No Sacred Cows
Page 8
That’s what’s best about critical thought: when properly applied, it can positively affect every part of life—and every global issue. By helping people be more logical and reasonable, we can resolve all sorts of problems. Reasonable people are less likely to be religious fundamentalists, to perform racist acts, or to murder innocent people. In other words, we don’t have to fight against religion directly to make the world a better place; we can simply spread critical thinking far and wide.1
WHAT IS RELIABLE EVIDENCE?
A person’s stance on the existence of one or more deities is irrelevant to his or her belief in any other unsubstantiated forces or ideas, but gods and other religious claims are among the most popular unproven beliefs, so they can be connected in that sense. If you don’t fall for the religion-based scams, that’s great—but you should be able to apply the same logic to other claims that rely on blind faith. If you believe in ghosts but not gods, for instance, you might supply personal experience involving cold spots or EMF readings as evidence. But if your standard for evidence is that low, then holy books, reported visions and miracles, and so-called intelligent design should also count as “evidence” for god(s). An objective analysis tells us that those things aren’t hard evidence, so instead of choosing the belief with which you’re more comfortable or adopting both ideas, you should rethink your standard.
For scientific skeptics, the test to determine if belief is warranted comes down to one thing: empirical data. If you don’t believe in something until it’s been proven, you save yourself a lot of time and energy. If someone writes off the existence of Bigfoot, but entertains a belief in alien intervention because of eyewitness testimonies, then there is a clear contradiction that they must face and address. By maintaining a consistent and high standard for evidence, you can dismiss a huge number of lies and myth-based assertions using limited tests and a little scientific research.
By being consistent in our search for the truth, we can see that, whether it’s a question of aliens on earth, ghosts, or gods, the evidence presented falls short of establishing any sort of otherworldly beings. Seeing this connection and demanding hard evidence for all extraordinary claims helps us not only shed false beliefs from our past but also avoid being tricked in the future. To exempt any idea from scrutiny leaves open the possibility of being deceived and, for that reason, all important claims should be subject to verification and evaluation based on available information from reliable sources (see chapter 15).
INHERITING BELIEF SYSTEMS
While people are certainly capable of reaching the right answer through incorrect or illogical methods, for me, the reasoning is what’s important. Sometimes what we believe in isn’t as important as why we believe in it, and whether or not we are able to reach conclusions based on rational thought processes. A good example of this would be an atheist who was born into a family of atheists and inherited that belief without giving it any consideration, in essence reaching the right answer through a bad process. If you were raised to believe a certain thing, it’s important to analyze whether that belief is founded in reality or whether it’s nothing more than a byproduct of obedience or convenience.
For me, being an atheist doesn’t mean I hate god or even religion, or that I haven’t looked into claims made by theists. It means that none of the extraordinary god-claims ever presented have met the burden of proof. As is the case with myself and many other nonbelievers, atheism can simply be the conclusion reached after looking for empirical evidence for the existence of deities and finding none. But that doesn’t mean that every nonbeliever has applied that same standard of evidence to all other claims, and it is entirely possible for some people who are raised without gods and religion to be raised with (or raised to be susceptible to) other irrational beliefs.
A person born into a family that doesn’t value religion, but does profess a strong belief in ghosts or psychics or other supernatural phenomena, might cling to those beliefs out of familiarity instead while disregarding religion and deities as unworthy of consideration. Just as many believers are indoctrinated with a particular religion, it is possible for families and cultures to teach the validity of other false beliefs in the same manner. In the case of an atheist who wasn’t taught a religion, he might never have even considered or evaluated religious claims—and nonbelief may be the assumed default. While I do see childhood indoctrination of any unproven claim as inherently bad, I would still recommend that people who were raised secularly educate themselves about the world’s religions as much as possible.
WHAT DOES “ATHEISM” REALLY MEAN?
Contrary to popular belief, atheism is not synonymous with antitheism and not all atheists actively fight against religion—or even against its influence in government. There are many nonbelievers who aren’t activists, who don’t oppose religion at all, or who are simply not interested in discussing any person’s beliefs or lack thereof. In fact, there are a number of self-proclaimed atheists (some Buddhist, Taoist, Pagan, and even some LaVeyan Satanist atheists, for example) who are themselves religious. It’s also important to note that there is no group necessarily associated with all atheists. If you don’t actively believe deities exist, you’re an atheist.
I am an atheist who also happens to be an advocate, but it’s not all about religion or theism for me. I write about and investigate all sorts of unsubstantiated assertions because they are all the result of the same failure in the thinking process. Many of these ideas are also incredibly common, making them influential throughout the world. No matter where you live or who your family is, you are likely surrounded by myths that slowly attempt to creep into reality. I find that extremely interesting, but I also think we should do our best to combat their spread by avoiding faith-based beliefs in favor of an evidence-based worldview (at least on matters of great importance). In the past, I have emphasized much of my activism against the influence of religious beliefs because of their prevalence in society, but the fact is that, if belief in Santa Claus as a cosmic gift-giver were common among a large number of adults, and that belief was in turn used to shape legislation or justify the impediment of scientific research and of other people’s rights, I would definitely spend more of my time refuting that myth.
For my part, unless I’m specifically addressing a belief’s influence in culture, I try not to treat gods any differently from other unproven myths. They are the same to me at their very core: without hard evidence, there’s nothing that justifies belief for me. I don’t believe in the Abrahamic god for the same reason that I don’t believe in Xenu, Thor, Zeus or, for that matter, in angels, demons, ghosts, wizards, or Santa. What I reject foremost is the assertion that a belief in any supernatural being or entity should be accepted, especially when mere faith—and not scientific evidence—is the justification.
ATHEIST VS. AGNOSTIC
To clarify, the terms atheist, a person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods,2 and agnostic, someone who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God,3 are not mutually exclusive. In fact, nobody knows (or can know) for sure whether or not gods exist, just as we don’t know for sure any unfalsifiable forces don’t exist. Whether we admit it or not, we are all functionally agnostic on many topics, including on the idea of a detached, deistic creator. Regardless of belief, you simply don’t know. Throughout my discussions and debates on the topics of god(s) and religion, however, I’ve noticed a fairly consistent pattern: many people, religious and nonreligious alike, are under the false impression that anyone who is an atheist claims to know that deities couldn’t possibly exist. I think this stems from the fact that those people are confusing belief with absolute knowledge. An atheist doesn’t believe in gods, an agnostic doesn’t know for sure, and both definitions can apply to me and many others. Agnostic doesn’t mean on the fence; it means without knowledge. So, given those definitions, consider this: being an agnostic atheist means I accept what’s known about the world, I don’t believe in
what’s not known, and I don’t pretend to know the rest.
I am an agnostic atheist, but I don’t always include the agnostic moniker because I’m equally agnostic about every religion’s proposed god(s) as I am about werewolves and vampires.4 When it comes to man-made myths—stories that we can trace back to their origins through history—disbelief isn’t just about a lack of evidence; there are other factors as well. In those cases, it’s important to understand the belief, where it came from, and what purpose it may have served before confidently categorizing it as a human construct. But not all “divine” assertions are religious in nature—deists, polytheists, and other less-rigid adherents, for example, often believe in one or more general “forces” responsible for things like creation. While there is no scientific evidence supporting the existence of these detached deities, there is also no way for us to fully and adequately dispute the claims. I acknowledge that I can’t know with certainty whether or not some generic, nonintervening god-figure exists somewhere in or outside of the cosmos, which is precisely why it doesn’t make sense for me to believe in one. I address the possible existence for a deistic god, and why I don’t worship one, in my second book, Mom, Dad, I’m an Atheist. Here is a relevant passage: “If there is a Creator-God, it has used methods of creation that are indistinguishable from nature, it has declined to make itself known for all of recorded history, it doesn’t intervene in affairs on earth, and has made itself impossible to observe. Even if you believe in that God … why would you think it would want to be worshiped?”
So, if we are all agnostic, the next step is to find out if you’re an agnostic theist or an agnostic atheist.5 To find out, you just answer one simple question: “Do you actively believe in the existence of a god or gods?” Any person who declares themselves an agnostic to avoid answering this question should be able to analyze claims put forth by various people and religions about their respective deities, look at the evidence available, and form an opinion. They will still be agnostic, as we all are, but that doesn’t stop them from either rejecting or accepting belief. For anyone interested in trying to define their own ideas in this way, I recommend looking at the facts and definitions themselves, as opposed to relying on what you’ve heard about them in the past. There is a lot of misinformation out there.
I also think it’s important to mention that, while definitions are crucial to conveying ideas, sometimes it’s more important to avoid getting hung up on terms like agnostic and atheist. Emotional objections to definitions are common when people don’t want to associate themselves with a particular group or descriptor, which is seen most often when the relevant terms are cast as emotionally charged labels by others. So it may be best to deal with the ideas directly rather than be distracted by identification.
RIGOROUS SKEPTICISM IS MORE IMPORTANT THAN “ATHEISM”
Not all atheists are skeptics or naturalists, and some don’t arrive at their position after analyzing evidence at all. Many people reject gods and religion not because they are unconvinced by all faith-based claims, but because they have issues with its organized nature or with their family’s faith and its specific tenets. For instance, many people say they left their religion and became atheists because of other religious people and their behavior. While it’s good that they got out of a situation they likely didn’t choose in the first place, a distaste for the actions of fellow believers is not a very good reason to disbelieve in any claim. It can be a good excuse to start looking closer at the evidence, or a catalyst that causes you to disassociate yourself from a particular group, but it doesn’t have any bearing on the deity question.
For nonbelievers who identify as such for non-evidence-based reasons, the move to nonreligiosity can be a much more emotional decision than for those of us who gave consideration to the arguments and data. Their step away from religion could be the result of anything—from a simple familial rebellion to a reaction against a negative or traumatizing experience within the faith—and it is not uncommon to see a return to religion later in life. But recognizing a lack of evidence through skeptical analysis is the only good reason to be an atheist (or to disbelieve in anything else, for that matter). Religious hypocrisy, separation of church and state, and human rights issues, for example, are unrelated to the existence of gods and should be treated as completely separate. I’m not an atheist because I don’t like religion or its effects—that’s an entirely different (yet arguably more important) question that has nothing to do with belief itself. I’m an atheist because of a distinct lack of real evidence for the existence of deities, which leaves me without reason to believe in any. I do care deeply about the negative effects religion has had on people and society as a whole, but that is not a component of my atheism. In fact, there are many religious people who also advocate for secularism and denounce violence in the name of faith.
If you’re an atheist, it means you haven’t fallen for the god gambit, but the existence of deities isn’t the only commonly held yet likely false notion. Skepticism and critical thought protect from all forms of faith-based ideas. Although the god question is often one of the most controversial ideas for which we can utilize skepticism, it’s not always the most relevant one. That’s why it’s important to stress critical thinking and reason in all areas of life above all else. I want to encourage those who reject the world’s many god claims to apply the same skeptical scrutiny to ghosts, psychics, unsubstantiated conspiracy theories, and just about any topic—supernatural or not. By promoting evidence-based processes in a variety of situations, it’s not only possible to help those who were indoctrinated into religion when they were too young to know better escape those confines, but also to keep people from being fooled by other false beliefs. In other words, saying you are an atheist only answers one question: “Do you believe in god(s)?” It is not a guiding force or dogma. Critical thinking and rationality, however, are much more. They are all-encompassing methods that can actually help you achieve, learn, and grow. As such, I don’t care a lot about atheism per se. It just doesn’t mean very much. Atheism, to me, is less important than secularism, skepticism, and logical thought (although it can be the result of all three of these things). In fact, atheism is actually most useful when it is a byproduct of skepticism. After all, skepticism is one of the primary reasons atheism is so crucial. If religion went extinct, atheism would be largely irrelevant, but skepticism and logical thinking processes will always be needed.
Being an atheist doesn’t necessarily make you smart, skeptical, or even nonreligious. While there may be a correlation between the mentalities of those who blindly accept scriptural inerrancy and those who fall for other cons and schemes, some supernatural beliefs, far-fetched conspiracy theories, and faith-based notions have actually become a refuge for the faithful yet nonreligious. Consider how, according to some studies,6 atheists and agnostics are up to 76 percent more likely than Christians to believe in the existence of extraterrestrial life,7 despite the lack of unambiguous empirical evidence for their existence. It’s not really about religion because, when you learn how to critically examine your preconceived notions, all sorts of unfounded beliefs are likely to fall away. If you base your disbelief in gods (or in anything else) on emotional reactions and rhetoric, and not on a lack of evidence, the conclusion isn’t necessarily going to be helpful in other areas. If you learn to think critically, be skeptical, and demand evidence of all claims, however, you will probably end up not believing in all sorts of unproven ideas.
An evidence-based worldview doesn’t just help you get to the right answer on one issue; it can also lead to additional logical conclusions and improve the way you form and analyze ideas over time. If you spend your time thinking about the process of thinking, and how to do it better, those changes will manifest. As is true with most positive behaviors, practice in this area does wonders. This isn’t something you have to wait to do either. Learning how to look at the evidence and critique ideas should begin as early as possible. I think it’s important to te
ach everyone, including young children, how to separate facts from falsehoods because indoctrination is such a powerful force and kids will often trust their parents or guardians implicitly.
SPIRITUALITY AND WONDER
I’m often asked whether or not an atheist must necessarily give up all forms of spirituality, and the simple answer is “No.” If someone doesn’t actively believe deities exist, he or she is an atheist and any other beliefs are irrelevant to that fact. That being said, spirituality—like religion—in its more popular forms generally presumes the presence of a soul, something that is indefinable, unprovable, and separate from the material, physical, and natural world. I must therefore refrain from believing in spiritual assertions that include a soul for the same reason I don’t believe in all other supernatural claims: because they are by their nature unfalsifiable. As a scientific skeptic, I’m concerned with whether claims are supported by empirical research and can be repeated in a controlled setting.
To show believers the vagueness of the soul concept, on which spirituality is most often considered to be reliant, I’ve often asked them to attempt to explain this mystical spiritual life force to someone who has never been told about it. They obviously don’t have any evidence to present—only words and feelings—so it is difficult to make a compelling case.8 If you can define a soul and then show using the scientific method that it exists, I’ll accept that information and move on, but until then it should be treated just like any other unsupported idea created by humans out of fear of what’s “after” this life. That’s not to mention the fact that, as Canadian experimental psychologist Steven Pinker points out, if we do have a soul, it is not so far out of reach after all. We have been able to change just about everything that makes us who we are, so that must mean we have power over the soul, too.