Philosophical Subject of the Moment

[aliantha]

Glad to hear your daughter's better, rus.

[Avatar]

^ Likewise. ^

(Pushkin is considered by Russians to be their greatest writer...

A marvelous dream, Tatyana's dreaming...

--A

[rusmeister]

You know, I could go for an inter-Christian thread on the relative importance of Easter vs Christmas. +The thing I found most interesting on reflection was how much emphasis we place on Christmas and how little on Easter, when the latter is surely at least as important, if not more important, than the former. In Orthodoxy, Pascha is the biggest day of the year. And yes, it IS April 24th this year. In fact, until Pentecost(50 days - who knew?), we greet others saying "Christ is risen!" and the response is "Indeed He is risen!" So if you know the right response you're in the Club!

I posted relatively recently that it seems odd to me that Good Friday isn't the biggest day. That's when Jesus died, thus making it possible for us to be saved. Yes? That's the most important thing, isn't it? Easter is just the proof that Jesus was, indeed, one who could do this for us. But if he hadn't risen, any who believed his story and had faith could still be saved, right? Christmas... Yeah, it's important. He couldn't have done what he did for us if he hadn't been born, eh? But still, it's not what makes salvation possible.

Update: Stephanie is doing better, it seems today. She's walking and babbling toddler talk. In her case, mommy speaks Russian and daddy speaks English, so it gets a little mixed...

Great news!!!!!!!!!!! And I wish my kids were growing up multi-lingual.

Good Friday (which we don't call "good" in EO, we call it "Great and Holy Friday" (and all days of Holy Week get that title up to Pascha) is the day God abandoned God, and God literally died. It is a day of mourning. Who wants to see their loving friend or parent kicked, beaten and brutally murdered? The violence is a result of the Fall. If we hadn't Fallen, the violence and death would have been unnecessary (something Lewis speculates on in his 'space trilogy'). en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Space_Trilogy
If we WERE perfect, we would not need redemption or repentance.

In the Orthodox (which also means 'right' and 'true' understanding ) it was not merely Christ dying. All of us die. Big deal. But how many of us have ever resurrected ourselves from actual and complete (not clinical) death? We don't hold the juridical "He paid off the angry God to get us off the hook" western view. It was His defeat of death itself that is the great victory. As the Paschal troparion (a kind of short liturgical hymn taken from Scripture) goes, He trampled down death by death - and on those in the tombs bestowing life. That means not just the current generation that happens to be walking around at the moment. And salvation is not merely an intellectual acceptance of Christ's death and resurrection. It is a lifelong struggle, a synergy between us and God, where He will not save us against our own will, and so we must 'work' with Him, for we cannot save ourselves. We can let go of the lifeline at any time and so retain our free will, something the Baptist doctrine I was brought up with of "Once Saved, Always Saved" implicitly denies. For those familiar with the Chronicles of Narnia, I would refer to the absence of Susan in the last book - "She is no longer a friend of Narnia".

There are downsides to being multi-lingual; above all for the parent in the foreign country. We take very much for granted the assistance of our entire culture and everyone in it to teach our children things from "Jingle Bells" to the Gettysburg Address, never mind the completeness of the native language. When you are completely alone in this task, if you don't do it; if you fail to teach it (simply by not being able to) then they won't know it. My children are near fluent (to varying degrees) but being as I am the only source (and some Disney and whatnot videos, cassettes, etc) of English, the local language is at a strong advantage over me. It's 'me against the world', so to speak. So while locals are impressed with my kids' English, I know that they are less comfortable and fluent in it than their cousins who conversely grow up in America (particularly my BIL's kids - but in his case, both parents are Russians in the US, so the kids get a full battery of Russian at home before joining society. Still, I've noticed in recent years when they visit us that they prefer marginally the language of their normal local environment, English.

[aliantha]

Don't sell yourself short, rus. You are giving your kids a great gift by allowing them to grow up knowing two languages.

Altho I understand your desire to teach them more about your own culture. Is there an English-language program (like a preschool or something) nearby that could help you?

[rusmeister]

Don't sell yourself short, rus. You are giving your kids a great gift by allowing them to grow up knowing two languages.

Altho I understand your desire to teach them more about your own culture. Is there an English-language program (like a preschool or something) nearby that could help you?

Thanks, Ali,
I was just expressing how I feel.

All schools run English programs, even more intensely than we run Spanish-language programs. But the teachers are Russians who are usually women who have never traveled anywhere and have little to no real practice/exposure, and the approved textbooks tend to be older varieties of British English mixed with unnatural language that English speakers would never use. So a lot of people actually know a little of "Jingle Bells", but not a whole lot else.

[aliantha]

That's too bad.

[Linna Heartbooger]

My prayers are also feeble things. Good thing the Lord's got excellent reception!

I was -sure- you'd say something like this... =) Yup, and as long as -He- aint feeble, we're all good!

You know, I could go for an inter-Christian thread on the relative importance of Easter vs Christmas. +The thing I found most interesting on reflection was how much emphasis we place on Christmas and how little on Easter, when the latter is surely at least as important, if not more important, than the former. In Orthodoxy, Pascha is the biggest day of the year. And yes, it IS April 24th this year. In fact, until Pentecost(50 days - who knew?), we greet others saying "Christ is risen!" and the response is "Indeed He is risen!" So if you know the right response you're in the Club!

I never considered that. And yes, it's very much because Orthodoxy is under-advertised. Would be fascinated to have that discussion, actually. I can totally imagine how that would have such repercussions on culture!!!

Personally, I'm not up to getting into such a discussion right away. BUUUT... if we get around to starting up that thread in a bit... I would want to request a few ground rules so that it's not a debate restricted to you, me, and anyone else who is obsessed with theology and/or church history... :p

Also, in many ways I've delighted in Easter enormously since becoming a Christian... while I always felt Christmas never "lived up to its promise." So you're a step ahead of me, I guess. (I call it Easter right now. I guess those lousy pagans are partly to blame... the bad influence of people from your religion, right Ali?)

The question is... am I in the club if I say, "He is risen indeed!" ? =)

Update: Stephanie is doing better, it seems today. She's walking and babbling toddler talk. In her case, mommy speaks Russian and daddy speaks English, so it gets a little mixed...

Hooray - So sweet!

[Fist and Faith]

Good Friday (which we don't call "good" in EO, we call it "Great and Holy Friday" (and all days of Holy Week get that title up to Pascha) is the day God abandoned God, and God literally died. It is a day of mourning. Who wants to see their loving friend or parent kicked, beaten and brutally murdered? The violence is a result of the Fall. If we hadn't Fallen, the violence and death would have been unnecessary (something Lewis speculates on in his 'space trilogy'). en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Space_Trilogy
If we WERE perfect, we would not need redemption or repentance.

But we are not perfect, so we do need redemption or repentance. And the vehicle for that is the sacrifice of Christ. Isn't it? Hey, I'm not arguing; I'm asking. Could Jesus have saved us by only teaching? My impression of all forms of Christianity is that the blood of Jesus is enough to cover us all, so we don't need to shed a lamb's blood. But we must accept Jesus' blood; his sacrifice. Yes, there's more to it than simply that, but that is an absolutely necessary thing. Nobody can find salvation only by following Jesus' teachings. Accepting his sacrifice is necessary. Therefore, the sacrifice was necessary.

In the Orthodox (which also means 'right' and 'true' understanding ) it was not merely Christ dying. All of us die. Big deal. But how many of us have ever resurrected ourselves from actual and complete (not clinical) death? We don't hold the juridical "He paid off the angry God to get us off the hook" western view. It was His defeat of death itself that is the great victory. As the Paschal troparion (a kind of short liturgical hymn taken from Scripture) goes, He trampled down death by death - and on those in the tombs bestowing life. That means not just the current generation that happens to be walking around at the moment. And salvation is not merely an intellectual acceptance of Christ's death and resurrection. It is a lifelong struggle, a synergy between us and God, where He will not save us against our own will, and so we must 'work' with Him, for we cannot save ourselves. We can let go of the lifeline at any time and so retain our free will, something the Baptist doctrine I was brought up with of "Once Saved, Always Saved" implicitly denies. For those familiar with the Chronicles of Narnia, I would refer to the absence of Susan in the last book - "She is no longer a friend of Narnia".

I don't really follow you. My thinking was that, even if Jesus had not risen, his sacrifice would have saved any who accepted it. (And who tried to follow his teachings.) Which, granted, probably wouldn't have been many. Still, the apostles? Others?

But what's such a big deal about Jesus' resurrection? Small potatoes for him, eh? It required no measurable effort for an infinite being. The importance of it is that those who previously thought, "This guy's a nut case!" now know otherwise. When he said, "Accept my sacrifice, and you will be saved," they thought, "Riiiiiiiight." When he rose, they thought, "Woah! Yeah, maybe I'll think a little more about what he's been saying all this time!"

And I never heard anyone say it was "paying off the angry God." I've only heard of it as a sacrifice that Jesus made out of love, so that we could cover ourselves in his blood. And God would say, "They cannot be with me, because they are sinners. But they accept their sins, repent, and accept the sacrifice of Jesus. So they can be with me."

[Linna Heartbooger]

We take very much for granted the assistance of our entire culture and everyone in it to teach our children things from "Jingle Bells" to the Gettysburg Address, never mind the completeness of the native language. When you are completely alone in this task, if you don't do it; if you fail to teach it (simply by not being able to) then they won't know it.

...

It's 'me against the world', so to speak.

Oh my GOODNESS, rus... I am only beginning to understand the predicament that parents in my church face... (I go to a mostly-Mandarin-speaking Chinese Christian church) The anxiety that these parents feel... has got to be intense. Not the same as your situation, but because of them, I can imagine some of your frustration...

The values and assumptions that they took for granted growing up in their home country... completely different from the US. It's like they came to a completely different (and baffling) world.

How old are each of your kids?

[rusmeister]

We take very much for granted the assistance of our entire culture and everyone in it to teach our children things from "Jingle Bells" to the Gettysburg Address, never mind the completeness of the native language. When you are completely alone in this task, if you don't do it; if you fail to teach it (simply by not being able to) then they won't know it.

...

It's 'me against the world', so to speak.

Oh my GOODNESS, rus... I am only beginning to understand the predicament that parents in my church face... (I go to a mostly-Mandarin-speaking Chinese Christian church) The anxiety that these parents feel... has got to be intense. Not the same as your situation, but because of them, I can imagine some of your frustration...

The values and assumptions that they took for granted growing up in their home country... completely different from the US. It's like they came to a completely different (and baffling) world.

How old are each of your kids?

It IS hard.

17, 9, (almost) 6 and (almost) 2.
My older son has walked away from the faith and well, were waiting and hoping that he'll come back and see that his parents' faith is not silly or irrational. It's not based on any particular reason of his own; it's just kicking back at whatever your parents think is good and right. Still, he's in college now, so it's a dangerous time.

[rusmeister]

Good Friday (which we don't call "good" in EO, we call it "Great and Holy Friday" (and all days of Holy Week get that title up to Pascha) is the day God abandoned God, and God literally died. It is a day of mourning. Who wants to see their loving friend or parent kicked, beaten and brutally murdered? The violence is a result of the Fall. If we hadn't Fallen, the violence and death would have been unnecessary (something Lewis speculates on in his 'space trilogy'). en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Space_Trilogy
If we WERE perfect, we would not need redemption or repentance.

But we are not perfect, so we do need redemption or repentance. And the vehicle for that is the sacrifice of Christ. Isn't it? Hey, I'm not arguing; I'm asking. Could Jesus have saved us by only teaching? My impression of all forms of Christianity is that the blood of Jesus is enough to cover us all, so we don't need to shed a lamb's blood. But we must accept Jesus' blood; his sacrifice. Yes, there's more to it than simply that, but that is an absolutely necessary thing. Nobody can find salvation only by following Jesus' teachings. Accepting his sacrifice is necessary. Therefore, the sacrifice was necessary.

In the Orthodox (which also means 'right' and 'true' understanding ) it was not merely Christ dying. All of us die. Big deal. But how many of us have ever resurrected ourselves from actual and complete (not clinical) death? We don't hold the juridical "He paid off the angry God to get us off the hook" western view. It was His defeat of death itself that is the great victory. As the Paschal troparion (a kind of short liturgical hymn taken from Scripture) goes, He trampled down death by death - and on those in the tombs bestowing life. That means not just the current generation that happens to be walking around at the moment. And salvation is not merely an intellectual acceptance of Christ's death and resurrection. It is a lifelong struggle, a synergy between us and God, where He will not save us against our own will, and so we must 'work' with Him, for we cannot save ourselves. We can let go of the lifeline at any time and so retain our free will, something the Baptist doctrine I was brought up with of "Once Saved, Always Saved" implicitly denies. For those familiar with the Chronicles of Narnia, I would refer to the absence of Susan in the last book - "She is no longer a friend of Narnia".

I don't really follow you. My thinking was that, even if Jesus had not risen, his sacrifice would have saved any who accepted it. (And who tried to follow his teachings.) Which, granted, probably wouldn't have been many. Still, the apostles? Others?

But what's such a big deal about Jesus' resurrection? Small potatoes for him, eh? It required no measurable effort for an infinite being. The importance of it is that those who previously thought, "This guy's a nut case!" now know otherwise. When he said, "Accept my sacrifice, and you will be saved," they thought, "Riiiiiiiight." When he rose, they thought, "Woah! Yeah, maybe I'll think a little more about what he's been saying all this time!"

And I never heard anyone say it was "paying off the angry God." I've only heard of it as a sacrifice that Jesus made out of love, so that we could cover ourselves in his blood. And God would say, "They cannot be with me, because they are sinners. But they accept their sins, repent, and accept the sacrifice of Jesus. So they can be with me."

This post offers outstanding opportunities for theological exposition!

I am NOT the best person to ask; a seminary-trained priest's answer would surely blow mine away for depth and accuracy.


I'd start with an observation I picked up from...GKC just yesterday (I just finished the collection of essays "As I was Saying"): The word 'sacrifice' is Latin and means something in Latin that we never think about, being English speakers who borrowed the word, like so many others, and gradually assigned other, vaguer meanings to it. It means 'to make (something) holy'. And this truly is the meaning of Christ's sacrifice, for it provided the means to make us holy. The means, I say.

But no, we cannot be saved by teachings alone or by mere intellectual apprehension and assent. So you're right on understanding there. Where eastern Christianity differs in general from western is in the western juridical understanding of atonement (crime, punishment and payment) vs the eastern 'medical' view - of illness, healing and restoration. Now it is true that the western view is not usually expressed directly as a "payoff", but angry God? Check. (Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God, anyone? en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sinners_in_the_Hands_of_an_Angry_God ) Paid for our sins? Check. Atonement for our guilt? Check.

No. The death of God alone was not sufficient. The Resurrection is essential. The entire gospel is not that Christ died, but that He is risen. That we have a God Who knows His way out of the grave, and can enable all of us to ultimately escape the grave.

There have been any number of moral teachers. None of the great ones said that they WERE God. Except Christ.

On 'small potatoes'. Christ had a human nature. He was not merely omnipotent God walking around in human clothing. He really accepted human limitation in His incarnation. He had to pee. Have limited knowledge. Spoke Aramaic and Greek, but probably not a lot of Latin, despite Mel Gibson's film, which strangely presented the lingua franca as Latin, rather than Greek. He didn't know who had touched Him (the miracle of the woman with the blood flow). He was a limited human, who was also God. The divine nature accepted the human limitations. He went through the same fears, sorrows, etc that we go through. He really understands us from personal experience. Death by extreme torture really was horrible and fearsome, even for Him. That's what the night in Gethsemane was about.

The Orthodox view holds much less the idea of (eternal) isolation from God, and much more an inability to accept His intense light and love, and that these things themselves would be suffering for those who have not learned to accept it. The idea of blood covering is just a rephrasal of the atonement. It's still a juridical view, however you phrase it.

I've only touched on these issues, which are quite deep, and which I constantly find people who have much better understandings than I do. I might recommend former Metropolitan Antony Bloom (of the Sourozh diocese - read "Great Britain") as being one of the most articulate speakers (along with Schmemann and Men') on expressing these things.
www.metropolit-anthony.orc.ru/eng/
You can subscribe to his sermons by e-mail. I get them once a week, in English. (Kind of odd, seeing as he died in '03, just when I converted.)
Here's one example:
www.mitras.ru/serm_eng.htm

I'll bet you'd really appreciate it, Lina, as well!

The Holy Week and Paschal sermons are undoubtedly the best in dealing with the questions you raise, Fist. Tune in the week of April 17-24th at Ancient Faith Radio (or just look for the podcasts prominently featured that deal with it, to get a view considerably different from what you've expressed, that takes the same facts and looks at them quite differently (and more deeply, imo).
www.metropolit-anthony.orc.ru/eng/eng_265.htm (Palm Sunday)
www.metropolit-anthony.orc.ru/eng/eng_266.htm (Pascha)

[Fist and Faith]

No. The death of God alone was not sufficient. The Resurrection is essential. The entire gospel is not that Christ died, but that He is risen. That we have a God Who knows His way out of the grave, and can enable all of us to ultimately escape the grave.

There have been any number of moral teachers. None of the great ones said that they WERE God. Except Christ.

On 'small potatoes'. Christ had a human nature. He was not merely omnipotent God walking around in human clothing. He really accepted human limitation in His incarnation. He had to pee. Have limited knowledge. Spoke Aramaic and Greek, but probably not a lot of Latin, despite Mel Gibson's film, which strangely presented the lingua franca as Latin, rather than Greek. He didn't know who had touched Him (the miracle of the woman with the blood flow). He was a limited human, who was also God. The divine nature accepted the human limitations. He went through the same fears, sorrows, etc that we go through. He really understands us from personal experience. Death by extreme torture really was horrible and fearsome, even for Him. That's what the night in Gethsemane was about.

Yeah, giving himself human limitations meant going through the pain, and dying. Still, once he died, it required no effort to come back. It would require no effort to create another universe, eh? Just the thought to do it.

But I understand what you mean by "we have a God Who knows His way out of the grave, and can enable all of us to ultimately escape the grave." That does sound like an important part of your belief system.

And I can't help throwing in this, from Paula Poundstone:

"As you drive out of the airport in Eugene, Oregon, there's a big billboard that says 'The wages of sin are death.' Guess that's their way of saying 'Welcome to town.' I would imagine that the wages of sin are death. But by the time they take taxes out, it's just kind of a tired feeling, really."

The Orthodox view holds much less the idea of (eternal) isolation from God, and much more an inability to accept His intense light and love, and that these things themselves would be suffering for those who have not learned to accept it. The idea of blood covering is just a rephrasal of the atonement. It's still a juridical view, however you phrase it.

I don't think of it as atonement, either. You can't make up for your sins. But you can accept God's love, and Jesus' blood. When that's combined with actually trying to live as God wants you to live, God will forgive your sins despite the fact that you can't actually atone for them.

[Avatar]

I've always loved this one:

If the wages of sin are death,
so too is the salary of virtue.

--A

[Linna Heartbooger]

It IS hard.

Btw, here is a much belated hug:

17, 9, (almost) 6 and (almost) 2.

Whoa, I can't imagine such a wide spread of ages. That must be interesting... (and perhaps a little crazy..!)

My older son has walked away from the faith and well, were waiting and hoping that he'll come back and see that his parents' faith is not silly or irrational. It's not based on any particular reason of his own; it's just kicking back at whatever your parents think is good and right. Still, he's in college now, so it's a dangerous time.

Sigh... whenever something like this comes up, I often say, "It's always more difficult with family."

[aliantha]

rus, here's the thing about raising teenagers: They're just big 3-year-olds. Seriously. You know how a toddler will run away from his parents and explore stuff on his own? And then run back to his parents when things get scary in the big, wide world? Well, the toddler is learning to draw boundaries between himself and his parents, figuring out where he leaves off and his parents begin. Teen rebellion is the same thing, except on a larger scale.

So you guys are doing the right thing -- let him look around and see whether there's anything better out there. He may well come back to Orthodoxy eventually.

[Gadget nee Jemcheeta]

Av: fantastic, I had never heard that!
Fist: In downtown Eugene I guess they have a statue of Ken Kesey, so it can't be all bad.

I became an atheist in college and my mother is a devout Catholic. I used to run an evangelical youth group. I left the church with a bitter taste in my mouth and have not been interested in returning since. I get along very well with my mother, and respect her beliefs and experiences, but I will never again be a part of an organized religion and I wish I could take back some of the things I said to some people who were looking for some meaning in life at a weak moment. Life is hard because of the rich ambiguities. Coping with the arbitrary nature of the universe isn't fun, and atheism isn't some kind of self-centered game. It is brutal, but it has been one of the most rewarding processes I have engaged in.

If you have a child that is in college and has left the Church, I guess you should act now if you want to change the situation. On the other hand, they say a lot of people return to the Church around 30-35, so it might not be an issue at all. The process of a return or rebirth into faith is incredibly powerful and from what I have seen it creates the strongest foundation for a religious life.

[Vraith]

Teen rebellion is the same thing, except on a larger scale.

So you guys are doing the right thing -- let him look around and see whether there's anything better out there. He may well come back to Orthodoxy eventually.

Yea, they actually talk a lot about this in adolescent psych for the good teaching schools in NYS. You will lose your teens, but if you act like an adult instead of freaking out they will come back to you. [general rule, of course, not every case set in stone.]

[rusmeister]

rus, here's the thing about raising teenagers: They're just big 3-year-olds. Seriously. You know how a toddler will run away from his parents and explore stuff on his own? And then run back to his parents when things get scary in the big, wide world? Well, the toddler is learning to draw boundaries between himself and his parents, figuring out where he leaves off and his parents begin. Teen rebellion is the same thing, except on a larger scale.

So you guys are doing the right thing -- let him look around and see whether there's anything better out there. He may well come back to Orthodoxy eventually.

Thanks, Ali, and yes, we have been increasingly hands off for some years now. When he was fourteen we did not let him think he had the option of staying at home and not being a member of the family in going to church, but when he was sixteen, we did. We make light jokes about his aversion (if he's being nasty to siblings I can threaten to turn on Ancient Faith Radio like garlic for the vampire), and I've given him some podcasts on interesting topics like this one, a talk by Frederica Mathewes-Green aimed at a secular college-age group (UC Santa Barbara) on the meaning of sex:
ancientfaith.com/podcasts/frederica/the_meaning_of_sex

Hopko's talk on Darwinism was another one. Basically, non-offensive, non-preachy type stuff that encourages people to consider the various questions of life. Since he's at a stage where he doesn't WANT to talk to me about these things, I can only offer other perspectives.

So yes, I think what you say quite true and hope on it for the best. Thanks again!

[rusmeister]

Av: fantastic, I had never heard that!
Fist: In downtown Eugene I guess they have a statue of Ken Kesey, so it can't be all bad.

I became an atheist in college and my mother is a devout Catholic. I used to run an evangelical youth group. I left the church with a bitter taste in my mouth and have not been interested in returning since. I get along very well with my mother, and respect her beliefs and experiences, but I will never again be a part of an organized religion and I wish I could take back some of the things I said to some people who were looking for some meaning in life at a weak moment. Life is hard because of the rich ambiguities. Coping with the arbitrary nature of the universe isn't fun, and atheism isn't some kind of self-centered game. It is brutal, but it has been one of the most rewarding processes I have engaged in.

If you have a child that is in college and has left the Church, I guess you should act now if you want to change the situation. On the other hand, they say a lot of people return to the Church around 30-35, so it might not be an issue at all. The process of a return or rebirth into faith is incredibly powerful and from what I have seen it creates the strongest foundation for a religious life.

I think there is some definite truth in that last. I'd put it differently, though; I'd say that returning converts bring a greater zeal than the person who simply continues to quietly live the faith. Maybe it's because they bear the scars of trying the alternative - libertine sex (and an awareness of having ruined or betrayed others), alcoholism or drugs, or even a grasp of the awfulness of one's own cynicism.

The statement I might take the most exception with (it sounds the most monstrous to my ears) is this:

Coping with the arbitrary nature of the universe isn't fun, and atheism isn't some kind of self-centered game. It is brutal, but it has been one of the most rewarding processes I have engaged in.

I think that if we have the imaginative ability to see ourselves in the place of Job, as Ebenezer Scrooge did in "A Christmas Carol" (OK, at least the ability to see his own grave), or in the place of the Mennonite parents who lost pretty much their entire family (7 kids, I think) in a house fire last month, we would not speak of it as being rewarding. Someone who did say such a thing in that Mennonite community would be kicked and beaten (or at least people of that particular faith would be strongly tempted to do so in spite of their faith), and rightly so.

What I think you might mean that I could agree with, and might be trying to say (correct me if I'm wrong here), is that determining truth is a rewarding process, and on this, I would agree.

But I think the nature of the sense of reward as genuine or illusory depends on whether the truth found is objectively true - that is, actually true for everyone regardless of what they perceive. (I think that only authority outside of oneself that corrects the self, the individual, could possibly do this.)

[Fist and Faith]

If one thinks atheism is objectively true, then the sense of reward is as genuine for them as the sense of reward anyone else has found from the truth that they think is objectively true.