WHY ATHEISTS SHOULD NOT KEEP QUIET - A RESPONSE TO UWUMA PRECIOUS

It is a rather banal charge brought up by theists that atheists should not be talking about God if they do not believe that he exists. In a debate between American Christian apologist Frank Turek and the late Christopher Hitchens on the existence of God, this was the first question an audience member brought up against Hitchens after the Q&A session. So it is not surprising to hear this challenge from theists. However, it is something of a brain bug to me when I hear atheists give the same challenge, even though this rarely happens.

A friend on Twitter recently shared an Instagram post with me, a set of screenshots from a Facebook post written by one Uwuma Precious, a former Christian who later became agnostic, then an atheist. The fundamental injunction Precious gives in her post is that, since atheists do not believe that God exists, they should not go about bashing religion or God. She gave her reasons for this position, reasons which came across to me as rather familiar as I read the post. I here attempt to respond to these reasons. But before I address the fine print, I should say my feelings about the overall purpose of the post itself.

The major point she seems to make is that atheists should not go about bashing the beliefs of religious people, especially Christians, since they do not believe that God exists (or believe that God does not exist). But I must ask - why is "bashing a religious belief" an issue at all? Is it not an exercise of free speech, the very foundation of democracy? As long as the persons engaging in the discussion or oration do not insult or abuse groups of people in a hateful or inciting way, I do not see anything wrong with raising specific objections to ideologies that one does not agree with or believes to be false. Or is it special because it is religion? Nobody ever asks that scientists quit "bashing the beliefs" of climate change deniers simply because scientists believe that climate change is real anyway. I therefore wonder why this charge is, more often than not, directed towards atheists.

From here on, I will put Precious's words in bold italics (unless otherwise stated), and I will attempt to respond to these specific quotes.

"I never went about abusing anyone for their religious beliefs. I never found the need to even argue God because I don't see why or how I should debate something I say doesn't exist."

By saying this, Precious casts a slight upon centuries, if not millennia, of colloquial and scholarly arguments against the existence of God. Philosophy of religion is a well-established field of philosophy, and the existence of God is an extensive discussion that has gone on for centuries in this field. There have been, and are, philosophers who have argued for atheism, such as David Hume, Bertrand Russell, Daniel Dennett, Quentin Smith and Graham Oppy. It certainly is not a trivial question whether a God exists or not, and if someone has reasons why they think that God does not exist, they have as much right to state these reasons as any Christian believes they have to preach about their faith to others. I do not find it particularly admirable that an atheist, especially in Nigeria, thinks they do not need to argue about God while the world is chock-full of Christians who constantly rub their beliefs in everyone's faces, even to the point of inconvenience. However, I do agree that all rational and mature discussions about the existence of God should be free of abusive, hateful, discriminatory or inciting speech.

"Today I see grown-ups flashing their atheism like it's some ticket to intellectual claims and I wonder how anyone would go about abusing some persons' beliefs with much gusto. It's insensitive and immature."

Again, I think this is a mistaken opinion. I personally do not believe one has to be intelligent to be an atheist (though a higher level of education has been shown to correlate with a higher tendency to be atheistic). I have interacted directly on social media with self-proclaimed atheists who seem to have no ability to understand other basic socio-political issues. Atheism, as far as I know, does not claim for itself to be intellectually superior to theism. It only, at the broadest, does not believe in the existence of any God. Also, while I disagree with the use of abusive or inciting remarks during discussions, I do not consider it "insensitive and immature" to raise objections to specific beliefs or belief systems, especially if one has reasons to raise such objections. There is nothing inherently wrong with "bashing beliefs". That is basic free speech, an inextricable part of democracy!

Life is hard, harder especially if you are a Nigerian living in Nigeria without any means of living (sic) this place… people approach these difficulties with various means they think, whether true or not, works for them. Why would you disrupt that balance simply because you think you know something?... What happens when you remove their basic support mechanisms?

Atheists do not "disrupt that balance simply because [they] think [they] know something". Atheists raise objections to belief in gods or religiosity because they think such beliefs are unreasonable and arguably harmful. (Please understand that I am writing in the Nigerian context. I am aware that there are more benign forms of religion outside Nigeria. However, this post addresses the major theistic beliefs held in Nigeria.) Atheism is not a show of intellectual superiority! It is, passively, a lack of a belief in God or gods, and, actively, an objection to belief in God or gods! Also, the question of what happens when the "basic support mechanism" is removed is not a trivial one to answer. But I will state this categorically - contrary to what many religious people think, atheism is not equal to nihilism! There are several atheists who do not hold to the doctrines of nihilism. I, for example, identify as an existentialist and a humanist. I believe humans can decide the essence of their own existence, and are in charge of their own destiny and also the affairs of our world as a whole. I believe this because, as far as I can tell, we are the most intelligent and rational species around, which in my opinion places responsibility on us to do things in progressive, fulfilling and personally and socially gratifying ways. Humans do not have to be hopeless because they do not believe that there is a supreme deity who loves, protects and watches over them.

Life is contrived to be more complicated by our dysfunctional system where many things depend on chance. People need religion. If you who can afford the basics and have, despite and in spite of the vagaries of our wayward system escaped, to an extent, the machinations of chance, why not allow those who haven't and so still depend on religion to survive do so at peace without your mockery?

Perhaps Precious needs to acquaint herself with the lack of proper demographics on atheism in Nigeria. I am not aware of any study that has demonstrated that atheists are more exempt from the "vagaries of our wayward system" and the "machinations of chance" which Precious seems to think theists are stuck in. Also, I must state without any equivocation - I do not think that people need religion! There are several coping mechanisms for life's challenges, Precious herself having mentioned one of them earlier (family). One does not have to live in delusions to have comfort and peace. In fact, one could make a case that belief in religion can be disturbing on a personal level. After all, the great Christian reformer Martin Luther once suffered severe horrors from feeling that he had not been pleasing to God before coming to a state of peace, and there is nothing to suggest that believers of God today cannot suffer similar mental horrors.

Why, if you truly believe there's no god, are you so preoccupied with talking God and religion?

I can think of a few reasons. First of all, because I can! Saying that one should not talk about God and religion because they do not believe in God is like saying a PDP member should not criticise APC because they do not believe in APC's leadership. Free speech does not work that way. Second, theists themselves talk about irreligion regularly, and there is no law or rule prohibiting atheists from wanting or having to get even. The Bible explicitly calls atheists fools in no fewer than two places (Psalm 14:1, 53:1, Romans 1:18-22), and if an atheist feels the urge to retaliate, I do not see it as being out of place in any way. Third, atheists have argued that religion is responsible for lots of atrocities done by mankind. I need not go over the menace that Boko Haram has been to Nigeria since they began their heinous operations in 2009. Lots of people use religion as an excuse to be homophobic. Religion is also responsible for the witchcraft and juju ideology which has plagued Nigerian minds for ages untold. This kind of thinking has led to the banishment, torture and even death of young children in Nigeria. To have the knowledge of how these social and intellectual ills can be corrected and keep quiet seems, to me, morally indefensible. If at all, every atheist in Nigeria should become bolder and more vociferous in speaking against the evils that religion has done to our society - spreading wish thinking, lying to adults and children for financial gain, carrying out untenable acts like the genital mutilation of children and indoctrinating youths into suicide bombers in the name of Allah, spreading extraordinary claims about witchcraft and charms which have never been proven but still influence people's actions.

But this, I think, is the biggest reason why I think atheists should not keep quiet - because what people believe is a necessary and inexorable link to what people do, people who believe in the existence of gods will inevitably use this belief to generate actions that are regressive, repressive and oppressive, just like the tenets of many religious texts valued in Nigeria. And ultimately, these actions affect others in the society, either directly or indirectly. We are a social species, and we all need one another. If we are to maximise our moral and behavioural standards, we must necessarily raise our standards of belief and reason too. And that will entail those who have reasons to question beliefs that have no sufficient evidence to speak up against such beliefs.

As you have rightly said, a wise man knows that there is more than meets the eye. But as David Hume said, "a wise man proportions his belief to the evidence". If there is no sufficient evidence to base your beliefs on, you have no justification for holding them, and I have every right to ridicule the fact that you hold them, albeit in a way that is lawful, respectful, unabusive and non-inciting.

To any irreligious person reading this out there, I hope you keep in mind this quote from Christopher Hitchens - "Never be a spectator of unfairness or stupidity. Seek out arguments and disputations for their own sake. The grave will supply plenty of time for silence."