In Defense of Atheism

There's a lot of stigma around identifying as an atheist in this country - to the point where people avoid using the "a-word" to describe themselves, even if they truly don't believe in any deities, or belong to any religions. (There's a similar phenomenon with the word "feminist" - people who believe all genders should have equal rights and opportunities still shy away from calling themselves feminists, just because there is a stigma attached to the word.)

In fact, about 9-10% of Americans say they do not believe in God, but only 1.6% are willing to label themselves "atheists." (From Wikipedia) But why? Why are people so afraid to call themselves atheists - even if, looking at the definition of atheist, they clearly are?

For one thing, atheists have an automatic second-class status in this country. As Berlinerblau writes in his book How To Be Secular: A Call to Arms for Religious Freedom, "the nonreligious have always had to fight for the right to be considered equal in America. This has much to do with the Constitution's inability to take them into consideration." The Bill of Rights maintains that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" - but says nothing on the topic of the free exercise of no religion. 

For another thing, people shy away from the "atheist" label because a series of common misconceptions that have grown to be associated with the term. A 2006 study involving a poll of 2000 households in the U.S. found that atheists were the most distrusted minority group - more distrusted than Muslims, recent immigrants, homosexual individuals, rapists, and other groups. (Also from Wikipedia) We hear that atheists don't believe in anything, are evil and immoral, and hate or know nothing about religion. Never mind that none of these are true - if society as a whole perpetuates these ideas often enough, they start to seem true. And because no one wants to be called evil, ignorant, and full of hatred, we also start not wanting to be called an atheist.

Here are some common misconceptions about atheists, and why they aren't accurate:

1. Atheists don't believe in anything.

By definition, atheists don't believe in deities. This includes the God or gods of any religion, past or present, as represented in the stories of those religions. This does not necessarily mean that they don't believe in any aspect of these stories - just that they view them through a historical or literary lens, interpreting them as allegories or mythologies, rather than 100% fact.

Some atheists leave it at that. They refute the existence of any particular God or gods they are familiar with, but allow for the possibility of non-defined deities: unpersonified forces, like Karma, or Destiny, or Fate; generalized spiritualities to alleviate concerns that nothing in their lives is predetermined and even though Someone is not "in control," perhaps Something is. Other atheists refute the existence of these as well.

But everyone believes in something. If you don't believe in guiding forces, you believe in choice and free will and human action (or inaction). Many people (religious and non-religious both) believe in scientific theories, in logic and reasoning, in thoughtful discourse, and in the importance of education. You might believe humans are inherently good, or that humans are inherently evil, or that humans are just inherently human, and that judgments of good or evil are subjective and irresponsible - but each of those is still a belief.

We all find ways to explain our world, and at least some of these require a leap of faith of some kind or another - even if we later find more concrete evidence to back it up. We put our faith in science and the natural world, or in other humans, rather than in gods. We trust each other, or hope we can. We turn to figures of authority. Religious people might turn to the clergy members of their faith; non-religious people might look to their governments, or to experts in whatever field they need advice in - like scientists, doctors, or historians - which they implicitly or explicitly trust.

Some people even group atheists and agnostics together, opining that anyone who doubts or neglects to consider the possibility of the existence of deities is the same as the sort of person who would outright deny gods. But many agnostics do believe - or often believe, or believe in some aspects (but not all) of a certain religion.

To say that atheists don't believe in anything is clearly false. They just believe in different (and sometimes difficult-to-define) things - but things all the same.

2. Atheists are evil and have no morals.

This misconception goes off the idea that because religion offers a set of morals and rules for how to live a good life on earth, anyone who doesn't subscribe to religion will lack such morals and direction. Without religious teachings to guide them (or threaten them with eternal punishment for bad deeds), atheists have no incentive to give to charity, volunteer, be kind to others, or care about their communities. And without didactic religious stories and allegories to demonstrate proper morals, they lack empathy and compassion.

This is blatantly untrue, not least because there are plenty of anecdotal counterexamples of atheists who are generous and kind - and religious people who are definitively not. There are many sources one can use to find examples for how to live a generous life, and religious sources are only one subset. Literature, history, philosophy, music, and art can all teach us how to live by providing us with examples of the past triumphs and mistakes of individuals or societies, by engaging us in thought experiments to imagine different possibilities, and by demonstrating the depth and breadth of human accomplishment. 

Science can also inspire in a variety of ways. Those who study medicine, biology, and anatomy can learn to treasure human life through a deeper understanding of how our bodies work and how fragile yet resilient they often are. Chemistry, physics, earth sciences, the study of the environment, and astronomy can help us explain the earth (and universe) around us and figure out what role humans play (or should play) in it - as a whole and as individuals. You do not need to believe in creationism - intelligent design by a singular or multiple outside guiding force(s), such as God or other deities - to find awe in humans, the human body, the earth, the molecular structures that make up all of these things, or the wide reach of outer space.

You can advocate for the ethical treatment of animals because you believe they are all God's creatures - or you could do so because you've studied zoology or veterinary science, because you've studied the environment and ecosystems, because you've had pet companions over the years, or because you just think animals are adorable.

You can donate to the less fortunate because you believe your God desires all His servants to practice charity - or you could do it because you've witnessed your fellow humans experiencing hardships and been moved to help, or because you've studied your culture (or others) through a larger lens - like through sociology or anthropology or women's and gender studies or history or philosophy - and you know about systems of discrimination and privilege and want to do your part to dismantle them - even if just a little.

There are literally a million reasons (or combinations of reasons) one could use to rationalize a kind deed (or an unkind one). It doesn't have to be tied to religion at all.

Indeed (and this is my bias, I admit), I think many times atheists do MORE to help their communities than religious people do. There are those who believe their good acts will be rewarded in the afterlife (like being accepted into Heaven), or through a series of reincarnations - and so they do good things so they can reap those future rewards. But it can be really hard to work toward such delayed gratification - to do good things now and then have to wait decades or even multiple lifetimes to see the fruits of your effort - and it's frankly not a great motivator for many people. 

Volunteering atheists, on the other hand, are more likely to help their communities or the environment for other reasons - reasons that have a more immediate reward. They'll give money to a homeless person so that that homeless person has money now, they'll work to clean up a riverbank so that there is clean water available to the animal and plant species and the neighboring communities now, they'll do kind things so they can feel good about themselves now. They work to better the earth, and the people on earth, in tangible ways they can witness. Even if it's a larger project that they won't live to see the final result of, they will likely see at least some progress toward their goal. With more immediate gratification like this, it is easier to stay motivated, stay engaged, and continue to do good work. 

Furthermore, people who don't believe in any sort of afterlife rely entirely on their present life on earth. Yes, it can be disheartening and depressing to believe that these few (or many) precious decades we have on earth are all that we will ever have - but it can also be motivating. We have to do all we can now, make our mark on the world now, accomplish everything we want to in our lives now, because this is the only life we have, and we aren't sure how long it will last.

I think the act of living and interacting with others the best and easiest way to learn true compassion and empathy toward fellow humans. At the end of the day, you're not going to learn these behaviors and attitudes by reading them in a book or being chastized from a pulpit. We learn gradually, as babies and children and adolescents and adults. We talk to people who are different from us and we make friendships and forge connections. We learn how to be kind and compassionate through trial and error, and learn to be better people by witnessing the reactions our behaviors illicit. 

Psychology teaches us that we all crave connection and love. This human desire and need is enough incentive to be kind - or to try to be kind, or to find those people who we get along with naturally and form families and friendship units with them, practicing compassion and tolerance at least within the societies we choose to belong to, so that we may continue to belong to them. We don't have to be given reasons to be nice. Many of us inherently want to be. We may need guidance or practice figuring out how best to act, but we are already motivated to try.

Religious and non-religious people alike are therefore capable of generosity, empathy, and kindness, no matter our upbringing. Not everyone takes advantage of these opportunities, of course - but that failing is not limited to atheists. Everyone is also capable of doing "bad" things, making poor decisions, being mean and intolerant to fellow humans, rejecting empathy or compassion, and falling prey to greed, jealousy, and disrespect. They might even do these things because their beliefs (religious or non-religious) sanction such misbehaviors. It would be as much of a fallacy to say that all atheists are evil and morally corrupt as it would be to say that all religious people are. In the end, we are all humans, and all capable of choice and change.

3. Atheists hate religion and people who are religious.

Some atheists are undoubtedly distrustful, disrespectful, or condescending towards organized religions. Some of these atheists might even be passionate enough about these feelings to call it hatred. But it is a misrepresentation to say that all atheists feel this way, or to claim that all atheists wish to ban religion - just as it would be to say that all Christians hate non-Christians, or to claim that all Christians want to ban all religions other than Christianity.

For many atheists, I think any hatred they have is because of the power and privilege religious institutions often have. If people practiced their religion quietly and privately, it would not be nearly as problematic as it is when religious institutions begin to acquire authority and then use that authority to cast judgment on everyone, religious and non-religious included. In this case, it is not the religion itself, but the power it wields, that prompts fear, disgust, frustration, and anger.

I also know a lot of atheists who get very frustrated with staunchly religious people because it seems their religious beliefs close their mind from considering any alternate possibilities. They seem to take everything they've read in their religious texts or heard a religious figure of authority say as truthful without question, failing to think for themselves. These religious people come across as unnecessarily and dangerously stubborn, refusing to think critically. 

But many religious people say the same sort of thing about atheists. Religious people who find comfort in the traditions, rituals, and teachings of their faith find it deplorable that atheists would stubbornly refuse to take comfort in the same things. They see atheists as closed-minded when they refuse to consider the possibility of the existence of God. They assume that atheists take pleasure in shooting down all the evidence they suggest - that atheists are certifiable party-poopers when it comes to religion, determined to prove religion wrong and failing to see the "better," more imaginative, more truthful story.

There's a sprig of truth to both of those viewpoints. Some atheists do chose to deny the existence of deities simply because it's what feels most natural or easiest for them - and some theists do the same, never wavering from the religion they were brought up with, or considering other possibilities. But many don't. Many atheists take years of self-reflection to come to their conclusion, stepping away from faith or religious beliefs they held in the past - and continue to have doubts, even once they decide they're "pretty sure" there is no god. And many religious people are filled with doubt, and spend a great deal of time considering the possibility that their beliefs are wrong - even if on the outside it looks like they are quite settled in their faith.

And then of course, there is the problem that we often hate what we don't understand. We "other" groups that have different beliefs than we do, painting them with the same wide brush and pitting them against us. Atheists are not more likely to do this than religious people; we are all human, and all occasionally (or more often) forget to be compassionate. We would all do well to remember that people are icebergs, and there is always more to them that we do not see.

4. Atheists don't know specifics about religion or think about spirituality.

I touched on this in my previous point, but I feel it's a common enough misconception that it warrants its own set of paragraphs. Many religious people believe that atheists are atheists simply because they do not know better, or have not been properly and adequately exposed to their religion. Religious people often think atheists come from families where no one believes in god, and are therefore heathens who have never believed in god or entertained the possibility. This is simply not true.

In fact, self-reporting polls indicate that about 34% of self-identified atheists were raised Catholic, with further 36% from other Christian denominations. (Source) Still others step away from other, non-Christian faiths. These atheists obviously know something about religion. They may have even once whole-heartedly believed, never thinking (until they did) that they would one day reject certain parts (or all parts) of their religion.

Furthermore, some atheists, even those who grew up in non-religious families, spend a good chunk of their lives delving into religion and looking for some faith - any faith - which might speak to them, give them comfort, and prompt belief. And still others research religion through a scientific, philosophical, or literary lens - finding contradictions in religious texts in order to amass evidence for hearty debates, scrutinizing religious beliefs through logic and reasoning (for the sake of education, reaffirming their conclusions, or creating rousing, thought-provoking discussions with likeminded friends), or learning about the religions that have influenced art and literature throughout the course of history to have a better understanding and appreciation of these great works. 

I would guess that many atheists actually know more about religion than religious people do - because atheists who are interested in religion and have studied such things do so by casting a wider net than religious believers tend to use. Atheists don't have the same biases and preconceived ideas about specifics of a certain religion than people do who belong to that religion; they can often see the bigger picture in ways that people inside of it cannot.

5. Atheists are a homogenous group.

If you've read through all my previous points, you already know this one, so I won't linger too long on it.

Atheists are not all the same. Some once believed but no longer believe in God; others never believed at all. Some study religion and consider the possibilities of believing in different versions of spirituality, while others have no interest in those things. Some hate organized religions - for a variety of reasons - while others are apathetic. Some believe in ephemeral versions of spirituality, allowing for the existence of undefined forces like Fate or Destiny or Karma, while others believe in nothing but the things they can easily observe here on Earth. Some atheists are also secularists (see my previous post on secularism here), but not all. And some seem to live life without morals - but many have just as strong of a moral compass as religious people do (and perhaps an even stronger one).

I realize that, as a self-identified atheist, I'm a little biased. But I would hope that you don't have to be an atheist, or even know an atheist, to recognize that people are not "evil" just because they choose not to participate in religion, don't believe in deities, or are generally uninterested in entertaining the possibility of life after death. 

One of the greatest things about humans is that we are not all the same; it is my hope that we can acknowledge, respect, and celebrate all of our differences - even those we don't personally agree with, or completely understand.

There is nothing inherently wrong with being an atheist, and atheists do not deserve the stigma surrounding them. They also do not deserve to be ignored and excluded from conversations of religion and beliefs. We all do believe in something - insomuch as a belief is one's priority for how to live their life, make important choices, weigh consequences for their actions, forge relationships with other people, and create, serve, and belong to a community - and we all deserve to have those beliefs acknowledged and our voices heard.

The Separation of Church and State

I'm going to start this blog post out with a definition.

Secular: Adjective. Denoting attitudes, activities, or other things that have no religious or spiritual basis.

Secular means "non-religious." It does NOT necessarily mean "anti-religious." Those are two separate terms. "Non-religious" means that a specific item or institution (a building, a school district, a government, etc.) is not intended for religious use nor influenced by or supported by or affiliated with any religion. It is separate from religion; the two do not come in contact with each other. In reference to a person, it would mean that such a person is not affiliated with any religion, and does not adhere to religious beliefs or practices. 

"Anti-religious" would indicate that more contact is taking place; it hints at active attempts to suppress, alter, or control religion. An anti-religious person would be vehemently against participating in or witnessing religion; they might allow others to participate in religion privately, but certainly not publicly.

A person (and a government) can be non-religious without being anti-religious. There are some models of secularism that are anti-religious - specifically, France's laïcité, where the government actually dictates to its citizens the kind of religion-related clothes and symbols that can be worn in public schools or on public streets.

But when I talk about secularism, and wishing that the United States government was secular, I don't mean the rigorous sort of anti-religious secularism France seems to advocate - I mean only that I wish religion and government were separate entities (or, at least, as separate as they can be), and that I wish the First Amendment of our Constitution was upheld consistently and fairly, so that we all can benefit from its promise.

"Congress shall make NO law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." 

That clause was written into our Bill of Rights purposefully, with careful consideration, and despite controversy at the time, because the founders of our nation believed in those words. They knew European history, rife with its past and present religious conflict, and were afraid of repeating its mistakes. 

Some reasoned, as Martin Luther and John Locke had years earlier, that the government did not belong in religious affairs for ethical or spiritual reasons. "Religion," Thomas Jefferson wrote, "is a matter which lies solely between man and his God" - meaning that the government therefore has no right to endorse religion. Jefferson continued, "the legislative powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions." James Madison went one step further, reasoning that religious governments paved the way for pride and tyranny. He remarked that "superstition, bigotry, and persecution" were the fruits of the "legal establishment of Christianity." These two Founders were in the minority among Americans at that time, going farther than most in their beliefs that the government and religion shouldn't mix. Madison, especially, maintained an extreme pessimism about the social value of religion that few could agree with.

Still, and perhaps more tellingly, the Founders refrained from invoking the scriptures anywhere in the Constitution, despite the fact that they lived in a world culturally immersed in them and absolutely nothing was stopping them from doing so. Clearly, they did not have a "Christian nation" in mind (as so many argue today), and were willing to set the groundwork for a secular government to be constructed.

(All this, by the way, is according to the wonderful book How To Be Secular: A Call to Arms for Religious Freedom by Jacques Berlinerblau, which is amazingly well-researched and chock-full of footnotes and references.)

Despite these beginnings, however, our current government is not very secular. There is often no clear separation of church and state. There are references to God everywhere in our government - in our Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag, printed on our money, and engraved on statues and government buildings all over this country. Other examples are nativity scenes, crosses, or statues of the Ten Commandments on public land, prayers starting public meetings, and prayers in public schools. This might not seem like such a big deal at first glance - but consider how alienating it can feel for someone who does not believe in any god, or someone who does not believe in a singular god, or the Christian capital-G God, to see "In God We Trust" on official government currency and buildings. Who is this "we" that's being referenced, and why are atheists and non-Christians immediately excluded from it?

These types of references to religion (Christianity specifically) are sometimes called "ceremonial deism." When it is challenged in court, it is often upheld by judges, under the reasoning that it is part of our national heritage, and simply tradition/custom at this point, without any overt religiousness. But if there were no passionate religious people behind the continued use of these phrases and these practices, then they wouldn't be defended so fervently in court. And, according to atheist author Greta Christina (http://www.alternet.org/belief/4-ways-christianity-sneaks-our-secular-government-and-why-it-matters), "every one of these 'ceremonial' incursions of religion into government gets used - on the ground, in tangible, real-world ways - to marginalize non-believers, and to treat them as second-class citizens." 

That linked article, by the way, has several examples backing up that claim - specific times when our nation's "In God We Trust" motto and public, government-sponsored prayer have been used to shame, belittle, and award second-class status to non-Christians. It also goes on to explain why, even if these instances WERE just symbols, just traditions, and not meant to be used as a way to discriminate against non-Christians - those symbols still matter. Nothing is too trivial when it is a symptom of a larger issue:

"Are these the most pressing problems facing the nation? No. Of course not... But that doesn't make them trivial. Symbolic issues can have a significant impact. Employers requiring women to wear makeup wasn't the most pressing problem facing the women's movement, but most people understand why it was a fight worth fighting. Segregated drinking fountains and lunch counters weren't the most pressing problems facing the civil rights movement, but most people understand why they were deeply troubling and needed to end. President Obama saying same-sex marriage should be legal had zero effect on same-sex couples' legal rights, but most people understand why the President's statement mattered, and mattered enormously."

Even "surface" discrimination can hurt. And just because something is tradition doesn't mean it still has a place in modern society. If you've seen the responses of civil rights activists to some Southern states still flying the Confederate flag, you know what I mean - seeing those symbols can be painful reminders that the government once (and STILL) endorses awful practices that particularly target marginalized groups. Why should people who belong to those groups, or people who call themselves supporters, allies, or friends, feel comfortable in such communities?

But the government doesn't only use these "ceremonial" instances of religion, either. Look at some of the policies that get passed, or that congresspeople try to get passed; look at some of the rhetoric government officials feel comfortable saying. Look at the religious beliefs that are taught as fact or viable possibilities in public school, such as creationism being taught as a legitimate alternative to evolution, or sexual abstinence being taught to the detriment of educating youth on other methods of birth control or STI prevention. Look at the way Congress impedes medical progress by attempting to curtail stem-cell research or abortion care in the name of religious beliefs. Look at the way the government bends over backward to accommodate outlandish corporate decisions about how to run their companies, compensate their employees, or provide health benefits - all because the CEOs claim their policies stem from religious (read: Christian) beliefs that they hold and desire to practice at work - even if that means coercing non-believer employees into adhering to tenants of a religion they do not support. 

The above examples only touch on a few; there are other very frightening ways in which the government supports Christian privilege in this country - through policies and through finances. Furthermore, several Christian groups lobby the government and influence these policy decisions.

I wish this wasn't the case. I wish our government was not influenced by religion - because when it is, it is inevitably Christianity that does the influencing. I also wish our government didn't support religious institutions - unless it can learn how to do so equally, with equal support given to all religious and non-religious groups (which I doubt is even possible) - because right now, when it does support religion, it is inevitably Christianity that it supports.

These sorts of practices perpetuate Christian privilege, deny people who belong to other religions the same opportunities, and often leave non-religious individuals out of the discussion altogether. Worse, when the government as an institution, or the people who represent it at federal, state, and local levels, model "othering" non-Christian groups by supporting only Christianity or making blanket statements about those who aren't Christian, they seem to sanction religious homogeneity, as well as discrimination, intolerance, and violence toward non-Christians. A government which endorses one and only one religion is one step away from a theocracy - and theocracies can be dangerous things: glorified cults that get away with all manner of atrocities in the name of religion simply because they have the numbers, the means, and the political power to back them up.

My next bouquet drawing will work to show the beautiful arrangement that can be made when all religions (and non-religious groups) are represented. I do not want to erase religion; I just want everyone to have a say. I want everyone's beliefs to be recognized and respected - and part of that is having a government which does not seem to endorse one religion at the expense of other religions, or at the expense of non-religious people. 

So what would a secular government even look like?

For a start, there would be no National Day of Prayer or religious words in the country's motto. There would be no nativity scenes in front of government buildings - because to do so would be to endorse a Christian holiday while ignoring or excluding the holidays of every other religion. The Pledge of Allegiance would return to its pre-1950s rendition - which didn't include the phrase "Under God". Public schools would teach only the topics that experts in those fields give merit to, and not present alternative views without such academic support as being equally worthy of consideration. (The news media, too, could learn from this - increasingly, journalists are presenting all possible opinions on a controversial topic as equally reasonable opinions to have, and thus legitimizing harmful, extremist opinions held only by a small, attention-seeking minority.)

Policies that a secular government passed would not be influenced by religious beliefs, or support other institutions or corporations which tried to coerce non-believers into being subject to the customs or beliefs of their religion. Everyone would be legally permitted to have sex or get married to those of their choice, presuming all parties were consenting adults. All medical procedures would be legal and available, presuming that they had gone through the rigorous trials that any medical procedure is subject to for approval, and no patient would be shamed for making a medical decision about their own life that went against the religious beliefs of their doctor, or coerced into refusing (or taking) medical treatment they wanted to receive (or deny).

Furthermore, if the United States government truly became secular, American Christians would lose a lot of privilege - which would create a more egalitarian society. (For more on Christian privilege, see this previous post. And for more on why a loss of Christian privilege would actually be a good step toward eradicating religious discrimination, read this blog post from Monday.)

I don't say this because I hate Christianity and want it to be eradicated, or because I want Christians to be persecuted. I just don't want Christians to have unfair advantages in this country any more than I want men to have unfair advantages over women, white people to have unfair advantages over people of color, or heterosexual or cisgendered individuals to have unfair advantages over those who don't identify in those ways.

Secularism does not equal atheism, and those who believe a secular government would be beneficial (to people of ALL religions, and to those who are non-religious) can also be religious people in their personal lives. In fact, many who advocate for a more secular government are religious - especially those who belong to minority religions (religions other than Christianity), who are troubled by recent policies of the Christian-controlled government. Even Christians can advocate for a more secular government, if they recognize that there are Americans who don't subscribe to their religious beliefs - Americans who are no less American for doing so. 

Democratic governments should represent all people - not just those belonging to the privileged religion. The best way to do this is to make sure the government is a secular one - and that it stays secular, regardless of which political party currently holds the presidency or congressional majority. Not only is secularism democracy - but it is a hallmark of our democracy, as the founding fathers intended.

That first clause of the First Amendment is so important. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion." What is so hard to understand about that? When did the United States government forget this provision? And why did we, the citizens, let it happen - and continue to do so?