Atheism: Why and How

The internet has made the debate between believers and atheists louder than ever. Millions of memes, podcasts, videos, tweets and Facebook posts are uploaded daily, each contributing to this debate. In my six years as a follower and contributor to this discussion, I have come to notice that it has been mainly preoccupied with the question “Why?” Believers meet atheists and ask “Why don’t you believe in God?” while atheist almost always asks “Why do you believe in God?”  The consequence of this has been the constant repetition of the same arguments and counterarguments, often leaving the debaters bitter and more mystified by the philosophy and psychology of the other side. I’m here to propose that in addition to the why question, we should base the religious debate on another principle question that asks How? But first, we must understand why the why question is at the core of the religious debate.

We are all born atheists. Some people grow up that way; others get indoctrinated into one religion or other. However, some folks in the latter group manage to free themselves from their respective religious beliefs. Being one of this fortunate group, I can attest to the relief of realizing that religion is nothing but lies and that all your past fears had been fictional. This relief is also accompanied by the horrific fact that you once believed in such nonsense. A critical analysis of the impacts of religion on society reveals its negativity, and the atheist is left wondering why anyone in their right minds could support blatant falsehoods.

Marx was accurate in describing religion as an opiate. A more updated description would be to call religion a narcotic. It is harmful to the brain, and though it may seem a sedative, pain only makes one vulnerable and more gullible. You know how you got drunk or high for the first time and you thought “Man! I’d like to feel like this all day, every day”? It’s the same with religion. Once imbibed, one is left living the same painful reality, but in a sense of stupor. Like addicts, the religious troop to church every Sunday for their weekly fix. The feeling of euphoria that accompanies drugs also accompanies religious fervor, and it feels good. Therefore, when a believer meets an atheist, the first question in their mind is “An atheist? Why should anyone give up something this awesome?”

And so the stage is set.

However, this is not the only way to have this debate. I believe the how question should be asked more often in these discussions, and believers have more to gain by this shift of attention. This is because, while religious experiences may have a nuance of individuality, they are all the similar, especially the Abrahamic religions (Judaism, Christianity, and Islam). As such, hearing how one person became a Christian or Muslim, means that you have essentially heard the testimony of all individuals who profess that particular faith. On the other hand, atheism requires free-thought, and each atheist reached the conclusion that there is no God by following a unique intellectual path. If similarities exist between two atheists, they are often because of having to break away from similar fetters. As such, it would be quite beneficial if a believer asked an atheist “How?” in addition to“Why?”

Here’s how I became an atheist. My transformation began in 2004 during my final two years of primary school when I transferred to a school that had a significant Muslim population, most of them refugees from Somalia. It was then that I came into contact with kids who weren’t Christians. Although it did not mean much back then, having Muslim friends significantly expanded my worldview. It is because of this exposure that I found schisms within Christianity so petty when I finally began to analyze them critically. I continued with my Christian life, but as I proceeded to high school my mind was baffled by the multiplicity of religions. If truth is singular, as Sonmi 541 aptly put it, my religious inclined mind was keen to find the one true religion. After finding no singularity in any of the religions I researched, I proclaimed all faiths legitimate. If my pubescent intellect could not locate the singularity of truth, it would create one by finding it in everything. In retrospect, granting universal religious legitimacy was ridiculous. But I didn’t know better. I still thought religious belief, of any kind, was necessary for any worldview to make sense, and it was “so comfortable to be a minor."1 When I was 17, I began seeing the incompatibility of religious belief with reality, and the information I gathered in the four years of high school helped me break free of religious strings. I was no longer afraid of confronting the truth, which by the way, had the pleasant and unpleasant in equal measure.

That’s a sketch of my path to atheism. I hope more atheists will take their time to share how they became atheists because this will also make the reasons why they did clearer.

P.S. Although my atheism is the product of freethought, I was not entirely alone. My line of thinking on religion was significantly shaped (Chronologically) by Valerie Cuthbert whose historical novel The Great Siege of Fort Jesus introduced me to the theme of conflict between cultures. A theme I explored further through Ngugi wa Thiong’o’s The River Between. The third was Vita Brevis: A Letter to St Augustine by Jostein Gaarder, a novel that watered the seeds of humanism within me. The fourth and most significant influence was Rene Descartes who urged me to cast aside all my opinions and beliefs, and only re-accept them after they pass rational analysis in Discourse on the Method. Last but not least was Immanuel Kant, whose article What is Enlightenment?  broke my last religious link and gave me the courage to pursue my thoughts to their logical conclusion.

 

The Dark Future of Black Gold

The need for sustainable sources of energy is one the biggest problems that confronts humanity in the current century. Major technological innovations are being made with the aim of achieving this goal, mainly because it is tied to the survival of the planet and the few species that still survive on it. Fossil fuels have, so far, provided us with the power to build civilizations and economies. However, it has now become evident that they cannot do so for long. The unsustainability of the sources and the environmental damage caused by the use of these fossil fuels have created a need for better, cleaner energy sources. According to Energy Outlook 2030 by BP Oil, renewable fuels are growing the fastest at 7.6% and oil the slowest at 0.8% per year (BP).

The ironic thing is that despite the dismal prospects of oil, Kenya is currently engrossed in creating an infrastructure that will enable it to start pilot exporting by June, and become an oil exporter by 2020 (Kamau). All I can say to this is, “Too late Kenya, too late.” The discovery of oil in the country was celebrated, at first, and it has been said that the oil now discovered can run the country for 300 years (Wachiuri). This could have been good news in the’80s. Today, such information should be received with apprehension because the exploitation of oil has a direct relationship with the environmental troubles on earth today. The continuation of oil exploration in Kenya means that we will be taking up a cycle of unsustainable energy production that is already being abandoned. For one, the accelerated development and shift towards electric vehicles spells doom for internal combustion engines and the fuels that power them such as diesel and petroleum. Furthermore, the transition to solar and wind energy, and their declining costs means that fossil fuels will, albeit not fast enough, become a thing of the past. The future will not be powered by oil, that much can be said. What does this mean for Kenya?

Well for starters, our surface will be covered by a commodity that nobody wants. For instance, cities in developed countries such as Oslo, Paris, and Copenhagen are striving to establish car-free zones to reduce pollution. Such moves are bound to become more pronounced and widespread in the future. Adding electric vehicles into the equation makes the exportation of oil to developed countries a dim prospect. The boost that the country expects from trading in oil will not last long, nor will it be to the benefit of this country, in the long-term. The complaint from leaders and communities in Turkana is a manifestation of the presence of inequitable resource sharing (Muiruri). Even before the industry crystalizes, it is becoming evident that only corporations, and a few in th ruling elite will benefit from the discovery of black gold . Secondly, pursuing oil exploration will mean that Kenya will focus on implementing technologies that will favor this energy source more than others such as solar and wind.

It should be noted that funding will be provided by loans from the World Bank (Kamau) (further burden on the country), for an investment that will, at best, last only for a few decades. As the developed countries focus on renewable energy, we will be consuming our oil at the expense of our environment. The developed countries will then take on the role of urging us to abandon oil for green energy, as our emissions become ever greater due to the inefficiencies and wastefulness inherent in developing economies. It would be the same phenomenon as when Europeans introduced slave trade on a massive scale on the continent, only to later appear as abolitionist missionaries to preach how evil such an economic activity was. Avoiding such a scenario with oil seems unavoidable now, and while the whole issue is yet to be streamlined, the cons of this endeavor will outweigh the pros. But hey, that’s just one man’s opinion.

           

References

BP. BP Eergy Outlook 2013. London: BP, 2013. PDF.

Kamau, Macharia. "Kenya to start pilot oil production in April with eye on export by June." 15 March 2017. Standard Digital. Web. 11 April 2017.

Muiruri, Peter. "Lokichar oil: A blessing or curse for Turkana?" 29 March 2017. Standard Digital. Web. 11 April 2017.

Wachiuri, George K. "Kenya's oil deposits can run her for 300 years ." 2016. George K. Wachiuri. Web. 11 April 2017.