Atheism: Religion and the Lack Thereof

Tonight, I met a delightful young lady in the laundry room of my friend’s apartment complex. After a short conversation, she invited me to her church service next weekend. I politely declined, saying that church wasn't my thing. When asked why, I replied, "Because I'm not a Christian anymore. I've moved to a different path." She asked what I am now. I replied, "I'm an atheist, actually." She seemed to be slightly concerned with this and asked if I was POSITIVE that God doesn't exist. This seems to be a common misconception of atheists by religious types (namely Christians)...they think that atheists are saying that they KNOW there is no God. Not true. If they KNEW there was no God, then they'd have undeniable, mathematical PROOF and EVERYONE would be an atheist. Allow me to clarify...

Atheism is another spiritual belief. Atheists just so happen to believe that there IS no God or higher power of any sort. They can't prove their belief that there is no god any more than a believer can prove that there is. People seem to think that atheists look down upon those who do have spiritual beliefs. Again, untrue. Most are very accepting and respect other peoples' spiritual beliefs, but they disagree. That's all. Disagreement comes with anything that has no proof. Everyone interprets things differently. That's fine. It's human nature. Believe in whatever makes sense to you. To us [atheists], it makes SENSE that God does not exist. Then people ask, "Why do you believe so?" There are many reasons. Each person has his or her own arguments against it. Many, unfortunately, either dodge the question or beg it, saying things like, "I just don't believe that there can be a higher power." or "There's too much strife and bullshit going on in the world...if God existed, it wouldn't happen." or "I need proof that there is a God or higher power." The latter is more of an agnostic argument than anything and the burden of proof still lies on the believer to provide evidence for God's existence. For an atheist, however, who says, "I believe that God does NOT exist.” the burden of proof lies upon him or her to provide reasons or evidence that are grounds for having such a belief, without avoiding the question.

I'm still pondering the problem and, as such; don't claim to have an answer. I do know, however, that the more I search, the more I believe that no God exists. I shall give some of my reasons. They're not conventional, in that, the reasons lead to the question, "Given this, how can God exist?" So, without further delay...

To understand this first one, we'll have to look at time and energy. The first law of Thermodynamics states that the energy of the universe is constant, that is; energy can neither be created nor destroyed: there is a finite amount. The second law of Thermodynamics states that Entropy (energy's natural tendency to move to a state of disorder) in a closed system (the universe, which is infinitely large) is continually increasing. In short, the amount of energy in the universe is going from a more concentrated state, to being spread evenly throughout the universe. This means that matter in the universe has a beginning somewhere. Many different theories to this exist, of which, the Big Bang, being the most supported by scientific and mathematical evidence. So the concept of time results from this: it has its beginning (the Big Bang) and its "end" (when energy is so spread throughout the universe, that order can no longer exist)...one way to say it would be that the end of time, (E)= infinity a finite amount (energy dispersed). A graphical model of time would look something like a spiral, with its origin as the Big Bang and the tip of its tail signifying the end of the organization of energy. So how does this relate to God? Believers will tell you that God is eternal: He has always been. How can this be, when evidence shows that time, as we know it, has a beginning? If God created the universe, then what could have created God? The answer I get to this question is rather amusing: most say, "God had the power to bring himself into being." To me, this answer dodges the question. Another contradiction relating to this eternity question is shown in the Bible, where Christ says, "I am the Alpha and the Omega: the beginning and the end." Again, if God is eternal, how can there be a beginning and an end when you look forward in time and see positive infinity ahead, then look back and see negative infinity behind?

The next question is one concerning free will. Believers tend to zealously defend the concept of free will, because it holds people morally responsible for their actions. Believers will also say that God is omnipotent. My argument here is: if God exists and is omnipotent and, therefore, KNOWS everything that will ever happen, including all that we do within our lives, then how can we have free will? Wouldn't knowledge of the future DETERMINE our fates after death? This is a contradiction to me, because the way I see it, if God exists, then there can be no free will. How can we be held morally accountable for things that were going to happen despite anything we do? This hardly seems fair. And it goes against the beliefs that most people have about God. My next statement is arguable, insofar, that the issue is a huge debate itself, that goes outside of religion. I DON'T believe humans have free will. I believe instead that humans have free ACTION, not free will...philosophers would define my standpoint as being one of a "soft" determinist. Our wants, needs and desires all stem from influences from our environment (upbringing, society, life experience, etc.), as well as from our instincts (controlled namely by genetics). They are CAUSED by these things and we have no control over them. What we CAN control, however, is our actions, which may or may not reflect our internal desires, although most of the time, they do. Humans, like other animals, tend to act in a manner that will produce the most favorable result. This predictability of action, however, does not necessarily mean that it is absolutely what we're going to do...when faced with a situation, we can CHOOSE whether to nurture our instincts and act upon what we feel is in our best interests to do as we understand it at the time, or we can choose not to. More than likely, we'll choose what's in our nature to do, but nevertheless, it's still a choice of action.

Now, let's assume for a second that I believe in the existence of God, Heaven and Hell, and that they're compatible with free will, as I attempted to define it earlier. In Heaven, "Paradise" as it were, peoples' souls would not be free, they would be required to adhere to the laws that God set forth for them. Some might say that they would want to...want to? Or just THINK that they want to? This seems to go against our nature as humans, in that, we naturally are driven to compete with one another...in Heaven, we would be deprived of this, instead being blissful, happy, drooling zombies. The "free will" which believers hold so dearly, would be controlled, and, therefore, NOT be free will at all. The internal balance of "good" and "evil" (as our societies have defined these relative terms) would be interrupted, weighing too much on the side of good. This balance disrupted, we'd lose ourselves and might as well have gone into oblivion. It seems to me, that in this scenario, Hell (defined in the Bible simply as a place away from God, not the fire and brimstone that Dante later described) would be preferable because one could live eternally and still possess those qualities that make us human. This seems pretty crazy to me...Hell? A preferable place to go? That doesn't make sense, given everything that Christianity teaches.

And then there's the problem of existence. I think Brad Pitt said it best in Fight Club, "We are the all singing, all dancing crap of the world." The people we are, our persona, dare I say "souls" (the term here is LOOSELY used) are still bound to these physical, earthbound, biochemical machines that we call our bodies. As I said earlier, who we are is defined by a combination of nature and nurture. We're products of nature. We're still animals. Humans are NOT something more. We get this idea that we somehow transcend nature simply because we've evolved to learn how to manipulate its resources. I'm getting off on a tangent here, though. As I was saying, without our physical bodies, we cease to exist. Why? Because our minds are made up of chemicals and react to different electrochemical impulses. To prove this, one simply has to look at drugs. Certain drugs control how much of a chemical is in a person's system. Many of these are used to alter a person's personality. Let's say there's a person on Prozac. Something happens that, under normal circumstances, the person would react angrily. Instead, while on this drug, the person is OK with it, or simply doesn't care. The person doesn't WANT to react. People who suffer physical alterations to the brain are different thereafter. Those of you familiar with the story of Finneas Gauge know what I'm getting at. So...when the body dies, there are no longer these chemical reactions taking place which control a person's persona and, thus, the person ceases to exist. There is nothing thereafter.

To me, natural laws seem to be running the universe just fine of their own accord; no divine influence required. That's not to say that there CAN'T be some higher power, I simply believe that there is not. I encourage everyone to go out and find their own answers to those nagging, all consuming, mortal questions. Find your own conclusion; whatever you're most comfortable with. It doesn't matter what it is, so long that it makes sense to you. After all, perception is the key to understanding, and understanding is the antidote to ignorance.

Tyler Garst Editor/Writer FHS "Now and Again"