The Atheist Condition

I find it sometimes difficult to recount how I have come to a particular conclusion. My memory seems to have a very aggressive strategy in place to insure I keep space open for important memories. If I come to some conclusion, I will often subconsciously wipe from my mind the factors that got me to that point. Once I have reached a conclusion or made a decision, it is much less important the factors considered to get there. This can be troublesome when I’m trying to explain my position or when I come across new information. As such, this post may be a little disorganized as I will probably remember things as I go.

For me, atheism did not come out of a single traumatic experience or event. This ideology was built and strengthened over a period of years. I don’t even remember when I started to consider there was an alternative to the Christian belief system into which I was indoctrinated. I won’t be citing a lot of sources. Since humanity has not yet perfected a concept of life, I don’t have much to work with. A lot of this is intuitive. I will readily admit that my own philosophy is based on much less than the body of knowledge humanity has amassed. My knowledge is a tiny subset of that.

I use Christianity as an example in many of these discussions as it is the religion with which I am most familiar and the one currently in favor in my neck of the woods. Here in the southeast US, people who aren’t Christians are few and far between. There are plenty of people who are in some state between belief and atheism but very few who say they are as certain as they are of anything that there is no god. I am one such person.

I think about the gods of old. There was as much proof for them as their is for the Christian god. The entire foundation for the religion is based on a religious text written by man. There are and were certainly religious text based around other gods. What would make those any different? If we accept that those are as valid which of the thousands of possible gods would we pick? Many people believe there must be some divine power to order the universe. I don’t believe that, but, if I did, what would compel me to believe it is the Christian god? To paraphrase a renowned atheist (I’m not sure which. Maybe Dawkins?), “We are all atheists in respect to the Greek gods. Some just go one further.”

Wouldn’t a benevolent god who sentences anyone not believing in him to hell (a contradiction in itself) have instilled in his people belief in him since the beginning of his creation? The Christian god sent a man-god to deliver his message to people millions of years after the beginning of life on earth. Some Christians argue that the earth is not millions of years old, but still believe it is thousands of years old. This means that hundreds of generations of people were either damned to hell by nature of the fact that they were so unlucky to be born before the messenger bringing the one true religion to its people or they are somehow exempt from having to believe in god since they didn’t have access to the proper information. This map shows the spread of particular religions over time. We must remember in viewing this that only recently has information traveled easily from one geographic location to the next. It would be incredibly unlikely for two people on opposite sides of the world to believe the same thing until very recently. Even still, there are isolated places in the world that do not participate in the rapid information exchange to which Westerners are accustomed. This means that people have not only been disadvantaged by the time period during which they were born but by their geographic locations. As far as the person being born is concerned, these factors are totally arbitrary. No one can choose the circumstances of his birth. Why would an all-powerful god who certainly could inform everyone deny certain groups of people the most basic suggestions he might exist which might enable them to make that leap of faith to decide he does exist.

Here’s another problem I’ve found. Let’s start with a few assumptions.

1. God is omnipotent and omniscient.
2. God is the creator of all things.
3. God loves his creation.
4. I am part of god’s creation.
5. I believe there is no god.

If we accept these assumptions, the argument proceeds. If I believe there is no god, I have been created in such a way that I am capable of doing so. God, the creator of all things, must have created me (and millions more of his creations) with this “flaw.” One would certainly not wish eternal damnation on someone he loves, but god does wish this on me because I don’t believe in him even though he himself created me with the ability to think in such a way. If god damns me for behaving as he created me to do, he cannot love me. God not only punishes me for the way he made me, but, being omniscient, he knew I would reject him when I was created. Being omnipotent, he had the power to change it. You may say that god gave us free will and that’s why I believe this way. That’s why I will go to hell. But, of what value is free will to me when the end result is eternal damnation? Why do I need free will? If I had never had it, I wouldn’t know the difference. Without seriously weighing the pros and cons, if I were given the choice between free will for a short time followed by eternal suffering or eternal happiness, I think I might go with the latter. Why would a god want me to have free will if he will punish me for using it?

You might argue that I am personifying god and that’s where my argument fails. Humans are incapable of understanding the mysterious ways of god and every attempt to explain or understand him will come up hopelessly short. Why would god, the creator, have created this situation? Why would he have made a being and expected them to believe in him knowing there is no way they will ever understand him and knowing that some of them would reject him for that fact alone? God may not be human, but he should certainly understand the way the human mind works having designed it.

My brother would argue with me that there is no way to deny god since there is no proof he does not exist. I answer him by saying that all knowledge is based on a point of reference. Nothing is absolute. Everything is relative to an everchanging understanding of the nature of things. For example, try to prove that the sky is blue. We have associated a certain color with the word “blue.” That is the color we see when we look at the thing we call the “sky.” Thus, we say the sky is blue. We cannot attach the fact to anything that isn’t abstract. This is true for everything we “know.” These are semantic arguments, however, and are not useful. I can say the sky is blue and, assuming there is a common pool of knowledge between myself and the person to whom I am speaking, meaning is conveyed. I can prove that there is no god to the same extent I can prove any other fact. For this reason, I call myself atheist.

I could write about this subject forever. I’ll probably come back with more later. I hope you enjoy!

Post a comment! Everyone has a different opinion about matters such as these. This post will be much more useful to all parties as a dialogue than as a monologue.