Mickdrew
Member
I have never much cared for the label “atheism”. This is not just because of the baggage and connotations that come with it, but also because, as many have argued, it is a label that describes a negative. If we labelled ourselves just on what we did not believe, we’d be weighed down with having to call ourselves “A-communists” or “a-murderers” (not to equate those as being the same, of course). These labels should be used to affirm something about ourselves, not simply exclude certain positions.
Having pondered over this, I’ve concluded that “skeptic” is truly the best way to describe the very essence of scientific naturalism. Prior suggestions by other New Atheists such as “brights” does little inform others where people stand (in addition to being very condescending), whereas naming yourself a skeptic perfectly encompasses the heart of our position.
We are always on our toes when it comes to holding “faith” in something, and we do not submit to an unquestioning authority. We question basic assumptions, and make sure our conclusions are based on evidence and logic. It is of course true that faith plays a role in our outlook on life (by being optimistic, looking ahead, hoping for happiness etc.). We are all evolved primates, after all, and can never completely escape our irrational tendencies. All we can do is put in the effort to compensate for them. This is something which still clearly separates us from the great majority of religions, where not showing faith or questioning ultimate authority is seen as a threat.
The easiest example to show this is with Abraham being told by God to sacrifice his son. At the very last moment when Abraham is about to perform the sacrifice, God sends an angel to stay his hand, and the potential murderer is praised for his faith. Now, any skeptical mind can see that this is an immoral and wicked story. The main point here is not simply to murder, it is actually more sinister than that: it advocates complete servility. “Obey me without question. If I ask you to kill your own family, you must do so without hesitation” – these words jump right off the page. Religious apologists always counter this by pointing out that God stopped Abraham from performing the act. God is benevolent, after all, and would never allow something so evil to actually take place.
Despite this objection, the yoke of evil within this story remains unbroken. God’s benevolence or malevolence is not what makes this immoral; it is Abraham’s obedience. Even though murdering his son is counter to what a benevolent God would want, the story is saying that Abraham should still be willing to perform the act. He has to actually have the will in his heart to do this in order for his faith to be validated – which is the purpose of this.
I hope anyone reading is skeptical enough to know how immoral this is. If you do not, then consider any mentally ill person who hears such voices in their head claiming to be God. As a student of Criminology, I can ensure you that there are more than a handful of murder cases where this exact thing happens. The parent is suffering from an undiagnosed mental illness, and hears a voice claiming to be God telling them to kill their children. Now, according to this story in the Bible, any person of faith who hears of this murder case cannot believe the parent’s willingness to kill children because of faith was wrong. It is tragic that it was not actually God commanding it (and was thus not there to stop the parent at the last moment), but the willingness to obey this evil command was not the issue. In the same way that Abraham would’ve killed his son if no one interfered, this parent has shown the same faith by killing their child - so says the honest religious person.
All counter arguments to this are unsatisfactory. The idea that “the parent should’ve known it was a false God” or “we’d know through God’s divine grace if he was really speaking to us” are not enough. Not only does this assume the act wasn’t commanded by God (something which may never be completely impossible for someone religious), but it also tries to have it both ways by defending a story which demands complete obedience to God’s word – except in those cases where you should be skeptical. After all, if the person knew it was the true God and knew that God is benevolent, and then there would be no need to “prove your faith” to begin with because the person would never believe the act was going to happen. The story of Abraham clearly tells us that obedience to God’s word should override all skepticism.
Are you starting to realize how faith can twist you into believing blatantly evil things? No reasonable person would ever consider this line of thinking as moral, nor would they approve of mental gymnastics to excuse these lessons as justified. Any sane person listening to an attempt at justifying this should respond by incredulously asking “Are you serious?”
So a person of faith must ask themselves: is God asking for children to be killed, or is this more likely the result of mental illness? If you say the latter, then it must be asked: wouldn’t it also be more likely that Abraham was mentally ill?
This example shows clearly what separates skeptics from religious obedience. Indeed, the word “Islam” itself can be translated as “submission”. Skeptics such as myself hold a very firm position: were it not for these calls for faith and obedience to a divine ruler, most would see that religious dogma is unreasonable. We now live in a world where robust scientific explanations are plentiful. Merely letting go of our religious biases and embracing these tested and proven discoveries quickly reveal an absence of God in the universe (or the lack of a necessity to impose one, at the very least).
This also works well to counter those that point to Stalin or Mao Zedong as examples of atheistic evil. “These men abandoned religion,” The apologists proclaims, “and they went on to kill millions of people. This shows the danger of abandoning God’s word.” No, it shows the danger of humans as ultimate authority instead of a religion. The lesson here is not to abandon skepticism, but to underline it. Submission to a dictator is as dangerous as submission to a God – and both have caused many deaths. The beauty of labeling yourself as a “skeptic” is that you are not defending every atheist good or bad, but a mindset that always searches for evidence and uses logic rather than faith and servitude.
My position is that the moment you apply a bit of skepticism and not fall into the demands that you be afraid or cower; that’s the moment you realize that the emperor has no clothes (whether the emperor is religion or a dictator). This is not a triumph of atheism; it is a triumph of skepticism. Critical thinking is a virtue to us, and to think freely and without restraint is our paradise. Nothing in this world is beyond being questioned, because no one in this world is perfect – that not only goes for the people we question, but also to ourselves. Since we are all imperfect, we must try to be as skeptical as we can.
Apologies for the length.
Thoughts? Opinions?
What value do you see in religious obedience?
Having pondered over this, I’ve concluded that “skeptic” is truly the best way to describe the very essence of scientific naturalism. Prior suggestions by other New Atheists such as “brights” does little inform others where people stand (in addition to being very condescending), whereas naming yourself a skeptic perfectly encompasses the heart of our position.
We are always on our toes when it comes to holding “faith” in something, and we do not submit to an unquestioning authority. We question basic assumptions, and make sure our conclusions are based on evidence and logic. It is of course true that faith plays a role in our outlook on life (by being optimistic, looking ahead, hoping for happiness etc.). We are all evolved primates, after all, and can never completely escape our irrational tendencies. All we can do is put in the effort to compensate for them. This is something which still clearly separates us from the great majority of religions, where not showing faith or questioning ultimate authority is seen as a threat.
The easiest example to show this is with Abraham being told by God to sacrifice his son. At the very last moment when Abraham is about to perform the sacrifice, God sends an angel to stay his hand, and the potential murderer is praised for his faith. Now, any skeptical mind can see that this is an immoral and wicked story. The main point here is not simply to murder, it is actually more sinister than that: it advocates complete servility. “Obey me without question. If I ask you to kill your own family, you must do so without hesitation” – these words jump right off the page. Religious apologists always counter this by pointing out that God stopped Abraham from performing the act. God is benevolent, after all, and would never allow something so evil to actually take place.
Despite this objection, the yoke of evil within this story remains unbroken. God’s benevolence or malevolence is not what makes this immoral; it is Abraham’s obedience. Even though murdering his son is counter to what a benevolent God would want, the story is saying that Abraham should still be willing to perform the act. He has to actually have the will in his heart to do this in order for his faith to be validated – which is the purpose of this.
I hope anyone reading is skeptical enough to know how immoral this is. If you do not, then consider any mentally ill person who hears such voices in their head claiming to be God. As a student of Criminology, I can ensure you that there are more than a handful of murder cases where this exact thing happens. The parent is suffering from an undiagnosed mental illness, and hears a voice claiming to be God telling them to kill their children. Now, according to this story in the Bible, any person of faith who hears of this murder case cannot believe the parent’s willingness to kill children because of faith was wrong. It is tragic that it was not actually God commanding it (and was thus not there to stop the parent at the last moment), but the willingness to obey this evil command was not the issue. In the same way that Abraham would’ve killed his son if no one interfered, this parent has shown the same faith by killing their child - so says the honest religious person.
All counter arguments to this are unsatisfactory. The idea that “the parent should’ve known it was a false God” or “we’d know through God’s divine grace if he was really speaking to us” are not enough. Not only does this assume the act wasn’t commanded by God (something which may never be completely impossible for someone religious), but it also tries to have it both ways by defending a story which demands complete obedience to God’s word – except in those cases where you should be skeptical. After all, if the person knew it was the true God and knew that God is benevolent, and then there would be no need to “prove your faith” to begin with because the person would never believe the act was going to happen. The story of Abraham clearly tells us that obedience to God’s word should override all skepticism.
Are you starting to realize how faith can twist you into believing blatantly evil things? No reasonable person would ever consider this line of thinking as moral, nor would they approve of mental gymnastics to excuse these lessons as justified. Any sane person listening to an attempt at justifying this should respond by incredulously asking “Are you serious?”
So a person of faith must ask themselves: is God asking for children to be killed, or is this more likely the result of mental illness? If you say the latter, then it must be asked: wouldn’t it also be more likely that Abraham was mentally ill?
This example shows clearly what separates skeptics from religious obedience. Indeed, the word “Islam” itself can be translated as “submission”. Skeptics such as myself hold a very firm position: were it not for these calls for faith and obedience to a divine ruler, most would see that religious dogma is unreasonable. We now live in a world where robust scientific explanations are plentiful. Merely letting go of our religious biases and embracing these tested and proven discoveries quickly reveal an absence of God in the universe (or the lack of a necessity to impose one, at the very least).
This also works well to counter those that point to Stalin or Mao Zedong as examples of atheistic evil. “These men abandoned religion,” The apologists proclaims, “and they went on to kill millions of people. This shows the danger of abandoning God’s word.” No, it shows the danger of humans as ultimate authority instead of a religion. The lesson here is not to abandon skepticism, but to underline it. Submission to a dictator is as dangerous as submission to a God – and both have caused many deaths. The beauty of labeling yourself as a “skeptic” is that you are not defending every atheist good or bad, but a mindset that always searches for evidence and uses logic rather than faith and servitude.
My position is that the moment you apply a bit of skepticism and not fall into the demands that you be afraid or cower; that’s the moment you realize that the emperor has no clothes (whether the emperor is religion or a dictator). This is not a triumph of atheism; it is a triumph of skepticism. Critical thinking is a virtue to us, and to think freely and without restraint is our paradise. Nothing in this world is beyond being questioned, because no one in this world is perfect – that not only goes for the people we question, but also to ourselves. Since we are all imperfect, we must try to be as skeptical as we can.
Apologies for the length.
Thoughts? Opinions?
What value do you see in religious obedience?
Last edited:
