I am a theoretical physicist and currently Director of 
August 08, 2005
The journey to atheism
In a comment to a previous post, Jim Eastman said something that struck me as very profound. He said:
It's also interesting to note that most theists are also in the game of declaring nonexistence of deities, just not their own. This quote has been sitting in my quote file for some time, and it seems appropriate to unearth it.
"I contend we are both atheists - I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you reject all other gods, you will understand why I reject yours as well." - Stephen F. Roberts
This quote captures accurately an important stage in my own transition from belief to atheism. Since I grew up as a Christian in a multi-religious society and had Hindu, Muslim, and Buddhist friends, I had to confront the question of how to deal with other religions. My answer at that time was simple – Christianity was right and the others were wrong. Of course, since the Methodist Church I belonged to had an inclusive, open, and liberal theological outlook, I did not equate this distinction with good or evil or even heaven and hell. I felt that as long as people were good and decent, they were somehow all saved, irrespective of what they believed. But there was no question in my mind that Christians had the inside track on salvation and that others were at best slightly misguided.
But as I got older and reached middle age, I found the question posed by Roberts increasingly hard to answer. It became clear to me that when I said I was a Christian, this was not merely a statement of what I believed. Implicitly I was also saying, in effect if not in words, that I was not a Hindu, Muslim, Jew, Buddhist, etc. As in the quote above, I could not satisfactorily explain to myself the basis on which I was rejecting those religions. After all, like most people, I believed in my own religion simply because I had grown up in that tradition. I had little or no knowledge of other religions and hence had no grounds for rejecting them. In the absence of a convincing reason for rejection, I decided to just remove myself from any affiliation whatsoever, and started to consider myself a believer in a god that was not bound by any specific religious tradition.
But when one is just a free-floating believer in god, without any connection to organized religion and the comforting reinforcement that comes with regular worship with others, one starts asking difficult questions about the nature of god and the relationship to humans for which the answers provided by organized religious dogma simply do not satisfy. When one is part of a church or other religious structure one struggles with difficult questions (suffering, the virgin birth, the nature of the Trinity, original sin, the basis for salvation, etc.) but those difficulties are addressed within a paradigm that assumes the existence of god, and thus always provides, as a last option, saying that the ways of god are enigmatic and beyond the comprehension of mere mortals.
But when I left the church, I started struggling with different questions such as why I believed that god existed at all. And if she/he/it did exist, how and where and in what form did that existence take, and what precisely was the nature of the interaction with humans?
I found it increasingly hard to come up with satisfactory answers to these questions and I remember the day when I decided that I would simply jettison the belief in god altogether. Suddenly everything seemed simple and clear. It is possible that I had arrived at this conclusion even earlier but that my conscious mind was rejecting it until I was ready to acknowledge it. It is hard, after all, to give up a belief that has been the underpinning of one's personal philosophy. But the feeling of relief that accompanied my acceptance of non-belief was almost palpable and unmistakable, making me realize hat my beliefs had probably been of a pro forma sort for some time.
Especially liberating to me was the realization that I did not have to examine all new discoveries of science to see if they were compatible with my religious beliefs. I could now go freely wherever new knowledge led me without wondering if it was counter to some religious doctrine.
A childhood friend of mine who knew me during my church-religious phase was surprised by my change and reminded me of two mutual friends who, again in middle age, had made the transition in the opposite direction, from atheism to belief. He asked me if it was possible that I might switch again.
It is an interesting question to which I, of course, cannot know the answer. My personal philosophy satisfies me now but who can predict the future? But while conversions from atheism to belief and vice versa are not uncommon, I am not sure how common it is for a single person to make two such U-turns and end up close to where they started. It seems like it would be a very unlikely occurrence. I don't personally know of anybody who did such a thing.
POST SCRIPT
It is always interesting how the media instinctively resorts to certain standard tropes to reinforce religious beliefs, even when they are wholly inappropriate. Jon Stewart on his Daily Show skewers this way of thinking when the media quickly jumped on the "It's a miracle!" bandwagon to "explain" the lack of any fatalities from the recent Air France plane crash in Toronto when there was a perfectly natural and even admirable alternative explanation at hand. This reason is of, course, the competence of the crew that managed to get everyone off the plane less than two minutes after the crash. And yet the media, rather than giving credit to all the emergency personnel involved, quickly started playing the "miracle" theme.
As Stewart says: "The only thing that was a miracle in that situation was the lightening that hit the plane, that was the act of God. If anything, God was trying to kill these people. His plan was foiled by the crew's satanic competence."
See the video here.
Comments
I believe C.S. Lewis grew up Christian, swithced to atheism, set out to write a book about the non-existence of God, and ended up switching back to Christianity. Mere Christianity was one of his more popular works.
Hi Professor, it's been a while since we talked. Your post is a wonderful explanation. I don't actually have as much of a comment as a question. If you can define your nonbelief as something along with atheism, is it humanism? I've read The Philosophy of Humanism by Corliss Lamont and your eloquent position seems to agree with that of the book.
Unfortunately, my own explanations of not wanting to believe or being capable of even the attempt at finding a God have always been lacking, althought I do feel quite comfortable not believing in God.
Thank you for your comments and your wonderful teachings. The last day of P2 3 years ago is one class I will never forget.
Steve,
I think that all these labels (atheist, agnostic, humanist, etc.) are closely related. This is why perhaps the idea of coining a new umbrella term "shafar" (standing for secularist, humanist, atheists, free-thinker, agnostic, rationaist) kind of makes sense, so that we don't quibble over miinor differences.
I enjoyed your discussion on atheism. I myself seem to be going through little cycles of theism to atheism and back again depending on what life throws at me and others around me. This has been the case for many years. The tsunami definitely had this effect.
One thing that has become clearer to me is that those who have spent a lifetime studying the origins of the scriptures are not in clear agreement regarding the importance of such subjects as The trinity, the virgin birth and passages such as John 3:16. Spong ('Sins of Scripture, 2005) and Borg are two such theologians. Sadly this was not passed on to us at Sunday school. However the lives of people we knew such as George Good , Lynn De Silva and others were truly inspiring. We could cite many others from differing faiths including socialists.
I feel sad that we were not really informed that the original source of the gospels such as Mark never really mention the resurrection. Also that Luke had his geography of Israel all mixed up. If you ask me if this waters down the Biblical message I am prone to say surely not. To me it is the ethical system espoused in the Bible some times with such simplicity and some times in such a poetic manner (as you quoted in the King James version ) that is of importance.
This leads me to the importance of Christians appreciating other ethical systems such as the Buddhist (Rahula), Hindu, Moslem and other ancient beliefs (say Blackfoot, Mayan, Egyptian). A mere smattering of knowledge gleaned mainly from conversation indicates that the core of these religions all lead to a spiritual life and my own belief is that Christ himself never claimed any superiority. It was left to his followers (particularly after the Roman invasions of AD 70) to do this.
The interactions of chance, nature and ethics is also an interesting issue. I really have little time for any one who espouses that christianity should recognize any difference in the sexes.
Hi,
I've always felt like there's a scientific explanation to everything around us and maybe there is, but we haven't found all the answers yet. Maybe once we discover the origin of the cell we might really know whether god exists or not. But I'm betting my money on intelligent design and not Darwinism or chance.
I recommend reading Confessions by Saint Augustin. It answers the questions you ask in your post and is a clear and detailed record of a journey of a tormented man that finds salvation in God after much research and deep thought.
I'm not through reading the book yet, but it has definitly opened my eyes and hopefully it will answer some of your questions and give you examples of how other people dealt with what you are going through.
-Nash
You make the mistake of assuming that belief in the single God is stating that other gods do not exist. The scripture that defines the first commandment of Christianity is "have no other gods BEFORE me." This implies that there are other objects of worship that should not be given higher status than God Himself. Since the nature of human beings is essentially egotistical, God put forth requirements to help us shape a better self, rather than a more self-absorbed self. He also gave us free will to choose our path, hence the differences in opinion about everything. He also promised us a witness of the truth -- the Holy Spirit (who is not only referenced in Christianity). The hard part is asking the right question in order to get to the truth or at least part of it. This is not exclusive to Christianity. Also, Christianity has been fragmented over the years after the death of the Apostles, so there has been human interpretation to muddy up the finer points of original truth. Ultimately, how does one know what is God's truth and what is embellishment? Again, God doesn't leave us hanging on that -- "by your fruits shall ye be known." Being a "good person" is the goal of all religions (except of course satanism -- but anyone against being good is satanic by collorary). Now, what constitutes a "good person"? That's where the laws of religion usually come in. The code of conduct can be different based on the particular religion. While I certainly believe there is only one complete (another word for true) religion, I also know that God will not forsake the honest and faithful of other religions when they keep the promises they have made. The question should not be "is there a God or Gods?", it should be "what path makes me closer to God and a better person to the world in general?" If you prefer evil, you will define your god by your belief, and so the same for good. Ultimately, we won't really know until this life is over. But, there will be something afterward -- this life is the only opportunity we have to choose how to prepare for it. Choose wisely.
-Beth
This article of your struck a chord with me. Though I'm only 23, I've been through a very similar journey, though it was more severe in my case--going from Southern Baptist straight to atheism, and then back to a more guarded agnosticism.
These days I find myself driven by some difficult-to-explain compulsion to "do good," as arbitrary as that is.
Additionally, it infuriates me when people blame good events on God or "miricles." I wish people would take personal responsibility for the good things that they do for themselves! As with your plane crash, it's ridiculous that competent crews are not given credit where due. However, if there had been a true disaster, there would be a pretty safe bet that somebody would have called the comptency of the flight crew into question.
The lengths to which theists will go to cloak their a priori arguments in rational thought never cease to amaze me. Statements such as "But, there will be something afterward -- this life is the only opportunity we have to choose how to prepare for it. Choose wisely." would be comical if they weren't so desperate and pervasive. How do you know 1) that this life is it AND 2) that there is something more? Couldn't there be one after this life? Sure, as far as we know. What about two or twenty? Or none? Why not? Oh... right... a book told you. Sounds reasonable. Not. Oh...no, wait... god told you. Ahhh. Now that doesn't sound at all crazy. You're argument sounds very much like what my mom told me about Santa Claus. "You'd better watch out..." You've built two argumentative castles with the sand of belief: that this is the only corporeal life and that there is definitely something next (I assume eternal, but I don't want to put words in anyone's mouth). Many people might want or need to believe that there is an afterworld, an intelligent designer, a purpose, a universal truth, et cetera, but wanting something to be true doesn't necessarily make it so.
The whole "I prayed to god and he answered me", miracle, I-saw-Mary-in-a-grilled-cheese-sandwich atmosphere, as focused on by the major media, is a whole 'nother awful kettle of fish. Petitionary prayer? Seriously? A baseball player gives it up to the lord for his hit, but what about the pitcher who kneeled by his bed and prayed for a no-hitter? Did one of them pray harder? Was one more pious? A man is swept to sea by the tsunami and says that he's alive because he prayed. You're telling me that not one of the deceased prayed to live? Balderdash, all of it.
The only thing that gives me any hope about the current political and media dominance of the "god squad" is that nobody ever had to PROVE that the Greek and Roman gods weren't real. We just had to wait patiently for them to fall out of favor. To hoist the Christians on their own petard, "One generation passes away...". I'll wait for the next god, thanks. I'm hoping that it's a "she" and that she looks like Rita Sue from Carnivale and that she pulls a "Leda and the Swan" on me.
See ya in hell. Sure.
It's interesting that in the posts you've been getting there are so many with statements like "god did this, or that, or whatever". Of course these people, and people of all other religions are relying on information given to them from whatever scriptures that exist from the past which of course includes the bible.
Now the big problem I have with that is that the bible, and all other religious works, have all been written by human beings. So I needn't point out the obvious: that human beings enhance, embellish, and outright lie in order to foist their beliefs on one another. Can you say advertising? I've lived 70 years and have been lied to enough in that time to absolutely never believe completely anything a human being has written, especially if it's something that's being used to pursuade me to a particular point of view.
I have never seen any evidence of a god. I have seen intelligence in the design of things in nature, so I'll assume that since you can't get any more out of a bag than what's already in it, that existence for flora and fauna seems to be guided by a process that uses intelligence. Who or what this is nobody knows. But down through history a whole slew of people have pretended to know.
And because of them untold millions of people have been tortured and put to death.
Main Entry: truth
Pronunciation: 'trüth
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural truths /'trü[th]z, 'trüths/
Etymology: Middle English trewthe, from Old English trEowth fidelity; akin to Old English trEowe faithful -- more at TRUE
1 a archaic : FIDELITY, CONSTANCY b : sincerity in action, character, and utterance
2 a (1) : the state of being the case : FACT (2) : the body of real things, events, and facts : ACTUALITY (3) often capitalized : a transcendent fundamental or spiritual reality b : a judgment, proposition, or idea that is true or accepted as true c : the body of true statements and propositions
3 a : the property (as of a statement) of being in accord with fact or reality b chiefly British : TRUE 2 c : fidelity to an original or to a standard. (Merriam Webster Online. Truth (Definition); www.m-w.com.)
Beth Hays writes, and I quote:
"Since the nature of human beings is essentially egotistical, God put forth requirements to help us shape a better self, rather than a more self-absorbed self. He also gave us free will to choose our path, hence the differences in opinion about everything. He also promised us a witness of the truth -- the Holy Spirit (who is not only referenced in Christianity). The hard part is asking the right question in order to get to the truth or at least part of it. This is not exclusive to Christianity. Also, Christianity has been fragmented over the years after the death of the Apostles, so there has been human interpretation to muddy up the finer points of original truth."
Its interesting how people like to use the word Truth in reference to religion and/or belief in general. Look around at all the horrible things that are happening in the world. Look at what is going on in Iraq and how people view their beliefs in contrast to others. They see themselves as believers in Truth as well. I think its more important to look at the facts, rather then peoples own ego driven 'personal truths'. In all respect, the only point made by Beth Hays about egotism, is that its more important to impose a personal view in a blog (the perverbial answer to a question never asked), rather than accept someone for seeing the world in a way in which makes them a good (at least tolerant) person. Isn't spirituality something that is suppose to be personal? If its personal then why the need for not only advertisement but self assurance through a public display. Suicide bombers (Zealots) kill themselves in the name of not only idealism, but religion and egotism. When is the last time someone has died at the hands of an idealistic atheist or agnostic? Just in case you forgot what the definition of BELIEF is, this is for you and anybody who feels the need to tell us what life IS.
Main Entry: be·lief
Pronunciation: b&-'lEf
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English beleave, probably alteration of Old English gelEafa, from ge-, associative prefix + lEafa; akin to Old English lyfan
1 : a state or habit of mind in which trust or confidence is placed in some person or thing
2 : something believed; especially : a tenet or body of tenets held by a group
3 : conviction of the truth of some statement or the reality of some being or phenomenon especially when based on examination of evidence
synonyms BELIEF, FAITH, CREDENCE, CREDIT mean assent to the truth of something offered for acceptance. BELIEF may or may not imply certitude in the believer . FAITH almost always implies certitude even where there is no evidence or proof . CREDENCE suggests intellectual assent without implying anything about grounds for assent . CREDIT may imply assent on grounds other than direct proof . synonym see in addition OPINION.
Tomas asked:
When is the last time someone has died at the hands of an idealistic atheist or agnostic?
I believe that the people killed by Joseph Stalin qualify.
I find it odd that so many not obviously connected to CWRU have shown up late to this particular party; did someone prominent recently link to this entry?
There is a Mark Twain quote i'll paraphrase: the more i dismiss other people's religion as folly, the more I realize mine is too.
I myself just believe that "GOD" is and forever will be a crutch to better understand the unknown. In the past, there were many Gods to explain all that was unknown, such as sunrise, sunset, weather etc. Since scientists have done such a good job explaining much of what was previously unknown we are left to contemplate only origin and after death. Unfortunately, many people can not fathom being "not important". This is one of the leading importances of "religion", if there was no Hell to fear or Heaven to aspire to, what would people's behavior be? I am actually glad that there is some forms of religion to "strike the fear of God" into people to persuade them not to commit bad acts against other people. Herd the sheep. Let me be "in the know" as to the ludicrousity of the real truth.
We are all born to be believers. From the womb the majority of us are hardwired with the sense that something "bigger" than us is watching out for us (probably Loving Mom/Good caretaker=GOD) or looking to hurt us (Bad Mom/Evil Caretaker= Devil). Scientist have been able to electronically stimulate different areas of the brain and recreate this feeling of omnipresence, probably residue memories of early childhood experiences. As we mature many of us are indoctrinated with the prevailing belief in God that is held by the majority in our community (Hinduism,Buddism,Christianity, etc.) About the same time we are learning the social values of our society by the interactions with our peers in kindergarten. Parents use the simple concept of good evil to explain the difference between socially acceptable behavior and unacceptable behavior with the common threat that if you do evil then God will punish you. Is it any wonder that as adults most of us feel the need to "do good" inorder to please this ever present diety watching over our every move. We also train ourselves to remain viligent to socially acceptable behavior (religion/belief) or suffer the consequences of being ostrasized(one of the worse things you can do to a child) or punished by parents or "GOD" (this is when we associate bad behavior with negative consequences)...To Be Continued...
Denying belief in God is somewhat hard to do in today's society. It is easier to blend in that way. Most people profess to a religion which they may not, in fact, believe in. I generally say that I disbelieve or believe in God depending on who is listening. but... not the way a lot of people do.
I, personally, believe in myself. Would claiming the religious belief or disbelief you think most likely to irk the current company count as its' own religion?
Thanks for your sharing. I've read a couple of your other posts, particularly about neoconservatism. I truly appreciate your lucid and insightful style.
While I am a Christian and a minister in the United Methodist Church, I understand your struggles of faith and science. It's taken me many years of struggle to come to somewhat different understandings related to theism and science. I can't say it's always been easy although I've found the journey rewarding.
I am saddened by what I find inadequate theology and abuse of the use of reference to "God." While there is much I nor you can explain in life, I do believe in "miracle" and find it unfortunate that others appeal to miracle in ways I find devaluing of faith.
I am not inclined here to atttempt to press my own faith upon you other than to offer this: May you continue to find the support sufficient to empower and guide you toward goodness as you search your affirmations and questions.
Randy,
Thanks for you comments and I wish you well in your ministry.
I have always had a soft spot for the Methodist Church. For many years I was an ordained lay preacher in it, largely inspired by the wonderful, humane, open, scholarly, and thoughtful ministers of the Methodist churches my family attended.
I still believe that they played a very formative role in my life for which I am very grateful. I feel slightly guilty for "betraying" them in some sense by becoming an atheist, as if their teachings were ultimately wasted on me.
But on the other hand, if there is anyone who would understand my reasons for the transition at a deep level, it is probably them.
Dear Sir,
I believe you should consider the material in the article below in regards to atheism:
Atheism: http://www.conservapedia.com/Atheism