Friday, March 19, 2010

Unreasonable Reason

One version of the story of the last three hundred years is that the intellectual movement known as The Enlightenment spearheaded a glorious change in human affairs, in which the shackles of dark religious superstition were cast off and replaced by the light of human reason. Popery and priests were out; science and logic were in, and amazing increases in human well-being would ensue.

We now have cell phones and aeroplanes, microwaves and computers, MRI machines and laproscopic surgery. Those are very nice things. But in the immediate wake of the Enlightenment, we had the almost insanely savage French Revolution, followed by Napoleon's tear through Europe, and then a century after that, we had the two most savage wars in human history (which included historically unprecedented genocide). And they were fought mostly by the most scientifically advanced nations ever. Moreover, in the wake of World War II, we had tens of millions of people tortured and butchered by communist regimes in service to the aims of their "one true social science". Our technology has improved. The problem is, we haven't.

Actually, the problem is worse than that, because it's not just that we haven't changed - it's that we can't. Despite all our longings otherwise, we remain human. That means we still love, and we still hate; we still unite, and we still divide; still share, and still steal. And this will never change, no matter how much more technology we have, or knowledge we possess. Contrary to Thom Yorke's ongoing paranoia, technology doesn't turn us into machines. It just gives us a power we wouldn't otherwise have. And that power can be used for good or for ill. All the while, the human animal remains the same.

Why can't people see this? The silly (if not dangerous) old notion, first purveyed by Plato and regurgitated ad nauseam even nowadays by self-styled "secular humanists", that "knowledge is virtue" - that the more "reasonable" we all are, and the more we all learn, the better people we will all be - has been refuted a million times, in a million different ways, and will be a million more times in the future. Yet it doesn't make any difference at all to the secular humanists, no doubt for the same reason that knowing that the communion wafer doesn't actually "transubstantiate" into the flesh of Jesus doesn't make any difference to the believing Catholic: because these claims are now dogma. They are now identity to these people. They have become unchallengeable articles of faith, beyond the power of any argument or empirical proof to refute. Yet, the truth is, the wafer doesn't become Jesus, and knowledge doesn't become virtue. And that means that "secular humanism" - or to call it by its real name, The Enlightenment - is as much of a fraud as Catholicism. Those who most loudly champion reason over faith, are often as unreasonable as the religious believers they think themselves superior to, if not more so.

45 comments:

Cyndi in BC said...

Thought you might find this blog post interesting: http://mysistersfarmhouse.com/2010/03/the-texas-state-boe-votes-to-homeschool-entire-state/

rachael chatoor said...

Secular humanists are the far opposite extreme to religious believers I take it? And the loudest examples would be the ones with the websites, groups, associations and a vested interest in being right?
They mock faith but don't recognize that they do have a belief of their own in something that can not be proven. Science can't say for sure that there is no spiritual realm or level of intelligence that is undetected by us, and while I would agree with them fully there is no God of the Bible, I would not be willing to say that there is not 'something else' possibly 'out there' whatever that means.

Aside from their non religious non spiritual lifestance which leaves no room for possible existance out of the realm of the ordinary, I do like their humanist approach which appears to include a naturalistic philosophy, a cosmic outlook (rooted in science) and a consequentialist ethical system.


We all like to belong to a community/group, some are more extreme than others. What I'd like to know is, where is there a middle of the road, sitting on the fence no rules or masters kind of lifestance group?

Until I find one like that, Music is my religion.

Anonymous said...

If we have no rules,then you and I can hurt each other in any way we want to, with no comeback. if we have no masters,then how do we gain higher knowledge from those who have it?

Erika said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Tal said...

Anonymous - Taking your questions at face value, I would never say we should have no "rules". It is just that there is no reason to believe that the "authority" of the rules we have at any given moment, is anything other than the authority of tradition or custom (as expressed in common law, say), or consensus (as expressed in civil law), or perhaps dictatorial whim. There is nothing in science or religion which provides "authority" beyond this for social rules: you cannot perform any sort of scientific experiment which will tell you what "good" is, nor can any religion make any plausible claim for any sort of divine authority, over any other. All we have, in the end, is each other - our own wisdom, sense of fairness, intuitions, instincts, preferences, etc.

Erika said...

By itself, I don't think empirical knowledge or religion is anymore virtuous than the other. Virtuousness is better measured by how we put to use our knowledge or faith while interacting with one another. Science and religion can be used for goodness, but both can also be used in ways that cause great pain and distress for humanity. I tend to put knowledge, science, and the ability to discern truth from illusion on a pedestal, but does it make me a "better person" than someone who has an unshakable faith in something that cannot be proven (or even disproven)? Absolutely not. Conversely, the supposed pious person isn't necessarily more moral than me.

As a side note, atheists bother me almost as much as the very religious. I don't think either side has that kind of knowledge or ever will. As much as I like facts, there is something comforting in knowing that despite all the knowledge we can attain, no one will ever be able to actually disprove the existence of some higher power. It leaves the possibility open... (and I'm sure that possibility doesn't hurt in convincing me to live an honest and more virtuous life, despite my inability to truly believe)...

Jewelz said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Alexander said...

existentialist much Tal?

Anonymous said...

I try to keep it all simple:

Jesus preached in turning the other cheek time and time again. Love thy neighbor as you would yourself. The Golden Rule. My Golden Rule.

He also said "He who lives by the sword dies by the sword." Meaning to me that God will sort it all out. It will all be dealt w/. Another Golden Rule. God's Golden Rule.

He also said "Don't worry about wars. These things must happen." Again this means to me it's God's problem.

I'm just trying not to be part of God's problem and I trust he has it all covered. True it looks mismanaged sometimes, but I try not to add to it.

So you see the lowest common denominator comes down very simply to two beliefs:

1. Keep your own nose clean. (You can still try to fix problems w/o causing/adding to them.)
2. Trust the rest to be dealt with by a higher authority. (I may never get to see this in action and I'm ok w/ that. I just trust that it happens.)

Don't get bogged down in the extra's (eating Jesus), They don't add much, and they're too heavy to carry around, leading to more wars. Haha.

You are 'too deep' for your own good Tal. Keep what is important to you and free yourself from the rest. Let others free themselves, they will when they are ready, and why not, you did. After all, how many souls have you converted? How many souls started to question because they heard you question? I'm sure many more fought you because they heard you rather than followed you.

You're a nice guy Tal, put it all down and go get yourself a great and happy lifetime. You've earned it.

Anonymous said...

I agree with you ,Tal,except that I believe that God does have a plan and does talk to people on this earth,regarding how he would like us to act.

I am annonymous #1 not #2

Jewelz said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Tal said...

Anonymous - I hear what you're saying. So tell me: what do you think God's plan is?

Anonymous said...

Jewelz....Some of us know that to avoid the wrath of Bachman it is better to be anon.

It doesn't matter what I think God's plan is because I don't think Tal really cares, other than do try and find a way to rip it to shreds.I say this calmly,not angrily.

Anonymous said...

I take back what I said about the wrath of Bachman.You are much better these days. You can delete my comment.

Kathi Bevans said...

I'm not answering for anon, Tally...but could God's plan for us be to learn valuable lessons about life, and things about ourselves in a place a zillion miles away from home?

And I agree with anon #3, we aren't forgotten or left alone.

Tal said...

Anon, how confident can you really be in your conception of God's plan for everyone, if you're too afraid to even articulate it on here?

Anonymous said...

And so it begins....Just what I knew you would do ,Tal.

The disrespect for my beliefs has nothing to do with how confident I am in my beliefs.I just choose not to play your game.

Jewelz said...

Hey Anon~

I believe in God, just like you. And I've talked to Tal about my beliefs, and he hasn't "ripped them to shreds" (not sure if that was you or another Anon). Believe it or not, I'm a Mormon. I think sound, rational discussion is a good thing. I just don't understand the Anons who post on here, throw their comments and run for the hills. Stick around and answer the question. I question my faith all the time. God gave me a brain with which I can do many amazing things. Like think for myself...

Erika said...

If this blog is a game, then anyone who responds has chosen to play. I don't think "the game" is to make you believe as Tal or anyone else does, or to disrespect anyone's beliefs. Instead it's an opportunity to share, to discuss, and to challenge yourself to define and articulate your ideas - for those of us that are innately curious and maybe even for yourself! :) If you don't like the attitiude of the players, or don't want the challenge, then step off the court (or pitch if you wish) and stay in the stands...

Lisa said...

When I first read Tal, I was very offended, I thought you were criticism my faith and now I understand you were only "correcting" it.
You wrote "The Enlightenment - is as much of a fraud as Catholicism. Those who most loudly champion reason over faith, are often as unreasonable as the religious believers they think themselves superior to, if not more so."

Tal, you are SO RIGHT! My Church spent money handing out pamphlets warning people to not see the PASSION by Mel Gibson, then after they handed out Pamplets saying WE MUST SEE IT AND SUPPORT IT.

Then instead of feeding the poor, they wasted time, energy and money to rally against a beautiful statue that was put up in our Rosary Garden, they said it was disgusting because Mary and Joseph were touching,they were not touching, they were holding the baby Jesus close to their hearts.

Anyway, I take the host almost weekly and I can assure you that it does not turn into the flesh of Jesus and thank God, I would hate to think we were feeding the flesh of our saviour to our young.

I won't say I don't believe in God, I will say that I don't believe in any religion, it is just pablum for the masses.

Atheists do not bother me, especially the ones that act more Christ like than most of the Christians I know.

Thanks again, Tal....the world is a poorer place with your blogs, you make sense and we need more people like you, in this WORLD GONE MAD....

Lisa P said...

I meant the world is Poorer place WITHOUT your Blogs not with them.

Tanya said...

Yes.Jesus said to take the bread and wine in rememberance of him...not that it turns into his blood and flesh literally.The red of the wine reminds us that he gave his blood for us and the bread or wafer reminds us that he gave his body for us.

Be careful said...

Of interest to all blog posters. I was recently reading about a blog poster who put his full name at the end of his post and was traced from the phone book and assaulted by another blog poster who did not agree with his views.
Be careful.

Tal said...

How could anyone possibly disagree with my blog post? :P

Erika said...

Good tip, Be Careful.

Yet the threat of Tal knocking on one's door might be incentive to disagree and sign with full name and physical address!

June said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Anonymous said...

Tal,

I agree with your assessment. Rational thought aided by empirical data is only valuable if employed wisely. But what does wisdom consist of? Is it objective, or does it arise from subjective value judgments impelled by one's physiology and neural metabolism?

I believe that wisdom is grounded in a fundamental moral absolute: survival. Life is the highest value possible. Without life, nothing is possible. Therefore, annihilation of that which is alive is the greatest moral evil.

That's all well and good if considering one individual, but life unfolds in a community. What happens when a sociopath is born, seizes power, and annihilates countless others? Should he be put to death? Who should decide? How should we decide who should decide? What ultimately gives authority to anyone for deciding, and how?

Rational thought and empirical data can't decide this for us. Our emotions do. And those emotions arise from physiological reactions to stimuli (as far as we can tell). As you point out, we can't escape the fact that we're human, and as humans, we're wired by natural selection to work in a particular way. Although there's great variability among us, the vast majority can experience similar emotions. How we interpret and act on them (or not) is to some degree culturally conditioned.

There will be irrationality so long as humans have emotions, and emotions and reason conflict, either internally or in a community. Yes, we're human, and everything about our world follows as a consequence of that.

You touched on technological progress. That was the real advance from the Enlightenment. We shifted perspectives. We began to experiment and see for ourselves, rather than accept anything on authority. (At least some of us did.) But short of genetic re-engineering or chemical alterations of brain chemistry, we can't change our nature as humans.

Suppose that we could. Who should decide what to change? Whose values ought we to follow?

We're predictable, Tal, despite what we tell ourselves. Evidence suggests that contrary to our illusions, we're biological machines destined for annihilation at death, and that life is meaningless apart from whatever meaning (Jon Haidt's "elevation") we're able to impart on it. Watch the film, "The Road," or "Carriers." The latter is especially worth watching for a single scene involving two Christian women.

I can't resist digressing just a little. In a post-apocalyptic world such as we find in "The Road," what do you suppose the probability would be of someone reporting being abducted by "aliens?" We're human victims of our own psychology and the stories that we tell ourselves and each other.

Christianity is a story. Humanism is a story. Our favorite YouTubers tell stories. How is any meaning possible without stories and emotions? When we even use the word "meaning," I think we mean "feeling." When we ask: "What does this mean?" we're really asking: "How does this feel?"

In all of the thinking that I've done, I've come again and again to the same conclusion: Dan Dennett, Richard Dawkins, et al. are right. Ultimately, we're screwed. Enjoy whatever you can, however you can, for as long as you can, because we're all going to die, and soon.

Tal said...

Anonymous - I like your comments, but I think Dennett and Dawkins are very wrong to think that reason can save us from ourselves. There is no "reason" without "reasoners" - us - and so, in real life, even if unadulterated reason did have salvific powers, it wouldn't do us much good, since our very humanity would preclude us from accessing it.

Anonymous said...

Is your opinion then that whether one chooses rationality, religion, spirituality, atheism etc. its all equal because one approach is no better than the other? And/Or is your opinion that problems arise when each perspective thinks THEIR way is the right and only way? Or both?

Macro level aside... let's look at the individual level and 2 issues: 1) respecting each other, and 2) nature of individual choice. Ultimately, it's the individual is responsible for how they live their life and the impact on others so an important to talk about vs. institutions and organized groups, or categorizing people etc. (macro level).

About respect. If all approaches mentioned above are equal in the potential for positive or negative impact on individuals and society, then at least we can do is respect each other. Do you agree? We may all decide to respectfully disagree with eachother.

About individual choice/freedom. People CHOOSE various approaches mentioned above because it works for them on some level. There is a pay back/benefit for them. Even if they grew up in the church, THEY decide as adult to continue to stay for personal gains/advantages (i.e. social support, having structures/rules to live by, its familiar, they don't want to change their view, to gain power by moving up in the church, be the hero of humanity, find a wife, be able to have multiple wives, or have a loving father figure to protect them that they never had to name a few.

Think back to the reasons why you decided to stay in the church till quite late in life...what was the personal pay off to you?

If we can help each other become more conscious of our choices then that frees each of us. We might decide to continue along their same path or choose something else. Obviously if their choices involve breaks laws then they won't be able to continue to do that.

If someone had offered (or you asked for) support earlier on in life around this issue is it possible you might have made different decisions and felt freer in life sooner?

Regardless Tal, you are free now to decide, forgive whoever you need to (especially yourself), and move forward with living consciously! And THAT deserves an Amen!

Tasha said...

O,brother Anon.You sound like an athiest Dr.Phil.

People who have a witness from the Holy Ghost that certain things are right, such as a belief in God stay with it because they know from their spirit that they know. You're going to say, what about terrorists who do things because they believe in Allah and want to please him. Well, if you have ever felt a witness from the Holy Spirit, you will know that it is different from a feeling of " I personally want to do this action. I feel good about it, so I will decide to do it." You are spending so much time in your head, why not spend more in your heart? Jesus said that his teachings and those of his father would not be believed by the people who think themselves too clever and intelligent to "fall" for something like that.You fall for something entirely different and are led away to less than you were meant to have. All because you think yourself too intelligent to listen to a simple message.

Tal said...

Anonymous - I continued going to the Mormon church not because I made any calculation about "personal pay-offs"; the entire notion is completely absurd to me. I continued going because I felt certain that it was all that it claimed to be; I was a "true believer". That's the only reason - I thought it was true. It wasn't "choice"; it was conviction.

About my position, I would say "problems arise" no matter what we think or do; it's the nature of human existence. I mean, consider that both religious believers and devout atheist rationalists can end up supporting killing people purely because of the beliefs. Sam Harris supports murder for having the wrong beliefs explicitly in "The End of Faith".

Anonymous said...

Please note: there are multiple anonymous posters. I'm the anonymous gay pro-Mormon atheist philosopher (from hell)--just to clarify. :)

Anonymous said...

Even if you have "conviction" to something or "feel it in your heart" or "witnessed the holy spirit" its still a choice to follow a particular religion or path. Tasha its interesting that you assumed that I had never witnessed the holy spirit. Regardless if I had or hadn't, it is still an individual choice to follow in the end. I believe we have heads and hearts, and I try to use both. Let's not cut off our heads now!

And, of course there is a personal payoff for all our decisions. Why is that so absurd? Why was it so important to have "The Truth"? Now that's a deeper question to explore for us all perhaps. Is it to be right? To be the chosen one? Finally, fully accepted and loved? My point is that it is important to be aware of our choices. Saying its conviction or witnessing sounds like you're removing yourself from the equation. I'm sayng it involves BOTH mind and heart/holy spirit. By doing that we're taking full responsibility for ourselves and lives which is my message.

Tal said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Tal said...

Anonymous, you write that "even if you have 'conviction' to something or 'feel it in your heart' or 'witnessed the holy spirit', its still a choice to follow a particular religion or path".

This is easy to say, but it relies on a superficial and sloppy conceptualization of "choice" (and I think, a lack of introspection). In reality, questions surrounding volition are mystifying, and the clinical evidence only makes it worse (to my knowledge, there isn't even any study indicating that *what we experience* as volitional behaviour originates in our conscious minds at all; all the data indicate that decisions are made prior to any feeling of *conscious* deliberation. See the famous Libet experiments for starters). Your comment also relies on an empirically unsupportable assumption of universality in how other people respond psychologically to things like religious messages and influences.

You write: "And, of course there is a personal payoff for all our decisions. Why is that so absurd?"

---That there may be personal payoffs for our decisions is not absurd - but that's not what you said. Rather, you implied that one's allegiance to a particular religion could be reduced to - or just simply *was* - a matter of making a choice based on a calculation of "personal payoffs". And that *is* absurd. (Human behaviour, for better or for worse, just cannot be reduced to the logical extension of simple cost-benefit-calculations, as you imply. It's far richer, and actually a lot more confusing, than that).

You write:

"Why was it so important to have 'The Truth'? Now that's a deeper question to explore for us all perhaps. Is it to be right? To be the chosen one? Finally, fully accepted and loved? My point is that it is important to be aware of our choices. Saying its conviction or witnessing sounds like you're removing yourself from the equation".

---It doesn't surprise me that it sounds that way to you, because you clearly are already pre-committed to opinions about the nature of religious allegiance which could only lead you to that conclusion. Those opinions, to me, are very superficial, and for that reason, at best unhelpful, and at worst very misleading.

You write:

"I'm sayng it involves BOTH mind and heart/holy spirit. By doing that we're taking full responsibility for ourselves and lives which is my message."

---Your "message" sounds nice, but nice isn't necessarily true. In this case, I do not think it is true.

I suggest that the real world is not tidy enough for your statements to hold in any universal way, Anonymous (or, actually, in any way at all). We need more than a stint in Econ 101 and some half-remembered "rational choice theory" to make sense of the human psyche and human behaviour!

Just sayin'...

Tasha said...

Anon, I guess I was assuming that you had not felt a witness from the Holy Spirit because if a person has, it is so strong that it is like saying balck is white to deny it. However, you can still choose not to do as prompted and if you don't nourish your connection with the Holy Spirit, the feelings you had can fade. Why did the Mormon pioneers go through such terrible hardship if they had not felt the certain witness of the Holy Spirit that what they were following was true.
I guess most of us want to find the reason why we are here on earth, and so seek out the answer.There is no force involved that stops you from choosing not to follow that witness, but, to quote good old Dr. Phil, when you choose the behavior, you choose the consequences. You are totally free to choose your level of participation in life and after life. You can choose to believe there is no after life but I would hate to see you all dressed up with nowhere to go when you die. Better plan ahead incase there is something waiting for you after death.

Anonymous said...

The topic of choice seems to have struck a personal chord with you. I've been lurking for a while now and see that you are unnecessarily angry, and even hostile at people that give their opinion. You invite people to a pseuo intellectual dialogue (or would you prefer not to have a readership?), and then try to prove why everyone is wrong, insult them when its really uncalled for. What is this grade school? Or, is this your new gig these days? It is very sad to see you waste your talent doing this and not music. Get back to music. You're way better at it and the world would benefit more than this drivel.

Erin said...

Anon is right, Tal. You do do all the things he said.

Tal said...

Hi Anon -

You write:

"The topic of choice seems to have struck a personal chord with you".

---The question of conscious free will is indeed a biggie for anyone with even passing interest in how our minds work (see, e.g., Daniel Wegner's "The Illusion of Conscious Will"). And the more you explore the subject, the more disturbing and daunting the issue can seem. If you mean by your comment, that your own comments aroused a reaction in me, then of course you are right, because I see them as shallow - as not doing the big issues justice at all.

"I've been lurking for a while now and see that you are unnecessarily angry, and even hostile at people that give their opinion."

---There is a big difference between explaining why you think an idea is wrong, and being angry, Anon.

"You invite people to a pseuo intellectual dialogue (or would you prefer not to have a readership?), and then try to prove why everyone is wrong, insult them when its really uncalled for."

---My comments to you, unless I've forgotten something, consist not of personal insults, but of *criticisms of your ideas*. There is a big difference.

"What is this grade school? Or, is this your new gig these days? It is very sad to see you waste your talent doing this and not music. Get back to music. You're way better at it and the world would benefit more than this drivel."

---For a pile of drivel, you sure seem to have been engaged by my little blog entry...

Here's the deal, Anonymous. This is a personal blog. I have no academic pretensions. It's for shooting the breeze and keeping a record of some of my experiences.

Sometimes there are little discussions or debates. If you can't handle that, then you'd probably more enjoy another blog - like one written by someone who just tells you how awesome all your ideas are.

I don't delete comments critical of my ideas on here. Rather, I usually respond to them and try to explain why I think they're mistaken or what they might have gotten right. I expect posters to do likewise. After all, if *you* take issue with something I've said, but then you suddenly cry foul and "personal angry assault" everytime I take issue with something *you've* said, then it ain't me acting like I'm in grade school...

Tasha said...

All Tal and Anon care about right now is the pissing contest going on between them. It's very entertaining though.

Princess Litzi of T Dot said...

This is for everyone. All the Anons, I can’t keep track. I am so astonished at what Posters assume to know about you Tal.
You are the most patient man I have ever known, you are a thinker but you also have a huge heart and not once, have you ever tried to sway me to your way of thinking (okay, once when we had the Astrology argument...oops discussion.)
I would like to point out to all ANONS that this man is more Christ like than anyone I have ever met.
I sang for the previous Pope and have met some very nice Christians in my day. There is something very special about Tal (just trust me, use that blind faith some of you brag about)
I have also met some very nice atheists and agnostics that have shown me more about loving another human than many Christians.
You can go to Church, it does not make you a good person, I can sit in a garage all week, and it does not make me a car. The hypocrisy of some of your comments saddens me. I don’t say this angrily. I pity many of you and have no choice but to pray for you, because I don’t think I can change your stubborn minds when your eyes are closed and even your hearts are blind!
Friends all, it saddens me that you see Tal as one dimensional. Sure he has great musical talent, however he is so much more than that...if you would just drop your preconceived notions of what you think he should behave like because he makes great music. Ah, yes the Rock star, and like all “Rock stars” he must be making loads of cash, trashing hotel rooms, disrespecting women and he is way too good looking to actually have a mind, right? He must have sold his soul to the Devil. Think again.
I have heard stories from other friends about Mr. Bachman. He has inspired many people to follow their dreams, adapt a healthier lifestyle; there is so much you don’t know.
Tal doesn’t need permission to think the way he thinks, he doesn’t need me to defend him, he is a big boy (nearly 200 pounds of pure muscle) but as a Friend and someone who has the Holy Spirit residing inside me, this quiet inner voice inspired me to let you know for your own good that behind this Blog is a real person, a child of God. I had to let all you “Christians” understand that Tal would never hurt someone to make himself feel better and I hope you reconsider your preconceived JUDGEMENT of him because if someone like Tal is going to hell, we are all in trouble. Trust me. The man is an Angel.

Tal said...

Okay, I feel extremely uncomfortable now lol

Litzi said...

Tal, It doesn't surprise me that you feel uncomfortable, you are also a very humble person and not once have you taken credit for being what you are. "A difference maker" : ) Have a fantastic weekend, no one I know deserves it more.

Rebecca A said...

Just stumbled across this blog and am really digging the discussion. Actually very refreshing to see this heated a topic being debated in a manner which no one gets too terribly offended and just gives up and leaves. I am too easily annoyed with reading most blogs when it instantly goes from opposing opinions to veiled (or not) insults, to end of discussion. I respect the patience displayed here to keep an interesting conversation civil enough that we might all gain a little insight. Tal, I am very curious about something. When you came to your realization about Mormonism, did you then turn to or begin researching other religions in search of something (God) or did you actually come to a realization about God as well? I have found your whole story with this so fascinating because I recently have had to acknowledge to myself that I really don’t believe in God anymore. I was raised and still live in Utah, ‘happy valley’ as you likely remember. I however was raised Evangelical and like most people I had no doubts whatsoever in any of it. A hell of a lot can be said for indoctrination, right? Anyway I think I am still in the stage of this where I really still want to believe in God, would welcome being proven wrong, but deep down I just don’t believe that anymore. When I quit believing it wasn’t so much my church or religion, it was more about religion itself regardless of which, and by extension- God. Tal, can you tell me where you are at with that? Are you atheist, agnostic, or still trying to figure it all out, or what?

Tal said...

Hi Rebecca

The short answer to your question is that I wonder about lots of things, and I feel an intuition that there is something out there, but I don't know what it might be, and I feel that I will never know, at least in this life.

Thanks for the nice comments on the blog :)

Good luck on your own journey. Email me if you want to discuss further.