The Psychological Reasons Maybe

[humanguy]

Lately I've been unable to think of anything good enough to contribute here, good enough and heartfelt enough.

Whenever I come up with what seems to be a great topic for a thread, no more than halfway through typing it I stop, because suddenly what I'm writing seems like a cheap shot to take at an easy target. I mean, figuratively speaking a blind man could hit the target that is Christianity.

Now myself, I think god and Jesus and all things religious and supernatural are human inventions, and I can not only think that but I can walk into the town square of Decatur, Georgia and yell that at the top of my lungs with getting arrested. Beat up, maybe, but yelling in town squares puts you at that risk no matter what you want to say. So I have no problem personally with Christianity unless it turns into a sales pitch, pretty much a minor annoyance that hasn't happened to me in many years.

But maybe we're all talking about the wrong thing, because I'm convinced that the real topic for discussion is what makes some of us Christian and others atheist, what's behind it all. I could make a long list of ridiculous claims made by the Bible and the Christian church. If that carried any weight then Christianity would only exist in history books, but the fact is that it doesn't carry any weight at all, not really, and I don't mean to demean anyone's belief.

Christian, atheist, Buddhist, whatever, there must be psychological and emotional factors involved in how we end up there, there have to be, and that's what I'm wondering about this evening.

[Keep The Reason]

Lately I've been unable to think of anything good enough to contribute here, good enough and heartfelt enough.

Whenever I come up with what seems to be a great topic for a thread, no more than halfway through typing it I stop, because suddenly what I'm writing seems like a cheap shot to take at an easy target. I mean, figuratively speaking a blind man could hit the target that is Christianity.

Now myself, I think god and Jesus and all things religious and supernatural are human inventions, and I can not only think that but I can walk into the town square of Decatur, Georgia and yell that at the top of my lungs with getting arrested. Beat up, maybe, but yelling in town squares puts you at that risk no matter what you want to say. So I have no problem personally with Christianity unless it turns into a sales pitch, pretty much a minor annoyance that hasn't happened to me in many years.

But maybe we're all talking about the wrong thing, because I'm convinced that the real topic for discussion is what makes some of us Christian and others atheist, what's behind it all. I could make a long list of ridiculous claims made by the Bible and the Christian church. If that carried any weight then Christianity would only exist in history books, but the fact is that it doesn't carry any weight at all, not really, and I don't mean to demean anyone's belief.

Christian, atheist, Buddhist, whatever, there must be psychological and emotional factors involved in how we end up there, there have to be, and that's what I'm wondering about this evening.

I would be surprised if there weren't.

That said, if you ever want a really good bison steak, check out Ted's Montana Grill in Decatur. What a lovely town that is.

[mitchellmckain]

Christian, atheist, Buddhist, whatever, there must be psychological and emotional factors involved in how we end up there, there have to be, and that's what I'm wondering about this evening.

Of course there are psychological factors as well sociological factors and personal experience.

The biggest difference it seems to me is the difference between those who just go along with what they are taught and those who question and challenge everything. The latter alone results in a cyclical development where each generation rejects the conclusions of previous generations. Its not just rebellion alone but the nature of religion that it seems that whichever direction you start looking in you seem to find sufficient justification to keep going in that same direction. I mean that being willing to find something of value in religion will tend to find it and being willing to find reasons to dismiss it all as nonsense tends to find those reasons as well.

I believe that we are confronting the nature of life itself to impose its own order on the world, not just materially but in the realm of ideas that process information. To some degree the religious side of things (the objectively undecidable) is like a slate that is readily drawn upon or erased. So perhaps you could also say that one of the differences is between those who draw, those who erase and those who merely keep it as it is. Perhaps there is an ecology of the mind and just as we require both processes of creation and destruction (decay) in the biological ecology, a healthy mental ecology requires both those who draw on the slate and those who erase.

Perhaps the more interesting question for me is not why the differences so much as why there is anything there at all? That we can tear it down and dismiss it does not seem so surprising to me but rather it is the other side that interests me. For me it is like the question of why there is any life at all, and the fact that it can all be destroyed doesn't interest me by comparison to that.

Now myself, I think god and Jesus and all things religious and supernatural are human inventions

I think that asserting religion is human invention deserves a big SO WHAT? Science is also human invention. We create/invent but we do not so in a vacuum and so that something is an invention of man doesn't mean that isn't 100% true or that it isn't about something real outside of ourselves.

[humanguy]

Christian, atheist, Buddhist, whatever, there must be psychological and emotional factors involved in how we end up there, there have to be, and that's what I'm wondering about this evening.

I would be surprised if there weren't.

The more I think about it the more it seems clear that our choices are maybe not completely our own, so to speak.

That said, if you ever want a really good bison steak, check out Ted's Montana Grill in Decatur. What a lovely town that is.

I drive through there all the time. I live only a few miles up the road from Decatur, in not-so-lovely Clarkston.

[Keep The Reason]

I think that asserting religion is human invention deserves a big SO WHAT? Science is also human invention. We create/invent but we do not so in a vacuum and so that something is an invention of man doesn't mean that isn't 100% true or that it isn't about something real outside of ourselves.

The SO WHAT? is essential to understand because while both are human inventions, one leads to an unrealistic view of how reality operates, and the other leads to an accurate view of how reality operates.

And none of this would matter if the religious view led to self reflection and inner personal growth, but for far too many people, it clearly does not!. It leads to what you call "legalism" and what I call hatred and intolerance.

Real intolerance, not the kind you go on about here, which is opinion, but the kind that leads to segregation and abuse, using so called "sacred" texts to insist desert nomads had some special insights to how things operate, to theocratic governments and law based on the insistence that an ever watchful eye sees our every move, to an utterly false social model of primacy of one group over all others, to war, war, war, and to "Don't worry, Jesus will be back in 35 years so rape the Earth to your hearts content!"

These are pretty huge SO WHAT's? especially when accuracy of understanding falls time and again on the science side of the fence, and almost never on the religious side. When your appendix bursts, you can rely on faith and Jesus to heal you-- a claim that is found in the aforementioned "sacred" texts-- or you can go to the scientifically trained doctors to resolve the issue. Even if those doctors are religious, the part they ignore when it comes to reality is the part which supposedly proves Jesus was the god they believe in-- the part where you can just be healed miraculously. Why? Because everyone knows it doesn't actually work because its not true.

That's "SO WHAT?"

[cleve]

...But maybe we're all talking about the wrong thing, because I'm convinced that the real topic for discussion is what makes some of us Christian and others atheist, what's behind it all.

Humanguy,
Could it be that what's behind it all is that christians and atheists are talking about two different religious belief systems? The christian religions tend to believe that "intelligence came by intelligence;" whereas the atheistic religion seems to believe that "intelligence came by 'chance'" - and possibly additional "chances". Both christian and atheistic religions seem to "church together" around the belief/idea/concept that creation is by "intelligence". It seems like the atheists' belief system - the creation of "intelligence by chance" - actually requires "greater faith" in order for it to become more credible by individuals. Perhaps this is why the atheist "church" is "smaller" - It simply demands more and greater faith. Just as their belief system in "creation by intelligence" requires more and greater faith from an individual, so also it requires more and more credit to chance. Hence, I see atheim as a "religion of/by chance".

[Keep The Reason]

...But maybe we're all talking about the wrong thing, because I'm convinced that the real topic for discussion is what makes some of us Christian and others atheist, what's behind it all.

Humanguy,
Could it be that what's behind it all is that christians and atheists are talking about two different religious belief systems? The christian religions tend to believe that "intelligence came by intelligence;" whereas the atheistic religion seems to believe that "intelligence came by 'chance'" - and possibly additional "chances". Both christian and atheistic religions seem to "church together" around the belief/idea/concept that creation is by "intelligence". It seems like the atheists' belief system - the creation of "intelligence by chance" - actually requires "greater faith" in order for it to become more credible by individuals. Perhaps this is why the atheist "church" is "smaller" - It simply demands more and greater faith. Just as their belief system in "creation by intelligence" requires more and greater faith from an individual, so also it requires more and more credit to chance. Hence, I see atheim as a "religion of/by chance".

Sigh.

Why do some thiests not understand that evolution is not chance? How many times does this have to be repeated over and over and over before it's understood?

From TalkOrigins' "Five Major Misconceptions about Evolution"

"The theory of evolution says that life originated, and evolution proceeds, by random chance."

There is probably no other statement which is a better indication that the arguer doesn't understand evolution. Chance certainly plays a large part in evolution, but this argument completely ignores the fundamental role of natural selection, and selection is the very opposite of chance. Chance, in the form of mutations, provides genetic variation, which is the raw material that natural selection has to work with. From there, natural selection sorts out certain variations. Those variations which give greater reproductive success to their possessors (and chance ensures that such beneficial mutations will be inevitable) are retained, and less successful variations are weeded out. When the environment changes, or when organisms move to a different environment, different variations are selected, leading eventually to different species. Harmful mutations usually die out quickly, so they don't interfere with the process of beneficial mutations accumulating.

Nor is abiogenesis (the origin of the first life) due purely to chance. Atoms and molecules arrange themselves not purely randomly, but according to their chemical properties. In the case of carbon atoms especially, this means complex molecules are sure to form spontaneously, and these complex molecules can influence each other to create even more complex molecules. Once a molecule forms that is approximately self-replicating, natural selection will guide the formation of ever more efficient replicators. The first self-replicating object didn't need to be as complex as a modern cell or even a strand of DNA. Some self-replicating molecules are not really all that complex (as organic molecules go).

Some people still argue that it is wildly improbable for a given self-replicating molecule to form at a given point (although they usually don't state the "givens," but leave them implicit in their calculations). This is true, but there were oceans of molecules working on the problem, and no one knows how many possible self-replicating molecules could have served as the first one. A calculation of the odds of abiogenesis is worthless unless it recognizes the immense range of starting materials that the first replicator might have formed from, the probably innumerable different forms that the first replicator might have taken, and the fact that much of the construction of the replicating molecule would have been non-random to start with.

(One should also note that the theory of evolution doesn't depend on how the first life began. The truth or falsity of any theory of abiogenesis wouldn't affect evolution in the least.)

Plus, we see, consistently, nature move towards complexity begin in simpler to more complex processes. As you go back in time, everything in the universe becomes simpler, less patterned, more of a soup. This is building from the ground up. But the7ists see all of that self evident information, and then do a remarkable U-Turn and insist that foirst you need infinite complexity (god) in order to start thing up -- an imaginary and unworkable sky-hook, grounded in nothingness.

It's not an article of faith at all to say that energy plus time minght bring about amazing patterns, like solar systems, biospheres teeming with life, and eventually intelligent life (and who knows? Maybe something more later still! And that's a specultion, not a faith-claim; I have no idea if there's "something more to come" that supercedes consciousness and intellect -- and nether does anyone else).

But it is utterly a "god-of-the-gaps" lever to say, "insert gods here" and then state that evolution (of universes and life) is "random chance". If by "random" chance one means, "It need only happen once" -- then yeah, ok, it's random chance. But this is the case for theists as well-0- it's simply drandom chance there is even a god, if there is one because nothingness could have been a possibility as well. We wouldn't be discussing it of course, but it could have been so.

The reason athiests are so much smaller in numbers is that it takes a much more diligent look at reality and not just toss it off lazily on some watch winder-- while some theists actively study their theisms, most people don't-- most people just take the lazy way and believe because they were raised to and don't even think about it one way or the other. Atheism means means facing the reality that we know-- that we live, we die, and make purpose as we go along, but it's all temporary. This is hard for many people to deal with, and to even suggest otherwise gets them pissed off and they think you are insulting them. It's not particularly as comforting a world to believe there is just this life and nothing more, and we are utterly responsible for everything we touch. There are positive tradeoffs of course, but that doesn't mean the truth and reality are happily comfortable at every turn.

We'rte smaller because thiests have classically oppressed, repressed and attacked us. We did nothing to earn the "least trusted and most hated minority in Amerca" honors -- but because you theists attack us for merely bleieving differently, we've been underground so long. (That, of course, is changing. We're here. And we are becoming more vocal, finally). But-- that's why we're smaller in numbers.

(And this is not even the case in orther countries-- I guess there must be a billion "faith-based atheists" (sic) in China who give lie to your misunderstanding.

Stop calling our lack of belief in your religion a religion. Atheism may embrace a variety of ideologies, but we do not have religions. Religions are institutions that adopt traditions, doctrines and beliefs that are absent of demonstrable proof-- you can be inordinately reliant upon science to "Save the day" (when it's a methodology rather than an ideology) but even that isn't a religion-- so please stop saying it.

[humanguy]

...But maybe we're all talking about the wrong thing, because I'm convinced that the real topic for discussion is what makes some of us Christian and others atheist, what's behind it all.

Humanguy,
Could it be that what's behind it all is that christians and atheists are talking about two different religious belief systems?

No, and stop calling atheism a religious belief. It's a tired old non-starter and it's also rather dumb.

[mitchellmckain]

Humanguy,
Could it be that what's behind it all is that christians and atheists are talking about two different religious belief systems?

No, and stop calling atheism a religious belief. It's a tired old non-starter and it's also rather dumb.

Yeah cleve, how dare you challenge the atheist demand for exemption, and special pleading? How dare you suggest that their declarations are beliefs rather than knowledge? How dare you imply that atheists are like anyone else and not some kind of super-rational uber mensch? Don't you know that they are always right by default, and thus if you cannot prove them wrong then you have believe what they tell you to believe?

[Keep The Reason]

Humanguy,
Could it be that what's behind it all is that christians and atheists are talking about two different religious belief systems?

No, and stop calling atheism a religious belief. It's a tired old non-starter and it's also rather dumb.

Yeah cleve, how dare you challenge the atheist demand for exemption, and special pleading? How dare you suggest that their declarations are beliefs rather than knowledge? How dare you imply that atheists are like anyone else and not some kind of super-rational uber mensch? Don't you know that they are always right by default, and thus if you cannot prove them wrong then you have believe what they tell you to believe?

Actually, it's all about not having those tax breaks and social benefits that you theists have enjoyed for a few thousand years.

[cleve]

...But maybe we're all talking about the wrong thing, because I'm convinced that the real topic for discussion is what makes some of us Christian and others atheist, what's behind it all.

Humanguy,
Could it be that what's behind it all is that christians and atheists are talking about two different religious belief systems?

No, and stop calling atheism a religious belief. It's a tired old non-starter and it's also rather dumb.

Humanguy & KTR,
No, it's not dumb. If atheists don't really want to be considered to be religious or a religion, then don't have any regular & serious common grounds that help them to establish common meeting places - like this discussion board. Atheists still are people who "group together" and express things "religiously together" from a perspective of a common self-interest; besides that, I keep hearing you say that atheists are increasing in number as a result of such activities. Both individually and as a group, atheists express their fears and strategize together toward/about others who show indications of wanting to control them. Since any group of people comes together to express their common concerns, why not call that a "religion"? If certain attitudes prevail when they come together, why can't atheists be identified by/associated with these attitudes? Since this is what happens with other religions, what exempts atheists from having unique identity traits applied to them? If atheism is not considered to be a religion yet, it sire looks like it's up and running toward becoming one. Not that this concerns me that much to label atheists in any specific way.

[Moonwood the Hare]

While I can except that atheists do not have a cultus the way Christians do I do not think that means they have no religious beliefs whatsoever. However I recognize it will always be possible to come up with a definition of religion that excludes ones own beliefs; there was a fashion for this among Christians a few years ago. From my perspective most atheists deny that there is any transcendent self-existent reality and instead locate the self existent within the cosmos. As I take the essence of religion to be a belief in something as self existent then I do not believe that atheists lack religious beliefs.

On the question of psychological motives I think this is very difficult to assess. There may be hidden factors operating and it may be possible to uncover them but this is no easy matter. I find the report of the psychotherapist Scott Peck interesting. He puzzled over the fact that those of his clients who began with a religious faith often came out of therapy as atheists while those who began as atheists often came out as religious believers. This lead him to adopt a modified version of Fowler's theory of stages of faith development http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fowler%27s_stages_of_faith_development which incorporated a critical rejection stage. He sees the stages as 1. chaotic 2. institutional. 3. critical rejection 4. mystical communal. The need for personal growth will lead a person from an immoral or chaotic lifestyle to a form of religion which is highly institutional and dependent on authority. Those who have grown up in this type of faith often reject it as stultifying while retaining it's values. Those still in the second stage often cannot distinguish this third stage from the chaotic stage, similarly those in the third stage struggle to distinguish those in the fourth stage from the second. It seems to me that atheistic beliefs can be institutional and Christian beliefs (or those of other religions) can be critical and mysticism and communalism can take both theistic and non-theistic forms. But the idea of some kind of progress of this kind as one comes into contact with ones own inner world seems valid to me.

[Keep The Reason]

Humanguy & KTR,
No, it's not dumb. If atheists don't really want to be considered to be religious or a religion, then don't have any regular & serious common grounds that help them to establish common meeting places - like this discussion board. Atheists still are people who "group together" and express things "religiously together" from a perspective of a common self-interest; besides that, I keep hearing you say that atheists are increasing in number as a result of such activities. Both individually and as a group, atheists express their fears and strategize together toward/about others who show indications of wanting to control them. Since any group of people comes together to express their common concerns, why not call that a "religion"? If certain attitudes prevail when they come together, why can't atheists be identified by/associated with these attitudes? Since this is what happens with other religions, what exempts atheists from having unique identity traits applied to them? If atheism is not considered to be a religion yet, it sire looks like it's up and running toward becoming one. Not that this concerns me that much to label atheists in any specific way.

Oh for crying out loud. We can't meet now without being tagged a "religion"? Are you kidding me?

So-- is the Boy Scouts a religion, cleve? They meet -- quite regularly. What about stamp collectors? Another religion? I hear gun perople literally worship their guns. Another religion! What isn't a religion under your foolish, ridiculous and absurd definition? Give me a break.

I gotta go now. I'm going to go read the Huffingotn Post. You know -- the religion of worshiping Adrianna.

[mitchellmckain]

It seems to me that atheistic beliefs can be institutional and Christian beliefs (or those of other religions) can be critical and mysticism and communalism can take both theistic and non-theistic forms. But the idea of some kind of progress of this kind as one comes into contact with ones own inner world seems valid to me.

I think what Moonwood is trying to say here is that although it is TYPICALLY the majority of Christians that represent the institutional stage and that traditionally the atheists have represented the critical stage, this is not always necessarily the case. Particularly as atheism becomes more popular we will see more and more atheist representing the institutional stage and more Christians who are actually represent the critical stage in rejection of atheist upbringing.

I would add that the theory which I read in Scott Peck's books, is more meant to explain the relational aspects of what is going on rather than to suggest that people are absolutely in one stage or another.

[cleve]

Oh for crying out loud. We can't meet now without being tagged a "religion"? Are you kidding me?

So-- is the Boy Scouts a religion, cleve?

Yes, of God and country, Keep The Reason.