Problems with Atheism

This thread is to discuss to the type of Atheism that has the following beliefs.

1) There is no God.
2) Accepting that there is no god gives an exclusive understanding of absolute truth (as grasped by reason logic and science).
3) People who don't accept this truth are inferior.

This is different from a belief that there is no God that isn't accompanied with the claim of an exclusive ownership of universal truth. I don't believe in any deity. I avoid the term "atheism" because of the other implications.

The Myth of Meaning Without Religion
Atheists say correctly that it is possible to have a meaningful and moral life without God. I don't question that this is true.

However, it is not possible to have meaning or morality based on science, evidence or logic. To arrive at either meaning or morality, you have to start with assertions that simply can't be proven.

Atheists want to believe that they can come up with a system of morality based on proveable facts. And so, they wish to distinguish themselves from "religionists". The real difference is self-honesty, Baptists themselves will tell you their sense of morality is based on unprovable facts.

Many things have to be accepted without proof. We all put value in human life, we believe rape shouldn't be tolerated, we believe in democracy, and equality. But, nothing in the Universe cares about human life outside of human society (and maybe dogs). There is no proof in any set of morality. Values have to be accepted without proof, There is simply nothing in our cold , caring Universe to back them up.

Atheists develop strong beliefs on many questions about what it means to be good or human. Baptists do to-- there really is no difference. Developing a world view, based on things we must accept without proof, is part of being human. Whether you believe in one God, or many gods or no gods does not change this fact.

Atheism as Anti-Religion
Several years ago, I taught an Earth Science class in a public high school in an area (north of Boston) that had a sizable population of Evangelical Christian students. Some of the subject matter we were covering is culturally sensitive, and the issue came up. Most teachers handle this the same way, focusing on the scientific story-- the evidence the discoveries-- it is not our job to attack a students cultural perspective.

Ironically, it was an Atheist student who was a real problem. When I talked about using quasars to measure the age of the Universe, she said-- that is why there is no God. I would have to say (correctly) that no, this had nothing to do with the question of God. This went on with stars and geology-- everything for her was a battle against religion until she dropped the class.

The Evangelical Christian students did quite well. At the end of class, they were able to express a real understanding of the science (how that affected their ideas on the religious aspects is their own business).

I have seen this again and again, Atheists using science, psychology, history-- whatever they can find-- to attack religion. Rather than questioning their own assertions, they focus on attacking others.

The demonization of religion really gets out of hand. Religion is blamed for wars (as if wars wouldn't have happened without religion). Religion is painted as a source of strife and a corrupter of values. Where religion does something that even they think is right, for example the civil rights movement, they minimize it; as if the Reverend Martin Luther King, as a baptist minister preaching sacrifice and non-violence in Christian churches had nothing to do with religion.

Atheist Sacred Cows

Atheism (just like many religions) doesn't like to questioned.

It amuses me how much hostility and anger anything that that challenges evokes. The mere suggestion that atheism is a religion (a rather meaningless and harmless claim without any definitions of "religion and "atheism") is usually met with personal insults.

But these are questions that should be asked.

Religion is about our search for meaning, and meaning does not come from evidence or science or hard observation. Whether or not you call it religion, you do hold things to be true that are unprovable.

Stating that there is no god is one starting point, but it doesn't avoid the search for meaning that is beyond science and a part of human experience. And, it doesn't mean that your conclusions are any better then someone who starts with a different set of assumptions.