A reply to an atheist

(This was written as a response to some claims of atheists on a religious discussion group. One of their main points being that atheism is not a religion, and their favorite repeated analogy was “not collecting stamps is not a hobby just as not believing is not a religion”. I had previously written a short post with had similar arguments but not explained in detail which excited a sharp response, so I tried to explain myself a little more clearly)

I typically would not comment further but I do feel I made some mistakes in expressing myself that could lead to some misunderstanding. That is not to say that everyone reading this discussion will agree with my views but I do feel looking back at my post that my language was perhaps too strong and without explanation behind the words so that they could lend themselves to being offensive or meanspirited, which was not my intent. And so particularly for those who read but not post I want to clarify myself:

In terms of atheism as a religion, perhaps that is a mis-categorization. I would however argue that it is a philosophy or worldview. I suppose I act under the assumption that the questions of life are universal and inherent in our very existence. Some of those questions I would propose are: ‘is this all there is?’ ‘how can I account for this experience I am living?’ which could translate into such questions as ‘how did this earth come to be’ or even ‘the universe?’. And atheism while defining itself in not believing in the supernatural as a suitable explanation must nonetheless answer those fundamental questions, and in my understanding the philosophy turns to reason and science.

I suppose in the strictest sense the word atheism can simply mean the absence of belief. And I think it can be true that there are those that can live life without thinking of those questions or perpetually putting off such questions, and/or choosing not to believe in any explanation they are presented with. But I think the core questions are built into our very nature and existence. Perhaps the only thing we know for sure is the reality of our own existence “i think, therefore I am” and we are left to our own to explain our existence. This is where the stamp analogy falls short because not everyone has to collect stamps but we are all faced with the reality of our own existence. It is almost as if we are forced to be collectors of something and even deciding not to collect is still a decision about collection.

In terms of meaning, again I think I was unclear and therefore misunderstood. I think an atheist can live a meaningful life in the terms prescribing and finding meaning to their life. They can naturally be good family members, good members of society, kind individuals. And I suspect I would be similar in thought and action were it not for the breakthrough of experience. But when we consider the philosophy or worldview of atheism, which is left to reason and science, there is no inherent value or meaning in life or an individual beyond what they create. The cosmic understanding of our individual-self is meaningless. Although seemingly harsh, the earth and all of us on it are but a statistical anomaly and this earth and sun will meet the same fate as other observed stars and galaxies, namely destruction and reorganization. In such a philosophy everything, from our personal lives, to the existence of the earth can be seen as a ’soap bubble’. You can rub your hands together, blow, create a glistening bubble, with floats for a brief moment then disappears in a blink of an eye to have no more individual reality. Again that is from a cosmic understanding of the individual and not seen from the individual self as they see their life. Again I would argue that there is something deep inside us that wants to deny that thought, that when we look into the eye of someone we love, or hold a newborn baby in our hand, or sit at the deathbed of a friend, we want that hope that it is inherent meaning and death is not an absolute end.

And perhaps an atheist would say it is a false hope. If so, fine. That adheres to their philosophy, and they lived a meaningful life as they saw it and they can choose that. Why then do many atheists seem to be troubled by those that do believe and do claim experience with the divine? Under their own philosophy meaning is created as we prescribe it. And to what end? Often I hear that we as a society and civilization would be more peaceful and better off without religion. And I can certainly understand that argument considering the atrocities committed in the name of religion throughout history. I would argue that such acts are the result of the imperfections of man and a result of free will and not something inherently wrong with all prospect of a true religion and/or explanation. And that can be disagreed or agreed with. But back to that question of ‘to what end?’, if the atheist argues that society and life would be better for all if religion were removed, again the question remains ‘to what end?’ Is it happiness and fulfillment? If someone therefore claims happiness and fulfillment with religion then what does it matter, we will all meet the same fate in the end. The atheist by his very philosophy should accept all choices of belief or non-belief as an individual choice to maximize personal happiness or fulfillment as an attempt to prescribe meaning to their life.

Which leads to clarifying my last misunderstood point about a complete openness to ‘personal pleasure maximization’. I do not believe that this is what every atheist does or suggests, I am just saying that the philosophy or worldview itself has no built in reason for withholding an individual from doing so. The fact that most don’t brings up whole new discussions of natural law and or evolutionary benefits of positive social behavior but we can leave that for another time and place. But in terms of the argument that society would be better off if everyone were atheists and religion disappeared I think the fact that religion does play a role in creating moral standards and positive social behavior, when practiced properly, give it a stronger case for making a more ideal society than a society created on a philosophy that fundamentally does not prescribe a behavioral code.

Again I don’t mean to be offensive. I think there are many wonderful atheists and in many ways are better members of society in terms of building happiness and fulfillment than a lot of the religious zealots we come across. But as a philosophy I wanted to bring up points that I think deserve consideration. I have pointed out where I have made some basic assumptions and people can disagree with those assumptions. But let’s not get to the point where we have hatred or ill-spirit Atheist to Believer or Believer to Atheist because it truly does go counter to both philosophies.