What was it that turned you?

[tomspug]

In 8th grade I was watching The X-Files, and Mulder didn't believe in God. Before then I never thought about it, but then after watching so many episodes of the x-files I figured out that the existance of god and heaven and hell and all that wasn't a universal truth. It was something some people believed and some people didn't. So I thought you know what? Mulder's pretty smart... There probably isn't a god after all... I can't think of any reason why I should believe in him/her/it. Of course I didn't decide not to believe in god just because I wanted to be like Mulder. I really did think about it. That was the most recent and only conversion for me. I don't know if it really counts as converting, because I didn't really have a religion prior to then; I just thought there was some sort of god and stuff because everyone said there was. I just never thought about it until then, because I didn't know there was any other option.

You know, it's interesting that you say that the x-files character convinced you that there was no god when Chris Carter is a Christian... In fact, I consider the X-Files to be one of the best pro-Christian shows out there (and I mean that).

 

[Autodidact]

It went like this:
I started reading Skeptic magazine, and began thinking like a skeptic, which to say a scientist. I maintain that change to this day. So I thought a skeptic should question everything, and take nothing for granted just because they told you so. So I decided Imust be a freethinker. After tuning in to Freethought radio, I realized that one common meaning of "freethinker" is atheist. So I realized I should ask myself whether there is a God. Before that I only tried to determine the nature of God, while assuming that there is one. So, in asking myself whether there is a God, I thought a first step was to define God. I used a definition of a powerful spiritual creator being who cannot be perceived with any sense. In my way of thinking, which emphasizes epistemology, and the relationship between existence and our ability to perceive something, it struck me that a God by definition was a non-existent being. That is, if a thing cannot be perceived with any sense, then it what sense could it be said to exist?

Unless it has measurable effects. Or, as other atheists say, what's the evidence? So I tried to think of what might count as evidence. One would be, for example, if intercessory prayer worked. At least, that would be evidence for a lot of Gods. So I read up on that, and it turns out it doesn't. In fact, it works at exactly the same rate as if God did not exist--the same as random chance.

The other evidence most believers point to is the universe itself, the watchmaker argument. Without being an expert on cosmology, evolution, etc., I thought the scientists are doing a pretty good job of figuring out all that without, as some famous french guy said, having recourse to that hypothesis, so that didn't do it for me.

What I was left with was either (1) no God or (2) a Deist God, which for all intents and purposes in my very own personal life can be treated as if It didn't exist.

Then I started trying to test my tentative belief. I do this mostly by engaging with theists, and learning what their arguments are. What I have found, over the last 7 years, is that their arguments suck rope. They state all kinds of things as factual that aren't, they're largely ignorant of their own scripture and the history of those scriptures, and their logic consists of circular arguments and special pleading. So the poor quality of theist arguments has served to confirm my confidence in my belief that there is no personal God, no God that I need to take into account in my own life.

 

[Comicaze247]

I think it was more of a slow turn. Every time I went to Church, there was something I'd disagree with, especially the treatment of homosexuals. I just eventually found that my ideas differed too much from Catholicism, so I just decided to stop calling myself Catholic. I started looking into Hinduism, Buddhism, Wicca, Neo-Druidism, and general philosophies of life. I became what I am now, whatever the hell it is, lol.

 

[Mister_T]

What was it that turned you?

Just to name a couple off the top of my head. Actually I think the straw that broke the camel's back was when one of the pastor's at the church I was attending made an elaborate chart calculating how many people are "going to Hell" in the city, as his sermon for the day.

 

[science_is_my_god]

When I was a Catholic, I had doubts, but like most skeptical Catholics, I surpressed those doubts and kept my mouth shut.

Later on, I remember watching a show on the History Channel that offered a few non-divine hypothesis to the ressurection of Christ. Shocked, I skimmed through my bible and was looking at scripture, and actually looking at things subjectively, I discovered that most of the events in the bible seemed very unrealistic. After a few nights of deep thinking and soul-searching, I went to my youth group. I asked the pastor afterwords about what he thought and he told me about how there are things in the bible that are very much historical fact and things that are figurative, things written by the disciples to represent meaning (Doesn't sound too Catholic, but that's because it was a non-denominated group).

So, after that, I came to the conclusion that if some things are literal and some things are figurative, how do we know what is fact and what is fiction? We can't, at least from scripture alone. Now that I had an open mind, I decided to only accept things that have an actual factual basis to them, that's where logic kicked theology out of my head. Since no one has actually handed me physical evidence that support's a god's existence, I had to come to the conclusion: "Maybe there just isn't anything out there."

 

[doppelganger]

Just to name a couple off the top of my head. Actually I think the straw that broke the camel's back was when one of the pastor's at the church I was attending made an elaborate chart calculating how many people are "going to Hell" in the city, as his sermon for the day.

I regard Christianity and ancient mysticism generally as a manner of speaking about the experience of expanding moral awareness or ego development, using the cultural framework of certain times and places. As such, it is valid and psychologically true. For example, in Jane Loevinger's research, she differentiates eight major stages (with some ambiguity and overlap between any two obviously) for the development of ego (other models refer to this as "moral awareness" and ultimately it traces back to the pioneering research of Jean Piaget). This same sort of shifting in moral awareness and ego development is under the surface in the writings of ancient Christians (whether one looks at Paul's letters, the Gospels or the Gnostic writings).

I would add that people can regress in their sense of themselves, with stress, depression and substance abuse, for example.

Here are Loevenger's stages (and there are other models):

Infancy
* Presocial
* beginning ego
* Not Differentiated from the World
* Symbiotic
* Self-Nonself Differentiation
* Stability of Objects

Impulsive
* Curbed by Restraints, Rewards & Punishments
* Others are Seen as What They Can Give
* "Nice to Me" or "Mean to Me"
* Present-Centred
* Physical but not Psychological Causation

Self-Protective
* Anticipates Rewards & Punishments
* First Self-Control
* "Don’t Get Caught"
* Externalize Blame
* Opportunistic Hedonism

Conformist
* Take in Rules of the Group
* No Self Apart from Others
* Other’s Disapproval is Sanction
* Not Only Fear of Punishment
* Rules and Norms not Distinguished
* Rejects Out-Group
* Stereotypes Roles
* Security = Belonging
* Behaviours Judged Externally not by Intentions

Self-Aware
* Self Distinct from Norms & Expectations
* First Inner Life
* Banal Feelings Always in Reference to Others
* Pseudo-Trait Conceptions
* Modal Stage of Adults

Conscientious
* Goals and Ideals
* Sense of Responsibility
* Rules are Internalized
* Guilt is From Hurting Another, not Breaking Rules
* Having Self Apart from Group
* Standards are Self-Chosen
* Traits are Part of Rich Interior World
* Standards Distinguished from Manners
* Motives and not Just Actions
* Sees Self from Other Point of View

Individualistic
* Distancing from Role Identities
* Subjective Experience as Opposed to Objective Reality
* Greater Tolerance of Self & Others
* Relationships Cause Dependency
* Awareness of Inner Conflict
* Inner Reality Vs. Outward Appearance
* Psychological Causality and Development

Autonomous
* Inner Conflicts of Needs Vs Duties
* Polarity, Complexity, Multiple Facets
* Integrate Ideas
* Tolerate Ambiguity
* Freeing from Conscience
* Concern for Emotional Interdependence
* Integrates Different Identities
* Self-Fulfillment
* How They Function in Different Roles

Integrated
* Transcendence of Conflicts
* Self-Actualizing
* Fully Worked Out Identity

Your pastor, if he takes that sort of thinking to heart would be somewhere in between "self-protective" and "conformist." Your typical everyday Christians who don't obsess over Heaven/Hell or right belief and just want to make their world a little bit better place probably fall in between "self-aware" and "conscientious." Great visionaries, mystics and artists would tend to be in the "autonomous" and "integrated" stages.

I don't think you can will yourself to move from one to other. Nor can you convince someone who isn't already making such a move. This movement across ego stages is primarily aesthetic. The morality and reasoning compatible with the the asthetics of self as the ego develops only follows the development, it does not lead it.

The same religious symbolism and stories mean something completely different to people at different stages. Jesus's crucifixion for example means something very different to a "self-protective" person than it does to a "conscientious" person than it does to an "autonomous" person. Even if they sit in the same Church pew and sing the same hymns, they aren't really engaging in the same religious practices.

When an individual makes a big leap in their ego development, it may appear that the mythological and symbolic tools one was working with will initially seem to be childish things and that they are now more of an adult. And at a later stage, they may come back and find those childish things weren't so childish after all. Religious symbols cannot for any length of time be used in a way that is inconsistent with the way a person feels and thinks about his or her self.

So one might at some point realize a profound wisdom in "Row, Row, Row Your Boat" even though they have previously discarded it as childish.

 

[Muffled]

In your most recent conversion or pronouncement /renunciation of faith, what was the issue, moment, or idea that initiated and/or triggered that change?

I was going to the Christian Science Church and believed that I needed to learn how to have mind over matter as the view is expressed there. The turning point came when I had talked to some people and realized they didn't know how to have mind over matter either. So now I am in a new church.

 

[Mister_T]

Your pastor, if he takes that sort of thinking to heart would be somewhere in between "self-protective" and "conformist." Your typical everyday Christians who don't obsess over Heaven/Hell or right belief and just want to make their world a little bit better place probably fall in between "self-aware" and "conscientious." Great visionaries, mystics and artists would tend to be in the "autonomous" and "integrated" stages.

I don't think you can will yourself to move from one to other. Nor can you convince someone who isn't already making such a move.

The same religious symbolism and stories mean something completely different to people at different stages. Jesus's crucifixion for example means something very different to a "self-protective" person than it does to a "conscientious" person than it does to an "autonomous" person. Even if they sit in the same Church pew and sing the same hymns, they aren't really engaging in the same religious practices.

I discovered early on in my "walk" that not all Christians think or act the same. I found that there were some (many of whom I met on this site) who shared the same beliefs/convictions I had believed. In the end, it wasn't Christianity as a religion that did it, it's the philosophies that are the pillars of such religions: There's a lot of math there that isn't adding up for that idea of God that is the foundation for such beliefs.

 

[ChristineES]

Religion as a whole wouldn't convince anyone of anything. It was as Mr_T said- it is the different philosophies.
The word "religion" itself can be one of many different ideas. Christianity is only one religion, Hinduism is another, Paganism, Islam, Judaism, and so on. Even Buddhism can be called a religion (although it seems more of a philosophy than a religion). It is what one does with these different faiths that convince people.
It was the Holocaust that turned my mother away from faith when she was 12 years old. But the Holocaust wasn't caused by religion- but by a few people with a philosophy- and an idea. Hitler calling himself a "Christian" was not the cause, that it just an incidental. She finally realized that and at the age of 40 found her faith again (it took 28 years to do it).

 

[whereismynotecard]

You know, it's interesting that you say that the x-files character convinced you that there was no god when Chris Carter is a Christian... In fact, I consider the X-Files to be one of the best pro-Christian shows out there (and I mean that).

I know. It's got a lot of religious stuff in it. But even so, showing someone something enough times to where they start to feel it doesn't really make sense is a good way to get them to not believe it. I'm certain I would have become an atheist anyway. It just so happened at the point in my life when I began to think about religion, I was watching a lot of The X-Files. Mulder asked Scully why she believed in god when she didn't believe in anything else, (like the aliens that were OBVIOUSLY EVERYWHERE) when there was no proof of god... and I thought "Yeah, Scully!! There is no proof of god, but you saw a little alien in that dry ice stuff at the end of season 1 yet you still don't believe in aliens... What's wrong with you!?!"

 

[Sleepr]

...

Your pastor, if he takes that sort of thinking to heart would be somewhere in between "self-protective" and "conformist." Your typical everyday Christians who don't obsess over Heaven/Hell or right belief and just want to make their world a little bit better place probably fall in between "self-aware" and "conscientious." Great visionaries, mystics and artists would tend to be in the "autonomous" and "integrated" stages.

...

Excellent post. I'm curious about your thoughts on a couple of things:

Do you think there is a developmental stage, at which, most people could recognize their own development beyond the prior stages? In a sense, using the recognition of the prior stages as "proof" of their current stage, and the stages beyond. I mean this with regard to a person who has capacity for continued development.

If so, could that cognition impact their ability to move to the next level. For instance, if the pastor from the example were to recognize his own development and where he could go next, could it help him to realize his capacity?

Or, could this very realization sometimes cause fear, anger and an unwillingness to embrace the next stage, due, in part, to a fear of rejection from the group?

I can't help but wonder if the described behavior by the pastor could be an overcompensation out of fear and anger. I also wonder if that process could be subconscious.

 

[doppelganger]

Do you think there is a developmental stage, at which, most people could recognize their own development beyond the prior stages?

Yes, but not immediately and probably not until a person approaches "individualistic", "autonomous" and "integrated," when they can see that everything they've felt and done is a part of who they are, and recognize this same aesthetic process in others who are acting out their mythology within the limitations of their ego.

In a sense, using the recognition of the prior stages as "proof" of their current stage, and the stages beyond. I mean this with regard to a person who has capacity for continued development.

I think a person will look back upon the stage immediately prior to the one in which they find themselves as being something from which they will tend to want to distance themselves until they get a little further away from it. The more expansive and complete one's sense of self is, the more one can see all of these aspects are part of the process of one's being. And as an individual approaches self-actualization, this whole process becomes a part of the story of one's life, yes.

If so, could that cognition impact their ability to move to the next level. For instance, if the pastor from the example were to recognize his own development and where he could go next, could it help him to realize his capacity?

No. He would regard any deviation from his method of using his religious symbols as aesthetically displeasing (or "against God's will"), and until everything is right for the next big jump in the development of his ego (which can certainly be never for some people), then he will have no understanding of a higher state of awareness than the one at which he resides - though he might have the vague sense that such an awareness is there in potential, he will not have the experiential tools to describe it or really contemplate it.

Or, could this very realization sometimes cause fear, anger and an unwillingness to embrace the next stage, due, in part, to a fear of rejection from the group?

Yes, it can. And more so at certain stages. This is why the modal stages for adults are self-aware and conscientious - we have social structures in place to rein in any further development and to control mystic experiences - this, in a nutshell, is the very purpose of organized religion. As Jung put it: "Religion is a system to protect us from the experience of God."

I can't help but wonder if the described behavior by the pastor could be an overcompensation out of fear and anger. I also wonder if that process could be subconscious.

It's completely subconscious and aesthetic. His conscious self has no control over his feelings and his morality and the reasoned world he perceives will necessarily be a reflection of these subconscious processes he cannot perceive. Thus, "God" is only seen by its effects on the world as we perceive it.

 

[Sleepr]

Yes, but not immediately and probably not until a person approaches "individualistic", "autonomous" and "integrated," when they can see that everything they've felt and done is a part of who they are, and recognize this same aesthetic process in others who are acting out their mythology within the limitations of their ego.

I think a person will look back upon the stage immediately prior to the one in which they find themselves as being something from which they will tend to want to distance themselves until they get a little further away from it. The more expansive and complete one's sense of self is, the more one can see all of these aspects are part of the process of one's being. And as an individual approaches self-actualization, this whole process becomes a part of the story of one's life, yes.

No. He would regard any deviation from his method of using his religious symbols as aesthetically displeasing (or "against God's will"), and until everything is right for the next big jump in the development of his ego (which can certainly be never for some people), then he will have no understanding of a higher state of awareness than the one at which he resides - though he might have the vague sense that such an awareness is there in potential, he will not have the experiential tools to describe it or really contemplate it.


Yes, it can. And more so at certain stages. This is why the modal stages for adults are self-aware and conscientious - we have social structures in place to rein in any further development and to control mystic experiences - this, in a nutshell, is the very purpose of organized religion. As Jung put it: "Religion is a system to protect us from the experience of God."

It's completely subconscious and aesthetic. His conscious self has no control over his feelings and his morality and the reasoned world he perceives will necessarily be a reflection of these subconscious processes he cannot perceive. Thus, "God" is only seen by its effects on the world as we perceive it.

Very insightful and interesting, thank you! Everything made pretty good sense to me too, I hope that's a good sign .

I'm going to ponder over these thoughts for a while and see if anything else shakes loose. I think you've helped to influence a fairly well-defined idea on how it relates to the pastor from the example though, thanks again.

 

[tomspug]

No. He would regard any deviation from his method of using his religious symbols as aesthetically displeasing (or "against God's will"), and until everything is right for the next big jump in the development of his ego (which can certainly be never for some people), then he will have no understanding of a higher state of awareness than the one at which he resides - though he might have the vague sense that such an awareness is there in potential, he will not have the experiential tools to describe it or really contemplate it.

I disagree. I think that it is oversimplification to say that such a pastor is COMPLETELY stuck in this state. If he truly is locked in dogma, it does not likely have an impact over his entire psyche. From my experience, many American Christians live double lives. They have their "religious" self, which is generally limited, caged like a child that refuses to grow up, while at home or at work, they are a completely different person. They appear normal, well-developed, and generally on-track with their lives. However, there is no apparent connection between their REAL self and the "religious self".

 

[Sleepr]

I disagree. I think that it is oversimplification to say that such a pastor is COMPLETELY stuck in this state. If he truly is locked in dogma, it does not likely have an impact over his entire psyche. From my experience, many American Christians live double lives. They have their "religious" self, which is generally limited, caged like a child that refuses to grow up, while at home or at work, they are a completely different person. They appear normal, well-developed, and generally on-track with their lives. However, there is no apparent connection between their REAL self and the "religious self".

I don't mean to speak for doppelganger, but I didn't take "completely" stuck in his state, from what he said. I got that the recognition of prior development at his likely stage of development, while helpful, won't provide the "experiential tools" to contemplate the direction of his own self-actualization.

LOL, that's a mouthful.

 

[doppelganger]

They have their "religious" self, which is generally limited, caged like a child that refuses to grow up, while at home or at work, they are a completely different person. They appear normal, well-developed, and generally on-track with their lives. However, there is no apparent connection between their REAL self and the "religious self".

I never said anyone was refusing to grow up. Or that someone who feels the way about their self that the pastor's words seem to indicate can't have a happy life with fulfilling relationships with those for whom one feels a genuine sense of connection like family and friends (particularly if they are friends who meet the belief and action requirements to be considered "in" God's will). I'm not sure where you got that idea from? Loving one's family and friends is certainly compatible with being in the range of the "self-protective" and "conformist" stages of development.

 

[tomspug]

No, what I'm saying is that it's perfectly possible to advance beyond the "conformist" stage (which most people do, in my opinion). It's called High School, and people do grow out of it. However, people find comfort in religion by REGRESSING to the "comformist" stage much in the same way that one might find comfort in a stuffed animal as an adult or enjoy playing with "toys" as an adult.

 

[doppelganger]

No, what I'm saying is that it's perfectly possible to advance beyond the "conformist" stage (which most people do, in my opinion).

Well, of course. I said as much above. The modal stage for adults in the US is somewhere between the self-aware and conscientious stages. Though some people never get beyond a world dominated by rewards and punishments.

However, people find comfort in religion by REGRESSING to the "comformist" stage much in the same way that one might find comfort in a stuffed animal as an adult or enjoy playing with "toys" as an adult.

Which I also specifically pointed out above. We're on the same page, tom.

 

[tomspug]

Well, of course. I said as much above. The modal stage for adults in the US is somewhere between the self-aware and conscientious stages. Though some people never get beyond a world dominated by rewards and punishments.

Which I also specifically pointed out above. We're on the same page, tom.

I find that often the case.