Through Atheist Eyes: An atheist's views on Modern Society and religious belief

By Padraig Houlahan

This is a book that attempts to show an atheist's perspective on religions and social issues. Since believers rarely paint atheists in a favorable light, it is hoped the reader will gain insights into modern atheism, and make up their own minds. Just as it would be foolish to only take an atheist's view on religious matters, it would be equally unfair to only listen to the believer's presentation of atheism. Being able to hear both sides of an issue is essential for reasonable understanding.

In this book I address a wide variety of topics and scenarios, and present my views on them, and in particular offer critiques on religious belief. It seems to me, many of the issues threatening our freedoms and quality of life derive from very poor critical thinking skills, unquestioning acceptance of religious beliefs and sacred cows, religious or not.

Some essays are personal, most are not; all hope the reader will be open minded and willing to think critically. While not an academic textbook, if the reader is really interested in learning about atheism, and on why atheists think religions are deeply flawed and dangerous, or if they would like to test their beliefs against the yardsticks I offer, then I think they will find the material interesting, and hopefully, thought provoking.

• Language: English
• Publisher: Archway Publishing
• Release date: Feb 29, 2024
• ISBN: 9781665753968

Padraig Houlahan

The author has had a long and diverse career spanning Research (when pursuing a doctorate in Astronomy), being an I.T. Director for a research institution, and as university faculty - teaching courses in Physics. Math, and Astronomy, all of which share a common interest: trying to understand and explain complex issues, whether they be technical or scientific. Now they are retired, they have time to fully enjoy their hobbies and interests - astrophotography, sailing, and now, writing.

Book preview

Faith and Belief

F or two loaded terms that underlie many of society’s fissures and conflicts, it is remarkable how much confusion there is about their meanings. Some of the confusion is intentional and malevolent since there is a desire to deceive and mislead. All too often, the religious accuse the nonbeliever of also having faith. Such an accusation is simply an attempt to defend a religious perspective through attempting to derail efforts to distinguish the religious from the rati onal.

The terms are easily understood. We can divide beliefs into two groups—those with evidence and those without. Faith is required when beliefs have no evidence. While there will be howls—typically based on appeals to accept revelation as legitimate evidence—this division of beliefs fairly reflects the difference between scientific and religious systems. If there was sufficient evidence for a belief, there would be no need for faith. For example, science is based on evidence that is reproducible and demonstrable, but religious belief cannot provide evidence of a similar caliber and must appeal to the believer to take their assertions on faith without proof. The takeaway message is it is important to appreciate that faith and belief can be accurately and adequately differentiated from one another.

One would think religious pursuits that claim to revere (and own) truth would rush to embrace clear definitions, but they never seem to do this. Wouldn’t the forthright thing be to say to young children that we appeal to faith because we have no evidence for our claims? Or, perhaps to say, I want you to believe this even though I do not have a shred of evidence to support it? If faith is all that great, why shy away from a true exposition? Doubling down, faith is promoted as a virtue. In no other aspect of our lives would we consider it acceptable to accept something without evidence—not to be confused with, for example, accepting something based on ignorance or deceitful assertions. However, to the extent the latter is in play—such as when immigrants are blamed for increased crime—irrationality, a willingness to accept unproven claims (e.g., that immigrants are associated with increased crime), lurks just beneath the surface.

What harm is there in accepting something without proof or evidence? In being just a small bit irrational? The answer is simple: with logic and philosophy, one cannot be a little bit irrational any more than one can be a little bit pregnant. (Of course, we are all a little irrational in an everyday sense, but we can still talk about belief systems and logic and ideals to strive for.) What harm is there in allowing for a just a teeny tiny inconsistency? For example, would it really make much of a difference if we allowed one trillion plus one to equal one trillion? In dollars, who would care about this tiny inconsistency?

To understand the problem presented by this little inconsistency, subtract one trillion from both sides, and the equation reduces to one equals zero. You could prove any result you wish at this point; if one equals zero, then adding one to each side yields two equals one and multiplying both sides by a hundred yields two hundred equals one hundred. Our indulging in a tiny irrationality has resulted in chaos.

As shown in a later essay, this emergence of chaos also occurs in areas other than mathematics, such as in philosophy and theology. This is fundamental reason atheists are so opposed to appeals to allow just a little irrationality, or for the supernatural, or for faith- and emotion-based justifications, because in doing so, chaos emerges, and all supernatural claims, no matter how apparently outrageous or absurd, are defensible by extremists. Ironically, this does not seriously hamper dialog between atheist and theist, since, as we will see in later essays, they will usually converge on contradictions in religious belief that the faith-based believer, who supposedly cares about truth, is unwilling to confront.

Bankrupting the USA

O verspending, tax cuts, deficits, and ideology. That is how Washington rules, and that’s what will determine our future financial security. A rational person would think that balancing budgets and reducing debt should be the goal of all leaders, regardless of stripe, but this clearly is not what many of our leaders are thinking. A rational person would think that there will be severe consequences eventually if the country’s debt demands payments that begin to seriously limit what other projects the government can support. A rational person would think there has to be a limit on how willing leaders are to kick - t he -c an down the road by weaseling out of responsible fiscal management. At a time where the economy is supposedly booming—true if more servile jobs and vast numbers of depressed older workers abandoning the workplace is your measure of success—a rational person would think this is about as good a time as one could hope for to rally around reducing accumulated debt.

As we all know, this is not what is happening. Ideologues have decided that what the country needs is more tax cuts for the wealthy, reduced fiscally burdensome environmental constraints, and low interest rates. Gluttony and self-interest explain both the tax cuts and environmental deregulation. But what about the low interest rates? Low interest rates keep the pressure cooker from exploding. Government debt payments can be more easily managed when interest rates are low, so it is just another evasive maneuver by those tasked with being responsible for the country’s well-being, but who are not.

But lest you fear we are being led by madmen with no higher motive, with no ideology to provide them with backbone and principles to unselfishly guide us through economic storms, I think with a little consideration you can convince yourself that aimless greed is not the overall goal here, and that there really is a higher purpose, namely the intent to bankrupt the government. Bankrupting the government would allow the billionaire class to demand responsible government spending (remember, these are the same hypocrites who are driving us toward the financial cliff while reaping the benefits of current irresponsible spending) and this must entail cutting support for the poor, Social Security, and other programs they don’t need. Of course, they need military spending to keep them (and us by extension) safe—even if they have to collect government contracts and profit in doing so. Government would have to cut back—again, all in the name of fiscal responsibility—and so fewer bureaucrats would be needed to monitor water and the environment and meatpacking plants and hospitals, and so on. If you’re one of the real elites, what’s not to like about bankrupting the good ole USA?

Being Strong

T he response is now a cliché. Predictable. Automatic. Part of America’s muscle memory; America’s autonomic system. Devoid of higher thinking. Stultifying. Validating. Comforting. Unifying. Satisfying. Displacing. Pandering. Convenient. Denying. Hiding. Cowering behind bravado. Deceitful. Avoiding. Cowa rdly.

We can use all these attributes when describing America’s intoxication with being strong in the face of a disaster—man-made or other. If there is a terrorist attack, we churn out rhetoric laced with terms like Boston Strong. There is no downside for the creators—it is cheap and popular to pretend a loss is really a gain, to turn disaster into a positive. To give a sense of control and to pander to delusions of greatness, all the while appealing to self-pity and grievance. It fosters a false sense of unity when calamity strikes, something to boast about. A terrorist might have destroyed lives but let us hold our heads up high.

There is nothing wrong with being resilient in the face of adversity and malevolence, but when the response is a cheap slogan intended to pander to our instincts instead of considered and thoughtful reflection, it demeans us. It distracts us from rationally assessing the disaster before its memory fades. When questions as to why the disaster occurred, and of whether it was a consequence of decisions and choices made by Americans, being strong is offered as a distraction, an easier thought process, devoid of introspection.

Without introspection, there can be no growth. America is not good at introspection, since it opens the door to questions concerning accountability and responsibility. It is easier to deny the humanity of the terrorist, maddened by hatred resulting from inequality—perceived or otherwise—than to admit American foreign policy that picks sides in conflicts between bitter rivals, or greed over the interests of indigenous populations, might be causal factors that we could do something about. It is difficult, if not impossible, to have empathy and caring absent introspection. We cannot care for others unless we can understand their pain, unless we can visualize, at least to some small degree, what it must be like to walk in their shoes.

Slogans like Boston Strong or "New York Strong’ are directed outward. They convey defiance, a strut, a swagger, and a rallying point. They do not promote a search for causes or raise questions of shared culpability or responsibility. And they reduce everything to the simple. Slogans do not do nuance. If you want to unify a mob (i.e., bring people together coherently so they act on emotion and impulse)—give them a slogan; Jesus Loves You, Make America Great Again, Boston Strong, God Bless America. Like the camel’s nose, slogans dislodge reason; it is why they are so popular with propagandists of all stripes, whether they be fascists, communists, or religious extremists.

Interestingly, the one enemy common to all sloganeers is reason (intellectualism and rationality).

Dealing with the Intractable

I t is tempting to feel America is hopelessly mired in ideological wars that tear it apart, so it is worth considering how this came to be and why it persists. It is useful to characterize many of its divisive issues as being identity based, hence the preponderance of racist, religious, and cultural (e.g., gun rights) fault lines. But there are important questions whether it has always been this way, and in how we should view current tur moil.

Take an obvious example—slavery and civil rights. We fought a Civil War over slavery, but it did not eradicate the underlying racist culture. In fact, it reemerged and thrived in the war’s aftermath. So, what was gained? Obviously, the situation improved for minorities, but it took almost another century before subsequent anger among disenfranchised minorities boiled over in the sixties to a point the government took strong action to support the protestors and enforce their nominal rights and outlaw segregation. And then what happened? Racism went underground again and emerged as the current dog-whistle politics practiced by right-wing politicians. Every law enacted creates winners and losers, and civil rights laws, being no different, became a cultural lightning rod among conservatives, complaining about reverse-discrimination and how unfair it was that minorities are treated preferentially than whites—never mind that they had no problem with racial favoritism before then.

Which brings us to the present. There’s still racism and hypocrisy and skilled leaders who find their niche in telling their followers they are victims and unfairly disadvantaged by laws intended to redress imbalance against the Other. With an us versus them culture intended to reinforce identity, all arguments are fought with an intensity like they are the last battle of a war, in which there can be no compromise.

Has there been progress? It seemed like there was—for a while. However, given the skill with which conservatives have mastered the nuance of identity politics, they have learned how useful it is if they want to have power, and power is addictive. It is disturbing that their toxic identity message resonates so well—and even thrives. As we see, under the right leadership, such social cancers will grow.

Perhaps it is flawed to view America as being a nation with factions that are harmonized through reasoned debate. There are cycles where there are winners and losers, but maybe what is going on is that progress is advanced as much by time as anything else, because children are more likely to develop opinions different form their parents, and as older generations pass on, cultural centers of gravity slowly evolve. Issues that drive older generations apoplectic with rage (such as gay rights) barely register with young people. No minds were changed here—it is just that as older die-hards pass away, the center of mass