His Body

The past few days I heard some recurring phrases of a similar nature that caused my mind to stir. I heard the phrase “my arm.” I heard the phrase “his body.” I also heard “my brain.” On the surface these statements seem ordinary and mundane but when we look deeper there’s a lot of interest.

Spirit or Consciousness

“Never tell a child ‘you have a soul.’ Teach him, ‘you are a soul; you have a body.’” –George MacDonald

This statement is the heart of the point I’d like to make. The statements referring to ‘my arm’ or ‘my leg’ or especially ‘my body’ imply a possession of these physical tools by something innately separate. For the Christian this is an easy position. As evidenced by the statement above, the Christian believes that at creation and at the end of the day ‘we’ are souls. Souls that have control over these physical bodies while here on earth.

The matter of Christian theology for the concepts of soul, spirit, and body are somewhat complex and delving deeply into them would take us off topic. Suffice it to say that George MacDonald accurately represents true Christian theology in his statement. When a Christian refers to ‘his arm’ he is doing so accurately – the arm is his possession; it is not him. He is a soul.

The atheist can somewhat confidently refer to ‘his arm’ and simply say it belongs to his consciousness – himself. That is fair. Doing otherwise would lead to a lot more trouble linguistically. However, I find it very interesting that atheist’s persist to use the phrase ‘his body’ after said body has deceased.

When a man is living anybody refers to him as ‘he.’ Once he has passed if we are referring to his physical remains it is much more common to refer to ‘his body.’ The atheist is simply wasting breath by doing this for he can make no distinction. Nothing has left the body, in the atheist’s eyes, to result in this shift – except the breath of life. His consciousness has ended and exists no more but his consciousness was never more than the functions of his brain – there was no soul or spirit at the root of it. Such reverence is not given to the kidney if it stops working or other body parts. As an atheist there is no logical reason to give it when the body shuts down.

This leads to a larger question. Are we mere brainwaves and responses? What am I? Am I a mass of cells that are strung together, responding to various situations so as to maximize pleasure and reduce pain? Or am I more than that? The atheist believes the former yet it is not always evident in his word or actions particularly in linguistics referring to the human body and consciousness.

On the Pledge

By profession I am an elementary school band instructor.  I travel between three different schools in my daily travels and essentially start the kids out on their instrument.  It is a lovely job and I enjoy it very much.  I say all that as a good deal of my posts will initiate due to some sort of observation at school.  This morning I was reciting the Pledge of Allegiance and I began to step into Atheist-mode. Here's where some of those thoughts took me.

A Minor Complaint

I pledge allegiance, to the flag of the United States of America,
and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation under God,
indivisible with liberty and justice for all.

The most obvious complaint about the Pledge of Allegiance from atheist would of course be the inclusion of the 'one nation under God' line.  To be frank it is surprising to me in our current philosophical climate that it still lingers.  As a Christian I'm glad it does but its a pleasant surprise.  Nonetheless, I very much understand the reason atheists would feel angst about that.  If the line read "one nation under Thor" or "one nation under Allah" or "one nation under Tom Cruise" I would be equally uncomfortable; I certainly would not want my child recognizing the authority of a deity to which I deemed not to have authority.

The obvious solution in this case would be to simply remove the 'under God' part.  The pledge still stands reasonably well, even from a Christian perspective, without it.

A Bigger Problem

This got me thinking further, though.  The Pledge is most certainly not the only document of our nation which invokes God's authority.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness." (emphasis added)

Replacing the segments here are much more challenging.  Again, we can simply remove them entirely:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are endowed with certain unalienable rights..."

Seems weaker, though, doesn't it?  Mere self-evidence is hardly an adequate argument for something.  "Why don't you enjoy Beethoven's seventh symphony?" asks a man.  If is fellow replies "It is self-evident" then the conversation shan't last too long.  He might as well say "Because I feel like it" for all of the genuine truth or reasoning it conveys.

Okay, so we need a reason for these self-evident truths.  For the Christian its easy.  He believes God in fact did create all men and that He did so equally.  He also believes that God instilled in mankind a certain degree of free-will.  If these things are true it is then very self-evident that each man should have a right to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. 

For the Atheist things get tougher.

Equal Evolution?

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men evolved equal."

Whether or not evolution is the true sequence of historical events is not the question here - I am proceeding forth as if it were and what that genuinely means for our worldviews. 

The notion that 'all men evolved equal' is a paradox.  The entire notion of evolution is that different species and creatures evolve very unequally - hence some dying out, some lingering, and some mutating into different species.  If everything evolved equally then there wouldn't be the diversity we see in the world. 

So where then does the perceived equality among men come from?  Can atheism provide one?  Let's take it out of this context.  Determining the equality of humans can get very messy as most people have at least some degree of compassion.  Let's compare some type of animal - wild mice for instance.

Are all wild mice equal?  To determine that one would have to find a consistent measuring stick.  How do you measure the worth of a mouse?  Generally speaking it would seem the mouse's goal is to survive long enough to have as many offspring as possible while maintaining a comfortable diet.   With that in mind, you could say that the 'best mice' excel at the following traits:

1.  Ability to escape the notice of predators.
2.  The ability to identify and consume non-poisonous food.
3.  A healthy and vigorous reproductive system. 

If those are the things that would define a 'good' mouse then clearly not all mice are created equal.

Okay, now what defines a 'good' human?  For now let's keep the answer broad.  I think most people would generally agree that a 'good' human being is one who does things to further the human race's general health and existence in positive and tangible ways.  If that's the measuring stick, it is very clear that all men are not equal. 

When the line states that men were created equal it is clearly meant from a spiritual standpoint.  It is very obvious all men are not physical or intellectual equals - no fool would think as much.  And as outlined above, the actions of men also clearly show a lack of equality across the board.

All this is to say that the atheist has no reason to believe that all men are in fact equal and thus in fact deserving of the same rights.  Now if you polled people of any world view as to whether they felt all mean deserve the rights listed above, few would disagree.  However, the athiest has no reason for this. 

Why should all men be endowed with that?  From what point of natural evidence can this be garnered?  The laws of evolution are based entirely on the premise of inequality.  It is completely illogical to suggest that a process based around 'survival of the fittest' could result in a race where all men are equal.

These things taken into fruition take us into dangerous territory.  Into eugenics.  Into genocide.  Into Marxism, Fascism, and Sovietism.  If all men are not equal and we are trying to further our race in tangible ways then it makes perfect sense to grant only the fittest the means to ensure that.

As G.K. Chesterton said, “The Declaration of Independence dogmatically bases all rights on the fact that God created all men equal; and it is right; for if they were not created equal, they were certainly evolved unequal. There is no basis for democracy except in a dogma about the divine origin of man.”

Again, I am not debating the truth of evolution or Christianity.  If atheism is true, then these musings are the logical following of its truth.  The truth is, though, that very few atheists live as if this were true - and thank goodness for that! 

For I believe it is self-evident that all men are equal and that they are owed certain unalienable rights, among which are certainly Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.  I believe very fully in those tenants that our nation stands on and I believe in them because I have definitive reasons to - the God to whom both the creation and the subsequent rights are owed.

The atheist has no such reason.  He has no such gurantee - for himself or others.

Introduction

Greetings!

Initially I planned this blog to be anonymous and under the guise of being written by a genuine atheist.  I have since decided to alter those plans.  I will be up front - I am a professed follower of the Christian faith.  Opposite of what you might expect, though, the purpose of this blog will be to write up responses and opinions of different events, philosophies, and other items from the viewpoint of an atheist.  I genuinely mean it when I say that the atheistic position is the worldview that garners the most respect from me after Christianity/Judaism. 

The only problem I have is that many of the atheists I know or have seen through media do not generally follow through on the principals of atheism.  The atheist worldview is a dark one - it is not one of hope and redemption, miracles or everlasting life, yet too often atheists live a life as though it were.  With that in mind, I hope to accurately portray a true atheist response.

To clarify what worldview I will be speaking from here are the following 'truths' I will follow:

1. There is no supreme being in the universe. All actions and events we see result from causality dating back to the first event, namely the Big Bang or other suitable 'beginnings' story. 

2. Stemming from number one, all life on Earth as we know it is a byproduct of the evolutionary process. As the universe itself is a series of reactions from the initial action, so too is life a series of response from the initial action.

All further opinions and writings will be stemmed from these two basic premises which, to my knowledge, for the basis of atheism.

I am trying to keep the worldview part relatively straightforward.  Of course I realize there's more to it than just those two tennants but I think they more or less sum it up.