The Phases of Belief and Disbelief
As children, we believe mostly whatever we are told – by parents, family, teachers, and even friends. We hear a story and we do not know – until it is clarified by another – whether or not the story is real or make-believe.
Then as teenagers it is common for us to go through a rebellious phase – not necessarily acting outside of any established moral or ethical framework, but daring to venture out on our own, to establish our identities as individuals, and to explore for ourselves what constitutes “truth”. Sometimes we act like raving lunatics just to be contrary.
Then we enter adulthood, and invariably become more “grounded”, learning to temper our youthful passions, to focus that energy towards more “practical” pursuits. We learn balance, objectivity, humility. We are able – in most cases – to reconcile our personal views with the fact that others have different views.
We grow up.
It occurred to me recently that there may be a parallel between this maturation from childhood to adulthood, and people’s progression through different phases of belief and disbelief. Of course not everyone has the journey through belief and/or disbelief, just as we don’t all mature at the same pace or experience the same things at any given point in our lives. So the parallel I am drawing is meant to be generic and abstract, rather than a precise comparison.
For those of us who grow up in religious households, we are taught our parents’ beliefs, go to their church, temple, or mosque if they have one, and are saddled with our parents morals, ethics, and any baggage that might come with it. We take what we are given at face value, accept it as truth, due to the trust we place in those that have proven themselves by caring for us. But unlike our natural inevitable journey into adolescence, many people never push beyond the beliefs instilled in them during childhood, they do not dare to venture out on their own, to establish their own personal religious identity.
More often than not, those who do not “progress” beyond this stage are the fundamentalists of any given theology, the hardliners, the literalists. These are people who retain their childhood stories but never learned to look at it with grown-up eyes, to appreciate things like subtlety, nuance, multiple interpretations – like only appreciating poetry where it rhymes, rather than being able to read between the lines.
For those that do move to the next phase, however, some rebel violently against their former beliefs and institutions – or at least the most vile version or perception of those institutions. Perhaps they rebel due to a falling out with a parent or preacher or other authority figure. Perhaps because of some major discrepancy between what we’ve been told to think and what we’ve reasoned for ourselves or even directly experienced. This discrepancy usually has some noteworthy psychological impact, forcing a person not just to let go of their beliefs, but to run away from them screaming and yelling.
These are people like the militant atheists and agnostics – those for whom it is not enough to simply disbelieve, but who feel compelled to attack those who do believe. Not all atheists fit this description as I’ll explain in the third phase below. Far from simply establishing themselves as individuals “free” of religion, they feel some pressing need to return to their old beliefs and institutions with venom and fire, to criticize and belittle them. In this way they are just as tethered to those old institutions as they always were, their identities as atheists dependent upon there being a religion against which to rebel.
Just as angry teenagers do not listen to their parents’ reasoning, their attempts to defend their choices, militant atheists do not listen to the more rational believers, the liberal theologians. They are too busy screaming and yelling. They need to cast religion and religious people as villains against whom they must stand in opposition. The ironic thing is that they become the very thing that they are trying to rebel against, like the worst nightmare of any rebellious teenager – to become just like their parents.
The new atheists, who attack a repugnant version of religion, use it to condemn all religion. They use it to deny the reality and importance of the religious impulse. They are curiously unable to comprehend those who found through their religious convictions the strength to stand up against injustice…The new atheists, like all fundamentalists, flee from complexity. They can cope with religion in its most primitive and abusive form. They are helpless when confronted by a faith that challenges their caricatures.
America’s New Fundamentalists pp. 33-34
My experience with this involved some evangelicals and their implication that my mother, for her experimenting with Buddhism and other religions, would be condemned to Hell. Another example can be seen in the movie The God Who Wasn’t There, which presented itself as a critique of religion and the Jesus myth, but by the end revealed itself to be one man’s personal vendetta against his religious upbringing and parochial school. Much like a teenager finally getting to tell her parents all the things they did wrong in raising her.
Finally, though, the incendiary passions of militant atheism, like adolescence, are tempered through a sort of rational – rather than physical – maturity. We learn to read religion like poetry – to understand subtlety, nuance, interpretation. We learn that no one interpretation is necessarily right or wrong, but that they simply are. This is not to say that we become believers again, but we no longer categorically deny the possibility – or legitimacy – of believing again. And should we choose not to believe, we are able to make peace with religion, to reconcile our disbelief with others’ belief, to accept that disbelief is merely another interpretation of our experience.
To clarify, I do not mean to imply any qualitative difference between people at the different stages of belief or disbelief. I do not think that people at any given stage are better than any other, no more than adults are better people than teenagers, or teenagers better people than young children. They all simply have different ways of viewing and interpreting the world and their experiences within it. I do contend, however, that just as adults tend to be better educated, better adjusted, and to possess greater wisdom for their length of experience, those who have progressed to the “third phase” are also wiser and better adjusted. They are more capable of higher order thinking, more rational, more objective, and more established and comfortable within their identities.
They are independent enough to think for themselves, to make their own choices, and wise enough to look deeper into things rather than taking them at face value. They are secure enough that they no longer need to prove themselves against the standards or norms of another. They are grounded enough to no longer need to fly to the attack on others’ beliefs, or the defense of their own.
In short, they have grown up.
How would I substantiate an abstract idea with evidence, when it pertains to human thought processes, for which proof cannot ever be obtained? If you can find nothing that you agree with, then chances are that you either did not understand what was written, or you are in that first stage which renders you incapable of critical thought.
Also, keep the following in mind, from the post:
“…there may be a parallel between this maturation from childhood to adulthood, and people’s progression through different phases of belief and disbelief. Of course not everyone has the journey through belief and/or disbelief, just as we don’t all mature at the same pace or experience the same things at any given point in our lives. So the parallel I am drawing is meant to be generic and abstract, rather than a precise comparison.”
There MAY be. Nothing here is a statement of fact.
Anecdotal evidence is of limited value. All of us have only a limited number of experiences, and when talking about large groups of people it is unreasonable to assume that our personal experience can be used to make sweeping judgments about all of them. You say that your post makes no claims of universality, but I am having trouble reading it as such. It seems that you feel you can judge all unbelievers based of your personal experience. I'm sorry if I am misjudging you.
Then you missed this paragraph:
It occurred to me recently that there may be a parallel between this maturation from childhood to adulthood, and people’s progression through different phases of belief and disbelief. Of course not everyone has the journey through belief and/or disbelief, just as we don’t all mature at the same pace or experience the same things at any given point in our lives. So the parallel I am drawing is meant to be generic and abstract, rather than a precise comparison.
Like I said, maybe you should've read it over again. And it's also not just based on my personal experience. I'm not terribly interested in arguing the point with you, though. If you disagree, that's your prerogative.
Godheval, I find it strange that you give examples of fundamentalists, and then 'wise' theists, yet you ONLY talk about militant atheists. This implies that you think that all atheists are militant. Also, why are you using the word 'militant?' Is it because we are acting on our beliefs? No one calls a jehova's witness militant when they go door-to-door proselytizing. What about scientologists? They offer free stress tests so they can explain their beliefs, are they militant too? Your use of the word militant has a negative connotation, and it makes it clear that you look down on atheists, as if they haven't grown up. I would take you seriously if you didn't single out one group with name-calling like a child. Maybe you are the one who needs to grow up.
(I also find it interesting that you said you were trying not to make a qualitative difference between beliefs, even though you imply atheism and fundamentalism are young and stupid while lazy theism is wise and noble.)
It's amazing to me how easily people read what they expect, rather than what's actually there.
I never use the term "wise theists". I talk of a third phase of belief OR disbelief – which includes both atheists and theists. Note this paragraph:
"This is not to say that we become believers again, but we no longer categorically deny the possibility – or legitimacy – of believing again. And should we choose not to believe, we are able to make peace with religion, to reconcile our disbelief with others’ belief, to accept that disbelief is merely another interpretation of our experience."
I link to the page of one particular atheist who I regard as having reached the third phase, and link to a book of another atheist as well. I used the term "militant atheist", because that's the term that's been used to describe people like Dawkins and Hitchens who make a point of criticizing religion but under the pretext that all religious people are like fundamentalists.
For the record, I personally do not take "militant" to be a negative term, necessarily. I consider myself militant when it comes to issues of race and racism. I'll get pretty "emphatic", let's say, when it comes to the defense of my thoughts on those subjects. Anyway…
Scientologists are…a different animal entirely. I can't say I know enough about their religion to really classify them, although from the outside they do seem awfully ridiculous. My running preconception is that it's all just a pyramid scheme. As for Jehova's Witnesses, well, I"ve had some pretty interesting conversations with them – ones that have ended with them simply accepting my views and that I was not going to be converted. They just moved along. So I take them as more "grown up" – the ones I dealt with anyway – then the angry atheist who's trying to tear me down personally because I don't wholly accept the mechanistic view of the universe.
The two views – theism and atheism – can be reconciled. It's the difference between "weak atheism" – "I do not believe in God" and "strong atheism" – "I believe that God does NOT exist". There is a subtle but major difference between those two. It is the latter that I regard as the fundmentalist equivalent to atheists as a whole, and who I think are "immature" in their thinking.
The post is called the Phases of Belief AND Disbelief – and I am pretty clear in saying that the "third phase" can be either theistic or atheistic. What's ironic is that you've proved my point. Note this paragraph:
"They are secure enough that they no longer need to prove themselves against the standards or norms of another. They are grounded enough to no longer need to fly to the attack on others’ beliefs, or the defense of their own."
You need to read things more carefully before you comment.
But I'll offer you one concession – a clarification on what I mean by militant atheism.
I will contend that I misread, however my main purpose in commenting is to help eliminate the use of the word 'militant.' My points were meant to show that people of various religious faiths share their beliefs with others, but it is the atheist group that has been labeled 'militant.' I would also argue that the ultimate goal of any 'unapologetic' (a better term if there must be one) atheist is to express their view on the non-existence of the supernatural, while some of the more famous atheists target fundamentalists in an attempt to garner support from those who are religious but see fundamentalism as idiotic.
And yet, all they're doing is driving them away.
Old quote, seemed relevant. Not to be read as any sort of attack. More about the subject of Unapologetic or militant. Those who "Know" .
Those who know don't say, and those who say don't know.
"Atheists" are subject to the same rule-set of subjective experience and the arrogance of declaring a truism. How useful is your truth? what's it's trajectory?
Morpheus: "My beliefs do not require them to ('believe'). What a horrifying world were the subjective perspective all wear the same colored sunglasses.
Expression: music, art, dance, culture, invention. Let's embrace diversity not push for blanket equality. Seemingly everything, no matter how similar, is different. Duality is a popular ancient expression that i find useful to foster reflection and mutual inclusion. not either or, balance and harmony. anyways… these musings also , of course, subject to useful/non-useful quantative management. Puts some free will wiggle room in the emperor's clothes. or not.
After some consideration, I've decided to stick with the word militant, as it is entirely appropriate. As defined on dictionary.com:
"vigorously active and aggressive, esp. in support of a cause"
OR
"belligerent, combative, contentious."
Either of those descriptions fit Hitchens, Dawkins, and the rest of "Darwin's bulldogs".