Wednesday, December 28, 2011

From PZ's Place: Barbara Meissner, USA, on Why I Am An Atheist:

I was a teenager. I sang in the choir for the Protestant church services on Air Force bases. Most services were non-denominational, and a few were Lutheran. I was there mostly for the singing and for social reasons but I was a Christian. My mother was a generic Christian, a sort of non-denominational granddaughter of two Methodist ministers. My father was an atheist, though I did not know that at the time. I never got any sense that he opposed the Sunday schools when I was young or the choir in my teens. I think he expected me to figure it out for myself.

George Carlin once said about religion “I tried, folks. I really did.” So did I. I wanted it. I wanted what all those people around me had, that sense of the presence of God, a real relationship with God. I prayed frequently for God to fill me with what the others described as the Holy Ghost. It never happened.

It was the weekly attendance at church with the choir, which went on for about 2 years, that put the first crack in my belief. One day I realized, after reading the Sermon on the Mount, that I rarely heard a preacher quote Jesus. We got a lot of Paul, and sometimes a bit of the other letters. We got the Old Testament. At Christmas and Easter we got a lot of stories about Jesus. But we very rarely got what Jesus actually said. As a joke I told a friend that they weren’t Christians, they were Paulists. But I couldn’t figure out why they spent so little time quoting Jesus.

We had a great Youth Pastor. I think he really was a nice guy, though of course, these days we have a tendency to look askance at them because of how many of them end up molesting children. He honestly tried to answer my questions, which were becoming more and more frequent. But he really couldn’t. It all came down to “You have to have faith,” a very unsatisfactory answer.

Then I re-read Stranger in a Strange Land. I’d read it shortly after it was published when I was 11 and approximately 70 percent of it went right over my head (my parents had no idea at the time what the book was like, as Heinlein’s previous books were aimed at children), but this time I was old enough to actually understand most of it. I was just barely 16. Heinlein’s cynicism, his contempt for religious leaders, and his failure to accept the norms I had been taught were a revelation. But the most important thing in the book, at least as far as my religious faith was concerned, was a passage in which he described what happened to Lot’s daughters. His character then said, “That’s not the only surprise in store for any one who actually reads the Bible.”

I took him up on his implied challenge. I read the Bible, starting at Genesis 1:1 and continuing all the way through, page by page. I admit I skimmed over the begats and I just never could quite finish Revelations. It was just too weird to me. It made no sense at all to a 16 year old in the mid-1960s, before everything got all psychedelic. But I read everything else.

Then I thought about it. I thought about all the Bible stories that I’d never heard of, and with damned good reason. I thought about God the Father who will send his children to hell. He will do this even to those who had never really hurt anyone in their entire lives, while murderers and rapists went to heaven if they just confessed their sins and repented. I knew my Daddy could never send me to hell, no matter what I did. I thought about the injustice of God punishing us for being who he made us to be. I thought about the genocide of peoples whose only real crime was being on the wrong land at the wrong time and all the other crimes authorized by God.

After about 3 weeks, I told my mother. “I don’t believe it. It doesn’t make sense.”

She just shrugged and said, “Don’t worry, you’ll figure it out eventually.” Actually she figured it out. She is an atheist today.

My reasons for being an atheist have become more sophisticated over time, but it began as an overpowering sense of the unfairness inherent in the Christian doctrine. A measure of my lack of sophistication at the time is that it never occurred to me that maybe another religion was the right one, which is fortunate in way, as it saved me a lot of time searching through other beliefs.

These days I tend to concentrate on the lack of evidence for a supernatural being, and the utter lack of evidence that becoming a “good” Christian, or indeed, any other religion, makes you a more moral person. But my atheism is still grounded on that sense of unfairness.

Barbara Meissner
United States

Meissner makes these points:

1. God is unfair. Evilgod.

2. There is a lack of evidence for a supernatural being.

3. Becoming a Christian (or any religion) doesn’t make you a more moral person (Good without God).

Summary: Christian background; at 16 read Heinlein's "Stranger in a Strange Land"; rejected God due to evilgod being unfair; also no evidence for supernatural being.

14 comments:

  1. Shouldn’t that be “Read the Bible, rejected God due to evilgod being unfair”?

    “Properly read, [the Bible] is the most potent force for atheism ever conceived.” — Isaac Asimov

    ReplyDelete
  2. By "Properly" Asimov meant read using his personal interpretation, which is that rejecting the evilgod interpretation is an acceptable reason to reject all concepts: Fallacy of Hasty Generalization.

    "Evilgod" is the interpretation that whatever ethics the Atheist chooses to judge God by really does apply to God. Yet Atheism has no ethic; so the Atheist has no basis to judge a god, much less the moral authority to do so.

    "Evilgod" is a specific fallacy.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Asimov was raised Jewish and was a liberal and called Hell a dream of sadists and died of AIDS. Atheists. Don't follow him. The way of death.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Storm,
    You are bordering on anti-Semitism here. If you have a specific issue concerning Asimov's thoughts or propostions, then please give them and your reasons for rejecting them.

    Your approach is under the fallacy of Guilt by Association, since you associate him with characteristics which you presume make him evil. But it is specific thoughts and positions and their refutation logically which count here, not associations.

    ReplyDelete
  5. "Evilgod" is the interpretation that whatever ethics the Atheist chooses to judge God by really does apply to God.

    Fallacy of special pleading.

    ReplyDelete
  6. For the Atheist, yes. He is pleading that his interpretation is the only one allowed for understanding God, and that God is subject to his Atheist morality and his alone.

    This is especially non-credible, given that Atheism has no morality, and has to pilfer what ever morality it picks up second hand from other philosophies (all human ideas with no moral authority for humans, much less to dictate to God).

    ReplyDelete
  7. Do atheists accept the possibility of theism and then reject it as false for lack of evidence?

    Or, do they reject theism outright as incoherent- the supra-sensible being an illogical nonsense notion?

    Do these correspond to the agnostic and gnostic forms of atheism?

    ReplyDelete
  8. I would say yes to both Chris.

    Theism is also often questioned because it is internally contradictory, incoherent or superfluous.

    Theism is often then rejected because there is no supporting evidence.

    I don't like the term "gnostic atheist". It says "I know there is no god". Which is impossible to demonstrate, especially given the ever changing definitions of god.

    Suffice to say, if there is a deity, I do not believe any of the major religions accurately depict him/it/her.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Jotunn,
    Please demonstrate how theism is internally contradictory (which is the same as non-coherent), or superfluous.

    The fundamental definition given by theism is common to all Theists. It has not changed, and change cannot be a reason for rejecting it. As Robin showed on another current thread, Penn Jillette (sp?) declared outright that (a) he doesn't know, and (b) there is no God.

    Now back to the first issue; if Penn rejects any Theist deity, then he rejects the most basic premise common to all of them, also.

    ReplyDelete
  10. I believe the most common definition (3-O God) is contradictory.

    I believe your definition is superfluous.

    But, why don't you throw out that definition one more time so we are all on the same page.

    ReplyDelete
  11. This issue has caused me to keep harping about the question of belief and knowledge.

    If one is agnostic about theism, then surely the definition of theism cannot be incoherent or superfluous to such an individual. One cannot "not know" about that which is incoherent.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Chris,

    I don't think the definition of Theism is incoherent or superfluous; it's the definition of God that is incoherent.

    In any case however, I am surprised by what you said:
    One cannot "not know" about that which is incoherent.

    Isn't the opposite?

    One cannot 'know' anything about something which is incoherent for them.

    Note that this is where belief comes in. It's not because someone find a concept coherent and knows things related to that concept that another person cannot find that same concept incoherent.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Hugo,

    If the definition of God is incoherent, wouldn't that make theism incoherent as well?

    If not, how so?

    ReplyDelete
  14. Chris,

    It's obviously just a question of definition of words and perhaps I am wrong, but what I mean is simply that Theism is, by definition, the belief that at least one god exists. It is coherent and simple.

    The Theist obviously believe that the god he/she believe in is defined in a coherent way so there is no problem.

    The Atheist on the other hand does not believe that the god the Theist believe in actually exist. One of the reasons can be that the definition of the gods presented by Theists are not coherent to the Atheist.

    To use Jotunn's example, I personnaly believe that the '3-O' definition of God is incoherent and I thus don't believe that this God exist; I actually don't believe that this God 'can' exist. To me, the very definition of that God makes it impossible to exist.

    That does not mean that the same definition is not coherent for the Theists who believe in such God obviously. And it does not mean that Theism is incoherent, both for the Atheists and Theists.

    ReplyDelete

ANONYMOUS comments and comments by banned parties will be deleted without being read.