Leaving Theism

[Ryan29]

“People don’t need god-centered religion.”

Well, people don’t “need” any sort of religion at all. I would guess that most of the people on this forum have a “God-centered” religion because God exists and should be taken into account. If God does not exist, then we’re simply deluded, no matter what we might “need.”

Have you studied other religions to know that Christianity is the one that spoke to you? Or did you just take the religion of your parents because they guilted you in your youth about a man in the clouds and Christ that died on the cross at the hands of the Romans and at the silver of the Jews. The problem is from getting religion when a person is a child is they don’t know anything about anything and believe their kitty cat that got run over is in “kitty cat heaven”. It’s a better and easier explaination than the real life situation; then the parent and child can get on with their life. Then when that child is a teenager the parents guilt the teen by saying, ‘we won’t always be around, and we need make sure you are alright…uh remember furball, your cat? Heaven has god in it and he’s watching you when we aren’t or can’t.’ Here’s the archetype to 90% of Christians. On the other hand, if religion makes a person think or makes them a better person, then it’s a good thing and I have no problem with the ones that believe. I believed in the cloud man and a place where storms are born and that my grandmothers were up there, until I read other religions and realized philosophy is far more important to a person’s life than living in denial of Death’s finality within the “belief” in a “god”.

 

[brandymmiller]

*Major premise: *The simpler philosophy is the rational position.

• Atheism and Christianity have roughly the same explanatory power. In other words, I don’t think that Christianity explains any phenomenon better than atheism (although there are several phenomena that neither explain well).

-Neither philosophy is self-refuting (approximately equally coherent).

-Therefore, we should prefer the simpler philosophy.

*Minor Premise: *Atheism is a simpler philosophy.

-At the very least least, atheism posits one fewer object in the universe (no God). And, most types of atheism posit many fewer types of objects (no souls, no objective moral laws).

*Conclusion: *Atheism is the rational position.

Thanks!

Atheism is not the simpler philosophy. It is actually the more complex, requiring greater acrobatics to reach a conclusion than when you place faith in God. I’ll give you an example: The Big Bang

Atheists must try to work out how all of that incredibly dense matter just happened to come into being, defying the laws of physics in doing so as we posit that matter can neither be created nor destroyed, all at the same time and in the same spot so as to create an atmosphere in which such a bang could have taken place in the first place.

Christians may simply say, God did work, and the universe came into being. After all, the atheists would like to say that disorder is the natural state of all things. Yet the universe remains ordered. Wherein is the force that maintains the order if not God?

 

[brandymmiller]

Have you studied other religions to know that Christianity is the one that spoke to you? Or did you just take the religion of your parents because they guilted you in your youth about a man in the clouds and Christ that died on the cross at the hands of the Romans and at the silver of the Jews. The problem is from getting religion when a person is a child is they don’t know anything about anything and believe their kitty cat that got run over is in “kitty cat heaven”.

I have tested my faith many times, and always found it to be the only thing that rang true. Truth is the highest ideal, and in Christianity I find the highest truth.

I tried being Wiccan for a time, but I could never be certain that I was doing no harm in the way that I was loving. Moreover, I got no real sense of community out of it nor of true love and acceptance.

I tried being Protestant for a longer time, but in the end I couldn’t help but see the truth of what the Church teaches.

I tried being atheistic but I could not help but see God in the order of the universe and the world.

I tried being theistic, being uncertain the nature of God, but God showed me who He was and He was pointing me back to the Church.

I tried rejecting Christ, but the law of stone held no meaning for me without the love to make it understandable.

I doubted the Trinity, but God pointed out to me the passages where He had spoken as “We” and “Us” from the beginning.

In short, I have been there, done that, gotten the t-shirts, realized how meaningless they were, and have changed out t-shirts for finest robes and a warrior’s armor of truth, faith, hope, and love all firmly rooted in the Word and nourished by the Bride of Christ.

 

[East_and_West]

Much to my own chagrin, I am considering leaving Christianity for a strong agnostic / weak atheist position (basically the thought is that God could exist, but it’s very unlikely). As you might imagine, I am not at all happy about this turn of events, and I am very willing to be persuaded back into the Church. I’ve laid out my argument below – and would really appreciate any responses or criticisms you have.

Some Important Assumptions I’m Making:

1. Reason is the process of creating explanatory accounts. We come up for different explanations for phenomena, and then we adopt the best ones. Good explanations possess (1) explanatory power, (2) simplicity, and (3) coherence.
2. “God” is the being that Christians refer to when they use the word “God.” He is omnipotent, omnibenevolent, and omniscient.
3. Strictly speaking, it is impossible to disprove the existence of God. However, if we establish that the existence of God is highly unlikely, it would be rational to live assuming He does not exist.

Syllogism:

*Major premise: *The simpler philosophy is the rational position.

• Atheism and Christianity have roughly the same explanatory power. In other words, I don’t think that Christianity explains any phenomenon better than atheism (although there are several phenomena that neither explain well).

-Neither philosophy is self-refuting (approximately equally coherent).

-Therefore, we should prefer the simpler philosophy.

*Minor Premise: *Atheism is a simpler philosophy.

-At the very least least, atheism posits one fewer object in the universe (no God). And, most types of atheism posit many fewer types of objects (no souls, no objective moral laws).

*Conclusion: *Atheism is the rational position.

Thanks!

I would have to disagree with almost everything you have said. First, the Atheist position is self refuting because it has to assume that the universe comes from nothing. This is contrary to reason. It cannot be self existant because the universe passes through time or is in time. This being the case, if the universe (or multiverse) always existed, it would have to pass through an infinite number of “days” to reach this point in time. But you cannot pass through an infinite number of days. No, nature has to have a begining and cannot come from either itself or nothing.
Second, Atheism is not the simpler position. To actually believe that self aware beings came from billions of completely random processes is less simple than the idea that an intelligent being has order the universe and brought self aware beings into existence.
Third, I believe that Atheism creates many more objections than the theistic poistion. I await your response.

 

[cpayne]

also – hi cpayne, how’s it going?

Hi! I’m still working on my dissertation (and should be doing that), but I couldn’t stay away.

Thank you for the kind words, by the way. Best, cpayne

 

[VociMike]

*Minor Premise: *Atheism is a simpler philosophy.

-At the very least least, atheism posits one fewer object in the universe (no God). And, most types of atheism posit many fewer types of objects (no souls, no objective moral laws).

*Conclusion: *Atheism is the rational position.

I’d like to offer a comment on this. Though this will look similar to arguments regarding Intelligent Design, please don’t get sidetracked by that similarity.

If we find a watch on the ground, we can believe either (a) the watch was assembled by natural mechanisms, or (b) the watch was assembled by a human watchmaker. Now, assuming evolution is true, the chain of events to produce this human watchmaker was much, much more complicated than the watch itself. Therefore, by your rule above, we should prefer to believe that the watch was assembled by natural means and not by a watchmaker.

The point is, we know that watches don’t get assembled by natural means, but rather by human watchmakers. So we know that what appears to be the more complex of the two possibilities is actually the true reality, and not the apparently less complex possibility. The possibility that has many more objects, and more complex objects (a watchmaker and the whole watch parts infrastructure) is the true reality, while the possibility that has fewer objects (self-assembly) is not true. Further, the more complex reality is extremely common (look at every complex assembled object - we are innundated by them) while the less complex reality (self-assembly) is so rarely found that it makes headline news (e.g. the “face” on Mars).

So your criterion above would seem clearly questionable, and likely incorrect based on human experience.

 

[john_doran]

Syllogism:

*Major premise: *The simpler philosophy is the rational position.

presumably you mean this to be understood as an *all other things being equal *position. but when are all other things actually ever equal?

and what makes one position “simpler” than another? was phlogiston theory simpler than the theory of oxygen? is quantum mechanics simpler than newtonian mechanics?

*Minor Premise: *Atheism is a simpler philosophy.

-At the very least least, atheism posits one fewer object in the universe (no God). And, most types of atheism posit many fewer types of objects (no souls, no objective moral laws).

well if this is the criterion of simplicity (as it is in ockham’s original formulation of his eponymous razor), then solipsism is simpler than both atheism or christianity: it posits only one thing - you.

it’s also not self-refuting, and has precisely the same explanatory power as atheism: everything just happens to be the way it is - namely a fignment of the one mind.

*Conclusion: *Atheism is the rational position.

…but not as rational as solipsism.

right?

 

[Benedictus]

Atheism is not the simpler philosophy. It is actually the more complex, requiring greater acrobatics to reach a conclusion than when you place faith in God. I’ll give you an example: The Big Bang

An atheist accepts that certain things about the universe and our existence are currently unknown. I don’t see a problem with that. At worst, the nontheist’s lack of all the answers doesn’t make your answers correct. More to the point, the problem with theism is that you claim things with absolute certainty that you can’t possibly know are true, and you still have to explain the existence of God.

By the way, scientists–both believers and unbelievers–study the beginnings of the universe and the Big Bang. These “acrobatics” aren’t being performed by atheists alone.

 

[Nullasalus]

An atheist accepts that certain things about the universe and our existence are currently unknown. I don’t see a problem with that. At worst, the nontheist’s lack of all the answers doesn’t make your answers correct. More to the point, the problem with theism is that you claim things with absolute certainty that you can’t possibly know are true, and you still have to explain the existence of God.

By the way, scientists–both believers and unbelievers–study the beginnings of the universe and the Big Bang. These “acrobatics” aren’t being performed by atheists alone.

Actually, there’s a problem with generalizations like that.

For one, not all theists claim things with absolute certainty - there is a long tradition of internal dialogue, even within specific faiths (like the Catholic Church) over the nature of God, how to best understand certain theistic and human concepts, etc. Some even experience confusion or doubt about particulars, but remain theists nonetheless.

Second, not all atheists readily admit to unknowns. Some claim just as much certainty as the most zealous theist - that there is absolutely no god, nothing like a god, etc. Theists have no lock on irrational devotion to a shaky concept. I’ll spare the usual examples of devout atheism in action - everyone is familiar with them at this point, some more than others.

 

[mathematician]

If you believe that science renders belief in God surplus to requirements, there is no shortage of scientists who would beg do differ, and nor do they practice the sort of pseudo-science which is so beloved of creationists and IDers. Here is one of them:

'In our quest for ultimate answers it is hard not to be drawn, in one way or another, to the infinite. Whether it is an infinite tower of turtles [an allusion to a story told by Stephen Hawking], an infinity of parallel worlds, an infinite set of mathematical propositions, or an infinite Creator, physical existence surely cannot be rooted in anything finite. Western religions have a long tradition of identifying God with the Infinite, whereas Eastern philosophy seeks to eliminate the differences between the One and the Many, and to identify the Void and the Infinite—zero and infinity. When the early Christian thinkers such as Plotinus proclaimed that God is infinite, they were primarily concerned to demonstrate that he is not limited in any way. The mathematical concept of infinity was at that time still fairly vague. It was generally believed that infinity is limit toward which an enumeration. may proceed, but which is unachievable in reality. Even Aquinas, who conceded God’s infinite nature, was not prepared to accept that infinity had more than potential, as opposed to an actual, existence. An omnipotent God “cannot make an absolutely unlimited thing,” he maintained. The belief that infinity was paradoxical and self-contradictory persisted until the nineteenth century. At this stage the mathematician Georg Cantor, while investigating problems of trigonometry, finally succeeded in providing a rigorous logical demonstration of the self- consistency of the actually infinite. Cantor had a rough ride with his peers, and was dismissed by some eminent mathematicians as a madman. In fact, he did suffer mental illness. But eventually the rules for the consistent manipulation of infinite numbers, though often strange and counterintuitive, came to be accepted. Indeed, much of twentieth century mathematics is founded on the concept of the infinite (or infinitesimal).If infinity can be grasped and manipulated
using rational thought, does this open the way to an understanding of the ultimate explanation of things without the need for mysticism? No, it doesn’t: To see why, we must take a look at the concept of infinity more closely. One of the surprises of Cantor’s work is that there is not just one infinity but a multiplicity of them. For example, the set of all integers and the set of all fractions are both infinite sets. One feels intuitively that there are more fractions than integers, but this is not so. On the other hand, the set of all decimals is bigger than the set of all fractions, or all integers. One can ask: is there a “biggest” infinity? Well, how about combining all infinite sets together into one
superduperset? The class of all possible sets has been called Cantor’s Absolute. There is one snag. This entity is not itself a set, for if it were it would by definition include itself. But self-referential sets run smack into Russell’s paradox. And here we encounter once more the Gödelian limits to rational thought—the mystery at the end of the universe. We cannot know Cantor’s Absolute, or any other Absolute, by rational means, for any Absolute, being a Unity and hence complete within itself, must include itself. As Rucker remarks in connection with the Mindscape—the class of all sets of ideas—”If the Mindscape is a One, then it is a member of itself, and thus can only be known through a flash of mystical vision. No rational thought is a member of itself, so no rational thought could tie the Mindscape into a One.”

What Is Man?

“I do not feel like an alien in this universe.” (Freeman Dyson)

Does the frank admission of hopelessness discussed in the previous section mean that all metaphysical reasoning is valueless? Should we adopt the approach of the pragmatic atheist who is content to take the universe as given, and get on with cataloguing its properties? There is no doubt that many scientists are opposed temperamentally to any form of metaphysical, let alone mystical arguments. They are scornful of the notion that there might exist a God, or even an impersonal creative principle or ground of being that would underpin reality and render its contingent aspects less starkly arbitrary. Personally I do not
share their scorn. Although many metaphysical and theistic theories seem contrived or childish, they are not obviously more
absurd than the belief that the universe exists, and exists in the form it does, reasonlessly. It seems at least worth trying to construct a metaphysical theory that reduces some of the arbitrariness of the world. But in the end a rational explanation
for the world in the sense of a closed and complete system of logical truths is almost certainly impossible. We are barred from ultimate knowledge, from ultimate explanation, by the very rules of reasoning that prompt us to seek such an explanation in the first place. If we wish to progress beyond, we have to embrace a different concept of “understanding” from that of rational explanation. Possibly the mystical path is a way to such an understanding. I have never had a mystical experience myself, but I keep an open mind about the value of such experiences. Maybe they provide the only route beyond the limits to which science and philosophy an take us, the only possible path to the Ultimate. CONTINUED…

 

[mathematician]

CONTINUED…

The central theme that I have explored in this book is that, through science, we human beings are able to grasp at least some of nature’s secrets. We have cracked part of the cosmic code. Why this should be, just why Horno sapiens should carry the spark of rationality that provides the key to the universe, is a deep enigma. We, who are children of the universe—animated stardust—can nevertheless reflect on the nature of that same universe, even to the extent of glimpsing the rules on which it runs. How we have become linked into this cosmic dimension is a mystery. Yet the linkage cannot be denied.

What does it mean? What is Man that we might be party to such privilege? I cannot believe that our existence in this universe is a mere quirk of fate, an accident of history, an incidental blip in the great cosmic drama. Our involvement is too intimate. The physical species Horno may count for nothing, but the existence of mind in some organism on some planet in the universe is surely a fact of ftindamental significance. Through conscious beings the universe has generated self-awareness. This can be no trivial detail, no minor byproduct of mindless, purposeless forces. We are truly meant to be here.’

 

[Mirdath]

Hi. Thanks for your advice. Did you find leaving your faith changed your outlook on life?

Quite a lot in some respects, not so much in others. Probably the biggest change is in my attitude toward good and evil. Christians have four reasons to do good, from greatest to least love of God, love of humanity, desire for heaven, and fear of hell; I’ve only got the second (and, just for the record, it’s all anyone really needs). Evil I see as a personal failure, not an inevitable result of an inherently fallen nature or diabolical temptation.

Other than that, I don’t think there’s any set purpose to life – versus the Baltimore Catechism’s ‘to love and serve God in this life and be with him eternally in the next’. We create our own.

The other differences either follow naturally from those or are pretty tiny.

 

[Franciscan]

Quite a lot in some respects, not so much in others. Probably the biggest change is in my attitude toward good and evil. Christians have four reasons to do good, from greatest to least love of God,** love of humanity**, desire for heaven, and fear of hell; **I’ve only got the second **(and, just for the record, it’s all anyone really needs). Evil I see as a personal failure, not an inevitable result of an inherently fallen nature or diabolical temptation.

**Other than that, I don’t think there’s any set purpose to life **-- versus the Baltimore Catechism’s ‘to love and serve God in this life and be with him eternally in the next’. We create our own.

The other differences either follow naturally from those or are pretty tiny.

If life is meaningless why bother to love your neighbor? Since it usually requires some level of sacrifice to do so.

Also, what moral code dictates to you to love neighbor. Is it a “set purpose”?

Would it bother your conscience to hurt others even if that action of hurting was not illegal?

 

[Nullasalus]

I’ve only got the second (and, just for the record, it’s all anyone really needs).

The reason to love humanity has to come through utterly different rationales outside the context of theism, compared to within it. Within theism (and Christianity in particular) the love of God is almost 1:1 with the love of humanity. Outside of it any belief of objective purpose or transcendental being, 2 doesn’t have to stay. In fact, many of the modern atheists (particularly Peter Singer, who tends to win a lot of favorable reviews from the usual suspects) outright regard placing humanity on any special plane as a considerable mistake.

“Can an atheist be moral?” is the question that’s being dealt with here, but that tends to be approached improperly. “What can’t an atheist be?” is more apt, and there are no obvious limits. Make of that what you will.

 

[john_doran]

Christians have four reasons to do good, from greatest to least love of God, love of humanity, desire for heaven, and fear of hell…

i’d say that you’re forgetting arguably the most important reason to do good: because it’s good. period.

 

[Franciscan]

The reason to love humanity has to come through utterly different rationales outside the context of theism, compared to within it. Within theism (and Christianity in particular) the love of God is almost 1:1 with the love of humanity. Outside of it any belief of objective purpose or transcendental being, 2 doesn’t have to stay. In fact, many of the modern atheists (particularly Peter Singer, who tends to win a lot of favorable reviews from the usual suspects) outright regard placing humanity on any special plane as a considerable mistake.

“Can an atheist be moral?” is the question that’s being dealt with here, but that tends to be approached improperly. “What can’t an atheist be?” is more apt, and there are no obvious limits. Make of that what you will.

Im not asking if an atheist can be moral. Of course many are. I’m asking why would they bother to love their neighbor since love implies sacrifice. I’m waiting to here from mirdath(please humor me).

 

[Franciscan]

i’d say that you’re forgetting arguably the most important reason to do good: because it’s good. period.

Why is it so self evident. That it is better to do good than to do evil?

 

[Mirdath]

Franciscan, Nullasalus, this is not about me or my positions, and if you would rather see jbehan remain Christian I’d advise you to get back on track. You’ve got a golden opportunity here – somebody just walked up to you and asked you to help him convince himself that you’re right – and you’d ignore it to try to poke at me instead? Priorities, priorities.

I have no especial desire for jbehan to end up like me; what I hope for is that his journey, wherever it leads, is short and as painless as possible. There are better threads for our bickering – this is not the place.

 

[Franciscan]

Franciscan, Nullasalus, this is not about me or my positions, and if you would rather see jbehan remain Christian I’d advise you to get back on track. You’ve got a golden opportunity here – somebody just walked up to you and asked you to help him convince himself that you’re right – and you’d ignore it to try to poke at me instead? Priorities, priorities.

I have no especial desire for jbehan to end up like me; what I hope for is that his journey, wherever it leads, is short and as painless as possible. There are better threads for our bickering – this is not the place.

This is not really about you i agree. But I think this dialogue would be extremely helpful to the OP. Since, I believe we are establishing a proof for the existance of God. Please humor me for his sake.

 

[Nullasalus]

Mirdath, I am merely and respectfully commenting on a relevant answer. You were asked a question about what the intellectual changes are from switching to a theistic to an atheistic point of view. You gave your answer, and I mentioned some problems with your implied conclusions (Which amounted to, ‘When it comes to doing good, no big change, because all an atheist needs is #2’). That response is entirely pertinent to jbehan’s query.

I’m a Catholic, and my main contribution to this thread has been to argue the validity of mere deism. Obviously I’d be happy if jbehan saw things as I do, but I believe in dealing with the fundamentals first - for me, that means the validity of theism sans doctrine, and basic theism versus basic atheism. When he asks what the changes are between one view and the other, I have to be frank - ‘Well, pretty much everything can remain the same if you want it to’ isn’t the whole story.

I have no interest in poking at you - but addressing the justifications and ramifications of certain beliefs is something that must happen in this thread. A theist can’t explain the justifications of theism without pointing out the flaws of atheism.