Atheism: What's It Good For?

   Those who call themselves religious unbelievers, some statistics claim, are increasing in a world that, at first glance, would seem to be more and more religious. Even the new president of the United States, a staunch believer himself, recognized the legitimacy of "unbelievers" as loyal Americans (wow!) (He did hesitate slightly in his delivery, however, before uttering the word -- "unbelievers"). In truth, the increase in the numbers of "unbelievers" is probably not furthered by anti-religious "atheist" zealotry so much as by a large number of unbelievers holding a common sense disbelief in religious claims or by the fact that those same unbelievers have remained untouched by a religious experience that in its mystery might over-ride common sense denials.

   Yet the "spokespersons" (for want of a better word) of "unbelief" have almost exclusively been "atheists." For some time now, I have refused to be called an "atheist" or, for that matter, an "unbeliever," "heathen," or "pagan," despite the fact that I am convinced that there is no god, and that the universe is largely (although probably not exclusively) a material one. People like me, who attempt to call themselves "humanists," largely fail in promoting themselves in a positive way, and "humanism" has largely become a euphemism for rationalism and "atheism," or at least humanism has been co-opted by atheist proponents and groups.

   So, because I would like to deny "atheism" and "atheist" as the appropriate labels for my sentiments, I must first deal with these terms as the terms of choice for both religious advocates and religion deniers. While the dictionary defines "unbeliever" as a more negative term than "atheist," I think almost everyone today would argue that "atheist" is a word freighted with more implications of stridency. Throughout the 19th century, it was a pejorative word. In more recent times, "atheist" has been equated with an active campaign of rationalism and materialism. In very recent times, an "atheist" is, with some justification, assumed to be someone who campaigns vigorously against theism and religion in general; someone who may be condescending in their scorn of religion (Dawkins), or at least look forward to a day in which their rationalist arguments will push religion into obscurity (various free thinker societies). "Atheism" as it is currently practiced in some quarters is not quite the Inquisition stood on its head, but it certainly contains elements of self-righteousness that would not be unfamiliar to John Calvin.

     If I claim to believe essentially what "atheists" believe, what is my objection? My objection is to the narrowly bitter cultural view that much of atheism promotes:  1. religious belief is based on superstition and blind faith. 2. religious belief ignores rational arguments and is anti-intellectual. 3. religion as a whole equals bigotry and intolerance. 4. religion looks backward toward tradition and therefore ignorance, while atheism is modern and looks toward the future. All of this, it should be noted, was argued as early as the eighteenth century. Not all atheists would subscribe to all of these representations, but most would have to agree with the tone. As I have said elsewhere, atheism is angry -- angry at those who ignore common sense; angry at the wars and misery religions and religious beliefs have caused. But, above all, atheists refuse to move on from their initial premise -- that there is no god and that most religion is ridiculous. Most atheists refuse to look at religion as the cultural consequence of human nature, of human experience over the millennia. Most atheists today, it seems to me, refuse to move on from their disbelief, even move on to pick through the rubble of religion to sort out the very best of love, redemption, brother/sisterhood, and morality that religion either authored or refined.

    All of this is preamble, really, to why I am bothering to write this essay at all. A recent news item (whether accurate or not may be beside the point) has claimed that the Toronto Free Thought Association has planned the production of signs declaring:  "There probably is no God. Now stop worrying and enjoy life." The two sentences are worth deconstruction. In trying to counter the view that atheism was "gloomy and angry," this group over-reached. Their first sentence suggests that whether there is a God or not is to be taken lightly and is of little consequence. Here they are being too disingenuous by half. The second sentence suggests that our worries originate with religious belief, or at least the belief in an all-powerful god. Successful removal of a "god-out-there" has absolutely nothing to do with the end of worrying or the end of humankind's worries -- quite the contrary. Their precept -- to "enjoy life" -- may be laudable as one of several human goals but all too many critics of atheism think that is just why atheism is dangerous -- because it is about unchecked hedonism; getting what you want now, and to hell with anyone else. So, even the re-assuringly friendly intent of this free thought slogan fails in many ways.

     For years, non-religious friends of mine and I have contended that the logical consequences of atheism are these: 1. Because there is no "god-out-there," we are even more dependent on our own intentions and good work. 2. Because there is no god to administer justice, mercy, and forgiveness, we had better pay continual attention to our own lives and societies, so that we, as imperfect human beings, can further both justice and mercy insofar, and as often, as we can. 3. With no authoritative god, we must draw from the best of human experience to be our guide, and that experience comes from many quarters, including the tenets and practices of various religions. 4. Because there is no after-life, we must make the most of this one. We must live in the moment. We must respect the integrity of our lives, and the lives of others. We must enjoy life, but in ways that will aid the enjoyment of others, and of generations to come.

     If all of these legitimate consequences of what is inelegantly called "atheism" appears to look a lot like a porridge made of the best aspects of all of the world's religions, well, in many ways it is. Hey, Rober Ebert has one helluva lot more fun in dealing with one small, small aspect of this stuff in his latest blog (Jan. 28) entitled: "In the Sweet Bye and Bye." If you read this, treat yourself to dessert -- read his.

Creationism v. Evolution: Hope, Meaning, and Truth

   Why do the contentious words over creationism (or whatever current noun is chosen to represent those ideas) and evolution never go away? Why, since the 1920s (at least), have we had an angry war between both sides, even though Darwinian evolution and Christian Higher Criticism lived a comfortable co-existence through the 19th century? Why isn't one side declared the victor? or both sides seen as having something to say? or both sides seen as having nothing to say?

  I think the answers to these questions lies in what is NOT said by, or about, either camp. The answer does not have to do with the truth of science and the falsity of religion, although both of these claims can be made in most cases in my view. My position is clear:  1) the "truthfulness" of the claims of evolution are born out every time evolution is tested; 2) the specific claims of fact by creationists are almost always false, or at least deceptive and incomplete.  So, why is the discussion on-going, persistent, seemingly ubiquitous. Let me deal with each side, and how each side is perceived by the other side.

  First, let's take the side of evolution, which I am certain is accurate insofar as it has been developed and tested. This is a theory but not, as too many say, "only a theory." A theory is an idea tested and found accurate insofar as it can be made accurate by known facts. The facts about evolution are "true." But scientists, and others, assure us that all they want to do is to explain the known universe -- from its smallest particles to its cosmic dimensions, from how the smallest elements in the universe work, to how the universe has unfolded and is unfolding. There is a disingenuousness in this, despite the fact that popular science and popular culture likes to believe there is a quest for pure knowledge.

   The fact is that the "truthfulness" of science leading to an understanding of a knowable universe is only a romantic, perhaps just mythic, part of the scientific enterprise. Pure science -- just finding out how things work -- is a noble ideal held by many scientists (including my son) but none of them would be funded for any of this if there were not others who would willingly exploit scientific discovery for practical purposes.

   Let's take neuroscience as an example. Does anyone really believe that we fund neuroscience just to find out how the brain works?? Does anyone really believe that once we find relevant particulars about brain function that we will not eagerly exploit that knowledge for practical, applied purposes? Do any neuroscientists today believe that they are not a part of a large project to "correct" brain function when necessary. Who, even among an ignorant public, would deny science and those who apply scientific discoveries, the right to stop Parkinson's disease, or MS, or Altzheimer's disease, or ---- and now the road gets slippery --- depression, mental retardation, anti-social behavior . . . .  You fill in the rest of the blanks, and what you will finally get is the re-formation of the human being, ultimately made smart, stable, less varied, and, well, not quite so "human" anymore.

   As Hannah Arendt pointed out long ago in "The Human Condition," the "truthfulness" of science is NOT about meaning, it is about factual certitudes that are put to applied use -- in this case she was most interested in atomic weaponry. Oppenheimer was not an innocent bystander. Nor are scientists in most fields. They all know that their work will be applied to some human "problem." This does not mean that scientists are villains; it just means that scientists are part of a social body that is all too willing to use whatever technology or use that science offers.

   What is the point to all of this? The point is that the way we see science, and the way too many scientists present the issues, is too coy. Science is not just about discovery, it is about manipulation of nature, and manipulation of nature inevitably means changing the nature of nature. Above all, it means changing "MEANING" in a very large sense.  It is this that many religious advocates cannot abide -- that science will define "meaning" by its pro-action, not its discoveries, and perhaps even that science itself has become a religion of a sort.

   And, what of creationism? or creation by design (I saw an article in the local newspaper that literally re-hashed William Paley's watch-maker argument, an argument debunked even in his own day by Hume and others). What creationists (in their hearts) want to do is to claim that only in religion (usually only in THEIR religion), human beings will find "MEANING." Religion is about meaning, about our relationship to nature, to everything.

   But creationists, and many other advocates of religion, broadly over-reach. They want their cake and eat it too. Unsatisfied with accepting the "mystery" of God or of their beliefs, they want the meaning of their religion and facts about the natural world to be entirely true. Kingsley Amis wrote a prophetic little novel in the 1960s entitled, "I Want It Now," about a super-selfish young woman. She would be the prototype of modern hedonism. What we forget is that Creationists, even the most humble religious followers (outside of Islam and Buddhism), are part of what I define as the "I want it now; I want it all" culture. If others grew up with a sense of material entitlement, they all grew up with a sense of "religious entitlement." There is very little humility, Christian or otherwise, in the demand by some "believers" that the Bible is literally true or that their religion is the possessor of all truth. True religion is about a lot more mystery and uncertainty than these folks would have it.

   Science plays God with nature, and religion corrupts its best qualities by demanding to be the possessor of "truthfulness" that is patently not true in "fact." Science needs to stop pretending to be the innocent; it has not been for more than a century at least. Religion needs to stop pretending that it "knows" factual truth about nature; there was a day -- well, centuries ago now, or at least so it seems -- when it would have been heresy of the highest sort to pretend to know God's will. And, so, there is no end in sight to this sometimes circus-like debate, no matter how "smart" people get, or probably how truly pious and pacific religion becomes.

Update - January 17, 2009:

   In some ways, the essay above has a conclusion that needs re-stating in a somewhat different way. My stance is that both religion and science have failed in their humanism to some degree. While it seems to me that science is completely correct regarding the facts of evolution and the weakness of the creation by design argument, some scientists are using this truth as a campaign against theism and even religion as a whole. This atheism has been a little heavy-handed, suggesting that religious believers are ignoramuses, and ignoring the historical development and evolution of religious belief and practice to suggest the hyper-revolutionary idea that several millennia of human religious behavior should and can be obliterated. This angry atheism ignores religion as a critical, if not necessary, part of human history and society. It is very hard to anticipate a future in which religion -- which is, after all, a human way of dealing with matters of love, brother/sisterhood, redemption, and many other qualities necessary to living life well -- will not exist in some form or other and even thrive.

   For its part, religion has become unpleasantly defiant and angry in its own right. Most of the tenets of religion -- piety, forgiveness, love, acceptance -- have been utterly lost in the battle over evolution and its fall-out. More than that, advocates of creationism make preposterous arguments -- arguments that only demean human intelligence and human promise. They belittle hundreds of years of science and the accumulation of knowledge, casting aside human historical developments as readily as the most radical atheists.

  In short, both sides remove themselves from the civilization, culture, society, and standards of humanity that they should nuture in order to posit arguments of pure truth. Both sides need to exercise a little more humility.