A theist or atheist

I attended my first debate run by the Institute of Ideas last night. A very entertaining evening all round. The debate was ‘Flogging a Dead Horse. Making a positive case for Atheism’. Those who read my stuff here they will have gathered that I have a fascination with the philosophy of religion. The challenge for the panel (at least one of which was an ex Anglican priest) was to find a justification for atheism which did not revolve around theist bashing. Quite a challenge and one which I believe they failed to meet. Not because they resorted to theist bashing but mostly because the best of them could only describe the process of justifying atheism rather the actual end point.

In fact, it may be an impossible task. One of the panel described two types of atheist, one which wakes up each morning and simply believes there is no god (note the wording, it is not someone who wakes up and does not believe it god) and another they termed as paramilitary atheists who actively go out hunting for theists and their beliefs. The debate mixed up a few things though which made it harder to make a solid argument. Firstly the distinction between belief in a creator (god) and religion. Not all religions believe in worshiping an almighty. Buddhists for example. So making a positive case for atheism is not one of making a positive case for the alternative to religion. And this is the crux of their difficulty. If the panel were atheists then they believe there is no god. From this they must believe that the majority of people who are religious are wrong to believe as they do. The atheist must therefore believe that as there is no god, that all of the doctrine of religion comes from man, even if declared that man wrote what god tells them. So why do we need to make a positive case for atheism at all? It can only be because an alternative needs to be found for religion which many of the paramilitary atheists believe is seriously damaging. They do not like the indoctrination of children or oppression of the followers and non believers.

But for the paramilitary atheist this is a difficult position to hold. For if they believe, as they must, that all religion is the work of man then what they oppose is the grouping together of people who follow a lifestyle set down by man which incorporates a set of moral and ethical standards to adhere to and that look to spread their views amongst others. Whereas the paramilitary atheists who form a group of people who follow a lifestyle set down by man which incorporates a set of moral and ethical standards to adhere to and that look to spread their views amongst others. Oops.

In other words, by trying to make a positive case for atheism to fight religion one suddenly becomes what one is fighting. They may be right and the damage done by religion may be higher than the damage done by the paramilitary atheists but there is no major evidence that the secular approach to anything is overall better than the religious version. There are good and bad in both.

One of the panellists rightly, in my view made some good practical points to this problem. He said that to bring a realistic alternative to theism one must look at what theism brings to the believer. Only then by providing an alternative to these things will you be able to loosen the spread and grip of religion in the world. One of the panellists featured heavily on existential angst for the atheist as the theist has none of that with God providing the meaning of life. He was countered by another panellist who said in his speech that he did not believe in existential angst but went on to describe how atheism provides none of the answers. The original panellist challenged him saying he did not think he suffered from angst. He replied he didn’t, just because he has no answers doesn’t mean he is worried about it.

If the atheists are right and there are alternatives to religion why are so many still religious? One of the panellists made the point that religion is a cop out from self accountability. I.e. you can always blame god or get forgiveness rather than take the responsibility for an action yourself. His point in some respects may be flawed though.

If you look at the places were religion is strong and where religion is weak we can see a trend which I believe demonstrates that the self accountability is not the driver. I believe it is one of control over your own life. In the west, religion tends to be on the decline both in numbers of participants and strength of belief and extremity of those beliefs. Whereas in more deprived countries we see stronger positions in all those categories. I think this is simply to do with the level of control one has over one’s life. When you are poor, living in hostile environments then many aspects of your life are out of your control. Weather, floods, war, disease to name a few. When your life is dependent upon things you cannot control then the ability to get support from a god is an attractive position. In the west of course we have less issues of control. We have less threats in our everyday lives and so less need to gain support from a supernatural being. It is not an personal accountability thing although I have no doubt that the religious do take advantage of this but it is not the driver.

So if there is a positive case to be made for atheism, a real alternative to religion without the need to follow a divine being then it must lie in removing the levels of helplessness and lack of control in people’s lives. We must make the lives of those in heavily religious countries, where oppression and rights issues remain, better. Only by doing so will the need to adhere to religious beliefs start to decline. If the atheist is to make the case, then it must be on these grounds.