Amazon.com
Amazon.co.uk
Once programmed by the self-loathing rituals of religion, can you ever be truly happy? Guilt, low self-esteem and a permanent sense of inadequacy are integral components of many religions. And maybe when they’ve got you, they’ve got you for ever.
In Japan, interest in Buddhism is waning so fast that not even bar-crawling monks can spark a revival. As with many other religions, people like the ceremony, but aren’t so fussed about the supernatural nonsense that goes with it.
A murderer, who may have eaten part of his victim, now says that god told him to do it. How do we know whether this is true? And if he’s lying, why does he think this is a good thing to say?
It seems as though another miracle worker may turn out to be nothing but a fraud. We all long for the fantastic in our lives, but attributing events to miracles is self-deluding and often dangerous. The rational mind is a better defence against life’s dangers, and when it’s applied, miracles appear to dissolve away.
It’s a common accusation by believers, who feel threatened by non-believers, that atheism is ‘just a religion too’. So is it? Well, not by any sensible definition…
But let’s look at that accusation first. You have to admit, it’s very funny. Basically, it’s saying, “Well, you’re just as bad as we are”. Beyond the hilarity, let’s see if there’s any truth in it.
There’s a problem because defining ‘religion’ is a notoriously slippery task. However, the miscellaneous faithful over at Religious Tolerance think they have a handle on it. Their definition is:
“Religion is any specific system of belief about deity, often involving rituals, a code of ethics, a philosophy of life, and a worldview.”
They go on to say that, “A worldview is a set of basic, foundational beliefs concerning deity, humanity and the rest of the universe.” And they further explain that:
“We also include Agnosticism, Atheism, Humanism, Ethical Culture etc. as religions, because they also contain a ‘belief about deity’. Their belief is that they do not know whether a deity exists, or they have no knowledge of God, or they sincerely believe that God does not exist.”
Hmm. Not very convincing, is it?
The ordeal of British schoolteacher Gillian Gibbons, who was jailed for blasphemy in Sudan, ended quickly. We can be grateful for that. But the religiously oriented regime in which she was convicted remains unchanged. Who will be its next victim?
It was an act of pure malice. The school secretary, who had been fired, reported Gibbons as a way of getting revenge on the school. Such grudges, such petty behaviour, are a fact of life everywhere. What is significant here is that Sudan’s laws, shaped and enforced by religious observance, provided a mechanism by which an otherwise trivial act - the naming of a teddy bear - could be exploited to extract a savage retaliation.
This is something an atheist hears a lot from believers. When I explain that, no, I’m not agnostic, I don’t believe in god at all, the response is likely to be, ‘How can you be so sure?’. It’s often accompanied by a patronising or pitying smile, as if to say, ‘You’ll be sorry if you’re wrong’.
This is, of course, tied to the old, rather solipsistic, argument that it’s better to play safe and believe in god - that way, if he does exist you won’t have pissed him off during your life and you’ll be safe after death. It’s rather like sucking up to the boss even if you secretly believe you’ll never get that promotion.
Atheists have nothing to gain during life and everything to lose after death, the argument runs. Aside from the fact that the first part of that assertion is so completely wrong (atheists gain an immense freedom of thought and action by not being dictated to and limited by religious dogma), the argument is fatally flawed - to a level that makes it idiotic - by the fact that it presupposes one god.
Of course, true believers are certain that there is only one god - theirs. A Roman Catholic knows that Muslims, Jews - in fact, everyone but Roman Catholics - are backing the wrong horse. What they don’t seem to acknowledge, or are too afraid to consider, is that maybe they are wrong - that even if they spend their lives in deep devotion, regularly flagellate and abase themselves, give up any pretense at rational or free thought, they might still go to hell for having picked on the wrong deity.
Indeed, the question - ‘how can you be so sure?’ - is revealing. Believers are people who need certainties. That is why they will accept an entire system of belief even though it contains many palpable absurdities. A rigid system of thought helps exclude the scary possibilities that life, before and after death, is uncertain. Just recite the catechism, perform the rituals and whatever you do, don’t think for yourself.
How can I be so sure? Simple. There is no need to believe in god, there is no evidence for god, there is no rational line of thought that leads to god and his existence is so profoundly improbable.
