Elfrijole’s "An Atheist’s Thoughts At Christmas" ( http://www.dailykos.com/... ) was excellent, and pretty much captures how I am (or try to be) in my regular life. I highly recommend this diary. I must say, however, that I am struggling with his statement "I will not mock or devalue your faith". I am often concerned that by not questioning people’s faith, I am silently complicit in perpetuating a deception that is detrimental to society.
Much has been made in the last several years about the angry atheist. Evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins says that he just loses patience. But here’s how this seems from my atheistic perspective:
The absurdity: Physics:
It’s 2008, folks. We know a lot about how things work. An awful lot. Science teaches that there is almost always a simple explanation for how things work. Ancient people conjured up a horse drawn chariot pulling the sun across the flat earth each day. The truth is both more awe inspiring and yet simple: the force of gravity is related to the matter in objects and drops off as the inverse square of the distance between them. Quantum physics seemed to be a holdout to the simplicity rule, with new elementary particles being discovered often, with strange properties. Recently, however, "String theory" is showing great promise for explaining all of these with one simple explanation. (They are, essentially, all the same "thing" but oscillating at different frequencies.) There are lots of things we don’t know, and many things we probably can never know. But nothing we DO know shows evidence that matter ever does anything except follow the laws of physics.
The absurdity: Biology:
I’m no biologist, so I’ve read a bunch recently. And basically, once you have something that is capable of replicating itself reasonably accurately, it tends to evolve. "Natural Selection" is then the key. This doesn’t mean chance: it means that the characteristics that make something more successful in its environment tend to get replicated more than those that don’t. Look at the changes in dogs in the last couple hundred years caused by artifical selection, and you see some of the potential. Now getting "something that is capable of replicating itself reasonably accurately" is a bigger trick. Recent discoveries show that all the amino acids and other basic ingredients were abundant in volcanos back in ancient earth, but how did they get configured into DNA, or a precursor? Well, I frankly don’t know, but let’s say that it is so unlikely that it would only happen once in a billion years. Statistically, then, it would have happened 4 times since the earth was formed. 4.5 billion years is a really really long time... just look at how long it has taken for the last 8 to go by.
The problem with god is that it doesn’t solve the creation problem at all: now you have to explain where god came from. I’m sure that "explanation" is accepted by many, but frankly it’s no explanation at all. It’s kind of like the horse drawn chariot pulling the sun... something made up to explain a gap in knowledge. Which is weird since in the case of biology we have an adequate (if somewhat awe inspiring) explanation which is completely science based.
The absurdity: Historical:
I’ll pick on Christianity since I’m most familiar with it. I first became an atheist in high school when I took a confirmation class with my (rather moderate) church and read some of the bible. The god described is vicious and vindictive. The bible tells you how to treat your slaves. It’s inconsistent and is known to be inaccurate on several accounts. Women were considered to be property. Major concepts like Christ’s "virgin birth" appear to have been introduced into the bible during translation, and were apparently not in the original text. In spite of the fact that it’s been translated hundreds of times, most Christians still use a version that uses words that we otherwise just don’t use "thee", "thou", "verily", for example. (My guess is that this "otherness" adds to the mystic appeal: in other words, a marketing strategy.) Christian dates and traditions have been "adjusted" to accommodate pagan celebrations: another marketing strategy. Basically, lots of the "tradition" people are fond of citing is based on fairly recent traditions and wasn’t in the bible at all.
The unchallengeability:
My spell checker doesn’t like "unchallengeability" any more than I. But we’re often told that one should never discuss politics or religion. There are really two aspects here. First, it’s considered rude in general. I have lots of friends that I know disagree completely with me on both subjects. I read dailykos and huffpost and listen to Democracy Now, and they watch Fox News. Our entire world view is different, and we as a society have lost our ability to discuss issues when we disagree. I suspect that the right wing likes it this way, because many of their positions are rationalized by overblown rhetoric, and don’t hold up to reason. "The war on Christmas", "greedy unions ruining America", "terrorism", etc. They’re all overblown. (About twelve times as many people died in automobile accidents in the US in the year 2001 as died in the 9/11 attacks. That’s not to minimize the danger of terrorism, it's just to give some perspective.)
But second, there’s the "pass" given to religion itself. It is accepted behavior to state "I’m a Christian". It is considered rude to ask "why". That would be challenging someone’s faith, after all.
The damage:
It matters what you believe, because you make decisions based on that. When some people decide that they are better or entitled because of something, danger is afoot. Otherwise, frankly, I don’t think I and other atheists would waste so much energy on this subject. Ignoring for a moment what might have actually happened, it’s at least plausible to an overwhelming majority of Americans that religion was behind the 9/11 attacks. I’ve read interesting stories about how the administration chose their wording carefully to sell the Iraq war in biblical terms (with parallels to Armageddon.) Christians did statistically support the war by significantly greater margins than non-Christians. George Bush says he believes that the Iraq war was his mission from god. Religion is used as the excuse for many wars, hostilities and oppression. Consider the Middle East, Ireland, India and Pakistan, etc etc. To the extent that it keeps groups culturally isolated, it surely is. The only reason why gay people are not fully accepted into society as equals is religion: there’s certainly no justifiable logical reason. Many recent diaries have described the pain caused by this non-acceptance of gays. The right wing uses "attacks on religion" as another big money generator and divisive issue... and certainly right wing churches fuel that. Some of the biggest Christian churches (interestingly the same ones who were the primary forces in favor of CA Proposition 8) are intensely opposed to birth control and major advocates of big families. The earth is under an incredible amount of stress these days, and blind adherence to ancient traditions that lead in part to yet more overpopulation is (I would think obviously) not in the best interest of humanity.
The apology:
OK... I’m trying to make a case here. I know some wonderful and giving religious people. And I’m sure there are some really bad people who are atheists. Religion motivates a lot of people to do good things. I’m not here to balance off the good and the bad. Religion is also undoubtedly comforting. But that doesn’t make it true. Religion is not a prerequisite for moral behavior, although it does seem to contribute to some good being done. It does seem to be a prerequisite for good people to do bad and harmful things, however. Or perhaps I should say "ignorance" and "false beliefs" are. That is my focus here.
The challenge:
So folks: is it wrong to ask why someone believes something? And then to think that they are kind of a whack job if they can’t cite evidence? (And I mean actual evidence, not "some old book that contradicts itself all over says so".) I firmly believe that the world needs rational thinking to survive. We’re running out of resources, we’re poisoning ourselves and we need to work together and set aside our differences. Ancient mythology helped us succeed in a different kind of competitive environment. Now that sort of thinking is destructive to us all, and harmful and hurtful to many of us. Although I’m not a confrontational person, I don’t really know how to get to a rational world view when so many people are, frankly, irrational. When I refuse to confront people about their beliefs, am I complicit in the injustice based on those beliefs? We won't reach a consensus when certain topics are non-discussable. Am I right to not "mock or devalue your faith"? (Or, more accurately, question why you believe what you do?)
The plug:
Incidentally, Julia Sweeney has a new DVD out of her live show "Letting Go of God": http://www.juliasweeney.com/... . I saw the live show two weeks before it was recorded, and it was brilliant. There’s almost no anger in it and lots of humor. Basically Sweeney (who is undoubtedly sorry she is famous from being "Pat" from Saturday Night Live) is in real life an honest, intelligent, resourceful and humorous woman who had some encounters with cancer and launched herself into a search for meaning in her life. If you don’t come away from the show agreeing with her, you’ll at least understand her view, and you'll be treated to the most humorous introspective search you're likely to encounter.
Happy Holidays, all!