What's My Label?: October 2009

So I stumbled upon Conservapedia today.. my oh my, what an awesome site that thing is! The "Trustworthy Encyclopedia" it says. I'm sure it alone could provide hours upon hours upon days of entertainment. Between that site and others like People of Walmart and My Tattoo Sucks, I could be in real danger of getting nothing else done in life. (Trust me, don't click on those links until you've at least read this blog, and perhaps fed your children and watered your plants.)

One page in particular which caught my eye was the Causes of Atheism, a page which claims to contain "a number of reasonable explanations for atheism." Oh my gawd, what spectacular stuff! I simply can't resist going over each of the assertions one by one. Care to join me? Let's begin!

Moral depravity: This is one with which I am quite familiar and is a favorite. The moral depravity of which Conservapedia writes supposedly comes in part from the "deceptions" propagated by evolutionists. That would be damning indeed if evolution=atheism. But, it doesn't. Moving on.

Then comes the well known quote about fools. We all know this one. "The fool has said in his heart, 'There is no god.' They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good." (Psalms 14:1 (KJV))."

Ahhh, and there we have it. The reason for this enduring belief that an atheist must be immoral. It says so in the Bible, therefore, in spite of real world evidence to the contrary, it must be true.

Case-in-point: my husband, a law-abiding man who has served his country for nearly twenty years, was told by a fellow soldier a few years ago that it was impossible for him to be a moral person due to his atheism (or rather, his lack of Christianity). He defended himself, espoused his virtues and his clean record, but all to no avail.

It doesn't matter though. If one could manage to convince a person holding the belief that atheists are morally depraved that he was, in fact, possessing of some good moral fiber, he would then merely be told that it is faith and not works which matters most. (Ephesians 2:8-9 (KJV)). Sometimes you just can't win for trying.

Rebellion: Rebellion against parents. Rebellion against teachers. Rebellion against the supposed Creator of Everything. We have all done one or all of these things at some point in our lives. This usually occurs between the mid-teens to the mid-twenties. A few never grow out of the need to push back at authority. For the majority of us who do manage to grow up and grow out of it, whatever deviation from the "norm" remains is not rebellion. It is simply who we are, an accumulation of personal experience, observation, and instinct.

However, I think the author of this page has a different concept of rebellion, not just a rebellion against authority, but rebellion against unfairness, cruelty or inconsistency. "If there was a God, there wouldn't be so much suffering."

Well, yes. I think that's true, but I wouldn't call it rebellion. If I am to believe a book which claims a divine being as its inspiration... a Divine Being(!!!), I must believe all of it (or none of it). Cherry picking a book which, for all intents and purposes, was written by the Creator of the Cosmos is not allowed, is it? It seems to me that the tragic nature of existence alongside the equally beautiful nature of existence would owe more to chance than it would to a supposed deity possessing foreknowledge, benevolence, and an unconditional love for those beings which it created.. and yet killed 99.99999% of the creatures (including humans) because he didn't like the way things were turning out, and tortured a good man on a whim, and at the suggestion of his nemesis. It's not rebellion to question the existence of such a being. It is incredulity.

Superficiality: One who claims belief (or non belief) in a deity due to peer pressure is neither being honest with himself nor with others. I suggest that Paul Vitz was never truly an atheist. He claims that his lack of belief was caused by his desire to fit in with his fellow professors at Stanford, and this is therefore used by Conservapedia to illustrate that some atheism is caused by peer pressure. How then would they explain what causes an atheist to continue being so in a world that is 84% religious?

I will allow that just as atheists in Bible Belt states sometimes fake belief to avoid being ostracized, those in a community of intelligentsia might fake atheism for the same reasons. But none of it is real and should not be counted against or for either side.

Error: This is a "failure to fairly and judiciously consider the facts".

How does one argue against this without turning to childish antics such as, "Oh yeah? Well...you started it!"?

I don't think I can, and so I leave it to those masters of reason (and tact) who are far better equipped than I.

State churches: Conservapedia suggests that countries with state churches where participation is not required (nor lack of participation punished) tend to have a larger population of atheists because "state churches become bloated, corrupt, and/or out of touch with the religious intuitions of the population." Interesting concept. I hold a different opinion, however.

Let's take the Brits and their Church of England . (The above link, btw, leads to a fascinating study on religion in the U.K. I'm a happy anglophile :) ). Jeremy Paxman says the Church of England reflects "how the English like their religion - pragmatic, comfortable and unobtrusive."

And wouldn't you too, after having endured a history with such things as crusades and Mary Tudor? Perhaps it's not only the established church but the established country as well, with a history long enough and bloody enough to know better than to meddle in the spiritual affairs of its people. Left to one's own devices, is atheism more likely to occur, not from any deficiency of spiritual guidance but from a natural propensity for skepticism and inquiry?

Poor relationship with father: This is another gem from Paul Vitz. For his book Faith of the Fatherless, he researched twelve atheists and found that a "large majority of them had a father who was present but weak, present but abusive, or absent."

Well, technically there, he'd have me. My father falls into the "absent" category, almost from the moment of my birth. But, Mr. Vitz shouldn't get too excited. Although my father was absent, I had something better: a grandfather who was very much present and was neither weak nor abusive. My grandfather was the best of men. Intelligent, rational, calm, resourceful, subtly humorous. And, from what I can tell, he was something of an agnostic deist. My grandmother, in fact, "blames" my atheism on him; she says he often would tell me, "Believe none of what you hear, and half of what you see."

Sounds perfectly reasonable to me. Thanks Grandpa :)

I am just one atheist and certainly can't vouch for all atheists. Still, my one is nearly as valid in a scientific study as is Vitz's twelve.

Division in religion: Francis Bacon wrote, "...when atheists, and profane persons, do hear of so many discordant, and contrary opinions in religion; it doth avert them from the church, and maketh them, to sit down in the chair of the scorners."

I'll give them partial credit on this one with most of it going to Bacon. I can't say that my atheism was at all prompted by divisions within religion. I knew nothing of the politics and squabbling and various denominations back then. But I do know people who were propelled to begin questioning what they'd been told because of this kind of thing.

However, it does not follow that one must therefore come to the conclusion that there is no god. Rather they can, and often do, come to the conclusion that organized religion is man-made, thus leading them to a more personal belief not bound by man-made dogma.

Learned times, peace, and prosperity: Darn those silly learned times of peace and prosperity! They sure can be a nuisance!

Like the benefit of a longer history granting society the possibility of a broader perspective (if their governments allow it), so can peace and prosperity. It makes sense, that in such times, there will be an explosion of philosophy, art, music, etc. Far from viewing atheism as something that detracts from society, I think it, or rather the freedom to be it, adds to a society in a very beneficial way. It is that very freedom to be what most are not, without fear, which points to the broader enlightenment of a culture.

During these times, according to Jewish columnist Dennis Prager, "from elementary school through graduate school, only one way of looking at the world – the secular – is presented." Fortunately, in such enlightened times and cultures which allow heathens to live, believers are also allowed certain freedoms. Parents are still allowed to share their religious and/or spiritual beliefs with their children, and places of worship are still allowed to operate (tax free, too).

Negative experiences with theists: I've had them, sure. Everyone has. But, I like to call it negative experiences with other people, because that's what it is.

Have I had negative experiences with another person because they were a theist and I an atheist? Of course. However, I was already an atheist, and their assholery had no bearing on my lack of belief in a deity.

Scientism: : "Science has in many ways become a new God." When I read this to my oldest son, he laughed and replied, "It always has been."

*gasp*

No, he's not confirming the belief that science has become a religion. He is more mirroring Einstein's thoughts, when he said, "I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it."

Nature, our world, the universe... it's awe-inspiring and wondrous and frightening and simple and complicated and ordered and chaotic. Science unlocks the doors, revealing answers to age-old mysteries. Science is not, however, a god.

My reasons: Whenever I read about the reasons behind atheism, written by theists, I often wonder... wouldn't it be more effective to just ask an atheist? Sure, we are many and varied, which is why generalizations don't work, for anyone. You'd have to talk to a lot of us to understand the various reasons behind atheism.

Although I'm one voice, here's my story: growing up, I had vague notions of God. God just was, and that was it. Christmases and Easters gave a slight nod to God and Jesus. I recently found a tape of my four-year-old self singing religious songs around Christmas, so I know it was not completely absent from my earliest years.

At 8, I went to Catechism. The nuns felt I wasn't quite catching on and gave me a private lesson. Still didn't take, but I took First Communion anyway. At 14, during a mass, I chose to remain sitting when the rest of the congregation knelt. It was the first time I called myself an atheist. From there, it's been a gradual process, coming to understand who I am and why I think as I do. I've never once taken my atheism lightly; religion, belief and non-belief is a subject I have thought of often, though I do so for a better understanding as opposed to self-doubt. I am completely at peace with who I am.

That's it. Boring. No painful stories. No abusive father. My childhood was neither traumatic nor storybook. The nun who pulled me aside didn't beat me with a ruler. I love churches, their architecture and calmness inside, the echoing vastness. I'm neither rebelling, nor is my lack of belief in any deity a superficial one born out of peer pressure. I just don't believe that there is any god, not the one the Christians claim is real, nor the Dogma Free Creator of the deists, nor any of the hundreds of mythological beings in which people have claimed belief since the time man first wondered at the nature of his existence.

Atheists? Care to share your reasons? Anyone? Thoughts?

~

What's My Label?

Wednesday, October 28, 2009

Oh! They Got Me!

Sunday, October 25, 2009

Let's not call it poetry... let's call it "The crap that's in my head"