Ever since the acknowledgement of the atheistic views of Diagoras of Melos in the 5th century BCE, the atheistic outlook has been accused of destroying any and all forms of hope and consolation in one’s life. The atheistic outlook does not eliminate hope and consolation, it simply refocuses and re-contextualizes hope and consolation in the present life, rather than empty promises and hope of an afterlife. World renown atheistic philosophers, scientists, and authors such as Richard Dawkins and Ann Druyan (Carl Sagan’s wife), offer up multiple different perspectives on how we can refocus and reconceptualize hope and consolation to this life. Dawkins giving as a more scientific, logical and methodical perspective on how we can seek hope and consolation …show more content…
This paper will touch upon these points and will demonstrate that the atheistic outlook can most certainly contain hope and consolation, simply in different ways than that of theological outlooks.
Richard Dawkins contributes to this argument with a scientific and logical perspective on the idea of hope and consolation within the atheistic outlook. In order to argue against and disprove the statement that the atheistic outlook provides no consolation or hope, Dawkins seeks to also criticize and disprove the ironic reasons that believers claim to have hope and consolation. The first point Dawkins makes to this concept of consolation is “religion’s power to console doesn’t make it true.” Many believers make the claim that God is a psychological factor wired into the human brain, religion and God is a psychological necessity for the human brain and is emotionally essential for humans to function happily. Even if this were proven through science, it does still not make the existence of God truer or more plausible, than if it were not a necessity to