Common Misconceptions Part Three - Atheism Is A Religion

I've heard this claim and have seen it debunked so many times that I now highly suspect that proponents of this misconception are willfully ignorant about the definition of both religion and atheism. A closely related tactic of denigrating atheism is to equate atheism to religious fundamentalism. I'd like to add my humble thoughts to the swirling cauldron of discussion on this issue.

First of all, I don't really understand the point of accusing atheism of being a religion. Are you saying that since atheism is a religion that atheists are not permitted to critique "other" religions? How does this follow? Not only do all three mainstream monotheistic religions condemn each other as apostates, but all three themselves harbor their own violent infighting. Consider the conflicts between Orthodox/Reform Jews, Protestants/Catholics and Sunnis/Shi'as. Obviously this line of thinking is fallacious. Some people will then argue that the atheist utilizes just as much faith as their own religious convictions. In other words, atheists believe in things without sufficient evidence just as much as the religious. This is profoundly untrue and I will explain why. First, lets look at the definitions of both religion and atheism.

Religion is defined as a set of beliefs concerning the nature, and purpose of universe, esp. when as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances and often containing a moral code governing the affairs of human conduct. A specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of people or a sect.

Atheism is defined as disbelief in the existence of a god or gods.

Now, I grant that a philosophy does not have to be inherently theistic to be a religion. Certain sects of Hinduism and Buddhism as well as lesser known religions like Jainism do not believe in any gods. What makes these worldviews religious is not their particular stance on theism, but rather their fundamental sets of beliefs and practices with moral codes governing their conduct.

But what about atheism? Isn't atheism a "worldview" with "sets of beliefs?"

As the definition clearly states, the answer is no. Atheism is simply an assertion of what someone does not believe, not what they do believe or what they assert to be true. An atheist can be a genocidal communist (as Stalin certainly was) or an atheist can be a devout Jain. Atheism denotes no political affiliation, moral code, or philosophical disposition. An atheist can be a student of Ayn Rand or equally a student of Immanuel Kant. And everywhere in between. Are you beginning to see why that is simply not religion?

This is why, although I'm perfectly comfortable with the term atheist, I rather prefer the descriptor of pearlist. By subscribing to Pearlism, I am making a positive assertion about what I believe, namely in physical evidence and reasoned logic.

But aren't most pearlists atheists?

Well, yes they are. By my lights I do not see how they could not be. But this question is ignoring the distinction of terms I am laboring to make for your own sake. Correlation is warranted. But to make the terms synonymous would be an error.

But what about people like Richard Dawkins or Christopher Hitchens who go around promoting atheism? What makes them different than fundamentalist evangelists? Aren't they atheist "prophets"?

We'll get to fundamentalism in a moment. What makes people like Dawkins and Hitchens different from evangelicals is that their claims can be supported by verifiable evidence. Further, they are not claiming that if you dissent from their (again, evidence based) version of reality that you will suffer for it. True, the world may suffer for it presently, but you are not personally destined for eternal damnation. Richard Dawkins has written truly remarkable books about Darwinian evolution. These books are vastly thorough, providing evidence upon evidence upon evidence for the wonderful explanation of the diversity of life, and yet people still accuse him of having the same faith of a Christian. This is willful ignorance and total nonsense. They are not prophets because they do not claim divine inspiration from invisible agents.

Now, to this issue of atheists being the same as religious fundamentalists. I'm just curious, what would a non-fundamentalist atheist be? Would it be a person who only half-way rejects the god hypothesis? What fundamental sets of beliefs would the fundamentalist atheist be reverting to in his/her proclamations? Just as an evangelical fundamentalist hearkens back to a literal interpretation of the Bible, does the atheist fundamentalist refer back to "literal" interpretations of Bertrand Russell or Mark Twain or Epicurus? Of course not. You see here we run into the same issue of category description as we did with religion.

Okay, that makes sense. But isn't an atheist still utilizing faith to believe in things they cannot observe like the big bang or love or whatever?

No. The big bang is observable by studying the Doppler Effect of the stars in the rapidly expanding universe. Love (and morality and many emotions) are easily observed in fMRI experiments monitoring brain activity in human beings. We understand the chemicals involved in pleasure (like dopamine) and understand the parts of the brain that are particularly wired for certain emotions. It is the opposite of faith to reserve judgment until sufficient evidence is in. It is the opposite of faith to change previously accepted ideas in light of new and convincing data (Pluto is not a planet, the Universe is expanding, etc.) It is the opposite of faith to desire answers to questions.

And what will answer our questions? Will God? Has God seriously ever answered any of your questions without you assigning agency to some vague bible verse or emotional sleight of hand? I doubt it. Science can answer some of our questions. Not all of them. Not even most of them. But physical evidence and reasoned logic have been outrunning religion for centuries. And they will continue to do so. At any rate, I'd rather know 0.0000001% of what is true rather than believe in 100% of unverifiable mythology.

Yours in reason,

Clint Wells

The Necessity of Atheistic Morality - A Response to Larry Taunton

The Necessity of Atheistic Morality - A Response to Larry Taunton

Dear Larry Taunton,

As an atheist and a member of several free thought communities in Birmingham, I feel an obligation to respond to your recent article on the supposed hypocrisy of atheistic morality. My fellow non-theists and I are so often encountered by the apologetic shorthand of being likened to Hitler and Stalin. We constantly endure quotes from Dostoevsky by would-be philosophers all too eager to advertise that they have a library card . And we are, of course, invariably accused of existing in a vacuum of morality. I hope you will thoughtfully consider what I have to say about these accusations.

In my experience, most theists will grant that an atheist is endowed with moral intuition. After all, they claim, we are all created in the image of God and therefore subconsciously subscribe to His moral law, even if we do not believe in Him. Some theologians call this “common grace.” You, however, are claiming something very different. You are claiming not only that an atheist is profoundly impotent in deciding matters of morality but further, that it is an actual hypocrisy for a person like Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, myself, or my unbelieving friends to condemn the torture and abuse of children. This is an astounding assertion, particularly when one considers that the same moral absolutes you claim to have divine access to are the same moral absolutes bolstered by Pope Benedict XVI ( a.k.a. Joseph Ratzinger), a known guardian of child rapists. To the contrary of your entire article, this indubitably places the burden of hypocrisy firmly on your shoulders, Larry. Not the atheist’s. The actions of people like Richard Dawkins and your subsequent criticism illuminate the world’s great necessity for morality without gods, a thankfully burgeoning human enterprise.

Morality is easily explained by the natural evolution of pain values. Civilizations simply would not exist if we really believed there was nothing wrong with murder, stealing, raping, etc. As human beings we all enter into a social contract with one another. There will always be a range of people who define morality in ways that are detrimental to society which is why we collectively decide the parameters of what is acceptable and enforce that through human law, thus cultivating a homogenous moral society. That is why every known civilization, including ones that vastly predate Christianity, has made taboos out of these things. On a smaller evolutionary scale morality evolves with human conscience. That is why we clearly see the gradual promotion of women, race minorities, and homosexuals in our civil and social discourse. Nations of the developed world generally agree that these are moral improvements. It is worthy of note that in all three of these cases (the subjugation of women, slavery, and homosexual bigotry) the Bible has been of no help whatsoever. In fact, the most heinous crimes committed against these three historically persecuted groups are largely predicated on the “moral” teachings of the Bible.

Consider two teachings of the Bible. One is the golden rule found in Matthew 7:12. The golden rule (which actually predates Jesus) is a legitimate moral teaching that has empirically benefited humanity. Now consider Deuteronomy 22:13-21 which states that if a woman is not a virgin on her wedding night then she is to be stoned to death on her father’s doorstep by the men of her city. It should be clear to you that there is nothing moral about stoning a woman to death simply for not being a virgin. So what operative mechanism do you use to decide between the two teachings of the Bible? You use your reason; your mind. So it is obvious that standards for morality do not come from gods, they come from the human mind.

You said:

“The pope's guilt or innocence in the matter of child-abusing priests is a question that I shall leave to others. Nevertheless, that Dawkins should call for his arrest for, of all things, 'crimes against humanity,' is rich with contradictions that seem lost on none more than Dawkins himself.

The reason we can condemn child rapists is because we adhere to an actual viable morality and not the relativistic prescription of gods. If God is the very definition of goodness then morality is meaningless. He could ask anything of you and it would be inherently moral. He could ask you to murder your own children (Genesis 22, Deuteronomy 21:18), stone rape victims (Deuteronomy 22:23-24), or beat slaves (Exodus 21:20) and still be considered a “good” God. He could drown nearly the entire world in a flood (Genesis 6), allow the devil to kill your family (Job) or hold you responsible for what your ancestors did thereby condemning you to eternal hell and still be considered the basis for absolute morality. This is clearly absurd.

While you may want to leave the pope’s guilt or innocence to others, I certainly do not. Like Dawkins and Hitchens (and any person with basic moral intelligence), I want Ratzinger held accountable to the same civil and moral laws that anyone else would be liable to for such crimes. Who shall we leave the verdict to, Larry? Shall we leave the verdict to Vatican City, a state virtually poisoned with corruption over child abuse scandal? Shall we rid all juries of atheists since they cannot logically understand morality? Of course not. Shame on you for wanting to leave the matter of child-abusing priests to others. Regardless of your philosophical differences, as a human being who was once a child, you should join arms with those who would seek to bring these life destroying pedophiles to justice.

You said:

“…the greatest crimes ever committed against humanity were perpetrated by those who had ‘stopped worrying’ that there might be a God to judge in the next world acts committed in this one. Indeed, it may well be that some priests took Dawkins at his word and decided to stop worrying, too. Last autumn, Dennis and Flora Milner, an atheist couple in Britain, did just that and gassed themselves. (According to The Daily Telegraph, Milner had been reading Dawkins before he signed off.)”

How can you, with even an ounce of intellectual honesty, imply that the reading of Richard Dawkins caused someone to kill themselves? Are you oblivious (or obtuse) to the overwhelming barrage of mindless suicidal/genocidal misery the world has suffered directly because of beliefs in gods? Shall we count the numbers of the conquests of Joshua and David? Shall we total the amount of needless deaths in the killing fields, the Reconquista, the centuries long Inquisition, the Crusades, the witch trials, the burning of supposed heretics, Islamic terrorism, and now the victims of sexual abuse? It seems that this moral absolute that one can only get from gods causes its fair share of world destruction.

We can either have a 21st century conversation about morality involving all of the advancements we’ve made in areas of biology, neurology, behavioral psychology, genetics and the natural sciences or we can look to a Bronze Age collection of morally retarded prescriptions and grovel before an invisible god who may or may not ask us to kill our children one day. Here’s to reason and to the hope of our evolving moral conscience.

Yours in reason,

Clint Wells