I prefer the second of these. It’s more consistent with Science which is willing to declare that things can be unknown in fact because of a lack of evidence.
To say that there is no evidence for gods seems reasonable, just as there is no evidence for many other potentially imaginary entities.
The first formulation declaring that there are no gods leaves one open to the charge of overconfidence.
In recent years we have heard of the rise of the so-called new atheists, such as Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, Daniel Dennett and Christopher Hitchens (sadly gone since 2011; the world could use his sane voice right about now). Some of them have even been considered to be militant atheists.
So we can apply the adjective militant to the noun atheist.
The first time I heard the adjective agnostic applied to the noun atheist, I thought: “that doesn’t seem right”. Others I’ve spoken to have had a similar reaction. And yet, that’s more or less my preferred atheist variant at this point.
The agnostic adjective declares that the existence or non-existence of gods is:
currently unknown in fact or
unknowable, even in principle
The first seems uncontroversial and I personally think the second is too. It simply asks the question: what would count as evidence in support of a deity? The answer seems unclear at best.
While it has to be admitted that agnostic atheist is a bit confusing, the exact description of anything should be open to refinement, as with Science.
A parting thought is that Christopher Hitchens called himself an anti-theist, not only because he was an atheist, but because of the great harm he thought religion does, even if only to lead people to surrender their reason (but he also thought it was worse than that).
Perhaps I should refer to myself as an agnostic atheistic anti-theist. Too much? 🙂
It’s hard to know where to begin with this two-sided sign that I’ve spied a few times when walking down Adelaide’s Rundle Mall.
On one side…
Jesus Saves From Hell
I have questions…
1. Which bank did Jesus make a Faustian bargain with and what interest rate is he getting?
2. What is Jesus doing in Hell? I thought he was sitting at the right hand of God. Unless God is actually Satan, then it all makes sense. All except the suffering in the eternal flames of Hell part.
On the flip side…
Naturally, as an atheist I’m included on this naughty list, along with witches, smokers, adulterers, gossipers, haters, LGBTIQ+ people, drunkards and various other awkwardly expressed nouns.
I didn’t immediately notice the incorrectly spelled “athiest“.
Other than that, they clearly know me well. All except the “lukewarm” bit. As an atheist I take my lack of faith very seriously thank you very much!
I had a short chat (trying to hear myself above the triumphal music blaring out of the boom box) with the street preacher who was standing near the sign. He wore a T-shirt saying “Jesus is Coming”.
Was Jesus just breathing heavy?, I wondered as an aside, although not aloud. Phew!
I asked the street preacher: What makes you think that anything you believe is true or that your holy book is right and no others (such as the Quran) are?
He proceeded, in the usual circular argument fashion, to refer to his holy book and what great things it says, commenting that Islam is much younger than Christianity, as if that somehow makes it less likely to be true.
I suggested that everyone, even he, is an atheist.
There are many gods both of us don’t believe in, such as Apollo, Poseidon, Vishnu, Zeuss. The street preacher doesn’t believe that Allah is the one true god, any more than I do.
We’re all polyatheists!
In this regard, the only difference between us, is that I believe in one less god, taking the count to zero instead of one.
In fact, “atheism” is a term that should not even exist. No one ever needs to identify himself as a “non-astrologer” or a “non-alchemist.”… Atheism is nothing more than the noises reasonable people make in the presence of unjustified religious beliefs.
Sam Harris, Letter to a Christian Nation
As before, he referred to the multitude of great things in the Bible. After a little more time exchanging pleasantries, I said “bye” and he said “God bless you”. I didn’t realise I had sneezed.
He seemed like a nice guy. Just misguided. I suppose we all are in our own way though.
We will all perish, including the street preacher. Repenting seems highly unlikely to help.
In our obscurity, in all this vastness, there is no hint that help will come from elsewhere to save us from ourselves.
“In sexual and reproductive health matters, the responsibility of Catholic health care is to give counsel which is both medically accurate and a witness to the teachings of Christ and his Church,” the code of ethics states.
In good faith (ABC News), referencing Catholic Health Australia’s Code of Ethical Standards
The 2021 census showed a continuing decline in the importance of religion in the Australian psyche, but as revealed by a recent (December 2022) ABC News story, once again we see that the Catholic Church still has more power in our modern world than we collectively think it should.
First our private schools, now our hospitals, and we all know about the institutional abuse of children by those in power in the Catholic Church.
Forget the overturning of Roe vs Wade in America. Catholic hospitals in Australia today can refuse an abortion (except if there is a “grave risk” to the mother’s life), a tubal ligation or even the replacement of an intra-uterine contraceptive device (IUD)!
One shocked doctor working in an Australian public Catholic hospital said:
[My supervisor] asked me to change the wording to say that we had supplied [the IUD] for acne, rather than birth control.
At least in this case, people of good conscience were trying to work around the rules I suppose… But they should not have had to!
In another case, a clinician who…
…worked at that same public hospital told Background Briefing when they booked a patient having their third caesarean in for a tubal ligation, “All hell broke loose”.
“It was a big incident. I was taken to the Director’s office, told, ‘Did I realise this was not allowed in the hospital?’ And I was like, ‘Why is it not allowed? I’m not Catholic, the patient is not Catholic, why should it matter what I do?’”
The ABC article goes on to quote a Catholic Health Australia official:
Catholic Health Australia, which represents the hospitals, said in a statement: “Most providers of public health and aged care will have services they do not provide … For our members, this includes the intentional termination of pregnancy. These limits are well known, given our members have been looking after the Australian community for more than 150 years.”
But are these limits really “well known” and what about those services “they do not provide”? Shouldn’t that mean less funding for the private or public Catholic hospital in question? MSI, a national, independently accredited safe abortion, vasectomy and contraception provider thinks so.
For Bonney Corbin, head of policy at MSI Australia, the solution is clear: redirect some of the funding from the hospitals not providing these services to the places that are.
“It’s looking at every single region at where their capacity is, and then funding those smaller providers accordingly.”
How did we find ourselves in a situation in which one of the most divisive and corrupt organisations on the planet has any control over reproductive rights in Australia?
The quote at the top of this post puts the emphasis upon the “teachings of Christ and his Church” and mentions “medical accuracy” (an awkward phrase) along the way, almost in submission to the teachings of Christ.
Anyway, isn’t the “and his Church” bit redundant? Are there teachings of the Church that go beyond those of Jesus? There are (it was a rhetorical question), for example The Catechism and Code of Ethical Standards referred to already. Would Jesus approve of such teachings or how hospitals declaring the name of the “one holy, catholic, and apostolic church” turn some patients away?
Here we see an example of Christopher Hitchens’ maxim that religion poisons everything. At least, it can, and currently appears to be doing so in the case of the Australian hospital system and reproductive health.
The need to resist the Church’s control over our lives still exists in the 21st century.
If you have any doubt about whether the Catholic Church is a force for good in the world, watch this debate in which Christopher Hitchens and Stephen Fry argue for the negative case. I recommend Fry’s and Hitch’s short orations starting around 48 mins 13 secs and 14 mins 56 secs, respectively. It will come as no surprise to learn that the negative side won.
In his oration, Hitch says the following, which has some relevance for the current post:
The original sin, so to say…the problem in the first place, is the belief on the part of this church, that it does possess a truth that we don’t have and it does have a God-given right, a warrant, a mandate of Heaven, to tell other people what to do, not just in their public, but in their private lives; and until that has changed, until that fantastic and sinister and non-founded claim is changed, these crimes will go on repeating themselves.
Christopher Hitchens, Intelligence Squared
We no longer have any need of a god to explain what is no longer mysterious. What believers will do now that their faith is optional and private and irrelevant is a matter for them. We should not care. As long as they make no further attempt to inculcate religion by any form of coercion.
It may be that Jesus never lived and so, never died. But that’s a rabbit hole for another day. We do know at least from the Jewish historian Josephus, that would-be messiahs and crucifixions were common around the time Jesus is said to have lived.
But let’s just suppose there was a historical Jesus, as described in the gospels. Was his death temporary? Did he rise 3 days later? What implications does this have for mammals like us?
35 years ago, when I was a Christian, although I hoped for an afterlife, I focused more on the death of Jesus, the atonement for the sins of the world through his blood sacrifice. But of course the other key piece is the resurrection and the promise of eternal life. Together, these seem to be the core of the Christian message, at least if you are a salvation by faith rather than a salvation by works kind of Christian.
We recently received a little pamphlet in our letterbox from a local Adelaide Baptist church entitled The Empty Tomb.
We’re approaching Easter 2021 so that’s not too surprising.
In my “Questionable Church Signs” posts I obscure any reference to the church to which a sign belongs. The Empty Tomb pamphlet includes the URL for the website, but I won’t include it here.
The Empty Tomb tells the story of the early life of Jesus, his baptism, miracles, downfall, crucifixion and resurrection.
After describing the horror of the crucifixion, it declares:
Just before He died, Jesus shouted… “IT IS FINISHED”.
The penalty for the sins of all mankind had been paid in full.
Now anyone could be saved by putting their faith in Jesus Christ.
All fairly standard salvation by faith stuff.
On the next page after the resurrection, we have:
HE IS RISEN!
Jesus DEFEATED Satan, and conquered death and hell.
At this point I could be excused for expecting a land of unicorns, rainbows and butterflies…
But, then the pamphlet confronts me with…
All who accept Christ will live with God forever in heaven.
and, inevitably, and with “lovely” pictures…
Those who reject Jesus will burn forever in a lake of fire.
…which I take to mean Hell. Finally, we have…
Someday you will bow before God.
Who will YOU serve?
Jesus Christ
Satan
So, no other options then?
Just the two?
Hmm. Wait a sec…
Is atonement really for everyone? Have our sins been paid for in full? Or, is this conditional upon uttering some magic words like “I accept Jesus Christ as my personal Lord and Saviour”?
Not completely clear from this particular user manual.
Were Satan and Hell actually defeated? Not really, if it’s possible to burn in Hell or to serve Satan (or bizarrely somehow, both at the same time). Was that always possible, and now only optional because of what Jesus did?
The logical contradictions and gaps in reasoning in The Empty Tomb abound.
But worse than that is the ease with which The Other is condemned. Those who do not believe as “we” do.
That is very dangerous thinking.
Hitch would have declared this an example of how religion poisons everything. It’s easy to see why.
What role do liberal-minded Christians have in countering this kind of thinking? Similarly, what role do liberal-minded Muslims have in countering Jihad and other Islamist (“must convert the infidel”) thinking?
I can’t speak for the faithful although I am always happy to converse with them or anyone, to try to find common ground, and to agree to disagree otherwise.
That’s really the only way forward, isn’t it?
However, I also see it as a kind of duty to expose and counter harmful nonsense, such as is promoted in The Empty Tomb pamphlet.
Life is short and we are not at the centre of things. And, our species is in desperate need of growing up.
My concern with religion is that it allows us by the millions to believe what only lunatics or idiots could believe on their own.
Voluntary Assisted Dying (VAD) legislation is being discussed starting from March 17 in the South Australian parliament.
A little more than a year ago, my dad expressed a wish to die every day I was with him for the last week of his life. He was living in Tasmania. While there are amendments to be accepted, VAD legislation is now on the way to being passed there.
I recently took part in a discussion of VAD in South Australia at the Blackwood Uniting Church, a special meeting of the monthly philosophy group, supported by a well thought out presentation by a palliative care doctor. The consensus seemed to be support for VAD.
A cursory glance through my blog will show that I don’t believe in gods of any sort. One problem with religion in general is that it encourages people to pretend to know things they can’t possibly know, and potentially (and this is the crucial bit) base important life decisions on such belief. I’ve written elsewhere about what counts as good belief.
With respect to Christianity at least, the more liberal the denomination, the less salvation by faith thinking there is, and the more emphasis on living a good and caring life due to some notion of (a God of) love there usually is. Of course, you don’t need religion for that.
Especially given that there was a “Non-Christian but I wish to support the Group” option, I was encouraged to sign up on the Christians In Support of VAD website after the philosophy group discussion.
The more names on petitions and lists in favour of choosing a “good death”, the better.
Try to enjoy life now. There’s a very good chance that this is the only one you’ll get. And if your end of life scenario sucks, remember: it’s your life, not some imaginary sky fairy’s. You should get to choose, in consultation with those you care about.
Whatever you believe, the fact is that each of us was born into a life that none of us asked for.
You can choose to consider life as a gift, or to simply accept the fact of existence and embrace it. Or both, if you like.
We were not alive for 14 billion years (give or take), and we won’t be alive for even longer while the heat death of the universe plays out over trillions of years.
But we should, where possible, have some say in the manner, time, and place of our exit from life.
Anyway, let’s hope that VAD legislation is passed in SA.
We no longer have any need of a god to explain what is no longer mysterious. What believers will do now that their faith is optional and private … is a matter for them. We should not care. As long as they make no further attempt to inculcate religion by any form of coercion.
Spoiler alert: I am not sympathetic to religion as a source of ethics here.
In mid-2020, concern was expressed by archbishops of Sydney Catholic, Anglican and Greek Orthodox churches regarding the use of cell lines in vaccine development that originated with a human female embryo that was aborted in 1973.
Free speech is important, but given that vaccine development is hard and that many (perhaps 95%) vaccines fail in the late stages of human trials, it really matters whether this is a reasonable ethical concern.
Granted, the conversation has been more nuanced than media headlines have often suggested, as can be noted by listening to the ABC’s Religion and Ethics Report podcast.
But to what extent does this nuance translate to “the flock”?
We would do well to recall that the flock has in the past been told that the use of condoms was a sin. The Catholic Church’s stance may have moderated a little on this matter, but just think of the calamity that this one, misguided teaching has unleashed, especially upon African adherents to the faith, when AIDS was still a death sentence, compounded by poverty and unchecked population growth.
For this alone, the Catholic Church should be universally reviled, once again having proven its irrelevance to modern life and at the same time, how dangerous it still can be.
We should also remember that a mere few hundred years ago, it was much much more dangerous, when we were collectively more dim-witted and willing to cede more power to it.
That must never again be allowed to happen.
Rejecting a perfectly good vaccine candidate is a kick in the guts for the work being done by the Oxford University team and others worldwide.
Suppose it is the most effective vaccine, or less likely but not impossible, the only one that works?
If it appears that I have unduly focussed on the Catholic Church, that’s only because it makes such an easy target. Other denominations do not have a squeaky clean history either.
It’s important to understand that all ways of knowing are not equal, especially in this context.
Science and reason, not faith, are required when thinking about the fitness of a vaccine and its development process.
None of this is to say that ethical concerns don’t matter here. Of course they do. But ethics must be based upon well-thought out principles and a focus upon consequences, not ill-conceived, brittle rules, and certainly never by thinking that tradition dictates truth.
A comment by Nobel laureate and immunologist Peter Doherty in this ABC News article sums it up for me:
If [Archbishop Fisher] finds that objectionable it’s his perfect right to say so and it’s our perfect right to take absolutely no notice of him.
For example, what about animal testing in vaccine development, including for COVID-19?
As someone who thinks that no-one, human or non-human, should be used as a means to an end, it would be an understatement to say that I am ambivalent about testing vaccine candidates on animals.
I still wear boots with suede strips that I owned before going vegan. Suede is soft skin torn from the underside of some poor dead animal. I can’t help that animal now, but every time I wear those boots, I am reminded of my error…
…and, not wishing to add insult to injury, I choose not to discard them while they are still useful, perhaps somewhat akin to the way some of our ancestors are thought to have paid their respects to the animals they killed and consumed. Needless to say, my clothing purchasing decisions now incorporate vegan principles.
In a similar way, perhaps the religious objectors to the use of a decades-old cell line could chill out, just a little, and take a similar approach.
The cell line from the embryo that was aborted 47 years ago has led to great good (an unintentional means to an end), for which we should be thankful. It is unlikely to have suffered in any meaningful way.
If only the same could be said for the animals we routinely kill en masse, because we are collectively failing to tip the balance towards a plant-based diet.
There are often moments when I desire inspiration from Christopher Hitchens, one of the most eloquent public intellectuals of our time.
I watched this interview tonight, recorded after his diagnosis with oesophageal cancer. It came from a slightly surprising (at least to me) source, but I found it to be rewarding and classically Hitch:
There is a distinction between a right to belief and the assertion that that belief should lead to you being treated differently before the law.
A related point is that just because a “sacred” tradition has existed for hundreds or thousands of years, that doesn’t make it magical or special.
To one who stands outside the Christian faith it is utterly astonishing how ordinary a book can be and still be thought the product of omniscience.
(Sam Harris, Letter to a Christian Nation)
What I just can’t comprehend is why anyone could take the catholic church seriously anymore. Quite apart from the abuse of children, it has done so much harm in other ways, including declaring it to be a sin for its adherents to exercise birth control.
This is especially problematic in the poorest countries, for those who can least afford it.
In this way, the church has made a significant contribution to the unchecked human population that threatens all life on earth.
And yet, so many otherwise rational people continue to trust the catholic church with their children, their childrens’ education, their collective future, and act as if the church still has anything of worth to say in the twenty-first century.
My concern with religion is that it allows us by the millions to believe what only lunatics or idiots could believe on their own.
(Sam Harris)
I guess I should be happy that a high-profile public catholic figure is making his church seem irrelevant, but for many devout catholics, such comments by a prominent leader of their church will gently wash over them and they will wonder what all the fuss was about.
Such is the irrationality of our species. Aren’t there other more important issues for us to worry about, such as climate change and our relationship with the other species of earth? Religion is so yesterday.
One of the greatest challenges facing civilisation in the 21st century is for human beings to learn to speak about their deepest personal concerns, about ethics, spiritual experience, and the inevitability of human suffering, in ways that are not flagrantly irrational.
We desperately need a public discoursethat encourages critical thinking and intellectual honesty. Nothing stands in the way of this project more than the respect we accord religious faith.
I’ve heard it said that God (which god, you may reasonably ask…) is love.
When I first saw this local church sign, the slogan reminded me of 1984 and The Ministry of Truth…
War is peace
Slavery is freedom
But if one, as the sign proclaims, wishes to uphold the Bible as the Word of God along with the notion that god is the epitome of love, it might be prudent to ask: How many times does “love” appear in the Bible?
Around one hundred and fifty, in each of the old and new testaments.
“Lord” and “God” on the other hand both appear a few thousand times (admittedly more in the old testament) suggestive more of narcissism than concern for others.
So, if we’re honest, the sentiment is simplistic at best, even if we confine ourselves to the god(s) of the Bible.
The criteria we apply to food choices are: our desires, our health, what’s good for the food producer (e.g. Fair Trade), environmental impact (climate change, resource usage/degradation), and what’s good for non-human animals (animal welfare).
Other than our health, without which nothing much matters to us, I consider this list to be essentially in order of increasing importance.
Large scale animal farming is environmentally unsustainable in terms of land and water use and the resulting waste and emissions (carbon dioxide and methane). This will only get worse as the human population continues its exponential growth. A plant-based diet could significantly reduce emissions and waste.
“Appropriately planned vegetarian diets, including total vegetarian or vegan diets, are healthy and nutritionally adequate.”
“Well-planned vegetarian diets are appropriate for individuals during all stages of the lifecycle. Those following a vegan diet should choose foods to ensure adequate intake of iron and zinc and to optimise the absorption and bioavailability of iron, zinc and calcium.”
“Supplementation of vitamin B12 may be required for people with strict vegan dietary patterns.”
It took a long time for me to accept the idea that we’re not at the centre of the universe, that there is no compelling evidence for gods of any sort, of a higher plan, of an afterlife.
The idea that we have a higher moral status, a greater right to be happy — to be free — than other animals is widespread, even though most of us would not be inclined to say so.
This idea is called speciesism. It is as if racism had been applied beyond the borders of homo sapiens.
Raising livestock for food involves billions of sentient animals worldwide per year being born into servitude and living lives that are nasty, brutish, and short, to borrow from Leviathan (Hobbes).
We need to widen our ethical circle to include other species. We do so when thinking about species loss through habitat degradation and climate change, but not necessarily when thinking about the animals we exploit.
Do the desires (e.g. cultural, religious) of one or more humans outweigh the welfare — the life — of even a single non-human animal?
For example, it’s hard to see how the live export of cattle or sheep can be defended on cultural, religious or other grounds when we know the harm caused to individual animals.
And what of the shorter yet no less harrowing trip from farm to abattoir, to say nothing of what happens upon arrival?
Caged hens as a source of eggs can’t be ethically justified unless you think that having an area no larger than a sheet of printer paper to live in, standing on wire, beak cutting to stop pecking of other hens, not being able to engage in natural behaviours are okay.
“In the egg industry, the sex of day-old chicks is determined at the hatchery. Sexing chicks…is done at this very early stage to determine their fate.”
“If strong and healthy, the female chicks remain in the hatchery, they are grown to a suitable size and then transferred to a laying facility — which could be a caged, free-range or barn set up.”
“Male chicks are considered an unwanted byproduct of egg production and are killed and disposed of shortly after birth.”
“A hen is declared ‘spent’ when her egg production drops at around 72 weeks of age. At this point she is considered less profitable and removed from the production system… Spent hens are either killed on farm and composted, or transported to an abattoir for slaughter.”
The treatment and fate of so-called broiler chickens and other birds such as turkeys is not something I have written about so far.
“For cows to produce milk, they have to give birth to a calf. Most calves are separated from their mother within 24 hours of birth to reduce the risk of disease transmission to the calf, and most do not stay on the farm for long.”
“Separation within 24 hours of birth interferes with the development of the cow-calf bond and thus reduces separation distress. Cows will show a strong response (calling) if their calf is separated at an older age.”
“The term ‘bobby calves’ refers to newborn calves that are less than 30 days old and not with their mothers. Essentially, they are surplus to dairy industry requirements as they are not required for the milking herd.”
“Products from processed bobby calves include young veal for human consumption, valuable hides for leather, calf rennet for cheese making, and byproducts for the pharmaceutical industry.”
I would say now that I’m asymptotically approaching veganism: moving towards a plant-based diet on ethical and sustainability grounds.
There’s “low-hanging fruit” like meat. Then dairy and eggs. Once I got over a few psychological hurdles, leaving these behind turned out to be easier than I expected.
Yet there are shades of grey…
I have shoes with leather uppers that I purchased before my thinking changed. Should I discard them? Will that help the animal now? No. Will I buy shoes with leather uppers in future. No.
Last Christmas we had a turkey in the freezer with a long expiry date that had not yet been eaten. Would the “right action” have been to not consume it? If so, wouldn’t that have been a waste and wouldn’t that mean the turkey’s demise was pointless?
Do you care about herd immunity? You should. Will you get the yearly flu vaccine to protect the vulnerable in our society as well as yourself? Eggs are used in the process of making the flu vaccine. Having the flu vaccine involves a compromise, perhaps one we will not have to make forever if research bears fruit.
Do you use sweetener in your coffee? Does it contain lactose? Some do, some don’t.
Do you drink almond milk or otherwise consume almonds? I have not dealt with the question of bees and honey in the first seven posts, but irrespective of your thoughts on that, how are the flowers of almond (and other) trees pollinated? By bees. Do the bees just fly in and out of the orchard, or under some circumstances are they brought there, in man-made hives?
Do you drink wine? The fining process often uses animal products (such as milk or eggs), but there are alternatives.
We need to cease deliberately enslaving and killing animals, treating them as means to our ends, instead of acknowledging them as sentient creatures who like us, do not wish to suffer and moreover, who wish to be free.
The point is to think. To ask questions. To cast doubt on long held beliefs. To intend change, to do better. To find alternatives, to say no more often.
It should never be about dogma. I sometimes hear vegan activists using the phrase “convert to veganism”. That way lies religion and unjustified ideology.
