Monday, December 5, 2011

From PZ's Place: David Spero, USA, on Why I Am An Atheist:

Dave Niose, president of the American Humanist Association, posted recently over at Open Salon a copy of a letter he received from an atheist friend. The friend wrote the letter to his own 11-year-old daughter, who was “very upset about her father’s non-belief” — particularly his refusal to pray for her (something apparently advocated by the friend’s wife, who is a Christian).

I won’t comment on a family situation I know next to nothing about, but it did remind me of the very issue that began the unraveling of my own faith: prayer. About 20 years ago, I was on a path to ministry. I was in the middle of co-founding a fellowship organization on my college campus and had just finished drafting the group’s constitution (as required by the school to be an official student organization and thus receive activity funds) when I had a moment of clarity while praying for guidance. Yes, I appreciate the irony.

The path I was on would have led me to fervent proselytizing. I was 19 years old, post-Catholic and in training to present the Word to non-believers. I studied the Bible with an ordained mentor and doggedly researched apologetics. I was going to provide irrefutable answers in defense of Christ in debate.

But there were no irrefutable answers.

I decided to keep on it — after all, I was just getting started and I had faith more would be revealed as I continued in my studies. But each revelation was more suspect than the last. Every question I had was answered with circular reasoning (e.g., why believe in the Bible as the inspired word of God? Because the Bible says so.). Finally, while praying to understand God’s will, a giant hole ripped in the fabric of my belief: Who am I praying to? Why? Why does God require me to pray when he is supposedly omniscient? What does that say about the nature of the god I’m praying to?

The God I believed in was supposed to be perfect. Too perfect, in fact, for mortal minds to fathom. Ultimate love. True goodness. Omniscient. Omnipotent. Omnipresent. The whole nine yards and then some. Whenever something about God didn’t make sense to me, I countered myself by saying my definition of God must simply be too narrow. But because of that, God soon became just an infinitely broad but paper-thin abstraction. It was then a very small step to the realization that the concept of a personal God was absurd. Eventually, I came to understand the fallacy of the “God of the Gaps“. There was no chance I’d turn to another religion; it was clear they’d all fail the litmus test instantly.

I claimed to be an agnostic throughout my 20s. I left open the door to the idea of a higher power but, again, was pretty sure the matter was too complex to be comprehended. It wasn’t until my 30s that I faced the issue head on and realized I had been making the same weak excuses.

A sequence of events and introspection ultimately left nowhere for my intellect to hide. Once I allowed myself to practice skepticism honestly, the absurdities appeared everywhere I looked. There was no God. And it quickly became clear that many of civilization’s messes — either directly or indirectly — were catalyzed by some form of religion. My eyes were opened, and I was faced with one big question: Now what? It didn’t take long to understand that the only sane response to an insane world was to roll up my sleeves and try to make it a better place. All alternative responses were (and remain) unacceptable. Ultimately, I discovered my ideals matched those of organized Humanism.

So yes, you could say that prayer accidentally provided me with guidance. It was exactly the spark I needed to put me on the right path.


David Spero
United States


Spero makes several points:
(1) At the age of 19 he found that there were no irrefutable answers for the defense of Christ.
(2) Arguments were all circular.
(3) His concept of God became too broad and thin. Omni-everything.
(4) God of the Gaps.
(5) During his 20’s he was agnostic
(6) Under skepticism,
(a) absurdities abounded;
(b) religion responsible for many of civilization’s messes;
(7) Developed his own ethic which he found corresponded with Humanism.

Summary:
Spero was on the Christian path until at 19 he found questions he couldn't answer. During his 20's he was agnostic. Then he adopted "honest skepticism", and everything was seen as absurd. He ultimately developed his own ethic which corresponded with Humanism.

1 comment:

yonose said...

I really had a few years ago the same mindset as him, but with the difference that some enquiries were made in a "reverse" way of retrofitting (I don't know how to decribe it better, English is not my native language, and my vocabulary is not good either)...

Unfortunately experiencies sometimes play a big role, in conjuction with trying to apply reductionistic, picky views to anything... I could be, at that time becoming a positive(strong) atheist like him.

The problem with him, I think, was his way of rationalizing the Bible so much, at a level that he clearly decided not to understand what is its inner, subtle meaning, like of every "path" for a spiritual quest (As I mentioned before, the Bible is not the only "path").

"I left open the door to the idea of a higher power but, again, was pretty sure the matter was too complex to be comprehended."

He's entitled to his opinion and I'll respect it, but I believe he just gave up too early, if what he wanted was to understand what a "higher power" is about... something I think is confirmed in the paragraph before:

"Eventually, I came to understand the fallacy of the “God of the Gaps“. There was no chance I’d turn to another religion; it was clear they’d all fail the litmus test instantly."

I'd wish he'd say that after researching into al least one or two of the basic commonalities about simple formalisms among main eastern and western religions, which he finally decided not to evaluate. By doing so he could at least outline what are the God of gaps' arguments most theists could possibly be rationalizing about and get some more answers to make a reasonable decision, no matter which one... with the exception of, perhaps(because almost every atheism I know does this), dismissing every theistic culture as if every exoteric name of God or Gods, means that God or Gods are/were just mythical figures for the simplictic sake of it. Therefore, as this kind of though process has been replicated, I believe it is somehow safe to conclude that at this phase, those excessively picky rationalizations begin to separate from facts...

I don't really like to say this, but I think he got all of this upside down.

Kind Regards.