Hey, there. I’m Cat. Thanks for stopping by.
If you’d like to add comments to this thread, please read Spam and Dead Parrots first.
~July 12, 2009
Awhile back, I was asked by a Christian thinker how this happened to me. Normally, I refuse to answer this question from a primarily analytical standpoint, but I probably should do it once in awhile.
For the sake of knocking the rust off, then. Flexing my fingers, cracking my knuckles. Here we go, gang.
Actually, there are several mechanisms involved in how people change their beliefs about Life, the Universe and Everything.
The Heart
The “heart” could simply be defined as the sum of our emotional states. We are either secretly contented or discontented with ourselves and our world. We never tell the truth about this, regardless of which it is.
At some point, we face a time when the discontent is beyond all discontent. It becomes the heartache of grief or the sickness of guilt or the pain of longing for something we can’t identify. Normally, Christians make a big deal out of this as the end-all and be-all of changing one’s personal paradigm.
It’s not. It can often be counteracted with a bowl of ice cream and a good talk with a friend, or maybe some anti-depressants.
The Soul
People have a very emotional reaction to moral questions. Yet the emotion is not the moral substance. They also demonstrate the presence of something beyond the biological brain.
Someone once mentioned the example of a brain surgeon touching points on the brain, and the conscious patient responding, “I didn’t do that. That’s you.” (Something similar in a Government of Canada propaganda vignette.) There seems to be a ghost in the machine, separate from the computer and the meat.
The concept of soul is tied to non-physical essence, morality and our emotional response to it; but distinct from the heart, the seat driven by feeling.
Questions of the soul secretly arise when a devout atheist experiences fear of death, or inability to conceive of a beloved personality ceasing to exist (if we are mere flesh, this is considered the logical outcome of death).
If the heartache of grief, the sick weight of guilt, or the pain of empty longing are the felt emotions, then the grief, guilt and longing themselves are the moral functions of the soul, whatever you may conceive it to be.
The framework of atheist logic does not account for these states of being. It’s an incomplete explanation of the world we experience.
The Mind
Long, long ago, in a post far, far away, I wrote about the intellectual process of filtering information for validity. Or, as Stephen Colbert would call it, “truthiness.”
We each use ideas, not facts, to decide “what is the nature of factual, useful, sensible, or relevant information?” and we use those resulting definitions to interpret the chaos that flies at us in an ever-increasing clamour.
Examining information won’t cut it. We have to examine whether our presuppositions (e.g. “evolution is true,” “God can be known,” etc.) are accurately interpreting information to build a functional explanation of what we observe in the world around us.
Sometimes, we encounter information that’s beyond our explanation, and yet we can’t will it out of concrete existence.
At that point we are faced with two options: Live with it, or revamp our information-filtering framework…which means adjustments to our default ideas about what is true.
The Strength
Then there is the force of will, the power of choice. We all make choices, all the time.
If the heart is in a state of deep-seated discontent;
If the soul is responsive to its sense of grief, guilt and/or emptiness, and not merely its desire for contentedness, but seeking moral peace;
If the mind recognizes flaws in its understanding of “truthiness,” and reasonable alternatives are presented–
Then the choice may be made to embrace a shift in deep-seated personal beliefs. Towards or away from Christianity or anything else.
The Law of Spiritual Inertia
The hard truth Christians must deal with is that some form of evolutionary pantheism is a far more appealing adjunct to atheism than Christianity, as it requires the least adjustment of paradigm. People are lazy that way.
However, neo-pantheism either implicitly or explicitly asks us to deny the existence of moral grief and guilt as emotional illusions caused by either outdated religious moral fascism, or separation from divine self-awareness.
Inherent Value
If you hold a moral presupposition that denial of moral grief or guilt means denial of the moral value of its external causal agent–then neo-pantheism is not an acceptable alternative.
Because nasty stuff is going to happen and it’s going to hurt, and you’ll be able to do nothing but cry about it and move on, permanently scarred.
If you can’t accept this, if something within you cries out that this state of affairs is wrong, then what we are talking about is that most unexplainable of human moral qualities.
Love.
Not the emotion. The moral.
Love does not accept death or separation, or the shirking of responsibility to others, regardless of their logical, pragmatic value to you or society.
Moral love exists.
You explain this to me.
Extrusive Divinity
[Y]ou shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind, and with all your strength.
~Mark 12:30
This says nothing about the action of the Divine; only about the human mechanisms with which the Divine created us. But the unique proposition of Christianity is not that it is a faith to be found, but a Person who is actively seeking you and addressing you by means of these mechanisms.
And He, when He comes, will convict the world concerning sin, and righteousness, and judgment…
But when He, the Spirit of truth, comes, He will guide you into all the truth.
~John 16:8, 13a
“I permitted Myself to be sought by those who did not ask for Me;
I permitted Myself to be found by those who did not seek Me.
I said, ‘Here am I, here am I,’
To a nation which did not call on My name.”~Isaiah 65:1
But God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us. (Romans 5:8)
An atheist is not an atheist because she doesn’t understand Christianity, or any other religion–far from it. You seem to have made a lot of assumptions about the nature of nature, previous to becoming a Christian, which are not based in fact. This is the exact opposite of a mind content with reality–the key characteristic of free thinking secular humanism.
You may, however, have once been a confused agnostic–this is common and descriptive of a great many people in the modern world who, if asked, would perhaps use the word atheist to describe themselves, because of an almost cult-like definition the word has accrued in recent years, that bears little in common with the philosophy of, so-called, positive atheism, espoused by Bertrand Russell, Thomas Paine, Thomas Jefferson, Mark Twain, Voltaire and so on.
There are also a few very important differences between questions an agnostic might ask and those which an atheist would view as being the main problem with any form of deism. For example, an agnostic might become concerned with the truth-claims of a particular religion, let’s say Christianity. This leads her to ask what Jesus said about such and such, or what St. Paul said in his letters to the corinthians and so on, without any concern for what prominent figures in other religions might have said which contradict Christian philosophy.
This is a very important point to note, as the ultimate claim of every religion is that it is the one true faith while all the others are more or less false. This may seem a harsh comparison, but one only needs look at recent history in Northern Ireland, where Catholics only differ from Protestants, in their belief that in the sacrament of communion, the unleavened bread literally becomes the body of Christ–whereas religions not based upon the 11th century edict of transubstantiation make no such claim.
Atheists, on the other hand, are not concerned with the in’s and out’s of any one particular religion, as much as they are concerned with what can be proven to be true by observed reality–as opposed to the problem of infinite regression routed in superstition and supernaturalism.
In the case of Christianity, the very fact that the bible itself contains thousands of contradictions, which can not be resolved from a folkloristic point of view, let alone from empirical data sets, this immediately discredits it as a historical reference point, because it is the very article which must be verified for any of Christianity’s truth-claims to be explained. This, you might note, does not stop the vast majority of Christians contenting themselves with the perfectly circular notion, that the bible is the inerrant, perfect word of God, because it says so in the bible.
So, assuming this article is based upon personal experience, I would say you most certainly were not an atheist, previous to becoming a Christian. This is especially true if chief among your reasons for your new found faith in faith, you view “the soul” as distinct from “the mind” despite that the externalisation of the ego which the mind is responsible for, when religionists project catch-all, arbitrary meanings upon words like “God” and “Spirituality”, produces exactly the kind of bias confirmation you have set out above.
Thanks for reading, Jim. I appreciate you taking the time to add your perspective here.
Perhaps I should have been more clear–I grew up within a background of “formal” atheism (which of course seems a rather silly way to put it, but nonetheless), and my grandmother remains a materialist atheist to this day. I’m quite well acquainted with atheism’s principles and practices.
That’s why I was asked about it, and wrote a response of personal perspective to the question.
CD–thanks for taking the time out to work through this…much appreciated and I see it in a very similar light.
Jim, you seem familiar to me. Where have we crossed paths before? DA, perhaps? The following is more commentary than criticism: I for one appreciate your perspective:
“the key characteristic of free thinking secular humanism.”
SH is a subtle shift from the atheism with which this paragraph began. Still, I can’t help but note the surety on your part with regard to reality.
“because of an almost cult-like definition the word has accrued in recent years, that bears little in common with the philosophy of, so-called, positive atheism,”
Quite insightful, and I agree, although not necessarily in CD’s case. But why the “confused” pejorative?
“For example, an agnostic might become concerned with the truth-claims of a particular religion, let’s say Christianity.”
And so it goes with atheists as well. The stock answer is that they live in a primarily Christian society, therefore that’s the locus of their focus, so to speak.
“without any concern for what prominent figures in other religions might have said which contradict Christian philosophy.”
I actually don’t know CD that well, but I’ll bet you sight unseen that she was more than up to the task on this one way back when. I could be wrong…
“as the ultimate claim of every religion is that it is the one true faith while all the others are more or less false. This may seem a harsh comparison”
It’s not harsh; it’s false, particularly of Eastern religions.
“as much as they are concerned with what can be proven to be true by observed reality”
You would agree, I’m sure, that my observed reality may differ from yours…
“the very fact that the bible itself contains thousands of contradictions”
1000′s? Mere rhetoric. As is this: “this immediately discredits it as a historical reference point”.
“perfectly circular notion, that the bible is the inerrant, perfect word of God, because it says so in the bible.”
Agreed. Thankfully, this is not how we go about it, though many do, as you’ve noted.
“I would say you most certainly were not an atheist, previous to becoming a Christian.”
Most certainly? From such limited empirical data? How about “it would seem to me…”
“produces exactly the kind of bias confirmation you have set out above.”
Bias confirmation? Hmmm. Seems to me as though “You were never an atheist in the first place therefore you have confirmation bias” is as clear an example of confirmation bias as we could hope for.
Like I said, Jim, more commentary than criticism, and certainly not of a personal nature. Enjoyed the comment thoroughly. I especially like it that an atheist like yourself would state clearly what atheists are, or systematically think, rather than hiding behind the age-old shield that atheists have no creed or even an aggregate common thought pattern. But, I suppose another atheist would argue vehemently with that. How alike we all are in some respects. Cheers.
How much money did you guys put on it? :~) MS wins this one. However, I’m going to let commenters discuss amongst themselves. I left debate circles long ago.
One thing about points like this is that it makes clear something that atheists often don’t get credit for: They care about people, about not getting duped into a “less-than” or “mind-controlling” philosophy. That’s very much a value of my non-Christian upbringing.
“One thing about points like this is that it makes clear something that atheists often don’t get credit for: They care about people,”
100% agree.
marcschooley.com makes some valid points I’d like to address by way of opening up the debate to perhaps what is the more relevant question beneath all of this. Accuse me of reductionism if you wish, but surely at some point “thinking Christians” must, by definition, stumble upon the problem of bias confirmation.
What I was attempting to illustrate in my original use of this term, is that we are each of us succumb to varying degrees of cognitive dissonance, when it comes to truth-claims made despite no reasonable basis upon which to base those assertions. For example, a world-view based upon scientific naturalism is, to a certain extent, reliant upon mathematical axioms–equations which are assumed to be correct as participial to a theorem.
This is not a perfect analogy, and you’d have to be pretty stubborn (bordering on pedantic) to use axioms as the central basis of an argument which attempts to equate their use with the religionist definition of faith–but there is an element of trust inherent to very exact arithmetic nevertheless. Of course this is a different level of assumption based thinking, because it operates within parameters of reliability–margins of error. It is not the sum total which collapses without “faith”, merely the degree to which the sum can be said to be absolutely accurate, because of yet to be deduced factors which influence the outcome.
In Christian apologetics, however, the margin of error is an order of magnitude wider than the common or garden variety of, what you might call, Alpha course Christianity might suggest. Most believers in belief are not wilfully dishonest with themselves or anyone else about this, but that doesn’t make it any less of a problem for our “thinking Christians”. Not least because of the disagreement even within different tracts of apologetics, as to how much emphasis is to be be placed on which interpretation of which book of which chapter in which codex. Let alone to what degree theology as a whole should be informed by postulates which in many cases lead to full blown falsifiable theories, that completely discredit early philosophical attempts at describing natural phenomena–such as the Adam and Eve or Genesis creation myths, for example.
If someone looks to these myths not as parables, but as literal descriptions of “how God did it”, she has immediately made a whole slew of assumptions from which no degree of an appeal to reason can dissuade her. “You can not reason someone out of a position they did not reason themselves into” – Ben Goldacre. That is not a commentary on someone’s faith in a creator, it is a commentary on their commitment to failed cognition–and that is anathema to the truth journey all religions are ostensibly designed to map.
Atheism is often described as a religion without a deity because, unlike religionists who view the world in the way I have outlined above, atheists will often accrue a great deal of knowledge about both material reality and meta-physical ontology and deduce from both a close approximation of the actual truth. This is why many anti-theists find it so frustrating to be accused of being ignorant to much of the poetry in Psalms, for example. There is no such doubt in the bible’s historical worth in human history. It’s the adherent’s claims that it is an inerrant guide to morality which is insulting and patently false. That being the first of the reasons why atheism is so unlike a religion, perhaps the others should be obvious?
An emotional commitment to theistic truth-claims is not proof that those claims are true. Many Christians, who insist that their subjective experiences do, in fact, constitute evidence of a spiritual aspect, are in fact supplanting theism for deism and venturing down an entirely different path than that which they originally set out to follow. That is why I asserted in my original reply that C.L. Dyck was not describing a world-view any “thinking atheist” would recognise.
*N.B. I don’t think we’ve crossed paths before, MS. I’m in the UK.
Jim linked to this from his blog (thanks Jim) and I would just like to say what an excellent observation on the importance of presuppositional axioms in defining an individual’s perception of reality.
In my experience it is common for people to take for granted that observable events and empirical measures ‘prove’ things to be one way or the other, when in reality it is a case of -t0 use your words- ‘information-filtering’ to fit existing assumptions.
It’s one of the reasons which these ‘religious’ Vs ‘irreligious’ debates usually prove so fruitless.
Nice work
Thanks for joining us, Michael, and do feel free to add further thoughts to the discussion.
Jim, I love this line: “C.L. Dyck was not describing a world-view any “thinking atheist” would recognise.”
So very true. [when was my thesis ever that we merely think our way into these things like robots?]
Have another cup of tea, gang, and enjoy your time here.
~Cat
Thanks Michael. I’m glad I made that point clear.
“thinking Christians”
I still don’t understand, here and below, the use of pejoratives, Jim, especially since otherwise you demonstrate an usual calmness and even demeanor not often associated with these kind of debates. I agree with you with regard to confronting confirmation bias; where we seem to disagree is in its universal application. Ironically, in this I’m the universalist and you appear to be the particularist.
“For example, a world-view based upon scientific naturalism is, to a certain extent, reliant upon mathematical axioms–equations which are assumed to be correct as participial to a theorem.”
Very well spoken, as quoted and below, Jim, and I’m a buyer further along than most. But, this is where I would accuse you of not reductionism, but of a selective bias–noting the strength of some naturalistic world views, while omitting their less–and even non–mathematically based assumptions and logical/philosophical shortcomings. To your credit, you mention “ceratin extent” and “not a perfect analogy” in passing, but then proceed to construct what is in my opinion a biased dichotomy between an unreasonable faith and a generally reasonable naturalism.
By focusing on a hypothetical mathematical basis of naturalism and what appears to be a fideist conception of faith, you have simply biased the discussion immediately. Why don’t we instead of mathematics posit the truth that naturalism is unprovable and unable to be proven empirically as a counterpart to fideism? Or perhaps invoke more reasonable theological statements of what the phrase “Christian faith” means as a comparative vehicle to your mathematical bases. Or posit fideistic conceptions of naturalism!
Don’t hear me worng, though. I find you far more accomodating than the average internet atheist.
IOW, Christian apologetics are indeed orders of magnitude wider in their margin of error than scientific knowledge of, say, at what tempertature water boils at sea level. But then, so what. Christian apologetics are orders of magnitude less wide in comparison with scientific knowledge that considers the same types of questions Christianity claims to answer: string theory, for instance, or, or course, whether naturalism is itself, true.
“such as the Adam and Eve or Genesis creation myths, for example.
If someone looks to these myths not as parables, but as literal descriptions of “how God did it”, she has immediately made a whole slew of assumptions from which no degree of an appeal to reason can dissuade her.”
Nonsense, I say. Prove the universe is eternal–that would seem to falsify creation myths. 20th century science has much to say in relation to this question, and it’s readily demonstrable that the opposite of your claim is what in fact actually happened. It seems to me that your side was orders of magnitudes off on this one before the discovery of galactic red-shift, which brought your side in line theoretically with what certain myths had claimed all along.
“and that is anathema to the truth journey all religions are ostensibly designed to map.”
I agree, which is only a testimonial to the false dichotomy between fideism and the sober science of naturalistic thought. If all you’re setting forth is the weak claim that “there exist fideists”, then you’ve no argument from me.
“Atheism is often described as a religion without a deity”
I won’t tell my atheist friends you said this…I promise:)
“deduce from both a close approximation of the actual truth.”
Some actual truths, my friend. You’ve missed it pretty badly on the actaul truth, as I see it.
“This is why many anti-theists find it so frustrating to be accused of being ignorant to much of the poetry in Psalms, for example. There is no such doubt in the bible’s historical worth in human history.”
I would never accuse you of this, unless you demonstrated it first. And thanks for the frank compliment of the Bible. It’s refreshing coming from your side.
“It’s the adherent’s claims that it is an inerrant guide to morality which is insulting and patently false.”
I’ve seen no apparent reason why this should be so obvious to you.
“Many Christians, who insist that their subjective experiences do, in fact, constitute evidence of a spiritual aspect, are in fact supplanting theism for deism and venturing down an entirely different path than that which they originally set out to follow.”
Not a very rational statement, Jim. You have no data of my experience available to you for examination. This statement furthermore appears to be founded upon a philosophical argument I have always found unsatisfying and unsuccessful in its attempt to nullify any connection between a specific conception of God and a particular experience.
“That is why I asserted in my original reply that C.L. Dyck was not describing a world-view any “thinking atheist” would recognise.”
After wiping the egg from my face, I now apologize for accusing you of pejoratives directed at thinking Christians. If we restricted your claim to “any thinking atheist of my brand”, I think I might be persuaded to agree. But recognition has little or no influence as to whether a world-view is true, and, after all, that’s what we care about, isn’t it?
Jim, I had in mind crossing cyber paths via the internet. I still think we have run into each other previously.
You’ve pointed out some things in my own writing which I wanted to edit immediately that I pushed “Submit”. To that end I have re-written much of the above. Would anyone mind if I simply pasted the entire entry again?
Feel free.
~Cat
Thanks, Cat. I occasionally go through and refine some of my writing if I feel as if it might go into the next book and this is a keeper. I hope some of my amendments address some of the ambiguity of the original.
Yes, it looks that way. You’ve quite effectively covered an excellent selection of points that I grew up strongly affirming, and I’m pleased to see them here. I hope to see this become a very interesting thread.
~Cat
That’s all I was going to say, as I don’t like to be saccharine, but I’m compelled to amend this. I read these things, and I can almost hear my grandmother’s voice and my family’s, sitting on the veranda late into the night and talking about these things.
And I’m actually tearing up a little as I think on your words, Jim. Not because of any of the questions at hand, but because this is such a deep part of the fabric of my life, and it’s tremendously meaningful to me to be the host to an actual human conversation on it, rather than just the usual flinging of oblique insults from behind walls of sophisticated-sounding words.
You guys are really giving me a gift by this. Thank you.
On “former” atheists
An atheist is not an atheist because she doesn’t understand Christianity, or for that matter any other religion. Not understanding something, perhaps even to the point of refusing to find out, is the exact opposite of a mind content with reality–the key characteristic of free thinking secular humanism.
So when I hear of “former atheists” becoming Christians, I am often compelled to enquire of the neophyte, if it might be that, in fact, they were once merely a confused agnostic. This is descriptive of a great many people in the modern world, who if asked would, perhaps, use the word ‘atheist’ to describe themselves above ‘agnostic’, because of an almost cult-like definition these words have accrued in recent years. Unfortunately this brand of so-called “new atheism” has little in common with the philosophy of positive atheism espoused by Bertrand Russell, Thomas Paine, Thomas Jefferson, Mark Twain, Voltaire and so on. It should be noted that these prominent thinkers and commentators on the subject of religious faith, did so at a time when free speech was constrained by heavily enforced blasphemy laws and when to make a point in defence of rationalism required some considerable riposte.
An indicator as to the level of commitment the convert once showed to their apparently now lost atheism, resides in a few very important differences between questions an agnostic might ask and that which is of interest to a positive atheist. For example, an agnostic, in her inquisitiveness, might become concerned with the truth-claims of a particular religion, let’s say Christianity. This leads her to ask what Jesus is said to have said about such and such, or what St. Paul is said to have written in his letters to the Corinthians and so on–and without any concern for what prominent figures in other religions might have said along similar lines on similar subjects, which in fact contradict Christian teaching. This is a very important point to note, as the ultimate claim of many religions is that they are the one true faith, while other religions are more or less false.
This may seem a harsh comparison, but one only needs to look at the recent bloody history in Northern Ireland, where Catholics only differ from Protestants in their belief that in the sacrament of communion, the unleavened bread literally becomes the body of Christ, whereas religions not based upon the 11th century edict of transubstantiation make no such claim.
Atheists, on the other hand, are not concerned with the in’s and out’s of any one particular religion, as much as they are concerned with what can be proven to be true through an observance of reality, where the least assumptions are made about the nature of a given phenomena the better. This immediately poses a problem in the case of Christianity, because the very fact that the bible itself contains the kind of contradictions so blatantly the result of poor translation, which can not be resolved from a folkloristic point of view, let alone from empirical data sets, that it immediately discredits itself as a historical reference point, because it is the very article which must be verified for any of Christianity’s other truth-claims to withstand rational criticism. It should be noted, that this does not stop the vast majority of Christians contenting themselves with the notion that the bible is nevertheless the inerrant, perfect word of God, precisely because it says so in the bible. In the military this is known as scenario completion syndrome. In psychology and cognitive science, it is known as confirmation bias.
A common claim that many “former atheists” make to validate their conversion, is that they were touched by something beyond their comprehension. This should be treated with an additional degree of incredulity, if chief among their reasons for this new found belief, the convert describes the soul as distinct from the mind. The externalisation of the ego which the mind is responsible for, when religionists project catch-all, arbitrary meanings upon words like “God” and “Spirituality”, produces exactly the kind of bias confirmation we should expect to see in someone as agnostic towards the importance cognitive framing plays in forming our views, as they are the existence or otherwise of Russell’s teapot.
It should be noted that varying degrees of cognitive dissonance, when it comes to truth-claims made, despite no reasonable basis upon which to make those assertions, for example, often underpin a world-view based upon scientific naturalism–which is, to a certain extent, similarly reliant upon mathematical axioms, or arithmetic equations at the heart of scientific theories. That which is assumed to be correct as participial to a theorem is done so for purposes of efficiency, rather than because it has not been or can not be correctly calculated.
This is not, however, a perfect analogy, and you’d have to be pretty stubborn (bordering on pedantic) to cite mathematical axioms as the central basis of an argument which might attempt to equate their use in scientific naturalism with religious faith in Christian apologetics, but there is an element of trust inherent to very exacting orders of logical axioms, nevertheless. However, this is an entirely different level of assumption based thinking, because it is one which operates within margins of error. It is therefore not the sum total which collapses without an individual mathematician having faith in calculus, for example; merely that the degree to which the equation can be said to be absolutely accurate depends upon yet to be deduced factors which may later influence the outcome, but which at the time of operand are unknown.
In Christian apologetics, however, the margin of error analogy is an order of magnitude more wide-reaching than the common or garden variety of Alpha course Christianity might admit to, or even be aware of. Most believers in belief are not wilfully dishonest with themselves or anyone else about the gulf between their extraordinary beliefs and a lack of extraordinary evidence upon which to assert their claims. But this is precisely why it is such a pressing problem for “former atheists” to expand upon this paradox, since so many of the underlying principals of their apparently new-found allegiances reside in a fundamental miscomprehension of that which they claim to have once maintained a firm grasp.
The disagreements even within different tracts of Christian apologetics, as to how much emphasis is to be placed upon which interpretation of which book of which chapter in which codex is troubling enough. Let alone to what degree theology as a whole should be informed by scientifically obtained postulates which in many cases lead to full blown falsifiable theories, that completely discredit early philosophical attempts at describing the very natural phenomena upon which so much theology is based–such as the Adam and Eve or Genesis creation myths, for example.
If someone who once claimed to be an atheist now looks to these myths not as parables, but as literal descriptions of “how God did it”, she has immediately made a whole slew of assumptions from which no degree of an appeal to reason can dissuade her; or as is commonly accredited to Ben Goldacre, “You can not reason someone out of a position they did not reason themselves into”. This is not a commentary on someone’s faith, it is a commentary on their commitment to failed cognition–and that is anathema to the truth journey all religions are ostensibly charged with mapping, but few orienteer.
For identifying this paradigm, while in many ways displaying qualities of it, atheism is often described by those who understand it the least, as a religion without a deity. This and because a certain kind of highly motivated atheist will accrue a great deal of knowledge about both material reality and meta-physical ontology, while facing a great frustration at being accused of ignorance about the poetry in Psalms, for example, ironically means that, oftentimes, a well-read atheist will have a much greater appreciation for biblical narratives than those who claim to live their lives by them, while exhibiting much behaviour to the contrary.
There is no doubting the bible’s historical worth in human history. It is the assertions of those who claim to know it so intimately, while describing it as the absolute arbiter of morality, which anyone who has actually read Leviticus and Deuteronomy should quickly find insulting and false. This crucial difference between faith and free thinking, being the first of the reasons why atheism is so unlike a religion, should perhaps make a compelling enough reason to doubt the clarity with which “former atheists” are operating, quite obvious–although some will no-doubt still insist upon more compelling reasons to question someone’s beliefs than merely the semantic perception of doubt residing on the negative side of where faith rests on the positive.
What should be certainly very clear, is that an emotional commitment to theistic truth-claims is not proof that those claims are true. Many Christians, who insist that their subjective experiences do, in fact, constitute evidence of a spiritual aspect, beyond observable reality, are immediately faced with the question of why this realm is unavailable to those who refuse to suspend their critical faculties in order to tap into that which they may already be in possession of, without necessarily ascribing it to the supernatural.
For example, musicians often cite moments of bliss, within an ensemble, during improvisation; where a communication between the players and the audience transcends anything which could be pre-arranged, but which is nevertheless sympathetic to the overall arrangement. While a mathematical analysis into why in a given key, a certain range of notes in the scale are available, might technically describe why a given chordal passage is harmonious and melodic, it tells us nothing about why the emotional reaction of an audience might range from mild pleasure to floods of uncontrollable weeping and mania on a grand scale. This speaks to the emotional investment listeners to that band of musicians have in a form of non-verbal communication far in advance of anything found in other forms of artistic expression. Aficionados of Gauguin do not spend 24 hours queuing for tickets to a muddy field, where they will stand miles away from the revealed canvases, with a topless girl on their shoulders, enthusiastically yelling, “The Spirit of the Dead Keep Watch!”
However, in both kitchen table apologetics and in the full-blown glossolalia of an evangelical rally, this is exactly what is happening. It is true to say that this entirely normal capacity for humans to profoundly influence each other’s emotions through unspoken and seemingly instinctive, if exaggerated and impulsive behaviour, remains such an easily exploited facet of prescribed faith, to confuse confusion with revelation, that in feeling as if they have been touched by something profound, the believer would rather assign an artificially inflated meaning upon that experience, than explore an honest description of the phenomena to which they have actually succumb.
I find it absolutely delicious that a blog entry which includes the paragraph…
“some form of evolutionary pantheism is a far more appealing adjunct to atheism than Christianity, as it requires the least adjustment of paradigm. People are lazy that way.”
…is rebuked by a debater espousing the virtues of secular humanism!
It does seem to reinforce you’re point about ‘information filtering’ doesn’t it!
While I’m not sure who you’re addressing, Michael, as that point was made by several people (not least in the original post with linkage to an older post specifically on the topic), it is a good point about the debater’s rebuke, rather than rebuttal.
For clarity’s sake, I’ll just reference that the quoted statement was not about non-god formulations such as SH, but a warning to Christians that those who may wish to add a higher power to their secular thinking are still unlikely to see Christianity as a “sensible” alternative. The presuppositions are too different.
I’m just going to weigh in at this point and say that while I appreciate the calm tone and efforts at civility, the calibre of actual ideas that have been brought forth is on the level of highly common iteration, rather than a dialogue of growth.
I hope to see some replies to some of Marc’s points, or perhaps even the original one that my conclusions found birth not out of pre-existing Christian bias, but the very detailed retelling of standard atheist views and attitudes that Jim has provided.
Barring spontaneous outbreaks of genuine and humanized interchange, and being an extreme introvert who’s gotten too old for intellect as a mere amusement, I’m going to close the comments here at my personal space at the end of the weekend. Fair warning.
~Cat, mildly under the weather and off to find a brandy
“For clarity’s sake, I’ll just reference that the quoted statement was not about non-god formulations such as SH, but a warning to Christians that those who may wish to add a higher power to their secular thinking are still unlikely to see Christianity as a “sensible” alternative. The presuppositions are too different.”
Regardless, SH is a staple of neo-pantheism, which is why when it was brought up in Jim’s comments -given the context of your statement on it- I found it amusing.
I do apologise if the ‘common iterations’ comment is directed at me (although I am not sure if it is!) In juxtaposition to your statement about yourself I think that I am callow enough that I do enjoy the use of intellect as a mere amusement! I’m not sure if that is disadvantageous in this forum!
As far as some replies to Marc’s points, I apologise, but other than some theological quibbling over semantics with Jim I can only actually isolate one concrete point which relates to galactic redshift:
“It seems to me that your side was orders of magnitudes off on this one before the discovery of galactic red-shift, which brought your side in line theoretically with what certain myths had claimed all along.”
In response to this I would simply say that the argument for redshift as an indicator of distance is far from settled. There are numerous problems with this theory (and the big bang in general) not least of which is that redshift has been shown to be a result of compton scattering rather than the doppler effect.
In that context the assertion that any ‘side’ was orders of magnitude away from anything before its ‘discovery’ is obviously rhetoric. In a humorous way it actually again reinforces you’re point (C.L) about informational filtering and the critical nature of presuppositions in the interpretation of actual observed phenomena.
I’m not sure I’d use the term “staple.” The relationship varies by brand and flavour, and neo-pantheism is a tremendously broad term, but you can have it your way. It really won’t change my life.
There are a lot of amusing things about this from the perspective of a person who despises debate, not least that I’m hosting this sideshow.
But never mind me. I’m just highly pissy because I’ve been up all night, and also I’m actually an avowed jerk at heart because I’m happier that way.
There’s kind of a list of common generalizations, is all. No, really, guys. I grew up on this stuff. I actually held it very dear. It still matters a lot to me. Deal with it.
Yep. I’m callow enough to place a predisposition to basic human respect above the ability to pontificate one’s presuppositions in a multisyllabic vernacular. It’s the “mere” part that causes ass-kickings. As long as you’re amusing yourself with the genuine benefit and positive growth of the opposing party in mind, I will slink back into the shadows and leave people to their fun.
Thanks for joining the dialogue.
~Cat, curmudgeonly as all hell on horseback
You’re fun.
” I’m callow enough to place a predisposition to basic human respect above the ability to pontificate one’s presuppositions in a multisyllabic vernacular.”
Now that is a sentence! As a disclaimer I must say that I do I hope I have not appeared disrespectful at all as that is never my intention. So please do forgive my skylarking if it came across as such.
With that out of the way, in the interest of genuine and growth seeking interchange, and seemingly at the risk of incurring the highly literate ire of an irascible equestrian, do you mind expanding upon your concept of ‘moral love’ ? What is your definition of such? And as an expansion of this, how would you consider the potential stumbling blocks of any treatise into the uniformity of human psychology, and ‘moral nature’, such as for example the behaviour of the feral child raised apart from the influence of the rest of us?
“I hope I have not appeared disrespectful at all”
Naw, you’re cool. Relax.
“ire of an irascible equestrian”
I’m going to make a poem out of that someday.
On moral love, I’ll leave it at this: if the atheist definition of moral love as emotional/psychological attachment is true, then love should not be present where there is no emotional/psychological attachment.
[EDIT: This presupposes that you and I share definitions of the words "moral" and "love", which we don't, so best to go back to terms and definitions before you ask a question like that or I try to answer it. Anyway, I'll toss this out for discussion, and people can do as they please with it.]
My child just brought me fresh-baked cookies. I feel loved in a way beyond presuppositions.
I will choose to share on human psychology/feral children, cuz there’s some cool beans here for your use. This is not an academic, imaginary question. You can actually go collect your own answer to this and find out whether your behaviourism/naturalism presupposition has generated an accurate question for you to ask on this point, and what other ones it can generate to address this in the context of the greater question of human psychology. That’s when things get wicked cool.
I know plenty of so-called feral kids, and they’re not raised “apart from the rest of us,” they’re raised “apart from institutional/government-mandated structures.” (Institutional kids really are “apart from the rest of us” for a much greater part of the day.) These families include neo-pagans/heathens, secularists, educators who’ve taken on full-time child training, and born-again fundies. The sample group is great in its variety, and you actually have the tact and courtesy to be able to approach them effectively.
Google “unschooling.” Check the hashtag. And so forth.
Do your own study, ask the online “ferals” yourself (though why a feral would have an internet connection brings into question the applicability of the designation), and form your own conclusions. Do the same with institutional schooling/daycare data.
It’s not my job to soapbox to you about this stuff. You can go out and find a real answer to this particular question for yourself.
~Cat, footloose and feral (the virus is IN THE WILD! Pull the cables!)
“In response to this I would simply say that the argument for redshift as an indicator of distance is far from settled. There are numerous problems with this theory (and the big bang in general) not least of which is that redshift has been shown to be a result of compton scattering rather than the doppler effect.”
I’m actually OK with going this direction as well, Michael, since your proposition here affrims my point that naturalism does not produce, or equate to, a reduction of uncertainty.
“In that context the assertion that any ’side’ was orders of magnitude away from anything before its ‘discovery’ is obviously rhetoric.”
Not if you’re positing an eternal universe. I can’t think of a greater order of magnitude than eternity
Glad to have you back, Marc. Have some tea and crumpets. :~)
~Cat
Pingback: Human Peace, Inhuman Peace « Scita > Scienda
Closing note to this round:
“Beware of posing as a profound person; God became a baby.”
~Oswald Chambers
Good discussion here, thanks
Jim: “This is why many anti-theists find it so frustrating to be accused of being ignorant to much of the poetry in Psalms, for example. There is no such doubt in the bible’s historical worth in human history.”
MS: I would never accuse you of this, unless you demonstrated it first. And thanks for the frank compliment of the Bible. It’s refreshing coming from your side.
It is precisely because of the Bible’s influence on humanity that it should be studied, analyzed, critiqued and picked apart forever and ever, amen. And so it has… leading to a plethora of opinions, philosophies & a multitude of sects of Christianity. Despite their protestations, Christianity has evolved into what it is currently understood to be. Atheist I may be, but I consider this to be a GOOD THING because it means some people are actually thinking rather than just following in blind faith (fundagelicals excepted).
Like most atheists I’ve studied the Bible nearly all of my life, from within the confines of a religious establishment (a few, actually) and on my own out of pure intellectual curiosity. At the end of the day, although some of it may be beautiful in a literary sense and there’s even some wisdom to be gained in its pages, there’s nothing to recommend its being considered wholly inerrant by any individual much less using it as a basis for government or a legal system in the 21st century. The Bible’s history as a tool of social control shouldn’t be ignored when it’s being held up as an instruction manual for human morality AND an accurate accounting of human history, despite all evidence to the contrary.
Despite my disagreement with their conclusions, I support people’s right to whatever religious beliefs they want. It’s better if they’ve arrived at their choice of religion using every means at their disposal; but it seems to me that those who have done so aren’t biblical literalists, nor do they seek to impose their world view upon an entire nation by force of law. I’m pretty sure that if the claims of Christianity weren’t so tied up with our legal rights, there would be a lot fewer atheists demanding Christians to support their claims with evidence and facts they have yet to produce.
Since the existence of God and Jesus and the doctrine of biblical inerrancy are being touted as true premises that justify the denial of civil rights to some, the miseducation of children in science and history, as well as so many other issues of public policy, it’s the duty of every American (in my opinion) to demand evidence. I’ve not seen a shred, yet there remain laws in place that serve no secular purpose and violate the constitutional liberties of citizens with different religious beliefs, and new (unconstitutional) laws are passed every day.
I’ve gone off on a tangent, but the upshot is that you’ll be hard pressed to find many atheists who’ve studied the Bible and can’t come up with something complimentary to say. It IS a compilation of many books; some better than others and most best understood when viewed within the context of their time in history and geographic location. I sincerely wish everyone would take the time to learn all about their chosen religion in a historical context because what they believe IS so important when it has an impact on the rest of society. That’s what makes it interesting and worth the millennia of public debate it’s spawned.
“It is precisely because of the Bible’s influence on humanity that it should be studied, analyzed, critiqued and picked apart forever and ever, amen.”
Yes! Thank you so much for joining this conversation and enhancing it with your viewpoint.
“Despite my disagreement with their conclusions, I support people’s right to whatever religious beliefs they want.”
Likewise.
“It’s better if they’ve arrived at their choice of religion using every means at their disposal; but it seems to me that those who have done so aren’t biblical literalists,”
True in the sense that I am not a “literalist,” I am an “Occam’s Razorist,” as are the best conservative Christian thinkers I’ve encountered (not classing myself among them, saying I agree with the example they provide). Good hermeneutics is not so simple as taking every statement as literally concretely true, but it is as simple as not adding any more assumptions than required by the text.
“nor do they seek to impose their world view upon an entire nation by force of law.”
Hm, yes, it seems to me that Jesus, the Apostles, the Heugenots, the followers of Menno Simons, and a lot of others lived their perspectives–and that more successfully and fully, if more uncomfortably–without state enforcement. I would say the same about my international friends and family in “persecuted” countries, to use the Christian cultural term.
“demand evidence”
My position is for the testing of presuppositions against the way the world actually works. Where do they appear to provide correct explanations? Where do they fail to provide correct explanations? (Nor would I claim that this will make a Bible-believing Christian out of everyone, not at all. This point forms only 25% of the thesis presented in the original post, and in real life I would not quantify the four points by equal percentages as a measure of all cases.)
That’s why I suggested Michael go out and actively test his presuppositional statement about the formation of morality and the influence of society, and come to his own conclusions. This thread is not the thought lab. Debate is not the thought lab. Life is the thought lab.
~Cat
Hey Rox,
You may or may not be aware of how refreshing your comment was. Thanks. I’d like to add a few words in response in the event you’re hanging around, but though we’ll disagree in the main, disagreement does not equal snark.
“And so it has… leading to a plethora of opinions, philosophies & a multitude of sects of Christianity.”
I’m assuming you may wish to develop this into an argument that schism approximates untruth, or at least a non-perspicuous holy text. I disagree. The scary thing for Christians would be if we all agreed. The Bible predicts schism and false prophets because of the very real effects of sin and the efforts of evil forces. What we don’t observe, however, is the removal of the church from the world, also as predicted. There’s an unbroken strain of the Gospel from the NT through this very moment.
“Despite their protestations, Christianity has evolved into what it is currently understood to be.”
Which is remarkably the same as what is was nearly 2000 years ago, depsite all the studying, crtiquing, analyzing, and picking apart. Phenomenal, if you ask me…
“there’s nothing to recommend its being considered wholly inerrant by any individual”
I’d say the resurrection recommends it strongly, in a historical, non-circular manner, among other things that could be said.
“using it as a basis for government or a legal system in the 21st century.”
Thou shalt not murder, steal, lie, and covet; and thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself. Sounds OK to me
With that said, I believe that atheist and theist alike can live moral lives and apprehend objective moral values, so we could always construct an acceptable social contract outside of the Bible; it’s the grounding of morality that will suffer without God, and, of course, what reason anyone would have to follow it.
With that said, I couldn’t agree more that the church has no business in politics. I’m very unpopular in many Christian circles for saying this, but it’s true.
“The Bible’s history as a tool of social control shouldn’t be ignored when it’s being held up as an instruction manual for human morality”
There’s no logical connection between these two statements…
“AND an accurate accounting of human history, despite all evidence to the contrary.”
You mean how your side used to teach there were no such people as Hittites?
“I’m pretty sure that if the claims of Christianity weren’t so tied up with our legal rights, there would be a lot fewer atheists demanding Christians to support their claims with evidence and facts they have yet to produce.”
We’ve produced them, y’all just don’t agree. But I agree otherwise…the church’s mission is not in politics, and one inevitable result is the one you mention. Sorry about that…
“Since the existence of God and Jesus and the doctrine of biblical inerrancy are being touted as true premises that justify the denial of civil rights to some, the miseducation of children in science and history, as well as so many other issues of public policy, it’s the duty of every American (in my opinion) to demand evidence.”
Right. I’ve answered the governmental aspect, and I’ll bet we’re largely in agreement. However, I’m an American, and I’d like to follow your advice and demand evidence that atheism or naturalism is true. I’m sure you’re more than ready to educate my children in your version of history and so many other issues of public policy, so I’d like to see the evidence.
“I sincerely wish everyone would take the time to learn all about their chosen religion in a historical context because what they believe IS so important when it has an impact on the rest of society.”
I do too, Rox, but I think this should be expanded to include your worldview as well. And for that matter, take a quick look around the world map and give thanks you live in a historically Christian society
“That’s what makes it interesting and worth the millennia of public debate it’s spawned.”
Thanks again, Rox. I’d be happy to return the favor with Camus, Nietszche, or whatever your flavor happens to be…