In my religious autobiography, I explained that I have recently read a book that has put religion in a new light for me, and convinced me that Christianity is no different from any other religion. That has been my belief for a long time, but this book gives scientific support to the notion. I want to expand on that here, and explore this phenomenon of atheism in light of this theory that religious thoughts are natural to humans.
According to Pascal Boyer's book, religion is a natural result of the way the human mind is structured. Humans generally can't help but have religious thoughts. Heck, I have to admit that every now and then, I have a slip and get into the mode of thinking there's an invisible being that is able to listen in on my thoughts and interested in doing something about them. After believing that for so many years, the old pathways are still available to my mind. I simply have to remind myself that this is to be expected, since my mind is more or less a normal human one.
But the implications of this theory are most interesting. If religious thought -- all of it -- can be explained using purely natural causes, then it would imply that each religion is just as valid, from an objective viewpoint, as all the others. Since many religions appear bent on denying the objective truth of all others, one would think that anyone engaged in such a pursuit would necessarily be forced to admit that his own religion is as fallacious (again, objectively) as the others.
This is what happened in Hawaii, a few centuries ago. The priests were forced to accept that their beliefs were wrong, and for a short period, they were willing to entertain the idea that (as Edison said) religion is bunk. Interestingly, the first Christian missionaries arrived only a few months after this, and they filled the void left by the destruction of the traditional kapu-based religion with the more harmful Christian one. One of the more striking what-ifs on history is whether Hawaiian society would have become predominantly atheist without Christian intervention.
But the question arises -- what is different about atheists? Nothing, really. We don't seriously believe in any supernatural agents, able to interact with us in manners similar to the way we interact with other people. This natural outgrowth of our mental structure has been made ineffective, and we are therefore able to carry out our lives in a slightly more rational manner, at least as regards religious thought.
One might think that having this unusual attitude toward a natural mental process might qualify atheists as "unnatural" or maybe even insane. I've in fact met some who believe that. But the fact is that there are no mental processes in a given atheist that are performing incorrectly. Our brains still make the same factual mistakes in processing sensory information, they still go through the exercise of trying to determine the intent of other beings, and they still are able to visualize events that do not take place within the range of sight or hearing. These things are all vital parts of the process that leads to religious thought, among many others. All of these processes still go on in our minds. But the difference is that we don't allow these things to run on to irrational conclusions.
I can for instance start reading "Lord of the Rings," and while I'm reading, I can easily visualize (even without the aid of movie adaptations) the events described. I just don't let myself start believing that the elves, hobbits and what-not in these books are real in any objective sense. Heck, I'm a writer, fer cryin' out loud. I visualize events in alternate universes, or in the distant future and report what I imagine. But I don't believe for a second that they are real, and I don't expect anyone else to, either. They're just stories, after all.
This is one reason that I don't think that atheists are in any sense "better" or "superior" to religious folks. True, we don't buy into the religious error, and that is most likely a more accurate way to view our world, but that doesn't mean a whole lot. We still make mistakes; we still fail to think some things through properly. We're just as capable of becoming human monsters and doing self-destructive things. In all respects outside of religion, we are every bit as human as any believer. It's just that our mistakes won't be brought about by believing in something that does not exist.
When it comes to making mistakes, no one is immune, and no set of religious beliefs, whether full or empty, will make anyone immune. This goes for problems of ethics as well as any other sort of error. Many theists go through their lives, asking themselves what their god wants them to do, believing that "morality" comes only from a higher being giving out laws and enforcing them using rewards and punishments. This very common attitude leads to two interesting corollaries. First, there's the notion that anyone who doesn't believe in this system of supernaturally defined and enforced rules must be immoral. The second is that it leaves open the door for such believers to commit the most horrific crimes against humanity with clear consciences, simply because they believe they are acting upon God's orders.
Let's look at these two things in a little more detail. I'm trying to be thorough, here.
Are people who don't believe in supernatural law enforcement immoral? In practical terms, the statistics that are available from the US prison system appear to say "no." Over the past few decades, records indicate that while anywhere from 5 to 15 percent of the general population is atheist, atheists make up about 1 percent of the prison population. On the face of it, this seems to indicate that atheists are less likely to end up in prison. Of course, other factors ought to be considered -- for instance, it's very likely that people going into the prison system believe that if they identify themselves as atheist, they will be treated worse than others. All things considered, I would expect that when it comes to religion, the prison population ought to come pretty close to the same proportions as the rest of the population. For now, let's just say it's an open question until better data are available.
But what can we say about the people who stay on the better side of the law? For theists, there are many who believe that they view every moment of their lives as being watched over by an invisible being. They believe that they obey the laws of their god(s) only because they fear being punished by this being if they step out of line. Or perhaps they think that if they obey these rules, they will be rewarded in some manner. This was spelled out in the Torah, in both Leviticus 26 and Deuteronomy 28. The people who wrote those "covenant" chapters clearly believed that this arrangement was the best way for people to live together and to maintain order.
Well, this is a somewhat childish view of morality. In most respects, it's the same as "You better behave, because Santa is watching, and will give you a lump of coal this Christmas if you are a bad kid." Most adults are more mature in their dealings with their fellow members of society, but they rarely take the time to think about what is really going on in their minds. Moral or ethical behavior is a matter of social conditioning. All people are taught the difference between "right" and "wrong" by the people they interact with in childhood. The decisions of morality or ethics that are made every day by every person are made using this "social programming." It doesn't need to have anything to do with fear of a thunderbolt from an invisible sky-cop, nor the hope of a cool present hiding under a tree.
What about this other matter? Are humans really capable of becoming monsters if they believe they have been directed by a supernatural "master" to do so?
That's a very tricky question. Every now and then, we see a news report of a person who has some form of mental illness that results in the hearing of voices that aren't there, and they take the orders of these voices, and end up killing people. There was one such person here in North Carolina. Taking his orders from the voice he heard, he went out to a rural road and started flagging down cars. He shined a flashlight into the eyes of the drivers, and if he saw a red reflection, that meant the driver was a demon, and he shot them. A lot of people were killed or hurt that night. No doubt other similar instances easily come to mind.
But that's not exactly what we're talking about here. Can people with normally-functioning brains also be driven to commit horrible acts through the use of religion? History is replete with such events, in all religions, in all ages. So what's happening? It seems clear that people can imagine and maybe even desire to perform the most horrendous acts. All that is needed is enough desire and enough time to find a way to rationalize the act. Certainly, just about any religion provides many ways to rationalize horrific things, and if a believer becomes convinced -- in whatever manner -- that his invisible master wants him to do anything, it will happen. Don't believe me? Go ahead and read whatever "holy book" you hold dearest -- read all of it, mind you! -- and tell me that there isn't plenty of material there that could help in this very process.
Does this mean that a non-believer can't become a monster? Certainly not. When a person starts to want to perform horrendous acts against his fellow humans or any other creature, it's only a matter of enough time and will power before the thought turns into action. This is true of anyone, and is not materially effected by religion. Sure, a religious person's rationale for murder or mayhem will be religion-based, just as an atheist's will be non-religious. The point is that once again, religious stance has little ability to determine actions one way or the other.
Nietschze believed that people who could overcome and live without their inherent weaknesses would be a sort of "superman." This, of course, was an idea that was exploited to horrible effect by the Nazis. Certainly, I don't think of myself as being better than anyone in any sense. My ability and desire to avoid making this one very common, very human, mistake (believing in supernatural beings) is no reflection on my quality as a person. The fact is that I am able to be comfortable with this difference between myself and others. My hope is that one day, everyone will at least understand this issue more clearly and maturely, so that religion loses its place as a vital predictor of people's actions and responses. Perhaps I'm asking too much, considering the way many religions are structured. But it's a goal that should be possible to reach. That's my current hope, at least.
