Tuesday, November 1, 2011

From PZ's Place: Kirsten Seymour, on Why I Am An Atheist:

I grew up in a largely secular household. Although I was christened in the Anglican church, my exposure to religious ideas was limited to a children’s book of bible stories (from my grandmother), occasional visits to church (when my parents were out of town and I had to stay with gran), and a week every summer spent at church camp. The bible stories I treated just as that – even from an early age, I recognized them as stories only. My occasional church visits I found entirely boring and I don’t remember ever actually listening to anything that was said.

Church camp was probably the most influential religious experience I had. I should say that I only ever went to church camp because there was always a week in the summer where my mom went out of town and my dad worked and my parents thought it would be best to send me off to camp with other kids. There were very few (if any) live-in summer camps in our area that weren’t run by churches, and my parents were of the opinion that a week of religion wouldn’t kill me. For the most part they were right. There was the one summer where a scheduling conflict forced them to send me to a Pentecostal camp instead of the Anglican camp that I usually went to. Pentecostal camp featured 4 hours of church every day, which included adults speaking in tongues and performing “miracles” on demand, and lots of kids with their hands in the air, crying (literally) for Jesus. I remember being bitter that I wasn’t allowed to listen to my new Natalie Cole cassette tape because it wasn’t about God. I found that camp creepy, and my mom was pretty shocked by the stories I told when I came home. Needless to say, I never went there again. The Anglican camp was better. There was always some sort of short service each day (usually held outside in a little clearing in the forest), but for the most part we played games, sang songs, swam in the ocean and did normal kid stuff. I enjoyed camp, and it gave me the impression that believing in God wasn’t all that bad. I enjoyed the camaraderie with other kids and the feeling that we were all a part of something.

In all my life, I don’t remember ever having a fervent belief in God. I thought it was tradition to be a part of a religion, but I didn’t realize that you had to actually believe in it. As a teenager, I started to philosophize on religion and what I really believed. At first, I came up with the argument that “god” or “gods” were present in all societies around the world, so maybe there was something to it. But I didn’t think that any one religion had it right. I guess this was my phase of “spirituality” where I thought there might be some higher being, but I couldn’t subscribe to any one belief system. In university, I spent a weekend at a friend’s house and devoured the book “Conversations with God”, which is written on the premise that the author is actually able to communicate with God, and God explains why there are all these contradictions in the world – why babies die, why some parts of the world experience extreme poverty and suffering while others were relatively prosperous, why God doesn’t show himself. I thought the book made some sense, and I remember thinking that if there was a God, I’d like to think that he’d be practical and merciful like the author of that book explained. Of course, I realized that the book didn’t jive with any religious doctrine that I knew of, so I was back to thinking that there might be something out there, but no religion had it right.

I think that my “spirituality” dissolved gradually through university as I strengthened my science muscles. I took a class as an elective towards the end of my B.Sc. that focused on society and the environment. The class was full of hippies and “spiritual” folks who had an idealistic view that “alternative reasoning” could solve all the world’s problems – I would have fit right in during high school. In the course, I heard the argument all the time that “if we just let go of our western ideals and ways of thinking and take a holistic approach to environmental management, we’ll save the environment”. Nobody ever explained what that meant. Meanwhile, I’d spent 2 summers as a research assistant investigating how land use affected fish populations in different regions of the province, and finding that the “doom and gloom” opinion that most environmentalists had regarding logging and the environment didn’t apply to all ecosystems. I was thinking critically, investigating claims, and finding that science had more answers to everything. I think it was around this time that I ditched the idea of a god entirely. In the same way that I couldn’t envision how “non-Western thinking” could solve the world’s environmental problems, I just couldn’t wrap my mind around the idea of a man in the sky, responsible for everything, meting out vengeance on anyone who didn’t blindly believe in his glory. Even “spirituality” seemed silly and childish – I was fed up with woo, “alternative thinking”, eastern/western reasoning, etc.. In the end, it all comes down to facts, and the fact is that no higher being has ever presented me with a single reason to believe he exists.

I’m still an environmentalist, but instead of standing in a cutblock, smoking weed and chained to a tree, I’m actively involved in the science that goes towards managing environment effectively for everyone. And instead of hanging out in a coffee shop discussing god, spirituality, and the driving force behind nature, I’m discussing with everyone who will listen the reasons why I’m an atheist.
Kirsten Seymour
Canada


Kirsten said,
” And instead of hanging out in a coffee shop discussing god, spirituality, and the driving force behind nature, I’m discussing with everyone who will listen the reasons why I’m an atheist.”
I actually hope Kirsten reads this and shows up here to discuss the “reasons why’ she’s an Atheist. Because despite her rejection of “woo”, she doesn’t give a substantial logical argument to support being an Atheist.
” I just couldn’t wrap my mind around the idea of a man in the sky, responsible for everything, meting out vengeance on anyone who didn’t blindly believe in his glory.”
Of the three concepts in this statement, none is a position of Theism. Theism does not posit a “man in the sky”, it posits a non-material first cause for the universe which exists outside the universe and prior to it.

That first cause is not “responsible for everything”: there are human agents within its universe that are endowed with free will and responsibility for using it. They are provided with guidance for using it properly.

Vengeance is not a precept of basic Theism. But the expectation of pursuing truth is, in fact, part of Christian theology, which sets the expectation and the consequences. Consequences are not seen as reasonable by the rebellious. Rebels are frequently annoyed by justice that does not favor their own rebellion and denial.

Nor is “blind belief” required, contrary to Atheist convolutions. So these accusations do not address the issue of the existence of a first cause, nor do they provide actual logic in defense of rejecting the existence. There is neither logic nor evidence provided here, so no analysis is possible.

9 comments:

Nats said...

Theism. Theism does not posit a “man in the sky”, it posits a non-material first cause for the universe which exists outside the universe and prior to it.

If that was all that theism posited then how would it be different than deism?

Stan said...

I didn't say that was all that it posited. The subject was the characteristics that would be expected.

Nats said...

So would you not agree that theism is the belief in the existence of one or more preternatural or supernatural immortal beings who is personal, present and active in the governance and organization of the world or the universe? And some of the other characteristics merely belong to Christianity?

"meting out vengeance on anyone who didn’t blindly believe in his glory."

She is talking about Christianity not theism in general. Some Christians believe YWHW will cast those that don't believe in him into Hell. The New Testament in places stresses believing "like a child" (Luke 18) and not seeking knowledge (Romans 1 and 1 Corinthians 1).

"That first cause is not “responsible for everything”: there are human agents within its universe that are endowed with free will and responsibility for using it."

She probably means "responsible for everything" in the sense of "responisible for the creation of everything".

Stan said...

Nats said,
”So would you not agree that theism is the belief in the existence of one or more preternatural or supernatural immortal beings who is personal, present and active in the governance and organization of the world or the universe? And some of the other characteristics merely belong to Christianity?”

Unless I misunderstand your statement, no. The only necessities would be something on the order of (a) a first cause fully capable of forming the universe and providing intellect and agency for certain members, and (b) the ability to reach and commune with them in some indeterminate fashion.

”She is talking about Christianity not theism in general. Some Christians believe YWHW will cast those that don't believe in him into Hell. The New Testament in places stresses believing "like a child" (Luke 18) and not seeking knowledge (Romans 1 and 1 Corinthians 1).

Of course she is. But that is the logical fallacy. She doesn’t like the ecclesiasticism or the consequences so she rejects the consequence-giver along with the ecclesiasticism. That is no argument against a first cause.

I’ll take a brief excursion into interpreting the “anti-knowledge” passages you reference, although I do not use any of this as material for arguing the existence of a first cause. In fact, the use of these passages in denying a first cause is completely without merit.

The biblical instances you give are stressing that wisdom (not knowledge) which is of human derivation is without any authority beyond the level of opinion. Those who push opinion as “truth” are blinded to the meaning and actual pursuit of truth. The blinded then think that belief in a truth which has authority beyond mere human opinion – is blind faith. In actuality, the faith is in the facts which demonstrate the authority, but these are denied by the opinion mongers, and without evidence to support the denial.

This is just my interpretation, which may be as easily rejected as any opinion; I do not vouch for its veracity nor do I claim that it is useful in accepting or rejecting a first cause. However, the interpretation given as “anti-knowledge” is quite arguably not the case.

”She probably means "responsible for everything" in the sense of "responisible for the creation of everything".”

Possibly. Possibly not. She didn’t expand it.

yonose said...

Hello there!

Sorry for messing around, my English is not very good...

Nats,

"So would you not agree that theism is the belief in the existence of one or more preternatural or supernatural immortal beings who is personal, present and active in the governance and organization of the world or the universe?"

You somewhat misinterpret and change the definitions... Wikipedia doesn't work very well, I'm afraid. Wikipedia is almost never, a trustable source regarding political, biographical and theological/theosophical concepts.

I don't think the supernatural "being" is the correct term, as being in the material sense of the word, but rather an "entity", and this misconception is the main problem.

Preternatural, again, does not refer to being but for entity, and also, preternatural rather refers to an attribute(adjective) rathen than to the entity itself.

"She is talking about Christianity not theism in general. Some Christians believe YWHW will cast those that don't believe in him into Hell. The New Testament in places stresses believing "like a child" (Luke 18) and not seeking knowledge (Romans 1 and 1 Corinthians 1)."

Exactly, but she did not give any reason of why she rejected any kind divinity in general, and seems rather unknowledgeable from herself, to think that Christianity is only proposition to the source of knowledge of the divinity, as the objective meaning of God is the reason of the logical propositions given within the judeo-christian religions (the proposed results), and also, but not in an explicit way, the methods required to reach the knowledge of the divinity.

Judeo-Cristian and Semitic religions are choices I disagree in some aspects, but as such deserve respect as with any other choice, being theistic or not, but those people who choose should better have good foundations of those aspects(Judeo-Christian, Semitic, Hinduism, Buddhism, any Theistic or Pantheistic -but not materialist pantheism- paganism, all have good reasons, but I won't mention them here), or else are people who believe them are doomed to use those with no reason (Incluiding Atheists).

Those pieces of the scripture you give here are worthless because belief alone and replacing the ways to know the divine with the logic alone, are not the main methods to empirically understand spirituality and religion in general, you also need to practice a method which is consistent with the mental abstractions and then the possible materializations of those(and that's also part of the knowledge), being prayer, meditations, rituals etc etc.

The ritual differentiations are also in many ways (but not all) worthless because of their subjective, abstract meaning once you find out for yourself what does it actually mean, and to do so, you need to use your mind to "connect" in the intended way, to practice.

Why there are so many Atheists who focus so much in attacking Abrahamic religions and discarding eveything else instead of looking for theoric and practical knowledge, regarding the intrinsic interrelations of the topic they are against, is beyond me.


Kind Regards.

++SloMo++ said...

Why there are so many Atheists who focus so much in attacking Abrahamic religions

Because they are the most popular religions, they were brought up in an Abrahamic religion, the Holy Books contain contradictions and absurdities which make it easier to dismiss the entire religion, these religions are responsible for a lot of death.

But I see what you are saying - it's like dismissing home computers because Microsoft Windows is not for you.

Stan said...

I don't think so. They were brought up in Christianity (the use of the term "Abrahamic" is just an attempt to place opposites into the same set, a conscious Category Error).

The "absurdities" charge is actually addressed in the Bible.

And as for deaths, Atheist regimes have far outpaced - by orders of magnitude - the death rates of Christianity. (Not that that excuses Catholicism for its excesses and negligence). So these are post hoc excuses. The rejection is far more commonly done in the pursuit of personal freedom from moral constraints which cramp the individual's pursuit of self indulgence over all else. PZ's "Why I Am An Atheist" series is proof of this.

Fred said...

the use of the term "Abrahamic" is just an attempt to place opposites into the same set,

Could you elaborate on this, Stan? I don't quite follow.

Stan said...

When Atheists want to defame the nebulous thing called "religion", which is a general category without much of a definition, it is common for them to attack "Abrahamic" "religions". This lumps Islam, Judaism, and Christianity into one category. Then they attack the practices common to Islam as if they are representative of the entire group.

Islamic ideology and practice are the opposite of Judeo-Christian ideology and practice.

To condemn Christianity for the practices and ideology of Islam is the objective, and it is a fallacy.

The condemnation of all Abrahamic religions for the practices of just one of them is a Fallacy of Guilt by False Association.

It is also a category error to place[X] and [Not X] into the same category or set, for the purpose of examining [Not X] for characteristics to attribute to the entire set: [X & Not X]. Same fallacy, different way of looking at it.