By: Sajia HallAs an organizing member of
AHA, the
UW-Madison organization for Atheists, Humanists and Agnostics, Nick Jikomes hears arguments against atheism all the time. One of the most common is that atheism requires belief and is therefore a religion.
Jikomes, however, has an answer. “There’s a common witticism that saying atheism is a religion is like saying bald is a hair color,” he said. “What people often mean by that is that atheism requires faith, which is just not the case. Atheists believe in reasoned arguments, and evidence is our basis for establishing whether something exists.”
Jikomes, a second-year genetics major, regularly organizes meetings and lectures on atheism-related topics. “I can’t be 100 percent sure that God doesn’t exist—to say so would be absurd, because you can’t disprove anything with absolute certainty,” he said. “I can’t disprove the Christian, Muslim or Hindu gods. I can’t disprove the Roman or Greek gods, or even the Smurfs. But it doesn’t take a leap of faith to deny the existence of such things.”
Be fruitful and multiplyAtheists and agnostics are a significant—and growing—section of the population. In 2001, the American Religious Identification Survey found that 14 percent of the U.S. population indentified as having no religion, which is nearly double from 8 percent in 1990. For young adults between the ages of 18 and 29, that number increases to 35 percent.
These numbers are no surprise to Annie Gaylor, co-president of the Freedom from Religion Foundation, a Madison-based association representing over 12,000 atheists and agnostics. “This new generation is much less religious than previous ones,” Gaylor said. “We’re very pleased about that, it’s a good sign.”
Likewise, AHA serves an important function on campus for both non-religious students and people questioning their faith.
“We get a lot of people who just aren’t quite sure where they stand, or religious people who want to hear different viewpoints. It’s not an exclusive group,” Jikomes said. “AHA is important because most non-religious students grew up in religious households, and before college, never had a place where they could go and discuss [such] things. In AHA you can hear views and discuss things you might never have been able to.”
Andrew Wier, a second-year law student and a leading member of the Christian legal society, believes that having AHA on campus is a good thing.
“Any people have the right to organize. I think it’s great that we have a country where people can get together and discuss things,” Wier said. “I disagree with them fundamentally when it comes to religion, but that doesn’t mean that we can’t have some great friendships and discussions.”
However, according to Jikomes, it’s not always easy being an atheist. Despite the growing numbers of non-religious people, misconceptions and stereotypes linger. “It’s a common misconception that atheists are hedonistic nihilists, who are bitter and unhappy people,” he said. “Many would say that we are inherently immoral, which is not true.” Another common misconception about atheism is that atheists have extreme left-wing political views.
“Being a non-religious person doesn’t necessarily entail a political stance,” Jikomes said. “Prominent atheists, both liberal and conservative, have been supporters of the [Iraq] War.” Nevertheless, the Pew Forum, an organization which studies religion and public affairs in the United States, found that people who identify as having no religion are more likely to belong to the Democratic Party.
Not just for the leftOne reason for this political persuasion is that atheism is closely related to secularism, the belief that government institutions should be separate from religious beliefs.
“People are free to believe whatever they want,” Jikomes said. “The problem is when they apply their religious beliefs to society at large. This is the reason the Constitution says that Congress shall make no law affirming or denying religion. We don’t make laws in our modern society based on religious belief.”
Wier disagrees. “If you believe that religious beliefs should not be present in government then you reject a great deal of morals. I think that’s a double standard, that one person’s worldview would be more acceptable than others’ as the basis of laws.”
Wier is not alone in this perspective; according to the American Religious Identification Survey, 75 percent of American adults describe their views as religious, while 16 percent identify as secular.
The Freedom from Religion Foundation is a firm supporter of secularism—as an organization, they promote the separation of church and state and regularly file lawsuits toward that end. In 1984, the Freedom from Religion Foundation filed a lawsuit against the UW-Madison, attempting to remove a question regarding religious preference from the registration forms. In response, the university ultimately decided to remove the question.
“What has already happened in Western Europe is finally seeping into our culture: an increased respect for secularism and a fear of theocracy,” Gaylor said. “Students today are choosing progress. They are choosing Darwin over Genesis and choosing to use their minds, rather than see our country become any more dumbed down.”
Todd Brogan is a junior communication arts major and a member of the Baha’i religious organization on campus. The real problem, Brogan said, is not with religion, but with beliefs that are violent and intolerant.
“There are atheist states, like communist China, and religious ones, like Iran, which kill people every day,” Brogan said.
Atheists turn the other cheek
Ethics, like politics, are another point of contention. Jikomes believes that humans, rather than an external deity, determine ethics.
“I think that saying ‘Well, God says so’ is an easy and shallow way of determining right from wrong,” he said. “Secular ethics isn’t about doing something because you were told to. It’s about doing good for its own sake, because it is, in itself, the right thing to do.”
Wier has a different view. “[Christians] treat people well because they are creations of God. It’s harder to find reasons that don’t rest on pragmatism without that foundation,” he said. “Ethics should be about treating people well, and not just because you feel like it.”
Nevertheless, despite differences in beliefs, both Weir and Jikomes believe that religious and non-religious people can find common ground. “It’s possible to lead an ethical life as a law-abiding citizen and to treat people well regardless of whether God exists,” Weir said. “It’s in the philosophical underpinnings that the reason for this ethics becomes different.”
Jikomes agrees. “What’s really important to atheists and non-religious people is that we have good reasons and evidence for believing the things we do,” he said. “Atheists aren’t looking to ride on the street and destroy religion. Anyone is entitled to believe what they want, and they should exercise that freedom.”
STORY LINK
All life forms intake water in some manner, and do so in the same manner each time. Is a dog lapping water performing a ritual by choice, or as a biological imperative? Is a fish hydrating by osmosis religious?
Jumping Jesus on a pogo stick, man, to call a normal biological function a ritual and equate it to beliefs is just plain wrong. I mean, I have heard toilets refered to as "the throne" and "altar of puke," but I hardly thing the biological functions for which it was designed rise to the level of ritual, belief, or religion. Unless, that is, one subscribes to some VERY weird beliefs.
I take it you're religious. Oh, pardon, that should be I take it that you're a Christian. So, according to you atheists are religious because any significant act, like drinking water, repeated over and over again institutes a religion.
Well, Stephen Richard, I, like you and anyone else, take a shit every morning. My facial expression whilst doing this is usually one of extreme mindlessness. Rather like yours when you, oh, take holy communion.
So, by your own admission, the Christian faith is exactly the same as taking a shit.
Ah Christians.. Gotta love them.
You know what, Stephen Richard, I will do you a favour and point out the (obvious) flaw in your reasoning.
Drinking water to prohibit dehydration is not a ritual, nor is taking a shit one. Why? Because these things are necessary to sustain life, and a ritual is *per definition* an *symbolic* and *cultural* act. An act which carry meaning separated from the mundane.
There are traditional rituals (rites of passage for instance; birthdays with cakes and candles and such, but even shaking hands when you meet somebody is a ritual) and there are religious rituals, and in Real Life, it is true, these two often overlap.
The purposes of rituals are varied; they include compliance with religious obligations or ideals, satisfaction of spiritual or emotional needs of the practitioners, strengthening of social bonds, demonstration of respect or submission, stating one's affiliation, obtaining social acceptance or approval for some event — or, sometimes, just for the pleasure of the ritual itself.
In short, the purpose of a ritual is cultural, but it is also hard-wired in our brains. We evolved, after all, in a social species, and we need the hard-wiring to function as a member of a social species.
B.F. Skinner did an experiment with pigeons once. He had taught pigeons before to play a tune on a toy piano by rewarding them with food every time they hit the right keys, but he now tried to find out what would happen if he were to reward the pigeons *at random*. An amazing thing happened: a signicant percentage of the pigeons had developed 'superstitions'. If they had, for instance, flapped their wings and the feeder had at that time released some food, they would continue flapping their wings to make the feeder feed them. The birds behaved as if there were a causal relation between its behavior and the presentation of food, although such a relation was lacking.
You might think that the pigeons had found religion, but the simple truth is that living creatures like pigeons (or humans) are hardwired by evolution to react to their surroundings and make sense of it. Because by making sense of one's surroundings you could try to predict what happens next and trying to predict what happens next is essential if you're in the Serengeti and you might be eaten by a lion if you don't interpret the signs (smell, sounds, rustling of the bushes) correctly. So we need this hardwiring to function. But it can also work against us. We can interpret correlations with cause.
Where you went wrong, Stephen Richard, is:
a) you equated rituals with religion, which is wrong. Religion has rituals, but something having rituals does not mean it's a religion (all dogs have four legs and a tail, but not all creatures with four legs and a tail are dogs)
b) you equated bodily functions with rituals, which is wrong. Rituals are symbolic. Bowel movements are not.
c) Even though you displayed extreme relativety by equating drinking water to dehydrate the body with religion (an interesting analogue btw: do you try to imply that believing in some God is as necessary to our survival as drinking water?) you end your entry with 'the source of all evil is moral relativety'.
By your own admission, you are the source of all evil!
Erm - if you use religious beliefs in government are you also not taking the view "that one person's worldview would be more acceptable than others' as the basis of laws"?
Up until the 18th century, most European governments used Christianity as the basis of their laws, leading to horrendous discrimination against Jews, people who didn't attend church, people who didn't attend "the right kind of" church, ... I don't see that lack of discrimination applied by any religious government nowadays - Iran being an obvious example.
The problem is, Mr Weir, is that Christians don't treat people well. I have found this to be true more often than not. I have found my fellow freethinkers to be moral and ethical almost to a fault, and Christians not particularly trustworthy. Just look at the prisons -- overflowing with "Christians" and hardly an atheist in sight.
Also, what's wrong with doing right because it feels right to do so? Seems as pure a motive as one could hope for!
That's about the stupidest fucking thing I've ever heard. Treating people well because you want is the way it should be. That's what really makes one a good person as opposed to someone who does good deeds just to appease an angry god or out of hopes of being rewarded in the afterlife. Xians can be such self-righteous bastards.