Atheism is not a religion

7 November 2009 at 9:23 am (Atheist)

@GospelToday left a comment on the blog the other day and on the Friendly Atheist site. Essentially the argument is that atheism is a kind of religion, that it has a central set of tenets and associated symbolism that is common to religion.

This is the response that I left on FA.

@GospelToday is Coca Cola a religious symbol? Is Intel a religion? Is Microsoft or Glaxo? What about the seal of the President of the United States or the Democratic donkey logo?

The Scarlet Letter A is an icon but not in a religious sense. It does remind atheists that there are other people who do not believe in gods, that we aren’t alone in the face of intrusive and ubiquitous religion. The entire OUT campaign is to encourage atheists to be more public about a lack of belief in gods. We can all benefit from dispelling silly rumours about us that only exist because of ignorance of what atheism is.

One such thing that needs dispelling is the assumption that atheists deny the Christian god in the sense of rebelling against God. This is not the case. I do not rebel against God anymore than I rebel against Thor or Ra. I simply don’t find the idea of ANY god compelling. I find the idea of gods logically inconsistent and I give greater credence to the rational explanations for god belief than for actual gods.

I appreciate that some people like the idea and that some even find it comforting. I’ve no interest in shattering that illusion for you. All I want is same consideration from theists. The OUT campaign and the public face of atheism only exists because many theists are not content to keep their “personal relationship with Jesus Christ” (or any other god) personal. They have to force it on others.

Stick around and read some of the articles here. Understand that we are all singing from the same hymn sheet (so to speak) so the concepts and language might be less accessible than a Christian site might be for you. You’ll see an underlying theme after a time and it isn’t a rebellion against your particular god.

If you like I could also point you to many other resources that explain the position of atheists in a largely theistic world.

I can understand how someone raised in an environment where faith took a central place would make this error. It is like trying to understand someone who wasn’t raised within a family. The concept of family is so central to most people that the idea of growing up without one just doesn’t register. Of course, once someone points out that they were raised differently we can adjust our preconceived notions accordingly. We might fall back on old ways of thinking because they work so well but, once informed, we have the new understanding to work with too.

I’ve never had a religion. I was raised with no mention of religion until I went to school. At school it was simply another form or process that we all went through and the lessons in RE dealt more with ethics and how people all over the world have rituals and ideas that we might not understand.

Understanding people who have a faith is difficult for me and I’ve taken great efforts to do so. At least when I haven’t had to defend why I don’t have a faith or why society should have to follow one. I simply cannot make the connection between the idea of gods and what I observe of reality. That isn’t religion, it is an opinion.

Just for the record: atheism is a lack of belief in gods. That’s it. The counter to this is theism (a belief in at least one god) rather than Christianity (a belief in Christ as God as described in the Bible) or Islam (a belief in God as described in the Koran) or any other subset of theism.

Atheism is to religion as bald is to hair colour

4 Comments

Atheist Recipe

27 October 2009 at 12:52 pm (Atheist, Recipe for disaster)

A recipe for all members of the church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster and for all atheists. Who says we can’t cooperate with church people when we have to?

Spaghetti a la baby

3 Comments

Arrrrrr You Ready for International Talk Like a Pirate Day?

19 September 2009 at 8:44 am (Reasons to be cheerful)

http://www.talklikeapirate.com/

Well blow me down if’n International Talk Like a Pirate Day hasn’t come round again right quick. Are ye planning anything special fer the day or are ye stickin’ the the usual fare. Sea biscuits wi’ maggots and a round o’ grog? Meself, I plan on securing a bounty the envy o’ all ye salty sea dogs. First I’ll raid the local town te secure supplies fer me voyage. Then me and the crew are heading out fer a feast. Simple fare it might be but it be respectable plunder.

Me wench be slaving o’er a stall today, selling her wares at ye craft market. She should take up the cutlass like Anne Bonnie but she don’t listen to me. I were pressed into service this very mornin’ luggin sacks a booty fer her te flog. A pirate’s work is ne’er done. ‘Ave a goodun.

Leave a Comment

Mere Christianity – Chapter 2 – Some objections

30 July 2009 at 6:00 am (Reasons to be cheerful)

Following on from Monday’s comments I was pleased to see that Lewis recognised that there were some valid objections to his points.

These are:

What Lewis calls “herd instinct” or normal human impulses. He provides an example.

Supposing you hear a cry for help from a man in danger. You will probably feel two desires – one a desire to give help (due to your herd instinct), the other a desire to keep out of danger (due to the instinct for self preservation).

He goes on to explain how instincts in conflict must be resolved by a third thing: The Moral Law. As with a lot of things I feel the need to say “I think you’ll find that it’s a bit more complicated than that” and I can think of several alternatives without much effort, one being that these instincts are not of equal and opposite strength, another being that they are not the only two instincts at work in the human mind.   He also includes a lovely metaphor of a piano.  Each of our many instincts are keys on the piano and the Moral Law acts are the sheet music.  It’s a neat idea but it both begs the question as to where this Moral Law resides in our minds and it is wholly unnecessary for understanding human behaviour.

Secondly Lewis raises the objection that what he calls Moral Law is simply a social convention that is taught.  he refutes this objection by claiming that this Law of Human Nature is closer to mathematics than taught behaviour.  Essentially he attempts to assert that Moral Law is an absolute that does not change but social conventions are changeable.  Indeed he tries to make the case that social conventions progress to get closer to an absolute value and pioneers and reformers are those who make these social changes to improve the lot of all of society.  This may well be an attempt at Objectivism in a religious sense with absolutes of behaviour being assumed and then used as a comparison.  There is nothing wrong with this if you take the assumed standard of behaviour as a model and not a real thing but I fear that Lewis is making an error by granting his assumption too great a value.

In conclusion Lewis uses an example of a witch hunt to demonstrate how social conventions have changed but Moral Law has not.  He argues that our knowledge of witches supersedes any desire to kill them.  We do not execute witches because we do not believe in them.  If we did, he explains, it would be right to execute them.  I disagree.  We do not execute child molesters or mass murderers in England or in other parts of the world.  We know that such behaviour is vile and reprehensible almost beyond belief.  We can certainly justify ending the lives of such monsters but we do not do so because the taking of a life is considered to be wrong.  A wrong in executing someone is compounding the wrong of their crime, it is not righting it.  This is an improvement in moral behaviour for society, not a change in social convention.

Sadly I think he is trying to build a base where the Moral Law is seen by the reader as an irrefutable fact in order to explain the source of this Moral Law.  I’m unconvinced so far.  I can see far too many alternatives.

16 Comments

Mere Christianity – Chapter 1

27 July 2009 at 6:00 am (Atheist, Debate)
Tags: , , ,

I’m reading C S Lewis’ Mere Christianity at the moment and found myself ranting (in my head) before I’d even finished the first chapter.  Most distracting, I had to kept shutting me up and going back to read what I’d missed.  With that in mind I’d like to examine the points raised in each chapter to see if there is any merit to what he’s written. Fortunately he writes very well with some excellent examples so there are few distinct points in each chapter to confuse thing.

In chapter one Lewis argues that there are things he calls Laws of Nature that are universal for all people. This is essentially a default moral standard enjoyed by all of humanity that included compunctions against killing, stealing, rape, deceit, etc. He argues that these are not learned traits but inherent in the human condition.

There have been differences between their moralities, but these have never amounted to anything like a total difference. If anyone will take the trouble to compare the moral teaching of, say, the ancient Egyptians, Babylonians, Hindus, Chinese, Creeks and Romans, what will really strike him will be how very like they are to each other and to our own. Some of the evidence for this I have put together in the appendix of another book called The Abolition of Man; but for our present purpose I need only ask the reader to think what a totally different morality would mean. Think of a country where people were admired for running away in battle, or where a man felt proud of double-crossing all the people who had been kindest to him. You might just as well try to imagine a country where two and two made five. Men have differed as regards what people you ought to be unselfish to–whether it was only your own family, or your fellow countrymen, or everyone. But they have always agreed that you ought not to put Yourself first. Selfishness has never been admired. Men have differed as to whether you should have one wife or four. But they have always agreed that you must not simply have any woman you liked.

I disagree. Although he does follow up with some neat examples that I do agree with I think he is too sweeping in his assumptions.

There are many different characteristics that human beings could be said to have. I can indeed think of a country where aggression in war is frowned upon and pacifism is considered a positive trait or even where cowardice is excused. I think that we live in societies where exploiting those weaker than us is permissible and even encouraged. Selfishness and self dependence are certainly considered to be traits of value although we do not think of self promotion in such terms.

Are there really universal human characteristics or is Lewis just making a huge assumption? Even if he’s right what does this prove?

5 Comments

False dichotomy

22 July 2009 at 4:50 pm (Reasons to be cheerful)

There are 10 kinds of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don’t.

There are two kinds of people in the world, those who walk into a room and say, “There you are” and those who say, “Here I am!” – Abigail Van Buren

There are two kinds of people, those who do the work and those who take the credit. Try to be in the first group; there is less competition there. — Indira Gandhi

There are two kinds of people in the world, those with a zombie plan, and those that don’t. We call the second group dinner.

What two kinds of people are there for you and what’s your zombie plan?

7 Comments

Bible knowledge in decline

20 July 2009 at 6:00 am (Atheist, Debate)

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/07/12/2623435.htm

Knowledge of the Bible is in decline in Britain, with fewer than one in 20 people able to name all Ten Commandments and youngsters viewing the Christian holy book as “old-fashioned”, a survey said.

Atheists, however, were not unduly worried about the decline in the Bible’s popularity.

“It shows really that religion is becoming less important to people,” said Pepper Harow, campaigns officer at the British Humanist Association.

I got the article link from the BBC’s Big Question forum. Here was my own response at the time.

Whether you are a believer or not the Bible and the Church of England is part of our national culture and heritage. How can you hope to understand and appreciate the Reformation, The English Civil War or The Enlightenment without some idea of what the bible meant to people. Our language is resplendent with biblical references, our laws are often derived from biblical sources and overturned because we have no secular reason for keeping them.

We should have an awareness of the bible even if we believe that it is myth because people took it very seriously for a very long time. How can you argue against something if you don’t know where the idea came from. If you support stem cell research then you must know about the objections that are derived from Christian dogma as well as those that come from ethical considerations. If you support a woman’s right to choose to terminate a pregnancy then you need to understand how others object to it. If you support free education then you need to understand the basis for it and how Christianity was instrumental in creating the public school system.

Some responses lament the decline of knowledge in the general populace.  “We are becoming dumber” they say.  I disagree though that knowledge is in decline.  In the 21st century we have unprecedented access to knowledge on almost any subject you can imagine. I can read Ulysses online, go to a library, order it from Amazon or even borrow a copy. I can discuss the references in a forum with people all over the world if I wish and can even search for one if I don’t know where to find one. I can join a correspondence course, arrange to meet up with Joyce or Tennyson enthusiasts or just write a blog about it. None of this was possible even 10 years ago on the scale we have today.

I think what is in decline is interest. We are becoming the Eloi and the Morlocks, neither is a fate I find particularly appealing.  Do you disagree?  Should we lament the loss of our history or allow that which has served it’s purpose to pass unremarked and unmourned?  Is the decline of biblical knowledge, as I believe, a symptom of a society that has grown bored and indolent, that seeks only survival and entertainment.  If we are losing the roots of our history then is this a step to replacing these old myths with something better for everyone?

4 Comments

News crumbs

1 July 2009 at 10:10 am (Atheist, Debate)

A round up of interesting news stories.  What ho!

Britain’s libel laws threaten Free Speech.  The article begins with some interesting background on chiropractors and how my nation’s laws are being used to silence science writers who criticise crackpot pseudoscience. Oh the shame.

Research reveals how super-sleeper frogs survive Oh I sometimes wish I could sleep for so long.

Outsourcing Faith Apparently the faithful want to be able to talk about faith rather than do their jobs.  Fine, but it should be unpaid work right?  Like the Jehovah’s Witnesses who always come round when I’m in the middle of a strenuous workout (ahem) on a Sunday morning.  They don’t get paid.

Thanks.

18 Comments

Stupid

30 June 2009 at 12:43 pm (Reasons to be cheerful)

“We’re so alike because we’re both Geminis, except that we’re really different”. So say the ladies from Finance.

Oh the stupid.

6 Comments

The Reading Meme

26 June 2009 at 1:46 pm (Reasons to be cheerful)

Violet posted her Reading Meme earlier this week.  Given that I’ve almost deserted this blog I thought I’d attempt to resurrect it with something interesting.

1. What author do you own the most books by?

I have all of Robin Hobb’s books which I’ve enjoyed since picking up the Farseer trilogy ages ago.  There’s a great blend of magic and realism in her writing that makes it very compelling.  This continues in the subsequent two trilogies set in the same world.

The Soldier’s Son trilogy is set in a different world and is wonderful in the way that fantasy is blended with the military and magical culture of the nations.  I’d recommend them to anyone.

As Megan Lindholm she’s written a number of novels that stand alone.  I’m not such a fan of these but they are still good reads.

That said I own more Shakespeare plays than I do Robin Hobb books.  I’m not counting that though because they are plays.

2. What book do you own the most copies of?

The Bible.  I know, I’m an atheist but I have my mother’s bible, a “Good News” bible, Hil’s bible from when she was at school, the obligatory freebie the Gideon’s hand out at school and one that Hil’s aunt gave her.  Plus I think the kids got one of those as well.

I’m counting these as mine as our book collections have become a homogeneous monster and there is no way I am going to sort them out again.  Usually though we get rid of duplicates that we pick up unless two of us want to read them at the same time.  Even the multiple copies of Harry Potter have been sent away to book nirvana, the charity shop.

3. Did it bother you that both those questions ended with prepositions?

Not in the slightest.  My days as a grammar nazi are behind me….mostly.

4. What fictional character are you secretly in love with?

None.  You don’t fall in love with fictional characters.  That’s just strange.  However, if I were to fall in love with someone who wasn’t real it would be Tank Girl.

5. What book have you read the most times in your life (excluding picture books read to children)?

I tend not to reread books.  There’s always something new to read that going back seems silly.  I have read Richard Dawkins’ “The Selfish Gene” and “The God Delusion” twice though.  There’s a lot to take in to be fair.  Also “The Color Purple” because it is just that good.

6. What was your favourite book when you were ten years old?

Without doubt it would be The Hobbit.  I’ve read this multiple time too.  I should add this to the question above.  Meh!

7. What is the worst book you’ve read in the past year?

I disliked Labyrinth by Kate Mosse.  it was just dull.

8. What is the best book you’ve read in the past year?

That depends on my mood.  It’s usually the last one I read.  I’m reading “The Inimitable Jeeves” at the moment.

9. If you could force everyone you tagged to read one book, what would it be?

It doesn’t matter,  just read whatever you enjoy.

10. Who deserves to win the next Nobel Prize for Literature?

No idea.

11. What book would you most like to see made into a movie?

Apparently there are a film versions of “The Time Traveller’s Wife”, “The Boy in the Striped Pyjamas” and “The Book Thief”.  Three books that shouldn’t be films.  They are two different mediums, one doesn’t always translate well to the other.

If I had to choose though I’d make “Pride and Prejudice and Zombies” into a film.  Alternatively the rest of “His Dark Materials” trilogy.

12. What book would you least like to see made into a movie?

 The Bible but apparently it’s already been done.  Seriously though I don’t care.  If I don’t want to spoil a book with a movie I won’t watch the movie.  See the earlier question for clarification.

13. What is the most difficult book you’ve ever read?

I’m not sure what this means.  Difficult in what way?  difficult to read because it was so dull?  War and Peace.  Difficult in terms of language?  Anything written in Japanese.

14. Roth or Updike?

Tim Roth is in “Lie to me” on the tellybox.  it’s quite good even though it’s a bit of a one trick pony.

Seriously though I haven’t read either. Where should I start?

15. David Sedaris or Dave Eggers?

Meh, American humorists.

16. Shakespeare, Milton, or Chaucer?

This is not a question is it?  “OR”?  You’ve got to be kidding?  “AND” surely.

17. Austen or Eliot?

Any woman named George deserves to be read.

18. Name the last book by a female author that you’ve read.

Evolution Vs. Creationism: An Introduction by Eugenie Scott

I don’t intentionally read books by members of one gender or the other though.

19. Name the last book by an African or African-American author that you’ve read.

Maya Angelou’s I know why the caged bird sings

But Vi mentioned Things fall apart by Chinua Achebe which is just brilliant.

20. How about one from an Asian country or Asian-American?

The Art of Happiness by The Dalai Lama

21. Why not name an Israeli/Arab/Turk/Persian writer, if you’re feeling lucky?

Sorry, I don’t know any.

22. Any other ‘marginalized’ authors you’ve read lately?

Women and other nationalities are “marginalised” now are they?  I suppose gay authors are too?  What about disabled authors?  Stephen Hawking is a good read.  How about atheist authors, Muslim authors, Jewish authors, Christian authors?

Stupid assumption.  I read books because I enjoy them, because they are thought provoking  and sometimes because they have been recommended.  I don’t read books because they were written by some “oppressed minority” unless they are good reads too.

6 Comments

« Older entries