Seven things atheists do not get wrong

A member one of my online Facebook groups, Freethinkers Initiative Kenya (FIKA), posted an article titled “Seven Things Atheists Get Wrong”. The idea, I imagine, was to get atheists evaluate their opinions on what religion truly is as it is assumed their opinions do not reflect true religion.

Before we tackle the seven things let’s look at the author’s premises. First he makes an assumption that all religions are Christianity and the Christian principles are what atheists have a problem with. Atheists do not believe in any god, be it Yahweh, Allah, Amon Ra or any of the myriads of gods that have been postulated over the ages. It is hubris to imagine that there is only one religion, and to be an atheist that is the religion you must disbelieve in. I am pretty sure adherents of Islam or Buddhism would disagree on that. However even if we looked at Christianity we have an estimate of approximately 41,000 different Christian denominations which do not always agree on the same things or even use the same translation of the Bible. I doubt that they, or even skeptics, can agree on exactly how much different, or how far apart in belief, these denominations are. What is certain is that they fall in a wide range of beliefs and practices. The significance of these depend on the particular denomination that we are looking at.

Let’s look at the points presented.

1. Religion Is About Morality, Not Creation Myths

While I will agree that certain sects do not depend on Creation myths, most of the Christian sects depend on the creation myth to validate their morality. The creation narrative in the Bible sets the stage for the salvation story. It sets the stage for the advent of the “chosen people” as well as the advent, ministry and significance of Jesus the Christ. Without Eve’s acceptance of the serpents offer, and Adam’s subsequent acceptance of Eve’s offer there would be no necessity for most of what is documented in the Bible. The Bible is about obedience and submission to God’s will. It’s about the inability of man to do so unaided. Remove the creation myth and it invalidates most of what follows. The definition of morality in the Bible is conforming to God’s will and God’s will is demonstrated during creation and the subsequent activities.

2. Religion Is the Foundation of All Morality, Not Merely an Expression of It

The author suggests that atheists are incapable of determining right and wrong. He imagines that atheists only determine this by showing how evil religion is. This is a rather strange claim because in order to determine the relative evilness of religion atheists would have to have a moral code that they use to contrast with the religious moral code. He also makes the, rather regrettable, error of assuming that once you do not believe in a god you’d, of necessity, have the same moral code as all others who do not believe in a god. Given that not all who believe in some god(s), or even the same god, have the same moral code this inference is rather disingenuous, and he uses this assumption to fortify his claim that all morality comes from religion.

There have been societies without religion (as distinct from not believing in a god) and all these societies have had a moral code. True religion seeks to constrain human actions, but then so does society. The very existence of society implies a code that binds these people together. The morality may be different, or have different roots, from religious morality but it is still a moral system. All of us practice a morality, however it is not necessarily a morality based upon a religion.

3. Religion Was the Foundation of Society, Not an Addition to It

As I pointed out, there are societies that didn’t have religion, however even if this was true that does not make religion necessary, now, or even desirable. Cannibalism, slavery, torture, repression and war are part of humanity's past, and also played a role in the formation of society. Whether this society is ideal is another issue however there are quite a number of reprehensible acts in the formation of this society and that they are part of our history is no reason to include them in either the present or the future society.

4. Atheists Do Believe

This is a rather strange statement. There is nothing in the meaning of atheism, or atheist, that precludes believing in general. Atheism is about a specific belief, not all beliefs.

Atheists who complain about the presence of the Ten Commandments in public spaces are not making a statement of belief, or unbelief, they are making a statement on the impartiality of the state. The statement is about the promoting of one ideology over another in a multi ideology state, and the implications that the state will use a specific ideology to provide services to it’s citizens. Many atheists, and quite a number of Christians as well, believe that a free state has no business promoting any particular ideology, or using a particular ideology in the provision of services to citizens. It’s not an issue of belief, but of the impartiality of the state.

5. Science Can’t Teach Us Right from Wrong

This is probably the only “true” statement in the article. Science certainly cannot teach us right or wrong. Science is a tool, not an ideology, not a way of life. Science can examine why we say x is wrong, z is right and y is not. It has no judgement on whether we should do x, y, or z. Right and wrong are subjective values. They change with society and are constantly being adjusted to suit our changing circumstances. Ultimately right or wrong is a question of survival, and, ultimately, neither earth, nor the universe, cares whether we survive or not. It’s only man, that we know of, who truly cares abut the survival of man.

Our actions are, and that is not a frightening thing. We assign value and moral consequence, to them. In themselves, and of themselves, are actions do not have moral value or consequence. Yes we have to decide to act, however I see no tragedy in acting for the good of humanity, and the individual human.

6. Religion Complements Science, It Doesn’t Oppose It

History has shown that religion only uses science to the extent that it supports it’s (religion’s) aims. Where science doubts, or causes religious claims to be rendered invalid, religion will attempt to suppress, oppose, or, failing all else, ignore science. Religion has hardly been interested in factual data, but rather in how data can be used to further it’s aims. The tool that we call science will always be wielded in the interests of the person wielding it. Very few people are interested in knowledge for knowledge’s sake, but rather in how this knowledge can be used in aiding, or furthering, one’s aims.

Religion rarely, if ever, complements science. It opposes, hides, suppresses and ignores science unless science is proving, or furthering, religion.

7. Ignorance of Religion Is Ignorance of History, For Atheists and Everyone

Religion is part of our history, yes, however knowing about, and of, religion does not mean believing the claims religion makes. Ideas, and cultures, do not deserve automatic respect, they have to earn it against other ideas and cultures in the market place.

Religion demands, or tries to shame us, into respect for their claims, yet religion does not respect other claims. If it truly respected other viewpoints then it would respect that others are incapable of respecting their viewpoint as well. We do not respect religions that support human sacrifice, we do not respect ideologies that suppress women, we do not respect ideologies that propose that some humans must be inferior to others, and we do not, also, respect ideologies that result in oppression of any group of humans. These ideologies have not earned our respect, much as they may demand it, and our current religions, too, must earn any respect due to them.

AG cannot honestly legislate spirituality.

In a typical knee jerk reaction the Kenya Government, through the AG, is proposing new rules to control churches and various religious organisations. According to the Nation Newspaper the AG claims that only religious organisations that meet certain conditions, pegged on their “transparency, accountability and spirituality” will be registered. Currently religious institutions are registered as Charities under the Societies Act.

The government is claiming that this will, somehow, protect Kenyans against the antics of “seed” pastors who are accused of “fleecing” Kenyans of cash in exchange for “fake” miracles. Bishop Mark Kariuki comes out accusing the government of interfering with the freedom of worship, Sheikh Ngao warns the government on attempting to keep people from places of worship, and, in an ironic twist, condemns religious leaders using the Bible to impoverish their flock.

One wonders under what auspices and criteria the AG will determine the spirituality of a church, or even what empirical procedures can be used to determine this without creating state favouritism of a particular group of creeds. Our constitution in Chapter Two 8 states clearly “There shall be no State religion.” By declaring certain levels of spirituality as religion and others as not valid isn’t the state declaring it’s favoured religion, or group of religions?

First, there is no empirical method of determining what spirituality is or how to measure this spirituality. In order to set up laws on this the government would have to define spirituality, and given the various methods that religious organisations use to determine this, it would force the government either to prefer one interpretation over another, which would not be constitutional, or to accept all interpretations of spirituality as valid. In the latter case there would thus be no way of determining which church, if any, is not spiritual.

Secondly, the Kanyari saga that is creating this knee jerk reaction by our beloved government is no scam if we go by the tenets of religion. By defining something as religion you immediately remove any standards of proof, proper behaviour, or even what constitutes as false. Yes, Kanyari asked his “flock” to contribute money in exchange for miracles. Mainstream churches have been asking their flock to contribute money in exchange for miracles since they were formed. About the only difference is that Kanyari coached people to show miracles while mainstream churches fail to demonstrate that those miracles have happened, or coach their terms in such a vague manner that all manner of phenomena can be considered miracles. Kanyari is well within his religious rights to create props that enable his flock to have faith, and he is well within his religious rights to ask for money for this. If we accuse him of obtaining money by false pretences then we might as well accuse all religions of doing the same. After all we are yet to have verifiable evidence that any religion is helping people to the afterlife (as they claim), and given that they all claim their paths are the only paths to an afterlife then certainly most, if not all, of the religious organisations are obtaining money by false pretences.

In my opinion the government has very few choices. Either it let’s the religious organisation have free rein to “fleece” the public by promising them things we cannot verify the public has actually received, or it can treat these organisations in exactly the same way it treats other organisations that make money off the public. Given that they provide an intangible product these organisations should declare their earnings and expenditures and pay taxes on these earnings. Accountability and transparency in fiscal matter is about the only thing the government can have authority on. Inasmuch as it protects religious claims from evidential enquiry it should not, now, suddenly subject the claims of one of these organisations to scrutiny without requiring other organisations to, thus, verify their claims. If the public are happy with being sold a product they can only feel, and the government is required to protect this product, then the government cannot turn around and claim it has to investigate this protected product simply because it is packaged in a different manner.

I do not imagine, for the moment, that the government would be willing to make any claims of the validity of these religions, and I doubt it would be in it’s interests to do so, however the public still has a choice as to whether to support the “false” false prophets, “true” false prophets, or any prophet in general, or, alternative, to use critical thought in verifying the claims of these prophets before committing their resources to them. Alas, critical thought has been shown to be greatly lacking in this country.

Christianity and Freethought

Freethought is a philosophical viewpoint that holds opinions should be formed on the basis of logic, reason and empiricism and not authority, tradition, or other dogmas. The cognitive application of freethought is known as "freethinking", and practitioners of freethought are known as "freethinkers".

Now there are quite a number of people who believe that if one is a Christian then one cannot be a freethinker. First let’s get a few things said right at the beginning. If one forms an opinion that God exists on the basis of logic, reason and empiricism without basing it on authority, tradition or dogma then one can be said to have used the process of freethought in order to arrive at the conclusion that there is a god. Freethought does not imply that the opinions you get will be truthful, or even that they will stand all the tests of future evidence. However a freethinker should be able to change their opinions and conclusions when new evidence does appear.

Christianity is usually taken as a dogmatic religion that relies on tradition and authority to come to conclusions and opinions. However this is a narrow definition of Christianity. In my opinion anybody who follow the teachings of Jesus Christ is a Christian. A Christian is a person who adheres to Christianity, an Abrahamic, monotheistic religion based on the life and teachings of Jesus of Nazareth as recorded in the Canonical gospels and the letters of the New Testament. "Christian" derives from the Koine Greek word Christ, a translation of the Biblical Hebrew term Messiah. On the other hand Christian atheism is an ideology in which the belief in the God of Christianity is rejected or absent but the moral teachings of Jesus are followed. People who adhere to any of these ideologies are Christian, even though the latter will certainly not be called Christian by many sects of this religion. However one must admit that these self-same sects consider all other similar sects as not Christian either.

Regardless as to which definition of Christianity you use being a freethinker would not necessarily mean that one cannot be a Christian. Traditional Christianity demanded that one relied entirely on dogma and tradition to have an opinion. People who follow this ideology were required to wait for interpretation of every even and portent from authority. Thus everything, including observable fact, had to be interpreted in light of dogma. This kind of Christian can certainly never be a freethinker. However it was this oppressive ideology that gave rise to freethought as we know it. Modern Christianity is not that oppressive and there are variants that do not take logic and reason as an anathema to faith.

For most of us our first glimmer to understanding the world came from persons who had experienced it before us. They gave us their observations and opinions and we grasped them as essentials to life. We get an education in a similar manner and since the world is too large for us to experiment on everything we get most of our “facts” in a similar manner. This is a practical way to gain knowledge. A freethinker, however, is willing to question each and every “fact” of learned experience and using logic reason and empiricism should be able to validate these “facts”. If the premises are faulty, or the methods of perception are inaccurate, the results may not be factual however they would be results that are reached using the process of freethought and the person, regardless as to the accuracy of his opinions, would be a freethinker.

This process of query does not necessarily lead to abandonment, or rejection, of all previously held opinions, neither does it guarantee that previous information will be proven invalid. Thus it is entirely possible that a freethinker will end up with the conclusion that not only does God exist, but that the Christian thought is the way to approach that god. Logic is based on certain “certainties” and empirical observation is limited by perception. There are axioms that are the basis of any logic train and there is perception that underlays any empirical observation. If these axioms are changed or perception changes the same “facts” would lead to different opinions. And these changes are the reasons you have schisms of thought and religion.

As the keen of eye would have noticed, not all Christians are theists. Isn’t that, in itself, a paradigm shift, isn't it?