Atheism 101
ATHEISM 101
By August Berkshire (Download PDF)
Definitions
An agnostic is a person who has no (scientific) knowledge of any gods. This describes everybody. People who nevertheless believe in at least one god are theists. People who lack a belief in all gods are atheists. People who don’t care enough to take a position are apatheists. Most atheists disbelieve in the existence of anything supernatural.
Burden of Proof
A theist makes the positive claim that at least one god does exist. Therefore, theists have the burden of proof to demonstrate the existence of a god
Atheists do not have to “disprove” the existence of gods. Atheists need only demonstrate that there is no evidence or compelling reason to believe in any gods.
Worldviews
The theistic worldview presupposes the existence of one or more supernatural beings and/or a supernatural world that precedes and supercedes the natural world. Typically, a supernatural god creates the natural world out of nothing and rules over it. This is a “top-down” view of existence.
The atheistic worldview observes the natural world and makes no leaps of faith regarding the existence of a supernatural world or beings. This is a “bottom-up” view of existence.
Six Questions
There are no verifiable answers to any of the following six questions:
- What are gods composed of? – What is “spirit”?
- What are the attributes of gods? – Stories of various gods list differing attributes: eternal vs. being born and dying; omni-present vs. confined to certain areas; all-powerful vs. limited powers; all-knowing vs. limited knowledge; all-loving vs. evil vs. temperamental vs. indifferent.
- What mechanisms do gods use to accomplish things? – How does a god create something from nothing? How does a god tinker with our DNA? “Miracles” and “magic” are not useful answers.
- How many gods are there?
- Where are gods located?
- What difference does it make? – If the god that most people believe exists were to suddenly disappear, what would change in the natural world?
Six Problems
- The Problem of Scale – If humans are the ultimate goal of a god’s creation of the universe, why did this god create 100 billion galaxies when only a single star and a single planet were necessary? Why did 12 billion years pass before we showed up?
- The Problem of Silence – If a god exists who wants us to be aware of its existence, then why doesn’t it clearly reveal itself? And if the punishment for not believing is eternal hellfire, then it is cruel for this god not to convincingly reveal itself.
- The Problem of Holy Books – If a god exists who wants us to understand him, why are his “revelations” so confusing? Why do we have so many different religions and holy books?
- The Problem of Evil – If a god exists who is both all-powerful and all-loving, then why do natural evils, such as natural disasters, diseases, and birth defects, exist?
- The Problem of Unintelligent Design – If an all-powerful, all-wise god designed us and other life forms, why didn’t he do a better job? For example, why do our breathing and swallowing passages intersect so that we can choke to death on food? Why have 99% of all species that have ever existed gone extinct? (See the website: “Some More of God’s Greatest Mistakes” at tinyurl.com/BadDesign)
- The Problem of Free Will – If a god exists who knows the future, this means humans have no free will. Yet it is often claimed that this god will judge, reward, and punish us based on our free will choices.
Nine Leaps of Faith
The god that most people believe exists requires at least nine separate leaps of faith:
- Something supernatural can exist.
- A supernatural being exists.
- This being has consciousness.
- This being is eternal.
- This being created something out of nothing.
- This being can interfere with this creation through miracles.
- This being is all-knowing.
- This being is all-powerful.
- This being is all-loving.
Meaning
There is no “cosmic meaning” to life. Evolution supplies us with drives to survive, have sex (reproduce), and care for others. To accomplish this, we acquire knowledge and live in communities. Learning and interacting with the world and others gives our lives meaning, without the need for belief in a god.
Ethics
Imagine a mother with two children, a girl and a boy. Now imagine that the girl starts hitting the boy. Does the mother reflexively say to her daughter: “Stop hitting your brother because it says not to in the [Torah/Bible/Koran/Vedas/etc.]?” No. At that point gods and religions are not what she is thinking about.
Instead, doesn’t the mother say something like: “Stop hitting your brother; you’re hurting him!” (consequences) or “Stop hitting your brother; how would you like it if someone hit you!” (empathy)
Consequences and empathy are the bases for natural ethics. These lead to cooperation and compassion, which are found in many animals, including humans.
Science and Religion
Evidence-based science and faith-based religion are only compatible if religion either makes no testable claims, or the results of testable religious claims are not at odds with scientific findings.
For example: To say that a god created evolution is not a testable claim, though it at least accepts the evidence for evolution. To say a god created the universe 6,000 years ago is a testable claim and is false.
God-of-the-Gaps
When some people don’t know or don’t like a natural explanation for something, they say, “God did it.” The gap that “God” fills can be physical or emotional.
However, we are never told what a god is or exactly how a god does anything. Thus “God” is not a useful answer because it provides us with no information.
Usually, people who believe a god exists and is providing them with answers dare not displease this god. So they endow him with all good attributes and blame themselves for the problem of evil.
- Science: The first and traditional area where god-of-the-gaps is used is science. So, for example, when humans didn’t know what caused lightning, they invented a “God of Lightning.” Then we discovered electricity. In fact, god-of-the-gaps is the basis for creationism and the “Intelligent Design” movement: “This thing is so complicated that we can’t figure out how it could have evolved naturally, so ‘God did it.’ ”
- Medicine: The human body has great healing powers of its own, which are not fully understood. Yet when someone is healed for reasons we don’t understand, some people say “God did it.” But if prayer and “divine intervention” were really reliable methods of healing, there would be no need for hospitals. A true miracle, like an amputated limb growing back on a human, never happens.
- Ethics: For emotional and practical reasons, we may want there to be a system of absolute ethics. Since nature doesn’t provide this, some people claim that “God did it” through “revelation.” Yet even within Christianity there is no agreement on the ethics of such things as: drinking alcohol, masturbation, pre-marital sex, contraception, abortion, divorce, the role of women, gay rights, the death penalty, and voluntary euthanasia.
- Meaning in Life: We have an emotional desire to have a “cosmic meaning” in life. Since nature doesn’t provide one, some people invent a god to give them one.
- Emotional Security: People naturally seek emotional security during uncertain or troubled times. We’ve all heard the phrase “I had no where else to turn, so I turned to God.” God-belief may indeed have a placebo, calming effect, but it’s the belief that is responsible. A god doesn’t really have to exist.
- Afterlife: Our survival instincts make us want to live forever. Nature doesn’t provide for this, so some people invent a god to give them an “afterlife.”
© 2010 August Berkshire
A “Fine-Tuned” Universe as Proof of a God?
A “Fine-Tuned” Universe as Proof of a God?
By August Berkshire [PDF Download]
There are many people who believe that if one or more physics constants of the Universe had varied only slightly, they would have produced a universe incapable of supporting life. For example, if the gravitational constant had been slightly greater, the Universe would have collapsed back in upon itself before any life had a chance to form.
Some religious people look at this supposedly “fine-tuned” Universe and claim it is proof that a god exists who did the fine-tuning. Let us examine this claim.
God-of-the-Gaps
At heart, this is a god-of-the-gaps argument. It says that if we can’t think of a probable natural way that conditions could have resulted in life in the Universe, then a supernatural “god” did it. However, we don’t know what this god is, nor how it accomplishes anything. Therefore, “god” is not a meaningful answer because it provides us with no information.
Religious people claim that we aren’t entitled to a “free lunch” regarding a natural explanation for life in the Universe. But “god” is the ultimate unexplained “free lunch.”
The Universe
Most of the Universe is decidedly inhospitable to life. Outer space is deadly to anything other than, perhaps, microbes – and the majority of planets, moons, and asteroids aren’t much better.
Judging by what we observe now, the Universe will continue expanding forever, creating a “big chill” effect. Heat energy will be so dissipated that no life will be possible. A person alive just before this happens won’t view things as so “miraculously fine-tuned” as some religious people do today.
Our Sun
While natural conditions are favorable for life on Earth now, this won’t be true in about five billion years. At that point the Sun’s supply of hydrogen will run out and the Sun will expand and engulf the Earth, wiping out all life. Even a billion years from now, all water will have boiled off the Earth, making life improbable, if not impossible. Again, a person alive just before either of these events occurs won’t view things as so “miraculously fine-tuned” as some religious people do today.
The Earth
Apart from the Universe, some people claim the Earth itself is so fine-tuned for life (the proper distance from the Sun, the right kind of elements, etc.) that only a god could have established it. This, of course, is the same god-of-the-gaps argument that we encountered with the “fine-tuned” Universe.
But instead of asking about the odds of life as we know it arising through natural processes on this particular planet (Earth), we should instead ask about the odds of life of any kind arising naturally on any planet. It is estimated that there are 100 billion galaxies in the Universe (containing trillions of planets). If only one planet per galaxy had the right conditions to produce some kind of life, that would still amount to 100 billion planets and at least 100 billion different species.
Limited Knowledge
The fined-tuned Universe argument for a god assumes that what we know about the Universe today is accurate. But this is cutting edge physics and what we believe to be true today is far from certain. Even now there is dispute among physicists as to how much these constants of the Universe can vary and still produce a universe capable of leading to life.
Multiple Universes
Extraordinary odds against life in one universe become a near certainty if there are many universes. If many universes exist (sometimes called a “multiverse”) and each universe has its own random set of constants, then life will almost certainly arise in at least one of these universes. (For example, roll a set of dice long enough and you will eventually get two sixes.)
While there is, as yet, no evidence for other universes, their existence is more plausible than the existence of a god. After all, we know it’s possible for universes to exist – we live in one. We have no evidence that it is possible for gods to exist.
A Fine-Tuned God?
Those who believe a “fine-tuned” Universe proves the existence of a god admit that there is some slight margin for variance in these physics constants of the Universe. But what about the god they believe exists? Could that god be anything other than exactly what it is? If not, then there is zero margin for variance for that god. So, as improbable as the existence of life in the Universe may seem, the existence of a god would be even more improbable. It also begs the question: Who or what fine-tuned this god?
Conclusion
The track record of naturalistic science for answering questions about the natural world far exceeds the track record of supernatural “revelation.” The existence of a god seems more improbable than life arising naturally on its own in the Universe. “God” has not provided us with any answers and has instead raised more questions.
© 2010 August Berkshire
Ethics & Unity in the Atheist/Humanist Movement
Ethics and Unity in the Atheist/Humanist Movement
by August Berkshire
Does being an atheist or a humanist automatically make a person ethical? If we can admit there are some atheist people and groups that are unethical, small in number though they may be, how does this affect the unity we are trying to achieve?
Two of the greatest concerns, internally, of the atheist/humanist movement are ethics and unity. Unfortunately, these are sometimes at odds with each other. For the sake of ethics, it would be necessary to forgo total unity in our movement; unethical people or groups would be excluded. Alternately, for the sake of total unity, it would be necessary to overlook major ethical lapses.
So which is the correct road to take? I would argue that if we forgo ethics, then religion has already won, no matter how much unity we have. Furthermore, if we do not place a priority on ethics, we loose our standing to critique the ethical lapses of religious people and groups without being hypocrites and losing credibility ourselves. We must be consistent and avoid a double standard.
I have noticed that humanists have tended to put more emphasis on ethics and atheists have tended to put more emphasis on unity. There are traditional and definitional reasons for this. Atheism has been more concerned with critiquing religion and humanism has been more concerned with what kind of life we lead once we have dispensed with gods.
This is not to suggest that people who primarily identify as humanists aren’t sometimes unethical too. The point is that most humanist groups make an explicit effort to address the issue of ethics, whereas many atheist groups have not reached that stage yet.
In addition to traditional and definitional reasons, I believe there is a further, evolutionary reason for this difference in emphasis between humanism/ethics and atheism/unity. When threatened, a social species like humans often seeks safety in numbers. Unity for survival is paramount; ethics are a luxury.
Historically, humanists have not felt attacked the way atheists have. In fact, most people don’t even know what a “humanist” is, often mistaking it for a word that already has a positive connotation: “humane.” This has allowed humanists the opportunity to contemplate issues beyond survival, such as how to live an ethical life.
In contrast, there has hardly been a time or place in the history of humanity when atheists have not been under attack. This has caused some atheists to believe that the ends justify the means in fighting back against religion. Ethics fall by the wayside in the fight for survival.
Is the solution, then, for us all to just call ourselves “humanists,” to get religion off our backs in order to give us a breather so we can better pursue ethics? No, the word “atheist” cannot be avoided because it is an accurate description of who we are.
Because survival is paramount (often expressed as victimization by and anger towards religion), many atheists would rather shoot the messenger who points out unethical atheist behavior than examine the message. While we are right to be concerned about unethical religious activity, should we not be equally upset by unethical activity within our own movement?
Tellingly, those who favor the inclusion of unethical people or groups in freethought coalitions will use words like “unity” or “censorship” to defend their position. However, a word I have never heard them use is “ethical.”
One would think, from a marketing point of view at the very least, that atheists would care more about ethics than they do. After all, it is the number one accusation made against us by religious people: That we can’t be good without god.
By embracing unethical atheist people and groups and bringing them into the fold, perhaps some people believe we can get them to improve their behavior. I have not seen this route be successful. Unity should be withheld until ethical behavior is achieved. Unethical people and groups should be marginalized, not embraced.
Or, do some people believe that by enveloping an unethical person or group in a larger freethought group that we can cover it up? How ethical is that?
To those who believe in total unity at all costs, I say that unethical behavior is too high a price to pay for unity. Are we so naïve or desperate that we have to put up with unethical behavior? I hope not.
The vast majority of all atheists and humanists lead ethical lives. And, since atheism and humanism are increasing, this demonstrates that an ethical approach to atheism/humanism works. So, not only can we support ethics above total unity because it is the right thing to do, we can relax and do so because it is also the practical thing to do.
© 2009 August Berkshire
This essay was published in the January-March 2010 issue of Secular Nation magazine.
Season’s Greetings From The Secular Side
Motivations may vary, but we all can spread joy and goodwill at this time of year
By August Berkshire
Nevertheless, in case you were wondering, here are the plans some of us have for December.
The cards we will be purchasing will not say “Merry Christmas” (or “Happy Hanukah” or “Happy Eid”) but rather “Season’s Greetings.”
After all, the original “reason for the season” is the winter solstice, which has long been appropriated by religious people to celebrate the birth or rebirth of their sun/savior gods. Nowadays, with religion in decline, the reason for the season is becoming merely a time for festivities. What’s wrong with that?
The trees that many of us will have in our homes will have colorful lights, originally symbolic of the post-solstice lengthening of days, but now just a pretty sight.
Of course, we will not have angels on top of our trees. We know this will make us unpatriotic as, in this economy, it is likely to lead the treetop-angel-making industry to seek a federal bailout.
The meals we will share will not have prayers said over them, but we will give thanks to those who provided them and to our families and friends.
The songs we sing will be secular – “Jingle Bells,” etc. But, fear not: Atheists are just as likely to sing them out of tune as religious people, though we will derive no less joy.
And jolly old Santa Claus? Well, the disappearance of milk and cookies left out for him and the appearance of wrapped presents are evidence in the minds of many that he exists. We’ll relax our skeptical standards for a day and leave Santa’s existence up to each person’s imagination.
© 2008 August Berkshire. This essay was published in the [Minneapolis] Star Tribune on November 23, 2008.
Inter-Non-Faith Dialogue, Part 2
Inter-Non-Faith Dialogue, Part 2
by August Berkshire
Cast:
Noah Waye, President of Universal Atheists
Mae Bea Something, President of Unitarian Universalists
Johnny [Janey] B. Goode, President of Universal Humanists
Ida Know, President of Universal Agnostics
Sonny Demeanor, President of Universal Brights
Set & Props:
A long table behind which are four chairs, with room for a fifth chair on the end, which is currently slightly off to the side. Or, five microphone stands with music stands in front of them to hold scripts. (If this many microphones are not available, two or more characters can share one mic. Preferably the Atheist would not be sharing a mic with anyone.)
Five signs or t-shirts saying: “Atheist”; “Humanist”; “Unitarian Universalist” or “UU”; “Agnostic” or “?”; and “Bright” or a picture of a light bulb. The first four descriptions of people, as well as the people themselves, are visible as the play opens. The last description (Bright) is added after that character enters. If signs are used, they may be placards on the table or hung in front of the microphone stands.
Scene:
The skit opens with the Atheist, Humanist, Unitarian Universalist, and Agnostic on stage.
Atheist: Welcome to the second annual Inter-Non-Faith Dialogue. My name is Noah Waye and I am the president of the Universal Atheists. This year, in addition to an atheist, a humanist, and a Unitarian Universalist, we haven’t forgotten to include an agnostic… though I don’t know why… Before we begin, it’s become our custom, since last year, to call on the president of the Unitarian Universalists, Mae Bea Something, to give us an opening invocation.
UU: Thank you, Noah. Oh, God, whom some of us call “nature,” and some of us call “the universal force,” and some of us call “the great unknown,” and some of us call…
Atheist: (interrupting) Yes, we get the point. Please move on.
UU: (slightly startled and recollecting herself) Oh, God, teach us to have faith in your non-existence…
Atheist: (interrupting again) That’s not exactly how it works…
UU: (unruffled this time, and slightly annoyed) We ask this is the name of that which has no name…
Atheist: Okay, enough! (takes an exasperated breath). And now I’d like to introduce the president of the Universal Humanists, Johnny B. Goode.
Humanist: Thank you, Noah. I’d like to say how much I appreciate all the human effort that has gone into setting up tonight’s program. Why, without humans…
Atheist: Yes… Well… thank you, Johnny. And finally I’d like to introduce the president of the Universal Agnostics. What was your name again?
Agnostic: Ida Know.
Atheist: Well, I don’t know either, that’s why I’m asking…
Agnostic: No, it’s IDA… KNOW.
UU: Did you every play third base in baseball?
Agnostic: IDA KNOW!
Humanist: You’d think that’s something a person wouldn’t forget…
Agnostic: My name is IDA: I-D-A, KNOW: K-N-O-W…
UU: Oh. I’m sorry, Ida. Our apologies. I guess we can blame your name on your parents. What were their names?
Agnostic: My father is African. His name is Dontwanna Know. And my mother is Swedish. Her name is Intha Know.
Humanist: (sympathetically) Sounds like you had a very confused upbringing…
Agnostic: (shrugging it off; nonchalantly) Oh, I don’t know…
Bright: (rushing in from off stage) Wait a minute, aren’t you forgetting someone?!
Atheist: Who are you?
Bright: I’m Sonny Demeanor and I’m the President of the Universal Brights.
UU: But it isn’t universally bright, except at the North or South Pole, and only then for six months a year…
Humanist: Or in outer space!…
Bright: No, no, no! The Universal Brights… the Bright Movement…
Agnostic: Does that have anything to do with florescent light bulbs?
Bright: Brights! We’re people who don’t believe in the supernatural…
UU: So you’re an atheist!
Bright: (like a schoolyard taunt) Look who’s talking! You’re an atheist too, so there!
UU: Am not!
Bright: Are too!
UU: Not all the time! Sometimes I might not be!
Agnostic: (Interrupting, out of the blue, perhaps as if talking loudly to himself) I don’t know…
Atheist: Alright, whatever… I think we can all agree… at least sometimes… or on some days of the week… that the supernatural doesn’t exist.
Bright: Yes!
UU: It depends if you mean that literally, figuratively, metaphorically, or symbolically…
Humanist: I think “week” is a very Euro-centric measure of time…
Atheist: (exasperated) What does that have to do with the existence of gods?!
Bright: (helpfully, insightfully) Some of the days of the week are named after gods.
Agnostic: So if the days of the week exist, does that mean those gods exist too?
UU: It’s a good thing this meeting isn’t being held on Thor’s Day.
Humanist: What have you got against Thor? Oh, sure, his lightning bolts would do some damage from time to time, but…
Atheist: You’re missing the point – Thor doesn’t even exist!
Agnostic: (genuinely puzzled) How do you know?
Bright: (in a know-it-all fashion) Because lightning is caused by electricity…
Humanist: (philosophically) But do we really know what electricity is?
UU: (even more deeply philosophical) For that matter, do we really know what reality is?
Atheist: I’m getting really tired of this! Let’s get back on track here. A lot of times at conferences like these they issue a statement at the end that everyone agrees with…
Humanist: Sounds good to me!
Bright: Me too!
UU: Me too!
Agnostic: I think so!
Atheist: (relieved) You know, that’s the first thing we’ve agreed on all day.
Bright: You’re right!
(The next series of events happens while the Atheist looks on bewildered, not believing what he’s hearing.)
UU: So our statement will be: “We all agree that conferences like this usually produce a statement we can all agree with.”
Humanist: I second that motion!
Bright: All in favor?
(Agnostic begins rubbing his eye, as if there’s something caught in it.)
UU: Aye!
Bright: Aye!
Agnostic: Eye…
Humanist: I think “aye” [“I”] sounds a little too selfish. Why don’t we all vote by saying “you”?
Agnostic (stops rubbing his eye, looking bewildered) You?
UU: You!
Bright: You!
Humanist: You!
Atheist: You – have got to be kidding. (turning to audience) And there you have it. A rare moment of agreement in the Non-Faith Community… I think… Thank you all for coming here today. Join us again next year for our third annual Inter-Non-Faith Dialogue.
—–
“Woden’s Day” may be substituted for “Thor’s Day” if the skit is performed on a Thursday.
This skit was first performed on December 20, 2009 at the Freethought Follies in St. Louis Park, Minnesota, hosted by the Humanists of Minnesota and Minnesota Atheists.
© 2008-2009 August Berkshire