GOD, ATHEISM & SECULAR HUMANISM 

Aparthib Zaman
E mail : aparthib@yahoo.com

 

In this article I intend to discuss  the widely used notions of God, theism, atheism & secular humanism and point out some negative connotations that invariably go along with atheism. I will take a closer look at these notions,  attempt to clarify some of them and  propose that the use of the term atheism be de-emphasized or limited to a very strict narrow sense when it truly applies. Before I proceed let me state a postulate, a  fact and a list of some some abbreviations and definitions for ease of reference later. (A disclaimer: My definition of the terms are not necessarily the same used in literature, it may resemble quite closely though, I am defining  them here simply as a place holder for different views/beliefs for convenience of discussion)

Postulate: The laws of Physics can provide a plausible explanation of the creation of the universe
and life through evolution (Leading Biologists and Physicists are unanimous about this, for example
Stephen Hawking, Richard Dawkins and  James Watson of DNA fame ).

A fundamental fact: The origin of the Laws of Physics is not understood or explainable.

List of abbreviations and definitions:

God-P: God of the religions, personal, shapeless, with attributes of omniscience , omnipotence, omnibenevolence which are humanlike (knowledge, power and mercy are all humanly perceived notions) attributes with the attributes assigned the value infinity (omni-).

God-I: Various impersonal, naturalistic concepts of God by deists, pantheists, process theologians etc of a root cause/ultimate reality behind the creation and evolution of the universe, Anyone who feels a sense of mystery/awe/spirituality observing the universe is invariably led to some kind of concept of a mysterious ultimate reality/creator. Examples are the Naturalistic God of Socinus, Process Theology of Teillard de Chardin , Spinozza's nature God, Omega Point (promoted to a Physics concept) of Frank Tipler, OR any other impersonal concept of God that anyone might form individually independent of Religion. So there is a wide gamut here. Not all notions of God-I is conceived in the sense of a creator, those that do conceive of a creator do so not in the sense of a creator willing  the creation of the universe like the personal God-P, but creator as an impersonal natural cause. Some notions refer to God  as  a creative force/process  as well. God here can be an immanent one or a transcendent one. Those who believe in a transcendent higher level of causality above the Laws of Physics are also known as platonists. (More precisely Neoplatonists).

Theist: Believers in God-P (dogmatists and moderates) . Dogmatists are the hard core  believers who actively preach it, criticize the non-believers etc. Moderates are really closet God-I (creator of the universe) believers who finds it convenient to adopt God-P  to reflect their belief without caring much for the dogma that goes with God-P and are quite passive in their belief. Majority fall in this category. Theists insist that morality is derived/inspired from belief in God-P.
Infidel:  Anyone who does not believe in God-P. Includes Deists, Pantheists, Atheists, Agnostics etc.
Atheist: A disbeliever of both God-P and God-I.
Infidel-1: An infidel who believes in some form of  God-I or accepts its possibility, like deists, pantheists, agnostics etc.
Infidel-2: An atheist (atheist and Infidel-2 will be used interchangeably)
SHR : Secular Humanists/Rationalists. They are infidels who insist that morality must be and is inspired from a love for humanity and not from some divine source.

Note:

1. Belief in God-P usually is preceded by belief in God-I (as a root cause of the universe, a creator in a general sense) which is more intuitive. A failure to understand/visualize God-I satisfactorily prompts a belief in God-P which seems to provide a closure by providing a simplistic solution to the ultimate mystery. A belief in God-I in turn is inspired by the failure stated in the fundamental fact above.

2. All SHRs are infidels, mostly infidel-1, a small subset of them are atheists (Infidel-2). The term "atheist" has been widely misapplied by theists (often intentionally) to label all SHRs, not just atheists. More on this later.

3. Both Theists & Atheists bring a closure to the sense of mystery/awe/spirituality at the creation of universe by providing their own explanation. Theists "explain" it positing that the creation of life and universe is an act of the religious God, which is really not an explanation, but a simplistic statement of faith in the unknown. Atheists bring the closure by explaining  the creation of life and universe as a very accidental, random event of nature that can be explainable (if not fully now, eventually) by the laws of science. They don't believe in any higher level of causality above the laws of Physics. Infidel-2 leave room for an eternal sense of wonder as no closure is postulated, merely a speculative view about a higher level of causality than Physics that seems to make a some provisional sense about this ultimate mystery and is not meant to be an absolute statement of faith.

Definition of God-P posits a humanlike consciousness (i.e mind ) , that can affect humans at a personal level (incurring God's mercy, wrath etc,hence the term personal God of religion).

Although the Laws of Physics as the root cause or the governing set of laws for the universe and life does not seem to have a human like consciousness like God-P, its manifestations do display a primitive semblance of consciousness, e.g the Cause-Effect duality inherent in it gives rise to patterns and regularities in nature that seem to reflect the work of a cosmic mind. A beautiful rose or a snowflake, an angry man, a passionate love, a violent storm, an epidemic, all seem to be the work of some cosmic mind, so Laws of Physics (which is really the root cause of the seven phenomena just mentioned ) do "seem" to have a mind. But thats all there is to it. It is just a semblance of a mind. A mind that we are so familiar with from our human experience. After all, a mind is a perception of some cause /effect duo involving a human. For example, a certain action/word provokes anger in a human. We associate this cause-effect duality with that human's mind. Similarly when a depression is formed it provokes a cyclone. There is a close resemblance. In fact the reaction of a human mind is ultimately explainable in Physics terms (Only in principle though, since in practice the complexity of human brain with trillions of neurons will make it impossible to provide an exact analytical explanation), at least there is no reason to believe that anything beyond the laws of physics is causing such "action/word ---> angry response" cause-effect duo. By Occam's razor natural cause is the more likely agent in causing this. In fact all human emotions, feelings are rooted in the natural laws. There is no need to invoke any divine spiritual force or agent in it. Biology is sufficient to account for that. Besides such emotions are not confined to humans only, it is only accentuated and more refined in us. Even sharks are documented as responding to the caressing touch of human. Dolphins are well known to display sense of affection. Humans (even theists) rarely assign spirituality to animal emotions. It is considered natural (biological). Biologists today are unanimous about the biological (hence ultimately physical) roots of emotions and feelings in humans, there is no mystery in it, though it is fascinating.

Notion of God-I does leave some room for more than just a mere semblance of a mind
than that of pure natural laws. Here since the root cause of the laws of Nature is left as unknown(speculative), that leaves some room for a possibility of the (occasional) manifestations of its attribute through the workings of the natural laws (or its hitherto unknown extensions) that may have a more personal appeal/effect on humans and may seem to be the work of a cosmic/transcendental mind. Such manifestations are as yet not documented conclusively. But for individuals who privately vouch for spiritual/supernatural experiences, that may provide a personal ground for attributing their experiences to such manifestations, specially if all natural explanations are ruled out. (Out of Body experience for example do have natural explanations). Now let me discuss closely the issue of the belief in God or lack thereof as it is usually stated
and the inherent fallacy in them.

Consider the Statements S-1 & S-2:

S-1 : God exists.                    (Theists)
S-2 : God does not exist .    (Infidels)

When theists state S-1, it is clear that God-P  is implied, but when Infidels state S-2, they don't clarify if God-P or God-I is  implied. Theists exploit this ambiguity to interpret a denial of both God-P and God-I to suit their agenda of dehumanizing  SHRs. Now lets assume God-P is meant in S-1 and S-2. Let us consider the logical validity of these two statements. Is it possible to assign a truth value (True/False) to this statement? A statement must be a proposition to admit of a True/False attribute. A statement must be constructed out of well-defined and unambiguous set of terms to qualify as a proposition. Is God-P in S-1 and S-2 well-defined and unambiguous? NO. The fact that theists emphatically claim that God-P is clearly and unambiguously defined in their religion does not make it so, since those claims do not pass the criteria of logic as universally accepted and reflective of the advanced human rational faculty. Every definition of God-P runs into problem with attributes of omniscience, omnipotence, omnibenevolence, shapeless yet with humanlike consciousness etc and make it an ill-defined concept. Most importantly no criterion can be set for the objective test of the presence/existence of such an ill-defined concept. Let me give an example where a well-defined non-existent concept whose existence can easily be verified if it really existed. Take a fairy for example. It is defined as a fair woman with wings anatomically attached to her arms who can fly. Now this definition is certainly conceivable with no ambiguity. If one is ever conclusively and unanimously observed and tested scientifically to rule out hallucination or magic then we can say fairies do exist. The faith in fairies will then be promoted to a truth verified by observation. We don't need to go into further details of whether such fairies talk, eat, or share any other human attributes. As long as it meets the requirement of a female body with anatomical wings with the ability to fly we can agree to its existence. Until a fairy is observed in such a conclusive way an assertion of its existence is a well-defined proposition and is a faith in a well-defined concept. By the same token the assertion of its non-existence is also a logically constructed proposition and a faith as well. As a side we remark that the faith in non-existence of fairies is more plausible than in its existence by Occam's Razor. Now come to God. God is not such a faith in a well-defined concept, because its very concept suffers from logical contradictions with the defining attributes of omniscience, omnipotence, omnibenevolence etc. These contradictions have been well known to logicians and philosophers. I have discussed these contradictions in the article "On the Free Will Defense of theism" in NFB. We also cannot decide how to test God if we ever see him/it or experience his/its presence with the definition of God-P. Existence or non-existence of a concept/entity that is ill-defined at best with contradictory attributes is not even a meaningful question. Its like defining a fairy as a fair woman with wings attached anatomically that can fly but is not visible to a human eye!. For God-I its not much of a problem since it is defined in an abstract way that suffers from no internal contradiction like God-P and is not CLAIMED or PREACHED but posed as a response to God-P. God-I is really not a faith, but a possible view of the ultimate reality. God-P on the other hand is a concept which is a result of a CLAIM and PREACHING. A theist might challenge the alleged contradiction of the definition of God-P  and argue : " well how about if a person shouts to God: God if you are really there, split the moon in half for 3 seconds and put it together after that, every time I request you to do so , if he then indeed sees moon-splitting every time he makes a request then would it not justify that God exists and is a well-defined concept ?". But as miraculous as it may seem it will still be considered his personal belief by others. And even if in the unusual case when all others in the world also see the moon being split when that person makes the request, it will be concluded that the person possesses a supernatural psychic ability and a freak of nature. It still would not prove the existence of God-P because the notion of God-P is not just defined by such a miraculous event, or any freak of nature or by a very special psychic ability of a human. The notion of God-P is too logically inconsistent to admit of any proof whatsoever, hence it will remain as a belief forever.

So when an infidel states S-2, it indirectly grants legitimacy to S-1 as a proposition which it is not. Hence S-2 is not a logically acceptable proposition either. Remember the famous retort of Nobel Laureate Wolfgang Pauli when reviewing a theory "Why, this theory is so bad it is not even wrong!" ? If a theory is not clear enough to admit itself of a logical way to even falsify it, let alone verify it then it is nothing but gibberish. Even a wrong theory needs to pass some minimum criteria to be worthy of a review and judged wrong! Similarly a statement must be constructed using well-defined unambiguous words to possess a true/false attribute. Now lets closely examine the consequences of stating S-2.

Theists(dogmatists) paint infidel-1 SHR as necessarily atheists, to malign and dehumanize them to the gullible mass(mostly moderate theists) by the implication that infidel-1 denies even God-I. The moderate theists buy into the dogmatists' propaganda that a non-believer of God any kind (Which includes God-I in whatever variation) cannot posses any sublime qualities like morality, sense of humility/spirituality/beauty etc. Theists loathe any non believer in God-P and since Infidel-1 are the majority among SHR, they resort to this misrepresentation of SHR as atheists to alienate them from the moderates. Of course a small subset of SHR do indeed proclaim themselves as "atheists" (Infidel-2) . We will address them later.

To summarize, here is how the logic goes:

1. Theists identify (intentionally or by mistake) all SHR(Infidels) as Atheists (Infidel-2)
2. Atheists are known to deny the existence of God of any kind (God-P or God-I)
3. Theists believe that belief in at least some kind of God is needed  for morality/sense  of
     spirituality etc.
4. Therefore theists (including moderates & dogmatists) conclude that Infidels-1 (i.e all SHRs,
     since  Infidels-2 are by definition non believer of any God) are devoid of  morality/sense
     of   spirituality etc .

We can now see the fallacy in the final inference of Step 4 as it is based on an erroneous premise in step 1 (That all SHRs are atheists, which need not be true).  Note that even if we agree that atheists are devoid of any sense of morality/spirituality (which itself is baseless and prejudiced) the conclusion in step 4 would still be fallacious as it bases on the erroneous premise in 1. One can certainly argue about Step 3 (Which implies as a corollary that atheists are devoid of any sense of spirituality) and question its validity. which I will go into later.

Now it must be understood that the assertion that "atheists deny the existence of God" is more often made by theists to describe Infidels who only make such assertions to describe themselves only in response to a theist's claim to the existence of religious God. In other words this statement of denial of the existence of God was forced upon those who disagreed with the theists' claim about the existence of God-P. There was no atheists before theism. Although the assertion S-2 of Infidels is a logically flawed one like the theists, as I pointed out earlier, it nevertheless is not due to a well thought out dogma by them but due to a skeptical rejection of a dogma of a religious god thrust upon them by the theists, and in their haste in expressing their rejection they overlook the logical inconsistency of the manner of expressing their rejection. So it is clear that the root problem stems from two logically flawed statements S-1 and S-2 and not clarifying if God-P or God-I was meant, thereby providing the theists an opportunity to mischaracterize SHRs. Now imagine religion was never born, no prophets, no revelations, no theists (hence no a-theists) etc. What would human mind then think of the ultimate mystery of the universe, life etc? There would sure still be the myths about some imaginary Thunder Gods, Zeus, etc (i.e images of powerful force controlling human lives and nature). There would certainly be rational minds dismissing such myths but who would no longer need to proclaim themselves as atheists or assert the non-existence of God (Because there are no theists to provoke such reaction). The rationalists of our real world of religion/God are the same as those of a hypothetical world of no man made religions except that they carry the extra baggage of having to take a position against religious God by theists. Many of these SHRs who are infidel-1 are not careful enough in expressing their position and declare themselves as "atheists" (although some SHR are true atheists) , falling into the trap of theists who hastily pigeonhole them into atheism and thus advertise them with relish as immoral, lacking in spirituality, finer human qualities like love, beauty etc.

Now let me critique the views of true blue atheists, and see how justified is their view. As
noted earlier atheists not only reject God-P but also reject the idea of any order, design or mystery behind the creation of life and universe, which to them is nothing but an accidental event in nature, and they view the laws of nature (Physics) as nothing but a human construct to map reality in human terms and believe that universe and its creation can be totally understood in terms of these laws of Physics (if not fully now, later). They reject a transcendental reality (in contrast with platonists who believe in a higher level of causality residing in a transcendental realm). This view of atheists is flawed and is not consistent with reality. I will argue for platonism (more precisely neoplatonism) as a more plausible belief as does Roger Penrose of Oxford. If at all the laws of Physics and the theorems of mathematics were merely a human mental construct to map reality then it would be purely ad hoc and no predictive power would be expected. But the very fact that many abstract theories in Physics and mathematics are formulated well in advance of any experimental applications but eventually do find applicability in nature, as well as predicting many natural phenomena correctly, is an indirect indication (I emphasize, not a proof) to a transcendental realm of the Laws of Physics and Mathematics. In plain words, platonists assert that there is a higher level of causality above the Laws of physics and that the Laws of physics/Theorems of mathematics are a projection of that transcendental reality (Platonic world, God-I which gives rise to the laws of Physics) , whereas atheists assert that the buck stops at the laws of Physics, that there is no higher level of causality above the laws of Physics and dismiss laws of Physics and mathematics as purely constructs of human consciousness which does not point to any transcendental realm. It is important to note that at this level we are talking about metaphysical beliefs that are not logically verifiable or falsifiable but are nevertheless not logically absurd or inconsistent like belief in God-P. The insistence of atheists in denying a higher level of causality above the laws of Physics is to me a less plausible position than platonism as it does not reflect the inherent limitations of human mind by making such strong DENIAL (Which requires superhuman knowledge, or omniscience, since it is not logically provable). The position of platonists asserting a higher level of causality is a more plausible one (As it is indirectly suggested by observation as I indicated), but is also a belief, since it is not logically provable either. The most consistent position is foregoing any belief by combining platonism with atheism into agnosticism by admitting of either possibility ie. that it is possible that there may not after all be a higher level of causality, or that there may be, WE MAY NEVER KNOW. Who says that permanent ignorance is not logically admissible ? :)

Anyway coming back to the issue of mischaracterization by theists of Infidel-1 as atheists to dehumanize SHR so that they can be marginalized as atheists, because it is easier to paint atheist with a lack of spirituality and morality. Is this presumption about infidels (specially atheists) as being devoid of morality/love/beauty justified? We do meet quite a few atheists who show their extraordinary humility, kindness, selflessness and, filial piety etc. Besides if we understand that it is all biological at the root, no matter whether one is theist, infidel-1 or atheist, one is as likely to posses such fundamental emotions as anyone else. It is just determined by biology and whatever belief in the ultimate reality cannot determine it. Why do theists (and even some infidel-1) strongly insist that non-believers of any kind are devoid of any sense of morality, beauty, humility etc. Well, its quite easy to understand morality since theists posit morality as being derived from God-P. Hence that obvious conclusion by them. That is a  flawed conclusion as well and has been refuted by many. (I discussed that in my article "Does Religion Define Morality?" in NFB). Regarding the lack of humility/love/beauty etc (which some infidel-1 also think about atheist) the reason is that with no belief in mystery or unknown, a human mind becomes totally existentialist, focussing on the material gain as life offers no other meaning. Again this is flawed as even sense of beauty/humility/altruism etc are all biological in root as evolutionary biology has discovered. Nobody is beyond biology, not even the atheists. Of course there are hedonists who hardly care for arts, beauty, humility, but that is due to their genetic makeup, not due to their  well-thought out view of ultimate reality.

A final point. In fact God-I inspires even a higher level of sense of awe/beauty etc than God-P, as
God-I and science are intimately linked and science can help us to dig further into the mystery of the universe and thus help to bring human mind closer to the ultimate reality, if there is one. Making a definite statement S-1 (in the sense of God-P) or S-2 (in the sense of God-I) to "explain" or "deny" respectively and bring  a closure to the mystery of the universe is a recipe for killing  this sense of awe/spirituality