Spirituality, Religion, Atheism and Naturalism Part 2

Here is part two of an analysis of another blog, located here, and what I think I can learn from his story, what I accept of his ideas, and where I differ.


While at Berkeley my atheism context was further molded. No longer surrounded by Catholics, I met a lot of interesting people there with a wide variety of belief systems. I quickly made a lot of new friends who were very intelligent, and some were open to discussing the nature of reality. I think my Catholic upbringing was like a coiled spring — as soon as I left behind the environment that kept the spring coiled, I immediately shot to the other end of the spectrum. But I went way too far with it. I not only shed my old religious beliefs, but along with it went my whole concept of morality.

This paragraph is one of the reasons I respect this blogger. He is able to admit, as many aren't (and I know from other posts what he believes now), that he shot to the other end of the spectrum.' In his case, he cites morality, and in other cases I see, it's a devotion to naturalism that goes from healthy and scientific to ideological and scientistic. 

As he admits in the paragraph above, his entire concept of morality vanished. It didn't have to, but in his case, it did. And he goes on to describe in detail his newfound addiction to shoplifting, drinking, drugs, and his time in jail that changes his outlook on life. Upon leaving jail, he is a blank slate, for the most part. 

I knew I had a lot of personal rebuilding to do, but I also knew that I couldn’t go backwards. The morals and beliefs by which I was raised were broken, but living without a sense of conscience clearly wasn’t an option. Was a belief in God required to live by a code of ethics? I became aware that despite how negative my experiences seemed, they forever changed me in a good way too. By going through those experiences, I had unlocked access to a part of myself that was previously dormant — my courage.

He goes on to talk about his years in college, and how, with his new outlook on life, his hunger, he gets amazing grades in college, all the while taking an obscene number (31) of credits a semester. 

This experience gave me a deeper appreciation of the power of context. I would not have even attempted such a thing as a Catholic. I would never have set the goals I did. I’m not sure anyone can truly understand how different reality seems from the perspective of different contexts if you’ve never switched contexts. If you subscribe to a disempowering context, you may be absolutely crippled in your ability to effectively tackle certain challenges no matter how hard you try (if you even try at all).

A great point made here is that it's difficult to understand different contexts if one hasn't switched contexts at all. It aligns with something I feel, and that is, some of the most insightful material is from people who have been in a naturalistic worldview, only to switch to a theistic worldview (C.S. Lewis, Antony Flew, Edward Feser, Jime's blog, etc). I'm sure it works the other way too, and in fact, if many atheists are from religious households, than I imagine it would.

Over the next decade I experimented with agnosticism, various new-agey belief systems, Buddhism, objectivism, and more. I even tried Scientology for a few months just to see what it was like. I wanted to assimilate a variety of different contexts, experience them from the inside, and then back off and compare their strengths and weaknesses. This produced a lot of instability in my life but also tremendous growth.

The last sentence is key. By allowing oneself to doubt, to question, it enables the growth that can be very fulfilling. It ties back into experiencing different contexts. While I would say that I, more-or-less, lived like an atheist for a while, reading atheist material, atheist opinions and stories, I feel I have experienced that worldview as well to a certain extent.

Our beliefs act as lenses. These lenses can help us see things we can’t otherwise see, but they can also block us from seeing parts of reality. I see a huge part of personal development as the study of these lenses — these belief systems. There are an infinite number of lenses, so the quest never ends, but the more lenses you examine personally, the more you understand about the nature of reality and your role within it.

Fantastic.

However, here is where it gets a bit sloppy, and where I have to disagree with conclusion.

As a result of this introspection, I was able to shed certain beliefs and strengthen others. Some beliefs I found consistently disempowering, meaning that if I adopted them, I would be denying myself access to valuable potential. These included the belief in heaven/hell and the belief in a higher power. That second one may seem surprising, but I opted to let it go because I consistently found it less empowering than a belief in a lower power. An example of a higher power would be a consciously aware God or gods such as found in Christianity or Greek mythology. 

My overall religion has effectively become a religion of personal growth. Every year I continue to tweak my beliefs to try to bring them into closer alignment with my best understanding of how reality actually works. The better we understand reality, the more potential we unlock. Just as understanding a new law of physics can allow us to do things we could never previously do, beliefs about reality work the same way. If you’re stuck with a belief in a flat earth, it’s going to limit your potential actions and results. Similarly, if your religious beliefs are too great a mismatch for actual reality, you’ll be doomed to spend your life only tapping a fraction of your true potential. In my “religion,” knowingly leaving my potential untapped is sinful. Personal optimization is deeply embedded into my sense of morality. Not growing is morally wrong to me — it runs contrary to my understanding of the purpose of life.

In the first paragraph, the author talks about how he would choose his beliefs on whether or not he found them empowering in his life, which he also sums up in the first sentance of paragraph two. Choosing one's beliefs for pragmatic reasons is certainly no new concept, but it is one that I can't agree should be a driving force. One is free to choose their beliefs based on what they believe constitutes personal growth, but there is an obvious disconnect between pragmatic beliefs and truth. He mentions how he tweaks his beliefs to how he best understands reality to work, but the two will only work if the truth, in fact, leads to personal growth. If it does, than his search is actually for the truth, not beliefs that lead to empowerment. If this connection is made, I will be on board, because I (at least try) to orient my quest around what best explains reality, and what I believe to be true, and if the truth doesn't lead to 'empowerment,' then so be it. But if one orients their quest around empowering beliefs, I see no reason why true beliefs would not be discarded for false ones. If you find belief in heaven and hell disempowering, and chose not to accept them, so be it, but this has no bearing on whether or not they exist or not. 

This is more complicated when one considers the subjective nature of 'personal growth.' My idea of personal growth is determined by my worldview, not the other way around. But this does not seem to be the way he navigates his life, and I find that to be backwards. He seems to be saying he accepts beliefs based on whether he sees growth, but what constitutes growth unless it is rooted in his/her worldview? My idea of growth is very spiritual, because I believe spirituality to be an incredibly real, and tangible thing. But if you deny this, then personal growth could be wealth, or fame, or relationships. I find the way he arrives at his conclusion to be muddy at best, backwards at worst. 

Actions, not words, reveal beliefs. If you want to understand what you truly believe, observe your actions. This may take some courage to do, but if you follow the trail of your actions, it will lead you to a more congruent belief system. And once there you can begin consciously moving towards new beliefs that empower you, while your actions and beliefs remain congruent along the way. 

Good point, one where Christians should perhaps take the hit. If one accepts God with his words but denies him with every breath he takes, what does that make him? To me, it brings up images of the pharisees. I've always had problems with believing that 'faith' not 'works' leads to salvation. But what is faith without the action that shows faith is genuine? 

It might seem questionable why I like this blog, at all, since he seems to have very different beliefs than I do. Furthermore, I haven't talked at all about the distinction between spirituality and religion. Well, I'll just say he has a section on 'Spirituality' which has over 100 posts, most of them since the entry I have recapped in this post, as well as in part one. He seems to have found truth, or empowerment, in spirituality, and he talks in many entries about his certainty in life after death, and his mediumship experiences. I have done little as way of research in mediumship, but I fully believe it's possible, especially with the case for the afterlife as strong as it is. This shift leads me to believe that an honest truth seeker (and apparently one interested in empowerment, as a driving factor) can land on spirituality as truth. He also epitomizes many of my feelings about seeking the truth, even if I find his methodology questionable. He has another post on ten reasons why not to join a religion, so while he seems to still be strongly against organized religion, I think it's obvious why, given his mindset, he feels so against it (also, from reading this entry, it's mostly weak rationale, falsehoods, and unsophisticated theology - I'll comment on this entry in another post). 

I think this story shows a lot of key points. It shows how many atheists are formed, and the rationale behind the decision. It shows what truth-seeking can lead to (doubt), and how it can eventually lead to growth. While I value growth, as he does, it takes a backseat to truth, mainly because growth is dependent upon what I perceive the truth to be. If I don't have those standards in place, I can never assess my growth in the first place. But overall, I admire his journey, and I enjoy many of his statements about beliefs, which I couldn't have said better myself.

Spirituality, Religion, Atheism and Naturalism Part 1

Recently, I've been doing some thinking about the relationship between spirituality and religion. If you were to draw a Venn Diagram with 'Religion' in one circle and 'Spirituality' in the other, at what points would the two meet? Where would they differ? Is religion just spirituality institutionalized? Or are they all just false?

The more I learn, about myself, how I believe the world to be like, how I believe God to be like, the more I find myself drifitng away from organized religion, and I find myself more drawn towards labeling myself as 'Spiritual.' Throughout my searching, my belief in the supernatural, whether it be God, the spirit, or the afterlife, have all been strengthened immensly. However, I've also found myself less drawn to the church for Sunday morning worship.

I most certainly have no animus towards religion, and I find much spiritual growth from reading the Bible, and I find a lot of historicity in  Jesus Christ - and on that last point I would differ from many people, like the example blog I'll bring up. Perhaps, in short, I can say it best that I find some of the doctrine emphasized in the church to be wrong, or at the very least overemphasized, and have disagreements about some of religions side-effects.

In some ways, it reminds me several articles I read months ago. A quote by Stephen Prothero, from God is Not Great, says:

"If you let the concept of God float a little bit, almost everybody is theist."

The above could be taken in several ways, but one way to look at this is the notion that religion seems to have a claim on what characteristics 'God' holds, and perhaps more importantly, in what ways he should be worshiped. It also makes me think of Anne Rice, who, fed up with her congregation, announced she was through with Christianity, but still regards her relationship with Christ as the most important aspect of her life. It makes one wonder - what constitutes being a Christian? 

I want to analyze a blog I stumbled across today, one that is apparently pretty well-known, and look at this man's story, as well as another post or two from his blog. He brings up a lot of good points, some that I think religion should accept in stride. He also has other thoughts, that i'll try to point out, where I think he is simply mistaken. In seeking the truth, one should be open to hearing the views of others. If one is grounded in their worldview, then analyzing others should be a beneficial exercise. So here we go, and if you want to look at the full text, here is the mans overall bio. He starts out his blog talking about worldviews, and then moves into the specifics of his life, and then the implications.

I will title this part of the summary: The Birth of an Atheist

What is the meaning of life? Why are we here? Is there a God or isn’t there, and if there is a God, what is its nature? Of all the world’s religions, which one is the most correct? Is there an afterlife? Are we primarily physical beings or spiritual beings?

The way we answer these questions will provide the ultimate context for everything else we do with our lives. If we place any value on our lives at all, we must give some consideration to these questions.

I couldn't agree more. I urge my volleyball group to ask the tough questions, and to seek the truth, and try and ask the tough questions. It goes back to philosophy, which gives one the tools to attempt to tackle these difficult questions, and look at areas where others have tried as well.

The next part of the story is very significant, as it can epitomize how many atheists are formed.

For the first half of my life, until the age of 17, I was Catholic/Christian, baptized and confirmed. I went through eight years of Catholic grammar school followed by four years of Catholic high school. I was a boy scout for several years and earned the Ad Altare Dei award. I prayed every day and accepted all that I was taught as true. I went to Church every Sunday with my family. All of my friends and family were Christian, so I knew nothing of other belief systems. My father was an altar boy when he was young, and his brother (my uncle) is a Catholic priest. One of my cousins is a member of Campus Crusade for Christ. In high school I went to optional religious retreats and did community service, both at a convalescent home and at a preschool for children with disabilities. I expected to be Catholic for life.

It's important to note that he was brought up very religious, and, I can only assume, fundamentalist leaning. His family sounds about as religious as they come, and his upbringing sets the stage for the retreat his life takes.

But near the end of my junior year of high school, I went through an experience that I’d have to describe as an awakening. It was as if a new part of my brain suddenly switched on, popping me into a higher state of awareness. Perhaps it was just a side effect of the maturation process. I began to openly question the beliefs that had been conditioned into me since childhood. Blind acceptance of what I was taught wasn’t enough for me anymore. I wanted to go behind the scenes, uproot any incongruencies, and see if these beliefs actually made sense to me. I started raising a lot of questions but found few people would honestly discuss them. Most simply dismissed me or became defensive. But I was intensely curious, not hostile about it. My family was closed to discussing the whole thing.

A very natural reaction to growing up. At some point, mans rationality continues to grow to the point where 'blind acceptance' or 'following the herd' is not good enough. If one is raised in a strict religious household, then, as Eric Reitan points out on his blog, it is much easier to go from one God to no God, then it is to go from one God to a more pluralistic sense of religious purpose. Often, atheism is a knee-jerk reaction to this 'maturation' that takes place in the teenage years.

I was disappointed though. What I found was that regardless of their education and their much greater life experience, very few of my friends and teachers ever bothered to question their beliefs openly. And that really gave me a huge shot of doubt. I thought, “If everyone is just accepting all of this blindly and no one is even questioning it, why should I believe it?” Over a period of months the doubt only grew stronger, and I transferred more of my faith from my Catholic upbringing to my own intelligence and senses. Eventually I just dropped the whole context entirely, and in the absence of any other viable contexts to choose from, I became an atheist.

It is very sad indeed when churchgoers either shy away from defense of their faith, or lack the knowledge of why they believe what it is they believe entirely. Obviously, as I've found out, some of the most intelligent, and this is important, intellectually honest, people I've read are theists, so I most certainly do not accept that the belief in God is unfounded, as our blogger seems to imply at this point. But as you can see, if people are not around a youngster who questions their faith to help them understand it better, or if, in my opinion, he is brought up in too fundamentalist of a household, the reaction is often atheism.

It reminds me of C.S. Lewis, who, when he converted to atheism as a teenager, remembers being mad at God that he didn't actually exist.

Having shed all my old beliefs, I felt like my brain had gotten an intelligence upgrade. 

And here, stated baldly, we see something that permeates atheism itself. That is, of course, a sense of superiority over the 'dumb, religious believers,' who don't know why they do what they do.

My family was not happy about all this, especially when my subscription to American Atheist magazine started coming in the mail (I got good at intercepting the mail early). But I was doing so well in school that it was hard for them to complain, and they didn’t want to openly address any of my questions, even though I’d have been happy to do so. They did force me to keep going to church though, which I tolerated for a while because I knew I’d be moving out in a year anyway. But eventually I started sitting in a different part of the church and would sneak out the back and go for a walk and return just before it ended. But one time the mass ended earlier than expected, and I got back too late. My family was already at the car and saw me walking down the street. Whoops! They drove off without me. But instead of walking the two miles home, I stayed out the entire day and didn't return until midnight. Aside from weddings and funerals, that was the last time I ever went to church.

He also goes on to talk about how he became much better at school when he dropped his religious beliefs. He started to get amazing grades, and from this we can see another theme in this man, and that is the affirmation that the beliefs one holds will directly effect the outcome, and, 'successfulness' of your life. I put 'successfulness' in quotes not only because it's not a word, according to spell-check, but because 'successfulness' is obviously so subjective that it's almost laughable.

The main purpose of this background though, is to see how, and I believe this is the typical case, an atheist is formed. Also note this - does he at any point give a rational argument for why atheism is correct? No - it's just assumed that because he finds religious doctrine silly, then there is no God. There are more steps than that in the thought process, but nowhere in his testimony does he give a reason for his disbelief, other than the fact that he did better in school when he stopped believing in God, and because those around him had no answers. 

But this is just silly, in my opinion. I doubt my parents could have rattled off reason upon reason to believe in God, but I figured this might be the case, and I went out and found literature, found resources, found other believers that did do a significant deal of searching. To take a sample size of several, and draw a worldview based on that is rather weak, so I would assert that his initial justification for atheism is at the best, very weak. As far as his better grades, I'm sure one could delve deeper into this, but at face value, it's obvious that in no way does 'better grades' or a 'feeling of intelligence' mean you have discovered truth. But this leads us to a deeper distinction, and that is whether 'empowerment' can entail 'truth' and vice versa, and if his understanding that beliefs that empower are keepers is justified.