Atheists: Why does theism still exist?

[leftrightleftrightleft]

I was reading some of the replies to madaz's thread "Ex-believers - what once convinced you of God's existence" and I didn't want to derail so I'll make my own thread.

I was struck by how many atheists responded by essentially saying, "Because my parents told me." Correct me if I'm over-simplifying, but it seems that most atheists on this site have never had anything that they would consider an "experience of God". They believed only because that's what their parents told them and, once reaching an age when they began to think for themselves, they didn't see any evidence for it and so gave it up. Is that a decent synopsis?

So, my question for atheists is then, why does theism still exist?

Everyone I know has had a similar trajectory: when you are a kid, you generally believe what you're told. During your teenage and young adult years, you question what you were told and reach your own, independent conclusions. Out of this questioning comes two groups: theists and atheists.

What is it that the theists did wrong to reach what is, in your view, the incorrect conclusion?

 

[Received]

If to theists, atheists rebel against God, it's only fair to hold that to atheists, theists rebel against the idea of no God at all.

 

[JGG]

I should say that in my case, I figure I'd still be a believer if not for a certain sequence of events. Because those yhings happened I find myself an ex-Christian.

 

[poolerboy0077]

I was reading some of the replies to madaz's thread "Ex-believers - what once convinced you of God's existence" and I didn't want to derail so I'll make my own thread.

I was struck by how many atheists responded by essentially saying, "Because my parents told me." Correct me if I'm over-simplifying, but it seems that most atheists on this site have never had anything that they would consider an "experience of God". They believed only because that's what their parents told them and, once reaching an age when they began to think for themselves, they didn't see any evidence for it and so gave it up. Is that a decent synopsis?

So, my question for atheists is then, why does theism still exist?

Everyone I know has had a similar trajectory: when you are a kid, you generally believe what you're told. During your teenage and young adult years, you question what you were told and reach your own, independent conclusions. Out of this questioning comes two groups: theists and atheists.

What is it that the theists did wrong to reach what is, in your view, the incorrect conclusion?

I don't think the people who eventually became adult theists did anything wrong per se. It's still largely upbringing. Environment and upbringing still plays a large roll.

 

[Loudmouth]

So, my question for atheists is then, why does theism still exist?

It is a belief that people find fulfilling and meaningful.

What is it that the theists did wrong to reach what is, in your view, the incorrect conclusion?

Without making a value judgement, we can ask what they did differently. From my experience, atheists put faith to the side and asked for evidence and reason. Theists relied on faith and put reason and evidence to the side. In the end, atheists put more value on what is true instead of what one wants to be true.

 

[Gene2memE]

Humans are pattern seeking and instinct/intuition based thinkers, for the most part. We also have an imperfect understanding of the world.

I think God belief arose because of ignorance. There were things in the world that we couldn't explain. So we invented causal narratives and anthropomorphized natural forces.

As humans discovered more of the world and understood things better, our belief systems progressed for simple spirit belief/shamanism, through to anthropomorphic polytheism, anthropomorphic monotheism and then into the current non-corporeal monotheistic beliefs.

The current religions, particularly Abraham monotheism, survive because they had the fortune to be the religions of the most advanced cultures as international travel and then international communication become increasingly available. They had also developed massive self-perpetuating/internally reinforcing systems.

Finally, the doctrinal reforms of the Abrahamistic faiths over the last 200-300 years have shifted the mainstream god concept so far into an abstraction that it is essentially unfalsifiable. Anything other than a nebulous, non-interventionist deity would lend itself to the sort of testing that would shortly render it dis-proven.

 

[Chany]

I was reading some of the replies to madaz's thread "Ex-believers - what once convinced you of God's existence" and I didn't want to derail so I'll make my own thread.

I was struck by how many atheists responded by essentially saying, "Because my parents told me." Correct me if I'm over-simplifying, but it seems that most atheists on this site have never had anything that they would consider an "experience of God". They believed only because that's what their parents told them and, once reaching an age when they began to think for themselves, they didn't see any evidence for it and so gave it up. Is that a decent synopsis?

So, my question for atheists is then, why does theism still exist?

Everyone I know has had a similar trajectory: when you are a kid, you generally believe what you're told. During your teenage and young adult years, you question what you were told and reach your own, independent conclusions. Out of this questioning comes two groups: theists and atheists.

What is it that the theists did wrong to reach what is, in your view, the incorrect conclusion?

To start, I am not one of those raised and simply fell out. My family went to church, but were not hyper-religious. I was the hyper religious person. I really started to get into the faith around 16-17. I fell out about two to three years later (it's hard to point out exact times). I fell for kalaam and similar arguments. I eventually had intense emotional feelings that I attributed to God. Eventually, I discovered that a line of inquiry in defense of certain topics was met with resistance by religious friends. Eventually, I came to realize all of the reasons I had for believing in my faith, and a god, were unfounded.

It is obviously impossible to say exactly where theists went wrong in their search because everyone is different. However, it is usually a combination of different things, like some of the following:

-Socialization and social reinforcement. Having everyone around you believe the same thing and teaching it to you from childhood definitely has an impact upon people.

-Lack of questioning. Some people simply don't question, or, at least, don't dwell on the harder ones.

-Lack of information. I can't hear proactive questions and conflicting information if I don't really encounter it. Without the ability to see other things, my scope is limited and I may reach bad conclusions with limited information.

-Psychological bias and needs. People have psychological biases, such as the desire to implant agency onto things and the need for psychological closure in the form of clear definite answers. Some people's minds will go so far as to pretty much block out anything it doesn't like.

-Logical fallacy. Most Christian apologetics exists solely to reinforce already held beliefs. The arguments alone are very unconvincing when taken on their own from a less biased outlook. If one doesn't recognize the fallacies, the arguments appear much stronger than they actually are.

-Epistemological failures. Not understanding why subjective experiences attributed to gods are not evidence for the god without something more tangible than say-so. Problems in the approach to how we know information and why certain things, like objective evidence, are very much needed.

 

[Loudmouth]

Carl Sagan wrote a short essay that tries to discuss this topic from the atheist point of view. It is called "The Dragon in My Garage". It details how some people believe that there is an invisible fire breathing dragon in their garage. To test for the dragon, the atheist uses heat detectors to test for fire, flour on the floor to test for foot prints, spray paint to make the dragon visible, and so on. For every test the dragon believers invent a reason why such a test will not work, but they still remain believers.


"Now, what's the difference between an invisible, incorporeal, floating dragon who spits heatless fire and no dragon at all? If there's no way to disprove my contention, no conceivable experiment that would count against it, what does it mean to say that my dragon exists? Your inability to invalidate my hypothesis is not at all the same thing as proving it true. Claims that cannot be tested, assertions immune to disproof are veridically worthless, whatever value they may have in inspiring us or in exciting our sense of wonder. What I'm asking you to do comes down to believing, in the absence of evidence, on my say-so. The only thing you've really learned from my insistence that there's a dragon in my garage is that something funny is going on inside my head. You'd wonder, if no physical tests apply, what convinced me."
The Dragon In My Garage

On top of that, we also notice that there is a strong inclination for people to become part of the religion that they were raised in. If God experiences were objective in some sort of way, why are they so heavily influenced by the arbitrariness of which culture you find yourself in? If deities speak to us and give us divine wisdom, why don't people reproduce specific religious theologies independently of being exposed to them?

 

[quatona]

I was reading some of the replies to madaz's thread "Ex-believers - what once convinced you of God's existence" and I didn't want to derail so I'll make my own thread.

I was struck by how many atheists responded by essentially saying, "Because my parents told me." Correct me if I'm over-simplifying, but it seems that most atheists on this site have never had anything that they would consider an "experience of God". They believed only because that's what their parents told them and, once reaching an age when they began to think for themselves, they didn't see any evidence for it and so gave it up. Is that a decent synopsis?

So, my question for atheists is then, why does theism still exist?

Everyone I know has had a similar trajectory: when you are a kid, you generally believe what you're told. During your teenage and young adult years, you question what you were told and reach your own, independent conclusions. Out of this questioning comes two groups: theists and atheists.

What is it that the theists did wrong to reach what is, in your view, the incorrect conclusion?

The ways we come to shape our worldviews are very individual.
If you want to learn the individual reasons of believers why they hold their views I think you better ask them.

 

[BL2KTN]

Theism in the form of deism is a very possible (I would say likely) reality. Theism in the form of a specific, personal god seems to have no good evidence and plenty to the contrary.

 

[Eudaimonist]

I was struck by how many atheists responded by essentially saying, "Because my parents told me." Correct me if I'm over-simplifying, but it seems that most atheists on this site have never had anything that they would consider an "experience of God".

That's true in my case, at least.

They believed only because that's what their parents told them and, once reaching an age when they began to think for themselves, they didn't see any evidence for it and so gave it up. Is that a decent synopsis?

For me, yes.

So, my question for atheists is then, why does theism still exist?

Because that process of atheistic enlightenment isn't automatic or guaranteed.

Everyone I know has had a similar trajectory: when you are a kid, you generally believe what you're told. During your teenage and young adult years, you question what you were told and reach your own, independent conclusions. Out of this questioning comes two groups: theists and atheists.

What is it that the theists did wrong to reach what is, in your view, the incorrect conclusion?

I'm not certain that everyone actually fits that narrative. Perhaps some people don't bother to question their religious beliefs and are content to believe for whatever reasons. Maybe they don't want to rock the family boat, or are satisfied with whatever religious experiences they do interpret themselves as having, or are simply not philosophical people and don't know how to question effectively.

I'm sure that I am oversimplifying, and I doubt that I can give a simple answer that would include all theists. This is probably an individual matter.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Received]

Carl Sagan wrote a short essay that tries to discuss this topic from the atheist point of view. It is called "The Dragon in My Garage". It details how some people believe that there is an invisible fire breathing dragon in their garage. To test for the dragon, the atheist uses heat detectors to test for fire, flour on the floor to test for foot prints, spray paint to make the dragon visible, and so on. For every test the dragon believers invent a reason why such a test will not work, but they still remain believers.


"Now, what's the difference between an invisible, incorporeal, floating dragon who spits heatless fire and no dragon at all? If there's no way to disprove my contention, no conceivable experiment that would count against it, what does it mean to say that my dragon exists? Your inability to invalidate my hypothesis is not at all the same thing as proving it true. Claims that cannot be tested, assertions immune to disproof are veridically worthless, whatever value they may have in inspiring us or in exciting our sense of wonder. What I'm asking you to do comes down to believing, in the absence of evidence, on my say-so. The only thing you've really learned from my insistence that there's a dragon in my garage is that something funny is going on inside my head. You'd wonder, if no physical tests apply, what convinced me."
The Dragon In My Garage

On top of that, we also notice that there is a strong inclination for people to become part of the religion that they were raised in. If God experiences were objective in some sort of way, why are they so heavily influenced by the arbitrariness of which culture you find yourself in? If deities speak to us and give us divine wisdom, why don't people reproduce specific religious theologies independently of being exposed to them?

The only problem with comparisons like these (and FSMs, etc.) is that they implicitly beg the question by equating God with something nobody takes seriously and is ridiculous. It begs the question by making God equivalent to ridiculousness; rather than making an argument from this, it appeals to images.

 

[True Scotsman]

I was reading some of the replies to madaz's thread "Ex-believers - what once convinced you of God's existence" and I didn't want to derail so I'll make my own thread.

I was struck by how many atheists responded by essentially saying, "Because my parents told me." Correct me if I'm over-simplifying, but it seems that most atheists on this site have never had anything that they would consider an "experience of God". They believed only because that's what their parents told them and, once reaching an age when they began to think for themselves, they didn't see any evidence for it and so gave it up. Is that a decent synopsis?

So, my question for atheists is then, why does theism still exist?

Everyone I know has had a similar trajectory: when you are a kid, you generally believe what you're told. During your teenage and young adult years, you question what you were told and reach your own, independent conclusions. Out of this questioning comes two groups: theists and atheists.

What is it that the theists did wrong to reach what is, in your view, the incorrect conclusion?

Theism still exists because almost everyone is indoctrinated into a religion from their earliest memory. They see all the adults around them believing. Also most people don't examine their beliefs or try to integrate them as they get older. The main reason that theism still exists is that no man can live without a philosophy or a comprehensive view of the world and religions give that to people ready made and all they have to do is accept it. It's a wrong view of the world, but it is complete and no thinking is required. There is tremendous social pressure to believe as well. combine all of those reasons and it is easy to see why it is still with us and probably always will be. Easy answers without the need to think and social pressure.

What theism gets wrong in my opinion is it's metaphysics and consequently its epistemology. Faith is not a means to knowledge. It is subjective. Metaphysically, theism holds a primacy of consciousness view of the world and this is demonstrably wrong and leads to many errors in thinking and that is why I don't believe.

 

[leftrightleftrightleft]

Thanks to everyone for their replies

Is there any sort of "path" that you have seen that will always lead someone to atheism? If it is the Truth™ and theism is a lie/delusion/falsity/social relic, then there should be some sort way that anyone and everyone could reach the same verifiable and objective conclusion, right? Just like any other verifiable and objective truth, like the speed of light or the value of Newton's gravitational constant.

Using Chany's list, how do you go about breaking down the socialization , lack of questioning, lack of information, psychological biases, logical fallacies, and epistemological fallacies?

To me, using this list, they seem kind of nested within one another. Socialization and psychological biases would be the most basic or lowest form of belief and thus the most difficult to break down. Lack of questioning and lack of information come next. And logical fallacies and epistemological fallacies are the highest level. But, appealing to someone to notice the logical and epistemological fallacies when you have not yet asked them to confront their own socialization and psychological biases seems to be putting the cart before the horse.

 

[leftrightleftrightleft]

Theism still exists because almost everyone is indoctrinated into a religion from their earliest memory. They see all the adults around them believing. Also most people don't examine their beliefs or try to integrate them as they get older.

How do you explain people that were raised in atheistic/agnostic/non-believing households who later come to be theists?

I have some people who took opposite trajectories from most atheists who have posted thus far: they began not believing in any sort of god/deity simply because that's what they were told, then they progressed to questioning in their teens and early twenties before settling on the conclusion that God does exist.

What theism gets wrong in my opinion is it's metaphysics and consequently its epistemology. Faith is not a means to knowledge. It is subjective.

By "objective", do you mean "verifiable by others"?

I also find it interesting that you seem to equate "knowledge" with "objectivity". Or at least that is what is implied.

Aren't there all kinds of examples of "knowledge" that are not objective or verifiable by others? This brings to mind Bertrand Russell's distinction between "knowledge by description" vs. "knowledge by acquaintance".

Metaphysically, theism holds a primacy of consciousness view of the world and this is demonstrably wrong and leads to many errors in thinking and that is why I don't believe.

What are your views on Buddhism, meditation, etc?

"All phenomena are preceded by mind, made by mind, and ruled by mind" - The Buddha.

 

[Loudmouth]

The only problem with comparisons like these (and FSMs, etc.) is that they implicitly beg the question by equating God with something nobody takes seriously and is ridiculous.

It shows that entities that nobody takes seriously have as much evidence in support of them as God.

 

[bhsmte]

I was reading some of the replies to madaz's thread "Ex-believers - what once convinced you of God's existence" and I didn't want to derail so I'll make my own thread.

I was struck by how many atheists responded by essentially saying, "Because my parents told me." Correct me if I'm over-simplifying, but it seems that most atheists on this site have never had anything that they would consider an "experience of God". They believed only because that's what their parents told them and, once reaching an age when they began to think for themselves, they didn't see any evidence for it and so gave it up. Is that a decent synopsis?

So, my question for atheists is then, why does theism still exist?

Everyone I know has had a similar trajectory: when you are a kid, you generally believe what you're told. During your teenage and young adult years, you question what you were told and reach your own, independent conclusions. Out of this questioning comes two groups: theists and atheists.

What is it that the theists did wrong to reach what is, in your view, the incorrect conclusion?

Theism exists, because man has been creating Gods for thousands of years, trying desperately to explain existence and the purpose of life. The God concept, is likely, the most powerful emotional and psychological concept introduced to young people and has a powerful impact on them.

As people grow older and especially as they become educated to the realities of the world we live in (strong correlation between higher education and less belief in Gods) some people come to realize, the belief was false and they move on. Others, are impacted more emotionally from the belief and the comfort it gives them and they hold onto the belief.

Theism will always be around, although I believe it will continue to decline in numbers, as we have seen for decades, all around the world.

 

[Chany]

Using Chany's list, how do you go about breaking down the socialization , lack of questioning, lack of information, psychological biases, logical fallacies, and epistemological fallacies? To me, using this list, they seem kind of nested within one another. Socialization and psychological biases would be the most basic or lowest form of belief and thus the most difficult to break down. Lack of questioning and lack of information come next. And logical fallacies and epistemological fallacies are the highest level. But, appealing to someone to notice the logical and epistemological fallacies when you have not yet asked them to confront their own socialization and psychological biases seems to be putting the cart before the horse.

It really differs from person to person. Some people, for example, really just haven't thought about it rigorously. They would easily reject theism if they looked into it, but they questioning theism never really occurred to them, at least, not yet.

 

[True Scotsman]

How do you explain people that were raised in atheistic/agnostic/non-believing households who later come to be theists?

I have some people who took opposite trajectories from most atheists who have posted thus far: they began not believing in any sort of god/deity simply because that's what they were told, then they progressed to questioning in their teens and early twenties before settling on the conclusion that God does exist.[QUOTE/]

I don't know what makes people abandon reason and take up faith. I do know that religion offers easy answers and every man needs a comprehensive view of the world. I doubt that there is anyone alive that has not been exposed to religion from an early age, at least not in this country. I do know that no sound argument for the existence of gods has ever been made so if they choose to believe they are doing so for irrational reasons.

By "objective", do you mean "verifiable by others"?

I also find it interesting that you seem to equate "knowledge" with "objectivity". Or at least that is what is implied.

Aren't there all kinds of examples of "knowledge" that are not objective or verifiable by others? This brings to mind Bertrand Russell's distinction between "knowledge by description" vs. "knowledge by acquaintance".[QUOTE/]

By "objective" I mean reality. The objects of consciousness, not the subject. By knowledge I mean facts of reality arrived at objectively and validated using logic. If knowledge means knowledge of reality then it must necessarily be objective. All knowledge of reality starts with sense perception. knowledge which is not connected in any way to perception is not knowledge, in my opinion. If something has to be taken on faith then it is not knowledge, just a subjective belief.

A concept like the supernatural is invalid because it is not reducible to sense perceptions. It can not be formed objectively. There's no chain of logic that can lead to the concept of the supernatural by observation of the natural world. It is an arbitrary, subjective concept.

What are your views on Buddhism, meditation, etc?

"All phenomena are preceded by mind, made by mind, and ruled by mind" - The Buddha.

I don't know much about Buddhism but if that quote is an example of what it teaches then I reject it as a violation of the primacy of existence principle.

 

[Received]

It shows that entities that nobody takes seriously have as much evidence in support of them as God.

Which is begging the question by assuming that there is as much support for God as imaginary creatures nobody takes seriously.