The Atheist's Heart http://theatheistheart.posterous.com Most recent posts at The Atheist's Heart posterous.com Thu, 04 Nov 2010 20:58:00 -0700 Manifesto http://theatheistheart.posterous.com/manifesto http://theatheistheart.posterous.com/manifesto

So, it's been a while since I've posted to the blog.  As a result, I have a fairly significant backlog of topics that I want to write about.  But to break the seal, I wanted to share something that I wrote 2 or 3 years ago, when I first admitted to myself that I was an atheist.  I wrote this little piece to help myself more fully realize who I really was (and who I wanted to be), once I'd dropped all the pretense of being who my parents and friends told me I was supposed to be.

 

Comments welcome, as always.

 

 

1. I am an atheist.

 

1.1 I am neither scientist nor philosopher, merely a man striving to make his way in this world.

 

1.2 Being an atheist means that I do not accept the existence of a definable, supernatural deity/entity that watches over humanity and guides and aids, or judges and punishes us.

 

1.3 I believe in the fundamental unity of all of existence – both living and inanimate objects, all forces, phenomena, events and time.  This unity is the manifestation of the “divine”, and it encompasses all things.

 

1.4 I believe that the living cycle of birth & death, creation & destruction, organization & entropy, order & chaos, is eternal and uncaused; across the entire spectrum of existence: at the submicroscopic scale of particle physics, at the human scale of day-to-day life, up through the cosmological scale of the entire universe.

 

  

2. Being an atheist does not mean that I am immoral, or even amoral.

 

2.1 I possess very strong moral convictions, as evidenced in my daily behavior – I refuse to accept that subscription to any organized religion is required to be a moral person.

 

2.1.1 I believe that most organized religions offer core sets of behavioral rules that are valid and appropriate in ensuring the continuation of the species through stable social relationships.

 

2.1.2 However, the contradictory mythologies that have evolved in all religions, along with their oftentimes strident assertions that each is the only “true” mythology, are not only illusory, but in many cases, harmful; by reinforcing in-group/out-group psychological dynamics that can be exceedingly destructive when manifested at a cultural or societal level.

 

2.2 I do not believe in an absolute truth, an absolute morality, or an absolute authority.

 

2.2.1 I believe that the nature of existence is change – variability and probability are the underlying fundamental characteristics of our reality and how it operates.

 

2.2.2 I believe that our experience of the world is based on an individualistic interpretation of information: information coded within energy patterns, absorbed by our senses, and interpreted by our mind.  Since individuals interpret information differently, driven by their unique characteristics, we all see the world differently.  Thus, we all have different interpretations of what is “good” and what is “bad”.

 

2.2.3 All of the above has led me to develop a unique morality for myself, a kind of a relativistic utilitarianism.  I believe that varying circumstances will define a given behavior as moral or not.

 

2.2.3.1 To me, moral behavior is defined as those thoughts, words and deeds that drive the greatest benefit for the greatest number of my fellow beings.

 

2.2.3.2 However, that definition will vary based on the specifics of a given situation and the relative “closeness” to me of any affected beings (i.e., the morality of a specific behavior – such as the taking of a life – will vary when it affects my children, as opposed to when it affects a mosquito that bites me on a visit to Mozambique).

 

2.2.3.3 I do recognize that this variability – while I believe that it is a superior worldview – is an anathema to religion (much as it is to our legal systems).  Religious dogma relies on codified regulation of thought, word and deed to define and propagate itself.  Thus, the prospect of relative morality can be frightening to those who have spent their entire lives defining themselves by adherence to a dogmatic religion; in turn presenting perhaps an insurmountable obstacle to our spiritual growth as a species.   I sincerely hope that this is not the case.

 

2.2.4 In general, my own personal morality is based on treating all things with respect, compassion and empathy to the greatest extent possible – including all people, all creatures, our environment and ourselves – and I expect to be treated the same way in return.  See Section 4 for discussion of ideal moral behaviors.

 

2.3 I also believe that individual expression is fundamental to human existence, and while I strive not to impinge on others’ rights to express themselves as they see fit, I will fight for my own ability to do so as well – to whatever extent necessary.

 

2.3.1 As a corollary, I believe that individuals’ right to express themselves only extends to the point that they impinge on others’ rights.  As Thomas Jefferson is thought to have said, “Your right to swing your arm ends at the tip of my nose”.

           

            2.3.2 I believe that the legislation of morality – the illegal stature of so-called “victimless crimes”, as well as other related types of behavior, based primarily on religious dogma, is inappropriate, inefficient and immoral.

 

            2.3.3 I believe that children should be taught to think with an open mind, to question all things, and to respect others; rather than to adhere to a strict dogma as dictated by any particular religion.  The process of socialization is extremely powerful, and difficult for most to overcome.

 

2.3.3.1 One trend occurring in the United States today, wherein several Christian organizations are actively lobbying governmental bodies to force the teaching of creationism in public school science classes (the literal interpretation of the Genesis creation myth), as opposed to evolution, is a particularly destructive tactic of religious socialization.

 

2.3.3.2 Creationism disguised as science inhibits children’s ability to think critically, and opens their minds to the acceptance of matters of faith as scientific fact, with no supporting evidence, a frightening prospect, to say the least (see section 3.2.1 below).

 

            2.3.4 I also believe that this self-sustaining process of religious socialization, exacerbated by our intellectual and emotional immaturity as a species, requires that religion exists for most people to behave in a morally.  Sadly, the threat of divine oversight and punishment is required to compel proper behavior for far too many people.

 

 

3. I believe in the power of the scientific method (“science”, for simplicity) to illuminate the workings and content of the universe.

 

3.1 I believe that the universe – all of existence – functions according to a finite set of factual “rules” (albeit “rules” based on variability and probability), and that human beings have evolved the intellectual capacity to discover and understand these “rules”.

 

3.1.1 Historically, I believe that the function of a deity(ies) in explaining the workings of the physical world has been increasingly limited by the advancement of knowledge enabled by science – some refer to this as the “god of the gaps” perspective.

 

3.1.2 Therefore, I believe that science can and will eventually reveal to humanity all knowledge that we have the capacity to comprehend, including the unity of all existence, as has been intimated by quantum physics and relativity.  At this point, we will no longer need a deity to explain how the universe works.

 

3.1.3 As stated previously, I believe that this unity is the closest concept to divinity that exists in reality, and when – not if – science is able to model and predict the behavior of this unity (as with the “Theory of Everything”), we will truly understand the “divine”.  A “divinity” as described by Einstein, among others: a “divinity” which is neither supernatural nor metaphysical. A “divinity” that does not judge, does not punish. A “divinity” that is impersonal. A “divinity” which only encompasses and empowers, not restricts or represses.

 

3.2 Until we have reached that point in the development of humanity, in our emotional and intellectual growth, in our acquisition of knowledge of the physical world; that divinity will necessarily be of the realm of belief, not science.

 

3.2.1 Without a means of objectively testing and empirically proving or disproving a given object/process/phenomenon (call it a “thing”), that thing is not a fact of science, but an article of belief, and our behavior regarding that thing should follow appropriately.

 

3.2.1.1 I define belief as an acceptance of a given thing – or the possibility of that thing existing – without direct evidence, subject to change in the light of evidence once acquired.  It is a conditional acceptance.  The existence of life on other planets besides Earth and the existence of human telepathy are articles of belief.

 

3.2.1.2 I define fact as an empirically-based, repetitively tested and predictive acceptance of a thing based on direct evidence of its existence.  Gravity and evolution are facts of science.  However, even facts (as we understand them) are subject to change, with the appropriate weight of contradictory evidence.

 

3.2.1.3 I define faith as an unwavering, unflappable, ignorant acceptance of a given thing in the absence of any supporting and verifiable evidence.  Christianity and other organized religions are matters of faith.

 

3.2.2 Articles of belief are personal issues, and should not be used as decision-making criteria or behavioral cues in the majority of circumstances involving other beings (see previous section on morality, 2.2.3).  Only facts of science should carry that weight.

 

3.2.3 I discount, in their entirety, all matters of faith.

 

3.3 I believe that simply because we cannot apply the rigors of science to a given thing, it is not logical to conclude that that thing does not exist.  Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

 

3.3.1 However, the greater the inconsistency between an article of belief and the facts of science related to it, the greater the burden of proof required to graduate belief into fact.

 

3.3.2 And while many articles of belief are not amenable to scientific proof given the current state of our knowledge/technology, it is not logical to conclude that it will never be so.  After all, we once did not have the capability to observe the behavior of germs until the microscope was invented.  It certainly does not follow that germs did not exist prior to the microscope, only that we did not have the means to perceive them.

 

3.4 Bit-by-bit, I believe that science will help us to shed the oppressive weight of religious dogma, and reveal empirically to us the wonder and majesty of the truth.  The unity.  No omnipotent and omniscient god, only us.  Only one.

 

 

4. My Moral Code

 

4.1 Finally, it is appropriate conclude this manifesto by outlining the specific precepts by which I live my life, those that guide my behavior every single day.  My morality is based on an understanding of practical rules of behavior.  Rules that I believe, if followed, will ensure the long-run smooth and stable functioning of the human race, with the greatest happiness and contentment for all.  This is my relativistic utilitarianism.

 

4.1.1 As stated earlier in this document, I define relativistic utilitarianism as behaviors and actions that strive for the greatest good for the greatest number of beings.

 

4.1.2 This morality manifests in a relative sense as giving all due consideration in decision making to selecting the choices that benefit myself and others in virtual, concentric rings of declining impact.  In other words, I will choose the course of action that most benefits myself and my family first, then my friends, my countrymen, humanity, the environment, and so on, to encompass all of existence.

 

4.2 I believe that morality should be defined in terms of what one should do, rather than what one should not do.  As the nature of existence is variability and probability, we cannot possibly foresee each and every circumstance in which we may find ourselves.

 

4.2.1 Thus, a morality based on prohibition is necessarily too restrictive, and inevitably leads to unintended consequences.

 

4.2.2 Conversely, a morality based on prescribed ideals of desired behavior is much more flexible than prohibition, and applicable to an infinitely large number of possible scenarios.

 

4.3 The Moral Ideals

 

4.3.1 Reason – the process of evolution granted human beings the intellectual horsepower to contemplate right versus wrong, the nature of reality, and the intricacies of cause and effect.  Therefore, we are only being good stewards of the resources available to us by using the power of reason in our everyday lives.

 

4.3.2 Knowledge – our ability to acquire sophisticated and complex knowledge makes us uniquely human, and only through acquiring knowledge do we grow as individuals and as a species.  Knowledge is that which grants us the power to make decisions that are morally proper and for the benefit of all.

 

4.3.3 Honesty – we should always strive to be truthful in our dealings with others, as well as with ourselves.  Insofar as truth is relative and malleable, there exists a common set of shared expectations regarding the truth.  Disingenuity and knowingly misleading others and ourselves inexorably lead to negative outcomes.

 

4.3.4 Respect – the immortal “golden rule”: treat others as you wish to be treated.  We all have the basic, inalienable right to exist, and duly recognizing one another as fellow passengers on the same cosmic train is the foundation for a stable human community.

 

4.3.5 Compassion – As a necessary outcome of the ideal of respect, compassion is the consciousness of distress in other beings, and the desire to alleviate it.

 

4.3.6 Activity – throughout the history of humankind, improvement in living conditions has primarily been driven by progress in intellectual/scientific understanding, and plain old hard work.  All of us, in our chosen fields of endeavor, have a responsibility to contribute to the success of the species through our efforts, made to the best of our ability and capacity to work.

 

4.3.7 Empathy – perhaps the most important precept of all, I define empathy as the conscious effort to “put yourself in another’s shoes”.  Empathy is the act of internalizing the feelings of others, feeling them as your own; and is a critical moral behavior.  Without this effort made (which admittedly, is much easier for some than others), it is too easy to dismiss the needs and desires of others besides yourself.

 

Einstein
   

Reason & Knowledge

 

above

 

Superstition & Ignorance

 

 

 

Permalink | Leave a comment  »

]]>
http://files.posterous.com/user_profile_pics/681554/profile_photo4.070510.jpg http://posterous.com/users/4wjEV5gdjzUd Chris theatheistheart Chris
Tue, 17 Aug 2010 07:55:00 -0700 On Conversion and Prophecy http://theatheistheart.posterous.com/on-conversion-and-prophecy http://theatheistheart.posterous.com/on-conversion-and-prophecy

Well before I officially labeled myself an atheist, I observed with sadness, and oftentimes anger, the discord that religion, notably Christianity, causes in our society.  The intolerance, the ignorance, the judgmentalism, the hatred…all are well documented and sadly, all too frequent. 

Why does religion spur this degree of negativity towards those who don’t believe – or believe something other than a given religion’s dogma?  And why is it so hard to convince the faithful that their animus is not only misdirected, but it’s just plain wrong?  While the drive to conversion is well-understood as a source of intolerance, I believe that another piece of the answer lies with the notion of prophecy: that the future has been revealed in some fashion to believers, and that that future is unavoidable and unchangeable.

First, conversion of the unfaithful is an explicit objective of the monotheistic religions, notably Christianity and Islam.  One might argue that this is simply good marketing – after all, success as a system of thought is dependent on growth.  However, it has some obvious negative side effects.  Intrusion into political systems and into our personal lives is one of those harmful effects.  Of course, the drive to conversion also creates, through in-group/out-group psychological dynamics, a judgmentalism that can fester into true hatred in extreme cases – see Fred Phelps and Westboro Baptist, and the muslim Jihad.

But this is only part of the problem – it’s well-understood why theists cannot tolerate or hate non-believers, and why they are convinced that their dogma, their system of morals, is the only way to cure the ills of the world.  However, I’m much more interested in why they refuse to accept that there are other ways.  Why are the true b’leevers so adamant that they have the only solution to the problems in the world today? And why are they so convinced that alternative solutions are wrong?

One answer: prophecy.  In examining Christianity, the promise of the Rapture is what I see as the root cause of the unwillingness or inability of the fundamentalist mindset to accept new ideas for social, economic and political change.  It’s self-fulfilling on a grand scale.  Secular change is against God’s will, and will result in the destruction of the world…we can only be saved through God’s word.  If we accept that word, then we shall be saved while the world burns around us.  And since not everyone accepts God’s word, then destruction is inevitable.  Some true b’leevers even seem to want to hasten the destruction. As one of my friends so eloquently posted: "...trying to find ways to ameliorate global, climatic catastrophe is to resist --in effect, to deny--the will of their "god." It is, in fact, blasphemy."

What true b'leevers fail to recognize, of course, is that their faith, and their zealous efforts to convert others to that faith is the cause of many of the problems facing the world today, at least from a social perspective…and there are arguments that the thought patterns implicit in theology result in many other environmental, economic and political problems as well.

So, how do we break through this circular wall of conversion and prophecy? How do we prove to them that rational, secular solutions to the problems we face today are the only reliable means of addressing them?  I wish I knew.

But, to end on a (only slightly) lighter note, from the Onion:  

Permalink | Leave a comment  »

]]>
http://files.posterous.com/user_profile_pics/681554/profile_photo4.070510.jpg http://posterous.com/users/4wjEV5gdjzUd Chris theatheistheart Chris
Thu, 12 Aug 2010 05:55:00 -0700 On Emotions v. Rationality http://theatheistheart.posterous.com/on-emotions-v-rationality http://theatheistheart.posterous.com/on-emotions-v-rationality

I want to start off with my first (real) post by establishing one of my basic operating principles.  Emotions and rationality, as filters through which we perceive and interpret the world, are not polar opposites, are not incompatible, and are certainly not mutually exclusive.

They are – or should be – inextricably linked.  Suggesting otherwise is to create a false dichotomy, one that’s inherently detrimental to the progressive ideal.  To paraphrase Mr. Einstein: rationality without emotion is lame, emotion without rationality is blind.

As atheists, most of us are proud of our rationality.  We wear it like a badge: “I think, therefore I am”.   And this is a good thing: the weight of the world’s problems can only be borne by logic and reason.  If not, we will surely be crushed underneath them.

However, I want to propose a very simple argument:  rationality is boring.  It’s dry.  And while we wish for others to behave more rationally, this is the built-in hurdle we face.  The non-rational (in other words, true b’leevers) have no incentive to challenge the status quo of their worldview via rational arguments, because they’re playing with a different deck: emotion.  Strictly rational arguments just don’t carry any weight with them.

The greatest weapon in the theists arsenal?  Fear.   Perhaps the most virulent emotion of them all.  And the masters of the theist trade wield it well.  So, for the rational atheistic worldview to gain traction in our culture, we have to learn how to speak in their language, and use the tools that resonate with them.

Atheism needs to be more emotional.  We need not be afraid to show our passion.

Now, I want to be very careful here.  I‘m not talking about bombastic, unfounded emotional appeals, shouting and screaming our “message” from the rooftops.  This not only cheapens what we have to say, more importantly, uncontrolled emotion distorts decision-making and undermines critical thinking.  What I am saying is that we should be more passionate in expressing ourselves.  We all feel the emotions – the compassion, the anger, the love, the pain.  But so many atheists seem to want to repress that emotion, apparently concerned about these adverse impacts.

I want to see atheists channel that emotion,  to control it and use it to underline the importance of the many issues that we want to see resolved, and communicate our ideas in ways that resonate with true b’leevers.  I believe that this is the only way that we will be able to crack the impossibly thick wall of “nanny-nanny-boo-boo” theists have erected around their minds.  Does this make me a “militant” atheist?  Yeah, I suppose it does.

Many kudos – as an excellent case in point for this argument – to ZOMGitsCriss.

GO ATHEISTS! 

Hayden-panettiere-cheerleader

See what I did there?

Permalink | Leave a comment  »

]]>
http://files.posterous.com/user_profile_pics/681554/profile_photo4.070510.jpg http://posterous.com/users/4wjEV5gdjzUd Chris theatheistheart Chris
Wed, 11 Aug 2010 08:10:10 -0700 The first post. http://theatheistheart.posterous.com/the-first-post http://theatheistheart.posterous.com/the-first-post

I suppose that an introduction is in order.

My name is Chris.  I’m an atheist.

That’s probably the most appropriate label for me.  In general, I despise labels.  But this one appeals to me for many reasons – despite the negative connotations it may carry.   Not only does it describe my position on spirituality and religion (in other words, the proverbial crock of shit), it also implies other qualities that I hold close to my heart: skepticism, rationality and critical thinking.  To me, if one has the intellectual fortitude to question the existence of a supernatural deity, it follows that one possesses these other qualities as well.  Other, greater men and women have debated the pros and cons of the atheist label, all with valid points.  I only know what works for me…and I’m proud to call myself an atheist.

I haven’t always been an atheist.  In fact, I only recently came to admit to myself and the world that I am.  Like most people from my little corner of the planet, West Texas, I was raised to be a Christian.  But even at the tender age of 9, Christianity didn’t pass the smell test.  However, to keep the peace with family and friends, I played the game.   And then one day I looked up, and I was 40 years old with a dawning realization that I’d wasted half my life trying to be something I’m not.

So, here I sit, tapping away at the keyboard, attempting to give voice to the thoughts in my head and the feelings in my heart.  I’m well aware that my voice is just one among thousands, but I will still try.  Even if I strike a spark in only a single mind, the effort won't have gone to waste, as my children are the reason that I write.  I want them to grow up in a world that’s safe, civil and clean; and I don’t believe that humanity is currently on a path to get there.  To be perfectly blunt, there are things happening in this world today that simultaneously scare the shit out of me and make me completely fucking furious.

So, I write for my children.

I’m no scientist, I’m no philosopher, I’m not even really a writer.  I’m an MBA, and a marketer by trade.  I really have no more qualification to be writing a blog than spending a lot of time in thought.  I’m not looking for fame and fortune through my writing.  As a matter of fact, I would quite prefer that my name be left out of the discussion.  I’m a private person, very much the introvert.  Therefore, other than this briefest of introductions, I won’t say much more about who and I am and where I came from (unless it adds value to the post, of course).  I want to keep the focus on my ideas and my reactions to what’s going on in the world around me.

It’s a pleasure to make your acquaintance.

 

Permalink | Leave a comment  »

]]>
http://files.posterous.com/user_profile_pics/681554/profile_photo4.070510.jpg http://posterous.com/users/4wjEV5gdjzUd Chris theatheistheart Chris