Leaving Theism

[Stylteralmaldo]

1. We find a profound peace in the Eucharist.

Many people I love and trust testify to this, so I know that some people are feeling something. But, to be honest, I attended daily Mass for two years and I just couldn’t feel it.

If I was Catholic because how it made me feel, I might not have remained Catholic. It’s not always easy being Catholic and it doesn’t always feel good that’s for sure.

Think of it in terms of loving another person. Why do we love others? If it is merely because we have good feelings for that person, that is not love! The good feelings are only one aspect of that love. There will be times in any relationship with others we love where we don’t have the good feelings that are associated with it. The important thing to remember about love is that is a decision. The decision to love someone regardless of how you may feel about that person is how you know that love is real.

It’s no different with faith. Sure there are many who get that rush of excitement in “finding the Lord” and the good feelings that come with it. Yes, there are some who have felt a profound peace in the Eucharist. I personally have not “felt” these things having been a cradle Catholic (no profound feeling experience to lead this guy to the Lord) nor have I felt any major peace through partaking the Eucharist.

But what I do have in my faith and my partaking of the Eucharist is my decision to accept it as true and that the Eucharist as love itself. Does that bring me peace? Yes, I suppose you could say that it does. But I can’t say it was because of anything I felt in particular. I hope that made sense.

 

[jbehan]

Why? Is it simpler to claim that the light bulb turns on because you flick the switch, or because flicking the switch closes a circuit which allows electricity to flow along a wire, pass through and heat a filament, the byproduct of which is light?

But, the “switching on a light switch” has little explanatory power. I’m saying that, ceteris paribus, we should choose the simpler philosophy.

Christianity explains the existence of the universe better (ie more persuasively; Atheist is pretty much stuck with “it just happens,” which isn’t really an explanation at all)…

I don’t think the Atheist is stuck with “it just happens.” You can be an atheist and still believe that metaphysics is a valid branch of philosophy.

Christianity does offer an explanation – that God created the world and everything is sustained by His Will. But, it also raises so many questions that seem impossible to answer. Peter Van Inwagen, who is a Christian, writes in one of his books about another way the World (meaning everything that is, not just our universe) could be constructed. I’ve paraphrased his example-universe below.

Imagine that outside space and time, there is a universe-spawning thing. The thing is inanimate. Every once in a while, it bubbles up and a new universe sloughs off. These universes are self-contained (no one inside can see out). Each one has different attributes. Our universe happens to be one that is hospitable to life.

Isn’t Van Inwagen’s Universe an as-good-or-better explanation of the human condition than the Universe postulated by Christianity?

Why should I be unselfish?

What is so special about us humans that we deserve any human rights at all? After all, we’re just a lucky bunch of cells, according to certain atheistic Darwinian evolutionists.

The concept of human rights is based upon human dignity which is based on the ultimate dignity: the dignity of God, as we are made in the image of God.

This is a good point. It’s hard to the atheist to find a solid basis for their morality. (Though one doesn’t need to be an atheist to disbelieve in natural rights. I’m positive they don’t exist, and I’m still a theist for the moment.)

I suppose I could become an error theorist or a non-cognitivist. Alternatively, I could follow MacIntyre and retain a concept of virtue embedded within certain cultural practices.

The primary reason for believing in God is the felt need for worship, and, judging by the tone of your post, you are well aware of that need. If your heart doesn’t want to be an atheist, then sooner or later your mind won’t succeed in being one either.

Possibly true, but I don’t want to believe in God because it’s the only way to make it through the day. I want to believe in God because God is there.

Besides, if I become fideist, I’ll have to leave the Catholic Church.

 

[Franciscan]

Jbehan, you said,

“This is a good point. It’s hard to the atheist to find a solid basis for their morality.”

If you really want to salvage your deism examine this further.

Why do we opt. to do good when there is no objective meaning in life?

It would be much easier to be a selfish jerk and never sacrifice anything for anyone else. So why do you overcome your selfishness to do good?

 

[AgnosTheist]

Why do we opt. to do good when there is no objective meaning in life?

the core meaning of life is the survival of its species. as humans we can also add our own meanings in life.

thats why youll find many good atheists & agnostics out there. like me!!!

 

[Nullasalus]

Imagine that outside space and time, there is a universe-spawning thing. The thing is inanimate. Every once in a while, it bubbles up and a new universe sloughs off. These universes are self-contained (no one inside can see out). Each one has different attributes. Our universe happens to be one that is hospitable to life.

Isn’t Van Inwagen’s Universe an as-good-or-better explanation of the human condition than the Universe postulated by Christianity?

It doesn’t seem so to me. First, there’s the question of how something inanimate spawns things which are clearly animated. Second, there’s the question of whether a thing that is ‘not alive’ (I’ll assume you meant something like this by inanimate) will always remain so - the origin of life problem, oddly enough, applies. Third, this touches on my original post in this thread - since intelligence can theoretically create and direct any and all things that ‘randomness’ or unintelligent process can, what’s the value of postulating a purely hypothetical creative force (non-intelligence) when we already have a demonstrably real creative force (intelligence)?

By the way - why is it you’re trying to choose between Catholicism and atheism? Catholic as I am, that’s a false dichotomy - there’s deism, there are other varieties of theism. There’s no reason for such a limited set of possibilities for you.

 

[JTBT]

it would be rational to live assuming He does not exist.

I do not agree that it is rational to live assuming God does not exist and here is why.

I live my life believing that God exist, this brings peace in times of trouble, and total fulfillment in my life, so what have I lost if you are right and I am wrong? answer: nothing, my life is fulfilled in everyway, and we share the same fate after death.

now lets take the other side of this, if I am right God does indeed exist and you live your life as if he does not, what have you lost? answer: eternity.

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

-Therefore, we should prefer the simpler philosophy.

*Minor Premise: *Atheism is a simpler philosophy.

again I disagree:
it is simpler to say that an object in motion has a mover; the universe is in motion; therefore, the universe has a mover, we call that mover God.

 

[cpayne]

I don’t want to believe in God because it’s the only way to make it through the day. I want to believe in God because God is there.

Exactly. Once this is established, all the rest of the discussion becomes rather moot.

Another personal question: Do you actively worship God? (I don’t mean attend church; I mean verbally give thanks and praise.) I do have a reason for asking besides being nosy.

 

[jbehan]

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.

But, again the atheist’s account clarifies things. We don’t know everything - how everything started, why there is something instead of nothing, the nature of good and evil. But, theists don’t really know that either, do they? We know it has something to do with God, but we don’t know what God is exactly. We don’t know how He does it. We don’t know why He does it. We don’t know how He could do it. At first glance, He appears to be an all-purpose explanation, but, as the more I look, the more I worry that He doesn’t really explain anything.

First, the Atheist position is self refuting because it has to assume that the universe comes from nothing.

Not necessarily. See above.

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.

Why exactly? Let’s investigate simplicity a little more. What do you guys think “simplicity” is? Should we prefer the simple theory over the more complicated one, ceteris paribus?

I agree this is a weak spot in the theory, but what is the solution?

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.

Hmmm. Interesting. Let me think about this.

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

Well, we switched theories because quantum mechanics and oxygen had more explanatory power. I want to emphasize that I do not think that simplicity is the only theoretical virtue.

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.

Well, I’m not sure that solipsism has that much explanatory power. Besides, why should dismiss solipsism out of hand? Clearly, it is an unattractive and unintuitive theory, but that doesn’t mean it’s wrong.

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.

This is almost certainly right. I’m not smart enough (probably no one is) to know what is really going on out there. I haven’t had a mystical experience, though. So, where does that leave me? Why should I remain a Christian? And, is fideism is the answer, how can I remain Catholic?

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).

There are people I don’t love or find difficult to love. What justification can I have for acting nicely to them?

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.

How is it possible for Man to create his own purpose in life?

Sorry I haven’t responded to everyone yet. I’m having trouble keeping up. And, please keep in mind I’m just playing Devil’s Advocate in order to fully understand what everyone is saying. Thanks for all your help!

 

[justinthemartyr]

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!

A.
well, do what you must. I think you will find that the power struggles found within self reliance make it self evident that there must be something better out there, since self sufficiency is not enough to fill our needs. the pain will get great enough and you will sooner or later cry out to this God that loves you and created everything, just as I did.

B.
Are you sexually active outside of marriage, or do you insist on acting upon urges that are God given, yet you want to utilize them more than we should? the reason i ask is that most who leave their religion, do so in order to justify their behavior.

C.
If you read the first 2.5 pages of “life of Christ” by fulton sheen, you may come away with an entirely different perspective. if you read the entire book, you may be sold on Christianity, and catholicism in particular. It is a powerful and hard hitting reality in the first chapter. Takes about 5 minutes. Got 5 minutes? check it out at your local library.

 

[Franciscan]

the core meaning of life is the survival of its species. as humans we can also add our own meanings in life.

thats why youll find many good atheists & agnostics out there. like me!!!

So you are saying humans are motivated to good out of fear(just to survive). In this case it would be ordered by an external law–a law of survival. Where does the will to survive come from–what is the meaning of that life force in us and in all the living “creatures”.

Then you go on to say that humans invent meaning on a subjective level. If this is so, why is self sacrifice for the sake of doing good to others a universal compulsion? And self evident?

 

[VociMike]

the core meaning of life is the survival of its species. as humans we can also add our own meanings in life.

thats why youll find many good atheists & agnostics out there. like me!!!

First of all, to all who seek the true good.

Now, if being good were a matter of survival of the species, then it would be instinctive, wouldn’t it? And it would then be more or less automatic, wouldn’t it? And we wouldn’t fret over whether we (or others) obeyed their instincts, would we? IMHO, being good has none of the earmarks of an instinctive behavior.

 

[Ryan29]

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.

Bride of Christ? I have never heard that teminology before. Maybe you did just change your shirt, because as I see it, you traded in other religious lies for a greater one.:byzsoc:

 

[jbehan]

Why do we opt. to do good when there is no objective meaning in life?

Well, I could bite the bullet and become an error theorist. I don’t think that any psychologically healthy person would actually want to believe that. But, it could be true.

the core meaning of life is the survival of its species. as humans we can also add our own meanings in life.

The first sentence confuses “ought” and “is,” I think. And, I don’t really understand what it would mean to give meaning to one’s own life. I understand that you can arbitrarily come up with your own goals but don’t these remain subjective?

First, there’s the question of how something inanimate spawns things which are clearly animated.

Well, God exists outside space and time, so He must be inanimate too (if by “inanimate,” you mean He doesn’t move).

Second, there’s the question of whether a thing that is ‘not alive’ (I’ll assume you meant something like this by inanimate) will always remain so - the origin of life problem, oddly enough, applies.

Could you explain a bit further? What reason do we have to think it would evolve?

Third, this touches on my original post in this thread - since intelligence can theoretically create and direct any and all things that ‘randomness’ or unintelligent process can, what’s the value of postulating a purely hypothetical creative force (non-intelligence) when we already have a demonstrably real creative force (intelligence)?

What intelligent force are you talking about? God?

By the way - why is it you’re trying to choose between Catholicism and atheism? Catholic as I am, that’s a false dichotomy - there’s deism, there are other varieties of theism. There’s no reason for such a limited set of possibilities for you.

This a good time to make a clarification. When I write “atheism,” don’t assume I mean naturalism. I’m using “atheism” as a catch-all term for the many different forms of atheism, agnosticism, and deism. The topic here is really about theism, not Christianity per se. Sometimes, I just slip-up and write “Christianity” or “Catholicism.”

Do you actively worship God?

I’m pretty good about praying every night. I stopped going to Mass at the Church after I talked the priest about this, and he told me that all religions are equally true. Sometimes I’ll attend the Sunday Compline service at the local Episcopal Church.

Are you sexually active outside of marriage, or do you insist on acting upon urges that are God given, yet you want to utilize them more than we should?

I’m not sexually active and never have been.

If you read the first 2.5 pages of “life of Christ” by fulton sheen, you may come away with an entirely different perspective.

I’ll check it out. Thanks for the advice.

 

[Franciscan]

"I’m pretty good about praying every night. I stopped going to Mass at the Church after I talked the priest about this, and he told me that all religions are equally true. Sometimes I’ll attend the Sunday Compline service at the local Episcopal Church."

So are you mad or dissapointed because your priest is a moron?
It sounds like you have been scandalized by this priest’s errant ideas.

Find a GOOD priest and start all over.

 

[Nullasalus]

Well, God exists outside space and time, so He must be inanimate too (if by “inanimate,” you mean He doesn’t move).

Let’s put it another way: If you’re proposing a ‘thing’ that is outside of time, spawning universes, and an unmoved mover (in the same way God is), then you’re proposing what is essentially God, or a thing that performs the function of God. The only difference between your conception and the theist’s is in nature: Is it intelligible? Going by our universe, it certainly seems to be. Is it a being? There’s nothing barring it from being so, by theistic reasoning. About the only difference you give is ‘it makes all manner of universes, and some have no life in them’. Put aside the question of whether this is possible given the apparent need for measurement in our universe. Put aside the question that a universe with no life may be essential to the creation of universes with life (in that way that some physicists propose ‘other dimensions’ are necessary for the universe to be as it is, despite us being limited in experience to fewer). The fact remains that we only have experience with a single universe - our own. For all we know, God makes many other universes - all of them friendly to life, all of them for the purpose ours was created for by theistic argument.

Could you explain a bit further? What reason do we have to think it would evolve?

I didn’t realize your example was so close to the augustinian concept of God. I thought you were imagining a thing outside of -our- time, but still inside a time of its own.

What intelligent force are you talking about? God?

Intelligence, period. Whether it be in a human, a non-human, inside or outside of time. Creation through intellect is the only kind of creation we have evidence of - chance, accident or unintended/unforeseen events are hypothesized or assumed entities. And given what we know about the potentials of intelligence (within and outside time), not necessary.

This a good time to make a clarification. When I write “atheism,” don’t assume I mean naturalism. I’m using “atheism” as a catch-all term for the many different forms of atheism, agnosticism, and deism. The topic here is really about theism, not Christianity per se. Sometimes, I just slip-up and write “Christianity” or “Catholicism.”

Well, Deism should not be categorized with atheism and agnosticism. It may be very weak theism, but the belief in a deity is vastly different from asserting there is no deity, or staying neutral on the subject. There have been deists who believed in judgment and resurrection (Thomas Paine, loved as he is by atheists, was one example) - they simply believed that God could be found through reason alone, without the aid of miracles or revelatory experiences.

 

[BlaineTog]

But, the “switching on a light switch” has little explanatory power.

It has plenty! Hit the switch and light comes on! It’s not as complicated as the explanation involving circuitry, but it’s just as true. Plus, circuitry isn’t as complicated as you could make it, either! We could go into the chemical composition of the copper wire and the filament and explain exactly why electrons do what they do to those materials, or we could go into the subatomic level and bring up quantum mechanics, and there are likely deeper levels even more complex, all of which correctly explain the phenomenon which can be described adequately as “that switch turns on this light.”

My point is that the simplicity or complexity of an explanation has nothing to do with the truth value of the explanation. Simple just means simple, period. I don’t even know if you could say that humans are less likely to screw up simpler explanations because we get those wrong all the time.

Christianity does offer an explanation – that God created the world and everything is sustained by His Will. But, it also raises so many questions that seem impossible to answer.

I dunno, the Catechism does a pretty good job of answering them, and Thomas Aquinas has a lot of helpful answers as well. In general, I have yet to find a question which the Church doesn’t have at least a partial answer, though even a certain amount of mystery is called for given that humans are finite and couldn’t know the totality of God anyway.

*Peter Van Inwagen, who is a Christian, writes in one of his books about another way the World (meaning everything that is, not just our universe) could be constructed. I’ve paraphrased his example-universe below.

Imagine that outside space and time, there is a universe-spawning thing*. The thing is inanimate. Every once in a while, it bubbles up and a new universe sloughs off. These universes are self-contained (no one inside can see out). Each one has different attributes. Our universe happens to be one that is hospitable to life.

Isn’t Van Inwagen’s Universe an as-good-or-better explanation of the human condition than the Universe postulated by Christianity?

It’s a restatement of “things just happen.” The inanimate universe-spawning thing is, first of all, difficult to accept, and strikes me as absurd to a degree: a rock pops out immensely complicated devices full of immensely complicated consciousnesses. Second, where did the thing come from?

I’m not saying atheism is incoherent. I’m saying that parts of the Christian explanation make more sense to the human mind than the atheist explanation, and vice versa.

At the end of the day, I think it’s most important that you don’t try to talk yourself out of or into any position but take an honest look at what you know, what you see, what you think, and what you feel, and ask yourself what you honestly think makes the most sense. You are compelled to make a choice by the simple facts of time and death. It can be as simple a choice as “I don’t know what’s up, but I do know I need to be a good person,” but your stomach will force you to eat, your eyelids will force you to sleep, and Murphy’s law will force you to come to an end someday, and in the end, you have to act. Those who seek find, though they don’t always find it in the same way.

 

[HelenRose]

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.

*Conclusion: *Atheism is the rational position.

Thanks!

Yes, but when you are standing out in the dark starry night sky and ponder the mysteries of the milky-way and contemplate the power of gravity, who can you turn to and say, “Oh, my God, thank You for Your wonderful creation.”?

When the rain falls gently on your face and the sun breaks through the clouds, Who can you turn to and say, “Praise you Lord for this moment.”?

How do you contain the joy of the awesome power of being?

 

[Sarpedon]

I’ve heard the argument before, but I haven’t investigated it in detail. Off the top of my head, why isn’t it reasonable to assume that evolution would instill us with true beliefs, without any need for a Designer?

Because evolution selects for behavior and physical adaptations. Understanding does not seem to have any demonstratable adaptive value. For example, a mouse fleeing from a snake is a good behavior that will be selected. Understanding what it is fleeing from is not very important.

 

[Mirdath]

Franciscan:

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.

Would you rather win arguments or hearts? For once I have no interest in debate (and if I were to humor you, we’d quibble endlessly about morality, with God still undecided ) – I want jbehan to be at peace with himself. The two of us putting our gloves on and boxing across the thread will do nothing for that. If J wants to argue the case of theism against me, that’s his prerogative and you’re more than welcome to tag-team me, but I do not think it would be either constructive or polite to go it ourselves.

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.

True enough, and you have a good point about many atheists; however, I was asked how my outlook changed when I arrived at strong agnosticism (not atheism), not anything more general.

A theist can’t explain the justifications of theism without pointing out the flaws of atheism.

Aren’t you trying to argue theism, not a-atheism? They are not the same thing. Theism makes a strong, positive statement all on its own: ‘there is a God’ – not ‘atheists are wrong’. That simply follows, just as if someone justifies theism, the flaws of atheism will be shown for what they are.

Constrain yourself to working within your opponent’s terms and you’ve already handed over the advantage. But here, I’m not your opponent, and I’m not looking for any advantages. I win nothing if jbehan forsakes God. Pull my file out of the ‘devil’s advocate’ pigeonhole for a minute and remember that both of us want to help J, however more specific your idea of what kind of help he needs may be. We have nothing to gain by working against each other.

 

[Nullasalus]

True enough, and you have a good point about many atheists; however, I was asked how my outlook changed when I arrived at strong agnosticism (not atheism), not anything more general.

And I haven’t addressed any particular person, but beliefs as a whole. I really think I’ve been fair about this, and on the subject throughout. I have no interest in poking anyone.

Aren’t you trying to argue theism, not a-atheism? They are not the same thing. Theism makes a strong, positive statement all on its own: ‘there is a God’ – not ‘atheists are wrong’. That simply follows, just as if someone justifies theism, the flaws of atheism will be shown for what they are.

I’m sorry, but in the context of this discussion (and especially in response to a question of ‘what changes intellectually, shifting from theism to atheism’), it’s entirely appropriate to point out some shortcomings of atheism, both practical and intellectual. Especially when the original post started off with what amounted to a justification of the standard atheist worldview, and an invitation to point out the flaws in it.

It isn’t somehow mean to point out the flaws of a worldview, especially if civility is maintained.

Constrain yourself to working within your opponent’s terms and you’ve already handed over the advantage. But here, I’m not your opponent, and I’m not looking for any advantages. I win nothing if jbehan forsakes God. Pull my file out of the ‘devil’s advocate’ pigeonhole for a minute and remember that both of us want to help J, however more specific your idea of what kind of help he needs may be. We have nothing to gain by working against each other.

When have I treated you as my opponent? Again, my criticisms have been restrained to the atheistic worldview and what that means in practical terms, as well as intellectual terms. Further, even my arguments to jbehan directly have been in defense of deism (thus far, at least) - not Catholicism, or even Christianity. I’m not approaching this the way you seem to think I must. But if being critical of atheism makes me ‘your opponent’ in your eyes, my apologies, but I’m going to remain critical of atheism. I have no interest in judging you personally - rather out of my jurisdiction.