Good Without God

I'm reading Greg M. Epstein's book GOOD WITHOUT GOD: WHAT A BILLION NONRELIGIOUS PEOPLE DO BELIEVE. I wish it were required reading for everyone. Once again, I'm finding myself somewhat irritated at the specious logic of some of my friends and relatives, and to them I would like to say what Epstein has said regarding the "theory" of evolution (which is a "theory" like the "theory" of gravity is a theory): "Call Humanism a faith if you like...but recognize that it is a faith in our ability to live well based on conclusions and convictions reached by empirical testing and free, unfettered rational inquiry. In other words, we question everything, including our own questions, and we search for as many ways as we can to confirm or deny our intuitions. We have no holy books meant to be taken at face value or blindly obeyed. We are open to revising any conclusion we have made if new evidence appears to contradict it. HOWEVER [caps added], we also recognize that there can and often is a point where sufficient evidence has been gathered on a certain subject to make a reversal of views extraordinarily unlikely, and where the explanation we have pieced together works extremely well. This is certainly the case with whether the sun will rise tomorrow, and it is equally true for evolution, and about our basic picture of the origins of the universe" (Epstein 10).

I am also further inspired by my Women's Studies textbook, WOMEN'S REALITIES, WOMEN'S CHOICES. In the second chapter, "Ideas and Theories About Women," there is a discussion of the difference between "contemporary liberal feminism" and "conservative sentiments and feminism." I quote: "Conservatives have often claimed to be concerned about many aspects of life important to women: the family, the voluntary association, and the moral standards of society." Further down the page: "Conservatives (even more so than traditional liberals) favor less governmental regulation of the activities of business corporations. Yet, conservatives (unlike liberals) favor more governmental regulation of the sexual behavior of individuals. The ideas that the activities of a large corporation, which affect the lives of millions, are 'private' while what consenting adults do in bed is 'not private' does not stand up well to critical reflection, nor does the claim that conservatives respect women if at the same time they expect women to 'stay in their place'" (Hunter College Women's Studies Collective 63, 64).

The same textbook reiterates, "Contemporary liberal feminists favor equality in the home as well as in the public realm, advocating that wives and husbands should share equally in child care and household tasks. .... Some conservative views coincide with feminist concerns for the family and moral values. Conservatives, however, are usually opposed to feminism, maintaining that woman's place is only, or primarily, in the home" (73).

So what do evolution and feminism have in common? First, I am convinced of the validity of both. Second, the fundamentalist religious faith espoused by many of my relatives and some of my friends tends to criticize both as being anti-Bible. As I told someone not long ago, one of the reasons I rejected the Bible as "truth" and as the epitome of wisdom is because of the way its followers treat women and treat science. Though science has offered evidence, for instance, that gay people are born that way, religious fundamentalists (of most faiths, not just Christian ones) choose to reject the proofs of science in favor of the biases and prejudices of their beliefs.

I cannot and will not enslave my mind to ideas first formed in an almost prehistoric civilization, ideas that were formulated to explain the events and circumstances that science could later explain with much more accuracy. The sun does not revolve around the earth. Sacrificing a goat will not ensure a good harvest for the farmers. Baptism and declaration of belief that a god exists, that he had a son with a mortal woman (in an event that sounds suspiciously like rape), and that that son is somehow able to keep our souls (an unproven concept if ever there was one!) alive after our bodies have died--well, it's simply not believable to anyone who thinks about it rationally.

That disavowal of belief terrifies so many people. The same people who would laugh and tease someone who honestly believed that if one stepped on a sidewalk crack, it would somehow break his/her mother's back--these people are horrified and terrified and scandalized and offended by someone who says, "I don't believe in any gods. I do believe in evolution. I do believe in the innate equality of all human beings, be they male or female, gay or straight, black or white, etc." Yet, as Epstein reminds me, there are about eight BILLION nonbelievers right now, and our numbers appear to be growing. I suspect that there are many more nonbelievers than that, simply because many of them have been silenced by fear and perhaps even by shame. The child's fable "The Emperor's New Clothes" should provide comfort and strength, but if one exists in a world in which almost everyone else insists that the Emperor is dressed exquisitely, yet all that can be seen is the Emperor's naked buttocks--it defies rational explanation, doesn't it?