On Thu, 12 Jun 1997 20:59:53 -0500, Glenn Morton wrote:
GM>I recently asked a bunch of atheists why they became atheists. I
>thought this might be of some interest to those on this list.
[...]
Thanks for posting this. I was once an atheist who became a theist, and
then a Christian, so my answers may be of benefit to some atheists.
I will re-arrange your answers under each question and suggest some
answers. I will number the respondents R1, R2, etc.
Feel free to forward my responses to the atheists concerned, and let
them know I would be happy to answer any further questions they might
have.
GM>1. How important were the problems between Genesis and Science to
>your decision to leave Christianity?
R1>It was one of two major reasons I left. As my awareness and
>understanding of science and the evidence became more sophisticated
>(I've always read many science books and magazines), the idea of a
>literal creation or flood myth, a la Genesis, became more and more
>ridiculous. The more I read Genesis, the more it seemed like myth to
>me. It simply doesn't mesh with what we know from the fossil record
>or the molecular evidence.
As other respondents noted, there is no necessity to interpret
Genesis 1-3 literally. Interestingly, if it is "myth" then there is
no reason why it should be be contrasted with "the fossil record or
the molecular evidence".
R1>The other major reason I left was that I was one of the few
>Christians I knew who actually read the entire Bible, and I just
>couldn't stomach the vindictive, genocidal god portrayed in the Old
>Testament. If that god exists, then this universe is absolutely
>absurd.
This is a one-sided caricature of the "god portrayed in the Old
Testament". The OT depicts God as a God of love as well as justice:
"the LORD, the compassionate and gracious God, slow to anger,
abounding in love and faithfulness, maintaining love to thousands,
and forgiving wickedness, rebellion and sin. Yet he does not leave
the guilty unpunished..." (Ex 34:6-7); "a forgiving God, gracious
and compassionate, slow to anger and abounding in love." (Neh 9:17).
Indeed, if God was not a God of holiness, righteousness and justice,
then indeed "this universe" *would* be "absolutely absurd"!
R1>A god who is willing to wipe out entire portions of his
>creation and to infinitely punish finite sins sounds more like a
>devil to me. I'm an optimist, so I like to think the universe makes
>sense.
If the Flood is a "myth", then God did not in fact "wipe out entire
portions of his creation", but instead gave us a simulation of what
He *could* have done as a just response to man's rebellion.
As for "infinitely punish finite sins", this assumes two things: 1.
that sins are "finite"; and 2. God will actually punish sin
"infinitely". Both assumptions are not certain. The underlying
image of Hell is of a rubbish dump where things decay forever. It
may well be that the punishment of hell destroy its inmates over a
long period of time until they no longer exist. The punishment of
Hell may well be regret at what one has missed out on.
R1>While I briefly considered a figurative interpretation of Genesis
>as a solution to my evidence-inspired doubts, it failed to address
>my second major concern with Christianity: the spitefulness of the
>OT god. I gradually concluded that Christianity, while it contains
>some uplifting and helpful elements, is, on the whole, a false
>belief system. I am now comfortably agnostic.
See above. R1 has rejected his own one-sided caricature of
"Christianity" for a Pollyanna-like optimism. Many really deep
thinkers (eg. Augustine, Pascal, Dostoevsky, C.S. Lewis, and
Muggeridge, etc) have concluded that in fact "Christianity" is the
only worldview that has a *realistic* assessment of mankind.
>2. If it wasn't this issue what issue was the most important?
R1>See above.
[...]
GM>1. How important were the problems between Genesis and
>Science to your decision to leave Christianity?
R2>Very. The main one. There were ancillary moral issues involved,
>such as the fate of those who had never heard the Gospel, and
>various bad behaviors of God in the Old Testament.
It is not certain that "those who had never heard the Gospel" are all
lost. I cannot locate the reference at present but some (if not
the majority) of theologians hold that those who never hear the
gospel, but believe in God and who try to live righteous lives, *may*
still be saved through Christ's atonement. The fundamental principle
is that whatever God does, it will be absolutely just: "Shall not
the Judge of all the earth do right?" (Gn 18:25). As for the
"various bad behaviors of God in the Old Testament", these were all,
without exception, a holy and patient God's just response to the
"various bad behaviors" of men.
GM>1. How important were the problems between Genesis and Science to
>your decision to leave Christianity?
R3>Coming from a fundamentalist background, these problems proved
>to me in a way that no other Biblical "problem" ever has that the
>Bible is not literally true. With this understanding came the
>gradual realization that all of the fundamentalist doctrines I'd
>been taught and believed were founded on false premises. This
>engendered a sense of betrayal, feelings of anger and confusion,
>and over time a perhaps somewhat irrational need to distance myself
>from Christian beliefs as much as possible, although I
>intellectually acknowledge the far more reasonable beliefs and
>approaches of the liberal forms of Christianity.
This is a pity. Christian fundamentalism may have a lot to answer
for! But it does not follow that because "fundamentalist doctrines"
may be "founded on false premises", that "Christian beliefs"
themselves are false, as R3 acknowledges.
R3>From there I've reached the present, abandoning all forms of
>religion and in some sense searching for god "from scratch". I
>don't know where I'll end up.
It doesn't sound to me that R3 qualifies as an "atheist". But
unfortunately, if he completely abandons the unique revealed religion
that is Christianity, for some vague "searching for god `from
scratch'", it is pretty certain "where" he wiIl "end up", namely
where he is now - "searching"!
[...]
GM>1. How important were the problems between Genesis and Science to
>your decision to leave Christianity?
R4>Only part of it.
It is interesting that the claimed "problems between Genesis and
Science" is not as important as it is often made out to be.
GM>2. If it wasn't this issue what issue was the most important?
R4>That, the atrocities in the Old Testament, the atrocities of more
>recent Christians, and the realization that there are more ways of
>being moral than being religious.
See above. This is a one-sided way of looking at the Bible and God.
The so called "atrocities in the Old Testament" (eg. the
extermination of the Canaanites), was the just judgment of a holy God
on an wicked and hostile people, whose continued existence would
prevent God's plan of saving the world through Israel and ultimately
Jesus and the Church.
R4>What really turned me into a non-Christian was going to a
>christian discussion group at university and finding out what weird
>things they believed and how they couldn't agree on any way of
>coming to a shared understanding.
One would need more details on what these "weird things" were. If
they were supernatural phenomena, eg. miracles, and the resurrection,
then indeed these might seem "weird" to a naturalist. I would
have thought the whole point of a "christian discussion group at
university" would be to explore different viewpoints. For all their
differences, there is a core of common beliefs among all (or at least
most) Christians.
R4>What's turned me into an anti- christian and indeed
>anti-religionist (I don't like any fundamentalists, christian,
>islamic, jewish, or Nichiren) is the fundamentalists on talk.origins
>- the combination of ignorance, aggression, and lies are really too
>much to take. I don't want any association with any organization
>that has space for behaviour like that. There's a few other things,
>but that's basically it.
I suppose about 1/100 millionth of all Christians alive today can be
found on "talk.origins" and even then I doubt that all of that tiny
subset of Christians can all be characterised as having a
"combination of ignorance, aggression, and lies". So, even if R4's
characterisations are accurate, he/she is blaming all Christianity
for the behaviour of a miniscule sub-set.
[...]
[...]
R5>Well, I'm not sure I would go so far as to call myself an atheist,
>but I was a fundamentalist Christian (Penticostal) for ten years
>(age 10-20), and then saw the light :-)
R5 seems to think that the choice is between either "a fundamentalist
Christian (Penticostal)" or agnosticism.
GM>1. How important were the problems between Genesis and Science to
>your decision to leave Christianity?
R5>Very. The thing that originally got me started was Asimov's study
>of the bible, which blew my (brainwashed) mind. Then, as I studied
>& learned more, things just spiralled out of control. It was a very
>enlightening experience, to say the least.
Anoher pity. This is another example of young Christians abandoning
a shallow, anti-intellectual fundamentalism, without ever
encountering deep Christian scholarship.
Asimov was an atheist, biochemist, novelist, so one can only imagine
what his "study of the bible was like! One wonders what scholarly
*Christian* "studies of the bible" R5 read?
[...]
R5>I have rambled way to long. In closing I want to say that I
>hadn't thought vary much about religion and I was content being a
>good person and a good biologist and found the discoveries of
>molecular biology stimulating and then suddenly I learn that some
>religious people are trying distort facts to fit their 'Truth' and
>what is more they insisted that everyone else believe their 'Truth'.
>
>This insistance on believing literally in Genisis at first struck me
>as humorous and eventually frieghtening. So I would say that if
>anything this whole 'creation' thing has served only to drive a
>wedge between my own beliefs and religion. Certainly the crack no
>matter how beniegn was already there.
R5 (I assume this is still R5?) seems to think that "believing
literally in Genisis" (sic) is the "whole 'creation' thing'". He
doesn't seem to be aware that Christian thinkers from at least
St. Augustine (354-430 AD), have acknowledged that Genesis does not
necessarily have to be taken "literally" (ie. 7 x 24-hour days, etc).
R5>3) In so far as I fear religious people I do not want you to give my
>name or address or phone number to any of them. I suppose it is
>really impossible to remain completely anon. on the net but pleas
>try.
Tell R5 (or whoever) that he need not "fear" me, if he wants to email
me. I am a nobody - I hold no Church office at present - and
moreover I live half a world away!
R5>[Note: This response while not coming from someone who believed
the >Bible, illuminates the difficulty of not having a workable
>harmonization between Science and Theology.---GRM]
Agreed. But before that "harmonization" one needs to be clear what is
exactly is "Science" and "Theology".
[...]
GM>1. How important were the problems between Genesis and Science to
>your decision to leave Christianity?
R6>Not at all. I never considered Genesis to be a literally true. I
>always considered it an allegory or even simply folklore.
Interesting. But this is the other extreme. "Genesis" is thought to
be either "literally true", or it is "an allegory or even simply
folklore". But there are many Christian theologians who believe that
Genesis 1 is unique and the most apt literary genre is saga, ie. real
history in symbolic form.
GM>2. If it wasn't this issue what issue was the most important?
R6>The realization that God is not necessary for the everyday
>workings of the universe; that 'lifeforce' is not necessary for
>life;
To assert that God is "not necessary for the everyday workings of the
universe", would presuppose that one know everything about "the
everyday workings of the universe"!
But OTOH there is no Christian doctrine that asserts that "God is...
necessary for the everyday workings of the universe", at least at the
level that science can study.
R6>the numerous internal inconsistencies in the bible (the parts
>of it I _didn't_ consider allegories or demented rambling
>(Revelations)).
I am pleased that R6 grants that "the parts" of the "bible" *he
considers* "allegories or demented rambling", do not have "internal
inconsistencies"! ;-) But while I do not rule out apriort that "the
bible" may have "internal inconsistencies", I would like to know if
R6 has read any scholarly books on those "internal inconsistencies".
R6>In short: my biology education put God out of work, or relegated
>him to the corners of the universe science has yet to reach, such as
>chaos. IMO it is a reasonable assumption to assume gods
>non-existance on the premise that he is not needed, and on the
>observation that his supposed role diminishes as science advances
>(from running the show completely as a ruler, to a creator having
>kicked off the universe 5B years ago and then kept away, or a
>manipulator hiding from us behind the concept of chaos).
Perhaps the real problem is that R6's superficial understanding
of both God and "biology" *appeared* to "put God out of work"?
R6>The problem with how god, being completely good and all-powerful,
>can allow evil in the world was never a problem for me; having had
>pets all my life I realized that a superior intelligence may have to
>do things which his subjects doesn't approve of, but which were
>necessary.
It is interesting how what one atheist thinks is a major problem,
another thinks is a non-problem. This indicates that their reasons
for giving up God and the Bible are subjective and not necessarily
grounded on objective reality. This is not however to trivialise
the reasons they give, which no doubt they *perceive* to be real for
them.
[...]
GM>1. How important were the problems between Genesis and Science to
>your decision to leave Christianity?
R7>it wasnt the contradiction since i never believed literalism
>anyhow. what DID make a difference was the fact that a substantial
>number of xtians believed in literalism. it seemed to be a dogma
>for the religion of many.
Even if "a substantial number of xtians believed in literalism", that
would not necessarily be a reason to reject Christianity. There are
many (even most) Christians (myself included) who don't "believe in
(Genesis 6-day young-Earth) literalism".
GM>2. If it wasn't this issue what issue was the most important?
R7>privacy. the right of individuals to have morals inconsistent with
>xtian morals.
Since the essence of "xtian morals" is "Love your neighbor as
yourself" (Mt 22:39), one wonders what these non-"xtian morals" are?
R8>I would consider myself an agnostic or a Deist. I no longer
>believe in the God of the Bible or Koran. Taoism and Buddhism make
>more religious sense to me and I am a secular humanist and for the
>most part subscribe to the ideas espoused in the first and second
>Humanist Manifestos.
What wonders how long "the ideas espoused in the first and second
Humanist Manifestos" last? One wonders what real hope they can
offer in the face of death? At the front of Gould's "Dinosaur in a
Haystack", he writes:
"For my only brother, Peter (1944-1994)
My dearest and constant companion May we someday, somewhere and
somehow live together in that two-family house of our lifelong
dreams."
(Gould S.J., "Dinosaur in a Haystack", 1995, p.v)
For all his brave atheistic and materialistic words, Gould seems to
wish that his own philsophy wasn't true. I have good news for him -
it isn't!
R8>Before I left the Church, I was a very involved Anglican. I was a
>member of the Vestry of our parish and seriously considered the
>Priesthood.
Sounds like my atheist internet friend Derek!
GM>1. How important were the problems between Genesis and Science to
>your decision to leave Christianity?
R8>Not very, the Anglican church generally has no theological problem
>with the theory of Evolution, nor science in general. A literal
>reading of the Genesis is considered foolish.
More evidence that the real problem is not "between Genesis and
Science".
GM>2. If it wasn't this issue what issue was the most important?
R8>The Nature of God, and the Divinity of Jesus Christ. I came to
>the conclusion that the Bible was at best a very limited and
>limiting approach to understanding God, and that it was a work of
>man, attempting to explain the spiritual side of existance.
Who would argue with the proposition that "the Bible" is "a work of
man, attempting to explain the spiritual side of existance"?
But I wonder where R8 gets his "understanding" of "God"? And why
should his "understanding" of "God" be better than that of Moses or
Isaiah or Paul?
R8>Over time I came to the conclusion that God, if such an entity
>exists, doesn't involve itself in the small stuff of the Universe,
>and that any purpose that such and entity might have is intrinsically
>unknowable by man.
How does R8 know God's purpose that He "doesn't involve itself in the
small stuff of the Universe" if His "purpose...is intrinsically
unknowable by man"?
R8>That the best we could do, was to enjoy its creation, be good
>stewards and be kind to one another.
And how does R8 know these purposes of God if God's "purpose...is
intrinsically unknowable by man"?
R8>I do not believe in a heaven or a hell, nor in the continued
>existance of self after death.
And how does R8 know this if God's "purpose...is intrinsically
unknowable by man"?
[...]
>GM>If the Bible is nothing but a nonhistorical set of nomad myths,
>which are objectively false, then why bother with christianity. To
>say everything in a document is historically false but the message
>in it is true, seems ludicrous to me. I would not apply such logic
>in my work.
There are a series of non sequiturs here:
1. ... the Bible is nothing but ...
2. ... a nonhistorical ...
3. ... set of nomad...
4. ... myths ..."
5. ... which are objectively false...
The "Bible" need not be "nothing but" "nonhistorical". It could
"nonhistorical" *and* true (eg. parables, poetry, etc).
The "Bible" could have been the product "nomads" but not be
"myths".
The "Bible" could contain "myths" yet these need not be "objectively
false".
R9>This is a reasonably good summary of why I am not a Christian.
>However, I don't believe that the Old Testament is completely
>nonhistorical. Rather, I am more convinced by the claim that it is
>a record of a race's attempts to deal with divine concepts, rather
>than a record of a race's actual relationship with a divine being.
Why does it have to be either "a race's attempts to deal with divine
concepts" or "a record of a race's actual relationship with a divine
being"?
GM>1. How important were the problems between Genesis and Science to
>your decision to leave Christianity?
R9>Not much. I left Christianity before I knew much of anything
>about either evolution or creationism.
More evidence that "the problems between Genesis and Science" are not
the main reasons behind atheists "decision to leave Christianity".
R9>The only real conflict that influenced me was between the claim
>of existence of God and the lack of evidence of the type of God
>claimed.
I wonder what "evidence" R9 would accept?
GM>2. If it wasn't this issue what issue was the most important?
R9>The main thing that drove me away was hypocrisy, particularly from
>those who claim to idealize love but showed bigotry towards
>non-Christians (and, in many cases, even to other Christians).
There is "hypocrisy" in the Church because no fallen human beings can
fully live up to God's standard of "idealized love". And Christians
are sometimes guilty of "bigotry towards non-Christians". But if the
whole Church was really this bad, I doubt that it would have survived
20 centuries.
R9>Also influential were logical inconsistencies, such as the
>all-loving God who tortures people for eternity, and the conflict
>mentioned above.
There is no necessary "logical inconsistency" between an "all-loving
God" and a "God who tortures people for eternity". If *sinful*
"people" reject that "all-loving God" then He being also a just God,
may be logically consistent in punishing those "people" for their
sins.
[...]
GM>1. How important were the problems between Genesis and Science to
>your decision to leave Christianity?
R10>Very. While my father was a liberal Christian pastor, the other
>folks teaching Sunday School were Fundamentalists, and they
>constantly harped on issues which I knew to be untrue. If I pointed
>any of them out, I was verbally abused and made to look stupid.
>Genesis was a huge problem because they insisted on literalist
>interpretations of it's passages.
>
>They eventually argued that I was disruptive for disagreeing with
>them, and had me removed from the classes. I was strongly affected
>by this experience; it was the first I'd had with people who claimed
>religious beliefs but clearly hated and discriminated against those
>who simply disagreed or were curious. I was taught to respect and
>love my opponents; they were taught to walk roughshod over their
>remains, apparently, in the Name of God.
>
>That's how they behaved.
Hmmm. One wonders what the "Sunday School" teachers' version of this
was? One also wonders what R10's "father" who was the "pastor" was
doing while this was going on?
GM>2. If it wasn't this issue what issue was the most important?
R10>You should see it by now. My father's career was cut short when
>he was assigned to a church which didn't want him. After he
>demanded the return of financial instruments owned by the church,
>but used by the controlling council to secure loans on houses and
>the like, he was accused of being mentally ill.
Sounds like a very sad story.
R10>Oh, funny, these were fundamentalists. He had several other
>power struggles in churches with various fundamentalists, several of
>which took the time to explain to me - around the age of 12 - 14,
>numerous times - that my father was evil, and such. These were the
>most Christian of the people in the church, the "wear-it-
>on-their-sleeve" kinds. Funny thing, what they wanted was control
>of the church.
Doesn't sound good, but without knowing all the circumstances I
cannot comment. No doubt these "fundamentalists", might see it
slightly differently?
>After noting this, I became very interested in other religions,
>and found them to be as plausible and sincere as . But
>only the professionals could be said to embody their religions - for
>most others, it was a pastime, not a sincere observance; or, it was
>an all-consuming power struggle. And many of the priests and rabbis
>were themselves wrapped up in disdain or prejudice.
All this shows is that followers of all "religions" are imperfect.
This of course is a central tenet of 'Christianity".
R10>So the main questions for me were: Why are so many Christians
>un-Christian? Why are other religions just as sincere, if they are
>wrong, and how can we choose?
In the end we must judge the truth of a "religion" by its evidence
and by its solution to the problem of salvation, not by its
followers.
[...]
R11>I'm not an atheist, but an apathetic agnostic ("don't know, don't
>care"), but...
GM>1. How important were the problems between Genesis and Science to
>your decision to leave Christianity?
R11>The general lack of knowledge of science, philosophy (from the likes
>of Schaffer and Guinness) and history were major factors in my
>rejection of evangelical conservative thought.
Interesting. I wonder what particular items of "lack of knowledge of
science" and "philosophy" by "Schaffer and Guinness" led to R11's
"rejection of evangelical conservative thought"?
GM>2. If it wasn't this issue what issue was the most important?
R11>Among other things, the complete timewarp of culture - the idea
>that one had to be living as though the Depression had never ended
>(this was a Baptist church, and later an evangelical Anglican one).
>There were also the ethical issues and moral questions associated
>with those who were able to denigrate others while living very
>comfortable lives, thank you.
I am not sure what R11 means by "living as though the Depression had
never ended". Of course while some Christians "denigrate others
while living very comfortable lives" not all (oe even most) do.
R11>It is onerous to require that a single issue can overturn a
>deeply held and complex view of life. If there had not been an
>antiscience attitude amongst evangelicals, then there may have been
>a more pro-intellectual attitude (rule out science and you rule out
>a lot of intellectual life), and so I may have been able to find a
>place in that movement.
The reasons behind any "antiscience attitude amongst evangelicals" is
complex. But the major factor must be the anti-theistic materialism
and naturalism that Darwin and his followers promoted.
R11>Once the issue was thrown up for reconsideration, for reasons
>that are still quite personal, I was unable to re-enter that
>hermeneutic circle, and with the attitudes within it, I had no
>reason to want to.
Without knowing what these "personal" reasons were, I cannot comment.
[...]
R11>A final point. If I were on the verge of acceptance, the
>antiscience attitude of evangelicalism (and most forms of catholic
>Christianity, excluding perhaps Orthodoxy) would definitely deter
>me. Any faith that cannot live in the world as it is, is defective,
>and not to be considered by a rational thinker, on pain of
>self-contradiction.
The fact that "evangelicalism" may currently exhibit an "antiscience
attitude" is not necessarily a valid reason to reject Christianity.
And there is no reason in principle why followers of "Christianity"
"cannot live in the world as it is", be "rational thinkers" and not
commit "self-contradiction".
[...]
GM>1. How important were the problems between Genesis and Science to
>your decision to leave Christianity?
R12>No impact whatsoever.
GM>2. If it wasn't this issue what issue was the most important?
R12>The historicity or otherwise of various gospel stories; and most
>significantly the resurrection;
There is no problem with "The historicity" of the "gospel stories"
and "the resurrection". This always has been the *strong point* of
Christianity. If the "gospel stories" and "the resurrection" of
Jesus Christ were not historical, then Christianity would never have
got off the ground. It would have been too easy for its many
opponents at the time to discredit it by contradicting the apostles
historical claims which formed the core of the gospel.
R12>and the discovery that Jewish interpretations of the the old
>testament were mostly more reasonable than Christian
>interpretations.
This seems strange. The first generation of Christians *were*
"Jewish" and their preaching (which largely forms the New Testament)
was to "Jewish" audiences!
GM>One final example, a man who is not a bigwig in the skeptics
>organization, is a former Christian who could not find any preacher
>or youth director who could answer his questions about Genesis.
One wonders what his "questions about Genesis" were? And one wonders
which "preacher(s) or youth director(s)" he asked. And finally, why
ask a "preacher or youth directors"? Why not ask a *theologian*?
GM>He finally figured that the Bible wasn't true and is now an
>atheist actively working at undermining the faith of others.
I really cannot understand why an "atheist" actively works "at
undermining the faith of others". If there is no God or overall
purpose and our thoughts are just projections of matter, then
why bother?
GM>This guy is a friend of mine and reviewed my book prior to my
>publishing it. He was quite helpful to me. But according to him,
>the main reason he left the faith was because of the problems
>between science and the Bible.
On the basis of these responses, he seems to be the exception to the
rule.
God bless.
Steve
-------------------------------------------------------------------
| Stephen E (Steve) Jones ,--_|\ sejones@ibm.net |
| 3 Hawker Avenue / Oz \ Steve.Jones@health.wa.gov.au |
| Warwick 6024 ->*_,--\_/ Phone +61 8 9448 7439 (These are |
| Perth, West Australia v my opinions, not my employer's) |
-------------------------------------------------------------------