Atheism | Way of the Mind

Tag Archive for 'atheism'

Does Evolution lead to Atheism?

Published

on April 4, 2008

. 13 Comments

Many people in the US claim that teaching evolution is a bad thing, because it leads to atheism (and some, like Ben Stein, add that it then leads to Nazism and the Holocaust, but that’s another story). Of course, I don’t think that leading to atheism is a bad thing, because atheism is a “good thing”. However, the question remains: does it?

My answer: in some cases, yes.

The reality of evolution doesn’t preclude the existence of God, much less disprove it. It is certainly compatible with the existence of a supreme being who created the universe, and even with one who also intentionally created life on Earth.

It does, however, affect religious belief in two different ways, either of which can lead one to atheism, and which are why religion often has objections to evolution:

It removes one of the major needs for the existence of God. One can believe that a divine creator exists simply because we don’t see any other explanation for something — in this case, the existence of mankind. Much like in Douglas Adams’s case, it can happen that you come to the conclusion that human religions are logically incoherent and man-made, but you still believe there must be some kind of creator, since you are aware of no other explanation. But evolution provides one, which resolves the “I don’t see any other way it could have been” argument from ignorance.
It reveals the holy books are not inerrant. The major monotheist religions are based on their respective holy books, which include creation stories, usually having something to do with “six days”, with mankind as “special” and intentionally designed, and which totally contradict evolution. To put it bluntly: if evolution is real, Genesis is wrong. While not all sects of each religion teach biblical literalism and inerrancy, many do so, and the fact that evolution shows one part of the Bible to be not literally true leads one to a slippery slope: if this part is wrong or can’t be taken literally, might other parts be wrong or non-literal as well? (One particular resurrection comes to mind…) And how can one then know which parts to trust? This kind of questioning leads some to a more liberal form of religion, but others to one simple, “dangerous” question: what if… it’s all wrong?

And thus evolution is opposed. Because they see what it can do, indeed.

FAQ: What do you atheists worship, then?

Published

Pedro Timóteo

on March 20, 2008

in atheism and atheism faq

. 3 Comments

It depends on what you mean by “worship”. If you mean admire, respect, try to emulate, or believe in, I can’t answer your question, as every atheist is different. There’s nothing in the “atheist” tag that specifies any of those about a person.

If you mean in a religious sense… the answer is simple: nothing.

Now, many believers are brought up to believe that worship is an essential, universal part of the human condition; in other words, everyone worships someone or something. Since atheists don’t believe in gods — and, more specifically, they don’t believe in your god –, you may have been taught, or may have concluded yourself, that atheists worship someone or something else. Common theist claims about our objects of worship include:

ourselves
humanity
Darwin
Dawkins
materialism
wealth
science
reason
evolution
nature
communism
nihilism
other gods than yours (which contradicts the definition of “atheist”, but never mind that…)
Satan (!)

Needless to say, all those claims are false.

Atheists don’t worship, in the religious sense. We may respect, we may admire, we may even feel awed (and many of us frequently do — for instance, by nature or science). But “worship” implies something different.

Worship, much like religion, or having a car, is not an essential part of what being a sentient being is. Some do it (believers, in general), some don’t.

(Note: please keep any comments related to the above question / answer, and not to other subjects, such as whether God exists or not. Thanks.)

Let Nihilism Reign Supreme!

Published

Pedro Timóteo

on March 18, 2008

in atheism, books and nihilism

. 4 Comments

… or not.

Both PZ and Ebonmuse have mentioned a recent book by Chris Hedges, author of American Fascists: The Christian Right and the War On America (which I haven’t read), called I Don’t Believe in Atheists. Hedges introduces his book in this essay, and, though those two much more esteemed bloggers than myself have already done so, I can’t refrain from adding my part.

Hedges writes:

The New Atheist authors [...] embrace a belief system as intolerant, chauvinistic, and bigoted as that of religious fundamentalists. They too propose a route to collective salvation. They too believe in the moral advancement of the human species, this time through science and reason. The utopian dream of a perfect society and a perfect human being, the idea that we are moving toward collective salvation, is one of the most dangerous legacies of the Christian faith and of the Enlightenment. Those who believe in the possibility of this perfection often call for the silencing or eradication of human beings who are defined by them as impediments to human progress. They turn their particular good into a universal good. They are blind to their own corruption and capacity for evil. They soon commit evil not for evil’s sake but to make a better world. And they do this in the name of religion or science or reason.

Now, if you know anything at all about atheists, if you know any of us personally, if you read atheist blogs (never mind being an atheist yourself), you’re probably as shocked right now as I was when I read the above for the first time. “Intolerant”? “Chauvinistic”? “Bigoted”? Excuse me?!? On what grounds does Hedges call atheists that? Well, here’s his argument: we believe in making the world a better place. We don’t believe human beings are intrinsically and irrevocably evil. The nerve of these pesky atheists! Don’t we know that the world can’t become better in any way? Furthermore, the very fact that we want to try makes us not only more evil than everyone else, but actually dangerous — because we have some dreams of “utopia” and will, inevitably, sacrifice and kill anyone who gets in our way.

Say what!??

Continue reading ‘Let Nihilism Reign Supreme!’

More on the Dawkins / Hitchens / Dennett / Harris discussion (part 2): the immaturity of religious arguments

Published

Pedro Timóteo

on March 4, 2008

in atheism, christianity, logic, religion and the bible

. 1 Comment

Like before, just click on the picture above to go to the source, download or watch the 2-hour video, and so on.

Also like before, I’m going to post and comment on one of my favorite parts of the discussion between the “four horsemen of atheism”.

Daniel Dennett: Right. And you know this, what you just said Christopher, actually, I think, strikes terror, it strikes anxiety, in a lot of religious hearts. Because it just hasn’t been brought home to them that this move of theirs is just off-limits. It’s not the game. You can’t do that. And they’ve been taught all their lives that you can do that - this is a legitimate way of conducting a discussion. And here, suddenly we’re just telling them “I’m sorry, that is not a move in this game”. In fact it is a disqualifying move.

[..]

Christopher Hitchens: Adumbrate the move for me a bit, if you would, or for us. Perhaps only for me. Say what you think that move is.

Dennett: Somebody plays the faith card.

Hitchens: Yes.

Dennett: They say look, I am a Christian and we Christians, we just have to believe this and that’s it. At which point, I guess the polite way of saying it is well, okay, if that’s true you’ll just have to excuse yourself from the discussion because you’ve declared yourself incompetent to proceed with an open mind. Now…

Hitchens: That’s what I hoped. That’s what I hoped you were saying.

Dennett: …if you really can’t defend your view, then sorry, you can’t put it forward. We’re not going to let you play the faith card. Now if you want to defend what your holy book says, in terms that we can appreciate, fine. But because it says it in the holy book, that just doesn’t cut any ice at all. And if you think it does, that’s just arrogant. It is a bullying move and we’re just not going to accept it.

Sam Harris: And it’s a move that they don’t accept when done in the name of another faith.

Dennett: Exactly.

In other words: saying “we just have to believe it and that’s it” is not a rational argument, or a grown-up argument. Nor is saying “it is true, because it says so in my holy book”. Those are appeals to emotion or to authority, which are childish arguments that have no place in an adult, rational discussion… and which believers wouldn’t accept from believers of other faiths, anyway. Those arguments are the equivalent of a child’s “but I wannaaaaaa!!!!”. They only “work” because religion and religious beliefs are still unnaturally and unjustifiably respected.

Incidentally, Dennett’s “Now if you want to defend what your holy book says, in terms that we can appreciate, fine” reminds me of Barack Obama’s “Democracy demands that the religiously motivated translate their concerns into universal, rather than religion-specific, values. It requires that their proposals be subject to argument, and amenable to reason. I may be opposed to abortion for religious reasons, but if I seek to pass a law banning the practice, I cannot simply point to the teachings of my church or evoke God’s will. I have to explain why abortion violates some principle that is accessible to people of all faiths, including those with no faith at all”.

In other words — and even though Obama is himself a Christian — both are saying that childish arguments, such as appeals to authority or emotions, just won’t do in real life. This is probably shocking to many believers, who are used to, and comfortable with, their immaturity of beliefs and arguments. It probably explains why Christians cry “we’re being oppressed!” merely for not being allowed to oppress others anymore… after all, they’re suddenly losing a ~~right~~ privilege they’ve had for centuries, when they were so powerful that they were able to act like spoiled children, both in terms of arguments and of actions. Suddenly being told to grow up and act like adults — for the first time in centuries — probably feels like “oppression” to them…

Atheism, Stalin, and "without God anything goes"

Published

Pedro Timóteo

on March 3, 2008

in atheism, morality and religion

. 4 Comments

A couple of days ago, I was reading the comments to a post on The Frame Problem which, like one of mine, included this comic:

The replies, over there, were a little more like those I had expected here.

First, there came the usual “Stalin / Hitler did this, so atheism is even worse” argument, a.k.a. “I completely missed the point of the comic”. The point is that the comic’s panels suggest several hypothetic (and completely non-existent) atrocities actually made in the name of atheism — and whose equivalents were, in real life, made in the name of religion. That’s completely different from atrocities made by believers or atheists but not in the name of (or because of) their religion or atheism.

When someone pointed out that there’s no relation between Stalin’s atheism and his atrocities (Hitler was a Catholic), then this little gem came up:

They decided that there was no god and realized that they were therefore permitted to do anything they wanted

And this is where I believe all discussion with that person should end. Because he or she, at that point, has gone between a mere logical confusion (going from “atheists did this” to “atheism causes this”) to actual immorality. That person doesn’t see any reason for not “doing anything they want” other than fear of being spanked by the sky daddy. No reason to help and care for other human beings, except that God supposedly commanded so. No reason for not going into a killing spree, except that they don’t want to go to hell.

This, ladies and gents, is absolutely sickening — not to mention worrying (what if they ever lose their faith? no one in the vicinity would be safe…). And they don’t even get that.

I’d like to suggest to fellow nonbelievers that, when told that “atheism leads to evil (because without god anything goes”), or confronted yet again with the Stalin argument (which really amounts to the same: “they killed people because they didn’t fear divine punishment”), they reply with something like the following:

You have just stated that you, yourself, see no reason not to commit mass murder, other than fear of going to hell. Therefore, you have shown yourself to be a psychopathic monster, and I am not interested in continuing a discussion with the likes of you.

I know I’ll be using it in the future, because, sure as hell, believers will continue to compare my morality (or, in their eyes, lack thereof) to Stalin’s.

More on the Dawkins / Hitchens / Dennett / Harris discussion (part 1): belief and emotional investment

Published

Pedro Timóteo

on February 29, 2008

in atheism, feelings and religion

. 8 Comments

As a follow-up to my previous post on the subject, I want to share — and comment on — some of the best parts (IMO) of the conversation between the “four hoursemen”, which I still recommend that you watch in full (just click on the image above and download the files, if possible, or at least follow the YouTube links). Since there’s too much to comment on, I’ll divide it among several posts; here’s the first.

Daniel Dennett: Yeah, well I’m amused by it [the accusation that they are "strident or arrogant, or vitriolic, or shrill"], because I went out of my way in my book to address reasonable religious people. And I test-flew the draft with groups of students who were deeply religious. And indeed, the first draft incurred some real anguish. And so I made adjustments and made adjustments. And it didn’t do any good in the end because I still got hammered for being for being rude and aggressive. And I came to realize that it’s a no-win situation. It’s a mug’s game. The religions have contrived to make it impossible to disagree with them critically without being rude.

Nowhere else, from my experience, does something like this happen. “I think you’re wrong” is not an insult or a personal offense… except in religion. I think this is a very important point.

And why is it? Harris and Dennett provide the answer:

Sam Harris: I mean, this is just not the way rational minds operate when they’re really trying to get at what’s true in the world. And religions purport to be representing reality. And yet there’s this peevish, tribal, and ultimately dangerous, reflexive response to having these ideas challenged. I think we’re pointing to the total liability of that fact.

Dennett: Well, and too, there’s no polite way to say to somebody…

Harris: You’ve wasted your life!

Dennett: …do you realize you’ve wasted your life? Do you realize that you’ve just devoted all your efforts and all your goods to the glorification of something which is just a myth? Or have you ever considered - even if you say have you even considered the possibility that maybe you’ve wasted your life on this? There’s no inoffensive way of saying that. But we do have to say it, because they should jolly well consider it. Same as we do about our own lives.

Again, this is pretty important. It’s something I’ve noticed when discussing these matters with less skeptical friends (and it wasn’t even about religion, but astrology, mysticism, “energies”, and so on): if you refute their arguments one by one, they invariably reach a point where they’re visibly emotionally affected — almost near panic — and, if you keep going on past that point, they get really offended, angry, and aggressive with you. Why? Because their beliefs aren’t just a matter of whether the methods (e.g. prayer, horoscopes, etc.) “work” or whether the propositions are “true”. These people have an emotional investment in those beliefs. A huge one. And, in a way, you’re telling them that they may have lost all of that investment. That, as Harris and Dennett say, they’ve wasted their life. A form of the sunk cost fallacy comes into effect — deep inside, the person may realize that their belief isn’t based on reality, but they’ve invested too much time, energy, and emotions into it to ever admit the fact. And anyone who insists on making them “look hard” at it is “hurting” them, is attacking them personally, is “offending” them.

I guess that, in many cases, there’s nothing that can be done. It takes a special kind of courage and honesty to admit something like “I’ve wasted most of my life”. In many cases, it’s probably hopeless to try to get them do do it — and it can cost friendships, in fact.

2 Hours with Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, Dan Dennett and Christopher Hitchens

Published

Pedro Timóteo

on February 28, 2008

in atheism and religion

. 2 Comments

This is not very new (it’s from December 2007), but I only found the time today to watch it, and I found it intellectually delicious. Four brilliant minds (who don’t agree in many ways) having a fascinating (and polite!) discussion about religion and atheism.

Please, watch it. Really. Just click on the image above. I suggest downloading the files first and watching them in the best available quality, instead of using YouTube.

For believers, it may surprise you to find out how “strident”, “shrill” and “fanatical” these four bestselling authors really are.

For non-believers, don’t pass this by because you expect it be just “preaching to the choir”. As I said, the discussion is, in my opinion, fascinating and absolutely stimulating, and it will sure get you thinking about stuff you hadn’t considered before.

Pope: "Atheism has led to the greatest forms of cruelty…"

Published

Pedro Timóteo

on December 13, 2007

in atheism, christianity, history and religion

. 5 Comments

Atheism has led to the greatest forms of cruelty

Source: MattBors.com

Christmas for Atheists?

Published

Pedro Timóteo

on December 11, 2007

in atheism

. 2 Comments

A couple of weeks ago, in a Portuguese technology mailing list, someone suggested organizing for a Christmas dinner, and someone else (over)reacted by saying “sorry, wrong religion”. I don’t even know if that guy is an atheist, or religious but not Christian (probably the latter). Obviously, an argument ensued, with that guy even accusing others of “religious discrimination” for assuming that everyone is a Christian and celebrates Christmas. Needless to say, the argument (which I didn’t participate in) quickly descended into chaos and insults.

So… as an atheist, what do I think about Christmas? Well, I love it.

No, I don’t love the absolutely idiotic consumerism that makes it impossible to go into a shopping center during December, which creates huge queues everywhere, and which makes otherwise rational people go into a shopping frenzy, and actually panic because they might forget someone, or disappoint someone, or not be able to find the “right” gift for someone. As I said, I absolutely hate this, and refuse to take part in it.

But I love the rest of Christmas. The decorations, the Christmas trees, the songs, the Santas everywhere, the Christmas parties or dinners at work, the food (here in Portugal there are several types of traditional cakes and other foods that are only made near Christmas, and it’s probably similar in the rest of the world), the whole festive atmosphere of it. And the fact that I get to spend an evening with my family, include some of its members that I almost never see during the year.

No, I don’t feel like I’m “betraying my atheism” (which is a completely absurd concept, of course — you can’t “betray” a lack of belief in something ) by taking part in a celebration usually associated with Christianity (even though it comes from a much older pagan holiday, as everyone here probably knows). In fact, the kind of Christmas celebrated in Portugal has very little — if anything — to do with Jesus and religion, but instead with giving gifts (which unfortunately causes those ridiculous shopping frenzies I mentioned), with family reunions, and with and enjoying each other’s company. And I love it. I don’t need to believe in an invisible man in the sky to follow the traditions and “rituals” I enjoy.

Why non-belief is the rational position to take

Published

Pedro Timóteo

on September 9, 2007

in agnosticism, atheism and religion

. 6 Comments

The “Is There a God?” has a new post called I’m not an atheist, I’m areligious. I was writing a comment there, but it was getting too long, so I’m posting it here.

While I agree with most of the post (that religion is to blame for the Crusades, the Inquisition, 9/11, Hitler’s anti-semitism, and so on), I have to disagree with this part:

The way I look at it to know there is no god requires the same amount of faith as it does to know that there is a God. Since I have yet to see convincing proof either way I can’t fall on one side of the argument or the other.

Non-belief in gods requires as much “faith” as non-belief in unicorns, and the default position should be “where’s the evidence?”, not “I can’t tell one way or another”.

Can one prove there is no god? Of course not, much like the aforementioned unicorns, or Russell’s Teapot, or the Flying Spaghetti Monster. But all those are extraordinary claims, and, as Carl Sagan said, they require (and everyone should demand) extraordinary evidence. There is absolutely none, so non-belief is the only logical, rational position, and it requires no “faith” at all.

Incidentally, while it’s impossible to prove the non-existence of any gods at all, one can certainly prove the non-existence of most particular gods, in several ways:

1- self-contradictory, logically impossible claims (such as omnipotence)

2- divergence from reality (e.g. holy books whose factual claims are contradicted by historical research, or contradictions such as the Problem of Evil)

3- tracing the religion’s origins and discovering / proving that the religion’s creator was lying, deluded, or didn’t even exist.

My attempt at Hemant’s "Short and Sweet" questions

Published

Pedro Timóteo

on July 22, 2007

in atheism

. 5 Comments

Hemant of Friendly Atheist, recently, challenged atheists to come up with very short answers to a number of common theist questions. A couple of bloggers have already answered them on their blogs, and now it’s my turn. I’m trying not to be influenced by other answers I’ve read.

I think this is an interesting project, as there are already several atheist FAQs (including my own, still unfinished), but those usually have longer answers. Having to answer a tough question in a line or two is a nice challenge.

Without further ado…

Why do you not believe in God?

For exactly the same reason that you don’t believe in every other god than yours.

Where do your morals come from?

Empathy, mostly. And reason, and a sense of fairness and justice.

What is the meaning of life?

I could tell you mine, but I can’t tell you yours, or anybody else’s. What, you believe it should be dictated to us by some outside source?

Is atheism a religion?

No. Incidentally, that question implies that having a religion is something universal, even if it’s “atheism”. That is wrong; it’s like saying everyone has a car, even if yours is “feet”.

If you don’t pray, what do you do during troubling times?

Depends on the kind of trouble. If I can do something about it, I do it. If not, I deal with it in many different ways, which tend to include friends, family, getting slightly drunk, and listening to heavy metal music. Not all at the same time, of course.

Should atheists be trying to convince others to stop believing in God?

Yes, in the same way we’d try to convince an alcoholic or drug addict to do something about their addiction.

Weren’t some of the worst atrocities in the 20th century committed by atheists?

Hitler and Stalin had moustaches. So, having a moustache makes you a mass murderer! What, you’re saying that their moustaches didn’t inspire their actions? Neither did Stalin’s atheism (Hitler was a Catholic). The Inquisition, on the other hand, was caused by what, exactly…?

How could billions of people be wrong when it comes to belief in God?

See: flat earth, geocentrism, demonic posession as an explanation for diseases, slavery, and many other times when billions of people were wrong.

Why does the universe exist?

“Why” is the wrong question. “How” would be better. How, exactly? I don’t know, it’s not my field of expertise, sorry. But I don’t take the easy way out and say “Goddidit.”

How did life originate?

Again, I’m not a biologist, but I don’t see the need for a supernatural cause there.

Is all religion harmful?

Yes, because even the most “harmless” ones teach you to replace critical thinking and skepticism with wishful thinking.

What’s so bad about religious moderates?

They believe that any religious creed is above criticism, simply because it is a religious creed. So, they protect extremists, and prevent rational discussion of religion.

Is there anything redeeming about religion?

People may feel better when, after a catastrophe, they somehow still feel that “someone above cares”. But that’s wishful thinking again… and it often keeps them from actually doing something about it. So, no.

What if you’re wrong about God (and He does exist)?

Which one? And what if you believe in the wrong one? Anyway, I believe a good god would prefer a decent unbeliever to a vicious believer… and, as for an evil god, only a coward would ever serve him.

Shouldn’t all religious beliefs be respected?

No. Something is either true, or it isn’t. Why such a fear of reality?

Are atheists smarter than theists?

Technically, no, but statistically they probably are. For instance, the percentage of atheists among scientists is much greater than among the general populace.

How do you deal with the historical Jesus if you don’t believe in his divinity?

If he existed — which isn’t certain — I’m almost sure that it was Paul, not Jesus, who invented the “he died for your sins; accept him as your savior and be saved” thing. In other words: the information we have about the historical Jesus is far from reliable.

Would the world be better off without any religion?

Oh, yes. Without religion in the middle ages, we would be at Star Trek-like levels today — not just in terms of technology, but of society. Religion is the thing that’s holding humanity back the most, and always has been.

What happens when we die?

It’s over for us, but we can leave memories and deeds, and can have made the world a better place for our children and their children.

Now, I’d add a few ones:

Isn’t atheism just hatred of God?

Do you hate Thor? Or just don’t believe he exists or ever existed? Well, it’s the same thing here.

How can you be sure God doesn’t exist, if you’re not all-knowing?

I’m as much sure God doesn’t exist as I am about unicorns or werewolves, and for the same reason: there’s exactly zero evidence for all of them.

Fundamentalists to "militant" atheists… and agnostics

Published

Pedro Timóteo

on July 19, 2007

in agnosticism, atheism and religion

. 5 Comments

Readers of Planet Atheism have probably seen this several times today:

Fundamentalists: believe 2+2 =5 because It Is Written. Somewhere. They have a lot of trouble on their tax returns.

“Moderate” believers: live their lives on the basis that 2+2=4. but go regularly to church to be told that 2+2 once made 5, or will one day make 5, or in a very real and spiritual sense should make 5.

“Moderate” atheists: know that 2+2 =4 but think it impolite to say so too loudly as people who think 2+2=5 might be offended.

“Militant” atheists: “Oh for pity’s sake. HERE. Two pebbles. Two more pebbles. FOUR pebbles. What is WRONG with you people?”

And, of course, it’s absolutely correct.

But I’d add another one in the middle:

Agnostics: 2+2 may be 4, or may be 5. Yes, it LOOKS like it’s 4, but I don’t have perfect knowledge, and I want to keep an open mind. Who’s to say the religionists aren’t correct? Who am I to know?

Yes, as long time readers of WotM are probably aware of, I really don’t like agnostics. Sorry if you’re one, but, to me, agnosticism is pure intellectual cowardice.

A fundamentalist theist believes “truth” is separate from reality, and, if they conflict, then reality is wrong. An atheist believes reality IS truth. An agnostic, on the other hand, believes reality is unknowable, and therefore evades the responsibility of trying to understand it. Anything goes. Reality is fluid, ever-changing, unpredictable. We can never truly know anything for certain, since everything we know, every law we take as true, may change tomorrow.

An agnostic — much like a New Age mystic — distorts the concept of “open mindedness” to an absurd level, where there are no laws, no rules, no hard facts, no reality — at least none that can be ever understood. To an agnostic, everything is possible, so nothing is ever certain. Taken to the extreme, nothing is ever even more likely than anything else.

Sorry, but, to me, this is no more rational than believing in an invisible bearded man in the sky, invented by primitive Bronze Age nomads, who, somehow, hates all the same people you do.