is atheism inadequate to the human experience?

dogs

As for atheism, I think it can be internally coherent, but ultimately inadequate to the human experience; it always seems to end up crudely reducing the human person to a bag of meat.

While lurking round a spirited conversation on a recent post, I came across this interesting perspective. Is it possible that this perceived inadequacy explains the human craving for deities? I always knew “but I’m special” was one of the main petulant appeals of a religion such as Christianity, but I’ve just never seen someone of the religious persuasion express it quite so openly and clearly.

Accepting that I am a random collection of atoms along with every other object on this planet, that I am a bag of meat along with every other creature on this planet, doesn’t for me, in any way reduce my human experience. It gives it context and explains a lot of the behavioural conundrums that have perplexed our superstitious forefathers.

I think it can’t be a coincidence that almost every atheist I’ve come to know has a serious respect and love for dogs. Perhaps it’s that grounding in the animal reality of our existence that gives us perspective to more clearly understand that the human experience isn’t so far removed, that isn’t so uniquely special that it requires a mysterious god to magically carve us out in her image. This bag of meat feels adequately explained.

Advertisements