ATHEISM

By

John Roberts

I do not feel it necessary to attempt to define the term, “Atheism”, as it is complex. Most “Atheists” are dogmatic about their denial of the fact of the “existence” of “God or Gods”. However, it seems necessary to try to define what we mean by “God!” I myself prefer to use an abstract phrase to try to describe my own idea of the “nature” of the Deity. When I affirm that one can only “know” God in a spiritual sense, I wish to say that whilst “God” is a convenient term for everyday use, it hardly comprehends the nature of the “Creator of the Universe!” It is my experience that we can comprehend God as “All-pervading Love and Compassion!” I use the foregoing term, as it is my own personal conviction, during a long life of 91 years, that all people are able to directly share the experience of “Divine Communion”. (I do not refer, here, to the age-old and, essentially, useless Christian ritual known as “Holy Communion!”, which is a relic of the ancient practice of the early Christians.) A denial of “God” closes the door to this source of comfort and encouragement. Someone has recently suggested: mankind is “programmed” for God. This may be true, but such an idea does not, necessarily, negate the freedom to act independently of any form of exterior influence or manipulation.

An “Atheist” may be said to be a person who rejects, inter alia, the concept of a Deity who is, in essence, “Divine Love and Compassion!” We can forget all about such terms as “Greatest conceivable Being!”, as it must be apparent that no human brain can possibly begin to comprehend the “nature” of “Universal Intellect!” I do not imagine, for one moment, that we are capable of making such an enormous leap into the unknown. However, most religious people approach their Deity via the familiar image of a “Divine Parent”. We are, after all, finite beings and are not “Supermen”: even though the achievements of modern Science might convince us that we are performing the “miraculous” in all forms of technology. Indeed, the mind boggles at the thought of the rapid growth in human knowledge, in all the Sciences.

The Atheist is distinguished by his dogmatic denial of external spiritual influences: he says, categorically, that there is no such thing as “Divine Guidance” and that those who seek spiritual counsel and solace are merely deceiving themselves. He points to the long history of religious experience: the sustained intolerance of the Churches: their exclusiveness; love of power; greed; collaboration with the rich and powerful; the hypocrisy of the “religious”; their complicity in the slaughter of thousands of innocents throughout centuries of religious persecution. Indeed, he points to the Bible and other religious books, as mythological histories, which, in themselves, expose the fallacies and falsehood that has typified the practices of the religious, from time immemorial. He claims, with a great deal of veracity, that the religions of the world have been the source of much of the evil that has descended upon the innocent, from generation to generation in human history.

When I was a lad of 14 or so years of age, I occasionally attended open-air meetings at Platt Fields, Manchester, at which vocal Atheists exposed the fallacy of religious belief, together with the long history of human oppression, outlined above. Having always been sceptical, in spite of a deeply ingrained religious upbringing, I joyfully accepted Atheistic principles; feeling convinced as to the validity of the arguments produced by the exponents of the principles of Atheism. Their arguments were, quite obviously, logical and appealed to “common sense”. They mainly consisted of sustained ridicule of everything pertaining to religion, in general, with marked demonstration of their contempt for such simple-minded people as those who are accustomed to Church attendance. Given the history and practices of religion, this was not a difficult task.

Indeed, it would be true to assert that, e.g., when armies go to war they are invariably accompanied by Priests, of one form or another, who offer prayers for the success of the piratical and murderous venture, then about to be undertaken. The French Philosopher and writer, Voltaire, complains of this practice and the hypocrisy thus displayed. The Catholic Church, itself, has a long history of war-making, with Popes leading their warriors into battle. But this is only to consider the hypocrisy of the religious.

The Atheist ridicules the fatuous beliefs of the “religious”. Their ideas about “Divine Guidance” and the worship of the Saints: their belief in “Miracles.” He points out that they have created an image of a God for themselves, in their own form, and it is this that they worship. They attribute to God the virtues and vices that they themselves practice and think that by bargaining with the God, or with the Saint (with whom they, particularly, associate) that they will be able to manipulate the Deity to assist them in their plans for success in life. These practices are common in many primitive societies.

A favourite argument of the Athiest is to the effect that, if there was, indeed, a “God!” why does He (or She) permit the existence of so much evil in the World? That the world is literally swamped with “wickedness” of one form or another, is undeniable and this question appears to be valid. There are natural disasters that are clearly harmful to humankind, as well as those that we consciously bring upon ourselves by wrong-doing. It is not hard for us to lay these sorrows at the door of the Creator of the Universe and say, “Why does all this unhappiness descend upon us? Why do our children die in infancy? Why are we afflicted by disease? Why Earthquakes? Floods? Wars? Indeed, one might, therefore, ask: “Why have we been brought into the world, in the first place, if we have to suffer such miseries?” These are all valid questions and one would need to be a philosopher, indeed, to answer them all. Is “God”, therefore, if He exists, indifferent to human calamities?

Yet! We have to admit that, in spite of almost universal misery in our World, there is yet much happiness. It may be transient and fleeting, but is much sought-after by everyone. What most particularly impresses us about Atheists, or at least those whom we have met, personally, is that they are almost totally miserable, or are only “happy” when they are trying to make other folk miserable. Indeed, “scorn and derision” are the major tools of the “free-thinker”, who is able to expose the fallacies of “religion” and the absurdities that abound in the doctrines of all the world Faiths. For instance, both Christianity and Islam claim that their Principals: Jesus, on the one hand, and Mohammed, on the other; were physically translated to “Heaven” on death. The Jews claim that one of their Prophets, Elijah, was spiritually elevated in a similar manner.(See 2 Kings Ch 2,v 11) The Jewish Bible also records the temporary cessation of the motion of the Sun around the Earth, by Divine activity, to enable the Jewish warriors to complete the necessary slaughter of their enemies. (As required by their Deity, Jahweh!) (Joshua Ch 10,v 13) There are literally thousands of points of ridicule, such as these, to be found in the various religious traditions.

Whatever I may have stated earlier in this essay, about the shortcomings of the “religious” and my juvenile enthusiasm for Atheistic teachings, I yet retained some definite religious feelings. I recently watched a Television Documentary about an American Evangelical Atheist, Madalyn O’Hair, who spent her life denigrating religion in the USA, only to have her eldest son adopt Protestant Christianity, when he became a man. It seems that he had a “vision” of “Jesus”, or some other “spiritual experience”, that convinced him that his mother was mistaken in her beliefs, or lack of them. Now that was a striking conversion to Christianity and must have damaged the cause of Atheism in America. I mention the “spiritual experience”, as it was a similar, if slightly different event that changed my own life, and convinced me of the fact of “Survival after death!”

At the age of 16 years, and towards the close of World War Two, when I was an insecure and confused adolescent, my father became interested in Spiritualism. This was following some “psychic experiences” of his own. He commenced to attend the Raby Street Spiritualist Church, Manchester and also to hold Spiritualist meetings at our house in Salford, Lancashire, at which he and my twin sister, Margery, sat together. As I was usually present on these occasions, I observed what took place. At first I was extremely, nay, violently opposed to such crazy proceedings. They had an alphabet board, on which a glass spelt out “messages”, allegedly from the “dead”. I was present, because there was no other room in the house to which I could go to get away from the meetings. The upshot was, that, after some weeks of watching the rapid gyrations of the glass, I had to admit that neither my sister, nor my father, were actively moving the instrument around the board. It went too fast, altogether! I began to take an interest in Spiritualism myself and joined a “Developing Class” at the Raby Street Church. I had, evidently, opened the door to something new! After some weeks attending meetings on Wednesday nights, without any convincing personal experience of “The Spirit”, I went to bed one night, to be visited by a lady during the night. I thought that I had awoken and felt that someone was in the bedroom. I then felt hands moving up from my feet and sat up in the bed, to be hugged by my mother, who spoke to me, saying, “John, my Darling Baby!” That was all. I did not open my eyes nor did I say anything myself. But the hugging and the voice were very real to me. My dream then ended. In the morning, I realized that I had been given something that I could not deny: the understanding that the “Resurrection from the Dead” is a fact of life. The following Wednesday night, the leader of the Class spoke to me during the sitting and I felt, immediately, as though a “Blanket of Love” had been laid over me from head to toe. Thus was my experience of the preceding week confirmed. The leader informed me that, “…..when your mother comes to you, you need not be afraid.” These experiences were, of course, purely subjective and are of no value as “evidence” of the truth of my own conviction. However, the fact that they are commonplace, should give cause for thought on the topic.

My own life certainly took a new turn, although it was many years before I really began to apply, what might be termed, “higher principles” in the management of my personal affairs. What my conversion did achieve, was to change my attitude as to the idea of the existence or non-existence of “God!” I said to myself, “If people do survive the physical death, then there has to be a God! There can be no other explanation.” It did not really matter how we defined the Deity or what our concepts were: what was important was that there was truth in the doctrine of the resurrection from the dead! The human spirit takes on a new role and purpose, when it is understood to be immortal, whatever its quality and form.

Thus, one aspect of Christian Doctrine is confirmed in the truth of the “Resurrection”: admittedly, something differing from the idea of the resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth, as envisaged by the “Church”. Not only is Jesus “risen from the dead” but his return to his disciples, after his death on the Cross, was a confirmation of the fact of universal resurrection; not an event unique to the person of the Nazarene himself. It was a pre-existing fact: not a new factor in the life of humanity. To put it another way, one might say that there is no such thing as “Death”, or as Longfellow puts it in his poem: “Resignation!”:

“There is no Death!”: what seems so, is transition.

This life of mortal breath is but a suburb of the Life Elysian,

Whose portal, we call, “Death!”

(This poem was written following the death of his small daughter).

Death, then, is, according to one view, merely the discarding of the flesh and the awakening to a new or expanded consciousness.

It is this idea of the survival of the human personality after the physical death that is anathema to Atheists. When they reject the idea of “God!” they also deny the religious principle of divine intervention in our lives. It would be correct to affirm that, in the absence of a supreme intellect or an intelligent “First Cause”, the idea of “Divine Guidance”, in the lives of individual men and women, would be futile. Lacking the idea of “Judgment”, there is no cause for concern about doctrines involving retribution for evil deeds. One does not even need to consider relative questions of good or evil, for these become irrelevant in daily life, apart from purely family or social matters. The Atheist, therefore, has a much easier time of it than the “Believer” and can enjoy life to the full. The question might be asked, “Does the Atheist possess some advantage over the Believer?” Again: “Is the Atheist any happier for his freedom?” The Atheists I heard speak, as a youth, were, no doubt, intelligent and convincing but they hardly impressed as being concerned in the welfare or happiness of people, in general. I could not say that they appeared to be contended or happy with their own lot.

Without the assistance of a “rule of law”, with respect to the conduct of one’s life, it is evident that people are “floating about oarless on the sea of life!” If one possesses sufficient intelligence to be able to make decisions based upon objective questions as to the need for particular conduct, then it might be affirmed that “all is well!” However, most of us are not geniuses, nor are we endowed, particularly in childhood, with a well-developed sense of “right and wrong”. We do need guidance and help to solve personal problems.

Religious instruction usually has included an element of teaching on questions of morality and correct behaviour, generally: without which humanity would have not progressed at all. Without a spiritual sanction, a person has no incentive to consider questions of family, social or community obligation, except from a purely abstract view. It is in this aspect, more than any other, that religion can be of help to mankind.

So then, it may be affirmed that “belief” is not necessarily essential to the living of a useful and productive life but can be of great help in establishing a personal awareness of the moral law. Whatever our religious beliefs may be, and they are, surely, of infinite variety, if they result in the leading of a constructive life, then they are beneficial and ought to be credited, accordingly.

Atheism can give no comfort in the matter of impending demise. We all die, Believer and Non-believer, alike. For all people, there is an element of speculation in questions relating to the possibility of a form of existence after the death of the physical body. Most people are terrified of death: some, perhaps, more than others! Those of us who believe that we have had some perception of the future state, either in dreams or in visions, can claim to have caught a glimpse of the forms of life beyond death, but that is all. No matter how beautiful and vibrant the scenes we perceive in the dream state: no matter how lovely the spirits we see in our more elevated moments: we still really know very little of the nature of the life after death. Still, it really does give us a glimpse of things to come and it certainly helps to overcome the fear of death and judgment.

The Atheist has no fear of “Judgment”: that terrifying ordeal that has been the lot of man to believe, since man almost began to ponder the things of the spirit, back in Ancient Egypt. Nobody will relish the idea of wicked souls being torn to pieces by Crocodiles. Our Atheist friends will have a good laugh at that. Nor, indeed, do I, for one, believe for one moment that any soul is, or has ever been, disposed-of in such an unprepossessing manner. This is not to suggest that there are not many people who thoroughly deserve such an end. However, as “God” does not judge such people, we can forget that idea.

What then, are the true facts? All this is mere speculation. Preachers have been “damning” people for centuries and probably will always do so. My own view is that we “damn” ourselves, if at all. If we turn ourselves into human monsters, we cannot complain if we look in a mirror and are horrified. I think it is all a question of “free-will!’ and the law of “cause and effect!” When we see people (who have had loved-ones taken from them by violent means, either accidentally or deliberately), demanding vengeance, one way or another, do we not feel compassion for them? We also, sometimes, ask: will revenge satisfy the yearning for the recovery of the past; that is gone forever. Is monetary compensation going to fill the void that has been created? We can derive no comfort from vengeance: it is a mirage.

Those who reject religious ideas are, themselves, seeking some alternate solution to life’s problems, that will give them peace-of-mind.

When Karl Marx stated, “Religion is the opiate of the masses”, he was, to some extent, correct. Perhaps he had in mind the hypocrisy of the Clergy of all denominations: their love of display: of silken garments: of empty ritual: their worldliness: their disregard for the essential principles of religion: their devotion to the maintenance of the Establishment: their hatred of change, in any form: their arrogance! It must have been obvious to him that the majority of the so-called “Religious” of his time, were categorically false to all the charitable principles of the faith that they taught. For generations, people were, in the main, illiterate and unable to discover the facts for themselves. As a result, they remained locked in a web of superstition and falsehood. The disciplinary control over the masses, exercised by the Priests, kept them from questioning too closely the injustices of the Social Order. Marx wanted to change all that.

Unfortunately, as an Atheist, Marx taught a political philosophy that brought out all the very worst features of a Godless Socialism, when it finally triumphed over the old Order, in the creation of Soviet Russia. It generated a bloodbath that had repercussions throughout the Twentieth Century and continues today. Instead of Socialism producing a veritable Utopia, it created a monstrous caricature of the ideal of “Freedom, Brotherhood and Equality”. Like the French Revolution of a hundred years earlier, a Godless Reformation produced disaster for millions of innocent people.

It thus becomes evident that a secular world cannot do without those devout and honest people who attempt to live as their religious founders ordained. It does not matter very much what is the basis for their beliefs, but it does matter how they live and how they influence others. Mankind needs the moderating influence and the discipline afforded by a religious philosophy that sets out the” do’s and don’ts” of everyday life. Of particular importance, is a body of doctrine that is comprehended by the majority of people and gives them a glimpse of the underlying basis of their existence. My own view is that we are here to promote the progressive evolution of humanity, so far as this is possible for individual men and women.

Atheism is categorically incapable of giving men guidance in moral terms, as it is not concerned with the inculcation of a set of rules for living. It merely seeks to “disillusion” people as to the “existence” of a superior controlling intellect and to point out the folly of all reliance on a promise of a future State, after Death. “Let us Eat, Drink and be Merry, for tomorrow we Die!” Surely, such a rule, applied absolutely, would result in chaos for everyone? It does nothing for the obligation that we all have towards the support of others. “Who is my Neighbour?” “Why? Nobody! Go for it!” “Enjoy yourself without regard for others: make money while you can and destroy those who get in your way!” This has been the philosophy of most people throughout history, which is why our world is not progressing as it should.

“Evolution” is, indeed, a slow process and not to be hurried. It is not going to be assisted by a preoccupation with denial of man’s spiritual nature, for that, indeed, is the basis of our whole existence. The recognition of this truth and of the corresponding obligations of “Service” alone, will facilitate the progressive motion of human inter-relationships. The World Religions must take another look at their own origins and try to re-establish a new moral order. Only then will we be able to get out of the quagmire of our own creation.

One cannot deny the existence of “God!” for such is the source and foundation of all things in the Universe: not the least, in Man Himself!

Finis

6th June 2008 (amended 22.3.20)

John Roberts,

Sydney, Australia.

Write to author

robertsjno@gmail.com