The Problem Of Evil - An Invitation

Christopher Hitchens has been on form recently, writing about the religious response to the disaster in Haiti in Slate. Hitchens writes:

As so often, the first priest out of the trap on this occasion was that evil moron Pat Robertson, who announced on the Christian Broadcasting Network that Haitians had long ago made an agreement with Satan to enlist diabolic help against French imperialism. The implication was clear ... for this offense, God would kill underfed Haitian babies in slums 200 years later. (He would also kill the Archbishop of Port-au-Prince, Joseph Serge Miot, and bring his cathedral down on his head, though since Pat Robertson doesn't really think that Catholics are proper Christians, there's perhaps scant irony there.)

It is of course unfair to lump all believers in this category. Only the most farcical examples are liable to such scorn. However, all believers must ask themselves why God would allow such a thing to happen. Evil is broadly defined in terms of moral and natural causes. It is the latter that has resulted and continues to cause so many problems for religious apologists.

As Bertrand Russell pointed out (see post on original sin) in order for someone to say that innocent children deserve the suffering they experience as a result of events such as these, they must become as cruel as the God in whom they believe. Those too, who assert that evil events of this magnitude occur in order that we may develop, simply fail to grasp the enormous moral wickedness required to assert such a thing.

I am yet to encounter an adequate solution to this problem. Therefore, I invite any religious person under 21 to send in a submission to youngfreethought@gmail.com that adequately addresses the problem of natural evil. Afterwards, I shall invite responses from our regular readers to this post.

Please don’t forget to donate to Non-Believers Giving Aid to help those in Haiti.

Merely A Denier?

This article comes from Chanchal Krishna. Chanchal is a 20 year old engineering student from India. In this article, he discusses the common misconception that atheists are 'deniers' of God.

Who is an atheist? I often find that the dictionary definition comes to something like ‘one who denies the existence of God or gods’. Being a person who calls myself an atheist I find that definition or label too narrow. Anti-Christ’s, Satan worshippers etc can be called deniers of god. Would that make them atheists? I don’t think so.

Denying God, in this context implies “to refuse to believe; reject”. Which means that an atheist is someone who denies or rejects god. The problem is, if there were gods or if at least there was the bare minimum of evidence to support the existence of gods: most atheists would gladly accept that fact. So we atheists simply do not go around saying or rejecting something that exist just for the heck of it. An atheist doesn’t believe in God because there’s no proof or evidence to support His existence.

Let’s look at it by way of an example. Let’s just for the moment say there is life on mars. Alien creatures are spotted and all the evidence is there to support this. Now in such a case a person who goes around saying there’s no life on mars can rightly be called a denier. But, in reality, as far as our current exploration reveals, there’s no evidence to suggest there is life on mars (for those who care only to argue, there is at least no complex life form we know of). Now say, there are people who believe there is life on mars and people who don’t believe it as there’s no evidence. Who’d be the deniers here? Of course those who believe life is there, because they are simply denying the mountain of evidence merely to satisfy their desire to believe. The case is similar with atheists; we 'don’t believe' because evidence dictates that this is reasonable, not because we hate god or not because of a deep seated desire to deny His existence.

So it’s an error to call us simply ‘deniers’. Consider the case of Malayalam language – my mother tongue. In Malayalam, ‘atheist’ is translated as nireswara vadhi, which literally means one who argues or denies god. That’s not what I am; a mere denier, and labelling us as mere deniers does not do justice to the word ‘atheist’. That’s why I’m forced to write about this topic.

So who’s really an atheist? An atheist is a rational being with a world view based on true science and an understanding of nature. An atheist relies on his or her reason and common sense as a guide for their beliefs and actions. An atheist is a realist who prefers to accept truth as it is, however inconvenient it may be. An atheist is a sceptic with a curious mind, who’s longing to understand not believe. If this common misconception can be changed we will have advanced some way to improving the status 'atheism' worldwide.

The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of Young Freethought's editors.

Non-Believers Giving Aid - Haiti Earthquake

A short post about the recent disaster in Haiti. As a non-believer, you may want to ensure your money does not end up supporting any form of proselytizing or conditional aid. As such, we felt that we should make you aware of the RDFRS’s and other freethinking associations’ attempts at providing secular aid to the people of Haiti – Non-Believers Giving Aid. The RDFRS website states:

Clearly the immediate need is for the suffering people of Haiti, and all the money raised by this current appeal will go to that cause, but the new account will remain available for future emergencies too. There are, of course, many ways for you to donate to relief organizations already, but doing it through Non-Believers Giving Aid offers some advantages:

1. 100% of your donation will be go to these charities: not even the PayPal fees will be deducted from your donation, since Richard will personally donate a sum to cover the cost of these (capped at $10,000). This means that more of your money will reach the people in need.

2. When donating via Non-Believers Giving Aid, you are helping to counter the scandalous myth that only the religious care about their fellow-humans.

If you can, please give generously. Do not, however, feel we are commanding you to do so. All we hope is to make you aware of a non-religious way of supporting the relief effort. Our sympathies are with those affected by this disaster.

How Should Freethought Proceed? More Thoughts...

We’ve had many articles considering the best way to dampen the fervour and spread of religious belief. John Kubinski (18), a regular writer for Young Freethought, wades in once more with this excellent essay. In it, he argues that religion is best understood as a moral intuition with evolutionary roots, rather than as a poor attempt at philosophy and empirical inquiry. He argues this insight into the nature of religious belief might be helpful in thinking about the best strategies for dismantling religion.

The first step in addressing any problem is coming to understand the nature of the problem. Freethinkers can mostly agree that religion is irrational, but what is the nature of this irrationality? Often times, I see freethinkers treating religion as what is essentially a philosophy - and they accordingly hold it up to standards of logical rigor and academic competence. While this perspective is helpful in highlighting the illogical and absurd features of religions, it completely misses the mark in the way of offering an accurate explanation of religion. Religion as philosophy is a terrible model for understanding the phenomenon that we are trying to combat. When someone makes a ludicrous religious claim, it’s nothing like stating a conclusion that doesn’t follow from the given premises. Say you showed someone an apple and dropped it ten times in a row, and it fell to the floor each time. If the spectator responds to this observation by saying that apples rise rather than fall when dropped, that would be irrational - because the evidence suggests otherwise. Now, is religion anything like that? I think few would venture to answer yes to that question. Religious irrationality is of a fundamentally different kind than that. Religion is not merely bad philosophy. Religion must be understood as an outgrowth of evolved features of human psychology, and a product of what is in all likelihood the co-evolution of memes and genes. The capacity for religiosity exists in all of us, and is not just the result of poor reasoning, but a human universal that has been a defining feature of our nature for nearly as long as we have existed. Religion comes to us not through reason, but through intuition. And our intuitions are just a set of evolved faculties that come pre-installed in all of our brains.

While I think memetics can offer a valuable approach, I find myself parting ways with some who view it as a full and satisfactory explanation of religion. Memes don’t exist in a vacuum, they modify our intuitions and help give shape to the milieu of human psychology which has its basic features already outlined by genes. This is why I think it can be instructive to think of religion more like tribalism than say…flat earth theory. To continue to use the language of memes, one could say that American (or British, or French, or Chinese, etc.) nationalism is a meme. But it would be highly (and I would say perhaps dangerously) erroneous to conclude that belief in the superiority of the group one belongs to is merely a meme. While the specific flavour of tribalism is memetic, the capacity for tribalism is innate and universal in human beings. In the same way that tribal loyalty is internalized at a very young age, religion is seamlessly absorbed by the youth in a society. The sheer utility of tribalism in organizing human beings in mutually beneficial ways was all that was required for natural selection to favour the evolution of tribalistic beliefs, even if they didn’t match up with reality. Evolution favours brains that generate a useful model of reality, not necessarily an accurate one. An affinity for ritual might better capitalize on the placebo effect, for example. While there is a lot of dispute about the evolutionary adaptive value (if there is any at all) of religion, I think it’s important to make the point that the nature of all human beliefs are fundamentally designed to be instrumental in attaining survival and reproductive success.

Religion is not merely a worldview for people; it is an integral element of their identity that becomes enshrined in moral intuitions about adhering to the codes and practices of one’s tribe. One of the interesting findings of moral psychology has been that moral judgments are made impulsively and intuitively and then later offered rationalizations. We should not be surprised by the hyper-sensitivity religious people exhibit when it comes to criticism of religion, as it is an expected result of our evolved propensity to sanctify and dogmatically defend the social norms we internalize from our tribe. Belief in the religion that one is raised in should probably be conceived of less as a claim about the nature of the universe, and more as a moral claim. If we take the case of racism, it’s fairly obvious that racism was not really an empirical statement about differences between races, but a moral statement of which empirical justifications were later attempted to be produced for. I think it may be instructive to consider that belief in a religion stems primarily from a deep intuitive inclination that belief in that religion is intrinsically good, and that the justifications for the truth of the religion are offered as an after-thought. There is a period in childhood where children are like impressionable sponges that absorb information from peers and authorities, so that they can profit from the discoveries of their ancestors and internalize the norms of their tribe that will allow them to successfully navigate both their social and ecological landscape; the fact that religious indoctrination occurs during this period should be insightful in understanding the type of belief that religiosity is. The religious mentality, like the mentality of tribalism, was not invented by memes, but arises from evolved intuitions - and not just intuitions about the nature of the world around us (though these were certainly instrumental in the formation of religion, as the Wikipedia article on the evolutionary psychology of religion will inform you), but importantly from moral intuitions as well. We all understand that tribalism is not a rational deduction, we should understand that religion is not one either.

While I have sketched a picture of where I think religion fits into the landscape of human psychology, the practical question of what to do about it remains. But before I proceed, I’d like to take a moment to reflect on the empowering nature of the truth as revealed by science. With evolutionary psychology, we can finally develop an accurate understanding of the human condition and begin to grasp the nature of problems that have perennially plagued our species, like violence, warfare, tribalism, and even religion. Armed with knowledge and the hope of advancing human well-being, we can try and apply our learned insights rather than stumbling ignorantly and hopelessly, as our ancestors did for millennia, through circumstances which arose by the force of rationales that no one understood.

Taking religious claims to be more equivalent to “my tribe is the best” or “incest is disgusting” than to statements like “the sun is a thermonuclear furnace” does lead us towards the view that rational debate will only be of limited effectiveness in the battle against religion. The best things we can do are encourage self-refection and critical examination, massage other intuitions (like pointing out the myriad of situations in which religious dogma has stood as an obstacle to compassion), and try and explain religion as a natural phenomenon so that theists must confront the possibility that they are hard-wired for irrationality and credulity. In the countless battles against tribalism throughout human history, the tribal instinct has never been destroyed, but rather it has been modified. Our innate capacity for unity has not been eradicated, it has simply been expanded in a way that encompasses more people so that the reach of our empathy is greater than ever before. But perhaps with religion we can attain an even greater type of victory than that, by raising awareness about evolution and thus the need to question our cognitive predispositions.

Lastly, I want to return to the question of rational debate. Fundamentally I think debate is extremely important, even if it is not the most effective tool in winning over religious hearts and minds (though I do get the sense that it is rather efficacious with respect to convincing fence-sitters to become full-fledged atheists.) Of more importance than atheism’s triumph over religion is the liberal ideal of an open and honest society. By having debates about even the most controversial issues, we evince our dedication to free speech and intellectual progress. One of the most redeeming qualities of liberal societies is that there is nothing held off the table when it comes to critical inquiry and examination. I say it is not only a right, but a duty, for people to try and dismantle falsehoods and render irrationality naked and obvious wherever it is found. Some leftist commentators who are dogmatically dedicated to an over-blown definition of tolerance, like Robert Wright, insist that atheists who call religion on its untenable claims are being arrogant and offensive. But what could be of more value than our commitment to the free exchange of ideas? By refusing to succumb to the temptation to immunize even the most holy and sacred of ideas from criticism, we always leave open the possibility that someone in the future will be able to inform us of our errors. It is in the arena of rationality and the evaluation of competing claims where the truth is advanced and progress is made. As Christopher Hitchens often recites, you cannot have light without heat.

The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of Young Freethought's editors.

How Should Freethought Proceed?

There seems to be a concern among people that ‘new atheism’ or ‘the Freethought movement’ is currently being framed in the wrong fashion. In December last year, John Kubinski offered his thoughts on the matter (his essay can be found here). Kubinski focused on the need to alter a kind of memetic paradigm of the religious mind. Here, Eric Stockhausen, also using the concept of memes, advocates a stance taken by Darrel Ray in The God Virus. Hopefully these different approaches will spark readers to take up or disagree with one or both views. If you have a unique idea, why not send it in? Eric Stockhausen:

I study philosophy in my spare time, so before I even knew who the ‘Four Horsemen’ were, I had read and seen lectures of Dr. Dennett. He introduced me to the idea of memes and to Richard Dawkins; inventor of the concept. Though the layperson may not understand Dennett because of the jargon, there is a book by Dr. Darrel Ray called The God Virus: How Religion Infects Our Lives and Culture, which gives a comprehensive view of memetics.

Ray treats religion as a disease which tries to propagate itself by traits it has evolved. These traits include: obsession with people’s sex lives, indoctrinating the young and those in crisis, adapting to the culture and putting itself before the safety and well-being of its host. For more specifics, I highly encourage people to listen to one of Ray’s lectures or book discussions.

Ray also suggests a better approach for the Freethought Movement towards religionists. A kind of grassroots activism. Religionists are infected by the God Virus in such a way that they can no longer think clearly or in their best interests. Displaying antagonism in debate can, for the moderately to seriously infected, strengthen their beliefs. They put on the armour of strong faith so to speak. Because of this, purely arguing against the irrationality of faith is not the most effective promoter of Freethought.

Ray suggests that the following will strengthen the Freethought community: allowing a more open discussion of taboo subjects (i.e. pre-marital sex), becoming an activist (i.e. protecting the separation of church and state), really listening to what religionists have to say (even comments of a theological nature), providing knowledge and tools for freethinking parents to raise their children and to create a community for ‘Recovering Religionists’.

Doing this should promote a positive image of freethinkers. With the examples that Ray presents and the current social trends of the movement, Freethought may soon have the power it deserves in mainstream America and perhaps globally.

Atheism & The Search For Meaning

It is a persistent claim of those who fail to comprehend just how atheists can go on living in such a bleak universe, that their life is devoid of meaning, and thus not worth living. Religion provides meaning. Religion is, in some ways, a vehicle in order to provide to meaning. Religion always offers the chance of something else. After death, there is another life, but that is determined by our actions in this one. Meaning, for the religious mind, consists entirely in appeasing your particular God or gods in order that you get a good deal for the rest of eternity. The moral value present in this kind of life is highly suspect. If the Bible commanded murder (it does in fact, but that’s an aside) believers would be required to do it. The meaning of their life would be to kill. Incidentally, the Bible is interpreted as saying things like ‘do good to others’ and ‘care for your neighbour’ etc. Meaning is dictated, not created. However, it is, unarguably meaning.

But what are atheists to do? There is no one commanding you to refrain from your own nature. Nor is there anyone commanding you to treat others as you would treat yourself. Neither is there any kind of 'spiritual' principle. Life is absent of an external guide. What startles many people is just why, or how, atheists can and do go on, living seemingly happy and fulfilled lives. Perhaps many would believe that they truly cannot. Their rejection of God (or gods) excludes them of any privilege of purpose. The answer the atheist usually gives is this: I create my own meaning.

This idea is most closely identified with the philosophical and literary movement conveniently labelled existentialism. In what will most likely end as the man’s entire legacy, Jean Paul Sartre summed the thought up in three words: ‘being precedes essence’. There are many interpretations and nuisances of Sartre’s work as a whole and of this quote in particular, but the broad meaning of this phrase becomes pretty clear after some thought. Our meaning, or ‘essence’, what the purpose of our lives is, what we must fulfil or carry out, comes after we are born. We're here before we know why. We exist prior to our acknowledgement of this fact. At some point that realisation hits. Albert Camus, when brilliantly championing the absurdist cause in The Myth of Sisyphus, writes this wonderfully poetic description of a similar kind of awakening:

So long as the mind keeps silent in the motionless world of its hopes, everything is reflected and arranged in the unity of its nostalgia. But with its first move this world cracks and tumbles: an infinite number of shimmering fragments is offered to the understanding. We must despair of ever reconstructing the familiar, calm surface which would give us peace of heart.

The religious believer remains in a primitive state. Without thinking, they accept, or are indoctrinated by, the meaning they are given at birth. More concerned and doubtful Christians have solved the problem with a ‘leap of faith’. Camus regards this move as mistaken. The question that concerns him in his essay is that of suicide. Meaning is gone; so why not end my own life? He feels the only proper response to this truth is one of rebellion. Suicide is the equivalent to admitting defeat of a universe devoid of cosmic sanction. Sisyphus was condemned by the gods to push a boulder to the top of a hill, whereupon it would instantly fall to the bottom and Sisyphus would have no choice but to push it back up all over again for eternity. This is a metaphor that Camus struck upon and utilised. A metaphor for life – one of  ultimately meaningless struggle. But, says Camus, ‘one must imagine Sisyphus happy’.

To what extent does atheism necessitate an absurdist or existential outlook? A life without meaning of any kind does seem futile. But why exactly must this meaning come from anywhere other than ourselves or our reason? All individuals do find meaning in their lives somehow; whether they deny it or not; the atheist is no different – except that they must create their own. Atheism does require some form of very basic existential belief. The picture of that school of thought shown in this essay is incomplete and not in any wider context, but it is not out of spirit.

In the words of a even more modern thinker ‘who ties up their life with the ultimate fate of the cosmos?’. When it is put like that, things do become clear. Only the insane or supremely self-elevated would do such a thing. Contemplation and recognition of an indifferent world is not to be shunned, but when making a moral decision, why should it intervene at all?

Cold-heartedness is often attributed to scientific thought. Though I may have given the impression in this essay that I agree with this view, I see it as mistaken. Grand indifference, I find, both exhilarating and liberating. The greatest crime against reason I have so far noticed, is the lack of a particular image around the world. It should be placed in every public place and known to all virtually from birth. The Pale Blue Dot is the ultimate giver of perspective.

And where does meaning fit in on the 0.12 pixels? All over it. But what is truly startling is that, at present, those 0.12 pixels are the only place known where meaning exists in the entire universe. Is that not enough?

Responsibility And 'The Crimes Of Theism & Atheism'

There are those, on the one hand, who claim that religious believers are in some sense responsible for the crimes committed in the name of their particular faith throughout the ages. There are others in turn who claim that atheists are responsible for ‘the crimes of atheism’; citing the dark events of the last century as their main examples. It seems to me that these claims are both misleading. However, religion has the capacity to play a more sinister role than any rationalist perspective.

It is generally agreed that in order to be held responsible for an act, one must be able to be held accountable for it. In others words; if something goes wrong, it was partly your fault. Blame can be assigned to you as an individual. If you fail to act, or act wrongly, in a situation where you happen to be responsible, it would be appropriate to hand out some penalty to you.

Take the claim that religious believers bear some responsibility for crimes committed explicitly in the name of their faith. The Crusades and Catholicism is an often used and suitable example. Do modern day Catholics deserve punishment for what was done thousands of years ago simply because they share a belief system? It seems to me to be wholly unjustifiable to accuse Catholics in any way of being responsible for that particular event. In a similar way, on this basic level, those who wrongly attribute the Nazi’s of being ‘Darwinian’ cannot portion blame on those who accept Natural Selection as scientific fact. The debate must shift from this kind of name-calling. It is unhelpful and misguided. The question must be this: can both ‘the crimes of theism’ and ‘the crimes of atheism’ honestly be attributed to their respective beliefs?

Starting by examining theism, it seems uncontroversial to state that the crusades, the inquisition, the murder of the Cathars, the crimes of the Taliban etc, were all religiously motivated. There have been, and there still are, crimes committed in the name of religious belief. If you try to remove faith from the picture, none of these things could have occurred. In many of those cases, the command to commit acts of violence came from an internally agreed and unanimous leader – I am of course referring to the Pope. These crimes were explicitly committed in the name of a religious belief. This is a danger of theism; there is always a higher authority present that can be employed to justify any act. I’m reminded of a quote from Steven Weinberg “With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion”.

What can motivate a human being to kill another member of their species? Perhaps many things, but among them, and high on the list, is certainty. To commit atrocities in the name of anything, you must be completely certain you are correct. Religion, unlike rationalism, makes claims to such certainty. Bertrand Russell once said “I would never die for my beliefs because I might be wrong”. He hit the nail on the head. A rational human being would simply find it illogical to die for a belief. You might die to save a dear friend or family member, for a loved one, but for an ideology? It just doesn’t make sense. Atheism (essentially extremely weak agnosticism) is simply a result of a rationalistic world. Uncertainty is part of the deal. The opposite is true for religion. The regimes of Stalin and Hitler were so successful at mass murder because their leaders became Gods. They had in themselves, and they demanded from others, an unshakeable faith. The historian Dmitri Volkogonov writes this: 'Stalin wanted to believe in his own strength of will, his own invulnerability, his own position as regional leader. Faith, as the cement of dogmatism, remained with him forever’ and that 'Faith in one's ideas and values is well and good, but faith should not displace truth'. To call Stalin’s outlook ‘rationalistic’ is impossible. To call this type of dogmatic surrender ‘religious’ is an apt comparison.

Believers may claim that their species of faith is as different to those religious crusaders as my view of atheism is compared to Stalin’s. They would be quite correct. However, they must understand that central aspects of their religious belief, namely their faith and inseparable certainty, are the real reasons behind the atrocities of history.

D'Souza - Don't Try This At Home

I was recently watching one of the many atheist/theist debates available on YouTube. I’m sure I’m not the only one who has spent many a lazy afternoon this way. One of the more unusual formats I’ve stumbled across was to be found in a debate, of Spanish origin, between three of the four horsemen; Hitchens, Harris and Dennett on the one hand, and D’Souza, Taleb and Boteach on the other. There were many potential topics for discussion hidden away over the two or so hours the debate went on for, but I want to focus on one small segment courtesy of Dinesh D’Souza.

I am yet to find an opponent of ‘new atheism’ as thought-provoking as D’Souza. There are certain questions that he asks which every freethinking atheist must ask themselves. There are moments where he seems to be speaking real sense – he asks the right questions, but draws erroneous conclusions. The majority of what he says is white noise. But, as you may have guessed, there are moments when he really gets it wrong – quite astoundingly wrong. I (or even better; a reader) will discuss D’Souza’s more credible claims at some point in the future. But for now, I couldn’t let what I heard go without addressing it. Here is the video I urge you to watch before reading any further.



“The atheist” exclaims D’Souza “is posing as the champion of reason, science and evidence”. Since this is what Young Freethought is all about, it only seems fair to address his points.

D’Souza’s argument tumbles fantastically with his statement that the atheist and the theist are “both are making a truth claim and [that] both are totally ignorant” – It is only the theist who is making a truth claim. D’Souza seems to concede at this point, for the sake of debate, that there is no evidence for life after death. The reasonable person will not claim that there is life after death, nor will they claim that on the basis of the lack of evidence, there is no life after death. All that can be done is to say ‘since there is no evidence of life after death, I have no reason to believe it’. An analogy that is perhaps clichéd, but nonetheless apt: there is no evidence for the existence of fairies, nor is there any evidence against their existence. Is it more reasonable to believe that fairies exist or that they do not? Of course, it is to say that they do not. Strictly speaking, it must be conceded that it is indeed possible that they do exist, but what reason is there to believe it? Simply none. An incredibly watered-down agnosticism is the position held. The same can be said about pink unicorns, the flying spaghetti monster and the yeti. No reasonable mind would entertain the possibility that these creations do in fact exist – they would only remain open to the possibility of their truth. The concept of life after death is specifically designed to be immune to falsifiability.

Of course, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, but a lack of evidence where some might be expected can indeed suggest that a proposition is false. Luckily we have a world which we can observe; providing us with the raw material for decision making. We might expect that a Christian God who created a world where we continue living after our bodily death would have left some hallmarks on his creation; we might expect, that since we are special in our ability to survive death, that humans are granted some special place in the universe, we might even expect to have some encounter with the deceased – we find none of these things.

The reason, however, I take such issue with this speech is the complete pseudo-scientific conclusions D’Souza draws from the frontiers of scientific inquiry. What D’Souza spouts is worse than the God of the Gaps. He relegates himself to a league shared by scientologists who measure your ‘thetan levels’, mystics who take away your ‘negative energy’ with the power of crystals and T.V hosts who communicate with ghosts with the aid of their ‘spirit guides’. I’m pretty certain D’Souza treats these people’s arguments in the same way freethinkers do; so why does he use them? I sincerely cannot think how or why.

D’Souza, like the charlatans, uses the mystery of quantum mechanics to justify his position. The many-words interpretation of quantum mechanics is slowly gaining popularity and overthrowing the long-held ‘orthodox’ Copenhagen interpretation. I am certainly no quantum physicist, so I’ll keep my science brief. The idea of ‘many-worlds’ states that what was previously considered to be the collapse of a wavefunction (a kind of quantum probability spread) does not exist. Every possible outcome does occur and we only witness one. The others occur in an ever growing number of parallel universes. More QM literate readers can correct me, but I think I’m right in stating that a large number of possibilities all occur and do so in parallel universes. D’Souza asserts that better known ideas, such as the Big Bang and Dark Matter, also all point towards a ‘material resurrection’.

Not only is this simply the God of the Gaps at its most blatant – it is a complete farce. The illogic involved is stupendous: we don’t know what the majority of matter is, therefore the likelihood is that a mass material resurrection will occur when Jesus Christ returns. It is frustrating to see an apologist so able to stop rational people becoming complacent by challenging them on important issues reduced to such piffle.

Please Dinesh – don‘t repeat this.

Atheist Christmas

This essay from Alex Charlton, 18 years old, argues that Christmas can be celebrated by believer and non-believer alike in the spirit of giving and charity.

Christmas is fast approaching, and many people around the world will be wondering what they should take from it, and why they celebrate it. Given that Christians only make up a third of the world’s population, I would expect that most of the people who celebrate Christmas aren’t Christians. Should this be so?

For Christians, Christmas is a time to remember the birth of Jesus Christ, and his alleged sacrifice to the world. Christmas also has pre-Christian roots, and is celebrated on the 25th of December because it corresponds with the pagan winter solstice. It’s easy to see why different cultures have Winter festivals. In agricultural societies, Autumn heralded a time to harvest the crops that had been toiled over through Spring and Summer, and as Winter drew in, and the days got shorter, lights and decorations made the dark nights cheerful, and food kept away the cold.

But is there anything wrong with non-Christians celebrating Christmas? It might be suggested that we should celebrate some other, more secular holiday, such as Yule, or Winterval. However, Christmas is part of the rich tapestry of our culture. It’s often pointed out by the religious that western culture was built on Christian values, who then object that Christmas is being hijacked by secularists. The people who think that Christmas is being hijacked don’t seem to consider that you can have the giving, the goodwill, and the celebration without the supernatural woo. Indeed, Christmas has been largely divorced from Christianity, due to the widespread secularisation of the developed world.

Frankly, we should recognise religious traditions, not because they are true or sacred, but because they remind us of where we have come from, and how far we’ve progressed, since the first time a family huddled together around a fire and told each other heart warming stories to stave off the harsh Winter weather. We should be allowed enjoy the beauty of Christmas, just as we can enjoy the beauty of religiously inspired works of art. The beauty is real, even if the object of inspiration is not.

For non-Christians, Christmas is about giving: giving your time and love to your family and friends, giving to the less fortunate, and giving cheer for the wonderful life you have! Spare a thought for all those people who are worse off than you, and consider how you could help them in some small way. Over the centuries, Christmas has become something more than a celebration of Christianity; it has become a more inclusive symbol of charity, and camaraderie, which is why there’s nothing wrong with rationally celebrating Christmas, or with taking the best from Christmas and applying it to life.

Another quandary that freethinking parents have is whether they should lie to their children about Father Christmas. Of course, this is a decision people have to make for themselves, but I don’t see much wrong with playing along. In the long run, by lying to your children or siblings about Father Christmas, you’re teaching them several valuable lessons: don’t take everything people tell you on face value, and remember what it’s like to be a true believer, how you criticize evidence against your beliefs but hold onto dubious evidence that supports them. Mystical thinking is often the norm in society, and people need to be taught how to discern and debunk it.

There is an all too familiar view of atheists as nihilistic, or depressive, or selfish, and celebrating Christmas may be a way to counter such stereotypes. The fact that God doesn’t exist doesn’t mean that life isn’t worth living, or worth living morally. If this were the case, then would atheists take the time to buy gifts, and show their affection for their loved ones? No. The fact that atheists want to celebrate Christmas should challenge the accusations leveled at atheists.

In summary, there’s nothing wrong with celebrating Christmas as a non-Christian, or even as an atheist, not just because Christmas is a pretty secular holiday anyway, but also because Christmas is founded on principles that we can all celebrate: peace on Earth and goodwill to all. The beauty of Christmas is something we can all enjoy. Further, it isn’t inconsistent for freethinking parents to use the Father Christmas myth to teach their children the importance of rational thought and criticism. Finally, the interest that atheists have in Christmas falsifies common atheist stereotypes, and this should help raise the consciousness of those who think that atheism presents a gloomy view of the world.

I hope that this essay has helped young freethinkers to better understand the role of Christmas for unbelievers, and challenged the popular notion that Christmas is the preserve of Christians. To the readers at Young Freethought, may I wish you all a merry Christmas, and a happy New Year.

The views expressed in this article are those of the author and don't necessarily reflect the views of Young Freethought's editors.

The Need To Rethink The Atheist Movement

This short essay is by John Kubinski. John is an 18 year old student in his first year at the University of Virginia hoping start in a career in genetics and one day write popular science books. He aruges that there is a need to properly re-frame the atheist movement, so as to make it clear that the movement rests on philosophical principles and not belief in specific propositions.

The atheist movement is in need of a proper framing. The fight is not being waged over a proposition; it’s being waged over a mentality. What is being decried is not belief in what appears to be a false claim about reality, it’s about the way in which that false belief was arrived at.

It must be made clear that disbelief in God is not the central principle; the ideas surrounding the movement do not flow forth from this notion. But rather, disbelief in God flows as a natural consequence from critical inquiry and the use of reason. Adherence to rationality needs to become inextricably linked with the atheist ethos (it is on the inside, but this is not the case for most outsiders). We can no longer allow the debate to continue to be framed as a competition of mutually incompatible propositions, because that’s not ultimately what it is about. This clash consists of the use of reason and scepticism versus the surrender of the mind to faith. It is not creationism versus evolution. Just as it is not about the heliocentric model versus the geocentric model. And it’s not about the moral status of fertilized eggs. And it’s not about the rights of homosexuals. And we probably shouldn’t even say it’s about science versus religion, because this, once again, allows the debate to be misconstrued as a battle between a group of beliefs (scientific facts and religious claims.) In its deepest roots it’s about thinking and non-thinking; it’s about approaching the world and being ready to form arguments with no assumptions. It’s about forming a worldview from the facts up, not from predetermined conclusions down.

The incompatibility of science and religion isn’t something that inevitably “arises” as some say. The incompatibility is something that is. Before either one makes any sort of claim about reality, they are in direct opposition. Religion is not antithetical to science because there are disputes about the facts; the antithesis arises in how the facts are arrived at. Science is in a philosophical conflict with religion of the severest kind. A willingness to believe claims without evidence, and further to refuse reason the right to bear influence on your views, is just unacceptable. From square one, the epistemological groundwork religions lay down is a challenge to science. If by some miracle a religion had in its tenets a complete theory of electromagnetism, Darwinian evolution, plate tectonics and thermodynamics, it wouldn’t make a difference, because if belief in these propositions was arrived at via faith and not through examination of evidence and the application of reason, then science would still be at odds with this religion. Factual content is not the ultimate source of the conflict. It is the religious mindset, and the virtue of faith, which we wish to destroy. We don’t just want people to believe in scientific theories; we want them to think scientifically. If we don’t accomplish this type of systemic change, the content of our arguments will never matter, because arguments themselves won’t matter. The gravity of how essential this problem is cannot be overstated. It seems Martin Luther had a grasp of what was at stake when he stated this (perhaps the worst quote in human history):

“Reason must be deluded, blinded, and destroyed. Faith must trample underfoot all reason, sense, and understanding, and whatever it sees must be put out of sight and ... know nothing but the word of God.”

So let us frame the atheist project in a new way with improved clarity: We are not trying to change the memes people serve as hosts to, we are trying to change the memetic selecting agents that are responsible for how memes propagate. This is the real change we must fight for.

The views expressed in this article are those of the author and don't necessarily reflect the views of Young Freethought's editors.

Bill O'Reilly - Antihero of Freethought

A motivation for one of our suggested articles. Ad hominem attacks should be avoided, they are pernicious and often irrelevant, but Bill O’Reilly is simply crazy. The namesake of the Fox show The O’Reilly Factor boasts one of the biggest followings for a ‘news’ programme on American TV, so this isn't picking on the weak or obscure. His latest attack (video below the post) on the ‘deluded’ atheist band is almost too hard to criticise through its astounding unreason. In response to posters published by the American Humanist Association which read ‘Why believe in a god? Just be good for goodness’ sake’, O’Reilly had this to say:

“So why does the American Humanist Society, who wants to be good for goodness’ sake, why do they loathe the baby Jesus? He’s just a baby”

Adding...

“You don’t sell atheism by running down a baby do ya?’ How do you sell atheism by running down a baby? It’s just a baby”

For what it’s worth, here is the quasi-syllogism that perhaps went on in O’Reilly’s head (and I really have tried to be fair here):

Proposition 1 – The American Humanist Association believe you can be good without God or a god and release posters saying just this.

Proposition 2 – The baby Jesus was God.

Conclusion – Therefore atheists loath the baby Jesus and try to promote atheism by insulting a baby.

At this point, one of O’Reilly’s Angels even began laughing and later chuckled ‘I think you’re nuts’. Yes... Quite. Maybe they aren’t so immune to logic after all.

In a similar ‘infantocentric’ vein, O’Reilly writes this in his newspaper column –

‘But there is a serious side to this, and the American "humanists" should listen up. Christmas is a joyous time for children; that's the big upside of celebrating the birth of Jesus. Why, then, do people who want to "be good" spend money denigrating a beautiful day? Could it be that the humanists are not really interested in good at all? Maybe.’

This illogicality would even lead me to doubt the man’s sincerity if it weren’t for the abrasive and close-minded tone with which he is so synonymous.

But this argument is just a prelude to O’Reilly’s dialectical masterpiece, the pièce de résistance as he sees it: atheists hate Christmas because atheists are jealous. He writes –

‘The question is, why bother? Why spend money at Christmas time to spread dubious will among men? The reason, I believe, is that the atheists are jealous of the Yuletide season. While Christians have Jesus and Jews have the prophets, non-believers have Bill Maher. There are no atheist Christmas carols, no pagan displays of largesse like Santa Claus. In fact, for the non-believer, Christmas is just a day off, a time to consider that Mardi Gras is less than two months away.’

I’ll let you be the judge of that and our proposed article on atheist Christmas celebrations should be just the place. View our ‘Suggested Topics’ section for the full title. Detailed cross-examinations of O’Reilly are welcome too – if you’re brain can handle such nonsense without self-destructing that is.

A Message Of Support From Richard Dawkins

I am honoured that Richard Dawkins has responded to this blog and advocates so passionately and thoughtfully all that it stands for. This is his letter of support to Young Freethought.

I was delighted when Michael wrote to tell me about youngfreethought.com. So delighted that I hope you will overlook my age and allow me to explain why I think you are making such a valiant contribution to the cause of atheism, rationalism and secularism.

It is all too easy for debates about the role of religion to become inward-looking and academic, but it really does matter. Every day, all across the world, millions of our fellow humans are diminished by religion: religion that may force them to mutilate their children, cover their hair or faces, stay silent when they have so much more to say than those who suppress them, surrender control over their reproduction, donate money they cannot afford, obey and submit to their inferiors, deny reality, forgo education, close their minds, reject proper medical care, suffer needlessly, be burdened by pointless guilt, and live with the spectre of eternal torment. Every day, religion works to recruit more victims, among the young, the sick, the poor and dispossessed, the old: anyone who is weak and vulnerable is a legitimate target in religion’s eyes.

Of course, in any civilised society people must be free to believe whatever they want, but this doesn't mean those beliefs should be automatically shielded from challenge just because they are religious, and it certainly doesn't mean they should be enshrined in law or promulgated by the state. It doesn't mean that the state should abet churches and mosques and temples in trying to convert young minds in schools. It doesn't mean that young people should be divided from one another throughout their all-important school lives purely because their parents happen to follow different creeds. It doesn't mean we should allow our state broadcaster to perpetuate the myth that you need religion to be good. It doesn't mean that the minority of people who are actively religious should have privileged access to our lawmakers, their opinions sought out by policy makers, their bishops sit, as of right, in the House of Lords, their representatives automatically packing government committees or Royal Commissions with an ethical brief. It doesn't mean that our hard-pressed NHS should squander money paying chaplains out of its already over-stretched budgets. It doesn't mean that schools should be obliged to force pupils into daily acts of worship.

Every major battle for the advancement of human rights has been won in the teeth of fierce religious opposition: whether it's the abolition of slavery, equality for women or gays, freedom of speech, the abolition of the blasphemy law, the right of a woman to control her own fertility, or the right of the terminally ill to choose to end their suffering with dignity and medical assistance.

So, this really matters – in the real world and not just in internet chatrooms. Of course we must leave people in peace to practise religion if they so choose. But the rest of us must be left in peace to live our lives without it. The religious want more and more influence over government policy and, if they succeed, our society will be the poorer: less tolerant, less equal, less just, less educated, less rational. These issues should matter to all of us, but young people are the ones who should care most of all. You will inherit the societies that current governments leave behind. This is your future we are talking about, and the kind of society you want to live in.

If you want – and what decent person wouldn't? – to live with the best Enlightenment values, live free and tolerant and committed to knowledge and education and reason, then you must speak up and let your voices be heard.

This is why I welcome this blog so wholeheartedly. You will shape our society’s future, and it is exhilarating to see you preparing to do so.

All good wishes

Richard Dawkins

Suggested Writing For Readers

As promised, here is the link to the 'Atheism is the new fundamentalism debate', as reviewed by myself in November. As Andy Armitage pointed out in the comments section, the title was pretty unfortunate and probably the product of a Christian 'title-chooser'. Nonetheless, the debate is highly recommended. Dawkins in particular stands out (and that's not me being biased either).

Remember, we need submissions! To try and encourage more entries, we've come up with four essay titles we suggest our readers write about. They will be included on our sidebar and new titles will be added as old ones are posted.

• America is one of the most fervent Christian nations in the world. Why has the United States failed to live up to its original secular values?

• 2009 marked the bicentennial of Darwin’s birth and the sesquicentennial of the publication of The Origin of Species . What is the status of ‘evolution’ like in the public sphere as the year draws to a close?

• The Rationalist Association run a Christmas event for non-believers, attended by famous authors and comedians. Is it ok or right for non-theists to continue celebrating what were once deeply religious festivals?

• Why, in the 21st century, after much scientific and technological development, is religion not dwindling as a remnant of our history?

These are just suggested titles. Feel free to alter them or ignore them. And don't forget that book reviews and news pieces are also welcome. Sent them all in to this address.

Atheism Is The New Fundamentalism - Grayling & Dawkins Show Otherwise

Last night saw another great debate courtesy of Intelligence Squared. The motion – Atheism is the new fundamentalism. For the motion - Richard Harries, former Bishop of Oxford and Charles Moore, former editor of The Daily Telegraph. Against the motion, two heroes of Freethought, A.C Grayling, Professor of Philosophy at London University, and Richard Dawkins, who needs no introduction.

The debate kicked off with Richard Harries taking to the podium. He defined the fundamentalism of ‘new atheism’ under four headings, but they essentially boiled down to two: first, new atheism is impervious to facts and second, it only picks on the weakest arguments of its opponents. After a good start, it all got rather embarrassing for Harries. His first argument, as one twitter user put it, was essentially this – ‘most artists in history were Christian, so there’. Atheists often forget, said Harries, that Eliot and Auden, two great poets, were both Christian. The obvious response being ‘so what?’. Not only is the observation irrelevant and simply a result of the historical domination of the Church, it is simply wrong. Atheists don’t ignore this (personally, my favourite poet is Eliot), it just doesn’t come up in arguments because it is a moot point – perhaps someone should have told Harries this.

Then came Anthony. Grayling has the soft-spoken, charming manner of an English country gentleman but he compliments this with fantastic observation and a great intellect. His speech, though eloquent, was unfortunately not dreadfully relevant to the motion. It was, however, a pleasure to hear such a mind talk about atheism, secularism and humanism.

Grayling later referred to Charles Moore’s speech as a series of ad hominem attacks on Richard Dawkins. This was perhaps slightly unfair, but Moore certainly focused on Dawkins’ work with a certain intensity. His main criticism was of what he described as a ‘WWII searchlight’ approach. Dawkins, he argued, glances briefly at Christianity, criticising it at a basic level, finding the weakest forms and interpretations and proceeding to massacre them. He said Dawkins was an accuser and maintained a pitiful almost ‘murderous’ attitude to others. ‘It was Rev. Green, in the nursery, with the Bible’ said Harries (Dawkins excellently pointing out that in the U.S version of Cluedo, Rev. Green is simply called Mr. Green, as it is inconceivable that a Reverend could do any wrong). The accusation even arose that Dawkins felt intelligent people were ‘better people’ for it, in reference to the questionnaire cited in The God Delusion (which he boldy held high and displayed to the audience at one point) showing that a higher proportion of MENSA members are atheists. By this moment the audience was getting restless and Moore was stretching the time limit. Determined to finish with a flourish by quoting Shakespeare, he pressed on. One amusing moment came when Moore reached a pause, and some audience members clapped impatient and wanting him to finish; he seemed to take it as encouragement. Readers of this blog may be interested in a comment made by Moore during the questioning; that atheism was simply a teenage phase. I encourage you in your writing to show him it is much more than simply a phase.

Dawkins strode to take his place with huge applause behind him. Even watching the live stream, you could sense that this was the moment people were looking forward to. Dawkins, amiably, stuck to the topic and didn’t disappoint. He defined fundamentalism as blind obedience to a holy book or catechism and argued an important feature that characterised it was extremism. Addressing these two points, Dawkins simply pointed out that ‘new atheism’ is not a belief system, only a belief in evidence and always willing to change its mind when new evidence comes to light. He described the excitement scientists feel about what they don’t know, and indeed, by acknowledging there is an awful lot still to learn, the charge of fundamentalism really disappears. Discussing extremism, he used an argument many of his readers will be familiar with. Stalin and Mao, though atheists, did not commit their crimes in the name of atheism. When a questioner raised this once more, Dawkins called it a‘monstrous’ suggestion. “Science flies you to the moon” he said “religion flies you into buildings”. Dawkins was really on top form. This was certainly one of his best performances.

However, the most revealing and certainly entertaining moment came during the questioning. When Harries asked Dawkins about a comment made in his speech (Dawkins said ‘When was the last time you ever heard these words from a pulpit - “On the balance of probabilities, you should do action x”’), claiming that Dawkins himself never made such statements about God and he would like him to point one out to him in his writing, Dawkins simply replied ‘Chapter 4 of my book. It’s called Why there is almost certainly no God’. I think after this moment, it really did become clear that Grayling and Dawks had won the day.

A vote taken before the debate revealed 333 were for the motion, 675 were against and 389 didn’t know with around 200 who didn’t vote. Afterwards this became 85 don’t knows’, 363 for the motion and 1070 against. The online poll was more revealing – 35 for and 877 against. Perhaps we atheists are more computer-savy? Whatever the reason, a good night for ‘new atheism’.

The link to the debate will be posted when it is uploaded. As an aside, the Hitchens/Fry Catholicism debate is now up unedited. Here is the link.

Religion, Atheism & Science

This essay was written by Alex Charlton. At 18 years old, Alex is a psychology student at Plymouth University here in the UK.

If you follow this blog, chances are you also follow sites such as pharyngula, or richarddawkins.net, rationally speaking, or why evolution is true, and if not then you should. They are all maintained by top scientists defending atheism and reason, along with evolution in particular but also science in general. I say that you should follow at least some of them because these bastions of rationality are not just popular but accessible and informative, giving an insight into the difficulties between science and religion. But why are they so popular?

It’s indisputable that a larger proportion of working scientists are atheists compared to the general population¹. Historically, many eminent scientists have been theists and Christians, but until recently atheism was socially unacceptable, with non-Christians facing persecution and discrimination, so this isn’t surprising. There are also some eminent scientists today who are Christians, such as Francis Collins, but they are in a minority.

There are two potential explanations as to why this is: it could be that science education causes people to lose their faith, or that atheists are more likely to pursue a career in the sciences. Neither explanation bodes well for theists. If the former, this has important implications for education. Recently, the UK government agreed to put evolution on the primary school curriculum. If science dispels religion, then perhaps a proper science education is all that is needed to bring religious belief down to levels found in regions like Scandinavia or countries such as Japan². However, I don’t find this outcome very plausible, simply because a number of factors, other than education, negatively affect the religiosity of a country; factors like societal health.

If the latter, then this raises the question of why atheists are more concerned with science than theists? One answer is that many theists are apt to reject the findings of science when they appear to conflict with their religious beliefs. Of course, theists often contend that these conflicts can be reconciled, but I would argue that there is a deeper conflict between science and religion, of which these factual disputes are symptomatic.

Religion and science aren’t incompatible in the sense that science refutes religion, but I believe that science and religion have conflicting approaches to knowledge. On the one hand, science is a method by which hypotheses and explanations of the world are tested and retested against empirical observation and other scientific theories. Since most theories turn out to be wrong, science must be open to refutation and scepticism, so that incorrect views can be weeded out. By this slow and uncertain process of inquiry and refinement, science inches ever closer to knowledge. Religion, on the other hand, uses the methods of revelation and tenacity to come to knowledge. The founders of a religion claim to have special knowledge imparted to them by supernatural beings, which is then codified into dogma, and reinforced over generations.

Whilst the methods of science have led to amazing technological advances and a deeper understanding of the world we live in, religion has led to a great amount of confusion, especially since the dogmas of the different religions contradict one another. This shows, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that revelation and tradition are unreliable guides to truth. It also explains why religions have such a bad track record with making testable empirical claims; why, for example, the Roman Catholic Church forced Galileo to recant his belief that the Earth orbited the Sun. But if we can't rely on religion to get that right, why should we base ethical and political systems on it? Whilst few religious beliefs can be scientifically disproven, to hold them is nonetheless unscientific, since no religion would stand up to the scrutiny that is applied to even the most widely accepted scientific theories. Put simply, using the methods of science on the claims of religion would be like using a machete to spread butter.

PZ Myers puts this point well in his blog post, “What should a scientist think about religion?”

What should a scientist expect from an idea? That it be a reasonable advance in knowledge; that it be built on a foundation of evidence; that it be testable; that it should lead to new and useful questions and ideas. If we look at religion from that perspective, it doesn't help. At best, the hypothesis of the supernatural and/or a supreme being is vague, unfounded, and inapplicable in any practical fashion—deistic views, for instance, are so abstract and so carefully divorced from risk of challenge that they represent an empty hypothesis, and the most flattering thing you can say about them is that they're harmless. At worst, religion is confused, internally contradictory, and in conflict with evidence from the physical (and near as we can tell, only) world.

Most theists care whether or not religion can be reconciled with science, though most scientists don’t care if science can’t be reconciled with religion. Why? Because science doesn’t need to draw confirmation from religion, it can stand on its own merits. Just imagine a world without science, compared to a world without religion.
_________________________________________
¹ See Michael Martin, "The Cambridge Companion to Atheism", Cambridge University Press (2008), p 307-313
² Ibid., p 56

The views expressed in this article are those of the author and don't necessarily reflect the views of Young Freethought or its editors.

Not As Important As We Hoped?

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”.

First published at http://spackledorfed.wordpress.com/2009/10/24/andanotherthing/. The views expressed in this article are those of the author and don't necessarily reflect the views of Young Freethought or its editors.