Theism or Atheism: Does it Matter?

by Madeleine Kando

Christopher Hitchens died last week. His book 'God is Not Great' was a best-seller and put him on top of the list of a hand-full of famous Atheists that include three of my favorite authors: Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris and Steven Pinker. He was passionate in his attacks on religion and his wit and gift for words made him an incredibly fascinating debater.

He did not shy away from stepping into the lions' den of the Intelligent Design community where he debated people like William Lane Craig, a particularly aggressive theologian. Because of Craig’s eloquently distorted views on issues such as morality and 'scientific' proof of the existence of God, it was not an easy task.

Intelligent Design is based on the following circular argument: Complexity can only be created by design. Biology is complex, therefore biology was created by design. But many complex systems are created by chance, not by design. A good example is my desk where I am typing this essay. It is so complex, in fact, that it takes me hours to find anything at all. And it certainly hasn't gotten that way by design.

Half of Americans do not believe in evolution. They do believe in religious dogma. So there is no lack of ‘believing’ on their part. But they cannot accept the fact that blind chance and the absence of divine purpose is what makes the world go around.

Hitchens was not just an Atheist. He represented a world-view that I share. He was a Secular Humanist and believed that rational thinking is better at explaining the world than religious dogma.

Because, according to Darwin, evolution has no goal or purpose other than reproducing and following the law of the ‘survival of the fittest’, humans chose to give life meaning. This is because that was how they evolved: giving life meaning was an adaptive device by an otherwise purposeless natural selection.

This is an amazing statement, if you really think about it. Life and survival have no purpose. They just ARE. Isn’t that an incredibly liberating idea?

But what about our sense of morality? Creationists like to argue that without God all bets are off. Good and bad are up for grabs and that is why they call unbelievers 'lost souls'. Without God, everyone is at each other's throat. Mayhem, debauchery, Sodom and Gomorrha will be the result.

Socio-biologist Edward O. Wilson talks very clearly on this issue. Our sense of right and wrong, he says, has a biological basis. How this sense of right and wrong is applied depends on which society and culture you live in, but it is a universal human trait handed down through evolution. *

The Creationists have it backwards, you see. Take incest, for example: it is bad for biological reasons, not because it displeases God. In a primitive society the individual, the family and the clan have to adopt moral values to survive. Only when societies become more complex does the idea of a 'law-giving God' come on the scene to conveniently keep the ruling class in power. **

But the ultimate question is not whether religion or science, Theism or Atheism are 'true'. As we become more and more aware of our place in the larger context of things, as we now realize that in order to save our species we are also obligated to save our planet and all that depends on it, we have to figure out our priorities.

Because religion is such an important part of the majority of people's belief system, it would be wiser if we could harness this energy and postpone the debate on the merits of religion and secularism until we have achieved a much more pressing goal: saving life on earth. leave comment here

* Source: "The Biological Basis of Morality" by Edward O. Wilson, Atlantic Monthly.
** Source: "The Science of Good and Evil", by Michael Schermer.