Today is an exciting day - this post contains our first submission! The author is Emily Speed. Emily is an 18 year old atheist from Pensacola, FL. She ironically stopped believing in religion during a freshman religion class at Catholic High School. She'll eventually be a neuroscientist looking into the question of consciousness. So without further ado, here it is -
The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy has this to say on the subject of space. “Space,” it says, “is big. Really big. You just won’t believe how vastly big it is. I mean, you may think it’s a long way down the road to the chemist, but that’s just peanuts to space.”
In light of the fact that space is vastly big, I find Christianity to be a remarkably arrogant religion. I mean, the Universe is a remarkably big place and getting bigger all the time. So why, pray tell, would anyone think that the Universe was specifically made to have them in it? That sounds like a lot of hubris to me. Granted, the fact that human beings are not the most important things in the entire world (or indeed Universe) is a pretty big thing to wrap your mind around. It takes a huge chunk out of your ego, for sure. Taking deities out of the equation requires the clarity of mind to think “Hey. I’m just one person, a tiny speck in the grand scheme of things. There’s no way that whatever set the Universe into motion actually cares if I envy my neighbour’s SUV or if I steal a candy bar from the store.” You have to be able to wrap your head around the fact that you are not important to the cosmos. You could be the President of the Whole World, but Alpha Centauri still doesn’t know who you are. The whole idea is extremely humbling.
The Friendly Atheist blog said:
“The more we understand the universe, the more we realize just how small a part of it we are. Creation myths in various cultures portray a god or gods creating the Earth specially and giving humans a special place in it. But we have since discovered that our species is simply one of many in the tree of life, the Earth isn’t even the centre of our solar system let alone the universe.”
Just because we don’t matter a bit cosmically doesn’t mean that we aren’t important though. We’re just important on a smaller scale. We can be important to the people around us, to the people we love, to the homeless person we give our leftovers too on Friday after lunch. We can be important to the pet fish that relies on our remembering to feed it, or to the child whose scraped knee we clean up.
Greta Christina’s Blog has this to say about a sense of importance outside of religion:
“Being an atheist doesn’t mean that life isn’t important. It means that we get to create our own sense of importance. The human scale is where we live. It’s what we have. And if we decide that that’s the most important scale for us, there’s nobody out there to tell us otherwise.”
When I started “coming out” as an atheist to the religion teachers and priests at Catholic High School, they made me go to Reconciliation (or Confession, for those not indoctrinated). The Father there asked me quite a few questions. Keep in mind that this was 4 years ago, so my memory of the conversation isn’t perfect. I’m probably putting words in my mouth, but this was the gist of it –
“Do you think good or evil exists?”
“No. There are always two sides to the story if someone is ‘evil’”
“Do you believe in morality?”
“Yes”
“If there’s no God, where does your morality come from then?”
“The law. If I did things that were, in the eyes of the law, immoral, I would be sent to jail and I certainly don’t want that to happen. But-”
“Are you moral only because you don’t want to go to jail?”
“No. Doing things that are ‘immoral’ usually deprives other people of the right to be happy and to live as long as they can. Even though I don’t believe that people have souls, it’s still wrong to kill, because that deprives them of those rights. I don’t think people need to be constantly trying to please God in order to be good. Keeping in mind that other people have the right to be happy can keep people ‘moral’ too.”
From Greta Christina’s Meme of the Day:
Atheists have morality, as much as religious believers. We just don’t think our moral compass is planted in us by God or supernatural forces, and we don’t think fear of God’s punishment is necessary to be a good person. We base our morality in this life: our empathy with others, and our observations about what causes suffering and happiness.
Religion is not required to be moral, healthy, or happy. This is true even in relation to entire nations. For instance, non-religious societies are actually, according to Common Sense Atheism, among the most “well-developed, wealthiest, most democratic, most free, most entrepreneurial, least corrupt, least violent, most peaceful, healthiest, happiest, most egalitarian, best educated, most charitable, and most environmentally compassionate societies in the entire world”.
15 comments:
Quoting: 'In light of the fact that space is vastly big, I find Christianity to be a remarkably arrogant religion.'
In light of the fact that space is vastly big, I have found a huge majority of physicists to be quite open to the prospect of a ‘higher being’ (call it ‘God’ if you will). Could the inability of atheists to accept any possibility of this nature also be considered arrogant?
Ruth 21
I think it is a stretch to say 'the majority' of physicists are open to the prospect, but certainly it seems many more physicists than biologists are. Of course, physics, thus far lacks its Grand Unifying Theory. This is a link to an article I wrote on this blog. http://youngfreethought.blogspot.com/2009/11/where-is-god-at-lhc-nowhere.html - Polkinghorne is a physicist and many offer similar arguments to him (see Andy Armitage’s comment). Christianity is 'arrogant' because it attaches onto that 'higher being' various anthropocentric characteristics, answering prayers etc, that are simply superfluous and all too human.
"the inability of atheists to accept any possibility of this nature"
Most atheists were at one point religious but lost faith. I know many atheists that really wanted to believe but the logic, evidence, and reasoning just didn't compute. So I think that gives the majority of us a pretty big ability to accept possibilities of that nature.
… except that by ‘coming out as an atheist’, one is publicly rejecting said possibility. By definition, an agnostic, rather than an atheist, would still have the faculty to accept such a notion.
Then the same applies for a theist. They are 'rejecting said possibility' that there is no god. Stating your view on the matter does not mean you instantly stop considering arguments put forth by others.
"Could the inability of atheists to accept any possibility of this nature also be considered arrogant?"
Perhaps if theists put forth a credible, logical, more put-together case, then it would be worth further consideration. I believe most atheists have attempted to accept certain religions only to find they are lacking in sufficient evidence and reason to even BE a possibility.
This is a great submission! Concise and interesting. I'd love to see the broad themes in this post fleshed out in later entries.
To Ruth 21: the fact that many scientists are open to or even believe in a god doesn't lend theism any intellectual credibility. If you don't understand why, google "argument from authority".
Just as the ad hominem argument attacks the person rather than the evidence, the argument from authority presents the person in lieu of evidence.
thanks, Derrida. I was a bit scared my post was going to get torn apart, but I'm happy to know it was alright! :D
No problem. When I read the part where your teachers made you go to reconciliation, my heart sank a little. I live in the UK, and most of the people I know are atheists, but when you're surrounded by people that don't understand your views that must be difficult.
That being said, the eruditeness of your post suggests that you're more than capable of defending the truth with compassion.
"Doing things that are 'immoral' usually deprives other people of the right to be happy and to live as long as they can. Even though I don't believe that people have souls, it's still wrong to kiill, because that deprives them of those rights."
Why are 'being happy' and 'living long' rights?
Why are they necessarily commendable conditions?
What evidence leads you to believe that people don't have souls?
"What evidence leads you to believe that people don't have souls?"
The burdern of proof is always on the believer, not on non-believers to prove there is no soul. If you ask me, I'll say that the fact that there is no evidence that souls exist is reason enough not to bother with the proposition. Modern neurology adequately explains the functioning of the human brain w/o the need to resort to the supernatural.
"Why are 'being happy' and 'living long' rights"
The right to pursue happiness is a fundamental right recognised in any democracy. I interpret "living long" to be referring to the right to life. And that is the most fundamental right a human can have.
"Why are they necessarily commendable conditions?"
You'll be hard pressed to find situations where they would'nt be commendable ;)
In any case, a right always come with a choice not to exercise it. So if ever one should find oneself in a situation where being happy or staying alive is not commendable, well, one can always choose not to exercise that right...
Hairtonic - Thanks for responding. I legitimately want to explore these thoughts, not just be contrary. For simplicity sake let's number these questions according to the order you responded to them.
1. I understand this will be a major impasse for naturalists so I'll grant your 'burden of proof' point. But, it does raise the question of consciousness. How do you account for it?
2. I didn't realize (and don't think) the author framed those rights as being conditioned in a democratic society. If that is your point then a totalitarian (see atheistic-communist) society like China's seems to be perfectly within their rights to exterminate whoever they see fit. Or, that type of society is wrong and only society's which uphold the rights to life and happiness are valid, in which case those rights are dependent upon something external to the society that espouses them.
3. Let me re-phrase my question here. How do I know that my idea of another person's happiness is actually beneficial to that person? Greta Christina, asquoted in the article, suggests that the atheist's basis for morality is empathy and observation - these are completely subjective and so my standards of "good" are vulnerably prone to bitterness over a breakup or a brain freeze headache.
And how do I know that it is better to be alive than dead? Even the naturalist, as of yet, has no empirical evidence that being dead is such a bad thing. Perhaps the neurological consciousness associated with being fertilizer is superior to that of being alive as humans.
These are legitimate questions you raised, and they deserve a considered answer.
1. How do I account for consciousness?
I'm not sure what you're asking here. But our consciousness is the product of billions of neurons and other brain cells working simultaneously round the clock to project an image of our surrounding world to us. This is scientifically proven - our consciousness have been shown to alter in accordance to physical changes in our brains, no need to resort to the supernatural here.
2. You got me here. Alright, I don't think they are unique to a democratic society. I think they are universal rights that everyone should have, though of course in reality this is not the case.
3. "And how do I know that it is better to be alive than dead? Even the naturalist, as of yet, has no empirical evidence that being dead is such a bad thing"
I don't think you will find any naturalist making arguments that death is a bad thing. In the absence of evidence of any state of existence after death, the naturalistic (and reasonable)view of death should be that once you die, only nothingness awaits. As to whether being dead is preferable to being alive, that is a subjective opinion, beyond the realm of empirical evidence. Though I believe most people will gladly choose the latter :)
" Perhaps the neurological consciousness associated with being fertilizer is superior to that of being alive as humans."
Strictly speaking, fertilizer have zero neurological consciousness associated with it. Perhaps the hypothetical consciousness of fertilizer would be superior to that of a human's, but once again, the burdern of proof would be on the proposition.
1. So are you suggesting that it's scientifically proven that our conscious awareness is completely attributable to our neuron processes? I'm not claiming to be the most scientifically knowledgable guy but it seems like that would have been big news if we empirically proved without a doubt that our conscious self was a purely physical reality.
2. You can probably anticipate my next question - What makes these universal standards? I'll take it a step further and ask: What, besides the influences of a Judeo-Christian culture, even suggests to you that these should be rights of every person?
3. I don't think the naturalist things the state of death is a bad thing but I do think they believe that being alive is preferable to dying. While this is reasonable it is still just a scientifically unproven opinion.
As I've thought through your responses all of these questions have begun to merge in my mind as one. The assertions of naturalists are not merely scientific, they are also philosophical. As soon as you start using words like "burden of proof" you suggest there is a right way to do things. But, how can you claim that any of the things you assert are more right than anyone else?
I know that a naturalist can provide reasons for his/her thinking/belief but this approach to life seems incomplete in that it can not give compelling (i.e. intellectually honest) reasons for its superiority.
Of course atheists are more concerned about science than theists, that's because they use rational thinking to determine how things work. Rather than not worrying about anything because a "higher power is watching over is". Such a thought is comforting but not true. Sadly though, countless children die every year because their religious parents wont supply them with the necessary medicines, because they believe god will take care their children. Science has provided so much, and yet it still isn't good enough for theists.
Post a Comment