The Right to Offend versus the Christian Privilege

In this examination, Eric Stockhausen covers the difficulties in the spectrum of first amendment rights in regard to religion; from offensive but legal, to illegal, and presents his opinion on some recent news.

Lately there has been a lot of news where the freedom to express ones religious views has been at the forefront. With the growing importance of such issues, I think it would be prudent to review some cases which have gotten onto atheist websites.

Exhibit A: Settlement clears way for Kerrville Cross

In my home state, Texas, a non-profit organization called The Coming King Foundation is putting up a 77 foot huge metal cross near neighbourhoods and access to Interstate 10. Not only would this be near residents but everyone would have to see it, on those grounds residents litigated against the foundation. This cross offends residents because A) Giant crosses remind people of lynching and other terrible connotations B) Crosses tend to give the message that God owns this land (Columbus-esque). C) Not everyone is Christian and the community does not want to give outsiders the wrong idea. D) A giant metal cross is just bad taste! I believe this Christian organization has the right to free speech, this clearly being an example of symbolic speech. These Christians have the right to offend people, but there is the clear problem of visual pollution (many people have to see it). So if atheists have the right to put up billboards that offend Christians, should Christians have the right to offend atheists? On a case to case basis it is really hard because from the perspective of a Christian who gets offended at the smallest reference to atheism on a public street corner, it can get fuzzy about whether or not the majority have the right to censor someone based on offence. I personally think that the law gives precedent to protect the foundation’s free speech no matter how much I disagree with their message. If there was a good way of deciding what constituted as visual pollution (aside from obscenities), I would have a different opinion on the legality of the foundation’s cross.

Exhibit B: Federal judge rules teacher can display patriotic banners mentioning 'God'

This time in California, a judge ruled that is was unconstitutional for a school to censor a teacher who had banners with Christian nationalistic messages. (See here)

One should really read the opinion the Judge gave. It really goes into detail of why the judge would protect such banners. These are obviously offensive to my atheistic tastes and I disagree with the mixing of God and country. The teacher is being unprofessional by putting his religio-political beliefs on display. The biggest problem is that they are all quotes of things that already have national protection. The judge referenced the Michael Newdow case where the Supreme Court decided that the Pledge of Allegiance recognizes the importance of God in the history of the United States. Though I disagree with both the Supreme Court’s ruling and belief on the importance of God, I can hardly blame the Judge. I suggest reading the Judge’s opinion and forming your own.

Now the important problem with this case is ‘Christian Privilege’. If the teacher had something like “Are you moral without God? Millions are!” or the like from the Freedom From Religion Foundation, it would have probably been censored because atheistic speech is very limited. This is an unacceptable double standard. I want atheist teachers to have equal protection under the law. If that means personal, political and religious views are prohibited for public school teachers because it is an abuse of power given to them by the government in order to teach kids, so be it. If the sign had said “In Jesus We Trust”, I would think it would be censored too because it is not politically correct enough for the classroom since it implies we believe in Jesus. People realize the importance of political correctness a little bit better when something is restated in a way that makes them understand the atmosphere in which it is presented. Implying Americans believe in Jesus excludes the Jewish Americans and implying Americans believes in God makes Atheist Americans a second class. I’ve gone through some commonly used rhetoric, make your own decision on the case.

Until the wall between church and state is repaired, we will just have to deal with things like Prop 4 on the GOP ballot in Texas (scroll to the bottom).

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

Science: What More Do You Want?

John Kubinski, inspired by Dawkins and Sagan, reminds us that science has more properties than being a tool in the debate against religion; science embodies that remarkable process of human inquiry which is beautiful in its own right.

The beauty of science is that it has the ability to shatter common sense. Time and time again, the awe inspiring nature of the truth is revealed to us by scientific inquiry. Unceasingly, science pulls the warm blanket of familiarity from under us, and exposes our minds to the once inconceivable wild bewildering truth. The truth itself is not the only thing that is beautiful, though it often can be rather elegant and stunning. But the fact that we comprehend the truth, the fact that we can successfully pursue the truth, the fact that the only place the truth is ever actually manifested is within our own minds - these are the beautifying aspects of the human relationship with science.

Science is a wholly human endeavour, we know not of any other life that attempts to discern the true nature of reality. And we, as science has shown, are a part of the very symphony we study. Matter is investigating matter. Through science we learn not only about how the world around us operates, but we learn about the fabric of our essence on every single level, from the atomic to the genetic to the cognitive. Could there be a more incredible aspect of the world than the fact that evolved primates such as us can not only ponder, but understand the many great puzzles of the universe? (If there is a more incredible fact, be assured that science will produce it.) And to whom do we owe our advances in understanding? Ourselves. We own the truths that we have unveiled; through nothing but the sheer power of human reason we have vastly improved our comprehension of the cosmos. Could those early Homo Sapiens roaming the Savannah ever have dreamed of calculus, quantum mechanics, relativity, game theory, philosophy, evolution? Our ancestors had no hope of ever comprehending the rationale behind their existence; that is a privilege that (if it ever came at all) could only belong to their progeny. And it didn’t have to be that way. We are unbelievably special in that regard. If you did the calculations, the percentage of matter in the universe that could ponder its origins (or anything at all!) would be infinitesimally small. It is just absolutely astonishing that rationality and sentience manifest in a mammalian brain made of ordinary matter and energy, just like anything else. The difference between you and the objects around you are configuration; the atoms that comprise you are arranged one way, theirs in another. A truth like that is so intensely fascinating and intellectually provocative, it is just amazing that we know of it. Such truths melt our intuition into a shapeless mess of incomprehensibility.

Science makes that sense of flawed understanding and unfamiliarity possible, it expands our cognitive landscape by pushing back ever further against our convenient yet mistaken perceptions of reality. The intellectual process by which one gains greater insight into the universe, and sees reality in a new light, is one of the finest experiences that higher order consciousness privileges us to. But of course, the truths were always true. Reality does not change, just our malformed perceptions do. Much of the wonder lies in this aspect of science; the perseverance of human reason over our innate deficiencies. Science is an exciting foray into the yet-to-be-known, with our collective capacity to reason and the hard-won truths uncovered by those before us as the only guiding lights.

Life has always evolved, entropy has always increased, gravity has always weakened proportionally to the square of the distance of the source, the atoms of solids have always been comprised mostly of empty space, and mass-energy equivalence has always held - but only in the past thousand years have these truths ever been grasped. We breathe life into the equations as much as they breathe life into us, for it is us, and as far as we know only us, who have been able to appreciate the elegant truths that make reality the way it is. Empowering, liberating, inspiring, confusing, humbling - these are just some of the things that science does to life which makes existence fuller, broader, richer, and dare I say, more meaningful.

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

The Inner Self Misconception

In this philosophical post, Eric Stockhausen argues that the concept of a soul or inner self is misleading to the most comprehensible understanding of experience and offers an alternative. Enjoy!

Some believe the self is the personality part of brain. Some believe the self is an experiencer who exists within the brain, watching what the brain shows it. Some believe the self is just conscious thought and everything else is more or less no one self. More believe in a soul which incorporates some of ones personality, experience, and thought.

Each one of these beliefs sets up a compartment with walls. These walls represent a barrier between phenomena outside the self and inside the self. When sense data comes into this compartment whether it is the soul or some metaphorical place in the brain, it can be experienced. The self exists in this compartment and is completely unaware of anything outside. From this conception of the inner self, Descartes made his famous Demon argument which suggested that all that information entering ones compartment could be a carefully crafted narrative created by a Demon with unlimited power.

This inner self argument seems tempting in its current form for many people; however it presents many problems of its own. First it implies that there is this clear and distinct “I”; however, under the current argument that would imply that the “I” inside the compartment would be independent from his compartment and also experiencing the experiences as they are being put inside the room. This creates an ontological problem because it implies that there is an infinite set of inner selves. (For more on this subject read Consciousness Explained by Daniel Dennett.)

Now that the inner self independent of the brain is ruled out, it is important to present an alternative. The “I” people experience is part of their mental actions. During sleep, there is a phase when this “I” turns off and people are no longer experiencing self-consciousness. These experiences are part of ones mental processes and are not delivered to any inner agency that is independent of the whole. Any part of the mental functions can be tampered with in order to produce a different experience. Humans have not evolved to look at their brains and notice that is where the thoughts are occurring. It would be best to imagine an experiment where one with their very own hands could use an electrode to activate certain parts of the brain and notice its cause and effect within their experience. Once one overcomes the instinctive misconception that thoughts hover over matter (and physical processes) as if matter could not logically be them, one will understand the more comprehensive theory of consciousness.

If one is wondering how a physical process produces a thought, there is an explanation. The way matter produces a living thing is by being self-organizing and self-reproducing. The processes that constitute thought are the same way. The matter is organized in such a way that once the process begins, the right reactions occur for the thinking to work continuously.

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

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.

The Basic Case Against Supernaturalism

Another essay from 18 year old freethinker: Eric Stockhausen. This time he briefly examines the perils of supernaturalism and naturalism in the preferred alternative.

D’Souza claimed, in a debate against Dan Barker at Harvard, that science has an atheistic agenda or bias. Because of his view that science explains phenomena with natural causes, he rightly concludes that science, on principle, eliminates supernatural causes. The thing is that there is no conclusive evidence that any supernatural agent exists, so D’Souza’s clinging to Catholicism is still unjustified. One commonly used example used show how naturalists could consider a supernatural agent is: if an amputee had his or her missing limb regenerate in thin air, it would merit a supernatural explanation. The fact that naturalists can consider supernatural agents, given evidence, is proof that there is not an atheistic agenda in science.

Some supernatural beliefs are pretty harmless if they are not thought about too seriously, but any type of supernaturalism is dangerous to epistemology. Philosophically, it is possible that a supernatural agent is behind any phenomena. It is also possible that the world started just now. If the world did start just now, I can discount all my memories. That means I must in a single moment relearn to see patterns because I cannot trust my memories. It would be like everything is a photograph, but I cannot tell the differences in depth and direction. Basically, I know nothing and am just experiencing something I do not understand.

The reason I bring this up is because if any supernatural cause is acceptable as an equal alternative then I know nothing about everything. In this scenario, I have a view that sees the universe as almost unreal. Many eastern religious philosophies speak about letting go of the world. In some Hindu sects, that elders are expected to become ascetic and starve to death in the wilderness in order meet their spiritual needs. But how does it aid our understanding of the world?

A naturalistic world view has given us many new inventions and medicines that have increased the well-being of humanity. As shown by Phil Zuckerman in Society Without God: What the Least Religious Nations Can Tell Us About Contentment; secular, naturalistic society’s are often the most happy and have admirable system of social welfare. So far, naturalism, devoid of any ‘supernatural’ influence, has aided our society. There is no reason to suggest that naturalism will not be a driving force in continual betterment of the human condition.

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

Refuting Common Sense & Pascal's Wager

This essay was written by Eric Stockhausen. Eric is an 18 year-old freethinker from Texas. In this essay he tries to refute both the author Steven E. Landsburg and his believing brother who offered him 'common sense' arguments for God's existence.

I have heard arguments for belief that range from ‘common sense’ to usefulness. The common sense argument generally aim at how it is ‘impossible’ for a god (and they mean God) not to exist. Anyone who studied the history of science knows that nature goes against common sense. Two examples that spring to mind include heliocentricity and quantum mechanics.

There may be many things human minds may not be able to conceive, which is why I dislike mathematics being used to heavily in theories for or against a god. Steven E. Landsburg, writer of The Big Questions, uses his understanding of mathematics to prove that both intelligent design and Richard Dawkins are both using flawed arguments. The problem is he evokes Euclidian geometry and ‘conceivable’ mathematics. The universe has ‘inconceivable geometry’. The evidence for general relativity on the macro-level has shown that we do not exist in the simplistic three dimensions of Euclid. The problem of looking at the universe in a traditional mathematics approach is that one does not realize that nature is very different to our expectations.

To be fair, Landsberg’s arguments do not rest on top of Euclidian geometry; but on principles I believe many atheists may agree with; like mathematics in totality is very complex. Anyone who has studied calculus and trigonometry know the way mathematics works is very complex in the sense of proofs and mathematical relationships. I would not agree with Richard Dawkins, if he had believed that it was philosophically impossible for there to be an intelligent designer. I have heard Richard Dawkins use qualifiers forming the distinction between philosophical knowledge and empirical knowledge. For instance, philosophically, I do not know if the universe was created five minutes ago. Richard Dawkins, on principle, does not believe it like most people.

Landsburg ends his argument against Richard Dawkins’ atheism with the problematic Pascal’s Wager. Basically, it argues that the possible benefits of belief justify belief. On the same logic, the belief that (A) believing in unicorns will give me (B) fifty million dollars is justified (he actually states fifty million dollars would justify a wager for a Nigerian scam in a footnote). One problem is that anyone can replace A and B with whatever they want, even believing with disbelieving. Another is that most people would not believe in unicorns just because I said there would be a benefit in it for them. What I think is most telling about this is that it makes the mistake of confusing genuine belief with a gamble. A person cannot believe with Pascal’s Wager but only assert that they believe. The person claims to believe not because they do but because it is beneficial. Belief is an intelligent decision based on the best of one’s knowledge. If a person really thinks he or she believes in a god because of Pascal’s Wager, they are deluding themselves. Even Landsburg admits that it is very unlikely that God exists.

In conclusion, common sense can be wrong and cannot prove god’s existence; Pascal’s Wager is only seems useful to the faithful in its narrow interpretation but it has a whole world of philosophical problems.

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

America Is Not A Christian Nation

This informative essay was written by Kyle Eschen. Kyle is studying economics, international business and film studies at the University of Florida. He descirbes himself as a libertarian, an objectivist and an atheist. Here he examies the extent to which America can be called a Christian nation.

The United States is not and has never been a Christian nation. Of course one could argue the opposite using a plethora of definitions and requirements of a ‘Christian nation’. I will argue that these alternatives are insubstantial and impractical and then advocate a more proper and practical working definition. Using this definition and its requirements I will show the United States to be substantially different from a Christian nation. The founding documents and our peculiar version of religious diversity will be brought in to aid me in this. I use the founding documents, American law, and the early diversity of Christian denominations to support my arguments.

The most common way of using the term ‘Christian nation’ refers to a country which has a large majority of its population practicing or professing adherence to a Christian religious denomination. There are no objective standards but I’ll imagine that a population of about seventy-five percent Christian is sufficient to be considered a ‘Christian nation’. Under this definition the United States would be considered such. However, a nation is more than just its population. America as a nation behaves differently to its population. Its laws are not, thankfully, based on the whims of a majority.

People try to claim America as a Christian nation by quoting many past leaders; exclaiming that the United States is indeed a “Nation under God!” If this metric were used, America would switch often and abruptly. For instance, it would have been a Christian nation just about a year ago under George Bush, who often thanked God for helping him lead, but would no longer be under Barack Obama, who has said multiple times that we are a nation of citizens, not a Christian, Muslim or Hindu nation. Some point more specifically to the founding fathers. To this, Butler would reply, “...most of those preachers would almost certainly be horrified if any of the first four Presidents of the United States- Washington, Adams, Jefferson, or Madison- turned up in their congregations and said what they really thought about Christianity. All were courageous and high-minded men, but none was a Christian in any conventional way” (Butler, 165). Thomas Jefferson even believed that priests and ministers “persuaded people to 'give up morals for mysteries' and that they took advantage of people by cheating them of their hard-earned dollars” (Butler 166).

A Christian nation is one that specifically and obviously bases its whole system of government on the Christian religion. Iran then, is a Muslim nation; there is virtually no separation of church and state. Some people agree with this definition and argue that our laws are based on the ten commandments. As it turns out, the only commandments that have anything to do with American law are the ones dealing with theft, homicide and perjury. Laws dealing with these have been around since ancient times and are definitely not reserved for religious morality. It is fair to say that society would not deem it okay to murder a person if there wasn’t a commandment for it – actually, it seems that religious texts are often used to justify murder, but I will not digress. America is famous for being 'material'; where would we be if we didn't covet our neighbour’s houses? This system of government must include the founding documents and laws of the country. It is the laws and the founding documents that determine whether a nation can really be defined as a Christian nation or not, and it is Americas laws and founding documents that explicitly show us to be free from the title.

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.

Crossroads

This very thought-provking article was written by Lew Zi Qi. Lew is a 15 year old school student from Singapore.

“These new tools, provided by science and technology, are more than just tools – they’re instruments of social revolution, violent or peaceful. As the tools change, so too does the ability of society to organize itself.” - James Burke

I believe that Science is characterized primarily by three main aspects: its ability to empower us and give the gift of Life, its ability to destroy us on catastrophic levels never before matched in history and lastly, its ability to provide glimpses into deep and profound knowledge that can alter our views of ourselves and the world we live in.

If we trace our ancestry back far enough, we find that all of us ultimately descend from a small group of hunter-gatherers in the eastern part of Africa. We were plagued by diseases, preyed upon by predators, subjected to the whims of Nature. Surviving was a daily struggle. Yet in little less than a hundred thousand years – a mere bubble on the frothing river of evolution – we have grown to populate all the continents of the earth. We have effective cures for most diseases - what would be fatal a mere hundred years ago can be solved with a simple vaccination. Searching for food is as simple as a trip to the nearest supermarket – and no worries about becoming food ourselves as we do so. That we are able to propagate so successfully, that our daily lives are free from the primeval struggles of life and death is in no small part due to the benefits that Science provides. Indeed, most of us owe our very existence to advancement in Science: without technological advancement in agriculture, the Earth would have only been able to support paltry tens of thousands of humans. Given that there are now six billion of us, it would seem safe to venture that most of us would not be here today if not for Science.

But Science comes with a deadly caveat. For despite its ability to provide us with a bountiful supply of food, with great industrial plants, with high-seed transportation, Science carries with it the ability to destroy us all. And we are finding ever more efficient ways to destroy each other. Our biological weapons have evolved from the make-shift method of slinging diseased corpses over city walls to finely-honed, secretly-delivered laboratory germs able to cause mass pandemics. At a press of a button, the world’s leaders can destroy all life on the planet. From the cannons of Gettysburg to the nuclear bombs of the Cold War, the destructive abilities of our best weapons have grown over a billion times in a hundred years.

Our great industrial plants emit vast amounts of harmful gases daily, doing irreparable damage to our only home. Yet, we seem to lack the collective willpower to stop the slow rot. Is it only a matter of time before we are wiped out by our own achievements, going out either in the big bang of a nuclear holocaust or the small whimper of a slow global warming?

Will Science be our undoing, or will it be our liberator?

I believe that there are two possible paths humanity can take. We can continue to remain prisoners of our own inventions, or we do what we do best: we adapt and flourish.
The first path is a bleak one. On that path, a promising primate species rise on an insignificant planet in a solar system but eventually destroys itself. Such a possibility is not far fetched – throughout our brief history, we have shown tendency to think only of short term benefits. In modern times, we need to look no further than America’s refusal to sign the Kyoto Protocol (without American support, its effectiveness is greatly reduced). Self-preservation is hardwired into our evolutionary instincts. We have to conquer our selfish desires for the benefit of the species. Male jumping spiders do it all the time when they sacrifice themselves as food for their female counterparts during mating. I do not believe that we cannot do the same.

If we are to take the path of survival, there has to be a shift of mindset, a social revolution of sorts. Somehow, we have to find the collective willpower to utilize Science for the greater good. If we manage to do so, it will be an unprecedented feat in our history – the entire human race working together for a single cause. Perhaps this sounds like imaginary fluff – the wishful thinking of a person living in a safe and prosperous country. As one China official put it, “You cannot talk to a person about saving the environment if he can’t even find food to put in his mouth.” Given more pressing issues around the globe, a coordinated attempt to turn Science into a tool for survival will not be an easy feat. But we have no choice: the rules of this planet are clear enough – we adapt or die. Rapid advancements in Science mean that now more than ever, our actions will have great ramifications for this planet. This has come to a point where we are at the crossroads of destiny, and what we do in the next few decades can affect the survival of our species.

I believe that the issue here is more than that of Science being a tool for survival or destruction. It would be myopic for this essay to focus solely on the physical benefits (or harms) of Science. This brings me to the third and last aspect of Science: its ability to alter our understanding of who we are.

There is a famous picture of Earth from space. Called Pale Blue Dot, it was captured by Voyager 1 from the edge of our solar system. In the centre of this picture is our home – a tiny blue speck 0.12 pixels across set against the vastness of space. From such a distance, it appears pathetically small, an indistinguishable mote of blue dust in the vast cosmic ocean highlighted by the falling of sunlight upon the lenses of Voyager 1. How many wars have been fought over a tiny fraction of this precious piece of real estate? It is the culmination of our cultures, our ideologies and religions, our joys and sorrows – it is the sum total of us. Pale Blue Dot challenges our perceptions of who we are. It puts to shame our tendency for anthropocentric notions. It tells us that however advanced our Science may be, we are only minor players on a small stage within the cosmic arena. And as astronomer Carl Sagan put it, “Like it or not, for the moment the Earth is where we make our stand.”

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

Sinister Darwin?

This excellent article was written by Emma Lowe. Emma is an 18-year-old English student living in Belgium, currently on her gap year - an excellent time to think!

If there’s one thing I will remember 2009 for, it is the inspiring amount of energy which has been devoted to promoting Darwin’s theory of evolution. Stumbling across articles about both his life and work has been a relatively easy feat this year, with most pieces either going to great lengths to explain the actual mechanism of evolution, or just being content to praise the ingenuity of the much-loved naturalist and geologist. I was therefore struck by the following article’s report on the ‘sinister link’ which has been made between the now-famous theory and tragic school massacres (the article can be found here).

I tend to agree with the author’s point about the “unspoken agreement to accentuate the positive”: the majority of literature and media dedicated to ‘doing their bit’ for Darwin this year was characterised by a reverence for both man and theory, while the resulting minority preferred to concentrate on the standard ‘evolution vs. creationism vs. Intelligent Design’ debate. This rare article therefore opened my eyes to the darker side of the story, my initial reaction being one of horror at such an abuse of evolutionary theory. I am sure many others felt the same when reading it. Such feelings of shock, however, should be followed by a deeper examination of the issue of social Darwinism in order to prevent many from abandoning Darwinian theory on the basis that it promotes such massacres (be they in the playground or Nazi Germany). The “sinister link” implied in the report is misleading, and could result in another misconception surrounding the theory of evolution by natural selection.

The claim that the phenomenon of natural selection has been halted by man’s increasing control over his environment seems to be the ‘justification’ which is often quoted by these teenage murderers. The development of vaccinations and social security programmes in the western world, along with the results of humanitarian work, serves as the ‘evidence’ for their argument that man’s omnipotent hand has caused evolution to change gear: no longer is the unconscious force of Mother Nature allowed to weed out the weakest progeny, leaving the fittest survivors to establish themselves in our world, but the humane response of man to the plights of others has effectively halted such a process. Our emotions and values have encouraged us to come to the aid of others, such charity being one hallmark of a ‘civilised society’.

It is this precise evolution of our emotional responses which serves to undermine the cause of the teenage killers. The gradual development of the human lineage has not only resulted in the present-day physiological characteristics of man, but has also culminated, I believe, in an increased sense of humanity and emotional attachment to fellow beings. The evolution of compassion and respect constitutes a significant step in the development of our species, and it is this which has been ignored by the teenagers. Their non-conformism with the values of humanity which have evolved in us has therefore led to their being termed inhumane “homicidal maniacs”.

C. S. Lewis presents a related line of thought in his ‘The Abolition of Man’. He approaches the phenomenon of man’s increasing control over nature from a rather more spiritual point of view, claiming that the gradual explanation of everything in terms of natural and scientific processes will eventually lead to ‘the abolition of man’. If the human being in all its parts is reduced to a mere natural object itself, then the disappearance of humanity in the emotional and moral sense will surely follow. The ignorance of these teenagers has led them to forget that the real humane values prescribing respect and tolerance towards their fellow beings are products of natural selection themselves – an abandonment of such values, which has resulted in the killing of others, seems therefore to constitute an ‘insult’ to natural selection, whose cause they wanted to take up in the first place.

The murderous acts of these youths are also at odds with the true logical ‘spirit’ of natural selection. The process of evolution is characterised by the absence of an overriding force directing and controlling the destiny of the Earth’s organisms (hence the ongoing bone of contention between many theists and Darwinists). Natural selection occurs in the absence of any intelligent ‘mind’. The ‘survival of the fittest’ is therefore the result of an unconscious ‘sorting’ process whereby the outcome is determined by natural circumstances. The direct involvement of these teenagers represents a complete rupture with such a philosophy: their intentional weeding out of their ‘weaker’ classmates is completely opposed to the unconscious force of natural selection on the most basic level.

Furthermore, their fear that the action of natural selection was being halted and even reversed constitutes an equally implausible claim to make. If it be granted that our sophisticated emotional set-up is an actual product of evolution, then the apparent ‘reversal’ of natural selection, as a result of our humane action towards the preservation of the ‘less well-adapted’ societies, is a product of natural selection itself. An emotional and caring outlook on our part is beneficial to ‘the preservation of the species’. Man’s control over the ‘survival of the fittest’ is the result of the ‘survival of the fittest’.

Despite the fact that natural selection now appears to be being thwarted by man’s domination, the underlying process is still very much present, however. It is always unwise to underestimate the power of nature, and the increasing threat of natural disasters as a result of man-induced climate change could just be the proof that natural selection is an omnipresent and automatic state of affairs which is therefore impossible to keep at bay.

To conclude, the idea that Darwinian thought legitimately justifies such atrocious acts is implausible on both a logical and ‘common sense’ level. The ‘teenage nihilists’ who committed these massacres, as well as doing a disservice to their beloved Darwinian ideology, abandoned the evolved values of humanity and morality in the process. And yes, there may be those who advocate a totally liberal morality on account of the ‘illusory’ nature of such evolved values. Indeed, George Williams sums up the view that all apparent altruism has its origins in the overriding ‘selfish gene’ in the following quote (Cited in Darwin’s Dangerous Idea, Daniel C. Dennett, Penguin Science, 1996 edition, p.251):

“As a general rule today a biologist seeing one animal doing something to benefit another assumes either that it is manipulated by the other individual or that it is being subtly selfish.”

But surely obedience and consideration of such altruistic and humane values (illusory or not) is a mark of our respect for natural selection’s work (illusionist or not)? I’m sure Darwin would agree.

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

Tolerance & Religious Belief

This post, an essay on tolerance, comes to you from the brain of Lucy Taylor. Lucy is a 16 year old student in London, UK. The question posed is...


Does being tolerant require you to accept all religious convictions?

Before answering this question, the meaning of the word ‘accept’ must be established. The answer to the question differs depending on the various definitions. ‘Accept’ could imply that you simply recognise that other religious convictions besides your own exist--in that you accept that there are a variety of points of view. It could also mean that you allow or permit all religious convictions and do not hinder or prevent them from being practiced and preached. ‘Accept’ could also mean that you regard the religious convictions as proper, suitable or normal. This definition could be extended to the extent of meaning that you actually agree with all religious convictions. Moreover, ‘being tolerant’ needs to be defined. ‘Being tolerant’ means that you object to a view or action, i.e. the objection component, and you have the power to do something about the disagreeable view or action, but make a conscious decision not to act on your opposition.

Normally when nations, for example, accept the terms of a treaty, they are agreeing to the conditions outlined in the document. In this way, to answer this question the word ‘accept’ is given to imply that you approve or agree to all religious convictions. This, to begin with, is impossible in itself. It is impossible to approve of or agree with all religious convictions simply because a huge number of beliefs contradict each other entirely: you can only approve or agree with one or the other, not both. For example, if you were a tolerant individual and were accepting of both Hinduism and Islam, you would be contradicting yourself on the fundamental grounds that Islam is monotheistic and Hinduism is polytheistic, a religious conviction that for both faiths is the focal point of all their other beliefs. The other difficulty is that, if you believed in Christianity, but you accepted, as in, you approved of Hinduism, you should be a Hindu, not a Christian: the reason you originally became a Christian was because you agreed with Christian beliefs and practices, not Hindu beliefs and practices, otherwise, you would be a Hindu. In this way, it is apparent that, given that you are a tolerant individual, it is illogical to accept all religious convictions, even though you may be tolerant, when the meaning of ‘accept’ is to consider something right or acceptable.

It is important to realise, however, that it does not make sense in this question for ‘accept’ to mean to agree to or with simply because the very word tolerance means, as established in the introduction, that you disapprove of the view and yet decide not to act on your disapproval. If you agreed with the view, there would be nothing to be tolerant of because there would be nothing that you had an objection to.

If ‘accept’ means allow or permit all religious convictions, the answer to the question again changes. This definition falls under the first of four conceptions of tolerance, namely the permission conception, whereby you allow the practice and preaching of all religious convictions. It would seem obvious that a tolerant person should be tolerant of everything, otherwise they could not be called a tolerant person. This harks back to the concept of the limit of tolerance and the problem that arises when a religious conviction is completely unacceptable, intolerant or intolerable: the paradox of whether the intolerant should be tolerated by a tolerant individual or society. It could be argued that to be intolerant of intolerant views is to deny that tolerance is valuable, which is ironic considering that the pretext of this intolerance is that the view you are being intolerant of is also denying that tolerance is valuable.

The argument against this is that if the reason for tolerance is to respect autonomy, then it is unreasonable to tolerate views that do not respect autonomy. The view does not display tolerance in that, if it were the culture of the majority, it would reject and prevent autonomy. It seems that we would increase autonomy by not tolerating this view because we are preventing it from becoming more widespread and influencing many and allowing the view to exert its convictions over everyone thereby smothering their autonomy in due course. An example could be that of Islamist extremists. Our society proclaims to abhor violence to women, homophobia, and any other variety of inequality, yet we tolerate those who advocate Sharia Law which is diametrically opposed to Western democracy and the implementation of such law would result in the total destruction of tolerance. In this case, for the sake of protecting long term tolerance, perhaps it would be wiser to confront intolerance with intolerance. Moreover, it appears that the threshold of our tolerance is the intolerance towards our tolerant culture. The answer to the question therefore, appears that in some circumstances it is misguided to accept all religious convictions.

Conversely, being able to join and be convinced by these so called intolerant convictions is surely an expression of ones autonomy: the fact that it was the individuals’ choice to follow their lead. By removing these views you are basically saying that the individual is only allowed to be autonomous in the culture you deem as suitable, i.e. one without intolerance. You are not valuing their autonomy because you would be denying them the freedom to choose for themselves, you are censoring the available choices to only those you condone. Moreover, you are being as intolerant as those whom you condemn as being intolerant. They are intolerant because their convictions would prevent any view other than their own from being expressed, which is exactly what you would be doing if you prevented their view from being expressed because it differed from your own view. In a way, this seems to imply that a tolerant individual must accept all religious convictions, although they may be totally despicable and vile, because if they do not, they are denying both the value of autonomy and tolerance.

The last interpretation of the question is that you ‘accept’, in that you recognise that there are other religious convictions besides your own. This meaning comes under third and possibly fourth conception of tolerance which is the respect conception, summed up in Voltaire’s famous quote ‘I disagree with every word that he says, but defend to the death his right to say it’, and the esteem conception where you still value certain aspects of their convictions and even admire them for defending their convictions, though personally, you disagree. The first question that must be addressed with this in mind is that, by agreeing to accept all religious convictions on the grounds of your being a tolerant individual because you respect their opinions and you may even admire them, can you still criticise them, although you accept them? Tolerance does not prohibit criticism because without criticism our government would have no checks and balances; ideas could not be improved and modified; and we would be relinquishing our freedoms like those of freedom of speech, expression and thought. In this way, we are obviously allowed to criticise opposing religious convictions although we do nevertheless accept them, or in other words, acknowledge them. A point to note in relation to the original question is that if we did not tolerate all religious convictions there would be nothing to criticise and further, nothing to tolerate because nothing unacceptable would allowed to be expressed openly. If to 'accept', you simply have to recognise other religious convictions but are still allowed to criticise them and yet be a tolerant individual, then it is reasonable to accept all religious convictions because if you can argue and persuade, there is no reason why you should not accept all religious convictions: if you disagree, you could voice your disapproval and defeat the opposition though debate. For example, Hitchens and D'Souza incessantly argue on the subject of religion. Hitchens loathes religion but his revolt is intellectual, not physical. This suggests that if you are tolerant, you must accept all religious views because you still reserve the right to free speech as do your opposition and both of you have the equal ability to defeat the other through debate.

Depending on the definition of the word ‘accept’, the requirement to accept all religious convictions changes. It seems that there are limits to what extent do we ‘accept’ all religious convictions. If the religious convictions preach fiercely against everything our society stands for, then perhaps they should not be tolerated because as Benjamin Franklin said, ‘they who would give up an essential liberty and security (in a democracy), deserve neither liberty nor security’. At the same time, in not accepting these opposing religious convictions, we are essentially contradicting ourselves and everything our society stands for. There is no one formula for what to do in every circumstance, and no one stance for a tolerant person to take regardless of the individual situation. Each position must be judged wisely for, in some cases, tolerance and acceptance of all religious convictions is often used as either a disguise for cowardice to avoid disputes and controversies or to avoid having to think and actually come to a conclusion for each separate belief: it is easier to have a rule that is always followed. Tolerance and acceptance should not be exploited in this way and used make ones cowardice or idleness sound intelligent and thoughtful. The most reasonable conclusion, in my view, is to examine independently each religious conviction and to then make a discriminating and educated judgement for each on whether to accept it or counter it, rather than creating sweeping procedures that a tolerant person should obey for all religious convictions.

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

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.

Who's Moral?

This post is adapted from a speech written by Alex Shaw. Alex is 17 years old and from Augusta, Georgia. He attended Church for the first 16 years of his life and 'came out' to his parents one year ago. Alex will soon be attending college and plans to study religion at grad school. Enjoy!

Religious individuals often claim that, without religion, a significant amount of morality is lost within culture, when in fact, if one were to follow the Bible’s morality to the letter, we’d have stoned kids, stoned gays, and stoned adulterers. Today, when someone reads the Bible, they apply their own morality, the morality of the modern day to the ‘Word of God’. It’s a concept known as ‘cherry picking’, or simply taking the good and leaving the bad. Either God is omniscient, omnipotent and omnipresent, his word in biblical form is unquestionable and we follow its every word and stone gays, or there are holes and incongruities in the Holy Book and its law should not be followed. It’s just false to assert that Jesus established a new covenant and that the law of the Old Testament was no longer needed – Matthew 5:17-19.

I realize there are many moderate Christians who selectively chose what they do believe and what they don’t believe about the contents of the Bible. Most Christians, who believe the Bible is the 'Word of God', do not believe that their Jewish friend or Muslim friend will go to Hell because they lead a good life and are, overall, a good person. However, the ‘Word of God’ begs to differ – John 15:4-6. Yes, ok, so the word of the Christian saviour condemns a host of good people solely because they don’t abide in Jesus, but the moderate Christians chose not to believe this because their God is a benevolent God and would never do such a thing. They have committed a grievous error. They have applied their own standards of morality and reason to God’s. If you are able to read the ‘Word of God’ and decide for yourself what is right or wrong, then you do not need a book of divine origins to define your morals, you simply need more books with more situations from which you can figure out your own beliefs. You have, in effect, nullified the need for a supernatural decree of any kind, seeing as how you had no problem believing against the teachings of ‘your’ saviour in the first place.

And if this or that portion of the 'Word of God' is invalid, why is any authority lent to any portion of the Bible? The golden rule is good not because it is of Godly descent, but because it is an exceptional way for any man or woman to lead their life. In the same way, stoning rebellious children for disobeying their parents is not a good rule, not because it too is of Godly descent, but because it is a deplorable way for any man or woman to lead their life.

To state that religion is necessary or even relevant to someone leading a good life isn't an accurate statement. Plenty of atheists have good moral codes, just as many believers have bad ones. People often cite governments without religion such as those of Stalin and Hitler to show what can go wrong if religion is essentially removed from government. But one has to ask the question, "Was it their atheism that moved them to slaughter the innocent?" The obvious answer is no. No one that I'm aware of has committed atrocities in the name of atheism. Think of all the bad in world that has been done in the name of God or Allah before asserting anything about religion being necessary for morality.

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.