Meet the Other Phone. Only the apps you allow.

Meet the Other Phone.
Only the apps you allow.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Philosophy/religion

Join our Philosophy forum to discuss religion and spirituality.

Is atheism/theism a choice?

270 replies

msrisotto · 18/09/2014 16:23

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?

Is atheism/theism a choice?
OP posts:
SBGA · 25/09/2014 23:18

Nooka - the problem with science explaining creation of the universe is that science, by it's very nature, science is the observation of what is happening.

Any claims from scientists as to what happened billions of years ago is neither measurable nor observable and therefore doesn't fit into 'science' as we know it.

Some people even say evolution takes more faith to believe than the existence of God, because it's much less likely that nothing created something "nothing comes from nothing". Well how did 'nothing' get there in the first place?

Science had an incredibly important place in this world but only when it's outcomes can be tested and observed. No scientist can test or observe evolution and the claims made are based on assumptions.

Also your comment about evil and God being benevolent or not missed the fact that God is a God of both judgement AND mercy. The judgement part of mankind's rebellion is to have an imperfect world where a perfect creation becomes flawed, introducing sickness and death. I'm sure you know the mercy part of the story, but in case you don't, it's that God bothers to get involved with us on a personal level, offering is he free gift of eternal life with Him rather than eternal judgement of a flawed world. Plus of course the many benefits in this life too.

biscuitsandbandages · 25/09/2014 23:32

Sometimes I wish I didn't believe (mainly when I want to do things that require a bit of willpower to resist) Blush but I cant just turn it off. I was nominally christian, practicing christian, agnostic and then finally accepted I was a muslim whether I like it or not. It just fits with my belief. I have a scientific background and dont find science, evolution or anything like that incompatible with my faith. Sometimes I wonder if I really believe deep down or just convincing myself. Then I quietly apologise to God for doubting qnd realise I probably do really believe in Him if what He thinks is important to me.

nooka · 26/09/2014 00:11

Sorry SGBA I know that you are trying to explain something to me in terms that make sense to you and I understand where you are coming from having been brought up a Catholic myself, but really the 'judgement and mercy' concept to me just doesn't work. The idea that all the bad things that happen in the world is the result of 'the fall' is just too pat: We can't explain it, so it must be our fault. God loves us but lets bad things happen because a long time ago we made a decision he didn't like. It is just too medieval to me.

I don't have an issue with science not being able to explain everything yet, and that much of our knowledge is based on assumptions that will change as out knowledge grows. Historically that has always been the case. Not everything can be directly tested and observed, science also consists of theories that seek to explain the why (which I guess is where there is some level of bleed with religion). I think that your view of science is quite narrow, after all there are lots of different schools of thought when it comes to the philosophy of science.

Oh and evolution can be tested and has been with very short lived organisms and with computer simulations. How everything started off is an interesting question but I don't think evolution is something that needs to be taken 'on faith'.

Fundamentally though I think that god is a made up concept, and that the Bible was written by people who made up the legend of the fall as an explanation for the way they thought the world works. Originally the church thought that natural disasters too were caused by god but that few I think believe that now because there is too much evidence that natural forces cause earthquakes, disease etc and that they strike the good equally to the bad.

writtenguarantee · 26/09/2014 00:27

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.

some atheists do. some don't. depends on the invention and the scientist. the person who invented napalm is much easier to condemn as that is nothing but a weapon. nuclear theory? It's has the potential to do a lot, but it has killed many people.

in any case, nooka answered your query about god vs scientists. atheists don't think of scientists as super human. they are just people and some do good while others bad.

god on the other hand is only supposed to be good. he is supposed to be super human.

writtenguarantee · 26/09/2014 00:32

to the atheists here. Why do you wish you had faith? which aspects are appealing?

peacefuloptimist · 26/09/2014 06:24

nuclear theory? It's has the potential to do a lot, but it has killed many people.

So should it not have been created/discovered? in the first place? Genuine question.

in any case, nooka answered your query about god vs scientists. atheists don't think of scientists as super human. they are just people and some do good while others bad. god on the other hand is only supposed to be good.

Our understanding of what is 'good' is limited to our own experiences and perspectives. Many people thought the Vietnam war was better than allowing communism to spread, however Im sure the Vietnamese mother whose child died as a result of napalm or orange agent being used to defeat the communists wouldnt agree. Similarly some people would argue that nuclear warheads being dropped on Hiroshima or Nagasaki was a necessary evil/good thing because it cut the second world war short. Once again Im sure the people who lived there at the time would not agree.

I think the problem is that many atheists have a very simplistic, one dimensional view of God perhaps due to their lack of understanding of religion or your own cultural/religious baggage. God is only Good and Benevolent and that can only be manifested in one way. Creating a utopia for us to live on and making us in to perfect beings because really that's the only solution to end all suffering.

Your nuclear theory example reminds me of a passage in the Quran talking about the creation of man. In the Quran when God tells the angels about the creation of man there response is.

They said, "Will You place upon it one who causes corruption therein and sheds blood, while we declare Your praise and sanctify You?" Holy Quran Chapter 1: Verse 30

You are asking about why God created the mechanisms by which genetic diseases come about because it can result in suffering but they asked why would you create humans in the first place. From one perspective they are right. Much of the suffering/evil on the earth is the direct result of human actions. God replies to them in the Quran.

God said, "Indeed, I know that which you do not know." and later on He said, "Did I not tell you that I know the unseen [aspects] of the heavens and the earth? And I know what you reveal and what you have concealed." Holy Quran Chapter 1: Verse 30 and 33

See based on their own experiences and perspectives the angels according to the Quran could only see the negative consequences of the creation of human beings. Due to our free will and intellect we can choose to do tremendous evil and cause huge harm not just to other human beings but also our environment. However what they ignored or perhaps didnt know is at the same time there are many human beings that use the same skills to do amazing, beautiful, good things. If God had not created us at all both of these types of humans would never have existed. Would that have been better? Would not finding out about nuclear theory or creating techniques by which we can terminate pregnancies be better?

For me God is not just Good. God is Al Hakim (the Wise), Al Aleem (the All-Knowing), Al Adl (the Just), Al Rahman (the Beneficent), Al Wasee (the All-Encompassing) etc. I could go on (there are 99 names/attributes of God mentioned in Islam) but you get my point. When you only see God as one thing it can be very hard to understand the nature of the world we live in and our own creation.

combust22 · 26/09/2014 07:05

"nuclear theory? It's has the potential to do a lot, but it has killed many people.

So should it not have been created/discovered? in the first place? Genuine question. "

But how do we prevent the discovery of such things? Should Marie Curie have been arrested?

Sience is not a religion- let's remamber that.

SBGA
"Any claims from scientists as to what happened billions of years ago is neither measurable nor observable and therefore doesn't fit into 'science' as we know it. "

But that's not true- we do have ways of measuring things that are that old.
It's easy to see light and other rardiation coming from stars and celestial events that happened billions of years ago- scientists examinine it every day. What about the red shift? THat's measurable. Even fossil records as old as 3.5 billion years have been found on earth. Radio carbon dating allows us to eaxamine and measure very old things.

peacefuloptimist · 26/09/2014 07:24

When you only see God as one thing it can be very hard to understand the nature of the world we live in and our own creation.

Just wanted to correct that as it sounds incredibly arrogant. I mean the opposite; because I believe God is more than just Good I can humbly accept that my capacity to understand everything and the reasons and causes for everything is limited.

nooka · 26/09/2014 07:29

writtenguarantee I think only one person has said that they would quite like faith haven't they? Personally I have no 'god shaped hole' in my life. I can totally see and understand that for some people (including many of my family) it's incredibly important to them, but I find it all a bit baffling to be honest despite plenty of knowledge about Christianity at least (I studied Islam at university but certainly would not pretend to any deep understanding, especially as it was a long long time ago).

The trouble is it's not really possible (or at least very difficult) to come to an understanding when the starting point is so very different. Quoting a holy book doesn't explain anything to me because I don't believe that any book contains the literal truth, and if I don't agree that there is a god or angels, or that there was a fall or a single act of creation then it can't form the basis of an argument that will persuade me.

I do accept that as a person of faith you might well be thinking 'how sad that she is turning away from god', but for me there is nothing to turn away from.

ToniWol · 26/09/2014 08:05

Just agreeing with a pp that I believe the default position for babies is a form of being agnostic. I don't see how you can believe something doesn't exist until you have heard something about it.

Also, on the subject of conflicts between a scientist's employer and their church. There is a Society of Ordained Scientists, of which our last curate was a member (1st from Oxford in Physics). So there are some whose Employer is their Church.

Stupidhead · 26/09/2014 08:07

Every Christian, JW and Catholic I've met have had seriously messed up lives and tried to mess up mine too. I know one good Christian who'd get blind drunk on a Saturday night, beat the shit out of his wife and be first on the pew come Sunday morning. These and a dodgy vicar totally put me off religion and religious people but I was searching for something. I studied and trained in alternative therapies and met a lot of Buddhists, lovely people but some had a degree of one upmanship over being more Buddhist (if that made sense?!). During one therapy training session (that I had doubts about) I had a total epiphany and thought 'this is an absolute pile of bollocks!'. So I must be agnostic, wanting to believe but not quite getting proof. Years went by and this has been replaced with Atheism. And happier and more content than ever, like there is nothing missing from my life as I'm content with the answers science gives. Even my therapy (given up due to arthritis) I would use not in a magic 'woo-woo' way but in a scientific matter of fact reaction to the muscle way.

Im happier that my morals are dictated by me and not as a ploy to get into heaven.

Sorry for the lecture!

Beastofburden · 26/09/2014 09:14

I think this is a very interesting set of questions from peaceful. Im afraid this is quite a long response because I wanted to do them justice.

Starting with the scientist question. Why do we not resent their contribution to suffering as much as we say we would resent gods? As peaceful says, their ethics are no better than anyone elses and their work can lead to terrible consequences. Many scientists do develop terrible things. The classic of course is the quote by Einstein: If I had known, I would have been a butcher, meaning: if he had known that nuclear weapons would be derived from his research, he would never have done it: he would have rather not used his intellect and gone into the family trade of being a butcher.

Why is it that some ppl think that scientists are more likely to be right about faith than other groups? If we go back not even very long in European society (am ignorant of how it was elsewhere) we saw that the simple folk, as it were, were seen as having good insight into matters of faith and ethics, just as much as the educated folk. Now partly, this was a sentimental construct based on the fact that there were an awful lot of simpler folk. Partly ppl didnt even mean it, as there was plenty of horror about the dissolute working man, gin, etc. But there was perhaps less sense that scientists ought to be our touchstone for intelligent judgment.

From my own POV I would start by saying that I think the faith vs science thing is not all that compelling to me. Although I personally accept that changes to the account of creation that are necessary now that we grasp evolution, I dont see that as a problem for ppl of faith. Creation myths are supposed to be simplified. They were told in a very different time, to a very different society, and they appeal to the imagination and the emotions by presenting a parable, if you like, of what actually happened. As you get into more theoretical science, especially higher maths and physics, I think that the amount of unknowable, highly complex stuff that has to be posited in order to do any science requires a mindset able to grasp and work with mystery and uncertainty. I am not at all surprised by the data that seem to show that physicists are more likely (though still not very likely) to be ppl of faith than ppl who work with largely observed data such as biologists and engineers. But actually I dont especially take my views of faith from scientists. As peaceful says, they are often in no position to complain about the creation of suffering in the world. And I dont think they are necessarily cleverer than the rest of us. More specialised, perhaps. Cleverer? Well I dont think there is such a thing as clever for all purposes, so no.

Turning to the issue of suffering. peaceful asks if it is a reasonable thing to expect a utopia with no suffering; and she points out that the vast majority of suffering is not caused by god. She says that atheists take the position they do because they misunderstand the complexity of creation.
I would want to deal with the vast majority point first. We touched on it upthread. In my view, this is a bit like saying that a man who beats his children every Friday night is lovely to them the rest of the week. Even one example of unjust suffering directly caused by gods actions is enough. It is either true or it isnt. It cant be true for me because of my own child but not true for another person because their child recovered. It is the case, of course, that we have the power to do ourselves more harm by our own deliberate acts, or by acts where we dont foresee the consequences, than anything god does to us. I gave examples upthread- war, starvation caused by war and/or overpopulation, natural disasters affecting places we have decided to live in, disability caused by consanguinity, cruelty of man to others whether caused by mental illness or not: there are many forms of suffering which are entirely self-inflicted wounds by humanity.

But there are also undeniable examples of suffering which are instrinsic to creation. My own example is the position of a child disabled by a genetic mutation- not caused by marriage to close relations, or by environmental factors created by humans, but by a random recombination of genes during conception, which itself is intrinsic to genetic recombination, the method created by god to allow for reproduction by all living things. This is not me being clever: it is my own position, as ppl know, and I know many, many families in this position. We may be invisible to a lot of folk, but we are not immaterial.
I personally believe that this is caused by chance. The question is, would I be reasonable to say to god that I expected a better system, one which did not have this level of fall-out at the individual level, when he designed creation? peaceful I think suggests I would not be reasonable: either it is too big an ask, or there is some hidden merit in suffering which I dont yet understand.

I take a different view. I think that if we thank god for sunrise and harvest and beauty and intelligence in our children, we must also hold him accountable for disability and mental and physical illness which were directly caused by him. We cant cherry pick and say god is only associated with the things we happen to like.

There are faiths where there is a belief that the good god(s) are not always in charge: evil gods have power too and take over. In Christianity this was seen as heretical and ppl got burned for it. I dont know how that argument is seen in Islam, Im afraid. If my faith taught that, perhaps I would have less conflict over suffering.

I have written before how I see the argument that its a mystery/god is entitled to do as he wishes with us. Again, let us assume that I kidnap 30 children and I farm them for their organs, giving away their kidneys, corneas, etc and eventually killing them, after much suffering, to give away their hearts and lungs. I cannot expect any sympathy if I point to the number of other children who are now healthy having received those organs. I will be jailed, or hanged depending on where I live, for murdering and torturing those 30 children, and quite right too. I feel the same, Im afraid, about gods right to disabled my child for some benefit to others.

And the mystery thing makes me terribly uncomfortable. The idea that god can do what he likes to us, and we should just be grateful when he stops, if he chooses to stop, and in the meantime the proper response is love and obedience: well, thats not the kind of father I would want to worship.

SBGA · 26/09/2014 11:20

Combust - the problem with the so called evidence for evolution (despite not being able to scientifically test or observe it), is that the methods used are based on assumptions made in the first place.

For example, you mention radiocarbon dating. Well that's based on the assumption that c14 is consistent. But if it's not consistent, the numbers change dramatically, leaving evidence of a much younger earth.

Dr. Willard Libby, the founder of the carbon-14 dating method, assumed this ratio to be constant. His reasoning was based on a belief in evolution, which assumes the earth must be billions of years old.

Assumptions in the scientific community are extremely important. If the starting assumption is false, all the calculations based on that assumption might be correct but still give a wrong conclusion.

In Dr. Libby’s original work, he noted that the atmosphere did not appear to be in equilibrium. This was a troubling idea for Dr. Libby since he believed the world was billions of years old and enough time had passed to achieve equilibrium. Dr. Libby’s calculations showed that if the earth started with no 14C in the atmosphere, it would take up to 30,000 years to build up to a steady state (equilibrium).

If the cosmic radiation has remained at its present intensity for 20,000 or 30,000 years, and if the carbon reservoir has not changed appreciably in this time, then there exists at the present time a complete balance between the rate of disintegration of radiocarbon atoms and the rate of assimilation of new radiocarbon atoms for all material in the life-cycle.2

Dr. Libby chose to ignore this discrepancy (nonequilibrium state), and he attributed it to experimental error. However, the discrepancy has turned out to be very real. The ratio of 14C /12C is not constant.

The Specific Production Rate (SPR) of C-14 is known to be 18.8 atoms per gram of total carbon per minute. The Specific Decay Rate (SDR) is known to be only 16.1 disintegrations per gram per minute.3
What does this mean? If it takes about 30,000 years to reach equilibrium and 14C is still out of equilibrium, then maybe the earth is not very old.

However, because this does not fit the evolution belief, many mainstream scientists refuse to acknowledge this discrepancy. And the lay-person doesn't have the knowledge to figure it out for themselves and are spoon-fed a message that they blindly accept.

VelvetGreen · 26/09/2014 11:51

Agree with every word Beast. Regarding the suffering that scientists are responsible for i just wanted to add that society as a whole has responsibility here too. It requires backing and political will before something like nuclear weapons can be developed let alone used.

SBGA - C14 has nothing to do with determining the age of the earth. It is only effective to approx 50000 - 60000 years. Results are calibrated to allow for the fluctuations in atmospheric carbon ratios. Other isotopes are used for older samples that have a longer half life.

combust22 · 26/09/2014 11:59

Oh please- I am not going to even dignify your copy and paste job by reading it SBGA.

Do you even understand any of what you have posted?

combust22 · 26/09/2014 12:04

SBGA all this crap you have pasted has been lifted directly from a US creationist Ministry.

writtenguarantee · 26/09/2014 12:04

So should it not have been created/discovered? in the first place? Genuine question.

what do you mean "should"? are you asking is it on balance a good or bad discovery? If that's your question, then as you have pointed out later, that's hard to assess.

But what does the utility of a scientific discovery have to do with god?

I think the problem is that many atheists have a very simplistic, one dimensional view of God perhaps due to their lack of understanding of religion or your own cultural/religious baggage. God is only Good and Benevolent and that can only be manifested in one way. Creating a utopia for us to live on and making us in to perfect beings because really that's the only solution to end all suffering.

For me God is not just Good. God is Al Hakim (the Wise), Al Aleem (the All-Knowing), Al Adl (the Just), Al Rahman (the Beneficent), Al Wasee (the All-Encompassing) etc

i never said god is just good, but that is, as you point out, one property. the rest of your post says that humans are both good and bad, which no one disputes. the problem is that if god is good, why does he allow suffering? your answer (the classic one) is that free will is good, and human caused suffering a natural consequence. but how does that explain aids, ebola or hurricanes? those are not human made. that's just nasty stuff that happens to us.

Atheists aren't quibbling about the bruised strawberries in our near utopia. think about this. Until probably 80 years ago, a huge number of women died horribly in childbirth, and this still happens in most of the world. some wise creation we are. What's the statistic on child deaths? a child dies (often horribly) of a preventable disease every few seconds. Sorry, but I am just not seeing the love or power of a benevolent all powerful being watching over us.

writtenguarantee I think only one person has said that they would quite like faith haven't they?

i thought I saw it a few times. i find it an odd wish.

Beastofburden · 26/09/2014 12:12

Regarding the suffering that scientists are responsible for i just wanted to add that society as a whole has responsibility here too. It requires backing and political will before something like nuclear weapons can be developed let alone used.

Velvet is quite right- and actually I think that is what Einstein was getting at. If he had known what society would do with his research, he would never had trusted them (us, sadly) with it.

combust22 · 26/09/2014 12:20

But this wasn't just to do with Einstein. he did play a part, but there was a worldwide consortium working on nuclear theory. If it had not been him at would be someone else- so who can we blame? Rutherford? Even Dalton for his early work.

THe potential of nuclear fission was on the brink of discovery anyway, it would have happened with or without Einstein.

ErrolTheDragon · 26/09/2014 12:46

I don't see how or why a theist could possibly blame a scientist for discovering something about the world that presumably they believe their god created - Einstein didn't invent E=mc2.

Of course scientists who use their knowledge to inflict suffering should be held to account. With great power comes great responsibility. Very odd to suppose atheists would think otherwise. But personally (yes, anecdote to be sure) I don't know any scientists who aren't essentially ethical - motivations are generally (a) to improve quality of life and (b) curiousity. The need to know more, to understand deeper and wider the wonderful universe we live in.

Beastofburden · 26/09/2014 13:29

Yes, I think to be fair peaceful herself said she was rambling a bit last night Smile.

I think she was musing on why would we hold scientists to a higher standard than god when it comes to the creation of evil? which for me isn't the issue.

The issue isn't whether I blame god. The issue is whether I think god exists. I know my posts are written as if he does, but that's just to make the argument clear. Actually, because the idea becomes untenable- in my view- I don't think that it is true that there is a god.

I don't think that there are no scientists Grin but then they don't ask me to belileve that they are both all-good and all-powerful. If they did, I might not believe them either Wink

SBGA · 26/09/2014 13:48

Combust - do you mean to sound that rude or can you just not help youself?

I mention radioactive carbon dating because YOU brought it up and I was responding to your point (isn't that what we do on Mumsnet?). But there is no need to start your personal attacks, it tends to underline anything else you might say to any readers present.

Back to the topic; if you don't like people who believe in the bible then that's your prerogative, however, it doesn't mean the evidence they submit isn't valid, just because you don't like them. It is well known that 14C dating has its limitations, some of which as I've already pointed out relates to your viewpoint on constancy or change, and I've included a non-religious reference to this:

www.ehow.com/facts_6933501_limitations-carbon-dating.html

combust22 · 26/09/2014 13:53

But SBGA we are trying to debate this issue and copy and pasting tracts like this is neither your argument nor is it accurate. You googled, stumbled across a counter argument then pasted it as your own.

How am I meant to respond to that? If you can't be bothered- or maybe don't feel confident discussing these subjects then why do it?

SBGA · 26/09/2014 13:55

stupidhead - you said "I'm happier that my morals are dictated by me and not as a ploy to get into heaven" but I'd like to point out the bible makes it clear you can't get into heaven with good morals, so it wouldn't be a good ploy even if you wanted it to be!

You can't get to heaven because of going to church, giving to charity, being baby baptised or by being a good person - it is a free gift that you choose to accept or reject.

John 3:16 "whosoever BELIEVES ON HIM should not perish but have eternal life" doesn't say "whosoever gives to charity" or "whosoever is kind to animals" etc.

(Ephesians 2:8-9)--"For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; not as a result of works...

SBGA · 26/09/2014 14:01

actually combust, it doesn't matter whether I type something out or offer a link, if it's a valid point then it's a valid point.

The Specific Production Rate (SPR) of C-14 is known to be 18.8 atoms per gram of total carbon per minute. The Specific Decay Rate (SDR) is known to be only 16.1 disintegrations per gram per minute. - This part is not something I remember in my every day life (surprise surprise), so of course it is the right thing to do to look it up.

Sometimes it is simpler to paste than to type a long spiel when baby is awake now crying upstairs and the phone is ringing. You know the busyness I describe if you have a family yourself.

Hope that makes sense Smile