Atheism

Philosophers without Gods: Meditations on Atheism and the Secular Life edited by Louise M. Antony (Oxford University Press) Atheists are frequently demonized as arrogant intellectuals, antagonistic to religion, devoid of moral sentiments, advocates of an "anything goes" lifestyle. Now, in this revealing volume, nineteen leading philosophers open a window on the inner life of atheism, shattering these common stereotypes as they reveal how they came to turn away from religious belief. These highly engaging personal essays capture the marvelous diversity to be found among atheists, providing a portrait that will surprise most readers. Many of the authors, for example, express great affection for particular religious traditions, even as they explain why they cannot, in good conscience, embrace them. None of the contributors dismiss religious belief as stupid or primitive, and several even express regret that they cannot, or can no longer, believe. Perhaps more important, in these reflective pieces, they offer fresh insight into some of the oldest and most difficult problems facing the human mind and spirit. For instance, if God is dead, is everything permitted? Philosophers without Gods demonstrates convincingly, with arguments that date back to Plato, that morality is independent of the existence of God. Indeed, every writer in this volume adamantly affirms the objectivity of right and wrong. Moreover, they contend that secular life can provide rewards as great and as rich as religious life. A naturalistic understanding of the human condition presents a set of challenges--to pursue our goals without illusions, to act morally without hope of reward--challenges that can impart a lasting value to finite and fragile human lives. Collectively, these essays highlight the richness of atheistic belief--not only as a valid alternative to religion, but as a profoundly fulfilling and moral way of life.

Who are atheists? What do they believe? Can life be meaningful without religious belief? Is belief in God necessary to be moral? Should we respect religious views we don't agree with? Is religion dangerous?

Philosophers without Gods: Meditations on Atheism and the Secular Life is a collection of essays by twenty leading philosophers from the United States and Britain, all of whom reject traditional religious faith and endorse the secular life.

In the Introduction, editor Louise M. Antony, Professor of Philosophy at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst, writes, "A naturalistic understanding of the human condition reveals a set of heroic challenges--to pursue our goals without illusions, to act morally without hope of reward--challenges that, if taken up, can impart a durable value to finite and fragile human lives."

Permit me to coin a word: "anthropodicy." Whereas theodicy is "the defense of God's goodness and omnipotence in view of the existence of evil" (Meriam-Webster Dictionary), anthropodicy is the rational defense of non-theistic, secular humanism. The philosophers in this volume present anthropodictic arguments for living without "gods."

Liberal theologians argue that there is no real conflict between science and religion, reason and faith. Many of them also accept the Darwinian theory of evolution and reject the claim made by Fundamentalists that the world was created by God some six thousand years ago.

Many traditional Christians, however, subscribe to a literal, fundamentalist creed that accepts Scripture as verbally inspired and infallible, and that seeks to excuse their God for the evil and suffering in the world, or, even worse, justify the God who perpetuates infinite evil by punishing billions of unbelievers eternally in the fiery, smoke-charred pits of hell.

"Religious faith," writes Jonathan E. Adler in his essay "Faith and Fanaticism," is fertile ground for fanaticism." History has revealed such fanaticism in the tortures inflicted by the Inquisition, the witch hunts, and the cruelties of slavery, all endorsed by religious fanatics. In the present day, we witness religious fanaticism in the form of suicide bombers encouraged by radical Islamic fundamentalists.

Fanatical religious beliefs breeds fanatical political and military actions. Some extremist fundamentalists even look forward with joy and rapture to an imminent Armageddon, and savor the sword-rattlings and military imperialisms as "signs" of the coming desired end--an annihilation of the forces of evil infidels.

"The great unmentionable evil at the center of our culture," Gore Vidal once wrote, "is monotheism. From a barbaric Bronze Age text known as the Old Testament, three anti-human religions have evolved--Judaism, Christianity, Islam." And Havelock Ellis wrote, "The whole religious complexion of the modern world is due to the absence from Jerusalem of a lunatic asylum."

The best chapter in the book is the essay by Elizabeth Anderson, "If God Is Dead, Is Everything Permitted?" The implications of such a question are that atheists are arrogant intellectuals, antagonistic to religion, devoid of moral sentiments, and advocates of an "anything goes" lifestyle.

On the contrary, writes Anderson, "If we take the evidence for theism with utmost seriousness, we will find ourselves committed to the proposition that the most heinous acts are permitted." She gives a lengthy list, a scathing indictment, of the atrocities sanctioned by Scripture, both the Old and New Testaments. Hard-core fundamentalists who accept biblical inerrancy should be appalled by blood-curdling accounts of such an evil, sadistic God.

"I see the celebration of irrationality everywhere in popular culture," writes Louise Antony. "Our struggle as a species [is] to claim our rationality, to confront the harsh realities that constrain us, and to acknowledge our own responsibility." In other words, we need to become clear-thinking individuals, rather than sheep who blindly follow the alleged authority of a book that is more than two millennia old.

If one listens carefully, one can hear these professors of philosophy crying out, "For goodness' sake, people: Think! Get a mind of your own! Grow up! Get a real life! We're living in the 21st century, not the superstitious Dark Ages. Get rid of your bizarre, incredible dogmas, miracles, and prophecies, and adopt a rational, scientific world view.

More than an attack on theism, Philosophers without Gods: Meditations on Atheism and the Secular Life is an effort to describe the non-religious view of the well-lived life. The writers challenge us to become adults in our thinking and living, to put aside our childish hopes and fears, and to conduct ourselves with intellectual honesty and moral integrity.

The Little Book of Atheist Spirituality by Andre Comte-Sponville (Author), translated by Nancy Huston (Viking) Can we do without religion? Can we have ethics without God? Is there such thing as “atheist spirituality”? In this powerful book, the internationally bestselling author André Comte-Sponville presents a philosophical exploration of atheism—and comes to some startling conclusions. According to Comte-Sponville, we have allowed the concept of spirituality to become intertwined with religion, and thus have lost touch with the nature of a true spiritual existence. In order to change this, however, we need not reject the ancient traditions and values that are part of our heritage; rather, we must rethink our relationship to these values and ask ourselves whether their significance comes from the existence of a higher power or simply the human need to connect to one another and the universe. Comte-Sponville offers rigorous, reasoned arguments that take both Eastern and Western philosophical traditions into account, and through his clear, concise, and often humorous prose, he offers a convincing treatise on a new form of spiritual life.

Religion, whether it's Jewish, Muslim or Christian, is embedded in Western tradition and has nurtured and inspired individuals as well as societies throughout history. For these cultures, spirituality has become synonymous with a belief in God. Yet in The Little Book of Atheist Spirituality, Andre Comte­Sponville asks whether we can do without religion and explores the possibility of leading a fulfilling and spiritual life in the absence of faith.

Comte-Sponville references Eastern systems of belief which he considers to be a mixture of spirituality, ethics, and philosophy that are centered more on human beings and nature than on a transcendent God. He also examines the way that democratic societies can live peacefully, respecting powerful principles, without reference to God. He does not urge us to reject our ancient traditions, rather to rethink our relationship to these customs and values, and ask ourselves whether their significance comes from the existence of a higher power, or simply the human need to connect to one another and the universe around us.

Comte-Sponville uses his own experience as a child raised in a Catholic home to illustrate how he came to discover the possibility of an "atheist spirituality" because as he argues—morality, ethics, and spirituality are human inventions. He reveals that we can question our need for faith without surrendering the deep-seated values that we have mistakenly associated with religion and offers reasoned arguments informed by some of the most influential philosophers in our Western tradition like Rousseau, Kant, Montaigne, Wittgenstein, and, surprisingly, the Old and New Testaments.

At the same time, his prose is infused with lightness and humor making The Little Book of Atheist Spirituality an accessible and straightforward treatise on the question of God's existence. Given the controversy in America over religion and belief, Comte-Sponville presents timely and convincing arguments that add new perspective to the concept of atheism that will interest fans of Richard Dawkins and Daniel Dennett while also providing an ideal introduction to the topic for those who are curious.

The Little Book of Atheist Spirituality is the perfect antidote to the fiery rhetoric that dominates our current national debate on religion. 

Interview with André Comte Sponville by Antoine Audouard, Paris, October 2007  

Atheists are often described as "angry" people. Do you see yourself this way? 

Recently, a young French philosopher I was corresponding with reproached me for my moderation. He was himself an apostle of a hateful brand of atheism, such that his talent seemed to me inextricably linked with his anger. This is not the emotion that drives me. As is true for many, I rebelled against my father; but I forgave him long ago, and if you can forgive your father, it is relatively easy to forgive the Catholic Church! Joke aside, it really seems to me that in this case anger is of poor council. It draws a line in the sand between believers and non­believers, sending all believers into the camp of undeserving fanatics. In my view this is a tragic error! Confronted with the essential questions, this divide is better drawn between free spirits, open, tolerant—whether they are believers or non-believers—and dogmatic spirits, fundamentalists, fanatics. My book is one of peace, and at the same time of combat. It is a message of combat against the two principle dangers which threaten us: fanaticism and nihilism. But it is a message of peace for all free and tolerant spirits, regardless of their religious, or irreligious, beliefs. It is of crucial importance that they form an alliance, to fight together against the barbarity which threatens us. 

All the same, are there not certain questions where the fact of believing or not believing is, in effect, a point of division, and even of fracture? 

On the questions with which I am principally concerned—the dual danger of fanaticism and nihilism, to which I would add a preoccupation (perhaps more European) with a resurgence of fascism—I do not think this is so. There are questions of sexual morality, of course, and debates on euthanasia, which are important issues, but I do not consider them to be decisive. As for the debate in certain American schools surrounding the teaching of evolutionary theory, this seems to me an attempt at obscurantism, though marginal. An attempt at which I know that America has not yet succumbed, thankfully! Many Christians, including Christians in the United States, refuse to confuse matters of faith with matters of science. 

How about abortion? 

That is a much more complex question than we often give it credit for. For my part, I favor the Veil law, which legalized abortion in France thirty years ago. But I understand that the death of thousands of embryos each year is a moral problem. It is a form of European hypocrisy to cry horror at the death penalty, when we accept abortion with a light heart: I would like to say, in more general terms that for these questions disagreement is natural and acceptable, so long as the liberty of the individual is guaranteed, which seems overall to be the case in European countries and in the United States. The State, in a democracy, is there to guarantee the freedoms of individuals, and not to support the conscience of its citizenry. If a Christian, for example, considers homosexuality to be a sin that is his right. As it is my right to disagree with him. This does not hinder either of us from defending the rights of homosexuals. In matters of morality, we should be humble enough to limit ourselves to saying "I"; for when it comes to society as a whole, what we need are the boundaries of the law and a general spirit of mutual tolerance. 

You seem to say in your book, in departure from other atheist writers such as Richard Dawkins or Sam Harris, that what separates atheists from believers is not really important... 

It's true, in any case, from the point of view of morality and politics. On my way out of one of my conferences, a catholic priest approached me to congratulate me: "I agree with everything you say," he commented. As I pointed out to him that we were separated by faith in God, he observed with a smile that this difference wasn't all that important. And I agree. As far as politics are concerned, in the face of current dangers, I tend to find myself in the same camp as many moderate Christians—as well as with many Muslims who call for democracy and tolerance. As for morality, what makes the value of a human life is not belief or disbelief in God; it is the capacity for love, for justice and courage. What believer, if he lost his faith, would say to his children, "I recommend that you lie, rather than tell the truth; to steal, to betray, to kill"? None, obviously! I am particularly sensitive to this, not only because common morality unites most religions, but also because I was raised in Christianity, and I do not feel the need in any way to reject that cultural, moral and spiritual heritage. The Gospels remain for me, as for Spinoza or Camus, a source of constant inspiration. Among the dozen great philosophers who have marked western history, the majority were Christians. The first philosopher I read—and perhaps the last that I will read—was Pascal. Would it be necessary to say that Helvetius, a contemporary of Kant, is more important than him because he was a materialist? Would it be necessary, since I no longer believe in God, to spit on three thousand years of Judeo-Christian civilization? This would be ridiculous. I am an atheist, but a faithful atheist.

A fidelity which others might qualify as "unfaithful"! 

I would like to illustrate my point with an anecdote. A short time ago I was reunited with a friend who I had not seen since my days as a student. At that time he was an atheist. We went for a drink, and he told me that he was Jewish and that he had since started returning to the synagogue. I asked him, "So, now you believe in God?" He answered me with a smile. "You know, for a Jew, to believe in God or not is not really the important question." It wasn't reasonable, he explained to me, to base his entire existence on the answer to a question which was unanswerable in terms of absolute knowledge (does God exist or not?). If my friend feels and desires to be Jewish, it is not because he believes in God, but because he feels linked to a certain history, a certain community, a certain tradition—not in the name of faith, but in the name of fidelity. 

What is the nature of your own fidelity? 

I am faithful to the tradition and culture that are mine, because I find in them a continuing source of inspiration and wisdom. For singers, poets and writers with whom I feel an affinity, I do not ask they are card-bearers in religion or irreligion. I believe that between religions and atheist philosophies there may be a human convergence: it is the same essential values which drive us and allow us to live together. When I say that I do not believe in God, I am simply saying that the hypothesis of a creator God, transcendent and exterior to this world, is not necessary to my life, my morality or my spirituality. But I do not think that the opposite hypothesis, provided that it is free of dogmatism or fundamentalism, is in itself a threat to the world. 

Is your use of the term spirituality not paradoxical? 

The third part of my book is devoted entirely to this question. I believe it is necessary to avoid all confusion on this matter. It is erroneous to say that a non-believer cannot have spirituality. What is spirituality? It is the life of the spirit. Atheists do not have any less spirit than others. Why would they have less spirituality? Why would we be less interested in a spiritual life? Spirituality is too important to abandon it to religion. If someone asked me, "Does the spirit exist?" my response would obviously be yes. Spirit is the power to think, to love, to laugh. If it did not exist, we could not question its existence! As the French philosopher Alain, who was an atheist like me, used to say, "the spirit is not a hypothesis"; a hypothesis can only be formed within a being endowed with a spirit. And simply because I am an atheist, should I "castrate my soul" ? Obviously not. The real question, therefore, is not whether the spirit exists or not (which it clearly does), but whether it is a metaphysical substance or a product of the brain. I believe in the second hypothesis, with takes nothing away from the greatness of the spirit, or the depth of the spiritual experience, as witnessed by ancient wisdoms: for example the Epicureans or Stoics, or oriental spirituality, especially Buddhism and Taoism. 

You recall in your book a personal mystic experience. 

The strongest experience that I have lived, one of an unparalleled intensity, happened during a walk in the forest. I lived an experience of fullness, of serenity, of simplicity, of eternity, of beatitude, as if I was suddenly at the heart of the absolute, at the heart of mystery and of clarity, at the heart of everything. I have lived nothing since either as strong or as happy. Under one form or other, one name or other, the mystical experience is a fundamental human experience, with or without religion—some even go as far to say that mysticism is an enemy of religion. The feeling of being one with the world, that which Freud calls "the oceanic feeling," is an experience that is open to everyone.

Richard Dawkins declared, in all seriousness, that to be an atheist today is a bit like being gay twenty years ago.

I believe in this case there is a big difference between Europe and the United States. Atheism (and even more, declared atheism) is still very much in the minority in the U.S., which might explain this statement. But in many European countries, it is just the opposite. In French universities during the 60's and 70's, the real handicap was to admit to being a believer. Nietzsche, Marx and Freud were kings in that era. The philosophers we were reading, those who exerted an enduring influence on my generation, were Sartre and Camus, then Foucault, Deleuze, Althusser: all atheists! The tendency today is the other way around; atheists themselves recognize the importance and influence of religious philosophers, whether they are Jewish, like Emmanuel Levinas, or Christian, like Paul Ricoeur. To me, it is a sign of accrued tolerance in the intellectual sphere, and a reason to rejoice. 

This greater European tolerance seems quite desirable. Does it harbor any dangers? 

Yes, without a doubt. The principal danger is that of nihilism. Certain individuals, because they no longer believe in God, draw the conclusion that nothing has value, that "everything is false, everything is permitted", as Nietzshe said. Others, who tolerate everything, have concluded that everything has value. But, if everything has value, then nothing is valuable: it is no longer tolerance, but nihilism! My friend Nancy Huston, who was an inspiration for this book and who was kind enough to translate it into English, wrote an excellent book on this subject. We run the risk of being overwhelmed by what she calls "professors of despair"; people who are often talented who put themselves to the service of sadness, disgust, cowardice, and despair. It is, if you like, the opposite and twin danger of fundamentalism. I prefer authors who inspire us to live and to fight! And if there is, for the atheist, something desperate in the human condition, let us have rather what I would call a joyful despair. Just because death will have the last word, this is no reason to stop enjoying life! 

What was your reaction to the cartoons of the prophet Mohamed? 

I regretted, as I still do, that they were not published more widely, and that for political/religious reasons, freedom of expression was limited. I saw the cartoons, and to be honest judged them to be relatively mediocre. But they were not scandalous, in and of themselves; they did not attack the dignity of man. It was a deplorable act of self-censure. Another example which was undoubtedly less talked about in the United States, was the "Redeker affair" in France; Professor Redeker, a French philosophy teacher received death threats because he criticized Islam in an article published in Le Figaro. The article itself, which provoked these threats, seemed to me, once again, mediocre. But I was deeply shocked by the threats and I voiced my solidarity with Professor Redeker. By nature, I am not a blasphemer, but I consider blasphemy to be a right. One has the right, in our country, to be anti-fascist, anti-communist, anti-liberal. Why do we not have the right to be anti-clerical, anti-Muslim or anti-Christian? We are threatened by the danger of "phobo-phobia", the phobia of phobias, the refusal of refusal, the hatred of all hate. We have the right to not accept everything! In France, a catholic member of Parliament was sentenced by a court of law because he declared that, according to his religious convictions, homosexuality was morally inferior to heterosexuality. I do not share his ideas, as you can imagine, but the idea that the law would interfere in this, or that he does not have the right to express this opinion, is not acceptable to me. If one no longer has the right to be Christian in our countries, where are we heading? We must take care not to sacrifice liberty of conscience and opinion in the name of political correctness. 

Atheist philosophers and scientists, like Spinoza or Einstein, have used the term "God" without believing in it. What do you think of this? 

I believe that it is more complicated than that. You do not find for either one a clear affirmation of their atheism. When Einstein wrote that "God does not play dice", when Spinoza wrote that "God is a thinking thing", these are not declarations of atheism. I believe that their "God" is not—in contrast to the God of believers—of a transcendant nature. It is an imminent intelligence, but not a creator God, a transcendent being. Let us say it is a form of pantheism. My belief – or shall I say disbelief? – is of a different kind. I do not believe in God, nor do I believe in a Nature endowed with intelligence. If Nature had the ability to think of itself, it would be another name for God. The fact is, Nature is intelligible; but this does not mean that it is intelligent. 

Is your book directed to believers or non-believers? 

I do not proselytize. I do not wish to convert anyone. I ask only that I be left to not believe in peace, and that my arguments be submitted to discussion. For this reason, I humbly think that my book may appeal to believers, especially the first two parts, as well as non-believers, particularly the third part. I do not seek to sap belief from the first group, but I want to show them that non-belief is also based on serious philosophy, and that religion is not necessary for the balance of civilization or for the existence of collective or personal morality. As for non­believers, I want to tell them there is nothing scandalous, quite the contrary, in accepting the religious traditions from which they have often come, in sharing the values of the civilization to which they belong, and that they can have a spiritual life, regardless of all dogma and all religion. To each I propose a form of tolerance, of mutual moderation, but also a spiritual adventure. 

If love does not come from God, then where does it come from? 

Why do we love? Because once we were loved. The grace of being loved precedes the grace of loving and creating love. We were loved first, most often, by our parents, enough to understand that love is of supreme value, enough to understand that without this love we would be perpetually frustrated, perpetually at a loss. We have been loved by our mother, by our father, who did not know us, who owed us nothing, and who loved us, for the first and last time in our lives, unconditionally. God, from my point of view, is a sublimation of this love. It is that which renders him at once illusory and respectable, a sort of "transfigured father" (an expression of Freud) that humanity invented in order to reassure itself, to console itself, to control itself... For me, love is so strong that I do not need to believe in anything else, and yet is too fragile for me to believe in its immortality. I love it all the more: this strength and fragility, it is the most moving part of humanity.

Atheists: A Groundbreaking Study of America's Nonbelievers by Bruce E. Hunsberger, Bob Altemeyer (Prometheus Books) Hunsberger is one of the few researchers to look deeply into the soul (or should I say mind?) of an atheist, and what his studies show will be both pleasing and disturbing to nonbelievers and believers alike. The authors descriptions and conclusions are clear, brief and to the point.

Let's make one thing perfectly clear. Surveys show that atheists are the most disliked people who log into the American debates on religion, so much so that it will be hard for any researcher to accurately gauge the attitudes of the ordinary American disbeliever. But Hunsberger, who is highly respected for his research on right-wing authoritarianism, comes to some fairly high and complimentary conclusions, and he does this by studying 253 "active" atheists who are affiliated with atheist clubs in the San Francisco area. He compares these politically motivated protectors of our separation-of-church-from-state laws with a small group of 28 atheists belonging to clubs in Alabama and Idaho and to an equally small group of "ordinary" atheists and fundamentalists in Canada.

Of the active atheists, he found with great surprise that they can be as dogmatic and close-minded as the staunchest bible-thumping Protestant. Of course, it isn't surprising that members at opposite ends of any religious, philosophical, scientific, or political belief system would tend to dismiss those who strongly disagree with them. However, they are far less authoritarian than fundamentalists, and far more likely to encourage a wider variety of religious beliefs throughout the world. They have less racial and ethnic prejudice when compared to agnostics, non-church-going believers, and fundamentalists.

More than 70% of the fundamentalists expressed hostility toward homosexuals but I was dismayed that nearly a third of the atheist group did the same (they were only slightly less hostile than agnostics). Atheists, however were far less interested in converting other people to their way of thinking than fundamentalists, who believed that Christian beliefs should be taught in American schools, but didn't believe that Muslim beliefs should be taught in Middle-Eastern schools. Hmm, a little hypocritical, yes?  

This survey research is not based on a scientific sample. Atheists are few, so that it is not possible to draw a random sample to interview. The authors have to rely on the membership of atheist clubs in San Francisco, in Idaho, and in Alabama. So we only learn about active atheists, who are members of atheist organizations. The authors also sort their psychology students into "raised in religion" and "raised secular." From interviews with the parents they can draw some insights about the differences between believers and unbelievers.

We learn a lot about real atheists. Most of all that many did not grow up secular but were raised in the Church. The majority left the Christian religion because the church, the bible and the teachings made no rational sense. The world simply is not as religion describes it, nor does god appear to exist. Most unbelievers (96%) have no doubt about atheism, in contrast 33 percent of Christian admit to some doubt about their god.

This short and humorous book (Hunsberger does a wonderful job of not burdening the reader with statistical academia) explores how and why some people gravitate towards atheism, and surmises that ordinary atheists resist abuses of governmental power, believe in less harsh punishments for wrong-doers, show more integrity in their thinking than the average individual, and are relatively unprejudiced. Not bad for the most despised (non)religious group in America! One could say it offers a realistic assessment of atheists.