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?

This has been very interesting to see how some ppl of faith assume that atheists or scientists make their judgments.

if ppl of faith do believe that 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 then I can see why they might dismiss our views. I wonder what it would take to persuade peaceful that I have quite a sophisticated understanding, in fact, of faith; and I didn't have a huge amount of baggage: in fact, I was a generally benevolent person towards faith. Because of the music I do, I have in fact had a good deal of involvement with christian worship and I have read quite a lot of the texts and the bible. haven't read the quran though, that's a fair point.

I see that peaceful wanted to know why i would care whether faith was a choice or not. I'll repost what I said upthread, as she wasn't with us at the time:

*When I talk with religious ppl about the paradox (how can a good god who created the universe allow this type of suffering) I am given a number of very feeble answers. We discuss them, and we almost always end up with "well, in your shoes I would probably feel the same".

This reply has the potential to make me very angry indeed, because it is a version of "I'm all right, Jack": the suffering of my own child would disprove god but the suffering of yours is remote enough that I can put it out of my mind.

The only way I can retain any respect for ppl of faith is to recognise that faith is probably involuntary: they don't have a choice. They are either hardwired to believe (we know there is a neurological element in faith; religious visions are associated with the same region of the brain where we observe the effects of epilepsy) or they have been socially conditioned to do so. Stuck in that position, they are doing the best they can do, to resolve the paradox.

I have to believe that, because otherwise I find it so incredibly hurtful, that ppl can confront the reality of suffering such as my child has, and they don't care enough to hold their god properly to account for it.*

COMBUST: I said: "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. ", to which you responded with “combust22 Fri 26-Sep-14 07:05:54 But that's not true- we do have ways of measuring things that are that old.” You went on to say that “Radio carbon dating allows us to examine and measure very old things.”

I then responded with saying “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.”

You argued against this point which of course was you saying that 14C corroborates with the so-called (unobserved and untested in real time) “scientific” evidence. Why are you trying to deny it?

ErrolTheDragon you said: Fri 26-Sep-14 14:18:42
“And the idea that scientists willfully ignore limitations of carbon dating because it might conflict with evolution seems odd....”

Ever heard of Charles Dawson? An example of someone trying to convince the masses – and succeeding for a while. [[ttp://www.bbc.co.uk/history/ancient/archaeology/piltdown_man_01.shtml

]]

VelvetGreen, you said: “He [Libby] soon realised this may not be the case, and when levels were demonstrated through dendrochronology to fluctuate he adapted his technique to allow for it. He changed his mind in the light of new evidence.”

What written evidence of this alleged change of heart can you please provide for this?

ErrolTheDragon Fri 26-Sep-14 15:04:26
SBGA - I'm sorry, but you're just wrong to think that scientists work that way” and “The scientists didn't try to fudge the discrepancy.”

Have you ever heard of the scientific embarrassment where scientists got caught frying to fudge the discrepancy of certain so called evidences such as Charles Dawson:

www.nhm.ac.uk/nature-online/science-of-natural-history/the-scientific-process/piltdown-man-hoax/index.html

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nebraska_Man

www.pbs.org/wgbh/aso/databank/entries/do53pi.html

No wonder you don't understand scientific methods..

Don't be daft. Of course I do! What a silly thing to say. I love science, but only the testable, observable science that we can experience in REAL TIME. Anything other than that is a smokescreen and is based on a belief system rather than actual science.

"COMBUST: I said: "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. ", to which you responded with “combust22 Fri 26-Sep-14 07:05:54 But that's not true- we do have ways of measuring things that are that old.” You went on to say that “Radio carbon dating allows us to examine and measure very old things.”

You are only quoting the last part of my reply- you said that "what happened billions of years ago is neither measurable nor observable"- that is simply not true. I explained that it is indeed possible to observe directly events that occurred billions of years ago- and we also have other ways of looking at other very old things using other techniques too such as carbon dating and examining fossils.

Every day astonomers study events that occurred billions of years ago.

Charles Dawson? The name didn't spring to mind as a scientist... a quick google shows him to be an 'amateur archaeologist' who is one of the suspects for perpetrating the infamous piltdown man hoax. Not what I'd call a serious scientist - is that what you mean by one? (another suspect in the hoax was Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, a Jesuit Priest, among others).

Nebraska man - never heard of that, wiki says a mistake not a deliberate hoax.

Digging up the Piltdown man (as it were) to try to discredit scientists is - hm, well - eccentric.

I love science, but only the testable, observable science that we can experience in REAL TIME.

I'm sorry that you have such a limited view of what constitutes science. What on earth do you mean by 'experience in real time?' anyway?

More from wiki on 'nebraska man':

Although the identity of H. haroldcookii did not achieve general acceptance in the scientific community, and the purported species was retracted half a decade after the original article had been published by Osborn, creationists have promoted the episode as an example of the scientific errors that can undermine the credibility of paleontology and hominid evolution theories, and how such information is peer reviewed or accepted as mainstream knowledge.

Says a lot more about creationists than it does about scientists. Pathetic really.

Silly, really. Of course mistakes happen, and ppl try to commit fraud. The whole thing about peer reviewed science is that they get corrected over time. It's not as if science tries to claim that every bit of research is infallible, no matter how much it may contradict another bit of research. Now that would just be silly. Ahem.

SGBA - here is a link to Libby talking about the importance of the discovery of C14 fluctuations in a 1979 publication, which i think demonstrates that he in no way chose to ignore it (only part of the publication is available online, but it includes part of the forward by Libby).

If you are seriously interested in understanding C14 dating methods it is worth getting a copy of this book. It is a few years old now, but it has an excellent section on the development of the method.

My mind is still boggling at the idea that the concept/behaviour of god is consistent between the Old and New Testaments (and wondering why 66 books as there isn't agreement across church traditions about which books are in or out - as a Catholic my Bible was significantly longer than my mother's CoE version and there are also other books that were not included as canon during the formation of the New Testament, indeed there were groups that wanted to drop the whole of the Old Testament).

But putting that aside the god of the Old and New Testaments are very different. There are parts of the Old Testament that are very dark and vengeful and really not compatible with the god of love presented in the New Testament at all.

I think the idea is that god is the same but the deal has changed: I am come to bring you a new covenant, etc.

I struggle with the new covenant idea. It is still the same god who was behaving in a tyrannical manner - does a new deal make his previous actions forgiveable?

The NT is light on any condemnation of god's OT actions, and is hardly all peace and love (eg the references to the fires of hell not found in the OT). There are also parts of the OT where he comes across a bit more benevolently, so i'm not entirely convinced that there is such a complete divide between the god of the new and the old. I understand that to Christians Jesus is the difference, but if Jesus is god then surely he was part of the OT god as well as the new, so equally culpable?

I see the OT god as a reflection of the kind of god that people living in violent times in a hostile environment might expect - god being made in man's image, and the NT as a desire to see prophesy fulfilled.

I also struggle with the relationship between the NT and the OT. Not that I am a Christian myself. But take gay love, for instance (not gay either as it happens). There is not one word reported by Jesus on the subject. Paul condemns men who hop from bed to bed, but there is no information on who he thinks is in those beds. All the stuff on gay love is in the OT, in the same chapter that forbids tattoos. So why do modern Christians have such a thing about it, when they don't enforce the rest of the OT? I even saw one guy had a tattoo done condemning gays, which is a hyper-evangelical fail .

But then I just don't have the mindset to take a set of ancient writings as literally true. T be fair, I know lots of ppl who are Christians who don't either. It's a subset of ppl, who seem to respond emotionally to what others would call "magical thinking".

None of this really touches me. I don't need a better reason for atheism than the problem of suffering. I am disappointed that peaceful hasn't yet responded to my reply to her rather arrogant position on why atheists are all simplistic and self indulgent ppl complaining that they don't have a utopia. But I am not surprised because this always happens.

As I say, in the end ppl of faith often can't bear to be without it. They want look clearly at this. Or, like a pp, they recognise that there is no good answer, but they have an emotional belief that is very real and precious to me.

To them, I mean.

Thank you for your considered replies BoB. I think you were the only one who really engaged with the questions I was asking and your responses gave me some insight in to your position at least.

I think for me I just dont buy this whole idea that the existence of suffering is a major barrier to believing in God. Personal suffering I can accept will lead some people to disbelieve in God but it isnt necessarily always so. The people in the parts of the world where there is more suffering seem to believe in God more than those in the parts of the world where there is less suffering (at least from natural causes). Its interesting that you re-posted what you initially wrote as that was what initiated my engagement with this thread. Especially the bit about believers not having a choice in their belief.

because otherwise I find it so incredibly hurtful, that ppl can confront the reality of suffering such as my child has, and they don't care enough to hold their god properly to account for it.

The implication that believers are obliged to give up their faith in God because of the existence of suffering (well that is if they have a choice) made me put forward the argument (in my tired befuddled state) that scientists have 'created' suffering (either directly or indirectly) through their inventions why do atheists not hold them to account or condemn them too as they seem to be eager to get believers to condemn/reject God. Its interesting that the response of most people was to try to compartmentalize the two. Its not the same as scientists are not worshiped, not considered to be infallible etc. However that is not the point. The point was should they be held to account for the suffering they have directly caused and would it have been better if they had never developed technologies that could be utilised for evil. The ambiguous responses have made me even more skeptical that the real barrier to faith is suffering (at least other people's suffering). Some people agreed that they should be held to account but stopped short of describing what that would entail. Certainly not awarding them with nobel prizes, awards and huge salaries in the way that many scientists both in the past and present have been rewarded for creating weapons of mass destruction.

BoB you talked about 'unjust suffering' and natural evils like disease and earthquakes. It reminded me of the poem 'The Tyger' by William Blake in which he questions why God made such a fearsome creature as the tiger and asks 'Did He who make the lamb make thee?'. I didnt understand the contradiction at the time and I still dont. Perhaps to the lamb the tiger is evil because it preys upon it but for us who can look at the situation holistically is the tiger evil. No it is just doing what it needs to do to survive and is not intentionally maliciously causing suffering to the lamb. Similarly are earthquakes, volcanoes etc evil or examples of 'unjust'(?) suffering? I would say no. They are natural processes that occur because of the structure of our planet and actually bring about some benefits. I remember reading somewhere volcanoes can cause the soil near them to become more fertile which is why people perhaps against better judgment choose to live near to them. As I see it God created the physical and natural laws by which our planet/universe runs not to cause us suffering and in fact in many instances we benefit from these laws and can manipulate them for our own benefit. It would be unreasonable to expect God to constantly change the laws to shield us from the negative effects of these laws but to only let us experience the good.

Now you say that God should have created a better system. I would say the system works and doesnt need replacing. Genetic mutation according to evolutionary biologists is how we and the diverse organisms we see on earth came to being. Genetic recombination produces variation which is also beneficial. Sometimes it works for us and sometimes it works against us. Take for example antibiotic resistance in bacteria. A massive benefit to the bacteria a disadvantage to us. So should God prioritise what benefits me and you and stop the bacteria from developing resistance. Atheists may argue why did God create the bacteria in the first place and enable it to harm us and cause us suffering. However Im sure the lamb or chicken would ask the same question about us - why create these humans that fatten me up only to kill me and eat me. Are we causing unjust suffering to the lamb? Vegetarians/vegans may think so but for many of us we are just taking what we need to ensure we get enough protein and dont die. There is no justice or injustice about it. Its just the facts of life we live and we die because the earth with its finite resources can not sustain us if we live indefinitely. Some would say its better we are not immortal as it enables societal values to evolve and develop.

Maybe there is a better system, maybe there isnt. Even if there was one which would enable all of us to be born perfectly healthy would that be a protection against suffering? Many people who have no genetic diseases can still suffer due to poverty, or abuse, or because of war, or neglect, or stress, or depression etc. It seems that actually what atheists who cite suffering as being the cause for their disbelief are resentful of is that God is not more interventionist. Why give us free will? Why give us reason and intellect and allow us to use it for evil? Why give us a choice to believe in you, why not make it impossible to disbelieve? Why not make us perfectly moral beings, why let us be fallible? and on and on it goes.

It amazes me that people can have so much resentment for something they dont even believe in. Why do you care whether I hold a being that you dont even believe exists to account for the disability of your child? You dont even believe the being is responsible for the disability because you dont believe God exists. I think the barely veiled contempt demonstrated towards some believers on this thread indicates that the resentment is not really towards God but towards religious people. In my personal experience when I have spoken to atheists in real life about why they hold their positions in the end it comes down to the fact that they have been mistreated by people who are religious (sometimes relatives, sometimes religious clergy) or they experienced some suffering which was ignored by those who could have stopped it who happened to also believe in God. The issue is not really why God (who they dont believe exists) doesnt interfere to end suffering for them but why people who believe in God do not interfere. Of course this isnt true for everyone but I find the atheists most vehemently opposed to religion are the ones who have been burned by people who are supposedly religious.

By the way BoB I just wanted to say that I am truly sorry for the suffering you and your son have experienced and I dont mean my words to sound in anyway flippant towards your situation. Of course your suffering matters as does the suffering of anyone in your position. However I dont see that as a reason to disbelieve in God just as the suffering I have experienced in my own life did not cause me to turn away from God. God for me is a tremendous comfort and I think is too for many others who have experienced terrible suffering. I know atheists consider religious people weak for this but I think its terribly sad that you would seek to rip away a lifeline to those in hopeless situations and replace it with nothing. I saw an image on the news last year of a Syrian woman whose 7 children and husband had been killed in bombing by Bashar Assad's army. The look of anguish and pain on her face moved me to tears and still haunts me today. How do you recover from that? Atheism in my opinion offers nothing that could even begin to deal with that level of trauma and loss but religion I feel has the tools inbuilt in to it to heal people from even the darkest tragedies.

Just to deal purely with the final paragraph above. I try not to kick the crutch or belief away from those that have one but am quite prepared to defend myself when they raise that crutch against me.

As for the Sysrian woman, Atheism can offer her no solace but could it not be argued that the deaths of her family had been caused by a perversion of religion ? Atheists have done some wicked things but were any of them in the name of atheism ?

Since her family were killed by the bombs dropped by the secular, atheist regime of Bashar Assad I hardly see how a perversion of religion is responsible

that scientists have 'created' suffering (either directly or indirectly) through their inventions why do atheists not hold them to account or condemn them too as they seem to be eager to get believers to condemn/reject God.

as others have said, scientists that do cause harm get condemned.

but I don't think you understand. atheists don't condemn or reject god because of evil. how can they if they don't believe he exists? The claim is that God (as envisioned by the big monotheistic religions) is incompatible with the existence of evil.

Are Assad's actions in the name of atheism ?

'as others have said, scientists that do cause harm get condemned'

By some not be everyone. Fritz Haber is held up as the great scientist who created the Haber process and won a nobel prize for it. How is that condemning him for producing chemical weapons during the war that were used to kill millions. Scientists and engineers who work for the weapons industry are not condemned for using their knowledge to produce suffering. Its just their job. Its societies fault.

'atheists don't condemn or reject god because of evil. how can they if they don't believe he exists?'

I know that. I mentioned that.

'The claim is that God (as envisioned by the big monotheistic religions) is incompatible with the existence of evil.'

By one of the big monotheistic faiths. I dont know whether its because I have spent most of my life here where most people's experience and knowledge is of christianity but the only time I have heard atheists talk about the existence of evil and suffering being incompatible with God is from people who come from that background or who use christianity as their reference point. Some posters were talking earlier about the conflict between OT and NT perception of God.

We dont have that problem in Islam. Suffering is dealt with in a different way. However as one poster said earlier our starting points are so different that it would be useless of me to try and explain it to you from that viewpoint. See the major obstacle is that for me as part of being a believer in God I trust God. 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. Now saying that to an atheists is like throwing petrol on the fire. Benefit! However for many muslims this is how we see it. There is a famous hadith (saying of the Prophet Muhammed PBUH) that 'When God loves a people He tests them'. In fact the people who are tested the most by God in Islam are the Prophets, the righteous people etc. I listened to an interesting lecture a while ago which was a commentary on a famous classical text called 'the 17 benefits of trials and tribulations' which argues that suffering can actually be a good thing. A famous, well known classical Islamic scholar from the past called Al-Hasan al-Basri said: “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.” However all of this is meaningless when talking to an atheist because you dont believe in God. You dont trust in God. You dont care whether God loves you or not. Does that make sense. So trying to explain it from that perspective is doomed to failure.

Maybe I can give you one example that perhaps makes sense. My son hates having his teeth brushed. He will literally kick, scream, fight, run away and to brush his teeth I literally have to hold him in place whilst doing it. This has been the case for two years. Now for me its so frustrating and upsetting to hear him crying and screaming as if I am torturing him that I sometimes start trying to explain to him why I have to do it and why its good for him. Of course being 2 years old he cant understand my rationalizations at all and its pointless of me to explain it to him. He might view it as mummy is causing me discomfort or pain or suffering but I am only doing it to protect him from a greater pain and discomfort in the future. Im sure some of you will say that I should come up with a better way of brushing his teeth . Please if you know one suggest it as I hate the process as much as he does.

Are Assad's actions in the name of atheism ?

If you are a secular, atheist government that persecutes people of faith could that be said to be in the name of atheism? I dont know you tell me. Are the evil actions of religious people carried out in the name of religion? I would say they use religion as an excuse but really have ulterior motives. Take for example colonialism. At the time the reason was to spread Christianity but in reality it was a land and resources grab. Many people will misuse religious symbols/concepts to attain political objectives.

Peaceful, thank you for coming back.

We agree completely on suffering caused by man, such as the pain of that poor woman you describe. Nobody should hold their god accountable for it, and she can reasonably take comfort in her faith.

We don't agree on whether there could have been a better system. I think what you are saying is there is no better system; and if there were, that we would find other sources of pain. For me, that doesn't quite work, because self inflicted pain I can live with. And the damage caused just by genetic disability, to stick only with my example, is too terrible and widespread for me to forgive the fact that no better system was attempted. So I don't want god to be interventionist and destroy free will. But there is no free will when you are created terribly disabled by god. Free will doesn't come into it. This is deliberate sabotage, deliberate destruction.

I have confused things a bit by talking in my examples as if I believe in god, and so you wonder why I care that you are not angry with god, given I don't believe in him. Sorry, that was a way to describe my position if I had decided to believe. As you know, I don't. I become- not angry, in fact, but hurt- that people don't see the same as I do, and say, "god cannot exist, the explanation of suffering is not credible at all; and it is too important to sweep under the carpet, I will not put it out of my mind and carry on anyway." Ppl don't say that.

The idea that whom god loves he tests is all over the christian bible, especially perhaps in the story of the prophet Job. that was why i told my own parable, of those 30 orphans farmed for their organs. There is no benefit, to me or to others, that can justify what has been done to create that benefit. It is simply too cruel, nobody has the right to do this. Belief in god means accepting god does have this right, and I don't accept it.

Your other point is that most atheists have some secret reason, at a personal level, to hate ppl of faith. Nt in my case. I grew up in singing in a cathedral, I still do in fact sing in a cathedral when asked to. I am aware when ppl of faith do terrible things, and I don't refrain from discussing it out of misplaced loyalty to the institution, but that's not the same thing.

If I have only achieved one thing, I would like it to be that at least one atheists has made her position understandable, clear and worthy of full respect, not being dismissed as being something else. Not bothered by man made suffering. Not dealing with trivial "good for you" type suffering. Aware of free will. Aware of the teaching that whom god loves he tests. Not molested in the cradle by a vicar. Been through all that, peaceful, really. Given it careful thought.

Still think the example of genetic disability stands out and is a complete rebuttal to any argument I have yet heard for god existing. Sorry. But thank you for explaining your position too.

There is a long, long history of Christians saying that suffering is of benefit too peacefuloptimist, but it tends to be downplayed now in a more secular society as it is hard to present to people who haven't been brought up in that mindset and who will look at you as if you are crazy.

It is more honest, in fact, to revert to that theology which has hundreds of years and many great writers behind it in all religions, and say that those who are suffering will be rewarded by a close relationship with God and by perfect bliss in the afterlife, and the more the suffering, the more the reward. It won't convince many atheists - it doesn't convince me - but it has authority and at least an internal logic behind it. It has also allowed many people to care for those who suffer very well and survive doing so, and that is not a small thing. I'm not saying that atheists don't do this every day, but it is a fact that an awful lot of caring organisations have religious roots.

When it was the general assumption that 'we would get our reward in heaven' it got used in off-putting and distorted ways, like being told to offer up your headache to the souls in purgatory, or being told that someone else's pain was there to teach you something, both vile ideas IMO.

In regard to the original post, I'm not sure if my atheism is a choice. I have spent a lot of time in church and some time in synagogue over the years and have huge love and respect for the many religious people I know (including some scientists, one very devout chemist in particular). I find I just can't believe in God or even be open to the idea very much any more. Oddly, it is two lifelong and complete atheists that I would turn to for actual practical help in a crisis.

As on the question, would I rip away comfort from ppl, no, of course not, that would be unbelievably cruel. Many times I keep my mouth shut when ppl need their belief to survive. What I observe then, though, is another reason why faith persists: perhaps the oldest reason of all. If your life is dreadful you need to believe it will get better after death.