On Religion, and the Lack Thereof
I'm an atheist. A humanist, to be specific about it - I don't just not believe in God, I believe that people can find their own paths - and do the right thing - without any supernatural aid.
However, I don't really have anything against conventional religion. I was raised Christian, and I see value in Christian morality - the parts about love and tolerance, not the parts that have been twisted to justify hatred. I don't judge religion by things like the Crusades any more than I judge all Germans by Hitler. I certainly don't see people who do believe as stupid for believing, though I do disagree. If what you believe holds meaning for you and does not interfere with my life, than I have no right to contradict you.
I also don't see religion and science as contradictory forces. That is primarily a modern viewpoint, and it's not really a true one. For example, Galileo was imprisoned not for his scientific discoveries, but for his heretical religious beliefs. Many early scientists saw their discoveries as a way of getting closer to God, by understanding how He had constructed the universe. For everyone who looks at scientific evidence as disproving religion, there are some who look at the amazing scope of the universe as proof of a divine creator. Obviously I've made clear which viewpoint I hold, but I really don't see religion and science as being in conflict. They're trying to answer different questions.
Moreover, religion has historically been the basis of morality. In the past, religion was the binding glue that held society together, expanding social bonds and forming a base on which society could be built. Without religion, we'd still be hunter-gatherers, only attached to our immediate families. I recognize that importance, and I understand that religion still holds that role to some extent today, serving as a source of hope and moral imperative for much of society. Watched people are nice people, so the concept of a supernatural watcher has merit in holding people to a particular moral code.
However, today's increasingly secular society is bound together by more than religion. Civil justice - the legal system - holds some of the same "watcher" role as a supernatural deity traditionally has in encouraging moral behavior. We are held together by communication and by a complex social contract, and although I respect religion's historical and moral role and I don't anticipate that it will be eliminated any time soon, I don't believe that religion is necessary anymore.
I believe that doing the right thing means less if you're doing it because you believe you were told to than because you believe it's right. Although I know people aren't perfect and often do need an overarching system as a reminder of moral behavior on a large scale, I don't think that that reminder has to be religion, and I don't personally put any faith in religious doctrine.
I can certainly understand the emotional appeal of religious belief. Religion offers comfort. It posits that you're never truly alone, that there is a purpose to everything, even if it isn't always clear, that those you love are never truly gone, that there is an ultimate justice in the world. I don't believe that emotional appeal should be a basis for belief, but I can certainly see the appeal, and I don't begrudge anyone who does believe the comfort that religion offers.
Since I understand the importance of religion, I understand the stigma against atheism. People see religion as the basis of morality, so they assume that rejecting it rejects that morality. They think that atheists are untrustworthy, because we have rejected the basis of the social contract and because we don't believe in an ultimate justice and therefore apparently have no incentive to behave rightly in the long term. They also think that in completely rejecting conventional beliefs, athists are deprecating their intelligence for still believing. The vocal, militant atheists like Richard Dawkins certainly haven't helped this opinion.
The fact that I understand the stigma against atheism doesn't mean that I like it, especially since the fact that it's understandable doesn't make it right. That's part of why I prefer to say that I'm a humanist - not only because of the stigma, but because atheism is a very broad term that really only says what I don't believe in, and I think that it's much more important what I do believe.
Even my dad, who is agnostic himself and in all other ways eminently reasonable, doesn't quite get it. He sees atheism as the arrogant certainty that there can be no God. That's why he prefers agnosticism, stating his lack of belief but admitting he doesn't know it all. I respect his position, but would like to make clear a fine but important distinction about my own. Atheism is the affirmative belief that there is no God. I honestly don't believe that God exists, but I also accept that I am fallible. I am no more absolutely certain than most theists are.
Perhaps I should say more about why I don't believe. It isn't anger. I didn't turn from my beliefs after some traumatic event. Although I honestly don't accept any of the explanations I've heard for the "If God is benevolent, omnipotent, and omniscient, then why do we suffer?" argument, I've heard a few very good ones, and that isn't my primary reason for my own lack of belief. It isn't disgust with the contradictions of religious doctrine, because I was raised Disciples of Christ and I can certainly support the overall message of love and tolerance. I'm a humanist, after all, and humanism could be justly described as "Judeo-Christian morality with God taken out."
I stopped believing because I stopped seeing God as necessary. I read the work of honest, decent atheists like Isaac Asimov and Douglas Adams, and learned that it was possible to be a moral person independent of religious belief. I discovered humanism, and found that the idea of making our own purpose in a purposeless world spoke to something in me. I learned more about science, and in seeing how reality created itself I wondered what role God had really played in any of it. I toyed with Deism - "God created the world and then left us to deal with it" - but couldn't see the point. In all honesty, I find myself unable to point to any one book, any one event, any one moment when I sat down and said to myself "I don't believe any more." I don't have just one reason. I made my choice because it felt right to me, and I am entirely comfortable in my lack of belief. If anyone else isn't, then that is their problem.
I don't believe in God, but I don't think that that's what really matters. I believe in helping people. I believe in finding my own purpose, and I believe that it means more if I choose my own way than if there is one laid out for me.
I believe that atheism isn't enough on its own, and that it will take the spread of some unified philosophy - it doesn't have to be humanism, but it certainly could be - before people as a whole learn that you don't need to have any faith in a deity to be a good person.
And if I reach the end and it turns out I'm wrong, then I shall take refuge in this wonderful quote by Isaac Asimov: "If I were not an atheist, I would believe in a God who would choose to save people on the basis of the totality of their lives and not the pattern of their words. I think he would prefer an honest and righteous atheist to a TV preacher whose every word is God, God, God, and whose every deed is foul, foul, foul."
However, I don't really have anything against conventional religion. I was raised Christian, and I see value in Christian morality - the parts about love and tolerance, not the parts that have been twisted to justify hatred. I don't judge religion by things like the Crusades any more than I judge all Germans by Hitler. I certainly don't see people who do believe as stupid for believing, though I do disagree. If what you believe holds meaning for you and does not interfere with my life, than I have no right to contradict you.
I also don't see religion and science as contradictory forces. That is primarily a modern viewpoint, and it's not really a true one. For example, Galileo was imprisoned not for his scientific discoveries, but for his heretical religious beliefs. Many early scientists saw their discoveries as a way of getting closer to God, by understanding how He had constructed the universe. For everyone who looks at scientific evidence as disproving religion, there are some who look at the amazing scope of the universe as proof of a divine creator. Obviously I've made clear which viewpoint I hold, but I really don't see religion and science as being in conflict. They're trying to answer different questions.
Moreover, religion has historically been the basis of morality. In the past, religion was the binding glue that held society together, expanding social bonds and forming a base on which society could be built. Without religion, we'd still be hunter-gatherers, only attached to our immediate families. I recognize that importance, and I understand that religion still holds that role to some extent today, serving as a source of hope and moral imperative for much of society. Watched people are nice people, so the concept of a supernatural watcher has merit in holding people to a particular moral code.
However, today's increasingly secular society is bound together by more than religion. Civil justice - the legal system - holds some of the same "watcher" role as a supernatural deity traditionally has in encouraging moral behavior. We are held together by communication and by a complex social contract, and although I respect religion's historical and moral role and I don't anticipate that it will be eliminated any time soon, I don't believe that religion is necessary anymore.
I believe that doing the right thing means less if you're doing it because you believe you were told to than because you believe it's right. Although I know people aren't perfect and often do need an overarching system as a reminder of moral behavior on a large scale, I don't think that that reminder has to be religion, and I don't personally put any faith in religious doctrine.
I can certainly understand the emotional appeal of religious belief. Religion offers comfort. It posits that you're never truly alone, that there is a purpose to everything, even if it isn't always clear, that those you love are never truly gone, that there is an ultimate justice in the world. I don't believe that emotional appeal should be a basis for belief, but I can certainly see the appeal, and I don't begrudge anyone who does believe the comfort that religion offers.
Since I understand the importance of religion, I understand the stigma against atheism. People see religion as the basis of morality, so they assume that rejecting it rejects that morality. They think that atheists are untrustworthy, because we have rejected the basis of the social contract and because we don't believe in an ultimate justice and therefore apparently have no incentive to behave rightly in the long term. They also think that in completely rejecting conventional beliefs, athists are deprecating their intelligence for still believing. The vocal, militant atheists like Richard Dawkins certainly haven't helped this opinion.
The fact that I understand the stigma against atheism doesn't mean that I like it, especially since the fact that it's understandable doesn't make it right. That's part of why I prefer to say that I'm a humanist - not only because of the stigma, but because atheism is a very broad term that really only says what I don't believe in, and I think that it's much more important what I do believe.
Even my dad, who is agnostic himself and in all other ways eminently reasonable, doesn't quite get it. He sees atheism as the arrogant certainty that there can be no God. That's why he prefers agnosticism, stating his lack of belief but admitting he doesn't know it all. I respect his position, but would like to make clear a fine but important distinction about my own. Atheism is the affirmative belief that there is no God. I honestly don't believe that God exists, but I also accept that I am fallible. I am no more absolutely certain than most theists are.
Perhaps I should say more about why I don't believe. It isn't anger. I didn't turn from my beliefs after some traumatic event. Although I honestly don't accept any of the explanations I've heard for the "If God is benevolent, omnipotent, and omniscient, then why do we suffer?" argument, I've heard a few very good ones, and that isn't my primary reason for my own lack of belief. It isn't disgust with the contradictions of religious doctrine, because I was raised Disciples of Christ and I can certainly support the overall message of love and tolerance. I'm a humanist, after all, and humanism could be justly described as "Judeo-Christian morality with God taken out."
I stopped believing because I stopped seeing God as necessary. I read the work of honest, decent atheists like Isaac Asimov and Douglas Adams, and learned that it was possible to be a moral person independent of religious belief. I discovered humanism, and found that the idea of making our own purpose in a purposeless world spoke to something in me. I learned more about science, and in seeing how reality created itself I wondered what role God had really played in any of it. I toyed with Deism - "God created the world and then left us to deal with it" - but couldn't see the point. In all honesty, I find myself unable to point to any one book, any one event, any one moment when I sat down and said to myself "I don't believe any more." I don't have just one reason. I made my choice because it felt right to me, and I am entirely comfortable in my lack of belief. If anyone else isn't, then that is their problem.
I don't believe in God, but I don't think that that's what really matters. I believe in helping people. I believe in finding my own purpose, and I believe that it means more if I choose my own way than if there is one laid out for me.
I believe that atheism isn't enough on its own, and that it will take the spread of some unified philosophy - it doesn't have to be humanism, but it certainly could be - before people as a whole learn that you don't need to have any faith in a deity to be a good person.
And if I reach the end and it turns out I'm wrong, then I shall take refuge in this wonderful quote by Isaac Asimov: "If I were not an atheist, I would believe in a God who would choose to save people on the basis of the totality of their lives and not the pattern of their words. I think he would prefer an honest and righteous atheist to a TV preacher whose every word is God, God, God, and whose every deed is foul, foul, foul."