Let’s be honest: atheists have a lot going for them. They have home ground advantage: the world, here and now, and its past, presents itself as the experience of life. Every word spoken, every emotion arising, every action taken materialises in the finitude of this time and space we know as life. To ascribe any of such to a cause which is not of this material world seems irrational and unnecessary. Why overlook the obviously concrete nature of life and attempt to find a cause beyond what can be observed and experienced here?
This home side has many strings to its bow. The fact that humans have made so many developments in the world they inhabit points to a natural fit between them and it. From Neanderthal to the present, they have made continual use of its properties; an understanding of its physical nature, its laws, its systems has unlocked the rooms of a potential mansion; the more such developments occur, the more rapid the changes. Much of this change is rooted in the desire to live in this world more easily and securely, a logical and necessary response to the fact that we are physical beings living in a physical world.
The away side, the theists, have a formidable goal in front of them. They have not the surety of atheists who stand on a foundation which is not dependent on belief. Theism is based on belief: Christians believe in Jesus Christ, Muslims in Allah, Jews in Jehovah… the list goes on. What is common is not the god, but a belief. As no belief can be proved (no longer then a belief), they continue to tread water alongside or sometimes in opposition to one another. Atheists trump theists because they operate from knowledge: they know something of what constitutes the world and are continuing to find out more about what can be learnt and proved of it. As both theist and atheist live on earth and know their differences because of it, the latter will always have the advantage because the seen and known can be substantiated, whereas the unseen and believed cannot be.
Atheism makes life so much simpler, clearer and practical. Dispensing with the idea that life must have a meaning and purpose ordained by a divine creator, the atheist gets on with living and is unconcerned about the need to find a hidden or divine meaning for life. What he finds here is more than enough: it is up to him, if he so chooses, to find a purpose, or the opportunities which come with having to make an existence here, experience the dynamics of social interactions and enjoy the closeness of love and other fulfilments. As he does this, he has the chance to add value to this world, not a world beyond this one, an afterlife, which may not exist. His meaning is life itself, not a life fulfilling a god’s purpose. To live in the hope of a better life to come strikes him as showing a saddening lack of the ability to make the most of this one.
Another string to his bow is that the world can be enjoyed. The bleak idea (much like the idea that celebrities are often rich, very unhappy people) that, without god in one’s life, one is never really happy or at peace is peddled as a panacea that theists like to believe in. An atheist is not barred from laughter and delight in the world he lives in: he goes about it without the fear or hope of a god’s overseeing his every action; he lives with an energy commensurate with the knowledge that this life is all he gets.
Yet another string: the illogic of belief. Why do people look towards a god as being the route through life? Here is the world, here are human beings, equipped with a body to exist within it, and yet some want to look into space and attempt to hinge their life to some unseen, unknown and perhaps unknowable deity, basing actions and words to the articles of faith which the deity demands. Why look away from what is patently before their eyes, this world, and structure their existence with reference to what is not of this world, sometimes even denying opportunities which life presents almost in opposition to the fact that they are equipped with to live in this physical world with all its experiences, sensory, emotional and intellectual?
The unknown is not necessarily province of god: it can be known. History presents much evidence of this. In earlier times, the unknown phenomena of the planet, be they volcanoes, earthquakes, eclipses or diseases were often ascribed to the workings of unseen gods. Together with other inexplicable events, humans ascribed them to gods whose dreadful arbitrariness of action may be appeased by total devotion. Whether it was monotheism or polytheism, the belief was that these gods were in control of the earth and dispensed conditions upon it according to whim, imperious magnanimity or graciousness. As mankind has developed, however, scientific discovery has brought an understanding of these physical events, showing their cause to be of this world, not the divine. What was once frightening, mysterious and even requiring human sacrifices to appease it, has been uncloaked, analysed and understood to the extent that the dangers they once posed can be mitigated. Rationally speaking, the fact that, as humans have existed upon earth they have found out more and more about what was once the unknown probably means that there is nothing beyond life than its physical manifestations and that, as we continue to live here, life will become more and more understood, and we better adapted to it.
Speaking as an atheist is much simpler: one does not have to explain the freakish, disturbing and catastrophic phenomena which seem to contradict the existence of a divinity worth believing in. Deformities, mental aberrations, inexplicable diseases and other anomalies are part of the physical lottery of life, not yet understood but there for science to fathom and perhaps remedy. Not all can be remedied though. That bad things happen to good people is mere evidence that indifference to what happens on earth is the rule of the universe. Life simply is: justice is a human invention.
How much easier it is then, when life presents one of its tragedies, to approach these problems without one’s back to the wall attempting to defend the god in which one believes. Not only is it simpler but also less limiting because, without the problem of how a good god can allow such to happen, the mind is open to the facts as much as they can be understood and the problem approached rationally.
Theists often contend that, without the existence of god, all values are relative, leading to anyone’s assumption of what is right being valid for himself, even if not for another, and therefore not to be judged; values, they say, become valueless and moral mayhem threatens. This is a peculiar notion and needs to be challenged: it may operate from the assumption that people are born with original sin and so the society, unless regulated by the authority of a faceless god, will degenerate without such. It gives no credit to the ability of human beings to regulate themselves on this planet; it assumes that humans cannot arbitrate or discern and use the experience of life and history to work out laws and procedures which best serve their needs and desires. As knowledge develops about the world we live in, so can a better understanding of ethical problems and solutions. And is there not an absurdity when those of religious faith go to war or oppose each other, which they often do? If each one’s god is the source of right, then how it that one “right” stands in opposition to the other’s? Their god is fashioned according to their own priorities, just what they accuse those without belief of doing.
Not having to concern oneself with an afterlife also makes life simpler for an atheist. This is not due to knowing there is none, as it would be foolish to claim such knowledge, but because life on earth has more than enough to keep one from being bothered about it. Believing this life to be the only one does not mean living hedonistically or selfishly, not because punishment awaits such, but for the reason that life has a way of bringing unpleasant consequences upon those who indulge in thoughtless, reckless or anti-social actions. And if a person chooses to live destructively, then it is a collective responsibility to prevent such a lifestyle by sanctioning and punishing such actions.
In the present world, especially now with regards to its climate, we see that what human beings do here has consequences and it is up to us to find solutions to all problems, be they environmental, social, economic or ethical. There is no need to look to a god as the arbiter and guide towards our future. To use the knowledge we have of ourselves, the world and its possible future is a goal all should share. We live here: let’s make the most of ourselves on this planet.
P.S. For a counter view, see “Speaking as a theist”, in the Personal Reflections category.
