The Paradox of Theistic Morality

Hello again, dear readers! I apologize for the extended layoff, but I have been terribly busy lately. Today's topic concerns the relationship between religious values and morality.

I have envisioned a brief analysis of religion and morality as a casual, but animated, conversational dialogue. I imagine that such a conversation may develop between two close friends, Q and A. Our pal Q is a theist (he or she could be a Jew, a Muslim, or a Christian - it doesn't matter) while A happens to be a non-theist.

Q: It's incomprehensible to me how an atheist could have an explanation for morality.

A: Why so?

Q: Well, I've always believed that there must be some form of absolute morality, and that God is the best explanation for our sense of right and wrong. This seems especially likely to be the case in light of the arguments of famous defenders of the faith such as C.S. Lewis and William Lane Craig.

A: I think it's highly unlikely that God's morality is absolute. Doesn't the god of the Bible say that it's wrong to murder, yet even in books such as--

Q: --Allow me to interject. Do you believe in right and wrong? If I ask you about slavery, do you believe it is wrong? If I ask you about rape, do you believe it is wrong? If I ask you about theft, do you believe that is wrong?

The bottom line is that we all agree that certain things are just wrong, yet why should we agree to this if there is no objective morality in place?

A: You're asking me why we should agree that slavery and rape and theft are wrong?

Q: Yes.

A: Well, first of all, you're asking me whether we agree. Don't you think that if there were an absolute morality, you wouldn't have to ask me whether I agreed? In that case, wouldn't I just know that they're wrong?

Q: But don't you agree that they're wrong?

A: I do. But it's not because I believe that any god said so.

Q: Then if there is no god watching over you, if there is no ultimate moral standard, then who can tell you not to run out into the street and rape, steal, or kill? Who can tell you that it's not okay to cheat on your wife or your taxes?

A: I think you're finally beginning to understand what I'm trying to say. Who can tell me that it's not okay to cheat on my taxes? Who can tell me that it's not okay to rape or kill or defraud someone?

Q: Are you going to answer my questions, or are you just being cute with me?

A: No, I'm going to answer your questions directly. Allow me to elaborate.

Let's pretend that you have a group of agents in one place. All of them can benefit if they take something away from the others, but none of the others benefit if something is taken away from them. Wouldn't it be the most beneficial for all of the agents if everyone could have security for themselves and their possessions?

Societies decide on what is moral or immoral. Societies are built upon a foundation of respect, trust, and empathy.

If your husband or wife catches you cheating, he or she is going to lose that trust, and your relationship will deteriorate. If the government catches you cheating on your taxes, you'll go to jail -- if you aren't caught, then there will be less money to pay for things like national defense and road construction and social security, and if everybody acts like that, then the relationship of the country will deteriorate. If individuals don't cooperate, everyone suffers.

Do you really need a god to tell you that people will get hurt if you're selfish or rash or cruel? Do you really need a god to tell you that peoples' lives will be improved significantly over the long run if they would only cooperate?

Q: I'm afraid you're missing the forest for the trees. What if the majority of individuals liked or enjoyed rape? Would you still say that it's moral? Wouldn't you still say that it's morally wrong?

A: If there were a society that approved of rape, then perhaps that would be a difficult dilemma. But how likely is it that a society which widely approves of rape can survive or flourish?

Q: How naive you are. Do you realize that patriarchal societies throughout history have engaged in and even justified spousal rape under the law? Here's a case where most of the people in a society see no problem with something, the society is not negatively affected because of this something, and yet you still would hesitate to say that you are not morally opposed to this something.

A: You're right; just because something survives or flourishes doesn't make it fair or just.

Q: Ah ha, fair and just! You're using the vocabulary of absolute morality. How do you have any idea what is fair or what is just? Aren't you arguing that fairness and justice evolve along with the societies in which they develop? You have no justification to say that something isn't fair or isn't just because you have no consistent standard to say what it is that makes something fair or just in the first place.

A: You're right, again. Racial minorities and women and religious minorities and those of differing sexual orientations than the majority have struggled to obtain rights and are still struggling to obtain rights today. How far have we come in discerning what is fair or just, and how far must we go?

Q: How far? Not only are you avoiding my questions now, but you're also just bringing more and more difficulties for your position in this discussion. You can't analyze the past and discern whether something that happened then was moral or immoral unless you have a consistent, absolute standard of morality.

A: Humanity has developed different moral ideas such as justice, empathy, fairness, and loyalty. As we learn more about the universe around us and the reality of our existence, our knowledge about ourselves and about our world increases. As our quantity and quality of information increases, so does our potential opportunity to reflect upon what is fair and just.

When we are able to observe species in nature that have same-sex relationships, we gain more evidence that neither homosexuality nor bisexuality is a choice, but rather something inherent in the nature of certain individuals. When women have more choices outside the framework of their traditional roles as mothers and caretakers, we gain more evidence that women are not inferior to men. When DNA confirms that all human beings originated from the same ancestry, we gain more evidence that there is nothing superior about any one race over any other race.

Humanity's ability to learn more information about our world gives us new ways and new perspectives on what fairness and justice mean. Our circle of empathy expands; our horizon of moral concern is broadened by the new ways in which our lives are interconnected and intertwined. It has become increasingly difficult for humans to sink into their tribal tendencies and neglect those found to be outside the immediate circle of acquaintances, for we human beings have found more and more that our fate is interdependent on the fates of our fellow creatures. There is no nation, no tribe, no race, and no language that can unify or dominate our world - there is no nation, no tribe, no race and no language that can stand alone and take care of itself alone.

Our evolving morality is largely a product of two trends: our inherent moral intuitions which have evolved for the cooperation of our societies, and the ways in which our existence has been changed by technological discoveries - these two elements have combined to shift our moral compass and provide us with new perspectives on the meanings of old notions like fairness and justice. The underlying concepts are the same - the basic cooperative qualities which compel a society's attention have not changed - but the ways in which we perceive each other as a collection of overlapping societies has indeed changed. Our broader moral outlook is a function of the manner in which our way of perceiving ourselves as human beings has changed.

Q: That certainly sounds impressive, at first. You've argued that certain moral concepts develop in an inherently natural fashion because they advantage the development of complex societies, and that an increasing level of understanding between human beings emerging through new technology has also continued to expand the arc of human moral concern. However, how do you get people to accept this morality? Why should I listen to you?

A: That's a great question - I think you are getting this after all!

Before you ask, no, I am not pulling your leg. Let me explain.

Organized religion is a political system which expedites the acceptance of commonly held moral conventions by the masses. Adherence to the dominant religion of a society is an acknowledgment that one accepts the shared moral code of his or her peers. Religion is a system of political values which distills the accepted mores of the day and disincentivizes free riding from those agreements -- put more simply, religion punishes, or threatens to punish, those who do not pull their fair share.

Of course, we have both agreed that the commonly shared values of individual societies shift greatly and vary widely over time and place. The development and evolution of the dozens of widely embraced branches of the three major monotheistic religions is a prime example of this variation between evolving political values.

Thus, your claim that religion is the safeguard of absolute morality is false, because organized religions are almost exclusively interdependent with the majority views of the societies in which they develop.

Therefore, the paradox of theistic morality is this: while most theistic apologists claim assertively and vigorously that their religion is the safeguard of absolute morality, one of the major reasons that religious apologists abhor non-adherence of their religion is because of their fear that the non-absolute moral agreements of society will collapse if enough individuals dissent from the non-absolute "absolute morality" which is the paradigm of the particular time and place inhabited by said religious apologists.

My Deconversion Story

This is the story of my deconversion from Christianity. I originally posted this account on the Forum of the blog "Unreasonable Faith". I hope you'll enjoy it.

I have been raised as a Christian, having attended services for most of my life at a small ELCA Lutheran congregation. I was baptized as a baby, and I was confirmed around the time I entered high school. I attended Sunday school, Bible studies, and church camps. I sang in the choir and I was an acolyte, usher, and greeter.

However, despite my active involvement in the church, I had not thought much about the basic essentials of my beliefs. I had read large portions of the Bible (I still haven't gotten myself to read it all - I've been meaning to do it), and I prayed often, but while I grew up, I was never confronted by any serious challenges to my perspective. I had friends who went to other churches, but I didn't really know anyone who was non-religious. I had this default assumption that there was a God, and that most of things I had been told in church were true.

I was never really one to question authority, and I enjoyed church greatly, and I had a lot of friends there at first. I wish I had a higher voice so I could sing "I Wander As I Wonder" in the proper key. That hymn is eerie, and that is why it was always one of my favorites.

Many things happened to me when I was in junior high and high school. Several rifts developed in my church, attendance lowered, and we had some pastoral changes. I also first learned that some of my friends were atheists or agnostics. It actually shocked me at first -- I grew in a fairly conservative community. Every time I drive on the highway, I spy a large billboard which declares "Trust In The LORD With All Your Heart". I thought to myself, 'atheist?! I don't believe that.'

But I didn't really know them that well, so I shrugged it off.

When I was a junior in high school, one of my closer friends let me know that he is an atheist when we were discussing religion. I started debating (casually) with him and his friends about religion during our study hall period. I was the Christian, and there were two others who were atheists.

Some of the questions he asked made me reflect for a bit, but I wasn't very phased. I didn't have a literal interpretation of the Bible, and I accepted evolution, so we actually agreed on a lot. I wasn't affected by a lot of the arguments he used in the areas that we agreed. However, looking back on the experience, I think if my friends had spent more time on how those points specifically apply to religion, I would've been more receptive. But I also realize that they didn't want to push me too hard, because we were friends, and they didn't want to ruin our friendship, which I also appreciate and understand.

He did ask me why God would create homosexuality and condemn it in the Bible? I didn't know - I was unsure. I didn't think he would. My friend referenced Leviticus, and I pretty much ignored it, I have to admit. I could've been more open-minded.

He also wanted to know if I didn't take the Bible literally, how did I *know* which parts were metaphorical and which were not? I gave an answer I had already heard, that the Holy Spirit guides the believer in the interpretation of the Bible. If I were my friend now, I would've emphasized the divisions in church history. I do remember that my friend emphasized the corruption of certain church leaders, but I always brushed these criticisms away by saying that God's church was for imperfect people, as everything human in this world was imperfect. Maybe I would've been more receptive if he had argued specifically that the existence of so many divisions on interpretation and meaning of scriptures, which accord with cultural practices, makes it supremely unlikely that the texts are divinely inspired. However, that is a complicated argument and hard to fit into a 25-minute study hall period, and I know that when atheists talk to Christians, the harder they argue, the more militant or harsh they seem. I know this can be the case, so I can again understand why my friend didn't press me harder, and I do appreciate his willingness to put our friendship ahead of mere ideological differences.

When I was a senior, my English teacher exposed me to existentialism - I started reading Camus and Sartre. However, I maintained that this was fully compatible with my Christianity, and in retrospective, I don't think that this was a contributing factor to my deconversion.

I also began reading a lot of Vonnegut when I was in high school. I read Player Piano, Cat's Cradle, Slaughterhouse Five, and Slapstick. Those are all excellent, and I also read Vonnegut's brief essay autobiography, the title of which I cannot recall. I <3 Billy Pilgrim! But I hated the ending of Cat's Cradle - I despised it. It was so irredeemably depressing and gloomy. Somehow, Slapstick was the most amusing and intriguing book of the four, though it seems to be the least popular and the least well-known. There are many excerpts about tribal and community ties which really hit home what it means to be part of a group of people with the same feelings and the same beliefs. I think that book did lay some of the groundwork for my later epiphanies.

Finally, last year I was a freshmen in college. The summer before I left, I had to arrange a schedule of coursework. I was trying to fill my schedule with general education requirement classes, and I wanted to take World Politics very badly. Instead, my counselor stuck me with Forms of the Sacred, a class on Eastern religion. This would prove to be quite fateful.

The second or third week of school, we also had an activities fair. I was out walking after lunch one day, and I strolled along the path in the main common area to visit the booths for all of the clubs on campus.

I spied a banner for a non-religious group. Intrigued, I stumbled over to the display, and asked the volunteer about the nature of the club. I was told that this was a new club for discussing religion, which would primarily be focused on atheists and agnostics. Since I had discussed religion with my friends in high school, I added my information to the mailing so I could stay in contact with the club.

So two or three weeks afterward, I am sitting in my religion class, nonchalantly scribbling notes. We're talking Hinduism, and my professor is going off on a tangent. My ears perked up. The tangents were what made that class - I loved my professor's sense of humor and offbeat commentary.

So anyway, he's talking about all of the different religions in the East, and how they relate, and he casually lets out that some scholars speculated that there might be a link between the proto-religions of the East and some of the western religions. Normally, that would just be an interesting tidbit, a typically inane musing which may fascinate those students who are paying attention.

But that careless slight, that unintended observation -- it struck me. I really had an existential crisis. I felt a surge of doubt paralyze me at that very moment; thoughts of "what if this (my beliefs that I had grown up with) isn't true??!!"

"What if this isn't true?!"

Doubt. I was struck by doubt. Nagging, overwhelming, unceasing, terrifying doubt.

I suddenly realized that I had no idea why I believed what I did.

That was the beginning - that was the day I quit believing in "faith".

And of course, one of the first ever meetings of the atheists and agnostics organization was scheduled later that very week. So I went, not knowing what would happen. All I knew was uncertainty.

So I went. The chairs were arranged in a circular fashion. One of the first things that occurred, since everyone was just getting to know each other, was that each individual in the circle was supposed to say a little bit about themselves: what year they were in, where they were from, something cool about themselves, and if they were an atheist or agnostic, when they became one.

I was one of the last people to be reached, so I got to hear almost everyone else's accounts first.

I was quite nervous at that moment, I must admit. I really didn't know what to say -- I hadn't really reached out to anyone by that point. When I first told my Catholic roommate that I was going to go to the meeting, he looked at me with suspicion because I had already told him that summer that I was a Christian. I told him that I was a Christian, but that I was going anyway because I was interested in the group.

It was sort of a fib. I wasn't sure anymore if I was a Christian or not, because of the doubt that I was experiencing at that time.

Finally, it was my turn to speak. I related my year, where I was from, my hobbies, and my name. Then I stammered something like this:

"Well, I'm not really sure what I believe right now. I was raised as a Christian, but since I've gone to college..."

My brain fizzled. What was I going to say?

"I think my faith has..."

I couldn't say anymore, but I took my hand and made a downwards motion.

In the days before the meeting, I had begun to do some additional research about religion, and I continued this after I returned from the meeting.

Every time I examined my old beliefs, they made less and less sense to me.

The Bible seemed incomprehensible to me. I started asking a lot more questions about it that I couldn't answer. The evidence for a historical Jesus who did the things the Bible claimed was less than I would have liked to believe (I had never actually thought about whether he actually had existed and did the things the Gospels said he did.) It seemed there was too much cruelty and suffering in the world. Evolution and naturalism seemed to be performing spectacularly. Christianity was failing miserably. Everywhere I turned, it appeared that the answer could be better explained if there were no all-good, all-loving, interventionary god.

Finally, there was one particular area that seemed to be the nail in the coffin for my prior religious beliefs.

All the other religions in the world. I had heard Krishna call for grace - I had heard Buddha call for compassion in the wake of suffering - I had heard creation stories which sounded more plausible than the ones I heard growing up. "There was a time when there was neither nothing, nor something". That's a real creation story.

Frankly, Christianity became just another religion, just another faith, and just another mythology. People who believed in other religions seemed to be just as moral as Christians. People who were Christian based their moral ideas on the same principles that non-Christian people used.

And almost all of the so-called religious experiences claimed were more similar than they were different, no matter what the religion.

I remember reading of Near Death Experiences where Native Americans saw a vision of a great chief, where some Hindus saw a great bureaucracy in the sky, and Christians saw heaven and hell.

And even if that weren't enough, I began reading about neuroscience. I became convinced that there is no such entity as the soul. If I needed yet another nail in the coffin, that was definitely it.

The experiments demonstrate that when the brain is harmed, all of the things which have traditionally been identified with the soul are damaged.

What is the soul? Isn't the soul the essence of who you are? And what is the essence of who you are? When the brain is damaged, the essence of who you are changes irrevocably. So when the brain is damaged, is your soul damaged, or is your soul the brain? But we know what happens to the brain when you die -- it rots. So much for the after-life? How can you have a soul to be judged without the brain? It's not plausible.

Lastly, I was already an agnostic atheist for many months before I read "The Evolution of God", but it really cemented many of the conclusions which I had already reached. The evidence which emerges from the sections about political influences on the Old Testament, why the Israelites came out of Canaan and not out of Egypt, and why Paul sold Christianity the way he did in the days of the early faith really make it difficult for me to revert to Christianity or any religion similar to it.

I am an agnostic atheist. I believe that most, if not all, of the gods ever worshiped by humanity are implausible. I do not know if there are ultimately any gods or higher powers. However, I live as if there are none.

Even if there are gods or higher powers in or outside of the universe, I believe that I am living more deeply in communion with them by not adopting a set of beliefs which I am 99% sure are false, and by trying my best to live a moral life based on empathy and respect.

I know that I have prattled on at great length, but I thank all of you for sharing in my journey and my experiences. Thank you.

What Is Love? Examining Biblical Claims (Part One)

This post is the first in a series of posts where I'll be critically examining Biblical claims.

The Text:

1 John 4:16-18 (NIV) -- "And so we know and rely on the love God has for us. God is love. Whoever lives in love lives in God, and God in him. In this way, love is made complete among us so that we will have confidence on the day of judgment, because in this world we are like him. There is no fear in love. The one who fears is not made perfect in love."

vs.

Isaiah 8:13 (NIV) -- "The Lord Almighty is the one you are to regard as holy, he is the one you are to fear, he is the one you are to dread"

Jeremiah 5:22 (NIV) -- "'Should you not fear me?' declares the Lord. 'Should you not tremble in my presence?'"

Hebrews 10:31 (NIV) -- "It is a dreadful thing to fall into the hands of the living God."

Conflicting Claims:

The Biblical god is love. The Bible itself declares that "there is no fear in love"; yet the god of the Bible declares himself as "the one you are to fear" and "the one you are to dread".

Furthermore, the Bible declares that "the one who fears is not made perfect in love". However, Bible readers are exhorted numerous times to "fear" their god. While an argument may be made that "fear" referenced in some verses has a different definition than the "fear" referenced in other verses, I am confident that the explicit inclusion of terms such as "dread" and "tremble" should illuminate for us what kind of fear to which the text is referring, if the translation I have in front of me is has an accurate translation (it's NIV). So, the Biblical audience is repeatedly urged to fear their god, but those who fear are not made perfect in love, which their god is claimed to be. Is the Biblical god a god of fear or a god of love? According to the texts, the Biblical god is alternately both a god of love and a god of fear. However, the verses are clear here that fear is not a sound basis for love. Fear is not what love is. But the Biblical god is presented as a being to be feared, whom one should dread and also tremble in its presence.

But Aren't You Rejecting Love?

I believe that there is a greater love outside the contents of this book than there is within its contents. Yes, fear does nothing to grow or enhance love for one another. However, the Biblical god relies upon coercion and fear. Why not love for love's own sake?

Much of the Old Testament (and the rest of the Bible) was written by people who had a different understanding of the world than we do today. At that time, violence and bloodshed was a critical part of survival. Fear meant protection. Fear meant safety. Fear meant respect. The world was a much different place for those who wrote the Bible than it is today. One can imagine why people living in such fearful times would associate "fear" with "power". There's no real harm in acknowledging that our world has changed in the last few thousand years, and that our moral standards have also changed in the process. I agree that love, with a solid foundation in human empathy, is a powerful and worthy quality. I also agree that extreme levels of fear are counterproductive in preparing the groundwork of love.

Why NOT Do Something? Why Not?

A few people have asked me recently, "Why do you care about being an atheist?"

The main argument seems to be "why would anyone care about not polluting the atmosphere, or not allowing children to ingest harmful chemicals, or not killing someone, or not eating meat...so why should you or I or anyone care about not having a religion?"

Wait a minute, you ask? Aren't all of those things you just said substantive, constructive examples of the value of NOT doing something?

Yes! I may be a terrible practitioner of sarcasm, so I'm just going to tell you what I'm saying instead. Huzzah!!

People ask me all the time: what's the value of not doing something?

There's plenty of value in not doing something harmful or wasteful or empty. I believe that the practice of religion often falls into one of these three categories.

Sure, there are benefits to practicing religion: a sense of community, the establishment of a moral framework in individuals, and the introduction of some powerful incentives to help others.

One of the problems with religion is that even the benefits of religion can turn out to have extremely negative effects.

Religious communities are helpful until they exclude others. Relgious communities are helpful until they begin to fight over divisions in dogma. Religious communities are helpful until they start to awaken the divisive tribal instincts of humanity.

The religious establishment of a moral framework in individuals is often misguided is sometimes dangerously incomplete. Unfortunately, one of the properties of religious belief is that individuals can often be easily manipulated for nefarious purposes by believing that some act of discrimination or violence is the will of a supreme being. Religions which allow individuals to come through religious training and teaching enabled to harm others in the name of said religion show a dangerous lack in the rigor of their moral framework. Any religion that can be disguised as hate or intolerance probably contains an element of hate or intolerance waiting to be unleashed. A religion of peace can be identified by the actions of its followers: no matter what religious adherents say, if the followers of a religion are peaceful, then the religion is peaceful. Now, I do realize that many religions have a fringe element or two which defies the peaceful teachings and traditions of a religion in order to practice hate. This I understand, and this would not prevent me from labeling a religion as a "religion of peace". However, when the number of fanatics spikes to the range of millions upon millions, then I will have serious doubts as to whether a religion really does represent an agenda for peace, especially if the religion under consideration has established a history of coercion as a method of conversion and political dominance, and if societies founded upon the ideas of a certain religion breed the repression of and intolerance of certain undeserving elements of the population, then it will further be confirmed that a particular religion is not a religion of peace.

It doesn't do much good to establish a moral framework in individuals when the framework itself is much more hole-y than holy.

But in its defense, adherents of religion also tell me that religion is a powerful force for good in our world: examine how religion compels kindness and respect and charity towards others.

Yes, I believe it is positive that certain adherents of religion are motivated to do something. But I do not believe that religion is the most efficient or preferrable way to do good in our world.

Why do we do good which we do? Many religious people do good for its own sake. This is the most admirable instinct of humanity. But I also fear that at least on a subconscious level, many people who are religious are only "good" because they feel that they will be rewarded either in this life or in another possible life eons into the future.

Religious people sometimes like to tell me that we have "free will", and that this is why there is evil in this world. Yes, there's evil because we "sinned", and thus brought evil into the world. The deity in charge (according to the story) allowed us to have a "sinful" nature, allowed us to bring "sin" into our world, because we have "free will". And why do we have free will?

Theists say we have free will, "because it is better for us to love our god of our own accord, and not through force or manipulation, as automatons -- to do so would not be true love."

And yet certain theists tell me that it's OK to do something good because of a forced system of reward and punishment? The concepts of heaven and hell, it has been said, are the ultimate bribe and threat -- eternal pleasure or eternal punishment: the choice is ours.

But is this system of "divine command ethics" really love for its own sake? If we have "free will" because we are supposed to love this creator for our love's own sake, but if we cannot do so because of a forced system of reward and punishment, then we are really incapable of love for its own sake toward any divine creator deity who would construct such a system.

Surely those theists who believe that we have "free will" because it is better to love for the sake of love would hesitate before contradicting themselves and telling me that a system of reward and punishment is really better than loving something for its own sake?

What kind of love is best -- a kind coerced or a kind given voluntarily? Have we still not made up our minds?

But people still say to me, well -- it's better that people are motivated to do good, even if the system is unfair or doesn't make sense.

That is still debatable. I don't know if people would be any more good or any less good without religion.

Personally, I think people would be just about the same. People who wanted to pass on moral values to their children would still do so - people who wanted to learn about morality would still do so. People who wanted to ignore morality would still do that, too, just as they do today. I don't see how much would change. The same things which motivate people to do good or bad now still motivate people to do good or bad whether there is a divine being overseeing us all or not.

Also, there are a lot of people who don't have ties to religion who do good things. Bill Gates and Warren Buffett, two of the most important and generous philanthropists of our time, are not religious. Bill Gates said that religion is "inefficient". I agree with him.

As the signs placed in Washington D.C. this holiday season by a humanist group suggest, "Why not be good for goodness' sake?"

I think we can all agree that this is the best kind of love there is.

Yes, sometimes religion does manage to overcome all of these obstacles and ultimately does become a positive force in peoples' lives. Sometimes religious communities form that don't criticize those who have a different interpretation of dogma and don't stigmatize those who aren't members of the community. Sometimes people are able to select the parts of religious tradition which they consider to be good moral guidelines and manage to have a positive impact on society by living through these principles. Sometimes people do good things for the right reasons because that's how they interpret religious teachings: many religious followers see the examples of Buddha, Guru Nanak, or Jesus Christ, and think that it really is more important to do something good for its' own sake rather than to earn a reward or avoid a punishment.

We know the good that religion can accomplish, and I strongly believe that we can still manage to accomplish almost all of this without the aid of religion. I know it will take a lot of hard work, dedication, and perseverance, but I believe we can do this. And I believe we should do this.

We can overcome the negative aspects of religion and we can emphasize the positive aspects of religion in our societies and in our communities and in our families, without serving a specific religious purpose.

I don't want religion to be eradicated. If religion can do the positive things which I mentioned, and avoid the pitfalls which I also mentioned, I believe that it can have a valuable influence on our world and should be allowed to fluorish in that form. However, I also believe that we can accomplish all of the positive things that religion does now more efficiently with greater impact if we're not hampered by a religious message or agenda.

Talking about atheism and the ethics of humanism is something positive we can do. If religion is going to be something we're not doing, it's going to take a lot of effort to do that.

I am absolutely in favor of doing something in order to not to do something so we can instead do something else. I am in favor of promoting reason and rationality and atheism so we can avoid the negative entanglements of religion and instead rely on secular ethics and the morality of empathy to form communities, establish a moral framework, and provide incentives for positive behavior.

What is the value of NOT doing something?

It's infinitely greater than the value of doing something harmful, or not taking something harmful which could be positive and turning it into a positive force, or not replacing something negative altogether with something less harmful and more beneficial to everyone involved.

"Why do you care about NOT having a religion: you wouldn't attend meetings for a non-stamp-collecting group, you don't read non-Twilight blogs, and you don't describe your hair style as a non-Mohawk, so why care about not having a religion?"

The value of not having a religion is measured in the absence of all the negative entanglements of religious belief and practice and by the accquisition of all the positive traits of a morality based on empathy and compassion. There are many ways to value the absence of a negative quantity.

Yes, it is not what we do not do that is meaningful; it is what we do that is meaningful. Not having religion means that I do possess the freedom to think about morality for myself and do good for its' own sake - it means that I do have the ability to research scientific phenomena without having to justify my discoveries through religious doctrine - there are plenty of things that I do because of my lack of religion that are meaningful to me.

This is why my atheism is important.

In Defense of Atheism

The following is a lengthy letter which I composed to respond to critics of atheists and atheism on another blog.

I have omitted the handles of those to whom I responded to protect their identity.

"Hi all…
(a): You said that there cannot be morality with a god. I disagree.
Let me ask you something: does your god declare something to be good because it is, or is something good because he declares it to be that way? If your god declares something good because it is, that means that there is a form of morality above and beyond your god, and therefore he could not be all-powerful or all-good. If something is good because your god declares it to be that way, then all of your god’s morality is subjective. Then how do you know that what your god does really is good?
Let me ask you something else: Who is more moral? An atheist who jumps in front of a speeding car to save a child, or a Christian who jumps in front of a speeding car to save a child? The atheist, who believes that there is no life after this one, is willing to sacrifice everything, but the theist believes that he will be rewarded in the next life for his actions. Isn’t the person who is willing to do something good without being rewarded more of a moral person? Are you really a moral person if you have to threatened with eternal punishment or bribed with eternal reward to do the right things?
(b): You said that if atheists were true atheists, they would have nothing to demonstrate or protest about.
I disagree. Atheists are not protesting something which we don’t believe in. If this were the case, I would feel sorry for atheists. However, you have been mislead. Atheists are protesting the actions of Christians and other theists. We protest the discrimination against atheists and other non-religious people in the United States and around the world.
Also, you say that atheists “don’t know god and hate him”. Do you even know any atheists? (b), atheists don’t believe in any gods. There’s nobody for us to hate. We do condemn many of the actions of religious people which with we disagree. However, it would be silly for us to hate something in which we do not believe. Also, I know a great deal about religion. I used to be a Christian; I was for most of my life so far. Then I asked myself “what if it’s not true?”, and then I examined the evidence for Christianity and for other religions, and I found it to be severely lacking. I enjoyed my time as a Christian. I tried to live my life according to those beliefs as best I knew, and I still think that there is a lot of good moral lessons in Christianity and also in other religions such as Buddhism and Jainism and Islam, and I try to live by my own interpretation of morality. You have to admit, almost all Christians do this, too. Do any of you take the Bible 100% literally? No? Then you are doing what I am doing. You live your life according to the sections of the Bible that you think are moral, and you disregard the other sections.
(b): Do you know what the First Amendment means? It means that our government cannot give preferrential treatment to any religion or to religion. That means that the atheists have every right to place a sign on public property if the government is allowing Christians to place a sign on public property. It’s entirely Constitutional.
(c): You say that an atheist “is the worst kind of moral vermin”. Hmmm….
I’m not sure how you can justify that statement. You’re the one who “mocks” atheists and insults us, too. I don’t insult theists just because I disagree with them on theological questions. Most of my friends and relatives are Christians. I respect them for who they are, even if our beliefs differ. Do you remember the Gospel passage where Jesus of Nazareth says “let the one who is without sin cast the first stone”? It’s John 8:7, if you want to look it up. Better yet, look up Matthew 7:5. “First remove the beam from your own eye, and then you will see clearly enough to remove the speck from your brother’s eye”. Your own beliefs condemn your vicious treatment of atheists and other non-believers. As I said earlier, most atheists know a great deal about religion. We’re not atheists because we know nothing about it; most of us have done our research and decided that it just didn’t seem to be true, or that there was enough evidence to prove its claims.
Also, you ask “what is good?” “what is morality?” “how can atheists explain the presence of good in our world, or morality, or both?”
My sense of morality is grounded in the human empathy I share with my fellow human beings. You ask if rape is just a matter “of human reproduction”. I would not want my daughter or sister or mother to be raped. It’s hardwired in our personalities that rape is wrong. We don’t like rape because we know it’s consequences, and we sincerely don’t want it to happen to others. Are there psychopaths who don’t share this hardwiring? Yes, and this is why we have police and a legal system. My basic code of morality is that I should always minimize both actual and potential suffering, while always maximizing both actual and potential happiness. It’s based on the Golden Rule, it’s based on our shared human empathy. Good is what increases our happiness and reduces suffering; evil is what decreases our happiness and increases our suffering, both in actual and potential quantities.
Also, I am not a “Social Darwinist”. You’re right to say that evolution inherently says nothing about morality. It is a description of the natural world, not a proscription for how we ought to behave as human beings. However, there are some things that have been developed by evolution in part such as our basic human empathy that do help tell us what is moral and how we should live as human beings.
(b): You wrote that a “moral atheist is an oxymoron” and asked why an atheist would do anything for his or her offspring, and why an atheist would even bother to have children.
(b), the only inherent difference between us is that I believe in one fewer deity than you do. That’s it. Atheists feel the same natural love towards other human beings which Christians and other theists do. I believe strongly that love is its own reward. That’s one reason why atheists have children. Is all of your satisfaction from being a parent contingent on the circumstance that there happens to be a deity in control of everything? I believe that atheist parents take as much pleasure in the mental, moral, and physical well-being of their children as theistic parents do. I am too young to have any children, but from what I have witnessed, there are many intrinsic rewards for parenting, and I’m not sure what believing in a god has to do with the benefits of raising children.
You also write that a “true atheist” would be “entirely self-absorbed”. Why? Atheists have the exact same incentives for loving others that theists do, apart from belief in a god. As I said earlier, our love and compassion for other human beings is based on our empathy, that is natural to all human beings, and which all of us share. Belief in a god has nothing to do with how we treat our fellow human beings. It is a non sequitor.
I agree with your basic assessment (taken from Geisler and McDowell), that there is one ultimate moral code. It is one based on our shared human empathy. This is why all of those cultures share some of the same values, and it has nothing to do with belief in a god or any particular religion.
(c): you say that atheism is “parasitic” on “theistic morality”. No, I disagree. I think “theistic morality” is parasitic on our natural human empathy and the concepts of morality which societies around the world have deduced from it, with or without your particular religion. People who are pagan, Muslim, Hindu, Sikh, Jain, Buddhist, Aborigine, Native American have all deduced these moral truths without the aid of Christianity. I believe that this is powerful testimony for those who say that belief in any god or in any particular god is necessary for morality. Some of the most moral religions in the world are thoroughly atheistic, such as Jainism. The Jains have some of the most powerful doctrines of non-violence in the world. You will struggle to find a religion that has a less violent history. Yet they have no god. I have studied Christianity as a former Christian, and I have studied many of the world’s other religions. Please try to explain away the existence of so many people who do not believe in a god or in your god who live such a moral life. Your premise is strongly called into question by their existence. Research Jainism. Research Buddhism. Both are strongly moral in their traditions and guidance, and both are inherently atheistic. Also, many societies in today’s world that have the lowest crime rates are predominantly or have very large numbers of atheists. Look up the statistics for Japan or countries in Scandinavia. Large numbers of atheists, but very low crime rates. There is no causation between morality and religious belief. None. Your argument is flawed. Atheists can be just as moral as Christians or other theists.
I have no quarrel with any of you, on a personal level. You have suffered because people have told you things that weren’t accurate about atheists and atheism. I came here, to your website, to help set the record straight. I am sure most of you are good, reasonable people. Even though we may disagree on theology, I hope that we can respect one another as people, even if we do not respect each other’s beliefs or lack of beliefs.
There are so many more things I wanted to say to you, and so many errors I saw on this website that still need to be corrected, but I have other things and committments which I must do and which I must keep. I encourage all of you to think for yourselves. Don’t take what I say or what anyone else said for granted. Check my facts. I easily could have misspoken about something. Think for yourselves. Thanks for listening to what I have to say.
I hope you have more positive experiences with other atheists in the future. Peace."

What are your thoughts on this? How did I handle the situation? Is there anything else I should have said? Is there anything I did say that I shouldn't have said? Is there something I could've said better?

Thanks for your opinions.