Is Orthodoxy the quickest path to atheism?

[buzuxi02]

People will be more prone to atheism if they seek a rational approach with a constant need for historical and scientific proofs and such. Ironically such societies which have embraced the principles of the enlightenment have also produced numerous amounts of obscure sects and cults.

 

[LinuxLurker01]

I must take exception with the idea that Orthodoxy cannot coincide with more rational approaches. I am a product of the Western world; I think in rational terms and have always had difficulty with what seems to be a constant attack on West for that reason. I have found Orthodoxy, as far as religion goes, to be the most rational out of any branch of Christianity I've known. Our theology, while mystical, still seems rational to me. Clearly there are aspects of our faith that we dare not attempt to explain, but even that is rational -- attempting to explain the unexplainable, like the Roman Catholic Church has done in many cases, is in fact the irrational position to take, not ours. And when it comes to the existence or non-existence of God, clearly there is no absolutely rational and logical answer to the question; however, the fact (and I do posit that this is fact) that life has no meaning apart from meaning imputed to it by someone is cause to search for a someone other than ourselves. That search leads to God, and by association, His Church. So though I can't prove that God is there logically, I still think it is reasonable and rational to search for God and have faith by extension. The atheist essentially concludes that faith is unnecessary, but in my own experience, the only way to derive any meaning to my existence as an atheist is to de facto make myself into god. And it's been a failed experiment every single time. Again, I have found it reasonable that the source for the meaning of my existence lies without, and it is reasonable to search beyond what is tangible for something so profound.

My two cents as an Orthodox gone atheist and returned.

 

[buzuxi02]

. The atheist essentially concludes that faith is unnecessary, but in my own experience, the only way to derive any meaning to my existence as an atheist is to de facto make myself into god. And it's been a failed experiment every single time. Again, I have found it reasonable that the source for the meaning of my existence lies without, and it is reasonable to search beyond what is tangible for something so profound.

My two cents as an Orthodox gone atheist and returned.

My point exactly. In western secular countries where scientific and critical thought is placed at a premium there will be more atheists yet these nations also produce an unusual amount of esoteric cults to compete with the traditional religion. This is especially true for places like california, france and nordic countries.

 

[cobweb]

I am another atheist who converted to Orthodoxy. I spent several years (most of my adult life) as a metaphysical naturalist and a secular humanist. In fact I found this forum when I came trolling from IIDB.

I have had quite the opposite experience with Orthodoxy. I know of at least 3 other former atheists in my parish. We have several people in my own parish who are in careers that are typically dominated by non-theists (including a professor of anthropology at one of the state universities).

 

[MKJ]

My point exactly. In western secular countries where scientific and critical thought is placed at a premium there will be more atheists yet these nations also produce an unusual amount of esoteric cults to compete with the traditional religion. This is especially true for places like california, france and nordic countries.

I think what happens is people get the idea that religion and reason are opposed, but of course many still have feeling of a spiritual connection or relation to the Divine. But because of their idea that reason and religion are incompatible, they have no way to discern the claims of various religions, and all they are really left with is the possibility of a kind of poetic expression of religion.

Now, I find it interesting that a number of posters here feel that Orthodoxy survives this rationalist attack because it is by nature more mysitical and doesn't buy into the whole rationalist mind-set. It seems to me that it sees the two as unified. I'd also say that this is what apostolic Christianity has tried to do in the West. I know in the West we also see these extreme forms of rationalist rejection of religion and religious rejection of reason - there always seems to be a tension. We have Thomas, and Bonaventure, and Ockham all together within the bounds of what the West considers a catholic understanding, as well as those who move outside of that in either direction.

I don't know a lot about the East in this area, but it seems to me that there are some who tend toward the outright rejection of reason - to fundamentalism basically, both within Orthodoxy and then to the point of being outside of it. A number of posters here see Orthodoxy as rational too, and so it seems to me the same tension may exist there.

 

[LinuxLurker01]

Now, I find it interesting that a number of posters here feel that Orthodoxy survives this rationalist attack because it is by nature more mysitical and doesn't buy into the whole rationalist mind-set. It seems to me that it sees the two as unified.

Pretty much what I was saying. My contention is that one cannot arrive at faith without the use of reason. God gave us brains, and He means for us to use them. I think it is no coincidence that the great line of thinkers of ancient Greece culminated in the Greek saints of Orthodoxy; what those ancient philosophers sought was fulfilled in the Church and the Greek saints thereof. So, like I said, I don't like the outright rejection of rational thought -- yes, Christian communities in Europe came up with some pretty terrible theology with the use of reason, but to throw away something as fundamental as our ability to reason just because they abused it is like saying we should throw away Christ because the Westboro Baptist Church because they abuse Him, as far as I'm concerned.

 

[Michael G]

Pretty much what I was saying. My contention is that one cannot arrive at faith without the use of reason. God gave us brains, and He means for us to use them. I think it is no coincidence that the great line of thinkers of ancient Greece culminated in the Greek saints of Orthodoxy; what those ancient philosophers sought was fulfilled in the Church and the Greek saints thereof. So, like I said, I don't like the outright rejection of rational thought -- yes, Christian communities in Europe came up with some pretty terrible theology with the use of reason, but to throw away something as fundamental as our ability to reason just because they abused it is like saying we should throw away Christ because the Westboro Baptist Church because they abuse Him, as far as I'm concerned.

St. John the Theologian would agree with you. The first line to his Gospel unites classical Greek philosophy to Christianity forever by explaining that the "Logos" the Greek philosophers were looking for is Jesus Christ, and going on to explain the relationship of the Logos to God the Father of the Old Testament.

 

[ArmyMatt]

Our theology, while mystical, still seems rational to me. Clearly there are aspects of our faith that we dare not attempt to explain, but even that is rational -- attempting to explain the unexplainable, like the Roman Catholic Church has done in many cases, is in fact the irrational position to take, not ours.

I totally agree here. my one priest, when defending Orthodoxy (especially the Trinity) toward a JW, said that it makes sense that God should not always make sense. it's not that our faith is irrational, it's that it's arational (as in it goes beyond reason).

 

[Coralie]

Re: rationality: I think when people refer to "rationalism" in a negative sense, they often actually mean "reductionism".

Reductionism isn't rationalism; in fact it's extremely irrational.

 

[Sphinx777]

In epistemology and in its modern sense, rationalism is "any view appealing to reason as a source of knowledge or justification" (Lacey 286). In more technical terms it is a method or a theory "in which the criterion of the truth is not sensory but intellectual and deductive" (Bourke 263). Different degrees of emphasis on this method or theory lead to a range of rationalist standpoints, from the moderate position "that reason has precedence over other ways of acquiring knowledge" to the more extreme position that reason is "the unique path to knowledge" (Audi 771). Given a pre-modern understanding of reason, "rationalism" is identical to philosophy, the Socratic life of inquiry, or the zetetic interpretation of authority (open to the underlying or essential cause of things as they appear to our sense of certainty). In recent decades, Leo Strauss sought to revive Classical Political Rationalism as a discipline that understands the task of reasoning, not as foundational, but as maieutic.

 

[Sphinx777]

Reductionism can either mean (a) an approach to understanding the nature of complex things by reducing them to the interactions of their parts, or to simpler or more fundamental things or (b) a philosophical position that a complex system is nothing but the sum of its parts, and that an account of it can be reduced to accounts of individual constituents. This can be said of objects, phenomena, explanations, theories, and meanings.

Reductionism strongly reflects a certain perspective on causality. In a reductionist framework, phenomena that can be explained completely in terms of relations between other more fundamental phenomena, are called epiphenomena. Often there is an implication that the epiphenomenon exerts no causal agency on the fundamental phenomena that explain it.

Reductionism does not preclude the existence of what might be called emergent phenomena, but it does imply the ability to understand those phenomena completely in terms of the processes from which they are composed. This reductionist understanding is very different from that usually implied by the term 'emergence', which typically intends that what emerges is more than the sum of the processes from which it emerges.

Religious reductionism generally consists of explaining religion by boiling it down to certain nonreligious causes. A few examples of reductionistic attempts to explain the presence of religion are: the view that religion, could be reduced to humanity’s conceptions of right and wrong; the belief that religion is fundamentally a primitive attempt at controlling our environments; or in the opinion of religion, as a way to explain the existence of a physical world. Typical religious reductionists are such theorists as Edward Burnett Tylor and James Frazer. Sigmund Freud's idea that religion is nothing more than an illusion, or even a mental illness, and the Marxist view that religion is "the sigh of the oppressed," providing only "the illusory happiness of the people," are two other influential reductionist explanations of religion.

There is a certain degree of reductionism in the social sciences, which often try to explain whole areas of social activity as mere subfields of their own field. As an example, Marxist economists often try to explain politics as subordinated to economy, and sociologists sometimes see economy and politics as mere sub-spheres of society.

 

[gzt]

Oh, I don't think so. I think a lot of people turn atheist between the ages of 16 and 23, no matter what their upbringing. A lot of people convert to something as a bump on the road in their path, while a lot of people just go straight for it. I don't know that people who start out as Orthodox become atheists at greater rates than Protestants or Catholics in that time period - all have pretty high attrition. It's probably the case that people who make one jump are more likely to make the other, especially when one controls for the reasons for jumping.

 

[Protoevangel]

I think there is a basic misunderstanding between what rationalism is as a philosophy, and "being rational".

Like Coralie said, "Reductionism isn't rationalism; in fact it's extremely irrational." But Rationalism itself is also not rational.

 

[Coralie]

I think there is a basic misunderstanding between what rationalism is as a philosophy, and "being rational".

Like Coralie said, "Reductionism isn't rationalism; in fact it's extremely irrational." But Rationalism itself is also not rational.

...this is true! "Rationalism" =/= "being rational".

 

[Nick T]

I think there is a basic misunderstanding between what rationalism is as a philosophy, and "being rational".

Like Coralie said, "Reductionism isn't rationalism; in fact it's extremely irrational." But Rationalism itself is also not rational.

Indeed! Not to mention that the "fathers" of Rationalism, both ancient (Plato) and modern (Descartes) found their religous beliefs greatly reinforced by their philosophical beliefs. In fact Descartes spent much of his time arguing for God against other philosophers.

If it's athiesm your worried about then its the British Empiricists (Locke, Hume ect.) you should look out for...

 

[27B6]

Regarding the relationship between reason and truth, one of my favorite sayings from a friend who is not Orthodox but has a deep appreciation for the intellectual tradition of thought in ancient Christianity, says:

"Something isn't true because it's rational; it's rational because its true."

 

[Andrew21091]

I'm just wondering if Orthodox, Catholics, Anglicans and other people from the "historic" branches of Christianity seem to lose faith more so than our Protestant/evangelical friends? That's the impression I get. Have any of you shared my thoughts?

Its really hard to say for certainty. I think all of them deal with people becoming atheists or converting to other faiths like Islam, Hindu etc. and I'm sure many atheists also become theists. Who knows?

I've had to deal with struggles of doubt and nihilism (looking back a few years ago, I had quite a nihilistic view on life) and that was after my conversion to Orthodoxy but those struggles were because I didn't really understand Orthodoxy. Its a complicated situation really. When I saw my brother become religious, I started to try hard to believe and it really didn't hit me until I was at my nephew's baptism that my heart was truly converted. I think when goes at Orthodoxy from a very scholarly point of view, many are bound to burn out. Orthodoxy was made real for me when I read the lives of the Saints such as St. Seraphim and St. John of San Francisco rather than from the tomes of theology I don't understand. People have different approaches. That is my experience. I know if I just confined myself to a scholarly approach, I would burn out and probably lose faith. What am I getting from it? I can read the writings of St. Isaac, St. John Chrysostom, St. Gregory Palamas, etc. in order to find maybe some philosophical proofs in order to feed my doubts that lie in the back of my mind but if I do it that way, I wouldn't get very far I don't think especially if I don't understand the works in context. If I read them in order to look for theological proofs and read those along with the lives of the Saints who lived holy lives and applied those theological readings to their lives then I can marvel at their actions and become strengthened in the faith through their actions.

I don't know if this makes any sense. For instance, I've read the Ladder by St. John Climacus three times. Am I an expert on it? Not at all. I don't understand most of it since its over my head. I don't just crack it open in order to understand it right away and honestly, I don't expect to. I do get something out of it however but if I approached it from a more scholarly view, I would open it and expect to understand it right away and when I don't, I get frustrated and have doubts about the teaching itself. A book like that was written to monks in order for them to put it into practice and it will not be understood until the works are put into practice and this takes many years. A scholarly mind seems to always expect the answers to be out there in the obvious open but this isn't so. The books themselves are just a collection of words and one cannot understand them until they dig under the words to be able to find the proper meaning, the buried treasure if you will.

 

[MichaelHelp]

Oh, I don't think so. I think a lot of people turn atheist between the ages of 16 and 23, no matter what their upbringing. A lot of people convert to something as a bump on the road in their path, while a lot of people just go straight for it. I don't know that people who start out as Orthodox become atheists at greater rates than Protestants or Catholics in that time period - all have pretty high attrition. It's probably the case that people who make one jump are more likely to make the other, especially when one controls for the reasons for jumping.

I think this is true. I was raised in a Lutheran Church and by my teenage years i didn't believe in God (agnostic) and this persisted until i was 24.

 

[Photini]

I think when goes at Orthodoxy from a very scholarly point of view, many are bound to burn out. Orthodoxy was made real for me when I read the lives of the Saints such as St. Seraphim and St. John of San Francisco rather than from the tomes of theology I don't understand..

This is true for me as well. Ultimately it was the witness of the Saints that drew me in and they also help me to stay put. When I feel doubts, I read a book or story of one of the Saints and it helps renew and strengthen my faith.

 

[rusmeister]

How many people have noticed that the OP has not posted beyond his first post over three days ago?
Or that sometimes people start a thread like this to watch fireworks?