How can/do atheists become believers?

[aaqucnaona]

As most of you may know by now, I have recently refined my stand on God, currently defined as tentative apatheism or provisional weak pragmatic apatheitic atheism. What really hits me hard is that unless I actually see God or some definite evidence of his existence, I would never ever become a believer again. Yet I notice that creationists, evangelicals, rightists and conservationists all bandy around atheists that have become theists and believers in a personal deity of a religion. I can understand atheists accepting spinozism [I do] , pantheism, panentheism, deism, etc. But I think that an atheist who has objectively and rationally studied his stand on god and is sufficiently intellectually and philosophically endowed would never become a theist by some random and ambigious miracle or experience that might be explained by bais, placebo or conincidence - which is often cited as the reason for most of these re-believers.

Ps. Of course, if the existence of god is proven beyond reasonable doubt, I would become a theist. But the point is that so far, no such objective, observable proof exists, on the other hand, many things to the contrary has been proven - like need of god for creation of living things and the existence of personal deities and truth of religious myths and historical accuracy of religious scripture - hence my stand of tentative apatheism.

 

[aaqucnaona]

@ MODs - can you please rename Weak atheist in the poll to just Atheist?

 

[cosmictraveler]

Open minds say more than open mouths.

 

[aaqucnaona]

Open minds say more than open mouths.

Well said!

 

[Jeeves]

Weak atheist was closest, since you asked that 'weak' be removed - i do take exception to the modifier. I suppose a strong atheist would be an antagonistic one; politically or socially active in opposing religion. I don't do that in any organized way - just in my small local sphere of influence.

I don't think atheists become believers. I think believers who waver and stray, doubt or become angry about some article or tenet of faith, call themselves atheist for a while, and then 'rediscover' the god and reconcile with their church. Or "re-attach to their faith" when it's politically advantageous. Or join a congregation when it's socially convenient.
People lie about this stuff. A lot!

 

[aaqucnaona]

convenient.
People lie about this stuff. A lot!

Do you think that is good or bad or are you simply stating a fact -

I said in another thread -

I still pray before going to sleep, only do it as a quick evaluation of the day. Similiarly, I still attend religious ceremonies and institutions as they are good and useful means of socialisation. I dont question or debate all/many theists I meet, I just nod my head. Why not? My atheism need not extent farther than my philosophy and my discussions, especially when doing so can avert harm and even yield some benefits. This is the eclectism I was refering to in our other discussion. Intellectually dishonest, withholding the truth, improper? No, its just practical and useful.

 

[wynn]

I said in another thread -

I still pray before going to sleep, only do it as a quick evaluation of the day. Similiarly, I still attend religious ceremonies and institutions as they are good and useful means of socialisation. I dont question or debate all/many theists I meet, I just nod my head. Why not? My atheism need not extent farther than my philosophy and my discussions, especially when doing so can avert harm and even yield some benefits. This is the eclectism I was refering to in our other discussion. Intellectually dishonest, withholding the truth, improper? No, its just practical and useful.

So what is your plan for times of need and distress?

Suppose you have a car accident, are seriously injured, and your theistic friends come to comfort you.
Already seriously injured and in distress, do you believe you can keep up the pretense of being a theist while not actually being one?
What if in times of your greatest need and distress, you get discovered, outed - and abandoned?

Or suppose a theistic friend of your gets seriously injured - and he asks you to pray for him, or to lead group prayers for him?

 

[wynn]

As most of you may know by now, I have recently refined my stand on God, currently defined as tentative apatheism or provisional weak pragmatic apatheitic atheism. What really hits me hard is that unless I actually see God or some definite evidence of his existence, I would never ever become a believer again. Yet I notice that creationists, evangelicals, rightists and conservationists all bandy around atheists that have become theists and believers in a personal deity of a religion. I can understand atheists accepting spinozism [I do] , pantheism, panentheism, deism, etc. But I think that an atheist who has objectively and rationally studied his stand on god and is sufficiently intellectually and philosophically endowed would never become a theist by some random and ambigious miracle or experience that might be explained by bais, placebo or conincidence - which is often cited as the reason for most of these re-believers.

Ps. Of course, if the existence of god is proven beyond reasonable doubt, I would become a theist. But the point is that so far, no such objective, observable proof exists, on the other hand, many things to the contrary has been proven - like need of god for creation of living things and the existence of personal deities and truth of religious myths and historical accuracy of religious scripture - hence my stand of tentative apatheism.

Study William James' Will to believe, especially in the beginning where he works out what a genuine option is.

 

[aaqucnaona]

So what is your plan for times of need and distress?

No offense, but I think wishful thinking in such times decreases rather than increases the chances of survival - think about Maclean's heros in a tight situation or me faced by a hungry carnivore or in need of help - prayer is the last thing I want to do. I would always, thiest or atheist, put a rational, sensible, objective and calm consideration of the causality of the situation and the possible options and the outcomes thereby achieveable; before any kind of hope, belief or prayer. At the same time, if such prayer or belief is considered [in the above thinking phase] by me to be a useful placebo, I would do them nevertheless. In other words, I would not only be very atheistic but also very religious in a foxhole.

Suppose you have a car accident, are seriously injured, and your theistic friends come to comfort you.
Already seriously injured and in distress, do you believe you can keep up the pretense of being a theist while not actually being one?

Why not? In fact, in such conditions, genetically determined altruism is very strong indeed. Only a very powerful meme, like a severe hatred of infidels, could actually interfere in such circumstances. And like I said, I can be religious while the decision to be relligious in that situation would have arisen from my atheism - and my friends probably couldn't tell the difference. Besides, if they are my good friends and not just aquaintances, they would probably already know that I am an Atheist.

What if in times of your greatest need and distress, you get discovered, outed - and abandoned?

It would be a situational disadvantage, though I would pity the ones who give up on someone simply because of different beliefs - I think humanitarianism comes before everything else. I would have to try and cope on my own. I must add that at this point, an atheist has a much greater chance of success than a theist - since the placebos can get you only so far and wishful thinking is absent in most atheists, thereby allowing ample opportunity to think of something that actually might work.

Or suppose a theistic friend of your gets seriously injured - and he asks you to pray for him, or to lead group prayers for him?

If there was nothing better I could do, I would pray. It is a moral and social consideration, not an ideological one. I would feel like a psychologist doing a placebo study, leading the prayer group. Managing the group is a social skill and I would be happy to aquire it - useful in other situations like family or business situations. Praying for him becomes a ceremonial and literary skill, both of which are useful socially. The decision to do all this is a moral choice that helping a friend is the right thing to do.

Btw, the above paragraph illustrates what I meant by a careful consideration [whether,what, why, how to do] rather than wishful thinking [prayer will convince God to change his will, help my friend]. Of course the two can co-exist, i.e. a theist can adopt my careful consideration, but I [being an apatheist] consider it an unnecessary and ineffective burden + I am an atheist, which is why I seperate and contrast the two. Besides, a theist would have faith and belief and wouldn't consider the careful thinking necessary, which leaves him out on the nuances or other possiblities inherent in the situation. I, on the other hand, have nothing to lose, as the placebo [for me] of belief and prayer is still avaliable to me. The two are not mutually exclusive, but they tend to be situationally exculsive.

Ps. Only faith has been totally and strongly been rejected by me. Every other religious or theistic idea is rejected or eliminated only tentatively and weakly [probabilistically] by me.

 

[wynn]

No offense, but I think wishful thinking in such times decreases rather than increases the chances of survival

I wasn't thinking of that, I illustrated my question with some examples of times of need and distress, such as ending up in a hospital with severe injuries.

If there was nothing better I could do, I would pray. It is a moral and social consideration, not an ideological one. I would feel like a psychologist doing a placebo study, leading the prayer group. Managing the group is a social skill and I would be happy to aquire it - useful in other situations like family or business situations. Praying for him becomes a ceremonial and literary skill, both of which are useful socially. The decision to do all this is a moral choice that helping a friend is the right thing to do.

I doubt that your theistic friends, acquaintances, relatives and colleagues would look kindly on this charade of yours.
Once they find out, they may feel you have betrayed them.
They may even appreciate you more if you simply made clear you're not a believer, and may be willing to stay on friendly terms with you.
The charade you're doing is setting everyone involved up for betrayal.


Your approach seems workable enough in theory, but it's not clear whether it would also work in practice.

You might be underestimating how stressful a severe injury is. It might disable you from continuing with your charade.

 

[Fraggle Rocker]

I still pray before going to sleep, only do it as a quick evaluation of the day.

You recognize religion as a collection of metaphors. Metaphors are useful because they distill a complicated reality down into more easily grasped sound bites.

Similarly, I still attend religious ceremonies and institutions as they are good and useful means of socialisation.

The music can be exhilarating. The first songs I ever learned were Christmas carols. All through high school I sang in the choir and half of our repertoire was hymns. I'm sure even the sermons can be moving if they're not too shrill; although the only religious service I've been to that I found engaging was a bar mitzvah.

I don't question or debate all/many theists I meet, I just nod my head. Why not?

Because we'll never change their minds so there's no point in bothering. I'm fairly certain that of the handful of religionists who become atheists in a year, almost none of them were significantly influenced by their atheist friends.

Intellectually dishonest, withholding the truth, improper? No, its just practical and useful.

I think that being passive and not arguing with people with whom we disagree is not a form of intellectual dishonesty. I suppose allowing them to believe that we agree with them could be construed as such... But I live in a country in which the majority of the population are religionists who automatically assume that every other self-respecting American is too. I don't have the time or energy to let every one of them know they're wrong.

So what is your plan for times of need and distress? Suppose you have a car accident, are seriously injured, and your theistic friends come to comfort you. Already seriously injured and in distress, do you believe you can keep up the pretense of being a theist while not actually being one?

If these people are the good Christians (or Muslims or Rastafarians or whatever) they claim to be, they're not going to start preaching to you while you're lying on the road in pain. This is not the time they'll pick to ask you earnestly if you really believe in Jesus Christ (or Mohammed or Ras Tafari or whatever).

What if in times of your greatest need and distress, you get discovered, outed - and abandoned?

All of these religions teach their followers to be charitable, even to unbelievers. In fact especially to unbelievers, because being kind to someone and attributing the kindness to one's religion is the absolute best possible way to evangelize that religion. Churches and other places of worship are full of people who haven't exactly come around to believing in the dogma (if they even understand it yet), but will be forever loyal because of some kindness they received when they were hopeless.

So if these are good people, they're not going to pick right now to jump on you for not being one of them.

Nonetheless, this is a good example of why you should be truthful with your friends. Not to tell them that their religion is bullshit and try to talk them out of it, but merely to let them know that you're not a member. Friendship is supposed to include honesty, after all! If you can't tell your friend about something as important as your religious or non-religious views, then one of you isn't really a very good friend.

Or suppose a theistic friend of your gets seriously injured - and he asks you to pray for him, or to lead group prayers for him?

Another good reason that he should already know that you can't do that--not because you're unkind, but because you don't know how. I'll bow my head and say something kind, or be respectful if another person leads the prayer. There's no reason to be disrespectful of someone in their time of need.

If I can sing carols to Baby Jesus in the Manger, learn three different versions of "Ave Maria," absentmindedly say "bless you" when somebody sneezes or "Goddamn you" when they cut me off in traffic, and put up a fabulous Christmas tree (with my wife who was raised Jewish but is now a Buddhist), I'm hardly going to turn into a militant, evangelical atheist at a moment when a friend (or even a stranger: "we're all in this together") needs comfort rather than a sermon.

Besides, hopefully we all know that prayer, and spirituality in general, releases endorphins and might make the difference between a victim living and dying. As I've pointed out many times, Jung's work with archetypes argues for a human brain architecture that is genetically predisposed for supernaturalism.

I doubt that your theistic friends, acquaintances, relatives and colleagues would look kindly on this charade of yours. Once they find out, they may feel you have betrayed them.

There are communities, even entire countries, where to admit being an atheist would be dangerous. But those people are probably not posting in this discussion.

They may even appreciate you more if you simply made clear you're not a believer, and may be willing to stay on friendly terms with you.

Especially if you're not militant. Many of us, perhaps most notoriously yours truly, work up a good head of steam in our hateful comments about religion here on SciForums. It stands as a bulwark against science; averaged over time it has done far more harm than good, yatta yatta. But we're sitting here in an informal academy of science and scholarship, a proper place for that kind of talk.

But as the only atheist sitting around the dinner table with your religious friends, well that's not the proper place, unless they all came over for the express purpose of arguing religion.

The charade you're doing is setting everyone involved up for betrayal.

I think we would all like atheism and atheists to get more respect. Lying to people isn't going to make that happen.

You might be underestimating how stressful a severe injury is. It might disable you from continuing with your charade.

Especially if you start yelling, "Oh Jesus, that hurts!"

 

[aaqucnaona]

I wasn't thinking of that, I illustrated my question with some examples of times of need and distress, such as ending up in a hospital with severe injuries.

In such situations, the human power to self-heal can be very useful, and hope and spirituality and religiousity are extremely powerful placebos - they are the only tools at my disposal to do something, and in such a situation, I would indeed be very religious [but not theistic].

I doubt that your theistic friends, acquaintances, relatives and colleagues would look kindly on this charade of yours.
Once they find out, they may feel you have betrayed them.
They may even appreciate you more if you simply made clear you're not a believer, and may be willing to stay on friendly terms with you.
The charade you're doing is setting everyone involved up for betrayal.

Fraggle did point out that there is harm possible if atheism is wore on the sleeves. On the other hand, this charade allows me opportunities my atheism would not. But I do agree that it would be like betrayal if friends, acquantances and relatives thought of me as being theistic. But most of my friends and aquaintances would not really care much on discovering my atheist, it would be just another thing they didn't know about me - I am a teen afterall, and we dont generally care much for theism or religion, even if we may belong to some.

Another example where I am eclectic is that those who may find out and would feel betrayed - my closest friends and relatives - already know of my atheism. If some new person gets close enough that such a revelation might affect them, I would let them know before the impact of my betrayal may be severe - besides, I would not hold up my charade in front of someone who may potentially become a close one - I would either adopt a apathetic or agnostic attitude in front of such people. I would be completely forthright when I am with someone of similiar understanding and intelligence, especially in a discussion or study setting [like here]. Which mask to wear is a decision based on the causality [if, how, when, why would someone discover my atheism] and the probablity [what reaction is how much likely, how severe may it be, etc]. Once again you see the cold-hearted eclectic consideration. I can understand if my inconsistency and dishonesty may be bothersome or even repulsive to you - it sure is dishonest and a burden to me - but this is a touchy issue, you can be cut off from many benefits or come to severe harm if the situation isn't handled properly - hence my decision to make use of critical planning and charades rather than being honest and truthful.

Your approach seems workable enough in theory, but it's not clear whether it would also work in practice.

Its not as difficult or complex as it sounds, it only involves:

1. Understanding your philosophical and social/cutural/political situation.
2. Knowing the ways in and by which the people around you act.
3. Divising proper behaviours for various situations.
4. Properly observing, understanding and judging present situations.
5. Remembering and accurately applying the behaviours as per the situations.

You might be underestimating how stressful a severe injury is. It might disable you from continuing with your charade.

The charade is completely preplanned, there is rarely anything to be done or decided 'in the moment' - the only thing to do is to understand the situation and act in accordance with it as per my planned behaviours. And I have had my share of severe injuries - I have both my eyebrows and one cheek and my forehead and my lip each cut by a respectablly sized gash [proper care has prevented any scars] and I have had a large bunch of bruises on my chin, arms and legs and had, on one occasion, been severly scratched by thorns all over my back, like the claw practice of a dozen cats - I was a very active child and am a [amateur] traucer, cyclist and athlete now, so I do have some estimate of the pain of severe injuries.

Besides, if the pain is too much, I can always temporarily drop the atheism, it is tentative, pragmatic and apatheitic afterall; given that doing so can strengthen the placebos and other effects of religiousity.

Ps. As far as the issue of God and religion is considered, being an atheist is difficult because most of the world is religious and it is only rarely, like on this forum, with my parents, close friends, etc that I can "be myself". Doing so in other places is not advisable, which makes the charade and the accompanying thinking necessary - but it is also a great way to explore your own psychology and the causality of daily life as well as to explore the social world around you.

 

[aaqucnaona]

Btw, since placeboes have come up several times in my conversations, there is this one theory of how they work that I would like some feedback on -

There is this Nicholas Humphrey's (2002) "economic resource management" hypothesis. It states:

The body has many resources to cure its own ailments: pain to discourage activity that can further damage an injury, fevers to combat infection, vomiting to rid the digestive system of toxins, and immune responses, to mention the most powerful. These are all effective but costly; overuse, or premature use, by the body could actually end up harming the body more than helping. (Full-scale immune responses are particularly costly, and only the healthiest animals can maintain a fully equipped army of antibodies.) When should a body spare no expense in hopes of a quick cure? Only when it is safe to do so, or when help is just around the corner. Otherwise, it might be more prudent for the body to be stingy with its costly selftreatments. The placebo effect, according to this hypothesis, is a releasing trigger, telling the body to pull out all the stops because there is hope. In other species, the hope variable is presumably tuned to whatever information the animal can glean from its current surroundings (is it safe in its den, or in the middle of its herd, and is there plenty of food around?); in us, the hope variable can be manipulated by authoritative figures. These are questions worth further investigation.

Original Source - Dan. Dannett - Breaking the Spell.
Additional sources [journals, news, research data]:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicholas_Humphrey

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_management_system

http://www.google.co.in/url?sa=t&rc...O00bFVjNiZgEf6PgA&sig2=gSsQCOYGAWXuoEycSWPP7A

http://readingbyeugene.com/2011/12/13/the-placebo-effect-and-the-self-management-system/

http://edge.org/conversation/the-evolved-self-management-system

http://www.google.co.in/url?sa=t&rc...BmaRMhdPNGEp1Qi_g&sig2=E9DR6wj7oCo-0P7EPI5MMg

http://www.coxontool.com/index.php/Health/PlaceboEffect

http://www.google.co.in/url?sa=t&rc...iO4yp3S-_1UnrdpxA&sig2=3KIKDvJzSfQVxcR0B-K74A

 

[aaqucnaona]

You recognize religion as a collection of metaphors. Metaphors are useful because they distill a complicated reality down into more easily grasped sound bites.

Agreed. Religions are very good models for spirituality and social bonding.

The music can be exhilarating. The first songs I ever learned were Christmas carols. All through high school I sang in the choir and half of our repertoire was hymns. I'm sure even the sermons can be moving if they're not too shrill; although the only religious service I've been to that I found engaging was a bar mitzvah.

I have always been in awe of the great art [paintings/murals/walls, music, literature] religion has inspired.

Because we'll never change their minds so there's no point in bothering. I'm fairly certain that of the handful of religionists who become atheists in a year, almost none of them were significantly influenced by their atheist friends.

I would agree that a committed attempt towards the right direction [for atheism] - a scientism, pragmatic, rational and sceptical study of oneself, one's belief, religion and what we know about the world is probably the most likely cause of atheism.

All of these religions teach their followers to be charitable, even to unbelievers. In fact especially to unbelievers, because being kind to someone and attributing the kindness to one's religion is the absolute best possible way to evangelize that religion. Churches and other places of worship are full of people who haven't exactly come around to believing in the dogma (if they even understand it yet), but will be forever loyal because of some kindness they received when they were hopeless.

Religion is indeed one of the best tools to make the common man a kind, charitable and loving person. Philosophy, great/expert ability in many aspects of life or a dedicated study of some scholarly field are some other means that come to mind - but these tend to be, to some degree, elitist paths to personal and social betterment. Religion has the added benefit of comfort, good-feel, social bonding but is also susceptible to control, delusion or corruption by those in power. Religion is indeed "the opiate of the masses".

So if these are good people, they're not going to pick right now to jump on you for not being one of them.

But at some time in the near future, you would indeed end up on their "to evagelise" list - a confrontation, conversation or stalemate is inevitable. I wonder what you would do in such a situation.

As I've pointed out many times, Jung's work with archetypes argues for a human brain architecture that is genetically predisposed for supernaturalism.

I have very little idea about Jung's work, any books you may suggest?

Many of us, perhaps most notoriously yours truly, work up a good head of steam in our hateful comments about religion here on SciForums. It stands as a bulwark against science; averaged over time it has done far more harm than good, yatta yatta. But we're sitting here in an informal academy of science and scholarship, a proper place for that kind of talk. But as the only atheist sitting around the dinner table with your religious friends, well that's not the proper place, unless they all came over for the express purpose of arguing religion.

A good illustration that whether they know/plan it or not, most atheists do have to pull charades.

I think we would all like atheism and atheists to get more respect. Lying to people isn't going to make that happen.

Of course lying is bad, except in a church in Texas or a jihadist stronghold.

 

[elte]

aaqucnaona, I can relate to the dilemma that you feel. One thing that helped me with these types of difficulties was the realization that belief is an involuntary function of the brain. They form based on our nature, upbringing, and life experiences in general. So, I usually try not to talk about my or others' beliefs. Sometimes I see it as just being unhelpful and maybe just hurtful to bring up my or others' beliefs. A good example is in the case of my very Catholic but very elderly uncle.

 

[Jeeves]

Do you think that is good or bad or are you simply stating a fact -

I don't care one way or th'other. What people believe or say they believe is their own personal business.
It only becomes my business when they try to force it on other people.

Add: Christianity is deeply embedded both in my original and in my adopted culture. I don't usually argue about it in daily life (only on forums); i accept the xtians around me as more or less sincere and unreflective products of their environment. I have acquired the language, the imagery, the iconic and literary references.

If someone asked me to pray for them, i probably wouldn't explain why i cannot, but respond with something like "I'll be thinking of you" - and do that. I'll be thinking of the xtian acquaintance having knee surgery next week - not because i have any illusion that my good wishes are of magical, but because the awareness of solidarity and affection might make him feel better, might enhance his emotional fortitude, and thus help him cope.

 

[gmilam]

Something the theist may have a difficult time understanding is that I don't consider atheism to be a defining part of my point of view. Whereas many theist put their belief in a god front and center in their lifes. I don't really think about god or lack thereof with every breath I take. It's basically a non-issue.

 

[Fraggle Rocker]

As far as the issue of God and religion is considered, being an atheist is difficult because most of the world is religious and it is only rarely, like on this forum, with my parents, close friends, etc that I can "be myself". Doing so in other places is not advisable, which makes the charade and the accompanying thinking necessary - but it is also a great way to explore your own psychology and the causality of daily life as well as to explore the social world around you.

I wonder where you live. In the USA most atheists try to live in the larger Northern cities where there's more diversity. Here there are enough of us that people are used to us and have learned that we're not going to eat their children. Also the average educational level is higher in a cosmopolitan setting so people are less fundamentalist about their religions and more interested in having a dialog with those who don't share them.

Nonetheless there are many small towns with an artistic or academic demographic, where atheism can almost be flaunted.

I have always been in awe of the great art [paintings/murals/walls, music, literature] religion has inspired.

Those were created in a place and time in which religion was the dominant source of motifs, so of course they were the dominant motifs in art. Artists work with what they find in life.

Religion is indeed one of the best tools to make the common man a kind, charitable and loving person.

It's difficult to stand behind that statement if you keep up with the daily news. More precisely, for every hundred people who find motivation in their religion to be kind, charitable and loving, there's one asshole who finds in it the motivation to do evil that outweighs their good by a factor of ten or one hundred or one thousand. And even worse, he taps into a religious evangelism that converts entire communities of otherwise good religious people into monsters. Every few generations an entire large segment of the world's Christians, Muslims or Jews erupts into an orgy of religiously inspired violence, often among themselves over minute doctrinal differences that we outsiders can't even understand. Jung himself said, "The wars among the Christian nations have been the bloodiest in human history." [Footnote: He overlooked Genghis Khan, but in aggregate Christians still get the prize.]

And when the enemy is not one of them, the violence reaches unspeakable levels. They don't just kill the people, they do everything they can to obliterate all traces of their "heathen" culture. The Christian armies burned the Aztec libraries, with all the unique ideas they might have contained, and melted down the Inca art, lest pious European eyes be exposed to their "pagan" symbolism. Less than twenty years ago the Muslim-extremist Taliban used modern military weapons to destroy three mountain-sized statues of Buddha more than a thousand years old.

I have very little idea about Jung's work, any books you may suggest?

What I know I learned from my wife, who took several classes and used it in her master's thesis. Unless you're a serious scholar who can wade through highly technical language, I would recommend reading Joseph Campbell's works. He was a champion of Jung, and rendered his ideas into laymen's language. "The Hero with a Thousand Faces" was his first book in 1949 and is still widely read. He also produced a very good TV series about 25 years ago; I'm sure it's available on DVD, or free on the internet.

Just Google his name and you can spend a year reading the articles that turn up.

aaqucnaona, I can relate to the dilemma that you feel. One thing that helped me with these types of difficulties was the realization that belief is an involuntary function of the brain. They form based on our nature, upbringing, and life experiences in general.

As I noted, belief in the supernatural may be instinctive. Jung died before genetics became established as a science, but today we would restate his premise: "Archetypes are instinctive beliefs programmed into our synapses by our DNA." Some instinctive beliefs are easy to understand: any animal who is not programmed to run away from a large animal with both eyes in front of its face won't live long enough to reproduce. Others don't make as much sense, perhaps they are simply random mutations passed down through a genetic bottleneck.

So, I usually try not to talk about my or others' beliefs. Sometimes I see it as just being unhelpful and maybe just hurtful to bring up my or others' beliefs. A good example is in the case of my very Catholic but very elderly uncle.

Most religious people only like discussing their beliefs with people who agree with them. They find that reassuring and fulfilling, even sort of entertaining.

 

[aaqucnaona]

I wonder where you live. In the USA most atheists try to live in the larger Northern cities where there's more diversity. Here there are enough of us that people are used to us and have learned that we're not going to eat their children. Also the average educational level is higher in a cosmopolitan setting so people are less fundamentalist about their religions and more interested in having a dialog with those who don't share them.

Religious opposition is not a problem - it is a problem only if you rock the boat, go around in a "Fuck God" shirt or tell all you meet "How's the sky fairy doing?" Even something like "Happy holidays" or religious debates can stir up some people. Of course, in scholarly situations or with friends, atheism is like a new Iphone, however, with normal strangers on the streets, its best to be ambigious, even though a sizable majority may actually agree with you - it takes only the occasional religious nut to ruin your day, and we know they are a very common bunch. Besides, devout religious people are very intolerant of guys like us.

Nonetheless there are many small towns with an artistic or academic demographic, where atheism can almost be flaunted.

Just like it can be in some colleges/universities or with friends. Again, there's time and place for everything.

It's difficult to stand behind that statement if you keep up with the daily news. More precisely, for every hundred people who find motivation in their religion to be kind, charitable and loving, there's one asshole who finds in it the motivation to do evil that outweighs their good by a factor of ten or one hundred or one thousand. And even worse, he taps into a religious evangelism that converts entire communities of otherwise good religious people into monsters. Every few generations an entire large segment of the world's Christians, Muslims or Jews erupts into an orgy of religiously inspired violence, often among themselves over minute doctrinal differences that we outsiders can't even understand. Jung himself said, "The wars among the Christian nations have been the bloodiest in human history." [Footnote: He overlooked Genghis Khan, but in aggregate Christians still get the prize.]


And when the enemy is not one of them, the violence reaches unspeakable levels. They don't just kill the people, they do everything they can to obliterate all traces of their "heathen" culture. The Christian armies burned the Aztec libraries, with all the unique ideas they might have contained, and melted down the Inca art, lest pious European eyes be exposed to their "pagan" symbolism. Less than twenty years ago the Muslim-extremist Taliban used modern military weapons to destroy three mountain-sized statues of Buddha more than a thousand years old.

I only mean that it is a very potent tool - like genetic engineering or nuclear technologies. Of course, religion has been very faithful to murphy's law.

What I know I learned from my wife, who took several classes and used it in her master's thesis. Unless you're a serious scholar who can wade through highly technical language, I would recommend reading Joseph Campbell's works. He was a champion of Jung, and rendered his ideas into laymen's language. "The Hero with a Thousand Faces" was his first book in 1949 and is still widely read. He also produced a very good TV series about 25 years ago; I'm sure it's available on DVD, or free on the internet.

Just Google his name and you can spend a year reading the articles that turn up.

Ok, thanks.

As I noted, belief in the supernatural may be instinctive. Jung died before genetics became established as a science, but today we would restate his premise: "Archetypes are instinctive beliefs programmed into our synapses by our DNA." Some instinctive beliefs are easy to understand: any animal who is not programmed to run away from a large animal with both eyes in front of its face won't live long enough to reproduce. Others don't make as much sense, perhaps they are simply random mutations passed down through a genetic bottleneck.

I would suggest Dan Dennett's "Breaking the Spell" and Raymond Converse's "Atheism as a Positive Social Force" if you havent read them already, they explore this area quite comprehensively.

I am good pastafarian, so here they are - http://thepiratebay.org/torrent/5476638/

 

[gmilam]

I second the Joseph Campbell recommendation:

Here's Pt 1 (of 6) of the Power Of Myth.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OhU99yaOcjw