“Do I believe in God?” I ask myself this question several times a week– sometimes several times a day. It can be easy to forget the answer, when I’m caught in the moment in the atmosphere of Christianity. Like when I’m at all-school communion. Or when I’m reading a particularly well-written work of C.S. Lewis’ (currently reading The Four Loves). Or even sometimes when I read the bible (which I don’t do often, but sometimes it can’t be avoided). But the easiest way to forget the answer is by assuming you already know what it is.
For me, the question of which ideology or worldview I “follow” is something that I choose every day. I don’t want to get so caught up in being an atheist that I forget whether or not I am an atheist. I’m not committed to atheism, I’m committed to following what I think is the truth. I’m constantly re-evaluating the truth, and I’m constantly choosing atheism.
On the other hand, I saw Christianity as more of a commitment than a choice. Commitment is also something you can renew every day, but the actual question of “do I believe in God?” or “do I want to follow Christ?” was something I only asked myself occasionally. When I did ask myself that question, and answered in the affirmative, I made a commitment to live by it. For example, my decision to attend Wheaton was a result of a commitment to Christ. It was the first time in my life when I asked myself, “is Christianity really something that I want to follow for the rest of my life?” It was the first time I considered Christianity in the long-term, as more than something that I adopted from others or something that I was just trying on for size. I decided then that the answer was yes, I decided to take responsibility for my life as a Christian, I made a commitment to follow Christ for the rest of my life, and I decided to come to a Christian college to learn to better understand and carry out that commitment. That was not the last time I chose Christ before my answer started to change, but that’s ancient history.
The whole structure of Christianity, of being a Christian, demands commitment. I don’t see it being any other way. There is nothing about atheism that should demand commitment, and I would be very uncomfortable if it did. I don’t think there’s anything wrong with commitment. I think the worst possible thing is having neither commitment nor belief, but following something anyway.
I’ve been calling myself an atheist for over six months. During those six months, I’ve asked myself almost every day whether I believe in God– and really thought about the answer. I’m an atheist today, and I will probably be an atheist tomorrow. But I’ll probably ask myself again tomorrow, just to make sure.
“I’m not committed to atheism, I’m committed to following what I think is the truth. I’m constantly re-evaluating the truth, and I’m constantly choosing atheism.”
I’m telling you, you are probably a Secular Humanist or at least a freethinker 🙂 Those may be better identities than atheist. They think on a higher level of magnitude than the mere atheist/theist debate. They aren’t about *what* you believe but rather *how* you evaluate what to believe.
“There is nothing about atheism that should demand commitment, and I would be very uncomfortable if it did.”
But there is nothing in bare atheism against commitment either. The Soviets demanded commitment to the Soviet cause which was inherently atheistic. So atheism does not protect you from commitment either. For that, you need a higher order of thinking. You need a philosophy that says “I follow the evidence and think critically then believe what that process reveals to me” not one that says “I do/don’t believe in God”. That belief system is freethinking / Secular Humanism.
I’m not telling you this to be forceful or jam my beliefs down your throat. I’m just trying to possibly save you some time. I spent probably two years expounding on ideas like you are, laying a framework for a new belief system that wasn’t just atheism but necessarily lead to atheism. Only to find out that I had reinvented the wheel. And the wheel is Secular Humanism.
“I’m an atheist today, and I will probably be an atheist tomorrow. But I’ll probably ask myself again tomorrow, just to make sure.”
I know I may be beating a dead horse but I just want to make sure it’s dead. This is evidence-based reasoning. It is at the root of Secular Humanism:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secular_humanism#Tenets
In short, I’ve been exactly where you are (leaving Christianity, trying to figure out my beliefs) and it wasn’t that long ago (about 4 years). I do think it is incredibly important to find your own path. But hopefully this philosophy will provide you with a location that you may want to come back to someday.
Best wishes,
Chris
Thanks, Chris. I haven’t read much into secular humanism or anything related, mostly because of an extreme aversion to labels. But maybe I’ll check it out.
Right, right. Which is definitely a legitimate concern.
I guess my primary point is that you have to use some kind of label as a rough summary of what you are doing with your philosophical life. And Secular Humanism seems to be a more accurate label for what you are doing than just Atheism on its own.
Because there is a specific method by which you are going about this; it is the same method used by countless modern atheists. And it has to do with much more than just not believing in God. It has to do with positively believing evidence, thinking critically, and being willing to change your beliefs upon encountering new evidence.
There are several groups that are willing to do this (e.g. UUs, freethinkers, the Church of Reality) but, in my experience, none are more organized and singularly committed to the loyalty to evidence than the Secular Humanists.
Nice to hear from you personally! I’m honored 🙂 You’ve gained quite a bit of fame in these parts.
Chris
“The whole structure of Christianity, of being a Christian, demands commitment. I don’t see it being any other way.”
In response to your categorization of Christianity as a commitment rather than a choice: It has never been that way for me.
Perhaps you were referring mainly to Christians who have belonged to a church, etc. all their lives, for which that description can often be fairly assumed true.
Myself, I question my convictions frequently, and I have changed my mind a few times, finding that agnosticism, Secular Humanism, and even atheism made more sense to me.
Still, I am a Christian today, and have been for several years, and my faith is stronger from the testing. When I question the accuracy of the Bible, or whether God exists, and all the evidence points to the affirmative, I never find myself thinking, “I never should have doubted.”. Instead, I am glad that I am on the right path, the one I chose for myself, rather that being led blindly on by the beliefs of my family or spiritual leaders.
So I must ask you not to make broad statements affecting all Christians, even though you have been one. You have not been all Christians in all situations, and you cannot speak for all of us. There are others like me, and we certainly are an exception to the “commitment vs choice” generalization.
On a more personal note…
I do see a similarity between the way we both make our decisions about faith, or the lack thereof. However, not everyone makes the same decisions as you, no matter how correct you consider them. I will not be arrogant enough to assume that everyone would make the same decisions about God as I have, given a choice. Your story is the perfect example.
I am, however, curious as to your reaction to the same proofs that convinced me in my past decisions. Do you, for instance, take an apologetics class at Wheaton? What keeps you from agreeing with the conclusions that your professor makes? Have you read both the background sources AND the responses to More Evidence that Demands a Verdict by Josh McDowell (the best modern book of apologetics I have found; surely it’s in your reading material)? Where did you find a fault? Also, you said yourself that you don’t read the Bible often, but isn’t the Bible purported to be the only sure way to know God? How can you abandon something entirely when you only know it partially?
Also, I ask you to please continue your questioning until you have become completely convinced by the weight of evidence. I don’t think anyone can even call themselves atheists (or Christians, for that matter!) until they have questioned every aspect of their belief system, and found it to hold strong! Instead, they can call themselves what they really are: I-don’t-really-knows, Questioners, or true-truth-seekers.
I can only ask you to do these things because of what I’ve found from my own experience, which is that it’s best to be assured in what you believe. When you are finally assured, you aren’t affected by the comments of people who want to bring you to their way of thinking without being completely convinced themselves.
It’s dangerous to set yourself up as someone who knows the truth or even what’s true “for you”, because you will attract a following of people who think they’ve finally found someone who knows the answers.
If you can find any good books (with full notes and sources, like More Evidence, if possible) on the subject of objective evidence about faith, I’d love to hear about them in a later post! Also, if I’ve unintentionally written something offensive, I’d like to hear about it, too. It can be so hard to write honestly without sounding arrogant, or worse, ignorant!
Thanks for the blog; it’s great to share such different views like human beings!
In categorizing Christianity as more commitment than choice, what I mean is that it requires some allegiance even if you’re doubting or not “feeling” God. I certainly experienced that and every Christian that I’ve known has also had some days when they wake up and God doesn’t feel real to them, or something else causes them to momentarily question the existence of a good God– but they keep reading the Bible, praying, going to church, because they’ve made a commitment to something that is based on more than just momentary perceptions. I don’t think Christianity would work as well if, every time a Christian doubted, they called themselves an atheist for the time being. If you do truly believe in Christ every day, that’s great, and pretty rare. I don’t think it’s in any way disparaging Christianity to say that Christian faith is sometimes based on faith or “knowing” that God is present, even if all evidence is to the contrary.
I probably have not read all the books you have, and you probably have not read all the books I have. It would be impossible for me to read everything that has convinced every Christian in the world, nor would I want to, because although I do still read a lot of Christian material, I generally try to read more things that I agree with than things that I don’t– just for personal sanity’s sake. I don’t read the bible often anymore because I’ve been an atheist for awhile and I no longer to find it necessary to daily read something that I don’t believe in. When I was a Christian, I read the bible very often, for many years, so I feel I still remember enough of it not to consult it all the time– but I do consult it occasionally. You probably don’t feel the need to consult atheist books every day either, but that’s just a guess.
“I guess my primary point is that you have to use some kind of label as a rough summary of what you are doing with your philosophical life.”
Chris, You may “have to” use a label to define your beliefs, but there many people who don’t need to label their beliefs. I’m happy being an atheist, I don’t need any further labels or groups to be a part of.
I second HappyNat’s point about not needing labels. Labels are easy, the provide simple classification during introdcutions, but I don’t see them as being necessary, and often not even beneficial in conversations/relationships. Atheism, theism, Christian, Jewish, American, British, agnostic are all exterior labels we use for each someone else’s mode of being but those labels are never fully accurate (and often not accurate at all) but we use them out of ease, not necessity. Or at least that’s how it strikes me…
Ultimately, no, I do not think labels are useful in every day situations. There are very specific circumstances in which they are useful. But let me clarify that when I am not in those circumstances, I don’t use labels. Just as you two don’t and most people don’t.
Here is a specific circumstance in which labels will be placed and if you use the wrong label, you will describe yourself less accurately than if you had the right label:
Someone asks: “What religion/worldview are you?”
If you say: “I don’t believe in religion”, you are likely to come off as having no strong beliefs and no real purpose for your life. Which, for most people, is far from the truth.
If you say: “I am an atheist”, you tell people nothing more than “I don’t believe in God”. Well what kind of worldview is that, really? I don’t believe in unicorns. Does that really say much about who I am?
If you say: “I am a secular humanist”, at least people know you believe in the pursuit of evidence, the pursuit of world peace, the right of all people to question all things, etc. It provides more information.
I guess what bugs me about this criticism (that I often receive) is that people are criticizing me for using a label when they are using labels themselves. How else would we be able to distinguish LeavingEden from other people at Wheaton? Did we not all see the headline “An undercover *atheist* at a Christian college”? That’s a label: atheist.
What I am saying is that if you are going to use a label, you might as well use the most accurate one. LeavingEden isn’t a Russian Communist and he isn’t an angsty teen who thinks it is cool not to believe in God. He is someone who came to atheism by the careful evaluation of evidence and every day leaves himself open to changing to something else based on evidence. That type of person is better described as a freethinker or a Secular Humanist.
Just let me ask you: what is more important about LeavingEden? The fact that he *doesn’t* believe in God? Or the fact that he *does* believe in evidence?
I think you will agree that it is the latter. And I think the label one uses for themselves should reflect that.
Just to beat this into the ground, let me give an analogy. Lets say that I am someone who measures data and produces elaborate, increasingly accurate theories about the physical world. By the process of applying these techniques, I discover that there very likely is no aether necessary for light to travel through a vacuum. What should you call me? A non-aetherist? Or a Physicist? I think you should call me a Physicist. Because what I do is Physics. Discovering that there is no aether was just a side-effect of that primary practice.
It is the same with this. What I do is follow evidence. Discovering that there likely is no God was just a side-effect.
Chris
God.. correction
“By the process of applying these techniques, I discover that there very likely is no aether necessary for light to travel through a vacuum.”
scratch the “through a vacuum part”. Obviously it wouldn’t be a vacuum if there was aether in it. In short: I discover that there is no aether and it is just a vacuum out there.
Wow, that’s quite the response for two short posts that just pointed out that you don’t need labels in order to exist in society. And while I don’t want to beat this dead horse any further, I’ll add in one final thing. That being it’s also worth noting that calling yourself something doesn’t mean it will invoke the desired reaction in other people or that they will have an appropriate frame of reference for you label. For example, if I were the one asking the (rather silly) question of “what is your religion/worldview?” to Chris and he responded, “I’m a secular humanist” I don’t really know what that means (and I don’t think I’m alone there). The most concrete thing I’d say is that the responder(Chris) is someone who has obviously thought of an answer to this question before hand, and that you somehow related to advancing a secular state… whatever you happen to picture that to be. However, neither of those observations tell me much about your worldview and none of them match up with the catalogue of aspects Chris notes.
I’m also sure that admitting I don’t really know what a secular humanist is breaks some kind of code for polite conversation, but well… there you go 🙂
P.S. Chris, sorry to refer to your comments in the third person, rather than the second, but I started out my response in the general tense and now am simply too lazy to go back through and fix that. Forgive me for that, no offence intended.
And further apologies for helping the conversation stray from it’s original point and direction.
No offense taken.
“[we] just pointed out that you don’t need labels in order to exist in society”
That’s the thing, though. Without the label “atheist” for LeavingEden and its contrast with the label “Christian” in the title of his blog (“an undercover atheist at a christian college”), none of us would even be here. So obviously these labels helped to give us a starting point for understanding LeavingEden. They gave us initial anchors for relating who LeavingEden is to who we are. How could we have gotten here without those labels?
And if you are curious what a Secular Humanist is, I put a link to the tenants in my first comment.
I applaud you in your journey. To remain a part of a community like Wheaton, and truly seek the truth, as you are, cannot be an easy task (btw, I just discovered your site today, so I’m not sure about all your back-history and such).
I want to probe something a bit: you say, “I’m not committed to atheism, I’m committed to following what I think is the truth.” You then (I think rightly) describe Christianity as more commitment than choice. As you lay out the options, are these two ideas — commitment and choice — really all that different?
Here’s what I mean: You begin your statement by saying you are not committed to atheism, but truth-seeking. Because of your commitment to truth-seeking, you choose atheism. It seems to me, then, you are committed to atheism, not thoughtlessly, yet committed nonetheless. Your commitment could change, because you courageously ask yourself difficult questions everyday about your choice/commitment. But let’s say you settle into your atheism-via-truth-seeking down the road, say, 10 years. I’m sure you’ll keep reading, keep thinking, but there will come a point, it seems to me, where what now seems more choice than commitment, will become more commitment than choice.
None of this, by the way, undermines what I take to be your larger point, and one on which we agree: namely that thoughtless commitment/choice to anything is dangerous (history is on our side with this).
Thanks for your courage and willingness to grapple with the stuff of reality, rather than pie-in-the-sky faith. As one who has tread similar roads at times, and perhaps found different answers, continue to travel.
The search for Truth or what is true also takes commitment. It takes a commitment to put aside all preconceptions and put aside belief or faith, it riquires becoming like a child. Truth is not easiy seen. Some truths cant be seen, some are not visible and have to be taken on faith others can be measured and quantified. Some truths are not others truths. I guess what I am trying to say is that not all things, good or bad, right or wrong can be pinned down and critically examined. I admire your persistance in trying to find Truth. I hope you find it, and if you do are not too timid to share. The world could use some Truth.
And “lables” tend to box people in to draw lines around what they can be in order to fit their lable. Lables can describe something, point to something but to lable yourself is to limit your self. Lables are short hand for something, they leave much unacounted for. Lables work when we dont want to dig too deep, when we want something to fit in with something else so we can better quantify and understand it. Lables are dangerous. Once asigned a lable the labled can then be forgotten, ignored. “It wont change, it cant, we know what it is now.” Just be you, stand and be counted but be counted as you not as a ‘blank’, in other words just be.