|
United States2777 Posts
A few days ago I was thinking about the origins of my intellectual pursuits - specifically, my decision to further explore logic, reasoning, empiricism, critical thinking, skepticism, and atheism. I've tracked it down as far as I can recall.
Atheism
This one is the easiest. Like everyone, I was born an atheist. And since then I've never been convinced a god exists, and therefore have never held a belief in a god's existence. It really is that simple. When I was told about God, it seemed to me another story like Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny. Sometimes the story would be interesting, but I never actually believed a god existed.
edit: To clarify, I am referring to atheism to mean "not" "theism" (the prefix 'a' meaning not, and then theism - so not-theist or a-theist). When born I lacked beliefs in gods existence, and I still lack that belief to this day. That's the point. You can debate semantics on atheism / agnosticism. I am not referring to active denial or claiming disproof or anything of the sort. I accept the possibility of gods existing just I have not been convinced of it from the evidence yet (I also happen to not believe I ever will).
Skepticism
I distinctly recall the first event where I directly questioned what I was taught. As a child, my parents brought my brother, sister, and I to church every Sunday. We children would participate in "Sunday School" where we would engage in activities and learn more about the religion of Christianity. The moment I remember where I started to really question the existence of God surfaced in one of these Sunday School events. Here is what I remember from it:
One of our teachers, a lady with glasses in her mid 30s or so, was sitting down in a chair, while all of us children were sitting on the ground around her.
She stated something like "God is everywhere even when you cannot see him. He is on this chair with me, he is on the floor with you, and he is all around all of you" and signaled with her hands where God was.
Most of us children looked around the room for a few seconds following her hands and pointers. I immediately thought "I don't see him" but knew it would be inappropriate to interject. I stayed quiet for the remainder of the lesson.
I wonder what other children at the Sunday School thought on that same day? Did any of them genuinely believe in God? Did they even know what it means to believe in God at that time?
Sometime later on, I don't remember if it was the same day or some days after, I remember having a discussion with my mom in the car showing my skepticism of what I was taught that day. I was questioning the authenticity of what was contained in the Bible to some minor degree. I think I asked something silly like "How could the Bible be written if people didn't know how to write back then?". Of course I was factually mistaken there, but I remember that as one of my first times I voiced my skepticism about gods and religions.
Later on as a teenager, when we had a dial-up internet connection in the old days, I remember participating in many chat rooms on a wide variety of topics. I remember one chat where people were discussing Creationism vs Evolutionism. I was barely taught anything about evolution at the time. Throughout the discussion I was looking up information on the arguments they were using and found a slew of websites showing Creationist's arguments and rebuttals to them. These were key resources in the debates we engaged in. It was a fun experience for me as I challenged myself and others to learn more about what we're discussing.
Along the way I picked up on what logic, reasoning, and empiricism is about, and found a community called The Secular Web (http://www.infidels.org) where I found many other like-minded individuals. This pushed me into skepticism on many other topics than just religion, such as the paranormal. I started to understand the components of arguments, what makes a valid argument, and how an argument can be considered sound. I also learned all about logical fallacies and applied them to a wide array of topics.
Concluding thoughts
Isn't it odd that I trace the origins of my skepticism and my active acknowledgement to my atheism to my upbringing in being taught about God? What was it about that time and who I was that led me to being such a skeptic?
All I know is, I'm very thankful for those experiences since it has made me a stronger person today. Without them, I may not have ever agreed with the statement that "knowledge is inherently valuable". I've become someone who is fascinated by problem solving and challenges to the mind in many degrees. And I wouldn't have it any other way.
(For anyone who is religious - I do not mean this as an attack on your beliefs. This is my reflections and memories on what pushed me to being the atheist and skeptic I am today. If your beliefs comfort you, encourage you to be a better person, contribute more positively to the world, and so on - great! My beliefs do the same.)
 
|
You don't mean this as an attack on those with religious beliefs, but you sure do put in a few indirect jabs here and there.
|
I find it interesting that as my love for reason and logic grew, my faith in God fell. I'd say I'm only really hanging onto my faith by a thread at the moment. I take new information that operates against what the Bible says as such: if it can provide more persuasive force than a two thousand year old tome, then I believe in it.
|
good that you have critical thinking as a teenager. you have good points in your post. hopefully you can gain more knowledge and share it here ! :D
|
United States10328 Posts
On August 14 2012 13:32 EscPlan9 wrote:
Atheism
This one is the easiest. Like everyone, I was born an atheist.
Really? I'd say that when you are born, your mental faculties are not nearly sufficient for you to hold any sort of belief in whether God exists or not; you're agnostic at the time, because you simply can't process anything as abstract as "does a God exist."
|
On August 14 2012 15:07 ]343[ wrote:Show nested quote +On August 14 2012 13:32 EscPlan9 wrote:
Atheism
This one is the easiest. Like everyone, I was born an atheist. Really? I'd say that when you are born, your mental faculties are not nearly sufficient for you to hold any sort of belief in whether God exists or not; you're agnostic at the time, because you simply can't process anything as abstract as "does a God exist."
Agreed. It's just nitpicking, but yeah. There are even some concepts in religion that deal specifically with babies or young children that pass away, as they couldn't yet have the understanding of the world and of themselves to evaluate the possible existence of God. Perhaps more accurately people are born agnostics at first and then go on to develop an actual theistic stance.
|
Sorry, I don't think you satisfied the title of your blog. You didn't explain at all the formulation or development of a conviction. You just announced a belief that isn't that different in type from any other belief. Nowadays it's described as the Cult of Reason, but it starts off in your young years as the Cult of Yourself.
In John Gardner's Grendel, the dragon says: Of course, I'm not a skeptic. Skepticism is the beginning of faith.
|
On August 14 2012 13:32 EscPlan9 wrote:Like everyone, I was born an atheist.
I'd argue that people are born superstitious. How do you think religion came about in the first place? People wanted to try explain something they didn't understand, and naturally assume that there is an higher (or outside) power. Your statement is the equivalent of saying: "Like everyone, I did not understand maths when I was born." Well, of course not, your brain doesn't function to that level yet.
|
Hah, wow this brings back memories only mine was much more of a strict upbringing in the bible (though not from my family, who are religious, but don't like talking about it nor do they go to church).
I went to a catholic primary school. Now most people right now are thinking 'holy shit, thats really bad etc'. No, it was a fantastic school, teachers were mainly awesome and every tuesday there was mass, even though I wasn't allowed to take communion because I wasn't catholic. We had at least one class a day of RE, and frankly it helped me develop an understanding of the bible like no other. We were asked to talk about the meanings of the stories, of jesus' actions and of course other bible related things. We NEVER touched creationism, I think maybe one class we studied it, but we usually focussed on the teachings of Jesus, which in my eyes is an amazing thing for anybody. I remember believing in God, mainly because everyone else did. I also went to sunday school at a baptist church, which further educated me on the bible and eventually even went to a bethel church. I believed that there were no differences between the worship of God, and it was kind of cool to go somewhere every now and then (I didn't go all the time) and just sing and pray.
I then went to a Church of England secondary school. At this time I started to question the legitimacy of God, however I never once questioned the lessons it taught me, as they were something which was unarguable, they gave me literacy, the ability to tell stories in a good way, and also think about the meanings behind the words. Needless to say, RE in that school was mediocre. We studied other religions (which I lapped up as it was super interesting to me) and talked about why they believed different things, never once been told that they were wrong in anyway. I definitely had a great upbringing with religion, but I never truely believed, instead believing in science at the same time. We were taught evolution in science, and told different creation stories in RE, they were kept seperate......the way it should be.
Around 12 I stopped going to church and the like, but I still maintained a prayer before any exam. People sometimes mocked, but I knew I wasn't really praying to god, instead I was meditating on what I was about to do, calming my mind and my body and pretty much aced tests left right and center. At 14 I stopped believing, and tried to get discourse on the matters with my mom, but she would have none of it and told me to believe what I wanted to believe. I stopped believing all together when I reached 17. At this time, my younger brother who was 10 developed cancer. That, coupled with the fact I was studying philosophy of religion and why it seems that there is no religion, meant that I gave up the ghost, but still maintained prayer (I tried without it before an exam...lets just say it wasn't good).
My brother recovered, but instead of praising God for it, I praised science, and I still do as my brother is on his way to being a professional soccer player. (this was 7 years ago). My mother however recieved a bout of faith as she was going to step into a road as she was seriously depressed by my brothers condition back then, but she felt someone pull her back when she was going to stop, and that also coincided with the day she decided to wear here crucifix one more time. A good thing that happened...otherwise I'd be a wreck.
I still hold the core values that were taught to me from my religious education, I still keep in mind love thy neighbour, and all that jizzle jazzle, but I don't believe they were given to us by god, instead they were given to us by individuals who were ahead of their time, and the only way they could get other people to agree was by promising more than life, and eternal suffering is something no one does wrong.
@Gangnam style
It is argued that a basic understanding of math is present at birth, just that we aren't aware of it. The same goes for language. I call bullshit, but people do hold to that cannon of thought.
|
The point at which I stopped believing in God was when I realised that the only reason I believed was because someone else told me that I should, that that was the only way of things, and it was the only way to be happy.
And even if a God does exist I think he's a total jerk and I don't like him regardless.
|
United States2777 Posts
On August 14 2012 15:07 ]343[ wrote:Show nested quote +On August 14 2012 13:32 EscPlan9 wrote:
Atheism
This one is the easiest. Like everyone, I was born an atheist. Really? I'd say that when you are born, your mental faculties are not nearly sufficient for you to hold any sort of belief in whether God exists or not; you're agnostic at the time, because you simply can't process anything as abstract as "does a God exist."
I had a feeling this would come up. I am referring to atheism as the opposite of theism. The 'a' prefix meaning "not", and 'theist' being "a believer in a god". So I am a non-theist, or not a theist, or simply, an atheist. That's why I specifically mentioned I have not been convinced god exists since birth - that's exactly what I mean by atheism. People have tried to convince me, but it's a matter of faith in god's existence. And I do not have faith in gods existence.
When you are born, you do not have any beliefs in any gods. Therefore you are not "a theist" at birth and therefore are an atheist.
Agnosticism is a epistemological position claiming knowledge of god is impossible. Atheism is not strictly the denial of gods existence. I do not claim to have proof gods don't exist. I just am not convinced they are due to lack of evidence.
|
United States2777 Posts
On August 14 2012 15:57 Jerubaal wrote:
Sorry, I don't think you satisfied the title of your blog. You didn't explain at all the formulation or development of a conviction. You just announced a belief that isn't that different in type from any other belief. Nowadays it's described as the Cult of Reason, but it starts off in your young years as the Cult of Yourself.
In John Gardner's Grendel, the dragon says: Of course, I'm not a skeptic. Skepticism is the beginning of faith.
What conviction is it you are referring to? It's just me reflecting on my earliest memories of doubting gods existence and how I became interested in critical thinking in the first place.
|
United States2777 Posts
On August 14 2012 15:58 Gangnam Style wrote:Show nested quote +On August 14 2012 13:32 EscPlan9 wrote:Like everyone, I was born an atheist. I'd argue that people are born superstitious. How do you think religion came about in the first place? People wanted to try explain something they didn't understand, and naturally assume that there is an higher (or outside) power. Your statement is the equivalent of saying: "Like everyone, I did not understand maths when I was born." Well, of course not, your brain doesn't function to that level yet.
I believe religion came about for basically the reasons you said. I however do not believe that at birth we are seeking supernatural explanations for things in the world. We would be just experiencing the world. At that time, we are lacking in any beliefs of gods existence.
Pertaining to your analogy, okay, so at birth we do not understand math. Arguable, but I'll go with it. Later on when we learn about math, we are convinced of it. So at birth you did not "believe in math", but later on you became convinced it had factual basis. I have not been convinced of god's existence, so I still lack that belief that I've lacked since I was born.
|
United States2777 Posts
On August 14 2012 14:42 PH wrote:
You don't mean this as an attack on those with religious beliefs, but you sure do put in a few indirect jabs here and there.
I apologize, I'm sure I do. The purpose of this entry was my reflections on when I first actively realized I was not a believer in god (and still have yet to be convinced) as well as how those early beginnings led me to where I am now.
I used to be a much more hostile person to theists when I was a teenager. I'm 28 now. I've humbled myself a lot and acknowledge that during those times, I thought I knew everything. At least I learned from it... though it's still tough to discuss in detail why I got into critical thinking and actively claimed that I do not hold any belief in gods without implying something negative. I dunno what else to say about it...
|
The neutral state is not atheism, it's ignorance. Atheism is a positive and irrational statement, just like the belief in god.
To put it simply, "is there a God" is a question you cannot answer, and yet both believers and non-believers alike answer with certainty.
Remember that atheism is the rejection of the belief in God. When you are born, you simply "don't know", which is the most logical answer.
You feel that you're being skeptic when in reality you've just crossed all the way to the other "side". 
|
Interestingly enough, the more I pursue logic and further my ability to think and reason, the more I grow to love God 
Decent blog, minor jabs at theism but eh, can't say it bothered me too much. Good to see you're not another firecracker atheist looking to bite my nooby theist head off :D
|
United States2777 Posts
On August 14 2012 20:31 Kukaracha wrote:The neutral state is not atheism, it's ignorance. Atheism is a positive and irrational statement, just like the belief in god. To put it simply, "is there a God" is a question you cannot answer, and yet both believers and non-believers alike answer with certainty. Remember that atheism is the rejection of the belief in God. When you are born, you simply "don't know", which is the most logical answer. You feel that you're being skeptic when in reality you've just crossed all the way to the other "side".
It's semantics so I'll just agree to disagree on the one definition some of you will cling to. Either way I am referring to lacking the belief in gods, not the rejection of gods. To me it is not a neutral position: I have evaluated the evidence and I am not convinced. Therefore I am not a believer in it and therefore I am not a theist.
For more information on the controversy and complexity involved on the definition of atheism, wiki is a fine place to start:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism#Definitions_and_distinctions
|
I also think a lot about Religion, Atheism and Skepticism. However, I don't think Skepticism and Atheism can work together. Skepticism means to question everything, especially the axioms. What can we know about life? Can we even know anything about it? Is the Atheism axiom really better than the god axiom? Isn't Relativism a good way to describe everyone's own truth? I really don't know. My only conclusion is that if there is some kind of absolute truth, then we are wrong most of the time. I can only be sure of me making mistakes. I never can be sure if I am right. I can only try to get as close to something that makes sense somehow, as possible.
EDIT: If you agree with Kant, that you cannot come to an objective statement in metaphysics (even theologians say that you cannot prove god in a scientific way), then maybe there is a question like: Does it then make sense for me to think about metaphysics at all? I just love skepticism, because you never ever really say that anything is true, so you can never be wrong. XD
|
United States2777 Posts
On August 14 2012 21:22 Ludwigvan wrote:
I also think a lot about Religion, Atheism and Skepticism. However, I don't think Skepticism and Atheism can work together. Skepticism means to question everything, especially the axioms. What can we know about life? Can we even know anything about it? Is the Atheism axiom really better than the god axiom? Isn't Relativism a good way to describe everyone's own truth? I really don't know. My only conclusion is that if there is some kind of absolute truth, then we are wrong most of the time. I can only be sure of me making mistakes. I never can be sure if I am right. I can only try to get as close to something that makes sense somehow, as possible.
Again, the definition of atheism I am referring to does not have any axioms. I have evaluated the arguments concerning Gods existence, and I am not convinced. Therefore I lack the belief and therefore I am not a theist. And that's what I mean by atheist. This is something nearly every atheist understands. You can read more on the controversy and complexity of the definition of atheism in many places, wiki is a fine place to start:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism#Definitions_and_distinctions
About epistemological relativism and ethical relativism, I disagree with both. I do not believe that right and wrong is a matter of taste and up to the individual, nor do I believe that truth and falsehood is merely a matter of perception.
Regarding the epistemological relativism, I think Thomas Nagel explains my feelings about it the best in his book Last Word:
... Subjectivism is not just an inconsequential intellectual flourish or badge of theoretical chic. It is used to deflect argument, or to belittle the pretensions of the arguments of others.... The actual result has been a growth in the already extreme intellectual laziness of contemporary culture and the collapse of serious argument throughout the lower reaches of the humanities and social sciences, together with a refusal to take seriously, as anything other than first-person avowals, the objective arguments of others.... It is there as a source of irritation in the background--though I don't seriously hope that work on the question of how reason is possible will make relativism any less fashionable.
On the logical side, epistemological relativism (truth in the eye of the beholder, etc), is self-defeating. If it is claiming that all truth is relative, then what about that claim itself? And if you submit that this subjectivism also applies to itself and is not meant as an objective claim, I again defer to philosopher Nagel who summarizes my response:
"There may be some subjectivists, perhaps styling themselves as pragmatists, who present subjectivism as applying even to itself. But then it does not call for a reply, since it is just a report of what the subjectivist finds it agreeable to say. If he also invites us to join him, we need not offer any reason for declining, since he has offered us no reason to accept."
About ethical relativism, it implies that anything one does is ethically permissible because it is only a matter of taste essentially. It equates "I enjoy vanilla ice cream" and "I enjoy stealing from people". Ethics is a much more complicated matter for sure as we cannot empirically demonstrate something to be objectively wrong. My ethics are based off a mix of virtues, consequences, rights, and responsibilities. There is a tremendous amount of literature out there disputing which ethical theory is "the best". To me it's a matter of making oneself aware of different ways of analyzing ethical situations to take many factors into consideration. This is so when it comes time to make an ethical decision, you have done a lot of rehearsal ahead of time. Plus, with all these considerations of consequences, rights, and responsibilities in mind, it will help shape you into a more virtuous person.
EDIT: If you agree with Kant, that you cannot come to an objective statement in metaphysics (even theologians say that you cannot prove god in a scientific way), then maybe there is a question like: Does it then make sense for me to think about metaphysics at all? I just love skepticism, because you never ever really say that anything is true, so you can never be wrong. XD
I disagree somewhat on your sentiment regarding skepticism "never really saying anything that is true". Skepticism is about questioning nearly everything, sure. But it isn't just a matter of asking "is that so?" but evaluating the evidence. The initial skepticism is what brings me to evaluating the evidence and then deciding if it is true or not. I then can say something like "there is no evidence" or "not enough evidence" to believe X. I am making an assertion there of a sort. You can try to show me new evidence and I can accept it or reject it. I could be mistaken upon seeing new evidence - so I could have been wrong.
|
The division between negative and positive atheism is flawed, because it suggests that the concept of God has always been there and that as such, "not believing" is a neutral state.
However, a neutral state is one where the concept of God is absent; the question "is there a God?" is then introduced, and it is from there that an opinion can be made. But in the end, the first state was the state of ignorance. It is absurd to call the middle-ground between believing and not believing "a-theism".
People really have a problem with claiming their ignorance when it really just is the sea we live in.
Now, you say that you "evaluated the evidence", but what evidence is there? I've had quite a lot of interest in the matter lately and I've never been able to find convincing "evidence" for either sides.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
