I recently watched a CNN documentary entitled, “Atheists: Inside the World of Non-Believers” and it was fascinating to me. Mostly because it went far deeper than just the absence of a belief in God or a higher power, which seems to be the basic definition of atheism.
There are passive atheists and what I would call active atheists.
I would define passive atheists as those who don’t believe in God and don’t care if others do. They live their life as they see fit and are unconcerned with what others do in public or private. They do not campaign against Christmas or the Ten Commandments outside the courthouse or a cross on a hill.
I can relate to this because I see this in some aspects of my life.
I am not a football or basketball fan. I don’t follow it, I seldom watch any of it and I don’t complain that most of the airwaves and sports stories are consumed by these two sports rather than my own beloved sport of hockey. I find hockey where I know it is and don’t expect ESPN to devote hours to it just because.
But, then there are the active atheists. Those that not only not believe in God, but active campaign against the public accommodation of religion and actively proselyte against religion and try to convert people to atheism.
According to a Pew study, atheists and agnostics (not sure of the existence of God) make up less than 5% of the population, but slightly rising. The religiously unaffiliated population (those with no affiliation to a particular religion, but a belief in God) has been rising since 2007. I suppose these are potential converts to atheism as much as potential converts to a particular religious affiliation.
There are a number of organizations, like the American Atheists, who actively campaign against religion. As they state on their website,
“Since 1963, American Atheists has been taking the principled and uncompromising position that our government should give no special treatment or preference to religious belief. Through lawsuits, innovative public relations campaigns, and education, we are working to normalize atheism and allow more and more people to set aside religious belief and superstition.”
There is another group that I’ve seen advertise called the Freedom From Religion Foundation who uses Ron Reagan (son of Ronald Reagan) as a spokesperson.
On their website they say,”
“The history of Western civilization shows us that most social and moral progress has been brought about by persons free from religion. In modern times the first to speak out for prison reform, for humane treatment of the mentally ill, for abolition of capital punishment, for women’s right to vote, for death with dignity for the terminally ill, and for the right to choose contraception, sterilization and abortion have been freethinkers, just as they were the first to call for an end to slavery. The Foundation works as an umbrella for those who are free from religion and are committed to the cherished principle of separation of state and church.”
That first sentence I find quite ironic since I don’t think it’s true nor would you be able to prove it. I believe that most moral and social constructs in our society have come from religion and religious people. No one would ever say that people are perfect and have perfectly implemented their religious principles, but I see no other way that moral and social principles have come about, except through religion.
That is not to say that parents could not raise up moral children with the absence of a belief in a God or higher power. But just where were those standards derived from?
Which brings me to another group of non-believers, the Humanists. According to Wikipedia, “Humanism is a philosophical and ethical stance that emphasizes the value and agency of human beings, individually and collectively, and generally prefers critical thinking and evidence (rationalism, empiricism) over established doctrine or faith (fideism). Generally, however, humanism refers to a perspective that affirms some notion of human freedom and progress. In modern times, humanist movements are typically aligned with secularism, and today. Humanism” typically refers to a non-theistic life stance centered on human agency, and looking to science instead of religious dogma in order to understand the world.”
Humanism is not a new idea and has existed for thousands of years. Ironically, it mostly coincided with religious belief, not opposed it.
However, the term “secular humanism,” void of religious connotation, has somewhat morphed into just plain “humanism” recently.
The American Humanist Association declares,
“We strive to bring about a progressive society where being good without a god is an accepted and respected way to live life. We are accomplishing this through our defense of civil liberties and secular governance, by our outreach to the growing number of people without traditional religious faith, and through a continued refinement and advancement of the humanist worldview.”
What is interesting about all three organizations is they feel the need to “protect and defend their civil liberties” as if a non-belief is considered a crime or that some witch-hunt may be launched to weed out the non-believers in our society.
What some would say that this quest for civil liberties on their behalf is really a movement to remove any religion from the public square. To push it underground and to eliminate the influence of religion and religious people on everyday life and our society.
Frankly, I find this ironic for two reasons.
1) As I mentioned, I think that most of our moral and societal framework was developed by religious thinking and principles. It has given structure to the world and for the most part, developed good and decent people and societies. Not just Judeo-Christian belief, but most organized world religions. That is not to say that much violence, evil and despicable deeds have been perpetrated in the name of religion, because it has. But, overall, it is mostly positive. Some who do not believe in God or a higher power might say that this was human-derived, not God-given thus proving the point of humanist understanding.
2) I think that what these groups are promoting is to raise their thinking and philosophy above all others, thus establishing their way of thinking as the “new religion” and pushing the other religions to the back of the bus. Not freedom FROM religion but the establishment of OUR religion. Otherwise, why not just ignore what you don’t accept?
So, what do you think?
1) Is Atheism becoming a religion of its own?
2) Do you think that freedom from religion is merely substituting one way of thinking for another?
3) Whatever happened to ignoring something that doesn’t apply to you?
4) Do these folks “protest too much?” In other words, are there really no atheists in foxholes?
Good post, Jeff.
In response to your questions:
1) I think that talking about atheism as a religion misses the great diversity of atheists. I like that you discuss the difference between passive and active atheists, and also discuss humanism, secularism, etc., But I would go further: atheism, like theism, is not a religion, but an umbrella for systems of thought and institutions that may be called religions. (E.g., knowing that someone is a theist doesn’t tell you much. But knowing someone is a Mormon tells you a lot more. So, likewise, knowing that someone is an atheist doesn’t tell you much. But knowing that someone is associated with American Atheists, or that they identify as a humanist, or that they identify as anti-theist, etc…these things tell you more.)
2) I want to get into the idea of secularism, though. This idea is often associated with atheists (e.g., separation of church and state, keeping religious beliefs and practices outside of government, disassociating public institutions from religious texts, phrases, etc.,), but ultimately, secularism can be (and perhaps should be) compatible even with theistic people. Because even theists — especially those who are members of minority religious communities — should recognize that there is a benefit for not privileging one religion over the expense of all others.
For example, people often associate atheists with the efforts to keep prayer out of schools…and to be fair, a lot of the groups you mention are definitely for those efforts. But one of the major Supreme Court cases about prayer in school featured a *Mormon* and a *Catholic* opposing school prayers…because the prayers were explicitly evangelical Christian.
That being said, to the extent that we can recognize the moral or epistemological frameworks of various atheists, then I do think you can say that many atheists can often be advocating for a different way of thinking. I don’t think it’s true that all atheists want everyone to substitute their way of thinking…rather, I think most people just want to be allowed to participate in society freely without social stigma. I think most atheists would like it to not be political suicide to be an atheist when running for office, for example. Many states still have laws on the books (even though if they are unenforceable) requiring religious membership. So, I mean, I definitely think there’s something to be said about that. But to the extent that people see injustice in religion, then I think they will want things to change. (See: religiously motivated conversion therapy programs for LGBT people.)
3) Atheists do not live in a vacuum. They are part of religious communities, either because they were raised in them, because their family members or coworkers or friends are in them, because people try to pass laws based on religious ideals, etc., So, it’s not really about ignoring something that doesn’t apply to you. Rather, it’s recognizing that to the extent religion is not just a private matter, there’s the possibility that it will infringe on others’ civil liberties.
4) I like Mormon Heretic’s post on atheists in foxholes. In fact, i think that many atheists are becoming more open about their atheism to point out that you may know atheists. That yes, there are atheists in your school, at your job, in the foxholes, in the trenches, etc., Just because you haven’t noticed them or because people have kept quiet or because people have been pressured to keep quiet doesn’t mean that they aren’t there.
So why has Atheism and non-believers been on the rise in the last few years? The strain of belief that atheists and other non-believers rail against the most are the fundamentalist strains of Christianity and other monotheistic religions. If the religions were more moderate and accepting, you wouldn’t see near the backlash. Fundamentalists of any stripe are the cause and its b/c the religions won’t police their own.
These fundamentalists get into every aspect of our lives and want to control the narrative. Now we probably have fundamentalist atheists too. Just let us all alone and let us live our lives already.
“As I mentioned, I think that most of our moral and societal framework was developed by religious thinking and principles.”
I think that presumes a lot about the nature of moral and societal frameworks. Morality, in it’s most basic form (don’t kill, don’t steal, etc.) is essentially universal. Basic moral questions are answered similarly by modern members of western cultures and primitive tribesmen in remote locales around the globe. Morality appears to be more a *human* attribute than a religious one and is better attributed to empathy than divine fiat. What sort of morality would you have if you only did good because you were told to? Even for the devout, I believe empathy is the prime driver of moral behavior.
There is also likely an evolutionary explanation for morality. Other social mammals have complex rules governing how they interact with those within their group as well as those that do not belong to their group and they do so without, as far as we know, a concept of religion. Such rules are necessary for a society to function. Humans, a very social species, likewise require a framework of “good” and “bad” behaviors in order for the species as a whole to thrive.
No one is borrowing anyone else’s morality; Everyone is just claiming for themselves what are actually universal human traits. Religion does, however, go a step further to claim the rightness and wrongness of arbitrary acts such as which foods one eats or how a person touches parts of their own body.
1) Atheism is the rejection of religion, so no it hasn’t become a religion. There may be humanist organizations or atheist belief systems that have attributes of a religion, but nothing about atheism requires that one adopt any particular philosophy or belief.
2) A lot of atheists believe that religion is irrational, that there is no evidence for any god or gods, and that people would be better off if they stopped believing in irrational and imaginary things. But I suspect that a lot of religious people believe that as well regarding religious beliefs they don’t share. Once you strip away the religious belief, it’s up to you what you believe in. Atheism is not a positive claim about the world or philosophy. Secular humanism and other philosophies try to provide that.
3) As Andrew wrote, to the extent that religion plays a role in society, it applies to atheists. When religions get a tax break, that increases the share of the tax burden that the non-religious have to pay. Many secularists also believe that government policies are best when they are evaluated based on observable impact and logical, secular arguments and not by appeals to divine authority. That said, I would say that 90% of atheists ignore 90% of what religions do, because it is irrelevant to their lives.
4) Maybe there are atheists out there like the wicked professor in “God is [not] Dead” who don’t believe in God because they’re mad at Him for killing their mother (aha! you really do believe in God!). But why can’t we just accept people at their word about what they believe or don’t believe? Don’t Mormons hate it when Evangelical Christians tell them what they really believe about Christ?
Great post Jeff!
1. To the extent that atheism is a set of beliefs (or contra-beliefs) it could be called religion, though typically not organized as a church. In other words, I would hope that an atheist would have as much a right to abstain from prayer that as anyone else has to pray.
2. I don’t like this question. Freedom from religion is merely a rewording of the concept of freedom of religion. For those of us in the U.S.A., freedom from religion is more true to the wording of the U.S. Constitution, which forbids the government from “establishing” a religion.
3. Freedom applies to everyone. I agree with a lot of the points in the comments from Joel and Andrew. A predominant religion in a region tends to disregard the opinions of minority religions. If someone claims their rights are infringed by the majority religion. It is incumbent on us to consider their arguments carefully, from their perspective. We have a tendency to create straw man arguments, rather than researching and arguing against the strongest arguments of the opposing side.
4. If you tell an atheist that there are no atheist in foxholes, you are saying that you don’t believe she is truthful about her beliefs, or that that he is too immature to know his own beliefs. This could be offensive to some. A person who disavows belief in God, may pray for protection and solace when fearing for his life; this is not evidence of an abiding belief in God contrary to their stated beliefs. It is evidence of hope and/or desperation.
I am concerned by the statement about the witch-hunt. I realize it is used as a figure of speach but it seems hyperbolic and out of proportion to any of the arguments I’ve heard from the other side. I do think that these organizations go farther than I’d like in arguing against religion, but I don’t think that us to disregard there concerns about things like birth control, health care, scientific research, usage of government funds, equal rights for women, content of text books. and mandatory school activities. The truth is, I think a lot of people are benefiting from the dialogue that is created by these groups.
Sorry about the lack of proofreading.
“We claim the privilege of worshiping Almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience, and allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how, where, or what they may.” That essential article of faith doesn’t have much value if you begin by imposing a theist point of view on others before you allow any basic respect.
I think that’s something to really think about in particular consideration of the last couple years when saints have been inviting saints out of the church based on differences in beliefs.
Jeff is the hockey you refer to ice or field? For those of us who don’t live where water freezes, ice is not common, but field is an Olympic and commonwealth sport.
I agree with BoB @ 2. Going another step down the road most of the wars in the world today is a result of people wanting to impose their religious beliefs on others. Would atheists do that or would they more rationally work out property disputes?
I believe there are groups of atheists who meet regularly so they can have the sociality, without the religion. So getting close to a church, don’t think they claim tax exemption for themselves though I think they should be entitled to.
“On their website they say,
““The history of Western civilization shows us that most social and moral progress has been brought about by persons free from religion. In modern times the first to speak out for prison reform, for humane treatment of the mentally ill, for abolition of capital punishment, for women’s right to vote, for death with dignity for the terminally ill, and for the right to choose contraception, sterilization and abortion have been freethinkers, just as they were the first to call for an end to slavery. The Foundation works as an umbrella for those who are free from religion and are committed to the cherished principle of separation of state and church.”
“That first sentence I find quite ironic since I don’t think it’s true nor would you be able to prove it. I believe that most moral and social constructs in our society have come from religion and religious people.”
I’m inclined to agree with you on that. In Britain at least, it was the Quakers who were the predominant force behind these kinds of reforms (an early example: http://www.quaker.org.uk/fry, also http://www.quaker.org.uk/TemperanceJRowntree). A quick glance through the website would indicate there is still a strong interest in these things, including peace, justice & equality and sustainability).
I watched that documentary as well. Though I respect the rights of others to pursue the (non)belief system of their choice, I do find American Atheists and the brand of atheism they promote to be very obnoxious and off-putting. The same way I’m turned off by strident evangelicals trying to push their religion on me without permission. Like with Jeff’s example, I may not care for football, but I’m not on a mission to convince people that the NFL doesn’t exist, nor do I try to shift their loyalties to a different sport.
That said, I do have respect for the humanist community and the more moderate atheist groups out there. Sometimes I envy them, since they are able to find morality, personal meaning and social relevance without all the cultural baggage of organized religion (especially ours). Latter-day Saints have a thing or two to learn from our humanist friends, including the concept of being motivated to do good works for the common good of humanity, and not because of potential for eternal rewards. But if I ever suggested this in an LDS setting, I would get hauled into the bishop’s office forthwith, because of the negative stigma still attached to atheism in religious circles (especially ours).
Taken as a whole, “nones” are estimated to be the fastest growing religion in the US, especially among the younger generations who are disillusioned about organized religion. These are our friends, neighbors, co-workers (and in some cases) family members. We definitely should not ignore them or dismiss them as “evil”, but find common ground and build bridges with them. So yes, they deserve legitimacy as a “religion”, but only if they want it.
Interesting question Jeff.
I think this is an old struggle between three Western cultural forces that have long been intertwined: Hellenism (humanism), Judeao-Christianity (religion), and Barbarianism (nationalism, tribal and familial relationships).
We started with Barbarianism, and by itself, Barbarianism is no good: all guts and glory but no peace. It needs a civilising agent. Hellenic Rome tried to civilise Barbarianism, but that was no good either. Rome fell and Christianity tried to civilise Barbarianism, but it ended up transforming it into Medieval Christianity: crusades and religious wars. Still no good.
The rebirth of Hellenistic values during the Renaissance brought the three forces together for the first time in earnest: Christianity, Humanism, and Barbarianism (Nationalism). These three forces working together have arguably been the most successful at civilising the world.
Atheists argue that Christianity is no longer necessary in the equation. Secular Humanism has evolved to a point that it no longer needs any residual morality from Christianity to keep it in line. From a practical point of view, they may have a point. Secular Humanism bases its worldview on science, and science has found ways of proving and promoting the virtues of morality in society at large.
But I question the virtue of separating ourselves from one of three fundamental roots of Western culture. There is a reason why we have religion. Even if it is all superstition from a scientific perspective, science still needs to explore and try to understand why religion happens and more about exactly what its effects are. I think that they will discover that all three forces are fundamental expressions of human nature: Hellenism is wisdom, Barbarianism is emotion, and Christianity is love (or supposed to be). All three make us human, all three are necessary.
#11 “I do find American Atheists and the brand of atheism they promote to be very obnoxious and off-putting. The same way I’m turned off by strident evangelicals trying to push their religion on me without permission.”
In general I quite agree with what you said but the above seems ironic, at least, when the church has some 85,000 missionaries out in the world’s highways and byways.
Re 11,
Jack,
I want to push back a little on the NFL analogy though. You say:
I don’t think that the atheist analogues in this analogy are saying that the NFL doesn’t exist. They would probably recognize the NFL (or, constituent teams) as being institutions that may cause social harm.
So, with this change in analogy, is there any comparison between atheists who critique the role of religion in society and people who aren’t fans of football or who aren’t fans of particular franchises/teams? Yes. We do in fact see people who criticize football for being dangerous (and wow, Mormon Heretic is really knocking it out of the park for quotable articles…he wrote an article that referenced brain injuries in the NFL)…and because the rules of NFL are a construct rather than being absolute law, there are plenty of people who say that perhaps it’s just the rules or the conventions that should be changed.
This, I think, captures better what some atheists do with respect to religion. They see institutions that are causing various harm, and they believe that the theologies of those religions are constructs rather than God’s law, so they want those religions to change.
Similarly, even if one doesn’t have a criticism of the NFL in general, one can still have criticism of certain franchises…e.g., Washington Redskins. So, this would be akin to certain atheists who may not have a problem with religion in general, but with certain denominations.
Again…I just want to point out that to the extent a person believes that institutions have the capability of causing actual harm, then it should make sense that they would want to do something about it. “Live and let live” sounds great, unless and until you are convinced that people are getting harmed. In some sense, when people say that atheists should not criticize religion, what they are really saying is that they don’t believe that religion is harmful. And obviously, a lot of religious people aren’t going to see religions as harmful. Similar with any sport. A lot of people will think that they aren’t “that” unsafe, or that whatever benefits outweighs the risks.
I don’t think it makes sense to call atheism a religion. But I do think there are a lot of preachy, anti-religion atheists lately. And they are definitely trying to win converts. But it doesn’t resemble a religion – is just a movement. It’s sometimes called Militant Atheism.
I think Richard Dawkins kicked it all off with The God Delusion. Then you have Hitchens, Harris, etc. They are all pretty interesting to read and are actually pretty convincing. (though not to me personally.)
I actually think they do all know there is a god. So I side with the no atheists in foxholes camp. Even if it is offensive.
“I actually think they do all know there is a god. So I side with the no atheists in foxholes camp. Even if it is offensive.”
Forgetting whether it’s offensive or not, can you expand on that a bit? Why do you believe it? Buddhists do not believe that prayer can result in the granting of favors so would you also say that three are no Buddhists in foxholes?
Andrew, glad to know you read my stuff, even when you don’t comment!
Pat Tillman, the former NFL player, atheist, and army ranger killed in Afghanistan, actually told a Mormon solder with him when he died to quit praying so that they would both stay alive. The Mormon soldier said Tillman’s admonition saved his life.
Suffice it to say, Pat Tillman proves that there are atheists in foxholes.
(I will add that at the funeral, his brother said something to the effect of “Pat’s not in heaven, so all you Christians, don’t worry about him. He’s f***ing dead. He doesn’t believe in God.”)
MH,
if you prefer, I can start commenting like BCC commenters and just go “great post!” on every post, lol.
Matt P and allquieton,
I, like Matt P, am very interested in the reasons why you think that atheists “all know there is a god”. To me, it seems like it’s highlighting just radically very different ways of viewing the world.
MH-thanks for the Tillman story. Have to read up on that.
Matt P, et al.
Actually I think most Buddhists do pray for favors. At least the ones I’ve run into.
But I see what you’re getting at, and no, I wouldn’t go so far as to say that someone who has never been taught about God still somehow knows that God exists.
But I do think anyone who’s considered it, knows there must be a God.
Because…
1.Just from examining my own life and the world around me, I think it’s obvious that we were created by a God, and put here for some higher purpose. I think it’s so obvious that others must see it too.
2.When I discuss it with atheists, they often seem emotionally attached to the idea that there is no God. They are often irrationally hostile towards religion and logically inconsistent. They don’t seem like the earnest truth-seeking skeptics they claim to be. I suspect it stems from being in denial.
I’ll finish by saying of course I might be wrong about this. And after rethinking it, I admit I’m hesitant to say every single atheist knows there is a God. But still, I do think it’s generally true.
Finally, I’m not trying to persuade anyone here, and I definitely don’t see these as convincing arguments for my position. I’m just explaining myself a bit, since I was asked.
If we think of ‘religion’ as worship of and/or fealty to a deity or pantheon of deities, then by definition it’s not a ‘religion’. I would say that if anything it’s ANTI-religion rather than NON-religion.
Now, I’ve figured the following definitions:
ATHEIST – Professes that there is NO God or Gods.
AGNOSTIC – Doesn’t believe in existence of God but won’t deny the possibility, or doesn’t care.
I’ve figured that those that don’t want to be bothered with religion should stick to Agnosticism rather than Atheism, b/c to say with conviction that there is NO God would be to have the powers of omniscience and omnipresence, which are generally attributes of deity. The contradiction is obvious.
re 20,
allquieton,
So, do you think that everyone experiences life and the world around you in the same way you do? I think it’s interesting that your reasons for believing that atheists must know there is a god is to relate to your own experience — either with your own life or with your interactions with some atheists.
In examining my own life and experience, it seems pretty obvious to me that the universe is pretty uncaring. I am not opposed to the idea of a god or gods, but it just doesn’t seem to fit the data. Like, I have said that it seems more respectful not to attribute this universe to a god, because this universe seems a bit…haphazard? I dunno.
As far as other people…when I was growing up in the church, I thought for the longest time that people were acting, since that’s what I was doing. It took several years before I started to realize that some people *actually* believe in God, believe in Mormonism, and other religions. It took several years for me to realize that some people didn’t have a problem defending the church to others or going on missions because *they actually believed the religion*, whereas I dreaded the possibility of both of those things because I knew that I didn’t believe any of it.
So, over time, I have come to recognize that and accept that people can have different experiences on this. And that our experiences will color our perspectives fundamentally.
(As a side note, I also feel the same way about the idea that beliefs are chosen. it seems really obvious to me that beliefs are NOT chosen…that the way we process and respond to data, life experiences, etc., determine our beliefs, and that although I can choose to look at different data or to try to create certain experiences, I can’t choose my reaction to it or what responses I will really have. This caused me a lot of grief growing up in Mormonism, since Mormonism has the idea that you can just “choose to believe,” which I was never able to do. And yet, some other people really do seem to perceive that they can choose to believe, although when they try to explain it, it doesn’t sound that way to me. So even though I am very skeptical that anyone actually chooses their belief, I have to accept that some people at least *perceive* that that’s how their beliefs come about.)
“So, do you think that everyone experiences life and the world around you in the same way you do?”
Of course not. It’s just I don’t have much else to go on besides my own experience.
“I thought for the longest time that people were acting, since that’s what I was doing. It took several years before I started to realize that some people *actually* believe in God”
I find that pretty interesting. But are you saying that even as a little kid you didn’t believe in God? Even though that’s what you were taught? Or you stopped believing at a young age and kept acting like you did?
allquieton,
That’s right. I never believed. For most of my childhood, I thought it was a game (so it wasn’t that I stopped believing and kept acting like I did…I have never perceived God, so I was always acting). And I liked to think that I was pretty good at the game — I mean, I read my scriptures and gave the right answers in church, but I never thought they were real. Whenever I had callings as a youth, I did my best in them because I was raised that it’s important to do your best at everything…not because I believed in it. Whenever I would bless the sacrament or give a talk or give a prayer, I would do so with emotion and energy…
I didn’t think there was anything too strange about it until I would get into debates with my evangelical friends, because then I would defend the Book of Mormon but think to myself that I didn’t believe in it and didn’t find my answers any more plausible than they did — but I also knew that I didn’t find their religion or beliefs plausible either.
I think when I first found out about the words atheism and agnosticism, the only reason I didn’t call myself an atheist was because I said, “Well, I don’t believe that God doesn’t exist and I don’t believe that God does exist, so then I’m an agnostic!” (Since then, I’ve come to think that atheism and agnosticism describe two different things, so that you can be both an atheist and agnostic at the same time.) But I think that apatheism really describe me more — like, the idea of god seems irrelevant.
So, when I think about my ‘crisis,’ it wasn’t a faith crisis as much as a lack of faith crisis, and that happened when I was 17 or so, because I was really struggling with the idea of going on a mission. I knew that, according to the script and the act, that was what I was supposed to do, but I really felt bad about the idea of lying to a bunch of people to get them to join the church. And so I would discuss it with other members and they would be horrified and I didn’t know why they were horrified…until one day, I realized that they didn’t have that struggle, because they actually believed. To them, it wasn’t lying and acting.
After that, that really changed a lot about my relationship, because now, I knew that this wasn’t a game to everyone, so me faking it was deceptive at a very big level.
Anyway, much of the reason that I go on blogs like here and elsewhere is because I’m still trying to figure out what makes people believe, because I really don’t get it.
Brian, click on the link in comment #1 for more info on Tillman.
My experience is a little bit different. Growing up I did believe in a god but I wasn’t invested in that belief. It was a simple fact that I knew about the world but it didn’t have any personal relevance to me. I didn’t have spiritual experiences to validate the belief. I just believed because I was told it was true in the same way that I believed that Santa Claus existed or that the a plane I was flying in was cruising at 20,000 feet or any number of true and untrue things I was taught by others.
None of these were important facts, but I believed them because people I trusted told me they were true. As I got older and began to consider the idea that I should have reasons for my beliefs, particularly those beliefs that were consequential, God just came up short for me. It lacked explanatory power and the evidences that most people had for the existence of God were subjective. Special feelings, difficult to explain coincidences, etc.
Still, it was hard to let go of the idea that I *should* believe. Everyone else did, after all, and when I’d heard the term atheist before it was almost a slur. I remember wishing that I could just take a magical pill to make me believe the way everyone else did as my lack of belief was a real problem, especially in relationships with a series of believing girls friends (and – eventually – my wife). I read scriptures and prayed, as I was asked, but it all felt so silly. Why was I talking to myself and trying to make myself believe in something for which I saw no evidence.
At some point I made a decisions that this path was not going to bear fruit and I decided to stop pursuing it. I decided it was OK to just not believe and in giving myself that permission a significant burden was lifted. I don’t have trouble believing that other people believe in God but I am a bit flummoxed at the idea that there are people who don’t think I’m sincere in my (lack of) faith. Many of my closest friends are also atheists and they would be similarly flummoxed. Certainly there are “atheists” who claim that moniker because they are angry or resentful of the god they don’t believe in, but most of us really just don’t believe in one and really only contemplate the subject in conversations like this. On Sunday morning we’re sleeping, or hiking, or shopping, or playing video games; not contemplating the non-existence of God.
Also, like Andrew, I don’t think we choose our beliefs. Our beliefs are the conclusions we built from our experiences. I believe in gravity because I see things fall down. I believe airplanes can fly because I’ve seen them fly and I’ve read about the aerodynamics. I don’t believe in God because I have seen no evidence or God and likewise many people believe in God because they have seen evidence that supports that belief.
Matt,
Thanks for sharing your experience. I like the description of not being particularly invested in a particular belief.
I also wanted to bounce off something you talked about, not to disagree with you, but to add context for anyone else:
I don’t know if I have met any “atheists” who call themselves that because they are angry or resentful of the god they don’t believe in, but I do see why some people are still angry (to tie back into Jeff’s question about why people can’t just ignore things) — like, even if there aren’t any gods, there absolutely are social constructs and religions built around the idea thereof, and these constructs can cause a lot of harm.
And it can sometimes seem just surreal or absurd to live in a world where some really big harms are perpetuated and justified based on the idea of a being that doesn’t even seem to have much evidence or justification going for it. I can see people being frustrated with that absurdity or surrealism and I think that is valid.
#20
Are you aware that you just said everyone must believe it because I do? There is, of course, great risk in oversimplifying but, on the other hand, I don’t see that you offered anything else.
Well, that’s actually not what I said.
For some time I observed that my humanist friends generally came from a Judeo-Christian background. Then I observed that the Greeks invented democracy and (limited) equality before the law 600 yrs BCE. Scratching my head as to how their belief in a pantheon of gods led to that. Clearly we don’t need a particular concept of God to be able to act morally.
This thrills me about humanity, and I’d rather be thrilled than despairing.
Morality existed without religion.
Morality exists without religion.
Morality will exist without religion.
Religion has taken more from the human race than it has given.
“Clearly we don’t need a particular concept of God to be able to act morally.”
While I think this is true, I continue to ask the question, where did morality comes from if not religious constructs.
Folks like Dexter in #31 state, “Morality existed without religion.” But in fact, offer no proof this is true, while you can easily trace moralist thinking back to the various western and eastern religions.
Andrew,
I fully intend to explore both secularism and humanism because, like you I think that can have them co-exist with religion. I want to tackle part of that next week after thinking about it.
While I recognize that some atheists are “unaffiliated”, that is not associated with any organization and what I would consider passive, there are a number of groups popping up that hold “church-like services to help reinforce their lack of belief in God.
i find that a little strange.
Your whole post has no proof. You criticize the belief that morality can exist without religion and then simply state your gut feeling that morality can’t exist without religion. Why do you constantly ask for proof when you never provide any?
A rudimentary understanding of history will clearly prove that many moral concepts, like the golden rule, existed long before christ or any religions. I shouldn’t have to explain this. You clearly are locked into your gut feeling that morality relies on religion. You offer no proof for this, so why should I bother trying to prove what you will never accept?
Jeff,
The vast majority of atheists are unaffiliated. American Atheists and FFRF have, combined, about 25,000 members. By most conservative estimates there are at least 5,000,000 atheists in the US. Some polls and estimates place the number substantially higher.
No one is holding services to reinforce a lack of belief in God. Some groups try to separate the wheat from the tares (heh) to try to maintain those aspects of organized religion that have value for them – community building and fellowship – while discarding those which do not apply to their lives. They meet to satisfy social needs, organize charitable activities, etc. Especially as a member of the LDS faith you must recognize how much community can be integrated into religious practice and how leaving a religion – or living in a community with a religious tradition to which one does not subscribe – could be isolating. Regardless these gatherings are extraordinary. I’ve never been to one and I don’t know any atheist that has. These are attempts at figuring out how to build community in a world that is hostile to atheism but they are not representative of the activities of the typical atheist. Most of us don’t talk openly about what believe because our friends, neighbors, and coworkers find it uncomfortable if not offensive. Though it might be nice to get together with some likeminded folks from time to time in an environment where we don’t have to worry about that. Even if you think it’s strange.
As I mentioned earlier in the conversation there are explanations for morality that do not require religion. Anywhere that a group of people must live together there are rules for appropriate behavior and punishments for not following those rules. Most people in recorded history have been religious so they have attributed those rules to supernatural entities but if we are to take for granted that they are correct in these claims then there are a lot of pretty immoral directives that those same entities will need to answer for. Is worshipping the wrong god really morally wrong? What about eating an animal a priest said was unclean? Is it moral to kill a person for doing these things? The Crusades were considered to be justified by religious morality at the time. Those who defended US slavery on moral grounds did so by quoting the Bible.
As morality has trended toward progressive ideals and equity, religion has been found on both sides of every argument. Crediting the outcome of these arguments to religion is hard to do when religion was also the opposing voice.
Surely we don’t credit the development of calculus, aerodynamics, or the germ theory of disease to religion merely because the people that did the substantial work in these fields lived in a religious society. There is a significant body of research into the nature of morality if you wish to delve into it and the findings to date are much more complex than “it came from religion.” Just read the Wikipedia page on morality for a start.
re 32,
Jeff,
I have to agree with Matt P…most atheists are unaffiliated. it’s interesting that you find it a little weird that some atheists do participate in community organizations, because the criticism I have heard from many other people is that it’s a big weakness that many atheists *don’t*. Like…damned if you do, damned if you don’t, haha.
However, one argument for atheist social organizations is that there are benefits to religions outside of theology/the supernatural. E.g., religions establish communities that meet in person regularly, that serve each other, etc.,
These benefits should not depend — or so the argumentation goes — on theology. So, one should be able to create social organizations to meet these needs without a supernatural theology.
So, yeah, I think it’s a misrepresentation to present these groups as church-like services “to help reinforce their lack of belief in God.” Like, even of the groups I can think of, I don’t think anyone goes there to have their lack of belief in God reinforced. Rather, to the extent there are church-like services, they are about the sort of tangible impacts that churches do outside of theology — meeting with friends, setting aside time from busy schedules, having a committed community for service, etc., etc., Even for groups that have education/informational type things, these are about learning about the world — maybe hearing from a guest speaker on a science topic, or whatever. And of course, whether you can really believe that atheists can develop frameworks for morality outside of theism…some atheists will want to do so as part of a community.
And again, to the extent that someone can see harms with religions, then teaming up with like-minded folks to challenge those harms would also make sense for some people.
5 million atheists….I wonder how many there would be if there were no stigma attached to it in this country.
An NFL player recently said he doesn’t believe in god. This was news! The fact that his atheism was worthy of a news story tells you a lot.
Historically, it is also interesting to try and parse out who was an atheist because you really had to hide it for personal and professional reasons.
I agree with Matt P and Andrew S.
Why wouldn’t atheists come together in some kind of organization?
Republicans meet and organize and plan, do we call that a religion?
Democrats do the same thing, do we call that a religion?
Are book clubs a religion?
Atheism is not a religion.
Here’s my question for the day after thinking about this post and where I am in life. I was reading the book “Creative Grieving–A Hip Chick’s Path From Loss to Hope” and found inside a quote by Brene Brown:
“Spirituality is recognizing and celebrating that we are all inextricably connected to each other by a power greater than all of us, and that our connection to that power and to one another is grounded in love and compassion. Practicing spirituality brings a sense of perspective, meaning, and purpose to our lives.”
Before reading that quote, I had never heard of Brene Brown, so many of you could probably tell me more about who she is. But I thought about her definition of spirituality wonder if an atheist would endorse spirituality or not. Does Dr. Brown’s definition requiring a connection to a power greater than all of us run in opposition to atheism, even if that power is love and compassion? Does an atheist still enjoy life experiences that create ‘goose bumps’, like, for example, hearing the national anthem performed on the 4th of July?
Rigel,
Atheism is a broad classification so almost any question about atheists other than “do they believe in gods” is likely answered in the affirmative by some subset of the group. Some bonafide religions are atheistic in that they recognize no deity while still embracing spirituality – some Buddhists, for instance. Sam Harris, a notable atheist author, advocates for embracing spirituality though for him it’s more about seeking the experiences that are recognized by religious people as spiritual while not crediting those experiences to a greater power.
Yes, atheists have the same gamut of emotional responses that anyone else experiences. They may just not have the same explanations for those feelings that theists do.
Dexter,
Interesting thought. There are likely a lot more closet atheists/agnostics than we realize. Some of them are probably sharing pews with us in church.
My paternal grandparents (WWII generation, non-LDS) were of that sort. They occasionally paid lip service to various protestant denominations over the years, such as for weddings or funerals, but they were completely non-religious in their everyday lives, and made no pretense that they were. But they would never use the word “atheist” to describe themselves.
Rigel,
I am an atheist. Yes, I experience “goose bump” type feelings. I went camping in Wyoming for a week a while back, and felt the most amazing feeling for quite a long time. Like Matt said, how I explain those feelings is different now than when I was active in the church. If I were still active, I would have thought god was telling me he loved me. As an atheist, when I felt that awesome feeling, I felt the cause was some euphoric feeling due to the fatigue of backpacking and/or a wonderful connection with nature. As an atheist, I still have many beliefs, they just don’t involve god. For example, I believe in people. I believe most people do the right thing the vast majority of the time. This gives me hope. I believe people do their best, even though there are plenty of awful things going on in this world. My love for people is greater than when I was active in the church. My compassion for people is greater. I don’t think god is helping anyone, which makes me more motivated to do more. I don’t know that I would call it spirituality, and I think everyone may have a unique definition of spirituality, but I love people, animals, nature and science. I love feeling connected to nature and to other people.
This post was about religion bringing morality to the world. I disagree. Humans have evolved to be very empathetic. And from empathy, is where our morality is derived. I think this is an amazing miracle of science (not of god). I love Darwin for figuring out natural selection and he is, to me, one of the greatest humans to ever live. I would put him ahead of any religious figure.
I agree, Jack, there sure are atheists among you at church. And there are those who believe in god but don’t believe he intervenes much, or at all.
From what you said about your grandparents, they could have been the type to believe in god, but who felt that god expected them to take care of themselves. Many believe god exists, but don’t feel he is an intervening god. But maybe your grandparents lacked a belief in god. Point being, there are plenty who live their lives as if god doesn’t exist, whether they believe or not.
Thanks Matt and Dexter–appreciate the sharing. “Seeking the experiences that are recognized by religious people as spiritual” is something I have been trying to approach since experiencing the loss of my son. I have described my experience to others has having my faith turned upside down. Things in my religious tradition that soothed my soul before are now painful and not comforting. I am working through it as an active member of the church, but taking sources of wisdom from wherever I can find them.
I did have a feeling after his death of being drawn toward a grandfather that I didn’t know in life and after weeks of contemplating my relationship with this grandfather, I had a feeling like that, like Dexter’s, was amazing and enduring. Whether you call this divine influence or subliminal intuition, I want to keep having experiences like that. I have a friend who is post-Mormon who had an amazingly close relationship with his father, who has passed on, and continues to cherish his experience as son of this great man. I hope for him that, even if he is now atheist, that relationship for him will be a continued source of newly discovered intuition.
As a p.s. to number 41, I very much dislike the way the church constantly harps about not trusting the arm of flesh, and how the natural man is so awful, and on and on. How about some positivity? Human beings are the most advanced beings we’ve seen, they are the best (and the worst in a lot of ways, I’ll admit) we’ve got. Can we focus on the good traits of human beings?
Rigel,
Terribly sorry about your son. I commend your courage on sharing with us. I hope you can find the types of experiences you are looking for and I think you are brave and correct to be willing to try different things.
I too found that after personal losses, the methods I thought would provide comfort, didn’t. They made me feel worse. I found comfort in various ways: nature, meditation, literature, even television shows that would have been rated “R” by church standards. Since I mentioned it, I might as well name it, Six Feet Under, surprisingly, helped me learn about life and relationships more than I could have imagined. It inspired me to write my mother and my grandmother heartfelt letters, which I hadn’t done in years. Anyway, I like your attitude, Rigel, and I wish you the best on your journey.
Andrew,
“I have to agree with Matt P…most atheists are unaffiliated.”
I suspect most atheists go on their merry way, unconcerned with what anyone else does, much like the majority of the unchurched. It is clearly a minority of those who “can’t leave it alone.”
“It’s interesting that you find it a little weird that some atheists do participate in community organizations, because the criticism I have heard from many other people is that it’s a big weakness that many atheists *don’t*. Like…damned if you do, damned if you don’t, haha.”
Not at all. I was reacting to a part of the CNN show where a former Pentecostal preacher had “atheist church” on Sunday morning, much the same as he had Church in the past. I thought it weird.
If atheists want to get together and bear testimony to their atheism, more power to them. I wouldn’t bother, I’d go out for lunch.
“If atheists want to get together and bear testimony to their atheism, more power to them.”
Again, I don’t think this is actually happening. You are reading too much into the phrase “atheist church” and reaching some false conclusions about what goes on at such a place – secular services are about providing the sense of community lost is when a person leave religion, not about promoting non-religion for it’s own sake. Most secular services invite all comers and make no attempt to convince anyone to change their theological views.
No one is bearing a testimony to their atheism unless they are an ex-mo being ironic I guess. Bearing of testimony is not even a traditional Christian practice – Google the phrase and see how far down in the results the first non-LDS hit is.
Matt P.
I can’t for the life of me understand why you are arguing so hard in favor of atheism, if not for the religious value of it? If, in its purest definition, it is the absence in the belief of God or a higher power that is responsible for us as humans, then there is nothing to do…. Just like if you don’t like football, there is nothing to do after that.
Now if you want to discuss separation of Church and State, that really has nothing to do with one’s religious beliefs or lack thereof. It has to do with how religion and the state co-exist. That can be of interest to a deeply religious person just as well.
“As I mentioned earlier in the conversation there are explanations for morality that do not require religion.”
I am still waiting for someone to show it. We have thousands of years of recorded history on the religion side, both western and eastern that show the development and adherence to a set of moral principles. I have not seen evidence of that on the non-religious side.. You and Dexter and others have stated it, but yet to show it. My premise is simple. I think our morality and ethics have derived from religions and the belief in God and I have the documentation to prove it.
Again, I am reacting to a group shown on the report that was holding what I termed as “atheist church.” That was my observation.
Jeff,
I’m not arguing in favor of atheism at all. I’m just doing my best to clarify errors and overgeneralization about atheists.
“If, in its purest definition, it is the absence in the belief of God or a higher power that is responsible for us as humans, then there is nothing to do…. Just like if you don’t like football, there is nothing to do after that.”
No, not just like that. More like if you’ve been playing football every week and all of your friends and family play football with you and you get a concussion and can no longer play football with them. Many parts of the football playing experience are still important to you – getting regular exercise, hanging out with other people, traveling to games, getting some time outdoors, etc. Rather than just sit at home every weekend and losing out on all of those positives, it’s perfectly reasonable that one would seek out ways to get all of the many positive experiences they used to get from football while not putting themselves at risk of brain injury. Perhaps you take up soccer or flag football.
I think it only seems strange to you because for you worship and testimony is such an integral component of your own Sunday services.
“you get a concussion and can no longer play football with them.”
Do you CHOOSE to get a concussion?
re 38,
Rigel,
The question is “what is a power greater than us”? Why can’t we all be connected by our humanity or compassion, without trying to put in a power higher than all of us?
Why do we have to call love, compassion, etc., a power higher than us, rather than being very natural aspects of being human (from a humanist perspective)?
I think that most people experience goosebumps. But I think your National Anthem on the 4th of July thing highlights how problematic it is with connecting that to spirituality — patriotism doesn’t require any spiritual or supernatural explanation. Dexter and Matt P have gone through this in their really great comments as well.
Atheism doesn’t mean “doesn’t feel anything.” It just means not attributing those experiences, feelings, etc., to a deity.
re 46,
Jeff,
But I still want to emphasize that the reasons why some people can’t “leave it alone” are very justifiable. These are people of conviction who think that religions are actively harmful in several aspects of society. If you don’t think religion is all that harmful, or you don’t take religion all that seriously, then it would make sense that you wouldn’t be able to get that.
I mean, it’s kinda like that whole Planned Parenthood stuff…why do they care? Because they take Planned Parenthood seriously and think that it is a material harm in society.
Yeah, I’m going to definitely defer to Matt P’s comment in 47.
Again, if you don’t really care about or see the value in such a community, then it’s understandable that you wouldn’t be able to see why others find that value. I mean, I personally do not feel those needs, so I don’t seek out other communities, but I know plenty of people who really liked several aspects of their church communities — they just don’t agree or believe in the theology and don’t like that theology they find to be harmful and false is taught to their children.
Do you think that church communities are only about the theology/beliefs?
Groups like Ordain Women, groups in support of LGBT rights, etc., are often criticized for not going along with the teachings of the Prophet, not following God — regardless of what they themselves say about their own motivations.
But where do these groups get their ideas, then?
I would say as an atheist that it’s easy to explain — since no one’s morality comes from belief in God, it’s easy to explain why people have very different positions on treatment of women, treatment of LGBT, etc.,
But in general, I would say that you can associate religious teachings with inequality for women, inequality for LGBT. So, people advocating for equality are doing so out of a rejection of those religious narratives.
I wonder how many people would CHOOSE to reignite beliefs and return their worlds and strained family relationships to stasis if they could. Do we really CHOOSE beliefs or do we just acknowledge them when they proceed, maybe even intrude, from our experience of the world and the divine?
“Do you CHOOSE to get a concussion?”
I’m comfortable leaving this at “imperfect but still useful analogy” but I’ve never met an atheist who was formally religious who felt like their lose of faith was a choice.
Nice, Andrew.
“Atheism doesn’t mean “doesn’t feel anything.” It just means not attributing those experiences, feelings, etc., to a deity.”
I hate using Wikipedia numbers but I will to illustrate a point. One article estimates 4,200 religions in the world, meaning today Mormons reject 4,199 gods. Atheists only reject one more.
As for the “can’t leave it alone”, I always think of the old Cannon quote (paraphrasing), “if Mormonism is true, it can’t be harmed. If it is not true it should be harmed.”
Andrew,
“I would say as an atheist that it’s easy to explain — since no one’s morality comes from belief in God,”
You are missing the point. I am stating that the origins of morality and ethics have stemmed from religious understanding, not out of thin air. Even though religions are flawed and certainly have hypocritically gone against their own stated moral codes, I have not seen any evidence that moral codes were derived outside of belief in a Supreme being.
OW has nothing to do with this point.
Matt,
“I’m comfortable leaving this at “imperfect but still useful analogy” but I’ve never met an atheist who was formally religious who felt like their lose of faith was a choice.”
That is always the beauty of analogies. They are carefully crafted to make the intended point and when they miss the mark, they become “good enough.”
Of course, its a choice. Almost everything, include belief is a choice.
re 55,
Jeff,
Jeff…let me put the analogy more bluntly for your understanding. As most conservative Christians are all-too-eager to remind everyone, the Bible seems pretty clear that homosexual activity is a sin.
So, for Christians to reject gay marriage, reject LGBT rights, etc., is not hypocrisy. It’s you living out your religion.
OTOH, when someone supports gay marriage, supports LGBT rights, this is an example of someone displaying a moral foundation that is separate from religious understandings.
If we all got our moral views from religious understandings, no one would think there was any problem with rejecting gay marriage, etc., But clearly, plenty of people do think there is such a problem. The challenge for liberal/progressives is to try to reinterpret scripture in a way that grounds their moral sentiments. But what conservative religious folks will point out is that they are introducing their own thinking into the equation.
So, the fact that we can have our own thinking on moral questions demonstrates that it doesn’t all come from religion.
OK, I can see your point. There is a point that morality is relative and in the eye of the beholder.
Jeff,
Analogies are never perfect. You introduced football as an example so I was trying to work with what I was given. Choice is not the relevant factor here though; it’s the loss of on attribute of religious engagement (worship/testimony) while still seeing value in all of the many social aspects that are not explicitly religious.
The reason choice is not relevant is that even if I were deliberately choosing to not believe in the God (a foreign concept to me, but for the sake of argument…) I could still have cause to look for a source of community like that found at church but without the explicitly religious aspects of it.
“it’s the loss of on attribute of religious engagement (worship/testimony) while still seeing value in all of the many social aspects that are not explicitly religious.”
I agree that it is a loss. However, it is a loss borne out of conscious choice to divorce oneself from the common factor that brings the group together.
To extend the football example, you are telling me that even though I am not longer interested in football, that the group should somehow conform or adapt to my desire even when I knew the sole interest of the group was football?
When I was in high school, football was a big deal. Like, everyone in the city would be at the local game big deal. The schools would have all sorts of pep rallies and what-not for football, and if you were in many other clubs (e.g., band), then you would be supporting the football team.
So, if you were not interested in football, you were at once seen as very outside of the norm, but also that alienation gave you a connection to any others who similarly did not like football (even if you had nothing else in common), and the fact that all the football dislikers were thus alienated gave us all a reason to want to stick together (e.g., against bullies.)
And we definitely thought that even though a lot of people liked football, they should not enshrine football as part of the larger school life to the extent of people who did not like football — e.g., to the extent that other clubs received way less support, etc.,
EDIT/UPDATE: Why should football fans care about other sports, you may ask. Well, the issue isn’t necessarily about football itself. It’s about the fact that these aren’t just football fans but people who also have influence on other school funding, other school scheduling, etc., So, preferences for football can harm the wider school or community.
“To extend the football example, you are telling me that even though I am not longer interested in football, that the group should somehow conform or adapt to my desire even when I knew the sole interest of the group was football?”
No, I’m saying that it’s not weird for people in your situation to get together to form a new group that includes the components you are still interested in. You aren’t celebrating non-football, you are getting together for the exercise and camaraderie that football used to provide but which you are no longer able to obtain from football itself because of one or more factors that are no longer compatible with your conscience. If you view football as harmful, you might also discuss that, but – to escape from the analogy for a moment – none of the atheist Sunday service organizations I’m aware of make opposition to religion a central theme. Their services are designed to be uplifting and include singing, lectures on science & morality, and other positive activities.
How would you classify someone that doesn’t deny the existence of God or gods, but professes to not care?
There are a few sub-conversations happening here. Andrew addresses well why atheists may oppose religion. I was addressing why atheists may gather together for church-like services. I’d be careful not to conflate the two topics as these services are not generally about anti-religious advocacy.
FFRF and American Atheists, the two major advocacy organizations I know of, do not hold services. Similarly Focus on the Family does not hold services, while very little of a typical religious service dwells on the topics which FotF advocates. Though I suppose your question about advocating against things you’re not involved in could be addressed to religious organizations which comment loudly and frequently about topics such as homosexuality. If you have a satisfactory answer to that question in that context, it should help illuminate on why some atheists may advocate against religion.
Jeff,
You choose to only see morality as being tied to religion. You keep asking us to show you that morality existed before religion. It’s everywhere, you just don’t agree.
Like Matt P said, even a reading of Wikipedia on “morality” will show you the basics and plenty of sources if you want more detailed reading.
Further, as I said, we evolved to be moral long before religion. A simple google search of “morality before religion?” will give you hundreds of articles to read through. If you don’t want to believe that, fine, but please stop acting like you have proven your position and we have failed to do so. Anthropology, psychology, history, evolution, etc., etc., all support the idea that morality was around long before religion. There’s more evidence of this than any of us could ever read.
So I’d like to step in and offer some proof to Jeff that morality is derived from something else other than religion. Here’s a pretty good article that summarizes some of the main theories:
https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-nature-nurture-nietzsche-blog/201005/did-morality-evolve
Basically, one clue that morality doesn’t come from religion is that we can observe moralistic behavior in other animals. Another point is that things that are commonly considered to be good morals have an evolutionary advantage: strong love of kin, cooperation (even cooperation with other species), sharing of resources, etc. There are many more theories and ideas about morality and evolution, and I encourage you to explore them.
I would put it like this: altruism and morality are side effects of evolutionary traits that we’ve developed as humans. While these traits were selected for the advantages it gave us as a species, they also led to us applying them to broader concepts of right and wrong, morality, and even religion.
Is this the kind of evidence you were looking for? I welcome your thoughts.
re 63,
Douglas,
Someone who doesn’t care is an apatheist.
The football analogy as it has been presented is insufficient to describe the position of the FFRF and other organizations. In this analogy, they argue against the NFL not because they don’t want to watch games, but because the NFL has been hiding the traumatic brain injuries that they have caused to their own players for financial gain (in real life, arguably), and they are (in the analogy) lobbying to block birth control, lobbying Texas to put anti-science material in elementary text books, etc. Etc. Etc.
Although I think that morality is derived from empathy, not from religion, I don’t think that really matters to this discussion. What matters is whether members of FFRF truly believe that religion is harmful. If they believe that religion is harmful, than they are acting rationally in organizing and arguing against it, even if they go to the point of creating an anti-religion missionary effort. To say otherwise is the similar to telling religious organizations that they shouldn’t exist or proselyte because they are false. Lots of religions are obviously false, self-contradictory, even silly from my point of view. We don’t usually use that as an argument for them not to meet, discuss, and publish their views.
*ALL
Adam,
“Is this the kind of evidence you were looking for? I welcome your thoughts.”
Not really. While it’s interesting and I can accept much of the adaptation argument, it completely ignores any idea that the moral code was set by a Supreme Being and handed down to his offspring. It’s adaptations and adjustments have sprung, not from a change in the moral code but because man’s own desires have changed it.
To the pure scientist (as if Psychology Today is a science journal), there is no room for that explanation, so it cannot play into the narrative.
But to those who are in fact believers in God, it is only logical that the moral code was given by Him and that any adaptations are man-made or derived from man’s lack of understand of what God wants of him or her.
For those that accept “In the beginning, God created….” That is the only explanation.
So you are only willing to accept evidence that doesn’t conflict with your existing belief about how God created man? Where do you stand on the general principal of biological evolution as it pertains to the development of humans? Do you believe in a literal Adam and Eve that were created ex nihilo?
“So you are only willing to accept evidence that doesn’t conflict with your existing belief about how God created man?”
Yes, when evidence is actually presented. Not opinion articles. I am comfortable with the fact that the Bible and other religious documents, which have been around for thousands of years provide a moral framework that has been in use for all this time, hypocritical acts notwithstanding.
Atheists claim a moral code that I say is derived from those documents and practices. I have yet to see where atheists get their morality of not from the traditions of religionists.
“Where do you stand on the general principal of biological evolution as it pertains to the development of humans? Do you believe in a literal Adam and Eve that were created ex nihilo?”
I am 100% comfortable with the theories of evolution except that it does not yet prove the link of humans developing from a lower life form. Hence, it “theory status.”
As for Adam and Eve, not really sure. Like I said no proof of an complete human evolutionary cycle. God certainly could have created them out of the dust of the earth, but also within the bounds of nature like everything else. I am convinced that other people also existed at the same time.
The importance of the story is not whether Adam and Eve were specifically created as we think the Bible indicates.
We may be at an impasse here then. You have a religious position that appears to exclude a complete acceptance of modern evolutionary theory – even as taught at religious schools such as BYU and Notre Dame. If we don’t share common ground on the settled science it’s going to be hard to place the evolutionary explanation for morality into a context that you’ll find palatable even if it doesn’t explicitly exclude God.
I will point out again though that something looking very much like morality appears in animals and that moral behavior exists in pre-literate, pre-agricultural human societies that have never heard of the Bible or other religious texts. Additionally, *every* behavior that has ever been exhibited, regardless of whether we now label it good or evil has at one time or another been declared moral according to religious doctrines and presently there are many behaviors that are good or evil depending on which religion you subscribe to.
The moral behaviors that are universal such that exceptions are notable and generally punished (don’t kill. don’t steal, etc.) are necessary for society to function and are therefore obvious necessities rather than revealed wisdom. Recorded observations of such rules predate Christianity by thousands of years and, again, are also practice by animals and pre-literate cultures.
We may be at an impasse here then. You have a religious position that appears to exclude a complete acceptance of modern evolutionary theory.”
I guess you didn’t read what I wrote. I am completely comfortable with evolutionary theory. Learned it in school. What you called “settled science” is really accepted theory (after all you called it that as well). Of in others words, people have faith that it is true. But there has been no definitive missing link to humans. Evolutionary change perhaps, but no missing link from ape to human.
It’s nice that you observe moral behavior in animals. What is the point of that since you do not know whether it is conscious and learned or instinctual. Apparently, lions do not have a “thou shall not kill rule….”
Oh, and another thing, I refer to the Bible as written evidence that such as moral code existed, not that it was put in place as of the writing down of it. The moral codes existed for many years prior to the written word.
“Recorded observations of such rules predate Christianity by thousands of years and, again, are also practice by animals and pre-literate cultures.”
OK, as I’ve asked before, show me those…. And BTW, we are not just referring to Christianity, which is relatively young. The Hebrew religion, is about twice as old and some Eastern religions even older.
Jeff,
You couldn’t be more wrong. People do not have faith that evolution is true. It is true. It is proven. And how can you say you are completely comfortable with evolutionary theory and then say humans didn’t evolve? Evolutionary theory includes humans. Gravity is also called a “theory”. Evolution is as true as gravity.
Just because you refuse to accept the evidence and you refuse to accept the truth of evolution doesn’t mean it hasn’t been proven. It means YOU CANNOT ACCEPT IT. Your constant talk of proof is exhausting. The proof is there, you just refuse to acknowledge it, which is your right, but stop asking for proof, read a book. Jerry Coyne’s “Why Evolution is True” is one of countless books that clearly proves humans evolved.
All religions are super young compared to moralistic behaviors in human beings. Morality came along so far before religion it’s not even worth discussing. It is readily apparent if you haven’t already made up your mind.
I don’t think it’s accurate to characterize evolutionary theory as something requiring faith. The significance of the existence a “missing link” is akin to watching a football player run from end zone to end zone, and when he reaches the five yard line someone’s head blocks your view for a millisecond, then you see him cross the goal line. That person’s level of surety that he or she knows exactly what happened would not accurately be characterized as faith, in my opinion. A miniscule missing piece of an otherwise known sequence of events does not necessarily minimize the knowledge about what happened. Dexter is correct that there is virtually universal scientific consensus regarding the truth of evolutionary theory, including human evolution. This is true to the extent that if the so-called “missing link” is ever found, it will not move the needle an iota among settled science as to the truthfulness or likelihood of human evolution.
One thing that I really appreciated from Wayfarer’s <a href="http://www.wheatandtares.org/18651/on-being-a-disciple-and-defending-marriage/"post on being a disciple and defending traditional marriage was about how he pointed out that the moral systems of many of our religious traditions are often far more distasteful and uncomfortable than we modern folks would like.
As he wrote:
The important thing about these examples is that these aren’t examples of Muslims, Jews, or Christians being hypocritical to their moral values. These are the actual moral values as is described in their religious texts.
So, when Jeff writes:
it is important to note that the Bible and other religious documents, which have been around for thousands of years, provide such a religious framework that justifies those actions. If we are repulsed by that, then we are repulsed by God. Which, as our conservative religious brethren will tell us, is true. Yes, God is a child-sacrificing, misogynist, and racist bigot, as one Millennial Star post went.
These are religious values that have been around for thousands of years and are documented in religious scripture and religious tradition. I can understand why for religious people they would not want to throw out these things, but it’s important to note that these are not example of hypocrisy — no, these are religious adherents being completely faithful to their moral codes.
Great point. People talk about the bible teaching such great morals. This makes me cringe. The bible teaches a lot of very immoral behavior, to put it lightly.
Jeff,
As Dexter points out you are using a colloquial definition of theory. In science a “theory” is an explanation for a set of data that takes all available evidence into account. Theory does not mean “guess”. In science “hypothesis” is used to refer to an (informed) guess. A theory is developed after research based on that guess has developed evidence.
Evidence that supports the theory strengthens it and any evidence that contradicts it requires the theory to be modified or rejected. Biological evolution, including human evolution from precursor species, is one of the best supported theories in science. Right up there with the germ theory of disease, electron theory, and gravitational theory.
“It’s nice that you observe moral behavior in animals. What is the point of that since you do not know whether it is conscious and learned or instinctual. Apparently, lions do not have a “thou shall not kill rule….””
My point is that a social species requires behavioral rules to survive. These essential rules are universally recognized by humans as “moral” and the non-essential rules (don’t drink alcohol, don’t eat shrimp, if you rape a women you must pay a fine to her father, treat your slaves well, stone infidels) are often as not recognized as immoral in retrospect and are may never agreed on beyond a single religious group to begin with.
Since the only cases where morality is universal also work in the animal world in similar ways, it’s unnecessary to posit some other source for such morality just for humans. If baboons don’t routinely kill each other, why would humans need an external source for a “do not kill” directive? Baboons have opposable thumbs but it would be odd to say that they evolved opposable thumbs while humans were given them (or came up with them on their own??) even though the structures in each species are virtually identical. Certainly humans can say “I have opposable thumbs and they are good” but that doesn’t make their existence a human creation; regardless of how long they have talked about them.
Now if you want to credit *talking about morality for a long time* to religious people that’ll be hard to refute as it’s only been relatively recently that it was safe to identify oneself as non-religious (in some places). Writing an explicitly atheistic text 2000 years ago could result in a stoning.
In any event I think we’re just going in circles now. If you are really interested in theories of morality that go deeper than “it came from religion” then the wikipedia page on morality is a good start and the many pages it links to are useful as well.
Thanks for the conversation.
“You couldn’t be more wrong. People do not have faith that evolution is true. It is true. ”
Well, at least now I know. All science is based on the faith that certain assumptions are accepted. Without that set of assumptions, everything else is meaningless. Like 1+1=2. That is assumed to be true. Therefore all other math works.
“My point is that a social species requires behavioral rules to survive. ”
But where does that comes from? You claim some instinctual basis, but cannot prove it. You just assume it to be true, because you’ve never lived in an environment devoid of those rules. I am still claiming that those moral rules came from a higher being and were given to man. You may not like that explanation, but you have no basis to actually refute it other than you do not want it to be true.
Finally, you cannot blame the moral code for the sins of people who do not live it correctly. If you look at the teachings of Jesus and Buddah for example, they do not instruct people to kill in their name, yet it happens. One can only attribute that to a lack of understanding and misinterpretation on the part of humans, not on the quality of the code itself.
Andrew,
“it is important to note that the Bible and other religious documents, which have been around for thousands of years, provide such a religious framework that justifies those actions.”
Not at all anymore than a red moon meant that it really turned to blood.
Jeff,
Careful. With God, all things are possible. When you start doubting whether a red moon means actual blood and placing restrictions on the narrative, that way lies human interpretation outside of God and outside of religion.
Andrew,
“Careful. With God, all things are possible. When you start doubting whether a red moon means actual blood and placing restrictions on the narrative, that way lies human interpretation outside of God and outside of religion.”
Oh, my heavens, NO!
I mean, I like liberal/modernist/metaphorical/critical readings of scripture as much as anyone.
But even I know that reading these interpretations into the scripture received by pre-modern, non-liberal people is anachronistic. In addition, that path leads to atheism anyway — the more conservative, literalistic, fundamentalist a church is, the stronger they will tend to be.
Again, that’s not hypocrisy or a lack of faithfulness to the text…that’s what faithfulness to the text and tradition requires.
“But where does [non-deist morality] comes from? You claim some instinctual basis, but cannot prove it. You just assume it to be true, because you’ve never lived in an environment devoid of those rules. I am still claiming that those moral rules came from a higher being and were given to man. You may not like that explanation, but you have no basis to actually refute it other than you do not want it to be true.”
When my kids were toddlers I did a group with other toddler-mother pairs. The rules of the group were we put the kids together, sat on the periphery and did not interfere — however uncomfortable — except to prevent a physical altercation between toddlers.
Your little one falls and cries because he’s hurt? Let him cry and don’t intervene unless he comes to you. Your toddler can’t make a toy “work” and is becoming visibly frustrated? She’ll have to figure it out, come up with an alternative way of using the toy or choose a different activity. One kid takes every toy your toddler tries to play with? Let it happen.
So one day a new family came into the group. The parents were older first-time parents and highly anxious. Their little girl was running their lives and it was apparent to everyone else they had no idea that they could or should limit her ever whim. That little girl became the terror of the others grabbing every toy anyone was having any fun with. Typical toddler behavior — but on steroids.
The rules of the group had always been difficult and non-intuitive for us as parents but the point was to observe toddler behavior and capabilities for 2 hours a week. So we had to sit by and watch this kid “victimize” our kids. OK, she was taking toys and making our kids cry but it felt like violations if you’re a parent with a normal protective instinct (oops! there’s that word!)
So what’s the point of this story? It took a while. Maybe it was 4 weeks. But these toddlers aged between 12- and 24-months incapable of speech and certainly not conversant in Biblical principles learned to pick up their toys and, when The Terror started to approach them, they turned their back on her. I don’t know if one toddler figured it out and the others copied the strategy or if they each came to the realization on their own but at some point every one of them was doing it and, effectively, excluding her from the group. All she saw was backs until she began to pick up her own toys and initiate her own play. At that point the other toddlers would play next to/with her again and she was back in the group. They had made themselves more important to her than the toys they were animating. And they did it on they own without an adult intervening.
Those itty bitty kids not only figured out how to protect themselves but they organized the “rules” for play and taught them to a kid who had never experienced any limits in her life. It was one of the more difficult and powerful experiences in my life. if you’d like to know more google Magda Gerber/RIE (Resouces for Infant Educaring).
Was that an exercise in “morality”? On a practical level it was highly effective. Does it “prove” anything about morality? I dunno. But would you care to “prove” the existence of God, Jeff?
There are some things that can’t be proven. We observe them and accept them. You don’t seem to be willing to recognize some things. But if you’re going to insist on demonstrations of proof you might offer some about the existence of God to the same standard your insisting on.