Let me get this straight. People are actually reading these little screeds of mine? Shit, I’m not gonna have to start checking my facts and proofreading and all that, am I? Okay, so I’m a little self-conscious now, but a thoughtful comment deserves a thoughtful response. Tom over at Blogmandu said:
I think the obstacle to converting God believers en masse to atheism is “meaning.” If their God and religion are taken from them — or if they, themselves, discard it all — what meaning are they left for living their lives? Also, many believe that without religion there is no basis for moral actions. Would it open the door to much greater crime, corruption and murder if religion did not play a part in society?
Hmm… Well, here’s the deal. I don’t consider myself an atheist, nor do I profess a belief in God, because both notions lend themselves to confusion and misunderstanding. Of course, it all depends on what we mean by “God,” so belief and disbelief are really beside the point unless you’re engaged in fairly substantial dialogue with someone. Sam Harris, I know, is a firm believer in the reality and value of spiritual experience, as he has spent years exploring and practicing various meditative practices. He’s only an atheist with respect to the various characterizations of God depicted in religious texts. If “God” is taken to mean “a transpersonal reality,” then you can count both Sam and myself as believers. Speaking for myself, this belief is not an act of faith. I believe in a transcendent order because such a notion makes sense in light of the experiences, evidence and perspectives I have explored thus far in my life. I’m only an atheist when God is a matter of dogma or faith divorced from reason.
As for Tom’s concerns about meaning and morality, I can say that, for me, life became far more meaningful when I dropped preconceived ideas of God and Heaven in favor of open-ended inquiry, dialogue and direct exploration of experience. Meaning tastes best when made, discovered, revealed—not when it’s prefabricated and spoon-fed. And as for religion being the basis for positive moral values, I just don’t think this holds up under scrutiny. Harris points out that predominantly atheistic countries like Norway and The Netherlands rate far better than the God-fearing United States in terms of crime and caring for the poor. Then there are the seemingly endless examples, today and throughout history, of atrocities committed in the name of one religion or another. It could also be argued that moral advances have occurred in spite of religion and not because of it. A strict reading of the Bible, for instance, prescribes acts–such as killing people for working on the Sabbath or for having premarital sex or for mouthing off to their parents–that are considered reprehensible by today’s moral standards. The fact that atheists can be (and usually are) caring and loving people should be enough evidence to shoot down the notion that morality is a faith-based deal.
Anyway, these are good questions and I’m happy to be in dialogue with you fine folks. Hopefully, there is more meaning to be discovered. Good night.