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.

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.

Religion's abuse of animal rights

Both the Jewish and Islam religious faiths are responsible for inflicting cruelty to animals. While they may preach love and kindness to their fellow humans, they stop short when it comes to animals.

Jews practice the dietary law known as kosher, while Muslims practice the dietary law known as halal. Both these religious dietary laws are in direct contravention of UK animal welfare laws. When an animal is slaughtered in a UK abattoir, the animal should be rendered senseless to pain first by stunning. This is carried out by passing electricity through the animal's body, usually through the use of a stun gun.

However, both the Jewish and Islam faiths contravene this law. Their religion teaches that an animal must be killed by a single knife cut to the throat while fully conscious. This causes unnecessary pain and suffering to the animal involved. The animal is left to suffer while it is bled to death, and this may take up to several minutes.

A PETA investigation has found shocking evidence of cruelty at the AgriProcessors kosher slaughterhouse in the US. Workers at that slaughterhouse were ripping the tracheas out of fully conscious cows and watching them writhe in pools of their own blood.

It is difficult to comprehend how any religion can condone such a brutal level of cruelty. That this is carried out under the name of religion should be even more shocking. Having watched the undercover investigation for myself, I fail to comprehend how any religion can demand that animals be killed in this way.

The question then is, why is this allowed to happen if such acts of cruelty contravene animal welfare laws. If you or I were to inflict the same level of suffering on an animal as these religions demand, we would be sentenced to a custodial sentence, and rightly so. The fact that this is not illegal is yet another example of religion demanding special favours from a compliant government.

In all truth, any government that tried to remove this blatant double standard would stand accused of religious discrimination. Religious zealots would demand that it is their right to inflict cruelty on animals, as their religion demands it. Given the choice between removing animal cruelty in accordance with current animal welfare legislation, and appeasing the religious zealots, endless governments have taken the soft option of leaving animals to suffer at the hands of religion. It is obviously much more important to kowtow to religion's demands for special favours, than to prevent an animal from having its trachea ripped out.

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.