Our Age of Reason

Our generation, globally, is embarking on a new age of reason. More than three centuries ago, classic political and theocratic views were objectified in an age of reason, or enlightenment, whereby new discoveries in the scientific community brought about natural explanations for the things previously thought to be supernatural “Acts of God,” earlier referenced in more notable works like the Quinque Viae by 13h-century scholar and theologian of the Catholic Church, Saint Thomas Aquinas. (I have previously blogged about the Quinque Viae here).

Scientific consciousness has advanced exponentially from the building blocks established primarily by the French, and later the British. Today we understand the physical properties and life cycles of stars, we understand simple laws and theories, such as gravity or relativity. We continue to further our position on broader theories such as evolution and the big bang. Medical sciences are finding the causes and cures for diseases once thought to be borne upon civilizations at the hands of an “angry God.”

Although only a very few examples, in short and with very determined and critical thinking, we’re (rationally) explaining the things that used to terrify less educated societies to the point of even sacrificing their children to a God they felt would prevent an earthquake in respect for the offering of their first-born. Early followers of religion (including Christianity) used to bury (alive) their children in the postholes of buildings they would erect, believing this would “calm the Gods.” There are numerous publications that describe even more graphic and horrendous practices; all based on nothing more than misunderstanding natural circumsatnces.

With only pure emotion, the antithetical, or religious point-of-view could object to these postulates. However, with any integrity in intellectual conscience, they cannot dispute their validity and perhaps more important, their falsifiability. The scientific method is built to question itself in order to always improve upon and bring further accuracy to substantially-backed explanation for the circumstances and defined processes of our natural world. This is an introspective quality that those rooted and confined within the walls of religious doctrine are unable to fully engage. There is a psychological block whereby fear of the unknown, or even questioning the unreasonable, would have detrimental effects on one’s post-biological life.

It’s those fears that are gradually becoming diluted, and not just among the more advanced cultures and societies.

The charts below demonstrate some interesting perspectives, and arguably to a tangent, the world’s shift from religiosity to reason. These charts were all sourced from the PEW Research Center. (Click on any image to enlarge).

The first chart shows the perspective on belief by generation.

These next three charts breakdown thoughts on evolution. There are some interesting extrapolations that can be taken from these charts, not the least of which is the Evangelical aversion to the Theory of Evolution. Also noteworthy is the relation between education and the belief in that theory.

 

 

 

These charts display the results of questions asked with regards to social values and morality.

Finally, observing the perspectives of the second most populous of the three major monotheistic religions, some Islamic views on value and religious freedom.

There is a quiz available to test your knowledge of religion, not restricted to only Christianity. There's a history of atheists, agnostics, and humanists scoring much higher on these quizzes than those who stake a claim to being devout religious followers. Perhaps part of this reason is that in the quest to be honestly objective, most skeptics spend a much greater amount of time researching, understanding, cross-referencing, and approaching all religions at a depth greater than those who practice. In past posts on our Facebook Page, I've discussed the benefit to reading religious doctrine and history from both a linear and lateral perspective. I'll be blogging more about that in more detail soon. Those who practice tend to read in a linear way, which hinders them from seeing the inconsistencies contained within their very own texts. You can take the quiz here. Below were my results.

In addition to these charts, and the data trends contained within them, a poll was conducted by WIN-Gallup International in 2012, based on interviews with 50,000 people from 57 countries and five continents. Participants were asked, "Irrespective of whether you attend a place of worship or not, would you say you are a religious person, not a religious person, or a convinced atheist?"

The poll, called "The Global Index of Religiosity and Atheism," found that the number of Americans who say they are "religious" dropped from 73 percent in 2005 (the last time the poll was conducted) to 60 percent in 2012. At the same time, the number of Americans who say they are atheists rose, from 1 percent to 5 percent.

The seven years between the polls is notable because 2005 saw the publication of "The End of Faith" by Sam Harris, the first in a wave of best-selling books on atheism by Christopher Hitchens, Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett and other so-called "New Atheists."

The poll provided similar trends around the world, with even sharper declines in religiosity demonstrated in Europe, particularly Ireland, where Catholicism has had deep roots for a few hundred years. 

There are quite a few topical points that can become a product of religiosity, not the least of which is morality. There are, of course, charitable causes and services that religion provides; just as there are for secular communities and organizations. It is no less accurate to state that those with religion have no morality than it is to state that those without religion have no morality. It is the way in which those respective groups base their morality that is cause for the divide across our social society.

In a world where religion is so often used as a reason to proliferate absolutisms, one thing is certain; wherever religion has an intrusive influence, there is always unnecessary death and suffering. The list of examples fills volumes of texts, going back to ancient sacrificial acts, to the Crusades and Inquisitions, to terrorist acts such as those that took place on September 11, 2001 and more recently at the Boston Marathon.

Cultures practicing stricter doctrines might apply this more physically, where developed countries such as the United States utilize legislative means to try and subjugate objective moralities and beliefs. A person of moral conscience (religious or otherwise) needn’t look much further than the political opposition to gay rights, or attempts to legislate a woman’s personal health choices and reproductive rights, to see that extreme religious doctrine is still an oppression we contend with.

The good news, for a humanity that includes both religious followers as well as skeptics, is that trends clearly show a more conscientious generation on the horizon, with a desire to see the world’s diversity as a valuable asset, as opposed to an adversity that pontifications of conflicting absolutisms must roll over and remain contentious with. Humanity is waking up, and growing up. There are many of us, atheists of good character, who focus our energy on asserting what we can change and influence, rather than just wishing something true. And, there are many followers of religion who do in fact hold a more tolerable view of the world. The latter group, however, tends to award themselves less credit for their achievements, and often tries to excuse their failures or moral affronts through an ambiguous and subjective doctrine that has no evidential basis for reasonable belief.

More and more people are believing in themselves. As that philosophy of self-worth ratifies across borders, the world will eventually become a more cohesive place to live and productively share the wealth of perspectives we all have across this pale blue dot.

Page Survey Results

Below are the results from the brief survey we solicited regarding our Facebook Page. I appreciate all of the feedback from those of you who took a few minutes to offer your objective critique of the page.

The total number of surveys received was about a 4% sampling of our total page following. Hardly enough to be considered a substantial polling, but enough for us to get a feel for how we are doing, the value we provide, and the areas we can improve on. To the more than three-dozen of you who responded, I am grateful.

It appears that we're providing a fair mix of information, and we will continue to do that, with a particular emphasis on science-based material and the unique encounters with antithetical religious pages.

It's humbling to know that the material and perspectives we offer has such a profound influence on many of you. For those that feel we can have a more influential impact on your position, we will continue to try and earn your trust in our viewpoint and hope that our material is not counterproductive to your current perspectives.

More than half of you who responded visit our page several times each day. Thank you for your continued loyalty. It is through the consistent interaction with the page that our community continues to grow and become stronger in our pool of knowledge.

I do not blog very regularly. Based on the results of these questions, I will likely not alter the frequency or content of the blog. I remain open to suggestions for material you'd like covered more in-depth, and appreciate the fact that the blog has proven to be a resourceful tool for some of you.

I am grateful to share the moderation of the page with a couple of very bright co-admin's in Hannah and Jen. It is undoubtedly their contributions that keep the page intellectually fulfilling for the majority of you.

I would mostly replicate my comment from the above results. Both Jen and Hannah have a quick and marvelous sardonic wit about them, that most of us can appreciate. It's nice to know that we haven't put anyone to sleep yet!

This was probably the most important question for me to obtain some feedback to, and I am again humbled by the majority response. I started the page not much more than about six months ago as an outlet for my perspectives on religiosity and deities, outside of my personal page where it was becoming a bit overwhelming for family and friends who were overtly sensitive to the issue. What started as a small group of friends has grown to over one-thousand of you from more than 50 countries all over the world, in just a few short months. I remain committed to upholding the original premise and values of the page, which include being interactive with the friends I've made in all of you along the way. It has been an honor to share my perspectives with you, and to equivocally grow from your perspectives.

Being a newer page in the atheist community, this question was important to me as it provides a benchmark to motivate us to improve where we can. There are some really great atheist pages in the community, and some very intelligent administrators of those pages. To know that nearly all of you who responded evaluate our page conduct as above average or exceeding other similar pages is something I am very proud of.

I want to thank you, again, for your candid responses. Overall, it would appear that the page is successful and achieving what it was meant to do. And, it continues to grow. None of this would be possible without each of you and your valued interaction with the page. I believe Hannah and Jen would echo my appreciation for your overwhelmingly kind evaluation and interaction with us all.


Respectfully,
Tom

A Gay Muslim Atheist Buys a Round of Drinks

I had an interesting experience this weekend as I sat eating a basket of chicken wings in a local pub, in a community that is mostly considered affluent and educated among the suburbs in the county it’s situated in.

This would be a conversation that would leave me humbled in an uncomfortable way, but even more resolved in my viewpoint.

A few weeks back I was in this same pub with a buddy, when a comment was made about us appearing “gay.” We both pretty much laughed it off and had fun with the joke. (My buddy is married to a wonderful woman; I’m divorced four years, with a beautiful daughter, and a girlfriend).

This past Saturday, there were about ten others in the bar, mostly men. My buddy had stopped in again and joined me for a quick beer before his evening of Halloween debauchery with his wife, and then promptly left.

After he was gone, I sat a bit for a while on my phone, mostly reading up on the news and perusing through Facebook. I really knew nobody else but the bartender, even though this place is not much more than five miles from my house. So, to engage in conversation with many of those who were loosely using racial slurs and showing their true uneducated view of the world, served no real motivation for me to join in. But as always, I was taking mental notes.

It would take only a few minutes before the “jokes” would start to come at me, from people that were complete strangers. “Ah, texting your boyfriend? Miss your fag love?” (I sat there in my Dolce-Gabbana glasses, a beanie-style hat, wearing a hoodie). Everyone laughed, including me. I have a rather sardonic sense of humor, and I’m comfortable enough with myself that I didn’t feel any need to defend my heterosexuality to a room full of ignorant cavemen. So, I played along with it.

(I knew, at least, that this entire conversation was either about to get me hit with a barstool or turn their brains so inside-out that their mouths would cease to function by the time we were done).

I figured it to be mostly joking at first, but as it continued, it became more and more abrasive. And while it wasn’t an affront to my personal life, it was an affront to people I care about and the values I hold that not one of us is better than another. I had to ponder how someone who was actually gay might feel sitting in there having to listen to such garbage.

This conversation would continue for a while until an older gentleman came in. They looked at him and then said to me, “I bet this old Marine would love to hear about your gay boyfriend. Maybe you could learn something from him.”

I looked at the older gentleman and said, proudly, “Semper Fi,” which is a common term of respect shared among Marines, current and former; and always. I took off the hoodie I had been wearing, revealing a Metallica t-shirt underneath, and my arms littered with tattoos, including several Marine Corps tattoos.

It brought two reactions that would generate two more intense discussion that would now begin simultaneously. At first I felt a bit overwhelmed, considering the environment, but I also felt very empowered, considering the fact that I’m not a stupid guy and speak from resource and intellectual perspective, not a hasty and belligerent, uneducated societal norm.

The first comment would come from the guys who had been alluding to me being a “fag” most of the night. “Why didn’t you just say you were a Marine?” To which my simple and rather blunt replay was, “Why should I have to? Why would I have any need to sit here and defend myself to a roomful of bigoted assholes? You’re the ones that looked foolish in your ridicule. A group of small minds, indeed.”

There was a pause, before the old Marine looked at me and disappointed me somewhat with his first statement, “Fuck, It’s good to know you’re a Marine. When I looked at you over there I thought you were a goddamn Muslim here to blow this place up.”

Another generalization in this country that has no place in solving any cultural divides. I responded to him simply, “Yes, sir, because a radical Islamist would break the will of the American people by blowing up ten racist rednecks in a tiny bar in the middle of nowhere, on the outskirts of a city that most Americans never even heard of until the Sikh Temple shooting one year ago. Makes complete sense why you’d worry. Seriously? What a stupid fucking thing to say. Where’s your integrity, Marine?”

He didn’t have much to say at this point, and to his defense, I’ll say that he sat and listened to the remainder of the conversation rather intently and with great interest.

Back to the other gentleman, who was still now “shocked” that I wasn’t gay. “Thank god you’re a good god-fearing Christian like the rest of us,” he says.

Now, I didn’t dive right into divulging my atheism, but rather I waited for that realization to naturally occur, mostly. Conservative Christians in America, by large, tether their politics to their religion. And, it wouldn’t take long for this to happen on its own.

“So, how do you feel about our Muslim president letting gays marry and fucking this country up with all of his spending ruining the fabric of god in our society?” (He was now joined by a very large man to his left, one who I kept my eye on the entire time. While I like to believe I have matured in my life to a point of using brains over brawn, I’m always prepared to defend myself, should that archaic need arise).

I responded to him with a statement I have borrowed and used before. “First off, our President drinks alcohol, eats pork, supports gay & women’s rights, practices Christianity, and approves an order for the Pentagon to have Osama bin Laden killed. By any sane definition, he’s the worst fucking Muslim ever.”

“Next, if you’re familiar with all three articles of the US Constitution, you clearly understand that it’s the US Congress, the legislative branch outlined in Article One (Sections 7 & 8), who has all fiscal responsibility for drafting and approving (before any presidential endorsement) the balancing and spending of our country’s tax-fueled economy. You understand that right?” – There was silence, just a blank stare.

“Furthermore, why are you, a conservative, an ideological population that has led two of the most progressive movements in our country, so resolved to blocking the liberties and equalities of others? Liberty you scream of in our Constitution? How does that negatively impact your life? Has a law been passed requiring you to become gay?”

He would tell me, of course, to explain that to him. Just exactly when conservatives passed progressive reform in the United States.

Why? Because people who speak this ignorant choose to ignore our history, or never took the time to learn it in the first place. They hold onto the grip of delusion that is found among like-minded drinking buddies in a bar full of hatred that is truly nothing more than fear of what they do not understand.

I’d very briefly review for him the Civil Rights act of 1866, drafted and passed by a congress (the 39^th congress) that held a conservative majority in both houses, progressively ending slavery (antithetical to the bible) in the US. And, the 19^th Amendment to our Constitution, drafted and passed by a congress (the 66^th congress) that held a conservative majority in both houses, progressively giving women more rights in this country (antithetical to the bible).

(They held tight, the entire time, to their false assertion that our country is based on and should be solely based on the Christian religion and teachings. So much for freedom from religious persecution, right? Another part of our history they skipped class on).

He proceeded to tell me that homosexuality was different than those, and the bible says it's wrong. His buddy immediately called out my atheism and started the usual uneducated tripe about that.

I’ll start there. “So, your religion believes that all other religions are full of hate, but you’re here hating Christians.” I almost threw up. “First, what have I said in hate toward your belief? At all? Nothing. And second, no, that’s not what atheism is; and atheism is not a religion.” He proceeded to tell me I was wrong, of course. Telling me that If he believed in god and I didn’t, my beliefs, although opposite, were still a religion.

As I asked him what the textbook definition of a religion was, he couldn’t do it. This became increasingly frustrating for me to listen to. After all, if you are going to base your entire life on a belief system, and you don’t even know the definition of a belief system, let alone your particular one, you have forfeited all intellectual ability and are not much more than a walking pile of willful ignorance.

“How is something that is not, the same as something that is? How is something that is the opposite, the same as something that is?” – He couldn’t answer those questions, except to say, “It just is.”

If something is opposite, it is not the same. “How is the gas pedal the same as the brake pedal?” – “I don’t know how to answer that.” – It was mostly blank stares, and each time I asked a simple, non-hostile question about religion, I received a response that was not an answer, but a hostile attack on my skepticism.

“Atheism is nothing more than a stance of skeptics that no deity exists; not one of the more than 3,000 gods recorded to have ever been worshiped going all the way back to the Sumerians.” The gentleman next to me would laugh. “3,000 gods? What fairy tales have you been reading?” Ironic, isn’t it.

“Those other gods weren’t real.” Really? Why? Because you were geographically born into the one you were taught? And, have taken no time to learn of any other religion? What if you were born in Iraq? You’d be a Muslim, and believe that people like you, as a Christian, are wrong.

“The Muslims are all wrong. Their god tells them to go out and kill people who are not Muslims!”

Their god tells them? What does your god tell you? Have you heard from him? “No, but it doesn’t say in the bible to go and kill people.” So, you believe that their god actually talks to them? Wouldn’t that make him a more believable god? “No, it says in the Quran that they should.” Have you actually read the Quran? Do you know that for nearly every verse in the Quran I can show you an equivocal point of scripture in the bible? And, your bible does instruct these same things.

“I’m just saying their god is not god, he’s evil.”

Do you realize that “their god” the Muslim god, is the Abrahamic god? The same god of your bible, and the same god that the Jewish follow as well? Do you realize that all three religions worship the very same god, and it’s mostly just their prophetic differences in the interpretation of that god’s word that causes the difference in belief?

He would insist I was wrong, even as I pulled up verse after verse of the Old Testament that screamed the same type of hate professed in the parts of the Quran that he was assuming (accurately), but that he admittedly hadn’t read.

What was frightening to me is that he had almost no knowledge of his own religion. But, it’s an unfortunate reality that exists among the extreme Christian base in America. Cherry-picking. Take out the parts you don’t want to believe, because although infallible, god’s word is somehow also subjective.

My hands were in the air, truly. And my beer was getting warm. Shame on me.

He predictably then dismissed the Old Testament and left me with the next line of defense that atheists often encounter. “The Old Testament is not god’s word. Christianity is about Christ.”  - But I thought god, the father, the son and the spirit were all one? How can he all at once nullify himself, but stand for himself? How, if through his spirit he came to be Christ, born of a virgin, are his commands no longer valid? Was he never omnipotent to begin with?

Without trying to sound like too much of an ass, this was clearly becoming too complex of a conversation for him. But, their ignorance kicked my brain online, and it’s hard for me to pull it back once that happen, particularly where this sort of behavior is happening.

I forced myself to read from Matthew for him. I really loathe having to go back to scripture, particularly when my entire presence there was only to enjoy a hard cider beer and a few chicken wings. As I read from Matthew, and the assumed words of Christ that he was not there to abolish the old laws and prophets, but to uphold them, and continued to also offer New Testament scripture that absolutely pontificated hate and judgment, he had no answer, but only chose to attack me for my atheism.

“You’re just hateful. Atheists worship the devil and that’s a religion. You’ll burn to death someday.”

It’s sad, really. The misunderstanding. But, if he couldn’t even grasp the ideals of what his religion was, or even another actual religion was, I couldn’t possibly get him to grab the idea of what atheism is. Just simple non-belief. And, although I increasingly find myself anti-theistic, atheism as its most simple isn’t even that.

“You’re a religion, just accept it. You made your choice to pick a religion that has no morals.” (Again, an ironic statement coming from someone who sat there in complete judgment of me, going against scripture in all four of the gospels he professes to follow).

I tried to explain it very remedially to him. - We (atheists) have no organized places of “worship.” We pay no tithe to any atheist cause. There are no atheistic rituals. There’s no book of atheism that contains (subjective) moral absolutism (but that doesn't mean we're absent a moral core). There’s no atheist figurehead. There’s no tax-exempt status. – All of that fell on deaf (or ignorant) ears.

I chose not to attack Christianity, but explain it to a group of people who certainly should have already understood it based upon their bold support of it. In fact, I spent a great deal of time explaining how I was raised Catholic, and it wasn’t until I was around 35 years old (I’m now nearly 41) that I started to seriously question not just Catholicism, but the existence of god; and not just the Christian god, but the plausible existence of any god.

With empathy, even, I explained that I had certainly developed some of my moral core from that religious time in my life. That, there are certainly good things about who I am that came from some of those Christian teachings. But, the duplicity found in religion, the hypocrisy that can be harnessed by it to subjectively hate, drove me from it and opened my mind to seek answers for myself, not just follow what I was told. That the laws of our society (such as slave-owning), change as a society reasons with humanity and don’t remain shackled to an ideology that is said to be unwavering but taught to be up to individual interpretation.

I expected his next question. “How do you have morals today then, without keeping god in your life?”

Well, are you telling me that you have no control over yourself? That if you suddenly found out, for yourself and with absolute truth that there was no god, you would be out in the street burning peoples’ houses, robbing stores, murdering strangers, maybe even me, and committing socially unacceptable acts?

“No, of course I wouldn’t.” Well. Am I doing those things right now? Are we both not doing the same thing, sitting in a bar enjoying conversation? You with your belief and me without the same? Am I torching the streets, burning puppies, or outside chanting gibberish to a satan that it just so happens I don’t believe in either?

“No, you’re not, but that doesn’t mean you’re not going to hell.”

Of course. Hell. You know who else is going to your assumed hell? More than 5 billion people on this planet who don’t believe in your particular version of god. Indigenous tribes people on remote islands who have never heard of Christianity. Doctors, Engineers, and CEO’s of the world’s largest technology firms. Philanthropists who do not believe in a deity. Scientists all over the world, who believe not in god, but in their ability to cure disease through medicine. All of them are going to hell by your benchmark.

But on the flip side, more than 90% of our prison population, rapists, murderers, child molesters, thieves, arsonists, mass-murderers; the people in our society with the loosest and worst “morals,” they’ve repented and will share your glory with you someday; according to your viewpoint.

Does this sound absurd yet?

“I can’t speak for them, I can only speak for what I know.”

What he knew was virtually nothing. I spent most of the time (while my dinner was getting cold) defending that I wasn’t a bad person and without a moral core just because I didn’t believe in god. I spent most of my time at the receiving end of ridicule. First that I was a “fag,” next that I was a “Muslim terrorist,” and finally that I was a “satan-worshipping atheist."

All of this while extensively outnumbered in viewpoint and watching that a fist didn't come swinging at the back of my head. Perhaps that's my own issue with presupposition.

The rest of the time I spent offering a brief US History lesson, and then attempting to teach these gentlemen about their own religion.

Although I wanted to open even the slightest bit of mindset into the greater contradictions that exist within religion, and how much sinister hate has actually occurred over the last 2,000-plus years by virtue of many, many religions, I didn’t bother. It wasn’t about that at this point. It was simply about diluting their misconceptions and exposing their ignorance.

In the end, I would buy them all a round of drinks (a couple even returned the favor) and take the time to shake hands with each of them, exchange names, and thank them for the great conversation and perspective. They were kind enough to oblige a return on that sentiment, and a few, including a retired history teacher who was the only one to sit there and remain quiet the entire time, would approach me and thank me for valuing an education. That was a gratifying and humbling moment. Indeed, there is something learned even in the worst of ignorant thought.

The conversation would end without heat, and everyone laughing. I’d like to believe that’s because I tried very deliberately to keep the tone non-hostile and continually tried to bring the conversation back to a point, even though I was being skewered from all sides at once. To give them fair credit, many would approach me and thank me for my thoughts, as well. I wish that happened more often.

Perhaps it was only the round of drinks that made them more amicable toward me. But in all, the evening’s discussion would only further my perception that we have a very long way to go in this county with regards to our presuppositions. There’s a distinct difference between those who have made a commitment to humanity (atheists and theists alike), and those who have narrowed their perceptions to absolute stereotypes.

At the least, pick up a book. More than just one.

 

Coaching Yourself and Family Through Atheism

Most of us who are openly atheistic, and especially anti-theistic, have faced a fair amount of misunderstanding, concern, and outright criticism from friends and family. It is often painfully frustrating for us because we see our position so clearly. We wonder why the premise is so hard for those close to us to understand, even if they don’t agree with us.

When you choose to have them, these conversations are neither easy nor comfortable where religiosity is aggressive among family or friends. An important factor in the outcome is how you control the dialogue of these encounters. The goal is not to deconvert anyone else, but to simply make sure your position is understood and that you’re not made a target for religious proselytizing and condemnation from those you love.

The conversations should happen in a private forum, not involving an entire roomful of people. If you find yourself in that situation, it may be best to refrain from saying anything until you can have the discussions in an environment that doesn’t work against you more than it already is. This can be overwhelmingly intimidating and it’s not an uncommon approach, particularly among some cultures and larger families who feel that the influence is greater in numbers.

Once the setting is comfortable, it can be important to take control of the conversation without being intimidating. Having come from religion and found skepticism, you hold a more comprehensive position. Remember that atheism is likely completely foreign to your family, and considered taboo according to their religious values. They are in a place of emotion. You need to take them to a place of thought.

One method that can be constructive in this process is utilizing some of the skills found in life coaching. I’ve been fortunate to receive education in this area and the processes have been extremely helpful to me as I’ve navigated adversity in my life, particularly discussions about atheism. Coaching is generally forward-orientated, which is where you want to take the conversation. You want to take your family from a place of their own perceived disappointment or misunderstanding to a place where you can all have safe and fruitful discussion.

Coaching yourself and others is about positive action and change. First recognize that the things that usually resist positive action and change are emotionally-charged, negative presuppositions. You want to stay away from questions or dialogue that bring about emotional responses, and try to offer questions that will productively engage thought processes. Avoid questions that lead off with the word, “Why.” These types of questions (“Why are you upset at me?”) default a person to what is stopping them from moving forward, and put them in an environment where their fear or trepidation is more comfortable than using logic or their ability to engage their use of perspective.

Consider this example. If I asked you, “Why don’t you want to go to work today,” you’re likely to immediately default to any negative feelings you may have about your job. But, if I ask you, “What about your job is most challenging,” you’re put into a place of more constructive thought and rationalization instead of direct feelings (emotions).

Progress is made with the mind, and questions beginning with the word, “What.” At the least, these types of questions should mitigate the tone of the conversation. At the most, they will foster an open environment of conversation and understanding.

“What is it about my skepticism that concerns you?” (Instead of, “Why are you upset at me?”)

“What experience have you personally had with atheists that gives you a negative idea of them?” (Instead of, “Why is atheism bad?")

“What have I accomplished in my life that you are proud of?” (Instead of, “Why do you think I’m going to be a bad person now?”)

“What do you want for me to achieve in my life?" (Instead of, “Why are you worried that I have no purpose?”)

“What do you wish more people understood about you?” (Instead of, “Why don’t you understand me?”)

These are just a few examples. You are a naturally creative, resourceful and determined human being. Make the questions applicable to your life and your family, but keep them focused on thoughtful answers, not emotional responses.

You are the only one who has a clear understanding of your circumstances, and therefore only you can appropriately judge whether or not you should be open about your atheism and to whom you are open about it with. Safety and security should be your first priority. In some cultures it may not be safe to be open until later in life. If you’re younger and more financial dependent on your family, you have more risk to consider also.

Ultimately, you have the incredible power of your beautiful, free mind at your disposal. Keep it simple. Atheism is nothing more than refusing to believe without evidence. It’s not a position of hate or immorality. You have every bit of moral virtue that your family instilled in you; and in most cases, even more than they gave you.

Proof is not Found in the Quinque Viae

A seldom-referenced (and often misinterpreted) explanation for God’s existence is alluded to in the works of Saint Thomas Aquinas, a 13th century medieval Italian theologian and Dominican friar of the Catholic Church Church.. Most modern Christians are completely unaware of the breadth of Aquinas’ work, or perhaps unaware of him at all; so, when rare opportunity comes up where one mentions Aquinas it is a gem in hopes of a fruitful discussion about religiosity’s misunderstanding of some of their more highly regarded theologians (and philosophers).

Aquinas’ work includes the quinque viae, mentioned in his book, “Summa Theologica.” Christians who are familiar with this will often read this as Aquinas proving the existence of God, when in fact Aquinas’ implications are merely what man’s interpretation of meaning and their associated belief of God is, not actual proof of the existence of God, himself. The quinque viae only postulates man’s presumptions of God based on phenomenon not yet explained at the time; not based on any divine revelations or religious experiences at all.

In fact, as a philosopher, Thomas is emphatically Aristotelian. When Thomas referred to Aristotle as the Philosopher, he was not merely adopting what many in Aristotle’s time viewed as creative imagination. He adopted Aristotle's analysis of physical objects, his view of place, time and motion, and his cosmology. Aquinas was greatly influenced by and used Aristotle's account of sense perception and intellectual knowledge. His philosophy is closely based on what he learned from Aristotle and his commentary on Metaphysics.

(Remember, in quinque viae, Aquinas was supposing man’s perception of these things in the 13^th century, 300 to 400 years before men like Johannes Kepler or Isaac Newton defined various laws of motion).

Looking at the “five ways to prove God exists” according to the Christian misinterpretation of Aquinas’ work, and as stated [in part] in Aquinas’ “quinque viae:”

First, motion: “Some things undoubtedly move, though cannot cause their own motion.” Since, as Thomas believed, “there can be no infinite chain of causes of motion, there must be a first mover not moved by anything else, and this is what everyone understands by God.”

In quite simpler terms, “This ball moved, and I don’t know how it moved because I didn’t move it, so God must have been the force behind the ball’s movement.”

Again, this was human interpretation at the time; not proof. Science has since defined everything from planetary motion to gravity to potential energy to thermodynamics. These are only a few that can explain the reason behind forcible motion of an object that wasn’t yet understood in the 1200’s.

(The ancient Greeks were sure the world was not flat, but that information was lost in the dark ages, and hence during Aquinas’ lifetime, most of the Christian world still believed the world was flat. This would understandably stunt their ability to comprehend the many forces that could impact an object’s motion).

Using only the first part of Newton’s First Law of Motion is an easy way to test this; “An object at rest remains at rest unless acted upon by a force” – Place a tennis ball on a surface. The tennis ball should not move on its own. However, the tennis ball has gravitational potential energy. If the surface is not flat gravity will cause the ball to move; not God. This is as simple an argument I can make to debunk Aquinas’ first postulate of man’s interpretation. But, on a larger scale, the same can be applied to planetary rotation and the gravitational forces of the sun.

Second, causation: “As in the case of motion, nothing can cause itself, and an infinite chain of causation is impossible, so there must be a First Cause, called God.”

This is actually more recently defined as transcendental idealism by German philosopher Immanuel Kant in the 18th century. This implies that human experience of things is similar only to the way they appear to us, rather than being an activity that creates a direct and obvious link for causation; such as evolution.

One important thing to consider is that even the Church has deferred to scientists on matters such as the age of the earth and the authenticity of the fossil record. Papal pronouncements, along with commentaries by cardinals, have accepted the findings of scientists on the gradual appearance of life. In fact, the International Theological Commission in a July 2004 statement endorsed by Cardinal Ratzinger, then president of the Commission and head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, previously Pope Benedict XVI, includes this paragraph:

"According to the widely accepted scientific account, the universe erupted 15 billion years ago in an explosion called the 'Big Bang' and has been expanding and cooling ever since. Later there gradually emerged the conditions necessary for the formation of atoms, still later the condensation of galaxies and stars, and about 10 billion years later the formation of planets. In our own solar system and on earth (formed about 4.5 billion years ago), the conditions have been favorable to the emergence of life. While there is little consensus among scientists about how the origin of this first microscopic life is to be explained, there is general agreement among them that the first organism dwelt on this planet about 3.5–4 billion years ago. Since it has been demonstrated that all living organisms on earth are genetically related, it is virtually certain that all living organisms have descended from this first organism. Converging evidence from many studies in the physical and biological sciences furnishes mounting support for some theory of evolution to account for the development and diversification of life on earth."

The Vatican’s concurrence with science, while irrelevant to the actual science itself, pretty much puts a nail in the coffin of Aquinas’ second postulate of man’s interpretation.

Third: Existence of necessary and the unnecessary: “Our experience includes things certainly existing but apparently unnecessary. Not everything can be unnecessary, for then once there was nothing and there would still be nothing. Therefore, we are compelled to suppose something that exists necessarily, having this necessity only from itself; in fact itself the cause for other things to exist.”

I’ll keep this one short as it is pretty much resolved and debunked in the previous point, but evolutionary processes would certainly provide examples of things that exist but are unnecessary and are not the cause for other things to exist; wisdom teeth, men with nipples, or the remnants of a vestigial tail are just a few. One could even argue that Christianity exists but is unnecessary, as its assumed purpose of morality is merely coincidental to time, tradition, and geographical impregnation, and it is ambiguously tied to something that cannot in fact be proven to have ever existed. I'll admit that's a loose tangent, as Christianity is a belief system and not a physical property. But, if it were singular and absolute in purpose, there wouldn’t have been more than 2,500 other gods worshipped across the globe as far back as there is evidence for worship of. (Pay attention to the fact that I said “worship of,” not existence of).

Fourth: Gradation: “If we can notice a gradation in things in the sense that some things are more hot, good, etc., there must be a superlative which is the truest and noblest thing, and so most fully existing. This then, we call God”

Gradation happens around us every day, but was certainly not as understood in Aquinas’ time. At least not as prevalent as it is in the world around us today. Changes in our atmosphere, changes in the sun’s radiation, changes in the linguistics of our human language(s), even chameleons (and other animals) use a form of gradation as a defense against predators. These are not supernatural phenomenon but rather testable biological and physical properties. And, they are only a couple of many millions of examples.

Fifth: Ordered tendencies of nature: “A direction of actions to an end is noticed in all bodies following natural laws. Anything without awareness tends to a goal under the guidance of one who is aware. This we call God.”

There is so much wrong with this postulate that it could require its own blog, but I will try to be brief. It’s far too ambiguous to be considered accurate proof of anything at all, outside of Aquinas’ thoughts on man's reason for belief. (Note that even when we guide objects, in Thomas' account of man’s view on God, it views the source of all knowledge coming from God as well. We absolutely know this is untrue. If you’ve taken even one class in your life, read one book, looked at one price tag, this is disproved).

This statement by Aquinas again berths Epicurus’ evaluation of God, which we know conflicts with the Christian assertion that he also gave us free will. He cannot be in complete control yet have no control at the same time. It’s one or the other. If we have free will, then it is entirely our own actions and those actions of the environment and cultures around us that combine to account for our circumstances and eventual ultimatum. If we don’t have free will, then “sin” is impossible. Which is it? That is the flawed perception of man in Aquinas’ fifth postulate.

Lastly, those things considered “natural laws” (divine laws) in the 13^th century have been irrefutably replaced by scientific laws by the year 2013.

Saint Thomas Aquinas was a thinker, as shown by his deep affinity for Aristotle. However he was also a theologian and ranking member of the Catholic Church. He sought to understand existence and cause, but he never implied proof, only what his perceptions of man’s reasoning for belief were. That is important to note, because there is a very distinct difference between proof and belief (or hope). The quinque viae is not proof of God’s existence. It’s merely proof of man’s reasoning for his belief in that existence. We are 800 years advanced from the age of Thomas Aquinas. We understand the world much better now. (Mis)using Saint Thomas Aquinas’ assertions is no more effective than using the Bible to prove the existence of God.

Declining Religiosity and Increasing Morality

A fan of our Facebook page recently shared a great video with us about Atheism and morality. The video is about 18-minutes, but it is well worth the watch as it gives some good, hard data as it relates to the decline of religiosity and the increase in morality. While I have yet to corroborate all of the information, I’ve cherry-picked various bits of the information offered and have found it accurate within +/- 1% on various sources on the web.

Sam Harris has written much about morality as it pertains to Theism and Atheism. His books are undoubtedly among my recommended reads.

It is no surprise that the increase in Atheism brings about a more socially-compatible system of morality. I’ve made this point before; Atheists are skeptics at the least, and rational at the most. We’re not people who, by virtue of having no belief in a deity, are dropping goats off of buildings, running down people with our cars, or burning satanic symbolization onto our bodies (Satan is a Christian thing).

We just simply do not believe in a god, and by virtue of that, do not believe in the ritualistic brainwash that is ground into the minds and perceived morals of people who follow religions that subscribe to a god.  

So, what can we extrapolate from the information in the video and the case it makes that the decline of religiosity equivocates to the increase in a more well-behaved society in general?

There are many sociopolitical dynamics that may play a tangential role in this as well. As more people across the US and all over the world are seen as innately free and equal (rightfully so) by their governments, it would make sense that the shift from judgment (religion) to tolerance (reason) would take place. Religion is still tied to even the political dynamic as most governments are not absent representation of some religious motivation. As that representation loses its religiosity, the subjugation to religion declines. As that religious subjugation declines, and people are free to live without persecution, greater acceptance and morality grows.

Human tendency, where people have tasted freedom, is to wish to be self-governing for the most part. People want to be able to make their own choices and be free to live as generally civilized human beings without a forced obedience put on them, outside of the commonly accepted writs of a society governed by reasonable law and due process.

Religion is an institution of obedience. Catholicism (or Islam) would sit at a polar end of obedience, where other sects of Christianity may be less abrasive but still impose their virtues based upon a supernatural judgment of reward or castigation based on a specific morality associated with Christian obedience to doctrines associated with the Abrahamic god. You simply cannot be a Christian without believing in Heaven and Hell.

If you assert that you are a Christian who does not believe in these things, you’re actually more likely to be Agnostic with a fear you haven’t yet completely overcome. That will happen in time, and the beautiful freewill of Atheism will reduce whatever is left of Pascal's Wager within you.

As information becomes more available, and young minds are increasingly taught how to think instead of what to think, the growth of reason flourishes. I would believe it to be a safe assumption that higher misconduct by teenagers with higher religiosity is a natural act of rebellion against an imposed obedience. This is the psyche of a human being, particularly in a society where one is otherwise free to make choices that may be seen as unfavorable but aren’t going to get them stoned to death for stepping out of bounds from their religion. 

I’m one who likes to see data. I believe a lot can be found in numbers and statistics. When this is coupled with history and social behaviors, it’s hard to dismiss it as merely coincidence. Where Atheism exists at its core, which is the quest for falsifiable reason, critical thought and intelligence engaged at a higher level does bring about higher morality and conscious, social acceptance.

Reviewing Resources

I have been consuming myself with work on my book and neglected my blog this week. I will have a new article out in the next couple of days. Until then, I thought I would briefly highlight a few of the past articles for you to cherry-pick at anything that might seem of interest or help to you.

I’ve been humbled at the trust shown to me lately by lot of people (seeking insight) who, like myself, came from religion and fear how those around them will react when they are open about being Atheist. I am filling an entire chapter in my book with this, but two recent blogs may help. I believe it is more about being proud of the person you are and less about the topic of religion. I hope these two articles offer some useful perspective.

I am an Atheist

Be Secure in your Right no to Believe

There has been much stated about the “Religion of Peace,” also known as Islam. As Atheists, it is imperative we not shy away from calling out the dogma of all religions, particularly the ones that display the most duplicitous and self-righteous behaviors. Islam tops the list in violent religious dogma. Their attempt to convince everyone but themselves that they are peaceful is misguided. They cannot project an outward peace where an inward peace does not even exist. These recent articles are of an encounter with Islam, and a message to those exhausting our patience with their message of “peace.”

Convincing Your Own would be a Good Start

My Chilling Encounter with an Islamist

In the United States, we’re constantly embattled with Christians and their legislators as to their fallacious belief that America was founded upon Christianity. This article clears up only one way in which that is entirely untrue.

The Christian Misunderstanding of America’s Constitutional Foundation

Washing a child’s brain full of religious voodoo is arguably the most repugnant form of child abuse. These are a couple of articles written to the infestation of that abuse as well as the tragic results of it.

Dogma and Child Abuse

When you’re too Stupid to Breed

Duplicitous and hypocritical behavior are rampant among those who are most deeply affected by religious dogma. We have all been through the circular arguments, the inundations of scripture and the ridiculous idea that somehow one religion is right and the other is wrong. The other frustrating argument is the one where religion is used as an example of good, but then something else is ambiguously used as a scapegoat when its abhorrent virtues are shown. These are a few articles that may shed some perspective on those debates you engage in.

My God wouldn’t do That!

God, the Bad and the Ugly

The Argument of Religious Motivation versus Mental Illness

Lastly, I have begun to attempt to refute the ramblings of some Christian bloggers. One may call that futile, but I see it as an exercise in fortitude and determination for the cause of reason. The following three blogs were written as direct responses to one Christian blogger’s delusional dogma in particular, and were also embedded in the comment threads of her articles, where she allowed them.

Misleading Persecution

You’re not Required to be Gay

The chosen Separation from Reason

You can find several more articles on the side panel of the blog’s page, but these are the few I felt most valuable to highlight in light of recent discussions I’ve had or seen on the wall of our Facebook page or the walls of other pages dedicated to Atheist thought. I hope these prove as helpful. As is true with anyone’s writing, these are my perspectives. There are many resources out there, and I encourage seeking out as many as you can. Arming yourself with knowledge is the answer to defeating the fear and irrationality of religious dogma.