Humble Progress

I think that the temptation with any shift of thought is to characterize your new position as being better than any prior position held, and then to reflect on all prior experiences as having some way or other contributed to this ultimately positive “progression”. I seem to have thought that way at least over the last ten years with each step. But of course, I’m not too proud to acknowledge that this may be simply the result of a self-serving and flawed review of the actual data.

Being "right" about the meaning of life and the existence and character of God was not really part of my thought processes while growing up. I was a Christian and attended church, but it was not really a "fundamentalist" denomination...liberal-traditional is probably an appropriate term. My religious affiliations simply didn't occupy much of my brain space in those years and there was not a whole lot of practical day-to-day "fruit" of my Christianity. So, when I went to college, I sort of just dropped it completely initially...not intentionally choosing to be agnostic or atheist, just not practicing my religion.

But within a couple of years, I started sensing that "hunger" or "itch" to nail down what this life is supposed to be all about. Who is God? What is required or desired of me? What about afterlife? What is it that I really believe? How do I make decisions relating to morality? Etc.

I met a man who was a young baptist pastor. We became very close friends and he was very willing to converse with me about all of my ponderings. And of course, he had all the answers. I, not really having been trained to be a critical thinker in this realm, bought everything he was selling....hook, line, sinker. And of course, I was quite convinced that I was now..."right".

With everything I learned, I continued to "grow" and become more and more "right". When I encountered people who disagreed, I was taught to view that as even further confirmation of my rightness.

Then my wife got pregnant and we started looking into the matter of infant baptism. I wanted to believe in it, so lo and behold, all of the arguments for it made sense to me. I became presbyterian. And while all of my old baptist friends and experiences had been immensely helpful, I was now more..."right" and looked on those people and experiences as having been lacking.

Then I ran across some folks who were writing and conversing about infant communion. I wanted to believe in it, so lo and behold, all of the arguments for it made sense to me. I became a version of presbyterian that encouraged paedocommunion. And while all of my regular presbyterian friends and experiences had been helpful, I was now more..."right".

Then I was exposed to some perspectives on the Catholic Church which seemed to warrant consideration. I did not want to be Catholic, but I looked into the arguments, and in spite of my resistance, I was won over by the argument from priestly succession and legitimate authoritative tradition. I became Catholic. And while all of my old Protestant friends and experiences had been immensely helpful, I was now more..."right".

It had all been part of "maturing" and "progressing" because that way of looking back made my shifts seem okay. I was able to rest easy knowing that I was becoming more wise, more right...leaving behind ignorance and misunderstandings.

I suppose all of that posturing was okay. I suppose we do that in other areas besides religion as well.

But I know for sure that I could have sprinkled in way, way more humility with all of my "progressions".

I am certainly trying to do that now, with my shift completely away from supernatural faith. I want to think that my atheism is the result of more maturity and progress of thought, but I have to reserve a bit of skepticism about my progressions in light of my past experiences with "progress".

Intro to my blog

This blog originally began anonymously in early April 2008 with the purpose of giving me an outlet for free thought, unimpaired by fear that someone I know might arrive here uninvited and read my most recent "dangerous" thoughts and think poorly of me.

I was a Christian. From my infant baptism through my “conversion” experience as a teenager, then onto serious-minded pursuits of authentic Christian living…choosing a Christian wife…having our children baptized…etc. I had made a considerable number of rather significant life choices based on my Christianity…surrounding myself with Christian friends working in a company that only employs Christians…etc.

Needless to say, as I began to seek real honesty with myself about my religious beliefs, I immediately faced a great deal of anxiety about being “caught.” It seemed prudent temporarily to remain anonymous as I explored the truth. I was doubting that I had ever honestly loved God. I knew very well that many of my religious notions felt very deep and genuine at times throughout my life, but I finally allowed myself to realize that I very clearly loved myself more than I loved God. I desired things which He would not desire. I did things He would not intend for me to do. I refrained from doing things He would want me to do. In other words, practically speaking, I was occupying the seat of "boss" in my life and not yielding to my God.

In days past, I had tried to muster up some sort of remorse or regret regarding any desires or activities that conflicted with my Christian faith, but I began to realize that I couldn't convince myself (and no longer wanted to) that I was sorry about such things. Finally, in March of this year, I gave up personally...inwardly, trying to avoid the thoughts which were opposed to my Christian faith.

And then I knew that I was no longer in "right relationship" with God, and I began to doubt that anyone could honestly be in "right relationship" with God. This caused me to wonder whether my whole notion of Christianity...or the general pursuit of reconciliation with an offended but ultimately loving God...was real.

Oddly, rather than this thought process being particularly traumatic or depressing, I felt somewhat uplifted and rather liberated....which was the most scary part I suppose. I have not been torn up or distressed emotionally. I have not been wandering around in any sort of disabled Eeyore-ish melancholy state. I've been quite fine actually. And I've come to accept that I am (if labels must be used) an agnostic atheist. With regard to having certainty or knowledge about gods, I say it is impossible. With regard to my own belief, I say that gods do not exist.

"You" (the audience) started out in very singular fashion, since I only “came out of the closet” with one good friend initially. But over these months, your numbers have grown as I have participated in various online discussions with Arkansas Atheists, Atheist Nexus, De-Conversion, and several great blogs. I still don’t have any intent to make this blog into a powerhouse site with record-setting numbers of visitors, and I certainly don’t set out to recruit visitors, or hand out business cards with this address on it.

But…the good news is that as I have continued to mature in my non-religious thoughts over the last few months, I have become less fearful of being “caught” and more interested to just be myself. So look out world…who knows what I might do next!

Cheers!
Mike

Atheism: Myths and Truths

Sam Harris wrote an article for the LA Times a couple of years ago, called "10 Myths...and 10 Truths...About Atheism" which can be found by clicking HERE.

teasing quote...
"Given that we know that atheists are often among the most intelligent and scientifically literate people in any society, it seems important to deflate the myths that prevent them from playing a larger role in our national discourse." - Harris

Parenting Resources

Via the website of the Arkansas Atheists group (aka Central Arkansas Freethinkers)...www.arkansasatheists.org...

I found a "handbook" for atheist parents called Parenting Beyond Belief, On Raising Ethical, Caring Kids Without Religion by Dale McGowan.

McGowan has an excellent website (HERE) and active blog (HERE).

Please take a moment to check this out!

Here is a quote from yesterday's blog post titled "The Mix":

"The same weird dichotomy is present in many of the deeply religious folks I know. Many are just plain good in word and deed, and I love having their influence in my kids’ lives. But many others, including some I like so much I could burst, will be in the midst of a perfectly normal conversation, then suddenly spew bile or rank ignorance — often without changing expression — before turning back to the weather or the casserole."

Children

When an atheist and a Christian find themselves married with young children, surely the question comes up regarding what to teach the children. And surely some will be of the opinion that there is no need to fuss about religious issues with the children at a young age, you just wait until their older and explain the differing viewpoints and allow them to choose, right? Well...what if it's not that easy? What if the Christian wife is homeschooling the children and desires to use Christian based curriculum? I am a recent deconvert from Christianity, so a relatively short time ago, I obviously raised no objections to this notion of schooling which heavily involves Christian tenets. Now, I'm in a pickle. According to the curriculum publisher, "Little Saints" includes the Word of God in every lesson.

Atheism Not To Be Ignored

I am always pleased to find a prominent Christian preacher or prolific Christian writer who can't help paying attention to the so-called "New Atheism". I consider it flattery for the position of atheism when one of these folks feels the need to address the popular works of Dawkins, Harris, Hitchens, and Dennett. It is encouraging and even emboldening to see the thinly veiled fear among Christians that this "New Atheism" might actually take root and grow out of control if not rebutted. Interestingly, it seems that some may just be more interested in writing rebuttals for the sake of cashing in on Christian fear and interest, as it is nearly inevitable that a response book to a bestseller will sell enough to make a profit.

One concerned or ambitious Protestant Christian is Pastor Douglas Wilson of Christ Church in Moscow, Idaho. He has written several response books and engaged in debate with Hitchens. Here are some links to his site if you wish to be likewise encouraged and emboldened:
Why The Horse Isn't Dead
Can't Tell The Players Without a Scorecard

Also, I ran across a response book which seems to be popular in Catholic circles:
Greater Than You Think: A Theologian Answers the Atheists About God by Catholic priest Thomas Williams
"Father Williams offers an easy-to-use resource for building up one's own faith and igniting others'." - Amazon product description

Presupposing the Conclusion

To the atheist who asserts that god does not exist, the Christian responds, “That cannot be proven.”

To the atheist who states that they simply do not believe that gods exist, the Christian responds, “God does not believe that atheists exist. Atheists have to believe in God whether they acknowledge it or not. Their words and actions betray their self-deceit because all good things are of God, and atheists speak, think, and try to act on the basis of good.”

To the atheist who states that it is impossible to know whether gods exist, the Christian responds, “The existence of God can be known through the use of ordinary observation and reason, because God’s creation testifies to His existence…and truth only makes sense if it originates with a supernatural source…and reason only makes sense because God Himself is Logic…yada yada yada, many other goddy statements…”

To this last response, the atheist makes an observation beyond reasonable dispute in saying, “Claims of certainty with regard to knowledge of the existence of gods are impossible apart from the presupposition of the existence of the claimant’s particular god. Such a presupposition renders the claimant’s argument circular and therefore only acceptable to those who would choose by faith to accept a circular argument, contrary to logic. Indeed, the believer's argument presupposes its own conclusion."

Atheist Nexus and Out Campaign

I want to recommend two websites that I have recently discovered.

Atheist Nexus is a new social networking site (similar to Facebook) and has quickly rounded up over 1,000 members. I like the look and feel of the site and obviously, the intent. Visit www.atheistnexus.org.

The OUT Campaign (CLICK HERE) supports and encourages people who choose to make it known publicly that they are normal, non-religious individuals. I think it is bad that people have to be supported and encouraged in this regard, but the reality is that many religionists consider us normal thinking people as diseased. For instance, I continue to use a pen name here and at Atheist Nexus because if I allow it to be known publicly that I have dropped my religionist delusions, I would very likely lose my job.

Agnostic Atheism

I do not believe in any deity and can therefore be properly called an "atheist," but like many others before me, I intend to maintain the descriptor "agnostic" because I cannot yet claim particular knowledge as to the non-existence of deities. So my pen name here of Non Sicuro Pensatore is still adequate because while I quite plainly do not believe that any gods exist, I also do not have any need or desire to assert the non-existence of gods with certainty.

Religiosity Not The Problem

I am considering, when time permits, writing a brief treatment of why a Christian should not blame “religion” for an atheist’s or agnostic’s departure from the Christian faith. First of all, in my own story, I know that “religiosity” is not the problem. I know this because I’ve “been there and done that” with this line of evangelizing…"Christianity is about relationship not religion; it’s not about what church you go to or what rules you follow, it’s about your personal walk with Jesus.” Believe me, I really have been there and believed that sort of line and used that sort of line on others. I understand the point, completely.

But in the end, I can argue quite well from the Christian standpoint, that this angle is seriously flawed as an approach to “communicating the reality of Christ.”

Exposing the Limitations

Please find time to read a humble and interesting article by Mark Vernon titled "How To Be Agnostic" (LINK) in which he points out that, "Socrates came to understand that the key to wisdom is not being able to prove beliefs, but understanding the extent of your ignorance. He was agnostic in not assenting to philosophical systems, and instead went around ancient Athens asking awkward questions. For him, the importance of reason was not that it could potentially understand all but that it exposed the limitations of all our understanding. Hence the word philosopher was invented for him; he was a lover of wisdom that is desired precisely because it is lacked."

Open Letter To All "Concerned"

Dear Christian Concerned About My Agnosticism,

You recent letter expressed that you are concerned about my loss of faith. It seems to you that I have lost my grip on truth or possibly that I never fully understood it in the first place. You suggest that we should both be open to dialogue about these things because this path I am now on is self-contradictory, as I can’t help but presuppose the existence of the Christian God even as I suggest that he may not exist at all, and is highly unlikely to exist in the way that Christians imagine that he does. And you want me to know that you are not trying to bully me back into a personal relationship with Jesus; you just want me to hear your heart and open my own heart to that God who is knocking on the door for me to invite him in.

Thank you for your concern. Allow me to assure you that I really am quite familiar with “truth” from the Christian’s standpoint. And I “know your heart” because my own “heart” was also very much consumed with following and serving Jesus Christ as my lord and savior for years before my recent de-conversion. I could almost write every word of your side of any conversation for you and have you give a hearty amen (including giving appropriate biblical footnotes).

Your sincerity and honesty are admirable insofar as they go, but the Christian “truth” prevents you from being completely intellectually honest. You do not recognize that your self-perceived openness to dialogue is not actually very open. Your apologetic methods force you to hear the words of atheists and agnostics with impenetrable incredulity. This does not make for a productive use of time and energy.

People generally want to spend time in conversation with other people who will at least reserve some inkling of some percentage of a possibility that the opposing view might be right. But when one person in the exchange presupposes something as grand as the existence of God (and not just any notion of a God, but the Biblically presented Christian God), then it is difficult to avoid rather immediate exasperation.

By all means, don’t let this letter squelch all semblance of conversation between us, but please be aware of my propensity toward frustration if you intend to continue coming to me with the posture exhibited in your recent letter.

Peace,
Non Sicuro Pensatore

Purpose-Driven Faith

“Religion expresses the human need for meaning, not a demand for explanation. For those who have it, faith entails understanding the limits of the human mind and an acceptance of mystery. Even if all the problems of science are some day solved, humans will still be searching for purpose in their lives, and for that reason alone they will need religion.” – John Gray in a book review for The Globe and Mail called “Don’t Write Off Religion Just Yet”

Mr. Gray reviews a book by David Berlinski called The Devil’s Delusion Atheism and Its Scientific Pretensions. I have not read Berlinski’s book, but I am given to understand that it is not a work favourable toward worldviews which are not theistic (it may in fact have been written in response to atheist Richard Dawkins’ The God Delusion). In this review, Gray makes no secret of the fact that he agrees with Berlinski in supporting religion and opposing those who are not religious. He does not use the time and space of his article to put forward a compelling case for religion, preferring instead to rant against contemporary atheism while generally reducing the rather large topic of religion down to a very simple suggestion that only religion can give people meaning, and that as long as humans want to have purpose in life, they must continue to take up religion as their solution.

As objectionable as Gray’s simplification may seem on its face, I imagine that many people on both sides of the faith coin would agree with him. The community of faith has adequately marketed itself to the general public as the place where meaning and purpose are found, where the “void” and emptyness that all unchurched people are supposed to inevitably feel can be resolved. The marketing works. Generally speaking, when a person struggles to mentally or verbally capture their purpose in life, they seem to frequently and instinctively turn to religion in the same way that a person with a runny nose turns not to facial tissue, but to Kleenex. Mr. Purpose-Search Paul and Mr. Void Vic cannot just turn to personal reflection and conversation with companions, they “need religion.” They need to accept the limitations of the human mind. They need to accept mystery. They need to lay it all at the cross and trust God.

To find purpose and meaning elsewhere is to be labelled “depraved” and “tormented” and even “deluded” by the devil himself. And as I have indicated elsewhere, this sort of tone from religious people has sometimes been provoked by animated atheists.

From my present position, I would be inclined to get nose-to-nose (figuratively) with Gray regarding this review and express disagreement in frank terms. However, it occurs to me that Gray is unintentionally working against himself, and rather than disagree with him, I should encourage him to continue working against himself.

Religion, properly speaking, does not teach that the need for purpose and meaning should be a primary motivation for an individual’s adherence. For Christianity, the reason people “need” to submit and obey is that there is a just God at the helm to whom all must give account. The notions of purpose and meaning fall in line as person-oriented, and the chief principles of religion for Christians are God-oriented.

So, when an eager evangelist for any religion rushes out to proclaim that people need purpose and “for that reason alone they will need religion,” it reduces the burden of persuasion for the person who is endeavoring to say that religion is not a necessary element of a good life. In other words, some believers may want you deal with pointed questions about the existence of God and what God requires of mankind, but folks like this reviewer (John Gray) essentially throw all that out and the only burden on me is to say that a meaningful life can be had apart from religion. Presto, no more need for argument.

Smuggy Bear

I found record of a debate between Sam Harris and Rick Warren which was written up in Newsweek early last year. It appears to have been somewhat informal and conversational with a general topic of "who's right, christian or atheist?".

Sam Harris is the atheist, an author and neuroscientist. Rick Warren is the Christian pastor of a megachurch.

I don't know whether Harris was ever a Christian, but it appears from the write-up on this debate that while he may have "won" since he seems to be "right," he did not successfully read Warren throughout the conversation.

As I read this, I feel like I can hear Warren's thoughts before the words even come out of his mouth. I suppose it is because some of these things are just so fresh for me, the novice non-believer. I know the objections...and I sense the absolutely effortless knee-jerk smugness in Warren's every word. So frustrating. I wish I had been there or at least that Harris had someone at his side who could have pointed out Warren's angles.

Maybe that's arrogant of me to think that my personal experience could have assisted someone who is intellectually superior to me like Harris.

Here is the link to Newsweek for you:
http://www.newsweek.com/id/35784

Chicken or Egg on Offense?

My wife and I had an interesting conversation last night about an editorial in our local paper. A book reviewer blasted Christopher Hitchens and Sam Harris for being bullies in their writings as they seem to want all people to adopt an anti-religion worldview.

I pointed out that Hitchens and Harris are probably better described as being pro-non-religion in their writings, and that anything perceived as ranting or bullying may likely be attributed to having been provoked.

So which came first? The atheist who feels bullied by the religious, or the religious who feels bullied by the atheist? Who is on offense and who is on defense here?

It's a tricky question. I would submit that particularly in America, there is a social / cultural pressure to be religious. Religion is the norm. So when unfaithful Christians carry on in a manner which is hypocritical and offensive, or when a faithful Christian carries on in a manner which is overly-zealous and socially harmful, the minority group (atheists) are prompted to speak out in opposition. But we all know that any time the minority raises its voice, all sectors of the majority jump at the opportunity to shout them back down. And then the minority is further alienated and given cause for further speaking out. Etc, etc.

So what is the root problem here? Too much certainty and not enough humility.

Humorous Buzzword

"Apatheism—a disinclination to care all that much about one's own religion, and an even stronger disinclination to care about other people's—may or may not be something new in the world, but its modern flowering, particularly in ostensibly pious America, is worth getting excited about.Apatheism should not be assumed to represent a lazy recumbency, like my collapse into a soft chair after a long day. Just the opposite: it is the product of a determined cultural effort to discipline the religious mindset, and often of an equally determined personal effort to master the spiritual passions. It is not a lapse. It is an achievement."

Article is "Let it Be" by Jonathan Rauch in The Atlantic magazine.
CLICK HERE FOR THE REST OF THE ARTICLE.

Anti-Labelist

I have used the word "agnostic" to describe my present thoughts because it is a nice, neat word which adequately sums up my belief that nothing can be known with certainty about the existence of God. However, in general, I'm concerned that labels in this realm of belief/non-belief may not be a great idea. Words like agnostic and atheist have connotations which likely prevent some people from even listening to anything such a person might have to say.

I read an article in the Washington Post which was actually an edited transcript from a talk given at last year's Athiest Alliance conference by Sam Harris. He is a prominent voice in the "atheist" community and argues very well for dumping that label and all similar labels. Harris and apparently this Athiest Alliance are all about a sort of activism, in terms of spreading the good news of disbelief and hoping for a world in which religion fades completely away.

I have no truck with activism at this point. I'm just trying to get my own thoughts straight. But I thought that this article was very interesting and certainly worth the read, though it is long. Here is an excerpt and the link:

I think that “atheist” is a term that we do not need, in the same way that we don’t need a word for someone who rejects astrology. We simply do not call people “non-astrologers.” All we need are words like “reason” and “evidence” and “common sense” and “bullshit” to put astrologers in their place, and so it could be with religion.

Attaching a label to something carries real liabilities, especially if the thing you are naming isn’t really a thing at all. And atheism, I would argue, is not a thing. It is not a philosophy, just as “non-racism” is not one. Atheism is not a worldview—and yet most people imagine it to be one and attack it as such. We who do not believe in God are collaborating in this misunderstanding by consenting to be named and by even naming ourselves.

Read the rest of this article by clicking here to redirect to the Washington Post website: Sam Harris - The Problem with Atheism

Resources

I seem to be finding that agnosticism is often just lumped in with atheism as a term, even when discussions of "atheism" are actually more about "knowledge" and "certainty" rather than being opposed or against God.

Here are some interesting resources on the web:

De-Conversion: A popular blog with multiple contributors and lively discussions of many topics aimed at "skeptical, de-converting, or former Christians".
CLICK HERE: http://de-conversion.com/

University of Cambridge, faculty of Divinity: The Investigating Atheism project is designed to stimulate interest, thought, and debate on this important topic.
CLICK HERE: Investigating Atheism

Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy: The Epistemology of Religion. This encyclopedia offers alot of helpful information on alot of topics. This particular link will take you to the study of knowledge with regard to religion.
CLICK HERE: Epistemology of Religion

Catholic Encyclopedia: Agnosticism. This encyclopedia also offers alot of helpful information on alot of topics...from the Catholic viewpoint. This particular link will take you to the entry on Agnosticism.
CLICK HERE: Agnosticism

Robert Ingersoll

Was Robert Ingersoll an atheist or an agnostic?

In his "Why I Am An Agnostic" lecture from 1896, he has this absolutely brilliant, agnostic expression:

"We can be as honest as we are ignorant. If we are, when asked what is beyond the horizon of the known, we must say that we do not know."

But within the same lecture, he also says some things which are rather more like a very certain atheist and less like an agnostic notion of "without certainty or knowledge":

"For the first time I understood the dogma of eternal pain --appreciated "the glad tidings of great joy." For the first time my imagination grasped the height and depth of the Christian horror. Then I said: "It is a lie, and I hate your religion. If it is true, I hate your God."