Sunday, January 1, 2012

From PZ's Place,Fabio Jardim, Brazil, On Why I Am An Atheist

I’m an atheist because I want to live my life honestly, not only in deed but in thought.

I used to be an enthusiastic catholic boy. The notion of an ordered universe, with a clear cause and effect for both good and bad things, was immensely appealing. Ironically, it was catholic school that stomped that belief out of me. First in showing how the actually engaging, intelligent teachers got frustrated and stonewalled by the older, conservative dogmatists, and eventually how even the best of them could only offer non-answers or cruel ignorance when confronted with any meaningful question. Children actually have a good bullshit detector, and mine was always reading off the scale, all the time.

My father actually helped, and not by accident. Like me, he was a catholic school student growing up; since they get colossal tax breaks, they actually offered decent education, comparable to the expensive private schools, for a very affordable price. So when my dad was confronted with the choice of putting me in a lousy school or try to give me a better shot even if it came with religious strings attached…he decided that since he survived it without too many scars, so could I.

He was right, but not for the reasons he thought. My father came out of catholic school a faint deist, perhaps, with a somewhat comical distrust of clergy. He doesn’t think much about it. I found the library and became an early history buff. I learned about Phoenicians and ancient greek and romans, and all the gods they believed in, with as much fervor as any christian or muslim of our times, and about as much proof. Even the funny gauls in the Asterix comics had a roster of deities as believable as the Christ being used to officiate marriages, fight sin and give us our morals.

Becoming a teenager, I kept waiting for the excuses and dogma to make sense, as if it was my failure to trust them that caused any confusion. But it only got worse. Seeing priests and religious people passing both judgment and comfort in the name of something so tenuous felt increasingly uncomfortable, then repulsive. It’s odd how you don’t really feel how omnipresent religious presence (and pressure)in society is until you start to doubt, and it was a disquieting time, to say the least.

It wasn’t until I leafed through Carl Sagan’s A Demon-Haunted World in high school that I finally saw I wasn’t alone. Ironically, I heard about it from a friend who had thoroughly misread the book and thought it was a vindication for superstition and pseudo-science (“He says there are demons in the world! And he tells of how he could remotely see the war in Europe from the USA as a kid!”). It wasn’t an overt defense of atheism, and that made it even better. It showed me that there were other people in the world saying “They don’t really know. All the mystics and priests and holy books do not have the automatic claim to truth and respect they try to claim”, and it was educated, respectable people saying so.

And so I stopped even pretending to believe. If I do anything praiseworthy or noble to and for others, I want it to be due to my empathy and commitment, not to earn points with some vague, unearthly being, nor to advertise my piety to my religious tribe or convert others. And if I ever do anyone harm, the responsibility is also mine. There doesn’t need to be anything more attached to that premise. It works fine without theistic add-ons and glitter.

Brazil used to be overwhelming Catholic, but now evangelical Protestantism is putting a large dent into that and in turn making the Catholic church more obstinate in its pursuits. It’s not a good shift for the non-religious here. Popular television anchors say on the air here that all the criminals in prison are atheists and only get more fame out of the deal. I’d never say atheists and agnostics here have it worse than anywhere else; not even close. But it’s still seen as synonymous with evil and immorality, and it’s going to stay that way for a good bit yet. I’ve lost girlfriends when I told them of my lack of faith. But I don’t believe in hiding it. There’s a lot of comfort and not a small amount of pride in knowing that whatever friends, ideas and respect you have, you came by it being honest to yourself.


Fábio Jardim
Brazil
Jardim makes these joints:
1. Catholic Church stomped belief out of him; in Brazil,becoming more dogmatic, cannot give real answers. Priests pass judgment and give comfort at the same time.

2. There are other religions, including ancient, that believed in god(s).

3. Influenced by Sagan in High School. Religious people don’t automatically have truth; a respected authority says so.

4. Will take responsibility for the good things he does and for the bad things.

5. ”There’s a lot of comfort and not a small amount of pride in knowing that whatever friends, ideas and respect you have, you came by it being honest to yourself.”
Summary: In Catholic school, became doubtful, then in High School was influenced by Sagan to overtly claim Atheism; also historical influence: other religions had god(s) and beliefs. Atheism is not trusted in Brazil, but his honesty led to Atheism.

8 comments:

  1. In order to counter atheists, we must remove religious beliefs from theism. The problem is people read the Bible and think that the Biblegod is the only God. Since Biblegod has the same qualities of created creatures, people dismiss Him as a creation of man.
    Biblegod is real but He is just an aspect of a bigger GOD. An OmniGOD that created man and Biblegod can not be disproven and is proven by the imposibility of the contary.
    Like we are less than an ant to Biblegod, Biblegod is less than an ant to the real GOD. A nameless GOD. The ultimate GOD he cares less about our actions than we care about the actions of a grain of sand on Desdemona.
    Because we are nothing compared to infinity. Because GOD exists our actions are meaningless.
    Biblegod wakes up one day. He doesn't know who created Him and he believes He was around forever. Atheists wake up onr day, don't know where the universe came from but beleive it (and therefore they because they are a part of it) have been around forever.

    BibleGod made the sky and the earth. No question about that. But God made the universe.
    Atheism, deism, theism and fantasy are out.

    ReplyDelete
  2. All Is All,
    "Biblegod is real but He is just an aspect of a bigger GOD. An OmniGOD that created man and Biblegod can not be disproven and is proven by the imposibility of the contary."

    Interesting proposition; I have some questions.

    First, why is a separate deity necessary, rather than a single deity with both characteristics which we can understand and characteristics which we cannot understand?

    Next, what is the contrary to an OmniGOD in your estimation? I see several possible answers to this.

    ” The ultimate GOD he cares less about our actions than we care about the actions of a grain of sand on Desdemona.

    Because we are nothing compared to infinity. Because GOD exists our actions are meaningless.”


    Infinity is a quantity; so an “infinity of what”? It is not clear what an OmniGOD would be an infinite quantity of, that would render humans meaningless. Whereas apparently the underGod would be finite in that quantity…?

    ” BibleGod made the sky and the earth. No question about that. But God made the universe.

    Atheism, deism, theism and fantasy are out.”


    I’m afraid that all I see here is assertions, rather than arguments for your position. It is not possible to evaluate these without seeing your reasons for thinking that this is the case. IF/THEN statements are useful, for example, where premises are stated for evaluation.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Stan,

    I'm in general agreement with you on All in All's comment. But, back to this word infinite.

    Infinite, as I understand it here, means unlimited or unmeasurable in a particular "way". The sizeless and spaceless rather than the indefinitely vast. In a similar vein, I would also say that the eternal is timeless rather than everlasting.

    So let's take one of the 3-O's. As regards infinite power, or omnipotence, I think the infinite must not be thought of as indefinitely magnified force, whether actual or potential.

    "The infinite acts without effort; without the use of energy, it produces energy, just as it produces the finite without being finite itself, in its own essence. In this way it may produce any amount of finite energy, energy itself being a finite thing like time and space. To put it in another way, the infinite moves things without either moving or being moved itself." - Alan Watts

    It seems to me that when certain metaphysical doctrines describe the infinite as the No-thing, they most certainly do not mean that it is nothing. Ex nihilo nihil fit- something cannot come out of nothing. They mean simply that (Watts again)

    "....the infinite is not in the class of finite objects; that it is other than all known and knowable things. Nothing is the opposite and negation of something; but the infinite No-thing, so far from being the opposite of things, is their essential ground. The impossible problems raised by the Cartesian dualism of spirit and matter are the result of the dualism: spirit and matter must not be considered as opposites."

    ReplyDelete
  4. I think, on the surface, that the use of the term "infinite" is incorrectly used here. Infinite is understood in terms of our own existence, it is our existence taken to an unlimited and boundary-less extreme. It is the X dimension taken without limit, but still the X dimension.

    I think there must be a better term, but it must be one that isn't framed in material terms first.

    Perhaps there is no term other than "I am" that actually satisfies the need.

    I'll sleep on it.

    ReplyDelete
  5. "First, why is a separate deity necessary, rather than a single deity with both characteristics which we can understand and characteristics which we cannot understand?"

    Wait. You've made so many assumptions. First you need to ask yourself:
    Why are separate ANYTHING necessary?
    Why should things NOT be separate?
    ARE things separate?
    Where does ONE thing separate from the NEXT if all is just existence?
    Can you be separate from all when you are a part of all?
    What makes separate less than single if the "separate" could exist?
    Can there be characteristics of infinity?
    Can we UNDERSTAND? And what could "understand" possibly mean in this context?
    Why do you feel the need to understand?
    Do you feel everything can be understood? Do you feel the need to understand everything?
    And if so, why?

    ReplyDelete
  6. All In All says,
    ”Wait. You've made so many assumptions. First you need to ask yourself:
    Why are separate ANYTHING necessary?
    Why should things NOT be separate?
    ARE things separate?
    Where does ONE thing separate from the NEXT if all is just existence?
    Can you be separate from all when you are a part of all?
    What makes separate less than single if the "separate" could exist?
    Can there be characteristics of infinity?
    Can we UNDERSTAND? And what could "understand" possibly mean in this context?
    Why do you feel the need to understand?
    Do you feel everything can be understood? Do you feel the need to understand everything?
    And if so, why?”


    No, I don’t need to ask myself any of those things before I ask the question which you did not answer. You start your dodge with an incorrect assessment. And then you get silly. So now I suspect that silliness is your entire point here. Here's what it would take to show that you are serious: answer the question. Otherwise you are wasting my time.

    ReplyDelete
  7. All in All,

    If you're being serious at all, are you presenting a kind of pseudo-Hinayana Buddhist view? Your words remind me of Krishnamurti.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Chris, Stan

    I'm afraid he/she's not. That's something like a distilled, distorted version of Khrishnamurti or worse.

    It should IMHO, be of no necessity, the need of separating the "BibleGod" from another "Absolute God", it looks falacious because the problem is rather categorical... is not even something coherent with the concept of traditional polytheism. An absolute view of a Divine Energy is also seen in polytheism without resorting to belittling the Judeo-Christian name for this entity.

    From this excerpt here:

    "The ultimate GOD he cares less about our actions than we care about the actions of a grain of sand on Desdemona.
    Because we are nothing compared to infinity. Because GOD exists our actions are meaningless."


    Something like The Apophenion does not work even close like that either (Where the Divine Energy is not called God, but the "Void" where Apophenia lies... in its essence, I think it should be of an equivalent connotation when traditional arguments for Christian apologetics are not used instead).

    When talking about these issues, mysticism/occultism does not claim to have all the answers (neither by my own experiences which is very little compared to almost all of the initiated), but this assertions just go too far and personally, until now, I haven't read or even heard from the mystics I've talked to, about the assertions quoted above...

    That's not even true from any denomination of Buddhism or Hinduism.

    It looks to me that this is the work some other Atheist making fun of us here.

    Kind Regards,

    Happy Holidays.

    ReplyDelete

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