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:
1. People make words, not dictionaries. Whatever you choose to call them, many atheists disbelieve in the existence of gods but do not claim that no gods exist. It's like saying "I do not believe in unicorns" versus "There are no unicorns." On the other side of this coin, it's fallacious to argue that your god exists simply because he cannot be disproven.
2. Morality comes from people and always has. Altruism is as much part of the human psyche as selfishness. Gods and religions come and go, but the principle of reciprocity ("Golden Rule") is common to all successful cultures.
3. Once again you confuse choice with arbitrariness. Under this questionable theory your choice to follow Jesus is equally arbitrary and thus meaningless. Further, it is a false dichotomy that one must believe either in God or in nothing at all. Many atheists passionately believe in beauty, charity, compassion and the like absent the dictates of a supernatural being.
4. It's equally true that just because something is old doesn't mean it constitutes "eternal truth."
Hey Brian, guess who......
1) I, and pretty much the entire secular community, would disagree with your narrow definition of atheism. Atheism can mean "there is no God" but it is also widely used to mean "lacking a belief in God". Those aren't the same thing! To me, anyone who answers the question "do you believe in God" in the negative is an atheist. Most people tend to differentiate between "strong" atheism, which is more closely aligned with your definition, and "weak" atheism which is what the article addresses. The addition of an a- in front of a word doesn't turn it into an objective claim. The a- is presented in a similar fashion to words like amoral and asymmetric, to indicate a lack of something (morality, symmetry, or belief in God).
There's an excellent discussion on the varying definitions of atheism here: http://www.religioustolerance.org/atheist4.htm
Regardless, the point is a somewhat silly one to belabor. Focusing on the etymology of the word atheist distracts from the meat of the debate, in my opinion. Who cares whether people refer to those who don't believe in God as atheists, agnostics, secularists, humanists, brights, freethinkers, or baby-eating hedonists? The label is irrelevant. Let's focus on what people actually believe or don't believe.
And if you still insist that they're not really atheists, how many definitions of Christian are there? You'll say there's only one. But I predict that if you ask ten people you'll get ten different answers.
The rest of your points on the validity of atheism/agnosticism are, well, strange. A lack of evidence is perfectly reasonable grounds for taking a position on a subject. I don't believe that homeopathy is effective, that astrology is useful, or that Santa Claus exists all because there is no evidence to support any of them. I suspect you do the same.
And with regards to evidence, I'm not sure what you're getting at it. With the exception of trivial tests, is there ever an "absolute metric" for evidence for *anything*? One can turn this around on anything, including Christianity. What qualifies as legitimate evidence supporting Christianity for one person does not qualify as evidence to another. Therefore, being Christian is problematic. Or evidence for climate change, or evolution, or vaccination safety, or free market economics, or universal health care.....pick *any* position and you'll find that what's perfectly reasonable evidence for one person isn't good enough for someone else. So I don't understand the point here.
2) Entire books *have* been written on this subject by people much smarter than I, so I doubt we'll put the brakes on this debate right here. I don't have much to say on this, actually, because I'm not well versed in the science of morality. I'll just ask: why does a choice of a moral framework have to be arbitrary? The secular ethics that I have come across are anything but arbitrary; they're carefully reasoned with a specific goal in mind. An excellent (and long) article on secular ethics can be found here: http://www.ebonmusings.org/atheism/carrot&stick.html.
I don't rape, murder, or steal because the alternative seems rather unpleasant and I wouldn't want to live in a world where that is the norm. I am (or try to be) moral because I'm human and therefore have empathy. The thought that someone needs a 2000 year old book to tell them not to kill people is, frankly, disturbing.
And while I don't doubt that various theologies have influenced modern schools of thought, our current morality also progresses in spite of religious dogma (i.e. slavery). One could also argue that religious morality is itself built upon even older influences (i.e. Hammurabi's Code). The Golden Rule is certainly not unique to the Bible.
On European countries: one could say that about pretty much any country, including our own. Is Europe "perfect"? Or course not! But it's interesting that the most secular countries (Norway, Sweden, etc) are certainly no worse and often have much better standards of living than their more religious counterparts. These countries top the ranks in indices such as infant mortality, life expectancy, education, literacy, and low crime while many of the most religious nations sit near the bottom.
3) I don't grant that finding your own meaning must be "arbitrary". And I strongly take issue with the notion that not believing there is a god means one "believes in nothing" or that "he won't die for anything". I suggest you raise that point with the countless atheists who serve in the armed forces (and, yes, there *are* atheists in foxholes). I wonder if they know that they wouldn't die for anything.
Furthermore, people who would willing throw their life away without regret frighten me. That's how you get suicide bombers and individuals flying airplanes into tall buildings.
4) Nothing really to add.
Cheers!
-CJC
Hello Anonymous. I wanted to take a moment to thank you for posting! I don't get a lot of people who do that, so thanks for taking the time to do so. I think all of your points are good ones and I hope that we can talk about them, agree where we can and disagree where we do, without being disagreeable.
1) The position that you describe many atheists as having is, as I think you are stating, an existential reality. Regardless of how tenable such a position may or may not be, I recognize that many atheists do, in fact, make just the claim that I find to be untenable. What I am trying to say is that I would think that such a position would fall under agnosticism than atheism. Is it worth belaboring? No, I don't think it is, which is why I tried to keep my comments on it brief (although I don't always succeed at that!).
I'm also not arguing that God exists because He cannot be disproved, although some who would argue just that could begin where I did, that is concerning the definition of atheism. I'm really not making an argument, on this point, about God's existence so much as trying to wrestle with what atheism really means.
2) Morality comes from people only if God does not exist. Now you evidently come to this discussion with the presupposition that He does not, and based on that, which I am sure you would and could bolster with argumentation, you assert that because He does not exist that He is not the source of morality. However, I do believe He exists and hold a different presupposition, namely that morality comes and goes, but God is the author of our consciences, or "ultimate morality," or "true morality," or whatever words we use to describe a morality that is objective.
I do agree with you that the Golden Rule is, indeed, common to all successful cultures and that altruism is a part of human nature as much as greed is. What I would say is that because we are what the Bible would call "sinful" creatures, that there is no part of our psyche that is untouched by sin.
Furthermore, that the Golden Rule is common to all successful cultures would, I think, point to there being some universality to that ethic which, itself, could be part of an argument for there being objective morality.
3) Again, we do agree here to a certain degree. I could see why you would think I'm saying people are either believers or, if atheists, then they must be nihilists. Clearly this is not the case, I know of many atheists who would agree with what you say, and I think they honestly do believe in things like beauty, love, truth, etc. What I am saying is that, apart from an objective framework, choosing to believe in such things would be arbitrary because there is no standard. Any such choice would ultimately boil down to pure pragmatism or personal preference.
Similarly, my choice to follow Jesus would indeed be arbitrary if there were no objective framework. Now there could be a whole other argument here but I tend to think that such a thing could fall into presuppositions, but maybe I am too much of a presuppositionalist. I hope I spelled that right.
I will reiterate, however, that we live at the tail end of thousands of years of religious thought. We tend to think that, because some morality is just "good common sense" that we don't need religion, and never did, to give us morality. I think that is a grave mistake.
4) No, simply because something is old does not mean it is true. All I was simply saying is that sometimes, to allude to C.S. Lewis, we evaluate an argument based on what time it is. If the teleological argument for the existence of God is true or false, it is not because of the fact that it is 10:42 AM, or 2009.
Thanks again for sharing your thoughts!
To Comic Thespian...
Why aren't you working on your thesis?
M
Hello Chris! Always glad to listen to your thoughts, too.
1) I agree, they are most assuredly not the same thing - hence why I was trying to clarify what the word atheism really means. I am familiar with there being many forms of atheism, bot the "strong" and "weak," as you have just said! What I am saying is that the word itself, linguistically, does mean an absolute negation which is worth nothing, however, I absolutely agree with your point that "Let's focus on what people actually believe or don't believe." Yes and amen to that! I don't want to belabor the point either, but I did think it was worth mentioning.
I also agree that any position has pros and cons, arguments for and against, both well-reasoned (sometimes). So the issue is not with Christianity being problematic, it is with how we approach all knowledge and belief. Here, I think, you have hit the nail on the head, although I'm not sure we would agree to this:
The simple fact that it can be problematic whatever we are discussing would, I think, indicate that mere rationality is not the only part of us we engage in argumentation and our searching for truth. Very often what we want to believe, or not want to believe, can have a profound impact on how we reason, and sometimes we never realize this is the case. We merely assume we can trust our faculties and go from there. One of the first things I learned about myself as a Christian was that, contrary to what movies and books and music all tell us, I can't always trust myself for one simple reason - my heart can lie, especially to myself.
Ravi Zacharias put it well when he said, "Everyone asks 'does this feel right?' but nobody asks, 'what is it right to feel?'"
To summarize, you said "pick *any* position and you'll find that what's perfectly reasonable evidence for one person isn't good enough for someone else." I suggest that because of this true statement, we can then say the problem is, therefore, *not* an evidential one.
2) A lack of evidence is a contributing factor to deciding between positions. What I am saying is that very often people will say that is the only reason for disavowing Christianity, or any religion or worldview, or whatever. If lack of evidence is the *sole* reason, then we are talking about bad science, or bad philosophy.
Like with Santa Claus, we believe certain things about the properties of jolly fat men and chimney sizes, about the air-speed velocity of reindeer, etc that, coupled with a certain lack of evidence, make asserting his non-existence viable.
Let me be very plain: I'm not saying atheists are all immoral, evil people. I'm also not saying that Christians are morally superior people. What I am saying is that I see no reason to be moral if there is no objective morality. I think you put it very well: "I don't rape, murder, or steal because the *alternative seems rather unpleasant* and *I wouldn't want* to live in a world where that is the norm (emphasis added)."
This, I think, proves my point. Without objective morality, any ethical choice becomes about what we find pleasant, or unpleasant, and what we want. This is the same measure we use for deciding what flavor of ice cream to buy. Should we want what is good? Yes! Should we find evil unpleasant! Absolutely! Do we always do this?
Sadly, no. You see, without an objective framework, we can't even call such things as rape and torture evil. We CAN justify invading Iraq after the fact of finding no WMD because we don't need to justify anything without any morality. What if someone does find rape and torture to be pleasant? What if someone, indeed, wants to live in world like that? On what grounds can we call that wrong if there is no standard? Quite simply, we can't.
You see, at the Nuremburg Trial (I know, I know, holocaust references!) the defense used for the Nazis was that they were operating "according to the laws of their own land." Now, with no moral standard, the defense would be absolutely correct in saying this. In response to this, the question was asked, "Is there not a law above our laws?" An appeal to an objective moral standard.
Concerning Hammurabi: Back then, religion and politics were not nearly as separate as they are today. I'm not up on my Babylonian history, but given that many ancient kings and emperors were considered to be gods themselves, I think it's safe to say that Hammurabi's Code is not a purely secular construct.
That the Golden Rule is not unique to Christianity is, I think, an argument in favor of objective morality because it is so widespread. Furthermore, I'm not saying that European countries are perfect, or that religious ones are (God help the USA!), what I am saying is that European problems are deep and profound, as are our own, and that literacy, education and crime are very important issues,t hey are not the total of human experience.
I could write a whole article on European and American crime, our different views, and our "treatment" for such, but my response is waxing lengthy as is.
3) I had to redefine this in response to the anonymous post, and I gladly do it again. I can see how someone reading my post would think I'm saying if someone is an atheist they are, therefore, a nihilist (one who believes in nothing). I wasn't trying to say that, and I would like to apologize for being misleading.
I know many atheists who believe in something. However, what I find difficult is the choice to believe in anything apart from an objective framework, which I've already addressed. If there is no objectivity, then choosing to torture or not torture is arbitrary because it is a matter of pure functionality or personal preference, just as a choice to die for a cause, however honorable such an action might be.
I hope I answered your points. Thank you for raising them, all of them quite good. I apologize if I missed any but, I find for myself, when responses get this long I can tend to get lost.
Hope to hear from you soon.
Brian,
If by god you mean, "an eternal being who is all powerful; all knowing and morally perfect who created us and takes special interests in us, a being who transcends the universe and yet is imminent in it",
Then, it is certainly possible to conclude that such a god, is infinitely unlikely. (and thus become an atheist).
Here are some ways to do it: Link.
Acknowledgement: The above link is an introductory speech given by by Richard Spencer in a debate on whether God exists. I found that it resonates with my own experiences.
Edwin,
that is, indeed, what I mean by the concept of God. However, while I did read through the post via your link, given the length of the article, I thought it best to attempt a response as a seperate entry than to try to respond to it here.
Hopefully it will be my next post.
Thanks for sharing your thoughts.
Being without God is characterized differently in each instance of atheism. Some never pay attention to the question, some peoples' lives are a reaction against it. Each person "without God" is capable of deciding the degree to which this characterizes their personal and philosophical life.
"philosophically speaking, any choice that is arbitrary is meaningless." I disagree. If the only way one can make a choice is by arbitrary means, and if arbitrary choices have consequences -remembering that meaning is not limited to merely to content, but also includes consequent- then arbitrary choices are not meaningless.
Post a Comment
<< Home