|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: Converting from Christianity to Atheism
|
|
|
CrookedCucumber
Shipmate
# 10792
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Wannabe Heretic:
Mmm, I've been thinking a lot about this since my rather intemperate last reply, and now I don't know what the hell I am. I wouldn't ever use the word 'materialist' about myself, because it has such negative connotations, but I would call myself a 'nominalist' in that I would grant only a 'subjective reality' to non-material things.
It's only a question of names ![[Smile]](smile.gif) You know, presumably, what you `are' -- it's only a problem if you describe yourself with a word that other people use differently. But that's hardly a problem exclusive to religion.
I take your point about `materialism'. Because I think about religion much more than about politics, the negative connotations would not really come into my mind when I used the term. But, thinking about it now, I can see why it would be a problem.
quote:
However, there is also no evidence FOR the existence of this God, nor any need to posit one, so, on the principle of Ockham's razor, I don't believe in it.
Depends what you mean by evidence. People have had, or have claimed to have, direct revelation from God throughout history. The testimony of these people is definitely evidence, in the court-of-law sense -- the issue is the weight and reliability of the evidence. Whether a person's intuitive understand of God constitutes evidence or not, is more problematic, in my view.
The problem with Occam's razor, as I see it, is that if you apply it to a singular event (e.g., the creation of the physical universe), then such application is, in itself, an act of faith. We know how and why Occam works when applied to multiple situations in the same general class -- this is a statistical process. But the creation of the universe is sui generis -- it isn't in a class with anything else. We don't have any `evidence' that Occam produces a better answer than anything else in such cases.
quote:
I would still like to defend the word 'atheist'. 'Christian' does not mean 'somebody who believes what all christians have believed for centuries', it means 'someone who is coming from a basic culture of christianity, although perhaps changing the way in which they understand and express it'. I think the same is true of the term 'atheism', and more so since it has only been a widespread belief for a relatively short period of time.
Fair enough -- I accept that there's probably no greater ambiguity in the word `atheist' than there is in the word `Christian'.
Incidentally, concerning `don't believe' and `actively disbelieve' -- I've never really been sure what it means to `actively disbelieve' something. I seem to recall that Douglas Adams (RIP) used to use this term to describe his atheism, and it never made a huge amount of sense to me. Perhaps it's a term that (materialist) atheists use to distance themselves from wishy-washy agnostics?
Posts: 2718 | From: East Dogpatch | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ancilla
Shipmate
# 11037
|
Posted
I would say that the fact a large number of people do believe in God is the one main reason for asking the question at all.
However when you look at these people's testimonies, no offence to present company, they all seem to be talking about different things and having different ideas. It is not easy to move from not believing in God to believing in it when you have first to choose which God you want! And it is also easy to see how people might come up with the idea of God quite apart from whether it did or didn't exist. My mother actually claims to have lost her faith on meeting a schizophrenic who heard the voice of God when he stopped taking the tablets.
As for revelations, I specifically said there was no evidence (by the very nature of the thing) for a deist or otherwise outside-the-universe God. The more you bring God into the world, the more evidence one should expect to see - so the lack of evidence seems (to me!) striking.
By the way, I have heard that there are some priests and even have been some bishops who consider themselves atheist christians, using the word 'atheist' to describe an understanding of God which has moved far away from 'traditional' understandings. This makes my atheism seem positively conventional! Does anybody know any more about this idea?
--------------------
formerly Wannabe Heretic
Vocational musings
Posts: 424 | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Great Gumby
Ship's Brain Surgeon
# 10989
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Wannabe Heretic:
I thought, if you really believed in your heart of hearts that I am going to spend an eternity in agony, put there by your very best friend, would you be sitting here chatting to me and smiling??
OK, fools rush in, and I'm going to do my best with this, even though I have no great confidence that it'll make any sense once I try to express it. I've thought about this quite a lot, though, at various times, so I might as well throw in my 2p worth.
I think there are two different, and linked, factors in play in this sort of situation. One is a sort of mental disconnect between the conscious affirmation of a particular belief and the experiential feedback of the friendship and discussion. In simple terms, each person's brain is telling them that you're a nice, good, kind person, and they're thinking, on the basis of that, that God couldn't possibly send you to hell. But at the same time, there's still no reduction in their belief that all non-believers do indeed go to hell, or whatever their faith position is on that. What I think happens in these cases is that the brain actually conspires to ensure that their fundamental beliefs don't get toppled for any reason, and it does this by holding two incompatible thoughts at the same time, just not drawing attention to it.
The other factor is one that I think we can all identify with, and could reasonably be summarised as compassion fatigue. Basically, we don't function well as people when we're anxious. If we worry about every little thing that's wrong in the world, we never get anything done, because the scale of the problem overwhelms us, so we learn to ignore problems. I'm embarrassed to say that I'm all too good at thinking "oh, another famine in Africa, they had one last week, that's not news" and turning off (either the TV or my brain). I think the same thing happens in Christians who believe in hell - the problem of evangelising about 5bn people isn't one they can cope with, so the brain conspires to tuck it away in a corner somewhere, filed under "Don't Go There".
I realise that all this talk of the brain deliberately misleading us seems a bit crazy, but the evidence that it happens is fairly conclusive, ISTM. Oh, and on the subject of a God outside the universe, that's one thing that always keeps what faith I have in God ticking over, because any time anyone thinks they've shown why we're here, they're just begging the question. Without positing the existence of something outside the universe, I personally don't see why anything exists at all. The discussion could go something like:
Why are we here?
Because there was a big bang
Right, but what caused the big bang?
Well, we think a couple of superdense particles collided
Yes, and where did they come from?
Er, we'll get back to you...
Just a bit of fun to demonstrate (without much of a point) that different people can consider the same evidence and reach different conclusions. It doesn't get us any further towards any sort of conclusion, unless you want to get all metaphysical, but it's something to ponder.
--------------------
The first principle is that you must not fool yourself, and you are the easiest person to fool. - Richard Feynman
A letter to my son about death
Posts: 5382 | From: Home for shot clergy spouses | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
CrookedCucumber
Shipmate
# 10792
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Wannabe Heretic:
However when you look at these people's testimonies, no offence to present company, they all seem to be talking about different things and having different ideas.
True. But I think that's what one should expect from people trying to get their heads around something as far outside the human experience as God. When I read what people around here post about their concepts of God, I find some whom I agree with pretty much, some whom I have at least some common ground with, and some whom I don't understand at all. I don't find this particularly surprising.
quote:
It is not easy to move from not believing in God to believing in it when you have first to choose which God you want!
That's a fair point, but I would suggest that the processes of deciding what you believe, and deciding what `God is like' (i.e., `which God') are inextricably entangled. I don't think anybody tries to compared `Gods' in the abstract.
quote:
And it is also easy to see how people might come up with the idea of God quite apart from whether it did or didn't exist.
I don't know. It doesn't seem intuitive to me. I can see how people might get to ``There must be more to life than this'', but I think it's a big step -- a big conceptual step -- from there to monotheism. In fact, true monotheism is a relatively recent thing in human history.
quote:
By the way, I have heard that there are some priests and even have been some bishops who consider themselves atheist christians, using the word 'atheist' to describe an understanding of God which has moved far away from 'traditional' understandings.
I'm not sure, but I think Bishop John Spong, before he retired, was pretty close to an atheist. But I don't mean to impugn his character, and I think that there are some people around here who know him personally and could put me right. British bishops are frequently accused of atheism, but usually in a derogatory way rather than a descriptive one.
Posts: 2718 | From: East Dogpatch | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ancilla
Shipmate
# 11037
|
Posted
Great Gumby, I think you are probably right about the psychological processes that go on. I have some sympathy - I did once meet a bloke (atheist, much good it did him!) who really did care personally about all the bad things in the world, and barely functioned as a human being at all ![[Votive]](graemlins/votive.gif) But I still think that it is cowardly to believe that unbelievers are going to hell and not face up to the fact that this and this and this particular person are going to hell. Especially when you still think the guy who's in charge of the whole system is just great!
But this is almost certainly on another thread.
quote:
Originally posted by the Great Gumby: Why are we here?
Because there was a big bang
Right, but what caused the big bang?
Well, we think a couple of superdense particles collided
Yes, and where did they come from?
Er, we'll get back to you...
It depends whether 'we'll get back to you' is a satisfactory answer. Most scientists, and scholars of all kinds, accept that 'we don't know yet, but this is the direction in which we are looking' is going to be the answer to a lot of things. Just saying 'I want an answer right now, so I'll go for God' doesn't seem appealing to me. Scientific methods and types of evidence seem to be working so far, so why suddenly change?
Also, I've never much cared where the universe came from. But that brings us back to the how versus why question again.
--------------------
formerly Wannabe Heretic
Vocational musings
Posts: 424 | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Great Gumby
Ship's Brain Surgeon
# 10989
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Wannabe Heretic:
It depends whether 'we'll get back to you' is a satisfactory answer. Most scientists, and scholars of all kinds, accept that 'we don't know yet, but this is the direction in which we are looking' is going to be the answer to a lot of things. Just saying 'I want an answer right now, so I'll go for God' doesn't seem appealing to me. Scientific methods and types of evidence seem to be working so far, so why suddenly change?
Oh, sorry. I'd better clarify what I was getting at. I'm much happier when people say they don't know than try to find a clever explanation that makes it sound like they do. My point wasn't that God exists at the stage before what we can understand or guess at - I've never been a fan of any sort of God of the Gaps theology. Rather, I was saying that I find the existence of anything at all to be, in some way, a profound indication of the existence of a God external to the universe.
The reason why there's anything at all is one question we'll never be able to answer, because by its very nature it's a philosophical and metaphysical question. Yet whenever someone has a new theory about the mechanism for the Big Bang, it's almost always packaged in the media as some sort of challenge to religion, which is something I just don't see. This is a bit tangential, and I was only trying to demonstrate that different people can reach different conclusions on the same evidence, but I don't want you to think I was proposing any sort of God of the Gaps.
--------------------
The first principle is that you must not fool yourself, and you are the easiest person to fool. - Richard Feynman
A letter to my son about death
Posts: 5382 | From: Home for shot clergy spouses | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
CrookedCucumber
Shipmate
# 10792
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Wannabe Heretic:
But I still think that it is cowardly to believe that unbelievers are going to hell and not face up to the fact that this and this and this particular person are going to hell. Especially when you still think the guy who's in charge of the whole system is just great!
But this is almost certainly on another thread.
No, it's on about a dozen threads. Looooong threads. As you might expect. I won't try to summarise several hundred posts here, but I would say that many Christians have no more time for this idea than you do.
quote:
Scientific methods and types of evidence seem to be working so far, so why suddenly change?
Nobody I know is proposing a change; I'm a professional scientist, like many of the folks around here, and I'm as much in favour of the scientific process as anybody. The problem is those pesky `why' questions again. If such a question requires an answer to be sought outside the confines of this material universe, then science, properly applied, is incapable of answering it. It's just the wrong problem domain. Of course, it's arguable whether religion can answre it either; but that's a different problem.
quote:
Also, I've never much cared where the universe came from. But that brings us back to the how versus why question again.
Well, maybe that's why I am where I am, and you are where you are. I care very much about questions like this.
Posts: 2718 | From: East Dogpatch | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ancilla
Shipmate
# 11037
|
Posted
Slight tangent!
quote:
Originally posted by Crooked Cucumber: I'm not sure, but I think Bishop John Spong, before he retired, was pretty close to an atheist. But I don't mean to impugn his character, and I think that there are some people around here who know him personally and could put me right. British bishops are frequently accused of atheism, but usually in a derogatory way rather than a descriptive one.
I found a very interesting statistic today, from Prospect magazine (Hosts, I am assuming that a single quote doesn't breach anything copyright wise, do correct me if I am wrong!):
quote:
The 2001 census showed that 77 percent of people in Britain said they belonged to a religion. A more recent ICM survey found that 54 per cent did not believe in God ... it follows that about 40 per cent of those with a religion are nevertheless atheists
Now there are plenty of reasons why this statistic may be up the creek - unrepresentative sample, people not wanting to admit to believing in God in a face-to-face interview, unexpected massive increase in Buddhism - but I doubt that can explain all of it.
Also I'm glad to know that I am not alone in thinking that 'atheist' doesn't have to mean 'anti-religious' or even 'unreligious'. It simply means that they did not (actively) believe in God. ![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
--------------------
formerly Wannabe Heretic
Vocational musings
Posts: 424 | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nigel M
Shipmate
# 11256
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Wannabe Heretic:
Also I'm glad to know that I am not alone in thinking that 'atheist' doesn't have to mean 'anti-religious' or even 'unreligious'. It simply means that they did not (actively) believe in God.
Of course, when pressed, these people who do not (actively) believe in God have then to decide whether they are saying that they do not believe in the existence of God, or that they do not know (or care) whether there is a God in the first place.
The latter stance is not atheism, is it? It's a step removed and doesn't require a leap of faith to believe in. It's a pre-judgement, if you like (in the middle European judicial sense of 'prejudice'): an interim judgement made pending fuller and final evidence. If we label this stance 'atheist', doesn't that push 'agnostics' and 'sceptics' out of the picture?
I quite agree that atheism doesn't have to take any stance at all on 'religion'. That's quite separate from the question of God. Plenty of people leave religion because they fall out with church, but they don't necessarily lose faith in God as a result.
I understand the reason why you prefer to avoid the term 'agnostic'; and I also see that terms like 'unchurched' or 'materialist' do not really do your position justice either. On balance, I still think you are a-gnostic: without the knowledge to convince you of the need to make a judgement one way or the other.
[ 19. May 2006, 18:29: Message edited by: Nigel M ]
Posts: 2826 | From: London, UK | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ancilla
Shipmate
# 11037
|
Posted
But where do you draw the line with 'agnostic'? A definition of 'not being certain either way' would catch a large number of conscientious Christians who do not have a certain and definite knowledge of the existence of God. ++Rowan Williams, for example. If 'currently taking this position, but open to any new evidence' is a good enough definition for a Christian, why isn't it good enough for an atheist?
I'm afraid, Nigel, if you want me to accept that everyone on here who calls themselves Christian is Christian (and you haven't yet suggested that you are of the Agree-with-everything-I-say-or-you-aren't-a-Christian type) then you have also to accept that everyone who calls themselves an atheist, and can give reasons for it, is entitled to call themselves that. A word can only be defined by how people use it, and I think 'atheist' is a far more widely used term than you may think ('unchurched', for example, I have never come across outside the Ship)
--------------------
formerly Wannabe Heretic
Vocational musings
Posts: 424 | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ancilla
Shipmate
# 11037
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Nigel M: I understand the reason why you prefer to avoid the term 'agnostic'; and I also see that terms like 'unchurched' or 'materialist' do not really do your position justice either. On balance, I still think you are a-gnostic: without the knowledge to convince you of the need to make a judgement one way or the other.
Sorry, I believe I may have slightly misread this the first time. But I have never said that I saw 'no need' to make a decision on the existence of God, or even that I haven't made one. I think the question is extremely important, or I wouldn't be here; and I haven't not made a decision, or I wouldn't say 'I don't believe in God', I would say 'I don't know whether I ought to believe in God'. But a decision is always open to being changed if new evidence or arguments appear. I don't see why I should apply a stricter set of standards to my statement 'I don't believe in God' than I would to a statement of, say, professional or historical judgement.
I think your term 'sceptic' could with reason be used to describe me, but not agnostic, unless you want to include a very large number of people.
--------------------
formerly Wannabe Heretic
Vocational musings
Posts: 424 | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
