Atheism as a Belief Part 1

As an atheist, I believe that atheism is a belief, or more accurately a set of related beliefs, and that it is not merely an absence of belief. This is the first in a series of articles in which I will tease out my thinking on this. I would welcome any feedback as I do so.

I realise that many atheists today choose to interpret the word “atheism” to mean simply a lack of belief that gods exist. This interpretation has its uses in, for example, shifting the burden of proof in debates.

But I believe that this is a mistake, both etymologically and practically. Here’s why.

The Label Suggests Belief

The idea that atheism is not a belief is based on breaking the word “atheism” into “a-” (meaning absence of) and “-theism” (meaning belief in a god). But that is not how the word evolved. The word “theism” did not exist when the word “atheism” entered the English language.

The word “atheism” began as “atheos” (meaning godless, in ancient Greek). The suffix “-ism” was later added onto it (or, technically, “-isme”, in French, before being translated into English). The correct breakdown is “athe-” (from godless) and “-ism” (meaning, broadly, a belief or a set of related beliefs about something).

Etymologically, atheism is a belief or set of related beliefs about godlessness or the absence of gods. It is the “-ism” of godlessness, not the “a-” of theism. That is why dictionaries typically define atheism as some variation of the belief that gods do not exist.

The Concept Suggests Belief

More importantly, the concept of atheism (the idea that the label points to) is in practical terms a belief system. Atheism exists within our minds, along with our other beliefs. If it was merely an absence of one belief, and nothing else, then in practical terms it would not exist or we would not be aware of it.

Once you are exposed to the idea that gods may or may not exist, you automatically form a belief about this. You either believe (on balance) that gods exist, or you believe (on balance) that gods do not exist, or theoretically you could believe that there is precisely a 50-50 chance of gods existing or not existing (which is itself a belief).

It is true that the atheist response, when exposed to this idea, involves an absence of believing that gods exist. But that does not mean that we also have an absence of any beliefs about the idea of the existence of gods.

Whatever each of us believes about whether or not gods exist, we believe that. It is merely a trick of language to suggest that our belief (whatever it is) is simply the absence of a different belief, and nothing else.

What do Atheists Believe?

Atheists differ in how we define our atheism, and each of these self-definitions is a reflection of our many individual beliefs. However, there are some beliefs that seem to follow neccessarily from the essence of atheism.

Here are three beliefs that I believe all atheists share. These beliefs can each be phrased negatively or positively, but they are in essence the same beliefs.

Atheists reject the idea that supernatural gods exist. Atheists believe that the idea of supernatural gods was invented by humans, and that it exists only as an imagined idea within the minds of some people.

Atheists reject the idea that supernatural gods reveal the nature of reality to human beings. Atheists believe that we as natural beings must discover for ourselves the nature of reality.

Atheists reject the idea that supernatural gods dictate our ethics or behaviour. Atheists believe that we as natural beings must decide ourselves how best to live together as fellow sentient beings.

Belief Does Not Mean Certainty

None of these beliefs implies certainty. It is impossible for anybody to be certain about anything. None of these beliefs even requires rational thinking, although rational thinking certainly leads to them more easily.

But they are beliefs, not merely the absence of beliefs, and I believe that they are the core beliefs at the essence of atheism. As I mentioned at the start of this post, I would welcome any feedback as I tease out my thinking on this.

 

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

UN Split on Protecting Gay Rights

The United Nations was split this week between States supporting gay rights and States supporting religious homophobia. But gay rights campaigners are pleased with the outcome, as it is the first time that the UN Assembly has considered such a declaration.

66 nations signed a French declaration calling for the global decriminalisation of homosexuality.

But almost sixty nations signed a rival Islamic-backed declaration that claimed that the phrase “sexual orientation” could lead to legitimising paedophilia.

The Catholic Church, which attends the UN through its pretend State in the Vatican City, called for an end to violence and criminal sanctions against gay people. But it refused to support the French declaration, because it would protect sexual orientation and gender identity as human rights.

The French Declaration

Gay people can be executed in seven Islamic countries: Saudi Arabia, Iran, Yemen, Sudan, Mauritania and parts of Nigeria and Pakistan. And gay sex between consenting adults in private is a crime in almost eighty other countries.

In September, Rama Yade, the French minister of human rights and foreign affairs, announced that she would be asking the United Nations to call for the decriminalisation of homosexuality throughout the world.

The French declaration condemns human rights violations based on sexual orientation or gender identity, in particular the use of the death penalty, executions, torture, arbitrary arrest or detention and deprivation of economic, social and cultural rights.

You can read more about the French declaration in this previous post on the topic.

The Islamic Opposition

The rival Syrian declaration condemned

“all forms of stereotyping, exclusion, stigmatization, prejudice, intolerance and discrimination and violence directed against peoples, communities and individuals on any ground whatsoever, wherever they occur.”

However, despite this seemingly wide-ranging definition, it excluded what it called

“the so-called notions of sexual orientation and gender identity.”

It complained that “the ominous use of the notion of sexual orientation spans a wide range of personal choices”, and could

“usher the social normalization, and possibly the legitimisation, of many deplorable acts including pedophilia.”

And it complained that the notion of gender identity

“attributes sexual interests or behaviours to genetic factors, a matter scientifically rebuffed repeatedly.”

Finally, it complained that the French declaration:

“delves into matters which fall essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of states counter to the commitment in the UN to respect the sovereignty of States and the principle of non-intervention.”

It said that, by misinterpreting the Universal Declaration and international treaties to include such notions that were never articulated nor agreed by the general membership, the French declaration could

“seriously jeopardize the entire international human rights framework.”

The Catholic Opposition

The Catholic Church did not support either declaration. It supported the French call for an end to violence and unjust discrimination against gay people, but complained that the declaration “went well beyond” this by describing sexual orientation and gender identity as human rights.

The Vatican statement at the UN said that sexual orientation and gender identity “find no recognition or clear and agreed definition” under international law, and added:

“If they had to be taken into consideration in the proclaiming and implementing of fundamental rights, these would create serious uncertainty in the law as well as undermine the ability of States to enter into and enforce new and existing human rights conventions and standards.”

The official Vatican newspaper later elaborated that the French declaration was part of an attempt to

“equate same-sex unions with marriage and to give homosexual couples the chance to adopt or procreate children.”

It also feared that it could endanger other human rights, including the rights of religions to teach that homosexual behavior is morally wrong.

Supporters of the French Declaration

Albania, Andorra, Argentina, Armenia, Australia, Austria, Belgium, Bolivia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Brazil, Bulgaria, Canada, Cape Verde, Central African Republic, Chile, Colombia, Croatia, Cuba, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Ecuador, Estonia, Finland, France, Gabon, Georgia, Germany, Greece, Guinea-Bissau, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Japan, Latvia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Mauritius, Mexico, Montenegro, Nepal, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Norway, Paraguay, Poland, Portugal, Romania, San Marino, Sao Tome and Principe, Serbia, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Timor-Leste, United Kingdom, Uruguay, and Venezuela.

Supporters of the Syrian Declaration

Afghanistan, Algeria, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Benin, Brunei Darussalam, Cameroon, Chad, Comoros, Côte d’Ivoire, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Djibouti, Egypt, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Fiji, Gambia, Guinea, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Kuwait, Lebanon, Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Malawi, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Mauritania, Morocco, Niger, Nigeria, Oman, Pakistan, Qatar, Rwanda, Saint Lucia, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Solomon Islands, Somalia, Sudan, Swaziland, Syrian Arab Republic, Tajikistan, Togo, Tunisia, Turkmenistan, Uganda, United Arab Emirates, United Republic of Tanzania, Yemen, and Zimbabwe.

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

Social Networks Spread Happiness

Happiness is infectious. It spreads through social networks, infecting people that you don’t even know. And it spreads more strongly than sadness does. That’s according to a recent study that examined the happiness of almost five thousand people over twenty years from 1983 to 2003.

The study was compiled by professors James Fowler of the University of California in San Diego and Nicholas Christakis of the Harvard Medical School. They examined records from a long-established heart study that included details of the emotional states of families and friends.

They found that, when you become happy, any friend of yours who lives within a mile becomes 25% more likely to also be happy. Amazingly, they also found that a friend of that friend becomes 10% more likely to happy, and a friend of that friend’s friend has a 5% increased chance of being happy.

They also found that people at the core of a local social network are more likely to be happy than people at the periphery. And they say that  the reason seems to be that being at the core of the social network increases your happiness. It is not that being happy brings you to the core of the network.

Social networks spread happiness

The study followed the social networks of almost five thousand people over twenty years, including connections at one, two, three or more levels of separation. It found that happy people tend to be connected to each other. The clusters of happy and unhappy people are much larger than could be explainable by chance.

This takes into account several possible associations between happy people: your happiness might cause someone else to be happy; you might become connected because you are both already happy; or you might both be experiencing the same social conditions that might make you happy.

On average, you are 15% more likely to be happy if a person directly connected to you is happy. The chances increase or decrease depending on how close you are to the person. Mutual friends who live nearby have the strongest effect, and distant friends who live more than a mile away have little or no direct effect. Interestingly, neither do co-workers.

Happiness spreads more strongly through same-sex relationships. This means that your friends and neighbours might influence your happiness more than your spouse does. And your impact on a friend’s happiness gradually wears off over time, unless of course you keep in touch and stay happy.

However, there is an indirect effect that does not even depend on knowing the person. You are almost 10% more likely to be happy if a person two removes from you is happy (a friend of a friend). And you are over 5% more likely to be happy if a person three removes from you is happy (a friend of a friend of a friend).

Also, people at the core of a local social network are more likely to be happy than people at the periphery. And Christakis and Fowler say that  the reason seems to be that being at the core of the social network increases your happiness. It is not that being happy brings you to the core of the network.

So, on average, having additional social contacts will help to make you happy – but only if your extra social contacts are happy themselves. Interestingly, happy people spread happiness much more strongly than unhappy people spread unhappiness.

However, the main effect on your happiness is your previous happiness: if you were happy the last time you were asked, you are three times more likely to be happy now than if you were unhappy the last time you were asked.

How the study was conducted

The Framingham Heart Study is an ongoing study, based in Massachusetts, that has examined 14,000 people spanning three generations of people, and their spouses. The three generations enrolled in 1948, 1971 and 2002.

Christakis and Fowler study focused on the middle group, because there is information available on their relationships with both their parents and their children, as well as with their friends.

On average, each person was connected to ten family members, friends or coworkers, and an indeterminate number of neighbours. Also, because the study took place in the same area, many of the connected people were also part of the study themselves.

The study measured people’s happiness by asking them how often they experienced four specific feelings during the previous week: “I felt hopeful about the future,” “I was happy,” “I enjoyed life,” “I felt that I was just as good as other people.”

Other studies have shown that these four questions are a reliable way of measuring happiness, and that the answers to each question are highly correlated to each other. As well as examining people’s happiness, this study also examined by how much their happiness changed over time.

Conclusions of the Study

Fowler and Christakis conclude that the spread of happiness seems to reach up to three degrees of separation, just like the spread of obesity and smoking behaviour. They believe that this finding has relevance for public health. Human happiness is not merely the province of isolated individuals.

They outline the following as already being known before their study: 

• Previous work on happiness and wellbeing has focused on socioeconomic and genetic factors.
• Research on emotional contagion has shown that one person’s mood might fleetingly determine the mood of others.
• Whether happiness spreads broadly and more permanently across social networks is unknown.

They say that their study adds the following new information:

• Happiness is a network phenomenon, clustering in groups of people that extend up to three degrees of separation (for example, to one’s friends’ friends’ friends).
• Happiness spreads across a diverse array of social ties.
• Network characteristics independently predict which individuals will be happy years into the future.

Illustration

• The illustration shows happiness clusters in over a thousand people in the Framingham social network during 1996 and 2000.
• Each node represents one person. Node colour indicates mean happiness of each person and all directly connected (distance 1) people: yellow is most happy, blue is least happy and green is in between.

Sources

• The full text of the study: Dynamic spread of happiness in a large social network: longitudinal analysis over 20 years in the Framingham Heart Study
• Homepage of James Fowler of the University of California in San Diego
• Homepage of Nicholas Christakis at Harvard Medical School
• Happiness Is A Collective Phenomenon
• The Happiness Virus

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

Vatican Opposes Gay Rights at UN

The Catholic Church, through its pretend State in the Vatican City, is joining with Islamic States to try to stop the United Nations from protecting the equal rights of gay people throughout the world.

Gay people can be executed in seven Islamic countries: Saudi Arabia, Iran, Yemen, Sudan, Mauritania and parts of Nigeria and Pakistan.

And gay sex between consenting adults in private is a crime in almost eighty other countries.

France wants the UN to pass a declaration calling for an end to these laws. It wants all States to ensure that sexual orientation or gender identity may under no circumstances be the basis for criminal penalties, in particular executions, arrests or detention.

The Catholic Church has joined with Islamic States in opposing this move. The Vatican complains that the move would “add new categories of those protected from discrimination”. They also fear that it could lead to gay people being allowed to marry.

The French Declaration

Laws against against consensual gay sex are a violation of human rights. Even if they are not systematically enforced, their very presence on the statute books leads to fear, prejudice, hostility and discrimination against gay people.

In September, Rama Yade, the French minister of human rights and foreign affairs, announced that she would be asking the United Nations to call for the decriminalisation of homosexuality throughout the world.

The French declaration condemns human rights violations based on sexual orientation or gender identity, in particular the use of the death penalty, executions, torture, arbitrary arrest or detention and deprivation of economic, social and cultural rights.

It urges States to do the following:

• To ensure that sexual orientation or gender identity may under no circumstances be the basis for criminal penalties, in particular executions, arrests or detention.
• To ensure that human rights violations based on sexual orientation or gender identity are investigated and perpetrators held accountable and brought to justice;
• To ensure adequate protection of human rights defenders, and remove obstacles to them carrying out their work on issues of human rights and sexual orientation and gender identity.

Over fifty countries have signed the declaration, including all 27 European Union countries, Canada, Australia and New Zealand.

The Vatican Opposition

Archbishop Celestino Migliore, the Vatican’s representative at the UN, opposed the move as it would

“add new categories of those protected from discrimination”.

He also complained that it would

“create new and implacable discriminations… For example, states which do not recognise same-sex unions as ‘matrimony’ will be pilloried and made an object of pressure.”

After protests by gay rights groups outside the Vatican, and a statement by the European Parliament’s LGBT Intergroup, Vatican Radio later claimed that Migliore’s real concern was:

“the introduction of a declaration of political value, which could result in control mechanisms according to which, norms that do not place each sexual orientation on the same level, would be considered contrary to respect for human rights.”

Removing the double negatives, and translating the gobbledegook into plain language, it seems that this may be the part of the French resolution that the Vatican has problems with:

We reaffirm the principle of non-discrimination which requires that human rights apply equally to every human being regardless of sexual orientation or gender identity.

In essence, the Vatican is complaining that respect for human rights would include placing each sexual orientation on the same level. And preventing this from happening is more important than preventing gay people from being executed, tortured or jailed.

The Toy Vatican State at the UN

This would not matter so much if the UN treated the Catholic Church like it does all other Churches: by allowing it to make submissions as an ordinary nongovernmental organisation.

Instead, despite having no citizens, territory or economy, the Catholic Church is the only religion in the world that can attend and vote at UN conferences and co-sponsor drafts of UN resolutions and decisions.

Why? Because its pretend State, the Vatican City, issues its own stamps.

Here’s an earlier post where you can read the background to the Vatican’s bizarre involvement with the UN.

Sources

• The French Declaration on LGBT Rights
• ILGA publishes State-sponsored Homophobia report
• MEPs call on Vatican to embrace LGBT rights

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

Charitable Atheists

Irish people with no religion are slightly more likely to do charitable work than the average citizen, and Irish Catholics are slightly less likely to do so. David Quinn (Irish Independent, 5 December) argues the opposite, but he has misunderstood the census figures. Irish Protestants are the most likely to do charity work.

The charitable impulse is universal. David Quinn argues that it is religious, citing the large Red Cross presence after Hurricane Katrina. But the Red Cross is not a religious charity. Its symbol is based on the Swiss flag, as it was founded in Geneva.

The large Red Cross presence in New Orleans actually disproves the point Quinn was trying to make.

Ireland has over seven thousand listed charities, many of them secular. Bob Geldof, an Irish atheist, founded Live Aid. And internationally, the two largest charitable donors in world history are the atheist or agnostic billionaires Bill Gates and Warren Buffet.

Census Figures

The latest census shows that 5.7% of Irish adults help or volunteer for social or charitable work. Nonreligious people are just above this average, and Catholics are just below it. Up to 8% of Protestants do charity work, and the figure for other stated religions is slightly higher.

David Quinn mistakenly argues that one in ten Irish Catholics do charity work, compared to only 6% of nonreligious people. He gets these totals by adding in people who help religious groups and churches. But you cannot do this, for two reasons.

Firstly, any Catholics who do charity work, and who also help with their church, are included in both sets of figures. Quinn is counting each of them twice, as if they were two people.

Secondly, he defines his wrongly inflated total as “charity work”. But the census already gives us an accurate total for this. You can’t just add in under “charity work” thousands of extra people who did not say that they do charity work.

Secular Charities

More importantly, charity does not depend on religion. It depends on people caring about each other as fellow sentient beings. It depends on people wanting to end suffering and replace it with happiness, regardless of their beliefs about supernatural gods.

Religion is structured, and atheism isn’t. So a lot more charity work is done under the name of religion. But there are many secular charities. Ireland has an A to Z of over seven thousand charities, ranging from the All-Ireland Air Ambulance and Alzheimer Society to Zest 4 Kids and the Zoological Society.

Many excellent charities exist to fill human needs for humanitarian reasons. Oxfam and Concern tackle poverty and injustice. UNICEF works to protect and help children. Amnesty tackles abuses of human rights. The Lifeboat Association saves lives at sea.

Charitable Atheists

Atheists have founded many charities. Bob Geldof founded Live Aid. Screenwriter Richard Curtis founded Comic Relief and Make Poverty History.

Nonreligious people have been major philanthropists. Paul Newman donated $250 million to charity. Between them, Bill Gates and Warren Buffet have donated an incredible $80 billion – which is twenty times the budget of the International Red Cross.

Atheists can also donate to religious causes. Last year an atheist businessman gave over $20 million for Catholic school scholarships in inner city New York.

In an ancient Hasidic fable, a rabbi is asked if it is ever right to act as if god did not exist. His answer: “Yes. When you are asked to give to charity, give as if there were no god to help the object of the charity.”

That’s exactly what atheists do.

Photo: Bob Geldof and Bill Gates at Live 8 – IT Jungle 

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

Medieval Faith vs Reason Part 2

Religious Medieval philosophers tried to use reason to do three things: to support their belief in a god, to prove their belief in a god, and to develop a unified theory of all knowledge, divine and human. They partly succeeded in the first of these aims, and failed in the other two.

We must remember the context of Medieval times. Tradition was very important. Philosophy was considered an art (or a craft in today’s language). Philosophers were expected to first learn existing knowledge, and only then start to develop their own ideas.

Medieval Christian, Islamic and Jewish philosophers each faced different problems in trying to reconcile their faith with reason and logic. In Part 1 of this article, I described how ten of them attempted to do this. In this second part, I examine why they failed to do so.

Medieval Appeals to Authority: Divine, Rational and Human

In theory, Western Medieval philosophers gave different weight to different sources of information.

The authority of God was the strongest argument: this trumped all counter arguments.

Next strongest was an argument based on reason.

Next came an argument based on human authority.

• The strength of this argument depended on the credibility of the source: ‘Aristotle has said…’ was a considerably stronger argument than ‘My slave’s daughter has said…’.
• If the source had credibility, an appeal to human authority stood as a valid argument-unless or until it was contradicted using reason.

In practice, these distinctions were often blurred. A religious philosopher could not directly challenge God’s word (level 1), but he could assert that a human authority (level 3) had misinterpreted God’s word. He could thus challenge the human authority, using reason (level 2).

(Martin, 1996: 16-20)

Religious Restrictions on Medieval Philosophers

Medieval Christian philosophers operated within a political and legal framework strongly influenced by Christian theology.

Christian theology was in turn subservient to the direct authority and approval of the Pope and various Councils, with the Pope claiming to be able to infallibly interpret the word of God.

Medieval Islamic philosophers, in theory, had more freedom.

Islamic theology was merely the thought of human theologians, who are fallible. Philosophers were therefore free to contradict Islamic theologians, assuming they could rationally defend their arguments.

In practice, they had to consider the impact of their works on the powerful and often-conservative Islamic clergy.

• For example, Ibn Rushd (Averroes) argued that the ‘creation’ of the universe means its continuous transformation. 
• However, he proposed that this argument be restricted to those educationally qualified to understand it, leaving most Muslims with more simple beliefs that would not challenge their faith in Islam.

Ultimately, philosophers could face charges of heresy under Islamic law.

(Hourani, 1987: 567)

Medieval Jewish philosophy existed largely within the context of the Islamic and Christian civilizations in which Jews lived.

(Smart, 1998: 183-184).

Did They Succeed in Creating a Unified Theory of All Knowledge?

They failed to do this.

Medieval Christian philosophers faced the following problems:

The Augustinian project sought to synthesize all knowledge by rationally reconciling Neoplatonism with Christian belief.

• Some beliefs were hard to reconcile, such as Neoplatonism’s distrust of the body (versus the incarnation of Christ), and the Neoplatonic transmigration of the Soul.
• The project thus ran the risk of stagnating into fideism, with Pagan arguments being rejected purely on the basis of faith, ignoring reason.
• In countering this risk, Augustinians found it useful to use Aristotelian logic (available via the translations of Boethius).
• Aristotle was thus incorporated into Christian tradition as ‘an authority’, whose citing gave force to Christian arguments.

Later, Aristotle’s metaphysics – with, for example, its eternity theory contradicting creationism – reached Christians via Ibn Rushd (Averroes).

• Aristotle’s logic, already cited by Christian philosophers, was naturally more consistent with his own metaphysics than with Christian theology.
• Christian philosophers now had the dilemma of rejecting Aristotle’s metaphysics, without undermining his ‘authority’.
• Aquinas attempted this, partly by arguing that some issues can only be decided by Divine revelation, but his compromise was rejected (by both conservative Augustinian Christians and strict Aristotelians).

In the University structures, this eventually led to a split between the study of Divinity and the study of the Arts-exactly the opposite of the purpose of the original ‘unified synthesis’ project.

(Martin, 1996: 57-117; Moran, 2003: 9-11; Feldman 1987: 408)

Medieval Islamic philosophers faced the following problems:

Orthodox Islam found Greek metaphysics useful in countering anthropomorphic ideas of God.

However, Al-Ghazali in particular exposed contradictions between Islamic faith and philosophy. These included the eternity of the cosmos, the claim that this is consistent with creation, God’s knowledge of universals and particulars, and the denial of the resurrection of the body.

Ibn Rushd (Averroes), Al-Ghazali’s clearest critic, was charged with heresy – or of arguing that there were two different truths, based respectively on faith and reason; a charge he denied.

Sufism-a mystical offshoot of Orthodox Islam – was more consistent with Neoplatonism, but Sufism was not the main strand of Islam. Also, it developed partly in reaction against the rationalism of philosophy.

(Smart, 1998: 168-173, 181; Martin, 1996: 116)

Medieval Jewish philosophers faced the following problems:

• Medieval Jewish philosophy existed largely within the context of the Islamic and Christian civilizations in which Jews lived.
• It only seriously emerged in the 9th century, in the context of Islamic philosophy, and then flourished in the 12th century with Ben Maimon.
• It faced broadly the same challenges as Islamic and Christian philosophy in seeking to reconcile faith and reason.

(Smart, 1998: 183-184)

Did They Succeed in Proving Their Belief in a God?

They did not succeed in this.

This is best illustrated by examining Aquinas’s attempt to use reason to prove the existence of the Christian God.

I will deal in another article with the question of whether his Five Ways arguments are valid (and I will argue that they aren’t). 

But, even if they were valid, all that they could prove only that an undefined something might exist. He ends each by simply assuming that this something ‘is what everyone calls God’.

Also, the five Ways are in any case only half of Aquinas’s attempt to prove the existence of God. His self-imposed challenge is to rationally answer two counter-arguments, not one. These are:

• That the existence of evil is inconsistent with God.
• That nature can be explained without reference to God.

His five Ways address only the second argument.

To the first he simply refers to the human authority of Augustine. His sole argument is that, ‘as Augustine says’, God is supremely good so He would not allow evil unless He could bring good from it.

The circular logic of this half of his proof fatally undermines whatever limited rational credibility the five Ways may have.

(Aquinas, Summa Theologiae, 1a.2.3)

Did They Succeed in Supporting Their Belief in a God?

They partly succeeded in this, by selectively using parts of Greek philosophy.

Aristotelian logic, and ideas such as the first unmoved mover, could be used to help to support (already-existing) beliefs in a god.

The ‘other-worldliness’ of Neoplatonism could be used to support Christian mysticism, Islamic Sufism and Jewish Kabbalah (although the latter two developed partly in reaction against the rationalism of theistic philosophy).

One illustration of their success in supporting mainstream Christianity is the painting The Triumph of Saint Thomas (1471) by Benozzo Gozzoli (1420-1497), now in the Musée du Louvre, Paris, and pictured here.

The top panel shows Christ, flanked by Paul, Moses and the four Evangelists. Christ announces: ‘You have written well about Me, Thomas.’

The centre panel shows Aquinas, with Aristotle and Plato showing him their work. Ibn Rushd (Averroes) lies at their feet, symbolizing the defeat of his arguments by Aquinas.

The bottom Panel shows Pope Sixtus IV, flanked by various clergymen.

Sources

Aquinas, Thomas. Summa Theologiae. In McDermott, Timothy, 1993. Aquinas: Selected Philosophical Writings. London: Oxford World Classics.
Feldman, Seymour, 1987. Aristotelianism, in The Encyclopedia of Religion. Ed. Mercia Eliade. New York: MacMillan Publishing Company.
Hourani, George F., 1987. Ibn Rushd, in The Encyclopedia of Religion. Ed. Mercia Eliade. New York: MacMillan Publishing Company.
Martin, Christoper J.F., 1996. An Introduction to Medieval Philosphy. Edinburgh University Press.
Moran, Dermot, 2003. Medieval Philosophy. In Bachelor of Arts, Philosophy 1. Dublin: Oscail, Dublin City University.
Smart, Ninian, 1998. World Philosophies. London: Routledge.

 

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

Medieval Faith vs Reason Part 1

Many medieval philosophers tried to reconcile their belief in a god with the logic and reason of Greek philosophy. In this article, I outline how ten of them tried to do this:

Augustine (354-430), an Algerian Christian.
Boethius (480-524), a Roman Christian.
John Scotus Eriugena (810-877), an Irish Christian.
Psuedo-Dionysius (6th Century), a Syrian Christian.
Al-Farabi / Abunaser (870-950), a Turkish Muslim.
Ibn Sina / Avicenna (980-1037), a Persian Muslim.
Anselm (1033-1109), an Italian Christian.
Ibn Rushd / Averroes (1126-1198), a Spanish Muslim.
Moses Ben Maimon / Maimonides (1135-1204), a Spanish Jew.
Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274), an Italian Christian.

In part two of this article, I will look at how successful they were in their attempts to reconcile faith and reason. First, here is a summary of their efforts:

4th and 5th Centuries: Augustine

Augustine (354-430) was an Algerian who found Platonic and Neoplatonic thinking full of wisdom, but said that he ‘never really fully understood either until he converted to Christianity’. He then sought to incorporate Platonic – indeed, all – human wisdom into this new understanding. 
(Martin, 1996: 58, 73).

Like others before him, Augustine adapted Plato’s Good and Forms.

• The Jewish philosopher Philo (30 BCE-45 CE) had equated them to God and God’s thoughts respectively. 
• The Neoplatonic Plotinus (204-270) had argued that everything emanates from The One to The Nous, or divine intellect. 
• Augustine equated God the Father to The One, and God the Son to The Nous, with Plato’s Forms present to humans through Christ.
• Plotinus had argued that evil is the absence of good. Augustine adopted this belief to reconcile the existence of God with the presence of evil.
• Because he saw God as the source of all wisdom, Augustine saw philosophy – ‘love of wisdom’ – as identical to ‘love of God’. He thus devalued the scientific research of Aristotle.

(Stevenson, 2002: 82; Van Fleteren, 1992: 59; Collinson, 1987: 27; Moran, 2003: 9-12)

6th Century: Boethius and Pseudo-Dionysius

Boethius (480-524) was a Roman aristocrat and an orthodox Christian.

• His Consolation of Philosophy presented Neoplatonic ideas in a Christian context, arguing that this world is a shadow compared to the true, eternal, timeless world.
• His Latin translation of, and commentary on, Porphyry’s Introduction to Aristotle’s Categories was ‘the book that originally stimulated medieval philosophical debate’.

(Moran, 1993: 9-9; Aubert, 1987: 362).

Psuedo-Dionysius (6th Century) was a Syrian Christian who was later mistakenly identified with Dionysius, a 1st Century convert of Saint Paul.

• Augustine, influenced by Plotinus, had emphasised ‘the interiority and immediacy of God’s presence in the human mind’. 
• Pseudo-Dionysius was influenced by Proclus – a later Neoplatonist – and he instead proposed ‘a hierarchical universe in which the Divine Light spread downward through a series of intermediate agents to humanity and the lower orders.’

(Dutton, 1992: 175)

9th & 10th Centuries: Eriugena and Al-Farabi (Abunaser)

John Scotus Eriugena (810-877) was an Irish Christian monk who moved to France. He was ‘the most original synthetic thinker between the times of Augustine and Aquinas’ (Dutton, 1992: 170).

Eriugena translated, from Greek, Eastern works of Pseudo-Dionysius and Maximus the Confessor. Maximus had taken the hierarchical emanation of Pseudo-Dionysius, and added the idea that everything is brought together again when the Divine Goodness returns to God.

Eriugena then sought to reconcile this with Augustine’s work. This was the first major attempt to combine Neoplatonic and Christian thought from the East and the West.

Eriugena’s major work is the Peryphyseon, or On the Division of Nature. In this he argues that:

• Nature is the general name for all things, whether being or nonbeing. 
• There are five modes of interpretation for ‘being-and-nonbeing’.
• Humans exist in the fifth mode, combining bodies in the material world and Souls in the intelligible.
• The whole universe is, in this sense, contained in humanity and will return to God.
• Humans can only know that God is, not what God is.

Eriugena augmented his Neoplatonic influences with a Pythagorean-style mystical discussion of the number eight as a supernatural cube, with the five parts of nature combining with the triad of God on the eighth day-the Resurrection.
(Dutton, 1992: 168-184).

Al-Farabi (870-950), sometimes Latinized as Abunaser, was a Turkish Muslim known as ‘the Second Teacher’ (i.e. second only to Aristotle).

Al-Farabi saw reason and revelation as complementary, and saw philosophers as similar to prophets.

• Aristotle saw God as the first unmoved mover. Al-Farabi saw God as the cause of the being, as well as the motion, of everything.
• Aristotle had other unmoved movers, superior to embodied Souls but inferior to God. Al-Farabi saw these as angels.

Al-Farabi then followed a Neoplatonic model: God’s contemplation of Himself overflowed into the existence of a First Intelligence, and thence onward through emanation to all else. His main work, The Virtuous City, was inspired by Plato’s Republic.

(Speake, 1979: 9; Moran, 2003: 9-22; Black, 1992: 115; Feldman, 1987: 408)

10th & 11th Centuries: Ibn Sina (Avicenna) and Anselm

Ibn Sina (980-1037), Latinized as Avicenna, was a Persian Muslim who further developed Al Farabi’s attempts to synthesize all knowledge derived from reason and faith.

• He drew on Aristotle’s theory of Eudaimonia to argue that the highest aspect of any human being, its intelligence, seeks to reach its perfection.
• He then drew on Neoplatonism to argue that the way of seeking that perfection is to return to unification with the One from which all emanates – God.

(Gohlman, 1987: 569)

Anselm (1033-1109) was an Italian-born Christian Bishop of Canterbury.

He is best known for his ontological argument for the existence of God: essentially, that ‘that-than which-nothing-greater-can-be-thought’ must exist, because if it did not exist, then it would not be ‘that-than-which-nothing-greater-can-be-thought’.

Whatever the merits of this argument, Anselm thus ‘introduced to the West the idea of proving the existence of God’.

(Lesconcy, 1992: 30)

11th & 12th Centuries: Ibn Rushd (Averroes) and Ben Maimon (Maimonides)

Ibn Rushd (1126-1198), Latinized as Averroes, was a Spanish Islamic Judge who became known as ‘The Commentator’ on the works of Aristotle.

He strongly defended the study of philosophy against theological-legal challenges of heresy under Islamic law.

• Ibn Rushd argued that not only did the Koran not forbid the study of philosophy, but it demanded it of those capable of doing so.
• He argued that such study must be built on all previous learning, especially that of the ancient Greeks. 
• Differences with the Koran must be reconciled, as both are forms of truth and ‘truth does not oppose truth, but accords with it and bears witness to it’.

Al-Ghazali (1058-1111) had made influential arguments against Al-Farabi and Ibn Sina in his The Incoherence of the Philosophers. Ibn Rushd responded with his The Incoherence of The Incoherence.

• Ibn Rushd defended Aristotelian ’cause-and-effect’ against the argument that only God caused any effect, and did so directly. 
• Ibn Rushd responded that denying causality denies not only the existence of essences, but the possibility of knowledge.

Ibn Rushd (Averroes) first seemed to accept the Neoplatonic emanation-of-God theory supported by Al-Farabi and Ibn Sina. Later he rejected it as a metaphor.
(Black, 1992: 68-79; Hourani, 1987: 567)

Moses Ben Maimon (1135-1204), Latinized as Maimonides, was a Spanish Rabbi and the leading intellectual of Medieval Judaism.

His major work, The Guide for the Perplexed, sought to reconcile Aristotelian philosophy with Judaic revelation. He argued that

• Anthropomorphic descriptions of God in the Bible are metaphorical: ‘The Torah speaks in the language of man’.
• God can only be described in negative terms: God’s ‘wisdom’ is not the specific presence of wisdom, but the absence of ignorance or defect of knowledge.
• Spirituality is integrated with reason; reason is the proper means to attain spiritual goals; mystical doctrines do not stand up to reason.
• Some of the archaic ritual Judaic laws only came about in the context of the struggle between Judaism and paganism in the ancient world.

In seeking to reconcile pagan philosophy with the Torah, he argued that

• Platonism may seem consistent with the Torah, with prime matter coexisting eternally with God, but it limits God’s power, however slightly.
• Aristotelian metaphysics are more compatible, to the extent that Aristotle himself at times concluded that the question of the origin of the world is beyond demonstration: it was only later Aristotelians who thought otherwise.

(Wigoder, 1989: 454-455; Dobbs-Weinstein, 1992: 272-273)

13th Century: Aquinas

Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274) was an Italian Christian who sought to reconcile Aristotelianism with Christianity.

Aquinas was particularly impressed with the work of Ibn Rushd (Averroes) in translating and interpreting Aristotle.

Aquinas disagreed with Ibn Rushd’s interpretation of Aristotle’s view of the nature of the human intellect.

• Ibn Rushd had interpreted Aristotle as saying that intellect is not a faculty of the soul, and there is a single intellect for all humans.
• Aquinas countered that Aristotle held neither position, and that neither could be rationally defended. 
• Aquinas believed each human has an individual intellect; a position more in line with Christian teaching.

His five Ways of proving the existence of God draw heavily on Aristotle, and to a lesser extent on Plato and Neoplatonism.

• The first three Ways – Change, Causation and Contingency – rely on causal chains that end at Aristotle’s concept of the first mover.
• They also rely on a distinction between actual and accidental causes which Aquinas adopted from Ibn Sina (Avicenna).
• The fourth Way – Gradation – relies on Aristotelian physics and on absolute standards analogous to Plato’s Forms.
• The fifth Way – Finality – relies on Aristotle’s biological theory that all of nature moves towards a goal.

(Aquinas, De Unitate Intellectus Contra Averroistas;  Aquinas, Summa Theologiae, 1a.2.3; Moran, 2003, Unit 11)

Part Two

In part two of this article, I will look at how successful these medieval philosophers were in their attempts to reconcile faith and reason.

Sources

• Aquinas, Thomas. De Unitate Intellectus Contra Averroistas. In McInerney, Ralph M., 1993. Aquinas Against The Averroeists: On Their Being Only One Intellect. USA: Purdue University Research Foundation.
  
• Aquinas, Thomas. Summa Theologiae. In McDermott, Timothy, 1993. Aquinas: Selected Philosophical Writings. London: Oxford World Classics.
  
• Aubert, Roger, 1987. Platonism, in The Encyclopedia of Religion. Ed. Mercia Eliade. New York: MacMillan Publishing Company.
  
• Black, Deborah, 1992. Al-Farabi; Averroes, both in Dictionary of Literary Biography, Vol. 115: Medieval Philosophers. Ed. Jeremiah Hackett. United States: Gale Research.
  
• Collinson, Diane, 1987. Augustine, in Fifty Major Philosophers: A Reference Guide. Kent: Croom Helm.
  
• Dobbs-Weinstein, Idit, 1992. Moses Maimonides, in Dictionary of Literary Biography, Vol. 115: Medieval Philosophers. Ed. Jeremiah Hackett. United States: Gale Research.
  
• Dutton, Paul Edward, 1992. John Scottus Eriugena, in Dictionary of Literary Biography, Vol. 115: Medieval Philosophers. Ed. Jeremiah Hackett. United States: Gale Research.
  
• Feldman, Seymour, 1987. Aristotelianism, in The Encyclopedia of Religion. Ed. Mercia Eliade. New York: MacMillan Publishing Company.
  
• Gohlman, William E. 1987. Ibn Sina, in The Encyclopedia of Religion. Ed. Mercia Eliade. New York: MacMillan Publishing Company.
  
• Hourani, George F., 1987. Ibn Rushd, in The Encyclopedia of Religion. Ed. Mercia Eliade. New York: MacMillan Publishing Company.
  
• Losconcy, Thomas A., 1992. Anselm, in Dictionary of Literary Biography, Vol. 115: Medieval Philosophers. Ed. Jeremiah Hackett. United States: Gale Research.
  
• Martin, Christoper J.F., 1996. An Introduction to Medieval Philosphy. Edinburgh University Press.
  
• Moran, Dermot, 2003. Medieval Philosophy. In Bachelor of Arts, Philosophy 1. Dublin: Oscail, Dublin City University.
  
• Speak, Jennifer (Ed), 1979. A Dictionary of Philosophy. London: Pan Books.
  
• Stevenson, 2002. The Complete Idiot’s Guide to Philosophy. Second Edition. Indianaoplis: Alpha Books.
  
• Van Fleteren, Frederick, 1992. Augustine, in Dictionary of Literary Biography, Vol. 115: Medieval Philosophers. Ed. Jeremiah Hackett. United States: Gale Research.
  
• Wigoder, Geoffrey, 1989. The Encyclodedia of Judaism. Jerusalem, Israel: G.G. The Jerusalem Publishing House.

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

The Q Atheist Song Contest

Q Transmissions, a skeptical radio talk show in Alberta, Canada, is organising an Atheist Song Contest. Put your entries on YouTube or mp3 and email the station before January 2. For inspiration, here are four skeptical singalongs, starting with Chumbawamba’s toast to Charles Darwin. (If you can’t see the videos, go to the original post.)

Charlie by Chumbawamba

Over the river and over the sea
Through holy storm and thunder
Steer a course for a brave new world
Of common sense and wonder

Dear God by XTC 

Did you make disease and the diamond blue?
Did you make mankind after we made you?
And the devil too?

I’m an Atheist and I’m Okay by Darragh Jennings and FX Robinson of Atheist Ireland 

 

I’m an atheist and I’m okay
I question things and I think all day
He’s an atheist and he’s okay
So he won’t burn you if you’re gay

The Large Hadron Rap (the CERN Lab Song)

When matter is created from energy
Which is exactly what they’ll do in the LHC
You get matter and antimatter in equal parts
And they try to take this back to when the universe starts
The Big Bang

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

Catholic Radio Advert Banned

The Broadcasting Commission of Ireland has banned a radio advert for the Catholic bookstore Veritas. The advert promoted religious Christmas presents. Catholic spokespersons have slammed the decision as bizarre, ridiculous, silly, absurd, farcical and ludicrous.

Why did this happen? Irish law bans adverts that are directed towards a religious end. There is a free speech case that they shouldn’t be banned. And there is a public protection case that they should be. For me, the key point is that our advertising code treats religious adverts on the same basis as any other advert.

So why do we have an advertising code? It is to protect vulnerable people from being misled. As an advertiser, you must be able to rationally prove, using objective evidence, that you can deliver what you are promoting. This is the test, whether it be slimming tablets that soak up fat or eternal salvation after you die.

That’s why the law bans adverts directed towards a religious end. And, despite its subtle message, this advert is clearly one of these. The Catholic bishops own Veritas. The stated purpose of Veritas is “to serve the needs of the Irish Catholic church”. It does this by “using the culture and modes of communication of the time to speak to the people about god and his message.”

The wording of the advert

Here’s what the proposed advert says:

Cake and crackers, Santa and stockings, turkey and tinsel, mistletoe and mince pies, and presents and puddings. Christmas: aren’t we forgetting something? This Christmas, why not give a gift that means more? Veritas has a range of different and thoughtful gifts, for children and adults alike. From books and music to candles and artwork, there is something for everyone to enjoy and treasure. So to give a gift that means more, drop into your local Veritas shop or log on to www.veritas.ie

The Broadcasting Commission objected to the following phrases: “Christmas: aren’t we forgetting something?” and “Why not give a gift that means more?” and “So, to give a gift that means more.”

The Commission also objected to the inclusion of the address for the Veritas website, which contains material that is much more overtly religious than the wording of the advert.

Christmas: aren’t we forgetting something?

Let’s start with a point that is often skipped over. The implication of the phrase “aren’t we forgetting something” is that we are forgetting that we should really be celebrating the birth of the baby Jesus on December 25. But the Christian Bible says nothing about when Jesus was born, and the presence of shepherds does not suggest winter.

Christmas evolved from an ancient tradition of midwinter festivals that celebrated the winter solstice, the impending return of good weather, the Roman festival of Saturnalia the god of agriculture, and the birth of the Persian sun god Mithras on December 25.

In the mid-300s, Pope Julius designated December 25 to be the birthdate of Jesus. By doing this, he made it easier to absorb pagans, with their existing traditions, into Christianity. And food, drink and hedonism were always at the heart of their midwinter festivals.

That’s a secondary point, because the Christian churches have long established their own tradition of celebrating at this time of year, but it should not be ignored.

Why not give a gift that means more?

Now let’s look at the main issue. On the face of it, the phrase “give a gift that means more” sounds harmless enough. Who wouldn’t want a gift that means more? Particularly one chosen from “a range of different and thoughtful gifts, for children and adults alike”, where “there is something for everyone to enjoy and treasure.”

However, in reality, the range of available gifts is much narrower than that. The only gifts that Veritas sells are gifts that are aimed at promoting Catholicism in Ireland. If you visit the website named in the advert, you will see a set of category links on the front page. The first five are:

• Christmas and Advent at Veritas
  
• Helping Others at Veritas
  
• Baptism at Veritas
  
• Holy Communion at Veritas
  
• Confirmation at Veritas

And if you visit the “about us” page on the website, you can read about the history and purpose of Veritas, as described by its owners, the Catholic bishops of Ireland:

• Veritas has its origins in the Catholic Truth Society of Ireland, which was founded to publish and make available a range of religious materials…
  
• The name was recently changed to Veritas Communications. Its aim is to explore and use the language, culture and modes of communication of the time to speak to the people about God and about God’s message for their times…
  
• Our function is to serve the needs of the Irish Church…
  
• Veritas is wholly owned by the Irish Catholic Bishops’ Conference...

This advert is directed towards a religious end

On the basis of this alone, there can be no doubt that any advert that aims to bring people to Veritas is an advert directed towards a religious end.

the words of the advert are more subtle than its ultimate aim, just as the personality tests that Scientologists offer are more subtle than their ultimate aim.

As I have mentioned earlier, there is a separate argument as to whether we should ban adverts that are directed towards a religious end. But, given that they are currently banned, I believe that this advert falls into that category.

Photo: Golden Christmas by Krisdecurtis (cc)

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

Roy Keane Leaves Sunderland

On the day that Roy Keane leaves Sunderland after 100 games as coach, here’s a quick summary of the controversial career that led Arthur, Paul and me to write the comedy musical I Keano.

In the glorious summer of 1990, Ireland coach Big Jack Charlton was barking orders at his Ireland World Cup squad in Italy.

Back in England, an equally blunt manager was luring a young lad from Mayfield in Cork to play for Nottingham Forest.

Brian Clough labelled his new signing ‘The Irishman’. Clough had an understated motivational style. He once punched Keane in the stomach for underhitting a pass during a match. Before long, Keane was playing for both Forest and Ireland.

The following year, Charlton reprimanded Keane for turning up late for an Ireland team bus journey in Boston. Keane replied “I didn’t ask you to wait.” The Ireland captain, Mick McCarthy, weighed in with “Do you call that behaviour professional?” To which Keane countered “Do you call what you have a first touch?”

Red Devils

In 1993 Keane moved to Old Trafford for a then record British transfer fee of £3.75m. He quickly started collecting trophies, medals, red cards and fines. In helping United win two league and cup doubles before replacing Eric Cantona as club captain, Keane stamped his authority on the team, and his boot on Gareth Southgate during an FAI Cup semi-final.

In 1997 he injured his knee during a clash with Alf Inge Haaland. Keane later scythed into Haaland during a Manchester Derby match in 2001. “I’d waited long enough,” he later explained through the eloquent pen of Eamon Dunphy. “I fucking hit him hard. The ball was there, I think. Take that you cunt.” Keane was fined £150,000 for bringing the game into disrepute.

1999 was a bittersweet year for Keane. United won the elusive treble of league, FA Cup and European Cup, but Keane missed out the European Cup final for being repeatedly booked. The following year he slammed United fans for “having a few drinks and maybe the prawn sandwiches” and knowing nothing about football.

Red Mist

The next target of his ire was the Football Association of Ireland. Among other things, Keane was upset that the officials, but not the players, sat in first class seats on flights. He was lucky he didn’t play in the 1970s, when the Ireland players once sat on their suitcases in the luggage compartment of a train to Germany.

Then came the big one. Saipan, May 2002. The FAI prepared for the World Cup by forgetting to bring footballs to an island with no football pitch. Keane finally exploded, and left the island after he suggested that Mick McCarthy could stick the World Cup up an improbable part of his anatomy.

The nation erupted into turmoil, as our generation’s civil war began. The 1916 Easter Rising paled into insignificance. Was Keane a hero or a traitor? Well, he was certainly an inspiration to me, Arthur Mathews and Paul Woodfull, as his antics led us to write the comedy musical I Keano.

Black Cats

Three years later an injured Keane left Manchester United, after slamming his teammates on United’s television channel. “It seems to be in this club that you have to play badly to be rewarded,” he fumed. “Maybe that is what I should do when I come back. Play badly.”

He spent a few months in Scotland playing for Celtic, before an extraordinary sequence of events unfolded. Mick McCarthy became coach at Sunderland and was sacked. Niall Quinn (who Keane had called Mother Teresa during the Saipan incident) became chairperson of Sunderland. Quinn hired himself as coach, fired himself, and hired Keane to replace himself.

In his first season as coach, Keane took Sunderland from the bottom of the championship to promotion to the Premiership in 2007. Unable to attract top players to Sunderland, he criticised their wives for wanting to shop in London. Since then, they have struggled, despite Keane spending almost £70m on new players since he arrived.

Today, after a hundred games in charge, Roy Keane has left Sunderland by mutual consent. Who knows what his next move will be?

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

Welcome to Atheist Ireland

I had the honour last Sunday of being elected the first chairperson of Atheist Ireland, which is Ireland’s first atheist advocacy group. Our mission to provide a platform for people who wish to work together to build a rational, ethical and secular society free from superstition and supernaturalism.

We have two aims. One, to promote atheism and reason over superstition and supernaturalism. And two, to promote an ethical and secular Ireland where the State does not support or fund or give special treatment to any religion.

Our priority goals include promoting our aims, initially to Irish people of no religion, and campaigning for a secular Irish Constitution and a secular Irish education system.

We will be launching the group formally in the coming weeks. In the meantime, we would welcome any help or interest from people with relevant experience. If you want to find out more or get involved, please visit the discussion forum at www.atheist.ie, which is the website that brought together the friendly and committed group of people who have founded Atheist Ireland.

Meanwhile, here is some background on three of our immediate goals:

Promoting Atheism and Reason

Many people define atheism in different ways, and most atheists also share common values that arise from our belief that we are natural beings living a natural world. We will promote a greater understanding of atheism in Ireland, and of the benefits of reason and science and evidence over superstition and supernaturalism. We will do this through debate, publications and networking with relevant groups.

At first, we will focus our attention on Irish people of no religion. In the 2006 Irish census, there were almost 190,000 of these. And another 70,000 did not answer the question about religion. That is over a quarter of a million people, more than 6% of the population, and considerably more than 6% of the adult population as most children are likely to have been included under the religion of their parents.

Promoting a Secular Irish Constitution

The preamble to the Irish Constitution states that all authority of both men and States comes from “the Most Holy Trinity”, and that the people of Ireland humbly acknowledge our obligations to “our Divine Lord, Jesus Christ”. Actually, all authority (in the sense of legitimate power) comes from agreed relationships between people, and not from any gods that some of those people imagine to exist.

Article 44 begins with an extraordinary claim: “The State acknowledges that the homage of public worship is due to Almighty God.” This is not a guarantee of the right of Irish citizens to worship a god, but of the right of this god to be worshipped by Irish citizens. The next line—the State “shall hold His Name in reverence, and shall respect and honour religion”—also protects the rights of this god, not the rights of Irish citizens. And the State’s respect for religion flows from the rights of this god to be revered, not from the rights of its citizens to revere it.

Articles 12, 31 and 34 prescribe religious oaths in which the President, Councillors of State and Judges must ask God to direct and sustain them. Article 40 makes blasphemy an offence. Partly because of these references in our Constitution, the courts have found that certain personal rights of Irish citizens “flow from the Christian and democratic nature of the State”.

Promoting a Secular Education System

We believe that children should to be educated on an equal basis, regardless of the religious beliefs of their parents. As an overall aim, the State should own at least a majority of Irish schools, and should manage them with a rational, secular ethos. As an immediate short-term goal, we are going to focus on the issue of schoolchildren being able to opt out of religious education classes.

Members Welcome

We have other short-term goals, some of which are about the practicalities of setting up a new national organisation. As I mentioned earlier, we will be launching the group formally in the coming weeks. In the meantime, we would welcome any help or interest from people with relevant experience. If you want to find out more or get involved, please visit the discussion forum at www.atheist.ie.

Photo: Ireland Landscape by Obbino (cc)

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!