My atheism is an informed choice

The Grauniad online has a bunch of articles about “Can we choose what we believe”.
This is a rather interesting question.

Especially if, like me, you believe you have little conscious choice in what you believe.
[That entire sentence, and most of this discussion, is a nightmare of circular language!]

I got to the question via PZ Myers blog post linking to the Grauniad article by Harriet Baber.

Like PZ Myers I find her lazy fall-back on the discredited and hackneyed Pascals Wager a little lame.
Her whole article boils down to single statement; “I am a christian because I want to be a christian”, which is pretty lame too.

Pascals Wager in my opinion primarily fails because it tries to reduce the potential answers to the question “Should I believe in god?” to only two options.
“Believe in a christian god” and “Do not believe in a christian god”.

This places the huge body of personal faith that has existed over human history, from belief in the fields of Aaru to the Summerland, in the “do not believe in a christian god” column.

This is plainly absurd.

It assigns greater credibility to the claims of afterlife in christian dogma than it does the claims of afterlife familiar to the likes of Herodotus.
A credibility it does not deserve.
They both, after all, have the same level of “evidence” to support their conflicting claims.

Taking into account all the other gods and personal faith beliefs of humanity since the dawn of recorded history makes Pascals Wager totally unusable as a determiner of faith to anyone who is not intellectually dishonest.
The Wager remains;
“Should I believe in god?”
But the options now become;
“Believe in a christian god… but no other gods”
“Believe in a babylonian god… but no other gods”
“Believe in a norse god… but no other gods”
“Believe in a zoroastrian god… but no other gods”
… etc.
and finally;
“Do not believe in any of the above gods”.

I naturally selected the last option as it is the most logical.

I solidified my atheist position wholly because I spent far too much time trying really hard to understand religion.

In my 20s I voraciously read any and all religious works that I could get my hands on.
The Quaran, various versions of the christian bible, the bhagavad gita, the pali discourses, the doa te jing, the confucian analects, various new-age mystical stuff, the, list, goes, on, trying hard to find any level of understanding of religious faith.
[Religious friends and relatives find my bookshelf confusing. God is not great sandwiched between the Quaran and the bible!]

When someone asks me; “Why are you an atheist?”, after all my usual sarcasm, cynicism and avoidant behaviour, comes a far more genuine answer of; “I just don’t get it!”

And I really don’t.

I look at religions and their claims and see nothing that substantively differentiates between xenu, jesus, mohammed, or jack.

They all make fantastical claims, that are all required to be taken on faith, and any evidence to support any of their claims is extremely shaky at best.

And yet people continue to place such personal faith in these “ideas”, that I cannot for the life of me understand, that they are willing to torture, kill, be tortured and die for them. [Can you see why I just don’t get religious faith with this sentence?]

There are, of course, some things that I would fight and die for.

But these are tangible things like “personal survival” and “loved ones” and not for just “ideas”, albeit evidence based ones, like Natural Selection.
[This is the reason there are atheists in foxholes!]

And so I get to the big question; “Do I choose to be an atheist?”


I do not feel that there is any conscious choice involved in my atheist position.
I do not feel that there is any conscious choice involved Harriet Baber’s religious position.

I think you either believe something or you don’t.

People can change their beliefs over time, but again I do not believe a change in theological position from believer to atheist is a conscious choice.

I personally feel that my atheism is more likely due to natural inquisitive behaviour and the experiences and education that followed from that.
But this is just, like, my opinion, man.

From when I was a toddler, trying to take apart the family television with a screwdriver, to the current day, I have a natural inquisitiveness that I feel probably predisposes me to rational thought and especially to skepticism.
I am not very happy with the answer “that is just how it is”, I want to know why and how.
This was, I feel, the reason for my concerted, but futile, attempts in my 20s to understand religious faith.
I wanted to understand the “why” and “how” of religious faith.
[Why are intelligent people religious? How can intelligent religious people justify this? etc.]

Religious faith seems to be secured by not being interested in finding out truth.
Being un-inquisitive, especially to the “why” and “how” questions of religious faith, seems to be the cement for religious faith.

Harriet Baber even states that she is not at all interested in “workaday truths”, she is content with her level of ignorance of “workaday truth”s, but I immediately looked on wikipedia for an article on the cat flea because she piqued my interest in them.
[And I have no cats and dislike insects!]

“Workaday truths” are very interesting to me even if they have no relation to my everyday life.
From the humble cat flea to space toilets, many subjects fill me with an inquisitiveness that is hard to sate. [Thankyou intarwubs!]

Of course, there are many religious people who are inquisitive, and I note that nothing about the human condition is exact or absolute, it is just that I have noticed the more inquisitive a person appears to be the more likely they are to be a skeptic, and by extension more likely to be an atheist.
[I also note that this could easily be a “confirmation bias”. I am not immune to normal human failings. I do not have any data on the Inquisitive behaviour and its relation to religious faith, or some such. It might be an interesting study.]

I will most probably continue to have the preternatural urge to google anything I hear about which I know nothing.

And I will most probably continue to be an atheist while religious faith is the antithesis of reason.

3 thoughts on “My atheism is an informed choice

  1. H. E. Baber says:

    All publicity is good publicity. I’m amazed, and pleased that anyone reads my stuff.

    I actually did read the Wikipedia article on the cat flea, which I found very interesting. And I am curious. But my point is that I am a complete, gung-ho unprincipled hedonist. I go for what gives me a buzz and ignore whatever I find either depressing or boring. I choose to be a Christian because I enjoy it–that is, I enjoy my version, which doesn’t involve any moral commitments. If I were living in another culture I’d be a Hindu, Buddhist or whatever. So what?


    • Patrick Kanne says:

      So what?

      Hows about it’s disingenuous? You (say you) believe in the Christian god. But immediately you state that this is solely based on your geographical location. And you don’t think your god would mind?
      The way you make it sound is like your religion is equal to a hype, a fad, you happened to came in contact with and liked. Or worse actually: it immediately transforms you from a human being in a simple cow, following the herd you happened to be born in.

      There’s nothing intellectual about your position and for you to call it the only LOGICAL position is just laughable. Logic is when you use your brain to filter out the best possible conclusion to an issue. Logic isn’t about taking things an face-value because “it just feel right”.

      As for Pascals wager, same as with the “so what”: if your god IS as omniscient as you think he is, don’t you think he’s on to you? Sees right through you? KNOWS that your believing in him is as false as the whole of your argument? If anything, it’s a ticket straight to your hell. He wants people to truly believe in HIM, take him to heart and love him with all the fibers of your being. He’s a jealous and vengeful God, he states so himself in your magic book. Your “So what?” just deprived you from a place at his side…

      Don’t worry though: hell is filled to the brim with cool people, it’ll be a blast going there…


      • Patrick Kanne says:

        what’s more: “I’m amazed, and pleased that anyone reads my stuff.”

        umm… so you say you write articles for the guardian fully expecting it to be ignored or not read? Wow, what an utterly, utterly useless position. Like to listen to the sound of your own voice much?


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s