Of course, the use of the word “atheist” (and therefore the need to “out” oneself) has been stirred up recently by Sam Harris at an Atheist Alliance conference in Washington² – there are no “non-racists”, so “why are we defining ourselves by something that should simply be the case”³?

Every political or social group have certain beliefs and/or interests in common. A football team shares a love of sports, and possibly a belief that football is a worthwhile pursuit. A political group might share certain values and beliefs about how a society should function. A religion, well, they often share beliefs about a great many things: politics, sexuality, family values, etc. But more importantly – they share a belief in a supernatural being (or spirit, or afterlife, etc.).

What do atheists share? Nothing. Many of us can’t even agree on a definition of Atheism! I don’t mean to say that there’s nothing that we share, but what we do share is, quite literally, “nothing” – we share a nonexistent thing⁴: a lack of a belief in God. While this probably gives us a more common understanding of God than most religious people (even within the same religion or denomination, it seems every person has their own understanding of exactly what or who God is), this doesn’t seem to be a great foundation for an alliance.

Am I going to “come out”, well – yes, and no. I am without religion. I am, therefore, an atheist. I am also without racism, and am therefore non-racist. I have never killed anyone, and am therefore a non-murderer. I further have no love for chocolate⁵, no love of ABBA or the Spice Girls and most certainly no belief in fairies or celestial teapots. If you wish to define me by any of these “labels”, feel free – but I certainly don’t.

1. Harris explains it much better than I could on his website
2. Partial transcript available at Washington Post
3. Hemant Mehta (Oct 1, 2007) Atheist Alliance International Convention 2007 (Recap)
4. Nothing (n) A nonexistent thing
5. I wonder if coming out as an atheist, or an non-chocoholic would create more of a stir?

It’s certainly a valid criticism of most of the churches I’ve gone to, as many Churches aren’t friendly to nonreligious people wanting to see what things are like. I’m utterly sick of people asking me “What church do you go to?”, and then seeing the look of shock on their face when I tell them I don’t go to any church, I’m not religious, or (worse!) if I was to use the word “atheist”.

The quote being discussed by the Friendly Christian is as follows:

“I’m not religious. I don’t think much about God, except when I am in a pinch and need some special favors. I have no particular reason to think he’ll deliver, but I sometimes take a shot anyway. Other than that, I’m just not that interested in God.”

This, to me, sounds like a person who has no reason to believe in God except for the simple fact that many others seem to have this belief. If one is raised in a society where God is almost universally accepted, if one made no effort to actively think about God, what possible conclusions could that person come to?

This is where I think the Friendly Christian has got it wrong. This person doesn’t sound like someone who’s been shunned by the church, but someone who (quite legitimately, in my opinion) has no interest in God because the idea has little or no influence on their life. In an ideal world (one where personal beliefs in supernatural beings remained personal – in the sense that your beliefs were unable to affect my way of life), I think such a lack of interest in God would be quite common.

That’s not to say an interest in God is a bad thing, however. As you might have discovered, however, I do have an interest in religion and the concepts of God. These ideas do have an influence on my life because our politicians make them relevant, and because I want to understand why so many people have these beliefs. I find the idea of God interesting from a historical and cultural point of view, and want to learn more.

Are you interested in God? If not, why not?

1. Well, not so recently, but it was recently when I first drafted this post. As you can probably tell if you’ve been subscribing to my blog, I’ve been quite slack recently. I won’t bore you with the personal details, but lets just say there’s been a lot on my plate. My apologies, and I’ll hopefully get back to a more reasonable blogging schedule again now.

I think that all the “prophets” and religious leaders believed in the message they preached, but they didn’t expect (or want) their messages to be accepted as divine and unquestionable truth – they wanted people to think for themselves. I believe that Jesus, if he was a real man and if his message hadn’t been distorted by religion, would still be revered today without needing needing to claim that he was “God”¹.

Christians often ask themselves, “What Would Jesus Do?”, and I think if Jesus lived today, he’d be amazed by the magic all around us, and might even “find God” in a similar way to Einstein:

Sometimes he was really using God as just a sort of convenient metaphor. But he did have, I think, a genuine cosmic religious feeling, a sense of admiration at the intellectual ingenuity of the universe. Not just its majesty, but its extraordinary subtlety and beauty and mathematical elegance.²

I think Jesus, today, would be more like a modern Buddhist or perhaps a “hippy” (jokes are often made about Jesus being the first hippy, but I think all jokes aside there’s a lot of truth to that).

If we ask ourselves the question, “What Would Jesus Believe?”, whatever the answer is, I definitely don’t believe he’d be a Christian, a Jew or a Muslim, for that matter. It makes me think of the Cat’s religion in Red Dwarf…

1. As far as I’m aware, there’s not a lot of evidence that he actually claimed that he was God, but even if he did, perhaps he meant it in an entirely different way.
2. Davies, Paul (2007) Einstein’s God

Perhaps there are more, but I think they boil down to the following:

1. Few, if any, atheists claim to be 100% sure that God does not exist. (99.99999% IS good enough)
2. Pascal’s Wager (which Adams’ post is based on – although perhaps not knowingly) doesn’t account for the multitude of beings which claim punishment for non-belief. Of course the other fallacies of Pascal’s wager are equally present in Adams’ post.

I don’t go around calling myself an “a-redhead” or an “a-woman”, or saying that I have “a-green” eyes, I’m not “a-artistic” or “a-Swahili-speaking” (feel free to translate these words into Greek for the proper effect). Similarly, a Deaf person wouldn’t go around calling themselves “a-hearing”¹. Why, then, do atheists insist on using a commonly misunderstood negative label² to describe their lack of belief in God? Aren’t we just “not theistic”?

What other positive words or terms could we use to describe ourselves?

1. Although “hearing impaired” is a commonly used term, a “culturally Deaf” person who uses sign language and associates with the Deaf community would never use this term to describe themselves.
2. “a-theism” means, “without a belief in God”, which, one would assume should be the default position.

While I was watching a documentary on the history of religion recently, my sister said to me “but aren’t you an Atheist?”¹ At the time I replied, “no, I’m Agnostic”. It has made me think, however, about the nature of Atheism and Agnosticism.

While I generally describe myself as “agnostic”, and avoid describing myself as “atheist”, I could be viewed as both, depending on your definitions. As there seem to be many different views on what Atheism and Agnosticism entails, let me be very clear about what I take the meaning of these words to be.

Belief

Definitions for both Atheism and Agnosticism rely on the notion of “belief”, which itself can be contentious at times. For my purposes, when I say “belief”, I refer “to the attitude we have, roughly, whenever we take something to be the case or regard it as true”² Belief, here, does not imply any lack of certainty – even though it might sometimes in common usage.

Atheism

Atheism, it seems, can mean many things – but broadly it seems to fit one of two definitions:

1. the doctrine or belief that there is no God³, or
2. a lack of belief in the existence of God or gods⁴

The first definition is the one which I had always taken (I’ll call this “hard” Atheism), and it is why I have never described myself as an “Atheist”. To me, to hold a belief that these is no god is just as illogical as a belief that there is a God – possibly even more so. While it may (hypothetically) be possible one day to prove that there is a God (perhaps he shows himself in some incontestable way, or we find a scientific method for exploring “heaven”) proving the universal non-existence of something is impossible (we can prove something doesn’t exist in one place – say, a box that’s empty – but proving universal non-existence is very different).

The second (“soft”) definition of Atheism, however, is one I’d not been aware of until the last year or so. It seems this definition is common among Atheists, but in my experience it is certainly not the generally understood definition of Atheism. In this definition, Atheism is not the opposite to theism or religion, but an absence of it. It is in this sense that I am an Atheist, although without qualification, I still feel the word “atheist” misrepresents my views.

Agnosticism

This is where we get to Agnosticism. Agnostic means, literally, “without knowledge” and as such an Agnostic holds they they have no knowledge about the existence of God. This is not necessarily a “fence sitting” position, however, as Agnosticism (like Atheism) can be viewed in two subtly different ways:

1. a religious orientation of doubt⁵, or
2. a denial of ultimate knowledge of the existence of God⁶

Certainly using this first definition (“soft” agnosticism), one could argue that the holder of this world-view is “fence sitting” – possibly still exploring or reasoning to discover the truth, or perhaps unable or unwilling to. But again, the second definition offers an entirely different position. A “hard” agnostic does not simply doubt the existence of God (and may, in fact, have faith that there is a God) but makes the claim that it is impossible to ever know if God does or does not exist.

When I describe myself as “Agnostic”, I make the claim that it is impossible to know if any of the Gods described by traditional religions exist. I am also, however, open to the idea that perhaps “God” (if he exists) is nothing like that described by traditional religion, and therefore may one day be provable. For me, the problem with the traditional notions of God are that proponents of these Gods leave no way to ever truly prove his existence – as the Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy joke goes:

“I refuse to prove that I exist,” says God, “for proof denies faith, and without faith I am nothing.”
“But,” says Man, “The Babel fish is a dead giveaway, isn’t it? It could not have evolved by chance. It proves you exist, and so therefore, by your own arguments, you don’t. QED.”
“Oh dear,” says God, “I hadn’t thought of that,” and promptly disappears in a puff of logic.

The Christian God, therefore, will always be out of the reach of science because as soon as it becomes answerable by science (no matter what the outcome), God will be relegated (by some, at least) to an even further “far away place ” so as to ensure the existence of God can never be proven.

So in this sense, I am a “hard” agnostic when it comes to Gods like that of Christianity (only because no one is willing to say exactly where this God might exist) but a “soft” agnostic when it comes to other possible higher powers. Either way, the existence of any such higher power seems unlikely (but certainly not impossible).

1. I’ll ignore the obvious issue with the suggestion that Atheists aren’t allowed to have an interest in religion… for now.
2. Schwitzgebel, Eric, “Belief“, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2006 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.).
3. WordNet Definition: Atheism
4. WordNet Definition: Atheism
5. WordNet Definition: Agnosticism
6. WordNet Definition: Agnosticism

“Christianity is not about a religion… Christianity is about a relationship…” I even recall myself saying, on probably more than one occasion, “I’m not religious, I’m a Christian.”

While “Thinking Ape” claims this person is being dishonest about their religion, I think it is (at least in principle) possible to distinguish between the two. Religion, according to one definition is “an institution to express belief in a divine power”¹. By this definition, perhaps “the church” and “religion” would be synonymous. My major gripe with religion has always been the institution associated along with it – sure, the beliefs are almost certainly delusional as well, but the beliefs alone (in my view) don’t cause any harm. It’s for this same reason that I disagree with organised atheist evangelism.

For me, the first step away from religion (although I was never raised in a particularly religious family) was when I rejected organised religion. I was inclined to think that, while the beliefs may² have been true, the institutionalisation and control from the Church was problematic. An irreligious Christian would, I imagine, reject the various denominations of Christian churches, like I did. They would also not necessarily accept the interpretations of any one denomination, and would (hopefully) be more open to semi-rational thought.

I say, good on them. Sure, it’s not ideal, but at least it’s a step in the right direction.

Link: I’m not religious, I’m Christian (DeConversion)

1. Princeton WordNet, Religion
2. I never did, and still don’t “believe”

Essentially, in matters for which we are unable to understand and evaluate the facts for ourselves, we try to evaluate the trustworthiness of the source.

Few of us are qualified to assess claims about the merits of string theory, the role in mercury in the etiology of autism, or the existence of repressed memories. So rather than evaluating the asserted claim itself, we instead evaluate the claim’s source. If the source is deemed trustworthy, people will believe the claim, often without really understanding it.¹

It seems only natural, and a perfectly valid way of making up your opinions about things. The problem occurs when we don’t know what sources to trust.

(Scientific claims) clash with intuitive beliefs about the immaterial nature of the soul and the purposeful design of humans and other animals — and, in the United States, these intuitive beliefs are particularly likely to be endorsed and transmitted by trusted religious and political authorities.²

If our own political leaders (Well, thankfully not my political leaders to the same degree – although he did seem a little iffy on global warming for quite a while) show an inherent distrust of science, and people are brought up to believe the church is a reputable source of scientific knowledge, is it any wonder that there’s so much distrust of science?

I’ve read suggestions by scientists that claim that it’s simply not worth arguing with creationists in public forums because those who listen to the creationists already distrust science, and nothing they say (no matter how rational) will convert them. Maybe we need to start earlier? I read a post the other day (dammed³ if I could find it again – help me out if you know what I’m talking about) that suggested the idea of creating a textbook for use in school which rationally outlined the creationist vs. evolution debate in an easy-to-understand yet scientifically accurate way. Maybe if we can help establish that scientists are the ones who should be trusted when it comes to scientific matters⁴, and not politicians or the church.

(Via A Whore in the Temple of Reason)

1. Bloom, Paul & Weisberg, Deena S. (2007) Why Do Some People Resist Science?
2. Bloom, Paul & Weisberg, Deena S. (2007) Why Do Some People Resist Science?
3. Figuratively, of course
4. I can’t believe this actually needs to be said!

I came across a post by Paul Hartigan on Open Source Theology recently which outlined 7 reasons that make it hard to believe in traditional christianity. I think his arguments can be summarised by two very common theological issues, and one I’m not sure I’ve thought of before, but is important none the less:

1. The problem of evil – why does God allow bad things to happen? Even worse, why does God allow bad things to happen in his name?
2. Conflict between claims made by different religions (and even conflict between branches of Christianity), some of which seem entirely illogical (“how can Christ be both God and man”)
3. Problems with the belief that the universe (as large as it is) could somehow “revolve around” one short period in history, or one particular person on earth. In other words, what could possibly make us (the followers of religion “x”) so special? (Jesus in a universe of 125 Billion Galaxies)

I think Paul makes some very valid points, and these can be further generalised to almost all religions (not just Christianity). The problem of evil definitely causes issues with and idea of a God that is both omnipotent and benevolent, which it seems many religions (the Abrahamic ones, at least) claim God is. There are definitely other ideas about what God could be that would render the problem of evil void – but these ideas are not generally labelled “God”. It’s partly for this reason that I take issue with the traditional views of God, and probably why I try (although often fail) to not use the word God when discussing my views of spirituality.

Conflict between religions is definitely an issue that I’ve had problems with myself, as I tried to address in my posts “Religious Eclecticism” and “The Eclectic Agnostic’s Wager“, but it doesn’t cause issue for specific spiritual beliefs, the conflict occurs when you must accept the whole package. Taking the simplest ideas or teachings from any religion, and it’s likely you’ll find the same idea or teaching in another (although, almost certainly from a different perspective). The “golden rule”, or “ethic of reciprocity” is found in many variations by many spiritual leaders, for example.

On the third point – there seems to be an eclectic way of accepting the leaders of all religions without needing to think that the universe revolves around any one teacher or religion. What if every person is inspired by (or, “is”) “God”, and the ones we call spiritual leaders are just more in touch with that connection? Each person would interpret this connection through their own life experiences, and each would therefore describe the same “truth” in different ways.

What do you think would happen if we could get Jesus, Mohammed, Buddha, Confucius and every other spiritual leader in a room together – would they see mostly eye-to-eye, or would there be massive disagreements? Personally, I’m sure each would have his own (human) views that differ from the others, but I believe they would each agree that every one of them is fighting for the same cause.

Yes, I have a problem with religion – because each one seems to take the word of their prophet, God or leader as the one true interpretation of “God’s message”. I certainly don’t have an issue with the teachings of any of our great spiritual leaders, I think they were all attempting the same thing – to make this (and possibly the next) world a better place. We need to stop fighting about which religion is right or better, and just learn from each of them.

Edit 11 June: Right after posting this I came across another article which expands on the 3rd point perfectly – An Exercise in Perspective.

Pascal’s wager goes something like this:

Living your life as if God exists will bring infinite benefit (you go to heaven) if, in fact God exists. If it turns out that God does not exist, then you haven’t missed out on much. If, on the other hand, you were to live as if God didn’t exist, but you turned out to be wrong, then you’d suffer infinitely (hell and damnation). Even if you were right about God not existing, the benefit you’d gain while you were alive would be minimal compared to eternal damnation. In a more graphical format, Pascal’s wager looks like this:

The Wikipedia article on Pascal’s Wager notes a few rebuttals to this wager, most notably that Christianity is not the only religion which claims God will judge you based on your beliefs. Pascal also assumes that God rewards belief, and even if he did one might assume that God wouldn’t be too happy with simply accepting his existence based on the probability of damnation as this is not a “true belief”.

While I don’t claim to have the answers to all these problems, it seems that, given many of the world’s major religions share some fundamental aspects (belief in one ultimate power, be it Allah, God or Brahman, for example) it might be easier to accept a more general belief in a higher power than in the God of a specific religion. Let’s look again at the options discussed in my last post:

1. The teachings of all religions are wrong
2. The teachings of some religions are wrong
3. The teachings of all but one religion are wrong
   or
4. All religions are right

If all but one religion is “wrong”, then we have such a small chance of choosing the right one, it hardly seems worth it. Similarly, if all religions are “wrong”, then we have even less chance unless we try something radically different. If all religions are right, however, or even if many of them are acceptable to God, then by following the fundamental teachings of as many as possible, you would increase your chances of entering heaven.