Atheists: Okay, Now What?

I have come to a point of shifting: I must now shift away from the word atheist and to some other currently unspecified and incomplete philosophy. I knew, somehow, that I wasn't a person who needed this atheism as much as many atheists need their agreed upon philosophy to be true. There is an emotional clinging inherent to this "new atheism" that bothers me more than the emotional clinging that many Christians partake in. The difference? Christianity offers something in return, even if the mechanics of what they offer and how it's offered don't make much sense in a logical world. Atheism offers...what exactly? Are they singularly dedicated to factual presentation, and purely robotic logical explanation of things, or are they scared of something too? Scared of anything they can't know for sure? Well, "they" aren't a monolith, but when I considered myself an atheist (one who lacks a belief in a god or gods) I still was open to certain possibilities; UFOs, the potential for psychic ability, the vast potential for the unknown to have its say; I can perceive a certain mystery in the world that can't be easily explained. But I find that the thrust of this new atheism is to control ideas with a material rationality, and to aggrandize the self, as if anything we can't explain with sensory perception and our limited ability to reason is impossible, and as if strong communities create themselves.

Under a purely atheistic worldview, where does taking joy in the mysteries of the world and the universe come in? And more importantly, what of brotherhood of mankind?

I ask, partially because I mentioned above that Christianity has something to offer. And what it has to offer is more important than what atheism has to offer. Christianity, Islam, Judaism all get beaten rather handily by logic and reason at the evidence game, when it comes to their stories and their miracles and the constructs that would seem to provide the basis for any belief in those philosophies. And yet they continue to enjoy massive membership, great influence, and enthusiastic support. This all exists despite a history of violence, recent scandal (pedophilia in the Catholic Church), and the slow but sure push of scientific discovery that directly or indirectly refutes religious claims. Why is this so? Why do so many people choose to remain faithful when so much other, seemingly better information exists?

Because Christianity, etc., beats atheism rather handily at some very important things: Forgiveness, empathy, and meaning come to mind. I've heard, and made, several of the arguments now inherent to new atheism: This is an emotional need you're filling, you can reject religion and still live a good life, and most good people would be good people without religion. But what would they do with all of that goodness? Christianity provides a faulty, yes, structure upon which people can carry out that goodness. Forgiveness is one of the most sophisticated philosophical ideas we have - Darwin's survival of the fittest would remove the need for forgiveness, correct? The strongest among us survive, and those weak of character or other attributes would struggle and die. But we don't do that. Why? I would guess human empathy, but Christianity in particular enshrines that empathy and uses its beloved prophet to promote it. Christianity's charlatan actors, the televangelists, have used Christianity for business reasons and the narrow minds of the loudest Christians that manifest themselves when they rant about abortion and homosexuality cloud the higher attitudes of their message. One should not throw the baby out with the bath-water when thinking of something as important as forgiveness. Why? Because when you can forgive another human being and invest in them with your heart, and know that there are others who will do the same for you, then you have the building blocks in place to form a strong community.

And what else do we have but the quality of our communities? What else keeps us from utter failure? Would anyone truly want to live in an atheistic, "every man for himself" kind of world? I think we've proven that we would not.

This is not to say that atheism is irresponsible or wrong on certain merits: I can no sooner find you God than find you the Easter Bunny. But new atheism seems to seek a war with religion, or greater membership somehow, or probably just bigger book sales. But Christianity isn't wrong about forgiveness, and Buddhism isn't wrong about enlightenment, and no religion is wrong when it seeks to unite people under a greater good. It's just that religion has shown itself to be imperfect in that pursuit in sometimes appalling ways. But maybe that's right for us? For we are imperfect as well, and sometimes in appalling ways. I would like to see us strip down our emotional connections to any one of these overarching philosophies and do what we do best: Take the best parts from each and use our free will and empathy to reach our best potential with parts of the major religious and non-religious philosophies as our tools. The question is whether or not that's possible, or even desirable? It seems to me that these factions continue to exist because we need them to, and emotional connection is at least as powerful as reason. Both exist in the brain; is one truly more legitimate than the other? Or just more useful?