10 Myths And Truths About Atheists
The article I am responding to is, itself, a response to another article. However, in my discussions with atheists, these topics eventually come up. Being a Christian I'd like to address them.
1) Atheists aren't saying, "We're 100 percent convinced that there's no god, nothing could persuade us otherwise." Atheists are saying, "We're not convinced. The arguments for God are weak and circular; the evidence falls apart under close examination. Show us better evidence or arguments, and we'll reconsider. Until then, we're assuming that God doesn't exist."
Many people who claim to be atheists also make this claim. Such a claim, however, is not atheism. Linguistically, the word "atheism" comes from Greek: the root word is theos, which means God, and the A, or alpha, prefix marks it as a negation. Literally, the word atheism should read something like "negative God," or "not God," or "no God." It is a universal, objective claim.
However such a stance quickly breaks down logically, and has time and again, in debates. The reason why is this: in order to know with certainty that there is no being with infinite knowledge of the universe, you yourself would have to have this infinite knowledge of the universe. This is circular argumentation at its finest. Since a total negation of God's nonexistence won't hold water, the response is what the article says, a move from "there is no God" to effectively "we are atheists because there is not enough convincing evidence." There are problems with this position also.
Firstly, to assert a position of ignorance on this topic is really agnosticism, not atheism. Atheism, literally, is definte, dogmatic, absolute. Agnosticism also comes from Greek, the root word being gnosis, which means "to know" and the A prefix again making a negative statement. Literally an agnostic is "one who does not know." Indeed, ignorant comes from the Latin word ignoramus, literally "one who does not know." That is not an insult, merely a linguistic analysis.
Secondly, to assert a position on the basis that another lacks evidence is bad science, and bad philosophy. No scientific theory holds weight if it is accepted simply because another appears to lack evidence. The same rules apply in philosophy.
Thirdly, what qualifies as legitimate evidence for one person does not qualify as evidence to another. There is, therefore, no agreed upon standard from which everyone can say "yes, this is clearly enough evidence."
2: Atheists are immoral: without religion, there's no basis for morality... But mostly I want to say this: Look around you. This myth is patently untrue on the face of it. Atheists aren't killing, stealing, raping, cheating, at any greater rate than believers. Look at countries in Europe, like France and England and Scandinavian countries, where nonbelievers make up half, or more, of the population.
Entire books can be written on this subject. In the interest of brevity, I will try to keep my response simple.
Taken as written I would agree with this, with the following comment: that an atheist, lacking any objective morality, has no reason or justification to be a moral person. We might then ask, well why do we need a reason, or to justify being moral? Simply because if morality is not objective, then to be moral is merely an arbitrary choice, and at least philosophically speaking, any choice that is arbitrary is meaningless.
An atheist might counter by saying that morality is not meaningless if I choose to be moral. What moral code has been derived purely form atheistic thought that might actually pass muster? See, we live at the tail end of thousands of years of religious influences, from which come our moral influences, so it is easy (and short-sighted of us) to say that morality is just common sense and we don't need religion to create it. Furthermore, I would claim again that if the deciding factor on such a significant issue is merely "I choose to," then that choice is purely subjective, purely arbitrary, and therefore meaningless (as well as the morality that follows).
Furthermore, to say that European countries are "just fine" is a gross and ignorant simplification. British youth have no sense of what it means to be British, no sense of identity as a nation. France has recently been wracked by mobbings and riots, not to mention the burgeoning Islamic population in Europe with a strongly oppositional worldview. The reason why so many countries that claim to have surpassed the need for religion struggle with ideas of meaning and significance is because, robbed of the idea of good and evil as existing, we have the excuse of being sick rather than sinful, which ends up with us asking such questions as "who am I" and "what does living mean" (quoted from Dr. Hobart Maurer).
3: Atheists are angry and unhappy, with no meaning to their lives and no hope... Again, I could go on for days about why this is wrong. I could talk about how meaning doesn't have to come from religious tradition ... and how there's plenty to hope for other than an afterlife.
Let me say this as plainly as I can - I don't live to die. Jesus Himself said "I came that they might have life, and have it abundantly." This does, however, relate to the earlier question or morality being objective - if there is no objective meaning to life, then we must make our own, and therefore arbitrary (and meaningless) meaning. Arbitrary meaning = meaningless meaning = a contradiction.
On a related note, I heard this once and find it to be very true: "He who believes in nothing, lives for nothing - and he won't die for anything." I do have plenty to live for other than an afterlife, but I also have a reason to give my life away and not regret it.
4) Atheists are arguing with straw men: they criticize the ugliest, stupidest, most simplistic, most outdated versions of religion and ignore the thoughtful, complex forms of serious modern theology... First, this isn't true. Many atheists have read serious theology.
This really happens on a case by case basis. Some atheists do, I am sure, but not all. I would say that simply because religion is "old" doesn't mean that it is outdated. If something is eternally true then when it was written doesn't matter. Indeed, I find some modern theology to be rather vapid and shallow when compared to some older works.
There were a few other notes that came up in the original post. The more meaningful ones that I haven't directly respodned to, in my opinion, fall under the need to have objective meaning, morality, etc. The others are complaints about atheists being snobs, or somesuch, which should hardly be the realm of serious debate.
posted by Brian at 7:53 PM
8 comments
