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?

Sorry, keep finding things in peaceful s response that I haven't done justice to.

In a part of the world where there is much suffering I would expect to find much piety. Partly because so much suffering is man made, directly, or indirectly - we chose to live under that volcano, near that tectonic plate, we have gone to war and created starvation and we have killed one another's children in the process. None of that you would rail at god for. OTOH you would be very happy to think that heaven awaited you and that in the meantime someone loves you. And the poorer parts of the world suffer more than the richer; and we know that if you are poor, hungry and possibly don't read all that well and haven't read the texts yourself (maybe you are a girl as well) you don't have a huge amount of time to ponder on fine points of theology.

It is reasonable for me to make you brush your teeth. Perhaps there is a level of suffering which god is entitled to use to test me with. The story of the prophet jOb explores exactly how far god is entitled to go- that's the pint of it. The answer in Job is god can go as far as he likes, thank you very much, and the only response is patience and trust.

I really dislike this. Because it isn't me that has to pay the price, it's my child. And what has been done is out of order, if you like. Gone too far. Nobody- deity or not- gets to do this to my child. You can't farm 30 orphans and then be praised for creating all those organ donors. The 30 orphans were people too. They had rights. You can't do whatever you like, to test me and expect me to accept the price that my child pays in the process.

Atheism CAN be a choice, or it can simply be the default position. It comes down to etymology and what definition or you give atheism.

If you use the original meaning, which is simply "without belief in gods" then it doesn't have to be a choice, people are naturally born without belief in any gods, just like they are born without any political beliefs. They are atheist in the same way that they are apolitical.
They can develop a theistic belief over the years and then at some time choose to go back to being atheist. That's the choice part.

Many people have come to use the word to now mean "belief that there are no gods" which is technically a step further than the original meaning, it's not just an absence of belief in X, it's a belief that X doesn't exist.
This is technically antitheism, for which you have to be an atheist (automatically) to qualify, alongside your belief that gods don't exist.

which argues that suffering can actually be a good thing.

you might have a hard time convincing a mother of a child dying in pain that it is a good thing.

I don't know why you trust a God that causes inexplicable suffering. he hasn't explained his intent or why some suffer and some don't. if suffering is so great, why don't we all experience it?

I dont think that God allows me to experience suffering maliciously or to toy with me as BoB put it earlier. It is for my benefit.

So are you saying that the suffering of an innocent child - like BoB's, not some hypothetical child - is somehow for the benefit of that child?

Actually, peaceful is mistaken: I didn't think it was to toy with me. I thought that some ppl would argue that it was an example of god testing me through suffering- as peaceful quotes herself, Do not resent the calamities that come and the disasters that occur, for perhaps in something that you dislike will be your salvation, and perhaps in something that you prefer will be your doom.

My point being that even if that were true, my child is not available as so much disposable junk for god to use to do this with.

My point being that even if that were true, my child is not available as so much disposable junk for god to use to do this with.

This portraying of god and humans as an experimenter with lab rats doesn't, in my eyes, put god in a good light. It's interesting that god is the only entity for whom we make excuses for hideous acts and praise for the privilege of experiencing them. if an animal or another human was to cause human suffering, it would hopefully be stopped and condemned, not excused as some meaningful lesson.

It's also true, I'd imagine, that if peaceful's ds finally escapes and runs off and says he refuses to have his teeth brushed, she won't kill him, kill his firstborn son, turn him into a pillar of salt or send him to hell for eternity.

It's not just the religions of the abrahamic god that buy into this idea that suffering can somehow be for your own good. In some new age thinking there is a similar concept. Between reincarnations you and your soul group (who will reincarnate with you) determine what lessons need to be learned and who will play each part. So, simply put, if you find your child suffering it is because at a soul level they have knowingly agreed to play this part for both your and their own development.

I somehow used to believe this shit. If there is an afterlife i would hope it is a bit more wondrous than sitting in a cosmic boardroom, scripting out your role in the next episode so that you can move up the grades in spirit school, knowing that you've only got there because you were too dense to learn without someone you love suffering horribly first. How i ever thought this was a philosophy of peace and love is beyond me.

Blimey. AFAIK Buddhism does better - didn't it supposedly start with the Buddha grappling with the problem of suffering and trying to find ways to mitigate it?

I don't like the idea that suffering is to do with reincarnation, because only too easily it becomes the idea that suffering is there because you are purging something nasty you did in your previous life. From which it is a short step to blaming disabled ppl for their own condition, or shunning them.

Yes, that's horrible too.

It is just as horrifying to imagine that a child is suffering because of something they did in a previous life (of which they have no recollection) as it is to imagine god allows a child to suffer because of something they may do in the future (that only god knows).

I would say though that the link between suffering and reincarnation is not something that necessarily follows. In Buddhism there is no self to reincarnate, more of a recycling of energies (and some Buddhists don't believe in reincarnation at all). The whole idea that those who suffer in this life are paying back some karmic debt is a pretty gross misunderstanding of karma, which simply means action. It is cause and effect, nothing to do with rewarding good and punishing bad. Bad things still happen to innocent people because we live in a world of volatile, natural forces.

That is good, velvet. You do hear of ppl being shunned because of disability, but I can easily believe it is not a proper understanding of the faith.

in india, justification for the caste system is given by their theories on reincarnation (lower caste, bad karma from paste life).

That's true, but it isn't simple. The vedas and gita talk about a system called varna which divides society up into four distinct groups. This is based on ability and work, not on birth as in the caste system. That form of division only came into being much later for socio-political reasons, and was then conflated with religious belief.

A poster earlier talked about how for hundreds of years christians were taught that the more they suffered in this life, the greater would be their rewards in the next, as a form of subjugation. Much the same has happened in India. People were led to believe that if they accepted their position in society they would cultivate good karma, and if they fought it they would be storing up bad karma. In a country where the majority of the population would have been illiterate and unable to read and power was in the hands of a few who wanted to retain that power it is not hard to see how this could come about.

I'm no expert on this by any stretch of the imagination (i've read the literature but only in the context of yoga philosophy) so this is probably an over-simplification, and it is an area that causes massive disagreements. There is i think a lot of disagreement even about what being hindu actually means - it can be even harder to pin down than defining what christians believe . It's a shame that there aren't more contributions from people with some knowledge on this area - it is such a gap in the discussions on here in terms of understanding faith.

oh sure, I am no expert either.

My point was more that unprovable and unsubstantiated claims about god and the after life are used to justify the horrible conditions under which some people live. if it's god's will, it absolves us of any responsibility (who are we to question god?).

^you might have a hard time convincing a mother of a child dying in pain that it is a good thing.

I don't know why you trust a God that causes inexplicable suffering. he hasn't explained his intent or why some suffer and some don't. if suffering is so great, why don't we all experience it?^

So we started off with why do we experience suffering at all? and now we have come full circle to why dont we all experience it? Tough crowd to please.

Well first off, we all experience suffering. Havent you ever been ill, fearful, sad or anxious? Dont we all eventually have to deal with a person close to us passing away. All of these would be considered suffering. Yes we can weigh them up and say some types of suffering are worse then others but anything that causes you pain whether it is physical or emotional would be considered suffering.

Secondly, I didnt say suffering is great. Its not like we are taught to jump for joy when we experience suffering. However it doesnt mean that if you suffer its because God hates you, has abandoned you, is punishing you etc. In the Quran it states that some people think when they are in a good position (i.e. they dont experience any suffering are well provided for etc) that it means God has honoured them, God favours them and that those people who are in a bad situation are being humiliated, punished, dishonoured by God. I think this is a much more dangerous and distasteful idea. Someone wrote about the powerful and rich controlling those that suffer with religion well if you believe that you have a high status because God favours you and that those that are of a lower status are not as favoured by God as you then I think that would make this problem much worse and is a much more controlling and unjust argument because as others have said earlier it implies those people who are suffering deserve it.

The Quran goes on to say that because people believe that those suffering are being punished by God that people then do not want to help those who are suffering because they believe they deserve it. Again I think that is a much more damaging idea for society then believing that God tests those people whom He loves or that there may be some benefits in being tested.

Sometimes something horrible can happen to you but that ultimately leads to you being in a better situation or being better off then you were before. That has happened to me so I can relate to the idea that sometimes through experiencing something terrible you can actually become stronger. Ultimately we are on this earth to grow, this is a learning experience and if you are never challenged that stunts your growth. Look for example at people that are privileged from birth, those who are born in to money, status or power. Does it necessarily mean that they believe in God, or are grateful to God for what they have, that they are better people because of it, or that they are kind and generous to those who are less fortunate then them. No. Many (not all!) are selfish, self absorbed and uncaring about those less fortunate then themselves. In general I think when you have worked your way up out of a bad situation it can sometimes make you more empathetic, charitable and able to relate with those less fortunate then yourself then if you have never experienced any problems in your life. I truly believe our negative experiences can enable us to share the lessons we have learned and help others in the future. Take for example the relationship board on mumsnet which is full of people who have been through hard times and now are able to counsel and support those who are in similar situations to ones they experienced in the past. Im sure they would probably have wanted to avoid that personal suffering but now they are an asset and a benefit to everyone because of the knowledge and wisdom they have gleaned from their experience. I hope that makes sense.

When it comes to the suffering of a child I can understand why it is difficult to see any benefit in that and I would never say that to someone in that situation. I know how painful it is when your child is sick let alone if they are born with a genetic disease or are suffering from a chronic, painful illness. However I think once again religion can offer that mother some solace to help her cope with her grief and suffering. Also religion forces others to acknowledge and help the child and their family who are suffering. Religion does not encourage the attitude of not my problem not interested but instead teaches that God will ask you what you did to help. There is a passage I read on one of the threads here from the bible that states:

^“Then the King will say to those on his right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father, inherit the Kingdom prepared for you from the creation of the world. For I was hungry, and you fed me. I was thirsty, and you gave me a drink. I was a stranger, and you invited me into your home. I was naked, and you gave me clothing. I was sick, and you cared for me. I was in prison, and you visited me.’

“Then these righteous ones will reply, ‘Lord, when did we ever see you hungry and feed you? Or thirsty and give you something to drink? Or a stranger and show you hospitality? Or naked and give you clothing? When did we ever see you sick or in prison and visit you?’

“And the King will say, ‘I tell you the truth, when you did it to one of the least of these my brothers and sisters, you were doing it to me!’ Matthew 25:31-46^

This is the sort of attitude that all the Abrahamic faiths encourage and I think is much better for dealing with the inevitability of suffering on this earth.

Contrast this by the way to what Richard Dawkins said about giving birth to a child with down's syndrome.

www.theguardian.com/science/2014/aug/21/richard-dawkins-immoral-not-to-abort-a-downs-syndrome-foetus

Real comforting words.

Completely agree about Dawkins peaceful. I believe that attitude is more common among those without faith too.

But peaceful could you answer my core question: does god have the right to treat my child however he wants to, in order to create this wholesome experience of suffering?

Even if I accept I have learned a lot from my own suffering - which I do- I don't accept that god had the right to use my child to create it.

It's a key point, and I think your answer will have to be: yes, god has every right to treat your child however he wishes.

As is very common, you are focussing entirely on the experience of suffering and not on its cause.

joan I don't think that it is true that this attitude is more common among those without faith. How have you reached that conclusion?

Again I think that is a much more damaging idea for society then believing that God tests those people whom He loves or that there may be some benefits in being tested.

as BoB asks, what gives god the right to use my child as a test? And, what precisely is he testing? if a human maimed my child, or worse, to test me for what he saw as a higher purpose, what would our reaction to him be? Notice, that if god does hurts my child or some maniac does it, the outcome is EXACTLY the same. The parent is immeasurably suffering, and for a purpose the parent is unlikely to know.

you have thus set up a situation where the morality of an act is dependent on who committed the act. if god does it, it is ok (or else god is immoral). where clearly if a human does it, it is immoral.

it can sometimes make you more empathetic, charitable and able to relate with those less fortunate then yourself then if you have never experienced any problems in your life.

every cloud... all you are saying is that we learn from hardship. that's not new, and you don't need the concept of god to support that.

Also religion forces others to acknowledge and help the child and their family who are suffering. Religion does not encourage the attitude of not my problem not interested but instead teaches that God will ask you what you did to help.

I know that some religions suggest you help the child, although I don't understand how that is consistent with the rest of the philosophy. if the child is going to heaven, shouldn't we help him along to that wonderful place? I think the reason why we help the dying and prevent them from going to what is advertised as a wonderful place is that we instinctively reject the notion that this wonderful place exists.

a better example of how religions' promise of something in afterlife truly hurts is in matters of justice. It makes us complacent about justice in this life. we abandon our pursuit of justice in this life because we are promised that all debts will be squared in the next.

I think it is interesting to see how some ppl of faith assume atheists operate: in a moral vacuum, entirely shallow and with no sense of personal growth.
Lets remember that the amount of suffering we all undergo is not related to our faith status. Atheists are exactly as likely to undergo suffering as believers are. Possibly, more likely, if you count those who have lost their faith due to extremes of suffering.

Atheists dont sit there in a moral vacuum with no narrative about the suffering they experience. They are well aware that suffering may teach them something. They are well aware that suffering is an opportunity to do good to others and help them. They are well aware of the opportunity generally for moral and ethical growth as people; and they make that personal growth happen. Atheists have standards too: we also believe in doing good, in growing as people, and in the values taught by endurance and service to others.

The core question is always: whose fault is this?

You can argue its not god, because although he created all things he didnt create that nasty bit: thats just chance, not his responsibility. Or you can say, yes, OK, god did do this, but there was an excellent reason that will become clear when we are all dead.

On the first point: god either created the universe or he didnt. I think he didnt, personally. I also think its all chance. But you cant believe that god created 43% of the universe as defined by the "things I happen to like" list.

On the second, crucial point: are we so much disposable trash for god to do as he chooses? Is there a limit to what god is allowed to do?
Ppl of faith seem to focus on the experience of suffering. They claim it as a good in itself and kindly explain to us how we could benefit. We know, thanks. We are way ahead of you on all this stuff.

What kills faith stone dead for me is not the experience. Its the responsibility.

Is god entitled to do what he likes to my child? Yes or no?