Profane Political Platform

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/03/national-atheist-party-faces-challenge_n_1182062.html?ref=religion

http://www.usanap.org/

http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/on-faith/atheists-face-uphill-climb-with-new-political-party/2012/01/03/gIQAjs4oYP_story.html

I’m clearly not the most politically active person, especially when I reveal that I haven’t voted in 2 elections, once for Bush/Kerry, the other Obama/McCain. This doesn’t mean I don’t take action in more indirect ways for issues I feel strongly about, such as petitioning, writing letters to the editor and blogging about solutions to policies about gay marriage and such. But I’ve always felt slightly out of place as an atheist amongst what is a demographically Christian country, the affiliations divided between Democrat, Republican and Libertarian, amongst the other smaller parties that can field candidates.  Troy Boyle, out of Kentucky, was inspired by Richard Dawkins’ talking about why atheists weren’t more politically active in an interview. And so he created what was first called the Freethought Party on Facebook. The group wasn’t as popular, but the interest intensified when the name was changed to the National Atheist Party. The basic idea is that it stands for a secular America which does not favor even atheism, so as not to seem partial to nonbelievers. No one group gets more say than another so the government treats all groups as equally as possible. I can definitely get behind this group, especially with its platform as of now very much in line with my own political policies. They’re for gay marriage, abortion rights, stricter gun control, legalizing marijuana, reforming immigration policy and green energy development, amongst other likely issues, such as foreign policy. There are some difficulties that exist with the group, one of them being the name, which is less important, another being the group’s relative political influence in the country. But there are definitely good points to this sort of party’s existence in what has become a very theologically heavy climate for politicians and policymaking.

The name of the group is slightly problematic in the association people have with the term atheist. I suppose it’s a better choice in the long run than National Secularist Party, since secularism is touted even more by many politically motivated preachers as the ultimate enemy, so atheism is probably a lesser evil to portray in a positive light to a population that distrusts secularism even if they also ironically support it in their own ways with a selective separation of church and state. There’s also a difficulty that even if atheism becomes acceptable to the extent of other worldviews, there’s a difficulty with presenting a campaign for an atheist candidate, even at lower levels, such as mayor or governor. It’s one thing to not talk about it and use the platform previously described, but making your atheism something that compels people to vote for you would be more difficult on the grounds that people may never trust atheists enough to vote for them.  This goes back to the old stereotypes about atheists not being trustworthy and thus not even accepted as witnesses in court for a time in the U.K.  That kind of discrimination doesn’t exist, but the stigma of being an atheist in the context of politics still remains and running under the National Atheist Party ticket might seem obnoxious to some atheists, since it’s making a big deal of your position on the existence of God as opposed to your political persuasion that indirectly relates to your nonbelief. Therein lies the biggest criticism of the idea from within the atheist community, such as it is; when you make the focal point of your politics the fact that you’re an atheist, it smacks of the same issues that many Republican candidates have brought up as of late. When Bachmann, Cain or Huckabee appealed to people by using their faith, it seemed disingenuous and underhanded, so atheists appealing to other nonbelievers to vote them because they share skepticism would be a potential abuse and interpretation of their intent in campaigning. But the reasoning for most of the policies doesn’t require that you be an atheist, strictly speaking, so people can associate with it because they agree with the platform, not because they’re an atheist. The name is due to most of the people in it happening to be atheists and starting from an atheist perspective of secularism, which is not absolutely foreign to religious people, strictly speaking. So one doesn’t have to feel excluded, but I can understand if people decide to vote independent because they hold more unique political positions than the NAP does, which is admittedly a bit more left leaning than you’d expect. This might isolate more conservative atheists, but they could structure their own platform in an alternate secular party if they felt compelled to. Of course, setting up any candidate for election can’t happen until the group is permitted to do so. The best they can do now is advocate for issues and put money into that, but it’s at least a step up from not having any real representative party for atheists. There will always be those that prefer to be Independent Party instead of allying with the National Atheist Party for one reason or another, but I can see this developing some popularity on a state level, even if it never grows to the national level for a presidential candidate.

This is not to say there isn’t a silver lining to what seems a bleak issue. Atheism being represented politically in any sense is a benefit to the reputation of atheists as good, lawful, and most importantly, patriotic Americans. American Atheists did it with their 4th of July planecampaign, so why shouldn’t there be a party that advocates policy changes on the basis of secularism? It certainly doesn’t advocate atheism as a state religion, but neutrality to all positions of religion in terms of decisions that affect all people, religious or not. And the benefit of being able to put money behind big issues like green energy and gay marriage is something that atheists should want to do in and of itself, even if there is the association of atheism on a superficial level. Being able to affect political change and also spread awareness of atheism in the process is killing two birds with one stone. That’s not to say there isn’t a delicate balance here. One shouldn’t confuse advocating atheism and secularism in other venues with supporting political policy that affects believers as well as nonbelievers. We should be considerate of believers’ first amendment rights as well, but only within reason. There shouldn’t be favoritism or prejudice towards nonbelievers or believers respectively. That’s the main goal in all this, especially as advocating a fair secularism.

Atheism being represented politically, even if it’s just for policy issues instead of candidate support at the start, is a huge step forward from being subsumed into other parties or taking the radical independent step. Being part of a group of like minded individuals united by secularism as a political platform of is invigorating. The NAP may never be able to sponsor candidates, or at least not on the level of presidential or house representatives, but perhaps mayor or gubernatorial level.  Basing a party around atheism might be a bit tricky. If the party was the National Secularist Party, it would be clearer, but there may be more opposition on the grounds of a vernacular understanding of what secularism is. And there’s a potential for abuse that is probably not the case for the NAP at present in terms of discrimination against believers, but the mere possibility does not mean we should reject the party outright. The name is one thing, but the basic intent of the people involved should be the primary concern. If you agree with them more than Democrats or Republicans, then you could associate with them. If you’re a believer, they don’t care, but I can understand if you don’t feel accepted. Independent party candidates can suffice as well in their own way. What’s key is creating political diversity in an atmosphere that is feeling a bit too similar on all fronts, from Ron Paul’s more libertarian Republicanism to even Barack Obama’s use of faith as a point to rally votes. You don’t need belief in God to motivate people to care about politics, just belief in humanity. Until next time, Namaste and aloha.

Aversion To Atheism

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/11/30/study-explores-distrust-o_n_1120869.html?ref=religion

http://www2.psych.ubc.ca/~will/Gervais%20et%20al-%20Atheist%20Distrust.pdf

I’ve spoken many times on the prejudice against atheists, even if that might be considered too strong a word. After all, defenders of this bigotry say, no one is doing violence against atheists. I’m skeptical of that claim in the larger scale of the world instead of the U.S., which probably still wouldn’t treat violence against atheists as a hate crime if it happened. The stigma against atheists has existed for a while, though it is due in no small part to the association many people still have of atheism with Communism in Russia and other totalitarian regimes that, people claim mistakenly, had atheism as their state religion. Not only is this not true on its face, since atheism itself is no more a religion than theism, but the stance of these dictators was antitheism, active hostility against religion and belief, willing to suppress it in order to maintain their own power. I imagine that the unofficial motto of the U.S., “In God We Trust,” held sway amongst many in America since the period in the 19th century when it started to be printed on coins and then in the 50s when it was printed on paper money. This divisive credo, along with the paranoia of secret Communist agents lurking behind you and trying to turn everyone to atheism, an indirect result of McCarthyism in post WW2 America, only reinforced the idea that atheists are not to be trusted. A study from the University of British Columbia shows that this prevalent distrust of atheists in American religious thought is the primary reason for the intolerance against them that remains even today.

We should distinguish between dislike in the general sense that can manifest specifically in distrust and dislike which escalates to disgust in its extreme form. The former is what the study is referring to and the latter is what I hope is a minority position amongst modern Americans. To outright hate atheists would be missing the point of what Christianity teaches in the still somewhat trite expression to “love the sinner, hate the sin”. To hate atheism would be fine to me as long as you don’t project your hatred for that disbelief onto those that disbelieve. Distrust of atheism has been prominent at various points, even when the term didn’t strictly mean one who rejected all God claims, but specific God claims, such as pagans calling Christians “atheos” and vice versa for Christian/pagan relations in the early church. Eventually the vocabulary expanded for what to call pagans, such as polytheists and, of course, heathen. Not to mention the general ideas about atheism became more precise and sophisticated as time went on, though for many hundreds of years, no one claimed to be an atheist without putting themselves at great risk of persecution from the theist majority, uneducated as many of them were. But today, people can be out about their atheism with little threats to their lives. At the most we will get claims that we have no absolute basis for morals or other things I’ve spoken about at length in my “What Do Atheists Do?” series you can find through the tag “wdad” But in today’s mostly civil society, there can be discussion about how atheists can affirm an absolute moral basis without recourse to an inflexible and cryptic religious scripture. If we affirm something is absolutely wrong, it is not so rigid that we cannot see that there are nuances to any action and the intent behind them. The mistrust of atheists manifested a century or two ago with them not being trusted in legal cases, from what I understand. Not to mention the presence of blasphemy laws putting atheists in jail, like George Holyoake, or making them retreat into agnosticism or deism, both obvious facades that were acceptable in the days when people were more prone to ignoring basic human decency and succumbing to a basic human ill, xenophobia, fear of the stranger.

It’s not necessarily the case that people are afraid of atheists, but the term distrust could imply, even apart from its definition, a sort of anxiety or vigilance that people would have when they are aware of someone’s atheism. My own family on the whole may not be aware that I’m an atheist and chalks up my sitting in the back pews at family reunion church services to something else (mid life crisis?) But if they were, I wonder if they would still strive to be friendly and loving to someone of their own flesh and blood even if they didn’t believe in God? Or would there be a tension in the air as they reflect what I think the study concluded from the sample they took? People have a general sort of prejudice, a prior judgment, about atheists, that they are untrustworthy because they don’t believe them to be faithful in their narrow idea of what it means. It’s not so much that they don’t think atheists can be moral people, it’s that they don’t think atheists are as reliable on moral issues as religious people. The study theorized that part of this may be due to our social associations of trustworthiness with affirming a belief in a higher power, connecting back to the oft held notion people argue for today about any moral law requiring a moral law giver, e.g. God. So apparently if you don’t believe in God, you don’t think you’re accountable to people; which is patently wrong if I’m even a single example of that.

A problem with this mindset about atheists is its implication that there is some sort of organization in atheism, when this isn’t really the case except in communities of people, like American Atheists, which shares the single unifying factor of atheism, disbelief in God to one degree or another. There can be disagreements about ethics, about politics, and many other things, just as Christians in groups are prone to. As I said before, there is also the fallacious association between atheism and communism, which is a confusion of the nuance of atheism as something of an umbrella term that can apply to many different labels reflecting distinctions between one’s regard towards God. Not to mention atheism says nothing automatically about your political positions, including communism. Antitheism, for instance, is the strongest form of atheism in affirming that God belief is dangerous and should be opposed. This is what manifested in communism as it existed in Russia and China (and still does to an extent in China today, from what little I understand of the subject). This should not be confused with atheism, which doesn’t explicitly claim that religion should be opposed violently, but with words, with peaceful and civil actions.

With all these issues I bring up about distinguishing atheism, I should also say that this applies just as much to atheists in their sweeping claims about Christians. There are pro gay Christians, pro choice Christians and many other seemingly unlikely believers, such as those who think that even nonbelievers like us will be reconciled to God even in our defiant denial of Jesus’ divinity. If you don’t dialogue with believers, you can’t know about their beliefs except in the most general sense of their belief in some God without adequate evidence. The same way Christians lump all atheists into the category of raving God haters, such as their caricature of Dawkins and Hitchens, atheists can be guilty of suggesting all Christians are like Pat Robertson or Newt Gingrich. There’s diversity on both sides and when we start recognizing that, we’ll start being able to build bridges, however rickety they might be. Until next time, Namaste and aloha.

WDAD: What Do Atheists Do About Science?

http://www.investigatingatheism.info/science.html

http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2009/07/post-29.html

http://www.arn.org/blogs/index.php/literature/2007/07/23/does_science_promote_atheism

http://atheism.about.com/od/atheismscienceevolution/a/AttackReligion.htm

Science is something all people share some experience with, regardless of beliefs about God. But atheists are typically associated more often with it, if only because of a somewhat natural association between the methodology of the discipline and the skepticism of the nonbeliever. While this is the case from what I know about statistics of scientists across the U.S., it may also reflect a tendency amongst people with progressively higher education, though, as I’ve observed before, there is at least one study that suggested some educated people tend to become more religious, though seemingly for social reasons as opposed to compelling evidence. There are scientists who believe in God and, remarkably enough, see little to no conflict between their belief in God and a deceptively selective idea of naturalism and appreciation of the natural processes they study. Many may think scientists are more likely to be atheists because of science education itself, though the very fact that there are God believers in their ranks suggests that it isn’t wholly the result of the education itself, but the practice of applying scientific rigor to other things in life, such as religion. Believers would object that this is comparing apples and oranges, but when you think about it, science is rooted in a particular philosophy, which would therefore be able to be considered in relation to beliefs of all sorts with some extension from our normal association of the term science with the natural/hard sciences, like biology, chemistry and physics, as well as the similar idea of the social/soft sciences, which include sociology, anthropology and economics. There are two things that I feel are most important with relation to atheism and science and these are the preconceptions people have about scientific practice and the famous scientists who are somewhat ambivalent in God belief, like Albert Einstein or vehemently not God believers, such as Richard Dawkins, and what they represent about scientists’ varying views on God.

One of the most telling issues of the connection, or lack thereof, between science and atheism, is people’s varying ideas of what science is. If one automatically thinks that every scientist must be an atheist or they are contradicting science, you’re as mistaken as those who would claim that all scientists must be theists and that atheists are hypocrites. The incidental statistics that lean one way or another about affirmations of God’s existence or the reverse amongst scientists don’t speak to whether science itself is innately atheistic or theistic. Its history has included both in varying numbers and there are probably more factors than merely your association with a particular discipline or even whether you’re in the hard or soft sciences, for instance. Some might say that you have more likelihood to be atheist in hard sciences, and some potential for theism in soft sciences, but the general numbers seem to be 50/50. When we say “believe in God,” there may be more vague deists, for instance, or even pantheists, which theologians tend to think is only a step away from atheism, like deism is two steps. In any case, the methods of science ultimately don’t preclude being theist or atheist, since the more difficult factor for many to discern is whether the scientist is actually being consistently scientific in their thinking. If you are a theist willing to accept the possibility that atheistic hypotheses and theories which don’t include God are true or can at least accept that evolutionary theory and such are true while weaseling God into the background, you are being more scientific than creationists or intelligent design advocates, for instance. To interpret the evidence towards your belief instead of accepting what science has found and take what many call the “God of the gaps” position, then you’re being only slightly more honest than those who believe in God on the basis of supposed scientific evidence that explicitly proves God (therefore removing the faith element technically). The real issue comes about when you are theist merely because you don’t think there are scientific explanations for certain things in other fields and either ignore or dismiss those arguments from experts. This sort of approach to things amounts to a nuanced form of argument from ignorance where you believe one position because the other position has no evidence for it or you can’t accept the present position because it is somewhat uncertain. The uncertainty of science shouldn’t be a reason to believe in God to have something to fill in the spaces of our knowledge, but to seek out the answers while holding God tentatively as a sort of philosophical hypothesis itself, which I myself am not unwilling to accept, albeit many may be insulted for me to liken their God to a hypothesis instead of a belief. Perhaps I work better in a technical sort of way as opposed to merely holding a belief tentatively, since that is more tenuous a position than simply saying that you accept that people posit something they call God and believe in it. Ultimately so much of this debate can be solved by just showing that being scientific doesn’t mean you have to abandon your beliefs, but that you also have to be scientific in every area to an extent. Not doing this can result in cognitive dissonance and doublethink that many people could see a mile away. It’s mostly willful ignorance about science that keeps this virus of suspicion about it around. Education is key to the whole project of maintaining that science and atheism are both beneficial, but in different aspects and for different reasons.

There are two scientists that come up in terms of the discussion of whether science is atheistic or theistic. On the side of atheism is Richard Dawkins, though another one that has passed on is Carl Sagan, famous for his TV series “Cosmos: A Personal Journey” and the novel “Contact” later adapted into a 1997 film of the same name. Dawkins and Sagan were similar at least in advocating science, though Dawkins has gotten much more fame for his accessibility and publishing of many books, including his recent one for children entitled “The Magic of Reality: How We Know What’s Really True” Not to mention Carl Sagan might be accused of being less atheistic in the strictest sense since he believed there was life on other planets (not to mention preferred the term agnostic) though it is more likely that aliens exist than that any supernatural concept of God reflects reality. Dawkins is commonly invoked as one of the so called “saints” of atheism as people perceive it to be a religion, which I ought to confront in future detail in this series. He’s very much the face of atheism and science intertwined as compared with the other famous scientist who is invoked more often than not for theism and science intertwined, Albert Einstein. The prominence of Dawkins is not only because of his many writings about atheism, but his generally good natured, but hard-nosed attitude. In that sense, he is one of the most honest scientists about his atheism in that he will not tolerate unscientific propositions that even implicate the scientific perspective as the source of one’s personal belief in God. For theists, Albert Einstein is one who has long since died, but is held up often by theists, though not uncommonly by atheists at times either. Francis Collins, a parallel to Richard Dawkins in that he’s alive, is a scientist and evangelical Christian who nonetheless holds that evolution is true and rejects the intelligent design movement. With Einstein there is more ambivalence, but the general consensus is that Einstein would agree with theists in saying that there is an intelligence behind the universe, but he would not agree that it is personal. This is where the impasse appears. Einstein has been quoted in a letter as saying that belief in a personal God is, to paraphrase, a fairy tale. In this sense, he is very much the nominal representative for theists and not in any way a method for Christians to make defense for their own theology, but merely use an example of a prominent scientist in history who believed in a creator in some form. This in no way validates that science is theistic in its foundation any more than throwing hundreds of quotes by believers that studying the natural world makes them see the likelihood of a creator would convince anyone with a rational mind. We all come with our own presuppositions and scientists we admire. I respect Albert Einstein and disagree with his notion that we need to have some intelligence behind the universe for it to be both consistent and awe inspiring to even atheists. And Richard Dawkins, along with Carl Sagan and many others have contributed a great deal of their own insights and study to the discipline that many theists, such as Isaac Newton and Robert Boyle have brought to the table as well. Theism and atheism are two parts of a similar whole in science, the only difference being where each of them starts in the equation.

There is much more I could speak on, such as the philosophy of science and whether atheism is aligned completely with it as some theists would contend, but my overall point is to establish that atheism and science are apples and oranges in one sense, but they are interconnected in some ways, so they share a basic quality, like the two fruits mentioned. Skepticism is the fundamental impulse behind both of these endeavors, along with an obvious amount of curiosity without being satisfied by one answer as the penultimate. Theism could be argued to contradict this with the idea of God as the creator and answer to any “What if?” that may come up. That aside, establishing that you can be atheist or theist and still be a scientist only starts us up the rung of a much more extensive discussion about whether there is a true scientist in the sense of being detached from the world or if scientists all have a similar sense of awe about the universe that many would compare to religious ecstasy. If this be the case, then we have to establish what separates science from the sacred. I’d venture that it’s skepticism; not regarding the supernatural answers as sufficient or even sensible by a law of parsimony. So if you’re an agnostic theist, you’re on the right track to being a scientist in my book, layperson as I am. Until next time, Namaste and aloha.

WDAD: What Do Atheists Do About Meaning of Life

http://www.infidels.org/kiosk/article113.html

http://www.atheistmissionary.com/2009/04/atheist-meaning-of-life.html

http://www.positiveatheism.org/mail/eml8573.htm

http://www.atheistrev.com/2010/01/atheism-and-meaning-of-life.html

http://www.atheistfoundation.org.au/articles/meaning-life

“Why is there something rather than nothing?” This is said to be the fundamental question at the base of all philosophy, though perhaps a question just as key to us and related to this is “What is the meaning of life?” When someone asks me this, my instinctive response is to distinguish between meaning OF life and meaning IN life. It’s changing just one word, but like Christianity’s distinction between believing IN God and believing ON God, one merely believing with intellect, the other believing with faith, it communicates a difference that many Christians fail to recognize. Meaning OF life is external and imposed by some agent outside of the universe. This phrasing almost necessarily implies one’s belief in God. Meaning IN life is internal and varies depending on each person’s search for it. There are other synonyms besides purpose that are useful to consider as well, such as value, significance and function, albeit the last suggests something more along the lines of our biological nature and what that compels us to do, spread our genetic material to the next generation. These are the three points I’d like to consider most about atheism as it relates to meaning and value as a result of being human: why theistic meaning is flawed, why atheistic meaning is superior and why one should be clear about the multiple understandings of meaning that can be applied to life as experienced by humans.

The idea that life has a meaning irrespective of humanity’s search for it as existential beings, yearning for purpose and value in their actions and beliefs, is troubling for a few reasons. Theists may accuse atheists of being nihilists on the grounds that since they most likely don’t believe in an afterlife, there is no purpose to their life since they will just disappear after they die and they will have ultimately made no effect or change to human society and history. But this presumes that meaning is only certain and/or important if it lasts forever. If the value of anything hinges on its permanence, then why do we appreciate flowers so much, or our pets or any physical things? They all pass away, some quicker than others and some by human efforts. Meaning should not be determined by something outside us, nor should it in any way relate to the amount of time it lasts. The best ideas survive because of their merit, not because the people behind them live on forever themselves. If there is some meaning of life outside of any human’s discovery of meaning as an individual, then it seems to render any particular purpose they found worthless. While we may have certain functions or purposes as biological and psychological beings that we cannot avoid, this doesn’t mean that the meaning and value in life must be determined by others or by any source outside ourselves. We each find meaning first internally as we value people and ideas. Many times, those meanings are shared with others even if we don’t realize it. Atheists and theists alike would probably agree that we need both freedom of and freedom from religion in that we can practice any or no religion and that we do not need the government to endorse any religion or utilize it as the basis of legislation. Other so called inalienable rights could be agreed upon by believers and nonbelievers alike, such as freedom of speech. So I don’t see why anyone feels the need to have meaning or value imbued from outside when they naturally would determine what is right without the declaration of any deity.

When you determine meaning by your own experience and discernment of value, it doesn’t mean that you condone or advocate postmodern relativism; that everyone’s value and meaning are always equally valid. If someone finds meaning in murder or the like, then there is a demonstrable problem, since they find value in violating other people’s rights and ignoring their search for meaning to advance their own, which constitutes egocentrism. But most people would find value in the same things: family, friends, love, music, art, etc. While we may not all share exactly the same things that give us meaning: some especially find meaning in science’s search for answers, while others find fulfillment through performance in theater. And all of these pursuits are justified and meaningful as a whole, since they are not infringing on other people’s rights and can be appreciated by others even if they don’t find the same degree of significance as other people do. As you find meaning from within yourself and what you appreciate, you can also understand implicitly or explicitly that other people are seeking value in life, finding purpose through some activity or community. In this way, you recognize the individual and shared nature of meaning as an existential phenomenon and don’t automatically resort to applying a stock meaning to everyone as if we’re mechanical in nature. The dynamic and organic process of discovery over a lifetime is not only more effective, but would create more vivid and persistent meaning for a person than just being told something and believing it, which is the tendency of theism in that you’re created for a purpose. That is not only demeaning, but dehumanizing in believing that you yourself don’t primarily find meaning as a human, but are instead just handed a purpose and if you rebel, you are not pleasing to your maker.

It should be said that there are at least a few meanings in life that we consider as humans, not the least of which is the values we find. But alongside that is the significance of life as well as the functions we serve, both societal and biological. Value, as I’ve mentioned already, is probably the biggest thing to consider, right alongside significance in life. Once we have values, those suffice as significant in itself, since we are able to discern things that are useful and beneficial to us in the same instance. Laws might feel restrictive, but they also protect rights that we have in terms of actions, so there is a sort of balance established. The distinction of positive and negative liberty might be a good example of this. While there are restrictions on freedom of speech, they pale in comparison to the scale of things one is permitted to do, however offensive they may be. Significance of life is important only in the general valuation of life, so it’s admittedly subsumed in a way by our more basic human tendency to appreciate things and then find purpose through acting on those values and spreading their goodness to others through education and action. Our functions are another way we find meaning in life, albeit not always, since we can be compelled to do things that are otherwise unfulfilling. The various functions we serve in society: familial, friendship, employee/employer, etc, all give us a sense not only of shared interpersonal relations, but also an understanding that we are not bound by these roles in such a way that we cannot hold seemingly contradictory states and still be consistent. A role one takes in a particular situation and context is not negated or rendered less important by our taking on an unrelated duty that has its own value. A father does not cease to be such when he shifts to his responsibilities as an employer or employee, but takes one as more primary at that moment in time. The biological function all humans possess in one sense or another can be more frustrating, particularly if one is infertile either by accident or birth. But I would contend that we are not purely ruled by biology, since we have the capacity to place value and worth on ideals and people irrespective of their relation or lack thereof to us. I would be willing to help someone in danger, particularly that of being beaten because they are GLBT, even if I had never met them before that time. The fact that there may be things we cannot fix or eliminate that are biologically determined to a great extent is no reason to become a nihilist or say there is no point to your life. If you want to raise a child, a natural impulse for any human being, you can adopt. If you feel you want to have a child of your own, but are unable to have children with your spouse, surrogacy is a promising option. And there are plenty of other fulfilling things we can do as humans in place of something we may not be able to do regardless of medical science or because we can’t afford it. Giving aid to animals and fellow humans are both good venues. Many might contend that because atheists believe humans are nothing more than evolved animals, that we cannot be consistent in saying we have purpose in life, since we are accidentally in the state we are in now. Not only does this misunderstand evolutionary theory, but it ignores the very fact that we are sufficiently evolved animals that have developed society, culture and amassed a wealth of knowledge through language. I may be an animal, but I also possess characteristics that distinguish me from other animals that have brains either underdeveloped or too small to have the capacity of complex thought. But I cannot deny that I have similarities to animals which are both impulsive and natural, such as the urge for sexual pleasure and seeking out patterns where there are none. These don’t render me meaningless, especially if I can recognize that.

Meaning, value, purpose, function, significance: all these words have their own usefulness in our lives as we seek out answers to those burning philosophical questions. But we shouldn’t simply stop searching when we think we’ve found one satisfactory purpose that we can apply forthwith to all humans. Perhaps you find fulfillment in Jesus Christ, in the teachings of Mohammed, or other charismatic human beings. But what about your purpose, what about your needs, your wants, your experience? Our meaning should neither deny the input others can bring nor the output we ourselves contribute to the journey. The destination is always unknown, but that makes our travels that much more interesting. Until next time, Namaste and aloha.

WDAD: What Do Atheists Do About Church/State Separation?

http://www.atheists.org/Separation_of_Church_and_State,_A_Rebuttal

http://atheism.about.com/od/churchstatemyths/a/phrase.htm

http://atheism.about.com/od/hostilitytoreligion/a/PromoteAtheism.htm

http://viridia.org/2007/04/01/atheism-and-separation-of-church-and-state/

Atheists are commonly, but not solely, at the forefront of issues of church/state separation and the legality of school sponsored prayer or endorsement of a particular religion. But, many religious people object; why do atheists care so much about the presence of something they don’t believe in? Shouldn’t they just let the religious believe as they will and allow the presence of what they claim is a civil religion shared by America? First off, just because someone doesn’t believe in something doesn’t mean they can’t have an interest in its public existence. Religious studies does not preclude being a nonbeliever in all religious creeds and, one might argue, actually aids one in being more reasonable towards whether they hold so called “absolute” truth in them. But the second issue lies with this sanctimonious idea that religious people of a majority faith can have some established tradition of a school prayer, such as in Cranston, Rhode Island, without consideration of any other groups, believers or otherwise. Not to mention civil religion is another issue entirely of something becoming secularized by long historical exposure, which I’d strongly disagree with and might confront another time. Even Jesus himself says that praying in public and making a big show of your piety is hypocritical and doesn’t show proper reverence to a God you come to as an individual, in privacy. No one’s saying that religious people can’t pray to themselves or read a bible in extracurricular activities or the like and anyone thinking that religion has to be completely removed from public life reflects the insecurity many religious people think atheists have, but usually don’t. As long as public religious behavior is not obnoxious and obstructing the basic freedom from religion that complements freedom of practice in the first amendment it is permissible. Religious people have no reason to be opposed to atheists’ activism of separating church and state, not only because by any stretch of theology church should be separate from state by their natures, but because by establishing religious neutrality of the government, all religions can flourish better in not being favored or disfavored by civil authorities.

A common claim is that by separating church and state, atheists want to put themselves in power. First off, that wouldn’t follow because we’d still remain a representative republic, where officials are voted in by majority, which means that atheism would have to become popular in the people’s minds. By no means is church/state separation trying to keep religious people out of government, as long as they maintain their beliefs privately and don’t try to foist them on the populace that doesn’t necessarily agree, nor should it be their business to legislate such things in the first place. Atheism is not favored by church and state separation anyway, primarily because atheism is neither a political ideology or a religion, so in a sense, atheism is simply given fair treatment only in that it has a position about religion that would be problematic in a system where theism in any form is favored. A blank wall, contrary to what many advocates of the prayer banner in Cranston West, does not advocate atheism anymore than a bald man’s head suggests he’s favoring anti-hair rights. When religion is privatized, religious people may still evangelize, but only within their own power, and not under the protection of the state in any sense. Christian prayers, along with any other divisive type of devotion, will not be allowed by the very principle that school is a place for secular education first and foremost. A moment of silence will suffice, and anyone thinking otherwise neglects the point I’ve visited already in this article on praying in public. If your God only hears you when you pray out loud in a group, then it’s a pretty pitiable deity for promoting conformity over individuals in their own walks.

People might question why atheists advocate something that isn’t explicitly stated in the Constitution. While the phrase “separation of church and state” isn’t in the constitution, neither is “minority protection”, “separation of powers” or other things we take for granted as implied, but not outright stated, by the principles set forth in the constitution. When it says “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof” we have two spheres of consideration. The first is the government’s relation to religion. This isn’t just a matter of the government not establishing a state religion, as many would say, but not favoring any religion at all. The government is inevitably full of religious people, yes, but the government itself is not founded on any explicitly religious ideas, contrary to popular myths. Laws against murder, theft and the like are not derived from the Ten Commandments, thankfully. This relates well to the second clause of free exercise, since if the Ten Commandments were applied as laws across the board, it would be illegal for non theistic religions to even be practiced, such as Buddhism or Jainism, which would directly contradict the free exercise clause that so many Christians throw around. So that whole line of argument is defeated on the grounds that you wouldn’t want other religions to not be practiced, since that would contradict the equality of that clause for all citizens, not just Christians. Yes, you have a freedom to practice your religion, but you have no reason to ask the government to stroke your proverbial ego. You have a demographic majority in this country; that should suffice. And whatever your practice of religion may be, it necessarily stops at government legislation and involvement in any form, for the same reason that the government doesn’t go to your churches and tell you what to preach. As much as many states still have discriminatory religious tests, which goes against article six of the constitution, the argument that the first amendment only applies to the federal government is directly contradicted by this “no religious test” article which applies to employees of the government at all levels implicitly.

People think atheists are being anti Christian in their advocacy of church and state separation, but this is incidental. If there were Muslims or Jews trying to enforce unconstitutional school prayers of their religion or use government money to aid their particular groups, then the ACLU and FFRF would be up in arms as well, though it’d be unlikely. It’s primarily Christians that have a complex about their established traditions being removed because people actually know the law and how it applies to the relation between religion and government as a whole. And when people’s religious freedoms are infringed upon, I also have a problem with that, such as the building of a mosque and community center in my home state being stopped on groundless claims by primarily Christian people. Many Christians don’t understand where their religious freedoms stop, thinking that any restriction on their religious practice in public is discriminatory, mostly because they buy into a myth that the founding fathers actually wanted religion to be the basis of government, which is patently false. Similar limitations apply to freedom of speech as freedom of religious practice; you cannot abuse what is partly a privilege along with being a right. You have all the freedom in the world to practice Christianity of various flavors, along with any other faith across the globe. But that stops when you are in primarily secular contexts and should be privatized, not completely suppressed as alarmists might hastily conclude. There is much more freedom in the vast sphere of public religious practice than the tiny amount of freedom you surrender in terms of being supported or endorsed by any government extension. Why people don’t see this is best attributed to the false sense of entitlement they get by being in the privileged majority. If you were in a position where you felt like you couldn’t even talk about your beliefs or disbelief in some alternate American religious culture, perhaps you might understand why atheists and Christians alike can agree that religion shouldn’t be endorsed in any sense by the government. When the government is neutral to religion, the behavior of religions can flourish in a public and private setting without feelings of trying to invade every aspect of life as some would have it in schools and government.

I admittedly already spoke about this in part in “WDAD About Religious Norms Part 2” but this extended take on questions theists and Christians would probably ask of me and other nonbelievers is important for many reasons I could linger on. Bottom line; no religious freedoms are being taken away by removing explicit religious displays and behavior from a particular area of life, such as with the case involving Jessica Ahlquist in Rhode Island. Certain Christian denominations were persecuted by other sects in America’s early past for not being Christian enough or not believing the right things. That’s why the founding fathers saw fit to keep it out of government, on the federal and state level, entirely. Perhaps we’ll always vote Christians in, but those Christians can divide their loyalty to their country and to God in separate but overlapping spheres. Pray in private, but not as a representative for people of faith and no faith alike. That way, your devotion is that much more sincere because you don’t feel any need to justify it to others. If the primary nature of religion is a communion between human individuals and the sacred, then you shouldn’t care whether the government gives you any spotlight about your fellowship with God. Keep church and state within their respective boundaries and they’ll both function that much better. You can vote your conscience as a Christian, but don’t vote as if Christianity has any special place in the government’s eyes, because even if it does, it shouldn’t. It’s not looking to please any humans, is it? Pleasing your God suffices. Until next time, Namaste and aloha.

WDAD: What Do Atheists Do About Ethics?

http://civic.bev.net/atheistsnrv/articles/definition.html

http://carm.org/can-atheists-be-ethical

http://www.ethicsmorals.com/ethicsatheist.html

http://www.atheism-analyzed.net/Ethics.htm

http://www.atheists.org/Ethics_Without_Gods

If atheists aren’t accused of trying to take over America (along with Jews?), they are most likely being told they are immoral, amoral or otherwise without any moral basis for their actions. While there may be atheists that behave and believe this way, I’m willing to wager most atheists are more than capable of discerning between right and wrong and good and evil in a variety of situations. Hesitating because of particularly ambivalent issues or general moral gray areas does not make you amoral, it makes you that much more moral for actually considering whether the action is justified. And just because you lack a belief in a creator, the so called arbiter of morality, hardly suggests that you think all morality is completely arbitrary. There’s diversity amongst theists about morality and ethics on issues like abortion or capital punishment, so that already gives me an indication that morality is flexible but not haphazard. Atheists might not have stringent and unbending orthodoxy on what’s right and wrong, but I guarantee we have less likelihood of leaping to unsound ethical judgments based on tradition or authority.

The biggest stumbling block I’ve found for theists even acknowledging the possibility of atheists being moral in any sense is the idea that they have no accountability to God. But as I’ve said elsewhere, I’m fairly accountable already to my fellow humans, especially because they can directly confront me and punish me if necessary for correction. Not having my actions monitored by some entity that doesn’t appear to intervene except when it chooses to (so called miracles or other “acts of God”) doesn’t mean that I think I can get away with anything. Justice system aside, we have a conscience built into us that has nothing to do with a soul or the afterlife, but simply a recognition that we have done wrong in the immediate sense.  The notion that humanist ethics are completely relativist is mistaken on its face, since there is, if nothing else, a persistent factor that remains for consideration at all times: humanity and its capacity for suffering. When I deliberate an action, part of my motivation should be to harm the least amount of people possible and to help the most people possible. I’m not a strict utilitarian, but the notion that I should strive to help people instead of harm them does cross my mind. There are times, however, when making people suffer in some sense can be a benefit to them in the future. All in all, though, to say my ethics are in any way claiming that I can do anything I want without consequences ignores the crucial parallel aspect of many atheists to theists: we both take the suffering of a fellow human seriously. I do good things to advance human flourishing, I avoid bad things to lower human suffering; simple and yet complex in the flexibility of situations that come about.

The insistence that atheists might have morals compelling them to behave in a certain way is countered by saying they have no absolute to base those morals around. They are, even if not relative normatively, they are relative descriptively. Morals to an atheist, theists claim commonly, are not consistent across generations or in general because of the multitude of perspectives and lack of an ultimate source. There is also the claim that atheists follow experimental ethics; what works is good. As if this is a completely bad thing: if I find something is beneficial in a particular situation, but not in others, it behooves me to be particular and not general. Focusing on practicality in ethics should not be the absolute focus, but it shouldn’t be thrown out either. Ethics don’t require absolutes, but consistent principles that govern behavior. It shouldn’t focus on conformity with the letter of the law, but the intent behind it (or the spirit if you’re of a Christian or Jewish flavor). Lack of a God as foundational to one’s ethics does not automatically render one a relativist.

Christians usually admit atheists can be ethical, even if they can’t be righteous before God. Even if I am not following your God’s law completely, many would argue I might actually be following the law better than Christians, albeit they would also insist I’m a legalist because I’m following the law for fear of punishment instead of doing it out of genuine goodness in my heart.  That notion has always disgusted me since I heard of it. Atheists can be virtuous people for the sake of virtue just as much as Christians. In fact, I’d argue all the more for atheists, since they don’t pretend to have some reward for them or any sort of holiness surrounding their actions.

And in terms of considering the pain non humans suffer, atheists are not by any means so anthropocentric (centered on only humans) that they cannot concede that animals deserve to be treated humanely, even if they don’t deserve treatment as human equals, since they couldn’t understand that concept. I treat my cats with respect, occasionally play-fighting with them, and do not consider it permissible to let animals become feral just because you don’t want to take care of them. Treating animals humanely also involves the decision of euthanasia that is equally controversial for humans. But in both cases, there are factors outside the individual that apply. With humans, there is the relation of that human to other people and so they must consider that in their decisions. With animals, the humans that own them have to make the decision for them in a reversal of the choice a human makes for assisted suicide. To think atheists don’t contemplate these sorts of things is to give us too little credit merely because we don’t believe in something that is either unverifiable or generally useless.

Atheist ethics only differ significantly and originally from theist ethics in how they relate to the supernatural. Atheists don’t derive any ethical obligations from the supernatural, so there are no moral duties to respect the gods or rest on a Sabbath or any such thing. The focus is instead on humanity and duties to it as a community and on interpersonal levels as well. In that sense, even if atheists don’t have absolute ethics, I’d say they have far better ethical priorities. If your focus is only on pleasing God and following all of its commandments and looking for its approval, humans are at best a secondary concern, since you don’t have to please humans to be good in God’s eyes. With that thought, I honestly tend to think that theist ethics are not only indefensible from a humanist perspective, but anti humanist in nature, since the goal is not flourishing for humanity, but flourishing for individual humans or particular groups of humans in heaven, whatever that specifically entails. The question remains; which would you rather trust: an atheist who has well thought out but not absolute ethics or a theist who has absolute adherence to ethics they haven’t thought out? Until next time, Namaste and aloha.

WDAD: What Do Atheists Do To Find Peace?

http://www.atheistnexus.org/group/originsuniverselifehumankindanddarwin/forum/topics/peace-after-atheism

http://www.positiveatheism.org/mail/eml8734.htm

http://www.healthkicker.com/731171687/are-atheists-more-likely-to-be-depressed/

http://epiphenom.fieldofscience.com/2009/06/atheist-nations-are-more-peaceful.html

http://www.activeatheism.org/Peace/index.php

While in times of crisis, atheists focus on the immediate and present dangers to humanity instead of even using part of their time to gain comfort from prayer to a higher power, the flipside of the question may pose a larger quandary: what do atheists do to find peace in those times of crisis discussed previously or in general? What ought to be qualified from the start are two kinds of peace. The first is that of personal, inner or introspective peace. This refers to a calm, or at least rational and level headed, approach to the various trials and difficulties life throws at you. The second is resultant from the first. When you find peace within yourself, you have more likelihood of finding peace with others. The nature of that peace will be discussed forthwith, but the interpersonal or external peace can also reflect how you resolve conflicts or approach international politics, such as recent wars in the Middle East and U.S. intervention which I find at the very least invasive and at the most stretching our resources thinner than necessary. My non-interventionist position aside, this extrospective peace can also reflect the state of a society: crime rates, quality of living, etc.  This dual approach to peace 

might be a bit simplistic, but it confronts two important facets of this question to atheists.

Inner peace; more precisely peace of mind; is something argued to be a benefit of believing in God and praying to it, as noted in part last week in “WDAD: What Do Atheists Do In Times Of Crisis?”  However, this sort of comfort is as fleeting as any sort one gains from without. Family is something both atheists and theists can find happiness and peace in through shared love. But even family will pass away. This is not to be pessimistic, but realistic. Any peace of mind should not be gained by clinging to things as if they are what give us contentment or satisfaction. A peace worth anything comes from contemplation, introspection and realization thereof. I’m not saying everyone should become mystics, but just practicing some form of mindfulness or contemplation for even just an hour of one’s time could lead you to greater peace.  I imagine people would respond that they can do that and center themselves through God, but I would respond, as I would to anyone who prays to any higher power for guidance or security of any form, that this persists only as you continue to either exclude any contrary evidence/thoughts or until you experience something harrowing enough to break you and reshape you as a more self sufficient human being. I went through troubles, but I never found solace in an invisible, inscrutable entity. My parents, my friends, and people in general helped me. Human healing and improvement comes through human efforts and human will, not through the interventions or appearances thereof from supernatural beings.  Any sort of appeals to gods or spirits will not avail you and that harsh reality is something I cannot prove to you, but only advise you to consider the likelihood. I’ve considered whether the world would seem better through believing in a protective deity, but I cannot concede that anything becomes better. The basic conclusion would be that things would be too safe and we would cease to have any real awareness of things around us except as they benefit us and us alone as humans instead of as part of a larger world we share with other beings, both smaller and larger than us.

The issue of peace between others is much more contentious than even the previous debate on the psychological benefits of religious belief. Many theists respond with examples of cruel dictators, such as Joseph Stalin, Pol Pot and Adolf Hitler to claim that atheism as any sort of basis for society only leads to chaos and evil. First off, the example of Hitler could be pointed out by anyone reading his own writings to be mistaken on its face, since he clearly believed in God, even if his God was an Aryan Nazi. Any other example one can present is not a reflection of atheism as a whole, but atheism when intermingled with politics and humanity’s natural lust for power. The maxim that “Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely” applies the same with atheists as with theists. Any sort of atheist without some basic ethical framework or consideration of other humans is bound to be just as dangerous as a theist believing they are doing God’s work on earth. The argument commonly goes that atheists don’t have any basis for ethics (which I’ll confront in more detail eventually), so they are more dangerous than theists in what they would do with political clout. But I contend that humans conceive of equally horrendous things whether they believe in God or don’t. The only difference is that atheists are more easily accountable to humans than theists are; pledging their loyalty first and foremost not to humanity, but to God, faithful to humanity only vicariously as a duty to the Creator. A theist in control and following the commands of God without question can commit atrocities likened to an atheist who regards science as their primary master in that there is the same human tendency to be inflexible and resistant to change.

Evidence seems to suggest, in part, that nations with more atheists are more peaceful, Sweden, Norway, New Zealand, Japan and Canada are just a few nations that are more peaceful in that they have less crime and overall violence. That’s not to say they are crime free, but the occurrences are more spread out statistically. Japan is notorious for some murders in its history, but they occur more sporadically, since guns and swords are all but illegal in Japan; even the Self Defense Force doesn’t use guns, but instead utilizes non lethal weapons and force to pacify people. That word pacify is not commonly related to its root meaning of peace. Many would regard pacifists as weak, but just because you want to restrain someone or solve a problem without killing people does not make you weak. When you restrain yourself so as not to take a life, it takes more courage than lashing out in violence that kills anyone near you. Similarly, both theists and atheists who are pacifist in this sense have far more willpower and bravery than either an atheist or theist who advocates the use of violence to solve problems that could be solved without bloodshed or unnecessary death.

Overall, I hope I’ve given some perspective on how atheists, or at least myself as an atheist, can find personal peace and interpersonal peace, not pressured by some natural urge as a nonbeliever to kill people or commit crimes. I maintain peace for the sake of others as much as for myself. We share this world, so I see no reason to create harsh waves without a rational or practical reason for doing so. Until next time, Namaste, aloha and as-salaam-alaikum (Peace be unto you).

WDAD: What Do Atheists Do In Times of Crisis?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m6tczCwtIQg&

http://nogodz.wordpress.com/2011/08/30/what-do-atheists-do-in-crisis/

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2011/08/27/how-do-atheists-prepare-for-hurricane-irene/

http://www.alabamaatheist.org/?p=234

Disclaimer: This series is by no means representative of atheists as a formal or organized group such as Christianity or Judaism with established history and orthodoxy, so any atheists should take their disagreements up with me with the prior knowledge that I am one atheist among many diverse kinds.

The world has always had natural disasters and other dangerous moments, like being in a military foxhole. People respond in different ways, and a predictable division exists between atheists and theists. Fox News apparently saw fit to waste five minutes of my time with a loaded question to David Silverman, president of American Atheists, “What do you do in times of crisis?” And Silverman answers simply that we prepare, just like anyone else would, believing in God or otherwise. What do they expect atheists to do; riot and loot in the streets? Apart from not praying, atheists would do the same thing in an imminent hurricane situation as a theist: prepare, plan, supply, etc. The same logic applies to the tired trope that “there are no atheists in foxholes” which is not only untrue with the existence of atheists in the military, but suffers from similar problems of saying atheists would turn to God when there’s a scary hurricane in the distance. We all have different ways of coping, some of them more effective than others, but effectiveness doesn’t always imply something is right. An atheist becoming theist because of the threat of death wasn’t much of an atheist to begin with if the mere possibility of dying made them think there must be both a God and an afterlife. Atheists can cope with danger without recourse to God, even in such a situation as a battlefield with IEDs and snipers looming over you.

Theists might ask whether atheists aren’t missing something with a spiritual component to their life. But I, along with Silverman, would respond that, 1) No one has a spiritual life, just our particular ways of interpreting events and ascribing significance to them and 2) We don’t need a spiritual life to be fulfilled people or be motivated to help others. The justification for why a spiritual aspect of life is important seems to hinge on the simple observation that it gives people comfort, which is patently ridiculous on its face. It’s true that, for the most part, atheists don’t have a mystical/supernatural aspect to their life, which is probably what they meant by spiritual, but at best a psychological and existential one. This doesn’t mean that atheists don’t have efficient and meaningful ways to approach reality and cope. Many atheist existentialists, such as Jean-Paul Sartre and Albert Camus (though he decried being called such), have put forward ideas of persisting in spite of the seeming hopelessness or absurdity that the world presents. Atheistic existentialism only differs from theistic existentialism in that the overall conclusion about life is that God doesn’t factor into your decision making, just you as a human being. There’s a definite similarity in that you’re forced to push past your anxiety and make those difficult choices. It’s either a leap of faith or a leap into the absurd (not meaning foolish, but simply uncertain).

Theists may also inquire what authority atheists appeal to in preparing for hurricanes and protecting their family and friends. Why do you need to appeal to any authority when preparing for a storm is common sense? I don’t need to ask God’s permission to direct people to shelters, stockpile basic supplies and such. I do it because it is ethically imperative upon me to help my fellow humans in immediate or incoming danger. But a response in this vein would potentially garner an accusation that atheists are living in poverty of this spiritual aspect and authority. Apparently since atheists just focus on the immediate physical life, they’re missing something in the realm of the supernatural. I wonder what I’m missing with theists praying to God about the safety of their loved ones. I want my loved ones to be safe too; I just choose to meditate on it, not make a plea to a deity that might as well not be there even if it exists, to keep people safe from something that they may not be safe from regardless of all efforts. Silverman responds to the allegation that he’s missing something with praying to God that people who have this “spiritual” aspect to their lives are living in a delusion and I’d agree with that. Your prayers do nothing to stop the storm from coming and even if you correlate your prayers and storm activity, that doesn’t imply they caused the storm to do anything.

Silverman also advises people to act like atheists in terms of natural disasters: plan, prepare and behave as if God doesn’t exist and doesn’t matter. Theists would no doubt object, alleging that theists can prepare just as well; they just happen to pray. Silverman responds that they can pray if they want; no one’s saying they don’t have a right to do so; but demonstrates physically that as you pray, you close your eyes and ears to the outside world and fixate yourself upon something that has no real benefit to anyone else. Many theists persist in the vein of argument that prayer comforts people and shouldn’t be denigrated and dismissed as Silverman and other atheists do. But he brings up a counterexample that, while simplistic at first glance, addresses a deeper issue that is neglected in this argument. When people focus on comfort before reality, they have their priorities mixed up. If we lose something precious to us, do we focus on comforting ourselves or do we face the music and press on in spite of our sentiments? Theists would appear to do the former, while many more atheists do the latter, such as in times of storms, and in preparing for them. More level headed theists may bring up the example of a priest praying for the safety of his congregation while also boarding up church windows. As clever as it may seem, there’s an obvious problem to be seen. When you divide your mind between preparations and prayer, are you genuinely concerned about other people or are you convincing yourself you can’t be a humanitarian without also being pious? You could be doing more work to keep those same people safe without taking any time to pray. Maybe afterwards, but even then, to be frank, you’d be wasting your time that could be used maintaining vigilance. Not to mention I imagine a church is not the first place you’d want to protect, unless you have people flocking to the church for safety, which could be the case, which would be at least more practical. Heck, I’ve gone to a church over in Jackson, TN, next to my grandmother’s when there was a tornado watch. Was I insulted? No, I just read.

Just because atheists don’t believe in any God that could save them does not mean they cease to care about the safety of their fellow humans. Being concerned about the safety of humans now instead of their posthumous security does not make their concern any less genuine. Atheists are more pragmatic, since their attention is solely directed towards preparation and preservation instead of prayer to any deity serving as a distraction. One can wish people well as fellow humans, but hoping that people will be safe in spite of the harsh reality of the world is unrealistic and delusional. Calling theists delusional, as Silverman and I both do, does not imply we insult them, but are assessing their beliefs as they relate to reality. The person in question who prays to God and believes that prayer has any effect is, to an atheist, deluded, since there is no reason to think prayer has any efficacy, let alone any evidence either way. Using Ockham’s razor, ironically formulated by a Christian thinker, the simpler explanation with less assumptions should be the one we give credence to. In this case, there is no God, things will happen as they will and the only thing humans can do is use past experience and intuition from that experience to work in the present towards preserving human life and increasing its overall quality.

If atheists are pitied for focusing on “candles and batteries” as Stuart Varney so eloquently condescends to David Silverman, among other necessities, then so be it. I’d rather be insulted for focusing on what matters instead of being praised for appearing as if I believe that any higher power exists or cares about people. When terrible things come, I will be scared, but I will not prostrate to any supernatural entity to protect me. Things will happen and my life or death will come when it will. There is no agency in tornadoes, nor any consciousness behind hurricanes. Prayer does little more than comfort people unwilling to face reality without a proverbial security blanket. In not facing reality immediately, they look to the past and the future to inspire them and quell their fear. But not all fear is evil. Fear is how we know our limits and how we can find ways to adapt. In times of crisis, an atheist will make things happen without adding extra hopes, whereas theists may try to help people, but also try to make things safer than they will ever be. Until next time, Namaste and aloha.

The Paradox of God Belief and God Hatred

http://pagingdrgupta.blogs.cnn.com/2011/01/01/anger-at-god-common-even-among-atheists/
http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2011/03/08/my-take-why-some-people-hate-god/

This topic was an intriguing, but somewhat incomplete, idea to me since I found the first article through Belief Blog, confronting the reasons behind and the preponderance of anger towards God. The complement to this is the second more recent article concerning a scholar’s investigation about hatred of God. The first might be said to have just as much irrelevance to atheism, for instance, as the second. You can’t have anger or hatred in any genuine sense towards something that you don’t believe has any actual existence, except in the conceptual forms people have in their psyche. But even more bizarre is the form of theism coined as misotheism, taking the form of those who believe in God, but cannot bring themselves to believe that God is benevolent, unable to take the system of eutheism as their default. Instead, God is seen as cruel or even malevolent in its nature to some degree and thus is the source of deep hatred. Either being angry at God or hating God might be said to be just part of belief in general, since either of them can exist and probably do exist more commonly with believers in God than disbelievers. Any anger at God by atheists is towards a hypothetical image, so the outrage is more incredulity at how people could believe in such an entity rather than being angry at something and also saying it doesn’t exist to one degree or another. This actually relates in a way to my Atheist Alignments theory in that those that are angry or even hate God as atheists would probably fall under the Chaotic alignment in that God is seen as something that should be opposed even if it doesn’t exist for the simple fact that even its conceptual existence poses a problem since people behave under believing that this concept of God exists in their minds.

On anger at God, the investigation led by Julie Exline suggests that anger at God is prominent in two groups in particular; atheists/agnostics and the bereaved. The first doesn’t seem to make much sense in calling them atheists or agnostics, since they would probably be better translated as misotheists or dystheists, believing that God is by nature malevolent. Simply hating God doesn’t mean you believe the entity in question is necessarily evil, but that it is incompetent or otherwise incapable of doing things in an organized or coherent fashion. The idea that God has a reason for everything, for example, could inspire anger in a person, perhaps even hatred, in that one would say that there is some conscious entity that is arranging events in such a way that good will come out of people being raped, pillaged, and otherwise violated. It’s not so much of a problem when you just have people learning from suffering at the hands of fickle Fortune, even in the personified sense, because either way, it is in the nature of Fortune to be something unpredictable, random, chaotic. My experience of losing a beloved cat, our tabby called Tiger, to an unprecedented blood clot that paralyzed his hind legs and tail is that I learned to appreciate the other tabby we’ve affectionately called Whiney (guess why) all the more and pay attention to him more so that he doesn’t suffer the same fate or feel less loved by me. Similar things might be said for the bereaved in some sense, especially with those that have lost loved ones in the recent earthquake and tsunami in eastern Japan. But the anger there is temporary in some sense. People who genuinely believe in God and have strong convictions can override their frustration and say that it’s all part of God’s mysterious plan. But people who are otherwise not convinced by this theodicy, explaining the problem of evil by such examples as saying God plans it or that God willingly lets people go free in the world to do what they will and thus frees itself of responsibility, would go into the subsequent category of misotheism, almost a kind of rebellious theism.

The grouping of people who actively hate God while simultaneously believing in its existence are those that defy classification and logic, even if we admittedly have a term for them as noted above, misotheism. The logical difficulty is more compelling an area of study, since one would ask, why would you hate something that you believe created you, or is at least commonly believed to be a benevolent entity that loves its creations? The answer might be in a similar vein to the answer an atheist might give as to why they do not believe in God at all and are more frustrated than hateful towards those that believe in God and then try to justify a world which this supposedly all powerful AND benevolent entity created. The response that lines up with the atheist’s, except in rejection of God-belief, is that the existence of such a God is an ethical affront of sorts. An entity that creates people with freewill and immortal souls and then sets them free upon the world for some test of choosing between loving God or loving “the world” could be accused of egregious and irreprehensible sadism and cruelty in its will towards bringing such a world into existence.

Of course, the response from eutheists, those believing God is by nature good, would be that misotheists misunderstand God or they have simply had a bad experience with God. But this only speaks to a presupposition that people who believe in God have to believe it is naturally good. Of course there are those in between that believe God is neither good nor evil, since those are human categories that God supersedes in some way, but this might be where the moral outrage and agony originates from a misotheist’s position. If you believe in such a being that is beyond any kind of accountability or responsibility; which can flood the earth, strike people dead for touching a holy object, and decree that people will go to hell for not believing in a particular type of theism (which supersedes what was an already primitive and barbaric system of animal sacrifices to appease said God) then a misotheist might very well just be in disbelief that such an entity is worshipped at all. The being in question would be still called evil, but admittedly from a human perspective. For one to try to see things from a God perspective seems absurd on its face, but it isn’t by necessity less compelling to view things from what is our default position, the human perspective.

With this in mind, the primary difficulty remains not so much in the common ethical impulse people have that such a God is problematic in any general formulation where it has consciousness and personality, but that misotheists feel compelled to still believe in the God as reality as opposed to merely accepting that people believe in such a concept as reality, which atheists more accurately have some kind of anger or hatred towards in any sense of the word. This makes one wonder how habitual belief in God is to people, either having been raised in it or having an experience that makes them unable to completely disbelieve in God’s existence, but admittedly that’s another topic entirely that I may confront in the future. In a sense, misotheists and dystheists do have interesting overlap with atheist and agnostic positions in that there is a common ethical outrage that makes them either think that God is only worthy of disgust or is not worthy of belief or consideration at all. A larger problem presents itself in that however much there might be common ground in ethical reaction to the idea of God, there will no doubt be disagreement nonetheless that misotheists and dystheists persist in believing in God, even if they share the belief with atheists and agnostics that God is on its face, to be frank and crude, an asshole, or more prudently, a sociopath. The bridge framework exists, so to speak, but there’s always some degree of difficulty in structural considerations of linking two otherwise disparate systems. But that’s where the real work starts. Until next time, Namaste and aloha.