You come across a huge number of people who say that they are much happier and that their lives have turned round now that they believe in God – I’ve just read about one this morning. I cannot remember ever meeting anyone who said that they were much happier and that their lives were going swimmingly now that they had lost their faith and become an atheist.
Which is not to say that people do not lose their faith and still have successful lives. They never, however, make the causal connection between the loss of faith and the subsequent success, a causal connection that those who have found a faith, or rediscovered their old faith, make between their faith and their happiness. Why is that?
9 comments
Comments feed for this article
January 27, 2008 at 12:03 pm
ismini
When one of my atheist friend’s realised that faith & religion was very important to me she
asked my in suprise: “But why? you always seem so strong” and my answer was “that is exactly
why”. Faith gives me that strenght.
January 28, 2008 at 8:48 am
adifferentvoice
Ismini, it’s interesting, isn’t it, that many people see having faith as a weakness, that being strong means managing by yourself. I suppose many people also see needing anyone as a weakness, and God is included in that. Perhaps it all comes down to daring to be vulnerable again, and trust. Which is difficult if people close to you have let you down.
January 29, 2008 at 12:06 am
Jon McKenzie
You haven’t read very many atheistic blogs, I don’t think. There are tons of blogs detailing peoples’ disillusionment with religion and the freedom they feel once they’ve lost it. There are also a ton of blogs detailing the religious indoctrination (scary hell talk, specifically) which ruined their childhoods, and how in finally undermining that indoctrination they were able to find peace.
The reason there are more theistic blogs than atheistic blogs is quite simply. Eighty percent or more of the United States believes in a god of some sort. Which means that, by sheer numbers alone, there will be more Christian or theistic blogs than atheistic ones.
January 29, 2008 at 2:39 pm
adifferentvoice
Ah, Jon. First, thank you for commenting. Secondly, I doubt anything I ever say will change your mind. Thirdly, yes, I know what you mean … about religious ideas acquired in childhood and how liberating it is to cast those off. Often it was because the ideas peddled were simplistic understandings of Old Testament instructions that I wanted to rebel against, like “Turn the other cheek” or “Honour thy father and mother”. I agree with you that the idea of God as a wrathful, vengeful god intent on burning small children in hell for their sins is a miserable way to represent him/her.
It was just a throw away thought, on the one hand, but it was not an impression gained from blog-reading since I read relatively few and even fewer where the blogger professes a belief in God. I was referring to the instances of people who had endured great trials, discovering in the middle of, or after those trials, a faith that fills them with peace. I wasn’t aware of too many people in similar horrible circumstances sighing “Ah, I am so glad there is no God” or saying “my atheism got me through”.
I go to a weekly philosophy class which contains several atheists/materialists/Dawkins disciples. But in truth, I do not understand atheists. Their position is that there is no God, and that those who belief in one are stupid. But how does the atheist know that? His atheism is, like his friend’s religious faith, a belief.
January 30, 2008 at 5:35 pm
Jon McKenzie
That’s exactly why religions are so popular, and atheism is not. Religions provide the ultimate comfort, and to believers that’s intoxicating. Religions have almost nothing to do with the actual contents of the specific beliefs. They’re all about feeling like you have purpose, feeling loved, attaining deep camaraderie, attaining comfort. Atheists simply recognize that you can’t believe something just because it’s comforting to believe it. They also recognize that it is other humans which are the source of purpose, love, camaraderie, and comfort. Gods don’t make people happy, other people do.
I can’t speak for all atheists, but my position isn’t that there are no gods. My position is that there’s no evidence for gods, let alone any one specific god (which is actually the position Dawkins takes in his books, despite what your classmates may say). These are different things. The first is a statement of absolute certainty. The second is not. The second merely asks, “Why believe something which has only anecdotal evidence at best?”
January 30, 2008 at 6:27 pm
adifferentvoice
Jon, taking both parts of your reply together, you seem to be saying that (freely chosen) religion makes you happy, but that the evidence that its claims are true is at best only anecdotal and that on that basis it is better to believe that it isn’t true, and to depend on other’s for your happiness.
Correct me if I have twisted your words.
I’m not sure if believing is a choice, or a gift, and I’m not even sure where I stand, but I’d counsel against the wisdom of looking to others to make you happy. They may, and my family and friends certainly contribute exponentially to my happiness, but people can also make you more miserable than you imagined possible. I think it may be better to find a happiness that does not depend entirely upon those that you surround yourself with.
After all that, it doesn’t sound as if you are an atheist. More of an agnostic. That seems to me to be a much more honest position, especially if you continue searching for something you can believe in, whatever that may be. I would take issue with your summary of Dawkins’ position: I think he says that there is no evidence that religion is true, therefore it is not true. And I have read his book.
January 30, 2008 at 11:01 pm
trevorthelockeeper
There isn’t enough room for my thoughts on this subject. But..
Why can’t a person divorce the reality of God from religion? To quote Rev Lionel Blue, ‘there’s nothing that keeps people from God like religion’. Rules n regs, bells n smells, purgatorial threats by rote and ceremony. If human aspiration were spiritual, then we are aspiring away from the jungle and the animal in us. At the risk of upsetting anyone, where is the correllation between the daily life and words of Jesus, and your average bish? Where did all the accumulated wealth come from? I get a bit hot under the collar when people get turned away from contemplating higher things because of a historic tribal system based on social control and greed.
If anyone can explain to me why they believe in God, then they believe in a different God to me. I can’t explain it, I just instinctively do. So I now just wallow in the enjoyment of daily evidence, good and (so called) bad. We are babes in a kresh when it comes to the spiritual and practical realities of creation. We will know one day, but that time is far away. Mind you, I think ‘Journey of Souls’ by Michael Newton (and sequel), should be (legally) compulsory reading.
Erm…sorry to butt in.
Trevor T L
January 31, 2008 at 2:00 am
Jon McKenzie
Well, the word “agnostic” means “without knowledge of”. You could take that two ways. If you mean agnostic in the sense that I don’t think there’s compelling evidence either way, then no, I’m not an agnostic. If you mean agnostic in the sense that I don’t have absolute conviction, then yes, I suppose I am. I prefer the term atheist because that’s what I’m closest to.
Then you’ll remember the scale he uses to classify various forms of belief. He classifies himself as a 6 on a scale from 1 to 7, with 7 being absolutely sure that no god exists, and 1 being absolutely sure that a god does exist. He calls himself a “technical agnostic” or something of that sort. I don’t have the book with me, so I can’t cite the page number for you.
There’s also a difference between saying that no religions are true and saying that gods don’t exist, which might be confusing this discussion.
Doesn’t science contemplate higher things? Cosmology, consciousness, the very small and the very large. I have a sense, though, that you mean “higher things” in some New Age sense. Perhaps you’re being too vague about that phrase, “higher things”.
January 31, 2008 at 8:52 am
Margaret
Trevor, please feel free. I agree with this: “If anyone can explain to me why they believe in God, then they believe in a different God to me.”
Which is why, Jon, very respectfully, I don’t think exchanges here on on your own blog will get you where you are trying to go. God is found in unexpected places, in dark horrible places, and in sublimely beautiful places and in the very ordinary lives of people who believe and choose to live their lives accordingly. I cannot find the Dawkins book (I’ve looked, and know where it must be) and cannot remember the classification you describe, but am sure you have remembered correctly. I’ll find the book and have a look.
In the meantime, I’ve very much enjoyed reading this small book: The Dawkins Letters, Challenging Atheist Myths, by David Robertson. http://www.amazon.co.uk/Dawkins-Letters-Challenging-Atheist-Myths/dp/1845502612/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=gateway&qid=1201769284&sr=8-1
I’m going to write a post on it some day, but the author doesn’t like my favourite Christian writer, Richard Holloway, and I’m presently finding out why …
I’m also taking a philosophy class this term in consciousness, based around this new book: Arguing About the Mind, edited by Brie Gertler and Lawrence Shapiro [http://www.cognitivepsychologyarena.com/books/Arguing-About-the-Mind-isbn9780415771627].
If you can get over an academic being named after a French cheese, it is very accessible and includes pieces from materialists to mysterions. More on that too, if I have time.