Essay:Why I am not an anti-theist

I've pretty much always been an atheist, since I asked my father if there was a god and he said no. Being an atheist did put me at odds with the beliefs of everybody around me, though. If someone believes in god, and another doesn't, both can't be right. That set me up for an adversarial attitude towards religion that dogged me until around the time I turned eighteen. At that point, I realized that I mostly didn't care what people believed. I then asked myself, "why would I care?" It's not as though beliefs are harmless. One person's belief that another must die is certainly far from harmless. So I figured that belief does matter, somewhat. At least in some cases.

If somebody believes in an invisible pink unicorn, that cannot be felt or heard or smelled or tasted, this belief in and of itself is harmless (barring it as an indicator of mental illness: maybe they think such a creature is in contact with them- but I don't think we can simply consign all of religious belief to mental illness). On the other hand, if someone thinks this unicorn wishes for them to persecute homosexuals, I would definitely raise my voice and object. So, while believing something that isn't true may not be inherently bad, it can very well turn that way.

After that, I had to wonder: "if an ideology based on objective reality precludes advocacy for bad things such as murder or bigotry, is an ideology not based on objective reality potentially bad? If so, is the potential for badness reason to oppose such an ideology?" Epistemologically speaking, science is "the" world view based on observable truth. Only science only draws its conclusions from the natural world. Science does not make anything up; the scientific method doesn't allow for it. This sets science apart from religion and even philosophy (unless you feel like defining science as another philosophy). So, science would make a decent base from which to debunk claims made by competing "ways of knowing." If science is the only epistemology based on objective reality, then according to the aforementioned question, does science preclude advocacy for bad things? If it does, I've yet to hear about it.

Really, all science has had to offer on the question of right and wrong is that these concepts have been hardwired into our brains as a result of natural selection. So killing is only bad because killing prevents genes from passing on, thus inhibiting the adaptability of the species. Whether social or inherent, any antipathy towards killing is the result of evolution. At this point, it should be clear that science is in fact indifferent to the question of right and wrong. Science is merely a tool to learn about the natural world. With this in mind, the original question is clearly flawed. It seems to me that straining beliefs solely through the sieves of falsifiability and methodological naturalism does not root out evil, since morality is out of its scope. It also stands to reason that any belief that can't be directly observed is outside the purview of science... including the idea that no belief outside of science is bad. Since no belief outside of science is based on objective reality, and since science is indifferent to the belief that any beliefs not based on objective reality might be bad, judging ideologies based simply on core assumptions (such as the existence of invisible unicorns) is an exercise is hypocrisy.

I'm not saying there isn't a superior world view, or that all world views are valid. I happen to think that my own set of beliefs is the correct one (and I'm not being sarcastic, I mean that). What I'm saying is that the simple fact of religion isn't to be condemned, even if you worry that the Christian next door might someday turn into a raving crusader. Because no ideology is safe from suddenly turning its followers into murderers. Since physics and chemistry can't tell us if killing is wrong, we are left to answer that question ourselves. Atheism, theism, there's no reason to think that either of these is immune to drawing an unsavory conclusion.

And that is why I am not an anti-theist. Because I don't care that my neighbor believes in god. As long as they don't try to oppress people for it, their belief is the same as any.

Addendum
This demarcates religion and crap like alternative medicine. Alternative medicine has people spend money on worthless treatment, often to the exclusion of actual treatment. In and of itself, religion does not.
 * Religions that outright charge people, like Scientology, are "fair game," however. Because they don't just have batshit beliefs.  They demand your money for sharing their batshit beliefs
 * Religious motivation for dumb shit is also a valid target of skepticism- Christian Scientist parents who withhold treatment from their child should be told exactly where to shove it