Part of the interview an atheist survey I recently completed asked why I think living as an atheist is better than living a life under God.

In retrospect, my response wasn’t nearly as good as it might have been. For starters,  I wrote it right before bed time. And that led me to only partially answer the question – I left a lot of awesomeness out!

At any rate, the question is excellent blog fodder which I hope to fully consume in a series of posts starting with this one. Here in this post, I’ll set the stage by clarifying some things about my atheism, and how things besides my atheism factor into the awesomeness of being godless.

First, Some Basics…

• What is atheism? Atheism is disbelief in the existence of deities including the Abrahamaic gods and the thousands of other gods contemplated throughout history. Atheism is nothing more than this disbelief.

• What is not Atheism? Atheism is not a world view. It does not come all packaged up with a set of beliefs.

The bullets are a reminder that we should never assume atheism means anything more than it does. Not all atheists share similar beliefs and world views. We are not all humanists, anarchists, liberals, or materialists, and not all of us disbelieve in supernatural concepts such as souls, ghosts, karma, past lives and E.S.P. In other words, we are a diverse group of people who tend to share only one thing – our disbelief in the existence of deities.

I imagine that’s one of the reasons it’s often said that atheists are harder to herd than cats.

–

Can We Narrow the Field Down a Bit?

At the risk of riling up the herd, I’m going to suggest that one sub-set of atheists tend to have commonalities. The sub-set I’m speaking of (the one I am a part of) is best understood by how they arrive at atheism:

• Some atheists haven’t given belief/non-belief much thought. They haven’t really pinned down the reasons they do not believe. In this group you may find atheists believing in things that fall under the category of the supernatural – even though they do not believe in god(s). This is not the sub-set I want to talk about.
• Some atheists are not really atheists. These are the folks who call themselves atheists, but who misunderstand the meaning of the concept. These are the atheists who are rebelling against a god they still believe exists. Although I haven’t met one of these, they are the straw man atheists that apologists like James Spiegal like to mislead people into thinking are the only type of atheists. This is not the sub-set of “atheist” I want to pin my discussion on.
• Some atheists arrive at their atheism after having listened to the arguments for and against gods, having gathered and weighed evidence and having used their powers of reason. These atheists rely on the tools of skepticism (not to be confused with cynicism) and the scientific method to attain an understanding of the universe they live in.
  

  Master of Skepticism Carl Sagan

That last group of ‘skeptical atheists’ is the one I will try to represent (I’m sure they’ll tell me if I do a poor job!). But, hold onto your horses because I’m not done defining them.

Naturalist Charles Darwin

It’s Natural

Reason, skepticism and the scientific method tend to lead my group of atheists in consistent directions. Most notably, it leads us to reject the existence of not just deities, but anything supernatural. That is to say that we tend to be naturalists. That is, we hold the view that the world can be understood in scientific terms, without relying on spiritual or supernatural explanations.

Wrapping it all up…

Context helps us understand and appreciate the things an atheist would consider to be awesome about godlessness. The context for myself (and I presume other atheists like me) is that I am not just an atheist – I am also a skeptic, a rationalist and a naturalist. And with all of that priming the pump, I can finally talk about the awesomeness of godlessness. Stay tuned for part II!
—–
Did You Like This Article? Please consider sharing it on one of these social bookmarking sites. Thanks for reading!

But lately, the disagreements have baffled and troubled me as I’ve put pieces of the puzzle together to realize how amazingly anti-science he is. Examples:

1. Climate Warming: He continually quotes out of date research and the ramblings of “scientists” with iffy (at best) credentials who claim that climate warming is a hoax.
2. Evolution: I am not exaggerating much when I say he sounds like a Ray Comfort clone. “Evolution is not a science because it’s not repeatable or observable” and “Evolution takes faith” have escaped his lips on more than one occasion.

And, in addition to those two specific examples, I’ve also heard him call science “scientism” and say that  “science is a religion”.

However, because the conversations have been widely spread apart (months at times), and because he is elusive about his beliefs, I was never able to make sense of him …until recently.

I was listening to an episode of The Skeptics Guide to the Universe when one of the hosts made the statement that, when science conflicts with a person’s ideologies, that person will often reject the science. Then, he went on to say that the most prevalent cases of these rejections flow from conflicts between science and religion.

Suddenly, two years of discussions with my friend came into clear focus…

1. He has conservative leanings.
2. He’s a climate warming denier.
3. He’s anti-evolution.
4. He’s made statements about people and even countries being punished by God for their wrongdoings.

All of these things paint a picture that we tend to ascribe to conservative Christians. Here are two of the consistencies expanded a bit to help illustrate the point I’m making:

1. Global Warming: It’s very common for conservative Christians to deny that we humans are having any appreciable effect on the planet’s temperature. This comes partly from the biblically inspired belief that it would be arrogant to think humans could have that much of an impact on God’s creation. It also comes from the connection to the end-times prophecy that – even if we were impacting the earth’s temperature, it is just part of God’s plan to bring on the rapture. In other words, bring on the destruction of the earth – because the worthy won’t be here to live on it anyway. This sort of thinking is exactly why non-believers feared George Bush being at the helm of the world’s largest nuclear arsenal.
2. Evolution: Most of the world’s Christians have no issue with the theory of evolution via Natural Selection (e.g. Catholics & Anglicans are a-ok with it). Indeed, there are other religions (e.g. Hinduism) that also accept it as the explanation for the diversity of life on earth. Not so with the conservative Christian crowd. For them, evolution – especially human evolution – is an attack on the belief that God created man in his image. Humans did not come into exist by a “chance” sequence of events over billions of years – we are here according to divine plan. Humans are not simply the most intelligent of millions of species – we were created to preside over the earth and everything within it. To conservatives, evolution undermines faith – plain and simple.

The bottom line is that science opposes the conservative Christian world view – and that of my friend’s – in multiple and significant ways.

When this happens, a serious case of cognitive dissonance tends to set in. The two opposing ideas of science and religion simply cannot occupy the same space so the brain attempts to solve the problem. Unfortunately, science often loses to faith because the latter is such a hugely emotional thing (it’s tough for a scientific explanation to compete with the promise of eternal life).

One of the tricks the mind plays on itself to support its emotional choice is confirmation bias – it finds support for its viewpoint, while ignoring or downplaying contrary information. Remember my colleague’s reliance on outdated information and unqualified climate science “experts”? Yup, a perfect example.

Like millions of other conservative Christians, my friend has solved his dissonance by rejecting science.

The irony for the conservative faithful, is that they live in a society that is utterly dependent on science for virtually every aspect of the the lifestyle we’re accustomed to in 21st century North America. I imagine this irony is not entirely lost on them, and it must be difficult to keep the cognitive dissonance at bay. After all, they would find their views in opposition not only with secularists, but also with most other Christians.

I’m not interested in destroying anyone’s faith but, as a humanist, I also do not want anyone to suffer. Therefore, if you are a person who’s troubled by the collision between your faith and science, my advice to you is this…

You don’t necessarily have to abandon your belief in God to accept what science has to offer. All you have to do is adjust your faith. Not every Christian believes every word of their faith so why should you? It’s worth mentioning that there are many varieties of Christian faith that do not clash violently with science. It’s also worth mentioning that the Christian faith has been evolving for over 2000 years, so any adjustment you might make to your faith would be done in good company.

You can view the entire film in 10 minute segments on youtube but, before you do, I’d like to call your attention to the final segment where some of the astronauts share how their journeys changed them. The segment starts with Eugene Cernan and Charlie Duke describing their feelings of wonder, and how those feelings convinced them of God’s existence (Duke actually became a born-again Christian not long after).

Being a fairly recent (2 year) de-conversion to atheism, I can relate to these men. I’ve shared similar experiences of wonder and majesty – most notably while hiking in the mountains, or going for 10+ mile runs (runner’s high’ll get ya every time). And, yes, two years ago, I too would have given credit to god for those wonderful feelings.

However, since the de-conversion, the source of those feelings has changed, and I’ve become more and more fascinated with the seemingly universal tendency for us to attribute these emotions to a god or creator.

Why is this so?

Some think it’s connected to our affinity toward anthropomorphizing – attributing human qualities to things that are not. In this case, humans create things, so we assume that the universe must also have been created by something human-like, only much more powerful.

Scientists who study the brain may tell you that our willingness to invoke god is connected to our ability to identify patterns. In this case, the pattern is that most everything we observe has a cause, and we extend that pattern to the assumption that the universe must also have a cause.

But is this correct thinking? Just because we see cause and effect around us, does that mean the same rule applied to the formation of the universe? If a god can simply exist, then why can’t a universe? Also, could the Big Bang have been preceded by a Big Crunch, and that crunch have been preceded by a different Big Bang? Might this process be cycling on eon after eon after eon?

And, even if the universe did have an external cause, why would that cause need to be an intelligence or a god? Might it just as easily be another universe, as multi-universe theory proposes?

And then there’s the fact that most of us were raised by parents who told us that God created everything, and many of us grew up in churches where everyone agreed the universe was created by God. How many of those people really examine these claims from authority? After all, all those smart people couldn’t be wrong – could they?

I wonder, if parents stopped teaching this idea to their children, how would it take long before our sense of wonder aimed itself at the natural world instead of some unknown, undetectable entity?

There is a world of science awaiting those who would ask these questions. There is a world of wonder awaiting those willing to entertain the idea that maybe, God didn’t do it. And, in my opinion, the fact that our universe came to be without a deity makes it even more wondrous and majestic.

Although Darwin’s writing style was a lot more accessible than I expected, it was still a bit dry in places. That said, there were multiple rewards for my perseverance. Darwin did not disappoint – I was, in many places throughout the book, inspired in unexpected ways. For anyone interested in evolution, it really is a must-read. How could it not be? After all, it set the stage for the study of life on earth for the next 150 years (and counting)!

The Origin of Species was as much science as it was prophecy of the science that would follow it. Its author had an amazing grasp of was to come following the introduction of his dangerous idea to the world. While his excitement at the prospects of future discoveries was palpable, I imagine if he would have lived to see future discoveries (e.g. in the field of genetics) he would have calmly said, “Well, of course. Natural Selection would have it no other way”.

Another thing I was struck by was Darwin’s knowledge of so many varied fields of science. Not only was he eminently learned in his chosen field of biology, but his mind seemed absolutely brimming with knowledge about geology, paleontology, physics and more. He was a master at connecting the dots between various fields of science.

Upon reading Darwin, you come to really understand how badly he’s been misunderstood and misconstrued – especially by the creationist/intelligent design movement. Darwin himself was all-to aware of this unfortunate reality, and spent considerable time addressing it. In reading the book, you get a good sense of why it took him so long to finish it – he’d obviously spent a great deal of time debating both creationists and old-thinking naturalists, and wanted to do his best to address the objections he’d heard on what I’m sure were countless occasions.

The book makes it clear that Darwin was accustomed to seeing his words and work misrepresented. However, in the face of that, he was still an optimist:

Great is the power of steady misrepresentation; but the history of science shows that fortunately this power does not long endure.

The most famous misrepresentation is probably this quote:

To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree.

Yet reason tells me, that if numerous gradations from a perfect and complex eye to one very imperfect and simple, each grade being useful to its possessor, can be shown to exist; if further, the eye does vary ever so slightly, and the variations be inherited, which is certainly the case; and if any variation or modification in the organ be ever useful to an animal under changing conditions of life, then the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, though insuperable by our imagination, can hardly be considered real.

Creationists – to this day – insist on quoting the first paragraph whilst conveniently leaving out the second. The result is to portray a Darwin who is seemingly dumbfounded by the complexity in nature. Of course, nothing could be further from the truth. Darwin, and his theory illuminated our understanding of the diversity of life on earth.
And that’s why it’s a must-read – because, even today, The Origin of Species is a candle in the dark. I, for one, am committed to passing on the flame.

I thought I’d follow-up on our disagreement about evolution. Before I go further, I thought I’d confirm what I think you said so I don’t put words into your mouth:

1. Evolution has been dis-proven.
2. Many scientists say that evolution has many holes in it and that it has not held up to scientific scrutiny.
3. There are not enough fossils to demonstrate sufficient evidence for human evolution. You asked me to show you that fossils exist in museums.

Please let me know if I got any of that wrong because I used your comments as the basis for my research (if necessary, I’ll revise my research when I get back from my trip).

My claim is that evolution explains the earth’s diversity of life, as well as the evolution of human beings on earth. Furthermore, I claim that there is substantial evidence for those two claims. With that in mind, below is some support I found for my claims. The information is in the links, but I provided a few teaser quotes or tid-bits of information beside a few of them.
—
Level of Support for Evolution: Quote: “…in the scientific community there is essentially universal agreement that the evidence of evolution is overwhelming, and the scientific consensus supporting the modern evolutionary synthesis is nearly absolute…”

Objections to Evolution: Quote: “When Charles Darwin published his 1859 book On the Origin of Species, his theory of evolution by natural selection initially met opposition from alternate scientific theories, but came to be universally accepted by the scientific community.[2] The observation, or fact, of evolutionary processes occurring, as well as the current theory explaining that fact, have been uncontroversial among biologists for nearly a century.”

Scientific Dissent from Darwinism + the Rebuttals to those Dissents. I’m not sure about you, but I find the rebuttals to be pretty convincing.

Project Steve on Wikipedia and on its own site. Project Steve is a tongue-in-cheek response to the claim that many scientists oppose evolution. The point that Project Steve makes is that – even if the anti-evolutionist scientists were in the hundreds, that is a minute number compared to the many, many thousands who do accept evolution. The project lists over 1100 scientists named ‘Steve” who accept the theory. And that doesn’t even get into the discussion of which group of scientists have the credentials needed to assess the evidence (covered in the “dissent” link above).

Now that I’ve presented information supporting evolution as an almost universally accepted theory in the scientific community, let’s move onto your points about evidence and fossils.

Here is a list of human evolution fossils: Note that the article states there are thousands of fossils and that it outlines the progression from early mammals, to primates, to hominids (the family Homo Sapiens emerged from).

The Human Origins Exhibit at the American Museum of Natural History – I don’t know if you can find a museum of higher standing.

Another place of high regard is the Museum of Science – the link contains a database of fossils

The Smithsonian Institute is arguably one of the highest regarded museums in the world. It has many, many fossils and an amazing exhibit (online and in-person versions). Suffice to say, the Smithsonian also accepts evolution as the explanation for the diversity of life on earth.

A couple of very good university resources are the ones found at the University of California and Minnesota State University (there are lots of others).

PZ Meyers is a respected evolutionary biologist and university professor. This post contains a large number of links pointing to an immense body of evolutionary evidence.

A couple of great websites with information about evolution are Talk Origins and Panda’s Thumb.

Finally, there are tons of books written by highly respected scientists on the subject of evolution. The Smithsonian Instititute Guide to Human Origins is one I read over a year ago that I highly recommend.

I’m no expert but I think I can discern between an expert and a non-expert and that’s what I am basing my argument on – that the sources I am citing are numerous and respected within the scientific community.

I am not sure what sources you refer to when you say you know of many scientists who have proven evolution not to be valid. Therefore, I can’t pretend to judge if they are good, well-respected scientists.