Why atheism isn't a functional alternative to religion.

The Yin and Yang symbol represents duality in Taoism.

While atheists have some very good points about how dangerous religious beliefs can be, they have no alternative to offer.

They in fact occupy a rather enviable vantage point: they get to argue from the conclusion[1] that God doesn't exist, and they get to express their outrage within a system largely regulated by beliefs that he does.

Something that derives so much latitude, publicity, and meaning from its relationship to something else isn't much of a foundation to argue from.

That says nothing of whether atheism is right, only that once you remove the matrix within which it prospers, it will quickly congeal into an inert mass that conforms to geography, weather, disease, coercion, and every other bit of the environment it encounters, like a sand dune, perhaps, or chewing gum.

Atheism is a symbiont that obtains its energy from its host. Religion, of course, benefits to some extent as well. It's not quite Yin and Yang, and it's not a matter of supernatural equals tugging on our destinies. Both have something interesting to say, but one is closer to the truth than the other.

[2014-11-30]

c0

Some evangelicals, my own tradition included, don't like the term "religion." They feel that word applies to perfunctory practices, not genuine faith, but that's really a distinction without a difference. No sentient organism processes any stimulus without a physiological or behavioral response, so it's really a matter of degree, eg, central leadership v. individual liberty, ostentation v. austerity, kneeling v. sitting, recitation v. improvisation, philanthropy v. philosophy, etc.

[2014-12-03]

c0

[1]

This is called begging the question, which is not "I beg to differ," or "That brings up another point."

c0