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.

Rape and Sex in the Kenyan context

Of late there have been various stories in the media of rape committed on children and persons who are not only known, but are relatives of the victim. Rape is one subject that fascinates me. Firstly because it one of the few subjects that I am incapable of being fully rational about, and secondly it’s also one of the few crimes that I intimately know quite a number of victims.

In Kenyan law rape is dealt under Cap 3 of 2006 and is defined as:

3. (1) A person commits the offence termed rape if -
(a) he or she intentionally and unlawfully commits an act which causes penetration with his or her genital organs;
(b) the other person does not consent to the penetration; or
(c) the consent is obtained by force or by means of threats or intimidation of any kind.

Section 3 puts the minimum penalty as ten years and the maximum as life. Personally I’d prefer the maximum being death (but as I said earlier I am not exactly rational about this)

Section 4 on the other hand puts an interesting twist to the tale:

4. Any person who attempts to unlawfully and intentionally commit an act which causes penetration with his or her genital organs is guilty of the offence of attempted rape and is liable upon conviction for imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than five years but which may be enhanced to imprisonment for life.

Thus by law while attempted rape starts off with a lower sentence it can escalate into the maximum that is allowable as the case is when charged of rape.

Rape is such an unnecessary crime. Our society has glorified and mystified sex to an extent that some people get the impression that not only is sex a mysterious act but it confers mysterious powers on the person who carried out that act (usually male). There have been cases where people think that having sex with a virgin is a cure of sexually transmitted diseases, including HIV and gonorrhoea, or even that it will grant you success in certain ventures, and even that if you proceed on a journey, or engage in a sport, sex might bring bad luck on your endeavour. There are people who will not have sex on religious days, who will only have sex on religious day and even those who will only have sex when the star signs are potent. Some people even believe that having sex will impair your thinking and sap your strength. There is also the feeling that sex gives you power over others and many rapists consider that having forceful sex will enhance their power over their victims. Unfortunately many victims also have the same belief. On the other hand society restricts, in the name of morality, other ways of reliving sexual pressure and will frown upon a person who either goes to prostitutes or masturbates oneself. Society puts unrealistic limits on what is allowable in sex, and expects that all will adhere to this even where there is no victim.

Given the stigma associated with sex, many rape cases in this country go unreported, or if reported are only reported to councils of elders or family patriarchs and the “shame” is cleansed with arcane and superstitious rituals to prevent further curse on families. Rape, especially when it’s a man raping a female, is considered more of a stain on the family than a crime. This is especially so when the perpetrator is a member of the same family as the victim. Many African societies do not even recognise rape in the context of marriage, and they even claim that the victim has a role to play in exciting the assault and in some cases instead of giving justice to the victim they require the victim to make some sort of amends, for a consideration to the family, to appease her “sin”. The various claims of short skirts or exposed skin being a justification for heated passions are a case in point.

Prevention is haphazard and usually involves asking the potential victims to dress in a “non provocative” manner, avoid going near men or even live in seclusion so that male passions are not inflamed by the sight of a woman. For some rather strange reason men are considered unable to control themselves when faces with a sight of a woman, regardless as to the state of dress. A lot of cultures treat this as an excusable misdemeanour as they believe that the victim must have done something to excite the man and the man is understandably unable to control his reactions. This just goes to further victimise women as responsible for the crimes that are perpetuated on them.

In my rather limited personal circle I know of five women who have been raped. One was raped in the process of a robbery while the other four have been raped by close relatives. In one sad case she was repeatedly raped by her male cousins and uncles over a period of several years from the relatively young age of nine. The only action that was carried out when this was discovered was to call pastors and village elders to cleanse the bad spirits that she brought to the family. Because she developed at a rather young age it was taken that she tempted these relatives to rape her and only God, and the elders, can suitably solve this situation. Much as she seems to have recovered from the ordeal you still see glimmers of this experience from her actions and relationships with persons of the male persuasion.

The strange thing is that the law is rather strict with persons of this sort and it provides for a maximum sentence of life for these acts,

Cap 3 of 2006 of the laws of Kenya in Section 20:

20. (1) Any male person who commits an indecent act or an act which causes penetration with a female person who is to his knowledge his daughter, granddaughter, sister, mother, niece, aunt or grandmother is guilty of an offence termed incest and is liable to imprisonment for a term of not less than ten years:
Provided that, if it is alleged in the information or charge and proved that the female person is under the age of eighteen years, the accused person shall be liable to imprisonment for life and it shall be immaterial that the act which causes penetration or the indecent act was obtained with the consent of the female person.

Notice that whether consent is given or not one is liable to life imprisonment if the girl is under the statutory age of eighteen. Thus a father having sex with his daughter, or an uncle having sex with his niece, or a grandfather having sex with his granddaughter would serve a lifetime sentence as long as the girl is below eighteen years and it will not matter that the girl consented to the said act. Thus the various cases we have been seeing in the news are pretty simple. All one needs to prove is that an act of penetration occurred and the perpetrator is liable to life imprisonment. What surprises me is that this does not seem to be done. Give the severity of the punishment it is even more surprising that chiefs, elders and the police let the perpetrators to get off with the legal equivalent of a slap on the hand.

The law, on the other hand, is lenient when it comes to “committing an indecent act” with a child and only provides for a maximum sentence of ten years if that child does not pass the test of relationship.

Cap 3 of 2006 Section 11. (1) Any person who commits an indecent act with a child is guilty of the offence of committing an indecent act with a child and is liable upon conviction to imprisonment for a term of not less than ten years.

This seems to imply that if you rape a child of four years, as happened recently in Kenya, and the child is not related to you then you will be able to get out when that child is fourteen and continue molesting her. This punishment, I think, is inadequate. In a strange twist under the penal code Cap 63 section 162. Any person who:

(a) has carnal knowledge of any person against the order of nature; or

(b) has carnal knowledge of an animal; or

(c) permits a male person to have carnal knowledge of him or her against the order of nature,

is guilty of a felony and is liable to imprisonment for fourteen years:

So thus while you will get ten years for defiling a child of four years who is not related to you, you can get fourteen years for having anal consensual sex with an adult woman who does not pass the test of relationship, and you only get twenty one years if you coerced or lied to that person into having “unnatural” sex with you.

I rest my case.

Secular Morality

In one of our various discussions over what I prefer to regard as Kenya's favourite drink we touched on the issue of morals. The majority consensus was that morality cannot exist without religion. To quote one of the debaters “Secular morality is an oxymoron”. This got me thinking, can we really have morality without religion? Would secular morality in itself simply be a form of anarchy? Perhaps we should begin by trying to find out what “Morality” is.

According to Wikipedia:
Morality (from the Latin moralities "manner, character, proper behavior") is a system of conduct and ethics that is virtuous.
In its "descriptive" sense, morality refers to personal or cultural values, codes of conduct or social mores that distinguish between right and wrong in the human society.
In its "normative" sense, morality refers directly to what is right and wrong, regardless of what people think. It could be defined as the conduct of the ideal "moral" person in a certain situation.
Morality may also be defined as synonymous with ethics, the field that encompasses the above two meanings and others within a systematic philosophical study of the moral domain.

According to Dictionary
Moral: Adjective, of, pertaining to, or concerned with the principles or rules of right conduct or the distinction between right and wrong; ethical:
In my opinion none of these precludes having a secular morality. Morality, in itself, cannot be said to be religious, neither can secular morality be defined to be anarchy.

I would imagine that secular morality would define a system of conduct that enables a human being to live in society in a manner that enhances rather than destroys the fabric of human interaction, and the development of human potential. Granted that many of the principles that we consider moral are also in almost every religious book, it does make it hard to distinguish between religious morality and secular morality, that in itself, however, should not invalidate the concept.

Morality should be based on a few fundamental precepts. The right to life and the right to freedom. This implies not only that the individual has these rights, but also that the society he interacts in as well as humanity at large is guaranteed these freedoms. Not only should the individual have these rights but should acknowledge that other entities, too, have those rights. The only limitations should be when these selfsame rights abrogate the rights of others in this respect.

Most (not all) of the religious precepts ignore the second and limit the first except where it is expedient for it's purposes. All religions have some form of moral precepts. Not all agree, but in many cases those precepts do have a lot of similarity. But this is about secular morality, nor religious morality.

Given the fundamentals, there a a few questions that would arise from that. What moral precepts would guarantee these basic rights? In my honest opinion some of the so called “controversial issues” like homosexuality, abortion or even the right to kill in special circumstances can be answered by ensuring that the basic principles are taken care of while ensuring no person or group of people are capable of removing these rights, and if they attempt to they would have, at the very least, have abrogated their rights to freedom.

Most people take the golden rule as the ultimate morality. The golden rule says “do unto others as you would want to be done unto you.” I tend to disagree with this. Consider a person who loves pain and is into pain inducing activities as a turn on. Would somebody else, who is not into pain and such, really want to be done unto as that one would want to be done unto? The golden rule really should be “do unto others as they would like to be done unto them.” What you do unto others should be as per their preferences, not as per yours. What you do unto yourself, however, is as per your preferences.

Capital punishment cannot be a morally desirable issue. Capital punishment is an unrecoverable form of punishment which (if proven unjustified) can neither be reversed or adequately compensated. As such it should not be an option society should have at it disposal.

Imprisonment, while it does abrogate the right to freedom, should be used in cases where people abrogate the rights of others. Banishment from society and it's products would be a better option though it can only become practical when we find areas we can banish people to. Mayhaps when we discover other life supporting planets, or even if the population ever falls to a level where we can afford to have vast tracts set off and sealed for these persons.

Abortion should be limited to the persons who actually carry these babies. Persons who have nothing at stake, other than a hypothetical interest in genetic continuity or voter expansion. What is in my body is mine until it leaves my body, and as such it is my responsibility to either nurture it or terminate it. It should not be the responsibility of other third parties, whatever stake they may imagine they have unless I am no longer capable of making these decisions for myself.

Some “sins” like fornication, adultery, homosexuality et al should not really be an issue at all. After all whatever is done between consenting adults in their own privacy is really a matter between those adults. In the case of adultery (defined as a sexual act between at least two persons, one or more of whom are a married to a person outside this liaison) is really a matter between the parties concerned and should not be an issue for society at large.

Certain “commandments” like Do Not Steal, Do Not Kill fall under the right to freedom and the right to life. Persons should have freedom to accumulate, or not accumulate, articles they consider valuable and it would be morally improper to either curtail this activity or profit unfairly by removing them from that person without their free consent or otherwise. And persons should be left to live the life they want to live.

Incidentally, it should also be within that person's rights to terminate their own life in any manner they feel like, inasmuch as it does not directly infringe on the lives, or rights of others. This means that jumping out of my fifth floor window and bashing yourself to death on my new Toyota Premio is a no no. So would shooting yourself in the premises you are renting from me in such a manner as to create damage to my premises. However if you want to hang yourself from the nearest tree the only good thing the “good Samaritan” can really do is give you a stout rope as an aid.

The biggest advantage secular morality would have is that since it is not set in stone by some being it can evolve as society evolves, and it can adjust itself to situation that are new and strange without in themselves being broken. A new rule is simply set up against the fundamentals, and if it fails the fundamentals then it is immoral, if it doesn't then it is moral. Isn't that so much simpler?