From atheism to theism

A friend of mine recently asked me how I had come to change from being an atheist to a theist, a conversion he found unusual. This is a big subject but, I think, an interesting one, so I thought I would outline some of my reasons here. Please note that I am in no way saying that the points enumerated below constitute any sort of proof of God. I doubt there is any such proof, in the absolute sense, and even if there is, it would take far more than a few sentences to supply it.

Also, I might note that switching from atheism to theism is probably not that unusual at all. In fact, I would venture to say that many people go through a process of development something like this: As a child, the person believes unquestioningly in God because all the adults around him tell him that he should. Then as he becomes a teenager, he starts to doubt the adults and, in time, decides that God is just another scam like Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy. Later, as an adult, he begins to consider the possibility that his childish conception of God was simply inadequate, and that a more mature conception may have merit. Eventually, for a variety of reasons, he finds himself a "believer" again, but not at all the kind of believer he was in his childhood.

I suspect that this course of development is very common, though I don't know of any studies that would prove it.

I also note that even a philosophically committed atheist can change his mind - as did Anthony Flew, the world's most famous atheistic philosopher, who not long ago announced that he had been persuaded to adopt theism, albeit reluctantly. Flew's reasons match some of my own, as you will see. Incidentally, I found it very courageous of Flew to make this announcement, when it would have been far easier for him to keep silent.

Okay, my reasons, in no particular order, and without much elaboration:

1. The anthropic principle and cosmic coincidences. It is now a commonplace of astrophyics and cosmology that our universe appears to be "fine-tuned" to be orderly and habitable. Either the universe is a product of design (the God hypothesis), or there are trillions upon trillions of universes (the "multiverse" hypothesis), and by chance one of them turned out just right. Either explanation requires a leap of faith, since neither God nor these parallel universes can be directly perceived. I go with God as the simpler and more elegant solution.

2. The origin of life. The old idea that the first living cell came together spontaneously by pure chance is no longer seriously argued, now that scanning electron microscopy has shown us the fantastic complexity of even the "simplest" cell. Some scientists speculate that a "self-organizing principle" was responsible, but no one has found evidence of such a principle, except in oversimplified computer models that bear little relationship to real chemical activity. Further, the origin of life involves the origin of information, since life is based on DNA, and DNA is essentially a means of encoding instructions on how to build and deploy proteins. Information is a qualitatively different thing from mere repetitive order (e.g., a DNA molecule is different in kind from a snowflake), and it is unclear how information could emerge spontaneously out of disorder or mere repetitive order. A Mind that supplied both the information and the structure necessary for the first living cell seems like a better bet than any purely naturalistic scenario.

(Points 1 and 2 are the ones that apparently persuaded Anthony Flew.) 

3. All attempts to ground morality in naturalistic laws or brute physical facts have (in my opinion) failed, leaving us with two choices: either moral values are subjective and arbitrary, or they are objective but grounded in something outside nature. A world of purely arbitrary moral laws is one in which no one could condemn murder or the Holocaust as evil.  I find such a condition intolerable, so I opt for ethical nonnaturalism (even though I concede that this position, too, is tricky to defend).

4. Materialism, the view that the physical world is all that exists and that mind is, at best, only an epiphenomenon (i.e., trivial side effect) of matter, leads to a debased view of human beings, who are seen as mere animals, machines, robots, or vehicles for genetic reproduction. The dignity of man is incompatible with philosophical materialism.

5. On a personal level, I feel that life simply has no meaning if "this is all there is." You live, work, suffer setbacks and occasional triumphs, then die and cease to exist. All the people who knew you will be dead soon, too, and you will be entirely forgotten. What difference did it make whether you lived or not? What's the point? For me personally, I do not see any way to find meaning in existence if human life is a mere accident and the cosmos has no higher purpose. I realize that other people are apparently able to find meaning on these terms, but I cannot. And I suspect I am not alone, as witness the "lives of quiet desperation" led by so many in our society today, despite the advantages of a very high standard of living, wide political freedom, and unlimited opportunities for leisure and recreation.

6. In studying history, I became aware of the very large contribution to human happiness, well-being, and moral advancement made by religion. Since I have read mostly about Western history, I focused on the effects of Christianity. Yes, I know about the Crusades, the Inquisition, Galileo's house arrest, the witch burnings, etc. - although all of these things have been exaggerated or misrepresented to some degree. But as bad as these events were, they need to be weighed in the balance with Christianity's positive contributions: greatly improved treatment of children, and an end to the practic of infanticide; greater rights for wives and widows, who were often helpless in the pagan world; much better treatment of slaves, and the eventual abolition of slavery worldwide (most abolitionist movements were religiously inspired); the end of the Roman "games" in which people were hacked to pieces in gladiatorial bouts or torn apart by wild beasts for the entertainment of the mob; a view of nature as stable and orderly, running according to natural laws enforced by God, which opened the door to modern science; the idea of an immortal, personal soul, which granted dignity to even the lowliest person; and on and on. (For more, see my essay, "Why I'm Not a Skeptic."

7. Finally, after being an extreme skeptic with regard to paranormal phenomena, I began to study the field and found that much of the evidence was unexpectedly strong. This includes evidence for life after death, such as near-death experiences and the better-documented cases of apparitions, deathbed visions, and mediumship. Of course, this topic is too large to go into here. Suffice it to say that I think there is sufficient empirical evidence to strongly suggest (though not conclusively prove) that our individual consciousness survives death. An afterlife does not necessitate the existence of God, but it certainly implies the existence of a supernatural realm. Various essays of mine on the paranormal can be read at www.michaelprescott.net/essays.htm .

So that's the Cliff's Notes version of my intellectual odyssey (which is, I must add, ongoing). There were other elements, as well. Reading about quantum physics convinced me that the "mystical" view of fundamental reality is probably closer to the truth than the mechanistic view. My observation of atheists indicated that many of them seem angry or at least perpetually disgruntled, while more religious or spiritually inclined people often seem calm and contented. (There are, of course, many exceptions to both rules.) I noticed that the worst mass murderers of the 20th Century were either atheists (Stalin, Mao) or pagan occultists (Hitler and his gang). I began to think that the ego is at the root of many human problems, and religion generally teaches us to overcome the ego and see life from a wider perspective. I could go on, but you get the idea. As my worldview changed, more and more things began to fall into place for me.

Again, I don't claim that this brief summary proves anything. I'm just setting out the broad outline of how my thinking changed. I imagine that many others have gone through a similar process - or will someday, even if they don't know it yet!

Comments

[DH]

Michael,

Superb post. I linked to you as well. Great stuff.

[Michael Prescott]

Thanks, DH! I appreciate it.

[Matthew Sinclair]

I don't quite find your points convincing. Here are a few reasons why:

1) Most of this fine tuning is needed to ensure that the universe exists, and is in a form that is recognisable to us. It is entirely possible that by trial and error with these variables the universe could have failed to exist a great many times. We would then observe a universe that is fine tuned to our specifications.

This only seems more contrived than a Creator if you find the idea of a lot of cosmic activity going on without us disturbing.

On a smaller scale, the planet and our galaxy are well tuned to our life. But it makes far more sense, and there is evidence for this process, that our life is well tuned to the planet. Either way works

2) Again, all the failed attempts at life (there are an awful lot of planets and there was an awful lot of time before life) are not observed. We merely see the one occurence of life and consider it remarkable without considering how the numbers stack up.

3) Suppose there is a God. Why should you do what he says? Out of gratitude?

That is an arbitrary moral decision. Unless you are doing this all out of fear of hell (which rules out your point 5. The purpose to life is too behave like an unruly dog and avoid punishment?). So you either have to make the arbitrary decision of a moral code or the arbitrary decision of following God's and the assumption that he exists.

4) A plant (and all animals in the Christian definition as I've had it explained to me) has no soul. Can a plant not be beautiful? As a human is qualitatively more remarkable and well constructed (by evolution's hand for the secular) why can that not be considered so special as to be worth defending against all comers without religious interference?

5) This view makes little sense. In the Christian view. Be good. Live forever in happiness. In the atheist view; have your time then die. As time is far more limited in the atheist view it would seem particularly important to make the most of it. Therefore the time that constitutes your life has more meaning.

6) Science was massively and chronically held up by religion. Take a look at an economic historian such as Joel Mokyr for a detailed explanation of why there was a need for a move away from the received truth of religion towards a more sceptical and enquiring mind.

Equally, I think that given the Crusades to the Inquisition and countless other persecutions as well as our current religious wars that record is at least debatable. See Richard Dawkins for a powerful polemic on the record of religion in creating conflict and his reasoning for this.

7) I've yet to see any evidence of the paranormal that does not fall apart under critical examination in record time. Most of the paranormal claims are also not terribly religious (does Christianity belive in seances?).

As for the final bit. If you're looking for happy people science would suggest you need to talk to the Buddhists they'll point you in the right direction. Does that mean you'll now switch to Buddhism...

Sorry if I've been confrontational. I guess Atheists are angry...

[mark sullivan]

Ah yes, the pointlessness, of a cosmic accident spending a lifetime trying to find out why he's a cosmic accident. No thanks Mr Sinclair. Most of us think Mr Prescotts way of looking at the cosmos, is rather more satisfing. Maybe I am just worm food when I die, but maybe not either. You takes your chances, don't you?

[Matthew Sinclair]

On pointlessness. What is the point of human life under Christianity? To worship God in return for a reward after death?

If so then your entire point as a person is to feed the ego of a being that is already omnipotent and omniscient. Surely that is the definition of a wasted life?

God would already know he is pretty great without needing you to tell him. You can then spend all enternity getting bored talking to a lot of people you agree with (all the rest are in hell).

The progress and story of humanity is more than enough of a purpose for me.

[Michael Prescott]

Matthew,

Thanks very much for your comments. But as I said in the post itself, "I don't claim that this brief summary proves anything. I'm just setting out the broad outline of how my thinking changed."

Clearly it would take much reading and study to elaborate on these various ideas. Three books that take this tack are God: The Evidence, by Patrick Glynn, Modern Physics and Ancient Faith, by Stephen M. Barr, and Jenny's Universe, by Ken Pedersen. I recommend all three to those who are interested.

With regard to the origin of life, my understanding is that statisticians have calculated that there was not enough time in the entire 15-billion-year history of the cosmos for a single cell to form by random chance. This is why origin-of-life scientists now talk about "self-organizing systems." But there is no evidence, at least so far, that biological systems actually are self-organizing.

My main point was that atheistic materialism was simply not a satisfying or meaningful philosophy for me. If it is satisfying and meaningful to you, as I have no doubt it is for many people, then by all means stick with it. I'm a great believer in not fixing something if it ain't broken. For me, my belief system was broken - and I'm in the process of fixing it.

[Brins]

I can see that Matthew's views (and perhaps some of Michael's as well) come from a materialist mindset (you might be surprised, but it's true!) For me, the topic of God goes infinitely beyond explanation for the universe, fine-tuning, and even - believe it or not - the meaning of existence! So much so that I'm ridiculously early in the process of understanding it. I genuinely think it transcends the human mind to conceive.

In what I've learned from much thought over the last year or so, it seems to me that you're both taking on the concept of God from this stance: you're trying to dis/prove God scientifically, statistically, or at least logically (by which I mean basic logical arguments).

For me, it goes much deeper than that, though; you can't really move into the depths of the topic before you realise a certain way of perceiving things (something which came to me from just thinking. It's nothing profound, but thinking for yourself gradually gets you there). I'm taking it too seriously, mind you, but I assure you that I'm being sincere.

Taking the issue of why the universe exists, for example, rather than going on about how it formed, what caused the big bang, how many times has it happened, consider: why should it have happened at all? Why should anything exist to cause it to happen? Why should the law exist that when X happens, Y is triggered? Indeed, if anything could or does exist, doesn't that at least imply a higher way of seeing things than through our minds? It's hard to express.

There are many ways of looking at every topic under the sun, but you can't understand someone else's views through arguments alone; you have to think about it your own way, if you know what I mean.

I'm not even an adult yet (probably surprised you there!), but this kind of thing isn't something that life experience necessarily teaches you, but just a bit of thought in a certain direction. In fact, it's the one thing which I think is explored most by thought alone.

I think we all fool ourselves when we think we have the final solution on the subject, though; we can always be thinking deeper about it. Our views should be evolving to encompass and fit in what everyone has to say about it, yet stay true to what you believe yourself. But it's something you can't really understand until your train of thought twigs onto it.

But I think I've still got too small a grasp on it to actually be talking about it to others! I guess maybe a belief system isn't something to be fixed, but expanded on.

But God really is bigger than meets the eye. If you ask me, Michael, the best road to being comfortable with your beliefs is to just think... that is, when you've got the time!