Skip to main content

"Honest Atheism"

By WizenedSage (Galen Rose) ~

In the article “Honest Atheism” by D. Cameron Webb, in the Dec. 2014/Jan. 2015 issue of Free Inquiry magazine, the author concludes that atheists are unlikely to win many converts so long as their description of death is “certain annihilation.” And, he argues that since we cannot be 100% certain that annihilation awaits us at death, then the honest answer to what happens to us when we die is, “I have no friggin’ idea.”

Overall, this is a great article which I heartily recommend, but I must take issue with his conclusion. I don’t think it’s being honest to hold out a scrap of hope that annihilation can be avoided, given the overwhelming evidence to the contrary; nor do I think it necessarily makes atheism less attractive to theists, so long as “certain annihilation” is packaged in the right words.

Okay, I can’t prove with 100% certainty that death brings annihilation, but let’s take a look at the evidence. The evidence is everywhere and uncontroversial that when the brain is not functioning at a high level, we are unconscious, unaware of our existence. We prove this every night when we sleep. Below a certain threshold of functionality, we lose awareness and lose it totally.

And dreaming? Well, dreaming has been shown to be just one step higher in brain functionality. That is, when we dream, we are not always fully unconscious, we just don’t have a firm grasp of reality. Sometimes, we can even be aware that we are dreaming and can consciously affect the plot of the story we are dreaming. At other times, we can be aware that we are sleeping, at least dimly, and consciously struggle to awaken. But these sleep states involve brain activity that is almost conscious and semi-aware. Most of the time that we are asleep, and operating at a lower level of brain functionality, we are totally unconscious and not at all aware.

There are several other conditions which provide evidence that “certain annihilation” awaits us at death. If one is struck in the head one may go unconscious. That is, the brain ceases to function at a high level and awareness is lost. The same thing happens to us under general anesthesia; the drugs we are given cause brain function to reduce to a low level and we become unconscious, unable to feel pain. Sometimes, as in a car accident when massive injuries are sustained, as a protective mechanism the brain will cease to function at a high level and one becomes unconscious, and may even slip into a coma, a very low level functionality involving a state of unawareness where there is no pain. Modern medicine sometimes makes use of this property of the brain by intentionally inducing a coma to eliminate pain awareness in the patient.

Thus we see, over and over, in many situations, that unless the brain is functioning at a high level, it loses consciousness and, with it, the ability to feel pain. Now, when a human dies, his brain ceases to function at a high level and this is proven by EKG analysis. In fact, complete lack of brain activity is a functional definition of death.

Now, what about near-death experiences (NDE)? Many people have related all sorts of details of what purportedly lies beyond death in NDE’s. The most obvious objection to these stories is that near-death is simply not death; in fact, they are two totally different states, like water and ice, and there is no reason to expect near-death to tell us anything useful or accurate about death.

And what of those who have claimed to actually die and then recover (and sometimes written books about the experience)? The answer is pathetically simple: memories cannot be formed in a dead brain. If all electrical activity in a brain has ceased, and the EKG has flat lined, then memories are not being made. Thus, whatever the claimant is relating is not a memory of a dead state. Dead eyes do not see, dead hearts do not beat, and dead brains do not think or make memories.

Near-death is simply not death; in fact, they are two totally different states, like water and ice, and there is no reason to expect near-death to tell us anything useful or accurate about death.Now, does it really make sense to say we don’t know what happens when we die, given that there is a mountain of evidence that shows that when the brain ceases to function at a high level we lose consciousness and, at very low functionality, the ability to feel pain? Now, since death has been proven beyond a shadow of doubt to involve loss of brain function, isn’t it pretty certain that what happens to us is we lose awareness? Is there even the slightest reason to suspect that awareness can survive brain death, that annihilation can be avoided? Where is the evidence? True, I can’t prove my argument conclusively, 100%, since none of us can die, truly die, and then come back to report on it (not even Jesus). But, by any reasonable standard of proof, such as the American courtroom standard of “beyond a reasonable doubt,” when you’re dead then you have no awareness. It’s as simple as that.

Now, the question becomes, is this a reason to be afraid of atheism? Should “certain annihilation” be a deal breaker for a theist considering atheism? Mr. Webb argues that it is; that atheism will win few converts if all we can offer is “certain annihilation.” But is annihilation really so bad?

True, a fear of death is built into us by nature. Without the will to survive a species will not endure the struggles of life to propagate and rear its young. But, this doesn’t need to be a constant fear. Let’s face it, unless we are very old or sick, we spend a very, very small percentage of our time thinking about death. And does it really make sense to fear “certain annihilation” if all that means is loss of awareness, something we experience practically every night of our lives? With no awareness there is no longing, no regret, no sadness, no fear, and no pain. So what’s so bad about that?

So, how does this honest atheist answer the question, “What happens when we die?” I answer that ALL of the empirical evidence suggests we simply lose awareness, and a deep sleep involves no discomfort. Now why should that, in itself, turn a theist away from atheism?


Popular posts from this blog

Are You an Atheist Success Story?

By Avangelism Project ~ F acts don’t spread. Stories do. It’s how (good) marketing works, it’s how elections (unfortunately) are won and lost, and it’s how (all) religion spreads. Proselytization isn’t accomplished with better arguments. It’s accomplished with better stories and it’s time we atheists catch up. It’s not like atheists don’t love a good story. Head over to the atheist reddit and take a look if you don’t believe me. We’re all over stories painting religion in a bad light. Nothing wrong with that, but we ignore the value of a story or a testimonial when we’re dealing with Christians. We can’t be so proud to argue the semantics of whether atheism is a belief or deconversion is actually proselytization. When we become more interested in defining our terms than in affecting people, we’ve relegated ourselves to irrelevance preferring to be smug in our minority, but semantically correct, nonbelief. Results Determine Reality The thing is when we opt to bury our

Christian TV presenter reads out Star Wars plot as story of salvation

An email prankster tricked the host of a Christian TV show into reading out the plots of The Fresh Prince of Bel Air and Star Wars in the belief they were stories of personal salvation. The unsuspecting host read out most of the opening rap to The Fresh Prince, a 1990s US sitcom starring Will Smith , apparently unaware that it was not a genuine testimony of faith. The prankster had slightly adapted the lyrics but the references to a misspent youth playing basketball in West Philadelphia would have been instantly familiar to most viewers. The lines read out by the DJ included: "One day a couple of guys who were up to no good starting making trouble in my living area. I ended up getting into a fight, which terrified my mother." The presenter on Genesis TV , a British Christian channel, eventually realised that he was being pranked and cut the story short – only to move on to another spoof email based on the plot of the Star Wars films. It began: &quo

So Just How Dumb Were Jesus’ Disciples? The Resurrection, Part VII.

By Robert Conner ~ T he first mention of Jesus’ resurrection comes from a letter written by Paul of Tarsus. Paul appears to have had no interest whatsoever in the “historical” Jesus: “even though we have known Christ according to the flesh, we know him so no longer.” ( 2 Corinthians 5:16 ) Paul’s surviving letters never once mention any of Jesus’ many exorcisms and healings, the raising of Lazarus, or Jesus’ virgin birth, and barely allude to Jesus’ teaching. For Paul, Jesus only gets interesting after he’s dead, but even here Paul’s attention to detail is sketchy at best. For instance, Paul says Jesus “was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures” ( 1 Corinthians 15:4 ), but there are no scriptures that foretell the Jewish Messiah would at long last appear only to die at the hands of Gentiles, much less that the Messiah would then be raised from the dead after three days. After his miraculous conversion on the road to Damascus—an event Paul never mentions in his lette


By David Andrew Dugle ~   S ettle down now children, here's the story from the Book of David called The Parable of the Bent Cross. In the land Southeast of Eden –  Eden, Minnesota that is – between two rivers called the Big Miami and the Little Miami, in the name of Saint Gertrude there was once built a church. Here next to it was also built a fine parochial school. The congregation thrived and after a multitude of years, a new, bigger church was erected, well made with clean straight lines and a high steeple topped with a tall, thin cross of gold. The faithful felt proud, but now very low was their money. Their Sunday offerings and school fees did not suffice. Anon, they decided to raise money in an unclean way. One fine summer day the faithful erected tents in the chariot lot between the two buildings. In the tents they set up all manner of games – ring toss, bingo, little mechanical racing horses and roulette wheels – then all who lived in the land between the two rivers we

Morality is not a Good Argument for Christianity

By austinrohm ~ I wrote this article as I was deconverting in my own head: I never talked with anyone about it, but it was a letter I wrote as if I was writing to all the Christians in my life who constantly brought up how morality was the best argument for Christianity. No Christian has read this so far, but it is written from the point of view of a frustrated closeted atheist whose only outlet was organizing his thoughts on the keyboard. A common phrase used with non-Christians is: “Well without God, there isn’t a foundation of morality. If God is not real, then you could go around killing and raping.” There are a few things which must be addressed. 1. Show me objective morality. Define it and show me an example. Different Christians have different moral standards depending on how they interpret the Bible. Often times, they will just find what they believe, then go back into scripture and find a way to validate it. Conversely, many feel a particular action is not

On Living Virtuously

By Webmdave ~  A s a Christian, living virtuously meant living in a manner that pleased God. Pleasing god (or living virtuously) was explained as: Praying for forgiveness for sins  Accepting Christ as Savior  Frequently reading the Bible  Memorizing Bible verses Being baptized (subject to church rules)  Attending church services  Partaking of the Lord’s Supper  Tithing  Resisting temptations to lie, steal, smoke, drink, party, have lustful thoughts, have sex (outside of marriage) masturbate, etc.  Boldly sharing the Gospel of Salvation with unbelievers The list of virtuous values and expectations grew over time. Once the initial foundational values were safely under the belt, “more virtues'' were introduced. Newer introductions included (among others) harsh condemnation of “worldly” music, homosexuality and abortion Eventually the list of values grew ponderous, and these ideals were not just personal for us Christians. These virtues were used to condemn and disrespect fro