≡ Menu

Can Atheists Really Give Thanks?

Thanksgiving poses a problem for atheists. Why? Because while they may have people to thank for their well-being or camaraderie, they have no one to thank for their very existence. G.K. Chesterton once said:

If my children wake up on Christmas morning and have someone to thank for putting candy in their stocking, have I no one to thank for putting two feet in mine?

While the atheist can be thankful for turkey and mashed potatoes, the stomach he stuffs is, according to him, a cosmological accident. Ultimately, the people and conditions he honors are but biological quirks, advanced animals, destined for existential nothingness.

One adventurous atheist argues that those who believe in a godless universe can give thanks for lots of things. For instance:

  • Farmers
  • Soldiers and Veterans
  • Doctors and Modern Medicine
  • Engineers and Modern Technology
  • Science and Scientists
  • Friends and Family

I must admit, I’ve never expressed gratitude for Engineers and Modern Technology around the Thanksgiving table. Still, if the human race is a cosmic blunder as atheism purports, nothing really has any meaning. Even acts of kindness or courage are, in the end, pointless attempts at nobility that will be swept away by the vast, cold universe. It doesn’t wash.

Perhaps it’s an advantage we believers have: Not only can we praise the hands that made the meal, we can praise the Hands that made the chef.

Grace and blessings to you and yours this Thanksgiving!

monk2a.jpg
{ 33 comments… add one }
  • janet November 21, 2007, 1:14 PM

    Yes! I’ve always said this. The very idea of giving thanks assumes that there is someone to thank. I think an atheist would have to have a separate holiday called “I’m so lucky.” Instead of prayers of thanksgivng, they could make speeches listing the things they are so “lucky” to have (ie. “I’m so lucky I evolved into a human instead of a turkey,”)
    Happy Thanksgiving Mike.

  • Michelle Pendergrass November 21, 2007, 2:26 PM

    I think it’s probably rather shallow and narrow minded to think that someone can’t or shouldn’t be thankful because they don’t have Jesus.

    I mean, I understand now what it means to want to be like Christ, but when I was an atheist, I was still thankful. I still loved and felt pain and wanted my life to have meaning. And it always pissed me off when someone thought they were better than me because they had their religion.

    It still ticks me off to see that attitude. What I’m thankful for now is that God is grace and people aren’t in charge of dispensing it. Lord knows I’d have been burned at the stake for some of my beliefs if left in human hands. I also like to remember that just as God loved me in that horrible state, he loves this guy who wrote the article and every other atheist out there. I understand a godless Thanksgiving and a godless life, I think mine was based more in rebellion to people who put themselves on a pedestal because they were going to heaven and I was going to hell and didn’t I want what they had? Heaven sounded great, but did I want all that hypocrisy that went with it? I didn’t.

    I get what you’re saying, that as Christians we have nothing to be thankful for without the Cross, because you’re right. But an atheist doesn’t know that and can’t know that God’s grace and that’s the same for both Christians and non-believers. God doesn’t play favorites.

  • Mike Duran November 21, 2007, 2:35 PM

    Michelle, I am not trying to demean an atheist’s expression of gratitude, only point out the violent contradiction at the heart of it. This type of philosophical incongruity is what ultimately pushed me, as an atheist, toward theism. Francis Schaeffer suggested that this type of reasoning — pushing the non-believer toward the obvious conclusions of his or her beliefs, however absurd or unreasonable they are — is a necessary step in the evangelistic process. That this process should be enacted in love, is a Scriptural given. If I’ve implied in this post that we should look down upon or scoff at an atheist’s gratitude, please forgive me.

  • janet November 21, 2007, 2:53 PM

    Michelle,
    I understand what you are saying. Of course, ALL people, whether they believe or not, are thinking, feeling, loving, beings who long for love and meaning in life. And naturally they can be grateful as well as I can. But to whom are they grateful? I just always think it is interesting that the world gives thanks, yet they say there is no Creator. If there is no creator, just be “glad”, not thankful. Am I making any sense? I guess my point is that the very fact that the world gives thanks testifies in a way to the fact that God is there.

  • Mark November 21, 2007, 4:28 PM

    Being an engineer by trade, I hope you’ll reconsider your stance on not offering thanks…

    😉

  • Michelle Pendergrass November 22, 2007, 1:58 AM

    Mike, I know you weren’t saying look down on people, I’m afraid a little of my old attitude came barreling out of my mouth. I totally understand where you’re coming from, totally. I can see why it would seem absurd for someone who doesn’t believe in a Creator to give thanks to what we see as a Christian holiday.

    However, to someone without Christ, it doesn’t seem absurd at all to be thankful. By definition it means: Aware and appreciative of a benefit; grateful. Thankful doesn’t mean God. We, as Christians ARE thankful because of God and everything we do (should) revolve around that. As much as it seems necessary to point a non-believer to that, I’m afraid the more they are to ignore believers because things of the Spirit make no sense to non-believers.

    And Janet, in that same vein, atheists don’t have to be thankful to anyone. I think that’s why non believers get uptight about holidays when we, as Christians, try to force Jesus on them. They can simply enjoy things in their live and have a thankful attitude for them. They don’t understand what we do when it comes to all good things are from God.

    I guess it’s probably fruitless to try to explain, I just know that when I was an atheist, I had no problem being thankful for friends, family, my health, etc. I didn’t pray, I was simply grateful for things.

  • janet November 22, 2007, 2:01 AM

    No, I hear ya, Michelle. I do. I get what I’m saying and what Mike’s saying and what you’re saying. These conversations are fine amongst ourselves, knowing what we know, but how would it sound to a non-believer? Gotta be careful. You are right. Happy Thanksgiving.

  • Mike Duran November 22, 2007, 2:23 AM

    I’ve been linked HERE and an interesting discussion is ensuing.

  • janet November 22, 2007, 3:05 AM

    Wow. Interesting indeed. Saying a little prayer for you as you formulate your responses.

  • Jason November 22, 2007, 3:19 PM

    “”Because while [atheists] may have people to thank for their well-being or camaraderie, they have no one to thank for their very existence.””

    You fail to respond to Austin’s criticism of this ridiculous claim.

    “”While the atheist can be thankful for turkey and mashed potatoes, the stomach he stuffs is, according to him, a cosmological accident.””

    No, it’s not. Are you really that ignorant of evolution and natural selection? Or are you just being dishonest?

    “”Ultimately, the people and conditions he honors are but biological quirks, advanced animals, destined for existential nothingness.””

    So something has value only if it is eternal? That’s a sad outlook.

    “”Still, if the human race is a cosmic blunder as atheism purports,””

    …It doesn’t…

    “”nothing really has any meaning.””

    Sure it does. Explain why you think it doesn’t.

    I may have no afterlife, but this life means a lot to me! Can you acknowledge that I can be thankful for it?

    “”Even acts of kindness or courage are, in the end, pointless attempts at nobility that will be swept away by the vast, cold universe.””

    Why do you think kindness or courage are pointless with an afterlife? Those I help might beg to differ.

    The only thing this article informs the reader is of your complete ignorance of atheism.

  • Mike Duran November 22, 2007, 4:47 PM

    Thanks for visiting, Jason. Here’s some bullet points in response to your charges, er, questions.

    1. I reread Austin’s criticism and he said nothing about that specific statement. To reiterate the point I’ve made several times: If there is no God, your existence is pure chance; you are a collection of biological parts and processes destined to be absorbed into a cold, impersonal universe. Sure, you can thank your parents for procreating and raising you, but in the end, it will mean nothing to you or them.

    2.) If you’re saying that life / evolution is not a cosmological accident, then you’re suggesting the process is “guided” or imbued with Purpose, to which I would agree.

    3.) Jason, if you’re just an animal, an advanced collection of cells, who will dissolve into absolute nothingness along with all your good deeds and efforts, then yes: Life is ultimately of no value. In the end, it doesn’t matter if one is a Hitler or a Mother Theresa — their efforts will have no lasting repercussions on anyone, including themselves. Attempting to find meaning in a meaningless world is tantamount to madness. There is NO justifiable reason why one should not commit suicide. None. Please note: This is not my view, but the logical outworking of atheism’s worldview.

    4.) If atheism doesn’t purport that life is “a cosmic blunder,” an unguided series of random processes, that is to suggest that the Universe has an “intelligent,” “guiding” influence (see point #2), to which I would agree.

    5.) See point #3. (For the record, I am stunned that you and the folks at Austin’s site don’t acknowledge this point. Classic atheism has, for millennia, acknowledged that the absence of God intrinsically affects one’s morals and meaning. By way of example, I Googled “Morality without God” and found 2,010,000 results. Frankly, your inability / unwillingness to acknowledge this well-established connection says worlds.)

    6.) Once again, see point #3.

    * * *

    Jason, I would float an idea to you in closing: The crossing of our paths is more than just chance or coincidence. You are far more than an advanced animal; you are a precious soul whose value exceeds anything you can imagine, who will live beyond the grave. In that sense, these discussions may be the most important we can ever have.

  • Jason November 22, 2007, 5:00 PM

    “Sure, you can thank your parents for procreating and raising you, but in the end, it will mean nothing to you or them.”

    That’s terribly cold-hearted and wrong of you. That you don’t understand that says way more about you than me.

    “the process is “guided” or imbued with Purpose, to which I would agree.”

    There is no Purpose, but natural selection is a guiding force, albeit blind. You clearly don’t know what you’re talking about here.

    “Jason, if you’re just an animal, an advanced collection of cells, who will dissolve into absolute nothingness along with all your good deeds and efforts, then yes: Life is ultimately of no value.”

    It’s sad you think so, though you’ve done nothing to show that the temporary is devoid of value.

    “In the end, it doesn’t matter if one is a Hitler or a Mother Theresa”

    It would matter to me, why not you?

    “Attempting to find meaning in a meaningless world is tantamount to madness.”

    Why can’t we make our own meaning? Why must meaning come from some penultimate force? What gives that supernatural force more power to create meaning than you or me?

    “If atheism doesn’t purport that life is “a cosmic blunder,” an unguided series of random processes, that is to suggest that the Universe has an “intelligent,” “guiding” influence (see point #2), to which I would agree.”

    See my response above.

    “5.)”

    I don’t know to what “5.)” refers.

    Are you saying that morality is absent without god? And if you think such a conclusion is obvious, it is clear you don’t know what you’re talking about and haven’t actually ever reasonably discussed this with anyone from my point of view before? Which would make it strange that you are asserting things with such faux-authority.

    “6.) Once again, see point #3.”

    I understand you think everything is meaningless without someone giving you meaning. You’ve done nothing to suggest why others should take such a dependent, weak position for their own lives.

    “Jason, I would float an idea to you in closing: The crossing of our paths is more than just chance or coincidence.”

    Right. You made some ridiculously ignorant claims about atheism, and a guy with a site about atheism, which I frequent, posted about it. Pure chance.

    “You are far more than an advanced animal;”

    Yeah. I have feelings and morals and memories and values and desires. I’m certainly thankful I have those things, and want to enjoy them as long as I can, especially considering they are temporary!

    “you are a precious soul whose value exceeds anything you can imagine”

    Evidence please.

    “who will live beyond the grave.”

    Evidence please.

    “In that sense, these discussions may be the most important we can ever have.”

    Wow. How self-righteous of you! You’ve derailed from the “reasonable Christian” track to the preachy, silly dirt on the side of the road. No wonder it’s clear you haven’t given these topics _serious_ thought. You merely look at these topics for ways to strengthen your fancy. You don’t look for what the truth says, you look for what you can make the truth say.

    You’re clearly happy believing your own fancy. Perhaps you should give thanks for your ability to ignore the facts in order to keep such a happy fantasy.

    Jason

  • Nicole November 23, 2007, 4:48 AM

    Jason, you have no more “facts” to prove your belief system. In fact, all you really have is your opinion which you are entitled to have and to hold until your death.

    I find it fascinating that you think the belief system of a Christian is arrogant/self-righteous when we acknowledge that we are sinners in desperate need of God’s saving grace. We didn’t always think so–we had to come to that realization. Perhaps you think you’re always right in what you do, but you don’t sound like you think that. How do you justify it when you’re wrong, or is it just attributed to human behavior?

    Evolution from natural selection would indicate a progression from zero awareness of “morality” to some distinctive arrival at that point where morality became real and important as well as things such as thankfulness, generosity, kindness, etc. How could that happen? And, although you might have an intellectual opinion about such occurrences, you have no proof of how they “evolved”.

  • janet November 23, 2007, 1:02 PM

    Mike, just wanted to give you a cyber-pat on the back. I think all of your responses have been well thought out and logical, delivered with grace and kindness (as opposed to sarcasm, insults, and mean-spiritedness.) I wouldn’t have expected this “debate” to have turned out any differently. We’ve got to totally opposing world views going on here. But I’ll bet it got people on both sides thinking. Got me thinking…I even learned a thing or two. Bless you.

  • dayle November 23, 2007, 4:53 PM

    Hey Mike,

    I had assumed that your post was speaking more to the point of “in the end” meaning death. To counter that with “I can thank my biological parents” is not taking your point in its intended scope. And yes, they can thank biological processes, but you said they have “no one” to thank, so your point it still valid. They can certainly be thankful for their wife, their children, their friends, etc. This is why you may offended them so.

    The vitriol you have encountered here is the reason I no longer get involved in these debates. When you corrected my apparent characterization of atheist’s motives being hate, you were correct. Even though, I was speaking more of the militant atheist.

    But you’re right. It’s not hate. It’s more complex than that. It’s a bitterness. A axe to grind that makes a reasonable, respectful debate almost impossible.

    I would love to find one atheist who doesn’t immediately stereotype me and accuse me of all the tactics they themselves immediately employ.

    I would love to converse and get to know and even become friends with one atheist who is not infected with this bitterness. So far, I haven’t, but I’m still hopeful. Maybe one will read this and contact me.

    I disagree with your Hitler – Sister Theresa comment. From the atheist viewpoint, the “natural processes” that create an occasional Sister Theresa would be something to be thankful for and it would matter even more to them because this life is it, but they still would have “no one” to thank for it.

    For me, the biggest hurdle for an atheist is finding justice in this world without an afterlife and a standard greater than mankind. Sure one may have a great life, but what about the 6 year old girl who dies after being born into a life of aids, poverty, and starvation.

    According to Jesus, she gets treasures stored up in heaven and an eternity to experience His love. In the atheist worldview, she gets nothing but hell on earth.

    Jason, it might interest you to know that most Christians believe in natural selection. They just don’t believe that it creates species. There is no proof of this. There is proof that natural selection alters physical characteristics of existing species. But that is its limit.

    While natural selection is real, evolution using natural selection as its engine is still theory.

  • Jayelle Wiggins-Lunacharsky November 23, 2007, 10:04 PM

    My faith history is a bit different than most in that conversation: I am a Pagan of ten years’ standing and counting, who was raised Assemblies of God. I like Austin’s site because he has good information on various causes I find important. Also, I am married to an atheist and a friend to others, so I find it helps me to read Austin’s site (and others, and some recent books) before I completely blunder in discussion.

    This is what I said to Austin and other readers of his site, and I will also say it to you:

    So *this* is what people who don’t watch football and don’t cook do for Thanksgiving!!!

    What I am sort of reminded of is the stupid question I get every year, as I am allergic to anything that ever had wings and feathers: “What do you eat on Thanksgiving, since you can’t have turkey?” Well, I eat lots of things, and my size-16 rear end is a pretty good testament to that. I had lots of tasty choices yesterday. Just because turkey is a common centerpiece in that meal doesn’t mean you can’t do well without it. In fact, for me, it’s much more beneficial to do without it.

    The atheists at my table (and here, of course) live without something that is a huge centerpiece in many peoples’ moral systems–God and religion. So what do they have? Like Duran, Janet, etc., many presume they just sit there bereft, with nothing, when in reality they are feasting on a wide variety of choices (books, experiences, philosophies). In fact, the absence of that centerpiece seems to benefit them, at least make them a bit more creative.

    There was a huge spate of Thanksgiving columns–not just Duran’s–that were more about (quite literally) damning atheists with saccharine faint pity than about thanking God. That’s new to me. I linked to quite a few in the first paragraph of my latest blog entry, and linked to this lively discussion as well. I don’t know what the deal with this theme is, but I do know it probably won’t convince anybody to join their team. You see, they’re selling a solution to a problem nobody really has. It’s like those “Head On” commercials–they seem meant to give a person the headache their product purports to cure!

    So. I hope everyone had a happy Thanksgiving, anyway. If nothing else, this reminds me of the kinds of discussions I would have heard had I gone back home to my family yesterday.

  • Mike Duran November 24, 2007, 8:50 PM

    Jayelle, thanks for visiting and for the tone of your comments. The point that you’re making, as well as most of the folks at Austin’s site, i.e., that atheists have plenty to be thankful for and appreciate, was not one I really disputed. My main point, which nobody seemed to / wanted to get was that in a temporal / amoral universe, doing good, appreciating beauty, experiencing pleasure, doesn’t really matter. It will all disappear into nothingness. It’s the equivalent of having sex on the deck of the sinking Titanic. What does an orgasm matter if you’re about to become an ice cube? That Austin and so many of the atheists at his site dismiss this point, as well as the long history of its debate, makes me question their motives and objectivity. Anyway, thanks for your civility, Jayelle.

  • Cheryl Malaguti November 25, 2007, 4:10 AM

    Thanks Janet,

    You pointed something out that hadn’t occurred to me and that will be useful to convey to my children. I really like the idea of expressing being “glad” instead of “thankful” and this will be very helpful in helping me teach my children that although some people find it necessary to have a god to make them happy and fulfilled, there’s no reason for them to think it’s so.

  • Nicole November 25, 2007, 3:29 PM

    Nor is there reason for them not to think so, but you’re right. We need God to be fulfilled. Happiness is secondary, and for the persecuted church in other countries, it’s infrequent.

    Perhaps you are glad and even thankful, but you don’t sound like it. You sound angry. Maybe you thought Mike and the rest of us were criticizing you as individuals. We’re not. We’re certainly no better, smarter, or more valuable as human beings. We wonder at the philosophy of atheism and the demands of some of its militant community. Not all of us have believed in God prior to the process which brought us to Him. We come from all kinds of backgrounds, stations in life.

    For me, I searched all kinds of belief systems. It was no contest when I met Jesus Christ. It was like for the first and only time in my life (as an adult) I’d finally heard the Truth. But that’s just my story.

    “See to it that no one takes you captive through hollow and deceptive philosophy which depends on human tradition and the basic principles of this world rather than on Christ.” Col. 2:8

  • brian November 26, 2007, 10:07 PM

    Mike, and what about memories? You might ultimately die and decompose, but those that live on will cherish the memory of you and what you’ve in your life.

    Hittler’s actions will be forever in our collective memories, not because they were good, but because his actions are viewed as a bad example for a civilized society. Something we understood as not humane. And so it was with the atomic bomb, the use of such devices shocked us so much that the previous generation worked towards preventing it from happening again.

    Again, memories, experiences. And the good things we do also live on. In others… in the end, as we only have this life to live, we ultimately live for others that are coming. As long as humanity lives on, the memories you imprinted on the people you knew will live on, and so will you through them. We stand at the shoulders of giants, says the quote, and it’s very true. We don’t have to reinvent many things, our ancestors did and we learned from them, built on their example.

    And you don’t need a creator to have a meaningful life because of that. You don’t need a creator to appreciate being alive and do good. The Earth is not here to serve us, we have to think there’s no heaven… no paradise beyond this Earth that we go after we die. That’s it. That’s all we have, and we better take care of that. And we can do this by living civilized, by doing good, by giving thanks once in a while for the work of people you know, and don’t know that make all this possible.

    I may be a collection of cells, but I’m also part of a community that promotes the well being of its members. If members start acting in a way to promote the well being not just themselves, but others, chances are they retribute the favor and your odds increase. You may yourself die, but working with the group your offspring has a better chance to live and thus propagate the behavior. Repeating this indefinitely may come to where we are today.. we’re not the only animals that work in groups, that have complex societies.

    I hope I don’t appear as offensive, but I wanted to show other ways in which we can attribute value and meaning to life, to existence, without a creator. The way an atheist would appreciate its existence.

    I know you and others do believe, and because of that you feel you need to give thanks to this entity. But saying we can’t appreciate this life, in the true sense of the word, saying that because we’re going to die eventually everything is meaningless is missing a lot. As I tried to exemplify.

  • Nicole November 27, 2007, 1:30 AM

    Brian, you’re thoughtful and kind in your explanations, and that goes a long way. Thank you for that.

    The question I have remains unanswered. At some point even in complex animal societies, the infusion of this morality and thoughtfulness, this kindness and desire to participate in memories of others’ lives had to supercede the animal kingdom and plant a sense of right and wrong which is not clearly evident in animal societies.

    I trust you would view such things as rape, pedophilia, serial murders as wrong–that people are not right in destroying the lives of others. When did this transition happen? And how?

  • brian November 27, 2007, 3:40 PM

    Nicole, there are many explanations and theories to how our human nature might have evolved.

    In order for us to function as a society we need to have a equilibrium in behavior. Erratic behavior is detrimental to the stability of a small group, and worse for a bigger group. That’s why loose cannons are not desired in any group, be it a hunting-gathering group, or a assignment in your company.

    When viewing this in the spectrum of civilizations, rape, pedophilia, serial murderers are de-stabilizers. They affect the well being of the people, if everyone were like that, none could be trusted, and no commerce and interaction would be possible, or be quite difficult. Early humans that tended to work in groups faired much better than humans that didn’t. So it was in their best interest to punish bad behavior, and reward good behavior. At first the selection was in in-group out-group among family and not-family, but as society developed this behavior evolved to others.

    See sports fans, and religious people. Why do one sport fan doesn’t like another from the opposite team? Why does a religious person doesn’t like another of a different religion (the more different the bigger the sensation). In-group/Out-group mentality, developed in the early days as a means to preserve family relations and avoid confrontations with people you were likely to meet again.

    This is one of many theories of how it might have come by, there are others. Altruism and morality can be explained in these terms, and there are examples of this in animals outside the human species.

    Of course, me saying this is not sufficient to answer your question. I know that, I don’t have all the answers myself. And that’s why people have different opinions. And we can only argue when the people involved are willing to do so, which is not very often from my experience.

    Anyways, I’m here to clarify somethings about the appreciation of life by atheists. The reason we can give value and have meaning in our lives, and through this be thankful just as theists are. Theists say that they give thanks to a divine entity responsible for everything, and that’s ok, that’s theirs, an your, interpretation. Atheist can also be appreciative for a meaningful life, and I tried to demonstrate that.

    I don’t want to start a “who’s right” debate, on prospects of morality yet again. I believe it would detract from the main topic, which is “can atheist really give thanks?”.

  • dayle November 27, 2007, 4:08 PM

    I think you make a great point, Brian.

    That’s kind of what I was trying to say. The very fact that an atheist doesn’t believe in the afterlife would actually, in my logic, make them more focused on this life.

    Correct me if I’m wrong Brian, but it would seem to me that since life for most is so horrible and because there is so much pain and hardship and injustice in this world – an atheist might actually appreciate the small things this world has to offer to a greater degree than some Christians. But that same fact can also lead to a bitterness and depression ( This is it? dust to dust).

    But if there is no afterlife and the human experience for most on this planet is so terrible, then only a few lucky people in the atheist’s worldview get to have any joy or sense of justice.

    What about children who face genocide, famines, starvation, aids, war, etc.

    In the Christian view, these souls get a great reward and get to experience a love and peace unknown in this world.

    And as Christians, we are called upon to help others as much as possible. It doesn’t always happen, but we will be judged by it.

    To me the real problem with atheism is the vacuum it creates. While Brian and those like him may be able to hold true to a sense of right and wrong. I would argue that many cannot. To me, the depravity of man cannot be trusted. There is no foundation of moral standard in the atheist’s view except that which has evolved. In other words: Men decide. I’d rather God be the granter of rights.

    I thank you for your civility, Brian. And for making this a real discussion.

    God bless you and your family. (And I don’t mean that condescendingly)

  • Nicole November 27, 2007, 4:15 PM

    Thank you for admitting that you cannot answer my question. And neither do I want to argue what you’ve determined are opinions.

    True believers in Christ (real Christians) must be able to demonstrate love and have these kinds of conversations without anger. The only ones who make me mad are those on either side who come across as arrogant.

    I believe Mike was speaking (regarding being thankful from an atheist’s POV) about how he would feel as an atheist. I would feel exactly as he described if I found no reason to believe in Someone better than the human race/species. Humanity has never been and never will be enough.

    Thank you for your civility.

Leave a Reply