The "You've Got To Be Kidding Me" God

The "You've Got To Be Kidding Me" God

There are some arguments that get so old, but they just won't go away. I don't know how many times I have been told that I have a god, and that my god is probably science. This argument is so wrong that it is insulting: it is insulting to me, it is insulting to them, and it is insulting to their god.

It often starts out something like this:

They say, "Everyone has a god, yours is just science."

And I say, "I don't have a god. Science is just a process of getting to the truth."

They say, "Whatever is most important to you in your life is your god."

I say, "That just defines away every form of atheism and agnosticism. We should agree on what a god is first."

They say, "OK."

I say, "I see gods as supernatural beings, incredibly powerful, and capable of affecting the material world."

They say, "That's it."

I say, "Science is nothing like that."

They say, "I thought we were talking about my god."

I say, "If that is the definition of your god, I will accept it."

They say, "But that's not your god. Your god is whatever you put first in your life."

I laugh, and say, "That's like saying rainbows are just like watermelons except one of them is fruit."

They say, "You don't understand."

Ah, but I think I do understand. I just think that they are wrong.

Let's change the object of the discussion a little bit to make it more clear.

They say, "Everyone has a favorite magazine."

I say, "I don't have a favorite magazine. I don't like magazines."

They say, "Sure you do. Whatever magazine you keep in your bathroom is your favorite magazine."

I say, "First let's determine what we are calling a magazine. It is a periodical publication. It contains articles and illustrations. It typically covers a particular subject or area of interest."

They say, "That's it. That's what a magazine is."

I say, "I don't have any magazines in my bathroom."

They say, "Then what do you keep in your bathroom?"

I say, "All I keep in my bathroom is a plunger."

They say, "Then that plunger is your favorite magazine."

It is the nonsense that religious people believe that make discussions difficult. They can't seem to see past the blinders that they have placed on themselves. They insist that everything has to fit into a framework that they provide. Regardless of how many times they insist they are the same, a plunger just isn't the same thing as a magazine any more than the most important thing in your life has to be a god.

The Requirements of Atheism

I am amazed at the different ways that people look at atheism. Some people will actually spend a great deal of time arguing that atheism doesn't mean anything other than not believing in a god, God, or gods; yet they will spend their time doing it on an atheist website. If atheism doesn't actually mean anything to them, I can't quite understand why they are spending any time going over atheist materials and spending time with other atheists. If atheism were of no more consequence than the color of the small intestines, I wouldn't expect to see them at atheist sites any more than I would expect to see them browsing the medical sites endlessly researching information on internal organs. On the other hand, atheism does mean something to me. It is worth thinking about and debating. It is the raw material to build a movement on top of. Atheism touches almost every part of my life and should be treated as the far reaching idea that it is.

I think it's probably important to express some of my initial positions here. I will grant that atheism, by itself, doesn't actually carry any more meaning than believing or disbelieving in automobiles. It is nothing more than an idea that we use to try to interpret reality more accurately. But like any interpretation of reality, what matters is what happens when we try to use that information to navigate our way through the real world.

Imagine for a moment that you don't believe in the existence of cars. That lack of belief will have a dramatic effect on how you go about your daily life. While you might not understand what roads are for, you wouldn't have any inherent problem with just walking across them without paying any attention to objects that might be intersecting your path. There are, after all, no such thing as cars. I realize that some people will think this is nothing more than hyperbolic rhetoric and that it is an example of a false equivalence fallacy. I can assure you that isn't my intention. All I hope to do with this example is demonstrate that ideas have a real effect on us and our interaction with the world. Ideas are the raw materials of our actions. It is ideas that drive our interactions with the world.

When I talk about atheism being the raw materials to build a movement, I mean that atheism in and of itself might not have any particular meaning other than not believing in gods, but the consequences of that realization are life changing. If we were brought up in a church, then all the things we learned about the functioning of reality are changed. No longer can we just assume that when bad things happen that they are a part of God's plan. When something bad happens to us, we can no longer fit it into the context of a god trying to tell us something. Our faith isn't being tested, and no one is sending cryptic messages. There are no gods to help us, or harm us, or interact with us or anyone else. But what does that have to do with our interactions with reality?

If we don't want to live at the mercy of an uncaring universe, then we have an obligation to help our fellow humans in exchange for their help when we need it. When women make less money than men for no reason other than ingrained religious beliefs, then we have an obligation to stand by their side and help them. When members of the lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) community are treated as inferior for no other reason than who they are, we have an obligation try to assist them. When people require assistive technology to manage their interactions with the world, we should see that they have access to that technology. And these examples are only a few of many such examples of the consequences of atheism.

While I think we should advocate for all people that are disadvantaged by life, I don't think it is practical. But if we don't have the time, energy, or knowledge to advocate for everyone, the least we can do is not actively try to hinder them in trying to correct the wrongs that they suffer. And if you don't have the decency to not add misery to people that are already suffering from the cruelties of life, then you have just become a problem that needs courageous people to stand against.

Is It Wrong to Believe?

As an atheist I don't believe in god, God, or gods. It isn't that I don't want to believe in them, it's that I can't find anything that would make me believe. It isn't a choice for me. I can no longer believe in any gods than I could begin believing in Hogwarts. But is belief bad in and of itself? I don't think so. Each of us carries a series of beliefs about ourselves and the world around us. Many of those beliefs will turn out to be wrong. As we get older, some of the things that we took for granted will fall by the wayside as we learn and grow. What matters is how we react to our own beliefs and the beliefs of others in the mean time.

There seems to be two primary differences in the atheist community. One belief states that religion is wrong because it teaches people to believe things without any proof whatsoever. Since believing things without proof is incompatible with knowledge, religion is a bad thing for simply existing. The other belief that runs through the atheist community is that belief isn't a bad thing in and of itself, it is more a matter of how you deal with it. This view holds that we all believe things that are wrong from time to time, but if they aren't hurting anyone, then it is okay to hold these beliefs until such a time as we can eliminate them from our minds.

I was reminded of these differences in beliefs when I came across an blog post of one skeptic rebutting the ideas of another skeptic. Rebecca Watson wrote:

Shermer states that 41% of Democrats believe god created man as-is within the previous 1,000 years [EDIT: I mean 10,000, not that that's much better] and 19% doubt global warming. The creationism question comes from a recent Gallup poll of 1,000 people, and the global warming figure comes from this 2011 poll that also found that only 36% of Democrats doubted evolution. But let’s say that yes, a large minority of Democrats don’t believe in evolution and a smaller minority doesn’t believe in climate change.

Does this equal a “liberal war on science”? Hardly. A lot of people believing something inaccurate does not mean there’s a war – a war requires action, and conservatives are the people who are performing the actions: namely, introducing and sponsoring antievolution bills. While I’m sure that some Democrat must have introduced an antievolution bill, my Google skills have failed to turn one up. Bill after bill in state after state, conservative Republicans are the ones who are attempting to legislate their religious beliefs.

And I think she is exactly right. Believing something inaccurate doesn't mean that you are at war, and it doesn't mean that you are doing anything negative to society. At most you are hurting yourself, but that is a different post. I can see no reason to try to change someone's beliefs simply because they believe something different than I believe. The main reason I see for confronting religion is because of the actions they do in the name of their religion.

Do you want to pray in public? Fantastic! I fully support your right to pray. Do you want to force me, my friends, or my children to pray in public? I will oppose you with every legal means I have at my disposal. Do you want to pray in school? No problem. You can pray all you want. You can pray before school, during school, and after school. You can sit at your desk and pray instead of working or taking a test. You can ride the bus to school and pray constantly until you take the bus back home. What you can't do is use the power of the state to try to force other people to practice your belief system. If you try, I will oppose you to the best of my ability. The same is true for marriage. I will argue against religious people trying to impose their values on other couples.

Religion and religious beliefs aren't bad in and of themselves. What makes religious beliefs bad is the same thing that makes any belief bad; trying to impose it on other people against their will.