The Athiest Witness

Once, many years ago, I was in a diner and ran into an old friend. We caught up on things, and we was very excited to share with me how he had recently found Jesus.

Out of respect, I decided to keep my atheism to myself.

He went on and on about how he was finding such good things in the Bible and how his feelings about life were turning better after this discovery. I smiled, offered praise where I felt it was warranted, and let him go on. At the end, I told him I was happy he was happy, and I hope he continues to discover new things and grow. We shook hands, and he left as I finished my coffee and waited for my bill.

Just then, a person I had never met approached me. She was smiling, and thanked me for how I witnessed for my friend. I really didn't know how to react. I smiled back, told her he was an old friend, and I was happy that he was doing well.

But did I witness to him? I did in a sense; I listened to his story of finding Jesus, I let him talk about his experiences. But doesn't that simply mean I was doing what a friend should do? Doesn't witnessing also demand that I, too, believe? Perhaps it was not possible to see that I did not.

Did I do the right and moral thing? I think so. I could have screamed at him and told him no, no, this is moving backwards, you are abandoning reason for faith, etc., but I did not because I knew he was happy and I didn't really think there was an immediate purpose in spoiling that.

But it makes me think about how we can similarly share the atheist experience with others, especially those we care for. How do we do it respectfully and without causing divisions and anger?

I started writing this blog, in part, because it allows me to express these ideas in a way that is not going to upset people who don't wish to hear them, but is available for all those who do. I don't want anyone to accuse me of trying to strong-arm people into letting go of religion. I think it's the right thing to do, but now may not be the right time for many people, and I must respect that.

Much like quitting drinking or smoking, quitting religion is simultaneously beneficial and extremely traumatic and difficult. But it remains that every day more people are seeing that reason is more helpful for day-to-day living on the whole than blind faith. I think it's our duty to express that in ways that are inviting and welcoming, but tolerant and non-aggressive.

Here are a few ideas.

1. Always be tolerant, not pushy. There's nothing to be gained by evangelizing your conviction that a person is foolish for believing the god myth. I think it's ok to let others know in quiet, peaceful ways that their feelings of doubt about religion are normal and that they are not alone, but there is no point in trying to convert anybody. Let them believe what they like so long as it does not hurt others.
2. Answer questions honestly but briefly. If your child, your neighbor, your co-worker, or anyone wonders why other people go to church but you don't, answer them as straightforwardly as you can. If they ask your opinions about religious matters, do the same. But be aware that some topics are best left untouched. Depending on your workplace, it might be wise to respond to a co-worker with, "I don't discuss religion at work, I don't think it's right. I hope you can respect that."
3. Let children safely explore. If your son or daughter decides to go to a church, temple, mosque, etc., be cool about it. Be sure you do your homework and know who they are going with, where they are going, and definitely talk with them about the experience before and after. If other adults you know and trust with your skepticism can help you find out more, talk to them and learn along with your child.
4. Encourage the consideration and acceptance/rejection of ideas. Parents should ask their children what they would do in a particular moral dilemma. They should teach children why lying, stealing and hurting others is unfriendly and encourage them to explain why they think so as well. When you read together, talk about whether the story is about something that is true, could be true, or must be make-believe. "Could this really happen?" "What would you think if this were true?"
5. Speak up when doing so is positive or necessary. If religious people do a good thing, even for the wrong reason, be sure to express your pleasure when the topic comes up. But if someone does something harmful, even with the best intentions, be sure to express your concern. Don't sit silently by as someone is harmed by an immoral action, regardless of the purposes behind the action.
6. Live as an example of morality. You may be the only open atheist many people ever meet, and there is a lot of responsibility in that. Always be sure to demonstrate a sense of moral purpose and respect in your daily life. Many religious people believe atheists cannot have a central moral code: prove them wrong through your actions.

I welcome more ideas along these lines. We need to be true to our understanding of reason and sensibility, but we must also live peaceably with those who disagree. Each one of us must be the best person we are capable of being.

Throwing Away Ideas, Not Observations

Why do people believe in a god or gods? Two simple reasons.

1. They cannot explain the world around them (death, disease, natural disaster, etc.) with reason, so they guess that someone is playing a trick on them, or making things happen behind the scenes.
2. They were taught to - sometimes gently, sometimes harshly - at a relatively young age. If they doubt their beliefs, they fear reprisal from family as well as the "man upstairs".

No person is born with an innate knowledge of the existence of any god. I admit this is a bold statement and I probably can't prove it. But I can show why it is extremely likely to be so.

If I said that no one is born with an innate knowledge of the English language, or of juggling balls, or of making a fire, not one person would challenge me, because obviously we needed to learn these things ourselves before we knew them. There are many people alive today who cannot speak English, juggle balls, or make a fire without some sort of special technology. Clearly these are not innate.

However, we can argue that we have the innate ability to communicate, to manipulate objects, to experiment with phenomena we observe. I don't think anyone will argue these. It's those innate skills that led our predecessors to invent formal language, juggling and ignition.

And we also teach these skills with care to not abuse them. We tell our children what sort of language is permissible in certain places and situations, and which words would result in a less than favorable result for them if used. Jugglers are aware that they need a safe distance from others to perform the feat, and that the whimsical nature of it does not blend well with certain more sober situations. And we keep matches and lighters away from children while we let them plan our fire escape plan, and we collectively support the very socialist notion of a local fire department so even those who cannot afford to pay for such property and life rescue can benefit.

I think it is innate that we reason. I think it is innate that we look at things fall and notice that they never fall up. We see that fast things hitting objects perform more spectacularly than slow things. We notice that it is light out for about half a day, then it is dark out. All of these observations make us curious and drive us to understand more about the reality we find ourselves in.

The trouble is what happens when we can't reason it out. A few thousand years ago we did not understand why tides rose and fell. We needed some explanation because reason wasn't cutting it. We didn't understand why life can just stop, and someone becomes dead. We needed some sort of explanation.

Generally, the answers to the above problems was that a god or gods did it. God made the tides go in and out. God cursed a person for their evil, or called him home for his good deeds. And without any evidence to contradict all that, that served us as good as any other explanation.

Now we understand the Moon's gravity with the Earth and how it affects the oceans. We understand infection, disease and the genetics of old age. Yet there still are those who attribute tides and death to divine action, despite all we have learned.

There are many who reject science as against religion, as a sort of sorcery or evil craft that lies to us. They claim evolution is no better a theory than, say, intelligent design, and when shown mountains of strong evidence supporting evolution they simply say it is faulty, it doesn't prove a thing.

Now, having provisional explanations for things we don't understand is fine and normal. Gestalt psychology is criticized,  but most agree that when we see something that is incomplete we fill in the blanks naturally. It's in our nature.

The problem is when we use these provisional explanations even when our reason shows us that there are other, more reasonable explanations. When we dispense with the science of radiometric dating and insist that this book says the Earth is only so many thousands of years old, we are letting provisionality overrule reason. When we insist that a pregnancy initiated through a violent sexual attack is "God's will" we are letting provisionality overrule reason.

Tim Minchin wrote, "Science adjusts its views based on what's observed. Faith is the denial of observation so that belief can be preserved." In other words, reason means dispensing with an idea when it does not match observation, not dispensing with an observation when it does not match an idea.

If the god idea was innate, why would there be so many contradictory versions of it? If there was one true god or set of gods that we can just know, why aren't we all in agreement? Does this deity want us to kill each other over it?

It's like the old saying that insanity is doing the same thing over and over, expecting different results.When repeated observations and man's best ideas do not match up, we must throw away the idea, not the observations.

I have no problem if you want to personally fill in the cracks with God Spackle. I do have a problem when there already is an explanation for what you are spackling over, and you refuse to accept it because it doesn't fit your premise. My problem is that you then teach your children not to think critically. You encourage ignorance of reality over believing tradition. You celebrate the emotional security of a Father in Heaven over the need for stewardship of our Actual Reality.

If you must be religious, please never allow religion to become harmful to others. Take care to juggle a safe distance from me. Use words that are peaceful, not inflammatory.

And please, above all, don't let your children learn to love the flame of religion like a modern-day arsonist, but to respect it, just like our earliest prehistoric chemists did when they invented fire. Religion, like fire, can destroy if left unchecked, or if used without rational thought.