More about God, atheism

We need to talk about such matters

Iwas delighted that three readers were sufficiently moved by my Jan. 16 article about atheism and happiness to submit a responding article or letter. It’s a discussion worth having and should be continued. Furthermore, it’s important to disagree agreeably. I will respond to some of the published points and add a few thoughts.

Lou Mahaffey (letters, Jan. 22) suggests that those who don’t believe in God just “make up” their own philosophy. I agree in the sense that every philosophy about life’s meaning and purpose, including religious philosophies, is authored only by humans. But a successful philosophy of life is neither arbitrary nor quickly “made up.” It is surely self-evident that life is glorious and worth living and that one should live it well. It seems reasonable to many of us that one should live one’s life to maximize one’s own happiness and the happiness of others. Humans and many species could not prosper or even survive without helping each other.

This prescription is neither easy nor arbitrary. Long-term happiness requires considerable discipline, honesty, knowledge of oneself, and careful judgment. Effective altruism requires knowledge of the world, an understanding of what can help, and the energy to provide help. This must be based on evidence and reason.

I certainly support Scott Palmer’s notion (“Does life have meaning?,” Jan. 23) that disagreements should always be cordial. More than ever, America needs to agree to disagree. He suggests that it’s hard to understand how the universe started from nothing. Our universe probably started from the quantum vacuum, which is “nothing” in the literal sense that the vacuum contains “no things” such as apples or atoms, but it does contain enormous energy.

Palmer is probably correct in observing that Christianity is declining in Europe and the U.S. because people are not inspired by what they see Christians doing and saying.

Kevin Elsken (Jan. 26) makes the important point that, strictly speaking, atheists should not simply declare that God doesn’t exist. They should instead declare that it is overwhelmingly probable that God doesn’t exist. I agree, and I plead guilty to Elsken’s charge. Richard Dawkins makes precisely the same point in his fine book “The God Delusion.” The concept of “God” is far too large and malleable for anybody to conclude that she (I have always assumed God would be female) exists, or does not exist, with 100% certainty.

More importantly, religion’s main problem is its adherents’ certainty. I agree with Christians, for example, that Jesus was a good man with advanced views for his time, who had deep insight into the human heart. But I find it unbelievable that he was born of a virgin, or rose from the dead, or flew up into heaven. He was human. He seems to have thought he was the son of God, but he was wrong about that. Humans are often wrong about important matters. Two thousand years ago, we knew less.

It is the believers’ absolute certainty, their “faith,” that is the problem. Such vehement certainty sends Christians, Muslims, Jews and Hindus against each other. If there is such a thing as evil, it is warfare.

What the world needs now is sweet reason. It’s sometimes called “scientific literacy,” but it’s bigger than science. “Reason” is the ability to follow evidence to form rational conclusions to personal, social and scientific issues. Rather than going to war over political and religious abstractions, we must solve real problems like global warming and hunger.

To be more specific, the belief in God is not the core of the religion’s problem. The problem is the nonsense and fighting fostered by the belief in God.

As I’ve already suggested, there may be something out there meriting the title “God.” If churches, mosques, synagogues and temples would give up the miracles and the narrow traditions they believe “must” be observed to please God, even while retaining the God belief, perhaps these institutions could provide a net benefit to our planet rather the net harmful effect they now have. Religions provide many good services — counseling, social interactions, et cetera.

In my opinion, the stories of miracles are devastating to humankind. Impossible beliefs soften our brains at the very moment we most need to think through things based on verified evidence to resolve the world’s many problems. The religious problems — Christians versus Muslims, for example — are a consequence purely of our imaginations. If God exists, she must have given us our brains. In that case, she surely wants us to use our brains to prevent wars, especially religious wars.