Democracy for Vancouver

Thom Hartmann argued for that premise on his national radio program this morning, saying that atheism is a system of belief that often inspires its adherents to spread the word evangelically. Hartmann also tried to say that the only true atheists were agnostics, because agnostics “don’t know” and therefore rarely proselytize, whereas atheists proselytize and therefore have an evangelical belief system, also known as a religion.

While I agree that all atheists are truly agnostics (because it is impossible to prove the negative), most atheists are only agnostic to the degree that there is no proof. We are not saying, “Maybe there is, maybe there isn’t.” We’re saying, “There is no evidence of god, therefore there is no god.”

It is difficult to get this across in a world where so many societies have been constructed around a belief in god(s), where belief is the default position. Even in the Soviet Union, the heavy-handed czar anointed by god was simply replaced by a heavy-handed Chairman appointed by dialectical materialism; the culture never made a significant shift between religion and communism.

What would happen if everyone was born into a world as technologically proficient as ours is, without any societal reference to religion? I believe there would be far less resort to the supernatural to explain our existence, gravity, tides, the seasons, the fossil record, etc., and to explain away the pain, disease, war and poverty we see around us. But there is no way to get the toothpaste back into that tube.

I am not saying that growing up without holy books, churches and priests, and the inspiration that many artists and writers find in religion would be, on balance, a good thing (though Richard Dawkins definitely believes that religion does much more harm than good). Much of the world’s most stunning art, literature and architecture has been touched, either in subject matter or funding, by religion; for instance, where would capitol architecture be without Christopher Wren and St. Paul’s Cathedral in London? True, we might be poorer without Michaelangelo’s and DaVinci’s contributions sponsored by the Church; but on the other hand, who knows what art might have replaced it in the Church’s absence?

And, going without religion does not necessarily mean that our lives would be without transcendence; we have very moving secular Thanksgiving, Christmas and Chanukah celebrations at our house without any reference to religion. Our references are to family and community and how we can help make the world a better place, instead of praying to some deity to do all the work.

But, back to the atheism-as-religion issue. I can understand one mistakenly equating “evangelical atheists” with t.v. evangelists or Mormon missionaries, but this is only because there is no other social construct into which atheism will easily fit. I do talk to religious friends and family about my atheism, particularly when I see their religions doing harm by teaching intolerance and by dividing people into the saved and the damned; but I am not trying to sell them my belief, I am simply asking them to re-examine their own in the light of science and all we understand about humanity and the natural world.

Also, atheism does not have the daily impact on my life that a religious adherent’s beliefs have on her life. I do not reference atheism when I decide whom to vote for, or how to raise my child or strengthen my marriage, or how to deal with the myriad of moral judgments I make in a day. Because these judgments are formed without reference to a god or gods, I believe I am behaving in the same way that I would if I was born into a world that was majority atheist. But, in the eyes of many fundamentalist Christians, Mormons and the Taliban, to name a few, the idea of living in a world without reference to religion is horrifying, because they believe that religion is all that keeps us from behaving cruelly, amorally, and selfishly. It is both sad and appalling that so many people think they, themselves, would be thieves, adulterers, rapists and killers if it were not for their religion holding them to the straight and narrow. How awful.

All religions basically provide a moral path by way of myths and traditions that explain creation, nature and state of the world. Atheism provides no moral path to follow, nor any myths for guidance. It is not a religion, but simply the name we give people, like myself, who have no supernatural beliefs. You wouldn’t call a person who doesn’t believe in ghosts just a different type of paranormalist*, or a person who doesn’t believe in alien visitation just a different type of UFO phenomenonologist*. While people like Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens may seem every bit as evangelical in their promotion of atheism as Benny Hinn and Pat Robertson are in reaping souls for their god (and dollars for their pockets), Dawkins and Hitchens likely would not bother with their proselytizing if they and their fellow atheists were in the majority. In a majority-atheist country (and world), they would have no need to convince others of the catastrophic damage they see committed by and for religion in the past, present and future.

One final reason why atheism is not a religion: it provides neither the security-blanket comfort that many religious people find in their faith, nor the abdication of self-control to a “higher power” that can keep “sinners” on the wagon. Atheists do find some comfort in knowing that there isn’t some vengeful god out there ready to kick your ass (or the other side of that coin: a benevolent god too lazy to be bothered with Darfur or Iraq or AIDS), but that’s little solace compared to the womb-like peace religion can give some people.

On the other hand, there is also a measure of peace in knowing that we bipedal, hairless apes have evolved enough to change the world, stop warring with each other and repair the environment… If we want to. Maybe if we evolve our way out of religious belief, we’ll realize this is the only world we have, and act accordingly.

*I have no idea if these are real words, or what the real terms should be, but you get the gist.