Why Unbelief is Good

By Keith Parsons | 18 April 2025
Letters to a Free Country

(Image by Peter H from Pixabay)

In my previous two posts, I reviewed some reasons for unbelief. Here I will say why unbelief is a good thing. To say that unbelief is a good thing is not to say that belief is necessarily bad. As I said in my last post, religious beliefs can be held with integrity, and I know of many people who do.

Why are some people believers and others not?

Why are some people believers and others not? I have known some people, both believers and unbelievers, whose convictions were unhealthy obsessions, psychological reflexes motivated by personal demons of hate, fear, prejudice, resentment, insecurity, or vindictiveness. I once taunted a religious apologist by saying that you never saw atheists standing on street corners haranguing passersby. In the meantime, I have sadly had to admit that I have encountered atheists who were just as “fundamentalist” as any Bible-beaters.

Considering those for whom belief or unbelief is a rational conviction, held responsibly and non-dogmatically according to one’s best lights, why are some motivated to believe and others not? No one thing. It is a matter of a global perspective, a worldview, if you will, that makes the most sense of one’s total experience. It is therefore impossible to separate belief or unbelief from biography.

At one point in my life, during the Sturm und Drang of young adulthood, religion ceased to be meaningful to me. Its comforts appeared empty, its promises illusory, and its intellectual basis flimsy. I was a student at Emory University’s Candler School of Theology at the time, and had been immersed in the murky, ponderous writings of theologians such as Paul Tillich, Karl Barth, and Rudolf Bultmann. Then I read Bertrand Russell. Here was an intellect far superior to the theologians’ and one that could express truth with crystalline clarity and rapier wit. I “converted” to analytic philosophy (and atheism) and never looked back.

My Christian friends have similar stories to tell, but ones that led them in the opposite direction. My most long-term friend (back to first grade) started off as a conservative Baptist, taking a degree from Southwestern Baptist Seminary. He departed the Baptist fold when the fundamentalists, using every dirty trick in the book (and adding a few new ones), took over the denomination in the eighties and drove out the moderates. He was driven to deeply rethink his beliefs. He became a pastor in the ultra-liberal United Church of Christ until his retirement a couple of years ago. His critique of fundamentalists is that they are not Christian enough! He is very adept at using the words of Jesus to show what hypocrites and bigots they are.

First good thing about not believing: you are being true to yourself

So, the first good thing about not believing is that you are being true to yourself. It takes courage for an unbeliever to be true to him or herself. The pressures to believe, both internal and external, are considerable. Atheists are hated and distrusted. I have heard even educated Christians opine that atheism is not an honest conviction, but is held by those who want to engage in illicit sex without guilt (as opposed to Christians who have illicit sex with guilt). My atheism horrifies members of my extended family who send me Christmas greetings exhorting me to “turn or burn.” One, less offensively, just counseled me to think seriously about it. I replied that I had been thinking seriously about if for over fifty years and had even published a book on the subject. Sheesh.

Many, maybe most, unbelievers were raised as believers. Often, a fear of hell is inculcated at a tender age (Assaulting young minds with stories of hell is a form of child abuse.), and so powerful is that fear that, even as adults, some cannot entertain honest doubts without catching a whiff of brimstone. Standing unapologetically and uncompromisingly by your deepest beliefs requires honesty and courage. (BTW, I hold that anyone who seriously believes in hell has to take very seriously the possibility that they might be going there; Matthew 7:21-23.)

Consistent about separation of church and state

One of the best things about unbelief is that unbelievers are the most outspoken and consistent in the demand for separation of church and state. Separation of church and state means (a) that the tenets of religion cannot constitute a basis for civil law (no sharia), (b) that the power, prestige, or authority of government cannot be used to promote any religious doctrine or organization, and (c) that public offices and honors be open to all regardless of religious persuasion. The case for separation has been made cogently many times, most notably by our host Ed Buckner and his son Michael Buckner in their book In Freedom We Trust: An Atheist Guide to Religious Liberty (2012). As they make very clear, you can either have a society that promotes religious doctrine, or you can have a free society.

Skepticism and distrust for authority

More broadly, unbelievers evince a salutary skepticism and distrust of authority. One lesson I remember from the excellent sociology class I had in high school was the difference between “earned” and “ascribed” authority. Earned authority is authority that is based on knowledge and achievement. I listen to my oncologist because he has undergone years of hard study to gain expertise in a field I know virtually nothing about. I am quite happy to submit to his authority. On the other hand, my high school principal, whom we called “Oddjob” because of his strong resemblance to Goldfinger’s thuggish bodyguard in the Bond movie, was placed in authority over me, but, as far as I could tell, had done nothing to earn my respect. Authority was simply ascribed to him and we were told to obey or else.

Unbelievers reject religious authority, but also are deeply suspicious of all authority that is merely ascribed. I have always despised authoritarians, from those who hold high office to the most petty tyrants. Even in grade school, if a teacher goose-stepped into the room on the first day of class and addressed us in the manner of the heavy in old war movies: “Zeese are zee rules, und you vill obey zem at all times!”–then I was lost for the whole year. I would do nothing for that teacher, putting in only enough effort to avoid summer school. I was told that I was only hurting myself with this attitude, but I did not care as long as my disrespect was clear. To this day, I do not regret that behavior.

Respect for science and for skepticism

Unbelievers do respect the authority of science. Science should be trusted because it does not trust itself. Scientific communities relentlessly subject all claims to rigorous evaluation and tentatively accept only those hypotheses that survive the best efforts to refute them. Religious and political authority are entirely different, and should always be regarded with suspicion.

At a more basic level, unbelief challenges basic assumptions of religions—all major religions. In his magisterial An Interpretation of Religion (2nd Edition, 2004), John Hick says that all of the religious traditions that developed during the “Axial Age” of approximately 200 to 800 BCE, and the religions, like Islam and Christianity, that are derived from those traditions, are united by a common theme. That theme is that human life is in a woeful state of darkness, illusion, sinfulness, and alienation, and that salvation is through religion. It is this “soteriological” emphasis that, Hick says, distinguishes the post-Axial religions from the earlier pagan and national religions.

The inadequacy of natural human life is explicated in different ways. Hinduism says that we are trapped in illusion, the veil of maya, and condemned to samsara, endless cycles of rebirth until we can attain moksha, deliverance, and merge with the divine. Christianity, of course, holds that humans are in a fallen state of sinfulness and, unredeemed, are doomed to eternal hell. Humans can do nothing of their own power to save themselves and are dependent upon the grace of God who offers salvation through faith in Jesus Christ. Islam holds that peace is possible only for those who submit–“Islam” means “submission”–to the recognition that there is but one God, Allah, and that Mohammed is his prophet. In one way or another, all major religious traditions hold that human life is radically unsatisfactory until it is transformed by (their) religion.

Unbelievers fundamentally reject these claims. Human life is not poisoned until religion offers the antidote. Nothing justifies the pathological gloom of Augustine or Calvin. Such morbid ideas as original sin and utter depravity are absurd and pernicious. When David Hume considered some of the more lurid religious claims, they struck him as “sick men’s dreams.”

Humans, of course, are capable of the greatest cruelty and the basest depravity (vide Donald Trump). Can religion save us? It hasn’t yet. On the contrary, we know that the track record of religion in ameliorating human behavior is a very mixed bag. Religion can inspire good people to be better, but it can also provide bad people with the motivation to be much worse. Nothing makes it easier to hate than being told that God hates the same people you do. The worst people in America today are the Christian nationalists.

The pagan religions that were displaced by the religions of the Axial Age did not see human life as fallen and requiring radical transformation. Religion did not function to transform you from a lost to a saved state. It was there to help you meet the challenges of everyday life, to overcome obstacles and live successfully. The Greeks did not grovel before their deities. They spoke respectfully to them, of course, but saw them as partners or patrons whose aid they could enlist by pleasing them with sacrifices and due reverence. There was no need for the terrorism of hell or the bribery of heaven. Respect the gods and they will respect you.

No need for salvation

Like the ancient pagans, unbelievers are not looking for salvation; we don’t think we need it. Since they do not believe in an afterlife, unbelievers seek to live this one life to the fullest. The meaning of life is not a deep mystery for us. Meaningful work, learning, loving, discovering beauty, and feeling like you have done your bit to make the world a little better; these are the things that matter to me. Oh, and as Monty Python’s Eric Idle advises, don’t forget to laugh and dance and sing. Augustine said (to God), “Our hearts are restless until they rest in thee.” Nonsense. My heart rested a lot easier when I dumped God, that monkey on my back.

A rich and deeply fulfilling life can be lived without God. You can be a patriot and someone who makes a difference in your community. You can stand for justice and against bigotry. You can stand for reason and truth and against the purveyors of aggressive idiocy and pernicious ideology.

A godless life can be a life of courage, intelligence, and integrity. Live it!

Keith Parsons is a Professor of Philosophy and Humanities, emeritus at the University of Houston at Clear Lake and the former editor of the philosophy journal Philo. He has debated William Lane Craig on the topics “Is Christianity True?” and “Does God Exist?”. Dr. Parsons holds a Ph.D. in the History and Philosophy of Science from the University of Pittsburgh and a Ph.D. in Philosophy from Queens University.

William Lane Craig vs Keith Parsons | “Why I Am/Am Not A Christian” | Prestonwood Baptist Church

The Case Against Christianity (Keith Parsons)

Why I Am Not a Christian by Bertrand Russell (1927)

Ricky Gervais And Stephen Go Head-To-Head On Religion

Be sure to ‘like’ us on Facebook

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here