Mere Molecules in Motion

When I'm working on various projects that don't engage much of my brain, I like to put on atheist YouTube channels and listen to arguments for and against the existence of a god. It is rare to come upon some really new arguments. They usually just boil down to "I feel it's true," "Look at the trees," or "Here's some logical argument." Basically, for a "personal god" (since I'm in America, the theists are usually some flavor of Christian, but every so often there is a Muslim), Yahweh is pretty elusive and must be perceived indirectly, i.e. through the feels of some True Believer.

But what has intrigued me in listening to Christians who have questions for atheists is the conception they have of atheists and atheism. They are often so indoctrinated into Christianity that they cannot flip the view around and see how another person views the world. Among the weirdness they put into words, one idea pops up over and over, expressed in a few variations: if we are mere molecules in motion..., if we are evolved pond scum..., if we are just cells bumping together..., if we are merely evolved apes... and you get the idea.

The reductionist view of a scientific description of how humans came to be on this planet always puzzles me. It is especially the addition of words like mere and just that add a bit of putrid spice to the question. The phrasing takes an argument from incredulity, adds a touch of poisoning the well and constructs a straw man of what people actually believe. I don't know if anyone actually believes that human beings - or any animal really - are mere molecules in motion, just a clump of cells that walks around and can talk. No, it's a ridiculous image.

Sure, on some level, everyone and everything is made up of small particles and we are a life form that consists of long strings of carbon and a bunch of water and other stuff. Our configuration derives from our genetic make-up and we are very much physical beings moving in a physical space. I'm not really doing the science justice, and it doesn't much matter because that is merely descriptive of various physical and chemical laws we can observe in our universe.

The fact of the matter is, somehow, over time, a form of consciousness evolved. We are aware of ourselves. We have long (and very imperfect) memories that stretch back across our life. We are capable of narrative, of understanding stories from other people, other times, other places. We can train ourselves to be disciplined thinkers, to recognize biases and logical fallacies, to think scientifically. We are aware of our death.

We also evolved to be social animals. Due to that, we evolved empathy and bonding behaviors. We aren't the only animal that has survived better as a group, but we have taken specialization to a pretty high level. Some people grow the food we eat. Some people sew the clothing. Some people do repairs. Some work in offices to do other tasks and so on. You get the idea.

Because of our awareness of self and other and our reliance on our various communities for survival, this notion that the chemical make-up of our bodies is pretty ludicrous.

This supposed curiosity surrounding our cells in motion is usually offered when asking about morality. Why do we care about others? Why do we perform acts of charity? How do we account for love and other emotions? For the Christian, their god infused them with these qualities. And of course, trying not to sin and doing good are the main ways most Christians think they need to earn heaven. (There are of course some Christians that think good acts are not the way to access paradise, but they often think that the acts are a reflection of their good nature.)

I really find these questions obnoxious and condescending. It is insulting to various cultures who have not adopted any god much less the Christian god. It is insulting to those of us who left a religion. But of course, the purpose of poisoning the well is to bias your listener. We are supposed to be horrified by the presumed conclusions of our alleged arguments.

The reality is that the theory of evolution is merely a model that explains observed reality. It is not any kind of moral system. Understanding bio-chemical processes does not explain how you should live, what you should do with your life or anything much of anything.

I wonder sometimes if these Christians are honest in their curiosity or merely want to engage in a little gotcha. Some atheists have adopted moral systems like secular humanism. That's not too hard to find. But you really don't even need to find some formal framework. For those of us who have deconverted or were never believers we recognize that this is our one life. We don't know or expect any "life of the soul" or whatever after we die. We enjoy being alive and want to make this life the best life we can. In order for us to live safely and comfortably, we feel that we need to be giving to others, to create fair and just systems of life to protect marginalized people. There is no need to feel we will get a reward for any of this. Having this life be positive is reward enough.