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 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 Religious Norms? Part 2

http://theatheistnextdoor.com/2009/01/05/god-bless-you/

http://atheists.org/blog/2010/10/04/god-bless-america-to-honor-the-troops

http://christianfighterpilot.com/blog/2011/09/15/military-atheists-offended-by-god-bless-america/

http://www.positiveatheism.org/mail/eml9990.htm

We return to a topic I thought could’ve been done in a single week, but there’s clearly more norms than I realized and I could talk about more if people have suggestions in a future installment. Last time, the issues were fairly clear cut. Religious studies as an academic discipline separate from divinity and ministry studies is well established and has usefulness beyond just understanding religions, even if you don’t believe in them personally. Religious holidays have had secular alternatives to them for many decades, so religious people need not think atheists are trying to steal from them, since corporations already have in utilizing such things as the Easter Bunny and Santa Claus. And it goes without saying that virtually any judge in the country would affirm an atheist’s right to make an affirmation and not require any use of a bible or oath to establish that you will tell the truth under penalty of law. This time, we talk about people’s established superstition(s) regarding sneezes and the delusions of many Christians that God either favors America or America is meant to favor God.

Something we don’t think about much with regards to atheists and religion in America is the tradition that has survived through germ theory and other medical advances: saying “God bless you” when a person sneezes. From what little I understand of the history behind it, one of many popular ideas was that when a person sneezed, it was believed they were in greater danger of demon possession. Another explanation goes back to Pope Gregory I in the context of the bubonic plague. Sneezing was thought to be an early indicator of the disease, so people placed God’s blessing on you for protection. When you sneeze, it’s sometimes said, with alleged scientific backing, that your heart stops beating for a miniscule amount of time, which is patently false. But even if that was true, it doesn’t mean anything in terms of demon possession, since that’s related to the state of your soul (whatever that is), not your body. In short, if people knew any of the various explanations behind this practice, they wouldn’t do it except out of a compulsive habitual tradition with no basis in reality. I think there’s a number of responses to people using this antiquated expression, but perhaps there is no perfect way to directly critique people’s use of this saying any more than trying to discredit prayer, which would only cloud the issue with people getting offended and obstructing the real issue. The best expression to spread in contrast to what is an archaic saying from medieval times is “Gesundheit” which is German for roughly “To your health”. It’s non sectarian and non religious by nature and yet expresses the same sentiment that you hope the person is not sick or will become better if they are without wishing eternal life on them. I don’t see any reason to say anything when a person sneezes, since it’s just one of many noises we make when sick anyway. You don’t see people trying to bless me when I cough, do you?

The second issue is an extended one in that it relates to believers as well as nonbelievers: the respective religiosity or secularity of the United States. The alleged theistic basis of the United States, manifests in the use of “In God We Trust” as our national motto since the 50s, the imprinting of “In God We Trust” on our money, as well as the expression and song “God Bless America” by patriots. The secular foundation of the country desires to keep religion and government separate by nature, neither favoring solely religion or government, but possessing the dual loyalty many Christians seem to forget they can have without needing a hybrid in Christian nation revisionist nonsense.

The more difficult thing to deal with consistently is not so much a notion of separation of church and state with Christians, but the selectively Christian-centric idea of history they may possess. Most don’t even have that nuanced view of how religion and government should interact. There is always that myth that remains that our national motto is “In God We Trust” when any person with any significant knowledge of American history would tell you that is only by official decree of Congress. Our original, yet unofficial, motto that existed for far longer than the 50+ years this  new and divisive saying has polluted the original unifying spirit of America is “E pluribus unum”. For non Latin speakers, it’s basically translated “Out of many, one”. I may have said it before and I’ll say it again; this expresses everything about the state of religion, politics, race and culture in this country. We bring together so many things from our cultures and families and share ideals that remain in spite of not all believing in a god or other things. To say that our national motto should focus on God like many theists seem to believe reflects a still surviving paranoia against atheistic communism. While there may have been some real danger of infiltration by Russians at the time, American theists had no sound justification for changing what is an expression that might seem to be communist or socialist at first glance, but is not antithetical to American values of diversity and tolerance alongside individual convictions. Communism may be against many American values, such as the free market, but socialism is not entirely something we lack, since its basic definition is providing for those less fortunate in the greatest number possible. While it may have economic setbacks, is it in any way a bad thing to provide for those who have less if you have more than you need? Atheists are explicitly excluded by the motto in terms of patriotism, as well as the pledge of allegiance, changed within the same decade as the motto.  To say we are one nation “under God” indivisible is blatantly contradictory. If we are under God, which God is it? It only further divides people into denominations when you say we are under God and some take it so seriously as to focus on God’s nature. If it was removed and we focused on similarities and unified ourselves, then America could still be something worthy of respect, which I feel it has lost in its shameful attempt to self aggrandize and stand out as “Christian”, when that in no way makes us superior.

The secularity of America is more problematic to bring up, since you have people saying that God in some way blesses America and reinforces this myth with the song by Irving Berlin, a Jew, ironically, to say that the Christian God cares in any way about our country or any country at all. Perhaps people misunderstand what is meant by secularity. Separation of church and state isn’t so radical that there is not any allowance of religious expression, but it is within limits of propriety and pragmatism. Is it not better for a religion to manage itself instead of the government telling it what it can and can’t do? And do religious people need to use their positions of power to try to influence the state’s relationship to their religion if it stands on its own merits? If religion ceases trying to legislate constitutional amendments at state or federal level to change the definition of marriage, then they can believe their own definition and bless or not bless whatever union asks them in a legal status that in no way depends on the church except by traditional association. The government doesn’t need religion in order to manage itself any more than we need religion to manage ourselves as ethical people. Shouldn’t the government be free of religious partisan disputes and begin Congress with a moment of silence instead of a prayer? Chaplains can exist in the military, not to evangelize, but to counsel members of various faiths. I don’t have a problem with you believing your religion, I have a problem with you making it so public that it borders on obnoxious and obfuscating in saying that all people have a right to practice their religion, but Christians are somehow more entitled to practice in public and get special treatment because of the historical presence of their religion. It doesn’t work that way and even if there were more avowed atheists throughout the American epoch, I would not say that I get to be an outspoken atheist and Christians must be in the closet. We should all be able to speak openly about our beliefs without being divided about who is a true American and who isn’t.

I am offended by all of these ideas, including those I spoke about last week, but I do not mean to use physical/legal force to make my point. Education and understanding can both solve the problem better, though sometimes being forceful in words is a way to get a point across more explicitly. Many moderate Christians know that atheists are not precluded from studying religion academically, can celebrate religious holidays with just as much fervor in the fellowship of humanity and do not have to swear on the bible. They also know that sneezing is a natural bodily reaction and has nothing to do with the state of your soul and they know that God by any stretch of basic theology respects no nation and thus has no concern about people blessing or cursing it. And they most certainly don’t believe that atheists are in any way less patriotic than theists. Those minorities don’t speak out for fear of being isolated by their peers, but I speak out even at the risk of losing newly added family friends on Facebook. I will not sit idly by and let these religious norms rule my life. Christians do not get to dictate what I can and cannot do. They have every right to believe I am a reprobate apostate heathen and am going to hell (whatever that happens to be), but they can only go that far and will not make me sit in silence as they try to change America to anything that gives them favor because they have history behind them. History does not go solely to the victors, and the majority does not always rule. Until next time, Namaste and aloha.

WDAD: What Do Atheists Do About Religious Norms? Part 1

http://atheism.about.com/od/aboutreligion/p/StudyReligion.htm

http://atheism.about.com/od/christmasholidayseason/p/AtheistsIgnore.htm

http://irregulartimes.com/further6.html

http://atheism.about.com/od/ideasforatheistactivism/a/AffirmSwear.htm

Being an atheist in America is still difficult even after attempts by many prominent nonbelievers over the decades to normalize it as part of modern culture. Madalyn Murray O’Hair comes to mind, as well as Sam Harris and Daniel Dennett. Christopher Hitchens has American citizenship as well, originally from Great Britain, and Richard Dawkins, a British native, also has made strong strides for nonbelievers. American Atheists is one of the most prominent groups to promote atheism as a culture and community that also shares many values with Christian Americans. But there are many persistent preconceptions people have about atheism that cannot be solved with even the prominent ad campaigns American Atheists has done, as I spoke about in “Atheists Patriot Ad Campaign,”  There are so many, in fact, I have to divide this into two parts. This week will be issues of atheists studying religion and whether that is hypocritical, whether atheists can celebrate holidays of a religious origin and whether atheists must swear on the bible in court.

Something I encounter virtually every time I speak about my undergraduate major, religious studies (sometimes phrased as religion), is that if you are studying religion, you’re presumed to have considered going into ministry. The idea that religion has to be studied from the position of a believer always irks me, since it suggests that one cannot really study religion in an academic context of its effect on culture, on people, as philosophy, as literature, etc, without believing that it reflects reality. The default notion historically for studying religion (understood intrinsically as Christianity and Judaism by association) was to minister to people about theology, to be someone people could consult about these sorts of issues. Pastors can serve that purpose, but only in a limited framework, since their primary goal is counseling more than actually educating people overall. I am in no way doing a disservice to religion or even insulting adherents of any particular religion if I study it and reach a conclusion that I personally don’t believe it, but still find it interesting to read about. A good 20% of my personal library is texts about Christianity, primarily theological or apologetic in nature, if only to see what believers present as enumerations of beliefs and defenses thereof. I can finish any of those texts with an improved understanding of Christianity and yet remain an atheist at the end of it. I would say my study of religion actually helped me a great deal in confronting my own beliefs and comparing them with texts presenting other convictions from their individual perspectives. I gained skills to analyze things that benefit me even today and that is nothing for anyone to denigrate by claiming I’m being disingenuous. If that’s the case, then many Christians who do the same thing in their spare time and ultimately conclude they don’t agree with it are basically as guilty, even if they don’t do it academically. They’ve still looked at something they disagree about with a partly discerning eye and come away a more knowledgeable person (I hope).

Another issue that persists even in spite of pretty clear secular manifestations of such things as Christmas and Easter (the two most prominent religious holidays celebrated even by so called religious people who only come into church two times a year) is a prejudice of atheists being supposedly hypocritical in taking part in religious holidays when they don’t believe in God. While Easter may have more explicit connections to God, Christmas is agreed by even theologians and many more fundamentalist Christians to not be historically justified or have any theological relevance to Jesus. Jesus was more than likely born much later or earlier than the winter, especially with cultural considerations of the shepherds in relation to their sheep. The date decided through church practices in the past coincided with Saturnalia, a pagan practice that Christians sought to co-opt and it has remained that way in spite of historians of varying faiths, Christians included, concluding that it is purely a matter of popularity, not dissimilar from All Hallow’s Eve in the Catholic calendar following Halloween chronologically. A certain group of Christians don’t even celebrate either Christmas or Halloween, for instance, suggesting that they have been so intertwined with non Christian religious practices and are not worthy of devotion. There’s also the observation that Jesus never said to observe anything related to his birth, but only related to his alleged resurrection as he spoke to his disciples. Easter is the more contentious of the holidays, since it is agreed upon by all Christians to focus on God and its involvement with the world through Jesus’ Passion, Crucifixion and Resurrection. But, like Christmas and Halloween, there is a way to celebrate Easter without being clothed in reverence to a deity. Merely celebrating spring and new life coming to be through that season seems sufficient to me. I don’t have to get up at the crack of dawn to appreciate spring, since the sunrise will happen every day regardless, as far as I’m concerned. Regardless of the sacred overtones or undertones of any day, it doesn’t exclude atheists from participating in a different, but similar, way. I can get married, but that doesn’t require I pledge my fidelity before God anymore than me getting candy eggs at Easter means I have to believe Jesus came back to life. It is in no way contradictory to celebrate a holiday’s non religious virtues and ideals, since, in all cases, they have already long since been separated by the practice of consumer culture inculcating in us the desire to buy not only candy and presents in convergence with Xmas, Halloween and Easter, but decorations to adorn our house to let others know that we celebrate the holiday. But this in no way establishes (mostly) whether you’re Christian or otherwise. Similarly, I can share time with family and have a good experience, but I don’t need to have extraneous beliefs attached to a special day like Xmas in order to appreciate it. The mere shared experience of happiness and enjoyment is special in itself.

The final question asked (for now) is something actually more easily solved by historical progress. Atheists, from what I recall, were historically not trusted to give oaths, though outspoken atheists didn’t exist prominently until probably 50 years ago or so. But now atheists are trusted to give oaths, albeit technically they are called affirmations in legal terminology. The distinction lies between making a claim without religious sentiment that you will tell the truth and nothing but the truth as opposed to swearing to God, which some Christians would argue contradicts what Jesus says in Matthew 5:37 “Simply let your yes be yes and your no be no,” If atheists can assert that they will tell the truth because it makes sense to and that there will be repercussions if they are found to be lying; while Christians seem to think they have some moral high ground when making an oath to God and also doing it partly because they might be charged with perjury; perhaps the former is simpler than the latter. This is one of those questions that has a simple answer and yet is complicated by a basic lack of education. If you are in a court of law, you have no compulsion to take any religious oath, and if you want to put your hand on a bible and swear to both your god and the court that you won’t lie, I can’t help but chuckle, because it’s unnecessary on its face. Why can’t you just not lie because you don’t want to be lied to? Is it that much of an obsession that you need to tell God you won’t lie in a criminal trial?

Atheists have no problem with a religious culture existing and being practiced by people, but they do not need to be practiced by everyone in that sense and there shouldn’t be any pressure to conform by believers. There are secular manifestations and practices of religious holidays and norms, such as the alternative of affirmation versus swearing on the bible for atheists and the like. Not to mention there’s common ground to be found in sharing time with friends and family that transcends those borders between the believing and the unbelieving. Next week, we’ll confront the norms related to patriotism and also that little superstitious phrase uttered when you sneeze with its own history and irony when saying it to atheists. Until next time, Namaste and aloha.

WDAD: What Do Atheists Do About Religious Family?

http://agnosticatheist.wordpress.com/2007/04/06/atheist-coming-out-to-religious-friends-and-family/

http://www.atheistrev.com/2009/06/coming-out-as-atheist-to-your-christian.html

http://www.americanhumanist.org/HNN/details/2010-04-ask-richard-my-christian-family-feels-threatened-by-m

http://www.askdrrobert.dr-robert.com/christianparents.html

http://epiphenom.fieldofscience.com/2009/07/religious-parents-atheist-children-and.html

Atheists already deal with people’s mistaken ideas about them spread by apologists and other “well-meaning” believers in God on an almost daily basis, but how does this factor in with one’s family? My own family isn’t terribly pushy about their Christianity for the most part, and this is mostly due to me being, for the most part to extended family, a closet atheist. I haven’t even told many people outside of those that could figure out through Facebook and look at my profile to see I identify with Zen. In that case, family wise, I would estimate only about 20-25 people at most would know that I’m not Christian, which is pretty much the default faith of most people raised in Tennessee anyway. I don’t see many people having a problem with it at all and I’ve only lost one Facebook friend through their unwillingness to engage in civil debates with me without exploding. I can’t speak for those who have come out, which comprises more of the difficulties and questions that are raised in regards to atheist’s relations with their religious family, excessive or otherwise. But I think I can provide some advice nonetheless as one who engages with the religious commonly.

Atheists who have already come out to their families encounter proselytizing and general skepticism that someone could actually stop believing in God and Jesus. Accusations are flung ranging from the person being possessed by Satan, affected by the secular humanist agenda or doing it out of rebellion. There’s also worry that they’ll go to hell or that they don’t have any basis for doing good, both of which are either irrelevant or unjustified. The insistence that they’ll change their mind with time, when they “grow up” makes me chuckle, since those believers have only grown up physically at most, but mentally, they haven’t truly matured, since they refuse to accept even the doubts that arise as to whether God actually exists or cares about them, pushing them aside. If they are unwilling to face the anxiety and emotional distress that might arise from adopting a perspective where there is no God and only humans in a world which they have the power to improve or destroy, then perhaps they haven’t really grown up in any real sense, except perhaps taking on some responsibilities that any human being is expected to as they reach a certain age. We all leave the nest of our parents, but this doesn’t mean that we sever those connections and dispositions that sometimes persist in spite of the separation we experience by paying our own rent, getting our own groceries and working a day to day job to support ourselves. Many people, since they have lost that direct connection to their initial providers, instead take on the belief that there is a spiritual/supernatural parent always watching over them which comforts them in some way. I don’t deny people’s right to believe this, but even as a pluralist, I cannot completely allow people to hold these beliefs in spite of evidence and arguments to the contrary. Plenty of people live a life full of happiness in spite of losses and don’t make any pleas to a deity to protect them or help them through it, but persist in spite of the existential despair. That humanist tenacity, particularly the secular variety, is admirable to me, though I suppose this goes without saying when in the position of being an outsider to a religion that offers not only the community of similar groups, but spiritual and existential solace in hearing someone preach that there is someone watching out for them and that loves them unconditionally (but only until they die, after which they separate the child from their love eternally if they haven’t loved them back).

I could understand in part when a family member feels defensive or disappointed when you have a family member that believes very differently than you about the supernatural. It’s one thing to have someone who converts to Judaism in a Christian family, or even Islam (popular in the 21st century as the new target that previously ranged from Judaism to Catholicism 50 years or more in the past). But even someone converting to Buddhism, which I have in part, let alone becoming an atheist (reverting back to a state they were already in before) poses a bigger issue to parents who might feel that the child is rebelling against them, or if the child is otherwise obedient, that they have somehow failed God in not raising their offspring to be good Christians. But I’d respond to all those parents: if your child is an otherwise good citizen and is respectful to you in spite of disagreeing with you about whether Jesus saves or God exists, then you’ve done a better job than many parents do in letting the school or the media serve as the babysitter for their spawn, regarding them as little more than a nuisance or free labor. If you genuinely love your child, I don’t see why you should become hostile in any sense just because they have changed from the religion you thought they ought to adhere to. Accept them as they are, like God accepts people. And before you respond that God expects change, don’t compare yourself to something that’s supposed to be all knowing and all powerful. You are neither and thus you don’t have any basis to do anything but pray to that God; not that it will necessarily have any effect on your child’s beliefs. If your child hasn’t become a criminal, they are in no imminent danger.

In terms of preconceived ideas of what atheists are, the best way to dispel those myths is to behave as you normally would and let your behavior speak for itself in terms of your atheism. You haven’t ceased to love your family, you haven’t become less moral, and you aren’t trying to convert them to atheism. But you must establish that you won’t change your beliefs just to make them feel better. You chose your beliefs and you will stick with them even if your family doesn’t agree. In the worst case scenario, your family would disown you and if you’re an adult, this is fine, however troubling it is at first. If they are not willing to accept you in choosing atheism, then perhaps they aren’t truly family in the sense of a group of people who persist in unconditional love in spite of the occasional ups and downs. If you’re not an adult, this can pose a problem in that you have to tolerate such intolerance that it borders on criminal behavior. In this way, being an atheist in a situation where you are dependent on religious family is actually a motivation to become independent sooner than if you don’t have this problem. My own immediate family isn’t so religious that they don’t permit that I have my own beliefs, so there is in a sense not as much motivation to become independent, though I definitely desire it a great deal if only to avoid more religious infighting that might occur in the future as I further mature.

So in my experience, atheists do have problems sometimes with religious family, but as they have become atheists, they seem to have become at least more understanding, though there are many atheists closeted to even their immediate family for fear of ostracism. And I say to them, do not be afraid. You have support in other atheists and even other theists who may disagree with you, but nonetheless grant you that freedom to choose your beliefs as an individual instead of thinking you must conform to satisfy their selfish wishes. Atheists and tolerant theists are your friends, even your family in a sense. Don’t let the so called “support and love” through your family members’ religious evangelism become a barrier to openness about your atheism. That’s the first step to making atheism more accepted and more well known in the world at large. Once your family begins to understand that atheism is only part of you and doesn’t determine other things about you, then they can start telling non family members about how you’re still the same person, you just don’t believe in God like many others might. 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.