Thursday, June 3, 2010

The Only Way Out of Atheism
(Pure Theism)
Shane Hayes

[My article Why People Become Atheists, which appears below, ended with this paragraph: “These objections to religion are heartfelt. We can’t dismiss them lightly. Even weightier arguments can be made. And there are strong counterarguments to vindicate belief. I will not give them here. Instead I’ll propose an alternative to all organized religion – yet one that organized religion should not object to. But if atheists don’t want to hear it, why bother?”]

The Downside of Atheism: Renouncing Hope

Because however heartfelt the aversion to religion is in many atheists, there is an occasional doubt. The sense that God may exist in spite of all their arguments and denunciations. Still more embarrassingly there is in many a recurring wish that he did exist, because, well… he wasn’t all bad. Atheism delivers us from restraints, inhibitions, and irritations. It does not deliver us from the frailties and vulnerabilities of the human condition. We are weak and mortal in a brutal universe. Whether there is a God or not, we need one. Without him we’ll perish – and most of us don’t want to.

Moreover we have a subliminal hunger that is felt if seldom recognized – a craving for something ineffably beautiful and good that we can seize and hold and never lose. We want to be happier than anything or anyone ever makes us. The Dream, in all its splendor, never comes true. Or at least never stays true. We must soon learn to love the dream without the splendor. Honeymoon becomes marriage. We must lower expectations and be content with the irksome and mundane, with small love moments, not the enveloping rapture we once tasted, or divorce will follow.

Art, romance, success, wealth, erotic adventure, fame for a few – all can be thrilling, but the thrill fades, the glories fade, we fade, and all will be taken from us, or we from it. The only possible satisfaction of our thirst for unfading love, bliss, and glory is God. So for every atheist who occasionally doubts the infallibility of his denials, and feels the tug of the transcendent, I propose… Pure Theism.

One Step Out of Atheism

Look anew at the question of God’s existence completely apart from the Bible, Judeo-Christian theology, and the theology of any organized religion. The doctrines and scriptures of Jews, Christians, and Muslims need have no bearing on the elemental question of whether a personal and loving God exists. If he does, we can conceive of him apart from all established theologies and scriptures. We can commune and build a relationship with him directly -- without intervention of a rabbi, priest, minister, or imam.

Though I have embraced an organized religion, I was a pure theist for years. For me it was the only way out of atheism. I began with the most simplified and essential concept of a supernatural being: One who created the universe, loves what he made, and follows with benevolent concern the fate of every human life. Not the God of Abraham, not the Trinitarian God we Christians believe in, not Jesus, the incarnate Son of God. That would have been too much for me – and I had said no to it again and again. Just God, a Supreme Being who cares about his human creatures and wants a relationship with them. The distance between No God and Just God, Pure Theism, is immeasurable. I was there for two years after atheism, before Christianity became possible for me.

Grasp the Essence

Pure Theism is a life-altering option that should be considered by anyone who cannot accept the images and stories of God – or onerous rules of conduct – that are embedded in established religions. I could not have emerged from atheism directly into any formal religion, so I don’t advocate that. Nor do I insist on Christianity as the destination for everyone who comes out of atheism. Organized religion is an option but not a requirement for a new believer.

Pure Theism can be the start of a journey, as it was for me – or a harbor where you cast anchor and build a home. Whether you move on or stay, you will not be cosmically alone, as you were before. When the divine penetrates the human, present and future are transformed. You see the world, yourself, and your destiny with a changed eye. You are freed from atheism’s demand that you suppress hope in its most luminous forms. Death, though still grim, is transitional. Life, though still hard, has a transcendent source of wisdom and strength – and a shining sequel.

[To be continued.]

15 comments:

  1. Shane, you said:
    "Whether there is a God or not, we need one. Without him we’ll perish – and most of us don’t want to."

    I partially buy that. However, the existence of a God does not guarantee that our consciousness will continue after we die. Without a God, there is no hope of continuance of consciousness after death. Since I have no way of knowing for sure, I am attempting to enjoy everyday since this may be my only chance. Now, instead of wasting a beautiful Sunday, I am out biking or hiking. I felt sad for a cloistered monk they interviewed on PBS a number of years back. He made the comment that if he is wrong and there is no God, then he has wasted his entire life.

    "I began with the most simplified and essential concept of a supernatural being: One who created the universe, loves what he made, and follows with benevolent concern the fate of every human life."

    One only has to look at what is going on in the world to find that the belief that, if a God exists, he is concerned with the fate of every human life is doubtful. There is a whole network of sexual slavery going on. There are so many natural disasters with numerous lives exterminated. Before science kicked in, huge populations were decimated by the Black Plague. Praying didn't really help, did it. Antibiotics and immunization shots have.

    You say that pure Theism is a journey. I think it is more a speculation since there is no clear indication that there is a God in the first place, and if there actually is one, we haven't the foggiest what this God is like, and what his purpose was for creating us in the first place. The best we can do is look at the facts and try to figure out whether or not a creator was required.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Shane,
    Check this out from the Pharyngula blog. It seems to rebut what you are saying. It is the latest post by this blog master.

    http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2010/06/sunday_sacrilege_imagine_no_he.php#more

    ReplyDelete
  3. Pure Theism? Sniff, sniff.... Hmmmmm, smells a lot like deism to me.

    Back in the heyday of deism, in the eighteenth century, deism wasn't viewed as the way out of atheism. It was viewed as the way out of theism. Theists often condemned it as "atheism." Indeed, etymologically it was not unreasonable to claim that that which was opposed to theism was "a-theism."

    Pope Benedict has announced that he wants to "renew dialogue with men and women who don't believe but want to move towards God" -- but not people like Richard Dawkins, who clearly DON'T want to move towards God. In a spirit of reciprocity, perhaps we atheists should be willing to renew dialogue with Catholics who want to move towards atheism (but not with those like Pope Benedict who obviously want no such thing).

    Allow me to suggest, Shane, that in your book you expand on your May 26th post about "Why People Become Atheists" and turn it into a full-fledged critique of theism. That would help the book appeal to Catholics of the "wanting to move toward atheism" stripe.

    ReplyDelete
  4. P. C., you say:

    “Pure Theism? Sniff, sniff.... Hmmmmm, smells a lot like deism to me.”

    I’m not sure what you’ve been sniffing, but it’s not my Pure Theism. Yes, there is a similarity: Deism is “philosophical belief in a god… without acceptance of the special information supposedly revealed in, for example, the Bible or Koran.” But there is a crucial difference: “… deism involves belief in a creator who has established the universe and its processes but DOES NOT RESPOND TO HUMAN PRAYER OR NEED…. The archetypal deist is Voltaire.” (Emphasis added.) Quotes are from The Oxford Guide to Philosophy.

    In my posting I said: “I was a pure theist for years. For me it was the only way out of atheism. I began with the most simplified and essential concept of a supernatural being: One who created the universe, LOVES WHAT HE MADE, AND FOLLOWS WITH BENEVOLENT CONCERN THE FATE OF EVERY HUMAN LIFE…. Just God, a Supreme Being who CARES ABOUT HIS HUMAN CREATURES AND WANTS A RELATIONSHIP WITH THEM.” (Emphasis added.)

    For a believer the difference between Pure Theism and deism is the difference between having a vital relationship with a God who loves you responds to prayer, and no relationship at all with a god who doesn’t. That is a life-altering distinction. I will enlarge on it in my next posting. Keep an open mind and don’t jam a new category into an old one.

    Shane

    ReplyDelete
  5. Wayne,

    You said: “The best we can do is look at the facts and try to figure out whether or not a creator was required.”

    Happily, Wayne, that is NOT the best we can do. We can decide that “the facts” we are capable of knowing will leave us in doubt if we pore over them for a hundred years. The best we can do is accept THE IMPOSSIBILITY OF KNOWING and TAKE A LEAP OF FAITH, which I began to describe in the above posting and will describe more fully in the next.

    Most of my readers have taken a leap of faith into atheism. I took one into Pure Theism (and then Christianity). That, I contend, is the best we can do.

    Spending your life trying “to figure out whether a creator was required” – and never embracing that creator in faith and love – is the moral equivalent of atheism. YOU HAVE TO TAKE A CHANCE ON BEING WRONG, WAYNE. Lifelong neutrality and indecision is simply ATHEISM WITHOUT CONVICTION. Better go one way or the other. But read my next posting before you decide.

    Shane

    ReplyDelete
  6. Shane:

    You underestimate the extent to which the position you advocate resembles deism. You write, quoting the Oxford Guide to Philosophy,"… deism involves belief in a creator who has established the universe and its processes but DOES NOT RESPOND TO HUMAN PRAYER OR NEED…." However, according to the web site of the World Union of Deists: "[Q.] Do Deists believe that God created the creation and the world and then just stepped back from it? [A.] Some Deists do and some believe God may intervene in human affairs." As for prayer: "[Q.] Do Deists pray? [A.] Only prayers of thanks and appreciation. We don't dictate to God." It is of course true that if they do not engage in petitionary prayer, deists could not expect to have petitions granted.

    The critical point that makes your position resemble deism is your rejection of "revealed religion." While you personally don't actually reject it, your argument is such that you all but invite your readers to do so if they are so inclined. You write, "The doctrines and scriptures of Jews, Christians, and Muslims need have no bearing on the elemental question of whether a personal and loving God exists. If he does, we can conceive of him apart from all established theologies and scriptures. We can commune and build a relationship with him directly -- without intervention of a rabbi, priest, minister, or imam." The World Union of Deists asserts, in very similar terms, "[Q.] If Deism teaches a belief in God, then what is the difference between Deism and the other religions like Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Buddhism, etc.? [A.] Deism is ... based on nature and reason, not 'revelation.' All the other religions (with the possible exception of Taoism, although superstition does play a role in both Buddhism and Taoism) make claim to special divine revelation or they have requisite 'holy' books. Deism has neither. In Deism there is no need for a preacher, priest or rabbi." The deist position here seems to be almost entirely identical to yours (that is to say, the position you have been advocating, not the one that you actually hold).

    As for whether deists regard or can regard God as a loving God, the World Union of Deists quotes Thomas Paine: "I consider myself in the hands of my Creator, and that He will dispose of me after this life consistently with His justice and goodness. I leave all these matters to Him, as my Creator and friend...."

    All in all, I would say that your position has more in common with deism than with theism. To call the position for which you advocate "Pure Deism" is, I think, likely to cause confusion among your readers.

    ReplyDelete
  7. P. Coyle,

    Your comment was well-informed, well-researched, articulate, and helpful. Pure Theism is closer to deism than I thought, but important distinctions remain. Answers.com gives this definition of deism:

    “The belief, based solely on reason, in a God who CREATED THE UNIVERSE AND THEN ABANDONED IT, assuming no control over life, exerting no influence on natural phenomena, and giving no supernatural revelation.” (Emphasis added.)

    Wikipedia says this: “But the theist taught that God remained actively interested in and operative in the world which he had made, whereas the Deist maintained that God endowed the world at creation with self-sustaining and self-acting powers and then ABANDONED IT to the operation of these powers acting as second causes.” (Emphasis added.)

    No doubt some modern deists will quarrel with those definitional statements. But I think God creating the universe and then, at least in some way, ABANDONING IT has been and remains the general understanding of the term and distinguishes it from my idea of Pure Theism.

    IN NO SENSE has the God I commend to my readers abandoned the universe or humankind. On the contrary he regards us with deep benevolent concern, and he is – like Michelangelo’s famous figure on the Sistine Chapel – extending his hand always toward unresponsive men who need only lift a finger to make the divine contact but fail to. The God of Pure Theism wants a love relationship with his human creatures but leaves them free to reject him. To those who clasp the divine hand he responds in subtle but transforming ways.

    Deists generally deny or regard with skepticism REVELATION CONTAINED IN BOOKS (Old Testament, New Testament, Koran) or supernatural manifestations such as miracles. Pure Theism takes no position on such things. It leaves the believer free to explore and accept them, to reject them, or simply to give them no thought. The door to organized religion is open. There is no pressure to walk through it -- nor any deterrent.

    Another posting on Pure Theism will follow, today or tomorrow.

    Shane

    ReplyDelete
  8. Shane:

    The characterization of deists as those who believed (or believe) that God "abandoned" the universe is a bit invidious. It seems to me that the position of those who held that God did not intervene in the natural world was based on the notion that he did not need to do so, because he got it right the first time and didn't need to tinker with thereafter to improve on his initial handiwork. When you look at it that way, such a deism would simply be the logical conclusion to be derived from the premise that there exists a God who is both omnipotent and omniscient. Such a God would surely have created a universe that would run just fine in automatic mode without the need for constant fiddling with the controls -- wouldn't he?

    But who knows. If one wants to play at the game of making up new theologies, one could posit that God intervened in nature 65 million years ago by sending an asteroid to wipe out the dinosours because he decided that, in the end, he didn't want a species of dinosaur to be the ones to end up with the immortal souls. The notion of Jesus as a crucified velociraptor does have a certain strange visual appeal, however.

    Incidentally, I want to comment on a question that you raised at the beginning of your previous post: "Would atheists regard it as heresy if I were to allege that most of them, like Christians and other theists, occasionally have doubts?" I don't hang out much in self-identified atheist circles, so I can't speak to whether "most" atheists occasionally have doubts about their atheism. I can only speak for myself and say that, as a matter of fact, I don't have such doubts.

    ReplyDelete
  9. P.coyle,
    Websters gives the definition of theism as the belief in the existence of one God vied as the creative source of the human race and the world who transcends yet is immanent in the world. Deism is belief that a God created everything but doesn't get involved with intervening in his creation. From what I see, Shane is a Theist since he believes God intervenes.

    Shane and p.coyly,
    I have been over the friendly atheist blog arguing that I feel that since there was nothing before the big bang,and that matter could not come from nothing since with nothing there cannot be a cause. Therefore, since we need a cause, I suggested that a creator or supernatural being was therefore required. Though most did not know how matter appeared from nothing, they still attacked my argument as being false. I kept asking for an alternative hypothesis but got none. Finally, p.s. gave me this site
    http://www.whyevolution.com/nothing.html

    Oh, oh, Shane, my argument that a creator or supernatural being was required in order to produce matter from nothing and was the only possible answer may not be correct. Quantum physics might hold the answer. Still, this Quantum physics argument seems even more wild than a saying a creator done it, but at least I finally got a possible alternative possibility. Check it out.

    http://www.whyevolution.com/nothing.html

    ReplyDelete
  10. Wayne:

    Different dictionaries will give different definitions of the words "theism" and "deism". My own desk dictionary gives a definition of "deism" that is consistent with the one you cite (belief in a God who created the universe but who does not intervene in it), but it is the second definition, not the first. As I noted above, the World Union of Deists sees the essential characteristics of deism to be the rejection of revelation and the rejection of the necessity for "preacher, priest, or rabbi," not the belief that God does not intervene in the world.

    Wikipedia defines deism as "a religious and philosophical belief that a supreme being created the universe, and that this (and religious truth in general) can be determined using reason and observation of the natural world alone, without the need for either faith or organized religion." Am I mistaken, or is that not precisely the claim that Shane has been presenting?

    You should note that, according to the standard model of the Big Bang theory, matter did not "come from nothing." Rather, it came from energy. The standard model asserts that in the first tiny fraction of a second after the Bang, the universe was too hot for matter of any kind to exist. All that existed was energy. The universe needed to cool down slightly in order for even subatomic particles to emerge from energy. You will, I presume, be familiar with Einstein's famous equation, E=mc2, which asserts the fundamental equivalence of matter and energy. When a nuclear bomb is detonated, matter is converted into energy. According to the Big Bang standard model, the reverse process occurred shortly after the Bang.

    ReplyDelete
  11. I really hate it when I need to correct myself. I had written:

    "Wikipedia defines deism as 'a religious and philosophical belief that a supreme being created the universe, and that this (and religious truth in general) can be determined using reason and observation of the natural world alone, without the need for either faith or organized religion.' Am I mistaken, or is that not precisely the claim that Shane has been presenting?"

    Well, yes, except for that "without the need for ... faith" bit. Shane argues that the universe itself is evidence for the existence of God (because the universe is complicated, and because -- or so the argument goes -- without God only simple stuff could exist). However, apparently the evidence is not sufficiently compelling for us to dispense with the "faith" part. Which is why, after all, Shane calls himself "the believing agnostic."

    ReplyDelete
  12. Shane, Part 1 of 2
    “Happily, Wayne, that is NOT the best we can do. We can decide that “the facts” we are capable of knowing will leave us in doubt if we pore over them for a hundred years. The best we can do is accept THE IMPOSSIBILITY OF KNOWING and TAKE A LEAP OF FAITH, which I began to describe in the above posting and will describe more fully in the next.”
    You are right, we have no facts that prove the existence of a God. You mention poring over them for a hundred years. Well, as time goes by and science gets more sophisticated, we are finding for natural answers to what we previously attributed to a God. We would say “nobody knows how such and such could have happened, therefore, it must be a God. Then science would discover a natural cause and the belief God did it would be replaced with a scientific answer. I am currently suggesting that it appears that a creator was necessary to start the universe and life, but science may someday show a natural cause. Someone on the friendly atheist blog mentioned that science has actually developed a form of life that can reproduce itself. So, who knows?
    “Most of my readers have taken a leap of faith into atheism. I took one into Pure Theism (and then Christianity).”
    I initially thought that about atheists taking a leap of faith, but after having discussions with them, I no longer am so sure about that. Isn’t it better to look for natural causes for our existence first before adding more complication of a creator that we know nothing about and can’t even prove exists? That said, I can still reason that we need a cause for the start of the universe and life and, in spite of the fact that I have no evidence, but to go further and say that, if this creator exists, that trying to determine if it requires anything from me is not worth speculating, and is merely an exercise in futility, especially since this creator has not made itself known. I’ve already explained that abundant evidence is available if you are only willing to open your mind that Christianity, etc, are man-made and not God inspired. Faith is nothing more than admitting that you don’t know but hoping it is so. It is more a mental state, but if you need that, then I see no harm in it. However, I do think there is harm when religion tries to force its philosophy in the science classroom, or decides to burn you at the stake, i.e., early Catholic Church, because you don’t believe as they do, even so far as putting you to death for stating that the earth goes around the sun instead of the other way around or stopping stem cell research even though it only involves the cloning of a petrie dish full of human stem cells. Some nonsense about a soul being in that small amount of cells, which has no brain or feeling of pain, but, as a result, an extremely promising treatment for those living now is being held hostage.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Shane, Part 2 of 2
    “Spending your life trying “to figure out whether a creator was required” – and never embracing that creator in faith and love – is the moral equivalent of atheism. YOU HAVE TO TAKE A CHANCE ON BEING WRONG, WAYNE. Lifelong neutrality and indecision is simply ATHEISM WITHOUT CONVICTION.”
    Whether or not a creator was required does not mean that this creator requires or even deserves worship. If a creator exists, it obviously does not wish to reveal its presence. If it did wish to be worshiped or acknowledged, it certainly would have the capability of letting us know. You can label it whatever you want. You make the label atheist sound like something negative, but actually it is just someone who recognizes that there is no proof for a God and it is better to look for scientific evidence first as to why things are as they are. Me, I think there is a possibility that a creator was required, but I admit that I do not know and I certainly do not have any evidence that I need to worship something I don’t even know exists. Remember, I said I was an agnostic first with leaning toward theism. You admit that you are a Christian first, but then you admit that you can’t prove the existence of God. Somehow, basing it on FAITH makes it sound more grandiose. Stating that I should embrace a God I don’t even know exists in love and faith seems a bit ludicrous. Besides, I’ve been there, done that already. When I started having questions, I could not get them from my minister or other religious sources. I, instead, got them from sources that discredited religion and gave me not the answers I was seeking, but correct ones none the less. I continue to study religion and science because I want to know the truth plus I find the subjects quite interesting and more exciting than reading a fictional story. Whether or not there is a God, religion has such an influence on the world, and, no, that doesn’t prove the existence of a God, only the desire for one.

    ReplyDelete
  14. P.Coyle,
    “Wikipedia defines deism as "a religious and philosophical belief that a supreme being created the universe, and that this (and religious truth in general) can be determined using reason and observation of the natural world alone, without the need for either faith or organized religion." Am I mistaken, or is that not precisely the claim that Shane has been presenting?”
    Deism is a God who created everything and doesn’t get involved in day to day affairs. Theism is a God who not only created everything but also gets involved in day to day affairs. That is what Shane believes and therefore he is a Theism.

    “You should note that, according to the standard model of the Big Bang theory, matter did not "come from nothing." Rather, it came from energy.”

    Not so. The big bang was the rapid expansion of extremely compacted matter which created space as it expanded.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Shane said: "Most of my readers have taken a leap of faith into atheism. I took one into Pure Theism (and then Christianity). That, I contend, is the best we can do."

    If this is the best we can do, you are in trouble. You are believing in a Christian document in which the majority of the Cardinals, during Constantine, believed Jesus was not born divine but later became so. You are believing in a religion which is still waiting thousands of years later for the return of Jesus, though he specifically stated that there would be some still alive when his Father arrived in glory in his Kingdom. If it had happened, we would not be having this discussion. Some would argue that Jesus said he didn't know the exact time. True, but he stated that it would happen in the life time of most people he was preaching to. Why do you think he was fervently preaching to the people that they must prepare for this Kingdom if it wasn't going to happen until long after their death? The answer was given by Jesus that it would happen in their life time. Therefore, I can only come to one conclusion, and that is that Jesus was simply another, of many, failed profits. So, your statement that choosing Christianity is the best we can do is quite dubious.

    ReplyDelete