(an article by Steven Weinberg, University of Texas, Nobel laureate – 1979)

As science explains more and more, there is less and less need for religious explanations. Originally, in the history of human beings, everything was mysterious. Fire, rain, birth, death – all seemed to require the action of some kind of divine being. As time has passed, we have explained more and more in a purely naturalistic way. This doesn’t contradict religion, but it does takes away one of the original motivations for religion.

If we put together something like a final theory in which all the forces and the particles are explained, and that theory also throws light on the origin of the big bang and gives us a consistent picture of cosmology, there will be a little less for religion to explain. But religion has evolved along with science. It is something created by human beings, and as human beings learn more and more, their religion changes. Today, especially in the more established religious sects in the West, they’ve learned to stop trying to explain nature religiously and leave that to science.

The more we learn about the universe, the fewer signs we see of an intelligent designer. Isaac Newton thought that an explanation of how the sun shone would have to be made in terms of the action of God. Now we know that the sun shines because of the heat produced by the conversion of hydrogen into helium in its core. People who expect to find evidence of divine action in nature, in the origin of the universe or in the laws that govern matter are probably going to be disappointed.

What will be completely satisfying will be to show that there was only one kind of nature that was logically possible and derive the laws of nature in the same way that we derived the principles of arithmetic. I don’t think that will be possible, because we can already imagine logically consistent laws of nature that don’t quite describe the world we see. We will always be somewhat disappointed. But people who believe in God have the same problem. They will never be able to understand why the God that they believe in is that way and not some other way. All human beings, whether religious or not, are caught in a tragic situation of never fully being able to understand the world we are in.

I don’t believe in God, but I don’t make a religion out of not believing in God. It is logically possible that something could be discovered that will make me change my mind, and it will be interesting to see if that happens. But I don’t expect it. It is always possible that we will discover something in nature that cannot be explained in the naturalistic way that we’ve gotten used to in science and that will really require divine intervention. That hasn’t happened. I don’t know of any religious people who say that the breaking of the symmetry between the weak and the electromagnetic interactions requires divine intervention. Discovering the Higgs boson, or confirming the theory of electroweak symmetry breaking, is not going to upset people’s religion.

Photograph © Veer.com

(excerpt from an article at the Ethical Atheist)

An Ethical Atheist is someone who lives by a personal desire to do good things in their limited life on Earth. They don’t believe in any god, religion, or an afterlife. But, that doesn’t stop us from living an ethical life and attempting to co-exist with our fellow man in a peaceful, rational manner. We have many atheist, agnostic and religious friends. Generally, we accept them as they are and respect everyone’s right to have beliefs other than our own. We listen to others with conflicting views and realize that we cannot change these views. We try to accept others beliefs and keep our mouth shut. However, if religious people push their views and criticize us, we will not remain quiet. If they insist on educating OUR children in falsehoods, we will not remain quiet any more than if someone taught our children that dirt was water, or that the sky was rock. We respect everyone’s belief in religion, so long as it doesn’t censor another’s beliefs. We believe that males are equal to females. We believe that heterosexuals are equal to homosexuals. We believe that children are equal to adults, they just lack experience and education – are you willing to provide an unbiased, truthful education to them?

The ethics of our children, and thus the ethics of future societies, is completely in our hands. Children do not know hate at birth. They do not know Hindu, Muslim, Christian, Sikh, East or West, Sinner or Divine, God or Devil, our country or their country. They know love, yet do NOT know hate. Whether you know it our not, you are giving your children these faculties.

If you teach your children to hate and to be intolerant of conflicting religions: they may grow up to be suicide bombers and they may even become the next Hitler. If you let your children grow up watching violent television, your children may grow up to have little regard for life; they may kill others or promote war; they may torture animals; and they may have no concept or desire for peace on Earth. On the other hand, if you raise your children to understand morality and ethics; and to live by these rules, the world just might be a better place. If more truth and honesty existed in educating our children around the world, we believe that chance would exist for peace and reconciliation.

Atheists have been long termed as "sinners" by the so-called believers. Atheism has given to the human race the intellectual monarchs of the world. When the great Darwin discovered the law of the origins of species, he was called an Atheist because he disproved the special creation of Man. When the Chemist went into his laboratory and discovered the indestructibility of matter, he was called an Atheist because he proved the impossibility of a Creator. When the Astronomer pointed his telescope to the sky and explored the regions of unlimited space, he was called an Atheist because he found no God within the confines of space, no heaven within the region of his explorations. When the Geologist determined the age of the earth through it’s rock and soil and formations, he was called an Atheist because he, too, destroyed a belief in the special six-day creation, and exposed the falsity of the divine cosmogony. When the Physician sought to alleviate the pain and suffering of Man, he was called an Atheist because he refused to accept disease as a special visitation of a vengeful God.

Religious people should ask themselves the question, "Why have atheists given us most of the greatest scholars and scientists we’ve ever known?" Or, "Why did we murder, torture and imprison scientists that were helping us understand the world in which we live?" Or, "Why did Christianity carry out the Crusades?" Or, "Why does our Koran teach us to kill the infidels?" Is it the earliest or most recent religion that deserves to be treated as true? In either case, it appears that most religions are ruled obsolete. Where does that leave most religious beliefs? Answer this question on your own. Your answer will not be graded.

We believe in living in peace with our fellow man. Without a belief in the afterlife, this life is all we have. We cherish it and are grateful for our time alive on this planet. We have a strong desire to avoid conflict. We also have a strong desire to educate our children with what we have learned during our time on this planet.

Photograph © Veer.com

(excerpt from the Rational-Emotive Behaviour Therapy)

"we are disturbed not by things but by the views we take of them…"
This statement sums up for all that follows below!

- Feel appropriate sadness, irritation, and concern – rather than inappropriate depression, anger, and anxiety when we encounter an obstacle that blocks one of our goals. And these appropriate responses to life’s variations result from our rationally preferring things to go our way – rather than irrationally demanding that they do so. Any particular adversity is best seen as unfortunate, inconvenient, disadvantageous, or frustrating – as opposed to awful, horrible, terrible, or unbearable.

- See short-lived annoyances for what they are – merely temporary inconveniences. And it implores us to accept the harsh realities of the world and the more permanent inconveniences (eg. the probability that after we die, we’re actually dead) without bitterness. We should try to change everything that is in our power to change, but there are many things over which we have little or no control – and being bitter about those things is neither pragmatic nor psychologically healthy… because, for one thing, bitterness detracts from our enjoyment of life.

- Accept the "sinner" no matter how strongly we may disapprove of their "sin". We humans are fallible animals, so we often say and do foolish things. Unconditional Self-Acceptance is the key – to rate and evaluate our thoughts, feelings, and actions in relation to our goals and purposes, while refraining from rating our personhood as a whole. And it’s only fair to extend that same courtesy to others as well – Unconditional Other-Acceptance – rather than judging others as people who are intrinsically good or bad, it would be more realistic to instead judge the usefulness and ethicality of their deeds.

- Finally, and perhaps most importantly, never make the following three godlike demands of people and things – because these three musts are at the root of almost all disturbed thoughts and behaviors:
(1) musts directed at oneself ("I must perform perfectly everywhere and all the time")
(2) musts directed at others ("Other people must treat me justly and fairly at all times")
(3) musts directed at environmental or world conditions ("Things should always go my way – and nothing must ever get in my way or the whole world is completely worthless")

These practical tools can help us to live a more rational and enjoyable life. And although applying these principles in your everyday life won’t necessarily make you totally, perfectly, utterly unflappable, it will take an awful lot to get your ass flapping.

Photograph © Veer.com