We're all born atheists, and then most of us are indoctrinated into the belief of our parents or community. With the right circumstances, some of us will escape the grasp of religion and perhaps even recognize ourselves as atheists. Occasionally, some of us return to religion; a lot of the time, our faith returns even stronger than before. Then, when those "born again" religious individuals speak with atheists about their views, they often use phrases like, "I once thought the same way you did." I just wanted to take a few minutes to talk about what exactly that means.
This is entirely unscientific, but here's the abstract from my anecdotal data: Out of those who have "relapsed" into religion, most are the ones who quit religion because they had a personal problem with the idea of god. If you hear the stories of their past atheism, they usually involve anger toward god. Life was hard, nothing ever worked out, a grudge developed and they "quit" god. Then, of course, something happened and they found the light. Now their belief is stronger than ever.
The problem with these "former atheist" stories is that they are in no way representative of the way I think. Any former atheist trying to win credibility in a debate by saying they once thought the same way I do is probably missing a few points from my philosophy. Am I saying that my reasoning against the existence of god is impervious to change? Not at all. I just severely doubt that the same things that convinced a born-again are the same things that could convince me.
There are many paths you can take towards non-belief. You can simply be raised without belief, or you can later reject the belief that was instilled within you as a child. The rejection itself can take a few forms. Since belief is said to be a relationship with god, one can possibly feel mistreated because they are not getting what they expected out of the relationship. In my case, I used critical thinking and logic to deduce that not only did god not exist, but the whole concept was completely man-made and self-serving. Seems like a harder nut to crack than a simple angry grudge, eh?
As human animals, we are most vulnerable to influence when our emotions are high or when we are under a high amount of stress. It makes sense that many "seeing the light" events people have told me about involve moments of intense physical or emotional stress. One of the more obvious stories I've heard was from a former classmate who told me that Jesus was revealed to him while he was working on the deck of a Navy aircraft carrier. It was overwhelmingly hot and he fainted as a result. Meanwhile, my own sister's story of conversion began when she joined a support group for familial abuse. Mind you, my sister was never abused, but she has always played the victim, and evangelical church support groups are known for planting ideas.
The crux of my position is the knowledge of my vulnerabilities. I know that I am nothing but a human animal. I know that I have tendencies toward self-serving beliefs. My personal philosophy has very few elements that involve self-fulfillment because, well, that's not how the universe works. The world doesn't exist to make me happy, so I am instantly skeptical of any philosophy that purports a benevolent force that suspiciously wants the best for me. There is no anger or emotion in my disbelief. There is no god to be angry at. The logic is quite simple: given that humans are unreliable in accurately perceiving reality without a scientific method, there is no scientific evidence for a god's existence, yet plenty of evidence that the concept of god is man-made. If a born-again had honestly once thought the same way I do now, I would be suspicious of some serious mental illness.
Atheism is a position. It's an opinion. It's a worldview.
ReplyDeleteRegarding your opening sentence...We are born with none of those.
Tumblehawk: au contraire, atheism is simply the lack of belief in a god or gods. It is a baseline reading, as we are born without any inclination that gods exist. We are later indoctrinated by the beliefs of others.
ReplyDeleteI would argue we are not on one side of the fence or the other at birth. We simply are. Deciding whether or not you have a belief or lack a belief in something comes later.
ReplyDeleteI just wish your atheist writings didn't smack of such in-your-face self-righteousness. It makes it all so much less palatable. (Again I say, make skepticism sexy. And that has nothing to do with sex, or pleasure, I think my point was missed last time I made it.)
ReplyDeleteArguing that we are born one way or the other, ideologically or behaviorally, is a dangerous thing. By claiming one thing is more "natural" than the other, you give yourself the leverage to take some sort of moral high ground.
Also, please note that the Oxford English Dictionary as well as Webster's both define atheism not simply as a "lack of belief" which would lend credence to your theory we are all born atheists, but rather as "disbelief," which I would argue is more than just a lack of belief. It's an attitude, a decision, something a nascent human being is incapable of holding or having or making.
ReplyDeleteTumblehawk: Atheism is not a worldview. Rationalism is a worldview. I'm not saying we're all born humanists. Once again, atheism is simply the lack of belief in a god or gods. If you don't know about god to say whether you do or do not believe, you're still an atheist. You can also believe in irrational magic, while still being an atheist. Atheism IS the default view. I hope you understand this point because it is the difference between you thinking I'm making some pompous proclamation and me just stating a simple deduction.
ReplyDeleteMilitant atheists, or hard atheists, like myself use qualifiers to differentiate ourselves from people who simply don't believe in god or have no knowledge of god. We say "hard" atheism because it signifies that we are consciously rejecting the idea of a god. So, you are correct if you say that we are not born HARD atheists. But, alas, we are still all born atheists.
I think we are born without belief or knowledge of god and I don't believe that is such a self-righteous thing to say. It's not like we're born with knowledge of the quantum world or belief in Buddha either. All of these things are ideas that people have after they are born. Some ideas have more weight than others in terms of evidence, but we can only know that evidence after we have grown. I don't think I am making any controversial point here. I'd like to hear a counter-point that takes into consideration the correct definition of atheism if I am. Because, judging from your reply at 1:16, we agree.
Tumblehawk: You can't just take one case for the definition of a word. Just like it grates my ears to hear people say "it's just a theory" when they seem to forget that "theory" means two different things depending on its context. Wikipedia puts forth multiple definitions for atheism and I use (and have always used) their third: "Most inclusively, atheism is simply the absence of belief that any deities exist."
ReplyDeleteI also want to make a point that the definition of a word can change depending on who uses it. Sort of like how you can't call someone a derogatory term unless you are one yourself. A believer is more likely to use your definition of "atheist" than mine because it allows them to make their points. But you have to understand the context that I am using the word in before you say whether I am right or wrong.
1) This is just my personal impression, but I suppose if we are born with a blank mindset (which I believe we are, a tabula rasa), then that should be considered agnosticism since the word agnostic's etymology is: Greek: ἀ- a-, without + γνῶσις gnōsis, knowledge (Wikipedia)
ReplyDeleteAs far as I understand it, a theist conviction necessitates the knowledge about what to believe (the contents of the belief, i.e. religion), whilst the atheist conviction necessitates the understanding of what it is you deny (you need to understand the concept of deity in order to deny its existence).
Agnosticism means not knowing about any evidence of higher beings (than man), that part would apply to a tabula rasa. Agnosticism also has the connotation that a deity's existence is unknowable. Admittedly, that part does not fit in.
2) Another thing that bugs me about born-again religious believers is that all it takes for them to "relapse" into religion is that something positive happens.
You can call me a person with a grudge, but my disbelief of Christian credo stems not from the fact not enough good stuff has happened to me, but from the fact that bad stuff has been happening throughout history and continues to happen. I hope you are not annoyed by Godwin's Law, but here it comes, I simply cannot forgive, for instance, the Jews' Holocaust (although that is far from being my only grudge). Even if some kind of god existed, he could never be all of the following: existing, almighty and benevolent (to mankind).
One innocent person suffering without redemption in this world (screw the afterlife, a better afterlife can never be an excuse for a shitty world to live in) is enough for this god to be either non-existent, not almighty or an asshole. Nothing is for certain in this world and whether you believe in the right god or not, it will never keep either you or anyone else out of harm's way.
Abridged version: For any god to be almighty and caring, good deeds can never outweigh horribly evil deeds.
Anon: Thanks for your comment. To your first point: agnosticism is not different than atheism. It is more of a modifier. You can be either a gnostic or agnostic atheist, or a gnostic or agnostic theist. The difference is claim to knowledge and what side of the belief line you lean to. To your second point: I agree, it takes a certain kind of blind ignorance to think god favors your success at a talent show over the health and happiness of billions of people in poor countries.
ReplyDeleteTumblehawk: you're arguing semantics, which is really pretty dumb. Andrew's made it clear what he means when he asys 'atheist'. If you want to use a different definition, fine, knock yourself out. But it doesn't even remotely invalidate his points. Let's play a game:
ReplyDeleteI claim: "There are no Christians who understand evolution." You reply: "Wait, of course there are. I know some myself." I answer: "No, I suspect the people aren't talking about aren't real Christians. Real Christians only believe in a complete literal interpretation of the bible, which leaves no room for evolution. Thus, no Christians understand evolution."
Have I actually proven that no Christians understand evolution? Of course not; I've just twisted the meaning of a word to make it look that way. Words like 'atheist' and 'Christian' are just convenient ways to label a set of ideas; if we can't agree on what the label means, we should just go back to talking about the ideas they represent. Andrew's point was "all people are born lacking a belief in god," so if you want to argue something, argue that and save the semantics for your next wank session.
Xujhan: Thanks for the backup, but there's no need to get nasty. After all, it occurs to me that there are a lot of people who aren't aware of the rational definition of atheism.
ReplyDeleteAndrew,
ReplyDeleteI just want to say thanks. I'm sending this to my parents, my fiance so they can finally "get" me. It's been a real struggle for them to understand that I don't have a grudge against god, or I'm "lost", or confused about my place in his "plan". I just don't believe a higher power can exist. We are born to procreate and we die hoping we are remembered well...then there's nothing. Life experiences are all well and good, but ultimately there won't be a punishment for a murderer or a reward for someone that dedicated themselves to helping their fellow man. I know this doesn't make much sense, but getting people to understand this has really been weighing down on me lately...but again, thanks.