Is atheism/theism a choice?

[msrisotto]

Someone I follow on twitter posted this picture along with the line "atheism is not a choice"

I guess the point of it is that once upon a time (and to this day), unexplainable things were 'explained' as being acts of god. Now we know a lot more, science has investigated many of these things and increasingly, 'god' is out of the picture.

But i'm not sure this is the reason I don't believe in 'god'. I was indoctrinated brought up to be christian and can't remember actually believing any of it. I outed myself as atheist around the age of 12. Was that because I knew scientific theories? Or was it just because I didn't have that faith feeling? It wasn't a choice for me anyway. I just didn't believe. I have often thought how it must be reassuring to have faith of an afterlife, particularly when people close to me have died....but I don't. I can't make myself.

Is it a coincidence that scientists are generally atheist? Do they lack faith and go looking for answers in science? Or did an interest in science give them explanations that eliminated rational evidence of a god?

Is faith or lack of, a choice for you?

it SHOULD certainly be a choice, in the same way as faith should be.

there are scientists who have faith, although I don't understand how.

but each to their own.

I was brought up as a christian, but became a scientist. Somewhere along the way I started doubting and at that point perhaps I did have a choice - I chose to explore those doubts. It was a combination of rational and experiential change.

Having now lost faith I don't really feel I have a 'choice' of regaining it.

It's not a choice I've made, to not believe in anything supernatural. I could choose to try to convince myself I'm wrong, but I don't think I could override logical thoughts. I'm not imaginative enough to be religious.

There aren't many religious scientists. About 97% of the Royal Society of Scientists are atheist. link

I would love to have faith. As it is I'm agnostic. I think I'd probably be an atheist if I didn't have that part of me that wants there to be a god. So I guess in that sense, not being an atheist is a choice for me.

Don't make me laugh. As a woman, I don't find Christian morals very...moral.

I wouldn't say it was a choice for me, no. I had some religious education when I was little - we didn't go to church but my mum at least had a background religious belief and would mention heaven and God, and I remember going to Sunday school for a while (though probably just to get me and my brother out of my mother's hair ) but I must have never believed in it. I don't remember ever making a decision about it. 'Faith' was never there, and I never questioned my lack of belief.

No. If you choose to be an atheist, i.e. you feel you could choose to do something different, then you aren't one, you're agnostic. Likewise, if you 'choose' to believe in god/s rather than actually believing in them in a way where you couldn't possibly kid yourself otherwise, then that isn't true belief.
I would probably be happier if I had a religious faith. I wouldn't be able to choose to not be an atheist though, because I know I could not simply force myself to adopt another belief system.

I'm an agnostic, tending reluctantly towards atheism. I'm also a scientist. I don't think atheism is a choice. I'd rather believe but, unlike the White Queen in her youth (from Alice in Wonderland), I'm not very good at believing six impossible things before breakfast.
I don't understand the mindset behind committing yourself to believing something through a reliance on faith alone. (I wish I did!)

I think it is, but hey, I'm and ex-creationist ex-Christian atheist so I've been in a few different camps in my time. If it was largely a fully conscious choice then I guess there would be a much weaker correlation between childhood cultural exposure and so on and maybe more of a mix of faiths across cultures, I dunno. Isn't free will illusionary?

I know theists who work very hard to believe and think that believing in itself is a virtue. So I think they are "choosing" to believe.

And others who just "know" it's true and any struggle is just finding the best way to act on it.

I find I simply don't believe and am not capable of deceiving myself to the extent that I would need to to believe. Once I realised not believing was even a possibility the world made more sense.

That's a good point catkind. Theists do spend time doubting and working at believing - seeking experts to persuade them. The first two commandments are effortful persuasions of the existence of god.

Active atheism i.e. believing in God's non-existence is a choice. Passive atheism or agnosticism i.e. not believing in God but also not believing in His non-existence either is not a choice. It is the default condition before a belief is chosen.

I think atheism is the default position.

Babies are born with no knowledge of the human created concept of god until someone exposes it to them, eitheer objectively or though indoctrination.

I was brought up without god and I am an atheist now. I haven't made any decision, just kept my faith slate as clean as when I was born.

Science is completely compatible with Christianity, at least Catholic theology which teaches that all truth comes from God. Georges Lemaitre the scientist who first proposed the theory now called the Big Bang was a Catholic priest teaching physics in the 1920s. The majority of British scientists being atheist is only reflective of British society which is extremely secular and told constantly - as can be seen from the comments on this thread - that faith and science are incompatible. My husband is a Neurologist who is a specialist in Traumatic Brain Injury and also has worked as a University professor in Neurology. He is also a believing, practicing Catholic. I don't see how his academic interests would make him more or less an expert on the existence of God than any other person however. I think it is a fallacy that scientists are more superior to the rest of us when talking about theology.

I was an atheist who converted to Catholicism. My family was atheist and if they had a religion it was the pursuit of knowledge. I knew absolutely no practicing Christians as a child so for me it was an active choice after an encounter with God.

interesting! My moment of atheist epiphany (!) came when the minister's wife threw a tantrum in 'sunday school' (this was not Christianity) when I asked about the dinosaurs and was told that they were fakes. The refusal to accept evidence ended all religion for me.

But if your faith doesn't ask for this kind of stupidity, then I can see how it could be compatible with science.

I still see no evidence for a supreme being or any force for good or evil - but if it helps you, then why not.

Atheism isn't a choice for me at all. It just is. There have been times when I was much younger when I wanted to believe, because it might have been some comfort during particularly unpleasant times, but I'm not sure I really know how to believe - I can say "I believe in God" but in my head I'm aware it's a lie. So unless faith means desperately trying to convince yourself of something you know deep down is true... But it's not, is it? So many people with faith know deep down that there is a god.

I was wondering this myself recently, after seeing yet another thread about religious schools filled with people saying their children will choose their own faith when they grow up. Will they really make an active choice? I'm not convinced.

Speaking for myself, as well as atheism not being a choice, I also actively reject the notion of an omniscient and omnipotent god of any flavour. If such a god exists, then that god allowed me to be repeatedly raped from the age of two until the age of sanity. Either that god really hated an innocent child, or that god thought I was acceptable collateral damage when testing my abuser. I find both possibilities abhorrent, and I reject them for my own sanity.

Excuse my typos - one of those sanities should be a seven, and an is ought to have been an isn't.

I don't think we can chose what we believe. We can't just chose to believe tomorrow that the sky is green or the Lyon is the capital of Paris.

What we can chose though is what evidence we use to form those beliefs. As someone of a scientific bent I would generally give more weight to the evidence of science and rational enquiry then I would to the evidence of religious texts or spiritual revelation for instance, but I'm sure there that there are others who would choose to weight the evidence the opposite way around.

Stormybird I also always thought "well it might be a nice idea for some people" but there was no way I was going to lie to myself and say there was a God when I had no faith. Then I experienced God and still do so now I am in the camp where I cannot deny what has happened and is happening.

With your abuse I won't pretend to give an answer. All I do know is that the Catholic church as we all know is confronting these terrible crimes and sins by their own members, and there is massive anger at all levels inside and outside the church. So the rape, torture and abuse of children and others is being dragged into the light. My brother and I were both sexually attacked by people others considered friends of our family once our mother died. None of them were remotely religious.

I don't think science is compatible with religion - christianity of others. The scientific method requires evidence and there is none of a god. Religion relies on faith NOT evidence.

Also, the statistics I quoted above are similar in the US and neither are representative of society as a whole. Yes the UK is more secular than the US, but proportionately, scientists are unusual in their context.

christianity or others

I dont think science is compatible with religion.

Then perhaps you should look at the history of science Mrsrisotto.

I tend to look at up to date literature.