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?

My sister studied as a botantist and also has a very strong faith. She has plenty of first hand experience of suffering too (she has a chronic illness plus severely disabled children). As an atheist I find this baffling, but it's certainly not an issue of lack of intelligence or knowledge. To be honest I think if you don't have faith it simply is very difficult to truly understand those that do.

My BIL believes that his god speaks directly to him on a fairly regular basis. My understanding of the world tells me that's impossible and probably delusional, but that's very hard to square with the lovely man that I know, who doesn't appear to have mental health problems. His lived experience doesn't make me think that there is a god though, just that something a bit strange must be going on in his brain and yet not in mine (and I don't claim any particular credit for that, it's just interesting).

Combust - I am genuinely confused that you'd put that comment. I early the link I gave shows many current scientists (if you read to the bottom of the page).

Also, a simple google search instantly brings up websites, so I've picked the first that caught my eye, one of each for you. Christian molecular and genetic scientists.

molecular scientist
Christian genetic scientist

The Royal Society survery of scientists and religious belief here said

Fellows of the Royal Society of London were invited to participate in a survey of attitudes toward religion. They were asked about their beliefs in a personal God, the existence of a supernatural entity, consciousness surviving death, and whether religion and science occupy non-overlapping magisteria (NOMA). Overwhelmingly the majority of Fellows affirmed strong opposition to the belief in a personal god, to the existence of a supernatural entity and to survival of death. On 'NOMA, the majority of Fellows indicated neither a strong disagreement nor strong agreement. We also found that while (surprisingly) childhood religious upbringing and age were not significantly related to current attitudes toward religion, scientific discipline played a small but significant influence: biological scientists are even less likely to be religious than physical scientists and were more likely to perceive conflict between science and religion.

John Polkinghorne has written extensively about reconciling science - particularly quantum mechanics - and faith. He is a Professor of Physics turned priest. I enjoyed reading about his ideas as a student.

Interestingly, for me, it isnt very different in the USA, where I would expect higher levels of religious belief summary here

Beast - surveys aren't the be all and end all. I know personally people who have put things on surveys that don't reflect reality. And of course that's just those who agree to participate, many don't. So of course their views/input aren't taken into the equation. That's why research doesn't accept anacdotal evidence.

SGBA, these surveys were carried out professionally and reported to professional scientific standards by the science academies concerned. Surveys are a legitimate form of data gathering in the social sciences. Professional ones are designed to ensure that ppl don't lie.

Of course you may know a few ppl who disagree or who have done other things. But you only see a small subset of the ppl who complete surveys, ditto the surveys themselves. As you say, that's why research doesn't accept anecdotal evidence (such as yours, I'm afraid).

The real question is why the majority of professional scientists are not believers (in any faith). But I thought it was interesting that the data do seem to support the idea that more physicists believe than biologists.

The philosophical contradiction thing- that was an interesting finding from the RS survey. That seemed to be an area where the majority of scientists didn't actually have a strong view- the NOMA question as they call it.

I'm not sure NOMA is exactly the same thing as the sort of philosphical disconnect I was thinking about.

Of course on the basis of that data (roughly a quarter of those asked responded) one might conclude that the majority of scientists are apatheists who have much more interesting questions to investigate.

Beast - what anacdotal evidence, pray tell?

SBGA - 'I know personally people who have put things on surveys that don't reflect reality.' ... that's probably what BoB meant, that's 'anecdotal evidence'. The RSC survey didn't contain any. You're right that the respondants were a self-selecting group, but it seems somewhat unlikely that those with faith would be less likely to want to have their position counted.

sbga your anecdotes about knowing ppl who didn't fill in surveys correctly. I wasn't sure if you were being ironic when you then said that anecdotal evidence didn't count, or if you honestly hadn't noticed the contradiction in your own post.

Ooh errol am liking the apatheists description

Science tried to end suffering

Not all the time. Many scientists create a lot of suffering. I have a question for those atheists who say they dont believe in God because of suffering.

What about scientists who create/invent weapons of mass destruction, biological and chemical weapons that they know will be used to kill others in horrific ways. Do you think that they should be held accountable for their creations and the suffering that they cause? What about those who create technology that in the future us used to kill other human beings or causes suffering to other living things on earth? Those that create technologies that ultimately are destroying our planet. Should they be held accountable for their actions?

I remember learning about the Haber process in school and what a great scientist Fritz Haber was. I was shocked a few years ago when I watched a documentary where he was described as "father of chemical warfare" and learned that during World War I he played a pivotal role in the creation of many of the chemical weapons that were used killing thousands if not millions. Rather than receiving censure from his fellow scientists he and many other renowned scientists (James Franck, Gustav Hertz, and Otto Hahn) who also worked on the design of chemical weapons received the highest acknowledgment from their peers winning Nobel prizes. They fully understood what their creations would be used for and witnessed the tremendous suffering these weapons caused in their lifetime yet they were never condemned as being evil etc.

I guess for me what I find hard to understand is when I hear some atheists talking about suffering being the main reason why they find it unethical or whatever to believe in God and yet they are ambivalent towards the suffering caused directly or indirectly by the inventions of scientists, who are well respected and hold positions of respect and power in society rather then being condemned or censured for the creation of weapons like napalm that have caused horrific, torturous suffering and death to innocent men, women and children.

That is not to say that science/scientists are bad. I think science like religion can be a force for good or can be used as a tool to create a lot of injustice/pain.

I don't know any atheists that hold scientists up as having moral authority in the same way as the religious hold up their gods. Scientists are just men and women, as fallible as the rest of us, liable to do good or bad things. Their inventions may bring about great harm or great benefit, or both. God on the other hand is supposed to be benevolent and omnipotent. The New Testament God shouldn't be capricious, neglectful or careless, he shouldn't have human falibilities, and creating/overseeing a world full of suffering is therefore a real issue.

I'm not sure why you think atheists in particular should censure or condemn scientists who have done bad things? They aren't some sort of atheist priests.

I don't think so.

For me, believing in God is not a choice. I've tried to stop! :) Never works, though.

Just pondering away to myself here. May not be a good example. What about scientists who have developed the procedures which enable people to terminate pregnancies. This has been in some ways hugely beneficial to women giving them choices and greater control. However what about the millions of female fetuses that are terminated because they are the wrong gender. Is that a sacrifice that is worth paying in order for the rest of us to have more choices and control over our own bodies? Im not debating the rights or wrongs of abortion by the way (dont really have rigid views either way) Im just asking why some are able to in terms of human creations accept and tolerate some amount of (sometimes horrific) suffering for the greater good and yet when it comes to God it becomes very black and white. I guess what Im struggling with is the inconsistency.

nooka my post was in response to this argument being put forth by many atheists here that they cant abide religion or believe in God because of the existence of suffering and yet they have no problems with the fact that scientists that invented things that directly or indirectly cause huge suffering command tremendous respect and privilege in society.

Some posters have tried to argue that because a lot of scientists today in certain parts of the world dont believe in God that gives some validity to that position. It is not me making the link between atheism and being a scientist.

Anyway I dont believe that the default position is that you are an atheist when you are born. You are born knowing nothing. To become an atheist or a believer you have to be exposed to the idea of God first and then you make the choice whether to believe in it or not. If you have never come across the concept of God how can you say that you dont believe in it. You just dont know what it is. Its like saying we are all born not believing in evolution so the default position is that we are all creationists . A baby doesnt have an opinion on the matter either way.

Usually its only when you are an adolescent or an adult that you firmly make a choice either way after a mixture of examining the arguments for both positions, doing your own reflection and also just what suits your preference. I remember reading somewhere that for a person who doesnt believe in God everything they see around them is evidence that God doesnt exist and for those who do believe in God everything around them is a proof of God's existence. We see the world to a certain extent how we want to see it. So in that way belief or non-belief is a choice in my opinion. Saying we dont have a choice negates the concept of free will. I dont really understand why it makes a difference either way though. Why are people so determined to make their position on God seem like its not a choice. Does it give it more validity or something. Sorry long, tiring day so not really understanding what the big deal is either way.

I do believe that the discussion was mostly focused on the creator side of the god myth - ie how could people square genesis with what we now know about the creation of the universe and evolution. In particular how can scientists that study physics and biology still believe. This is more to do with rationality vs faith I think. Also the idea of natural evil (disease, earthquakes etc) and how that fits with a benevolent and omnipotent god. The question of human evil is much more nuanced, and I think fits with both a Christian and an atheist world view. Both could equally condemn your 'bad' scientist. I'm not quite sure where your certainly comes from that atheists would as a group have no problem with a human, scientist or otherwise who was responsible for other people suffering.

Wow didnt realise how many rambling posts Ive put up. Now Im adding one more

I dont have any certainty that atheists as a group dont condemn scientists who directly or indirectly cause suffering through their work. I was just asking a question to the many atheists here whether they think they should be held accountable for what they knowingly or unknowingly create.

I , very occasionally, wish I didn't believe. Because following Gods way can be a lot harder than not. But I stand by what a preacher friend of mine says, I know that I know that I know. I just can't not believe. Maybe thats because God "calls" people, and its the calling I feel.