It surprises me that you would have - as an intelligent and already seasoned adult -- found a religion and decided to devote your life to it, and then reach a point where you're trying to disprove the very premise of the religion.Yeah, it surprised me too. I thought I was just pissed off at Tom and the other phonies who took advantage of my trust (gullibility), but in 2005 after a few months in the California sun - and several months ruminating - I realized that CS was just a more "reasonable" substitute for a deeper delusion in my life. As I've written earlier, I was raised Catholic and was pretty devoted to it - especially as a young person, which is unusual. When you're raised to believe absurdities you seldom question them. So, when I had a problem with religion, I took it as just brand dissatisfaction. I still believed the category itself was legit. After the ensuing wildness, fear zoomed to the forefront and CS appeared on my scene. It promised to make me "good" as religion is supposed to, and since it was almost diametrically opposite to RC it seemed like a complete solution. So for the next 30+ years I tried to live up to what I thought were the ideas and ideals of CS. I even became a staunch defender and apologist - and to some, an example of how liberated it could be.
But time took its toll on delusion and little by little it disintegrated. Applying my mind to the alternatives I eventually questioned the CATEGORY itself and not just the brand. It was the belief that there is a god or principle that controls the universe, who loves his creation and can intervene when we have problems - and the rest of the 9 yards. Once free to look around at the alternatives I found a rich field of facts that satisfied every objection to the claim of a spiritual dimension and a spiritual principle.
I can't say I feel happier or more optimistic. Sober is more accurate. I suppose part of the endurance of a delusion is the comfort it can bring at times. Having made up for lost drinking time over those 30+ years, I really do understand the comforting power of mind-altering influences. And its dangers. Happiness is no indicator of rightness or safety. Just because we all desire comfort and happiness doesn't mean it is actually attainable. So arguments for the proof of a benevolent agent based on the way it makes the believer feel don't sway me. "Truthiness" (per Stephen Colbert) is not the equivalent of truth.
So what is life like without the narcotic of spiritual belief? Not great. But not very different either. Once you understand the totally accidental and unintentional origin of life, that there is no "creator" or "first cause" then you can begin to appreciate the awesomeness of existence - its wonder and its horror. The algorithm that impels complexification has yielded the amazing world we live in. When I look at the natural world, what wows me isn't that some supreme being created it but that each plant, animal - even mineral and gas - is a SURVIVOR! It had countless predecessors, none of which survived. Given the enormity of time and the working of that algorithm - to make complex things out of simpler components (I'm simplifying here) - an enormity of possibilities can arise. In other words, it doesn't take a watchmaker to make a watch. It just takes time and persistent experimentation. Reading Daniel Dennett's "Darwin's Dangerous Idea" really expanded my view of life. It was the second of his books that I read. The first was "Breaking the Spell." About the time I was clearing out the rubble of my so-called religious life that book had just come out and he was doing radio interviews. I heard just a few minutes of an interview and knew I had to explore his ideas. Richard Dawkins came next. And Sam Harris. And Christopher Hitchens. And Victor Stenger. And some others.
What impresses me most about these writers is the clarity of their explanations and, except for Hitchens, a lack of (deserved) vitriol. You don't have to be an evolutionary biologist, neuroscientist or physicist to grasp the immense implications of their world view. It blows ”god” and all that ”spiritual” paraphernalia away like chaff. No, these thinkers don't claim that they or science itself has definitive answers for all questions, but the worst of their ideas demolish the best spiritual arguments. And I know the spiritual arguments well. Very well. I used to hone them for warfare on atheism. I taught them, made a career out of being a voice and practitioner for spirituality. I was even trained early in Catholic theology and Thomistic philosophy. I do know my way around these ideas, and have known or heard a great many spokespeople for spiritual belief. I proved my sincerity and my commitment. And not just for a season, but for decades. So, yeah, it's surprising, this complete turnabout. But what's more shocking is how deeply the delusions went and how long they persisted.
