My Creed
Well, I’ve pondered whether I should write a blog on my “why” for a good while now, and I’ve decided that I might as well. I have a point to make.
So then, the question I pose myself is this: Why do I refuse to believe in a God?
I’ve decided that there are a bunch of concurrent reasons that answer this question for me, and I’ll discuss each in detail shortly. In summation, I don’t think there’s enough evidence, and I do not approve of the cornerstones of what any and all organized religions are trying to do.
As to the first: I don’t believe there’s nearly enough evidence to prove the definite existence of an omnipotent deity. I mean, if there was one, we’d be able to see the results of his / her interference, right? However, as far as I’ve seen, nothing of the sort exists. Prayer is insufficient - if a deity can “cure” one person, can it not cure everyone afflicted with so and so condition? Furthermore, can it cure people who do not already believe in its presence? Studies have been done that prove prayer does not pose any effect in an experimental setting. For example, in the New York Times (Search the online version), there was a chronicled test conducted by several reputed medical researchers thatfound that people undergoing heart surgery actually had a higher risk of complications due to “expectations the prayers created”. Psychological influence over physiology is a noted medical condition, yet it would seem that prayer should pose a solely positive influence over the recipients. Apparently, it doesn’t, under scrutiny.
Furthermore, I have yet to see anything that I would consider a “miracle” without some sort of scientific reasoning behind it. I haven’t seen a video of an amputee re-growing a limb; I have not seen a picture of a three-day old corpse suddenly coming back to life. There are numerous websites devoted to questions like this - there have been immense rewards offered for any evidence that conclusively points to any deity at all. All of these prizes for proof, unsurprisingly, are unclaimed.
The Bible, the Qur’an, the Torah, and various other religious scriptures don’t work for me, either. If each is supposed to be the word of a respective God, they must be specific, non-contradictory, and sensible, right? These texts follow none of these criterions. I’ve read each of these texts in some regard over the past few years, and each of them are pretty nonsensical. If someone were to say that their cat died, rose from the dead the next day, and flew into the sky, you would be inclined to believe they were either telling a story or were a complete lunatic, right? If one were to their boss at work flew over to them, implanted ideas into their head, and then led them onto a massive winged wireless mouse and ascended into the clouds, you would dismiss them as crazy, yes? However, when we insert a religious icon - Jesus in Case 1, or Muhammad in Case 2, these suddenly become perfectly logical and it becomes insanity to disbelieve them. This is an inherent flaw in religion; in that it tells believers to institute a state of “doublethink” (Term coined by George Orwell in his novel, 1984) towards the world, to be skeptical towards everything except what their holy book says is true. What is so hard about that last little step, exposing religious belief to skepticism? It is, in my belief, because religion would fall apart if put under scrutiny equivalent to what we would provide other things.
So, I have yet to see any evidence. When I see some that is conclusive and pointed, I’ll believe it, but that doesn’t seem to be happening anytime in the near future. I don’t take things on faith, and that seems to be the only way religion will work in the here and now.
I also cannot say I agree with how religious beliefs are organized. Besides the lack of skepticism extended towards religion, the effects of religious influence are also quite frightening. The Crusades of the 11th Century, along with nearly every war prior to the Thirty Years War in the 1700s, prove that religion is a beast that can result in violence. The entire Second Crusade ended with the slaying of thousands of Jews (No attempt was made here to reclaim Jerusalem), and in fact, the later Albigensian Crusade was focused on disposing of everyone that didn’t agree with Roman Catholicism. The Wars of Religion in France, as by the name, were entirely focused on religion; Mary I of England killed hundreds of Protestants in the Smithfield Fires in the name of faith, and the whole of the English Civil War had to do with a religious disparity in Parliament.
However, effects continue today. The attacks on September 11th had some sort of religious conviction - if not that, how can one explain the fact that highly educated people would fly planes into buildings? What about the conflicts in Northern Ireland, an area that holds firmly onto Roman Catholicism, being in a constant state of turmoil because the ruling body (England) holds more Protestant beliefs? There should be no reason for religious conflict in an advanced world society, but alas, it continues. And for those saying that the radicals of the past weren’t true believers and were not following the word of scripture... the “past radicals” probably say the same of them if those 11th century warriors could see their method of following belief -- but beyond that, religious texts do condone things like this. In the Bible, for example, God kills somewhere in the neighborhood of 2 million people by his direct influence. Great role model.
Furthermore, I can’t see how a theist would argue that morals are derived purely from religion. I see a problem with expecting that good behavior will merit rewards in some sort of arbitrary afterlife in which they will live forever in a massive golden palace in the sky while others are roasting forever below... I couldn’t think of a sufficient way to think a moral person would be okay with that. What if, in fact, one could be moral simply out of compassion for other people? Once that applies, the entire process seems more altruistic than expecting some sort of reward for the self or vengeance on people one would dislike, and religion would fall out of the picture. I try to follow this view.
A theist might also try to argue that the world as a whole would only be compatible with some sort of creator. They would argue that life itself could not happen by “random chance” (This referring to Darwinian Natural Selection) and that the majesty of the world would be impossible without some sort of influence. However, Darwinian natural selection is anything but random chance - it is a series of small, gradual steps that slowly guides something to a more efficient form based upon the needs to the environment, A point of emphasis here is that the process is incredibly slow in a fully natural environment - reality does not work in the way movies do, where the action skips around in time, ignoring the instances where nothing relevant or interesting is happening. However, in even more base than that, I am not okay with giving the universe that little credit. I reason that more of its beauty can be appreciated when one thinks “Wow, and all this happened because of processes that seem so simplistic in theory...” Applying Occam’s Razor (The simplest solution tends to work the best) actually favors naturalism in this aspect. I refuse to live with a veil over my eyes; I always want to keep asking “why” to the things I don’t understand.
For the reasons above, I consider myself an Atheist. I do not mind being outspoken about it - there is no reason religion deserves to be on a pillar, above the same level of skepticism that other things are given. I will question everyone’s beliefs, but I question my own even more so. Religion does not deserve to be left alone... I read once (I don’t recall if it was in a blog or book) that “although most of the horrors committed in the name of religion come from extremists, these extremists come about because of the complacency of the moderate population towards respecting the beliefs of others without question”. I have a creed for myself towards this entire issue:
My Creed as an Atheist
1. I will always question the religious beliefs of everyone and give all faith equal skepticism, including my own. I will never be complacent in my belief.
2. I will not fear in calling myself an Atheist, for it is not a term that I consider in the least bit pejorative. I will not take offense to people calling me this, and instead, welcome it.
3. I will treat my fellow humans with the respect they deserve because they deserve it, not because I look for a reward after my passing.
4. I will always look onto the universe with awe and wonder, never blinding myself to the greatness it holds.
5. I will always maintain a policy of looking for answers to questions, not for formulating questions around an answer.
6. I will never, ever, stop seeking the truth.
7. I will make the best I possibly can of the short time I have on Earth, devoting it to enjoying the beauty of existence and bettering the lives of others.
And that is all.
So then, the question I pose myself is this: Why do I refuse to believe in a God?
I’ve decided that there are a bunch of concurrent reasons that answer this question for me, and I’ll discuss each in detail shortly. In summation, I don’t think there’s enough evidence, and I do not approve of the cornerstones of what any and all organized religions are trying to do.
As to the first: I don’t believe there’s nearly enough evidence to prove the definite existence of an omnipotent deity. I mean, if there was one, we’d be able to see the results of his / her interference, right? However, as far as I’ve seen, nothing of the sort exists. Prayer is insufficient - if a deity can “cure” one person, can it not cure everyone afflicted with so and so condition? Furthermore, can it cure people who do not already believe in its presence? Studies have been done that prove prayer does not pose any effect in an experimental setting. For example, in the New York Times (Search the online version), there was a chronicled test conducted by several reputed medical researchers thatfound that people undergoing heart surgery actually had a higher risk of complications due to “expectations the prayers created”. Psychological influence over physiology is a noted medical condition, yet it would seem that prayer should pose a solely positive influence over the recipients. Apparently, it doesn’t, under scrutiny.
Furthermore, I have yet to see anything that I would consider a “miracle” without some sort of scientific reasoning behind it. I haven’t seen a video of an amputee re-growing a limb; I have not seen a picture of a three-day old corpse suddenly coming back to life. There are numerous websites devoted to questions like this - there have been immense rewards offered for any evidence that conclusively points to any deity at all. All of these prizes for proof, unsurprisingly, are unclaimed.
The Bible, the Qur’an, the Torah, and various other religious scriptures don’t work for me, either. If each is supposed to be the word of a respective God, they must be specific, non-contradictory, and sensible, right? These texts follow none of these criterions. I’ve read each of these texts in some regard over the past few years, and each of them are pretty nonsensical. If someone were to say that their cat died, rose from the dead the next day, and flew into the sky, you would be inclined to believe they were either telling a story or were a complete lunatic, right? If one were to their boss at work flew over to them, implanted ideas into their head, and then led them onto a massive winged wireless mouse and ascended into the clouds, you would dismiss them as crazy, yes? However, when we insert a religious icon - Jesus in Case 1, or Muhammad in Case 2, these suddenly become perfectly logical and it becomes insanity to disbelieve them. This is an inherent flaw in religion; in that it tells believers to institute a state of “doublethink” (Term coined by George Orwell in his novel, 1984) towards the world, to be skeptical towards everything except what their holy book says is true. What is so hard about that last little step, exposing religious belief to skepticism? It is, in my belief, because religion would fall apart if put under scrutiny equivalent to what we would provide other things.
So, I have yet to see any evidence. When I see some that is conclusive and pointed, I’ll believe it, but that doesn’t seem to be happening anytime in the near future. I don’t take things on faith, and that seems to be the only way religion will work in the here and now.
I also cannot say I agree with how religious beliefs are organized. Besides the lack of skepticism extended towards religion, the effects of religious influence are also quite frightening. The Crusades of the 11th Century, along with nearly every war prior to the Thirty Years War in the 1700s, prove that religion is a beast that can result in violence. The entire Second Crusade ended with the slaying of thousands of Jews (No attempt was made here to reclaim Jerusalem), and in fact, the later Albigensian Crusade was focused on disposing of everyone that didn’t agree with Roman Catholicism. The Wars of Religion in France, as by the name, were entirely focused on religion; Mary I of England killed hundreds of Protestants in the Smithfield Fires in the name of faith, and the whole of the English Civil War had to do with a religious disparity in Parliament.
However, effects continue today. The attacks on September 11th had some sort of religious conviction - if not that, how can one explain the fact that highly educated people would fly planes into buildings? What about the conflicts in Northern Ireland, an area that holds firmly onto Roman Catholicism, being in a constant state of turmoil because the ruling body (England) holds more Protestant beliefs? There should be no reason for religious conflict in an advanced world society, but alas, it continues. And for those saying that the radicals of the past weren’t true believers and were not following the word of scripture... the “past radicals” probably say the same of them if those 11th century warriors could see their method of following belief -- but beyond that, religious texts do condone things like this. In the Bible, for example, God kills somewhere in the neighborhood of 2 million people by his direct influence. Great role model.
Furthermore, I can’t see how a theist would argue that morals are derived purely from religion. I see a problem with expecting that good behavior will merit rewards in some sort of arbitrary afterlife in which they will live forever in a massive golden palace in the sky while others are roasting forever below... I couldn’t think of a sufficient way to think a moral person would be okay with that. What if, in fact, one could be moral simply out of compassion for other people? Once that applies, the entire process seems more altruistic than expecting some sort of reward for the self or vengeance on people one would dislike, and religion would fall out of the picture. I try to follow this view.
A theist might also try to argue that the world as a whole would only be compatible with some sort of creator. They would argue that life itself could not happen by “random chance” (This referring to Darwinian Natural Selection) and that the majesty of the world would be impossible without some sort of influence. However, Darwinian natural selection is anything but random chance - it is a series of small, gradual steps that slowly guides something to a more efficient form based upon the needs to the environment, A point of emphasis here is that the process is incredibly slow in a fully natural environment - reality does not work in the way movies do, where the action skips around in time, ignoring the instances where nothing relevant or interesting is happening. However, in even more base than that, I am not okay with giving the universe that little credit. I reason that more of its beauty can be appreciated when one thinks “Wow, and all this happened because of processes that seem so simplistic in theory...” Applying Occam’s Razor (The simplest solution tends to work the best) actually favors naturalism in this aspect. I refuse to live with a veil over my eyes; I always want to keep asking “why” to the things I don’t understand.
For the reasons above, I consider myself an Atheist. I do not mind being outspoken about it - there is no reason religion deserves to be on a pillar, above the same level of skepticism that other things are given. I will question everyone’s beliefs, but I question my own even more so. Religion does not deserve to be left alone... I read once (I don’t recall if it was in a blog or book) that “although most of the horrors committed in the name of religion come from extremists, these extremists come about because of the complacency of the moderate population towards respecting the beliefs of others without question”. I have a creed for myself towards this entire issue:
My Creed as an Atheist
1. I will always question the religious beliefs of everyone and give all faith equal skepticism, including my own. I will never be complacent in my belief.
2. I will not fear in calling myself an Atheist, for it is not a term that I consider in the least bit pejorative. I will not take offense to people calling me this, and instead, welcome it.
3. I will treat my fellow humans with the respect they deserve because they deserve it, not because I look for a reward after my passing.
4. I will always look onto the universe with awe and wonder, never blinding myself to the greatness it holds.
5. I will always maintain a policy of looking for answers to questions, not for formulating questions around an answer.
6. I will never, ever, stop seeking the truth.
7. I will make the best I possibly can of the short time I have on Earth, devoting it to enjoying the beauty of existence and bettering the lives of others.
And that is all.