How often is atheism a response to pain?

[Padres1969]

"He who believes in Him is not judged; he who does not believe has been judged already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. “This is the judgment, that the Light has come into the world, and men loved the darkness rather than the Light, for their deeds were evil.” John 3: 18-19

“If I had not come and spoken to them, they would not have sin” (John 15:22)

This affirmation is not aimed at those who, through no fault of their own, do not know Christ and his Church: Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience—those too may achieve eternal salvation. (CCC 847)

Gaudium Et Spesteaches - All this holds true not only for Christians, but for all men of good will in whose hearts grace works in an unseen way. For, since Christ died for all men, and since the ultimate vocation of man is in fact one, and divine, we ought to believe that the Holy Spirit in a manner known only to God offers to every man the possibility of being associated with this paschal mystery. (22)

Plenty of Atheists/Agnostics/NOTAs as we’ve mentioned would likely fit into that category of people who are invincibly ignorant. Remember many Atheists today, and an increasing number I’d posit, have no real knowledge of the Gospels.

 

[AnneElizabeth]

Some atheists experience what theists do…but they don’t agree it’s “supernatural”. Often, it can be attributed to the emotions and senses.

But the main difference here is…germs can be seen under a microscope. We prove with science and tests that the micro-organisms exist.

We cannot do that with any god–at least, not so far.

.

There are some things that there is no scientific explanation for, nor is there room left for explaining it away with emotions or senses. What about miracles? Anyone denying some supernatural events haven’t taken an honest look into it. Life itself is a good start. What is its meaning, if there isn’t an afterlife? If there isn’t something more than just as things are?

True, were never going to prove the existence of supernatural through a microscope, but I used that analogy as a way to show how people act and behave when presented with something they don’t know about, don’t want to look into and certainly use any excuse not to.

 

[AnneElizabeth]

Scripture tells us that God draws those He wants to save. However, there’s no schedule, no timeline as to when in one’s life this happens. Some are earlier, some later. So perhaps your good friend will be drawn, and it’s great that you’re there for her when and if that happens. And if it doesn’t happen, it certainly won’t be your fault. It’s in God’s hands. If He wants her, He will have her.

Yes, only time will tell. Even so, branches can be cut off when they don’t bear fruit, so no one is ever ‘safe’ where they are at!
But as I heard one woman from church say, its like Prego "its in there" (somewhere)... meaning, the seed has been planted... once on fertile soil it can take root. God does the rest.

 

[fnr]

Kind of ironic you say this because…many theists I know “find” religion in the same circumstance–following a tragedy or emotional trauma.

I can see how such experiences would make a person become atheist because they are confronted with the age-old question: Why would an all-knowing, all-loving god make a world and circumstances in which people suffer so much? And often a person will question their religion for the first time when before, they just believed it because they were taught to

I think both our experiences describe mechanisms for moving between faith and atheism.

A. Loss of faith

1. A person has some faith in God.
2. Something horrible happens.
3. The problem of evil becomes personal. “How could there be a good God if something bad happens to an innocent person?”
4. The person rejects God.

For example, one friend of mine was a somewhat irreligious Jew growing up. In high school, his 16 year old cousin died in a car crash shortly after her birthday. He decided that God couldn’t be real if such a tragedy can happen.

In a second example, a friend of mine realized at age 14 that he wasn’t attracted to women and was beginning to wonder if he might be gay. His Catholic pastor decided to give a once-per-decade sermon about homosexuality with fire and brimstone condemnations. My friend was so shaken by the sermon, he began hating himself and wondering how God could make him like that. He ended up an atheist.

B. A person finds faith

1. A person has no or little faith.
2. Some major hurt or trauma happens.
3. They are unable to make sense of the world.
4. A moment of “conversion” happens when someone gives up control of their lives, and realizes that their lives are better when living in charity. God helps explain their experience.

If a child is not indoctrinated, they can view religion coming from a blank slate and can look at it from, IMO, an unbiased perspective. They can research it and examine the facts and decide–without the stress of family pressure or habit or fear of hell–whether gods or a religion are true or not.

Nature abhors a vacuum. So does the human mind. We live in a culture of commodity, where your only value is based on how you can sell yourself. Children growing up without structure of any sort are often very troubled. My friend who grew up in a secular home is very ethical. I don’t think that comes from “blank slate” parenting. I think it comes from his parents teaching him a set of objective ethics.

Kids who go to church weekly have much lower rates of drug abuse, truancy, teen pregnancy, and school dropout. They are much more likely to attend college and earn more over their lifetimes than children in homes without church attendance. It’s just evidence that growing up without consistent faith is a risk factor for all sorts of negative things for kids.

This I totally disagree with you on.
Not sure just how many atheists you know…but I know hundreds of them. And the majority that I know came to atheism after a religious life by rational reasoning, experience, research and study.

I know a lot of atheists. However, I only know the “coming out” stories of a handful of them. In my experience, people who have become atheists have some crisis of faith associated with suffering. They doubt God, then dive into atheist writers like Dawkins and Hitchens. It seems to me that the intellectual basis for my friends’ atheism came after the crisis of faith. They frequently cite the reasoning they have heard from Dawkins and Hitchens, which seems to me to be a means of validating doubts that they had on their own – which often followed some emotional pain.

That said, some people have very fundamentalist upbringings. Modern science or biblical criticism can cause them to mistrust their anti-science upbringing. They sometimes mistake their anti-science upbringing for “faith.”

Sure, there are hard questions that arise from studying the Bible or science, but that’s only strengthened my faith – something that was always encouraged in my house (and in my parishes growing up). People who are not allowed to ask hard questions may find them so troubling that they push them away from faith. Again, that’s not “faith,” but close-mindedness.

An atheist, by the way, doesn’t necessarily have a “materialistic” view of the world. They just don’t see evidence that any gods exist.
Materialism and atheism don’t always go together.

I’ll grant you that. Among the atheists I know, some claim to be “spiritual.” However, any degree of belief in entities or phenomena that are non-physical means that the “rationalism” claimed by many atheists goes out the window, right?

 

[Faithdancer]

Ah!
Well then I think you just contradicted yourself.
If God “draws those he wants to save” and if “it’s in God’s hands” and if God wants someone, “he will have her”…then the atheist is not at all “choosing darkness” and “rejecting God’s love”…as you said in an earlier post.

Right?

.

God has known whether or not you will ultimately reject Him from all eternity. That doesn’t mean you still aren’t given the same offer. And He does not violate the human will with His drawing; it is more commonly a slow, incremental process. The fact that you spend so much time on CAF indicates that he’s already working on your heart.

 

[Padres1969]

**God has known whether or not you will ultimately reject Him from all eternity. That doesn’t mean you still aren’t given the same offer. **And He does not violate the human will with His drawing; it is more commonly a slow, incremental process. The fact that you spend so much time on CAF indicates that he’s already working on your heart.

While that may be true of DaddyGirl… keep in mind not all atheists are given that same offer. Many are never offered the opportunity to know or love Christ. And indeed the Catholic Catechism acknowledges that fact as I posted earlier.

 

[reggieM]

No…not after death.
I’m saying that in life, a person can be accountable to themselves. To think that a person only does the right thing or makes amends just because of a god is…I think, quite offensive.
Why don’t you think a person can have accountability to themselves?

Well, the concept of accountability is actually just the opposite of what you’re saying. It means being accountable for your actions to someone else.
If you’re going to do it for yourself it is meaningless.
Example: I want to do something. I do it. Now, I want some accountability. The same person who wanted and did the thing - is supposedly also the judge?
That’s like saying “I’ll be the defendent, prosecutor and judge all at the same time”.
How successful do you think our court system would be with that?

Pay it back after death?
Well if there is no afterlife, they can’t.

Exactly - thus the point. Atheism for some is a means of avoiding that final accountability. If there is none, then it doesn’t matter. There are no consequences.

And we just have to be grown-up enough to accept that life isn’t always balanced or fair and try to do well here, now, while we are alive. And not wait for some magical justice system later to make everything right that may never come.

Or not - since you can’t give any reason why people should be grown-up or accept unfairness or try to do well. I think you’re affirming the point. It’s pretty simple - if we get rid of the lawmaker and the judge, then we can do whatever we want. There are no consequences.

 

[reggieM]

Yes, of course it poses a lot of questions.
But if there is a spirit world, there is no way anyone can answer these–at least, not yet. I see that religion is an attempt to try…and each religion has come up with their own set of answers to the questions above.
But so far…no cigar.

If we don’t have all the answers…now or ever…why is that “a problem”?

Well, it’s a problem because it’s a contradiction.

“I believe there are spirits out there that do something. They came from somewhere, have some powers and they might exist forever or not and I have no evidence that they exist - no answers on what they are.”.

But when I ask if those spirits are gods (which is what they sound like) - you say “no, I don’t believe any gods exist”.

You have no evidence either way. This is just a story you’re telling yourself.
We have more evidence that God exists than we do that you’re spirits exist.

Like most atheists, I’m open to where the facts lead.
People like Richard Dawkins and Hitchens have also said, over and over again, that they are open to believing in gods.
(Unlike many theists, who in my experience are *not *open to the possibility that there may *not *be any gods).

I’m not closing myself off. But I haven’t seen any good, convincing evidence yet!

What good, convincing evidence do you have that spirits and a spirit world exists?

.

 

[HerCrazierHalf]

Well, the concept of accountability is actually just the opposite of what you’re saying. It means being accountable for your actions to someone else.
If you’re going to do it for yourself it is meaningless.

This is problematic in a way. It implies that one is mindful of their actions only because someone else might catch them. This is just shy of coercion rather than freely deciding to do what is right.

Example: I want to do something. I do it. Now, I want some accountability. The same person who wanted and did the thing - is supposedly also the judge?
That’s like saying “I’ll be the defendent, prosecutor and judge all at the same time”.
How successful do you think our court system would be with that?

Are you not all 3 at once? When you determine you wronged another and attempt reconciliation didn’t you judge your actions? When you decide not to harm another, isn’t that self judging of your future actions?

Exactly - thus the point. Atheism for some is a means of avoiding that final accountability. If there is none, then it doesn’t matter. There are no consequences.

Or not - since you can’t give any reason why people should be grown-up or accept unfairness or try to do well. I think you’re affirming the point. It’s pretty simple - if we get rid of the lawmaker and the judge, then we can do whatever we want. There are no consequences.

This line of thinking presumes there must be something external and unavoidable to force one to act morally. But why can’t their just be an internally derived drive to act morally?

 

[reggieM]

This is problematic in a way. It implies that one is mindful of their actions only because someone else might catch them. This is just shy of coercion rather than freely deciding to do what is right.

If you’re capable of saying that God doesn’t exist, then it can’t be coercion. We’re free to accept or reject accountability. Accepting that we are accountable to someone else shows awareness of our own flaws.
If it was as simple as “I decide to do what is right” - then why don’t you simply do what is right? This would mean that you’ve achieved some kind of moral perfection and have risen above all temptations.
Of course, we want accountability because our own judgements are flawed.
It’s far worse when we don’t have a stated, objective standard.
You’ve heard the phrase “that’s not very Christian of you”.
Well, that phrase makes sense because there is a Christian (even more a Catholic) morality that anybody can reference.
You won’t hear the phrase “that’s not very atheist of you” - because who knows what an atheist’s standard of morality is? It can be anything at all. There is no standard.

Are you not all 3 at once? When you determine you wronged another and attempt reconciliation didn’t you judge your actions?

As above though - why did you wrong someone in the first place? Clearly, whatever standard of judgement that was in place was flawed.
But then again, what if you hurt someone who “deserved to be hurt”? This will depend on your standard of morality.
If you, yourself, make up your own moral standard, what prevents you from changing it?
The same person who violated his own moral standard, will then say “no, I insist that the standard I created (for whatever reason) must be inflexible.” The judge is obviously biased in this case. The easiest way to solve the dilemma is to change the moral standard after you’ve violated it. Why not? You created it arbitrarily - then you violated it. Changing it is perfectly fine in that system.
You are the law-maker, the defendant, the prosecutor and judge. (I added a fourth role there, the law-maker).
Sure, you can play all four roles but it is contradictory.

When you decide not to harm another, isn’t that self judging of your future actions?

I don’t see it that way. Have you made reparation for every moral wrong you’ve ever done? Plus, even after deciding not to do something that you’ve judged yourself on - has that been enough to prevent you from doing it again?

This line of thinking presumes there must be something external and unavoidable to force one to act morally. But why can’t their just be an internally derived drive to act morally?

The reason is that you can’t hold yourself to a standard that you’ve created while not knowing if that standard is good or bad, correct or not.

Would it be morally right to hold yourself to a standard that you think is wrong? Would it be morally good to change your moral standard in order to give yourself less anxiety?

So, if you can create and modify your own standard, for a Judge (yourself) who is flawed and lacking information about the purpose of life - then you don’t really need a standard.

One example: If a person decided that evolutionary materialism is correct, then a moral standard could be “I must do everything I can to promote survival and reproduction advantages for myself and secondarily my species”.
With that as a standard, hurting or even killing people who threaten your morality would be morally good.

 

[fnr]

As per your examples, the situations I’ve seen often go like this:

A: Loss of Faith

1. A person has some faith in God.
2. Something horrible happens.
3. The problem of evil becomes personal, and they investigate it and research the theodicy question for the first time in their life: “How can an all loving, all knowing, all powerful God cause so much pain to good people?” Not just to them, but to starving children who die every minute on this earth, etc, etc.
4. After much inquiry, the person realizes…that it makes no sense. That either there is no god as per above, or if there is, this god is not all-knowing/loving/powerful.

First, thank you for your response. I appreciate it.

Secondly, “it makes no sense” is a subjective opinion. “The problem of evil” is at the center of Christianity (e.g., how could the messiah die shamefully on the cross?). We take it on the chin. People with strong connections to their faith love people who die, have accidents, experience disease and disability. They make sense of the suffering. I can’t say for certain why some people experience pain and lose their faith, while others hold onto it, or even experience stronger faith (I did, for example).

B: Finding Faith

1. A person has no or little faith.
2. Some major hurt or trauma happens.
3. They decide to become more religious because it eases their pain and answers their confusion and questions…even if the answers are non-answers, like: “god works in mysterious ways” and “everything happens for a reason” or “this is your cross to bear.”

I don’t think you intended it, I would say that’s somewhat biased against religious people. As I said, “giving it up to God” and relinquishing a sense of control is a way that some people make it through suffering. “Let go and let God” is not the same as you say, “answering their questions.” Yes, sometimes people respond as you have said, and some people find comfort in that. However, in terms of spirituality, releasing one’s pride and attempts to control everything is one way that I’ve seen religious people move through difficult times.

I agree that parents teaching a child ethics is much better than “blank slate” parenting (But I’m not sure what you mean by that?). It seems to be very helpful when a child has some structure, as well.
But both these things, as you know, are attainable without gods or religion.

I was responding to your suggestion that kids are left to learn about religion without guidance from their parents. That type of “hands off” parenting may not be what you meant, but what I interpreted.

As a Catholic “revert” I spend time at a Unitarian Universalist congregation where the youth groups included children from families of different faith backgrounds, including secular humanism. The children were taught about different faith traditions, and allowed to find their own beliefs. The families of that congregation are generally highly educated, so their children tend to do quite well in life.

As a Catholic again, I teach my daughter about other faith traditions, and let her know my reasons for why I am not, for example, Buddhist, Muslim, Protestant, or Atheist. I’m trying to raise her in the strong Catholic tradition of using reason and faith together – one that doesn’t shy away from understanding other ways of thinking.

If the above is true (do you have stats on this?) it still doesn’t mean gods exist.
This may be due to a feeling of community, a feeling of family, the belief that someone is watching over you…(and again, one can have these things without gods or religion)

I was responding to the suggestion to bring kids up without any normative religious content. I wasn’t using it for evidence of God – although the frequent criticism of Christianity is that its morality rules are random and just based on arbitrary and subjective opinions of ancient religious leaders. From the perspective of health statistics, living by a set of arbitrary ancient rules should result in worse health and economic outcomes, or at least equal, not better ones than children who don’t follow those rules. That children who attend religious services weekly have much greater educational and health outcomes, even when controlling for all sorts of potential confounders, suggests that these ancient rules are beneficial. Chastity is one such example of an “arbitrary rule” that’s frequently criticized.

My primary source for my statistics is the book, America’s Blessings by Rodney Stark, a sociologist who provided evidence about the benefits of Christianity.

And also, it may be due to the worry that if you have sex/take drugs/skip school…God will punish you and you might even go to hell for eternity.
There’s that.

Well, that’s where the health evidence does help. Catholics and other Christians who attend church weekly have lower rates of mental health problems such as depression. (For example: latimes.com/science/sciencenow/la-sci-sn-church-attendance-suicide-20160629-snap-story.html)
The old stereotype – from Freud and others – that Christianity just weighs down people with guilt and shame – is totally unsupported by the available evidence. Maybe, as you say, they experience a greater community of support, but at this point, we’re just grasping at straws.

(And, of course, it can work the other way. I’ve seen people here on this site who get depressed and suicidal because they think they have let god down, think they are not good christians, constantly worried they are sinning, constantly feeling they should be punished…for some people, religion erodes their self-esteem.)

I’d just refer to the science evidence.

 

[HerCrazierHalf]

If you’re capable of saying that God doesn’t exist, then it can’t be coercion. We’re free to accept or reject accountability. Accepting that we are accountable to someone else shows awareness of our own flaws.

I suppose we will just disagree on this point. We can be aware of our flaws without requiring a 3rd party.

If it was as simple as “I decide to do what is right” - then why don’t you simply do what is right? This would mean that you’ve achieved some kind of moral perfection and have risen above all temptations.
Of course, we want accountability because our own judgements are flawed.

We are often tempted to something we know isn’t right. We can judge that action is wrong even if we are weak in that moment and go against our better judgement. But we can and should strive for improvement.

It’s far worse when we don’t have a stated, objective standard.
You’ve heard the phrase “that’s not very Christian of you”.
Well, that phrase makes sense because there is a Christian (even more a Catholic) morality that anybody can reference.

You won’t hear the phrase “that’s not very atheist of you” - because who knows what an atheist’s standard of morality is? It can be anything at all. There is no standard.

Oddly enough this line of thought is part of why I’d never attempt to “deconvert” anyone. Many of the rules promoted by Christianity and other faiths are good and are followed even by those who do not believe. But one should follow a set of rules because they make sense and lead to good outcomes.
Parents may enforce a set of rules on children based on authority, but as children grow into adults they evaluate them and retain some while rejecting others.

As above though - why did you wrong someone in the first place? Clearly, whatever standard of judgement that was in place was flawed.

likewise, if God’s law is perfect, why have you sinned? We are human and will sometimes fail even our own standards.

If you, yourself, make up your own moral standard, what prevents you from changing it?
[Snip]
You created it arbitrarily - then you violated it. Changing it is perfectly fine in that system.
You are the law-maker, the defendant, the prosecutor and judge. (I added a fourth role there, the law-maker).
Sure, you can play all four roles but it is contradictory.

Do you so distrust the individual’s ability to be even remotely fair? The purpose of self judgement isn’t punishment but self improvement and reparations where practical and appropriate. I suppose I could explain how it works for me, but that’s more a personal philosophy I suppose.

I don’t see it that way. Have you made reparation for every moral wrong you’ve ever done? Plus, even after deciding not to do something that you’ve judged yourself on - has that been enough to prevent you from doing it again?

Of course not. Not all wrongs can be righted, but I do make an attempt where practical. Due to our human nature some habits die hard. A simple example is lying. Most of us struggle with this to some extent. Long ago I decided not to and it took some time to break that habit. And for the most part my resolve prevents me from lying even when it would be expedient. Hard to explain but breaking such promises to myself is like dying a little bit on the iinside

One example: If a person decided that evolutionary materialism is correct, then a moral standard could be “I must do everything I can to promote survival and reproduction advantages for myself and secondarily my species”.
With that as a standard, hurting or even killing people who threaten your morality would be morally good.

How is that much different than those who imprisoned or killed members of other denomination/faiths in centuries past? Truth is people can rationalize anything and twist any system to justify it. So any system we use can lead down a dark path.

 

[reggieM]

? The above quote/words are not mine, I’m pretty sure.
I mentioned “the spirit world” but I didn’t say anything about “spirits” doing things and having powers and coming from somewhere.

Yes, you mentioned a spirit world. You said that an atheist can believe in the supernatural and in the spirit.

And I don’t think you asked if spirits were gods, at least not to me. (Perhaps you had this exchange with someone else on the thread?).

Well, I asked what the spirit world you’re talking about is. You then said that nobody knows.
Clearly, if you can be an atheist and believe in spirits, and spirits can have the same powers of that which we call “gods” - then you’re saying that atheists can believe in gods.
You have to explain what the spirit world is, who lives there, what the supernatural is, where it came from, etc.

Again…unless I was tipsy when I wrote it (and I’ll go back and take a look at the posts) I’m pretty sure I didn’t say I believed in “spirits”.
I don’t have any “story” about spirits.

You were speaking for atheists - so I included you in that group. You don’t have to believe in spirits yourself to answer the questions. If you can be an atheist and believe in a spirit world, you have to explain where the spirits came from who live in that world. Or are you saying that “atheists can believe in a spirit world where there is nothing living there?”

I’m just asking you to clarify your claims- whether you believe them personally or not.

I said I didn’t rule out a spiritual world. I would be open to that, just like I am open to there being gods that exist.

As above, you said an atheist can believe in a spirit world - so an atheist can believe in gods.

But that even if someone doesn’t believe in a god or gods, it doesn’t have to mean they don’t believe a supernatural world is possible.
Something supernatural can end up being “natural” once we can explain it.

I asked you to explain this:

An atheist, by the way, doesn’t necessarily have a “materialistic” view of the world. They just don’t see evidence that any gods exist.
Materialism and atheism don’t always go together.

.

You said an atheist can believe that a spirit world and the supernatural exists (not that it is possible).
I wanted to know how an atheist explains in the existence (not possibility) of a spirit world.

 

[fnr]

Yes…they cite these reasons…because these reasons make sense to them and speak to them. Often they have gone along with the “logic” of religion even when it hasn’t made sense to them, just because. It’s very feeling and exhilarating to finally read someone who can express what you’ve been feeling all along. When you talk about the “conversion” click…for many, the opposite can happen…a “deconversion” click…a moment when they realize they don’t believe, that it’s not true.

I guess I’ll go back to the title of this post: how often is atheism a response to pain?

What you have described seems to be people who have their faith shaken by a emotionally traumatic event, which causes them to doubt God (i.e., the “problem of evil”), after which they find intellectual resources to support their doubts. That’s what I meant by “response to pain.”

I can also imagine situations where intellectually, one is shocked to realize that modern science contradicts a literalist reading of the Bible, fundamentalist worldview, or dualist perspective of the soul, which many Christians (including some Catholics) hold. Hearing about evolution or brain scans might cause someone with that kind of religious outlook to feel that science has “disproved” their religion. I wouldn’t so much call that a loss of faith, but a disillusionment with a simplistic religious worldview. In that regard, “reason” has countered something short of the Catholic theological tradition. IMHO, we have a pretty deep bench, when it comes to incorporating science into our faith life (Aquinas, Georges LeMaitre, John Paul 2, just to name a few – plus Lumen Gentium and Gaudiam et Spes, two of the constitutions of the Second Vatican Council). I certainly don’t want to disparage simple faith, but theology requires both heart and head.

When you say “hard questions”…do you mean things about religion that make no sense or seem cruel or wrong or confusing or have no answers? What “hard questions”?

Here are some examples of hard questions.
-Why do good people suffer? Why do criminals get away with it sometimes?
-Evolution, paleobiology (e.g., earliest fossils), and original sin.
-Cognitive neuroscience and the soul.
-Artificial intelligence
-The changing definition of humanity and nature post-Industrial Revolution (e.g., the Culture War)
-The apparently mathematical nature of the universe (and Godel’s Incompleteness Theorem)
-How can life on earth be sustainable? What about human civilization?
-The implications of extraterrestrial intelligence (and Fermi’s Paradox)
-Big Bang/Inflationary Cosmology and the relative nature of spacetime.
-Quantum mechanics and the role of the observer (e.g, the Anthropic Principle).
-The Documentary Hypothesis of the Pentateuch – and the normative history of Israel found in Deuteronomy, Judges, Kings, and Samuel. What does God commanding Saul to “utterly destroy” the Amelikites in 1 Samuel mean – is genocide holy? What does modern Biblical scholarship tell us?

It depends on how a person defines “spiritual”. There doesn’t seem to be a single, widely agreed definition of “spirit”. And I hasten to guess that your atheist friends are probably using it in a different way than you are.

I don’t think it’s irrational to keep the door open that there may be a spiritual world that we have yet to see or explain.

I’m not sure how my spiritual atheist friends mean it. I think they’re still exploring.

The “spirituality” I’ve heard from some atheists is the “we are stardust” variety. The minerals that make our physiology possible were made in supernovae (e.g, Zn, Cu, Se). Everything is connected – that type of idea.

I would agree that it’s not irrational to keep the door open to a spiritual world that we can’t explain or see (I’m Catholic!). I’m not really sure how atheists accept it – but maybe that depends on the definition of atheism…

 

[reggieM]

I suppose we will just disagree on this point. We can be aware of our flaws without requiring a 3rd party.

First - thanks for an interesting and thoughtful reply.

Ok, our disagreement is on this point, whether we can be aware of our flaws without a 3rd party for accountability.
In theory, yes you’re right. If we are talking about any-old 3rd party, that’s not a big deal. I would go to the example of the Stoics of old who mastered a high degree of virtue virtually on their own. They were the classic self-made men.

But, in this case, I was talking about accountability to God. That’s a lot different.

1. God is perfection itself - perfection of moral life, virtue, goodness
2. God is our Creator - knows our abilities, weaknesses and talents - has expecations since He alone knows what we were born with and what we could do
3. God knows all of our relationships, He knows the effects of our good deeds and our sins and how they affect people around us in ways we could never know
4. God is perfect Justice and Mercy who knows what the moral balance of all actions is
5. God is the one who “Judges the judge” - if we are our own Judge, who judges the judge which is ourself?

There’s no way we could have a system of justice where we are accountable to ourselves and not to God.

We are often tempted to something we know isn’t right. We can judge that action is wrong even if we are weak in that moment and go against our better judgement. But we can and should strive for improvement.

'That’s right and it would seem to make sense.
But the key point here is where you say “we are weak” and “go against our better judgement”.

1. We created a standard a morals
2. We were tempted (why and where did that come from?)
3. We were weak and fell
4. Later we judge the action wrong and try to improve

But what is actually happening - you’re putting “weakness” only at one point in that sequence of events (at #3) You didn’t put weakness at #1 or #4. Why not?
If the law-maker is just as weak as the doer of the law - then the moral standard will be corrupt or wrong. If the Judge is just as weak as the doer - the Judge will ignore or dismiss sins, make excuses and eventually change the moral law itself.

It wouldn’t make sense to say, “We were perfectly strong, good and right when we made the law. We are perfectly strong and right when we judge ourselves. But when we do various other actions, we are weak and need correction.”

No, the law-maker and judge also would be weak - but who would judge them?
How would you know that you have the right laws or that you judged rightly?

likewise, if God’s law is perfect, why have you sinned? We are human and will sometimes fail even our own standards.

Yes, but we did not create God’s law. He created it for us for us to become like him. If we created our own law, how did we know we could ever keep it?

Do you so distrust the individual’s ability to be even remotely fair? The purpose of self judgement isn’t punishment but self improvement and reparations where practical and appropriate. I suppose I could explain how it works for me, but that’s more a personal philosophy I suppose.

If the person is the lawmaker and judge and also the law-breaker and sometimes in need of mercy or punishment, there are conflicting interests. Are we being fair to ourself when we give a punishment? Is the punishment too severe or too lenient? How do we know? If we are only accountable to ourself - is it the law-breaker who deserves mercy or the judge who deserves to extract vengence?

Of course not. Not all wrongs can be righted, but I do make an attempt where practical. Due to our human nature some habits die hard. A simple example is lying. Most of us struggle with this to some extent. Long ago I decided not to and it took some time to break that habit. And for the most part my resolve prevents me from lying even when it would be expedient. Hard to explain but breaking such promises to myself is like dying a little bit on the iinside

That is a good example. The problem here is how to judge your success in breaking this habit. If you’ve done better, that is good. But if you continue to lie, even occasionally, is that permissible? Also, in those cases where you’ve hurt someone by a lie or other things, and there is no way to make reparations, does the need to repair the damage just go away?

How is that much different than those who imprisoned or killed members of other denomination/faiths in centuries past? Truth is people can rationalize anything and twist any system to justify it. So any system we use can lead down a dark path.

This is a key point. I’m talking about a moral standard. It actually says that death (and in nature it is killing) is important for progress. But if later we said that was not a good system, what standard would we be using to judge it?

We could say, the Old Testament Jews were told to kill. Yes, but they were given a reason by God for this. With Christian denominations, if they supported slavery for example, they improved their moral standards by looking at the Bible more carefully and realizing that God’s standard was higher than their own.

You would rightly say that a system like Darwinism that promotes killing for progress would be wrong. But what standard would you be using to judge that and what reasons would you have/

The key here is the purpose for your acts. That’s why you would be judging yourself. God gives us a purpose and meaning for life. So, when He judges it makes sense since we are required to fulfill the purposes he created.

If we make our own moral standard, we have to decide what our own purpose of life is. Why are we on earth?

How could you know the answer to that?

 

[ANV]

The problem of evil is one of these reasons but it’s not an argument to disprove gods, this argument only disproves an all powerful and all loving one.

 

[reggieM]

The problem of evil is one of these reasons but it’s not an argument to disprove gods, this argument only disproves an all powerful and all loving one.

How so?

 

[technatrix]

I can only speak for myself. Personally, I’ve arrived at where I am because of a mixed bag of trauma and later study. I left the Church as a teenager because I couldn’t square the idea of a god as had been described to me with the reality that I was experiencing. I didn’t become an atheist until a decade or so later after a lot of therapy and then sitting down over the course of about six months to really read, think, and work out what I believe.

TLR; I think it’s an oversimplification to conclude that because someone has experienced trauma and is an atheist, then their atheism is a consequence of their trauma.

 

[SuperLuigi]

A better question is how often is it a response to pleasure or just taking the easy way out?

 

[HerCrazierHalf]

A better question is how often is it a response to pleasure or just taking the easy way out?

Please clarify. I’ve never understood this line of logic.