From a Religious Viewpoint, is it My Fault That I'm an Atheist?

[3017Metaphysician]

Great. I don't care.

On the contrary. You made a big stink about it.

[Pattern-chaser]

The claim the media shouldn't lie has nothing to do with Trump yet no one on this thread can talk about anything other than Trump. Therefore, the "conclusion" was not "jumped to" it was stating an observation.

I mentioned Trump only in response to you. Perhaps it would be useful to check who has said what before you post?

[N693]

You two are unreal. Like we can't read the thread. I complained about the media lying and you two can't talk about that because Trump lives rent free in your heads. Now you're "na you're the one on Trump". Unreal read above.

Here ya go: Trump Trump Trump Trump. There, spend the next 700 post ranting.

[Leontiskos]

Is atheism closest to a choice, a rebellion or something more like color-blindness.

In our modern, secular context I believe it is closest to color-blindness. Most secularists do not even understand what the word “God” means in the classical sense.

I feel like I take religion and religious people seriously, but sometimes that seems like it might be worse - might appear cynical or insulting in some way.

Rather than attacking or defending a belief about God you don't have to worry about it at all.

But I fear that my attitude is, if anything, even more insulting towards religion than a "militant atheist" attack.

So when it comes to religion, I FEEL that what religious people say is real, and some part of it is true in human terms. I know that people have a deep emotional relationship with their religion. My question here is what obligation I have to take that religious relationship seriously. Can I really relate to religious people and respect their values if I think that the central idea of their faith is made up?

For example, as far as I know, some Muslims believe that a person has an obligation to heed the Prophet. Is my belief system hostile to that or do just have a different sense of what "heed" means?

I don't think that I'm a real atheist. I believe in human stories and the values in those stories. God is often the easiest way in to a dense and otherwise confusing narrative - and the language is so good! If I find so much about religion to be so valuable but God is just sort of a non-starter for me, is my atheism a fault? is it my fault?

Oh, it sounds to me as if you are indeed a real atheist; you’re just not a reactionary, neurotic, or militant atheist (as is so common today, even on this forum). If we take ‘atheist’ to mean someone who believes that God does not exist, then you are an atheist, but one who sees value in religion. Jordan Peterson would be in a similar place. And of course there is value in religion. One would have to be highly irrational to doubt such a thing.

At the end of the day religious assent is different from aesthetic or moral assent, just as religion is different from aesthetics or morality. One could find various sorts of value in religion without being religious. This seems to be what you have done.

Given that you have asked so many varied questions, let me just address these two:

My question here is what obligation I have to take that religious relationship seriously. Can I really relate to religious people and respect their values if I think that the central idea of their faith is made up?

For example, as far as I know, some Muslims believe that a person has an obligation to heed the Prophet. Is my belief system hostile to that or do just have a different sense of what "heed" means?

As to the second question, if the central idea of a religion is fully opaque to you, then you cannot relate to it. If the central idea of a religion is irrational to you, then you will be unlikely to respect it. That said, it seems like you believe that religious belief is mistaken but understandable, and thus not fully irrational. In that case respect is possible, especially if you think religion is a surrogate for deeper values.

As to the first question, it will depend on the religion in question and what you know of it. For example, modern secularists often have a greater obligation to take Buddhism seriously than Islam. This is because Buddhist doctrine is more plausible to their ears and more consonant with their own beliefs.

Now, a theist will fault you for your atheism if they believe that 1) God calls all to belief, and 2) You have neglected that call. Essentially, if theism is true then at least at some point you would be at fault for your atheism. Atheism is a belief system of its own (or an unbelief system, as you prefer) and is thus subject to the same constraints of volition as any other belief system. The six year-old indoctrinated atheist is no more responsible for their beliefs than the six year-old indoctrinated Christian. Yet if theism is true then at some point in our lives we transition to a stage of responsibility which provides us with sufficient resources to seek and to believe. So yes: as a rule of thumb and from a religious viewpoint, you are at fault.

[Pattern-chaser]

You two are unreal. Like we can't read the thread. I complained about the media lying and you two can't talk about that because Trump lives rent free in your heads. Now you're "na you're the one on Trump". Unreal read above.

Here ya go: Trump Trump Trump Trump. There, spend the next 700 post ranting.

Trump is a dangerous and narcissistic idiot, IMO. Trump is as relevant and useful to our real lives as God is to an atheist: none. [Also IMO.] Happily, this thread is not about him.

[Good_Egg]

Seems to me that there are atheists who have a code of ethics, believe that talk of good and evil is meaningful, and can see value in practices such as meditation.

What makes them atheists is that they do not believe in spirit-entities, in persons-without-bodies who can interact with people.

Such an atheist may orient their life towards goodness without ever conceiving of goodness as a person.

If that's you, then no it's not your fault, and no just God will punish you.

[LuckyR]

Seems to me that there are atheists who have a code of ethics, believe that talk of good and evil is meaningful, and can see value in practices such as meditation.

What makes them atheists is that they do not believe in spirit-entities, in persons-without-bodies who can interact with people.

Such an atheist may orient their life towards goodness without ever conceiving of goodness as a person.

If that's you, then no it's not your fault, and no just God will punish you.

Impressive. If true, it kind of blows Pascal's wager out of the water.

[Dlaw]

My question here is what obligation I have to take that religious relationship seriously. Can I really relate to religious people and respect their values if I think that the central idea of their faith is made up?

For example, as far as I know, some Muslims believe that a person has an obligation to heed the Prophet. Is my belief system hostile to that or do just have a different sense of what "heed" means?

As to the second question, if the central idea of a religion is fully opaque to you, then you cannot relate to it. If the central idea of a religion is irrational to you, then you will be unlikely to respect it. That said, it seems like you believe that religious belief is mistaken but understandable, and thus not fully irrational. In that case respect is possible, especially if you think religion is a surrogate for deeper values.

First, I have to take issue with the idea that the central idea of religion is "opaque" to me. As far as I'm concerned, I know what God is. God is a character in a lot of very important books. These books and the ideas in them are tremendously important for examining all sorts of really important questions. I don't accept that religious people care about or examine these questions more than I do.

I just never thought God was real and just did not understand that adults really believed in such a thing. I didn't even think it was controversial as a kid.

As to the first question, it will depend on the religion in question and what you know of it. For example, modern secularists often have a greater obligation to take Buddhism seriously than Islam. This is because Buddhist doctrine is more plausible to their ears and more consonant with their own beliefs.

That's an interesting point. I did not think about it in those terms although I have always been attracted to Buddhism and definitely felt it was "more true" than other faiths, perhaps. I like faiths better when the central character is meant to be a human being who shows mortal weakness and hopelessness.

For me, the most important part in the Bible is when Jesus asks his Father why He had foresaken his only son.

Now, a theist will fault you for your atheism if they believe that 1) God calls all to belief, and 2) You have neglected that call. Essentially, if theism is true then at least at some point you would be at fault for your atheism. Atheism is a belief system of its own (or an unbelief system, as you prefer) and is thus subject to the same constraints of volition as any other belief system. The six year-old indoctrinated atheist is no more responsible for their beliefs than the six year-old indoctrinated Christian. Yet if theism is true then at some point in our lives we transition to a stage of responsibility which provides us with sufficient resources to seek and to believe. So yes: as a rule of thumb and from a religious viewpoint, you are at fault.

That is a great answer. I think that atheists who grow up in a theistic society/community/family eventually feel weird about singing hymns, admiring beautiful churches, temples and mosques, participating in rituals. By your argument at some point you have to decide whether you belong or you don't belong.

I really can't bring myself to feel I don't belong, though. I feel that I have just as much a right to participate in this important part of the society as anyone else. But I kind of accept that isn't true - reluctantly. Frankly it pisses me off to let a lot of blowhards try and tell me I don't belong if I don't accept their childish interpretation of Scripture.

See, this is where my militant atheism starts to show so maybe the theists win. I dunno.

[Leontiskos]

Seems to me that there are atheists who have a code of ethics… If that's you, then no [your atheism] is not your fault…

Hmm. It’s not at all clear what a “code of ethics” has to do with the OP. You say that if an atheist has a code of ethics then he is not at fault for his unbelief. What is the meaning of such a claim? Are you implying that if an atheist does not have a code of ethics then he is at fault for his unbelief?

It would appear that you are making a Kantian move where religion is displaced by ethics. Yet the OP is quite clear that he desires a religious perspective, not an ethical perspective.

(I will be back in a week or so)

[Good_Egg]

Are you implying that if an atheist does not have a code of ethics then he is at fault for his unbelief?

I'm suggesting that atheism is a broad church, if you'll pardon the expression. That under the umbrella term "atheist" you'll find all sorts of materialists and nihilists who between them reject or deny every element of Christianity, ethics included.

I'm responding to that variety by positing a minimal atheist. Someone who might agree with a Christian on quite a lot, but just about qualifies as an atheist because he can't quite conceive of goodness as personal, as a Good Spirit rather than an abstract quality.

And arguing that that minimal defining feature of atheism is not something for which one is morally culpable.

And yes that does imply that there could be, deeper into the sea of unfaith, those who are culpable for what they reject. Those who spit on goodness, who scorn whatever love they are shown ? Who see a little of what a Christian would call the love of God and choose to have nothing to do with it ?

Belief in God is sometimes likened to belief in the Loch Ness Monster. A rational judgment about the likelihood of something existing or not. Someone who is honestly mistaken in such a judgment is not morally bad thereby.

But maybe that's not the best way to look at religious belief...

[Pattern-chaser]

Seems to me that there are atheists who have a code of ethics, believe that talk of good and evil is meaningful, and can see value in practices such as meditation.

What makes them atheists is that they do not believe in spirit-entities, in persons-without-bodies who can interact with people.

Such an atheist may orient their life towards goodness without ever conceiving of goodness as a person.

If that's you, then no it's not your fault, and no just God will punish you.

Impressive. If true, it kind of blows Pascal's wager out of the water.

I hadn't thought of it like that. But let's be fair: Pascal's Wager was only ever an educational speculation, not presented or understood as a concrete foundation for further reasoning. But I have no issue with Good_Egg's argument, as posted here.

Interesting...

[Leontiskos]

Are you implying that if an atheist does not have a code of ethics then he is at fault for his unbelief?

I'm suggesting that atheism is a broad church, if you'll pardon the expression. That under the umbrella term "atheist" you'll find all sorts of materialists and nihilists who between them reject or deny every element of Christianity, ethics included.

I'm responding to that variety by positing a minimal atheist. Someone who might agree with a Christian on quite a lot, but just about qualifies as an atheist because he can't quite conceive of goodness as personal, as a Good Spirit rather than an abstract quality.

And arguing that that minimal defining feature of atheism is not something for which one is morally culpable.

And yes that does imply that there could be, deeper into the sea of unfaith, those who are culpable for what they reject. Those who spit on goodness, who scorn whatever love they are shown ? Who see a little of what a Christian would call the love of God and choose to have nothing to do with it ?

Belief in God is sometimes likened to belief in the Loch Ness Monster. A rational judgment about the likelihood of something existing or not. Someone who is honestly mistaken in such a judgment is not morally bad thereby.

But maybe that's not the best way to look at religious belief...

What I hear is 1) That Kantian displacement of religion by ethics, mentioned above (“it doesn’t matter whether you believe, so long as you are a good person”), and 2) An equivocation between fault and damnation.

Regarding the first, I should think that the Kantian viewpoint is not a religious viewpoint, given the way it downplays religious belief. Regarding the second, two different questions could be asked:

1. Is it my fault that I am an atheist?
2. Will I be damned because I am an atheist?

You are responding to the second question, are you not? Granted, the OP seems to be vacillating between (1) and <(1a): Am I responsible for my atheism?>. Still, one could be at fault for something without being damned. To suppose that the atheist is not at fault is to be committed to the conclusion that belief is not praiseworthy, and this conclusion is unacceptable to the Abrahamic religious mindset. It excludes much more than just Pascal.

[Leontiskos]

My question here is what obligation I have to take that religious relationship seriously. Can I really relate to religious people and respect their values if I think that the central idea of their faith is made up?

For example, as far as I know, some Muslims believe that a person has an obligation to heed the Prophet. Is my belief system hostile to that or do just have a different sense of what "heed" means?

As to the second question, if the central idea of a religion is fully opaque to you, then you cannot relate to it. If the central idea of a religion is irrational to you, then you will be unlikely to respect it. That said, it seems like you believe that religious belief is mistaken but understandable, and thus not fully irrational. In that case respect is possible, especially if you think religion is a surrogate for deeper values.

First, I have to take issue with the idea that the central idea of religion is "opaque" to me.

I have not claimed that the central idea of religion is opaque to you (although it would not surprise me if this turned out to be the case). I was trying to unpack your verb, "made up," because it is unhelpfully vague. To unpack it I appealed to two different notions: opacity and irrationality.

As far as I'm concerned, I know what God is. God is a character in a lot of very important books. These books and the ideas in them are tremendously important for examining all sorts of really important questions. I don't accept that religious people care about or examine these questions more than I do.

I just never thought God was real and just did not understand that adults really believed in such a thing. I didn't even think it was controversial as a kid.

If you think God is a character in a book then the central idea of religion is indeed opaque to you. The central idea of religion presupposes, among other things, that God is much more than merely a character in a book. Someone who thinks that "God" refers to a character in a book has not understood theistic religion at all. At best they have taken a religious concept and reinterpreted it in a way that the religious person would find unacceptable.

As to the first question, it will depend on the religion in question and what you know of it. For example, modern secularists often have a greater obligation to take Buddhism seriously than Islam. This is because Buddhist doctrine is more plausible to their ears and more consonant with their own beliefs.

That's an interesting point. I did not think about it in those terms although I have always been attracted to Buddhism and definitely felt it was "more true" than other faiths, perhaps. I like faiths better when the central character is meant to be a human being who shows mortal weakness and hopelessness.

For me, the most important part in the Bible is when Jesus asks his Father why He had foresaken his only son.

Okay, interesting.

Now, a theist will fault you for your atheism if they believe that 1) God calls all to belief, and 2) You have neglected that call. Essentially, if theism is true then at least at some point you would be at fault for your atheism. Atheism is a belief system of its own (or an unbelief system, as you prefer) and is thus subject to the same constraints of volition as any other belief system. The six year-old indoctrinated atheist is no more responsible for their beliefs than the six year-old indoctrinated Christian. Yet if theism is true then at some point in our lives we transition to a stage of responsibility which provides us with sufficient resources to seek and to believe. So yes: as a rule of thumb and from a religious viewpoint, you are at fault.

That is a great answer. I think that atheists who grow up in a theistic society/community/family eventually feel weird about singing hymns, admiring beautiful churches, temples and mosques, participating in rituals. By your argument at some point you have to decide whether you belong or you don't belong.

Well of course you do have to decide whether you belong, but that wasn't really my point (and that wouldn't answer your question, since fault requires more than not belonging). That would answer the question, "From a religious viewpoint, am I responsible for my atheism?" We would way, "Yes, at some point you must take responsibility for your decisions and positions and be responsible for your atheism."

My point was different, and the crucial point was this, "Yet if theism is true then at some point in our lives we transition to a stage of responsibility which provides us with sufficient resources to seek and to believe." Once one reaches this stage their unbelief is blameworthy.

I really can't bring myself to feel I don't belong, though. I feel that I have just as much a right to participate in this important part of the society as anyone else. But I kind of accept that isn't true - reluctantly.

I don't see why you would want to participate in the worship of a God who you believe does not exist.

[Good_Egg]

What I hear is 1) That Kantian displacement of religion by ethics, mentioned above (“it doesn’t matter whether you believe, so long as you are a good person”), and 2) An equivocation between fault and damnation.

Regarding the first, I should think that the Kantian viewpoint is not a religious viewpoint, given the way it downplays religious belief. Regarding the second, two different questions could be asked:

1. Is it my fault that I am an atheist?
2. Will I be damned because I am an atheist?

Religion is not primarily about belief. Religion is about worship. And "worship" comes from the same root as "worth". To worship someone is to accord them ultimate value within your value-system.

So I'd argue that it is possible to worship a character from fiction. If I read of Galahad as the perfect knight, and commit my life to being as Galahad-like as possible, judge each man by how Galahad-like he is, and read all I can of Galahad (read the source texts religiously) then I worship him. Believing him to have factually existed is an optional extra.

Conversely, is it possible for a morally good person to worship a God who they do not consider morally good ? Does it make any sense to say that Yahweh is an evil old bastard but he's my god so I sacrifice to him anyway ? Is that worship ?

I read a question about fault as an ethical question. I'll plead guilty to confusing fault and damnation, with the mitigating circumstance that I conceive of God as goodness personified. A just God damns those and only those who deserve it. And - as you see - I'm not convinced that it is truly worship to think of Him otherwise. Although I'm happy to concede the logical possibility of a being with the power of damnation who lacks that perfect goodness.

[Pattern-chaser]

Religion is not primarily about belief. Religion is about worship. And "worship" comes from the same root as "worth". To worship someone is to accord them ultimate value within your value-system.

So I'd argue that it is possible to worship a character from fiction. If I read of Galahad as the perfect knight, and commit my life to being as Galahad-like as possible, judge each man by how Galahad-like he is, and read all I can of Galahad (read the source texts religiously) then I worship him. Believing him to have factually existed is an optional extra.

Conversely, is it possible for a morally good person to worship a God who they do not consider morally good ? Does it make any sense to say that Yahweh is an evil old bastard but he's my god so I sacrifice to him anyway ? Is that worship ?

I read a question about fault as an ethical question. I'll plead guilty to confusing fault and damnation, with the mitigating circumstance that I conceive of God as goodness personified. A just God damns those and only those who deserve it. And - as you see - I'm not convinced that it is truly worship to think of Him otherwise. Although I'm happy to concede the logical possibility of a being with the power of damnation who lacks that perfect goodness.

This isn't how I would've put it, but so what? It says what needs to be said; what else matters?

It seems we have to hammer this point home, again and again: religion is not about asserting the (scientific) existence of beings, supernatural or otherwise, it's about meaning, wisdom, understanding, and (as you say) worth. The literal, scientific, truth doesn't matter. The effect religious belief has on the believer, and on their aims and aspirations, is what matters; that's what religion does. All else is irrelevant.