Research correlates inequality with religiosity

September 10, 2009 2:36 PM

In this episode of Radio 4's Thinking Allowed, Professor David Voas explains old secularisation theory was that, as a nation modernised, its religiosity would decline with which the US obviously doesn't conform. In the show Dr Tom Rees explains his new theory that addresses this anomaly. Having researched religiosity in 50 countries he has discovered a correlation (although no causality) between a country's level of personal insecurity (using inequality as a measure for this) and its religiosity. Professor Paul C Vitz is approaching this issue from a different angle, questioning not why do people become religious, but why do they become atheists.
posted by NailsTheCat (102 comments total)

"The Psychology of Atheism" paper is terrible. So, his own personal "motives" (is there some big profit or reward involved? did I miss a rebate?) for becoming an atheist were general socialization (peer pressure), specific socialization (academic peer pressure), and personal convenience (laziness). In other words, he's a go-along kinda guy. I wasn't aware that atheism was fashionable. Nobody at the faculty cocktail parties will talk to you if you go to church, dahling.

Had Professor Vitz been born in Israel to Jewish parents, he'd be Jewish. If he were born in India, he'd not be a Christian. Not realizing this, he goes on to generalize his lack of deep attachment to anything on to others.

Now that he's changed his spots once again, he feels it obvious that "it is quite inconvenient to be a serious believer in today's powerful secular and neo-pagan world." Say what?

He's a freakin' Freudian. A strong father is apparently necessary for religious belief, an observation both facile and disheartening in its implications for the faithful. And then ... and then he turns to the Oedipus Complex. *sigh* I fully expected to read that Cain slew Able, so as NOT TO SHARE THE MOTHER.

Screwtape would have owned this guy.
posted by adipocere at 2:56 PM on September 10, 2009 [11 favorites]

"Without going into details it is not hard to imagine the sexual pleasures that would have to be rejected if I became a serious believer. And then I also knew it would cost me time and some money. There would be church services, church groups, time for prayer and scripture reading, time spent helping others. I was already too busy. Obviously, becoming religious would be a real inconvenience."

Give me a frickin' break........

If this is the reason you're an atheist - you're belief in God is turning out to be inconvenient - you are *not* an atheist and you never were. And the last person who should be explaining why people become atheists is someone who thinks atheism = lazy Christians.

Am I reading this right? The guy thinks he was an atheist just because he wanted to screw girls and didn't have time for church?
posted by y6y6y6 at 2:56 PM on September 10, 2009 [7 favorites]

i don't remember "becoming" an atheist. isn't that sort of the human default state? serious question.
posted by i'm offended you're offended at 2:59 PM on September 10, 2009 [5 favorites]

I became an atheist (or at least an agnostic) at age 5. My mother had divorced my father, and I moved to the city with her. We'd been regular church goers up until that time. My mom asked me if I still wanted to keep going to church, and I told her I wanted to ask a few questions before deciding. So I asked whether there was much (or any) proof that Jesus was a 'Son of God', or that there was a hell or a heaven, and she told me (honestly) that no, it was something you had to accept on faith, without any proof, or not. So I chose not. It seemed odd to me then (as it does now) that for thousands of years people believed something for which no proof exists. I'm from the Show Me State, and nobody has ever showed me any proof, so I remain atheist/agnostic four decades later.

It seems to me that the happier a society is, the less religious it is too. Countries where they have strong safety nets for their citizens tend to be happy (and healthier than ours in the U.S.) and also tend to lean more toward the secular side of things. I'm not sure if that's a matter of social inequality or what, but it does seem to be the case. Maybe when a society is unhappy enough then religion provides some hope where nothing else really does.
posted by jamstigator at 3:04 PM on September 10, 2009 [1 favorite]

Oh man, "The Psychology of Atheism" is remarkably awful. You would think a psychologist would recognize the fallacy of declaring his personal experience and motivations to be the experience and motivations of all Atheists. Some choice passages:

I am not going into this to bore you with parts of my life story, but to note that through reflection on my own experience it is now clear to me that my reasons for becoming and for remaining an atheist-skeptic from about age 18 to 38 were superficial, irrational, and largely without intellectual or moral integrity. Furthermore, I am convinced that my motives were, and still are, commonplace today among intellectuals, especially social scientists.

...

There you have it! A remarkably honest and conscious admission that being "a genuinely religious person" would be too much trouble, too inconvenient. I can't but assume that such are the shallow reasons behind many an unbeliever's position.
posted by arcolz at 3:06 PM on September 10, 2009

I'm an atheist because there's no god.

Sheesh.
posted by fleetmouse at 3:08 PM on September 10, 2009 [22 favorites]

isn't that [atheism] sort of the human default state?

Of course not.
posted by washburn at 3:11 PM on September 10, 2009 [1 favorite]

Maybe when a society is unhappy enough then religion provides some hope where nothing else really does.

dingdingdingdingding!

Honestly, the corner of my psyche that still holds on to some belief would like to see what kind of belief survives in a world which isn't so unstable--I think what religion did survive would be more philosophical and less desperate, and possibly more sincere (since it would allow more room for doubt/thought).

Or it might dry up altogether, which would take care of that question.

Seems like a worthwhile experiment to try.
posted by emjaybee at 3:18 PM on September 10, 2009 [1 favorite]

isn't that [atheism] sort of the human default state?

Of course not.

So what you're saying is that if we didn't inculcate children with religious belief they'd spontaneously develop it?
posted by rodgerd at 3:18 PM on September 10, 2009 [1 favorite]

It's happened before.
posted by Wood at 3:21 PM on September 10, 2009 [8 favorites]

I can't but assume that such are the shallow reasons behind many an unbeliever's position.

Jesus Chris, that's just offensive. Some people have a lengthy, difficult struggle with themselves and their family and their community before becoming atheists. If you've been brought up in a religious tradition, the idea not only of not believing in God but in telling people about it can be really overwhelming. I really question the character of anyone who is not only making such facile decisions in their own lives but also assuming that everyone else shares the same level of superficiality and that people -- atheists included -- don't take their beliefs seriously, whatever they may be.
posted by Mrs. Pterodactyl at 3:21 PM on September 10, 2009 [1 favorite]

It's happened before.

Hahahaha! :-(
posted by fleetmouse at 3:24 PM on September 10, 2009

So what you're saying is that if we didn't inculcate children with religious belief they'd spontaneously develop it?

Within a few generations, yes. Within one generation if you count superstition as religion.
posted by Nonce at 3:26 PM on September 10, 2009 [1 favorite]

It's happened before.

I would be very grateful if we could please not do this; I work very hard to be understanding and respectful of other people's religious beliefs (or lack thereof) and I feel like these casual dismissals don't really help anyone.
posted by Mrs. Pterodactyl at 3:27 PM on September 10, 2009

No but seriously, here's one possible explanation for belief in God - it's not too far off to say that children do, in fact, spontaneously develop it.
posted by fleetmouse at 3:27 PM on September 10, 2009 [1 favorite]

"Let me conclude by noting that however prevalent the superficial motives for being an atheist, there still remain in many instances the deep and disturbing psychological sources as well. However easy it may be to state the hypothesis of the "defective father," we must not forget the difficulty, the pain, and complexity that lie behind each individual case. And for those whose atheism has been conditioned by a father who rejected, who denied, who hated, who manipulated, or who physically or sexually abused them, there must be understanding and compassion."

In other words atheism is either caused by being a lazy Christian, or by having an abusive father. Can I get some response from any people of faith here about whether you think this is even marginally the reason why someone would call themselves an atheist? Because this is about the most silly reasoning about the "source" of my atheism I've ever heard.

I am mystified that anyone could actually think this is the case.
posted by y6y6y6 at 3:35 PM on September 10, 2009

I think religiosity is a 'default' human state in much the same way that aggression is a 'default' human state. Aggression has served an evolutionary purpose that we are ostensibly growing out of as we develop as a species. Similarly, religion has served as a logical stop-gap for us, explaining things that we were unable to explain in other, more rational ways. Other things (science, philosophy, &c.) are slowly coming in to fill up the space that religion once nested so comfortably in, but this too is a slow and uncomfortable process.

I'm not saying that strongly religious people are 'primitive' or 'unevolved', but that the instinct to worship, as evidenced not only in religion but dynastic government and celebrity worshipping as well, is obviously deeply ingrained in the human psyche. Growing out of the knee-jerk acceptance of received 'wisdom' is a difficult one, especially on a species-wise scale; but add to that our strange, almost obsessive need to recognize the hierarchy into which we fit, and to lift others above ourselves, and you have a recipe for religion right there.
posted by Pecinpah at 3:48 PM on September 10, 2009 [1 favorite]

"The Psychology of Atheism" has to be one of the pettiest, patronising pieces of "academic" (and I use the term very loosely here) writing I have ever read. I am pretty sure that smug, self-righteous people like Vitz do more to drive people away from organised religion than contrived pseudo-psychological motives.

I gotta admit, though, I like the kitschy cosmic wallpaper on the 'Origins' homepage. It looks like the sort of thing you'd make in Paint using the airbrush tool and two different shades of gray.
posted by fearthehat at 3:48 PM on September 10, 2009

How tremendously shallow.

I became an atheist, really, because I realized how shallow and banal my (inner and outer) religious life had grown, and how previous periods of intense belief were covering up deep seated struggles with the utter inadequacy of classic theistic arguments. Combined with an attempt to grapple with the problem of evil, bam – no more faith. It was a growing experience.

The idea that this happened because I wanted sex is moronic. Is this guy suggesting theists don't get laid, often, before marriage?
posted by graymouser at 3:49 PM on September 10, 2009

>It seemed odd to me then (as it does now) that for thousands of years people believed something for which no proof exists.

You might be interested in looking through a book like Evidence for Christianity by Josh McDowell, just as an introduction. In the more common sense of the word 'proof' there is tons of 'proof' for Christianity.

In the more philosophical sense, there isn't really much proof for anything at all, but it's worth noting that the most preeminent philosophers of our times see belief in God as intellectually valid, and many who prefer it, logically. The prominent atheistic philosopher Antony Flew has become a theist on the grounds of reason and science, adhering to Socrates' dictum that you must "follow the argument wherever it leads." (Actually, maybe you'd prefer Flew's book to the McDowell one.)
posted by brenton at 3:51 PM on September 10, 2009

Oops, linked to the wrong Flew book (though that's a good one too). The more on-topic book would be this one.
posted by brenton at 4:03 PM on September 10, 2009

Ugh, this is stupid.

Can we focus on the Rees paper, which actually has some novel value in shifting the presumed understanding of the continued religiosity of America as due to its "Free Market" approach to religion (as opposed to the waning of the European state churches). I had been thinking lately about that and wondering if there was a correlation between those most prone to the "free market Christianity" (prosperity gospel, "mainstream" capitalist theology*) were the same ones decrying "socialism" in the health care plans.

But the ZOMG ATHEIST PSYCH paper is terribly written bullshit and doesn't even seem to be published anywhere reputable, so why is everyone focusing on that? It's stupid on its face, and no more really needs to be said.

*I realize that the free market Christianity theory really applies more to the idea of many choices that fit individuals' belief models, but I think that the general philosophy of inoffensive, lowest-denominator Christianity that most depictions of Christianity in media focus on, is a predictable result, just as Two and a Half Men is a predictable result of market-driven television networks.
posted by klangklangston at 4:03 PM on September 10, 2009

Oh, and I wonder if, as future research, Rees might look at instability as a predictor of strength of religious beliefs intra-societal, e.g. Americans that felt their material wealth was precarious versus those who felt secure. Certainly, I'd expect to find a lot more religious people, say, in victims of the Madoff scam than folks who had similar resources prior to the scam but who were unaffected.
posted by klangklangston at 4:07 PM on September 10, 2009

Can we focus on the Rees paper
Yes--I find it very interesting. In the podcast, Rees explains how it seems it's not just the poor that take to religion in societies where personal insecurity is high but also the wealthy. Almost a "there but for the grace of god..." attitude.

I tried to find decent papers on the free market Christianity theory but failed to find one easily digestible (by me at least).

The Rees paper was intended to be the meat of the post. I just threw the Vitz piece in because it offered a (albeit outrageous) counterpoint.
posted by NailsTheCat at 4:11 PM on September 10, 2009

In other words atheism is either caused by being a lazy Christian, or by having an abusive father. Can I get some response from any people of faith here about whether you think this is even marginally the reason why someone would call themselves an atheist?

I think there are many different reasons why people call themselves atheists. I am extremely skeptical of the abusive father theory. The lazy Christian route to atheism is, I think, fairly well-traveled, though I don't think it's fair to say that someone is an atheist "because" they are a lazy Christian. Just as there are a million different reasons that people like a favorite band, join a church, pick a major in college, marry someone, or make any number of other decisions about life, there are a million paths that people take that lead them to the conclusion that God does not exist. To reduce it to one or two simplified stereotypes is, I think, erroneous.

(Related: I think that there are probably fewer reasons why people are religious than there are reasons why people reject religion. But that opinion is not backed up by any research.)
posted by The World Famous at 4:11 PM on September 10, 2009

I look at it like this:

Greyhawk is the default universe, or campaign setting, in which Dungeons & Dragons is played. This suits most of us just fine because there’s a whole lot of extra shit you need to buy if you want to play in any other universe. I’d call Greyhawk agnosticism, because since you haven’t really given the issue much thought, you can’t really say whether you are atheist or not.

Forgotten Realms is the next logical step after Greyhawk, depending on which way you’re leaning. There’s a wealth of material and supplements and millions of people are behind it and don’t need anything more, because it’s got the lot. Forgotten Realms is atheism.

On the other side of the coin, you’ve got Birthright. This is classic knights in armour stuff, crusading into the foreign lands of Al-Qadim. These are your tried-and-tested Abrahamic religions, all believing essentially the same thing but nevertheless engaging in spirited debate over the precise details.

You might decide to dabble with Buddhism or Taoism. If so, Kara-Tur will be perfect for you. Hindus would likely enjoy the Dark Sun setting.

Scientologists would be right at home in either the Spelljammer or Planescape universes, which would appear to them sensible, logical and consistent. (It could be argued, however, that Planescape would be the more obvious choice for atheism, since it acts as a gateway between every other universe.)

Satanists, who if they aren’t in Scandinavia basically just hang around in cemeteries carrying replica Klingon knives, will really “sink their teeth” into Ravenloft!

Crazy folk religionists, paganists and the like would have to play around with the source material from all of the above, plus a lot of other different places, like Eberron, Mystara, Rokugan, and that third-party Sword & Sorcery stuff you see all the time.

And that, kids, is how everything fits together seamlessly.
posted by turgid dahlia at 4:12 PM on September 10, 2009 [7 favorites]

It's happened before.

I would be very grateful if we could please not do this; I work very hard to be understanding and respectful of other people's religious beliefs (or lack thereof) and I feel like these casual dismissals don't really help anyone.

If anyone alive today has a religious belief that was developed in a world without religion, I'll eat my hat.*

I don't think it's disrespectful or dismissive at all to say that "if you didn't inculcate children with religious belief they'd spontaneously develop it" and that it has happened before.

* - No, I won't.
posted by ODiV at 4:13 PM on September 10, 2009

Tangentially, the brilliant William Hazlitt has a little something to say on this subject in his wonderful essay On The Love Of The Country. The part that came most immediately to mind was this:

"Thus, to give an obvious instance, if I have once enjoyed the cool shade of a tree, and been lulled into a deep repose by the sound of a brook running at its feet, I am sure that wherever I can find a tree and a brook, I can enjoy the same pleasure again. Hence, when I imagine these objects, I can easily form a mystic personification of the friendly power that inhabits them, Dryad or Naiad, offering its cool fountain or its tempting shade. Hence the origin of that Grecian mythology."
posted by turgid dahlia at 4:17 PM on September 10, 2009 [1 favorite]

My theory on the spontaneous origins of religion: the human mind has a number of experimentally proven biases, including ones attributing will/agency and a "theory of mind" to observed phenomena (one example: show young children a video of two squares moving, one following the other, and the child will perceive that one is chasing the other, and often attribute fear and aggression), confirmation bias (as in people remembering the times they were thinking of someone just before they called them, and ignoring the numerous times they weren't), and the perception of patterns in randomness. Which leads people not familiar with the scientific method to attribute supernatural/mystical agency to things they don't understand (the weather/crop fertility are the work of the gods, someone did A and B happened therefore A causes B).

Which gives us superstitions on the individual level. The rest is taken care of by social psychology; people communicate, and the superstitions get codified. Dominant/charismatic personalities get their superstitions accepted by others. And people are tribal creatures, so anything that's useful as a badge of identity, and a marker of the division between the in-group and the out-group, is useful. Meanwhile, certain rules such as hygiene and agricultural principles get discovered, and tacking them onto a religious framework is a good way of giving them "legs" and helping them catch on, especially when the population is mostly illiterate.
posted by acb at 4:18 PM on September 10, 2009 [3 favorites]

Also, I call bullshit on being able to decide to become an atheist or theist. As far as I know and unless I'm radically different than everyone else, people can't choose their beliefs.
posted by ODiV at 4:25 PM on September 10, 2009 [1 favorite]

brenton: You might be interested in looking through a book like Evidence for Christianity by Josh McDowell, just as an introduction. In the more common sense of the word 'proof' there is tons of 'proof' for Christianity.

It's an interesting book in that it's one of several major instances of heresy amongst modern 'Christian' circles. The scriptures pretty clearly state that faith is 'the evidence of things unseen.' Attempts to replace faith about these things with something else are not only flatly insane and beyond all rational bearing but also anti-Christian. Really, I've read Mr. McDowell's book, and he seems to have a rather meager grasp of the statements upon which Christianity stands; the things he's able to 'demonstrate' are things which absolutely no atheist would really mind conceding (i.e. there was an historical personage called by his followers Christ, he appears to have done some magic tricks, etc). Christianity doesn't assert that Jesus existed–Christianity asserts that he was simultaneously the offspring and the source, human and divine, the unlimited made finite. It is, as I've said, flatly insane to claim to have evidence to this effect; and if evidence could actually be offered, as all of the church fathers have pointed out, then there could be no faith about the matter but only more or less educated guesses.

jamstigator: It seemed odd to me then (as it does now) that for thousands of years people believed something for which no proof exists. I'm from the Show Me State, and nobody has ever showed me any proof, so I remain atheist/agnostic four decades later.

My dear old friend Nietzsche would probably point out that we believe things all the time without evidence. There is no evidence that justice is good, or that pain is bad; perhaps more to the point, there isn't even any evidence that two right angles placed together make a straight line, or that the sum of the angles in a triangle is 180°, even though these are rationally sound statements. You couldn't possible present evidence that those things are true; could you honestly gather up a hundred ideal, perfect triangles and measure the angles perfectly and give me a result? We know that the angles in a triangle add up to 180° because of reasoning and deliberation, not because evidence; we can construct a proof in our minds which convinces us that in all cases the three angles in a triangle add up to 180°. In other words: there are some matters in which evidence plays absolutely no part, in which it would not even be possible to submit evidence; and furthermore some of those matters are things we all agree about and seem to feel we know and understand rationally. At the least, in fact, the very practice of gathering evidence and adducing conclusions from it seems to rest solidly on an evidence-free branch of reasoning: mathematics.

As far as this article goes, I have two reactions:

1. 'Religiosity?'

2. The debate between atheism and religion seems like something of a moot point to me on the political level; whether people believe there is a phantom man sitting in the sky watching their moves or not, whether they believe that that man is blue and has a thousand arms or that he's an old guy with a beard and a guilt complex, they seem to act the same. brenton mentioned Socrates; interestingly enough, the arguments which Plato and Xenophon put in Socrates' mouth seem to indicate something like this:

Opinion is the stuff of society; it is its substance. Opinion, that is, as differentiated from knowledge. As long as there have been human beings, society has subsisted on the meat of opinion, craving and devouring it and nothing else. Societies have been founded on the opinion that they ought to be free, that they ought to win football matches, that God is angry and must be fed young virgins, that there is no god, et cetera. In all cases, however, the common ground upon which the members of society met and gathered was that of common opinion, shared beliefs which were accepted beforehand. Socrates (unlike, say, Spinoza) seems to believe that this has always been true and is not likely to change any time soon.

Furthermore he argues that, since society is founded on opinion, when certain people (whom he seems to believe arise quite naturally among humans) happen to question those opinions and to seek an underlying truth, a reality beyond that accepted within the common opinion, society is inevitably quite unhappy and often somewhat stern. Socrates also seems to have taken this as a given, and his project, I think, was to prepare a way for a society where those who questioned had a quiet place in which to do so without drawing the ire of the social norms.

In the end I wonder if the question 'is there a god?' has any coherent meaning at all in the way that most people ask it. I don't believe it does. This is why the great mystic Meister Eckhart insisted (to the flabbergasted consternation of the Catholic Church) that there is no God and that to become like God we must never think of him, completely free our minds of any thought of him - since any thought we have of him is limited and probably pretty silly compared to the 'true reality of things.' In this sense I think it's absolutely true what many atheists say: that the question of whether there is a god 'isn't even false!' - it isn't even a question which admits of really thoughtful deliberation at all.
posted by koeselitz at 4:29 PM on September 10, 2009 [19 favorites]

Also, I call bullshit on being able to decide to become an atheist or theist. As far as I know and unless I'm radically different than everyone else, people can't choose their beliefs.

I think there is a distinction between "choosing" a belief and reaching a conclusion or belief based on some decisionmaking or analytical process. Where I agree with you that people don't "choose" to believe in or not believe in some religious concept, they do arrive at that belief (or lack of belief) by some process, either conscious or unconscious, I think. Some people don't examine their own beliefs. But, though I think calling it "choosing" is inaccurate, the deliberative or analytical process should not be ignored, nor should the forces that act on and influence that process.
posted by The World Famous at 4:31 PM on September 10, 2009

I'm with ODiV. I'm an atheist because I don't believe there's a god. Couldn't start believing it if I wanted to.
posted by pompomtom at 4:34 PM on September 10, 2009

Also, I call bullshit on being able to decide to become an atheist or theist. As far as I know and unless I'm radically different than everyone else, people can't choose their beliefs.

(assuming you're not questioning the existence of free will) I've always found this idea fascinating. I would say the opposite, that all beliefs about the supernatural must be chosen, or at least continued belief about the supernatural must continue to be chosen.
posted by sineater at 4:34 PM on September 10, 2009

ODiV: Also, I call bullshit on being able to decide to become an atheist or theist. As far as I know and unless I'm radically different than everyone else, people can't choose their beliefs.

If a person comes up to me and tells me that the bus is delayed today and won't reach this stop until an hour from now, I can choose to believe her or disbelieve her. Likewise, if a man comes up to me and tells me that this guy got strung up and died and that he was actually the offspring of the source of all creation, I can choose to believe him or not to believe him. How is that so impossible?
posted by koeselitz at 4:36 PM on September 10, 2009

pompomtom: I'm with ODiV. I'm an atheist because I don't believe there's a god. Couldn't start believing it if I wanted to.

Hmm... interesting. So you're saying that your atheism is a matter of disposition - that because of certain traits you were born with, traits that couldn't be changed without severely altering your physical and psychological makeup, you don't believe there's a god?
posted by koeselitz at 4:38 PM on September 10, 2009

I'm an atheist because I don't believe there's a god.

That's definitional, though. It's not an explanation.
posted by The World Famous at 4:38 PM on September 10, 2009

If a person comes up to me and tells me that the bus is delayed today and won't reach this stop until an hour from now, I can choose to believe her or disbelieve her.

You can seriously believe her or disbelieve her at will? Not just decide whether or not to act on the information she has given you? That's pretty impressive.
posted by ODiV at 4:40 PM on September 10, 2009

But what about a matter on which it is impossible to have any information on which to base a judgement?
posted by koeselitz at 4:50 PM on September 10, 2009

Did Paul Vitz say he himself was atheist? I'm surprised at that as I've read another article by him providing back up for Catholic views on the family. Perhaps he's left in the last ten years, but somebody really should tell them that one of their thinkers found the socialization cost of church-going so high that he decided god didn't exist. I mean, if somebody can change their worldview because there are no decent Catholics to hang out with, then worrying about cohabitation is a little previous.
posted by Sova at 5:00 PM on September 10, 2009

So say this person tells you the bus will be delayed by an hour and then leaves. I overhear her and come up and ask you, "Is that true?" What do you tell me?

But what about a matter on which it is impossible to have any information on which to base a judgement?

I don't see how that's any different from a matter for which you have all the information you would need.

Here's a fun experiment. Can you believe that you cannot choose your beliefs?

Okay, it doesn't prove anything, but it's funny.
posted by ODiV at 5:06 PM on September 10, 2009 [1 favorite]

The US is modernized? We still use the pre-metric system, we don't have socialized medicine and most of us don't even believe in evolution. We're the most backwards "modern" nation on the planet. And the most religious.
posted by DU at 5:14 PM on September 10, 2009 [1 favorite]

DU: "We're the most backwards "modern" nation on the planet. And the most religious."

Makes me wonder if there is causality one way or the other or if maybe the two feed one another.
posted by idiopath at 5:22 PM on September 10, 2009 [1 favorite]

As someone who was once very religious, allow me to submit that to believe is very much a choice. When I was older and began to read for myself and learn, I began to have doubts—but I denied those doubts, pushing against them with a great deal of anger, considering myself failed because I was unable to force myself to believe unconditionally in the torture and murder of a man two thousand years ago and the mythic idea that his blood was shed for the sake of me.

Eventually, I chose to engage with my doubt, and in so doing discovered that the doubts, when embraced, made me feel a hell of a lot better than my “religion of love” had done previously. The world made more sense, the people around me made more sense, the sad, crabbed and miserable eyes of the religious people I had known all along made more sense. Hell, the Bible makes more sense from an atheist perspective.

These days, I no longer really talk about my beliefs in public or try to convince anyone. All of them have doubts. They will either choose to engage those doubts, or they will be miserable. It's not my business which they prefer.
posted by sonic meat machine at 5:25 PM on September 10, 2009 [1 favorite]

>Really, I've read Mr. McDowell's book, and he seems to have a rather meager grasp of the statements upon which Christianity stands; the things he's able to 'demonstrate' are things which absolutely no atheist would really mind conceding

Maybe you missed the chapter on the resurrection?

>Christianity doesn't assert that Jesus existed–Christianity asserts that he was simultaneously the offspring and the source, human and divine, the unlimited made finite. It is, as I've said, flatly insane to claim to have evidence to this effect

The church has claimed from the very beginning to have the testimonies of eyewitnesses who saw enough to convince them that Jesus was human and divine and everything else.

Evidence and proof is not a heresy to Christianity, it is essential to it, e.g. Acts 1:3 "After his suffering, he showed himself to these men and gave many convincing proofs that he was alive. He appeared to them over a period of forty days and spoke about the kingdom of God." The church has continued to seek "convincing proofs" ever since then and has not stopped. Just open up any introductory philosophy or theology book. You will find a minority of thinkers who advocated blind, unreasoned faith, but it is quite a small minority.
posted by brenton at 5:43 PM on September 10, 2009

I'm an atheist because I've lost the need for an all-powerful entity to be on my side to make it through life. The longer I lived, the more I've seen around me and experienced in my own life, the easier it is to expect that each and every one of us is on our own and it does no good to ask for Divine Intervention. I also realized that no Omnipotent Force could ever judge all human beings by any standard that human beings can comprehend, so tying your eternal future to one set of religious rules with zero proof of their validity is just plain stupid. That's when I became Agnostic.

And when I came to the realization that, to my easily-bored psyche, Heaven and its perpetual pleasure would ultimately become just as painfully tedious as Hell and its perpetual pain, (while the only constants in the REAL world are change and decay) I realized I didn't want Eternal Life and started feeling pretty good about Death being the Big End With No Hanging Around to Even See Who Shows Up at Your Funeral.

Atheism actually gives me peace of mind, helping me accept my own insignificance in The Universe to anybody but me. Which matters, after going from an almost-all-As student (and White Male American, the World's most privileged class) with massive potential to a Disabled Person who has lost enough mental acuity that it takes me 3-4 times as long to write a MeFi comment as it did in 2002. If I believed there was a God that had anything to do with what has happened in my lifetime, I'd have nothing but hatred for It.
posted by wendell at 6:09 PM on September 10, 2009 [3 favorites]

No but seriously, here's one possible explanation for belief in God - it's not too far off to say that children do, in fact, spontaneously develop it.

Never mistake the daily mail for actual science journalism. Bruce Hood, the actual researcher in question, has legitimate beefs with the way the Times and the Mail reported the story. "Belief formation is not simply hard-wired or indoctrination. To use Ben Goldacre’s dictum, “I think you’ll find it more complicated than that”

The prominent atheistic philosopher Antony Flew has become a theist on the grounds of reason and science,

Actually - exactly the opposite. He became a deist (a particular type of theist diametrically opposed to Christianity) on the basis of 'insight' and the most forthcoming he's been about his actual reasoning is literally the argument from complexity - the usual ID shennanigans - itself a failure of both knowledge and imagination. He is on record in 2004 as pointedly NOT keeping up with the science involved, no matter how much he may enjoy quoting Socrates. Still - theists love to trot him out because of his 'apostasy'. It's important to remember that doing Philosophy of Science is not the same as doing actual science - and expertise in one is not grounds for authority in another.
posted by Sparx at 6:18 PM on September 10, 2009 [1 favorite]

>He became a deist on the basis of 'insight'

Is that something Flew said or are you just saying that Flew's reasoning is no better than insight? I'd be surprised if he claimed it was because of insight, particularly since he stated "the most impressive arguments for God’s existence are those that are supported by recent scientific discoveries." (citation)
posted by brenton at 6:37 PM on September 10, 2009

Dr. Flew had a revelatory experience while looking at a waterfall.

Personally I find the fact that a philosopher decided that the complexity argument for deistic creationism was more credible than a materialist origin of life less than convincing. It is an argument from authority, based on a person who is not even educated in the applicable field. This is a philosopher, not a biologist.
posted by idiopath at 6:45 PM on September 10, 2009

Errata to my above comment: I was confusing two stories, both cited in the above article.
posted by idiopath at 6:46 PM on September 10, 2009

The prominent atheistic philosopher Antony Flew has become a theist on the grounds of reason and science, adhering to Socrates' dictum that you must "follow the argument wherever it leads."

Regarding Flew and his end-of-life conversion, I recommend you read this very thoughtful piece from 2007 in the NYT magazine. I remain unconvinced that his is a genuine conversion, and even that he fully comprehends what it means. Those who know his work well are also critical of these conversion works on a technical level, and are deeply suspicious that it is genuinely his work; or that, if it is, he has any longer the keen cognitive skill his writing evinced for decades.


At the least, in fact, the very practice of gathering evidence and adducing conclusions from it seems to rest solidly on an evidence-free branch of reasoning: mathematics.

But aren't mathematics demonstrated in physical reality time and again? I think your point along these lines is both correct and somewhat disingenuous. Engineers designing new kinds of skyscrapers don't have any evidence that their designs will stay up, but they know physics and engineering principles, and--most importantly--when the buildings are built we find out if the math was correct or not. There is no equivalent real-world demonstration of supernatural religious concepts, and as others have pointed out, to have them would undermine one of the most foundational aspects of Christian belief: faith.

My sense is that religion and science are no longer opposed but mostly (if I may, inspired by koeselitz, use a mathematical term) orthogonal to each other. Religion used to provide explanations for natural phenomena, but we invented science to do that better.* My sense is that science comes from reason and religion comes from emotion. Most religious people I know find their belief most important and vital emotionally, and would find it odd to attempt to apply rational analysis to what are clearly supernatural and unprovable assertions about the nature of the universe.

I don't think this means that those who are more emotionally-driven are therefore more religious, but I do find that the people I know who are most emotionally driven most often engage in magical thinking of all kinds, about fate and true love and destiny and all kinds of random stuff.


*-believers who still think that the Old Testament provides reasonable explanations for how everything literally came to be actually baffle me. I just don't understand that particular level of magical thinking.
posted by LooseFilter at 6:55 PM on September 10, 2009 [2 favorites]

(I also should say that I don't mean to imply that religious believers lack rationality or the ability to reason, or that those primarily moved by rationality will not have religious faith. Just mentioning a broad distinction I see.)
posted by LooseFilter at 7:00 PM on September 10, 2009

> Also, I call bullshit on being able to decide to become an atheist or theist. As far as I know and unless
> I'm radically different than everyone else, people can't choose their beliefs.

On the contrary. We become what we pretend to be. Pretty damn swiftly, too.
posted by jfuller at 7:06 PM on September 10, 2009 [3 favorites]

Regarding choice (an interesting derail, but no one else seems to care about Rees, so…):

There are two claims, one explicit, one implicit, that I'm hearing above. The explicit claim is that we are able to choose to accept, deny or ignore God; the implicit claim is that because one person does so, that ability is universal.

I think that the explicit claim is somewhat muddied by the language of religion; there's a lot of baggage over identity of faith or non-faith, but it seems to me analogous to a less overtly contentious debate, that of aesthetic choice. Let me say here that I'm unsure of my own feelings on this (and on the choice of faith), and am not sure that this can ever be generalized, though I'll try a little.

I think we've all had the experience of deciding to like something, some painting or movie or song, especially if we think back to adolescence. We play the song over and over again, watch the movie repeatedly, ponder the painting for hours, reread the book, whatever. Sometimes this works. I decided that I was going to really try to figure out what people liked about ABBA, a band I'd made easy slagging of for years, and got to really enjoy them. Likewise, David Bowie, Pere Ubu, etc. Sometimes, it doesn't. No matter how many times I listen to Fleetwood Mac's Buckingham-Nicks output, it still bores the hell out of me and makes me want to wash my ears out with Napalm Death. And sometimes it takes partway but not completely, like Velvet Underground, where I don't think I'll ever like Nico's voice, even though I can get where they were coming from.

It's been my choice to engage with all of that music, and to really give it a serious listen, but I'm not sure formulating it as a choice to like the music or not is a good way to talk about whether or not I do like it.

I'm not a fanatical believer in tabula rasa, but Locke's position that there is 'nothing in the mind that is not first in the senses' seems apt here. I think I tend to like things based on sensation first, and then my consciousness orders and classifies that sensation, and sometimes acts as a brake (we've all seen something that's appealing at first, but as comprehension sets in, seems reprehensible or revolting, e.g. racist lyrics). And it's easier for me to abide other people not liking things I do than other people liking things I don't (a hypocritical sentiment that is pretty common).

Given all that, I tend to suspect that people are either predisposed to feel the subjective feeling of faith or they're not, something that's complicated a great deal by the social institutions of faith. As an out-my-ass estimate, I'd guess that folks who profess faith but don't actually have that feeling outnumber those who profess and do, but since it's rather a qualia, that's not something I can measure.

But then we get into the problem of definitions, as befits a qualia. And maybe my enjoyment of ABBA isn't the same as someone else's either, yet I wouldn't say they don't have the true love for ABBA. I can say that their love for ABBA isn't consistent, or that because they love ABBA for the reasons they provide, they should love some other band, or that their reasons for dismissing ABBA are poorly thought out and dumb, but if they don't love ABBA, there's really nothing I can do to force them to. They have to be open to loving ABBA before I can even get them to like ABBA.

And, if after a lot of reflection, they say, y'know, Josh, I just don't like ABBA, all I can say is, 'That night at Warterloo, Napoleon did surrender…'
posted by klangklangston at 7:13 PM on September 10, 2009

I thought "Psychology of Atheism" was pretty amusing at the beginning. Then he started on Freud and it was a laugh riot.
posted by storybored at 7:45 PM on September 10, 2009

Is that something Flew said or are you just saying that Flew's reasoning is no better than insight? I'd be surprised if he claimed it was because of insight, particularly since he stated "the most impressive arguments for God’s existence are those that are supported by recent scientific discoveries."

There were two factors in particular that were decisive. One was my growing empathy with the insight of Einstein and other noted scientists that there had to be an Intelligence behind the integrated complexity of the physical Universe. The second was my own insight that the integrated complexity of life itself – which is far more complex than the physical Universe – can only be explained in terms of an Intelligent Source. I believe that the origin of life and reproduction simply cannot be explained from a biological standpoint despite numerous efforts to do so.

To the Source interview

Flew shilling for intelligent design to be taught in science classes in the UK - which strongly suggests his 'recent scientific discoveries' are the less than rigorous arguments of Behe, Dembski et al.

Ultimately, all using Flew as an example does is prove the old adage that "Old philosophers never die, they just retire to their own premises."
posted by Sparx at 8:17 PM on September 10, 2009 [1 favorite]

I "became" an atheist pretty much the way David Cross describes it. At six years old, there seemed to me to be no difference between God and Santa Claus, besides the fact that adults didn't believe in the latter.
posted by autodidact at 8:21 PM on September 10, 2009

Five Fresh Fish had a comment a long time ago that has stuck with me. Remove belief from your life completely. People use belief when they really mean something different. I don't believe in the table in front of me, but I can confirm that is it there to a high enough degree of certainty that I can place things on it. I may not have direct proof in a situation, but I have passed experiences that I can infer apply to the situation before me and these let me determine how likely something is.

If a person comes up to me and tells me that the bus is delayed today and won't reach this stop until an hour from now, I can choose to believe her or disbelieve her.

I would nether believe or disbelieve her. I weigh what I know of the situation and place a value on how likely they are to be true. If she is wearing a bus uniform and carrying a clip board, I will place more weight on what she has to say. I may be right or wrong in my assumptions, but it is not a belief. It may not be a conscious choice, listing out cons versus pros, but in the end, it is information that leads to a result.

For me, belief and faith are some thing that you have to make a willful effort to do. You have to knowingly pick a position that is not just unlikely, but has absolutely no evidence one way or another and except it as truth. I ofter wonder if people compete to see how ludicrous a thing they can belief in, but that is not the point I am trying to make.
posted by FireSpy at 8:30 PM on September 10, 2009

On the contrary. We become what we pretend to be. Pretty damn swiftly, too.

Quick, someone lock up James Gandolfini.
posted by ODiV at 8:30 PM on September 10, 2009

The World Famous:
I'm an atheist because I don't believe there's a god.

That's definitional, though. It's not an explanation.


I also don't collect stamps - yes, that's and old and tired statement, but you apparently want me to explain why I'm not collecting stamps. I don't have an explanation for that except for asking a return question: why should I?

I just don't see any reason for collecting stamps at all. Now a cross-over hobby with origami I could understand, but that still wouldn't be something I would think I could get into...
posted by DreamerFi at 10:34 PM on September 10, 2009

Yeah, but if you say, "I don't collect stamps," without being asked if you do, or even if it's just a bunch of stamp collectors hanging around talking about stamps, I'm gonna expect that there's a story there.

And that story better have a car chase, because goddamn, man, who wants to hear a story about why you don't collect stamps?
posted by klangklangston at 10:44 PM on September 10, 2009

I also don't collect stamps - yes, that's and old and tired statement, but you apparently want me to explain why I'm not collecting stamps.

I don't care if you explain or not. But saying that the reason you're an atheist is because you don't believe there's a god is like saying the reason you're not a stamp collector is because you don't collect stamps. The inclusion of the word "because" between the two statements doesn't make sense.

The equivalent to "I'm not a stamp collector because I don't see any reason for collecting stamps at all" would be "I'm an atheist because I don't see any reason for believing there's a god at all."

Saying "I'm an atheist because I don't believe there's a god" is the equivalent of saying "I'm an atheist because I'm an atheist." It's fine, and nobody's asking for an explanation. But the statement is really not saying anything other than confirming the definition of "atheist."
posted by The World Famous at 10:55 PM on September 10, 2009

That's definitional, though. It's not an explanation.

Yes, quite. I find it odd that this bloke thinks there should be an explanation. I suppose I probably haven't thought as much about the issue as someone who's swapped sides a couple of times. I don't really have an explanation. That said, I'm not all that convinced about free will either, so perhaps that's relevant too...

The only reason I could think for calling myself (say) a Christian is that I actually thought all that stuff about god and sons and nails were true. Any other 'reason' seems to me to be waffling. Similarly, I consider myself an atheist because that's the label applied to people who don't believe in god.

Whether I'm too lazy to go to church or not is entirely irrelevant. I don't see why a Christian couldn't be too lazy to go to church (what with all that forgiveness lark, surely you could skip a few). Ah, I'm not making any more sense now...

Seems weird to me. Maybe I'm broken.
posted by pompomtom at 11:12 PM on September 10, 2009

You might be interested in looking through a book like Evidence for Christianity by Josh McDowell, just as an introduction. In the more common sense of the word 'proof' there is tons of 'proof' for Christianity.

Just as a point of comparison, the mind-bogglingly shoddy scholarship in McDowell's books was the impetus for a decade long journey of personal research and discovery that culminated in my abandoning Christianity.

Why am I an atheist? I spent a good chunk of my life studying apologetics and theology: it taught me that atheism was my only honest option.
posted by verb at 11:22 PM on September 10, 2009 [2 favorites]

The burden of proof does not lie with the atheist(s).

Why are you an atheist?
-I'm an atheist because proving the existence of a God of any sort is impossible. Following that train of thought, what can not be proven does not warrant belief or acceptance; as an argument, it warrants nothing, because in the end, it is nothing. God is like Black Matter, except the existence of the latter has been posited based on actual measurements and mathematical inferences. Trotting out miracles or 2000 year old hearsay to posit the existence of a God requires belief in the veracity of rather tenuous evidence. Subscribing to a theory based on the belief of tenuous evidence is not rational, and the result is not a theory, but a belief.

Granted, left to his own devices, a human being could feasibly invent some higher authority to offload and appeal to. However, this is 2009 and we've come far. We constantly suppress animalistic or primitive tendencies left over from earlier stages of our existence, so why not suppress one of the downsides of the brain always attempting to find patterns, even where there are none?

We know thunder is not caused by Thor riding his chariot across the sky; the more we can explain the less specific these beliefs get. The Christian God is the least specific: an amorphous entity that supposedly resides in a place that exists outside the scope of both time and our senses; He may or may not interfere with the going-ons of humans, nature or the universe as a whole. And therein lies the crux: he cannot be disproven because there is nothing to disprove (or rather, falsify). The argument for there being a God is based on a vacuum dressed up as meaningful "signs". Appeal to the complexity of the Universe and Life as sign of an Intelligent Creator is nothing but the human mind projecting itself and its need for purpose on an enormously complex chain of events; the argument boils down to "No, this doesn't look right. That doesn't feel random at all!" This is not proof, it's more or less a gut feeling elevated to a quasi-scientific religion.

Note that this has nothing to do with religion, only the existence of God(s).
posted by flippant at 11:50 PM on September 10, 2009

Personally, I often find "belief" to be quite over-used. I have many suspicions about things outside of science, my beliefs are relatively few. And I am the sort who has two camps in my head, the science camp I call "facts", and the non-science camp, where we might say the "magic" resides. I am not fond of the word "faith" or "religion" here, as one implies lack of knowledge or experience, and the other implies, to me, organization.

Science can prove my suspicions or beliefs wrong. My non-science can not prove the science wrong. One is my powerful tool as a rational being. The other, to me, is the gropings of blind people, seeking answers in the dark. We get ideas, we suspect things, but to ascribe certainty is foolish. In this groping, we may find things and decide they are what we want them to be, or the opposite. We may decide to take the word of someone else about what they found.

Some people write much about what they have found, groping in the dark. I may find their words fit what I have found, and therefore, I may pay closer attention when they describe things they found beyond my experience. I don't believe anyone's words are going to tell me facts about this realm, rather, they tell impressions. "Sorta kinda like..." is, to me, implied in such descriptions. I think the Tibetan Book of the Dead is a good example of this. Highly stylized, but really, it gives an impression of how one might describe that which is beyond normal experience.

It's all more complex to me than simple dichotomies between "science" and "religion". I find both to be worth my time, and both give me pleasure. Limiting myself to one or the other leaves me unhappy. Science is the light of reason, but that light only shines so far. Yet, we move it further, constantly. I suspect that it might be the case that, ultimately, science will light all the darkness. Perhaps that is the "singularity". Perhaps, instead, that is the ultimate delusion, and leads mankind to abandon the magic and loose something vital that makes us humans, rather than machines.
posted by Goofyy at 1:05 AM on September 11, 2009

Here's another reason I cannot explain why I'm an atheist. I wouldn't even be an atheist if it weren't for religion. If religion didn't exist, there wouldn't be a question of "why" people are atheists.

And I would even go further than that. Most atheists are really just apatheists (as in "I don't know and I don't care") and they couldn't be bothered to explain why they are. The whole atheist "movement" - that is, the whole reason there are people who have to loudly define themselves as being atheists - is because of "pressure" from religious people. That varies from the "Do you follow Jesus?" question (and the evangelizing a "no" answer evokes) up to and including the batshitinsane.

Without religion, nobody would bother to define the phrase "atheism" nor would people be bothered to explain why they are atheists.

So all I can say to:

That's definitional, though. It's not an explanation.

is: Yes, it is. What else did you expect?
posted by DreamerFi at 1:08 AM on September 11, 2009 [1 favorite]

derail: the lady in that batshitinsane picture should read Leviticus 19:28
posted by DreamerFi at 1:12 AM on September 11, 2009

I agree with you, DreamerFi. I think it is a mistake to do an analysis that assumes a baseline state of religiosity and then tries to explain the "outlier" atheists. It's like asking why people have analog watches.
posted by The World Famous at 1:26 AM on September 11, 2009

Athiesm is mental masturbation.
posted by Gamien Boffenburg at 1:54 AM on September 11, 2009

Atheism is too, also, as well.
posted by Gamien Boffenburg at 1:55 AM on September 11, 2009

I believe in God because it (God, belief therein) helps me engage with different people the way klangklangston describes engaging with different music. I don't love this person, but God does. What is that like? What's lovable about them? What do I have to change about me to love them too?

Like klangston says, it doesn't always work out, but the journey has been worth it and I intend to keep at it.
posted by wobh at 6:38 AM on September 11, 2009

Note that this has nothing to do with religion, only the existence of God(s).

I appreciate when people in the occidental frame remember that there were/are other Gods, little or big 'G', as would be appropriate. Even if the reference is farcical.

Despite their soap opera like antics, each of the god forms are there to embody something, ahem, elemental. Some basic or natual force then bestowed with some human quality.

Anthropormorphic Animism? Attributing some unaware (for values of unaware) force with Will (for values of Will ;) ), and then dressing it in human form (for values of...). For those of you who read Pratchett, think of the Hogfather, and the progression of forms at the end of the story, and how it all comes back to blood on the snow to bring back the sun.

And yes, when things get bad, more people do seem to return to religion, if not their faith. Comfort of childhood, a community, hope for deliverance now, or in the next existence; all valid reasons. On top of however faith aids a person. I know when I screw up I appreciate it when someone says 'Well, it's not that bad, give it another go'
posted by LD Feral at 6:59 AM on September 11, 2009

Well… there are also religious experiences, which are deeply felt and deeply individual. They have nothing to do with churches or organized religion. It's just a feeling, even a knowledge, of the connectedness of things. And maybe it's one of those things you either have or don't, that you can not choose to have, but if it's there, it's there.

Seems to me that asking for proof on these matters is essentially contrary to these experiences. They make sense for individuals and can only be talked about in a roundabout way. But they seem to happen in a quite consistent form. If you read mystic writings of any religion (the sufis in Islam, some of the saints in Catholicism, Master Eckhart, the kabbalistic rabbis in Judaism, the Baghavad Ghita) that's what they all point to. But it is not something that can be demonstrated, it can not be proven in the same way that the Law of Gravity can be proven.

What seems a little strange to me is that there are not more people attuned with this kind of experience, because it seems to me to be just there. The difficulty is that is a very fragile thing and the effort of putting it into words or trying to convince someone else of its existence or validity can destroy it.
posted by MrMisterio at 8:28 AM on September 11, 2009

More seriously, We become what we pretend to be is an interesting assertion and it sounds catchy. It has certainly given me a lot to think about. It has been leading my mind in circles.

We become what we pretend to be.

If this is true, how would you know it? You could know it on an individual level after experiencing it for yourself, I suppose. After you realize this is true of yourself, then isn't the belief you have achieved by pretending undermined? If you know that you can believe something other than what you currently do by pretending to for awhile, can you honestly continue in that belief?

Also, say this is true for yourself. How could you generalize outward to others? How can you tell for sure if anyone believes something or is pretending?
posted by ODiV at 8:32 AM on September 11, 2009

ODiV: "how would you know it?"

Have you never played a game for long enough that it stopped being a game? Seen a joke in poor taste turn into something more real and disturbing? We become what we are through repetition and consistency, not through some ineffable personal snowflake nature.
posted by idiopath at 9:52 AM on September 11, 2009

Have you never played a game for long enough that it stopped being a game? Seen a joke in poor taste turn into something more real and disturbing?

Have I played Monopoly enough that I became emotionally invested in the outcome? Sure, but it doesn't become anything other than a game of Monopoly. Have I seen people play mean jokes and be cruel to each other? Yes. I don't see what this has to do with anything.

We become what we are through repetition and consistency, not through some ineffable personal snowflake nature.

Again, this sounds catchy, but that doesn't make it true. And I'm not saying it's ineffable personal snowflake nature that makes us believe what we believe. I think it's probably closer to a mix of personal disposition and life experiences, but I have no way to be sure.

If we become what we are through repetition and consistency then why would people leave a religion that's repetitive and consistent?
posted by ODiV at 10:37 AM on September 11, 2009

I think that the fact that people overwhelmingly have the same religious views as their parents actually reinforces my point. People that change later in their lives are a fairly rare exception. Our identities are multifaceted and made of components that are incompatible and dissonant with one another, we can nurture one of these facets at the expense of another. The fact that we so rarely actually change is not proof against identity being a product of repetition.

I used to believe in ESP and astral travel and reincarnation and karma, having been brought up with a New Age belief system. When I was old enough to learn and ask serious questions about things I saw around me, I at first saw my beliefs reinforced all around me. It took a while for me to be convinced of a materialist and empirical point of view on grounds of evidence and reason. It took over a decade after that before all my gut level beliefs caught up with that. I had to make the decision on a rational basis of what was right, and I had to stick with that despite my previous ways of interpreting the events around me. It was painful, and it pretty much sucked, but it leaves me with a way of understanding the world that I don't have to be defensive about, and that I don't have to lie to myself (however subtly) in order to maintain.

Again, I did not just "find the thing that made sense to me", I found something that made rational sense, but no emotional sense, spent ten years or so in an emotional purgatory as a consequence, out of a rational but not emotionally compelling conviction, and now this worldview makes emotional sense for me while before it made none.
posted by idiopath at 10:53 AM on September 11, 2009

Your story about believing in a New Age belief system is interesting because the way I read it leaves me feeling that you didn't have a choice about not believing in it anymore. I get this impression even though you say you "had to make a decision".
posted by ODiV at 11:24 AM on September 11, 2009

So is this because of a general lack of belief in free will, or something about my story in particular? Would you similarly say you had no choice in making your comment responding to mine? If so what does choice mean?
posted by idiopath at 11:37 AM on September 11, 2009

I think it's likely just my point of view that coloured the story that way. I think this resulted in me emphasizing certain points and phrases in my head while downplaying others.

I think I had a choice in making my comment responding to yours though, sure.

I honestly didn't think that inability to choose a belief would be such a controversial stance. It seems so self evident to me. I'm interested to see what classic philosophers had to say about belief now.
posted by ODiV at 11:52 AM on September 11, 2009

I used to believe that dividing by zero would obviously give the answer of ∞. It was intuitive enough. We sometimes are able to correct an intuited belief based on argument and reason rather than evidence (the actual act of dividing by zero is abstract and unobservable). Unless you think I was somehow destined by my internal nature to finally understand one of the premises of modern mathematics.

People convert to a new religion when it is convenient to do so, or compelling enough - you really don't think they have a choice in the matter?
posted by idiopath at 12:00 PM on September 11, 2009

I don't understand how your example is you choosing to believe something different. So you now understand one of the premises of modern mathematics. Do you have a choice in this? Can you go back to believing what you did before? If so, then how can you say you really believe what you do now if you can will that belief away?

People convert to a new religion when it is convenient to do so, or compelling enough - you really don't think they have a choice in the matter?

The act of converting to a religion is a choice, sure. Whether you actually believe that religion to be true is an entirely different matter, though.
posted by ODiV at 12:19 PM on September 11, 2009

OK I think when we talk about belief here we are talking at least about two different things. There is an internal instinctive reaction regarding what "feels" to be the case, and the external action and profession of faith. I have gut instincts on a regular basis that I give no credence to, because I just call them my "lizard brain" or "paranoia" or whatever, I think we all get little things like that.

There is one half of belief that is like that, you can't seem to help or change it, but nobody but you can ever really know about it directly. Then there is what you profess and most importantly what you actually act on, the external or performative aspect of belief. What I am saying is that something can go from being only in the second category to being in both. When I first heard that division by zero was nonsensical I accepted the argument but it felt wrong. Now it no longer feels wrong.
posted by idiopath at 12:31 PM on September 11, 2009

What I am saying is that something can go from being only in the second category to being in both.

I thought what you were saying is that it will go to being in both categories, not that it can.

We become what we are through repetition and consistency

I don't see any problem with what you're saying above, save that you categorize the beliefs that people act on as closer to the beliefs they profess, rather than those they truly hold. I would say the opposite is more likely true.
posted by ODiV at 12:43 PM on September 11, 2009

Conviction can come from action and speech, as much as action and belief can come from conviction. You can change your beliefs by changing your actions and words first, just as you can change your actions and words by changing your beliefs first. There is no surefire way to change your beliefs, but this one tends to work in more cases than not.
posted by idiopath at 1:02 PM on September 11, 2009

* as much as action and speech can come from conviction, that is
posted by idiopath at 1:11 PM on September 11, 2009

I am having trouble reconciling these two statements from you:

There is one half of belief that is like that, you can't seem to help or change it, but nobody but you can ever really know about it directly.

and

You can change your beliefs by changing your actions and words first, just as you can change your actions and words by changing your beliefs first.

If you have no idea what other people's internal beliefs are then how can you make the above assertion?
posted by ODiV at 1:13 PM on September 11, 2009

Because I have changed my actions based on my beliefs, and I have changed my beliefs based on my actions, and learned how to do this from others who had attested to doing the same.
posted by idiopath at 1:14 PM on September 11, 2009

I am so not grasping this at all.

Is this how one beats a polygraph test?
posted by ODiV at 1:23 PM on September 11, 2009

Pretty much this dynamic and some related phenomena are related to polygraph manipulation, brainwashing, the way Stockholm syndrome works, the way abusive lovers can keep their partners effectively, and the way cults recruit.
posted by idiopath at 1:43 PM on September 11, 2009

I love how it seems the same people in this thread are:

1. Mortally offended at the guy who claims to explain why atheists are atheists.

2. Happy to accept a reductionistic explanation for why religious people are religious.

"My beliefs are the result of my own logic and deliberation. Other people's beliefs are the result of sociological forces they don't understand." Yeah, right. How likely is that?

Also, it's begging the question to say insecurity causes religiosity when you could just as easily frame it to say security causes atheism. Which is what many of the world's religions have taught for thousands of years, that the rich put their trust in their own riches and forget about God:

"The land of a rich man produced abundantly. And he thought to himself, ‘What should I do, for I have no place to store my crops?’ Then he said, ‘I will do this: I will pull down my barns and build larger ones, and there I will store all my grain and my goods. And I will say to my soul, ‘Soul, you have ample goods laid up for many years; relax, eat, drink, be merry.’ But God said to him, ‘You fool! This very night your life is being demanded of you. And the things you have prepared, whose will they be?’ So it is with those who store up treasures for themselves but are not rich toward God.” -- Luke 12:17-21
posted by straight at 2:26 PM on September 11, 2009

"My beliefs are the result of my own logic and deliberation. Other people's beliefs are the result of sociological forces they don't understand."

I can't find this. Who are you quoting?
posted by ODiV at 2:33 PM on September 11, 2009

...that the rich put their trust in their own riches and forget about God

Rees' findings are to the contrary. His conclusion is that religiosity is independent of wealth. In a society where personal security is low, rich and poor alike are more likely to be religious. And this is his explanation as to why we see such high religiosity levels in the US, say. Similarly, he finds that in nations with high personal insecurity the poor (indeed everyone) are less likely to be religious.
posted by NailsTheCat at 2:55 PM on September 11, 2009

NailsTheCat: surely you mean high personal security?
posted by idiopath at 3:08 PM on September 11, 2009

I can't find this. Who are you quoting?

I don't think he was actually quoting anyone. He was just making an insightful observation about the inconsistency some people are willing to tolerate in their views about others' motivations. Technically, the use of quotation marks in this instance is grammatically incorrect. I'm sure you were confused by this regrettable lapse in grammar. I thought about pointing it out, but then I recalled that any grammatical correction on MetaFilter is followed by cries of "pedant!" and "grammar nazi!", so I decided not to. Of course, there might be a MetaFilter exception when the offender is expressing unpopular views.
posted by Crabby Appleton at 3:29 PM on September 11, 2009

NailsTheCat: surely you mean high personal security?

I certainly do. Thanks for spotting.
posted by NailsTheCat at 3:34 PM on September 11, 2009

I'm sure you were confused by this regrettable lapse in grammar.

Believe it or not I searched the page for that quote. I'd like to know who he was paraphrasing. After the weird nature of belief derail, I might have to reread the thread to find out.
posted by ODiV at 3:36 PM on September 11, 2009

What seems a little strange to me is that there are not more people attuned with this kind of experience, because it seems to me to be just there. The difficulty is that is a very fragile thing and the effort of putting it into words or trying to convince someone else of its existence or validity can destroy it.

Actually, we can now directly stimulate parts of the brain to induce epiphanies, even in atheists (another way to do this is give someone enough LSD, although much less reliable). This is part of how we function on a physiological level, although some people seem to be more in tune with this function of the brain without any help. This is kind of thorny research for both points of view, because it clearly demonstrates that religion is built into us, although how that is experienced and later categorized by the brain is influenced by someone's culture, so there is obviously no default religion, but perhaps a default physiological potential for spiritual experience.
posted by krinklyfig at 2:55 PM on September 12, 2009

krinklyfig: "it clearly demonstrates that religion is built into us"

Actually it demonstrates that the subjective experience of epiphany which can be interpreted within the framing of religion is built into us. This is an emotion, not a worldview.

I have never registered my psychedelic experiences within a religious framing, because that is not a framing I am accustomed to using any more for my experiences. The closest I come is the "cosmic wow" of wondering at the immenseness of world around me - there is nothing inherently metaphysical about this, any more than having an orgasm is sex magick.

Most often, I thought I had really great ideas and experienced really amazing sensations that did not all hold up to these superlative evaluations when I sobered up. I tend to be hypercritical of my own ideas (a common quality for artists), so I make significantly more art when high on epiphany inducing drugs, because I overestimate the ideas I am working with. Which causes me to use some great ideas I had false negatives for when sober (and use some seemingly crappy ideas that turned out to be really crappy).
posted by idiopath at 5:27 PM on September 12, 2009

I can't find this. Who are you quoting?

Sorry about the confusion, ODiV. I thought the convention here was that actual quotations from the thread are in italics (not to be confused with italics for emphasis or foreign phrases), whereas putting words in actual quotation marks means I'm paraphrasing, trying to portray the gist of what people were actually saying (which is either a devastating reductio ad absurdem argument when I do it, or an unfair putting-words-in-people's-mouths strawman when other people do it to me).

But if you're quoting from some off-site text, like a passage from the Bible, instead of another poster, usage varies more with people sometimes using italics and sometimes using regular quotes.
posted by straight at 12:34 PM on September 14, 2009

Not much confusion so don't worry about it. After I searched the page for the exact quote, I figured I'd have to go through and reread to see who you were paraphrasing. I didn't remember reading anything that could've been categorized like that; there were some stories of how people became atheists, but I didn't see anything too malicious. Then again, it's been awhile and I don't always read every single comment.

Still haven't reread it...
posted by ODiV at 12:58 PM on September 14, 2009