• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

My Religious Views

Fluffy

A fool
My Theism
For the majority of my life, I have believed in God. Currently (February 2008), I am an atheist and some would say I am a "hardcore" or "new" atheist. I feel that my philosophical views are best described as "transhumanist".

I have never had a religious experience or a personal relationship with God even during my time as a theist. I mentioned this to some members of the CU (Christian Union) at my university and they pointed out the difference between the theist who has had such an experience and the theist who has not. I feel that there is some merit to what they are saying in that the world view of the theist who has experienced God will be significantly different to the world view of the theist who has not. I am unsure whether the former group should have exclusive rights to the word “theist” but when describing what I consider to be my “theism” I felt that it was important to point out this distinction.

Regardless, what I mean by "theism" is a person who believes in the existence of God and, in my case, I was a theist who lacked a personal relationship with God.

Becoming a Theist
I cannot remember why I first began to believe in the existence of God. If I had a reasoned argument for my belief then it is not something that I can recall. I suspect that I never had such an argument because I had not formulated the concept of the source of our beliefs. Whilst I was concious of the fact that I had beliefs, I was completely unaware of the processes that determined which beliefs I chose and which I didn't. To me beliefs were just things that I had.

I know that I didn't consider myself to have faith. I did not know and still do not fully understand exactly what faith is. Since I lacked the concept of the source of my beliefs, what caused or justified my beliefs was simply not something that passed through my head. The beliefs I had were simply there.

I think I was very open to the idea of God since I was very young. I remember having a conversation with my friends in the school playground where I staunchly defended the existence of Santa. Whilst I know that belief in God and belief in Santa are very different, to my infant mind, the two seemed quite similar although, of course, as my mind developed I was able to grasp more and more the difference between them.

My parents are both atheists. My mum perhaps being more of an anti-theist. So it seems like my upbringing should have predisposed me towards atheism. However, they are both quite superstitious so perhaps they made me open to the idea of believing in things unquestioningly. Like most English schools, we had prayer every day and our teacher read to us from the Children's Bible during religious lessons. They still called it “Religious Education” then as opposed to how it is viewed now as “Religious Studies”. I think that I accepted the existence of God, coming from my teacher who, as a child, I viewed as an authority, just as I accepted the existence of Santa coming from the authority of my parents.

Being a Theist
At three points over my childhood, my theism went through significant changes. Also, whilst I switched between quite a few religions (Christianity and various forms of paganism) the nature of my theism was not itself affected (only its content) by these transitions. These three significant changes do not refer to a change in the content of my theism but in its nature.

For the life of me, I cannot remember why the first occurred. I feel that it must have been a very sudden event since I can remember a point beforehand where this was just not an issue at all for me and a point afterwards where it became the focus of my life. I know that it occurred in 1999 when I was 11 or 12 and whatever it was, it caused me to become almost obsessed with the conflict between religions. I felt a strong sense of horror over the injustice and intolerance of these kinds of events.

When I was 13, I came across a site called ReligiousTolerance.org and began to realise that the problem of which I had only a vague idea of before was in fact only the tip of a gigantic iceberg. I began to post on the message board of this site which had, I remember, about 10-15 regular members. Whilst there, I encountered a diverse array of people for the first time. Keep in mind that before this, I had barely spoken to people outside of Reading, my home town for 13 years of which I had not left for any period longer than a week.

There were two I remember in particular, both theists, who I will call Patrick and Megan. Megan was one of the nicest people who I'd ever had the pleasure of meeting. She was not merely kind to those she spoke to but took genuine interest in their lives and was always ready with words of support for those who were feeling down. Patrick was what I would now view as bigoted. Although I didn't like him for his views which I considered (and continue to consider) intolerant (homosexuality is a sin, other religions are evil, forcing his views upon those who didn't wish to listen etc.), what really put me off the man was the rude, insensitive and inconsiderate way with which he would speak to others. Patrick and Megan were both regulars on the message board and so would often interact. As you probably expect, no matter how rude Patrick was to Megan and how much he insulted her beliefs and values, Megan would never respond in kind but insist on treating him just as she treated everyone else: as a valued human being worthy of respect and kindness. Other members of the message board, including myself, would either ignore Patrick or get angry and rude right back at him.

Eventually, Patrick left the board and never came back. It was an unmoderated board so I never found out why he left. He was the same up until he left and never changed his opinion nor his attitude. Neither Megan's approach nor our approach had any affect upon. We had all wanted to further the cause of tolerance but none of us had succeeded. However, what struck me (I must have been 14 by this point) and has stayed with me since, is that we had not only failed to spread tolerance, we had also broken it in half. Megan, on the other hand, had lived according to the values that she held. She had not been a hypocrite like the rest of us. She had succeeded in living her life according to her values and furthered cause of tolerance.

Perhaps it is difficult to see how this could have impacted on the nature of my theism. Beforehand, I had not viewed theism as an important factor of my life. It was something I believed not something that I was. However, I now realised that by following Megan's example, I could, as a theist, live by the value of tolerance and hope that others followed her and me. This caused theism, or more specifically tolerant theism, to become central to me and my life. It was something that I desired to become.

The second change occurred in 2002 when I was 15. I had become disillusioned due to the excessive intolerance I saw all around me especially only a few months after 9/11. Additionally, at this time I became convinced by hard determinism (the view that free will does not exist because every event is causally determined by a preceding set of events including human action, emotion and will) which I had also encountered on ReligiousTolerance.org. I began to question, for the first time, whether life had any meaning.

It is difficult to convey exactly how a philosophy could have affected me so powerfully since the popular view of the subject is as an airy pursuit with little impact or consequence on reality. However, nihilism forced itself upon me so convincingly, quickly and completely that my mood was immediately destroyed. I felt empty and numb and lost all motivation. I couldn't explain how I felt to anybody else and could not reason my way out of what felt like a trap.

In the end (after a few months), I fell back on my theism again and decided that God gave life purpose. I now needed my theism as a reason for getting out of bed in the morning. It was quite literally keeping me alive. At first, my theism had changed from being on the periphery of my world view to becoming my justification, inspiration and motivation for living a moral life. Now it had taken on the additional role of being the thing that I depended on to protect me from a possible reality with which my brief encounter had left me upset and disturbed.
 

Fluffy

A fool
Becoming a Sceptic
Towards the beginning, I mentioned how I had not yet gained the concept of the source of my beliefs. I obviously no longer believed in Santa but my rejection of that belief was due to everyone else rejecting him just as my acceptance of God was due to everyone else accepting it. There was no consideration of why I should reject him or why I should accept it.

Determinism introduced this concept to me and so, for the first time, I began to consider this problem. I became better acquainted with logic and reasoning. I learnt about scepticism and Descartes' rebuttal to complete scepticism. This happened in 2003 when I was 16, about a year before I joined Religious Forums and it caused the third and perhaps most significant change to my theism.

Initially, I did not like the idea of scepticism. I had too much emotional investment in many of beliefs and in particular my belief in God and so did not want to consider the possibility that they were wrong. However, from debating online and with my friends, its usefulness became more and more apparent to me as I realised that it was really what I had been all the time whenever I encountered a belief that I didn't consider to be reasonable or lacked evidence. Although I found Descartes solution to scepticism, the Cogito (I think therefore I am), convincing at first, I quickly developed a more powerful sceptical argument that left me with no choice but to accept near global scepticism, the conclusion that I might not know anything.

Where did this leave my theism? Well I realised, as did Descartes, that we can never truly bring ourselves to be sceptical about everything because there are some things that we can't bring our minds to accept. I can't accept that a car is non-existent and this is shown by the fact that I can't bring myself to walk across a road without first making sure that I am not about to step out in front of one. However, I also felt that I had no reason to believe in the existence of anything, including myself.

So I was left feeling that I could know nothing yet with a mind that thought it knew things anyway. I decided that if I was going to have to believe in something then I might as well believe those things that I wanted to exist. Reality could have been anything for all I knew but I was emotionally invested in theism and so I continued to believe in God. I don't know if there is a school of thought that promotes this brand of theism but what is important as far as I was concerned is that, for the first time, I felt that I had grounded my theism in reason.

Becoming an Agnostic
My way out of scepticism came about due to considering the importance and proper meaning of two concepts: impossibility and probability. Impossibility showed me that I could break out of global scepticism. Probability showed me that I didn't need to. Although I have only been an atheist for about a year now, these both occurred to me beforehand through my interactions with various people from RF including Jay, TVOR, Robtex, lilithu, Sunstone and Tawn. Looking back at some conversations I had with these members as well as others, I can see specific incidences where my ideas about related issues were completely turned around.

You have to remember, I was sceptical about everything except for my global scepticism and my belief set was just made up of those things that my mind was willing to accept which included theism. I doubted logic, itself.

Firstly, I came to understand that impossibility only had meaning when it was related to something else. One could talk of “physical impossibility” and “logical impossibility” wherein the realm of possibility is constrained to what is allowed by the laws of physics and the laws of logic respectively. The latter realm is considerably larger than the former but it doesn't seem as if there is a realm even more expansive. What does it mean to say “It is possible to do the logically impossible?” I felt that such a sentence had no meaning at all.

This was sufficient to restore my belief in logic as I was no longer able to doubt it since such doubt was no longer meaningful. The proposition I held before, “It is possible that logic is wrong and so I have reason to doubt it” became meaningless because I discovered that it only made sense if there was a logic to create a sense of possibility and impossibility. Descartes believed he had demonstrated that global scepticism was unsound. Others believed they had shown global scepticism to be incoherent. However, I believed I had found a way around both of these rebuttals until I discovered that doubting some things is not merely unsound and incoherent but also meaningless.

Secondly, I realised that as long as logic was indubitable then by investigating claims with logic, I could analyse how probable they were. I could immediately tell that any logically incoherent argument had a probability of 0, for example. Through more sophisticated reasoning, I began to formulate a system that would allow me to discern the relative probabilities of propositions. This was based on ideas such as simplicity, falsification, relevance etc.

What is key, however, is that this undermined my rational basis for theism. Not all beliefs were equal. Some beliefs were more probable than others and surely I should accept those beliefs that were the more probable? But how probable was my belief in God? Without having an answer to this complicated question, I hopped onto the fence and decided that I couldn't get back off until I had determined which was more probable: God's existence or non-existence.

Becoming an Atheist
Over the course of my theological journey, the content of my theism had also been getting more and more sophisticated. By this point, I had realised that there were many different concepts of God and many different arguments either way. Jay recently posted a thread asking atheists why they were atheists. I will reproduce my response here with minor edits since I feel that I have managed to give an adequate assessment of my atheism within it.

The Gods that I dismiss most strongly are those which I consider to be meaningless (strong omnipotence), logically inconsistent (supernaturalism) or semantically incorrect (naturalistic pantheism).

Next are those that are not supported by argument. An example would be believing in God because the believer wanted to believe in God. Another example would be believing in God because of faith in scripture. This would include all the Gods that are currently held to exist by the mainstream religions.

Next are those that are supported by an argument that I consider weak. The so-called Philosopher's Gods. I am most open to having my mind changed in this area because I can always find new merit in an argument or new evidence to support a premise. Additionally, I feel that if I were to be converted, it would have to be a kind of God who was revealed to me in this way. Examples in this category would be the ontological God, the teleological God etc.

Then, there is the God of whom I know nothing yet whose possibility of existence prevents me from rejecting entirely. It is important that I don't know anything about it because, since I have no evidence and no reason to posit any attribute, any attribute I give it would make it less likely.

Finally there is the God of Alvin Plantinga's ontological argument towards whom I am not actually atheistic but agnostic. I feel that this argument, whilst failing to show that God's existence is more probable than his non-existence, successfully demonstrates that theism and atheism towards this particular God are equally probable.
 

sandandfoam

Veteran Member
Good and intreresting post.
I've 2 questions :-
You seem to regard your current views as provisional. If that is a correct reading of your position do you envision your views remaining so?
What if any philosophy are you currently reading?
 

Fluffy

A fool
Heya stephenw,
Thanks for reading all that! I thought nobody would get through it all. It took me all day to write so I'm glad someone did :).

You seem to regard your current views as provisional. If that is a correct reading of your position do you envision your views remaining so?
Whilst it is always tempting to want your current beliefs to stay as they are, given my tendency for change and given how much longer I have left to live, I am fairly sure that I will not hold on to all of my current views for any significant period of time.

However, my strong belief in tolerance has now stayed with me since I was 13. My belief in scepticism is still with me. I can't say whether in 20 years they still will be or whether something else will last that long instead. My atheism seems very convincing to me now but who can say what I will find convincing tomorrow? Before I encountered Plantinga's argument 6 months ago I wouldn't have given any sort of theism the time of day.

What if any philosophy are you currently reading?
I've just finished re-reading Descartes' Meditations as well as Hume's Enquiry, Aristotles' Nicomachean Ethics, Plato's Apology and Republic. I'm just about to start Kant's Groundwork.
 

w00t

Active Member
I attended a pentecostal church as a child where I believe I was spiritually abused by the constant ranting about damnation and hell-fire. I did the 'born again' bit when I was eleven to avoid burning in the flames of hell! I am now in my late 50s and don't believe the God of the Bible to be anymore than a manmade creation. I think we all have a divine spark within us that we can activate for good if we so wish. I describe myself as a cultural Christian agnostic.
 

Reverend Rick

Frubal Whore
Premium Member
We all are on a Spiritual Journey. People who are indoctrinated into a religion at an early age and never question or study other paths may be lukewarm about their faith or even lack of faith.

Religion should be a personal journey and everyone should choose the path that is right for them.
 

blueinchains

Without Wax
I would ask one simple question of you. What is it you are looking for? What do you believe a religious experience consists of? Are you wanting to see a miraculous sign, or simply to feel God? What are you looking for? And when you answer that, then answer, why? Why are you looking for this and looking for it this way?
 

blueinchains

Without Wax
"I cannot remember why I first began to believe in the existence of God. If I had a reasoned argument for my belief then it is not something that I can recall. I suspect that I never had such an argument because I had not properly considered the concept of our beliefs having a source. Whilst I was concious of the fact that I had beliefs, I was completely unaware of the processes that determined which beliefs I chose and which I didn't."

Ditto...

"I know that I didn't consider myself to have faith. I did not know and still do not fully understand exactly what faith is."

Everyone has faith in something. You just need to figure out what it is you have faith in. Faith is believing in something even though you have no proof or reason to believe it. It cannot be determined whether this belief is right or wrong therefore cannot be proven false. In simplest terms, faith is the purest form of hope(in my opinion).

You have faith in yourself, that you can successfully accomplish certain tasks. You have faith that the ground will not fall away beneath you. You have faith that the sky will not open up and suck you into outter space. You have faith that the sun will not begin to roll like a bowling ball toward earth. Anything that you believe in without question is faith...
 

blueinchains

Without Wax
"My parents are both atheists. My mum perhaps being more of an anti-theist. So it seems like my upbringing should have predisposed me towards atheism. However, they are both quite superstitious so perhaps they made me open to the idea of believing things without questioning. Like most English schools, we had prayer every day and our teacher read to us from the Children's Bible during religious lessons. They still called it “Religious Education” then as opposed to how it is viewed now as “Religious Studies”. I think that I accepted the existence of God, coming from my teacher who, as a child, I viewed as an authority, just as I accepted the existence of Santa coming from the authority of my parents."

Interesting.... Why do you think you went the way of your teacher, rather than your parents?
 

zenzero

Its only a Label
Friend Fluffy,
You have already formed opinions and look view things from that aspect which is all a mind play even your religious views.
First and formost there is no person as god. God has been taken as a concept by humans to understand something which the mind has given its own colours.
The root of the problem is the mind itself which craetes distinctions and tells us which is good and which is bad.
If what you feel is right and only things right were to happen then your mind will feel right? no. Because if you were to find only day without nights, is that possible? No. Darkness ids only the absence of light but if everything was light and no darkness then what wou;ld your mind say?
All dualities make it complete and acceptance of both is religion. Without satan god has no existence.
The root is not anywhere else but our own minds which dictaes what is right and wrong but without the other the other part is not comparable, alos.
All it needs is for each individual to wake up.
Love & rgds
 

blueinchains

Without Wax
"Neither Megan's approach nor our approach had any affect upon. We had all wanted to further the cause of tolerance but none of us had succeeded."

You do not know this. He may have very well left the forum because he was wrestling with what was being said, or by Meagan's kindness to him. You will most likely never know how you or anyone or anything has affected him. He may have realized and come the the conclusion that he may have been wrong about some things, which is not an easy thing to come to terms with, and rather than coming back and admitting he was wrong, he may have come back under a different identity and atitude. You must not assume that he was not affected. He would not have left he was not affected in some way....
 

blueinchains

Without Wax
"In the end (after a few months), I fell back on my theism again and decided that God gave life purpose."

It is my belief that this will always be so....
 

blueinchains

Without Wax
"In the end (after a few months), I fell back on my theism again and decided that God gave life purpose. I now needed my theism as a reason for getting out of bed in the morning. It was quite literally keeping me alive. At first, my theism had changed from being on the periphery of my world view to becoming my justification, inspiration and motivation for living a moral life. Now it had taken on the additional role of being the thing that I depended on to protect me from a possible reality with which my brief encounter had left me upset and disturbed."

Beautifully worded. This was my exact experience as well....
 

blueinchains

Without Wax
"Initially, I did not like the idea of scepticism. I had too much emotional investment in many of beliefs and in particular my belief in God and so did not want to consider the possibility that they were wrong. However, from debating online and with my friends, its usefulness became more and more apparent to me as I realised that it was really what I had been all the time when I encountered a belief that I didn't consider to be reasonable or lacked evidence. Although I found Descartes solution to scepticism, the Cogito (I think therefore I am), convincing at first, I quickly developed a more powerful sceptical argument that left me with no choice but to accept near global scepticism, the conclusion that I might not know anything."

Two things:
One: There is always room for doubt for those who choose to doubt, but...
Two: ...in the end, you have to believe something, which could just as easily be put into the label of skepticism and dismantled, which would mean no one would ever really KNOW anything, and that there is no such thing as FACT, the way I see it....
 

blueinchains

Without Wax
"So I was left feeling that I could know nothing yet with a mind that thought it knew things anyway. I decided that if I was going to have to believe in something then I might as well believe those things that I wanted to exist. Reality could have been anything for all I knew but I was emotionally invested in theism and so I continued to believe in God. I don't know if there is a school of thought that promotes this brand of theism but what is important as far as I was concerned is that, for the first time, I felt that I had grounded my theism in reason."

Again, beautifully worded. I love the way you unfold your experience and explain the steps in efficient detail. I completely understand where you are coming from, for most of what you have written has been my own experience...
 

blueinchains

Without Wax
"What is key, however, is that this undermined my rational basis for theism. Not all beliefs were equal. Some beliefs were more probable than others and surely I should accept those beliefs that were the more probable? But how probable was my belief in God? Without having an answer to this complicated question, I hopped onto the fence and decided that I couldn't get back off until I had determined which was more probable: God's existence or non-existence."

Interesting...I believe that there is no way to successfully prove that God does not exist, therefore you cannot use logic in determining the answer to this mystery. Also, I believe we have to get to an even more pure meaning of this topic and ask ourselves, what is God? I do not believe you can come to a logical conclusion to the argument of does God exist without understanding what exactly the concept of God entails....
 

blueinchains

Without Wax
"The Gods that I dismiss most strongly are those which I consider to be meaningless (strong omnipotence), logically inconsistent (supernaturalism) or semantically incorrect (naturalistic pantheism)."

Believe it or not, given the general concept of a god, what you have typed here could very well be your god. You believe in and have faith in your understanding of logic, which you have made your god, which can be placed on the other concepts you have sided with...
 

blueinchains

Without Wax
"Next are those that are not supported by argument. An example would be believing in God because the believer wanted to believe in God. Another example would be believing in God because of faith in scripture. This would include all the Gods that are currently held to exist by the mainstream religions."

It is my belief that scripture, or the bible, has been consistently proven to be one of the most accurate history books known to man. This has come from religious as well as non-religious sources. Nothing, as of yet, that was written in the original version of the bible and scripture has EVER been disproven. If you take this as a logical argument, then wouldn't it be logical to believe in writings so accurate, and in turn the subjects of the writings?

Also, when you speak of gods that are not supported by argument, this would be inaccurate as we would not have even this forum if some gods did not have an argument. Also, I believe argument is too shaky to attach my beliefs to because these are issues that can neither be proven or unproven, thus the interjection of faith. In this sense, argument and faith work together...
 

blueinchains

Without Wax
"Next are those that are supported by an argument that I consider weak. The so-called Philosopher's Gods. I am most open to having my mind changed in this area because I can always find new merit in an argument or new evidence to support a premise. Additionally, I feel that if I were to be converted, it would have to be a kind of God who was revealed to me in this way. Examples in this category would be the ontological God, the teleological God etc."

This passage brings me to some questions. What exactly are you looking for in proof? Are you wanting to believe in one thing, or are you searching for truth, or what exactly? It appears that you are open to believe in anything, and in a sense, this is a good thing, to be as open-minded as you appear to be. But will you ever settle on one particular thing? And if not, then what is the point? Why search for anything if you will never settle on one thing and believe it. It almost, and forgive my bluntness, but it seems almost like a cop-out to constantly change your views, rather than sticking up for one particular belief and forming your own views of them. It would seem you are not letting yourself learn the aspects of anything for too long because you don't really want to believe in anything, and thus be forced to explain your beliefs. Also, if you do not believe in anything, which by what you wrote is hard to determine, then why label yourself as having any believe in one particular area whatsoever, whether belief or non-belief in God?
 

blueinchains

Without Wax
"Finally, there is the God of whom I know nothing yet whose possibility of existence prevents me from rejecting entirely. It is important that I don't know anything about it because, since I have no evidence and no reason to posit any attribute, any attribute I give it would make it less likely."

Is it that you know nothing about Him, or that you cannot explain what you know? If I am correct, then you say you are an atheist, which claims that there is no God, then you say ...there is a God(and you capitalize His name) whom you know nothing about yet, but cannot disprove his existence.(paraphrasing) Is that a correct assessment of what you wrote? This would seem to contradict itself. What it sounds like, if this is in fact a correct assessment, is that you ARE aware of God, you just have no means of explaining it. Do you, or do you not believe in God? And if so, in what sense?
 
Top