Faith to Faith

Faith to Faith
(or to its absence)

An Apostate's Tips on Switching Belief Systems

The beliefs of most people (if they aren't brain-dead) evolve over time. Many have changed belief systems altogether, switching from one religion to another, formulating a new system of belief, abandoning religious belief entirely, or (more rarely) coming into religion from non-belief. Understandably, many of these migrations involve a considerable degree of stress: What have come to be seen as the flaws of the old, familiar system are displaced by the uncertainty of the new, unfamiliar one. Ties of family and friendship may be strained, or even severed; and values and morals must somehow be reconfigured to the new background of belief (or its absence). If you or someone you know either anticipates or is in the process of such a change, or fears that in changing beliefs one's sense of identity and values might be corrupted or lost, the following thoughts might be of some help and comfort.

A Growing Trend

During the past few decades, the American religious background has been undergoing a gradual reshaping. At the time of the 1980 presidential election, fundamentalist factions became more intensely active, although their numbers have continued to range around 20-25 percent of the population. Meanwhile (according to a study conducted by the Roman Catholic Church), mainstream Christianity has been losing adherents, some to fundamentalism, but many to non-Christian sects, particularly Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism, and neo-paganism, as well as various forms of secularism. Indeed, the proportion of non-believers, who in the 1980s constituted only about five percent of Americans, had by 2010 grown to about 15 percent—larger than any other non-Christian faction in the U.S.

Evidently, millions of Americans are becoming disenchanted with traditional religious institutions and beliefs. They're "shopping" for alternative anchors for their values, with bronze-age maxims seeming to make less and less sense in an increasingly complex and rapidly evolving world of scientific advance, economic turmoil, competing dogmas, rampant egoism, and class warfare. For some, this change of beliefs may be a joyous rebellion. But for others, it's a wrenching and bewildering experience, for their values and sense of stability are rooted in the now abandoned beliefs they've unquestioningly held since childhood, beliefs which had furnished answers to many of their deepest questions, including:

Where are we going?

Where did we come from?

How should we behave while we're here?

When the beliefs that once provided answers to these questions are uprooted, it seems urgent that we find something else, either to support those answers, or to provide different (and hopefully better) ones. So, it would seem a beneficial use of the experience of this successful apostate to help others to transition from a once comfortable but untenable tradition to a more relevant yet initially unfamiliar perspective, without in the process losing their sense of identity and purpose, moral compass, or basis for their values.

Organizing a Purposeful Transition

My own transition started when I was in my twenties (the mid-1960s), when I began to see the ugly side of my childhood Christianity, intensified by its connection to violent racial oppression in the South. The prideful ignorance, unfounded fear, irrational hatred, and abhorrent injustice, which some versions of religion seem to breed in both their leaders and followers, led me to examine my own tenets and rationale, and to consider alternatives. Finding all the religious options I encountered more or less equally unconvincing, I drifted through a relatively brief period of deism and pantheism, ending up an atheist by default, through lack of clear evidence for anything else. But the heavy-lifting part of the transition—finding adequate answers to those deep questions—continued for several years after my religious belief had dissolved. We'll take a look at those shortly; but first things first.

I must say my transition was a rather haphazard operation; it just happened, without any planning. That's probably typical of most; but it doesn't have to be that way. With a few tips from someone with related experience, the move can be planned and undertaken with greater confidence and less fumbling. Certainly, not everyone starts at the same embarkation point (Protestant Christianity) and ends up at the same destination (atheism) and for the same reasons I did. So, I'm hardly in a position to offer blanket advice to others whose situations and motives differ significantly from my own. However, having come through an experience in the same general category of "spiritual migration," I can offer some rough guidelines, in the hope that the novice wayfarer may incur less risk of becoming lost in the bewildering snarl of belief systems, and can with some degree of confidence find his or her way to a system appropriate to his or her personal values and lifestyle. You are free, of course, to wing it if you choose—most do; but some words of experience and hindsight, whether from me or from others, might help spare you a few wrong turns and dead ends, a lot of frustration, and perhaps a little grief.

First, get your bearings. I suggest a long, quiet, contemplative pause, during which you calmly figure out, as best you can, just what—if anything—you truly do believe. For example, do you or don't you believe in the supernatural, including (but not restricted to) any of the following—astrology, heaven, hell, ghosts, spirits, transmigration of souls, demons, angels, gods, miracles? Do you believe that nature itself is spiritual, perhaps divine? Do you believe that mind is natural or supernatural? For each thing in which you do believe, ask yourself why you believe it, and don't shy away from exploring the question in depth. Does what you believe make solid sense to you; is it essential to your worldview; and is altering your worldview an option?

Second, identify your core values, the principles you live by—e.g., ambition or contentment, charity or wealth, commitment or independence; community or family, conformity or individuality, contemplation or judgment, duty or liberty, excellence or mediocrity, expedience or principle, faith or reason, humanity or patriotism, humility or power, ideology or reality, integrity or loyalty, justice or vengeance,, piety or service, tact or truth.
     Which of these (or others) do you feel is most important of all? Whatever it is, clarify it in both general and specific terms. For example, if you cite a vague concept like "freedom," specify freedom from what or to do what, and whether it is freedom for just yourself or for everyone. Do you feel it would be best if everyone lived by this value? If not, how do you justify your being an exception?
     There are no right or wrong choices here; only the one that seems most true in your own view. (The pairings in the list of examples are somewhat arbitrary; many of them can be considered as either opposites or complements, so it's not necessarily an either-or choice. You might, for example, think of the ultimate value as a balance between two other values; but if so, you should have a clear idea of where that balance lies—the target for which your value system aims.)

Third, identify your personal needs and preferences. For example, do you consider belief in an afterlife essential? Are ritual and ceremony important to you? Do you prefer solitude or fellowship for your religious studies and devotions? Is it important to you that your beliefs are not in serious conflict with reality and scientific evidence? Do you feel that truth is best sought through consensus, contemplation, or investigation? Are there any of your accustomed preferences that you think you ought to change or abandon?
     Perhaps you can think of other important questions you need to answer. If so, that's good; it means you're doing your own thinking, not just letting others lead you.

Now, find (or create) a system that's in accord with your beliefs, values, and needs. (For this purpose, we include forms of non-belief among the options in the category of belief systems.) By all means, learn the major tenets, obligations, and prohibitions of any belief system you consider. But also take time to explore its history and origins, to get a feeling for its frame of reference, its general direction, and whether the evidence and thinking that have gone into it are solid or shaky. Also, be aware of what a system does not offer, but which you consider necessary. For example, atheism does not come with a built-in package of values and ethics. The non-believer must either obtain these elsewhere (there are several categories from which to choose, e.g., egoism, altruism, utilitarianism, existentialism, humanism, etc.), or else work out a system of his own. But be wary about frivolous "borrowing" of values based on beliefs you don't actually hold; this practice might be convenient, but it leaves your values with no support whatsoever—a severe shortcoming for something so important.
     In short, know what you're getting into. Be sure the system is a good fit for who you are and what you expect, and determine whether it's flexible enough to allow you to grow and develop within it. Otherwise, you'll just end up repeating the transition process sooner or later.

Seeking the Positive and Avoiding the Negative

What is important is to choose a system of belief (or non-belief) on the basis of a positive outlook of earnest inquiry and a search for enduring value. One can get into a world of misery by being sucked into a confining or destructive dogma, either by a misguided appetite for "mystery" or "escape," or by negative feelings of desperation, fear, or hatred. And of course, one must acquire the ability to tell the positive from the negative. Again, one solution won't suit everyone, but here are a few general pointers you might find useful for a choice that is supposed to see you through the rest of your life (and perhaps beyond):

Seek values and practices that are constructive rather than destructive.

Seek attitudes that invite free and rational inquiry, and avoid any that either confine intellect or overindulge speculation.

Tailor your choice to complement your own level of self-discipline.
Those who crave regular guidance or reassurance should choose an established and structured belief system (e.g., mainstream sects).
Well self-disciplined individuals should seek relatively open and tolerant venues (e.g., Unitarian-Universalism, Buddhism, neo-paganism, non-belief) that do not clash with their own conscientious values.

Beware of those who urge you to "use common sense." In most cases, that just means "believe what we believe" in the absence of a sound reason to do so.

Forget drugs, and don't drink alcohol to excess. Keep your mind calm, informed, and sharp, not "buzzed."

Avoid extreme asceticism. Like drugs, it affects the mind by altering brain chemistry in unhealthful ways.

Avoid extremist sects of any kind, especially if you're susceptible to belief that life (your own or others') is of little value.

Beware of any sect that is excessively secretive or demanding. Requirements (for example) that you surrender wealth or property, that you quit your job, that you abandon your family and friends, or that you remain a member of the sect for life, are signs that the sect imposes controls that you can't easily escape if you should change your mind. Regard coercion of any kind as a danger signal.

Finding Answers to the Deep Questions

Now, let's look at some general responses to those deep questions—realistic responses that can be replaced or enhanced according to particular belief. For the most part, this isn't quite as difficult as one might suppose, provided one is passably acquainted with scientific developments of the past couple of centuries, and mature enough to accept that "we don't know—yet" must suffice as the most honest response to some questions.

Where are we going?

If we're talking about where we're going in life, then we're going wherever we choose and are prepared to go, within the limits set by nature and circumstance. Though this might sound frightfully existential, in a very practical sense life simply has the meaning and purpose that we ourselves give it. The variables are what keep life interesting—for better or for worse.

If we're talking about what comes after death, the simple, honest answer is that no one alive knows for certain, and the dead aren't talking. Dogma and speculation are diverse and widespread, ranging from utter oblivion to reincarnation, from party time in Valhalla to virgins in Paradise, from heavenly harps or hellish torment to assimilation into a universal consciousness. But there's little if any evidential support for any of these. Most people have a preferred fantasy that seems to comfort them. The most mature simply accept that they won't find out until it happens, and, being unable to alter this state of affairs, make themselves content with it.

Where did we come from?
Here again, the choice is varied, but not quite the wide open free-for-all as the one regarding afterlife.

If we can be satisfied with any answer as long as it's appealing (even if it should ultimately turn out to be completely false), then we have many exciting and colorful creation mythologies from which to choose. Or we can invent one of our own.

If we are inquisitive realists, on the other hand, we can study history, biology, geology, chemistry, physics, and cosmology, perhaps without hope of a definite ultimate answer, but with the gratification of a fuller understanding of our epic journey so far.

How should we behave while we're here?

Social tradition and civil law provide guidance for much of public behavior, and feedback through social interaction provides some behavioral clues to the reasonably observant.

Many people rely on conscience for personal guidance, but it varies a great deal from one person to another, and even in the same individual over time. This is because conscience is not a constant and universal principle, but rather a reaction conditioned and changed by an individual's unique personal experience.

Most organized religions prescribe acceptable behavior and sets of values. If you subscribe to one of these, then you essentially obligate yourself to do as you're told, even if it sometimes seems "wrong" in unfamiliar or complicated situations.

Some open religions, as well as non-belief, place upon the subject the duty of defining his or her own values and appropriate behavior. Here, it is best to formulate (or adopt) an ethic that addresses your carefully considered ultimate priorities (e.g., self-interest, duty to community, or the well-being of humankind) and your preferences as to implementing them (e.g., gut instincts, a fixed set of rules, or a rational strategy to achieve the greatest good and the least harm).

Supporting Morals and Values

While questions of origin and destiny are difficult or impossible to answer without considerable speculation (or faith in the presumably inspired speculation of others), questions of personal value and conduct are to some extent addressable in rational (and sometimes even empirical) terms. So, although it's not the purpose of this article to get into intricate details and individual preferences, we can offer a general brief outline for structuring and supporting a practical ethic. Well thought out, a practical ethic will sustain values through transitions. But it can also complement and reinforce many belief-based principles, or else stand on its own within an independent frame of reference.

Obviously, this is a virtual necessity to moral-minded non-believers; but it's also very useful to believers who need an adaptable ethic to fill in the gaps in traditional morality in a complex world. For example, practical ethics typically do the following:

give rational support to common practical values, such as honesty, in the absence of an explicit commandment, "Thou shalt be fair and truthful in all thy dealings and presentations;"

facilitate moral decision-making in situations where the only available choices are not between good and evil, but between the greater of two goods or the lesser of two evils, or between options each of which is a mixture of both good and evil; and

furnish a way to figure out what's good (beneficial) and what's evil (harmful) in confusing cases where the difference isn't clear-cut (e.g., if in some specific instance the application of a general value like honesty would result in great harm).

Those accustomed to a fixed set of pre-defined authoritarian rules are often uninformed or misinformed about other possibilities. They've been warned that "moral relativism" and "situational ethics" are groundless and arbitrary. They've been frightened off by claims that ethics requires heavy thinking (whereas rigid morality is supposedly always crystal-clear). So (if for no other reason), many still shy away from abandoning religious belief, despite finding it absurd or objectionable; besides, learning something new would be just too hard.

But, far from being arbitrary and groundless, rational ethics is arguably more firmly rooted in conscientious principle, evidence, and reason than a rote-learned morality is in unquestioning faith. All forms of morality are "relative" to something, but practical ethics are in addition relevant to the tangible realities of nature and present-day society, where democracy has displaced the divine right of kings, science has made superstition obsolete, and human life expectancy has more than doubled as a result. As to requiring a lot of thought, it's true that rational ethics demands some exercise of our brains. But we must already do that whenever we encounter odd or complex situations not addressed by a rigid set of commandments. Ethics simply applies structure and method to the process, which otherwise could be very haphazard, inconsistent, and even counterproductive. Ethics, though it can be developed to whatever complexity we need, is at base a fairly simple proposition: seeking the greatest good and the least harm with respect to some core principle.

Leaving the specifics up to the individual, we can outline the general essentials of a rational ethic, and describe how these are formulated, roughly as follows:

Purpose: Determine your core moral value and principle. (Think of the core value and the core principle as two sides of the same thing—the value as a supreme goal or purpose, and the principle as a general rule that consistently guides your behavior toward nurturing and defending that value.) Very carefully and thoughtfully, decide what it is that you honestly think is more important than anything else. Avoid nebulous answers like "God," "righteousness," "duty," or "virtue"—not because they're no good, but because they're too vague to provide a clear path and objective for behavior. Be specific, so that you can clearly identify and express both your value and any real things and actions that relate to it. At the same time, keep it broad enough that it remains meaningful in all moral contexts you're likely to encounter. The core value maintains a consistency of purpose, and serves as a tie-breaker if ever any lesser values are found to be in conflict.

Justification: Provide any evidence and reasoned justification for supposing this value to be of ultimate importance, being clear about to whom or to what it's important. Anticipate and address any likely exceptions or challenges. Thinking this through helps ensure that the foundation of your moral values is thoughtfully chosen for its real-world implications in human interaction, not blindly adopted just because "it seems proper" or "everyone believes it." You're far more apt to stick to a value that's well defined and reasoned, and which you're therefore thoroughly convinced is valid. Emotional commitment to the value, though also desirable; is of secondary importance to evidence and reason. This is because people can (and frequently do) emotionally commit to questionable ideas unsupported by, or even contrary to, evidence and reason; obviously, it would be best to avoid this in the case of your core principle, if you mean to be able to defend it against conflicts and likely challenges.

Sound reasoning: Logical thinking that's both comprehensive and consistent, both within itself and with respect to all pertinent evidence, is crucial to a well crafted rational ethic. To the extent that reasoning is flawed, incomplete, or at odds with reality, it yields unreliable results. (This point cannot be stressed too much! A majority of Americans have little or no formal training in critical thinking as such. Consequently, they're unaware of the crucial differences between solid and shaky reasoning. So, not only does their own thinking tend to be infected with logical goofs, but they're also easily misled by the faulty reasoning of others. For assistance with logic basics, visit http://www.4thr.org/.)

Self-control: Cultivate the habit of consistently governing your own attitudes and actions in ways that tend to promote your core value and minimize harm to it. This is why your core principle must be clear; if you don't know precisely what it is and how it's supported, you can't know whether or how your behavior helps or harms it, if indeed it affects it at all.

Toleration: Bear in mind that other people may have different values, which they hold just as dearly as you do your own. Do your best not to interfere with others' legitimate interests, just as you don't want them—well intentioned or otherwise—to interfere with yours.

These are the basic cornerstones for a workable and consistent system of ethics. Some are readily understood, while others might require a bit of elaboration:

Toleration is not a necessary criterion of ethics, but it is a practical consideration in a pluralistic society.

Self-control should be self-explanatory.

Sound reasoning is necessary if a system is to be consistent and reliable. Unfortunately, although reasoning is an innate human ability, there are right and wrong ways to go about it, and it suffers from severe neglect in the pre-collegiate American education system (which is as far as many get). However, basic logic is fairly easy for most adults of average intelligence to learn and apply. Books on logic can be found in public libraries under "philosophy," but many of these are written on a more complex level than the average person needs for practical purposes. For a free, self-paced course in logic basics, visit http://www.4thr.org/.

The need for purpose and justification is obvious. Together, they form the core principle and value that anchor and guide an ethic, clarifying "benefit" and "harm" in terms of a singular concept. What might not be obvious is how a core value can be developed rationally, rather than simply posited arbitrarily. Granted, there is always some degree of subjectivity to human values, but one ought to be able to provide a credible rationale for them in human or natural terms.

This is probably best illustrated through an example. I support the core of my own humanistic ethic roughly as follows (with details omitted for brevity):

I'm a human, and I'm concerned with my own well-being (observed).
(I consider my well-being to include health, liberty, justice, safety, comfort, and access to necessities and reliable information.)

Humans are social creatures by nature (observed).

As a social creature, my own well-being depends significantly on the overall well-being of my social unit (observed).
(I variously define my social unit as my family, my friends and associates, my community, my country, my species, the prospective progeny of any of these, or even the entire supporting planetary environment, as appropriate to the context of the issue in question.)

The overall well-being of my social unit can be seen as the collective well-being of its individual members, amplified by the advantages of their functional interconnectedness (from 3).

Short-sighted exploitive pursuit of anyone's short-term interest could threaten the well-being of others (observed).

Threats to the well-being of others threaten the well-being of the social unit (from 4).

Threats to the social unit threaten its ability to benefit its individual members—including me (from 3 & 4).

So, short-sighted exploitive pursuit of my own short-term interest threatens my own long-term well-being (from 5, 6, & 7).

Therefore, it's in my own interest to govern my behavior with consideration to the well-being of all likely to be affected by it, either directly or indirectly (from 8).

My core value (from 9), then, is human well-being; and my core principle is the protection and promotion of that value. To that end, I should behave in ways that tend to enhance human well-being (my own or others', as appropriate), and to reject behavior that threatens or harms it. In matters that have no likely effect upon either my values or those of society, I consider myself at liberty to act in accord with my own preferences and discretion.

Note that, although "my own well-being" has a selfish ring, it constitutes a clear focus and a most effective motivation,¹ and "my social unit" offers an expandable context to suit an immense variety of situations. The general application of the "telescoping" humanist value hierarchy is to consider first the broadest context relevant to the issue at hand, and then each of the progressively narrower contexts in turn. In addition, it's compatible with other moral interests, such as hard work, humane treatment of animals, environmental concerns, promotion of the arts, and so forth, insofar as these are not in conflict with the core value.

The aforementioned cornerstones are tools and guides. They won't spontaneously generate a fixed set of rules—but that isn't the objective anyway. The first objective is to develop a rational framework for figuring out what sorts of behavior serve the greatest good and threaten the least harm, whether in general or in any particular situation (for some particular situations deviate from the general pattern). The second is to develop the self-discipline to control one's own behavior in accordance with the ethic's core principle. The third is to figure out how to modify the ethic if and when one encounters situations with which it is not equipped to deal. A well crafted and faithfully pursued ethic governs behavior by pre-considered standards and limits, yet affords latitude of choice within that framework. Unlike a list of rigid "commandments," a rational ethic is flexible enough to adapt to complex or unanticipated circumstances and to resolve conflicts.²

Now, people have been grappling with such issues for centuries. So, we would rightly expect that some acceptably reliable systems have already been developed, and are available for adoption and adaptation by anyone. Many prefer to go this route, because it's plainly much easier than building one from scratch; one needn't "reinvent the wheel" in order to take advantage of a practical ethic. But there are also some who aren't satisfied with the existing systems, and who prefer to design one that fits their own standards.

The point here in any case is that, contrary to what a great many have been led to believe, the establishment and maintenance of moral systems is not the exclusive province of religion. There are sound, practical, non-mystical reasons, with real-world consequences, for conducting ourselves in some ways and not in others, and people have been using such systems for centuries. Even many religious people have, perhaps unwittingly, adopted forms of practical ethics to supplement their bronze-age fixed-rule moralities in this far more complex and rapidly evolving global, post-monarchic, industrial-and-information age.

So take courage, friend, and welcome to morality for thinking adults!

NOTES ON THIS TOPIC:

[1] On close inspection, we'd probably find self-interest connected to most people's core principles. For one example, a desire to serve God is itself likely rooted in the desire, not to abase or sacrifice oneself, but rather to seek divine grace and to attain a pleasant afterlife (or to avoid an unpleasant one). For another, an altruist typically finds his own happiness enhanced when he serves others. This "selfish" motive neither defines nor diminishes the principle; it simply reinforces and sustains it in a practical sense, making it less liable to be set aside for expedience, short-term gratification, or simple neglect.

[2] Examples of moral conflicts: Is it okay to lie in order to prevent an injustice? Is it permissible to steal in order to feed a starving family? May we kill an individual if that's the only way to save the lives of many others? Is war an acceptable means to defend liberty? Or to promote it where it doesn't already exist?

Summing Up

For the most part, I've tried to frame these tips in very general terms, so that they may be useful in a wide variety of transitions between belief systems of various sorts. Of course, this presumes a subject capable of rational, reflective thought, a capacity that is suppressed by many strongly doctrinal belief systems, be they religious, moral, political, vocational, economic, aesthetic, or whatever else, in character. Still, this is not a practical worry, since people who don't make a habit of thinking critically are typically content with their current belief systems, and have no intention of changing. If at some point they become dissatisfied with their status quo, then it is likely the result of their already having indulged in a modicum of this (perhaps forbidden) independent thought, and thus the seeds of curiosity and change have already sprouted in them.

Constituting a special case are those considering some form of relatively unstructured, non-prescriptive belief (e.g., deism or pantheism) or non-belief (e.g., atheism or so-called agnosticism). They will doubtless want to find satisfactory answers to certain questions, answers perhaps not provided by the target system itself. Among these are not only the "deep questions" we've mentioned, but also others, such as those concerning mind and reason, practical ethics, "God-given" or "natural" rights and justice, and the inevitable challenges from traditional believers. Some answers, or at least possible starting points for one's own research and reasoning, can be found in other articles in the Philosophy & Religion section of this website.

Again, take courage. This is doable. Others have done it. Options are available. Just add brain and dedication. Happy shopping, and a good life to you!

=SAJ=

MAIN	ISSUES	LINKS	RINGS
Philosophy & Religion: Articles