I recently read this blog posting by The Cranky Atheist Jew and was inspired to write a comment regarding my personal journey through faith, culminating in atheism. I'm reproducing the comment here on my own blog because, while lacking in a lot of details, it encapsulates something important about me and my history.
[Cranky Atheist Jew,] I enjoyed reading your introduction. It resonated well with me.
We seem to have a lot in common as far as our attitudes toward atheism and Judaism, although we come to our attitudes by different means, or a markedly different history.
I was raised in a protestant Christian household, and I was primarily agnostic throughout my teen years and into my early twenties. I was seeking and I had an ongoing fascination with Judaism that had started with some of my childhood experiences of interacting with Jews.
So, I was pleased when I discovered that I had a Jewish heritage through my maternal line although my family had not practiced Judaism for several generations. I discovered that one of my great-uncles had renounced Christianity and become a Rabbi, for which he had been disowned.
I eventually fell in with a group of messianic Jews by dating one - I eventually married her. The practice of their faith was characteristically Jewish, but their doctrine was akin to right-wing Christianity and included a belief in Jesus as the Jewish messiah of old-testament prophecy.
I found a lot of meaning through this faith, and it was comfortable because I was accepted by my in-laws and my own family.
I made plans to become a messianic rabbi, but I wanted to have a secular education first. I went back to college and was perversely drawn to philosophy. At first I rebelled against the implications of what I was learning, but after a point I could no longer accept what I had been taught from my messianic friends about the nature of god.
It was difficult because at this time I had started raising a family, and all of our friends were messianic Jews or sympathetic Christians. We hosted and led bible studies, and I even led shabbat services for an impoverished local Messianic Synagogue for a few months.
At first I tried to reconcile my newfound knowledge with scripture, but in the end I turned to atheism and humanism.
This caused a great strain in all my personal relationships, especially my marriage. But we have all weathered the change. One relative of mine suggested that I would return to some sort of religious faith after about two years. That has not happened, and I don't believe it ever will.
There are a lot of strange and wonderful things in the universe, but the classical theistic god-concept no longer holds any appeal.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
8 comments:
Many thanks for the comment (the first on my new blog), as well as for the plug here!
You're welcome!
This account fills in some significant gaps in my knowledge of your personal history. Particularly your plans to become a Messianic rabbi, and the fact that your loss of faith led to strains in your marriage.
In other respects, the account leaves me with a lot of unanswered questions. How/why you lost faith comes down to three statements:
• At first I rebelled against the implications of what I was learning, but after a point I could no longer accept what I had been taught from my messianic friends about the nature of god.
• At first I tried to reconcile my newfound knowledge with scripture, but in the end I turned to atheism and humanism.
• The classical theistic god-concept no longer holds any appeal.
But what implications of what you were learning came into conflict with your faith? What had you been taught about the nature of god that you could no longer believe, and why not? What aspects of knowledge could not be reconciled with scripture? Why does the classical god-concept no longer hold any appeal?
And two related questions: what have you gained by turning to atheism and humanism? And what have you lost, aside from the negative impact on personal relationships?
Stephen, I've been contemplating your questions and the best way to answer them. Easy, pat answers elude me.
what implications of what you were learning came into conflict with your faith?
The implications were: that people have faith for all sorts of reasons which have nothing to do with the truth, that faith is powerful but the power has nothing to do with the object of belief, that all people everywhere form beliefs according to similar processes and those processes frequently lead us astray,
that there is no sense to be made of the claim that scriptures are divinely inspired, that god as variously conceived is not a coherent concept, that miracles that involve a violation of a law of nature never happened,
that people like to have an enemy they can point to, that people often like to be told what to do and what to believe because it gives them a sense of security and belonging, that therefore there will always be leaders ready to oblige them, who will generally discourage education, creative thinking, critical thinking, and the use of good reasoning, all of which is a great evil,
that a lot of things that people of faith say about science and good reasoning are mistaken, that the search for truth might just be HARD because it's really not the case that answers have been given to us by god,
that people behave according to moral principles, or not, regardless of their religious beliefs; that a workable ethics is possible without god; that life is not meaningless without god, that people can learn to see beauty in the universe, life, and each other apart from god,
that humans have become very powerful and as a race we are largely irresponsible, unruly, prejudiced, short-sighted, and destructive, and it's not the case that god is coming to the rescue, so we might actually have to get off our butts and do something about it ourselves, because there are no second chances and our loved ones and their descendants will be stuck with this mess long after we are gone.
Those are some of the implications, anyway. I could probably actually think of some more.
Please understand, it's not like I got up one morning and said, "I think I'll try atheism today!" It happened by degrees over a period of maybe two years or so, and it was a struggle to come to terms with some things.
What had you been taught about the nature of god that you could no longer believe, and why not?
Everything, really. I turned to faith when I couldn't make sense of the world any other way. Now I can't make sense of god, and the world seems sort of senseless if god is responsible for it.
What aspects of knowledge could not be reconciled with scripture?
(Do I really need to answer this question at this point - see above rant)
Why does the classical god-concept no longer hold any appeal?
Life is profoundly meaningful and valuable. I am what I am, regardless of how I came to be here. There are wonders in the universe and to spare.
what have you gained by turning to atheism and humanism? And what have you lost, aside from the negative impact on personal relationships?
I'm not sure i understand what you are asking. My motive has always been a love of truth. As a person of faith, my motive was to further my understanding of god. As a philosopher, I have studied in order to find out the nature of truth, and what are the limits, if any, to what can be known. I want to know about the fundamental nature of the universe, and about my own nature, and morality, culture, and change, and all sorts of things like that.
I've kept my sense of curiosity and my personal integrity - whatever that means. I gained a sense of fairness that I may have lacked, and I lost some prejudices that I had acquired. I've lost eternity. I sense more deeply my own plight and that of all my fellow human beings. I've kept my compassion and good-will. I've lost some patience, maybe.
Overall, I think I'm pretty much the same, but I can't be sure. I think people are not good judges of themselves when it comes to these questions.
Michael; Snaars:
I think that's a brilliant response to a very difficult challenge. It doesn't really surprise me, because I know you have thought deeply about these issues, and agonized over the implications of the shift in your convictions. As a result, when pressed for an answer, you have something substantive to say.
I think you could take each one of the clauses (i.e., the bits between the commas) and develop a brief post on it.
I've made the suggestion before, and it remains open: I would be honoured if you wanted to post such material on my blog. Perhaps the suggestion has particular merit now that your blog is private. You could potentially tap into my readership, if you are interested in having a dialogue on any of your propositions.
Very quickly, on a select few of your points:
• Easy, pat answers elude me.
And they don't interest me, which is why I'm so delighted with the answers you provided.
• … that people have faith for all sorts of reasons which have nothing to do with the truth.
I agree with you about this, and it's an idea I would really like to develop. That is, what is the right way to reach conclusions — conclusions that stand a reasonable chance of being true? The answer I've arrived at is via dialogue, as I've emphasized in a few of my recent posts. But no doubt there's a lot more to be said on the subject, both on the faulty ways of seeking truth and the reliable ways.
I'm not satisfied that the scientific method is very helpful, because its application is limited to the physical realm. We may disagree on whether there's a "spiritual" realm, per se, but we certainly agree that values and morals are important: and they have at most only a partial correlation with the physical realm.
• … that god as variously conceived is not a coherent concept.
This is an area where you have challenged me before, and I acknowledge that it's a difficult challenge to meet. I'm not sure whether this is inherent to the very nature of God, or whether it's just a question of Christians begging too many questions. I'm inclined to think both of those factors are part of the problem. The first we are powerless to address: it just is what it is.
• … that miracles that involve a violation of a law of nature never happened.
Never? How would you ever prove such an assertion? I think the scepticism of modern Westerners vis-à-vis miracles is just that — unwarranted scepticism.
• … that people often like to be told what to do and what to believe because it gives them a sense of security and belonging.
Surely true, but what does it have to do with the legitimacy (or lack thereof) of theism?
• … that leaders will generally discourage education, creative thinking, critical thinking, and the use of good reasoning, all of which is a great evil.
This is a criticism of religion, not a criticism of God. And I would venture further that it's actually a criticism of human nature and has no necessary connection either to religion or God.
• … that the search for truth might just be HARD because it's really not the case that answers have been given to us by god.
An excellent point, well taken.
• … that life is not meaningless without god.
I continue to think theists have the better argument here. Whatever pleasure, beauty, and satisfaction there is in this world, it all evaporates in the face of the inevitable decline into infirmity, senility, suffering, and death. If there is no existence beyond the "nasty, brutish, short" life on earth, all is indeed vanity.
I remain open to persuasion on this point, but I think only those who are privileged with health and future prospects can seriously maintain it.
• … it's not the case that god is coming to the rescue, so we might actually have to get off our butts and do something about it ourselves.
My father likes to say, "Life consists of a series of small miracles". I think it's a particularly beautiful saying (particularly poignant if you know the repeated tragedies my parents have had to cope with over the decades).
The saying agrees with your position insofar as "small" miracles do not include God rescuing us from ourselves the way that some theists expect. But it disagrees with your position insofar as it asserts that the fingerprints of God are there for those who have eyes to see.
• Now I can't make sense of god, and the world seems sort of senseless if god is responsible for it.
A provocative position. I'd love to see you develop it further.
• I've lost eternity.
Have you? I am still not clear on your beliefs about the metaphysical realm, and whether you reject any prospect of personal survival beyond death.
• I've lost some patience, maybe.
Wisdom, won at a significant cost, will make a person intolerant of lazy-minded fools!
That is, what is the right way to reach conclusions — conclusions that stand a reasonable chance of being true? The answer I've arrived at is via dialogue, as I've emphasized in a few of my recent posts.
This is interesting. A lot of philosophers argue this, but I think the best evaluation is one I've taken of the Hegelian Dialectic. Karl Marx had the notion that governments worked and changed using the Hagelian Dialectic, and I view dialogue in a very similar manner. I think a dialogue does not lead to truth but a synthesis of a thesis and an antithesis that is expressed during that moment of talk.
Truth, on the other hand, unfortunatly must be reached through a rigorous method of testing, observation and evaluation, then and only then can there be dialogue about the data destilled. Dialogue is certainly a very powerful tool in this process becuase it allows us to maximize our perceptive abilities. As one human, i can really only obtain my interpretation of the world. Through dialogue i can obtain many different interpretations and discern what actions are true and what actions are false. Of course logic and reason is the framework for which all of this material is filtered.
Hagelian Dialectic: http://www.marxists.org/reference/subject/philosophy/works/it/croce.htm
(thats the best explanation I've found in a couple minutes.)
• I've lost eternity.
Have you? I am still not clear on your beliefs about the metaphysical realm, and whether you reject any prospect of personal survival beyond death.
And when Snaars says he lost eternity, i think it is safe to say he has actually lost eternity. I'm not sure there is a method of holding the belief that you are both immortal and also there exists no soul.
I could actually add my own interpretation to this story, because I was there when this change occured, but all the facts would stay the same. That was a great time.
Stephen: Thanks for the invitation to be a guest writer on your blog. I'm honored. I'll think about it. I would want to do it right, and the task seems daunting (one of the reasons I haven't attempted much serious philosophy on my own blog!)
I can't answer every issue that has been raised, but I'd like to respond to a few points.
You pointed out that some of my points aren't directly relevant to theism, and that's true enough. The reason I included them was because they challenged my faith. Faith in practice is a bit broader than just the issue of God's existence.
If there is no existence beyond the "nasty, brutish, short" life on earth, all is indeed vanity.
Another Hobbesian reference, if I am not mistaken - with a little Ecclesiastes thrown in for good measure! (Which box contains my copy of Leviathan? I really need to dig that one out.)
I guess we just have a difference of opinion on this one. The good things you mentioned - pleasure, beauty, satisfaction - they don't become less beautiful if God doesn't exist and if life is short. It is in those good things that life has meaning. Any life, even an eternal life, would be pointless without them. They seem all the more precious because they are ephemeral.
Like anyone, I want good things in abundance, and I see the attraction and the beauty of heaven. I think heaven resides in the human heart, as a dream, or a wish, or, at its best, a goal.
Arglor:
That was a great time.
It was the best.
And you're right, I don't believe in immortality.
Thanks for the information on Hegel. I'm having trouble following the link, but I'm going to look him up soon.
Post a Comment