7.28.2011

Ask A Humanist, Vol 6: Isn't It Sad To Live Without Faith?

(Part 6 of an ongoing, meandering stream of undefined scope.)

Sad Panda has no religion.
Many people of faith have a hard time understanding what it's like to live without religion. On many occasions, I have heard believers express pity. "That's sad," they might say, about someone who does not engage in a relationship with a deity.

Many find it inconceivable that someone could find happiness without God and everything that accompanies belief in God: the promise of eternal life, the assurance that events in our lives are occurring in accordance with God's plan, and the feeling that an all-knowing, loving entity is looking over us and protecting us. Certainly, they think, without these assurances, life would be joyless, meaningless, and cold.

Much of these insinuations are due to misunderstandings about the nature of non-belief. There is a common misconception held by the religious in which non-theists are viewed as people who have known God, but have rejected him due to anger or impatience. Another common misconception is that non-theists rejected God due to the hypocrisy often found in organized religion.

I can assure you that the relationship between most non-theists and God is nothing like a relationship between two long-time friends that has soured. In this latter scenario, these former friends still exist and go about their lives, apart from each other. Non-theists, by and large, either never entertained the idea of a supernatural being, or were brought up religious and later realized they couldn't entertain with honesty the idea of a supernatural being. God, to most non-theists, is simply not part of the fabric of their reality.

You're doing it wrong.
The best way for a believer to understand a non-theist's relationship with God is by reflecting upon their own relationship with, say, Zeus. It would be silly to assume that religious people lead sad lives because they do not have a relationship with Zeus. They simply don't go about their life with Zeus informing their daily actions or thoughts. As difficult as it may seem for the religious to view the Zeus example as a parallel, it is as accurate as any. Most non-theists simply characterize current religions as an extension of a religious lineage that contains Mithraism, Zoroastrianism, and countless others. A Christian's atheism towards Mithra is not much different than the non-theist's atheism towards the Abrahamic God.

Even if the believer understands a non-theist's relationship with religion, it does not explain why a lack of religious faith is not accompanied by feelings of sadness and emptiness. While letting go of religion can certainly be an emotional endeavor (any time we no longer entertain a long-held belief there is emotional fallout), ultimately it can be one of the most liberating experiences one can imagine.

A few of the ways in which letting go of religion has led to happier, more fulfilling lives for many non-believers:

This life has to be enough: When we come to terms with the fact that there is no evidence for an afterlife, we can focus on the limited time we have in this life. When we accept that our time is finite, we place a higher value on every minute that we have. When we let go of the concept of final judgment, each decision we make must be based on the effects our actions have on this life, on the lives of our fellow humans, and on our environment. We are lucky to be alive, and it is this realization that fills us with wonder, joy, curiosity, and gratefulness. The world is filled with so much beauty and joy that none of us will be able to experience even a fraction of its offerings in our lifetime. While non-believers are not without a sense of gratitude, we choose to spend our days focused on this life and making the most of it. Our acknowledgment of our finite existence is not a source of sadness.  It is a reminder that each day is a gift.

Death: While death will always be a source of anxiety and sadness, the longing associated with separation from our loved ones is less painful when we no longer view it as a separation. When we reject the human constructs of heaven and the afterlife, we can accept that the deceased are not aching with longing, regret, or separation. In fact, they are not feeling anything at all. 150 years of neuroscience has taught us that consciousness, memory, thought, and any sense of self whatsoever require a physical brain with electrical impulses and biochemical activities occurring in and between our neural cells. When a loved one dies, they simply cease being, period. Sure, the end of life is never a jovial affair, but to remove the supernatural concept of a reunion in the afterlife is to remove the longing and heartache that accompanies this anticipation. We also remove any and all anxiety associated with our afterlife destination when we reject the constructs of heaven and hell.  Our 'afterlife' is achieved by living a life that reverberates beyond our death -- affecting lives still being lived, and lives that have yet to be lived. Our legacy is our afterlife. We live on through those we have affected, through the changes that we have helped bring about (good or bad), and through the values and wisdom that we impart on those we leave behind. When we understand that our legacy is our afterlife, we are driven to ensure that the lives we lead resonate beyond our deaths, and we take time to explore, along with our families and friends, the legacies of those who have gone before us.

A life free of metaphysical baggage: In societies steeped in religious ideology, it seems even the most banal occurrences are fraught with metaphysical baggage. Humanists reject the assignment of meaning to coincidences, statistical anomalies, natural occurrences, and random events. When someone overcomes a lethal form of cancer, it's not a miracle. This does not make it any less remarkable, but if we must credit anyone or anything, we should credit a complex constellation of factors, including modern medicine, human perseverance, environmental factors, diet, genetics, the support of medical staff and loved ones, and the evolved, complex inner workings of the human body. When a catastrophic earthquake causes death and destruction to a region of the world, it is not divine retribution. It is the unfortunate result of sufficient stored elastic strain energy driving fracture propagation along a fault plane.  Certainly, events in our lives can be meaningful -- any event can awaken us to larger truths -- but it is silly to assign metaphysical meaning to things which, however remarkable, fall within the confines of the laws of nature.  This understanding helps to shed the anxiety that accompanies tragedies both personal ('Is God punishing me?'), and universal ('Are these catastrophes a sign of the End Times?').

Being good for goodness' sake: When we let go of religion, we don't fear that we will start cheating, stealing, and killing. Why? Because cheating, stealing, and killing tend to result in being rejected by our communities -- not because this behavior is sinful (sin, yet another human construct steeped in the supernatural), but because it threatens the well-being of others, and threatens the cohesiveness of society. This has been the case for as long as humans have lived in groups. Our morality evolved -- it was not handed down to us by God -- and it predates monotheism. As societies evolved from tribes to villages to towns and nations, our morality became the basis for many of our laws.  Religion certainly has influenced many of our laws, but many of the laws which crossed over from religious law have no bearing on actual morality (blue laws, for example, are rooted in the concept of the Sabbath). Non-believers are no more inclined to commit crimes than the religious.  In fact, many non-believers are more ethical and compassionate than the religious, especially those who use religion to justify their actions (see: LGBT equality, hate crimes, genocide). We take great care to ensure that our actions cause no harm to others, even if that harm is condoned by a religious text.  In other words, humans don't need God to be good.  We have evolved the capacity for empathy and compassion. Humans are so adept at knowing what is wrong and what is right that we can look at behavior condoned by scripture and conclude that it is immoral.  When we do harm, we feel bad. (We evolved the capacity for empathy.) When we act with the intention of reducing suffering, we have done good, and we feel good.

Embrace the unknown: Throughout history, religion has been used to explain the unexplainable. As we gained knowledge about the natural world, many religious explanations were no longer necessary. We no longer use religion to explain earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, thunder, rain, droughts, floods, winds, or fertility, as we did long ago. And as we learn more about the mind, the earth, and the cosmos, it is inevitable that we will use religion to explain less and less. Non-theists embrace the fact that it's okay to not have an explanation for the mysteries of life and of the cosmos. We are confident that, although perhaps not in our lifetime, science will answer most of these mysteries. Because we don't yet understand does not mean we must assign a supernatural explanation. We remember that even thunder once had a supernatural explanation. Hundreds of years from now many of our current supernatural explanations may seem as silly as Zeus' thunderbolts.  Most non-theists are perfectly fine accepting the unknown. It does not make us uneasy to not have the answers.  It adds to the beauty and wonder of the cosmos, and there is great joy that accompanies this sense of awe.

We give our lives meaning: Many believers think that a life without God has no meaning, no purpose. They may say, "If we just simply evolved over millions of years with no thinking, caring, omniscient being watching over us and guiding us, then life is meaningless."  This couldn't be further from the truth. We must cultivate meaning and purpose through our actions and their effects on the world around us.  No one is born with a purpose, other than to survive. Purpose and meaning are products of our upbringing, our experiences, our wants and desires, and our principles. We have our entire lives to cultivate meaning. This is a gift of empowerment capable of providing a lifelong sense of fulfillment. But that is up to us.

Life, by its very nature, provides a broad spectrum of experiences. None of us are immune to pain or suffering.  All of us will feel great pleasure and joy. Religion comes with no guarantee that we will experience any more, or less of either extreme (neither does a life lived without religion.)  While religion certainly does provide many of its adherents great comfort, those who live without religion find comfort in ways that may not be apparent to those who can't envision life without God.  We find comfort in the understanding that we share an ancestor with every living thing on earth. We find joy in nature, in the beauty of music and art, and in the possibilities afforded by our own (highly improbable) existence. We find meaning in our journey, in which we aspire to better the world for our descendants, so that they may have even greater possibilities than we have been afforded.



More 'Ask a Humanist' entries...

7.27.2011

50 Renowned Academics Speaking About God




Speakers in order of appearance:

1. Lawrence Krauss, World-Renowned Physicist
2. Robert Coleman Richardson, Nobel Laureate in Physics
3. Richard Feynman, World-Renowned Physicist, Nobel Laureate in Physics
4. Simon Blackburn, Cambridge Professor of Philosophy
5. Colin Blakemore, World-Renowned Oxford Professor of Neuroscience
6. Steven Pinker, World-Renowned Harvard Professor of Psychology
7. Alan Guth, World-Renowned MIT Professor of Physics
8. Noam Chomsky, World-Renowned MIT Professor of Linguistics
9. Nicolaas Bloembergen, Nobel Laureate in Physics
10. Peter Atkins, World-Renowned Oxford Professor of Chemistry
11. Oliver Sacks, World-Renowned Neurologist, Columbia University
12. Lord Martin Rees, Astronomer Royal
13. Sir John Gurdon, Pioneering Developmental Biologist, Cambridge
14. Sir Bertrand Russell, World-Renowned Philosopher, Nobel Laureate
15. Stephen Hawking, World-Renowned Cambridge Theoretical Physicist
16. Riccardo Giacconi, Nobel Laureate in Physics
17. Ned Block, NYU Professor of Philosophy
18. Gerard 't Hooft, Nobel Laureate in Physics
19. Marcus du Sautoy, Oxford Professor of Mathematics
20. James Watson, Co-discoverer of DNA, Nobel Laureate
21. Colin McGinn, Professor of Philosophy, Miami University
22. Sir Patrick Bateson, Cambridge Professor of Ethology
23. Sir David Attenborough, World-Renowned Broadcaster and Naturalist
24. Martinus Veltman, Nobel Laureate in Physics
25. Pascal Boyer, Professor of Anthropology
26. Partha Dasgupta, Cambridge Professor of Economics
27. AC Grayling, Birkbeck Professor of Philosophy
28. Ivar Giaever, Nobel Laureate in Physics
29. John Searle, Berkeley Professor of Philosophy
30. Brian Cox, Particle Physicist (Large Hadron Collider, CERN)
31. Herbert Kroemer, Nobel Laureate in Physics
32. Rebecca Goldstein, Professor of Philosophy
33. Michael Tooley, Professor of Philosophy, Colorado
34. Sir Harold Kroto, Nobel Laureate in Chemistry
35. Leonard Susskind, Stanford Professor of Theoretical Physics
36. Quentin Skinner, Professor of History (Cambridge)
37. Theodor W. Hänsch, Nobel Laureate in Physics
38. Mark Balaguer, CSU Professor of Philosophy
39. Richard Ernst, Nobel Laureate in Chemistry
40. Alan Macfarlane, Cambridge Professor of Anthropology
41. Professor Neil deGrasse Tyson, Princeton Research Scientist
42. Douglas Osheroff, Nobel Laureate in Physics
43. Hubert Dreyfus, Berkeley Professor of Philosophy
44. Lord Colin Renfrew, World-Renowned Archaeologist, Cambridge
45. Carl Sagan, World-Renowned Astronomer
46. Peter Singer, World-Renowned Bioethicist, Princeton
47. Rudolph Marcus, Nobel Laureate in Chemistry
48. Robert Foley, Cambridge Professor of Human Evolution
49. Daniel Dennett, Tufts Professor of Philosophy
50. Steven Weinberg, Nobel Laureate in Physics

7.25.2011

This NASCAR Prayer Comes With Sponsorships

The following pre-race prayer was served up at the Nascar Nationwide series race in Nashville, TN on July 23, 2011.

7.22.2011

Willum Geerts' 'Sorry (Bible)'

Dutch Artist Willum Geerts has taken correction fluid to all letters of a Holy Bible, except for S, O, R, R, and Y, in that order.


A close-up can be viewed here.

In his artist statement, Geerts says, "I share my astonishment about our absurd everyday life and ask the viewer to re-address the complex world around us. I enlarge the banal by isolating it from its regular context, mixing it with apparent opposites and by adding dramatic, theatrical elements to it."

He writes of how, in complex modern life, individuals deal with the chaos of "constant impulses and [try] to canalize these by conforming, losing oneself in material solace or falling into conditioned behavior. With superficiality, alienation, passiveness and banalities as a result.'

More of his work can be explored here.

7.21.2011

Woody Allen Interviews Billy Graham

One of the great things about YouTube is discovering great (often little-discussed) moments in television history that you never knew existed, or that you have never seen. Scott Ross of NBC Philadelphia called the below gem "the kind of encounter made in TV heaven: the neurotic intellectual New York Jew and the fire-and-brimstone televangelist arguing about what it all means."

Good stuff.


7.20.2011

Douchebag Of The Day: Bryan Fischer

Bryan Fischer, Director of Issues Analysis at hate group American Family Association, is a huge douchebag.  I've called attention to his insanity in these pages on a regular basis, so nothing he says is ever terribly surprising, sadly.

Fischer tweeted the following today:


It cannot be stressed enough that Fischer is not part of the lunatic fringe.  He is in bed with many high profile religious right politicians, including current Texas governor and potential President of the United States, Rick Perry (The AFA is paying for Perry's 'Response' prayer rally in Texas.)

7.18.2011

How To Reach Atheist Teenagers: An Evangelical's 'Rules of Engagement'

Greg Stier of Dare 2 Share Ministries
Over at the Christian Post, Greg Stier (president of Dare 2 Share Ministries) has a post called How To Reach Atheist Teenagers.

Dare 2 Share Ministries' mission statement reads: "Mobilizing teenagers to relationally and relentlessly reach their generation for Christ," so I can't really fault him for doing what he has the right to do. He's an evangelical, and that's what evangelicals do. But his Christian Post piece left a bad taste in my mouth, for more than a few reasons.

From Stier's playbook:
1. Mock religion as early as you can in the conversation
In other words, right off the bat, approach your mark and misrepresent yourself and your agenda. It's the old 'gotcha' trick employed by snake-oil salesmen, pickup artists, politicians, and predators. It's cynical, dishonest, and misguided. It's easy to see where Stier is going with this:
Gain this common ground as soon as possible with atheist teenagers. When they see you sickened by the hypocrisy that inevitably accompanies religion, the emotional barriers that often keep them from taking a second look at Christianity can begin to fall down.
He continues:
2. Focus on Jesus. 
Jesus was a radical, rebel and revolutionary. This same “vibe” often appeals to atheist teenagers, many of whom consider themselves the same.

Show them stories in the Bible where Jesus healed lepers, hung out with “sinners” and bucked the religious system. Paint the picture of Jesus as a hero of the downtrodden (because he was) and his death as the ultimate injustice (because it was!) When they begin to see Jesus’ willingness to suffer injustice so that they could be justified the code of unbelief can be cracked in their souls.
In other words, if you can show teens that Jesus was rad like you, hung out with societal rejects, and gave it to The Man on occasion, then they will be able to accept that he was the son of God, was born of a virgin, was able to suspend the laws of the cosmos at will, died and came back from the dead, and rose up to this place called Heaven, body and all.

Then Stier comes in with the  old 'if you say it enough times, it becomes true' ploy:
3. Speak of God as if he exists.

Instead of assuming they are true atheists, speak of God as a reality.

He then applies the tired old 'no atheists in foxholes' trope:
At the end of the day there are no true atheists. In the deepest parts of their soul every atheist, according to Romans 1, truly believes in the existence of God but doesn’t want to give glorify him or give him thanks.
So, there are no true atheists because a guy said so in a book that has no supernatural significance to atheists. Would you also say that there are no true Muslims, Greg? No true Jews? Keynesians? Pacifists? Vegetarians?

And, because, at the end of the day, there is only so much you can do, Stier finishes off with:
4. Pray, love, repeat.
I've been trying to put a finger on what exactly bugs me so much about Stier's piece. (There are a lot of things to dislike.) Beyond all the creepy, stealthy, dishonest stuff, I think it's the reminder that the faith community still doesn't understand atheism.

Atheism comprises a broad spectrum of individuals, with varying philosophies. The only uniting characteristic is an absence of a belief in a deity.  The 'atheist' moniker could be applied to agnostics, secular humanists, Buddhists, Hindus, nihilists, anarchists, or any number of life stances that do not require a belief in a deity.

Stiers seems to perceive atheists as simply people who are anti-religion, or who have had bad experiences with the church and organized religion. Are there atheists who fit this description? Sure. But this description would only fit a small subset of atheists.

It's easy to see the pointless nature of Stier's approach when we substitute the atheist with a vegan and the Christian with an omnivore.  Let's take Stier's own words and see how silly it becomes:
1. Mock meat-eating as early as you can in the conversation.

Gain this common ground as soon as possible with vegan teenagers. When they see you sickened by the hypocrisy that inevitably accompanies the commoditization of animals, the emotional barriers that often keep them from taking a second look at meat-eating can begin to fall down.

Veganism, like atheism, is not a condition that develops due to a misunderstanding the opposing stance. (Most vegans have a very good understanding of what meat-eating is all about -- often they are more educated than the omnivores.) It is most often a life stance that has resulted from a great deal of research, self-reflection, and critical thinking. By showing a vegan that meat-eaters can be good people, generally free of hypocrisy, you have done nothing to eradicate the ethical dilemma that is at the core of their veganism. No matter how many rad omnivores exist, or how convincingly a covert omnivore pretends to also despise animal products, the central philosophical viewpoints remain.

Even if Stier's ploy made sense, how incredibly weird would it be if some person came up to you (a vegan) and pretended to also be a vegan, befriended you and gained your trust, when in fact they weren't vegan at all, and only wanted to convert you?

I have had believers approach me with the same angle as Stier's approach. The assumption is often that I am not a Christian because I was turned off by the church's stances on social issues, or perhaps by the hypocrisy that often accompanies religious figures and religious politicians. Or maybe something bad happened at church. Maybe I was molested by a priest. Who knows?

Sure, I do get upset when religion is used to justify inequality, greed, and exceptionalism. Sure, I get angry when authority figures in the church abuse their power and prey on children. But if all these things suddenly were eradicated from the church, it would not change the fact that I simply cannot accept the tenets of Christianity.  My inability to believe is as real as anything else about me. It is as real as my preference for certain melodies or works of art. It is as real as my aversion to violence, or my attraction to certain physical characteristics. My disbelief is very real to me, even though I grew up in a wonderful church full of wonderful people, many of which I am still very close to today.

It's not that I choose not to believe in the fantastical claims made in scripture, it's that my brain will not allow me to suspend disbelief in order to accept those claims.

Stier might want to reconsider his stealth plan to bring atheists into the fold. I would first suggest he differentiate between teens that don't like church and teens that do not accept the supernatural claims of religion.  There is a difference between teens that haven't made up their mind about religion and teens who have come to the conclusion that they can't accept the existence of a supernatural being based on the evidence that they have examined through critical thinking.

If he doesn't understand the difference, then he is probably wasting his time.