My Religious Journey

Here is a cross post of mine from the Richard Dawkins Forum where I wrote this originally.

By: bcortens
From Catholic to Zealot To Atheist

I don't know if anyone is going to read this its quite long.
Whatever this is my story.

I was born into a catholic family, a very devout catholic family on my fathers side, and on my mothers side a much lighter and liberal version. My life was not full of religious zeal by any means, we almost never talked about religion from what I can remember, went to church on Sundays and did the confirmation thing, I don’t recall having any real passion about the confirmation.
As I got older I never really thought about religion, I was catholic I went to church, it wasn’t a big part of my life. As I recall I was never fond of going to church, it all seemed quite boring and I really didn’t pay attention (to tell the truth I used to day-dream while in church). Despite the fact that my fathers side in general was more dedicated to being catholic it was my mother that would be the most adamant about going to church every week, my dad seemed quite apathetic about the whole thing, though he would back her up when we argued about going to church.
I went to a catholic elementary school that had a religious component, something in one class about the creation of the world by god and there was a religious education class but it wasn’t very long in comparison to the other classes, math, science, English.
Once I entered high school things went on in pretty much the same way, except that now there were no religious education classes, I was pretty apathetic and didn’t really hold much in the way of religious convictions, all up until a fateful day when I met her.
Her, was my first girlfriend, I had never experienced such an intense attraction to one person, it was quite overpowering. She, unlike me, was from a very religious family, they believed in a young earth and didn’t believe in evolution, they were very firm in their belief that being a christian was very very important, it is these people that caused me to become what I would describe as deeply religious. They invited me to there church, a Lutheran church with a pastor that was a fundamentalist, I went to the youth retreats where more fundamentalists repeated the ideas about god and a young earth, how evolution was false and a story for fools etc...
At this point I’m not sure whether or not I should call myself a true believer, there are those that have such strong feelings about god that they weep and are emotionally moved and on the verge of tears, even during this period when I read all the latest creationist literature and was taking part in activities of a fundamentalist church I wasn’t moved emotionally by the idea of god, or of jesus. I was attached to this girl and religion was important to her so I was paying attention to it and I said I believed in god and to a small extent I probably did. I spent the last term of high school as a religious fundamentalist, somehow I managed to not notice any contradictions between the science courses I was taking and the religion I was reading about and trying to become more familiar with.
When I went away to university and I was away from her I became more apathetic again, I never went to church except when I was with her on weekends. I took a biology course that caused me to begin to understand evolutionary theory, after first year we broke up, it wasn’t all that painful, I had grown emotionally detached from having so little contact due to being in a different city.
After this year I stopped caring about religion, again, reverting back to the situation I had before meeting her, apathetic but still calling myself catholic, after a while I stopped calling myself catholic most of the time, I went to church with my parents but didn’t really care about religion at all. Didn’t really think about it all that much.
My complete loss of faith happened in an odd way, I was daydreaming about a super advanced civilization I had created in my mind when I realized that whenever I would think about a super advanced civilization in a daydream or when I tried to make on up I always made a point to say that the more advanced peoples had no religion, and only the less sophisticated did. I noticed that I apologized (mentally) to god for this, catholic upbringing making me feel I should apologize for thoughts, I thought about it for a few moments and decided that I didn’t really believe in god, and that was that.
This may seem an odd way to become an atheist but I simply decided there was no reason to feel guilty and that since I didn’t take the god concept seriously why believe in it. It was really this simple, and kind of weird, I just up and stopped believing.
I soon discovered the works of Richard Dawkins and other atheist thinkers and scientists and was delighted to discover that this was a very rational position to take, even though I came to the position quite lightly. I now care more about religion than I used to, but only when I see it encroaching into areas of public life where it ought not be.
It took me another year to tell my parents, it was in a discussion with my two uncles, Mike and Phil, my parents, my aunt, Wendy, a friend of one uncle and a friend of the other uncle. I cannot remember the names of the friends so I’ll call them Atheist male and religious female. Mike was friends with the atheist friend and Phil was friends with the Religious friend, I came out of the closet about my atheism when my uncle declared it was time for his annual attempt to convert his atheist friend, and my uncle Phil and his religious friend began to take part, I decided to stand up for the atheist, and over the course of the discussion it became evident that my uncles had no comprehension of evolutionary theory. In any case they now knew and overall nothing has changed in my relationship with them.
So that about brings me up to date. I read both creationist literature and atheistic literature and find the former to be quite lacking in real rational thought, its all premised on a proposition with very little evidence, and not one shred of real scientific evidence.


I don't know how relevant this post is and I'm not really as determined to keep this as a strictly ethics blog as was indicated by my first post. The fact that the blog was neglected for so long should be indicative of that, more so I'm probably going to use this as a opinion page for myself.
Enjoy
Lataz

The Comparative Faiths of Theism and Atheism

This is a post written by Matt (display name SullyKay) over at the Richard Dawkins Foundation forums.

By: SullyKay
In view of a discussion put forward by nn23 on the Religion of Science, I wanted to make an observation about the faith of atheism. I have noted, in the reading of the many debates between the supporters of religion and the proponents of science (on this site and others), that the discussion frequently breaks down at one common point. Theists, acknowledging their own perspective is faith-based, demand that atheists accept the position of science is also one of faith. This is something atheists resolutely refuse to do, and so the discussion generally can proceed no further. Atheists accuse theists of projection, theists accuse atheists of delusion.

So the question is posed: Is atheism a faith?

In answer, I would say that yes, there is certainly a significant element of faith in atheism. It is a faith in science and reason, and by extension a faith in humanity. However, to consider that this puts atheism on the same footing as its erstwhile foe would be a serious error. Their guiding methodologies are fundamentally opposed; they proceed from diametrically opposite starting points. Religion asks its supporters to believe its tenets regardless; science only asks you to believe what it can demonstrate to be true and nothing more. Science, in contrast to religion, has no agenda, bar that of describing the universe in which we all live. It does not care whether the tenets of religion are proven right or wrong, only that they are proven. There are some questions science doesn’t have an answer to yet, or may never have an adequate answer to. For some reason theists believe this proves they are right, when in reality all it means is there is more to learn. It no more proves them right than a missing lug nut proves the existence of gremlins. Whereas religion has a very specific construct of world that the faithful must believe or be imperiled, science changes as new discoveries are made and theories are validated or debunked. People are encouraged and respected to hold differing viewpoints, as long as those viewpoints are scientifically justified. Perhaps one thing that theists fail to understand is that if evidence of God were discovered, God would then become a part of science. Science has no problem with gods per se, only with undetectable ones.

Perhaps to use an analogy will illustrate the difference I describe, appreciating that analogies can at best only describe facets of an argument, and can frequently railroad discussions into bizarre and futile debates on nuances.
My analogy is that of two bridges spanning a vast, deep chasm. The leap of faith, as it were, will be represented by the stepping onto these bridges, one of science, the other of religion.
The first is of science. It is a huge bridge made of metal and stone, with thick cables and reinforcing columns. It has been built up, via trial and error, over many years with many hands. You can see of its sturdy construction, you can feel its strength beneath your hands. You have seen similar constructions like it before, and know that they are reliable. You do not understand all of the computations and knowledge that has gone into its construction, but you understand some parts of it, parts which make sense to you and you have verified yourself (such as metal being strong). You can perform tests on the bridge, such as rolling large stones onto it and observing they do not plunge into the abyss. There are a group of people gathered around the bridge, encouraging you to get on. You ask them if the bridge is safe. They say that they have tested it very thoroughly, and it passes every test they can think off. There are some parts of its construction they do not yet fully understand, but they are very confident it is strong and secure. What’s more, they say that they are constantly checking for problems, and fixing them when they are found. They happily recall some of the mistakes that had been made in the past, and enthusiastically describe how they were corrected. If you’re interested and have the time, they say, you’re welcome to stay and help them work on the bridge, to make it even better.

To step out onto a bridge like this is a matter of faith, as you do not know for sure it will support you, but it is a faith well justified by reason and knowledge. Few would disagree with the wisdom of trusting such a bridge.

The second bridge is that of religion. It also has a group of people standing by its base, beneath a huge, ornate archway, but the bridge itself if radically different from the first. It is completely insubstantial; you cannot see, touch or feel it in anyway. In fact, if it were not for the people standing at its base, you would have never known there was a bridge there at all. As there is no way to see or test this bridge, you ask the people there for help. They say that the bridge is perfect in every way and it was made by a perfect being. You ask them if they have ever seen the bridge, or the person that made it. They say they have not, but it is described to them in a book, and they believe the book, so you should too. You ask them if they have ever tested the bridge, and they say they have not, but if you believe in the book as they do, then you understand that the bridge is perfectly safe. You ask if they would like your help in working on the bridge to make it better. They tell you to stop being silly - how can you improve on perfection? But they would be delighted if you wanted to help them convince others to step onto their bridge.

The people make fantastically improbable claims. They say that if you use their bridge then you will reach a place of such wondrous beauty it will surpass your wildest dreams. Not only that, but if you use the other bridge instead you will plunge into the abyss, not to your death, but to an eternity of pain and misery. They point to the massively opulent arch that they have erected over the entrance to the bridge, and say they believe it reflects the glories on the far side of the bridge.
You look hard at the point where you believe the bridge is for a very long time. Every now and then, you see something twinkle in the sky, and you wonder if you maybe had caught a glimpse of it. Whenever you try to check you can never find anything, but you still can’t help but wonder… the people under the arch seem so very sure the bridge is there…

Stepping out onto this bridge is also a matter of faith, but appreciably different from the first. You cannot verify the bridge can support you, you cannot even verify if it there at all. You have no tests to confirm its strength or understanding in how it was built. In fact, everything you know tells you that the bridge does not exist. All you have is the word of those gathered around the arch, and their bewildering claims. To step onto a bridge such as this requires blind faith, a step taken not only in the absence of any rational justification but in complete opposition to your understanding of the world.

To say that there is faith required in both viewpoints is true, but to equate these faiths in any capacity is patently wrong. To insist that both atheists and theists are starting from the same platform of faith is vexatious and demonstrates, at the very least, a profound misunderstanding of scientific reasoning. I am not arguing either is right, but this discussion of faith is a fruitless sideshow to the true issues. I do not believe it should be entertained any longer.

Just my thoughts on it at any rate

Cheers,

Wiersbowskie


I enjoyed that post and I wrote the following reply later on in the discussion thread which I think is important to also include here for some clarity on my position.

By: bcortens
It requires faith only in that we have faith that we can understand the world, and since we seem to be able to understand it I would say that faith is justified.
Its not what most people define faith to be however as most people don't usually have evidence as a part of faith.
I mean, we can't know for sure that we are not the dream of a supernatural entity, but since we have no evidence to hold that position it makes more sense and is a much more useful position to take that we are in a real and existing universe.
So at a very low level there is a faith, but its a well reinforced faith, things do appear to work as though we can learn about the universe, and the day they don't is the day we need to worry about our naturalistic assumptions being wrong.


The thread can be found here: Richard Dawkins Forum

You will need to have an account in order to view the forum.

The Purpose of this Blog

This blog has been created in order to give some voice to my opinions, I mean, granted, this is a very tiny corner of the internet and its unlikely anyone will be reading. But in the event that someone does manage to find their way over here I hope to provide some views that are at best thought provoking, or, failing that, rationally defendable ramblings of something that is already known.

I am going to first try to articulate the moral theory known as desire utilitarianism, I hope I can describe it well enough that anyone reading will be able to understand the theory and be able to give critical advice on where I may have gone wrong and what I might have right. I would also like to go through it well enough that I would be able to republish it somewhere else as an actual moral framework that is useful and helpful at making important decisions.

I am also going to state from the outset that I do not believe in god(s), I am also going to state that this is an absurd question in the first place and that I have no intention of wasting my time explaining to other people why all the arguments in favor of god are, at best pointless, and otherwise contradictory or irrational. I consider this an argument settled. Hence the sub line of my blog title, if you cannot handle that fact, you have no business talking about moral theory.

So thats the introduction out of the way, Ill be back, hopefully sometime tomorrow, but as my profile indicates, I am a student and work may get in the way. If I am back tomorrow I shall begin my attempt at wading through moral theory and otherwise expect it sometime before the weekend.

Lataz
Ben.