If traditional Catholicism is to be the set bar, I guarantee that you are screwed. A single unrepentant mortal sin (which can be as something as 'trivial' as masturbation yet alone the use of contraception) will land you in Hell. It was common opinion among early and mediaeval theologians that the vast majority are damned. (For logical reasons when you understand just how serious the threat of Hell is in the Catholic framework) Of course the modern trend is the opposite extreme.
Eeew, no. Not Catholicism. Sorry. That bar is, I agree, impossible, and I'd obviously fail any test requiring repentance to God or indeed any requiring worship or honouring of God. Those are basically self-fulfilling given my lack of belief. But I think the point being made was that people turn to atheism because it is easier in a moral sense. Personally, I don't see it. I'd go further and call it a very Christian-centric belief, in so far as it makes an assumption that there is an objective moral path, and following this is (essentially) the hard road, whilst life outside that objective morality is basically a free for all. I wrestle with all the same moral dilemnas anyone else does, but ultimately don't have a single source of 'objective' morals, or a guiding body from which to be given direction. If you suppose Catholocism to be true, then I guess that is a negative, but I don't believe in a truly objective morality (in a global sense), and handing over moral judgement to a governing body or 2000 year old book is simpler than wrestling with these things myself.
I'm sure that for a self-aware Catholic, such as you appear to be, this is COMPLETELY not the case. But I have both lived and worked in Catholic-rich environments (for want of a less stupid description) enough to know that for some a Papal decree is to be accepted, not considered.
Honestly, I don't think any self aware person, regardless of belief structure, is going to find an easy road.
By simplistic ideological atheism I mean the philosophically vapid, self-assured and theologically naive anti-religion that is preached on the internet. Identity or movement atheism, call it whatever you want I'm sure you know what I'm talking about. I think that it's a bankrupt ideology that is at its core nothing more than a reaction against American Fundamentalist Protestantism.
I know what you're talking about, but that isn't simple atheism, and as an atheist I cannot help but make that point. My atheism offers nothing positive, but is a lack of belief. I see 'atheism' being claimed by both believer and non-believer both to be something it is not. It is not a grand rationalism. Nor is it anti-theism. It is JUST lack of belief. I can't sit by as claims are made about 'atheism' which in no way reflect anything about me at all, despite me being an atheist. Nothing personal.
It angers me when I'm accused of believing in "sky-daddies" because it's an egregious strawman. They're too busy patting themselves on the back with their 'rationality' over really being truth seeking. It's hypocritical and blood boiling when you see past the rhetoric. They're just another special interest group. And most of them are pseudo-intellectuals to be frank.
Try being an atheist and having people tell you what that means...lol
Pascals Wager was intended within the context of someone who had already ruled out other religions. You really don't think one of the most brilliant minds in human history actually believed the wager to be a stand alone argument for belief? But this is neither here or there.
Pascal's Wager begs the question early by limiting choice to God either existing or not, as if there are 2 heads to a coin, and is an exercise in probability/logical deduction. Even limiting oneself to 'the Christian God' you are left with hundreds of denominations (ignoring minor differences, which would jump the number to thousands) which make this presumption a step too far. Consider ONLY trinitarianism, and the choice is no longer a two-headed coin, right? As a philosophical position it has it's flaws, not least of which are assumptions that belief is voluntary, or (alternatively) that God would be satisfied with belief-like actions even if an individual did not hold 'true' belief in God.
I know enough about the Wager to know that it's not the entirety of his argument (or even close to it) and that it was published posthumously. So I can allow that what we now refer to as Pascal's Wager is an over-simplification of his ideas, and discussed out of context. So think of Pascal's Wager not as my detailed examination of Pascal's philosophies, but instead just a shorthand for the deductive position some still use as a pro-religion argument to this day.
I'm obviously aware that I have no way of actually knowing whether or not Catholicism is any more likely than other exclusivist theologies. (Well for historical reasons I can objectively say that it's more likely than 'Bible-only' Protestantism which is a relatively modern development) I'm well aware that my 'beliefs' are a product of happenstance. I was born to an observant mother. I know that if Islam is true then my fear of God is for naught because I'm a shirk committing Christian kafir who's going to hell anyway. Yet I don't fear that possibility because I don't think Islam is likely (because the dice roll of happenstance didn't lead to a situation conductive to belief in it) As I said I'm not a self-certain zealot. I know that there are real objections to Christianity (as opposed to the anti-Christian rhetoric) which are constantly on my mind.
You have a level of self-awareness evident in your posts, which I commend you for.
The last thing you can do is accuse me of "escaping self-responsibility" I'm far more self-aware than to be using religion as a security blanket. If anything it makes the possible sakes that much bigger. Life would be easier as an atheist. Adopting some 'self-affirming' New Age bunk would be running from reality.
I'm not accusing you (personally) of anything. What I am suggesting is that human behaviour appears somewhat consistent despite religion. I think religion can play a role in changing behaviour, both for the worse and for the better, dependent on many things. But ultimately people are people. So no, I don't think you (personally) are using religion as a security blanket. But religion doesn't make the stakes any bigger. They are, in fact, the same, regardless of our belief. If Catholicism is true, regardless of my unbelief, then I may well end up in hell (the Pope occasionally appears to be putting on a nice face on this these days). If atheism is true, then we're both worm-food. If Islam is true, then we're both in trouble. Our belief doesn't change reality.
As for life being easier as an atheist...sure, in some ways it is. I would think that seeing it as 'easier' or 'harder' is overly simple, though. If you truly believe that your loved one is going to heaven after a long and productive life, then perhaps that helps deal with grief? If you truly believe you might see them again, in some sense? If you truly believe there is a plan? For me, I figure I've got 80 years (give or take) and then that's it. I can see why a non-atheist might assume that encourages some form of hedonism. But...for myself...that's simply not true. At all.
I'm not sure to what extent I believe, and I don't want to inadvertently imply that I don't believe either. But I'm not going to wave the believer/unbeliever flag merely by the whims of doubt and belief.
Nor should you. Doubt is healthy, and I'm not talking here solely about religion. Giving yourself space to adjust your beliefs, or at least to examine them is a positive thing. Self-awareness is a positive thing, as is self-honesty. No argument from me. If I can be so bold the only issue I have with the way you are looking at things is that you're trying to jam atheists in a particular shape. We're more like theists in that there are lots of 'types' and little conformity or consistency. Don't think of us as non-Catholics.
