Weblog
At first, it would seem that being atheist lends itself to a weird ideological niche. Relatively speaking, atheism is a newer movement with a smaller and more dispersed membership. It’s not really organized or institutionalized, and not because atheists dislike organized religion (some do and some don’t care), but rather because—and this is my guess—atheists don’t really “practice” anything in the way that Christians do. That is to say, we don’t pray or go to anything like Mass; we don’t have small groups or congregations; we don’t really have anyone with the authority of a priest; and the foundation of our beliefs are not contained in a single book, but instead in a whole stockpile of literature, most of which was never even written with atheist intent. It would seem that atheists abroad are united only under the common belief that God’s existence is wholly unconvincing or, for some, impossible.
Yes, it would seem that way, but no, that isn’t quite right.
Mobilizing the Nonbelievers
The Internet is bringing together people with all sorts of interests and beliefs, and atheists are no exception. Atheist pundits are on the rise. Richard Dawkins, a well known evolutionary biologist and public critic of creationism, sponsored the recent launch of an OUT Campaign resembling a Darwinian remix of D.A.R.E. There are a ton of atheist professors and researchers at ScienceBlogs who rally for evolution and rational thinking, and a simple search on Google should easily demonstrate how atheists are actively coming together to form a substantial socio-political body. One that will wear its name proudly on bumper stickers and T-shirts. One that won’t stand around and let a conservative, evangelist right take over this country.
So Where Do I Stand on All of This?
I’m firmly committed to my beliefs, but I won’t wear the T-shirt. At least not yet. In general, I am uncomfortable advertising my beliefs about morally relevant issues in a social context, unless explicitly prompted to do so. (As is probably evident, I prefer to write about them). In a similar way, I am strongly opposed to smoking, but I’ll keep my mouth shut unless someone asks (or unless my very close friends start smoking, in which case I slap them). For me, gratuitous self-assertion on moral or religious issues is socially awkward.
So you’re letting social norms get in the way of your fundamental beliefs about life and the universe?
Yes. I am. It sounds superficial, but humans are social creatures, and if I’m out there creating socially tense situations, I lose a lot of ground and credibility as an agent in the greater social fabric. My beliefs in and of themselves may rub the wrong way with people, and there’s nothing I can do about that, but where and when I voice them is something I am very much responsible for. There’s no higher conflict at hand here; this is simply a matter of keeping my beliefs to myself. Not because I’m ashamed of them, but because—and you’ve heard me say this before—I believe that there’s a better time and place.
I have to admit though; part of it has to do with the fact that I haven’t quite warmed up to the idea of atheists coming out and asserting themselves in the public sector. It’s a fine development, and I’m eager to see it move forward; it’s just that it will take some time before I myself am ready to join the ranks. Doing so will mean taking one more step in what is basically a proclamation to roughly 95% of the people on this planet that they are wrong about God. And while I may already believe that, I’m not ready to wear it on my sleeve.
Reader Comments (8)
s(he) said:
6 August 2007, 12:12 AM
this blog entry naturally prompts one to ask, what leads you to believe that God doesn’t exist? on that same line of thought… given your world view, what do you think the purpose of life is? ..why are we here? what happens after we expire or are eliminated?
Alex said:
6 August 2007, 10:06 AM
I neglected to discuss my atheism in this post simply because I’ve written about it before on this blog, but I’ll try to sum it up in brief. Might be a good topic for later anyway.
I’m a pure physicalist. I believe that everything in the universe can be explained by the interactions of the basic building blocks of matter, particles, and their physical properties. I just find the existence of the supernatural to be mostly unconvincing. I can’t be sure that I am right, but I have reasons to believe as such.
I don’t think there is a general purpose to life. I don’t think there’s any real reason why we’re here. I don’t think anything happens after we expire. Or at least, I don’t think there’s any sentience behind the answers to these questions.
(s)he said:
6 August 2007, 12:18 PM
i haven’t read your other entries on this subject, so maybe i should before i probe a little further out of curiosity. i’ll ask now though anyway. thoughtful discussion would take hours, but neither you nor i have that kind of time.. with that said, what would be the crux of your argument that you find the existence of God to be unconvincing?
and given your belief that there’s no general purpose in life, what do you live for then? or what should anyone live for? that is to say, what drives you to wake up each day and live your life? a lot of other questions running through my mind, but i’ll stop here.
Alex said:
6 August 2007, 7:47 PM
Haha, well… looking back at my older posts on the topic, I’m afraid I may not have even been clear. It’s hard to write about this stuff.
So, my knowledge of science (which is not extraordinarily vast or anything, but probably sufficient) leads me to believe that the universe could have very easily come to be what it is solely through events described by the laws of physics, biology, etc. without the need for a sentient motive. These laws are either proven or very strongly supported by evidence. I can’t disprove the existence of the supernatural, but I have a very hard time accepting it as the basis for any real occurrences. That is, there seems to be no evidence for it; humans have always attributed events that they don’t understand to the supernatural, and then science comes along and offers a concrete, sometimes even tangible explanation.
I can’t make a convincing argument against all gods; I can usually only be skeptical of them. The Christian God, however, is quite inconsistent with modern science. Also, it is always possible that the supernatural exists but just doesn’t manifest itself to us, but to me, that kind of argument just seems like a shot in the dark.
Hm, what drives me to live each day of my life… well, for starters, I am an organism that has evolved to not be idle and to seek pleasurable experiences, so I carry out my daily life guided by the pleasure-center mechanism in my brain and by the laws and constraints of society.
David said:
8 August 2007, 2:14 PM
I find that when it comes to talking about the existence of God, people always mention the purpose in life and why we are here. My question would be, why must there be an ultimate purpose in life for it to be worth living? Why must there be a reason why we are here? Is it that terrifying of an idea to think that we are here merely by chance? We, as a species, exist in this world. For me, just because we exist is reason enough to live each day of my life. And as Alex has pointed out, we might as well live each day of our life governed “by the pleasure-center mechanism” of our brain and “by the laws and constraints of society.” There simply isn’t enough convincing evidence for the existence of a higher being. In all honesty, you cannot prove or disprove the existence of a higher being. In such a case, it is simply a matter of what you believe in. I choose not to believe because I see no need to believe.
I believe the question of why we are here is the very reason why there is religion in the first place. In history, people tend to come up with supernatural reasons for things they can’t explain. It is very easy to just say that something happens because of a higher being. Our existence is one of those unexplainable phenomena that people have long ago wondered about. They could come up with no explanation other than someone else must have put us here. The explanation stuck and the story became much more elaborate and people believe in it. Not that there is anything wrong in believing in a higher being; some people need to believe that they have a purpose, that they are not just here by chance, and that there is something to look forward to in death. If you are better off believing, then so be it. The problem comes when people try to push their beliefs on others as you can see by all the wars caused by religious beliefs.
Alex said:
9 August 2007, 9:25 AM
Hi Dave!
What Dave offers is, I think, a pretty common argument among atheists; I too subscribe to it. This is, though, where things get touchy, because it is obviously a contentious argument, and theists will likely take this perspective personally whether or not they should.
Getting back to the topic at hand: I personally like to use my blog as a controlled forum for these discussions, but elsewhere, I won’t be so bold. Just a preference of mine.
(s)he said:
9 August 2007, 1:28 PM
hmm, i wonder to what extent one’s belief system is shaped by environment versus genetics? are people who grow up in a more or less “religious” environment influenced (in)significantly by their surroundings, or is it something in our makeup that perhaps compels us to lean one way or another…
how does it play out? do any of you know of research out there on this topic with regards to religion
Alex said:
9 August 2007, 6:34 PM
(s)he said:
Like most things, it’s a little bit of both. But that’s not a very satisfying answer, so for the sake of argument, I’ll say that it’s something in our makeup. It has been argued that we evolved to be natural dualists, and dualism allows for belief in the supernatural. It’s a long discussion; I may decide to write something about it in the near future given these comments.
A good portion of my psych class on morality focused on religion. A good paper to read might be Is God an Accident? (2005) by Paul Bloom. Also, Religious thought and behavior as by-products of brain function (2003) by Pascal Boyer. I got these in class, but you may be able to find them if you have access to an academic digital library.