THE POSTMODERN FRAME
Postmodernism argues that our perceptions of reality are a construct of the mind. Unlike most postmodernists, I harbor no illusions that all world views are on equal rational footing or are all equally groundless. I do feel, in fact, that some paradigms more effectively describe reality than others and offer more robust manners of operating in the world.
Having lost my faith, I'm confronting an intriguing effect of this shift in mental frame. When one accepts the foundational premise of a given paradigm, one's secondary, derived beliefs about the world naturally gravitate towards predetermined points of least resistance most commensurate with the foundational premise. With time, one will achieve a seamless construct that makes sense of reality as defined from the vantage point of the central idea.
The mechanism of this metamorphosis isn't overly complicated, but it bears noting. The foundational premise alters one's interpretive perceptions, presumably in an effort to reduce cognitive dissonance. This phenomenon gradually pieces together a coherent philosophical construct, eventually leading to a seamless paradigm that not surprisingly makes so much sense. Also, and not unironically, everything fits into place, so that each new experience gathered becomes one more convincing proof that one has stumbled upon the truth. In my case, this reframing process, powered by a damn-near unavoidable confirmation bias, was why I enjoyed such an agreeable influx of reinforcing insight and experience. As an aside, this shift not only reorganizes the cognitive components of the mind, but the emotive as well.
So becoming an Atheist has resulted in a rather quizzical phenomenon. It's enabled me to view my own perceptual framework from the outside, as an object. This objective stance has enabled a further effect: so long as a complete shift is made, it is possible for me to hold the two competing paradigms (Theism/Atheism) in my mind, shift back and forth between the two, and find each to be mentally and emotionally compelling from within its particular systematic framework.
This experience has impressed upon me that unless an individual is willing or able to exit the paradigms of their childhood - which are artifacts of inheritance and, such, not their own - the veracity of their fundamental beliefs can never be properly scrutinized. In the case of religion, interfaith dialogue has the potential to perform this function quite well. Without the insight of seeing one's beliefs from the outside, it may never be possible for one to have any warranted confidence in the truth of one's beliefs.
Finally, this capacity provides the very real and authentic opportunity to literally stand in another's shoes - at least at the level of philosophy, the obvious limitation being that of direct experience. Conversely, in an environment where this is not practiced, one should expect to encounter the droning and dogmatic shouts of a thousand disparate groups, each holding unverifiable, yet mutually exclusive beliefs, exclaiming: “We have the truth, you do not, and we have a wealth of evidence to back it up!” These words are eerily familiar . .