I am an atheist. My wife knows I'm an atheist. Some of my friends know it. I haven't exactly kept it a secret, but it just doesn't come up in conversation that much. I think it's something that many people don't want to talk about. Maybe everyone I know agrees with me on a level basic enough that the issue doesn't require discussion. Or maybe everyone is horrified but just too polite to say anything. Either way, for a little while now I've been wanting to come out of the closet, as it were. I want to go from being a secretive behind-closed-doors atheist to a flaming, ride-my-own-float-in-the-parade atheist. We do get a parade, don't we? No? We should work on that.
I remember during the 2004 elections thinking that I rarely got to participate in any good political sparring matches because everyone I knew was a good devout liberal like myself. Secretly I was relieved that I never was forced to defend my position, because I do not have the head for facts that skilled debaters need. I knew what I felt in principle, but the moment someone threw a statistic at me I was screwed. I worried about defending atheism in the same way, until I discovered this whole modern movement — the so-called New Atheists. Dawkins, Hitchens, Harris. A new trinity. Not unholy; antiholy. I found them through their prophet, or perhaps gateway drug, PZ Myers.
Professor Myers is a terrifyingly smart man who writes in a style that makes me feel comfortable in my own level of intelligence while still being awed by his. Being a biologist, Myers' writing often delves into, well, science, which I do not always understand, but it is impossible not to be caught up in his enthusiasm. Through his blog I discovered something that liberated me. He made me realize that I do not need to be a genius to be an atheist. I just need a little common sense.
The whole point of atheism is admitting that we do not know everything. For some people, an admission like that requires greater personal sacrifice than trusting in some unseen, unknown force to make sure everything turns out all right in the end. Atheism is not a statement of fact; it is a simple request that you support your claims with evidence. I think there is no god, or gods, who created the universe and everything in it and watches over it and possibly directs its affairs. Why do I think this? Because I have seen no evidence of it. John McCain can say he sees the hand of God in a Grand Canyon sunset, but so far all I know is that erosion occurred over millions of years, and sunlight refracts as it passes through the atmosphere. Does that make the view any less spectacular? I think not. I still have the capacity to be awed by the beauty of nature, even — perhaps especially — if there is no mysterious hand shaping the scene.
I remember reading several years ago about whether or not William Shakespeare was in fact the author of the plays credited to him. I couldn't help but wonder, would Hamlet or Macbeth be any less brilliant if it turned out someone else wrote them? Of course not. And by that reasoning, is our universe any less wondrous because it shaped itself over billions of years rather than being swirled into existence in a week? Would the fact that you and I are even here to have this discussion be any less miraculous?
I know, that last bit sounded all light and fluffy, and that's not the kind of atheist I want to be. I want to be IN YOUR FACE, please, if you don't mind. I want to rage about the blurring of the line between Church and State. I want to wax incredulous about proponents of "Intelligent Design" being elected to school boards. I want to shine a harsh light on the bizarre aims of the Religious Right. Mostly, however, I want to live my life, write some stories, work on some plays, maybe raise a family. But that may be too much to ask.
16 comments:
Sorry Chris, but you can't be an "in your face" Real True(tm) Atheist until you've kidnapped a few infants and fed them to your pit bulls.
(Joking! I'm joking, of course. Heheh...)
Nice post.
If anyone is curious, I am not an atheist, but more of an agnostic. Now, you may be asking yourself, "How can these two exist?" Easy. It's called symbiosis, peeps. Makes for good discussions every once in a while, too.
I like the part about not having to feel like a genius to be an Athiest. That's an interesting observation.
Personally I feel that there's a distinction between faith and fact. Fact, I think, is what's true. Faith, I think, is what you choose to act on as though it were true. Will the sun rise tomorrow? I don't know. But I have faith that it will and I act accordingly.
So I don't see any particularly oddity in any of the various faiths...except that some can be really irritating.
The only thing about Athieism is, I see it as a little more committed than I like to be. It's like I'm too lazy to be an Atheist...it takes dedication and actual conviction. Agnosticism is a nice fence where I can rest and look down on everybody else without lifting a finger. Just where I like to be.
Interesting, MC. I agree with your distinction between "fact" and "faith," but perhaps you will agree that acting on a belief as if it were true, without any real supporting evidence, can have dangerous consequences. I mean, that's how the Inquisition got started, and the Salem witch trials. It's why doctors who performed abortions were murdered, and why Islamic fundamentalists flew planes into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon.
I used to classify myself as an agnostic, but I came to find too many things too hard to accept as being part of some divine plan. Of course I do not outright deny the possibility of any deity because it is impossible to prove a negative, but I find such a thing unlikely because I have seen no evidence to support it.
As for your example, I do not require the effort of faith to believe the sun will rise tomorrow. I know it will, for a fact, based upon a lifetime of observable evidence, a basic understanding of the physics involved, and the testimony of experts who are more knowledgeable than myself about such things.
I think you and I may have similar views with some minor variations.
While it may have disastrous outcomes, I think that acting on faith is all that there is.
The inherent problem of a world view based primarily on observation is it doesn't provide a Way To Live. It gives a topography of the world, but no rules to navigate it.
To act upon the world at all, I believe, requires faith that ones actions will have a certain outcome. Acting on faith is an inescapable part of the human condition. (Faith here meaning a set of rules one chooses to believe, not Christian or Muslim faith).
For example...I myself am a Pro Choice guy, because I choose to believe that a woman should have a right to her body, and that unwanted children are bad for society and cruel to the unwanted child. I have faith that that's the case, and it overrides a fetus's right to live.
Because scientifically a fetus, even in the fist trimester, is a discete entity. Just like a tape worm, the parasitic male deep sea angler fish, or newborn puppy, the fetus can't survive without its host. But it does respond to its environment as distinct from the mother. It has its own nervous system, vascular system, and a unique genetic code distinct from the mother. Sometimes it even has its own blood type. Scientifically, empirically, a fetus is a unique, living creature. BUT! That information alone doesn't give us a course of action. We need to go beyond scientific observation to retrieve a course of action.
Many of us very justifiably believe that an unwanted or unsupportable child is bad for society and bad for the child. So we take action As Though the fetus is not a living organism. There are some postulations that a reduction of unwanted pregnancies has reduced crime, but as yet no comprehensive studies with solid evidence. So we're reduced to acting on faith and adhering to a course of action as though it were true.
I don't think this is a Bad Thing. I think it's the Only Thing. It's the only way we can choose any course of action...if we believe a certain result will come of it.
I think theologies and philosophies may not be Truth...but they are generalized road maps, one as valid as the other. Absent those and science offers no guidance, just topography.
Where I'm probably grossly wrong is, in my mind I equate Athiesm with a shunning of theological values as a guide. Which may not necessarily be the case. I imagine one can be an Ahtiest and still believe that the Ten Commandments are good rules to live by.
On the contrary, I think that scientific observation of our species provides concrete examples of "Ways to Live" that are more eloquent and more practical than the Ten Commandments or similar sets of religion-based rules. Obviously we need to behave in a way that creates harmony with others in our community. To disrupt that harmony has observable consequences for the survival of the community. This, to me, is a far more convincing argument for why I should avoid stealing and coveting my neighbors' wives than just because some mystics wrote it down 2,500 years ago. My sets of rules are easier to understand because I am not required to follow them blindly. I am aware of the real consequences of disobeying the rules. Also, my rules are uncluttered by incoherent demands that I pay homage to one unseen, unknowable concept while shunning other unseen, unknowable concepts.
This requires no faith, just common sense.
Naturally, any action I take has an intended outcome. I wished for that outcome to occur, so I selected that action based upon previous observations of actions and their effects. It is not an act of faith. I think, however, that we are mostly arguing the semantics of the word "faith."
You suggested that there are theories regarding the stress an unwanted or unsupported child places on society. These theories are not spun out of thin air. They are based on observations. Now, perhaps after more careful study the results proved inconclusive or contradictory, but that does not mean there was not some evidence to support the initial hypothesis. There is, however, NO evidence that having an abortion will anger some deity, and therefore "Because God said so" is an unsatisfactory argument against abortion rights. There are plenty of other arguments for and against that do not require a suspension of disbelief.
To quote Nick Cave
"I don't believe in an interventionist god. But I know baby that you do."
I think you're right. We're talking about the word Faith. I think Faith is simply a belief one chooses to act on...coupled with my belief that facts are in very short supply. I think it's simply an inescapable part of the human condition, with justifications for one's beliefs taking infinite forms.
Personally I think science and religion have both failed us miserably as adequate guides for life, with scientific justification causing even more destruction during the assembly line governmental styles of the early 20th century. I mean, whoa! And religion has never been a good basis for governmental style. Show me a theocracy that didn't start sawing people in half and I'll show you my muscular pecs slathered in hollandaise sauce.
Honestly...I think the school of economic thought has potential for offering stable, guiding principles. This is a study of natural human action and distribution of resources. Rather than governing action from above, it organically governs action from within based on actual human activity. That's not to say that it doesn't have its insidious side...oh boy does it ever. But the potential is there...
The golden arches theory states that no two nations with a McDonalds have ever gone to war with each other (Except once: the conflict between Israel and Lebanon).
Could I hop in here and note that you're dealing with a rather loaded word, here: Faith. You need to distinguish between "religious faith" and the sense of the word that denotes "expectation."
I think it muddies the question when you say "I have faith the sun will rise tomorrow"; what you really have is an entirely justifiable expectation that it will. I've expunged the word entirely from my vocabulary. A confident atheist doesn't need it.
Once upon a time, the two words meant exactly the same thing. It took an Enlightenment to separate them.
Once, years ago, I casually mentioned to a women I worked with that I didn't have much use for the whole Monotheism thing. She was quite surprised and asked in reply, "Well, how do you get up in the morning?" The question was so weird to me, so out of left field, implying as it did that I needed the presence of some Big Hidden Guy Who Does a Marvelous Imitation of a Being That Does Not Exist At All in order to have any moral foundation. I still think it's a weird question, and when a Boy Scout leader lectured me that there can be no morals without monotheism, I took my son out of the group that very day. A Teaching Moment.
It is not an act of faith. I think, however, that we are mostly arguing the semantics of the word "faith."
Oops! Skimmed over this. Sorries!
Faith is totally integral to one's ability to operate.
As an easy example, consider US currency. What's the US dollar tied to?
Gold? The Chinese Yuan? Oh wait...faith. US currency is upheld by faith. It's backed by the "Full Faith and Credit of the United States."
It has value simply because we choose to believe it has value. Sure you can turn your back on that as a myth. A meaningless construct of the human mind. And yet that construct keeps us running around like rats.
We can SEE the dichotomy...we KNOW that money is simply cotton and ink. But we have faith that it will keep us housed and fed.
In fact...currency has gotten even FURTHER into the realm of abstract construct with debit cards and credit cards. It's become disembodied from any worldly form and is now simply represented as a number.
Think about it. The Federal Reserve can literally conjure MORE money by the power of their minds...they simply have to Imagine it, and more money is born. And we believe them!
We're dealing with a bold-faced human construct here, as crazed as any religious zeal. And just like religion it only has value within the ranks of the faithful. Take your cash to primitive tribes deep in the Brazilian wilds and they'll wipe their asses with it.
The moral of the story is, anything that binds a community together has untold value, whether it's money, religion, blood, or a similar taste in movies. We're really inextricably bound to faith...and as we can clearly demonstrate, sometimes blind faith serves us well.
MAD PROPS to Chris for starting this thread, by the way. Because what I've learned here is that when somebody says that Faith or Religion is not important or is not enough, what I hear them saying is that Human Constructs, as mad as they are, aren't Important, or aren't substantial enough...when really human constructs, I believe, are the basis of civilization.
Daily, we delude ourselves into upholding a shared system...and clearly there's a LOT of power there.
Again, however, "faith" that my money can be exchanged for goods and services (thanks, Homer) is not the same thing as faith that Jesus will help me because I prayed to him. I have faith, or rather "expectation" (thanks, Neddie), that if I present money at a store I will be provided with goods of a similar value. This expectation came from previous experience with the system. The system may be flawed and unstable, but it is nonetheless an entirely human-built system with rules created and agreed upon by humans. If the store stopped providing me with an exchange that seemed, based on prior experience, to be fair, I would stop giving that store my business. Similarly, if my employer stopped providing me with the agreed-upon amount of money in exchange for my time and effort, I would end our agreement and find a new employer. None of this requires "faith." It merely requires that I, the stores, and the employers all operate using the same system. The system is a method through which we achieve harmony in the community, as I said before. It is not perfect, but it is constantly being refined.
Again, we are disagreeing on the definition of "faith." The things you keep suggesting are not, by my definition, acts of faith. They are all acts of expectation based on previous results.
Wheee! It's so much more fun discussing theology with another agnostic/athiest. I keep my big mouf shut about such things 'round here...they're WATCHING. I hain't had a good theological discussion in years. Yeee...haw.
We are, in fact, defining the word faith. I simply believe that it's a concept far removed from "superstition" or the belief in something fake that offers no consistent reward or benefit.
To suggest that money is more reasonable to believe in because it offers consistent benefits, is to suggest that the religious get nothing out of it. GOOD GRAVY, man...I do business with some die hard baptists and they're like a frickin' cartel. Oh they're getting something Very Real out of it and it costs them a lot of money in gas to drive. Lemme tell ya.
The religious aren't like lone gamblers hopping on one foot and clutching their lucky rabbit foot making mad assumptions about cause and affect...a solitary addiction akin to obsessive compulsive disorder.
Religion, like money, binds a community with a consistent set of rules. And where there is community, there is almost invariably value. And just as the basis of our money system is built out of thin air, so is the basis of many religions.
I'd say "faith" is distinct from "superstition" because there is a very real reward or affirmation of value.
But all that said...
You're right. Hehe. My beef with religion is it's obsessed with supernatural stuff...as though there's MORE value in that.
As if it's not enough that some dude believed his death would rid mankind of worry? Is it REALLY important that he did stuff that defied the laws of nature?
...I just hide my atheism behind the noodly appendage of the Flying Spaghetti Monster - HE exists!
Post a Comment