I grew up in a household that went to church every Sunday as long as it was convenient (i.e. not traveling or something), but was never taught the fundamentalist view of the Bible. Mixed in over with standard Sunday school classes about Christianity were a few talking about other religions. I got a book from my mom called How Do You Spell God?, promoting a standard pluralist line. My mom also explained the basics of evolution to me, and one time when I heard about the creationist claim that evolution contradicts thermodynamics, she explained to me why this wasn't true (she has a Ph.D. in biochemistry). As I recall, I attempted explaining this to one of my friends when he brought some Kent Hovind videos over. This was in grade school or early middle school, and on at least one occasion my mom made a point of saying in conversation "even my son understands what's wrong with that claim."
As I write this, I am reminded that cartoons had had a major effect on the course of my life. When I was about 12, I was walking throuhg a bookstore and saw a big yellow book with a smiling cartoon character and a word balloon that said, "Apply ancient wisdom to your everyday life!" I have the book in my dorm room with me right now, though I remembered that exact wording without looking at the cover, without having looked at in in years. The book was Philosophy for Dummies by Tom Morris. I'd still recommend it to anyone interested in learning philosophy.
Morris was a theist, but he was honest enought to admit that serious objections have been raised to the arguments for the existence of God. Rather than just reading what he said, however, I came up with objections to the ontological and cosmological arguments that Morris hadn't mentioned (I later learned that my objections were similar to famous ones by Gaulino and Kant, respectively). I don't know why I did this. Perhaps I knew intuitively that if it were so easy, I would have learned these proofs along with my arithmatic tables.
Morris, though, was untroubled by the problems with these arguments, and devoted an entire chapter of his book to promoting Pascal's Wager. He discussed four criticisms of the wager, but missed one that I thought was obvious: he made "the probability of God's existence is .5 or so" one premise of the argument. I could immediately see the contradiction in believing "God exists" and "the probability of God's existing is .5 or so."
Perhaps because Morris acted untroubled by the problems with the various God-arguments, this experience did not cause me to throw away the God-belief that I had grown up taking for granted. This did lay an important foundation, however.
The other way that cartoons influenced my life is that when I was young, I used to go through the newspaper and read every last cartoon. This meant not only reading the comics page, but going to the business page for Dilbert, the sports page for something called "In the Bleachers," and the opinion page for editorial cartoons. The opinion page contained syndicated columns by Mona Charen, and orthodox Jew, and Cal Thomas, a founder of the Moral Majority. They got me well aquainted with the "this is right because God says so" mentality.
The other part of my early encounters with fundamentalism came from the same friend who brought over the Kent Hovind videos when I was in grade school. I remember at a scout camp he horrified the rest of us by saying that Gandhi was burning in hell. Later I would learn that support for this position could be found in the Bible.
The insanity of these positions crystalized on September 11th. I realized that if the view of morality presented by the fundamentalists was correct, bin Laden was not mistaken about any fundamental moral principle, just about what God wanted him to do.
Contrary to what you may be thinking at this point, I didn't become an atheist that day. One half of it isn't so strange: raised in a liberal church, enamored with the idea of Jesus as a great teacher.
The other part is extremely strange in light of the above. I became convinced that if God did not exist, then life was meaningless because there was no moral order. When it came time for confirmation sophomore year, the minister asked why I wanted to be confirmed and I said, "I feel there has to be something," meaning "I would like it if there were something." Such a line of reasoning should have been utterly impossible given the above conclusions about Pascal's Wager and divine morality. I guess I'm not the only one whose fallen into such inconsistencies, though: Philosophy for Dummies attacked Divine Command Theory at one point but later asserted, without argument, that if God does not exist there is "no objective moral order."
This situation didn't last long, though. One weekned that summer I sat down, thought about the fact that I had no good reason to think God exists, realized believing because I wanted to failed for the same reason that Pascal's Wager did, and that was that. There was no immediately identifiable cause for this rethinking, though I like to imagine reading The Screwtape Letters a month previous was at fault. In the book, C. S. Lewis has one of his devil's say:
You see the little rift? "Believe this, not because it is true, but for some other reason." That's the game.Translated back into human terms: Believe things only because they're true. Once I realize that, I was an atheist.
A minor aftereffect was that I could see things I previously had not been able to. I saw that my reasoning about morality made somewhat less than zero sense. I was able to objectively evaluate the teachings attributed to Jesus, just as I would evaluate anyone else's ideas, and found that, just like most everyone else who has ever said anything, Jesus said good things and bad things. It took getting rid of the "Christian" lable to see this, though. I can see now that, while nowhere near as bad as the belief in Biblical inerrancy, liberal veneration of Jesus makes no sense.
A more important follow-up to this was encountering fundamentalist apologetics: attempts to "prove" that Jesus rose from the dead, Intelligent Design, defenses of the nasty stuff in the Bible. This was simply a random event that sprang from my love of reading. The first two parts briefly impressed me. But I didn't swallow it hook line and sinker. I read, I checked facts. In the case of historical apologetics, I found that major claims were at best misleading. I also read about competing supernatural claims and realized that there are ghost enthusiasts who would laugh at the "evidence" that apologists present. In the case of ID, my respect slowly declined until I finally saw William Dembski endorsing the thermodynamics argument, the argument I learned to refute in grade school(*). I didn't have a lot of respect for ID at that point, but that really killed off what was left.
My response to defenses of Biblical attrocities and eternal damnation was different though. The more apologists tried to defend them, the more horrible they became. I really must thank the apologists for helping me grasp the full horror of orthodox Christianity. They are a major reason I do what I do today.
5 comments:
Chris:
I'm not going to put my 'deconversion story' or the arguments I came up with here, but I have to mention one part of it. I was raised Catholic - but a very liberal Catholic - and went to an excellent Jesuit High School called St. Peter's Prep in Jersey City. I'd begun to have my own doubts, but the years of Catholicism still had emotional hold on me -- I'd once considered entering the priesthood.
It was my religion teacher, Fr. Jaschko, who made the following statement in class -- a statement which IS in accord with Catholic teaching, btw, though few Catholics ever hear something like this:
"We are Catholics for one reason only, because we believe Catholicism is true. If you don't believe it is true, you are wrong, you are committing a sin, by calling yourself a Catholic and going through the motions of attending Catholic services, etc." (No, not an exact quote, this was 44 years ago.)
It was that statement that was the final step towards 'opening the Exit door,' for me -- and maybe it is the reason why I can still respect honest relious people, no matter how wrong I think they are.
You should read the pope's speech: (in its entirety)
http://zenit.org/english/visualizza.phtml?sid=94748
I like the pope's explanation of how reason and christianity relate. I'd like to know your opinion.
As for your conversion, oddly, I felt like I was reading my story. The main difference was I became convinced that atheism has a god, and that god is self. I therefore concluded that its either God or relativism. I picked God.
Since you said you read a lot, maybe you've come across Abraham J. Heschel . I'm curious to know what how you would respond to a statement he makes in a book called The Prophets. "The [Jewish] prophets were the first men in history to regard a nation's reliance upon force as evil." The statement is stripped of much of its force taken out of context, but since apparently you've read the Bible, you might understand the basis on which Heschel makes such a statment.
I may try to find that book if I find the time (there are a lot of things I've wanted to read for a long time but haven't yet, so it's going on a long list). For now, my memory of reading the prophetic books of the Bible is they were a mix of serious social criticism and rather petty sectarianism, though I don't remember anything specific about the nation's use of violence.
Hey Chris! Thanks for reading Philosophy for Dummies. I have to tell you, though, that the Dummies people made me cut out a third of my manuscript because of their space constraints, so many of the more complex aspects of various argument pro and con God were axed. I do understand how a reasonable person can be an atheist. It's probably much better than being a nut case right wing fundamentalist, any day! Theism, if true, is subtle, and not obvious. The universe has to be pretty odd, if it's true. But I believe that, all things considered, I have more reason to believe in this extra oddity than not. You however have come up with a different conclusion. I'm just glad you're philosophizing, and that my book played any role at all in your intellectual autobiography. You might also want to look at God and the Philosophers, a book I did for Oxford that is at almost every Barnes and Noble in the world.
Keep working in the realm of ideas, man!
Tom morris
Post a Comment