The trouble with atheism
This was the title of an interesting, if irritating, programme shown earlier this week on Channel 4 which was presented by the supercilious Rod Liddle. In fact, in my view, there is no problem with atheism and all the programme demonstrated was that there is a problem with a small number of atheists who tend to be unpleasantly arrogant and unnecessarily rude towards religious believers.
Whatever my problems with religion (and I have many), I respect most religious people as serious, sincere, decent and well-intentioned. Sadly the belief systems to which they adhere and the religious organisations that they support are in fundamental contradiction to evidence and science and encourage irrationality and sectarianism.
Liddle concluded his programme by asserting: “The true scientific position is: There may be a god, and there may not be a god. So why can’t we leave it at that?“ Perhaps we could if religious people simply declared something like: “There are things about our universe that I don’t understand, especially how it was first created. Therefore, although there is no evidence for a God, I have faith that there is one. This is my private view – I do not expect anything as a result either of other people or of my society.”
However, almost all religious persons go much, much further.
- They believe in a personal God who communicates with us through prophets and holy texts and with whom we can communicate through worship and prayer. But there is no credible evidence for this.
- They believe in an interventionist God who is able and willing to interrupt the natural or scientific course of events in ways that others would simply class as chance or coincidence and which believers class at their most dramatic as miracles. But again there is no credible evidence for this.
- They believe in an immortal soul and in the prospect of everlasting happiness in some kind of heaven or nirvana. But yet again there is no credible evidence for this.
Different religions then have a set of more specific beliefs which are even more contrary to evidence and science. For instance, the Catholic Church believes in three persons in one God, the virgin birth of Christ, the resurrection of Christ from the death, the transubstantiation of bread and wine into the body and blood of Christ, and the infallibility of the Pope when he is speaking ‘ex cathedra’. Once again, there is simply no evidence for any of this.
Furthermore many religious people – especially those of a born-again or fundamentalist persuasion – believe that religion is not simply a personal matter but one which should influence public policy. So, for instance, some Christians believe that creationism should be taught in schools and abortion should be denied to all and some Muslims believe that we all women in public must wear the veil and that government must be in accordance to shira law.
Does it matter whether religious beliefs are true or not? It matters because, if we assess truth on any basis other than evidence, then our lives and our societies are open to many dangers. I have written more about this in my essay on “The reason for truth”. It matters because the holding of absolute beliefs without evidence often leads to the vilification, persecution and even the murdering of others who hold different but equally absolute beliefs based on an equal lack of evidence, whether it be Catholics and Protestants in Northern Ireland, Hindus and Muslims in India, or Sunni and Shia in Iraq.
In his television programme, Liddle argued that that atheism has high priests and dogmatic beliefs, just like fundamentalist religion. This analogy is utterly false.
Religion deals in absolute truths revealed by an omniscient and omnipotent God. To challenge or even question those truths or books which testify to them or the leaders who propagate them is unacceptable and leads to condemnation, expulsion or even annihilation.
In total contrast, atheism – which rests on evidence and science – has no absolute truths, no sacred books, and no revered leaders. All science and all scientists are up for challenge. The central essence of the scientific method is that all its statements are ultimately provisional, the best explanation based on current evidence. Scientists are constantly conducting peer reviews, carrying out further experiments and seeking further evidence. Scientists do not prohibit challenge; they positively seek it.
When the evidence requires it, the thinking of generations – such as Newtonian physics – can be totally revised (as by Einstein’s theory of relativity).
If you find this discussion interesting, check out the thoughtful blog posting on the Channel 4 programme from my fellow blogger Richard Leyton.
By the way: Merry Christmas!
October 28th, 2007 at 8:27 am
Please.. “atheism that rests on evidence and science” It does no such thing! When will atheists come to grips with that they are just representing another religion? Science does not prove or disprove God. its not ment to be a basis for for moral or ideological assumptions. Science tells us how things work, nothing more nothing less. Whenever you draw ideological conclusions from science you have left the area and walked right into religion. Its not less religious to say that science calls for atheism than it is to say that it proves God. As Rod shows in his documantary atheism is just as voulnerable to fundamentalism, intolerance, absolute truts and violence. It is in no way based more on rational thinking than any other world view. Rational thinking is a very fluid concept and what seams rational to you might not be rational to me. Atheism is certainly not a safeguard against the insanity of humanity. Id rather say its one of the main contributors. Counting bodies, Atheistic regimes have killed more people than all religious regimes ever combined. One estimet says 200 million in the last hundered years. And they are still going strong.The Chinese atheistic government still kills and torures christians and falun gongers on a daily basis. Its time that atheist becomes a bit more humble for they truly belive that their worldview is the only correct one, they have plenty of misconceptions on religion in general and do hold absolute belieths. For starters: There is no God. How can it get more absolute than that?
December 27th, 2007 at 7:44 pm
(Responding to the other comment)
Atheism and theism have one absolute each in terms of does god exist.
Theism then has several others based on the position that god does exist. Atheism has no others.
Rational thinking isn’t subjective. Some things are clearly irrational. Tautologies are clearly rational.
Atheistic regimes were not based on atheism. It was pretty irrelevant. Pol pot killed intellectuals. How is that motivated by atheism and not removing threats to his rule?
Atheism is not a religion. Consult a dictionary.