It may have crossed your minds, because it has mine, that the terms of this debate are a little
odd. Normally when you pitch one thing against another there is some implied
equivalence between them even if they are antithetical to each other. But Atheism and Christianity are not at all the same sort of
thing. True, they both have something to say about belief in some kind of deity
but there I think the similarity ends.
Christianity after all is more than just belief that a deity
exists. For one thing it posits a particular kind of god with an interest in and
expectations of the human race but also it has acquired throughout its two
thousand year history a creed (well several actually) and inculcated itself
into the cultural narrative of the western world to such an extraordinary
extent that its influence pervades practically every aspect of society.
Atheism however is really nothing more than an ontological
opinion. That gods do not exist.
I’m not intending to be provocative when I say gods (plural)
because despite whatever ecumenical sentiments proponents of the worlds
religions express there are many concepts of god, some of them mutually
exclusive and all to some degree incompatible in the way they are supposed to
interact with the world. And that’s if they do interact. Some definitions of
god are deistic, creator gods yes, but the kind that retire immediately they light
the blue touch paper.
So usually if somebody asks me if I believe in God my first
response is usually “what do you mean by God?”
Given the usual theistic responses I will then go on to say
“no, I don’t believe in that god” because after all I am an A-Theist.
Give god an attitude, or claim to know what it wants or insist on your personal
relationship with it then I’m pretty sure it doesn’t exist.
Sophisticated theologians like Paul Tillich, Alvin Plantinga
and David Bentley Hart will tell you that this is a naive concept of god. They
will talk of a “ground of being”, god as the “prime mover” or particularly in
Hart’s case as “being , consciousness and bliss”.
Well, maybe but for one thing that’s not the sort of god the
average theist believes in and for another it’s hard to determine whether
reality would be any different with or without it. Since they are unfalsifiable
most Atheists I know remain agnostic about those types of god, as they do about
deistic ones although there are good philosophical reasons to assume they also don’t
exist.
So, the headline premise for tonight is “Which is True,
Christianity or Atheism?” From an atheist point of view this is an easy proposition.
There is, and has never been, objective evidence for the existence of any god
from any religion and so the burden of proof is not on the atheist to prove
that gods don’t exist. Since there is no empirical evidence of them the default
assumption is, or should be, that there aren’t any. If it can’t be proved that
there are - then the Christian God
disappears along with all the others.
But Christianity has another problem because it’s not enough to establish the one
thing atheism rejects. It also has to establish the truth of the narrative peculiar to its understanding of
god. At a bare minimum evidence God’s incarnation in the person of Jesus
Christ, and his crucifixion and ascension for the salvation of human kind.
Then, if you want to go
on to argue for the literal and fundamentalist truth of Christianity you’ve also
got to prove, against the overwhelming weight of empirical evidence, for the
inerrancy of Judeo-Christian scripture.
But let’s hold that thought for now…
Thus far I’ve made no positive claims for atheism, and I may
not make that many. In the meantime I can tell you what it’s not – It’s not a
worldview, certainly not a religion and only in a vague sense is it a belief. I
say that because atheists are rarely walking around consciously disbelieving in
gods or especially, actively believing no gods exist. It’s a question that only
arises when we’re confronted by the presumption of others that they do.
But, being an atheist does tend to lead to other conclusions
about how the world might be.
Almost by definition Atheists are philosophical naturalists,
understanding the world through an empirical lens and a broadly defined
scientific method. This tends, although not infallibly, to mean that they
reject all supernatural explanations of anything along with pseudo-scientific
concepts such as homeopathy for example.
Atheism has no political allegiances although atheists on
the whole tend to the socially liberal. But you can find them all across the
political spectrum from Socialist to Libertarians. Ayn Rand for example was
famously atheist.
Atheism has no creed or scripture (No, we don’t walk around clutching
copies of “The God Delusion”) Consequently you may think that atheists have no
“moral compass” nothing for the individual atheist to hang their ethics on. But
in fact they have exactly the same source that religion does, at least for the
fundamental principles, which is our shared human nature.
In contrast to the Abrahamic faiths which see humans as
fallen from some mythical state of grace, atheists understand we are an evolved
highly pro-social species with natural drives to be cooperative, maintain our personal
reputations and be empathetic to others. We already possess within us the basis
of morality and the more our circle of concern has expanded due to the growth
of society the more refined those instincts have become. [# Steven Pinker: The
better Angels of Our Nature]
Yes, In pursuit of Sustenance, Security and Sex we’re also
capable of acts of cruelty and selfishness but ultimately we need each other.
This isn’t a soppy appeal to Rousseau but a fact of our social nature. Moral
norms become established as a result of society in general and would emerge
with or without religion.
Another thing that Atheism isn’t – an ideology. Nobody
campaigns for atheism, no armies march with a capital ‘A’ on their banners,
nobody engages in terrorist acts or blows themselves up in the name of atheism.
No atheist ever called for the death of an atheist “apostate” or as far as I
know disowned a child for daring to be religious.
You will hear people say that atheist regimes have been the
most repressive and violent regimes the world has seen but the reality is
atheism has nothing to do with the usual examples they cite. Communist Russia
under Stalin was exactly that, Communist. Stalin supressed religion because it
was a threat to Communism not because he was ideologically wedded to atheism.
It’s not even clear if he was personally an atheist. Mao suppressed religion
for similar reasons and Pol-Pot set himself up as a god in his own right.
Suggestions that Hitler was an atheist and that Nazism was godless are so
laughable it is extraordinary the myth persists, perhaps the desire of the
Catholic Church to disown their complicity with both has something to do with
it.
This is not to suggest that individual atheists can’t be
evil, they are as capable of it as anybody is but atheism won’t be their raison
d’etre. In fact if you want to find a reason for evil it will be in the
dogmatic pursuit of some ideology, it will be done by someone who thinks they
are acting for a higher cause a higher power or some ultimate benefit that will
outweigh the immediate harm.
Physicist Steven Weinberg famously said “With or without religion, good people can behave well and bad people can
do evil; but for good people to do evil - that takes religion.”
I would suggest that there
are also political ideologies that could be substituted for religion in that
quote. Religion can’t be blamed for everything - but atheism is not such an ideology and indeed, in my
view, not ideological at all.
There have been attempts to
construct an “atheist movement” that have largely failed. Richard Dawkins,
evolutionary biologist and author of “The God Delusion” says “Organizing atheists is a bit like herding cats; They are
on the whole too intelligent and independent minded to lend themselves to being
herded.”
I’ve met Dawkins who does
have an unfortunate arrogant streak and I think he could have left out the
claim to excessive intelligence
(although there is some correlation between academic qualifications and
atheism it’s really only strong in sciences where you might expect to find more
atheists anyway), but what is objectively true is that atheism is not by itself
a vehicle that builds communities. Ideas such as Atheism plus and Atheism 2.0
have come and gone as mainly on-line fads.
The “Atheist Church” founded in 2013 by Sanderson Jones and Pippa Evans enjoys some success with some 55 regular venues around the world offering a guaranteed god-free community experience. I’ve attended a couple and they’re fun and informative taking their cue from the Christian format (if it ain’t broke don’t fix it) but using entirely non-religious music and readings. I’m not sure it constitutes a movement but it serves a human need for society without any necessity for gods.
There is of course Humanism, which does tick all the boxes atheism doesn’t. Humanist are atheists, with a utilitarian ethical worldview that values human flourishing , diversity and happiness, Of course not all atheists are Humanists. I am, and most atheists I associate with are and it is a strong and growing movement. The cohesive factor is not so much atheism as our shared human values and Humanists are pretty reliably socially and community minded. Many people in the general population who class themselves as “nones”, that is having no particular religious affiliation have values that align with Humanism and in the UK they represent around 52% of the population.
So atheism, a mere ontological opinion about the universe we inhabit, does not preclude any of the things we all value about the human condition. Human competency, Human imagination, Human responsibility and human values are part of our shared evolutionary heritage and in my view overpopulating the universe with supernatural deities only diminishes rather than celebrates that awesome fact.
The “Atheist Church” founded in 2013 by Sanderson Jones and Pippa Evans enjoys some success with some 55 regular venues around the world offering a guaranteed god-free community experience. I’ve attended a couple and they’re fun and informative taking their cue from the Christian format (if it ain’t broke don’t fix it) but using entirely non-religious music and readings. I’m not sure it constitutes a movement but it serves a human need for society without any necessity for gods.
There is of course Humanism, which does tick all the boxes atheism doesn’t. Humanist are atheists, with a utilitarian ethical worldview that values human flourishing , diversity and happiness, Of course not all atheists are Humanists. I am, and most atheists I associate with are and it is a strong and growing movement. The cohesive factor is not so much atheism as our shared human values and Humanists are pretty reliably socially and community minded. Many people in the general population who class themselves as “nones”, that is having no particular religious affiliation have values that align with Humanism and in the UK they represent around 52% of the population.
So atheism, a mere ontological opinion about the universe we inhabit, does not preclude any of the things we all value about the human condition. Human competency, Human imagination, Human responsibility and human values are part of our shared evolutionary heritage and in my view overpopulating the universe with supernatural deities only diminishes rather than celebrates that awesome fact.