While sitting at my beloved Boatdeck Cafe doing some programming, who I thought was a nice old woman came over to me and complimented me on my work ethic. Then she asked me if I’d accepted Jesus Christ as my saviour, and suffice to say things went downhill.
It’s been so heartening to see all the reports of assistance and aid pouring in from around the world for communities devastated in the Haiti earthquake disaster, but at the same time I’m angered beyond belief that some "people" (and I use the term in a loose Darwinian sense, not a moral one) are already exploiting the tragedy to further their own agendas. I guess I shouldn’t be surprised.
This is the third time I’ve written this post! All I wanted to say is, if I tell people I’m an atheist and they say "they’ll still pray for me", I find that to be a backhanded compliment at best, and condescending at worst. They might not mean it, but motive doesn’t negate the result.
Since posting version one of this though I’ve learned religious people are allowed to offend atheists, scientists, biologists, doctors and geologists whom they passionately (or often tacitly) disagree with, but if we’re offended and explain why as I did with my post, we’re called out as being rude and intolerant, along with several strings of four letter words.
It’s interesting that people can discuss their favourite music, author, politician and grilled cheese sandwich and discussions can occur, but if it’s about faith there’s an untouchable social taboo. Often being religious is enough; if most Christians meet a Hindu for example, they’ll get along just fine. If a religious person meets an atheist (or agnostic, or another non-believer) though, it’s automatically expected the atheist has to defend his or her position, and then to take insults without responding. It’s downright weird.
There’s also a popular analogy that "atheism is just another religion". Even if we weren’t to assist in the suicide of this fatuous proposition (thank you Christopher Hitchens for that line!) and we played along, why is it unique amongst religions in that it’s the only one that’s allowed to be criticised? If the answer is because atheists reject religious teachings, don’t different religions reject each others teachings too?
Given it was just recently the 4th of July in the United States, I’m reminded of that infamous passage in the Declaration of Independence:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.
Apparently though the next passage states that if you believe your creator was the beautiful and elegant universe which evolved in space and time, this does not apply. Good to know!
As I’ve said before, I don’t think the world would be better without religion per se (I love cultural festivals for example!), I just want the ability to one day have honest and meaningful conversations about them. I suspect that day will come, but it won’t be for a while. I’m guess I’m just sick of apologising!
To all my readers,
After my latest post concerning matters of religion and my assertion that "pro life" and "pro family" are misnomers, I received positive feedback from half a dozen people in various channels, rude emails from over ten people, and two comments here that included so many profanities and nothing of value I did what I thought I would never do here and decided not to publish them.
People obviously have heartfelt opinions on these issues and many are willing to discuss them in constructive ways, but a disproportionate number seem to be unable to post without resorting to ad hominum attacks on my character. To be blunt, I couldn’t be bothered dealing with these any more.
I am a proudly a humanist atheist and may on occasion relay some interesting sites I find here, but I will no longer be creating new posts from scratch about such material. If you have been offended by posts about religion I’ve posted here, believe me when I say it was not my intention and I apologise.
I’m looking forward to the day when I can have frank and honest discussions about religion and faith without being insulted by religious conservatives or being labelled intolerant by social liberals whom I identify with on virtually everything else. Clearly this time has not yet come.
If you came to my blog here expecting such material, I encourage you to click over to RichardDawkins.net, SamHarris.org, the Skeptics Annotated Bible, the Out Campaign and of course the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Searches for Russel’s Teapot, Occam’s Razor, Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Paine, humanism and secularism will also (to borrow a phrase) set you on the right path.
Sincerely,
Ruben
I was reading a book
Well maybe it was a magazine
Suggestions on where to place faith
Suggestions on what to believeBut I read somewhere that you’ve got to beware
You can’t believe anything you read
But the good book is good and that’s well understood
So don’t even question
If you know what I meanBut it’s all relative even if we don’t understand
And it’s all understood especially when we don’t understand
And it’s all just because
Even if we don’t understand then let’s all just believe~ Jack Johnson, "It’s All Understood"
Common sense, we hardly knew thee…
I’m well aware these observations have been made by many rational people before, but I’m just putting them on the record here too.
Everybody has the right to choose what they believe, but that doesn’t mean we should reject common sense. If certain religious beliefs (and conspiracy theories too while we’re at it) are hindering social, moral, scientific and medical progress, it’s time to review them. I know enough moderate religious people who agree with me on this to know it’s possible.
My last attempt at a post like this generated more hate mail than any I’ve ever had before. Hey, as long as people are thinking about these issues I’m (as I always say) cautiously optimistic :-).
I seem to be having trouble with Google Reader this afternoon, it won’t let me comment on stories (perhaps it’s frustrated I haven’t cooked a grilled cheese sandwich in a few days). So instead I’m posting the story summaries here and commenting on them with Clipmarky goodness!
RichardDawkins.net: Bloomington Rejects ‘You Can Be Good Without God’; Lawsuit Underway
Bloomington was first on the Indiana Atheist Bus Campaign’s list of places it hoped to run bus ads. However, the city has rejected our campaign’s slogan, ‘You Can Be Good Without God.’ This is deeply disappointing to our campaign’s members; we all love Bloomington and were very much hoping to run ads in our hometown along with many other cities.
I have a hard time believing that faith in Gods is a nesissary precondition to being good. In fact, I’d wager more than a few grilled sandwiches that people who don’t believe are often more moral because they’re not just doing things for a divine reward or because they’re afraid of the divine Hell punishment if they don’t, they’re moral because they they know it’s the right thing to do.
Conversely, I have a hard time believing my religious friends who are moral, honest and caring people would regress into immoral, nasty people if religion disappeared, or that they’re only friendly people because they’re religious. It’s an insult to their character.
What I find interesting is that Christianity uses the threat of everlasting Hell to scare people into believing, but Judaism doesn’t: at least not in the same sense. When I was really studying religion a few years ago I was told that the closest the Jewish faith has to a Hell is "Gehenna" which is more akin to purgatory or a waiting area where wicked people are sent for a definite period of time, measured in months. Judaism also has what I would consider an enlightened, almost Buddhist philosophy that hell is also a mental state where the feelings of shame you have is the punishment itself. I don’t believe in the Jewish faith as much as I don’t believe in any other for the reasons I’ve stated many times here, but it’s an interesting observation.
Now I really am going to Hell aren’t I? ^_^
Epicurus bust at the Louvre
Ever since my coming out as an atheist and subsequent family events that were made more complex by religion, I’ve been posting occasionally on the topic on Twitter and on my blog here; some have supported me, most have sent hate mail! I find it ironic that some religious people feel they have a right to post comments about their faith, but if agnostics or atheists do the same thing we’re being rude. Ah well, you can’t win them all!
In the years since this self realisation I’ve come to think the term "atheist" is a bit too narrow, and with the automatic angry knee jerk reaction so many religious people seem to have when they see the term, I’ve been looking into others. Think of it as a philosophical quest to save my arse.
For example, as an atheist I assert there has never been sufficient scientific or empirical evidence produced to rationally believe in deities; as an antitheist I believe the religions themselves are the problem given they can be interpreted in so many ways and that the perceived benefits of religions pale in comparison to the corrosive effects on politics and medicine they’re having around the world; as a scientist I reject the disproved and implausible (if not completely impossible) theories of young earth creationism and intelligent design, as well as the stories of Noah’s Ark and so on.
With all this combined, I just feel as though if as much time, money and effort was accorded to real people instead, the world would be a better place. I know there almost certainly isn’t a God or an afterlife, so the best moral guides we have are the universal golden rule, and instead of waiting for a Heaven, we should be trying to create it here.
As it turns out, there is a school of thought that thinks like all of the above, and it’s called humanism. When I read the first paragraph on Wikipedia about it, I felt like leaping out of my computer chair and shouting Eureka!
Humanism is a broad category of ethical philosophies that affirm the dignity and worth of all people, based on the ability to determine right and wrong by appealing to universal human qualities, particularly rationality, without resorting to the supernatural or alleged divine authority from religious texts.
The article goes on to explain how morals should evolve and be derived from social necessity not rigid texts:
Humanism can be considered as a process by which truth and morality is sought through human investigation; as such, views on morals can change when new knowledge and information is discovered. In focusing on the capacity for self-determination, humanism rejects transcendental justifications, such as a dependence on faith, the supernatural, or texts of allegedly divine origin.
I also really related to this one line under the Knowledge subheading:
In demanding that humans avoid blindly accepting unsupported beliefs, [humanism] supports scientific skepticism and the scientific method, rejecting authoritarianism and extreme skepticism, and rendering faith an unacceptable basis for action.
I’m usually not a fan of labels because they tend to oversimplify people’s beliefs and views on a subject, but I feel proud identifying myself as a humanist now. It just surprises me that a movement like this has existed for so long and that is identical to my own views and beliefs, and I didn’t really know about it!
It’s also relieving in a way to discover there are other people out there who share my views. I feel much less isolated today.
Sad news being reported by South Australia’s Greens senator Mark Parnell this month. It’s really sad this kind of discrimination is still legal in this day and age.
I’ve previously blogged about Mark Parnell here. We need more people like him in politics.
Critical amendments to the Equal Opportunity Act that will allow religious schools to continue to discriminate against gay teachers have passed the SA Upper House with the support of Liberals, Family First and No Pokies.
“The Greens were extremely disappointed that Labor had previously backed down on removing discrimination against teachers on the basis of sexuality. Now, this already compromised Bill has been compromised again.
“An individual’s sexuality or chosen gender has absolutely no impact on their ability to teach well. So why will schools be able to discriminate on that basis?
“Freedom from discrimination on the basis of a person’s sexuality is a basic human right. Our state used to have an enviable reputation for progressive social policy. Not any more” he said.
 |
Sam Harris, photo by Sara Allan from Skeptic.com. One of the people on my life list of people I’d love to meet. And he has a sense of humour!
It seems one of my more philosophical posts from March last year is still stirring up controversy. I commented on a BBC report that stated religious people are happier than the non-religious, then proceeded to pontificate on the reasons why our brains crave faith without evidence, and how wishing something to be true isn’t evidence in it’s favour.
A comment posted this afternoon to my moderation queue from Mari Thomas got the grey matter pumping again:
I commend you for realizing that holding to a belief simply because of comfort or pleasant results is not necessarily worthwhile. For our beliefs about life to be worthwhile, those beliefs must be based upon truth– evidence. Faith without a knowledge of the evidence behind it is, indeed, lacking in value.
Various religions and beliefs about God abound around the world. Beware of the weighty assumption that there is no God. This assumption permeates the mind similar to the blind acceptance of religion.
If you desire to be open-minded, I challenge you to research the records of history to see if the evidence reveals that there is or is not a God.
I am a Christian, but not simply because of what I have been taught. I believe that the historical evidence of Christ points to the truth of His claim “For God so loved the world that He gave His only Son that whoever believes in Him shall not perish but have eternal life.”
I recommend the book Evidence for Christianity by Josh McDowell. It portrays some of the evidence found by the man who set out to disprove Christianity and was against religion in general. Interesting and worthwhile material.
Rather than specifically defending my position and launching into a debate as to the authenticity of the Bible which would unravel any subsequent arguments, I thought I’d try a fresh approach:
I appreciate your comment Mari, but I would say that if you are to challenge me to look into the evidence for your particular God and faith, I would challenge you to do the same. As the author of "The End of Faith" Sam Harris said, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and the evidence provided in defence of any religion so far is either insufficient or (for want of a better word)… terrible!
I admire that you have the conviction to not believe something unless it’s true. As I do, you clearly don’t believe in any other religions because there’s insufficient or terrible evidence for them, so I know it’s possible for you to visualise how others view yours.
I don’t try to convert people, but for many of those who’ve tried to call me out on my atheism before have at least conceded this point. By all means be a Christian, but I’d advise against using the reason that there’s evidence for it to justify it.
I do approve of hearty philosophical discussions, but I’m starting to think I may need another blog or avenue to do it… at some point on a software blog I should talk about software ^_^. I’m not Bill Kurtis.
Hi! I'm Ruben Schade and this is my labour of love blog from beautiful Singapore and Sydney.
I also lurk on Twitter, Flickr, Google Reader and lots more places.
