Some readers of my book and of this blog have told me how much they pity me, and how much they regret, despise and oppose what I am doing. Good Christians, they genuinely feel sorry for me and the presumably sad, empty life I have created for myself. They are afraid my case, like my life, is hopeless, but pray for me anyway. They thank God they have their faith to keep them warm and happy and hopeful. They are distressed that I am trying to get others to question and abandon their faith. As if it were not bad enough that I am ruining my own life, wasting the opportunities I had and still have to discover the bounties of His love, the satisfaction, the comfort, the reassurance that come from faith in a loving, forgiving God, it seems that I am hell-bent on getting others to share my miserable, meaningless existence, and leading them to regret eternally the Heaven they and I could have had. Sadly, they say, I sometimes succeed in getting believers (on the brink) to give up God, leaving them with nothing : nothing and no one to believe in, no hope for the future and no reason to care about anyone besides themselves. They might not go quite as far as the gentle Jesus, who declared that it would be better if scandal -mongers like me had never been born and that we deserve to be drowned with a millstone tied around our neck. But they would prefer that I cease and desist, or at least soften my cruel blows against belief in God, His revelation and His Church, and not disturb the serenity of people whose faith is essential to the meaning they give to their lives and to their deaths.
An “Apologia Pro Atheismo Meo” would not convince hard-core believers, any more than the 400 Reflections already published to date here (178) and in my “From Illusions to Illumination” (227). But I feel obliged to remind them at least of the following :
1. People have every right to believe, or not believe, whatever they like. People have the right to express their belief or disbelief. People also have the right to try to convince others to change their mind, to reject or accept beliefs.
2. Efforts to encourage people to modify their belief or disbelief must be devoid of physical, psychological or other duress or the threat thereof, as well as of dishonesty, manipulation and attacks against, or disrespect for, the person of the believer or unbeliever. Respect for the person does not exclude disrespect for the beliefs held or rejected.
3. Persons attempting to promote or destroy beliefs are entitled to use any other means they wish which they consider appropriate to achieve their objective.
Propagandists on both sides of a question realize that their cause is not served if their methods alienate their opponents. “Captatio benevolentiae” (capturing benevolence) is a permanent rhetorical imperative. But “le style c’est l’homme”, “style is the man”. Mine is not everybody’s cup of tea, and I have only myself to blame if I shoot myself in the foot, turn people off or mix metaphors.
But I will always reject the fallacy that only religion can assure a genuine joie-de-vivre. I have learned to live without religion’s illusions and would not want to seek meaning, purpose and joy in fantasy. I have no need of religion to lead a meaningful, purposeful, joyous life which I know will end definitively in death. Nor do I need religion to give me reasons for respecting my fellow-man and contributing to helping ensure that his life, as well as my own, are in keeping as far as possible with human dignity. I am honest enough to say that I am NOT my brother’s keeper (if only because such a “brother” is a metaphor derived from the myth of God the Father of us all), and do not claim or pretend to love my fellow-man as much as myself, my own family and close friends, but I am dedicated to offering people in need whatever help I can, including my vision of religion as ridiculous and atheism as a liberation – even if I am a bit heavy-handed, trigger-happy and never short of poisoned arrows aimed not at people but at silly beliefs, silly rules and silly rituals. Ridicule is a two-edged sword but often an effective means of getting people to realize that religious credulity would be funny if it were not so tragic. Hence :
RIDENDA RELIGIO
Blind Faith: Blind Folly 
It is of course stating the obvious that there are many believers who lead happy and fulfilled lives – just as there are many atheists and agnostics whose lives are likewise happy and fulfilled. The opposite is equally true. There are many people whose lives are not happy or fulfilled and this observation applies to mankind generally irrespective of the beliefs of the individuals concerned.
The vast majority of people are content to accept without serious question the beliefs of the particular religion into which they were inducted as children by their parents. They have neither the time nor inclination to question those beliefs.
The few who do so question and eventually jettison their childhood beliefs do so for a variety of reasons. A past contributor to this blog unkindly implied that such people had “problems”. Indeed, some people reject their belief in God after some terrible tragedy in their lives which they find to be incompatible with a loving Father. Others however and these may be the majority come to a position of rejection through a gradual process which starts with questioning the non-fundamentals of their religion, the unnecessary and irrelevant detail as one comment on an earlier post put it.
An amusing example of this was demonstrated to me recently when I was idly surfing the blogosphere on religious belief. A Christian, presumably Catholic, blogger with a very impressive site seriously argued that proof of the Virgin Mary’s Assumption into Heaven was provided by the fact that her body has never been found nor has any part of it been preserved as a religious relic. I mention this case because this site is typical of an abundance of such sites. The guy who owns the site is either nuts or a fraud to propose such an argument.
And those who like me have abandoned the beliefs that they inherited from their parents find it very hard not to ridicule such statements and arguments. It is an extreme example of course.
But the rationale applies to much of
the irrelevant and unnecessary beliefs of Religion.
Ultimately one has to decide whether the totality of the evidence justifies belief in God.
Clearly there are many who believe that it does not.
And one can have a lot of fun pointing out the absurdity of many of the beliefs of particular religions.
LikeLike
It is worthwhile mentioning here a matter that relates to morality, integrity, ethics and the special responsibilities of senior churchmen in connection therewith.
In a post on an earlier strand I was wrongly accused of disparaging the Cardinal Archbishop of Sydney, George Pell. As I pointed out in response to the wrongful accusation I had merely referred to the legal case of Ellis v Pell which decided that the Catholic Church did not exist as a legal entity and hence could not be sued by the victims of sexual abuse by Catholic priests.
The Royal Commission into Child Sexual Abuse which is currently having hearings in Sydney has recently heard evidence from Cardinal Pell concerning his role in the legal proceedings and in the disgraceful treatment of Ellis who was sexually abused as an altar boy by his parish priest.
Readers can easily satisfy themselves regarding the evidence before the Commission and the implications of that evidence for the reputation of the Cardinal. Suffice to say that the Cardinal’s reputation was rightly seriously damaged during the hearings.
He has subsequently apologised for both his role and his behaviour. Arguably he would not have done so in the absence of the hearings of the Commission.
It could rightly be said that he has brought significant pain and suffering to many.
LikeLike