This can be a helpful argument to be able to make given how often religious apologists — both theists and atheists — try to claim that theism shouldn't be criticized so harshly because even if it is false, it's harmless at best if not positively beneficial. It can be shown that this is a poor justification for false beliefs, but being able to counter it more directly as well is a good idea.
[I]t was reading Nietzsche that finally put the nail in the coffin of my belief in God. From Nietzsche I got the idea that aside from the fact that it’s false, belief in God might actually be morally wrong. This meant that you couldn’t try to hedge your bets by maintaining your belief, or going agnostic (that great cop-out); you really had to take a stand. It had never occurred to me before that it could be wrong to believe in God, so intent had I been on defending myself against the charge that it was wrong to lose my faith. This was a real eye-opener.
So how could it be wrong? Well, of course, not wrong in the stealing/ murdering/ raping sense of wrong. Rather, it’s wrong in the sense that belief in God expresses a rejection, or denial, or perhaps subjugation of one’s humanity. It involves turning one’s back on the human will to overcome challenges, to create, and instead makes servility to authority the ultimate aim of human life. It projects onto an unapproachable and incomprehensible Other all that is good and magnificent in human experience and achievement. Why is it wrong? It’s a sin against ourselves, that’s why.
The very idea that we require salvation from above is an idea I now find quite offensive. It’s not that I see only good in human nature. Far from it. As a species we seem particularly prone to acts of savagery that distinguish us on the planet. But we must take responsibility for ourselves, and while taking responsibility for our dark side also take pride in our achievements.
Theists of all (traditional) kinds often make human hubris—the urge, as it is sometimes called, to ‘‘play God’’— into the source of much evil in the world. I side with (my understanding of) Nietzsche here in seeing this as the great inversion of reality that it is. For it is our unique capacity as rational beings with a moral sense to transcend mere nature. Rather than acknowledge that fundamental fact and take responsibility for it, theists re-describe it as ‘‘playing God.’’ No, as I see it, it’s God who’s playing us.
Source: "From Yeshiva Bochur to Secular Humanist" by Joseph Levine in Philosophers Without Gods
One of the most disturbing aspects of many people's religious beliefs is the manner in which these beliefs make it possible for believers to avoid taking personal responsibility for what's going on. They don't have to be responsible for ensuring that justice is done because God will provide that. They don't have to be responsible for solving environmental problems because God will do that. They don't have to be responsible for developing strong moral rules because God has done that. They don't have to be responsible for developing sound arguments in defense of their positions because God has done that. Believers deny their own freedom because freedom means responsibility and responsibility means that if we fail, no one will rescue us.
Just as bad is the refusal to take personal responsibility for all the good which humans have done as well. God is given the credit when someone survives a car or plan crash, not all the engineers who designed the safety systems or politicians who mandated that the vehicle be so safe. God is given credit when someone survives a risky operation, not the doctors who performed the operation or researchers who developed the procedures. God is given credit when someone displays remarkable talent or skill at some activity like sports or art, not the athlete or artist who invested so much time in practice, training, and personal development.
Many people find democracy too messy and find Rousseau a bit scary. I am not one of them. ...What makes Rousseau scary to some is the thought that without a real, external sovereign to anchor them, the people working as a collective will devolve into a kind of mass tyranny. ...
In the absence of God, all there is left to human life is human action and interaction with ourselves and each other and other aspects of the natural world, and the only meaning any of it has is the meaning we manage to give it. Our existence is thus one long walk on a tightrope over a yawning abyss and there is nothing to catch us should we fall into meaninglessness or isolation or even mere ordinariness. But that is exactly what I find so exhilarating about being an atheist. Life is up to us; there are no safety nets. That’s a bracing thought. It’s also a reason to live.
Source: "Transcendence without God: On Atheism and Invisibility," by Anthony Simon Ladent in Philosophers Without Gods
Liberty — especially the personal liberty that is fundamental to modern democracy — and responsibility go hand-in-hand: being free opens up more possibilities for action, but also forces us to live with the consequences of our actions. A godless person must us take responsibility for not only their personal behavior, but also the political community of which they are a member. This is because without any gods to fall back on, there isn’t anyone out there who will make things better and clean up after our mistakes. Our problems are ultimately our responsibility.
It is not a coincidence that so many movements for political or economic liberty have also been coupled with anti-clerical arguments as well as atheism, or at least rejection of whatever religious forms passed for traditional and orthodox at the time. There isn’t anything about atheism or godlessness which requires that one advocate liberty and autonomy, or which would prevent a person from supporting repressive institutions. The value of autonomy has, however, been an important component of godless philosophies and politics throughout human history.
Taken to the social and political level, personal autonomy creates a foundation for mass democracy: when people take to hear the principle that they should govern themselves, then will also take seriously the principle that the governing of society should be based on the will and consent of all the citizens rather than just a self-selected elite. Democracy is messy and scary for the same reasons that autonomy is messy and scary: people allowed to govern themselves are being allowed to make the "wrong" decisions, to disagree with what God or their elders want, to make changes to long-standing traditions, etc.
Are liberty and autonomy possible in the context of theism and religion? Obviously it is possible to at least some degree, but there will always be constraints — not constraints created by and amendable by humans, but constraints attributed to gods and therefore placed beyond the reach of human reason or amendment. This necessarily creates limits for human freedom and autonomy which don’t exist in a godless context — a context where the existence of some god may not be excluded, but where the interests or wishes of any alleged gods are excluded.
It could also be construed as morally wrong, in that religion waste resources and the time of people involved. I pass by churches every now and then and wonder, “What beneficial building could be there in its place? How many homeless could be living in a shelter made on that spot? Etc.” These buildings must also have security, water, heat in the winter, ac in the summer, electricity, and so on, all things that could be better used elsewhere. Furthermore, all the clergy could better spend their time learning useful skills, ones that actually help people in need. And finally, even if all you do is sleep in, time spent going to church could better be spent.
Can we work against the myth that agnosticism is somehow a cop out or some kind of golden mean?
I agree that some religions, especially xianity, go against human nature. They often maintain that our (unproven) spiritual nature is “higher” than our physical nature; that celibacy is better than sex; that an imaginary world is more important than the physical world we can perceive and must live in.
I part company with Levine when he writes: “For it is our unique capacity as rational beings with a moral sense to transcend mere nature.”
I don’t believe that we transcend nature. Maybe we aspire to transcend nature but I don’t see how we actually do that. Our abilities to be rational and moral are part of our unique human heritage, as is our “dark side.”
To insist that we somehow transcend nature is to mimic the religionists’ error, even though we supposedly do so in the service of different and “better” values than theirs.
Perhaps we will be able to re-engineer humanity, such that we become a different species. Maybe then it will be possible to “transcend” the old humanity. Until then, I prefer to avoid talk about our supposed ability to transcend nature. What’s wrong with nature anyway?
Hmm. Interesting position, and one about which has to think from a pure philosophical position.
There ought to be some value or upside to acknowledging mistakes, and taking responsibility for our actions; otherwise, folks might not be highly motivated to do so. Responsibility is more than an abstract concept. Laying off responsibility on a deity does not advance societal interest.
I am an atheist and agnostic. No cop out and no contradiction.
Todd:
Its not a myth.Pick a side-atheism/theism.Then one can add an adjective to it.Lloyd got it right.
what a stupid, stupid argument