The Passion of the Rational Mind

by Dianna Narciso

It’s one thing to be told atheism is irrational by a theist (his belief demands such a stance), but to be told such a thing by a fellow atheist is disappointing, if not infuriating. Atheism is the only honest position one can hold. Anyone who is not an atheist, is deluding himself.

Now, I can understand that my agnostic friends (and all those atheists who call themselves anything to avoid the dreaded A-word) will attempt to cite some hypocrisy on my part for doing to them that which I have just decried. The difference lies, as do all things, in the factual evidence. I must say I respect the theist more when he at least accepts the reality of atheism and still attempts to call it unreasonable, than I can those of my fellow nonbelievers who have no clear understanding of atheism and take such great satisfaction in thinking themselves above it. While the theist will contort his logic, like a mutant pretzel of the mind, to make me irrational, agnostics and those atheists-in-word-disguise only need to contort a definition. What I mean to say is, I have evidence to offer for my assertion that anyone not an atheist is delusional.

We can pity the poor believer who thinks "agnostic" means "isn’t sure" and "atheist" means "thinks he’s so darned smart he knows everything and so thinks he knows there is no god." But what do we say to others who do not believe in gods and yet accept such nonsense? Snap out of it! would be my preferred reaction.

But I’m serious here when I say that atheism is the only-–that’s O-N-L-Y--honest and rational stance to take on gods. You can take this to your uber-theist friends and explain it to them and maybe they’ll shake their heads and call you crazy; but maybe, just maybe, you’ll have scared the bejeezus out of something deep within them. True, chances are they’ll turn all glassy-eyed on you like they often do when you use words and phrases like "abiogenesis" and "separation of church and state." But try it on your Humanist friends, and the agnostics, and freethinkers, and skeptics. Some of them, I guarantee, will tilt their heads toward you and whisper something silly like, "I know you’re right, but I just don’t like the word." I give you permission to roll your eyes and sputter at them when they do so. Sure, we’re all going to dislike the word when it’s been so utterly trashed and demonized by our Christian friends. But, let’s give it a chance. Let’s use it more often. Say it softly, maybe with an accent (better not do French without first checking the perimeter), purr it–Athhheeeeeisssst. Not too bad, eh?

Enough blabbering. Here’s the proof. It’s all so very simple. All good little atheists should know about Thomas Huxley (not to be confused with his grandson Aldous, like I did in the first printing of my book...though, because I did it, everyone else who does it is now forgiven ...all hail the goddess of mis-attribution!). Huxley is the guy who gave us the word "agnostic." So, you see, there’s no real need to argue about what it means. We have Huxley to tell us. Of course, Huxley was wrong about at least one thing. When he gave the world his new word, he showed his complete ignorance and lack of respect for atheists past and present. In reality, there was no need for a new word. Huxley, like many others, just didn’t like, or understand, the word atheist. I know what you’re thinking–Huxley, one of those big names, didn’t understand a simple word? Amazing, isn’t it, how utterly human even our great thinkers are.

You think I’m crazy right about now, don’t you? You’re thinking, "Who is this upstart, dissing one of the greatest thinkers of all time?" Well, here, I’ll show you. Huxley said this:

When I reached intellectual maturity, and began to ask myself whether I was an atheist, a theist, or a pantheist; a materialist or an idealist; a Christian or a freethinker, I found that the more I learned and reflected, the less ready was the answer; until at last I came to the conclusion that I had neither art nor part with any of these denominations, except the last. The one thing in which most of these good people were agreed was the one thing in which I differed from them. They were quite sure that they had attained a certain "gnosis" -- had more or less successfully solved the problem of existence; while I was quite sure I had not, and had a pretty strong conviction that the problem was insoluble. And, with Hume and Kant on my side, I could not think myself presumptuous in holding fast by that opinion.[1]

There are so many things wrong with Huxley’s logic here that I’m not sure little ole’ me can find them all. To begin with, there are only two options. One is either a theist, or he is not. One either believes in a supernatural and gods, or he does not. If he does not, he is atheist. Strangely enough, Huxley lists all these positions as if they are on the same philosophical level. Well, I’m no philosopher-–not one with a degree anyway-–so perhaps I am the problem. Philosophers get to ruminate all sorts of vomit and call it meaningful. But for the purposes of this essay, we will look at everything objectively.

Atheism is not equal to materialism, nor idealism. Atheism is an adjective that describes a person’s position with respect to belief in gods: he has none. Materialism and idealism are philosophical theories which many atheists use in understanding reality. The three are not equal and the first does not belong in the same category with the other two.

Huxley’s listing of theist, pantheist, and Christian is simply redundant. Christians and pantheists are theists of different sorts. But if Huxley meant to list all sorts of theism he reflected upon, one might ask why he limited himself so severely to two, and why we should listen to anything further from him until he broadens his scope. He is, after all, about to create a whole other category of description needlessly.

What to make of "freethinker?" Huxley seems to have liked that word as many of our atheists-in-word-disguise do today as well. But freethinker is barely meaningful and even less so when counted in this list. Anyone who is not under some sort of mind control could be considered a freethinker and, indeed, many of our dear Christian friends claim the label even while being under a subtle form of mind control.

You could argue this point, if you like, especially with any Christian who claims he is a freethinker and also points to some outdated Webster’s definition to tell you atheists are wicked. If he prizes the dictionary so much, he could look up freethinker. The typical dictionary definition of freethinker is: "One who has rejected dogma and authority, especially in religious thinking." This person could, indeed, remain a theist. The (updated) definition at dictionary.com adds that a freethinker "favors rational inquiry and speculation." However, in times past, definitions of the word linked it to deism: the belief that God created the world and then sat back to watch history unfold.

If Huxley meant to say he was a deist, he must include himself in the theist category, as one who believes in a god of any kind is still a theist. I think Huxley likely meant that other definition of the word, though, which says nothing of whether one is atheist or theist, but only the he rejects dogma. I know lots of people who make up their own religions as they go along. They’re freethinkers. And I know lots of atheists who are freethinkers, too. I think it’s safe to say all atheists are freethinkers. But many will disagree with me and that is precisely the point of all this rambling.

(Now, before you call me hypocrite for actually founding an organization under the label of freethought, I can rightly defend myself on that point. I’m sly is all. I didn’t want to beat my friends over the head with the A-word; I wanted to feed them doughnuts and Diet Coke first and get them into the proper mood. And in actuality, it is a freethought group after all, because you don’t have to be an atheist to partake of the doughnuts.)

Moving along now...Huxley then claims that all of those listed labels describe some sort of "gnosis" or knowledge of the reality of existence. Pish posh. Are we supposed to believe him because he’s a great thinker? Then he tosses out the appeal to authority, by slobbering all over Hume and Kant, and we’re all put in our places duly now, aren’t we? Hardly. There is such a big difference in an atheist saying, "I see no evidence of gods and the supernatural, therefore it is right and good to assume the natural world is all there is," and a theist saying, "There is a god and he wants us to worship him." Gnosticism is deeply associated with spiritual truths of which an atheist would naturally have no knowledge. So you see, Huxley perhaps wasn’t such a great thinker after all.

If I could, I’d take Mr. Huxley by the collar and get up in his face and demand an answer: "Do you believe in gods or do you not? Yes. Or no. There is no agnosis. There is only belief and not belief. So which is it Mr. High-and-Mighty? Huh? Huh?" Well, maybe I would only do that if he was sitting down because I’m not so tall. But you won’t find me holding an opinion just because some dead philosophers did. No thank you, Mr. Huxley. I’m a real freethinker.

Then Huxley, after making a complete mess of things, goes on to say:

So I took thought, and invented what I conceived to be the appropriate title of "agnostic." It came into my head as suggestively antithetic to the "gnostic" of Church history, who professed to know so much about the very things of which I was ignorant; and I took the earliest opportunity of parading it at our Society, to show that I, too, had a tail, like the other foxes.[2]

Well, I hate to break it to Mr. Huxley, but putting both of these statements together shows us that he is the one who is ignorant. If you ask me, I think he just liked calling himself something special. I once knew a writer who enjoyed inventing words. He thought they’d actually catch on. Huxley lucked out. Now all those extrospective people who can’t decide if they believe in gods or not (come on, people, you either do or you don’t!) have their very own word. And regardless of Huxley’s intentions for it, it has come to mean "I don’t know if there is a god or not." Well, you know what? I don’t know either. But I’m not an agnostic. I’m an atheist, just like Huxley was.

Now, I know a very nice woman who calls herself agnostic. But what she is, actually, is flexible. On some days, she says, she doesn’t believe there is a god and on others, she does. So, she fluctuates, is all. That doesn’t make her agnostic. It makes her bi-theistic. (I just made that word up.)

Well, we elitist intellectual types don’t really appreciate it when Christians give us all that crap about how we can’t be atheists because in order to be atheist, we have to know E-V-E-R-Y-T-H-I-N-G. And if we don’t know E-V-E-R-Y-T-H-I-N-G we couldn’t possibly know that there isn’t a god. They just can’t stand it when you tell them that you don’t have to know E-V-E-R-Y-T-H-I-N-G to know that you don’t believe in gods. They get flustered and say, "No, no. Atheists believe there is no god. It says so all over the Internet!"

Well, I don’t give a flying URL what some unsuspecting, debate-challenged atheist says on his website. Atheism means "without belief in deity."

Of course, there is no god. That much is clear.

"Ah, aha, now you’ve admitted that atheism is belief there is no God! You are no different from me. What makes you say your faith is any more valid than mine!" Shout our Christian friends with glee. (Sigh.) Here is where the problem (and the proof of the delusion of belief) lies. Let me explain.

What is belief? It is unfortunate that our language is human-created, because for that very reason it is fallible, if not altogether an appallingly poor excuse for communication. Words, so very often, have more than one meaning. And some words mean almost the same thing as other words, but not quite. Thesauruses really ought to be banned. Toleration and kindness, for example, don’t really mean the same thing, but you’ll find them linked in a thesaurus. So, rule number one: do not trust language.

Belief has several meanings in common usage today (that’s what your dictionary tells you about–-common usage–-so beware of dictionaries, too). In my dictionary here at home [3], the first meaning of belief is "the act, condition, or habit of placing trust or confidence in a person or thing." You see how many words they use? That just goes to show how difficult all this language stuff is of which to make heads or tales. (Did you catch that grammar?) So, let’s just call that the "confidence/trust" definition. The second definition is not so different, really; it says: "Mental acceptance of or conviction in the truth or actuality of something." That one pretty much just says that "belief" means "belief." And number three says: "Something believed or accepted as true, especially a particular tenet or a body of tenets accepted by a group of persons." So that’s your "proper-noun" belief. And here are the synonyms of belief: conviction, feeling, idea, notion, opinion, persuasion, position, sentiment, view." (Read those again; you’ll want to recall them later.)

Nowhere in this definition of belief is there any hint whatsoever that said belief has even a whisper of a basis in fact or evidence. No, it’s a "feeling." I’m all for feelings, mind you. They have their place.

The word "believe" is much, much worse, believe me. Definition number one of "believe" is "to accept as true or real." And number two is almost the same: "to credit with veracity." These definitions get me in trouble all the time. I accept the factual evidence of evolutionary theory. This does not mean that I believe in evolutionary theory. I don’t have to "believe" it’s true or real, because the evidence is right there staring me in the face. So, these particular definitions of "believe" are tricky. Watch out for them. Then there’s number 3: to expect or suppose. That means like...I believe it will rain today or I believe you are tall enough to touch the ceiling. All of the above definitions of the word "believe" are pretty much handy substitutions for the word: think. And yet, think and believe do not really mean the same thing. They are just used that way by people. And that’s where you will run into a lot of trouble when you talk to believers.

Now something funny happens in my dictionary definition of "believe." It starts all over again with number one. The reason for this is because the first definitions are for the word "believe" when used as a transitive verb. The second set are for its usage as an intransitive verb. Oy. Do we have time for a grammar lesson? It all has to do with the object of your verb. When you use believe as a transitive verb, an object must receive the action of the verb. There must be something you believe. Intransitive verbs need no object. While this is probably the very core of the problem with the confused usage of this word, let’s not worry about it. Let’s just look at the next set–the intransitive definitions.

Number one says: "To have faith, especially religious faith." Aha, now we’re getting to the problem. But here’s the clincher. Number two says: "To have faith or confidence: trust." Oh, no. Now they’ve gone and screwed atheists ‘til the end of time. We may as well just give up right now.

Do you see how they have just mangled the word "believe" (and by association "belief") so badly that it is rendered unusable by any respectable atheist in any discussion with a theist? The words have been linked to trust, confidence, religion, and faith. They are entwined, and parsing out the subtle differences in usage of the words is, trust me, a complete waste of time when dialoguing with a believer.

To make matters horribly worse, skipping the definition that just means "trust/confidence," my dictionary tells me that "believe" also means: "To think: judge." Egad! Think and believe are now equal. Why, oh why, has the dictionary done this thing? Well, because like I said before, people use these words interchangeably. But if you just turn to the T’s you’ll find out that the word "think" has some fifteen definitions and only one of them is "to believe or suppose." Again, I must say that all hope is lost.

Don’t get me wrong, a believer understands the difference between using the word "believe" to denote confidence, and using it to denote faith. And sure, they understand that sometimes we say "believe" when we mean "think." But they are apparently incapable of listening to themselves during conversations with atheists. Otherwise, they’d see that they volley back and forth between those definitions depending on the point they are trying to force on you.

The typical conversation goes something like this:

Theist: You have faith, just as I do. You have faith every time you cross the street.

Atheist: I have no faith. I don’t need faith to cross the street. I am simply confident in my experience with large, heavy, moving objects.

Theist: But this is faith and you use it every day. It is faith just as I have in my creator. You believe the Sun will rise tomorrow. That’s faith.

Atheist: Yes, I believe the Sun will rise tomorrow–-

NOOOOOOOO! Stop right there. Please. Dear Mr. Atheist debater, you do not "believe" the sun will rise tomorrow. You simply understand the earth’s rotation, you grasp the scientific assurance that the Sun has no plans to become a Red Giant during your lifetime, and, more basically, it has risen every day that you can recall, so it is only natural to expect it to rise again tomorrow.

Am I getting through? Are you understanding the problem with the definitions of "belief" and "believe?" Try to stop using these words when you talk to believers. They so desperately want you to believe what they do, that they’ll go to great lengths to get you to admit you believe A-N-Y-T-H-I-N-G, even that your spouse loves you. And then, quite slipperyish like, they’ll turn that word around until it means "faith." Because you see, right there in the dictionary it says they’re the same thing.

Faith is no better, let me tell you. Its definitions range from "confident belief" and "loyalty" to that one we really like: "belief not based on logical proof or material evidence." Yes, we really like that one. But it’s totally bogus, you know. Belief is based on nothing. It is the very nature of belief to have no evidence or proof backing it up. That’s what belief is. And faith and belief are indistinguishable with regard to religiosity.

What’s the opposite of belief? Knowledge. We love the entry for knowledge in the dictionary. It’s not too long and not contradictory. Sure it’s not perfect and it does include the archaic sexual use of the word, but it’s so clearly based on evidence and learning. Its synonyms are: education, information, erudition, wisdom (i.e. that which is known), etc. Yes, lore is in there too and I could object to that on the grounds that its definition includes "beliefs" and "traditions" but that’s a tedious enterprise. It’s true. In common usage these words are bound together. Be careful how you use them. Knowledge and belief are not synonyms.

And so now it is all clear to you that belief is delusion. Belief is based on your feelings and convictions, not on any factual evidence at hand. If you had factual evidence for what you believe, you would not have to believe it...you would know it. Now here comes the theist promoting his god.

Theist: Believe in him.

Atheist: He obviously doesn’t exist.

Theist: You atheists think you know everything.

Atheist: I don’t have to know E-V-E-R-Y-T-H-I-N-G to assume your god doesn’t exist. All I have to do is listen to you tell me to believe in him. If I have to believe in him, it’s glaringly apparent he does not exist.

Theist: Stop bashing me for my faith!

Atheist: Yeah, yeah, whatever.

There is no evidence that a god exists. If there were, we would all know that a god exists. Sure, you’d still have your deniers, just like the poor souls who refuse to accept the evidence of evolutionary theories. And that’s what evangelical Christians would like to make of us: deniers. The difference is that we have the evidence for evolution. It’s in the museums of natural history and in magnificent and scholarly tomes and journals. There is no such evidence for them to offer for their belief, only postulation, rumination, philosophizing and assertion-mongering. Again...that’s why they have to believe it.

Now, what to make of all our dear atheists-in-word-disguise? Do you suppose they think I’ve called them delusional? Because of course I have not. But there are those who subscribe to the silly notion that the label of atheist entails some sort of absolute claim that no gods exist. As I said, gods do not apparently exist. That much we can assume. If a fellow atheist would like to get all philosophical on me and say that because we can not know with absolute certainty that gods do not exist, we should remain open to the possibility, I have no quarrel with him. But if he then claims that atheism is dogmatic and absolutist and he himself is correct in being agnostic, I have to say bullocks.

We must always remain open to new evidence that would enhance our knowledge. But what does that have to do with atheism? Nothing. No where in the word atheism is there any indication that it is a statement of belief or knowledge. The belief (that delusional thing) is attached to the theism part of the word. The a at the beginning of the word negates the belief contained in the word theism. Atheism, therefore, is not an entity on its own, it is only a negation of theism. Theism is belief in deity. Therefore atheism is without belief in deity. Nonbelief or unbelief have a long history in usage as meaning lacking belief...not believing there is no god.

You will occasionally run into the delusional individual who will, with a straight face, tell you that there is no difference between lacking a belief and having one. Do not talk to these people. They live inside their own little worlds and won’t hear what you say, only what they think you have said. I guess they can see your lips move, but there’s someone else in their heads doing your talking for you, so just forget it.

And so, we come to the truth at hand. As there is no evidence for gods (admitted by the theists who tell us we must believe in theirs before he’ll seem real to us) and as having to believe in anything is verification that it has no evidence for it and is therefore delusional, the only intellectually honest position one can take is that of atheism, or withholding belief.

I myself do not believe in belief.

*I can’t adequately define my usage of delusional, because the appropriate dictionary entry reads, "holding a false belief in spite of invalidating evidence." Labeling a belief false is lunacy, as a true belief would be established by the evidence beforehand, and thus not be belief at all. A false belief is nothing more than any ole’ belief. There is no such thing as a true belief. Yet, I imagine our theist friends would love this definition as it presumes that some beliefs are false, while others are true. I admit, one may hold a belief that later turns out to be factual. But that in no way makes holding the belief before the knowledge is attained into a rational behavior.