11 responses so far ↓

• 1 Elise // Feb 4, 2007 at 6:31 pm

  I tend to lean a bit more toward theism while at the same time recognizing that I have to own up to a bit of agnosticism simply because I can’t know the unknowable.

  The theism is optimistic to me - I hope there is something out there bigger and better than us and that I get a chance to talk to him or her or both after I die. I hope I get a chance to continue my understanding, continue to experience, continue my relationships, and continue to take it all in after I die.

  The agnostic side is optimistic to me, too. I don’t think it’s a negative/pessimistic thing to believe that this is it. If this is “it,” then what a wonderful “it” it is. My awe over nature’s beauty, my awe over the way we progress and make things better, my awe over the things that just seem unjust and unfixable and unfair, my awe over the huge range of emotions I am capable of feeling, my awe over love, my awe over my own and others’ passions for certain asepcts of life…..if all of that is it, then I certainly am optimistic about making the best of it, experiencing as much as I can, and trying to do as much good as I can while here.

  Some people I know are always afraid that they are going to make a wrong decision or wrong turn, and fail to do what they are supposed to do, and end up miserable for eternity, after-death. Some people I know think that being miserable now will make them happy for eternity, after-death. These are the two views that I find most pessimistic. By all means, we should have a healthy fear of making a wrong choice - that fear reminds us to carefully consider our options and our actions. And by all means, we sometimes do suffer and end up better because of it in one way or another. But fear of punishment and glorification of suffering our two cultural aspects that sometimes accompany theism which I find pessimistic.

• 2 nee // Feb 4, 2007 at 7:18 pm

  I recently listened to Julia Sweeney’s audiobook “Letting go of God” which was tender at times, hilarious often, and so very much of it hit close to home for me. In part of it, she goes through that with people too. In her mind, letting go of God made this world and life in general even more full of wonder and amazement. I agree. I highly recomment snagging this recording from itunes or Amazon. It’s great.

  Second, last March I blogged about an essay Penn Jillett wrote for the public radio series “This I believe”. It is a very short read and I highly recommend it. It resonated with me. I’d throw out some quotes (and I have before in other places) but it is all too good to me anymore to throw out just a morsel.

• 3 Rich // Feb 4, 2007 at 7:46 pm

  I’m curious about something (really curious). I still consider myself a theist, but am finding it increasingly difficult to find strong kinship with like-minded other believers (I have a strong interest in science for example).

  That said, I’ve been drawn to John and Jana’s blogs; I very much like what I see/hear here.

  The one thing however that troubles me about atheism is the “fruit” (John should know what I mean by this) of collectively practiced atheism — and please correct me if I’m wrong here — but what I see (or imagine) as a big contributing factor to the current mess that is for example the average Russian’s life is due (in part at least) to the large-scale embracing of atheism.

  Today this culture is suffering on so many levels, the problems seemingly insurmountable. Rampant alcoholism, rampant crime (at every level of society and government), chronic levels of depression, suicide, astronomical divorce and abortion rates, fractured families, etc. etc. Almost as if the whole moral backbone of a nation has fragmented, and what’s left has a bad case of osteoporosis.

  So, am I wrong? Is the John-flavor of atheist a very rare, unique breed, or…? Can atheism truly serve the human race any better than any of the various theist-based societies…? What maintains the necessary moral consciousness of a healthy society in the absence of religion?

  I confess that I’m grossly ignorant when it comes to this whole subject, and please don’t imagine that I’m blind to the problems created by lunatic believers (such as the retarded oaf currently camped out in the Oval Office), or the widespread mess that permeates the middle east. I’m just wondering what y’all imagine should work best in an ideal world?

• 4 nee // Feb 4, 2007 at 9:17 pm

  “What maintains the necessary moral consciousness of a healthy society in the absence of religion?”

  Love, a sense of self worth, education, and access to resources (read: economic opportunities)

  Those are the qualities that individuals possess, be they churched or unchurched, that contribute to a healthy society.

  Jails are full of people who could rattle off several commandments and sang in church choirs as kids. It didn’t keep them out. They often lived in poverty, didn’t have access to tutoring or higher education, and didn’t have a strong sense of being loving and their value instilled in them.

  Religion is not imperative to a healthy society. Love for ourselves and fellow humans is. Religion does not have a monopoly on that (and sometimes teaches it in a twisted way).

  I will say that those of us who were once believers and have since come to other conclusions have a special appreciation for the views on both sides of the equations.

• 5 John // Feb 4, 2007 at 9:37 pm

  Nee, I read that Jillette essay awhile back and found it very inspiring (the “This I Believe” series is wonderful, too).

  Rich, you ask some great questions. The problem is that there hasn’t been a lot of research done on non-believers. My initial and entirely unscientific observation is that most non-theists in the U.S. are pretty quiet about their unbelief and seem to live as moral and satisfying as believers.

  I’m not sure if Russia is the best example of a predominantly atheistic nation (Eastern Orthodoxy continued to be strong among much of the population even throughout the communist years). Scandanavia has a higher proportion of atheists than Russia and has some of the most progressive governments and healthiest populations in the world. As you said, atheism is probably one factor among many in Russia and Scandanavia.

  Miko, to answer your question, I consider myself a foolish optimist. Rationally, I see little hope for the long-term survival of humanity. Irrationally, I clutch at that hope and base all of my life efforts on it. The only way humanity will have a positive future is if all the foolish optimists persevere.

• 6 Bonny // Feb 4, 2007 at 10:07 pm

  I come from a Pentecostal Christian background, and while I would still consider myself a Christian, let it be said that my faith is something I have been working through very carefully for the past several years. For me that has meant trying to figure out what my faith and beliefs mean to me in a practical context: how it effects the way I interact with people and the way I view people. I am not really sure where I am with this at the moment, but I can thankfully say that I am far from the from the judgmental ‘everything is black and white’ mindset that defined several years of my life.

  The funny thing about Christianity (or at least in my experience) is that it is presented to a new convert as something that is hopeful and ultimately more fulfilling than anything else in existence. A relationship with Christ and the grace that comes with it is suppose to provide someone with a ‘peace that surpasses all understanding.’ And yet I have a really hard time finding complete peace in this faith because it also tells me that ONLY those who know Christ and come to Him for this grace and forgiveness will have eternal glory. Only then can they be free or ’saved’. So I guess what I feel like that is saying to people is that you can have peace and hope in your life but only if you fit into this small percentage of people that believe one specific thing, and otherwise you are damned. I find a lack of hope in this mindset. I find it really ironic that this supposedly hopeful religion only allows hope for a small group of people. So in that way I feel like my belief and my background is one that tends heavily towards pessimism, and yet at the same time there was a time in my life in which I felt like I had the ultimate hope and the absolute answer and was very optimistic about my own eternal state at least.

  I have realized recently that it just doesn’t square well with me to believe something just to make myself feel secure and optimistic. To me that is like a sort of sugar-coated optimism, and it seems very sick and twisted that my own optimism would be based wholly on something that implied something so awful for so many people. And yet I haven’t sworn of my beliefs completely, because I think there are some principles and values within Christianity that are hopeful and can be good outside of the need for judgment and condemnation.

  I guess what I have said in this long explanation is basically that the judgmental aspect of my faith makes it something that is ultimately and very ironically something I would consider to be extremely pessimistic. It makes me pretty glad that my ‘absolute’ answers allow from for revision and evolution.

• 7 Rich // Feb 4, 2007 at 11:06 pm

  Love, a sense of self worth, education, and access to resources (read: economic opportunities)

  Those are the qualities that individuals possess, be they churched or unchurched, that contribute to a healthy society.

  I wholeheartedly agree, but how and where are these ideals learned and/or taught? Certainly individuals here and there will gravitate to and embrace such thinking, and even translate that into action in the way they live their lives, but at what scale (what percentage of a population)?

  It would be difficult I believe to find something more sublime or universally appealing than Christ’s Sermon on the mount (the Beatitudes) — principles of love, forgiveness, selflessness. His bedrock sermons on caring for the poor, forsaking of wealth, visiting the sick, caring for widows and orphans, feeding the hungry, clothing the naked, healing the infirm, practicing marital fidelity — living the golden rule, the parable of the good Samaritan, etc. — really quite well define and exemplify morality and ethical behavior. In the absence of being taught these things about the Christ (or similar teachings of Buddah or Mohammad or whoever), where would a society actually learn them (outside of perhaps a college class on ethics or philosophy)? I submit that it probably doesn’t just “happen” all by itself. So good, thoughtful parents give such ideals to their children, or a curious mind seeks out and embraces them as they are discovered or encountered, but what happens to those raised outside of these “ideal” homes, or fail to be exposed to or possess the desire to seek them out? I suspect, as you point out, that whether they are “churched or unchurched”, it still happens, but is that because of a certain amount of bleed-over, or at least exposure at some level, to these principles from believers, because that is a part of our society’s consciousness already? I don’t know, again, just curious. And curious why Russia really is so messed up (does it perhaps really just mostly come down to a matter of economics?).

  For example, as appealing as a Star Trek future seems, where technology solves many of the problems we face in society today (unmet needs and wants translate to crime and unrest; all that can tidily be erased with a replicator and a holodeck), I wonder how realistic it would be in the absence of belief in a higher power or deity, that we are here for a reason, that our journey here is important, that we are significant, that something better can be achieved, that obedience to certain principles (commandments) that may seem counter-intuitive leads to true happiness and world peace, etc.

  Anyway, lots of questions, but still short on answers…

• 8 Jonathan // Feb 5, 2007 at 11:42 am

  As a theist, I have come to understand atheism as a (mostly) healthy and optimistic shift in belief away from a very unhealthy and very ugly view of God put forth by very misguided religious groups. As a Christian, I have seen first hand and experienced how bad evangelical churches and movements can be (which I never thought possible before), and I have heard second hand (via John and Miko and others) how bad other religious groups and their dark and dismal views of God are and how that manifests itself in a religious culture and society. You (Miko) and John’s atheistic world-view and accompanying beliefs/ values to me could only be described as optimistic.

  No joke - if I went though the experiences of most of the folks here from bad religious backgrounds, I would probably be an atheist now, and I think that if God were real as I have come to understand him now, He would be pretty happy with that arrangement - it is a good way to sever ties with a belief system with so much crap that runs so deep it must be (in some cases) summarily rejected like a cancer for any healthy growth to take its place.

  I say this because I hold an almost identical set of values that everyone else here does - a love of science, skepticism, and doubt, a dumbfounded and deep awe of the world and universe I find myself existing in, a strong respect for human life and its continual well-being, and a strong dislike of man-made religous systems, even though their is some trace of good in them.

  At the same time, I hold true Christianity to be an optimistic world view. While I have found so much pleasure and joy in life, I realize that my life has been pretty easy and without real hardship; but this is not the case for most of humanity. I want to be an agent of good and light in the world that is hurting, in all places I go and towards all people I meet. I want to leave them somehow better than if I never went there or met them. This is my true heart as long as I am alive, and it seems to be the heart of others I know as well, theist or not. I have not even mentioned the afterlife yet, but I believe it is optimistic without it, even though it is inseparable with what I believe.

  Rich - what puzzles you puzzles me, probably because I’ve grown up in a Christian perspective all my life. The way I stay closest to my true heart is by being drenched with God’s active and felt presence and spirit and with continuous communication. When I spend time with God, I am renewed - I love greater with true love, I become less selfish, more humble, more passionate, and more patient in the most tiniest details of my life that most people would never even notice. I am continually renewed and rejuvenated by the one who embodies all the values I seem to share even with my atheist friends. I become MORE skeptical, MORE hungry for truth, more hateful towards lies, blindness, false religion, and untruth as I grow closer to God.

  …but how does the atheist become more patient, more loving, more humble, less selfish, more drawn to help humanity rather than use it for their own gain? Where do they go to be recharged and renewed? Where is their inspiration for a life of greater virtue? How do they fight selfishness, short patience, rage? How does one become so noble if they were not inspired in some 1st, 2nd, or 3rd-hand way from men or women who were inspired by God to be virtuous and understand the value of things in such a deep and intricate way like Rich said:

  …that we are here for a reason, that our journey here is important, that we are significant, that something better can be achieved, that obedience to certain principles (commandments) that may seem counter-intuitive leads to true happiness and world peace, etc.

  In other words, without the presence of the divine to inspire the greatest (Jesus, Gandhi, Buddha) to understand and be virtuous, how do we who are not like them find out about the details of virtue? Even though we may all reject the manifestations of religion we find in the world around us as being corrupted by man to a lesser or greater degree, is there not some essence of good and truth still uncorrupted there, amidst all the lies and deceit? Is not the foundation, authority, and source of virtue found where the divine is? Where else can it be found? Is it a priori knowledge within each one of us that allows us to recognize virtue when we see it?

• 9 nee // Feb 5, 2007 at 12:45 pm

  As much as I try to understand what you’re saying Rich, it sounds like you’re saying people wouldn’t have the sense to get along if they weren’t commanded to. Either that or they behave out of fear. Ultimately, neither is the best motivation for long lasting success of society.

  If I treat people well at home and work, they treat me well in return. I don’t treat them well nor they me because they had to be taught it as doctrine. It’s natural law.

  If 2 people grew up and lived in the jungle with zero exposure to doctrines of any sort of religion, they would soon discover that helping each other benefitted them both and because of human emotion, they would care for each other.

  These things do not require a teacher beyond experience. Not only would they learn these things, they would learn them without the underlying religious baggage that negates the value of the teachings - namely, that people are so incapable of doing what is right that no matter how hard they try, they will never be good enough so a god in human form has to save their pathetic $%#!$.

  Sure, it’s helpful if someone warns you that touching the stove will burn your hand but if they didn’t, you’d still learn it.

  Also, I second what John said about some countries in Europe. Societies’ ills are not due to lack of religion, indeed there are social ills everywhere, religion or not. Economics are a huge part of it. So is lack of self worth which is caused by judgments which often have roots in religion.

  Overall, much of my religious past was positive, though I view it somewhat differently now, having stepped out of the river.

• 10 Miko // Feb 5, 2007 at 12:56 pm

  Rich (#7): I think that nee hit the nail on the head: people who have access to the benefits of an economically stable society will in general be better off than those who do not. This is the reason for the discrepancy between Russia and Scandinavia: both are (arguably) atheistic but have a disparity of economic stability, causing general pessimistic & optimistic situations (respectively). I think we can easily remove religion from that equation and ponder what it is that makes Russia such a depressing place. Siberia might have something to do with it, so too might its history of being oppressed.

  I think that the US has such problems (as a second-world country) because of the economic disparities that exist, rather than because of the religious and atheistic wackos. New Mexico is one of the most beautiful places in the world but has the lowest standard of living and highest rates of alcoholism in the country. Standards of living which might be the envy of Bangladesh but likely below those of some other third-world countries. The fact that the San Franciso Bay Area (a place more like Europe than most I’ve been) can exist in the same country is less a testiment to the Christianity of NM and the atheism of SF than to the economic opportunities available in each.

  nee: thank you for the link, I subscribe the the podcast but haven’t heard this one yet

• 11 Jonathan // Feb 5, 2007 at 12:56 pm

  …namely, that people are so incapable of doing what is right that no matter how hard they try, they will never be good enough so a god in human form has to save their pathetic $%#!$.

  Nee - I’m with you… I hate Calvinism too.

Leave a Comment