otherwise.


Quite simply, there is no credible reason to look beyond what is in front of us and certainly, no reason to suspect or believe that, if there is a power which stands apart from nature, that it should play a role in guiding or shaping our lives or that it even wants to or that it gives a damn about whether or not we acknowledge it.


As I said in another context, it is wonderful to look at the world for what it is and not see ghosts or hobgoblins or other shady things, benign or otherwise, pulling the strings behind the scenes.


The universe, for the most part, is just random clusters of hydrogen compacted to various degrees with a little bit of nuclear waste thrown in for good measure ... born of random quantum flux. It feels nothing, hears nothing, sees nothing. It has no plan or guiding principle. It has no investment in you. Because it has no consciousness, it isn’t even aware that you exist.


This being the case, I would caution you to hold yourself to the standards you set for yourself, while always being willing to reevaluate them, and to never bypass an opportunity to make your dreams come true. You are the author of your own meaning and the only one with the right and responsibility to make meaning investments in your own life. You, and you alone, are the hero of your life adventure. Never let anyone take that from you. And never, never assign that right to another.

It is accomplished

Entry # 4

You know, the funny thing is I thought that making this transition was going to be retchingly difficult when I began my journey. In actuality it has been so damned easy that I really don't have much more to say in terms of the journey ... I am living life happy and secure in my convictions. At the same time it has become a very private internal affair. I'm not wearing an "atheist" badge. I'm not adopting an "in your face" posture (though I have an appreciation for the energy I'm saving in not having to work within a religious framework).

Something interesting worth noting though is my deeper appreciation for life in all its forms. After all, when you contemplate all the slow convolutions our DNA has been through, all the forms it has produced, all the stepping stones along the way, you really do get a rich sense of connectedness ... the tarantula in the library terrarium is just a distant cousin, perfectly adapted to his/her environment just as I am ( am I?). We are not separated by the presence or absence of a soul... we are not hierarchically ranked in terms of image deo/non image deo.

And life itself, short, sweet, - but what we make of it - followed by non existence - the negation /absence of experience. I feel so motivated to do "something" to have an impact, to leave things better than I found them.... and I want to do this not for the reward - there is no reward in non-being - but simply to have the present assurance that in some infinitesimal or maybe some not so infinitesimal way life itself benefited from my being alive.