Editiors at Atheist Station welcome readers' opinions. We do, however, reserve the right to disallow contributions that we feel are out of order and superfluous. We promise you that any text used will not be edited in any way. Opinions that run on at length and are redundant will probably be ignored. Send all contributions to: info@atheiststation.org.

Please, rational arguments only--Biblical inerrancy stances and proselytising will not be allowed.


TIM MITCHELL'S SPEECH ON AGNOSTICISM v. ATHEISM at Arlington VA's Universal Unitarian Church (Jan. 20, 2003)

When Paul first approached me to co-host this presentation on agnosticism and atheism, with me presenting the atheist viewpoint, I decided to open with a few "ground rules," so to speak. I opened my Oxford American Dictionary and looked up the following terms, just to be sure we were all on the same page:

atheist: n., a person who does not believe in the existence of a god or gods. (Note the lower case g's for both classes of deity.)

agnostic: n, a person who believes that nothing can be known about the existence of God (capital G, implying proper name) or of anything except material things.

god: n., 1. God (once again, capital G for proper name), the creator and ruler of the universe in Christian, Jewish and Muslim teaching. 2. A superhuman being regarded and worshipped as having power over nature and human affairs.

Establishing that, I decided to use Paul's initial suggestion for discussion as my first point, his impression "that science takes a rather agnostic posture, and for at least that reason, it is to be preferred." As an atheist, my response to this is that it's probably uncertain as to what exactly science thinks about the nature of deity; it's not as if science as a whole has a centralized office that can issue statements, speeches and press releases about this issue. There are scientists who are atheists, scientists who are believers (Newton and Galileo, after all, were devout believers who insisted on attaching their faith to their scientific work) and scientists who endorse Intelligent Design theory. My personal opinion is that science should avoid the issue altogether, since deity is a concept that was originated by religion, not science, and is most often discussed within a religious context, which is hardly scientific. Thus, to ask science to comment on and/or endorse a particular view of a concept that is primarily a religious matter simply doesn't fit. To put the shoe on the other foot, THE WASHINGTON POST ran an article a few months ago about Christian, Jewish and Muslim theologians expressing their feelings regarding stem cell research. What this article ignored was that when we choose to involve God in this argument, isn't it a bit strange that we are evaluating a scientific issue--an issue that by nature involves empirical observation and evidence--on the basis of a being that has never been proven to exist? In other words, by using an unverified, faith-based entity to determine the value and morality of a scientific development, are we in fact undermining the scientific method? By keeping deity out of the picture altogether, I'd imagine that scientists would be much freer to pursue their research and that science itself would be much more accessible to people of different cultures and ethnic backgrounds.

Expanding upon that, I use the following quote from Albert Einstein to determine how I feel science views deity: "One of the most difficult things to understand is why we understand anything at all." Now, how would you feel if I told you that if you lived your life a certain way, performing certain rituals, reading certain texts and conducting your behavior in a particular manner, your stomach will be rejoined with the Eternal Stomach (capital letters) after you die, and that your stomach will continue to digest food for all of eternity, free of the suffering of indigestion, cholesterol, ulcers, heartburn and pro-vegetarian propaganda. Sounds weird and a bit loony, doesn't it? But a common religious idea of the afterlife involves the eternal continuation of our consciousness, namely our emotions, memory and thought, which are housed in our brain--something that science can tell you without a doubt. But the brain is an organ, like the stomach, which means that consciousness is a bodily function--a bodily function that humanity needs to define its human-ness, but a bodily function nevertheless. So, to endorse the concept of deity or the capital G God, a superbeing who does human consciousness-type stuff like "creating and ruling" things and "having power over human affairs," we are essentially smearing the human bodily function of consciousness all over the cosmos and asserting that without this bodily function, the universe itself wouldn't, couldn't and/or shouldn't exist. As long as science fails to completely understand consciousness but firmly regards it as a physical phenomenon, then I see science as maintaining an atheist stance on the issue of deity. (For those of you who believe that "mind/soul" and "brain" are entities that are capable of separate, non-physical existences, though, I implore you to get a lobotomy so we can finally resolve this issue.) In fact, if I were a scientist who was interested in putting together an honest, genuine model of the universe and the natural world, I would insist that the model be capable of existing and operating without the need for human beings and/or beings with human-like bodily functions--namely, gods.

But I am not a scientist, and when I think of why I am an atheist and why many of my friends are atheists, I think more in terms of politics, culture and history. That said, I can see the social logic behind why some theologians are interested in challenging science or reconciling religion with science. There's plenty of money and social prestige that comes with science--after all, it's our scientific prowess that keeps our nation on top of the world, both economically and politically, something that religion really CAN'T do for the United States. Praying and going to church alone doesn't build successful military forces, create jobs, find cures for disease, or develop revolutionary products for distribution on the global free market, but science can and does. Ergo, for religion to "successfully" stump science on certain issues regarding spirituality and the nature of deity in public debate is to show that religion still has considerable influence on the current marketplace of ideas. For religion to actually receive endorsement from science also means that religion can help itself to some of the rewards reaped by science (the prestige, the media coverage, the money, etc.). For example, I once attended a lecture given by John F. Haught, director of Georgetown University's Center for the Study of Science and Religion and a professor of theology at the university, who discussed how to reconcile religion with science. He quoted a lot of Bible verses and Judeo-Christian theological concepts in conjunction with scientific terminology and ideas. He even suggested that Jesus Christ is a sort of pioneer in quantum physics: if quantum physics has found that a particle can assume two different states simultaneously, then Jesus Christ is the quantum Messiah, assuming the states of both humanity and divinity at the same time. I highly doubt that you can secure scientific funding to research the validity and merit of this idea but the religious audience seemed pretty impressed, and I'm sure that they have plenty of disposable income and voting power that can be channeled into this line of thinking.

Yet no matter how much discussion and speculation is given to the abstract, metaphysical and unverifiable nature of deity, to even refer to such a concept is to make reference to an enormous history of countless cultural beliefs and brutal intercultural conflicts that are anything but abstract, metaphysical and unverifiable. I found it disturbing to note that in Haught's lecture, for example, he made comparisons and connections between religion and science, but the only religion he really talked about was his own--Christianity. In this model of reconciliation, there appeared to be room for only members of the Judeo-Christian faiths in this alliance with science with other religions left out. But Haught nevertheless used the terms "religion" and "Christianity" interchangeably, as if Christianity can speak for and has authority over all forms of religion and religious opinion. Pay careful attention and you'll notice that Christians have a habit of doing this all too frequently. (This also happens when the word "god" comes up--people may think that they can address the subject of deity from a neutral perspective by using the term lower-case g "god" But it appears that the only logical reason this is done is so that members of the Christian majority within earshot don't get offended, since they can easily digest this term as their upper-case G God--as opposed to other religious terms they aren't familiar with or don't believe in, such as avatar, karma, chi, etc.) But they do this word switching without even thinking for a second about the underlying cultural implications--namely, that commentary on religion that comes from anyone or anything outside of the Judeo-Christian faith is of lesser value or of no value at all. (Ask yourself this: think of the last time you saw a debate on science and religion. Did you ever see this kind of debate that involved a Neo-Pagan or a Hindu? For that matter, how many times do you see a self-proclaimed Wiccan on LARRY KING LIVE, as opposed to self-proclaimed Christians or Jews?)

For this reason, most atheists I know, myself included, feel that by focusing exclusively on the abstract, metaphysical and unverifiable when discussing deity "splitting hairs," we like to call it) without addressing the underlying cultural issues and historical legacies is being dishonest and inaccurate. To accept the identity of an atheist does not stem purely from rejecting the Judeo-Christian God--it stems from rejecting the concept of deity itself and challenging those who insist that a particular deity (or deities) is necessary for every aspect of human life. In the United States, atheism also means a willingness to become a minority by standing outside of the religious majority, and accepting all the inherent risks of doing so--social rejection, harassment and conflicts with family and friends.

I identify myself as an atheist because I do not believe that any higher power that can be thought of as a "god" created and/or rules our universe. If history taught me anything is that gods DIE. (Just read H. L. Mencken's essay "Dead Gods"--sure, it would be great to have faith in a god if there weren't so many dead ones.) When the gods die, it does not happen because of any abstract, metaphysical or unverifiable reason--it happens because the cultures that worshipped them either changed or ended. History shows that there are three ways to kill a god. You can do this by rounding up a group of people who worship a certain god or gods and a.) convince them to worship another god/gods by persuasion, b.) convince them to worship another god/gods by force, or c.) kill every last one of them. Examine how Christian Europeans conquered the indigenous inhabitants of the Americas and you'll find a combination of all three strategies. Furthermore, no dead deity has yet to re-establish its authority after its followers have all died and its cultural artifacts have been destroyed, which strongly suggests that gods only exist in the mind of human beings and that all gods will become extinct once humanity itself becomes extinct. (Unless of course, you think that a deity doesn't need to be worshipped but if that's the case, is the being in question really a deity at all?) With this kind of historical evidence, who needs science to say anything significant about the existence of a deity?

Now, I know what I just said sounded very harsh and unforgiving, leading a religious person to conclude that my life is depressing, nihilistic and without meaning. But that's missing the point. My rejection of the religious concept of deity as a barometer of meaning in my life simply means that I do not accept the man-made construct of deity as the standard for all existence. This is an immensely large universe we live in, both in terms of time and space, and I see no reason to limit my viewpoints to ancient concepts and customs devised by human beings. Also, to become a religious person often means to choose a specific religion, and I cannot in good conscience accept one religion as the universal provider of meaning, morals and myth without feeling like I'm engaging in some sinister form of ethnocentrism. By deeming all gods as products of human cognition that have no reality or will of their own, I am putting all faiths on the same figurative playing field, with NO religion or religious viewpoint having the right to rule, persecute or view themselves as superior to members of other faiths.

True, I could assume the agnostic position, which may sound less harsh and more friendly than the atheist viewpoint. But in this particular context, for me to do that would be giving at least some plausibility to the Judeo-Christian assertion that their God (or a god) is necessary for a meaningful and moral life. As I mentioned earlier in discussing history, this assertion is not without its own brutality, and by giving the Judeo-Christian God a level of possible existence I feel that I am abandoning the level social playing field that atheistic thinking provides. Also, by bringing God back into the picture (as opposed to gods or the generic term deity), it gives Judeo-Christian monotheists more impetus to set the parameters for debate on such issues--a power they already have and use all too often.

To have an opinion on the issue of deity that is as vague as some definitions of deity can be is to be without a culturally and politically viable position on the matter. After all, how can one say anything declarative about the significance of religion in the public sphere when one refuses to say anything definite about the nature of deity (such as which one, what does it do, how many there are, etc.), which is the focal point of many religions? Compound this problem when it comes time to debate about social and political issues that involve religion, such as Alabama Judge Roy Moore's insistence of placing a 5,300-pound granite monument inscribed with the Ten Commandments in the rotunda of the Alabama State Judicial Building. In my experience, atheists are more likely to take an aggressive and well-articulated position on this kind of an issue. By well-articulated, I mean that they know what is going on: our tax dollars are being used to violate the First Amendment, which defends our right to be atheists. They can intellectually and emotionally express their concern for this problem and they can mobilize, all with the same degree of devotion and energy as their adversaries (if not their numbers). On the other hand, agnostics (and liberal Christians by extension) appear more passive and less organized when it comes time to act, because their indecisiveness shields them from feelings of marginalization. For example, their neutral stance on deity can allow them to ignore what is said in the state constitutions of North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee and Texas, all of which prohibit people who deny the existence of God from holding public office. With this kind of injustice at large, atheists need exist if for no other reason than to keep the issue of minority rights alive within the religious sphere. In this sense, to become an atheist is not just a matter of proof; it's also a matter of principle.

In closing, I would like to say that I do take religion seriously as a field of cultural study. Countless cultures have used religion to provide order, art, theater and music in their lives in countless different ways. But I also believe that religion is a purely human phenomenon, a form of cultural expression, and to elevate the religious concept of deity to a superhuman (or supra-human) status is a dangerous and misguided thing to do.