In the Spring of 2010, I had the opportunity to talk Dan about his atheism, and was particularly to interested to hear his story as one born and raised in the South. Dan labels himself “non-religious.” He describes himself as a “weak atheist,” acknowledging that there is a possibility that God exists (though he seriously doubts it), yet asserting that he is not an agnostic. So, if anything, he says, he’s "an agnostic atheist." He also describes himself as a metaphysical naturalist.
Dan grew up in Richlands, Virginia (small town of about 4,000), in a Southern Baptist Church. At age 16, his father was diagnosed with esophageal cancer. Though his father recovered, and the cancer went into remission, this event triggered a personal crisis for Dan. He developed “an intuitive sense” that something was wrong with established religion. In high school, he developed a pattern of rebellious and self-destructive behavior. This led him back to the church, and in particular, a Pentecostal church (via Teen Challenge). Dan feared that, without some form of religion in his life, he would again spiral “out of control.” Religion became an important means of maintaining that control in his life.
After high school, Dan attended Virginia Tech, and began attending a non-denominational church. However, his ‘faith’ would continue to be challenged and diminished. He describes his slow transition from “belief” to “unbelief” as a series of stages, moving from his conservative Christian roots towards theological liberalism, from liberalism then toward deism, and finally from deism into atheism. During this time of transition (which Dan notes happened from age 18 to 25), a friend of his from high school committed suicide. This served as the nail in the coffin of his fading faith in a god.
Dan agrees with my observation that suffering and personal tragedy formed the primary touchstone in his journey - the problem of evil. How could an almighty and all benevolent deity exist in such a world? As he told me, “every time I came into contact with suffering, it reminds me of the way the world is.” Theism appeared more and more to be a hopeful delusion in an utterly indifferent universe.
Dan is a thoroughgoing naturalist, philosophically speaking, and no doubt feels himself “the odd man out” here in the Bible belt. However, he also notes that he does not quite fit the bill of your ‘standard’ materialistic atheist either. Though a naturalist, Dan posits the existence of non-material entities, i.e., logical and ethical principles. It is the latter of those two which perhaps marks Dan out as unique. For this reason, Dan does believe in an objective morality that is universally binding. He frames this in terms of Immanuel Kant’s “categorical imperative.” That is, he believes a generalized form of “the Golden rule” as universal and necessary (i.e., obligatory). Though Dan does not attempt to rigorously connect his ethics (ought-ness) to his metaphysics (is-ness), he affirms the importance and meaningfulness of objective (deontological) ethics, in contradistinction to moral relativism, pure situationalism, or existentialism.
Clearly suffering is a problem Dan takes seriously. It is something he feels we ought to minimize, even though it is perfectly natural (in a world where “nature” is “red of tooth and claw”). In this, Dan appears to be especially sensitive to and concerned about the suffering of others, and the broader reality of injustice and discrimination in the world. Though his atheism offers him no hope in this world (beyond what can be accomplished through reason and human ingenuity), at least, he argues, it doesn’t extend a false one.
Belief in objective truth, both epistemologically and ethically speaking, is evidenced in his new role as a father. He desires to inculcate a strong sense of right and wrong in his son, while also encouraging him to be a critical thinker.
Dan also distances himself somewhat from the so-called “New Atheism,” in so far as it dismisses religion wholesale. Not only does Dan believe that some aspects of religion have been helpful, but also holds out hope of their continuing usefulness for the common good. Neither does he agree with the assement of some of his atheistic brothers that all religious people are unthinking idiots (or worse). He states that he respects a number of them, acknowledging that people of faith can and do hold their various religious convictions critically and cogently.
In his song Crash, former Talking Heads front man, David Byrne, sings, “if our cells are our destiny, I want to be free of biology." However, Dan counters, “we cannot escape our biology.” And for him, this means the necessity of community, and the inescapable need for acceptance by our fellow man. We want to be embraced as members of a community/family. Though religion can certainly build and fortify community, Dan prefers to think of community as transcending religious divides, extending beyond all creeds. We all have to live together, at some level. Religion can help us cope, and even extend love and acceptance to each other to foster community (even to those outside our religious ‘kin’). But, religion is not necessary as long as we keep the categorical imperative before us. The imperative is admittedly in tension with our “cells” (or “selfish gene”), but such is life as a self-conscious, rational, social animal.
