Intelligence and theism

** For a long time it was a mystery to me why intelligent people stay religious once they encounter and contemplate the powerful arguments against theism, especially when they've been victims of its inconsistencies and failures. Something has captured the core of their identity and won't let go, as the following video shows (thanks to DarkMatter2525 via Matt at SouthernSkeptic.)

Birth of atheism

Newborn babies are naturally atheistic and need prolonged systematic indoctrination by parents and/or religious institutions to overwrite this natural state. I have intelligent friends and family who no longer practice their religion but still indulge in bits and pieces of it. Some go to church now and then. Others still revere and study the Bible. Others claim they still believe in the essential truth of a religion but don't get involved with its church. As the above video suggests, these die-hards were "carefully taught" from an early age, making it so hard to break out of those primordial brain grooves. 

Why didn't it work with me? 

I'm clean. God-free. Spirit-Free. Holy book-free. Church-free. I'm probably not even that good a humanist -- though I try. What I've just figured out is that I didn't receive my indoctrination from a personal source. It came mainly from institutions, which is a few clicks weaker than personal imprinting. It came from early church involvement and all levels of Catholic schooling including college, where I was taught by the "Defenders of the Faith," the Jesuits. 

Top of the slide 

Ironically, that Catholic college was my gateway to atheism. In the last half of my senior year, a young Jesuit brother, whose name I've forgotten, introduced a new class called "Existential Phenomenology." I don't remember much from that class but its impact was immediate and radical anyway, beyond its content. Imagine having been immersed for twenty years in the ideas of Thomas Aquinas and their spinoffs and implementations, and then suddenly you behold a vast field populated with more than Catholic philosophers. Of course I was naive, made that way on purpose by a system that scorned heterodoxy. In that class I learned of Heidegger, Kierkegaard, Hussrl, Camus, Sartre and a pantheon of other philosophers who not only propounded views divergent from each other, but also from the only philosophy I'd ever known, one that supported the Catholic religion with which I'd so identified. That expanded view started a process of doubt and questioning that led in a couple of years to my disengagement from the church and its doctrines.

Down, and out

But that awakening wasn't enough. Though for ten years I wandered agnostically through the intriguing landscapes of philosophy, I never found a home in any of them. Until Christian Science. For complex reasons detailed here many times, this quirky Victorian relic had convinced me it held the true view of reality I’d been searching for. I set out to make a spiritual home there, and even tried to eke out a living practicing its brand of "spiritual" healing. I never could make a living charging people for my prayers but somehow I hung on for over thirty-five years. (Second degree indoctrination is weaker, but still damned strong.)

But THAT didn't work out either! Hence, this blog since 2005.

What finally broke the spell

After much reading and thinking and time, came the realization that the problem wasn't with any particular religion – that was just brand dissatisfaction. It was a categorical error: my blind acceptance of the very existence of a god, the grand assumption beneath all the brands, theism. In all my searching I hadn't noticed this, focussing only on finding one right explanation and practice. With the removal of this central pillar of belief the whole superstructure of religion collapsed around me, leaving hardly a scratch from the debris.

Degrees of imprinting

One of the reasons I'm so against religious indoctrination of children by their parents is that its crazy-making influence works too well. I've been able to turn so completely from theism and its by-products because I wasn't imprinted as deeply as those with a more conventional upbringing. If anything, I have been at heart an anti-authoritarian. Since the root of religious imprinting is parental indoctrination, deference to a strong leader (parent) underlies religiosity and conservatism. In my own case, indoctrination didn't come mainly from parents. My father, in addition to being strong to the point of violence, was anti-religious, the opposite of my mother. Since institutions were more influential than personal indoctrination in grafting theism onto my psyche, maybe the failure of an institution to help me in my great need cleared the last mile to my atheism

Why do I care?

Religious conviction in itself wouldn’t be very dangerous, except perhaps to the believer. It's supposedly a free country and people are entitled to whatever private fantasies get them through the night. Proselytizing is odious enough, but too often religious convictions and right-wing political ideologies coalesce, which has widely disastrous effects in the public sphere. For example, Georgia, where I now live, has been kicking around several pieces of legislation that would breach the wall of separation between religion and the State. Whether these efforts make it into law isn't as galling to me as the continuous pressure to do so. This depressingly reflects the desperation and power of religious constituencies fighting against the inevitable trend of American society away from theism.

Daddy issues

Why do the two so easily go together? Consider the "strong father" complex, the need of frightened people to be approved of and commanded by a superior entity, whether a supernatural Creator, a parent, a religious leader, or an ideology – anything with the power to punish and reward, create and destroy. Today's conservatism seems to be an example of this, characterized as it is by a resistance to change, reluctance to take risks, to explore territory that might revise one's views and behavior, a need to be certain, to be a winner, to be reactionary, etc. This resonates with a recent Vox article citing a survey that suggests authoritarianism is the fundamental characteristic of the conservative voter, and the explanation for the Trump phenomenon (he poses as the strong father and supporters expect he'll beat up the people they fear.) I've also written about it here.

Hope and fear

I continue to hope in the slow attrition of religious influence through generational dilution (none-sense). If we can avoid some apocalyptic event (most likely religion-based), reason will do its work and elevate the human race to where intelligence and theism will universally be acknowledged as polar opposites.