The following is a cut and paste from this article on atheismandme.com. Those of you who have followed this blog for a while will likely recognize some of the content from earlier posts on thinkthatthrough. The reason isn’t simple laziness, but rather just wanting to share some things that I’ve already produced with a wider audience. However, there are some big changes between the posts already on here and this one. If you have the urge to comment, you are very much encouraged to! If you want, please feel free to comment on both websites, preferably the one following the link above if you can only choose one. This was more people will see it.
Now to the post itself:
***
My name is Steven Zuber and I’m elated to have been brought on as a guest writer here at Atheism and Me. I’ll save more about me for the end.
Most atheists that I’ve met were religious at some point in their lives. They either stopped because it didn’t make sense or an incident caused them to be skeptical and God couldn’t withstand skeptical scrutiny. I’m not sure if I count myself among those that were once religious, but my back story in this part of my life seemed like an appropriate place to start.
I was raised in a religiously moderate household. I don’t know if I ever believed in God in any meaningful way. I accepted His (I usually use sex-neutral language, but the dominant religions is pretty adamant that God has a penis) existence in the same way I accepted the existence of Santa Clause and Mount Fuji. My level of belief in God fell somewhere between the two in my spectrum of confidence to my young, not-quite-bayesian mind. I believed in Him more than Santa, less than Mount Fuji. As an eleven year old, all of these things were unprovable to me and I accepted them more or less on faith. I tested the Santa hypothesis when I was 7, yet the scientific method isn’t quite intuitive to human children.
For the record, I still haven’t been to Mount Fuji. I accept it’s existence on a sort of trust in my senses from what I’ve seen on TV and maps and the testimony of people who have seen it. It could be part of some huge conspiracy to trick me, but it would be impossible to operate in life if I took concerns like that seriously. To a mind that tries to roughly calculate probabilities of it’s beliefs, the possibility of Mount Fuji not existing are tantamount to zero.
In any case, God’s existence was accepted by my child mind in the same way that it accepts basically every piece of information it takes in before I developed reasoning faculties. Humans are programmed this way. We are told that vegetables are good for you and falling from a sufficient height will kill you, and we accept that as children. Skeptical children did not survive long enough to pass on their skeptic genes. If toddlers were programmed to experiment and check to see if that lake was really full of crocodiles or if fire really does burn you, they’d get killed off. This is part of the reason that it took so long for our species to start doing science properly – we aren’t pre-programmed to be good scientists.
Skipping ahead. When I was about 11 or 12, (right around when the 9/11 terrorist attacks happened here in the States) I was in some sort of geography or history class and it we were being taught about when the Europeans were first visiting North America (remember, this was the 11-year-old version, so it was the nice version that didn’t include the trading of STDs and slaves) and were “bringing Christianity” to the natives. This confused me, because I was vaguely taught that you had to be a Christian to go to Heaven. I asked my parents if the American Indians went to hell before they learned about Christianity. I don’t remember the answers I got vividly, but I know that I knew that they were less than satisfactory. When I pressed the point, I was told that “that’s where faith comes in.” Maybe by that time I’d already realized how counter intuitive it was that Hitler, as a proper-ish Christian/Catholic, got to go to Heaven while all of the Indians went to hell.
I can’t exactly remember the order in which these thoughts occurred, but the answer was always the same; “That’s where Faith comes in”. Even as a child, this didn’t make sense to me. So what, faith is just believing something that you admit doesn’t make sense? Why does that work on some questions but not others? I was pretty sure that if I put “Faith” as an answer on a test in school, it’d get marked wrong. Why did society hold itself to a lower standard than 6thgrade classrooms?
I have heard from religious and non-religious people alike that, especially on this issue, the belief (or non belief) comes first and then people just reason backwards/rationalize. I find that this is true in one direction and not the other as this was not the case for me, nor that of any atheist I’ve met. Most (perhaps all, as I’ve never met or heard of anyone who honestly began without religion and, after an honest and rigorous investigation of the evidence, concluded that a certain religion is true) religious people are religious first and rational second. At this stage in my life, I wanted to believe in God because I was convinced that it was the only way for me to not succumb to nihilism. I wasn’t looking for existence of Christianity’s God. Evil really does falsify that idea. I should add that I was never “close to Jesus” or anything at any stage in my life. I understood the idea of the sin redemption thing, but it never made sense to me. If God wanted to forgive us (for acting the way he knew we would because he’s omniscient?) why not just do it instead of incarnating himself in human form and then arranging for his own execution and then proceeding to blame the Jews for doing it even though he intended for it to happen? Richard Dawkins has made this point as well in his book The God Delusion and his TV documentary The Root of All Evil.
I was looking for any sort of “higher meaning” because, at the time, I believed that it was the only thing that could provide meaning in the universe. I was briefly swayed by the argument that God is the basis of all morality, but as soon as I heard of the Euthyphro Dilemma that didn’t work anymore. The Fine-Tuning Argument worked for a bit, but then I realized that the Ultimate Boeing 747 Gambit (I didn’t know it by that name at the time, but I understood the point) refuted that one as well.
I teetered for a while on the edge of nihilism. I couldn’t force myself to try and believe something that I didn’t think was true in order to make myself feel better. But this story has a happy ending. I am not exactly sure if it was a specific moment or a gradual realization, but I came to understand that the universe is meaningful because WE, and any other sentient beings out there, make it meaningful. Consciousness and intelligence are what make the universe interesting and important. A universe that contained only rocks wouldn’t be any better than no universe at all. The universe matters because it contains life and we make it matter.
Bottom line: I really did give religion a heartfelt try for years, but I couldn’t bullshit myself into it. In retrospect, God was really just the first of many irrational ideas that were planted into my young mind that I eventually weeded out. I’m probably still weeding waste out, but God went first because it is the most glaring and obviously absurd thought that it stood out, even to my childish mind. Ghosts and the afterlife soon followed. And now I don’t believe in alien visitation or magic crystals or bigfoot either. Letting go of religion was my first step on the path down scientific discovery and skepticism that I am on now and if I could somehow go back in time and change the path I took, the present me would not benefit from it. It has been months since I’ve been unhappy for more than a few minute stretch and I am occasionally moved to tears by the overwhelming meaning my perspective of the universe gives me (some would try to label this a “religious experience” but I prefer the term spiritual, even though that has a lot of baggage too). I have meaning and love and happiness and (at least some) knowledge. What more could I want?
And for the record, I think I’m right too. If compelling evidence ever does come up, I’ll reevaluate my position. But I’m not holding my breath.
And You’re and Atheist Too
That’s right, even any of you who say you’re religious. Let me explain with a story.
I was having lunch with my grandmother a few months ago. She knew I was looking for a new job and asked what I said to the interviewer when I was asked about my religion. (Needless to say, she hasn’t been interviewed for a job in a long time.) She’s what I would call an abstract religious person. That is to say, she believes in a god of some sort, probably close to the Judeo-Christian one, but not any organized religion. She has since then expanded on this thought and explained to me that she sees god in her garden and its a quiet and personal part of her.
Anyway – for reasons that escape to me since I’ve never been in-your-face with anyone in my family with about views on religion – she inexplicably says to me that she simply can’t understand atheism; agnosticism sure, but not atheism.
I thought for a moment before answering. The first thing I said was, “Grandma, I don’t think you want to have this conversation with me.” I knew that she was as benign of a believer as is possible and I didn’t want to devastate the Nicest Old Lady in the World’s comforting beliefs.
But I couldn’t leave it there, because I at least wanted to explain that she could indeed understand atheism, since she was an atheist too. I explained to her, very politely, the usual rebuttal to this line of thought. “Everyone is an atheist about most gods, some of us just go one god further.” This is another argument from Richard Dawkins and it’s a shorter way of phrasing an argument made by Stephen F. Roberts who said, “I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.”
As it turns out, my grandma didn’t know about Thor or Ba’al or Zeus (she was educated in a small town in Nebraska several decades ago. I doubt they covered these dead gods, but even this they did, it’s easy enough to see why she forgot about them.) So if someone hits you with the claim that atheism requires faith or they can’t understand it, try pointing out some of the dead gods that everyone is an atheist about. If that doesn’t work, point out the many parallels that today’s popular god has with Santa Claus; rewards good behavior, omniscient, punishes bad people, super powers, et cetera. The only thing that separates God from Santa is that almost everyone outgrows Santa before puberty. If the religious don’t stay up at night wondering if they should change religions or try to appease Santa, then they implicitly understand what it feels like to be an atheist.
* * *
Thanks for making it this far! I love feedback so if you like what you read, please leave a comment. If you hated what you read, please leave a (polite and constructive) comment. If you want to check out some of my older work, check out thinkthathrough.wordpress.com. I’m looking forward to continuing being a part of Atheism and Me.
Also, find me on twitter! Search my name or TheStevenator01.
G’day Steven,
“I love feedback so if you like what you read, please leave a comment. If you hated what you read, please leave a (polite and constructive) comment. “
I neither liked nor hated. I disagreed with the broad picture you paint, but I see no point in pursuing that. But I will, with your permission, point out a few minor points ….
“the dominant religions is pretty adamant that God has a penis”
Steven, this might be fine rhetoric but it is nonsense. Most dominant religions (let’s name names – christianity, Islam, Judaism, Baha’i, Hinduism, Buddhism) either believe God is spirit and not physical, or that he is beyond such categories. Either way, no penis. Some christians believe God is male, but most believe he is beyond gender as well, but better a personal pronoun than an impersonal one.
I mention this because I find that many atheists repeat all sorts of nonsense and unjustified statements until they become “atheist myths”. I would hope you would try to be more fair and accurate.
“religious people are religious first and rational second”
Some religious people. Some I know or have read about search for truth first and find faith second.
But further, what does “religious” mean in this sentence? I think you mean people believe then look for reasons. But belief is what our brain thinks, and surely you don’t think people’s brains think things without reasons or causes????? I think the truth is closer to being as follows: People believe (think) things for complex reasons based on complex evidence, and these are a mixture of reason, emotion, experience, etc. Some people (e.g. you) think other people (e.g. christians) have insufficient evidence for their beliefs, but that is not the same as saying they have no reasons and no evidence. This is another atheist myth (or overstatement).
“I was briefly swayed by the argument that God is the basis of all morality, but as soon as I heard of the Euthyphro Dilemma that didn’t work anymore.”
I see no problem in resolving Euthyphro’s Dilemma by believing that ethical standards are true like mathematics, and that God conforms to them just as he knows 1 + 1 = 2. The fact that most atheists believe in the same ethical standards as believers confirms this. But God is important for ethics because (a) he is the authority behind ethics so we know what is true (our ethical sense seems to be damaged or incomplete), and (b) he provides an assurance that one day those who do evil will be called to account – two things that non-believers cannot be sure of.
“The Fine-Tuning Argument worked for a bit, but then I realized that the Ultimate Boeing 747 Gambit”
This is another atheist myth or blind spot. If you want to live up to your belief that you use reason to weigh all evidence fair-mindedly, then you really need to know that Dawkins’ argument here is recognised as feeble and in error even by fellow atheists. Citing Dawkins is little more than the faith that you deride. The fine-tuning argument isn’t that easily refuted – see The teleological argument).
“Everyone is an atheist about most gods, some of us just go one god further.”
Another atheist cliche, and a furphy! Suppose I said “You’re a theist too, I just believe in one more god than you” or “Your atheism is just as much a religion as my christianity”, I wonder what you’d think. I would guess you would think these were ridiculous arguments with no logic. And you’d be right. And so is the argument you’ve presented. It’s not only that the statement is false but it is meaningless. To test this for yourself, try constructing a formal argument with that as the first premise and see how far you can get – I challenge you! : )
So, Steven, I accept you are an atheist and a decent, genuine person and a friendly guy. But you use some silly arguments, and if you want to be rational, you need to critique the atheist myths and furphies you get told a little more than you do. I hope that criticism is still polite and I hope I’ve made it constructive. Best wishes.
No counter-thesis from me here. Good and well-supported to me. Glad to see you back.
Thanks! I’ll be putting up another post tomorrow or the next day and will be writing a minimum of one post per month, but likely at least 2 or 3.
Dear Steven
I have been thinking about my comments all morning, and I think I may have come across more critical than I wished. If so, I apologise.
You are a straight but polite speaker and I try to be exactly the same. But I don’t want to make my comments too long, so think I sometimes am too terse, and it may seem overly critical as a result. I think some of your comments are unjustified, and that is what I respond to, but I wouldn’t want you to think I was attacking you personally, for I appreciate your friendly approach.
So again, sorry if I was too direct, I will try to get the balance right between brevity and tone. Thanks.
I appreciate the apology, as the comment was uncharacteristically rude and personal of you.
As it turns out, you’re probably one of the least obnoxious and most polite religious people I’ve ever conversed with on these subjects. Most of the time, and I’m not straw-manning, they are something like, “U fucktard. Ur gunna rot in hell and I’m gunna laugh!”
I would respond more at length, but I’m doing this on my phone from work.
And I still, as always, appreciate your comments. If anything ever gets too bet the top, which I doubt it will, I’ll just delete it.
Thanks. I try to be direct and challenging without being rude, but I think I should be a little less direct.
I find these narratives of Change shallow and self-serving—too smug about knowing what really induced the revisions of belief.
I’m not sure if I understand the reason you didn’t like it. Because I understood and remember what lines of reasoning led me to think certain thoughts? I hope I misread, because the alternative would be very close to just spouting random crap.
It reminds me of Luke Muelhauser’s blog, where he depicts his intellectual travail, as though the events he depicts really are intellectual, as opposed to a rebellion against his pastor father. Similarly, you show a naive confidence that you know your own motives or are even trying to understand them. If the thoughts were novel, that might be something else. But they are neither interesting as ideas nor revealing of your real conflicts.
They were novel when I had them at age 11. And I resent your assumption that you know my 11-year-old state of mind better than I do.
It certainly is possible that some people might fake stories of this nature, though I can’t imagine a good reason why. My journey down the path of skepticism was genuine and it really did involve an honest search. You can deny that, but I’m really the only person who can make the final call on whether or not I’m being honest about it.
>You can deny that, but I’m really the only person who can make the final call on whether or not I’m being honest about it.
This is the attitude I disparaged: whether smug or psychologically naive, I don’t know which. Most of the crew that’s—like you—into “rationalism” knows that we can’t rely on our conscious thoughts to divine what we’re really thinking or what our real reasons were. It’s always a matter of inference.
Which is to say there’s no “privileged access,” NO “final call.”
There is a final call on whether or not I’m being deliberately dishonest or purposefully misrepresenting things. I’m pretty sure I mentioned in the post that the details are fuzzy, but that doesn’t mean that I can’t possibly have any idea about my previous state of mind or my memories.
Surely there’s uncertainty about everything we think, not just our memories and motives? But surely it’s also true that mostly we have a fairly good memory of things and a reasonable idea of our motives? (Otherwise there’s be little point in thinking or talking about anything.) So while I don’t suppose Steven’s account is 100% accurate, the overall picture is probably correct.
But it does raise an interesting issue. Some atheists are prone to accuse christians of not understanding their motives and reasons for belief, so I guess it is inevitable that atheist motivations will be questioned in the same way. I’d prefer if both sides desisted and stuck to discussing the evidence and logic.
I’m willing to concede that there is plenty of good evidence that says that our memories aren’t nearly as good as we tend to think they are and that our decade old memories of our childhood are especially suspect.
My main objection stemmed from the assumption by Stephen that, as a stranger who hasn’t met me and isn’t currently looking at my brain with high tech equipment, can assume that he understands my previous state of mind better than I can. If he has expertise in the field of memory biases or is able to site research specific to this area, I’ll consider his comments more seriously.
When someone learns something like the fact that our memories more or less suck, it becomes difficult to not turn this into a Fully General Counterargument whenever they come across anything they don’t like.
Pingback: the Knowledge of Good and Eve: a parable about Ron Paul, myths, and Santa « JRFibonacci's blog: partnering with reality