Regular visitors to this site are well aware of the fact that The Atheist Missionary pseudonym is a bit of a pun because I am nor trying to convert anybody to any particular ideology. Atheism is not an ideology - it is a rejection of dogma. Atheism is simply the application of skepticism to religious belief systems which are devoid of factual foundation. The definition of religious faith is belief without evidence. In fact, insisting on evidence is often seen as a flaw by religious believers. If I believe anything, with every fibre of my being, it is that this kind of thinking is dangerous.
Another popular misconception (also propagated by my blog title) is that atheists advance their cause with the same religious conviction as those who rely on holy books to base their moral compasses. This is false and I'll let you in on a little secret: there is no such thing as an atheist - we are all agnostics. I have never met an atheist who would not be willing to admit the existence of a supernatural being upon presentation of satisfactory proof. On the other hand, you will find that most "faithful" find it difficult to provide an answer when they are asked: what would it take to convince you that there is no God? - see my post: http://www.atheistmissionary.com/2009/04/iders-what-conceivable-observation.html That is because most of them have put on mental blinders which is just a polite way of saying that they are deluding themselves.
This post was inspired by my 3 year old son (he's actually almost 4). He is currently enamored with the suggestion that God made everything. I'm not sure who supplied him with this suggestion but it certainly wasn't his parents. However, I see no more harm in him relying on that suggestion at his age than I do in him believing in Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny or the Tooth Fairy. The explanation of God (whatever he believes he, she or it to be) must be incredibly satisfying to him as he tries to figure out the complexity of the world around him. He doesn't have to worry about where things came from and can concentrate on understanding what is around him and how everything works.
I have blogged in the past about why I believe that indoctrinating children with religion is harmful: http://www.atheistmissionary.com/2009/02/does-teaching-your-child-to-believe-in.html If my kids want to grow up and believe that a Galilean jew died, started to rot, came back to life, He was God in the flesh and that the Bible is His word, that is their right .... but it won't be because they were taught from an early age that this is true.
As many smarter than I have pointed out, there is a basic problem with conjecturing that an omnscient, omnipotent and omnipresent being created our world (if you are a creationist) or was responsible for triggering the Big Bang from a singularity (if you are a Christian but accept scientific explanations for the beginnings of the universe) - it merely raises the question of how the triple O being evolved. If a believer can accept the idea of an infinite being without requiring that being to have a creator, why do they insist on us having a creator? The answer to this conundrum is complex but definitely includes the following:
1. Religious belief gives them comfort - it has not been called the opiate of the masses for nothing;
2. Religious belief appears to have evolved in humans and may have deep biological roots. I am currently reading a fascinating book by British biologist Lewis Wolpert on this issue: Six Impossible Things Before Breakfast: The Evolutionary Origins of Belief. Book report forthcoming.
3. Religious belief has usually been drilled into them from an early age and, if not, they have not skeptically analysed what they have been asked to believe.
Another popular misconception (also propagated by my blog title) is that atheists advance their cause with the same religious conviction as those who rely on holy books to base their moral compasses. This is false and I'll let you in on a little secret: there is no such thing as an atheist - we are all agnostics. I have never met an atheist who would not be willing to admit the existence of a supernatural being upon presentation of satisfactory proof. On the other hand, you will find that most "faithful" find it difficult to provide an answer when they are asked: what would it take to convince you that there is no God? - see my post: http://www.atheistmissionary.com/2009/04/iders-what-conceivable-observation.html That is because most of them have put on mental blinders which is just a polite way of saying that they are deluding themselves.
This post was inspired by my 3 year old son (he's actually almost 4). He is currently enamored with the suggestion that God made everything. I'm not sure who supplied him with this suggestion but it certainly wasn't his parents. However, I see no more harm in him relying on that suggestion at his age than I do in him believing in Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny or the Tooth Fairy. The explanation of God (whatever he believes he, she or it to be) must be incredibly satisfying to him as he tries to figure out the complexity of the world around him. He doesn't have to worry about where things came from and can concentrate on understanding what is around him and how everything works.
I have blogged in the past about why I believe that indoctrinating children with religion is harmful: http://www.atheistmissionary.com/2009/02/does-teaching-your-child-to-believe-in.html If my kids want to grow up and believe that a Galilean jew died, started to rot, came back to life, He was God in the flesh and that the Bible is His word, that is their right .... but it won't be because they were taught from an early age that this is true.
As many smarter than I have pointed out, there is a basic problem with conjecturing that an omnscient, omnipotent and omnipresent being created our world (if you are a creationist) or was responsible for triggering the Big Bang from a singularity (if you are a Christian but accept scientific explanations for the beginnings of the universe) - it merely raises the question of how the triple O being evolved. If a believer can accept the idea of an infinite being without requiring that being to have a creator, why do they insist on us having a creator? The answer to this conundrum is complex but definitely includes the following:
1. Religious belief gives them comfort - it has not been called the opiate of the masses for nothing;
2. Religious belief appears to have evolved in humans and may have deep biological roots. I am currently reading a fascinating book by British biologist Lewis Wolpert on this issue: Six Impossible Things Before Breakfast: The Evolutionary Origins of Belief. Book report forthcoming.
3. Religious belief has usually been drilled into them from an early age and, if not, they have not skeptically analysed what they have been asked to believe.
So the answer to why all children believe (or at least could believe) in God is really the same answer to why many people continue to cling to the belief into adulthood: it provides a simplistic and comforting explanation for what they don't understand.
Only thing I would say is that words have meaning, and agnosticism has a very different meaning to atheism. Lack of belief is a spectrum which encompasses agnoticism but agnosticism is about not being able to know the nature (or will) of a god.
ReplyDeleteAside from that I concur.
I think the most obvious comfort that many find from the concepts of God and Heaven has to with death. When a loved one dies, it is peaceful to conclude that the person is somewhere better and may in fact have been chosen to leave this Earth early because of his/her moral compass. I have no problem with the survivor(s) getting comfort from that in their time of need.
ReplyDeleteBut do not live your life as if it is a "dry run" for the real thing later on; what a waste of your time here and now.
Your playing with fire with the things you say on this blog. And you simply cannot know the reason and motivations for why people believe what they do without committing the error of being overly simplistic because you forget that believe is a personal choice. It is a different way of thinking about oneself and is not how you would put it "dangerous", the danger is when you start projecting unto others but that is not belief is. Atheism would be a lot more interesting if it called itself philosophy and stopped with all the judgment calls, criticizing other instead of investigating themselves and ignoring the mystery that life is. It would definitely be a more honest approach.
ReplyDeleteBandying about with definitions of atheism is so far beyond the point. Yes, atheism is a rejection of dogma -- but it is also an ideology. Just because your ideas involve the rejection of other ideas doesn't mean it's not an ideology. You don't get to escape that label. The ideology of your atheism, as I gather from this article is that "one should not have faith in a supernatural being without prior proof." That is an ideology. In fact, it's more of an ideology than simple atheism because you are finding fault in everyone who is a theist.
ReplyDeleteAgnostics are different. Their ideology is "I don't know and you don't know, so we cannot say anything about it." Both atheism and agnosticism are ideologies because they are ideas about how we should answer a question that is fundamental to human nature (a fact you pointed out in your article).
As for this "indoctrination" BS, tell me, what else have you told your child that you believe to be true? Will you teach him to fight back when aggressed or will you teach him to avoid violence entirely? What other morals are you teaching him? You must be aware that your morals are not universal, and there are probably some that you will teach him that go against the majority of society. How is this not a similar indoctrination? The job of a parent is to educate their child, and if I believe something to be true, you had better believe I'm going to teach my child that it is true as well.
I also find fault with your point 3 at the end of the article:
"3. Religious belief has usually been drilled into them from an early age and, if not, they have not skeptically analysed what they have been asked to believe."
This is circular reasoning: you're trying to say that someone who isn't "indoctrinated" will always reject religion if they "analyze" it, but isn't that what's at contention here? If everyone agreed that religion fell apart after a "skeptical analysis" then there would be no point for this blog, would there?
Dotard, your comments are a sad commentary on just how primitive our civilization remains.
ReplyDeleteYou suggest that belief is a personal choice. I suppose you are correct in observing that anyone is free to believe whatever they wish. But why should religious beliefs be afforded any more respect than political beliefs which are always widely debated, often criticized and occasionally ridiculed? Why is it ok for Churches to discriminate against women and homosexuals when I would be tarred and feathered if I tried to do anything of the like as an employer?
You suggest that atheists are ignoring the mystery that life is. You can't be serious. How is insisting on evidence as a pre-condition to belief ignoring the mystery of life? Listen, you have two choices:
1. You can take the Bible and assume it is literally true. Believe that your supernatural God made everything you see in 6 days, the world is only 6000 years old and don't bother to further scientific inquiry. Believe in intelligent design and enjoy the hokey creation museums where you can see depictions of people walking with dinosaurs.
2. Or you can accept that there is no evidence of an omniscient, omnipotent and omnipresent creator. In fact, there is an abundance of evidence to the contrary (not the least of which is the proliferation of suffering throughout the world and animal kingdom). If you want to look at the sky with a sense of wonder and say "there must be a force greater than me", that is fine - you are in good company with many of the smartest people on the planet. However, that is a far cry from believing, as a matter of faith, the tenets of any major organized religion - take your pick.
Stephen, if insisting on evidence as a pre-condition to belief is sufficient to constitute an ideology, I agree that atheism is an ideology. However, I was brought up to believe that insisting on evidence as a pre-condition to believing anything is called common sense.
ReplyDeleteAs for what I try to teach my children, thanks for asking. I don't profess to be a perfect parent and I thank Zeus that I have a wife who is about the best mother any kid could hope to have. In any event, these are the values that we try to instil in our kids:
1. Treat other people the way you want them to treat you (a philosophy that existed for thousands of years before the supposed birth of Jesus). Basically, be kind to others. They seem to follow that principle with third parties but not with each other. If you have read Robert Wright's The Moral Animal, you will know that this is perfectly normal behavior for siblings.
2. Be kind to animals. There is no need to even kill an insect unless it is going to harm you.
3. Life isn't fair. This is a tough one.
4. If you try your best, there is nothing in the world that you can't accomplish. "Don't say you can't, when I know that you can".
5. It feels good to help others and expect nothing in return. Be generous.
6. Many people in the world (heck, most of the people in the world) are not as fortunate as you are. You need to remember how lucky you are and to help the less fortunate whenever you can.
7. Don't believe anything just because someone tells you. Admittedly, this is a lesson that will evolve as they get older. Our youngest child still believes in Santa Claus, the Tooth Fairy, the Easter Bunny and, apparently, something called God.
8. Don't let anyone take advantage of you or bully you. Be willing to stick up for yourself if necessary. I learned long ago that turning the other cheek to a schoolyard bully may not be the best strategy.
9. They are not better than anyone else and noone is better than them. My hope is that they will be able to walk with kings and be comfortable in the company of peasants.
10. Reduce, reuse and recycle.
If the above amounts to indoctrination, I am guilty as charged.
Finally, I agree that there would be no need for this blog if religious believers applied the same amount of skeptical anlysis to the tenets of their faith as they probably do to all other facets of their lives.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI'm sorry The Atheist Missionary but cant you see that you are not practicing what you preach?
ReplyDeleteYour views on religion are teenage at best. Because I believe in God I must also be a dogmatic religionist and believe in every word of the Bible or any holy book and must be a card carrying believer in Intelligent Design? Are you serious? How do you be so thick?
I suggest you step off your soapbox and find a new hobby, teach you kid chess.
Dotard, first of all, there is a simple solution for you if you find this site offensive or amateurish - just spend your time surfing elsewhere. There are thousands of people who find my posts worthy of the occasional read and I am humbled by that fact. I am university educated but certainly not what I would refer to as an academic or a professional writer. I am just a middle aged father and husband who honestly believes that nothing good comes from religion that could not be accomplished without the dogma that usually accompanies it.
ReplyDeleteI am not naive enough to suggest that the 38,000 different sects of Christianity believe the same thing. However, most of them share the belief that a Galilean Jew was crucified, died, started to rot, came back to life and was God in the flesh. It is for those that believe that kind of utter nonsense that I ask to think about what they are being asked to believe.
If you just believe that Jesus was an inspired man and you feel his moral code is worthy of exemplification, I have no problem with that. However, I believe that anyone who relies on the Old or New Testaments as a moral code has a much better ability to selectively read than I do.
http://www.bare-jesus.net/etricksindex.htm
ReplyDeleteApparently not everyone thinks that Jesus of Nazareth had a "moral code".
"I contend that we are both Atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you. When you understand why you dismiss all other possable gods, you will understand why i dismiss yours."
ReplyDelete-Stephen Roberts
Just a thought provoking quote that i found while browsing the internet. I figured that you might be able to appriciate it.
Also i agree with your vision. A world without religion has the potential to be a wonderful place. Then again, some people need the ever looming threat of eternal damnation to keep themselves in line =p. I don't mind that either