This article from Science Daily explains an interesting new theory about why religion and morality are linked. See, there had previously been two main theories about the origin of religion:
1) Religion evolved as a way to solve the problem of cooperation among unrelated individuals.
2) Religion evolved as a by-product of pre-existing cognitive capacities. For example, it is much better for the survival of young if they have a tendency to believe what the elders tell them about what is edible/dangerous etc.
This article talks about two psychologists who found (citing many studies in moral philosophy) that people show no difference in moral judgements for unfamiliar dilemmas, despite differences in, or even lack of, religion. This suggests that intuitive judgements of right and wrong are independent of specific religious obligations.
"This supports the theory that religion did not originally emerge as a biological adaptation for cooperation, but evolved as a separate by-product of pre-existing cognitive functions that evolved from non-religious functions," says Dr. Pyysiainen (one of the authors of the article). "However, although it appears as if cooperation is made possible by mental mechanisms that are not specific to religion, religion can play a role in facilitating and stabilizing cooperation between groups."
This is interesting because of some of the common views on the connection between religion and morality. Some people view morality as impossible without religion, others see religion as a way of expressing moral intuitions, some see religion as something that impedes moral progress, and still others think religion and morality are in no way linked. But it still remains that in most cultures (including this one), religious beliefs and concepts have become the standard way of articulating moral ideas. Since the language of morality and the language of religion are so intertwined, an attack (perceived or real) on religion is seen as an attack on morality.
I think this is where the trouble comes in for people like my mom. She's believed all her life that religion is good, moral, and right. Therefore, people without religion are bad, immoral, and wrong. Then I come out to her as an atheist, and suddenly she has to reconcile her preconceived notions of what an atheist is with her knowledge of who I am. I'm just glad that my mother chose to go with her knowledge of me as a good, moral person instead of forcing me into the role of evil immoral atheist.
Showing posts with label atheism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label atheism. Show all posts
Sunday, February 14, 2010
Monday, January 11, 2010
"How Do We Know The Bible Is True?"
Jason suggested in his blog that everyone should read a book that is outside their belief system. Doing so challenges what you believe and encourages growth. Well, my mom gave me a book for Christmas called How Do We Know The Bible Is True? by John Ankerberg and Dillon Burroughs. I can honestly say that, in the spirit of opening an avenue of discussion with my mom, I read the book with an open mind. It was difficult to maintain that mindset, however. My comments in the margins got snarkier as the book went on. Here's an overview of the book and my thoughts on it:
On the first page of the book, before we even get to chapter 1, I come across this little gem: (in the context of listing other religions' holy books) "Buddhism has The Four Noble Truths and The Eightfold Path." No. Those are teachings, not holy books. That would be like saying that The Ten Commandments is a holy book. If the authors are going to say something, they should at least do a bit of research, especially considering that one of the authors wrote a book called Comparing Christianity with World Religions. This doesn't bode well for the rest of the book.
Chapter 1 (How Did We Get The Bible?): This is a brief history of the Bible, what's in it, how many books there are, etc. They claim that the Bible has historical accuracy, eyewitness accuracy, and prophetic accuracy. However, the only proof that they provide is quotes from the Bible. Sorry, but you can't say "this book is true because it says it's true!" Logical fallacy #1. Then, they talk about the reasoning behind the choices of which books were included in the Bible and which ones were cast aside. This is supposed to strengthen the argument that the Bible is true. However, most of these "tests" are about making sure the books are consistent with previous teachings and books, or have some kind of intangible quality (eg. Does the book ring with the sense of "The Lord says..."?) None of the tests have anything to do with whether or not the content of the books is actually true. Fantastic.
Snarky summary of chapter 1: The Bible is true because it says it's true and a lot of important people believe it's true!
Chapter 2 (Isn't The Bible Full Of Myths And Legends?): They define a myth as a fantastical story that has a kernel of truth. They then list stories in the Bible that seem like myths. They then state that these stories can't possibly be myths because the Bible is God's Word(tm). Proof that it's God's Word(tm)? You guessed it: Bible quotes. They then state that there are over 200 stories of a massive flood, citing The Epic of Gilgamesh. Leaving aside the fact that they cited a mythological epic poem as historical fact, they seem to believe that if a large number of people believe that something is true, that means that it is true. Did we learn nothing from the persecution of Galileo and countless other scientists? The chapter ends with a chart of well-known miracles of Jesus, as if that's supposed to convince me of something.
Snarky summary of chapter 2: There are a whole bunch of stories in the Bible that are hard to accept and impossible to prove, but the Bible says that it's God's Word(tm), so therefore everything is true!
Chapter 3 (What About Those 'Lost Books' Of The Bible?): Ah, yes, The Da Vinci Code. Why am I not surprised that they cite a silly fiction book as a strong, well-known argument against the Bible? Anyway, they state that the four books of the gospel are the only good ones because a) they were written within the lifetimes of the apostles and b) there are a lot of copies of the manuscripts that were made a short while after the original was written. There is a chart of other literary works (eg. The Iliad by Homer) with fewer copies and much more time between the copy and the original. However, they completely disregard the fact that neither of these two things has anything to do with the veracity of the books, or that no one reads The Iliad as infallible historical fact. There is then a chart of New Testament quotes from early church leaders, as though the idea that a bunch of guys quoted the book 2000 years ago makes it 100% factual. The authors then claim that independent non-Christian authors "mention details regarding facts found in the New Testamant". Oh good, some actual factual evidence! Oh wait..their "evidence" is a mention of a group called "Christians" and that they followed someone called "Christ". If there had been independent mention of any of Jesus' miracles or his resurrection, for instance, that would be "details regarding facts found in the New Testament". Well, considering the fact that I'm questioning the truth of the Bible and not the existence of Christians, I remain unconvinced.
Snarky summary of chapter 3: The gospels are true because we have lots of copies close to the original date of authorship and early church leaders quoted them. Oh, and it's more accurate than The Iliad, which must mean it's valid historical fact. Also, the 'lost gospels' are bullshit.
Chapter 4 (What About All Of The Contradictions?): They claim that the main cause of atheism is the contradictions in the Bible. I'm not even going to touch that one. They claim that the Bible is inerrant/inspired because it says that it is inerrant/inspired. I'm really getting tired of this logical fallacy. They claim that the best way to deal with contradictions in the Bible is by closely examining both sides. Finally, something in this book that makes sense. This chapter is mostly about how to deal with minor discrepancies in the texts. I was mostly fine with this chapter until the very end, when they claimed that since some contradictions can be solved, the whole book is true.
Snarky summary of chapter 4: Some contradictions can be cast aside, therefore the whole book is inerrant Truth(tm).
Chapter 5 (Why Do Christians Believe The Bible Is Perfect?): Again, just because a bunch of people believe that a book is true, that does not make it true. I don't think the authors understand this concept. Anyway, this chapter is basically a whole bunch of circular arguments. For example: "Jesus Christ is the One who claims to be God and proved His claim by rising from the dead. It is on His authority as God of the universe that we are sure the Bible is the Word of God." So, basically they are saying 'the Bible claims Jesus is God. Jesus claims the Bible is true. So, logically, since Jesus is God, the Bible is true!' No. Logic does not work like that. They also keep using the word "evidence" as though they have already given it. I don't think that word means what they think it means. They also don't understand the idea of burden of proof, as shown by this quote: "The proper way to interpret the Bible involves a respect for the text as given until proven otherwise." Again, no. Since you're the one making the claims, you're the one that has the burden of proof. If I was to say "there is an invisible teapot orbiting the sun between Earth and Mars", it would be my responsibility to prove my claim, not yours to prove I am wrong (thanks Bertrand Russell). They also claim that the Jesus story fulfills all of the prophecies made in the Old Testament, and that is proof that the Bible is true. I'm not even going to go into the fact that the writers of the gospels both knew what the prophecies said and had a reason to make it seem as though they had been fulfilled. But guys, "The son of God will come. See that guy? He's the son of God." does not count as a fulfilled prophecy, nor does it count as historical fact or scientific proof. There is absolutely no proof or corroboration by other historical documents. There is a chart at the end of the chapter called "24 Prophecies Fulfilled in the 24 Hours Before Jesus' Death". However, this list is unimpressive because it's full of things like "beaten and spat upon", "wounded and bruised", and "people ridiculed him". These are things that were true for every person ever publicly humiliated and put to death.
Snarky summary of chapter 5: The Bible claims that it is inerrant, therefore it is inerrant. Also, it claims that prophecies have been fulfilled, therefore it is inerrant, and also 100% historically accurate.
Chapter 6 (How Do We Know The Words Haven't Been Changed?): This chapter is about how many of the copies of the New Testament matched each other except for minor "typo-like" errors. The authors go into the reasons for these kind of errors, none of which are particularly note-worthy or interesting to me.
Snarky summary of chapter 6: Most of the discrepancies in the Bible are minor and "typo-like", therefore the Bible is factual, historical Truth(tm).
Wow. That was a lot longer (and more bitter) than I was expecting it to be. I guess I was hoping for a book that would challenge my ideas and my intellect instead of a book full of logical fallacies and circular reasoning.
On the first page of the book, before we even get to chapter 1, I come across this little gem: (in the context of listing other religions' holy books) "Buddhism has The Four Noble Truths and The Eightfold Path." No. Those are teachings, not holy books. That would be like saying that The Ten Commandments is a holy book. If the authors are going to say something, they should at least do a bit of research, especially considering that one of the authors wrote a book called Comparing Christianity with World Religions. This doesn't bode well for the rest of the book.
Chapter 1 (How Did We Get The Bible?): This is a brief history of the Bible, what's in it, how many books there are, etc. They claim that the Bible has historical accuracy, eyewitness accuracy, and prophetic accuracy. However, the only proof that they provide is quotes from the Bible. Sorry, but you can't say "this book is true because it says it's true!" Logical fallacy #1. Then, they talk about the reasoning behind the choices of which books were included in the Bible and which ones were cast aside. This is supposed to strengthen the argument that the Bible is true. However, most of these "tests" are about making sure the books are consistent with previous teachings and books, or have some kind of intangible quality (eg. Does the book ring with the sense of "The Lord says..."?) None of the tests have anything to do with whether or not the content of the books is actually true. Fantastic.
Snarky summary of chapter 1: The Bible is true because it says it's true and a lot of important people believe it's true!
Chapter 2 (Isn't The Bible Full Of Myths And Legends?): They define a myth as a fantastical story that has a kernel of truth. They then list stories in the Bible that seem like myths. They then state that these stories can't possibly be myths because the Bible is God's Word(tm). Proof that it's God's Word(tm)? You guessed it: Bible quotes. They then state that there are over 200 stories of a massive flood, citing The Epic of Gilgamesh. Leaving aside the fact that they cited a mythological epic poem as historical fact, they seem to believe that if a large number of people believe that something is true, that means that it is true. Did we learn nothing from the persecution of Galileo and countless other scientists? The chapter ends with a chart of well-known miracles of Jesus, as if that's supposed to convince me of something.
Snarky summary of chapter 2: There are a whole bunch of stories in the Bible that are hard to accept and impossible to prove, but the Bible says that it's God's Word(tm), so therefore everything is true!
Chapter 3 (What About Those 'Lost Books' Of The Bible?): Ah, yes, The Da Vinci Code. Why am I not surprised that they cite a silly fiction book as a strong, well-known argument against the Bible? Anyway, they state that the four books of the gospel are the only good ones because a) they were written within the lifetimes of the apostles and b) there are a lot of copies of the manuscripts that were made a short while after the original was written. There is a chart of other literary works (eg. The Iliad by Homer) with fewer copies and much more time between the copy and the original. However, they completely disregard the fact that neither of these two things has anything to do with the veracity of the books, or that no one reads The Iliad as infallible historical fact. There is then a chart of New Testament quotes from early church leaders, as though the idea that a bunch of guys quoted the book 2000 years ago makes it 100% factual. The authors then claim that independent non-Christian authors "mention details regarding facts found in the New Testamant". Oh good, some actual factual evidence! Oh wait..their "evidence" is a mention of a group called "Christians" and that they followed someone called "Christ". If there had been independent mention of any of Jesus' miracles or his resurrection, for instance, that would be "details regarding facts found in the New Testament". Well, considering the fact that I'm questioning the truth of the Bible and not the existence of Christians, I remain unconvinced.
Snarky summary of chapter 3: The gospels are true because we have lots of copies close to the original date of authorship and early church leaders quoted them. Oh, and it's more accurate than The Iliad, which must mean it's valid historical fact. Also, the 'lost gospels' are bullshit.
Chapter 4 (What About All Of The Contradictions?): They claim that the main cause of atheism is the contradictions in the Bible. I'm not even going to touch that one. They claim that the Bible is inerrant/inspired because it says that it is inerrant/inspired. I'm really getting tired of this logical fallacy. They claim that the best way to deal with contradictions in the Bible is by closely examining both sides. Finally, something in this book that makes sense. This chapter is mostly about how to deal with minor discrepancies in the texts. I was mostly fine with this chapter until the very end, when they claimed that since some contradictions can be solved, the whole book is true.
Snarky summary of chapter 4: Some contradictions can be cast aside, therefore the whole book is inerrant Truth(tm).
Chapter 5 (Why Do Christians Believe The Bible Is Perfect?): Again, just because a bunch of people believe that a book is true, that does not make it true. I don't think the authors understand this concept. Anyway, this chapter is basically a whole bunch of circular arguments. For example: "Jesus Christ is the One who claims to be God and proved His claim by rising from the dead. It is on His authority as God of the universe that we are sure the Bible is the Word of God." So, basically they are saying 'the Bible claims Jesus is God. Jesus claims the Bible is true. So, logically, since Jesus is God, the Bible is true!' No. Logic does not work like that. They also keep using the word "evidence" as though they have already given it. I don't think that word means what they think it means. They also don't understand the idea of burden of proof, as shown by this quote: "The proper way to interpret the Bible involves a respect for the text as given until proven otherwise." Again, no. Since you're the one making the claims, you're the one that has the burden of proof. If I was to say "there is an invisible teapot orbiting the sun between Earth and Mars", it would be my responsibility to prove my claim, not yours to prove I am wrong (thanks Bertrand Russell). They also claim that the Jesus story fulfills all of the prophecies made in the Old Testament, and that is proof that the Bible is true. I'm not even going to go into the fact that the writers of the gospels both knew what the prophecies said and had a reason to make it seem as though they had been fulfilled. But guys, "The son of God will come. See that guy? He's the son of God." does not count as a fulfilled prophecy, nor does it count as historical fact or scientific proof. There is absolutely no proof or corroboration by other historical documents. There is a chart at the end of the chapter called "24 Prophecies Fulfilled in the 24 Hours Before Jesus' Death". However, this list is unimpressive because it's full of things like "beaten and spat upon", "wounded and bruised", and "people ridiculed him". These are things that were true for every person ever publicly humiliated and put to death.
Snarky summary of chapter 5: The Bible claims that it is inerrant, therefore it is inerrant. Also, it claims that prophecies have been fulfilled, therefore it is inerrant, and also 100% historically accurate.
Chapter 6 (How Do We Know The Words Haven't Been Changed?): This chapter is about how many of the copies of the New Testament matched each other except for minor "typo-like" errors. The authors go into the reasons for these kind of errors, none of which are particularly note-worthy or interesting to me.
Snarky summary of chapter 6: Most of the discrepancies in the Bible are minor and "typo-like", therefore the Bible is factual, historical Truth(tm).
Wow. That was a lot longer (and more bitter) than I was expecting it to be. I guess I was hoping for a book that would challenge my ideas and my intellect instead of a book full of logical fallacies and circular reasoning.
Saturday, March 14, 2009
American Religious Identification Survey
Survey
The report suggests that the number of Americans who report no religious affiliation or preference is increasing. It also suggests that the number of people who identify as Catholic is decreasing.
The report suggests that the number of Americans who report no religious affiliation or preference is increasing. It also suggests that the number of people who identify as Catholic is decreasing.
Thursday, March 12, 2009
Summary of my beliefs
I have many reasons for not being a Christian. They can best be summed up by a few quotes:
• “The easy confidence with which I know another man’s religion is folly teaches me to suspect that my own is also.” -Mark Twain
• “It ain’t the parts of the Bible that I don’t understand that bother me, it’s the parts that I do understand.” -Mark Twain
• “I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.” -Stephen Roberts
• “It’s pretty easy to establish that you cannot change your beliefs on will (despite what some people claim). “Trying” to be an [Christian] just by pure will isn’t going to work. Atheism is more of a realization than anything; it involves reading the arguments and realizing that you agree with them… A Christian can no more try to be an atheist and succeed than an atheist can try to be a Christian and succeed.” –Kieran Bennett
First, I'd like to define my beliefs. I see myself as an agnostic atheist. I know that these seem like contradicting words, but they refer to two different things. The word "agnostic" refers to my knowledge: I don't claim to know anything about god with absolute certainty. The word "atheist" refers to my lack of belief in any gods. An atheist is not necessarily a person who believes with absolute certainty that there is no god. It simply refers to a person who does not hold a belief in god. Since I do not have a belief in god but I am not absolutely certain that one does not exist, I refer to myself as an "agnostic atheist".
To properly explain why I don't believe, I'd like to elaborate on the reasons I once did:
1. I'd been taught that God was real since birth.
2. Everyone that I knew and trusted believed in God.
3. I'd been taught that the Bible is truth.
4. It appeared to be true that belief in God resulted in goodness and morality, and that the only way to live a moral life was through Jesus.
5. Fear of Hell if I didn't believe.
6. From the stories I heard, God seemed like a nice guy, like a guy I wanted to work for.
7. I was HAPPY believing.
1. And 2. I'd been taught that God was real since birth. Everyone that I knew and trusted believed in God. I went to church every Sunday (and every Tuesday when I was in Catholic school!) God is real. God loves you. Jesus died for you. All of these stories really happened. I can prove it by this book here. All of that I believed as a child because why shouldn't I? Everything else I was taught was true: Don't touch that, it's hot. (I touched it. Yeah, it was hot.) Wear a jacket because it'll get cold later. (I didn't wear a jacket. It did get cold.) The tooth fairy will leave you some change for that tooth you just lost. (Well, the tooth was gone, and there was change there, so they must have been right!) Santa comes in the front door because we don't have a fireplace. (There were presents there, and they said “From Santa”!) God is real, and he sent his son down to die for your sins because he loves you. Okay, cool. Why shouldn't I believe it? The adults I trusted obviously did. And they were smart and I looked up to them, and it was a big part of their lives. It must be true. The problem with this is that I can't accept something just because someone else says it's true. Even if that someone else is someone I know and trust. I have to read the book and do the research for myself.
3. I'd been taught that the Bible is truth. I tried to read through it in eighth grade. I only got about halfway through Numbers and got really bored with all of the family trees and measurements of the temple and stuff. So I skipped to Psalms and read that, which I liked. I also read a few more books, and all of the gospels. I didn't understand some of the stuff, but I assumed it was because I wasn't an adult and that some concepts and vocabulary were beyond my capability to understand. I also was somehow not creeped out by all the talk about killing people. I assumed that it was just part of their culture at that time and that it didn't apply anymore. Then I went back and started reading parts of the Bible again in high school. It's not that I didn't understand before. It's that there actually are many, many contradictions in the Bible (sometimes within the same book!)** And the parts I just brushed off before? I can't get past those. There's so much unnecessary pain and death, all fully supported by God! Your kid's insubordinate? Take him to the elders and they'll stone him!** Your wife's not a virgin on your wedding night? You (along with the rest of your town, of course, don't want them to miss out on the party!) can just stone her!** Your fields are poorly tended? Just buy some slaves from your neighbouring countries (not from your own country though!)** Don't like your daughter much? Just sell her as a sex slave!** Your slaves aren't listening to you? Feel free to flog them to within an inch of their life (as long as you don't kill them!)** So taking into account all of the gruesome things God condones, all of the contradictions, and the fact that there is no proof whatsoever that this book is true (or even historically accurate), I just can't understand how I used to put so much stock in this book.
4. It appeared to be true that belief in God resulted in goodness and morality, and that the only way to live a moral life was through Jesus. My mom, dad, our whole family, families at our church, and my Catholic school teachers showed me that. Morality comes from the Bible. It's when you don't believe in the Bible that things go wrong. Further cementing that idea in my twelve-year-old mind was the tragedy on September 11th, 2001. The people who did that were Muslim. Oh, that explains it. Islam is a religion of violence, unlike our Christianity. The only problem? If you actually LOOK at the Bible, it's FULL of violence and war and pain and death. There are plagues and fiery serpents and holy wars (many, many holy wars). How much of that was really necessary? I mean, really? How many innocent people died because people were doing the “will of God”? How many continue to die? Here's a quote from Bertrand Russell that eloquently puts what I am trying to say: “In the so-called ages of faith, when men really did believe the Christian religion in all its completeness, there was the Inquisition, with all its tortures; there were millions of unfortunate women burned as witches; and there was every kind of cruelty practiced upon all sorts of people in the name of religion. You find as you look around the world that every single bit of progress in humane feeling, every improvement in the criminal law, every step toward the diminution of war, every step toward better treatment of the colored races, or every mitigation of slavery, every moral progress that there has been in the world, has been consistently opposed by the organized churches of the world. I say quite deliberately that the Christian religion, as organized in its churches, has been and still is the principal enemy of moral progress in the world.” There is absolutely no way to justify all of the death in the name of God, for ANY religion, not just Christianity. “They were doing what they thought was right” doesn't count. Would they have felt the need to go out and kill so many others if they didn't believe in God? No. But because their holy books said it was okay (good, even!) to do so, they did it.** Now, I'm not saying that belief in God makes anyone a bad person. I'm not saying that belief in God will make someone pick up the torches and pitchforks and go hunt witches. But I AM saying that absolute belief in something utterly improvable (especially when there are so many people with absolute belief in DIFFERENT improvable things) isn't good for society, or moral and intellectual progress.
Okay, so, does morality come from the Bible (or God or faith or religion)? No. Main argument: slavery. We as individuals and as a society agree that slavery is morally wrong. Yet, the Bible supports it. Oh, it's just a cultural difference, many people say. That's true. Does that matter? No. If people claim to get their morality from the Bible, they need get their morality from the Bible. That means accepting homosexuality is a sin, slavery is morally acceptable, and it's perfectly fine for whole civilizations to be wiped out, as long as God says it's okay.*** Now, most people would not agree with the previous sentence, even people who claim their faith is what keeps them on the straight and narrow. Why is that? Why do people who claim that they get their morals from the Bible, in fact, see some things in the Bible as morally wrong? If they have the capability of making that judgement, their morals must come from somewhere OTHER than the Bible. To tell you the truth, I have no idea where the conscience comes from. But I DO know that it's not from the Bible. I've read enough of it to know that much. I started to doubt the existence of God (and the veracity of the Bible) during the summer after my junior year in high school. Since then, I've managed to live a pretty moral life. As a rule, I don't kill, steal, lie, or, in general, hurt people, at least on purpose. And I'm under the impression that most atheists live that way, too. I'm a good person. I'm a good person because I WANT to be, regardless of whether I'll wind up in heaven or hell for my actions. I'm sure that most Christians want to be good people (why else would they be in church, barring fear of eternal damnation?), but here's the thing. They'd still be good people even if they became atheists or stopped going to church. They'd go on loving the people they love, trusting the people they trust, and living their lives just like they always had. Being an atheist doesn't make someone a cruel, immoral demon incapable of love and kindness.
5. Fear of Hell if I didn't believe. Here's the problem with this one. Seriously doubting the existence of God also means seriously doubting the existence of the fiery place he sends people to if they don't behave. If it turns out that there is a God and that he is as benevolent as I was led to believe, I'm sure he'd much rather I actually thought about it, read his book, did my research, and came to my own conclusion, even if it is faulty, than worshiped out of fear for my own well-being. And if he doesn't want that? If the only criterion for getting into heaven is belief? Well, I guess that sucks for me then. But I can't live my life pretending to believe what I don't believe or pretending to worship someone I don't want to worship (for reasons explained in the next paragraph).
6. From the stories I heard, God seemed like a nice guy, like a guy I wanted to work for. Now, we've already talked about the things in the Bible I've got issues with (mass murder, genocide, and basically killing or hurting others just because God said to. Also, religion impeding on moral progress.) It makes sense to me why I wouldn't want to work for this guy.
7. I was HAPPY believing. I mean, I really, really was. I felt like I always had a friend watching over me. I'd look at a sunset and say “wow, God is awesome.” I'd see good things people were doing and praise God for them. So now that I can't believe anymore, you'd think I'd be unhappy, empty. But the fact is, I'm not. I have the same emotions as before, actually. I see good things people do and I'm happy. I see bad things people do and I'm sad. I see a sunset and I'm filled with wonder. If anything, my time here on earth is now MORE precious to me than it ever was because I know this is the only life I've got, and I'm not getting another one. To me, a universe that somehow came to support such diverse and complex life is even more beautiful and wondrous than one that just poofed into existence because someone willed it to. Yes, my faith was a comfort at times, especially when my dad died. Yes, sometimes things are harder because I don't have that comfort. In fact, one day last summer I realized that, according to my beliefs, I would never see my dad again. That was really, really hard to deal with. But do I wish that I could believe again just to have that comfort? No. I don't. I am a happy, balanced, moral human being, and I like myself how I am.
One last quote to leave you with:
“We [atheists] want to stand upon our own feet and look fair and square at the world – its good facts, its bad facts, its beauties, and its ugliness; see the world as it is and not be afraid of it.” - Bertrand Russell
** Website of some contradictions for you:
OT: http://skeptically.org/bible/id8.html NT:http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/paul_carlson/nt_contradictions.html
** Deuteronomy 21:18-21
** Deuteronomy 22:20-21
** Leviticus 25:44-46
** Exodus 21:7-11
** Exodus 21:20-21
** Deuteronomy 20:10-17, Deuteronomy 21:10-14, Judges 7:1-8, Exodus 17:16
*** Noah’s flood, anyone? (For a list a blogger put together of how many people God killed, see: http://dwindlinginunbelief.blogspot.com/2009/01/how-many-has-god-killed-revised_04.html)
All Bible quotes taken from the New International Version from www.biblegateway.com
• “The easy confidence with which I know another man’s religion is folly teaches me to suspect that my own is also.” -Mark Twain
• “It ain’t the parts of the Bible that I don’t understand that bother me, it’s the parts that I do understand.” -Mark Twain
• “I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.” -Stephen Roberts
• “It’s pretty easy to establish that you cannot change your beliefs on will (despite what some people claim). “Trying” to be an [Christian] just by pure will isn’t going to work. Atheism is more of a realization than anything; it involves reading the arguments and realizing that you agree with them… A Christian can no more try to be an atheist and succeed than an atheist can try to be a Christian and succeed.” –Kieran Bennett
First, I'd like to define my beliefs. I see myself as an agnostic atheist. I know that these seem like contradicting words, but they refer to two different things. The word "agnostic" refers to my knowledge: I don't claim to know anything about god with absolute certainty. The word "atheist" refers to my lack of belief in any gods. An atheist is not necessarily a person who believes with absolute certainty that there is no god. It simply refers to a person who does not hold a belief in god. Since I do not have a belief in god but I am not absolutely certain that one does not exist, I refer to myself as an "agnostic atheist".
To properly explain why I don't believe, I'd like to elaborate on the reasons I once did:
1. I'd been taught that God was real since birth.
2. Everyone that I knew and trusted believed in God.
3. I'd been taught that the Bible is truth.
4. It appeared to be true that belief in God resulted in goodness and morality, and that the only way to live a moral life was through Jesus.
5. Fear of Hell if I didn't believe.
6. From the stories I heard, God seemed like a nice guy, like a guy I wanted to work for.
7. I was HAPPY believing.
1. And 2. I'd been taught that God was real since birth. Everyone that I knew and trusted believed in God. I went to church every Sunday (and every Tuesday when I was in Catholic school!) God is real. God loves you. Jesus died for you. All of these stories really happened. I can prove it by this book here. All of that I believed as a child because why shouldn't I? Everything else I was taught was true: Don't touch that, it's hot. (I touched it. Yeah, it was hot.) Wear a jacket because it'll get cold later. (I didn't wear a jacket. It did get cold.) The tooth fairy will leave you some change for that tooth you just lost. (Well, the tooth was gone, and there was change there, so they must have been right!) Santa comes in the front door because we don't have a fireplace. (There were presents there, and they said “From Santa”!) God is real, and he sent his son down to die for your sins because he loves you. Okay, cool. Why shouldn't I believe it? The adults I trusted obviously did. And they were smart and I looked up to them, and it was a big part of their lives. It must be true. The problem with this is that I can't accept something just because someone else says it's true. Even if that someone else is someone I know and trust. I have to read the book and do the research for myself.
3. I'd been taught that the Bible is truth. I tried to read through it in eighth grade. I only got about halfway through Numbers and got really bored with all of the family trees and measurements of the temple and stuff. So I skipped to Psalms and read that, which I liked. I also read a few more books, and all of the gospels. I didn't understand some of the stuff, but I assumed it was because I wasn't an adult and that some concepts and vocabulary were beyond my capability to understand. I also was somehow not creeped out by all the talk about killing people. I assumed that it was just part of their culture at that time and that it didn't apply anymore. Then I went back and started reading parts of the Bible again in high school. It's not that I didn't understand before. It's that there actually are many, many contradictions in the Bible (sometimes within the same book!)** And the parts I just brushed off before? I can't get past those. There's so much unnecessary pain and death, all fully supported by God! Your kid's insubordinate? Take him to the elders and they'll stone him!** Your wife's not a virgin on your wedding night? You (along with the rest of your town, of course, don't want them to miss out on the party!) can just stone her!** Your fields are poorly tended? Just buy some slaves from your neighbouring countries (not from your own country though!)** Don't like your daughter much? Just sell her as a sex slave!** Your slaves aren't listening to you? Feel free to flog them to within an inch of their life (as long as you don't kill them!)** So taking into account all of the gruesome things God condones, all of the contradictions, and the fact that there is no proof whatsoever that this book is true (or even historically accurate), I just can't understand how I used to put so much stock in this book.
4. It appeared to be true that belief in God resulted in goodness and morality, and that the only way to live a moral life was through Jesus. My mom, dad, our whole family, families at our church, and my Catholic school teachers showed me that. Morality comes from the Bible. It's when you don't believe in the Bible that things go wrong. Further cementing that idea in my twelve-year-old mind was the tragedy on September 11th, 2001. The people who did that were Muslim. Oh, that explains it. Islam is a religion of violence, unlike our Christianity. The only problem? If you actually LOOK at the Bible, it's FULL of violence and war and pain and death. There are plagues and fiery serpents and holy wars (many, many holy wars). How much of that was really necessary? I mean, really? How many innocent people died because people were doing the “will of God”? How many continue to die? Here's a quote from Bertrand Russell that eloquently puts what I am trying to say: “In the so-called ages of faith, when men really did believe the Christian religion in all its completeness, there was the Inquisition, with all its tortures; there were millions of unfortunate women burned as witches; and there was every kind of cruelty practiced upon all sorts of people in the name of religion. You find as you look around the world that every single bit of progress in humane feeling, every improvement in the criminal law, every step toward the diminution of war, every step toward better treatment of the colored races, or every mitigation of slavery, every moral progress that there has been in the world, has been consistently opposed by the organized churches of the world. I say quite deliberately that the Christian religion, as organized in its churches, has been and still is the principal enemy of moral progress in the world.” There is absolutely no way to justify all of the death in the name of God, for ANY religion, not just Christianity. “They were doing what they thought was right” doesn't count. Would they have felt the need to go out and kill so many others if they didn't believe in God? No. But because their holy books said it was okay (good, even!) to do so, they did it.** Now, I'm not saying that belief in God makes anyone a bad person. I'm not saying that belief in God will make someone pick up the torches and pitchforks and go hunt witches. But I AM saying that absolute belief in something utterly improvable (especially when there are so many people with absolute belief in DIFFERENT improvable things) isn't good for society, or moral and intellectual progress.
Okay, so, does morality come from the Bible (or God or faith or religion)? No. Main argument: slavery. We as individuals and as a society agree that slavery is morally wrong. Yet, the Bible supports it. Oh, it's just a cultural difference, many people say. That's true. Does that matter? No. If people claim to get their morality from the Bible, they need get their morality from the Bible. That means accepting homosexuality is a sin, slavery is morally acceptable, and it's perfectly fine for whole civilizations to be wiped out, as long as God says it's okay.*** Now, most people would not agree with the previous sentence, even people who claim their faith is what keeps them on the straight and narrow. Why is that? Why do people who claim that they get their morals from the Bible, in fact, see some things in the Bible as morally wrong? If they have the capability of making that judgement, their morals must come from somewhere OTHER than the Bible. To tell you the truth, I have no idea where the conscience comes from. But I DO know that it's not from the Bible. I've read enough of it to know that much. I started to doubt the existence of God (and the veracity of the Bible) during the summer after my junior year in high school. Since then, I've managed to live a pretty moral life. As a rule, I don't kill, steal, lie, or, in general, hurt people, at least on purpose. And I'm under the impression that most atheists live that way, too. I'm a good person. I'm a good person because I WANT to be, regardless of whether I'll wind up in heaven or hell for my actions. I'm sure that most Christians want to be good people (why else would they be in church, barring fear of eternal damnation?), but here's the thing. They'd still be good people even if they became atheists or stopped going to church. They'd go on loving the people they love, trusting the people they trust, and living their lives just like they always had. Being an atheist doesn't make someone a cruel, immoral demon incapable of love and kindness.
5. Fear of Hell if I didn't believe. Here's the problem with this one. Seriously doubting the existence of God also means seriously doubting the existence of the fiery place he sends people to if they don't behave. If it turns out that there is a God and that he is as benevolent as I was led to believe, I'm sure he'd much rather I actually thought about it, read his book, did my research, and came to my own conclusion, even if it is faulty, than worshiped out of fear for my own well-being. And if he doesn't want that? If the only criterion for getting into heaven is belief? Well, I guess that sucks for me then. But I can't live my life pretending to believe what I don't believe or pretending to worship someone I don't want to worship (for reasons explained in the next paragraph).
6. From the stories I heard, God seemed like a nice guy, like a guy I wanted to work for. Now, we've already talked about the things in the Bible I've got issues with (mass murder, genocide, and basically killing or hurting others just because God said to. Also, religion impeding on moral progress.) It makes sense to me why I wouldn't want to work for this guy.
7. I was HAPPY believing. I mean, I really, really was. I felt like I always had a friend watching over me. I'd look at a sunset and say “wow, God is awesome.” I'd see good things people were doing and praise God for them. So now that I can't believe anymore, you'd think I'd be unhappy, empty. But the fact is, I'm not. I have the same emotions as before, actually. I see good things people do and I'm happy. I see bad things people do and I'm sad. I see a sunset and I'm filled with wonder. If anything, my time here on earth is now MORE precious to me than it ever was because I know this is the only life I've got, and I'm not getting another one. To me, a universe that somehow came to support such diverse and complex life is even more beautiful and wondrous than one that just poofed into existence because someone willed it to. Yes, my faith was a comfort at times, especially when my dad died. Yes, sometimes things are harder because I don't have that comfort. In fact, one day last summer I realized that, according to my beliefs, I would never see my dad again. That was really, really hard to deal with. But do I wish that I could believe again just to have that comfort? No. I don't. I am a happy, balanced, moral human being, and I like myself how I am.
One last quote to leave you with:
“We [atheists] want to stand upon our own feet and look fair and square at the world – its good facts, its bad facts, its beauties, and its ugliness; see the world as it is and not be afraid of it.” - Bertrand Russell
** Website of some contradictions for you:
OT: http://skeptically.org/bible/id8.html NT:http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/paul_carlson/nt_contradictions.html
** Deuteronomy 21:18-21
** Deuteronomy 22:20-21
** Leviticus 25:44-46
** Exodus 21:7-11
** Exodus 21:20-21
** Deuteronomy 20:10-17, Deuteronomy 21:10-14, Judges 7:1-8, Exodus 17:16
*** Noah’s flood, anyone? (For a list a blogger put together of how many people God killed, see: http://dwindlinginunbelief.blogspot.com/2009/01/how-many-has-god-killed-revised_04.html)
All Bible quotes taken from the New International Version from www.biblegateway.com
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
