In my last article, I listed out what I thought were appealing aspects of atheism to an atheist. I then used “appeal” in a different sense in my request or appeal for the best argument for atheism. Below are some responses to that appeal. A major thank you to Matthew Graham for contributing to this article. This subject is very familiar to Matthew, as he holds an MA degree from Southern Evangelical Seminary in Religion. The Latin Right’s response is listed under TLR Answers. Any corrections will be to grammar only. Thank you.
Atheist’s Comments
Response #1
3vil5triker
I think you’re looking at this wrong. It’s not a matter of appeal, because for myself and most atheists I’ve known, it’s not a matter of choice. Do you really think we want to live in a world where good is not guaranteed to ultimately triumph over evil? Or a universe where there is no divine safety net for anybody?
No, we’re atheists because that’s where the facts lead us. Because after twisting ourselves in apologetic and philosophical knots, trying to fit the metaphorical square peg into a round hole, the only thing that makes sense is to just remove “God” from the equation.
Now, on a personal level, I’m not ruling out the possibility of there being an, as of yet undiscovered, primal fundamental force that holds reality together; but I just don’t see any good reason to believe such a thing could be a person, with its own thoughts, feelings and personality, much less the specific god of a specific religion.
Also, if I’m being honest, I don’t think most religious people actually care what we believe, just as long as we play along with their preferred social structures and norms. We’re only a problem because we’re visible and outspoken, and as such, present an alternative that is outside of their control.
TLR Answers
Different people hold to atheism for different reasons. The original article was about what someone might find appealing about atheism. If you came to that position via rigorous rational inquiry, that’s fine. But I’m not really asking how you arrived at atheism, I’m asking the question about what might be appealing about this position. These are two different questions.
Looking at the question “What is appealing about atheism” isn’t “wrong” it’s just one way of looking at atheism. Evaluating the claims of atheism rationally is another way of considering atheism. While some of the reasons listed may have not “appealed” to you, I do think they are plausible candidates for things that are appealing about atheism.
Some of the things that are appealing about theism:
(1) Good will be rewarded and evil punished
(2) life after this life
(3) state of heavenly blessedness, etc.
These seem losses for the atheist. To be sure, a materialist universe has its drawbacks, but it also has some advantages. Those advantages (real or perceived) were the main crux of the original article.
Response #2
Mike O’Leary
I think the last paragraph of your article asks a different question than the one presented in the title and in the rest of the article. That paragraph asks us atheists what are our arguments for atheism, while everything else asks about the appeal of atheism. While there is some crossover between the two “appeal” asks what we feel, and “arguments” ask what we can know. They can be independent of each other, with an idea’s appeal having no bearing on whether it is true.
With regards to appeal, I can’t disagree with the examples you gave for what might appeal to atheists (though obviously different strokes for different atheists). Atheism is merely a denial of a claim. Because of this I think the appeal it provides comes more from not being burdened by certain negative effects rather than providing specific positive effects. One of my favorite video games, <i>The Witness</i>, touched on this. It’s a puzzle game that also talks a bit on certain tensions (like faith vs. reason and Western thinking vs. Eastern thinking) and possible bridges between them. It does so by using real-life quotes to convey that in relation to the puzzles. In the story within the story of the game the unseen characters debate whether to use a quote by Paul Dirac. They decide not to use it because it’s more about arguing than seeking truth. I disagree with the characters because we can only know truth if we not only accept what is true but also reject what is false. To put my rambling all together, even if atheism isn’t an instruction manual on how to live it has use in putting to the fire religious claims that (if atheism is correct) should be rejected.
There is one point of appeal to atheism I would like to add to your list: Consistency. This is not to say that there is consistency among different atheists, but that an atheist can look at two events and not have to consider the religious question when assessing those events. Take for example the question of slavery. If you ask the average believer if slavery is wrong, they (rightly) would say that it’s wrong. Though if there is a follow-up question about slavery in the Bible and approved by God then they cease being consistent. Suddenly the position changes based on who’s doing the slavery and why (all of which is false and special pleading). Consistently can also be found in rejecting magical thinking.
There are believers in all faiths who reject coincidences — sometimes. If a believer said that their deity made something happen to put some person somewhere, or some event in motion, then it’s via the hand of their god(s). Though if they hear a story of someone of a competing faith tell their tale of religious serendipity that becomes dismissed as coincidence. One final bit of consistency comes from science. We see in science how a consistent methodological naturalism has helped us learn so much, and I’m convinced applying the same idea in assuming there is no divine intervention (barring serious evidence) helps us understand people, cultures, and the world.
As far as arguments for atheism, the one that started me on my pathway back in 1986 was seeing how these different religions spring up locally, and in spreading via divine force it’s done by incredibly fallible word-of-mouth. These religious origins bare an eerie similarity to how several now-dead religions originated. I have assorted specific arguments regarding different religious positions, mostly from the Abrahamic faiths, but there is one in particular that seems convincing regarding multiple faiths: A deity can obscure their existence, and a deity can judge people based on rules they have provided; but a deity can’t do both.
When I was in school the teachers would make it clear what was expected of me. A teacher would never tell one student what the expectations are (or worse a student who has since graduated) and expect other students to believe those expectations are from that teacher and are still in effect.
TLR Answers
I agree that the question of the rational cogency of atheism is not the same question as what is appealing about atheism. The thrust of the article was what is appealing about it, the follow up is what arguments do you think work. But your point is certainly taken.
I’ll mainly address your claim about the consistency of atheism. This seems to be the primary point you are making. You seem to claim that atheism gives you a consistency of thought, method, etc. I’m not sure I understand this claim given your examples. Perhaps you can help me understand.
“an atheist can look at two events and not have to consider the religious question when assessing those events”
What does this have to do with consistency other than you are consistent with your own underlying principle that religious questions need not be assessed when considering an event? If the appeal is that you can be consistent with your own principles, then I’m not sure how atheism would uniquely have that appeal. To be sure, I think my own beliefs are consistent with my own underlying principles. So, if that’s an appeal of atheism, theism would seem to have the same appeal.
“Take for example the question of slavery. If you ask the average believer if slavery is wrong, they (rightly) would say that it’s wrong. Though if there is a follow-up question about slavery in the Bible and approved by God then they cease being consistent. “
I understand you don’t have time/space to adequately defend this assertion. But there are plenty of thoughtful religious scholars that deal with this question in ways that are not instances of special pleading. Additionally, if the appealing feature of atheism is consistency, I think you would be hard pressed to show that all attempts at resolving moral questions about slavery and the Bible are inconsistent, even if they were instances of special pleading.
“Consistently can also be found in rejecting magical thinking.”
Consistency with your own principles perhaps. If I believe that there is a God that creates ex nihilo, then the belief that God created the world ex nihilo is consistent with my own underlying metaphysical commitments. Without further consideration, we could claim to be consistent as well. But I suspect if we dig into it, we might find some areas where atheists engage in “magical thinking” in some respects.
“When I was in school the teachers would make it clear what was expected of me. A teacher would never tell one student what the expectations are (or worse a student who has since graduated) and expect other students to believe those expectations are from that teacher and are still in effect.”
Most theists believe God placed an innate sense of right and wrong within everyone, a conscience, so the “instruction” is already there. Now, there is also special revelation that God provides through various channels, for example, prophets, Jesus, apostles, the Church, and the Bible. I contend that everyone will only be accountable for what they know. St. Paul concurs.
Romans 2:14-15 ESV
For when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law. They show that the work of the law is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness, and their conflicting thoughts accuse or even excuse them.
This is all for now. Part 2 is on the way!
Like what you read? Please check out my other writing here.
Please like and follow me on Facebook and Twitter.
Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In