How do you suddenly believe in something you didn't previously believe?

[AliceTheCamelHasGotTheHump]

I have recently though how nice it must be to have a faith and a religion. It must be nice to believe that there's a god or some sort of power in charge. I really like all the gubbins that goes along with religion too, the songs, the traditions, the pretty buildings. It must be nice to be in the gang.

However, I can never and will never be any religion because I don't believe in any god.

This got me thinking - how do people who have never previously believed in a particular religion's beliefs suddenly decide they do believe in it all? How does an adult decide that actually there probably is an omnipotent power in the sky and he's almost certainly called [insert deity of choice] and [Judaism / Islam / Christianity / Other Religion] is definitely the right way to go about worshipping him.

I'm genuinely interested. I realise my terminology may be a bit dodgy in places but I hope this doesn't become a discussion on semantics. I want to know how you go about believing in something you previously didn't believe to be true.

I have never believed that my fridge has a secret personality and likes to get dressed up and go out clubbing while we're all asleep in bed. I will never believe that. Likewise I will never believe in some Other Power or Force or something in the factual detail contained in most religions.

I feel a bit sad sometimes that religion of any sort will never be an option for me. I'm going to press post now and I really hope I've not been grossly offensive.

thumbwitch - the point is not to "convert" (you don't see atheists going around unprovoked spreading the "bad news") but to address the fallacies in what people's concepts of atheism is, and the supposed holes in our arguments. It is very frustrating to be continually rewritten and told that you are being illogical or have not explored the topic properly.

threadworm - I am posting on two of the 100+ threads in this section. I really don't think that's a lot. I contribute far more to Education and others.

What are the fallacies in people's concepts of atheism?

(By the way, UQD, I wouldn't normally do this, but a quick search on your posts for the last week shows more postings on the 2 religion threads than all the others put together. Threadworm may have a point )

The last week, you are right. But in general, no. I'm sure you could say this of anyone when they are posting on a particular subject.

Fallacies about and misrepresentations of atheism. Well, briefly (and I'm sure I have missed a few), these are those which have been levelled my way: That "You need to read theology" in order to qualify as an atheist. That it's "closed-minded". That it doesn't take account of "the spiritual dimension". That it is "simplistic". That it is "just a theory". That is "disregards the evidence" for god's existence. That it shows a "lack of imagination". That there are somehow "new" or "militant" atheists. That atheism is nihilism. That atheists demonstrate a "need for god". That we are somehow not "sophisticated" enough to get faith. That god is there "if you look", and that atheists are just not looking properly. That it is somehow a kind of club, even a sort of faith or religion. That the arguer's god is a special one and subject to special conditions, and therefore cannot be dismissed under the same terms as others.

Given all of that to rebut, it's not surprising that I "keep on" about it, is it?

I don't think any of those are fallacies. And I suspect that at least some of them are responses to your particular arguments, rather than to atheism itself. For example, no one is likely to claim in general that you need to read theology in order to be an atheist, but they might suggest it if particular theological points were made that you didn't grasp.

I would suggest that the idea that I don't "grasp" theological points is a little disingenuous - I can only grasp what is actually there to be grasped.

Well Jesus UQD that it just an example of your seemingly deliberate crassness of argument. Of course there is somenthing to be grasped in theology even if there is no God. Sheesh.

There is such a thing as internal reasoning. You can disbelieve the whole body of science if you want and still make comments on its coherence. And coherence, incidentally, is sometimes a truth-test all of its own, so that to argue the coherence of a belief system is (in some circumstances) evidence of its truth. That may well not be the case for a belief in God (I don't know). But these things are just so much more complex than you make out.

But to accept the existence of belief systems (they patently exist, even if I don't adhere to them) is not the same as accepting the existence of what they believe in.

I think that to see any value in theology (as anything other than a purely anthropological exercise) you have to have accepted that belief to some extent before you start, otherwise it is surely just dragon-ology or magic-ology. You disagree. So?

No, that isn't what I said. I do know that you accept theology exists.

THe coherence of a theory can sometimes be evidence of its truth is what I said.

And a further point, you need to know exactly what a deist's beliefs are in order to rebut them. If you have a cartoon image of faith, your rebuttals will be ineffective. So it might be worth looking more closely at faith in order to contradict it.

UnquietDad - do you see any value in belief systems as a guiding force on how to live our lives?
For me, that is a more important element of religion than concentrating on what happens after we die.
I judge what is right or wrong by what Jesus would do in that particular situation - if you have no God or guiding force on what do you base moral decisions? Do you believe that instinct or intellect (or a combination of the two) should be our guide in deciding right from wrong?

Also UnquietDad, can you say honestly that you respect other people's religious beliefs?Do you acknowledge that rejecting the idea of God completely does not mean that you are more intelligent than someone who is religious? Or do you think otherwise (be honest!)

Unquietdad, your list is not of accusations levelled at atheists, it is of accusations levelled at you. Not the same thing at all.

"I think that to see any value in theology (as anything other than a purely anthropological exercise) you have to have accepted that belief to some extent before you start, otherwise it is surely just dragon-ology or magic-ology. You disagree. So?"

Yes I disagree (naturally), because theology is a study of mankind's hugely varying attempts over history to make sense of our being in the world. Now if there was a broad historical consensus that dragons were central to the understanding of our origins and purpose, then dragonology might well be of equivalent value.

One of the main reasons I like to engage in
discussions with people of faith is not to
make them change their mind, but to try to get them to think critically about their opinions and not to see any point made as
a challenge that must be rebutted.

Iorek, UQD made the fairly uncontroversial point that you must believe before you start to study theology and you replied "Yes I disagree (naturally)" why?

Theology is not as you say "a study of mankind's hugely varying attempts over history to make sense of our being in the world" but rather( to take two definitions at random)
Wikipedia:Theology is the study of the existence or attributes of a god or gods, or more generally the study of religion or spirituality. It is sometimes contrasted with religious studies: theology is understood as the study of religion from an internal perspective (e.g., a perspective of commitment to that religion), and religious studies as the study of religion from an external (e.g., a secular) perspective

Free on line dictionary:1. The study of the nature of God and religious truth; rational inquiry into religious questions.

1. A system or school of opinions concerning God and religious questions wHY W

See the word God in those definitions did it appear in your definition of theology?

If you took a sample of students who began to study any subjects at university I presume they would carry the same proportion of believers\unbelievers as the population as a whole, except for theology where the proportion would be 100% -nil.Why would anybody study the nature of God and religious truth unless you believed he existed in the first place?

Furthermore I can't see why you would defend
the whole question in the first place.The charge levelled against atheists is unless
you have a thorough knowledge of theology
you can't argue against God or his nature,so
by that token neither you or any other posters on this board express any valid opinion in the nature of God unless you hold
a Phd in theology.

(a) No-one said anything about a 'thorough' kknowledge of theology, or a PhD -- just some knowledge.

(b) How can you aspire to rebut any view if you have no knowledge whatsoever of its content? To dispute evolution (should you want to do such a thing) you would need to know something about how its statements mutually support of contradict eachother. Why should it be any different for theology?

And anyway the need to study theology before forming a view is NOT a claim commonly made against atheism. UQD is just wrong about that. It is only that some believers on a recent thread suggested he read some particular theological passages because of a particular misunderstanding.

Interregnum: "The charge levelled against atheists is unless
you have a thorough knowledge of theology
you can't argue against God or his nature"

It's just not true that believers say this to atheists.

Interregnum - I am fairly sure that no such charge has been made against atheists. The point has been made that if you intend to make a criticism of religious faith, you should have some understanding of what is meant by it. Would you disagree?

As to the definition of theology, your wikipedia entry suggests that "sometimes" theology is differentiated from religious studies as coming from an internal perspective. This is not always the case - if you doubt it have a look at the atheist theologians pages on wiki. This is the only element in either definition that contradicts my description as far as I can see.

Sorry - rather slow cross posts. Am having beef stew/mumsnet multi-tasking disaster.

If your beef stew is as good as your post you will have a lovely dinner.

I am having goulashbirthdaydecorationstheology--multi-task disaster.

I didn't mean to cross out 'birthday decorations' and replace with 'theology'.

That would be weird.

Analogy: I have studied literary criticism, and while that probably helps with writing decent reviews, I wouldn't say that it was necessary in order to ascertain the central premise - that the novel I have just read is fiction. (I've never studied music, either, but how many of us have - and how many of us can still tell if a song we hear on the radio is crap?)

I think going down the route of "internal coherence" does not help your argument. The way in which magic is portrayed in the Discworld books of Terry Pratchett is fully internally coherent - it has rules which he has obviously spent a long time formulating. But demonstrating this does not in any way affect the status of Discworld as a "made up" entity. Neither does it stop me from enjoying his books (while knowing full well they are fiction, even if they have some interesting moral points to make), and neither does it stop anyone else arguing, if they want to, that he is rubbish.

Of course you don't have to study theology in order to decide whether you personally are an atheist. However, being an atheist is not the same as making assertions about the nature of others' religious belief. If you are going to do this then you need to have some understanding of what constitutes religious belief if you want them to be taken seriously.

Well, UQD, there are coherence theories of truth. Try here(Can't find a good link relating to religion and coherence specifically.) Obv not the same as coherent fiction.

Don't you think it would be valuable to look at a little of the theology of what is meant by faith, in order that you can think more about the nature of evidence relevant for a believer?

I know that you will have a knee-jerk reaction against faith as a grounds for reasonable belief. You are entrenched in the scientific account of reasonable belief. I don't understand faith, and perhaps I would come to reject it eventually. I don't know. But I am trying to think about what it might be and how and whether it might supply grounds for belief. There are plenty of scientists and philosophers in the mainstream who accept it.

Quotes from two of Dawkins most celebrated
critics:
Terry Eagleton:What, one wonders, are Dawkins?s views on the epistemological differences between Aquinas and Duns Scotus? Has he read Eriugena on subjectivity, Rahner on grace or Moltmann on hope? Has he even heard of them? Or does he imagine like a bumptious young barrister that you can defeat the opposition while being complacently ignorant of its toughest case?

Alistair Mc Grath:'Dawkins' engagement with theology is superficial and inaccurate, often amounting to little more than cheap point scoring . . . His tendency to misrepresent the views of his opponents is the least attractive aspect of his writings/

Of course you have to some knowledge of religious belief to be an atheist, I think most atheists have, because we mostly imbibe
the religious knowledge first before we decide to reject it.However deciding who believes what is some what tricky, the differences betweem Islam and Christianity for instance.Or even within Christianity I
would have thought the bodily resurrection of Christ was a pretty important thing to believe in, but some Christians don't.

Iorek:The first paragraph of wikipedia is
as follows:"Theology is the study of the existence or attributes of a god or gods, or more generally the study of religion or spirituality. It is sometimes contrasted with religious studies: theology is understood as the study of religion from an internal perspective (e.g., a perspective of commitment to that religion), and religious studies as the study of religion from an external (e.g., a secular) perspective.[1] Theologians use various forms of analysis and argument (philosophical, ethnographic, historical, and others) to help understand, explain, test, critique, defend or promote any of myriad religious topics"
I would therefore suggest that in your original post you were describing religious studies rather than theology.
Btw your use of the phrase atheist theologians is a contradiction in terms.