I grew up in a Catholic household, went to church every Sunday, went to CCD (Confraternity of Christian Doctrine) every Sunday as well.
The CCD teachers were well meaning, parental volunteers.
I didn’t really question my Catholic faith at all as a kid.
It was obvious to me, that being Catholic meant “being good” — so it made sense to me to just be a Catholic.
I was a really good kid.
I remember reading the entire Bible just before going into high school. It was an odd thing. Catholics don’t generally read the Bible that much — something that was made very clear to me the summer before 6th grade when I went to a Baptist Vacation Bible school where we had competitions to see who could look up Bible verses the fastest. I got destroyed. These Baptist kids knew their Bible WAY better than me.
Anyway, after reading the Bible, I had some interesting questions for my parents and my CCD teachers. Turns out, that the troubling parts of the Bible can be glossed over in a somewhat convincing manner for Catholics. Essentially, the Bible is not of ultimate importance, but the church, its teachings, etc. were most important.
This, of course, is where many Protestants get kinda giddy and start saying, “yeah, not using the Bible as the ultimate! Crazy!” but… the Catholic Church can adapt, and sometimes in a positive way, to a changing reality.
I got confirmed in 10th grade, and I was totally committed to the Church and its teachings. The summer after getting confirmed, though, I started reading some Nietzsche. It is hard to explain just how…amazing it was to read some of what he wrote. The slave morality vs. master morality…. it was simply astounding to be reading that this guy actually thought that the morality of the Bible was stupid, dangerous and wrong. Not just that the Bible wasn’t true. I knew some people that thought that, but they all thought that Jesus was the best person ever. To actually think that a person could take issue with humility as a virtue, for example, was mind blowing.
I started to ask myself, ok, I believe that the Catholic Church is correct. I was born into a Catholic family, so it certainly was lucky of me to be born into a family that happened to believe the truth. I quickly realized that a Muslim kid would think the same thing.
But, I figured that if I had been born into a different family, I should be able to figure out which was the correct path. The first step, of course, is to doubt that you happened to have the right answer already. Start with a blank slate, how does a person come to have the right religious beliefs?
Tricky question to answer.
So I thought about it for a while on my own. I really really wanted Catholicism to be the answer. I wanted to believe, but I knew that if I gave it every test I could think of and it passed - that my faith would be that much stronger.
The toughest question that I felt needed to be answered was, Is faith a necessary requirement for salvation?
Here’s a rough example of one of the things I considered:
Let’s say that “A” stands for either Christianity or Islam, and the “B” stands for the other.
Let’s assume that we know that ONE (either A or B) is the true faith.
Both A and B say that a person must have the correct faith (at the very least) in order to get to heaven.
What I mean is, if Christians/Muslims think you need MORE than mere faith, that’s fine, but having the correct faith is a necessary condition.
Faith is - by definition - believing something without having conclusive evidence in its veracity.
In this thought experiment, a person knows that he has a 50% chance of being right, but doesn’t know which one has to pick.
Again, being that each requires a leap of faith in at least one point, and neither is provable, your choice is in part based on something besides reasoning, evidence, etc.
Perhaps based on “feeling” — but people on both side claim the “feeling” part…
So if the system is set up so that God judges a person based on whether they chose the correct faith, He is essentially randomly choosing how to reward or punish a person.
The idea that God would “JUDGE” someone based on picking the correct faith when by definition there isn’t enough evidence to make an informed decision - was highly troubling to me.
I’ll say that bit again, cause it’s important.
I rejected the notion of calling God worthy of worship, if he would damn a person for picking the wrong answer, when there was by definition, not enough information to pick the correct answer.
If this is the setup, then God is a tyrant.
If this is not the setup, and there is enough information to pick the correct answer, then you don’t need faith — there is enough information.
If this is not the setup, that faith isn’t necessary to get into heaven, then faith, clearly isn’t necessary to get into heaven.
This essentially convinced me that faith cannot be a necessary requirement for salvation.
I started reading a bunch of things in earnest… Lots of online reading, plus a lot of books on my own.
It was a long process for me to eventually call myself an atheist. And it was a bit longer before I felt comfortable calling myself an atheist.
As an undergraduate, I wrote a bunch on an online site that fostered a fair amount of religious debate. And I even participated in a few formal live and in person debates.
As a graduate student, I have continued informally challenging people as often as I can in person… still occasionally write online (and have been slowly developing a website of useful debate information), and have participated in a live formal debate.
I am currently a graduate student working toward my Ph.D. in physics, and I’ve had many interesting conversations with lots of different people. One of the more odd things is in talking with people who agree with my general outlook about reality: essentially, there’s no good reason to believe that anything supernatural occurs…I get a sense that religious sentiments should be respected. Religious beliefs should not be called into question. Or, at best, they should be ignored.
I whole-heartedly disagree with this approach. What people believe matters. There are consequences for allowing unreason to run amok beyond the fact that, as Hitchens put it, it is immoral to lie to children and it is immoral to lie to ignorant and uneducated people.

Loading ...