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?

Oh yes that old one- all animals were nice and fluffy until we sinned and satan cast his bad magic turning some animals evil.

Give me strength.

yes, and presumably that's when geological processes causing earthquakes etc, and bad weather started too.

Non-creationists may take the Fall as a metaphor for the consequences of free will allowing for man's inhumanity to man, but it doesn't really help with the consequences of plate tectonics.

Or indeed the consequences of genetics, which are straightforwardly created by god and have no relationship whatsoever to the fall of man.

And if they did, what kind of god would deliberately disable a child to have his revenge for the fall of man?

I don't consider this to be derailing. As I said up thread, the only reason I think ppl can manage to have faith, if they confront the problem of suffering honestly, is if they have no choice about their faith.

Errol, I reason I posted the quote was to show that being religious and a scientist does not require the cognitive dissonance mentioned by some here and for some scientists is complimentary. What do you mean "doesn't bear much scrutiny"?

BeastofBurden I've read some of your thoughts before on this topic and nodded along, but from the point of view of having faith and still struggling with suffering. I think it's an interesting statement you have made just there, that if I have faced the problem of suffering with any kind of integrity and depth, then possibly I have no choice about my faith. I'm thinking on this, because I haven't thought a great deal about whether faith is a choice, but have thought a great deal about suffering, having had a disability from birth.

I still think I have a choice, really. I chose at various points in my life to stop believing, due to doubt or to crap in my life or to theological arguments that threatened to overwhelm me at the time, but always came back to my faith. You may say that very statement shows I never had any choice, I suppose - but I did choose faith again, yes in the light of what I saw as encounters with God and various experiences, but also in the light of my own in depth study of theology. I can't claim to be a scientist - I leave that to dh - so I'm leaving the science vs faith thing for the moment, but am happy to face the suffering question with you, BoB - because I believe my belief would have little integrity without facing it. I don't have any nice answers though, I won't infantilise myself or anyone else by talking about fluffy animals and magic wands, because there is so much that is unknown. Does faith make sense of suffering? Not really, no. Does faith stop suffering? Not greatly, no. Does faith bring a different dimension of hope within suffering? Absolutely. And brings more than an unquantified and subjective fluffy hope of the by-and-by - it brings a peace, described in the NT as 'peace beyond understanding' - and it's just that. Beyond understanding.

I rail at God, you know, and hate that there is all this suffering. I'm so, so sorry about the suffering you and your child have faced. You always write with so much passion and so much love for your child, which shines through. All I can say is that the love of God that I experience, even in my darkest times of suffering, has been strong and wide and deep and unexplainable - like a mother comforting her child, weeping with her in the pain. Why doesn't God take that pain away? I don't know.

mad that is a very touching post. Thank you.

I suppose my problem inevitably is that perhaps I could bear things for myself, but I cannot and will not worship a creature that has attacked my child.

For him to suffer with me, is as if I were to go and bury an axe in the head of your sleeping baby, and then make you a cup of tea. You would not be comforted by that cup of tea: you would ask me why I had buried the axe in the head of your child. And if said, "it is to purify you through suffering" you would, I think, say,"but you had no right to attack my child to teach me a lesson".

Perhaps in the end it comes down to whether you think god is truly, deliberately responsible for what has happened. If you think he is, and if you think he had a choice, then I think over time it becomes unforgivable.

That's what I can't get past, you see. But thank you for sharing your faith with me, and I hope it continues to sustain you

I realise that I ought to clarify something. I have ppl in my family with disabilities which give them huge challenges and problems, but which nonetheless leave the fundamental person unscathed, still there. You could argue- I am sure they would some days and not others- that there is nothing there to be angry about, it is another life, but a good one. That's true.

DS2 can never take part in such a discussion. If he could, I think he would be angry. I think he would say that a disability of his kind can only be seen as a truly hostile and cruel thing to do to someone.

It's not that I think there is some kind of a competition for the most difficult disability here; more that I wouldn't want you to think that I start from the position of saying all disability is always worse than not being disabled. It isn't. It depends. Your life is just as good, just as important, as valid, as mine, I would hate you to think that i thought otherwise.

Thank you for this lovely response, Beast - and it didn't come across at all that you were thinking that disabled people were in any way less important, far from it. I know also many disabled people feel that their disability doesn't make their life any 'worse' - just different, and I celebrate that with them. That doesn't apply to me, because my illness makes my life significantly narrower and worse, but as you say, no less valid. But - semantics. Back onto the suffering and God...

I'm sure you're right, about the anger your ds would feel, and rightly so. I know it's in no way 'enough' for me to say I don't see God as inflicting such things. I don't, though. The axe thing is a good analogy actually to someone who says 'God sent this to test (who?)' and in the next sentence 'but God is in the suffering with you.' - I see that. But I wouldn't say the first part. The second, I would firmly and fervently contend. Time after time, I've found this, in the deepest and most profound ways. That doesn't mean I can make any statement as to how and why this happens, but what I can share is my experience of God in the midst of all this shit, and look at the person of Jesus, and how he treated people in these kinds of circumstances, which was always with utmost kindness, love and grace.

I think the question of choice regarding atheism is an interesting one.

I believe that we are all born atheists but due to society and culture we do, at some level, make a choice at some point in our lives. The choice is whether or not to believe in god/ gods.

I attended a CofE primary school and was petrified of the idea of a god. It wasn't until my early twenties when I began to question my beliefs and apply logic to what I had been taught and freed myself from religion and any theist beliefs. Once I had come to the realisation that there wasn't a god, the rest of my life made more sense. And, the more I realised how I had been manipulated as a child, the angrier I became. I am now very anti religion of any kind.

The whole discussion about the compatibility between science and religion is really irrelevant. Scientists have believed in many things over the years, that doesn't mean they were right. The studying and application of science and scientific principles is what matters.

I think it is interesting that we have examples of both "types" of believers here, if we test out my taxonomy for a minute. "philomena" and perhaps also dionne" are examples of faith which was/is strongly rooted in their social experiences. Perhaps Mad* is someone for whom it is more intrinsic.

It is also interesting that mad doesn't feel that god is directly responsible for the suffering, however we pick our examples, that shakes faith. That does make sense to me: I don't see how it is possible to believe, if you do hold god responsible.

The question is then, who is? and of course we can immediately strip out those examples of suffering where it's quite clear that man has initiated it; even, we can strip out those examples where it is caused indirectly by man's innocent choices- climate change, earthquakes in zones which man has decided to live in, disability caused by consanguinity, even, in the last resort, starvation caused by overpopulation. You are still left with a hard core of examples.

Can we believe it is chance? perhaps, but for me that dilutes the concept of a god. I would expect a god to have foreseen the consequences of an evolutionary system based on genetic recombination and elimination of unviable offspring from the next generation. I would expect him to have done a better job for the individuals involved in this process. Of course, if you dont believe in evolution then god's responsibility for the profoundly disabled is even more direct.

Intrinsic faith I think can be sufficiently vivid to overwhelm this question, and ppl can be -content is the wrong word: prepared, perhaps, with sadness and questioning- to leave it as a mystery. For other ppl, that unresolved question outweighs everything else.

hmm bold fail there...

Errol - I read your link and was surprised to see what looks like good scientific argument. I wondered why you don't accept the details of the article, have you read contradictory scientific details about these specific parasites?

The more I learn about physics the more it matches my image of a god. I suspect that they are two words for the same thing.
Which has nothing to do with the habits or rituals surrounding 'religion', of course.

It's interesting that I don't know any biologist who believes on god but I do know two physicists (I work in a Uni so I know a lot of professional scientists). They both work on things that sound like snake oil to me I think they are making the whole thing up.

I have to say I have not met meny scientists who are christian. I too have worked at a University for 15 years in research, and have worked with and known socially many scientists in all disciplines working at the top of their fields.

There's a difference between believing in a god/gods and being a Christian. Presumably you have to believe in God to be Christian, but the reverse absolutely does not apply.

True, Nina. And Combust has a point: I only know two, and that's in 25 years.... but both physicists. Very theoretical in one case; the other one is astrophysics.

Some scientists with faith see their work to understand the processes of nature as a way of understanding the mind of god. I can see how that may be compatible with a god who lit the touch paper and retreated, or with a more abstract concept of god, but struggle to see how you could maintain a belief in doctrine that runs contrary to the laws of nature - the resurrection, virgin birth etc, or in a god who you believe intervenes when there is no evidence of intervention.

There's an interesting interview here with Jocelyn Bell Burnell, where she discusses her work as a scientist and her faith as a quaker. She is clear that she does not believe in a creator god but hers is still a belief based on experience rather than evidence of the sort she would demand in her work, and i'm not sure i understand how she reconciles the two.

I know a couple of people who would say that they apply the scientific methods to those areas where science can provide answers, but to questions science cannot answer they are free to follow their own thoughts. I would think that the consistent thing to do would be to say 'i don't know' rather than ' i believe', but of course scientists are just people, encompassing the full range of experience, upbringing and personality as the rest of us, so maybe it's not surprising that for some belief remains a possibility, however contradictory that may seem to others.

Beast - some biologists listed here:
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christian_thinkers_in_science

A particularly unconvincing link SBGA- yes many scientists of centuries ago were christian, but those were vastly different times.

The smattering of modern day scientists listed are mostly unknown.

Now if you were giving me a link to current stars in the field of Molecular Biology or Genetics for instance who were also christian then I may be interested.

But there don't seem to be any.

This discussion reminds me of a conversation I overheard as a teen. I was on a bus and two men behind me were talking about how Catholics were incapable of running a business. At the time I was disgusted by their bigotry and ignorance.

SBGA - the 'scientific argument' in that link boils down to 'ooh, Attenborough got the details of that parasite wrong'. But then goes on to say: 'He could have used other examples of natural evil, of course, and the real answer for all of them is basically the same—the Genesis Fall.' To anyone who doesn't believe in 'the fall' that's clearly a logical fail. And anyone who does believe in a Creator God is left with a being who created nasty parasites etc. Doing so as a consequence of Man failing a test before he had knowledge of good and evil doesn't make this hypothetical being any less ethically dubious.

Religion hopes to end suffering. Science tries to end suffering.

Dione - sorry if anyone here has made you feel like that. My ability to do science was much the same when I was a Christian as it is now - but I do think that there is a philosophical incompatibility (other than with the non-interventionist deistic type of god).