True Believer

I’m an unabashed atheist, a position I’ve defended since 5th grade when I refused to pledge allegiance* in class—primarily on account of the God clause, but I’ve never been a fan of fealty. It was difficult as at the time I was being raised a WASP in a town comprised of 70-odd per cent of Roman Catholics.

I’d wrestled with the concept for years, even taking a middle-ground agnostic position until I decided to get off the fence and pick a side. Dawkin’s God Delusion made it easier when he published his 7-point spectrum, stretching between an absolute believer to an absolute atheist. Here I was able to remain agnostic but defend the atheist notion as, say, a 6 of 7 on the scale—or 6.9999 as the case might be.

The spectrum of theistic probability is published on Wikipedia:

  1. Strong theist. 100% probability of God. In the words of C.G. Jung: “I do not believe, I know.”
  2. De facto theist. Very high probability but short of 100%. “I don’t know for certain, but I strongly believe in God and live my life on the assumption that he is there.”
  3. Leaning towards theism. Higher than 50% but not very high. “I am very uncertain, but I am inclined to believe in God.”
  4. Completely impartial. Exactly 50%. “God’s existence and non-existence are exactly equiprobable.”
  5. Leaning towards atheism. Lower than 50% but not very low. “I do not know whether God exists but I’m inclined to be sceptical.”
  6. De facto atheist. Very low probability, but short of zero. “I don’t know for certain but I think God is very improbable, and I live my life on the assumption that he is not there.”
  7. Strong atheist. “I know there is no God, with the same conviction as Jung knows there is one.”

I leave open there could be such a higher ‘energy’ or some such, but I feel the probability is pretty remote—something less than homoeopathic.

Unicorns are the new black

Allow me to sidestep the distinction between an atheist meaning not believing and an agnostic meaning not knowing. For the average person, this distinction is lost—sort of like the use of who versus whom or of fewer versus less at grocery checkout stations.

So why does an atheist care about religion enough to write about it? He doesn’t write about unicorns—except when discussing religion. Why can’t he just agree to individual religious freedom and leave it at that? And why does he refer to himself in third-person?

Religion…is the opiate of the masses

Karl Marx

Marx infamously wrote that religion is the opiate of the masses. He was correct, but religious belief is a cancer. It is not benign. Various people have exclaimed that ‘your right to swing your arm ends at my nose.’ Religion violates this sensibility and smacks you in the face.

Although moral sentiment a precedent to religion, religion is a crucible that codifies it. And like cancer, it spreads into the public sphere as law. I’ve written about the moral outrage of prostitution, and it seeps into legislation around abortion, adoption, and restroom usage. It’s not that one could not have developed these positions independently, but in the US these positions are highly correlated to religious beliefs.

It doesn’t much matter to me the causal direction of this relationship; the correlation is enough for me. I don’t want to say that all religious activity is harmful, but the basis of it is delusional. We consider psychiatric treatment for those with different delusions.

God is dead

Friedrich Nietzsche

And so my interest in religion is that I would prefer to pull it out by the roots. As Nietzsche notes, if God is dead, we don’t really have a suitable concept to keep society focused. The masses will go into withdrawal. Enlightenment Age Humanists tried to replace it with Natural Law and then some abstract notions that serve as philosophical mental masturbation, but society will not congeal around it, and so politicians prey on the delusional masses.

*The history of the US Pledge of Allegiance is fairly insidious.

2 thoughts on “True Believer

  1. Are you really willing to write off the religious impulses of the vast majority of humanity over all of human history as “cancerous” and “dillusury”? Sounds like a bit of a narrow minded position to take.
    As for your “spectrum of belief” that’s a rationalistic way of looking at religion that doesn’t take into account the actual experiences of religious people. As a religious person, I find myself at different places on the spectrum at different times of my life, however, I have faith. Which is to say, although I may not be certain always, I trust, I pray, I act, I hope and I believe. That’s a far cry from this rationalistic spectrum.


  2. So, it sounds like you are a 2 on the spectrum. I do not write off religious impulses. I merely claim that the benefits may not be a net positive. I feel that religion has been necessary for getting society to where it is today, but this might not have been the only path we could have taken. It just happens to be. Evolution has reinforced story-telling (and story-believing) by propagating more humans who share this trait. As I’ve written elsewhere, this is the metanarrative of which postmodernists are critical. These sort of origin stories we convince ourselves, which leads to notions of religious or national boundaries. Evidently, a sense of identity has been concomitantly evolved, whether individual or social.

    I can sympathise somewhat with your statement that you have been in different places on the spectrum. As for me, I never considered how I placed on the spectrum until I became aware of it. Retrospectively, I was never on the left of the halfway point. Any belief I had as a child was the direct result of propaganda the same way I once believed in Santa Claus.
    I can’t say that I understand your comment about the ‘actual experiences of religious people’ so I’ll defer response.

    As for certainty, people are predictably irrational. They do all sorts of things that don’t make sense, whether taking drugs, religious belief, or buying lottery tickets.

    As for rationality is concerned—and as I’ve said before—, people are most often barely rational, and some even less than others. Rationality is another specious metanarrative. I agree that your trailing list makes my point.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s