I don't need a morality guide book

I have already written previously on the subject of morality in relation to Atheism, but due to the high degree of polarity amongst theists on the subject, it is worth writing about it again.

I have seen and read many articles and posts from theists, from a variety of religions, and there definitely seems to be a consensus that only they can be moral people because they have a sacred text that teaches them about morality. The general agreement amongst theists is that without a moral guide book to tell you what is right and wrong, it is not possible to be moral.

What complete nonsense!

I would find the concept of spoon fed morality to be risible if it were not taken so seriously by theists. If you see a woman being mugged, do you really need to quickly get out your moral guide book and check whether or not you should help? If you see a starving animal being beaten by its owner, do you have to flip through your sacred text to determine if you should intervene?

These may be extreme examples, but the point being made is the same nonetheless. Morality is instinctive, it has nothing to do with the teachings of any sacred text. Sacred texts may reinforce positive messages and highlight good and bad behaviour, but they do not instill that founding sense of right and wrong that we all share and which is universal across our species.

I donate to charity regularly. In fact, just today, I donated to a children's cancer charity outside my local supermarket. Being atheist means that my act of kindness had nothing to do with sacred texts or from fear of a vengeful deity. I performed my act of kindness for the very simple reason that it was the right thing to do.

It's not as if theists can claim any high ground in terms of morality, when they have been known to perform such acts as flying planes into buildings, murdering physicians who perform abortions and slitting the throats of conscious animals (Halal and Kosher).

Another question that is raised from the superficial belief that morality comes from a book is where did we learn morality before we had religion? Christianity has its origins around the 4th century, during the time of the Roman Empire. Islam has its origins around the 7th century.

Are we seriously to believe that before these religions emerged and spread, that we were all brutal savages? Of course not. I think this in itself is conclusive proof that morality does not spring forth from a book.

Morality is innate. We are all born with the same universal predisposition towards good behaviour.

Are atheists and theists really so different?

Most people who know me, know my religious views, or my lack of them anyway. I have never shied away from my atheism - in fact I have embraced it and written about my views several times on this very blog.

However, I would like to take the opportunity to point out our similarities for a change. While my views may differ from a theist in terms of religion, I genuinely do not think that my views differ that much in terms of being a human being.

Human beings are capable of feeling and expressing love, desire, lust, despair, hope, failure, happiness and tragedy. Your religious views are immaterial in such respects, and the emotions I have just described transcend all religions. Such commonality of emotions bind us, and bring us together in ways that are greater than each of us individually.

Religious faith - or lack of religious faith - does not prevent us from being human, and feeling and experiencing the same emotions as our fellow human beings.

Atheists are often accused of being immoral because we lack the moral framework of formal religions. My own view is that humanity transcends religion, and that we all share the same emotions as everybody else. Being an atheist does not prevent me from feeling the same emotions as a theist.

At the end of the day, we are all humans, and share the traits that make us human. Religion should never be a barrier to sharing human experiences with one another. While I may differ from a theist on their religious views, I would hope that we could still get along, as fundamentally we are human beings, and share all the traits that come with that.

Becoming an atheist

What is an atheist?
Having already written an article about becoming a vegetarian, I though it was high time I wrote an article explaining why I am an atheist.

Firstly, what exactly is an atheist? An atheist is someone who does not believe in the existence of a deity, who lacks religious faith, and has a naturalistic worldview free from superstition and mysticism. Just t clarify from the outset, I am not a practicing scientist, but I do think like one. I don't want to give out the false impression that atheism is confined to scientists only. Atheists can and do come from all walks of life.

So why do I reject the notion that there is a higher being who watches over us? An omnipotent, omniscient deity who created the universe and our planet in a handful of days, and created every single species to boot.

Atheism is aligned with science
To turn the question round slightly, instead of asking why I am an atheist, a better question is why should I believe in the notion of a deity? We have explanations for the formation of the universe and the planets. While the birth of our universe may not yet be fully understood, this does not mean we have to resort to superstition to fill the gaps. Thanks to branches of science including astronomy and cosmology, we understand how planets and stars are formed. Our knowledge of such formations grows daily.

We understand gravity, atoms, chemistry. To anyone who denies that science has shed light on our understanding of the world, I would urge you to step out of an aeroplane when it is 30,000 feet in the air and jump out without a parachute. The fact that an aeroplane flies at all is also a testament to science.

Where is the evidence?
As a died in the wool sceptic, I demand to be shown evidence to substantiate a claim, especially one as grand as an omnipotent deity. Am I really to believe in the idea that our universe, planets, animals, seas and life were all created by a single omnipotent being? This leads to the obvious question of - who or what created the creator?

We know from the physical sciences that you cannot conjure up complexity from nothing. This violates the first theory of thermodynamics, an expression of the conservation of energy which states that "energy can be transformed (changed from one form to another), but cannot be created or destroyed".

That a being complex enough to create planets, stars and life was spontaneously created out of thin air is therefore impossible. Complexity does not arise from complexity, it arises from simplicity. The creationist myth that the Earth is several thousand years old is pure fantasy. We know that the age of the Earth is somewhere between 4 to 5 billion years old.

Extracted from the Wikipedia:
"This age has been determined by radiometric age dating of meteorite material and is consistent with the ages of the oldest-known terrestrial and lunar samples."http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_the_Earth

Anyone who denies the age of the Earth is either scientifically ignorant, or pushing their religious ideology.

Morality
It is often claimed that atheists are immoral people, as they do not have the moral framework and guidance of a sacred text. As I was at pains to point out in my earlier article Do atheists have the moral high ground?, it is perfectly possible to be a good, decent and moral person without religion. For religion to make claims of morality is absurd, when you look at fundamentalists who fly planes into buildings, or murder physicians who perform abortions. The fact that these are extreme acts is irrelevant, they were nonetheless carried out under the name of religion.

As an atheist, I do not believe in the notion of going to hell for being a bad person. I therefore do not perform acts of kindness to curry favour with a vengeful deity, who will smite me down and let me burn in hell for all eternity if I do something wrong (so much for an all loving deity).

If you need to rely on a sacred text to tell you that murder is wrong is deeply worrying. Without resort to any sacred text, an atheist innately knows it is wrong. If theists could steal themselves to throw away their sacred texts, which are nothing more than moral crutches, they would realise that they knew it too.

I perform acts of kindness because they are the right and moral thing to do. Not out of fear of a vengeful deity, or because I have read it somewhere in a sacred book.

Atheism is the only true path to enlightenment
I am far happier living my life as I see it. My life is not based around superstition, fear, vengeance and all the other artefacts that constitute religion. It is based on common sense, evidence and logic.

I do not need to have a meaning to my life ascribed to me by a sacred text. My life already has meaning. I have family and friends, goals and objectives, love and happiness. All these things give my life meaning.

If being a husband, father and friend is not enough to give your life meaning, then I do not know what is.

There is no place or need for religion in my life. We have the scientific methodology to explain the world around us, and our place within it. We are all born with an innate sense of morality. We do not need religion to explain these things. The only thing religion teaches us is to be satisfied with not understanding the world.

Religion is superfluous, surplus to requirements, irrelevant.

I am perfectly happy without it.

Agnosticism vs Atheism

There is confusion in the semantic meaning between these two terms. Sometimes they are used inter-changeably, as if they had the same meaning. They don't.

An atheist does not believe in the existence of a deity, for the reason that there is no proof for its existence. This is in line with scientific enquiry, and is the rational position to take. An agnostic is not committed either way to the belief or disbelief of a deity. An agnostic may therefore believe that a deity may or may not exist, but simply not be fully committed.

Atheists often define themselves as agnostics because of the prejudices that often surround atheism. Agnosticism is often regarded as the more reasonable position. Why people who are atheists should wish to dilute their opinions is unclear, seeing as most theists do not seem to have similar reservations about their own religious beliefs.

I have heard the argument that atheists are as closed minded as theists, that they simply take the polar opposite view in not believing in a deity. That an atheist holds firm to the position that there is no god, as a theist does to the position that there is one.

For a start, atheism does not constitute a 'belief system', in the same sense as theism does. Believing in something is not necessarily the same as a 'belief'. You can believe in many things, none of which constitutes as having a belief. I believe I will enjoy my weekend, I believe I will finish the book I am reading. I believe in these things, but none of them are beliefs. We need to be very careful how we use these words, as they do not necessarily mean the same thing. They are deliberately or accidentally used incorrectly, and this just clouds the discussion.

As I stated earlier, although an atheist may not believe in the existence of a deity, given that there is no proof for one's existence, this does not mean that an atheist discards its existence out of hand. Given sufficient evidence, most atheists would change their minds, for the simple reason that atheism is the scientifically rational position to take.

Agnosticism is compatible with both atheism and theism, they simply do not claim to have a position either way. They may be an atheist and be uncertain, or a theist and be uncertain.

There is also a double standard that often crops up. Theists often claim that being an atheist is dogmatic and closed minded. If disbelieving in the existence of a god is dogmatic, then so surely is believing in one.

It is common for someone to be both agnostic and atheist. An agnostic atheist won't claim to know for certain whether or not something claiming to be a deity exists, but equally they won't actively believe that such an entity exists in the first place.

Debating with theists about evolution

In a recent discussion on the topic of evolution with a Christian (and a fundamental one by their own admission), the same tired agendas and dogmas were trotted out. I have no problem per se with having a discussion on the merits of the theory of evolution, but I have to say, I tend to find them rather uninspiring.

In my long experience of having these discussions, I have never so much as come close to an intellectually invigorating debate, which is a shame. The reasons are obvious. For a start, theists, by virtue of the fact they are proponents of faith, do not tend to let small things like facts and evidence get in the way of their arguments.

Evolution is a scientific theory, and so demands at least a basic understanding of science. How on earth do you propose to dismantle a theory with as much supporting evidence as evolution, without grasping the basics. This unfortunately is where most discussions begin fall apart.

To think you can undermine one of the most important, and far reaching scientific theories of the last century, simply on a whim because it doesn't fit with your faith-based view of the world, is staggering. Not to mention that it also has a vast body of supporting evidence.

Just because you don't believe a theory, doesn't mean it is false.

One of the most common objections I hear from theists is the "but evolution is only a theory". To any scientifically literate person, this must be the most telling. To clarify, the word 'theory' has a special meaning in science. To be called a theory means the following must be true:

• It agrees with observation (fossil record, DNA samples, carbon dating)
• It has been tested independently by other scientists
• It has been published in the scientific literature for other scientists to make their own comments and criticisms

So a scientific theory has to undergo substantial rigour before it can be called a theory.

While I base my arguments using the language and rigour of science, such formal notions are never reciprocated by theists. Using science as your line of defence will by and large be ignored. Science is either not understood, or worse, undermined. This is in spite of huge advances in medicine, technology and space exploration, all of which rely on science. To undermine science is to display a wanton ignorance, and is one indicator I will use as to whether a discussion is worth pursuing. In all seriousness, you cannot have a worthwhile discussion about evolution if the other party doesn't have the faintest appreciation or understanding of it.

In my most recent encounter with a theist, they accepted they could not disprove evolution!

There is no “controversy” about evolution at all in the minds of intelligent, educated, scientifically-literate people.

Do atheists have the moral high ground?

Theists claim that their sense of morality, of right and wrong, comes from their particular holy text. If that is the case, then where does an atheist get their sense of morality?

Atheists are capable of performing moral, good deeds, just like a theist. The difference is that they do so without resort to a holy text to tell them what is right and wrong. If you need to resort to a holy text to be told what is moral, good behaviour, then you surely cannot claim that your morality is innate. You are only appeasing your particular deity, rather than doing it for the simple reason that it is the right thing to do.

Religious texts define morality in very blunt and simplistic terms. In Christianity, the Bible states that it is a sin to tell a lie. This is not always a black and white statement. If you were a Jewish sympathiser during the time of the War, and a Nazi knocks on your door asking if you know the whereabouts of any Jews, then according to the Bible, you should reveal the location of the Jews. Surely, in this scenario, it is a lesser moral evil to tell a lie and protect the safety of the Jews.

Atheists consider what is right and wrong on the merits of each individual situation. They have no need to be told what is right and wrong from any text that claims moral authority.

If atheists are capable of behaving in a moral way, then where does this tendency come from. Morality is very closely aligned to empathy. The ability to feel what another person feels. With the exception of psychopaths and sociopaths, most people are capable of feeling empathy towards another person or animal. Empathy is innate. It cannot be taught or learnt from a religious text. If you come across a person who is clearly suffering, such as involvement in a car accident, your immediate response is to help them. This is a response that has nothing to do with what you have been taught from a religious text. It is simply the right thing to do, to help someone who is suffering or in pain.

This leads to a curious question. If an atheist is capable of conducting themselves in a moral way, then is it possible for theists to do the same? The simple answer is a definite yes. Morality and empathy are innate traits, every human being possesses them. Theists, however would much rather accept that these traits come from a higher power, or deity. Atheists on the other hand, would rather believe that we do good things for the simple reason that they are right. Not because they have been told it is right.

Surely it is more satisfying to believe that human beings are born with the innate ability to be good. This also must be true, as where else would atheists get their morality from. This is a better explanation of why morality is so universal. People tend to behave in morally similar ways the world over, irrespective of religious belief, culture or creed. If we accept that morality is broadly similar across such disparate people, then the only explanation is that it must be innate. If that is the case, then we have no need for religion to teach us morality.

I would much rather believe that the human species is capable of great deeds and of being moral, as a trait that we are born with, not something we need to learn and be taught.

Fundamentalist Atheists

Just to be clear from the outset, I am an atheist. My worldview is naturalistic and free from supersition.

I have heard and contributed to several discussions debating whether the term 'fundamentalist atheist' is a valid one. In my opinion, it is. The term 'fundamentalist' can be applied to an atheist, as well as to a theist. Although few atheists in practice fit the description, the term is a valid one nonetheless.

It is easy to see how the term can be applied to a theist, but how does it apply to an atheist? As atheism is the absence of religious faith, is it not a contradiction to describe an atheist as a fundamentalist? The short answer is no. A fundamentalist is a person who has a strict belief in a doctrine, belief system or point of view, to the exclusion of others. Any atheist who takes such a strict advocacy may reasonably be labelled as a fundamentalist atheist.

It is the lack of doubt that is the defining quality of a fundamentalist.

The blogger Austin Cline of atheism.about.com, argues that fundamentalist atheism does not exist, because it cannot exist on the grounds that atheism has no fundamental doctrines, and that fundamentalism is not a personality type. I disagree with this statement. I think it is perfectly possible to take a strict atheist stance. Atheism may lack fundamental doctrines, but it does have defining attributes, such as a naturalistic wordview that is devoid of superstition which can be held strictly to the exclusion of other worldviews.

Any belief can be held so srictly that it becomes a fundamentalist belief.

Richard Dawkins has stated that, unlike religious fundamentalists, he would willingly change his mind if new evidence challenged his current position. This is the more reasonable position that the vast majority of atheists take, and is the polar opposite of the fundamentalist atheist.

As atheists by their very nature tend to be open minded, as they have actually taken the time to consider their worldview and what it means (a claim which sadly cannot be made for the majority of theists), then the term 'fundamentalist atheist' will rarely apply, but it is worth setting the ground rules for its definition.

Raising religiously tolerant children

Following on from an earlier blog describing why I am an atheist, I would like to follow that up by advocating why I think all children should be raised as atheists.

It is more correct and reasonable to teach children about the different religions, what they represent, and their beliefs, against the backdrop of atheism. Atheism is the absence of religion, so a child raised as an atheist is much more likely to make an informed choice in relation to religion when they are ready to do so. By raising a child under the doctrine of a specific religion, the parent has already made that decision for them. They have effectively taken away the child's decision as to which religion (if any) they should follow. While it is possible for a child to choose another religion in later life, this is far less likely than if the child had been raised as an atheist.

Children who are raised following a specific religion, will be bombarded with religious messages, dogma, ceremonies, festivals and other associated rituals that belong to their parents religion. A child raised in such circumstances hardly stands a chance of making their own decision. By the time they are old enough to understand about religion, and to make their own choice, it is probably far too late. After years of being raised under the religion of their parents, who have subconsciously and consciously exerted great influence on their child's religious upbringing, they will be unable or incapable of making a truly informed decision about their choice of religion.

By raising a child free from religious indoctrination, where no single religion is followed, but instead they are all taught in equal measure, then the child is much more likely to choose the religion (or lack of it) that is most suitable and appropriate to them as individuals. To raise a child under a specific religion, and then claim that they are free to make their own choice later on in life is a false claim. It is far more difficult for a child to break free from the shackles of their parent's religion.

To refer to a child as a Socialist child, or a Marxist child is obviously wrong. Yet it is perfectly acceptable to refer to a child as being a Christian child, or a Muslim child. Religion seems to make an exception of itself when it comes to labelling children.

Religion is divisive. It teaches children to respect their own religion above the others, that only their religion has the answers, that other religions are wrong. By raising a child as an atheist, but teaching them about the other religions in equal measure, is surely the most sensible and appropriate way to raise a child.

I have been an atheist for many years. I have explained my reasons to my eldest child, and will do the same to my youngest when they are old enough to understand. At no point have I ever forced my views about religion onto my children. I would much prefer my children made such decisions for themselves. To raise a child that can think for themselves, then you have to step back, and let them make decisions such as their choice of religion for themselves. If you force your own religion onto your child, then don't be surprised if your child is incapable of making their own choices later in life.

Surely it is far better to let your child make their own choices, even if you disagree with them, than to force your own choices onto them.