Of course you think that atheism is harder than theism, and more likely to be correct; you’re an atheist. :) Like Maarten argues in this original post, it would be weird if, as an atheist, you thought otherwise.
To be clear—I do not think that atheism inevitably leads to relativism. When I was an atheist, I was not a relativist, and almost all of the atheists I’ve met have not been relativists, either. But relativism is possible for an atheist in a way it just definitionally is not for a religious believer. Indeed, how does one get to “life has no intrinsic meaning” without opening the door to “life’s meaning is whatever we decide it to be, which could be literally anything, so do what you want, and no one can judge you for that, ever”?
Personally, I think “atheists choose atheism because they are relativists who want license to do whatever” is a strawman, the same way that “religious believers choose to believe because they want to be comforted that they live on after death” is a strawman. (As an aside, I’m bemused that believers are simultaneously accused by nonbelievers of believing merely for the comfort of believing in life after death, and also for being big meanies for endorsing the idea of hell. Um. “Your soul will live on after death and that could be extremely miserable forever” is not, in fact, comforting.) I was just a bit surprised that Maarten was unfamiliar with the religious arguments for why atheism would make one happy/be comforting.
I was a believer early on but have been an atheist (someone who lacks belief in a god) for decades. I do think that atheism is harder. Having a solid belief in a loving god and an afterlife would be a massive comfort. (At least if heaven was an interesting place where I could grow -- not a picture I get from any religion, except maybe Mormonism).
Religion tells you what is good and bad whereas atheists have to figure it out for themselves and never know if they are right. (Or if there is a right answer.)
Religious communities also clearly have some benefits. These can be replicated in non-religious communities but it's harder. I am not only an atheist but a transhumanist. That has always made it hard for me to find a community. It's been easier since the web arose but still difficult in physical space.
Hi, Max! As former atheist-turned-believer, I don't have a strong opinion about whether atheism or belief is "harder." What I think is interesting given this entire conversation, though, is the presumption that the harder path is the one more likely to be true--a trope that is positively religious in nature. Hard is the way, and narrow is the gate that leads to truth. I get why someone who thinks that Matthew 7:13-14 is true would agree to that statement, but not why an atheist--who, after all, came up with all his beliefs all by himself--necessarily would.
So I speculate that this goes back to a point of this original post, and a theme in Maarten's other work on the appeal of pessimism. A bunch of us, religious believers and atheists alike, want to believe that there are "hard truths" but not easy ones, and thus are practically in competition to show that our belief system makes our lives suck more. Which is....a little weird, right?
While I think atheism is harder in some clear ways, which is harder probably depends on the individual and where and when they live. Being a sole atheist in a deeply religious community would be especially hard as would being the sole theist in a strongly and judgmentally atheist community.
I would not say that the harder path is more likely to be true. I think atheism tends to be harder given the psychology that humans have evolved which naturally looks for personal explanations for the fundamental aspects of life. For me, as a philosophical person (I ended up with a doctorate in the subject and taught both philosophy of religion and religious studies) the difficulty of becoming atheist came mostly from a year or so of fear that I if I was wrong I was going to burn forever in Hell.
Pessimism has no appeal for me. Despite having a tendency to depression throughout my life, my philosophy of life and views of the future are optimistic. My optimism has become somewhat blunted by the demographic challenge and by growing risk aversion in our culture along with the continued cancerous growth of government and bureaucratic power.
I definitely agree that the hardest aspect would be going against the social flow, whether that's as an atheist in a community of believers or vice versa. Indeed, increasing numbers of sociologists studying religion in the west postulate that atheism has become more popular in Western countries, um, because it has become more popular: Many people have been religious because that is just what one does in society, and increasingly, Westerners are nonbelievers because that's just what one does--especially in the smart set. It's always easiest to do what people around you are doing. We're evolved to be social animals--probably the most pro-social mammal to have ever existed--so I see what you're saying about an evolutionary explanation for religious faith to be easier insofar as communities are religious. However, as societies shift towards having fewer religious believers, it stands to reason that the social argument for religious faith being easier would no longer hold. It's important to note that a majority of adults in many Western countries are now nonbelievers. In Maarten's native Belgium, for instance, in 2010 63% of adults were atheists, and that percentage has probably increased in the last 14 years. In the USA, the most religious Western country, 28% self-describe as having no religious beliefs--a percentage that is growing by the year. Counting only these 28% as nonreligious rather generously counts Americans who never attend church as "religious," as long as they self-describe as having some beliefs. If you haven't already read it, I think you'd find Stephen Bullivant's "Nonverts" interesting on this question. Here's a link: https://global.oup.com/academic/product/nonverts-9780197587447?cc=us&lang=en&
I think it's very admirable choosing optimism in a world that overvalues pessimism, and with your history of depressive tendencies. I, too, have some real concerns about how long this progress train can keep running, what with demographic challenge, risk aversion (which I think is progress being a victim of its own success), and algorithm-driven control of media narrowing our viewpoints. So, I'm glad you're here to bounce thoughts off of. Thank you for that!
Of course you think that atheism is harder than theism, and more likely to be correct; you’re an atheist. :) Like Maarten argues in this original post, it would be weird if, as an atheist, you thought otherwise.
To be clear—I do not think that atheism inevitably leads to relativism. When I was an atheist, I was not a relativist, and almost all of the atheists I’ve met have not been relativists, either. But relativism is possible for an atheist in a way it just definitionally is not for a religious believer. Indeed, how does one get to “life has no intrinsic meaning” without opening the door to “life’s meaning is whatever we decide it to be, which could be literally anything, so do what you want, and no one can judge you for that, ever”?
Personally, I think “atheists choose atheism because they are relativists who want license to do whatever” is a strawman, the same way that “religious believers choose to believe because they want to be comforted that they live on after death” is a strawman. (As an aside, I’m bemused that believers are simultaneously accused by nonbelievers of believing merely for the comfort of believing in life after death, and also for being big meanies for endorsing the idea of hell. Um. “Your soul will live on after death and that could be extremely miserable forever” is not, in fact, comforting.) I was just a bit surprised that Maarten was unfamiliar with the religious arguments for why atheism would make one happy/be comforting.
I was a believer early on but have been an atheist (someone who lacks belief in a god) for decades. I do think that atheism is harder. Having a solid belief in a loving god and an afterlife would be a massive comfort. (At least if heaven was an interesting place where I could grow -- not a picture I get from any religion, except maybe Mormonism).
Religion tells you what is good and bad whereas atheists have to figure it out for themselves and never know if they are right. (Or if there is a right answer.)
Religious communities also clearly have some benefits. These can be replicated in non-religious communities but it's harder. I am not only an atheist but a transhumanist. That has always made it hard for me to find a community. It's been easier since the web arose but still difficult in physical space.
Hi, Max! As former atheist-turned-believer, I don't have a strong opinion about whether atheism or belief is "harder." What I think is interesting given this entire conversation, though, is the presumption that the harder path is the one more likely to be true--a trope that is positively religious in nature. Hard is the way, and narrow is the gate that leads to truth. I get why someone who thinks that Matthew 7:13-14 is true would agree to that statement, but not why an atheist--who, after all, came up with all his beliefs all by himself--necessarily would.
So I speculate that this goes back to a point of this original post, and a theme in Maarten's other work on the appeal of pessimism. A bunch of us, religious believers and atheists alike, want to believe that there are "hard truths" but not easy ones, and thus are practically in competition to show that our belief system makes our lives suck more. Which is....a little weird, right?
While I think atheism is harder in some clear ways, which is harder probably depends on the individual and where and when they live. Being a sole atheist in a deeply religious community would be especially hard as would being the sole theist in a strongly and judgmentally atheist community.
I would not say that the harder path is more likely to be true. I think atheism tends to be harder given the psychology that humans have evolved which naturally looks for personal explanations for the fundamental aspects of life. For me, as a philosophical person (I ended up with a doctorate in the subject and taught both philosophy of religion and religious studies) the difficulty of becoming atheist came mostly from a year or so of fear that I if I was wrong I was going to burn forever in Hell.
Pessimism has no appeal for me. Despite having a tendency to depression throughout my life, my philosophy of life and views of the future are optimistic. My optimism has become somewhat blunted by the demographic challenge and by growing risk aversion in our culture along with the continued cancerous growth of government and bureaucratic power.
I definitely agree that the hardest aspect would be going against the social flow, whether that's as an atheist in a community of believers or vice versa. Indeed, increasing numbers of sociologists studying religion in the west postulate that atheism has become more popular in Western countries, um, because it has become more popular: Many people have been religious because that is just what one does in society, and increasingly, Westerners are nonbelievers because that's just what one does--especially in the smart set. It's always easiest to do what people around you are doing. We're evolved to be social animals--probably the most pro-social mammal to have ever existed--so I see what you're saying about an evolutionary explanation for religious faith to be easier insofar as communities are religious. However, as societies shift towards having fewer religious believers, it stands to reason that the social argument for religious faith being easier would no longer hold. It's important to note that a majority of adults in many Western countries are now nonbelievers. In Maarten's native Belgium, for instance, in 2010 63% of adults were atheists, and that percentage has probably increased in the last 14 years. In the USA, the most religious Western country, 28% self-describe as having no religious beliefs--a percentage that is growing by the year. Counting only these 28% as nonreligious rather generously counts Americans who never attend church as "religious," as long as they self-describe as having some beliefs. If you haven't already read it, I think you'd find Stephen Bullivant's "Nonverts" interesting on this question. Here's a link: https://global.oup.com/academic/product/nonverts-9780197587447?cc=us&lang=en&
I think it's very admirable choosing optimism in a world that overvalues pessimism, and with your history of depressive tendencies. I, too, have some real concerns about how long this progress train can keep running, what with demographic challenge, risk aversion (which I think is progress being a victim of its own success), and algorithm-driven control of media narrowing our viewpoints. So, I'm glad you're here to bounce thoughts off of. Thank you for that!