…and this is a 
Promoting a few links up top
Category: Godlessness
Posted on: July 21, 2007 5:24 PM, by PZ Myers
The open thread produced a couple of interesting articles I thought worthy of highlighting.
The first is a story from Canada about the growing godless movement. It's very positive and avoids the cheap tactic of presenting this as a scary or worrisome prospect.
Ms. Gaylor [of the Freedom From Religion Foundation], who said her group has grown from 7,000 to more than 10,000 since the fall, is not sure that the recent rash of books is winning converts to atheism, but she is certain it is emboldening those in the closet.
When Herb Silverman became a professor of mathematics at the College of Charleston in South Carolina in 1976, people would say to him: "You're the only atheist I know," and he would respond: " No I'm not. You know hundreds of atheists, I'm just the only one who acknowledges they're an atheist."
I predict a slow, steady growth of atheism in the coming years — not because all these vocal atheists have been converting people, but because they are removing the stigma from atheism and getting people to take some pride in their freedom from faith. And what are all these atheists going to do? One of the annoying, baffling habits some people have is to dismiss the idea, because all atheists could possibly do is sit around and talk about nothing. Not true!
"Big questions have been monopolized by religious institutions," says Justin Trottier, 24, who has a degree in engineering, comes from a secular Jewish background and is the centre's executive director. "Atheists are just as interested in questions of meaning, purpose and beginning. Why shouldn't we have a place where we can chat?"
See, we can talk about and do important stuff, the same as goes on in religious institutions … we just do it without larding it full of supernatural monkeypoop, or worse, elevating the monkeypoop to the status of the Most Important Issue. A secular institution should be more effective than a religious one in any significant endeavor, since it doesn't bear the burden of commitment to dogmatic malarkey.
This other story from the LA Times is more depressing. It's about a reporter, a fervent Christian, who joyously leapt into the religion beat, and steadily lost his faith to the incessant corruption of pedophilic priests, greedy Prosperity Christians, and faith-healing frauds. I see another goal for the godless here:
My soul, for lack of a better term, had lost faith long ago -- probably around the time I stopped going to church. My brain, which had been in denial, had finally caught up.
Clearly, I saw now that belief in God, no matter how grounded, requires at some point a leap of faith. Either you have the gift of faith or you don't. It's not a choice. It can't be willed into existence. And there's no faking it if you're honest about the state of your soul.
It's a painful piece, and you can tell the writer is grieving for the loss of his faith — but faith is not a gift. Faith is a delusion. This is a man who should be grateful that he has opened his eyes. He's opened them to an ugly, disillusioning world, true enough, but now he is better able to do something about it. Something far better than praying for an intervention that will never come from an entity that doesn't exist. There should be no sorrow in casting the scales from your eyes.
Comments
I went through that when I was 17. It was a nasty experience, but extremely liberating.
Posted by: Ted | July 21, 2007 5:41 PM
There are countless people who are atheists, but aren't willing to state it openly.
There are even more people who are atheists, but won't even admit it to themselves - they claim to believe in deities that they define as not being part of existence and part of existence simultaneously. They say that their deity is 'supernatural' and unobservable by science, and use this as an excuse to deflect analysis, but they don't follow that road to its end to see what conclusions follow from their assumptions.
Nietzsche was right - as far as thinking people are concerned, 'God' died a long, long time ago.
Posted by: Caledonian | July 21, 2007 5:45 PM
When it was playing-for-keeps time, when life was drawing a line in the sand, he suddenly knew which side he stood. It was cold, dark and scary that side of the line, and there was nobody there to help you, but once you're there you can't return. Once you've seen behind the backdrop, you can't walk out front again and believe that what's painted on it is real. The world this side of the line is indeed a more foreboding place, but even though you have to tread with more caution, you walk with more dignity.
--Christopher Brookmyre
Posted by: The Ridger | July 21, 2007 5:46 PM
Ted, all the de-conversion stories I've ever read have that as one of their themes. It seems that it takes a while for de-converts to realize that the idea that faith is the only thing that makes life worth living is just another one of the many lies they've been told.
Posted by: valhar2000 | July 21, 2007 5:49 PM
Well, one has to come to the conclusion that no matter how brutal reality is compared to one's religious fantasy, you don't have that long to try to understand it.
Posted by: Ted | July 21, 2007 5:56 PM
I can relate to Obdell's story, because I spent a lot of time looking at different religions and never finding God's voice speaking through me. I thought there was something I was doing to block God from speaking to me or through me. So, I faked it, hoping that if I kept up appearances then eventually I would feel that Voice in the same way the people around me felt it.
But the amazing thing was that they told me they could see it in me. I realized that while I envied people's experience of the spiritual reality that I was faking they envied me for the same thing. No matter which religion I tried, they told me the same thing, that I was a light for them.
I experienced the "break 'em down to build 'em up" retreats that Obdell did.
And then, I was molested by a Lutheran choir director. I never told anyone about it. Not the cops, not the preacher, not my parents. I told my best friend, and he really didn't believe me and told me not to worry about it. I told my girlfriend, and she broke up with me for being gay.
So now, when I read about how the Catholic Church has been blaming the victims of priestly molesters I get very angry. I get angry when they choose the priest over the victims. I get angry whenever I hear that we need religion in order to be moral. All I know is that we need religion to effectively fake morality and spirituality. And I also know that we don't need religion in order to face reality.
Posted by: Mike Haubrich, FCD | July 21, 2007 6:07 PM
Or as Cap'n Tightpants said, "That's a long wait for a train don't come." And y'know...
After an embarassing number of times watching Serenity, I've decided I really like its take on faith:
Love is a good deal more dangerous than madness, if you're the bad guy.
Believing hard, killing and never asking why, is the essence of bad guy.
Belief, in yourself, in your goals, in your fellow found-family members, is what makes all things possible.
And of course the answer to that stupid question of what meaning life has to an atheist. "As in... You mean to say, sex?"
Plus hey, Equality Now. Hmm, where's that thread about man-crushes? Mmmmmm.... Joss....
Posted by: Johnny Vector | July 21, 2007 6:10 PM
There are, however, plenty of aspects of faith that seem like gifts. A really big one is the sense of community. Sure, it's based on a mutual fantasy, but it's powerful. I kept going through the motions of faith by attending Sunday mass at the local Newman Center for several years after I had pretty much decided that Catholicism was just an intricately elaborated hollow shell. But I saw friends there, people I liked to see and talk with.
Friendships (and even family bonds) tend to weaken or break when shared experiences and feelings are no longer shared. Should friendship be stronger than that? Sure, but I think most friendships are friendships of convenience. People I used to consider pretty good friends just sort of faded away when we were no longer traveling in the same circles, going to school in the same places, or working in the same offices. Only a few of those friendships survived the transition to no longer seeing each other regularly.
If anything, family can be even worse. Religious dissension in a family can be nasty stuff indeed. I almost never go to mass with Mom & Dad anymore, but we maintain a quiet courtesy about it and don't bait each other over it. I'm grateful for that. My parents are counting on religious faith to provide them with a happy-ever-after afterlife, and I can't see any value in trying to persuade them that it's all a delusion. I would probably be violating the terms of our tacit truce if I did. It's an awkward situation.
Posted by: Zeno | July 21, 2007 6:16 PM
I would argue that the world is neither ugly nor beautiful (or equally ugly and beautiful), since the terms are relative and we don't have anything else to compare it to.
Posted by: rob | July 21, 2007 6:23 PM
"He's opened them to an ugly, disillusioning world, true enough, but now he is better able to do something about it."
I'm looking out my window at snow capped mountains, a small city humming beneath them, and a river winding down to the sea. Yes... it is cold. Yes, the river is a bit polluted (but much less polluted now than 50 years ago).
It is only when you believe the world should be perfect that it is disillusioning and ugly. If you realise the world just is, and that good and evil are our own constructs, that you know it could be a lot worse than it is.
Posted by: Bruce | July 21, 2007 6:26 PM
Thanks PZ for posting the links.
Re: the LA Times article
I still have the capacity to be shocked at the lengths that Catholics will go to cover up child abuse amongst their ranks.
Posted by: Christian Burnham | July 21, 2007 6:27 PM
The idea that religions have "monopolized" the big questions is rather absurd. Especially in today's day and age. There are websites and forums devoted to the topic. Nobody is stopping atheists today from inviting some friends over, sitting down, and having a chat.
But overall, its a nice idea. Rather similiar to the same idea by ID. "Once all our nasty enemies stop persecuting poor little us, then we will answer all the big questions. Really, we will! We just haven't answered them for a couple of hundred years because we've been persecuted by the mean nasty Christians."
--A secular institution should be more effective than a religious one in any significant endeavor, since it doesn't bear the burden of commitment to dogmatic malarkey.--
Really? I'm curious. Do you have any evidence that any secular institution has done so? Or is this more "Once the mean nasty people stop persecuting us, then everything will be all right" nonsense?
Posted by: David | July 21, 2007 6:45 PM
David, are you the same David who's insisting over at Galactic Interactions that 'nature' means something more than "the stuff we can interact with", and science has a special way of observing things that doesn't include magical sky fairies?
Welcome, welcome. We're going to love having you here.
Posted by: Caledonian | July 21, 2007 6:51 PM
A slightly polite comment from an atheist! How shocking...
Oh... wait... I missed your obvious sarcasm at first. Oops.
I don't know Caledonian. Why don't you show me the comments in question, and I'll tell you if they are mine and you are simply twisting them to serve your own ends, or if they belong to someone else.
Ok?
Or better yet, we can get our whole conversation out of the way. I know that you think I'm either:
A. Stupid.
B. Ignorant.
C. Brainwashed.
D. Deluded.
E. Wicked.
F. Arrogant.
G. Some of the above.
H. Something almost identical to some of the above.
You know my opinion of you.
Really any conversation we have will degenerate into you insulting me, and I returning the favor.
You won't agree with me, and I severly doubt there is anything you will say that I will agree with, so I think it in both our best interests to stop the conversation before it begins, ok?
Posted by: David | July 21, 2007 7:06 PM
As a nurse, I am frequently told by my patients that they "see God's light" in me and no matter what religion they are, they are convinced that I am among their brethren. Now at other times, I have no problem being a vocal atheist, but when I am taking care of someone who is sick and/or dying I find that silence and a smile is all I can manage. If I say anything, it is usually praising the skills of the health care staff caring for them. Sometimes I feel like a hypocrite doing even that. But in all, I think I am good person and I work hard at being a competent caring nurse. I thank my Mom for that, not a non-entity. (Don't tell her I said that or she'll try to make me go to confession)
Posted by: Jazmin | July 21, 2007 7:16 PM
PZ, help! The troll is back. These jerks have no goal other than hijacking whole threads. It is amazing that they all the whole web to blabber on whatever nonsense they please, and they can't even stand us having our own little forum here.
Posted by: mndarwinist | July 21, 2007 7:27 PM
Jazmin, it sounds like you're a very caring nurse. I think part of the profession is having to be strong enough to listen to what the patient needs, without taking it on personally. So if someone is sick or dying, and wants to talk about religion, I think silence and a smile is fine--you don't need to pretend to be something you aren't, nor is there a need to kick someone's crutch out from under them at that point.
By analogy, my sister and I tried all our child and young adult lives to get my mom to quit smoking, but her addiction was so strong, she couldn't. When she was diagnosed with terminal cancer, we dropped our campaign to get her to quit, and and we never again said another word to her about it. We suffered through the smoke in silence until she went into a coma the week before she died, and could no longer hold a cigarette. Why take away the one thing remaining that gives a dying old lady any pleasure? Same for faith, IMO.
But the other way around is definitely abusive. I spent a month in the hospital recovering from a superior mesenteric arterial thrombosis ("usually found on autopsy"--my surgeon), and I started getting a little ICU psychosis after enough time in there. Add to that a proselytizing Christian nurse, and I got convinced that she was an "angel of death" who'd put something deadly in my IV if I didn't accept her offer of salvation. I'm not blaming her for the ICU part, of course, but she had no business adding to my stress level and hindering my recovery with her witnessing.
The Falun Gong proselytizing nurse, on the other hand, was just an annoyance, because she didn't threaten hell. But I didn't need that in my recovery, either,
But I'm rambling, now. My point is, if you can silently smile as dying patients process it however they need to, without taking their stuff on your personally, rather than trying to do anything to argue with their beliefs that late in the game--I think that clearly shows that you truly are a competent, caring nurse in that way.
(In case I'm setting myself up for misunderstanding, I'm not advocating universal quietism. There are lots of appropriate times and places to promote reason and argue against the consequences of misplaced belief; I'm talking strictly about hospital and hospice professional situations.)
Posted by: RavenT, Adjutant Minion | July 21, 2007 7:41 PM
I'll go with idiot. Coming to a place. Acting like an ass. And expecting, what, different results than you normally get?
Posted by: Moses | July 21, 2007 7:51 PM
I find the story of the reporter striking.
Whether he feels a loss of security, or finds himself in psychological withdrawal, I hope he learns to cope with the realities of life.
David, if you are here for a purpose, other than constructively improving the lives of others, you might want to return to your philosophical studies.
Here's a good place to start
Posted by: Ben Abbott | July 21, 2007 7:53 PM
Jazmin-
I am a nurse too, and I pretty much do the same things that you do. I will not begrudge a dying person what little peace they're able to derive from their faith, even though I think it's silly.
By the way, if my dying words indicate that I am having delusions involving a naked romp with George Clooney and Janeane Garofalo in a spicy threesome, I doubt any decent nurse would bother rousing me from my comforting fantasies.
Heheheh.
Posted by: shrimplate | July 21, 2007 8:10 PM
Speaking of links... dunno if anyone's pointed out
http://www.harunyahya.net/V2/Lang/en/Pg/WorkDetail/Number/6539
... and apologies if they have already. It's a downloadable PDF of the Atlas of Creation.
Posted by: Wrought | July 21, 2007 8:47 PM
People, don't feed the troll!
Posted by: valhar2000 | July 21, 2007 8:54 PM
The Christian religion has been a sacred cow for too long. When I discovered that there was no solid historical evidence for Jesus and plenty of textual evidence that his biographical details were added to the testaments in the second century, I felt cheated. I felt that the availble facts that I needed to make up my mind had been concealed by our mainstream media to pander to convention.
Having several religions is a good thing if it looses the stranglehold of any one of them on the laws and culture of a society.
Posted by: Monado | July 21, 2007 8:55 PM
Cut the guy some slack, PZ. As someone who had an adult faith which once meant a lot to me, I think the experience of grieving its loss is, while not necessarily universal, at least common and natural -- a bit like losing a good friend, or maybe going through divorce on a marriage that used to be good (not that I'd know about that one). Yes, you get over it (humans have a way of doing that, about all losses), and find new ways of seeing yourself in relation to the universe, and new sources of inspiration. But you do it on your own schedule, not someone else's, and I think that process deserves respect and support, not "I told you so; now get over it".
Posted by: Eamon Knight | July 21, 2007 9:03 PM
btw, I noticed that "Wrought"'s link pretends to provide for comments, but that it is nonfunctional .... do on to others?
Posted by: Ben Abbott | July 21, 2007 9:22 PM
PZ WROTE:
"This is a man who should be grateful that he has opened his eyes. He's opened them to an ugly, disillusioning world, true enough, but now he is better able to do something about it. Something far better than praying for an intervention that will never come from an entity that doesn't exist. There should be no sorrow in casting the scales from your eyes."
As yet another of your regular readers who had to go through a similar experience, I can tell you that, in the end, we DO become grateful for having the scales taken from our eyes... but it takes time. And it's very painful, even if you KNOW it's right, and will be a positive thing in the long run. It's always difficult to let go on one's delusions, religious or otherwise. I say let the man grieve for his lost faith so he's better equipped to move on and join PZ's Army of Atheists. :)
Posted by: Jennifer Ouellette | July 21, 2007 11:18 PM
...
...
The LA Times guy is not out of the woods yet. I don't think the article says he's turned into an atheist -- the whole thing has that "God is testing my faith" smell about it.
I wrote him a long, encouraging email (attached below), because you just have to know he's going to get thousands encouraging him to come back into the fold, that these things happen for a reason, and that the only real love and warmth is in the community of Jesus.
Any of the rest of you who feel up to it, it won't be a wasted effort to dash off a quick note and tell him bravo for his honesty, and his progress. Some people can be influenced - never doubt it.
My email follows:
I read your July 21, 2007 piece on your Religion Beat writing.
I'm sorry you had to go through all this. And congratulations to you for being honest with yourself through this ordeal.
Your piece didn't fully convey the conclusion, but I feel hopeful that you really are finding your way clear of religion. In a way, you remind me of those Republicans who have at long last understood what Bush really is - and I mean that in a good way.
I think you might be discovering that religion is a bit like ... oh, say alcohol. A lot of it is dangerous, but a little of it can sometimes look like a good thing. Those of us who are moderate drinkers boast about how much we enjoy it. But in the end, it's always a little dose of poison, a chemical unreason poured into your head by your own hand. Maybe you as an individual can handle it, and you think it's benign and relaxing, but all around you, you can see people and societies destroyed by it.
Coincidentally, I was at a county fair last night in upstate New York, and passed by a tent occupied by some kind of evangelical Christian group. Two people standing out front zeroed in on me when I stopped to read their banner. "Would you like to read about the good news?" the man asked. Already knowing many of the things you've learned, I was able to answer: "I'm an atheist," I said. "To me, this is the BAD news." And the woman almost shouted "Nobody is really an atheist!"
If she only knew. Unbelief - or atheism, if that's what you've hinted at - is harder than it looks socially, especially now in the U.S., but ultimately very rewarding in a personal sense. You really can get to a place where you finally feel no gods or ghosts at all in your head. There are some things you have to give up, but the mental clarity you get out of it, the growing sense of being able to trust your own mind, of understanding that you can find your own answers, and not feeling you have to rely on some group of celestial authorities (priests) for everything, is something special.
Having written this, I imagine you're going to face immense pressure - much of it ostensibly loving - to conform and get back to where you were mentally when you were a believer. Immense pressure. The result may be that, a few years from now, you'll be even more deeply religious, and may write about this moment in your life as your "test of faith."
If you do, you will have failed yourself. You will have betrayed your own independent reason in favor of this lovingly-administered drug. You'll be like a tomcat who volunteered to be neutered because his owners convinced him in gentle, loving tones that it really was in his best interest.
Worse, you'll retreat into your own fuzzy mental comfort, but you'll leave all those molested kids still in the meat grinder, all those hopeful cancer victims still throwing out their pills and sending in their money, all the rest of us still trapped in a world that really sees reason as an enemy and ordinary humans as prey animals.
Instead, I hope you'll come to more and more fight FOR them by fighting the root of the force that enslaves them.
I know we'll never meet, but I wish I could sit down and talk with you. There are a thousand good REASONS for jettisoning religion. The problem is, the people in its grip simply can't hear them. You sound like you're open to listening, at this point in your life.
Like most of us in this society, our freedom-loving country that seems open to all views but which actively discourages freedom of thought (witness the "traitor" label applied to so many in the political arena in recent years, and the vilification of Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris as "violent" or "militant" atheists in the religious arena), you'll probably have to figure them out on your own.
The small, quiet Army of Reason - the people who produced Science, and Medicine, and real Freedom, and so much more - faces legions of bright-eyed, determinedly joyful victims marching to the orders of such as the Catholic Church, fed on by conscienceless parasites such as Pat Robertson and Benny Hinn. We could always use a thoughtful new voice, a voice such as yours.
I've been a freethinker for a good 30 years. Dashing off this note too quickly, I'm aware that I've rambled a bit, and glossed over too much, but ...
I really wish you the best of luck in your quest.
...
...
Posted by: Hank Fox | July 21, 2007 11:20 PM
Well, yeah, I wasn't going to give him a deadline.
I know many people suffer horrible anguish at losing their faith -- I didn't, but my religion was a fairly phlegmatic one to begin with -- and I'm not suggesting we go out and kick people who are sad about their disillusionment. I'm suggesting that if we keep plugging away and let the world know atheists are well-adjusted and happy and ordinary, loss of faith won't leave them quite as bereft. They're just leaving one club they didn't like to join one that fits them better.
Posted by: PZ Myers | July 21, 2007 11:33 PM
I've never felt the need to be either a believer or an atheist. I just tend to be in awe of this big amazing scary wonderful universe, and that's enough. I don't have a clue about the big existential questions, and I'm quite happy to go along blissfully ignorant.
Posted by: global yokel | July 21, 2007 11:45 PM
Woo! My group (CFI-Ontario) was featured in that article! We were tres excited. Although slightly dissapointed that there was yet another overlook of all the social and community development projects that we're doing. The last 3 big media breaks we got focused on atheism its self, and didn't even touch on the alternative programs we offer and the community we've really built in just a few months.
One of our social programs that has had the greatest success is our "living without religion" support group. it's really hard when you've been brought up with, and had religion forced on you your entire life - everything you do just makes you feel guilty. that program is great for helping people through that.
Posted by: Katie Kish | July 22, 2007 12:12 AM
Hank Fox quoth:
Hank m'boy, I think you're being a bit harsh on our good friend Ethanol... a little of it can indeed be a good thing, even though a lot of it is dangerous (much the same can be said of oxygen, for that matter).
I'm one of those who had a much harder time letting go of the 'belief in belief' than in the Roman Catholic faith I was brought up in (no, I'm not amongst the sexually abused - my abuse was strictly intellectual).
I am also a former abuser of alcohol, now a happy moderate user, and looking back on it the deep unhappiness and despair I felt, and the heavy drinking it inspired, disappeared just when I finally ditched the last vestiges of religion and fully committed to the life of reason I'd really wanted to follow all along.
Posted by: BT Murtagh | July 22, 2007 12:35 AM
Atheists should get together, though. Richard Dawkins or Sam Harris should have, in their books, wrote somewhere that atheists should raise money to buy a place where they can get together, with a "leader" at the alter who speaks to us, and then a band that plays some music we can chant to. We have to make atheism a moral and fun thing to do.
PZ Myers standing at the alter, reading quotes to us out of the Bible of Atheism, and us repeating after him. It would be fun.
Posted by: Atheist | July 22, 2007 12:47 AM
My suggestion is synchronized with PZ Myers'.
Posted by: atheist | July 22, 2007 12:50 AM
Zeno @ #8 said
That intricate shell is actually constructed out of thousands of tiny guilt trips.
Posted by: melior | July 22, 2007 1:04 AM
It absolutely gobsmacks me that atheism is such a big deal to some. Living in very non-religious New Zealand, atheism is more likely than not, so that's what people tend to assume. An admission of being religious is more likely to take people by surprise, and NZ hardly has a reputation for scary amoral fanaticism. I remember being very surprised when I discovered, aged about eight, that there were people in the world who still prayed and believed in deities. Until then I thought it was some kind of obsolete thing from the 'olden days' that nobody did anymore, like wearing nightcaps or handsewing shirts by candlelight.
Posted by: Buffybot | July 22, 2007 1:04 AM
Shrimplate-
As a "decent" nurse, I hope to be invited to the party! Sweet fantasy! But as RavenT said, I will NEVER "pull the crutch from under" if that crutch will help a dying persons last moments easier. I know what that crutch was supposed to do, even if I felt no support.
Since coming out of the closet, though, I feel no need for a crutch. I'm more at peace, now, than I ever hoped to be. Thanks PZ and you Pharyngula folks.
Posted by: Jazmin | July 22, 2007 1:10 AM
I especially like this light-bulb-over-the-head moment from Ditching God:
Posted by: melior | July 22, 2007 1:17 AM
Nietzsche was right - as far as thinking people are concerned, 'God' died a long, long time ago.
This speaks volumes. Part of the trouble that well-meaning, almost atheists types I have met have had could be traced back to not having good thinking skills. Some were fairly educated, but even a college education doesn't necessarily involve critical thinking skills.
The fallacy I find the hardest to dislodge is the appeal to consequences- that something must be believed, or something awful will happen. Sometimes, this is done with eyes wide open, and the person is just pretending to be a believer on the dubious premise that a society without gods will decay. Such people are beyond hope, and I don't care what they believe except that I want to intercept it.
I am most concerned with people who don't recognize what evidence is, why having evidence is superior to faith, and how to follow or construct a chain of evidence. I think these people are well within reach, and moreover, don't really have to have their belief attacked directly. Not that there is anything wrong with that ethically, but tactically, I am not convinced it helps.
I am one who recovered from religion fairly late. It smarted, but I don't think I was scarred by the process. Part of the process of learning to think made a certain dismantling of naive beliefs inevitable. No one 'got in my face' about atheism, and no one really helped me along with denunciations of the Catholicism I outgrew on my own. It happened because I learned to think rationally, and to insist on evidence.
Plain old rational, critical thinking is unfortunately a far more novel concept than it ought to be, even among people who are allegedly educated. I feel reasonably good about the science students that I knew going through school. Some of the others, not so much.
Posted by: Dave Eaton | July 22, 2007 1:20 AM
More like millions, Melior. Millions!
Posted by: Zeno | July 22, 2007 1:43 AM
I've always felt that the majority of people really don't analyze their "beliefs" because it scares them. I think that if they did, they would find them wanting. All we can do for these people is let them know that we are out there and that were still good, moral, happy people. I've helped several friends and family through this transition by simply being there to help answer their questions and assure them that everything will be alright. Hopefully, the reporter from the LA Times can find someone to be his atheist role model.
Great e-mail Hank. You reached out to let him know that he is not alone. Sometimes that is all it takes.
Posted by: Chaoswes | July 22, 2007 2:16 AM
This thread is a great collection of de-conversion stories.
Come to atheism, you'll be happier in the end... trust us!
You'll at least be dealing with reality.
You won't be deluded, you'll be thinking rationally... and all that.
As long as people ignore the stories of religious believers who found atheism intellectually, emotionally, and spiritually unfulfilling you'll have a rock solid case.
Atheist, I think its a wondeful idea. Build churches of atheism, while at the same time keeping with the same dogma that atheism isn't a religion.
I mean, beyond the fact that atheism involves a set of beliefs about life and death, the nature of God (he doesn't exist), meets in a church with an appointed leader who reads from a specific text which they view with veneration... atheism and religion would be totally distinct if your idea works. Besides all that it would be great.
Posted by: David | July 22, 2007 2:17 AM
Chaoswes,
I agree. People don't often analyze their beliefs. But of course, all atheists have analyzed their beliefs completely. So really, when you are talking about "people" you aren't talking about the englightened atheist, you are talking about the rest of the unenlightened, unintelligent public.
I love atheists. They are great for comic relief.
Posted by: David | July 22, 2007 2:20 AM
Well, fortunately your commentary so far has certainly acquitted you of any of those charges. Particularly F.
Posted by: Azkyroth | July 22, 2007 2:24 AM
I guess technically I am an agonistic, in that I recognise that the question of the existence of God(s) is one that cannot be answered. But I have never been a believer, despite a liberal Catholic upbringing (and no one in my immediate family has been a believer or church-goer for over 25 years), so I call myself an atheist.
Someone said to me once that the question is less does God exist, and more does it matter? Does it make any difference? Sounds like the question the journalist is grappling with.
Posted by: Obdulantist | July 22, 2007 2:27 AM
Pharyngula, a place to learn new things. I now know who I can ask if I'm in need of an effective and durable scarecrow.
I remember being, oh, about seven years old, looking through my toybox, and finding one of my very favorite toys, a thing I'd always loved. At that instant, though, something hit me: It wasn't interesting to me anymore. I'd outgrown it. The feeling of loss was profound, and was something I'd never experienced before.
A similar kind of grief swept over me just a couple of nights ago during a discussion about the plausability of The Flood and Noah's Ark...
Letting go can be difficult. Not everyone can. Not everyone needs to, or chooses to. Some go halfway, get scared, and run back.
Posted by: Kseniya | July 22, 2007 3:15 AM
Why do people believe in bad ideas?
Let's formulate a hypothesis for the origins of faith, beliefs and so on. It might be much simpler than anticipated.
Human beliefs might be seen as instruments for survival, helping humans to fix upcoming problems of all kind (spiritual as well as practical).
Just like we have a natural inclination to select the most useful looking tools (or actions) to solve practical problems, we may as well be inclined to select those beliefs that seem to have the greatest perceived utility for solving various sets of problems, for which an immediate straight-forward solution is not at hand.
These beliefs in turn have evolved over time from primitive
assumptions (thunder comes from a mighty angry actor or "God") towards more sophisticated systems like christianity that even is able to solve difficult problems like that of an inevitable impending annihilation (death) or limitation of selfishness.
This way beliefs would be essential tools generated by highly evolved problem solving capacities of human brains.
In a similar way, one might assume that these beliefs are valued according to their perceived utility. Since religious beliefs apparently are able to resolve the most difficult problems (death is not the end, today's misery will be replaced by a future paradise and so on...), those beliefs are higly valued. Asking a believer to give up his faith might be similar to asking him to give up a car riding to paradise and to change it for one riding towards an abyss.
The only way to change those beliefs is to let believers find out more about the real world, in which their tools turn out to be illusionary and can give only illusionary solutions. That's probably what's happening these days, with science making progress and where it becomes harder and harder to maintain for believers to get away with assigning more authority to their sources than to the results of scientific exploration.
Key factors are:
The acceptance of a belief because of its perceived utility.
The assignment of a value to a belief that is proportional to its perceived utility.
The devaluation of a belief that is proportional to its incompatibility with perceived reality.
Posted by: Harie | July 22, 2007 3:18 AM
I never claimed to be enlightened. That was Buddha's gig. Religious people feel they are the enlightened ones. I'm talking about personal belief systems. Religion forces people to believe in a set of rules and dogma that are completely unfounded and have proven to be bullshit on more than one occasion. No one here asks anyone to change their belief system. We merely point out that most people that question their dogma find themselves at odds with its so called "truth." The funny thing about trolls is that they never wonder what life would be like if they stepped out from under the bridge.
"It's a great bridge. In fact this bridge is so great and it fits me so perfectly that there is no need to think about other bridges."
Posted by: Chaoswes | July 22, 2007 3:25 AM
David's got a point. I have never really analyzed my atheism. The reason is that I just haven't had time to analyze my disbelief in God, as I have been too busy coming up with a proper analyis of my lack of belief in Santa, the Easter bunny, the tooth fairy, Zeus, Thor, and the celestial teapot. Eventually, though, I hope to get around to analyzing why I don't believe in God.
Posted by: rob | July 22, 2007 3:30 AM
You don't believe in Thor?
[Kseniya backs slowly towards the door]
Posted by: Kseniya | July 22, 2007 3:39 AM
Come to atheism, you'll be happier in the end... trust us!
I think this comment very much misses the point. One doesn't become atheist because it is just one of a handful of competing narratives promising some sort of result, like a diet pill (Lose 10% more unjustified beliefs when you switch to Dr. PZ's Curiously Strong Atheism).
The worldview that I advocate is, plainly stated, that we can usefully and, coincidentally, in an emotionally fulfilling way, understand the world and our life in it by means of rational thought guided by empirical data. I argue that not only is this true, but that there aren't any other proven ways to get the same results.
Some sort of understanding of how we know anything is true or how something is supported by argument is decided one way or another (usually by default) prior to taking up the question of the existence of gods. It isn't possible to think anything true without hewing to some epistemology, and these philosophical questions left alone are what have people talking past one another, I think. I advocate a rational point of view not because it is a road to happiness (though I guess nothing prevents this) but because it is demonstrably better to know what actually is than to believe what may not be.
Yet the truth will remain stubbornly what it is, my or your happiness counting for exactly nothing. More importantly, the epistemological underpinnings of critical thought vs religion are the most important point- if you and I don't agree how truth is found, known and judged, then there really isn't much to discuss past these points.
I don't think that a religious teacher or a holy book automatically contains truth or wisdom, and I can justify my disbelief because these things are often not consistent with other established and supported facts when examined and tested, and often give weird, self-contradictory or meaningless answers.
Science, mathematics, and rational thought are difficult and fraught with tricky conceptual problems, and the answers they give are contingent. But I believe them because they are supported by evidence and are subject to the scrutiny of everyone. Not everyone's scrutiny is of equal value, to be sure, but there is still an openness that is important to the process. The assumptions are stated, the process is subject to critical review at every stage, and while human beings are often stubborn and irascible, the scientific process is self-correcting.
A slightly polite comment from an atheist! How shocking...
When I was in the fold of religion, I was polite. When the last vestiges of religion were leaving me, I was polite. As a stiff-necked nonbeliever, I tend toward being polite, except sometimes when I'm drinking, and then it's usually an abortive attempt at humor. It doesn't stop me from advocating my position.
Despite your prophetic litany of the assumptions and/or insults I as an atheist might make, I counter by taking you seriously. I am a nonbeliever because I see no empirical reason to believe, and a handful of rational reasons to be skeptical of the truth claims offered for religions. I am unmoved by appeals to the authority of a pope, rabbi, messiah, or holy book, or whether a set of beliefs are conducive to happiness. Feel free to try something else, though.
Posted by: Dave Eaton | July 22, 2007 3:40 AM
Not good to feed the troll, but since this gives me the opportunity to recycle a recent comment which gives an IMO better perspective:
I can see the contingent and arbitrary, and yes, reactive, part of atheistic groupings in the face of discrimination and exclusion, but it seems to me there are more reasons.
I don't think empirical rationality is as much affirmative as accepting, but there is a close connection to skepticism which can be affirmative. Meanwhile skepticism doesn't necessarily deal with what I used to call spirituality for lack of a better term, but essentially describe appreciation of beauty in nature and art and the awe of "getting it" when models work. Maybe you don't need special groupings in the future, but today much of this discussion and sharing takes place in environments that are skewed towards mysticism.
In Sweden the most active social grouping organizing atheists doesn't seem defineable by atheism, but by humanism in the larger sense. Humanisterna ( the Swedish Humanist Association) have become more active in the social debate of late.
Btw, their latest suggestion threw me a bit, partly because it seems I still have to get rid of lingering adolescent idealism (people grow up late nowadays :-), partly because the american or international debate has a different context. They are questioning the necessity of laws concerning religious freedom!
The context is that the laws for freedom of speach, freedom of organization, et cetera are robust enough. Apparently Humanisterna see no problem with the state - my guess is that it is defined in law as independent (secular) which would explain why we have no special laws separating state and religion as I suspect. (I have to get to the bottom of this now.)
So Humanisterna wants to deflate the special status that the seemingly superfluous religious laws lend to religion. If it works it would be nice, though perhaps not the usual method among secular nations. I can tell you that while I don't see much of a reaction unfortunately, the christians who spoke up were as non-sequitur and whiny as we are used to see. ('They are making us second level citizens!')
Oh, and I learned that Björn Ulvaeus from ABBA (remember them ?) is one of the spokespersons.
Posted by: Torbjörn Larsson, OM | July 22, 2007 5:26 AM
I once came to the conclusion that philosophic agnosticism (as opposed to "not enough data" agnosticism or atheism or "enough data" atheism) is fundamentalist, since nothing can move it.
The philosopher I argued with didn't like my conclusion. :-o
"News at 7: A pair of twin gods were born yesterday in Springfield, US. While the christians claim one of them, unclear which, is their savior, buddhists claim it is just reinventing the wheel. The hinduists are indifferent - they have seen this so many times before. The mohammedans doesn't care since it isn't prophesied. Apparently atheists are now converting en masse to the nearest church, while the agnosticists aren't sure if they should and in that case which church.
In connection with this the grave of Nietzsche is reported as trembling, apparently from the philosopher rapidly spinning within. Latest reports is that a voice is emanating from within, shouting "I was wrong! The gods were not born, damn it!"
In other news, dog bit man."
PZ will need every man, woman or gender agnostic he can get.
The opposing Axis of Evil has WMD's (Weapons of Mass Delusion) and inhuman brain eating memes.
While PZ can only wield Occam's Razor and the sharp tongues of the New World Order..., ehrm, excuse me, New Atheists. But of course we all expect the greater strength of truth and freedom to win out in the end.
Posted by: Torbjörn Larsson, OM | July 22, 2007 6:03 AM
I have analyzed my atheism and I disagree strongly with the idea that atheists are a group bound together by dogma.
I came to my atheism entirely alone.
All of my immediate family remain evangelical christians. My brother is a prominent evangelist and district youth president. My sister & brother-in-law also pastor a church. Four uncles and one grandfather are/were preachers and/or missionaries
Posted by: S.o.G. | July 22, 2007 8:31 AM
When I posted the link to the Atlas of Creation...
Did I say I was a creationist?
Did I even say I was a theist?
Did I say I thought it contained a grain of truth?
However, since it's been spoken of on this blog I thought you might like to actually see it. You'd be quick to lash out at it without reading it - I thought you (other bloggers) might like some evidence for your so-called rational dismissal of it.
I assume Ben Abbott isn't making a personal point about the link-poster, but valhar2000 is obviously such a rational athiest that he didn't read the tone of the post, didn't look at any of the facts (there was nothing to go on) and assumed the worst in his over eager desire to spend his time bashing those who don't tow his party line.
There's really too much of this going on. So called rationalists really being (very probably teenage) trolls giving a bad impression of their fellow educated atheists, like myself.
Sorry if I didn't make my reasons for posting the link clear enough. I found it, I found it fascinating, and I wouldn't have know it even existed if not for PZ's excellent blog which I read daily.
Posted by: Wrought | July 22, 2007 9:12 AM
There's another piece to getting rid of faith that hasn't been touched on much yet. It's not just realizing that you've been wrong for so long, but that other people you love and respect are wrong, too. It's one thing to admit you've been wallowing in fantasy for most of your life. You feel stupid, cheated, gullible, a little (or a lot of) righteous indignation. That's all on yourself. But right along with that is seeing the fallibility of people you trusted. It's the same blow that you get when you're around 5 and find out that your parents don't really know everything. Especially when you're in a fairly insular group, it's a big shock to think that almost everyone you care for is deluded, and you don't know what to do about it. It makes the world kind of big and scary for awhile.
Mike, no one's addressed your post yet, but I'm truly sorry for what you went through, and for the secondary betrayal religion foisted on you.
David - feeding the troll, but I wanted to address this:As long as people ignore the stories of religious believers who found atheism intellectually, emotionally, and spiritually unfulfilling you'll have a rock solid case.
From what I've seen, the only people who went that direction were "by default" atheists, meaning that they were only "atheist" because they had never been in a church, and had never stopped to think about it at all. They were never looking for intellectual, emotional, or spiritual fulfillment from atheism in the first place. I'd be interested if you have any actual data, or even anecdotal evidence, of anyone who had carefully examined religions and found them wanting for evidence, but then changed their mind later. Most of the atheists you'll see here know the Bible and texts of other religions quite well, possibly better than you do, and many have quite lengthy and tortured stories not of wholesale rejection of religion with a handwave and a sneer, but of having it ripped from their tightly clenched fists bit by bit as they tried to find evidence to bolster their beliefs and instead found nothing there.
Posted by: Carlie | July 22, 2007 10:35 AM
Who you callin' 'we', Torbjörn? *I* expect delusion and madness to consume the world like a wave of carnivorous locusts sweeping over a daycare.
That's assuming humanity doesn't simply become extinct first, of course.
Posted by: Caledonian | July 22, 2007 10:47 AM
"News at 7: A pair of twin gods were born yesterday in Springfield, US. While the christians claim one of them, unclear which, is their savior, buddhists claim it is just reinventing the wheel. The hinduists are indifferent - they have seen this so many times before. The mohammedans doesn't care since it isn't prophesied.
Priceless.
Posted by: Rugosa | July 22, 2007 12:14 PM
It will be interesting to see the letters to the editor from this article in the National Post. The Post is a very conservative newspaper and has run a whole series on global warming denialists. They do carry some of Christopher Hitchens columns. The letters to the editor from past articles on atheism have been mostly negative.
Posted by: KenH | July 22, 2007 12:15 PM
funny thing, I state my atheism openly, but hardly anyone believes me, especially my mom. Perhaps I'm not professing my atheism with a straight enough face?
Posted by: terry | July 22, 2007 12:27 PM
From what I've seen, the only people who went that direction were "by default" atheists, meaning that they were only "atheist" because they had never been in a church, and had never stopped to think about it at all. They were never looking for intellectual, emotional, or spiritual fulfillment from atheism in the first place. I'd be interested if you have any actual data, or even anecdotal evidence, of anyone who had carefully examined religions and found them wanting for evidence, but then changed their mind later.
The anecdotal evidence I have is my own life. Of course, you will deny this without knowing a thing about my life. I am curious what fundie tactic you will use to deny it.
Also, the fact that skeptics here can rip verses off of their favorite website hardly qualifies as knowing their Bible well.
Posted by: David | July 22, 2007 12:31 PM
Deny it? You've been around the wrong sort of people. We don't deny evidence, but we do expect to be able to actually examine it. So, go ahead, spill the beans. You saying "my own life" doesn't count unless you actually give some details.
As for your last sentence, you are obviously the type who absolutely can't believe that anyone could know the Bible who isn't a fundamentalist. Get off your high horse. A lot of people know the Bible well, and a good portion of those went through a lot of religious training. It doesn't work well on the internet (with Biblegateway at the ready in a separate window), but I'd bet good money that if you got a roomful of regular Pharyngulites together they could both outquote you and school you in the finer doctrinal points of most of the more common denominations.
Posted by: Carlie | July 22, 2007 1:15 PM
A common supposition is that religion is hardwired into the human brain and that it had some evolutionary advantage. Which may or may not now be as obsolete as the giant antlers of the Irish elk.
This would explain why it is universal in human cultures. Why serious attempts to eradicate it in totalitarian countries were failures. And why ideologies like communism end up looking very much like secular religions. Complete with schisms, dogmas, sacred books, saints, apostates, etc..
Not going to agree or disagree with the supposition. I don't know and like to answer questions with data rather than rhetoric and hand waving. If it is the case, religion will never go away. It might however, evolve into something benign like secular humanism or unitarian universialism or even apathetic agnosticism.
Some atheists seem to behave rather like fundamentalists, another secular religion. It's OK. Issue the fatwas and accusations of heresy, put on your Jihadi hat, and go crusade. LOL
Posted by: raven | July 22, 2007 1:17 PM
My experience has been that the fundie cultists don't have the slightest idea what the bible says. They quote mine it and take quotes out of context so that whatever point they are making ends up being a lie and completely wrong.
And of course, ignore anything that doesn't fit their falsehood and violence drenched subculture. They don't even have ten commandments. The ones about lying and killing always get forgotten.
Try it next time some crazed fanatic quotes a bunch of stuff at you. Look it up in biblegateway and read the whole chapter for context. Quite often the quote doesn't mean what they say it does. A lot of the quotes are specific to certain individuals for doing certain bad things and ticking off some old guy who claims to be channeling god.
Posted by: raven | July 22, 2007 1:33 PM
raven - oh, you're absolutely right. And to go along with