1DeanoA87.5
in every religion they say something but there is a bunch of scientific evidence disproving it for example earth getting created in 7 days has a bunch of scientific evidence disproving it
2SandraArdnas
>1 DeanoA87.5: It most certainly is not true of every religion. Non-theistic ones as a rule do not concern themselves with creation myths and such at all. Even religions that have within their scriptures something disproved by science are not always dogmatic, in which case they'll just move their story to what it really is, a metaphorical way of talking about something, not insist on literal truth of it. Fundamentalist Christians are not the be all and end all of religion, thankfully.
3paradoxosalpha
>2 SandraArdnas: Fundamentalist Christians are to not the be all and end all of religion, thankfully.
FIFY!
FIFY!
4SandraArdnas
>3 paradoxosalpha: Yeah, missed typed and it wasn't redlined by spellcheck. Thanks. Editing.
Edit: should be mistyped above, haha
Edit: should be mistyped above, haha
6paradoxosalpha
Quoting from one of my own mission statements:
I am not an Atheist in your sense of the word: your doctrine is too coarse for any known blasphemy to shame it.
I am not an Atheist in your sense of the word: fancy a Priest let loose on Society!
As long as men and women shall bury their own perfect natures in fear, guilt, and shame--I am against Atheism, and for the Mysteries.
Every "rational enlightenment" has engendered new superstitions.
I am not an Atheist in your sense of the word: your doctrine is too coarse for any known blasphemy to shame it.
I am not an Atheist in your sense of the word: fancy a Priest let loose on Society!
As long as men and women shall bury their own perfect natures in fear, guilt, and shame--I am against Atheism, and for the Mysteries.
Every "rational enlightenment" has engendered new superstitions.
7librorumamans
I suspect the only true atheists are those in good physical health who commit suicide from overwhelming despair and the loss of any shred of hope.
9gilroy
>7 librorumamans: Wow. That's a big assumption. Why would an atheist lack hope?
10mikevail
>7 librorumamans:
I'm sure that's a wet dream for many religious types.
In my case, the atheists who knocked on my door offered me a nifty tote bag if I joined, so it was an easy choice.
I'm sure that's a wet dream for many religious types.
In my case, the atheists who knocked on my door offered me a nifty tote bag if I joined, so it was an easy choice.
11librorumamans
>9 gilroy:
If you get out of bed in the morning in order to get on with the day, you have a belief in something, whether it's large or small, temporary or long-lasting, and that belief provides hope.
For that reason, whether that belief is taken for granted and little examined or something consciously worked out, you need to respect it and not abuse it; in other words, it must become sacred to you. It is the meaning in your life. This is one of the ways I can make sense of an idea of God and why I expect there are few functional atheists.
If you get out of bed in the morning in order to get on with the day, you have a belief in something, whether it's large or small, temporary or long-lasting, and that belief provides hope.
For that reason, whether that belief is taken for granted and little examined or something consciously worked out, you need to respect it and not abuse it; in other words, it must become sacred to you. It is the meaning in your life. This is one of the ways I can make sense of an idea of God and why I expect there are few functional atheists.
12paradoxosalpha
>11 librorumamans: you have a belief in something
Sure, and it's quite reasonable for anyone to decline to call that something "God"--particularly considering the diverse mass of earlier beliefs that have been attached to the notion of God.
Atheism isn't a claim to lack of belief in anything and everything. Your definition of God is idiosyncratic, and while it makes sense for you, it is at odds with many popular uses of the word (e.g. notably, the "gaseous vertebrate" deprecated by Haeckel).
Sure, and it's quite reasonable for anyone to decline to call that something "God"--particularly considering the diverse mass of earlier beliefs that have been attached to the notion of God.
Atheism isn't a claim to lack of belief in anything and everything. Your definition of God is idiosyncratic, and while it makes sense for you, it is at odds with many popular uses of the word (e.g. notably, the "gaseous vertebrate" deprecated by Haeckel).
13gilroy
>11 librorumamans: you get out of bed in the morning in order to get on with the day, you have a belief in something
Why?
Why does one have to have a belief in anything to get on with their day? Why does one have to have a belief in anything to have hope?
You've not answered my question.
Why would an atheist lack hope?
Why?
Why does one have to have a belief in anything to get on with their day? Why does one have to have a belief in anything to have hope?
You've not answered my question.
Why would an atheist lack hope?
14jjwilson61
>11 librorumamans: I think we need to define "belief" before I can begin to make sense of this statement
15Taphophile13
I get up because I have things I'm looking forward to doing. No belief required.
16librorumamans
>14 jjwilson61:
From moment to moment we proceed in our lives supported by a tangled myriad of beliefs, some mundane but not at all trivial, such as that the earth will not gape suddenly beneath our feet or that the person operating the subway train is competent; and some beliefs larger and more present to us, such as a belief that our careers are worthwhile or that raising this child in the best way we can is important and meaningful.
Belief, pretty much by definition, is inductive; it's playing the odds. And I don't see, myself, a fundamental difference between my belief, and hope, that if I get on the expressway I will exit it as planned and in one piece and a belief that this inexplicable experience we're all sharing is worth sticking with for as long as we're able. Hope is implicit.
From moment to moment we proceed in our lives supported by a tangled myriad of beliefs, some mundane but not at all trivial, such as that the earth will not gape suddenly beneath our feet or that the person operating the subway train is competent; and some beliefs larger and more present to us, such as a belief that our careers are worthwhile or that raising this child in the best way we can is important and meaningful.
Belief, pretty much by definition, is inductive; it's playing the odds. And I don't see, myself, a fundamental difference between my belief, and hope, that if I get on the expressway I will exit it as planned and in one piece and a belief that this inexplicable experience we're all sharing is worth sticking with for as long as we're able. Hope is implicit.
18librorumamans
>12 paradoxosalpha:
Well, that was a rabbit hole. I was not aware of Ernst Haekel, nor the world riddle, nor Emil du Bois-Raymond's seven questions.
Thank you!
Well, that was a rabbit hole. I was not aware of Ernst Haekel, nor the world riddle, nor Emil du Bois-Raymond's seven questions.
Thank you!
19SandraArdnas
>16 librorumamans: You don't even know if that is true for you, unless you've actually tried it for a while, let alone for humanity at large. That's not even getting into how hopeful or miserable some religious tenets make people. Many fled religions they grew up with precisely because it contributed to misery and not hope. So let's cool with over-generalizations.
20Taphophile13
:17 No, I don't "believe" in those things.
21paradoxosalpha
>13 gilroy:
When I supply religious instruction (in the unusual venues where I do so), I like to stress that the ideal is not merely to believe that you know, but to know that you believe: to understand the creative authority of your own mind consciously and unconsciously forming the realties of your thought. This ideal is not a sanguine solipsism nor an exhortation to self-delusion, but rather a grasp of the provisional nature of knowledge and an aspiration to more fundamental and honest understanding.
When I supply religious instruction (in the unusual venues where I do so), I like to stress that the ideal is not merely to believe that you know, but to know that you believe: to understand the creative authority of your own mind consciously and unconsciously forming the realties of your thought. This ideal is not a sanguine solipsism nor an exhortation to self-delusion, but rather a grasp of the provisional nature of knowledge and an aspiration to more fundamental and honest understanding.
22librorumamans
>20 Taphophile13: No, I don't "believe" in those things.
Why do you put quotes around believe? If you do not believe in those things you look forward to doing, why do you do them?
Why do you put quotes around believe? If you do not believe in those things you look forward to doing, why do you do them?
23paradoxosalpha
>18 librorumamans:
Du Bois-Raymond's seven questions were new to me also, so you have returned the favor.
Du Bois-Raymond's seven questions were new to me also, so you have returned the favor.
24paradoxosalpha
>22 librorumamans:
The scare quotes around "believe" are illuminating. It sounds as if the very word belief has become hopelessly contaminated (for >20 Taphophile13:) with superstitious precedent.
Whereas "I believe I'll have another drink."
The scare quotes around "believe" are illuminating. It sounds as if the very word belief has become hopelessly contaminated (for >20 Taphophile13:) with superstitious precedent.
Whereas "I believe I'll have another drink."
25mikevail
>17 librorumamans:
Too many religious folk try to shoehorn belief into faith. That's probably the reason for the scare quotes. Generally speaking, if I "believe" something then I think that it's probably true. That doesn't mean I can't change my mind or just ignore it. I believe drinking whisky is bad for my health but I'm still going to drink it.
Too many religious folk try to shoehorn belief into faith. That's probably the reason for the scare quotes. Generally speaking, if I "believe" something then I think that it's probably true. That doesn't mean I can't change my mind or just ignore it. I believe drinking whisky is bad for my health but I'm still going to drink it.
26bnielsen
>10 mikevail: That's the old joke: What do you get when you cross an atheist with a Jehovah's Witness?
Someone knocking at your door for no apparent reason.
Don't know where the tote bag came from :-)
Someone knocking at your door for no apparent reason.
Don't know where the tote bag came from :-)
27gilroy
>21 paradoxosalpha: That's a very verbose way to say "I think therefore I am" to me. But still doesn't answer any of the questions in >13 gilroy:
28paradoxosalpha
>27 gilroy:
Odd that you should take that from what I wrote. I've never found Descarte's cogito very persuasive.
What I was trying to get at is the way in which belief and volition are mutually implicated. In one sense it really is a matter of: "I believe I'll have another drink."
Edited to add: cogito ergo bibo
Odd that you should take that from what I wrote. I've never found Descarte's cogito very persuasive.
What I was trying to get at is the way in which belief and volition are mutually implicated. In one sense it really is a matter of: "I believe I'll have another drink."
Edited to add: cogito ergo bibo
29gilroy
>27 gilroy: Yeah, see, you continue to define "What is belief?" which is not what I'm asking.
I'm asking WHY? Very specifically I'm looking at this quote from >7 librorumamans::
the only true atheists are those in good physical health who commit suicide from overwhelming despair and the loss of any shred of hope.
And asking why an atheist would have no hope? That's all I want to know.
I'm asking WHY? Very specifically I'm looking at this quote from >7 librorumamans::
the only true atheists are those in good physical health who commit suicide from overwhelming despair and the loss of any shred of hope.
And asking why an atheist would have no hope? That's all I want to know.
30lilithcat
>27 gilroy:
René Descarte walked into a bar. "Do you want a drink?" asked the bartender. "I think not." said Descartes, and *poof* he disappeared and was never seen again.
René Descarte walked into a bar. "Do you want a drink?" asked the bartender. "I think not." said Descartes, and *poof* he disappeared and was never seen again.
31DeanoA87.5
this channel got 31 comments in an hour that's pretty impressive if you ask me
32gilroy
>30 lilithcat: A horse walks into a bar. Bartender asks if he wants a drink. The horse says "I think not." and POOF disappears.
I feel like a philosophy professor, except I put that requires I put Descartes before the horse. :)
I feel like a philosophy professor, except I put that requires I put Descartes before the horse. :)
33librorumamans
>29 gilroy:
Implicit in my posts in this thread is my understanding that, in order to encompass the huge range of belief systems that homo sapiens has expressed over many millennia, capital-G God is usefully seen as a place-holder, a symbol perhaps, for a deep human need to find meaning in our individual existence and reassurance in face of the arbitrariness of the world.
Only belief, in a broad sense, can provide meaning, and, I add, it is also a belief that we are not helpless before the randomness of the world. Belief expresses itself as commitment, and from commitment comes hope.
Thus my initial suggestion that only someone lacking through existential despair any belief that justifies living — or, if you wish, someone who has lost all faith — is really an atheist.
Implicit in my posts in this thread is my understanding that, in order to encompass the huge range of belief systems that homo sapiens has expressed over many millennia, capital-G God is usefully seen as a place-holder, a symbol perhaps, for a deep human need to find meaning in our individual existence and reassurance in face of the arbitrariness of the world.
Only belief, in a broad sense, can provide meaning, and, I add, it is also a belief that we are not helpless before the randomness of the world. Belief expresses itself as commitment, and from commitment comes hope.
Thus my initial suggestion that only someone lacking through existential despair any belief that justifies living — or, if you wish, someone who has lost all faith — is really an atheist.
34jjwilson61
I think you are conflating different meanings of the word belief. If I believe the sun will come up tomorrow that's a prediction. If I believe in God that's a delusion.
35mikevail
>33 librorumamans:
You say God; I say no. That's atheism. What you're describing is someone having a major depressive episode.
You say God; I say no. That's atheism. What you're describing is someone having a major depressive episode.
36SandraArdnas
>33 librorumamans: Capital G god is by no means symbol for a deep human need to find meaning. Could you be any more entrenched in your blinkered religious outlook? Artists of all kinds have done infinitely more in that respect than your capital G god. Common people do it through meaningful relationships and genuine human connection daily. That's just 2 examples. I could go on till judgment day, yet here you are to proselytize everyone needs capital G god. We don't.
38SandraArdnas
>37 librorumamans: No, you've made yourself perfectly clear. It's just bias on steroids and you're unable to accept people don't need God, or that mental health issues have nothing to do with belief or lack of belief in one.
39prosfilaes
>33 librorumamans: in order to encompass the huge range of belief systems that homo sapiens has expressed over many millennia, capital-G God is usefully seen as a place-holder, a symbol perhaps, for a deep human need to find meaning in our individual existence and reassurance in face of the arbitrariness of the world.
Which seems like a monotheistic perspective and sort of begging the question. You're not an atheist because I define all human belief systems as God. Okay then.
Only belief, in a broad sense, can provide meaning
That's nonsense; anything, in a broad enough sense, can replace belief in that sentence. That's pretty much implied by "in a broad sense".
a belief that we are not helpless before the randomness of the world.
Reality tells us to what extent we are and aren't helpless before the randomness of the world. I don't see the religious or non-religious behaving much differently in the face of a hurricane
Thus my initial suggestion that only someone lacking through existential despair any belief that justifies living — or, if you wish, someone who has lost all faith — is really an atheist.
Only the Samaritans, who ignore the false books after Deuteronomy, really believe in God, so everyone else is an atheist. We can play these games all day long, but it doesn't advance anything.
>37 librorumamans: I don't know what meaning you've given to half the words you've used, but it certainly feels like you've taken a bunch of slippery words and stretched their meanings until you've come to the conclusions that suit you.
I'm an atheist because I don't believe in God or that we have souls or anything of the like. I don't feel that your approach is getting you any closer to understand what I believe or why; it's just playing semantic games until you "win" in some sense.
Which seems like a monotheistic perspective and sort of begging the question. You're not an atheist because I define all human belief systems as God. Okay then.
Only belief, in a broad sense, can provide meaning
That's nonsense; anything, in a broad enough sense, can replace belief in that sentence. That's pretty much implied by "in a broad sense".
a belief that we are not helpless before the randomness of the world.
Reality tells us to what extent we are and aren't helpless before the randomness of the world. I don't see the religious or non-religious behaving much differently in the face of a hurricane
Thus my initial suggestion that only someone lacking through existential despair any belief that justifies living — or, if you wish, someone who has lost all faith — is really an atheist.
Only the Samaritans, who ignore the false books after Deuteronomy, really believe in God, so everyone else is an atheist. We can play these games all day long, but it doesn't advance anything.
>37 librorumamans: I don't know what meaning you've given to half the words you've used, but it certainly feels like you've taken a bunch of slippery words and stretched their meanings until you've come to the conclusions that suit you.
I'm an atheist because I don't believe in God or that we have souls or anything of the like. I don't feel that your approach is getting you any closer to understand what I believe or why; it's just playing semantic games until you "win" in some sense.
40paradoxosalpha
I just have to say that when I first saw the title of this thread, I found it irritating, but over time it has matured into hilarity.
41librorumamans
There is an interesting discussion between Thomas Römer and Jacqueline Chabbi, moderated by Jean-Louis Schlegel published in 2020 by Seuil under the title Dieu de la Bible, Dieu du Koran, ISBN 9782757896952.
42BooksCatsEtc
I'm an atheist because I find the idea of the supernatural unlikely, and frankly pretty silly.
43stefepaul
We all believe in a lot of silly things. (I resisted the urge to put quotes around silly) I aspire to believe in God. I wonder why we can’t accept the difference in our beliefs and aspirations. I accept that they are just that, beliefs. Atheism is a belief as far as I am concerned. I suppose someone should insert the dictionary meaning of belief here (I am too lazy) I think it was an Elizabeth Strout character who said something like grace is what we show in the face of the mystery. Do we all accept that there is mystery? Or has science explained everything or will it eventually? I don’t think God or no god belief is silly. I have seen the fault in this evidence based world we think we live in. Tolerance is important to the hope of living in harmony.
44jjwilson61
An atheist doesn't disbelieve in god; he just doesn't see sufficient evidence to believe in god.
47timspalding
I'm a theist, but I find the key question—and key competing philosophy—is materialism. Yes, one can believe in souls and free will and moral naturalism and NOT believe in God, but materialism is a simple and coherent philosophy that one can arrive at from positive arguments and quite effectively kills off God. A convinced materialist need not say "I see no evidence for God" alone.
48paradoxosalpha
Materialism still fails to explain consciousness. But there are materialists who seem to be making real inroads on genuine solutions, and there have long been those who pretend that the issue is already solved.
49timspalding
>48 paradoxosalpha:
Indeed. Consciousness is on my list of reasons why materialism isn't acceptable. But there's a certain appeal to "we don't need to explain every damn thing!"
Indeed. Consciousness is on my list of reasons why materialism isn't acceptable. But there's a certain appeal to "we don't need to explain every damn thing!"
50librorumamans
I definitely don't want to get into a debate on this, but it doesn't appear to me that whatever one might oppose to materialism has offered a satisfactory solution to the resulting mind-body problem.
51paradoxosalpha
>50 librorumamans:
And materialism has? (without bothering to defend any unspecified "whatever")
It seems like the "solution" there is simply to deny the existence of mind altogether or to redefine it into something that does not include consciousness.
And materialism has? (without bothering to defend any unspecified "whatever")
It seems like the "solution" there is simply to deny the existence of mind altogether or to redefine it into something that does not include consciousness.
52librorumamans
As I say, I'm not getting into this. I don't think I implied that there are answers on either side.
53LolaWalser
Materialism still fails to explain consciousness.
Everything about that hinges on the granularity of "explain". But we do know that consciousness arises from matter--no brain, no consciousness.
Everything about that hinges on the granularity of "explain". But we do know that consciousness arises from matter--no brain, no consciousness.
54SandraArdnas
>53 LolaWalser: We know no such thing. Consciousness as emergent property of the brain is pet theory of materialists. Even just the brain part depends on the granularity of how we define consciousness, let alone magicking its electric impulses into consciousness.
55LolaWalser
>54 SandraArdnas:
I will concede that I fell into a trap by asserting a negative, but your attitude is ridiculous. Good luck chasing brainless/non-material "consciousness".
I will concede that I fell into a trap by asserting a negative, but your attitude is ridiculous. Good luck chasing brainless/non-material "consciousness".
56SandraArdnas
>55 LolaWalser: I am frankly puzzled that materialism hasn't been shook to the core way back when quantum physics shook everything, but apparently not and we still pretend there is even such a thing as matter as commonly understood :D
57prosfilaes
>56 SandraArdnas: Then perhaps you should study some physics? Quantum physics is not the magic that woo-woo peddlers like to explain it as; it's simply a mathematical description of how the world works that differs from classic theories mostly on microscopic and submicroscopic levels. There's nothing in it that changes anything about materialism.
58SandraArdnas
>57 prosfilaes: Wow, you've really put me in my place. A materialist still to catch up?
59timspalding
>57 prosfilaes:
So, there's no question that quantum mechanics undermines an earlier understanding of materialism, as laid down especially by Laplace, that the laws of nature were deterministic. This clockwork or billiard-ball idea of the universe was a sensible and attractive one to many, with tied directly to the key concerns of Enlightenment thinking. Best of all it was an absolute nix on any assertions of free will or action from a different (dualistic) realm. Against religion and other bugaboos it proposed the laws of Enlightenment science as the final and full explanation of reality, so completely embracing that if one knew the position and motion of every atom in universe, one could predict the past and future perfectly.
That said, there's nothing fundamentally problematic about a materialism which is not deterministic, but probabilistic instead. It's just unexpected and a little disconcerting—indeed also disconcerting to anti-materialists. Notably such randomness was never part of pre-quantum models of the universe, except—as in Epicurus' swerve—as an escape-hatch allowing some free will in. Philosophy was stuck in an argument between A and B, and then it turns out 🫨 is involved.
That said, I suspect you were referring to the Copenhagen Interpretation, and the idea that, in requiring an observer, it opens the door to various types of woo. But, as you say, there are competing interpretations that usher the observer and their woo out the door again.
So, there's no question that quantum mechanics undermines an earlier understanding of materialism, as laid down especially by Laplace, that the laws of nature were deterministic. This clockwork or billiard-ball idea of the universe was a sensible and attractive one to many, with tied directly to the key concerns of Enlightenment thinking. Best of all it was an absolute nix on any assertions of free will or action from a different (dualistic) realm. Against religion and other bugaboos it proposed the laws of Enlightenment science as the final and full explanation of reality, so completely embracing that if one knew the position and motion of every atom in universe, one could predict the past and future perfectly.
That said, there's nothing fundamentally problematic about a materialism which is not deterministic, but probabilistic instead. It's just unexpected and a little disconcerting—indeed also disconcerting to anti-materialists. Notably such randomness was never part of pre-quantum models of the universe, except—as in Epicurus' swerve—as an escape-hatch allowing some free will in. Philosophy was stuck in an argument between A and B, and then it turns out 🫨 is involved.
That said, I suspect you were referring to the Copenhagen Interpretation, and the idea that, in requiring an observer, it opens the door to various types of woo. But, as you say, there are competing interpretations that usher the observer and their woo out the door again.
60librorumamans
>59 timspalding: Philosophy was stuck in an argument between A and B, and then it turns out 🫨 is involved.
Serendipity or wit that the alternative to A and B renders, on my browser at least, as undefined?
Serendipity or wit that the alternative to A and B renders, on my browser at least, as undefined?
61prosfilaes
>59 timspalding: so completely embracing that if one knew the position and motion of every atom in universe, one could predict the past and future perfectly.
I always found chaos theory a more interesting response to that, wherein in a practical sense, we can gather as much information as we want, it's not going to let us predict the weather, much less humans, more than a few weeks away. The future is too tightly and arbitrarily dependent on fine details of the present to ever have good predictions, even under the pre-quantum mechanic rules.
I suspect you were referring to the Copenhagen Interpretation
Nothing so specific. More the habit for people like Deepak Chopra to cite quantum mechanics as whatever they need it mean.
>60 librorumamans: It's an emoji; apparently you don't have an appropriate font installed on your computer.
I always found chaos theory a more interesting response to that, wherein in a practical sense, we can gather as much information as we want, it's not going to let us predict the weather, much less humans, more than a few weeks away. The future is too tightly and arbitrarily dependent on fine details of the present to ever have good predictions, even under the pre-quantum mechanic rules.
I suspect you were referring to the Copenhagen Interpretation
Nothing so specific. More the habit for people like Deepak Chopra to cite quantum mechanics as whatever they need it mean.
>60 librorumamans: It's an emoji; apparently you don't have an appropriate font installed on your computer.
62librorumamans
>61 prosfilaes:
Ah; undefined in Linux, then. ;-)
Simone Weil wrote two reflections on the early 20C developments in science, "La Science et Nous" and "Réflections à propos de la théorie des quanta" available as a pdf here. I found them interesting. The first essay is referenced in Helgoland.
Ah; undefined in Linux, then. ;-)
Simone Weil wrote two reflections on the early 20C developments in science, "La Science et Nous" and "Réflections à propos de la théorie des quanta" available as a pdf here. I found them interesting. The first essay is referenced in Helgoland.
63bnielsen
>62 librorumamans: 🫨 renders fine here. (Running Ubuntu Linux and using Chrome.)
64timspalding
There should be a quantum-mechanical emoji that renders differently every time.
65modalursine
OK, so the world is wonderful and mysterioius, and when it comes to certain funndamental questions such as why there's something rather than nothing, the nature of consciousness...whether is "emerges" by some as yet unknown mechanism from dead (i.e. unfeeling and mindless) matter or is a fundamental "brute fact" of nature...about all that we know bugger all.
How any of that gives us warrent to be even tentativelly confident that there's (at least one) powerful, sentient, intelligent and benevolent, spirit being who has humanity's good at heart, makes moral laws, intervenes in history and has a great plan for both this and a putative after life is a puzzlement to me.
I don't know whether the number of adherents of the various religions follow a Zipfs law, a power distribution, but for sure the top players, The Abrahamics plus the Hindu Buddhist group conver a big enough percentage of every believer on the planet that we can to some approximation say a "believer" is one of those.
A believer is presumably born into a family or culture that identifies with one of the "big ones" becomes a "believer" pretty much by default, and heartily dispbelieves in the gods of all the others.
It is by now a common and trivial observation that all the believers in one religion are "atheists" and unbelievers in all religions except that one, and what we call a regular old "atheist" is simply someone who is an "atheist" to the lot, with no exceptions.
Well, not compeltely 100% true, since one can be a Buddhist a Confusionist and a some flavor Taoist or Chinese folk religion "believer" all at the same time. But I suppose the "atheist ro all but one thing" is close enough for poetry.
How any of that gives us warrent to be even tentativelly confident that there's (at least one) powerful, sentient, intelligent and benevolent, spirit being who has humanity's good at heart, makes moral laws, intervenes in history and has a great plan for both this and a putative after life is a puzzlement to me.
I don't know whether the number of adherents of the various religions follow a Zipfs law, a power distribution, but for sure the top players, The Abrahamics plus the Hindu Buddhist group conver a big enough percentage of every believer on the planet that we can to some approximation say a "believer" is one of those.
A believer is presumably born into a family or culture that identifies with one of the "big ones" becomes a "believer" pretty much by default, and heartily dispbelieves in the gods of all the others.
It is by now a common and trivial observation that all the believers in one religion are "atheists" and unbelievers in all religions except that one, and what we call a regular old "atheist" is simply someone who is an "atheist" to the lot, with no exceptions.
Well, not compeltely 100% true, since one can be a Buddhist a Confusionist and a some flavor Taoist or Chinese folk religion "believer" all at the same time. But I suppose the "atheist ro all but one thing" is close enough for poetry.
66modalursine
Short form:
I suppose that one way to explain "why" one is an atheist is to consider that one is an "atheist" , believing in no gods, for pretty much the same reason as a believer in one religion disbelieves in all the others.
I suppose that one way to explain "why" one is an atheist is to consider that one is an "atheist" , believing in no gods, for pretty much the same reason as a believer in one religion disbelieves in all the others.
67paradoxosalpha
I am religious but not "spiritual." I find deep significance in religious symbols, texts, and traditions, and I am in fact a performing liturgist of the Thelemic school. But with respect to the run of conventional theological claims, I must confess to atheism.
As far as metaphysical super-beings go, like Aleister Crowley did, I find it "easier … to extend my connotation of ‘man’ than to invent ‘God.’”
"Consequently a man’s belief in immortality ... can be founded even on an object which is itself unfeeling and indifferent toward men, a natural phenomenon such as the sun or another heavenly body, though the immortality envisaged in such a belief is not the immortality of the Christians; but this is possible only on condition that man regards himself as one with the heavenly bodies, that he believes his essence and theirs to be one and the same." --Ludwig Feuerbach
As far as metaphysical super-beings go, like Aleister Crowley did, I find it "easier … to extend my connotation of ‘man’ than to invent ‘God.’”
"Consequently a man’s belief in immortality ... can be founded even on an object which is itself unfeeling and indifferent toward men, a natural phenomenon such as the sun or another heavenly body, though the immortality envisaged in such a belief is not the immortality of the Christians; but this is possible only on condition that man regards himself as one with the heavenly bodies, that he believes his essence and theirs to be one and the same." --Ludwig Feuerbach
68modalursine
Quite right. If one is some sort of panpsychist, for example, believing that everything, or every material thing, has some degree of consciousness, possibly miniscule in the case of atoms or sub-atomic particles, but increasingly more so as one goes up the evolutionary scale, then of course consciousness in that view is a natural phenomenon whose nature is as explicable, or non-explicable if one prefers, as the nature of the electric and magnetic fields.
No gods need apply
No gods need apply
69modalursine
Let me note in passing, that not everyting that appears absurd on first look is necessarily actually false or as absurd as it seems.
We have the example of the behavior of the physical world at very high velocities (compared to the speed of light) or at extremely small scale of subatomic particles.
Quantum physicsts are rescued from the funny farm, so to speak, by virtue of their abiity to demonstrate the weirdness for all to see, and to use that wierdness to explain and correctly predict events in the real world.
As an unbeliever of long standing, it seems to me that the core ideas of the major religions are totally bonkers on their face, definitely a point against them, but more seriously, the appologists fail to rescue the absurdity with phsical demonstrations or correct predictions, and offer nothing more substantial than hand-waving, appeals to emotion, obfuscatory terminology, appeals authority, or appeals to yet higher levels of mystery.
Of course, homo sapiens are not a totally rational species, and people believe things in part for reasong that they may not be fully aware of and which certainly are not under rational control. One cannot will oneself to believe or to disbelieve a given propostion at a stroke. One finds oneself in possession of some believes (or unbelifes) and slowly works ones way to confirm or deny them over time.
In general, I don't belive in mocking or belittling individuals (well, maybe with one or two exceptions for narcissistic sociopaths in high places), but institutions and ideas, in my book at least, are and of right should be fair game.
We have the example of the behavior of the physical world at very high velocities (compared to the speed of light) or at extremely small scale of subatomic particles.
Quantum physicsts are rescued from the funny farm, so to speak, by virtue of their abiity to demonstrate the weirdness for all to see, and to use that wierdness to explain and correctly predict events in the real world.
As an unbeliever of long standing, it seems to me that the core ideas of the major religions are totally bonkers on their face, definitely a point against them, but more seriously, the appologists fail to rescue the absurdity with phsical demonstrations or correct predictions, and offer nothing more substantial than hand-waving, appeals to emotion, obfuscatory terminology, appeals authority, or appeals to yet higher levels of mystery.
Of course, homo sapiens are not a totally rational species, and people believe things in part for reasong that they may not be fully aware of and which certainly are not under rational control. One cannot will oneself to believe or to disbelieve a given propostion at a stroke. One finds oneself in possession of some believes (or unbelifes) and slowly works ones way to confirm or deny them over time.
In general, I don't belive in mocking or belittling individuals (well, maybe with one or two exceptions for narcissistic sociopaths in high places), but institutions and ideas, in my book at least, are and of right should be fair game.
70modalursine
Hmmm...it seems a part of me doesn't believe in putting all the letters in the word "Believe". Oh well!
71timspalding
It is by now a common and trivial observation that all the believers in one religion are "atheists" and unbelievers in all religions except that one, and what we call a regular old "atheist" is simply someone who is an "atheist" to the lot, with no exceptions.
Although commonly said in some quarters, this is really not the case for monotheists, and its continual repetition is a sign of bad faith. It's the atheist equivalent of idiot Christians saying that, since atheists don't believe in God, they don't believe in right and wrong, or only hold their beliefs because they want to do evil things. We should all be careful about asserting things about others' belief that they themselves deny.
If the notion is strange to you, it's this: A Muslim, a Christian, a Jew and sundry other religions do not believe in different Gods. We believe in the same God with some differences of opinion about God—the all-powerful, all-knowing, all-good creator of the universe. You will sometimes see ignorant people—most evangelicals—say that Muslims believe in a "different God"(1) This is a very strange notion in Christian theology and history, and logically problematic. The possibility of alternates really only works for Zeus and sundry—beings that are fundamentally powerful entities, which may or may not exit as Bob and Joe might or might not exist. The God of monotheism is not a being and not in the world at all, but being itself, the ground of being, etc.
1. Or they say that Muslims don't believe in God, but in "Allah," ignorant of the fact that Allah simply means God—being used by Arab Christians and Jews as well, and indeed when talking about Zeus et al. in Arabic. Islam's strong preference for Arabic, and evangelicals' bottomless ignorance and gullibility, is leading them astray.
Although commonly said in some quarters, this is really not the case for monotheists, and its continual repetition is a sign of bad faith. It's the atheist equivalent of idiot Christians saying that, since atheists don't believe in God, they don't believe in right and wrong, or only hold their beliefs because they want to do evil things. We should all be careful about asserting things about others' belief that they themselves deny.
If the notion is strange to you, it's this: A Muslim, a Christian, a Jew and sundry other religions do not believe in different Gods. We believe in the same God with some differences of opinion about God—the all-powerful, all-knowing, all-good creator of the universe. You will sometimes see ignorant people—most evangelicals—say that Muslims believe in a "different God"(1) This is a very strange notion in Christian theology and history, and logically problematic. The possibility of alternates really only works for Zeus and sundry—beings that are fundamentally powerful entities, which may or may not exit as Bob and Joe might or might not exist. The God of monotheism is not a being and not in the world at all, but being itself, the ground of being, etc.
1. Or they say that Muslims don't believe in God, but in "Allah," ignorant of the fact that Allah simply means God—being used by Arab Christians and Jews as well, and indeed when talking about Zeus et al. in Arabic. Islam's strong preference for Arabic, and evangelicals' bottomless ignorance and gullibility, is leading them astray.
72modalursine
Just read an option piece by (of all people Ross Douthat...did I mention that I mostly find him annoying but occasionally interesting?) about choosing a religion.
Early in the piece he talks about being "open to evidence of cosmic design and supernatural possiblities"
Bingo!
Why would one be an atheist?
Because the failure, after thousands of years of trying by some pretty smart cookies, to come up with any evidence worthy of the name, one becomes open to the conjecture that the reason we naven't seen evidence yet is because there's none to be had.
Early in the piece he talks about being "open to evidence of cosmic design and supernatural possiblities"
Bingo!
Why would one be an atheist?
Because the failure, after thousands of years of trying by some pretty smart cookies, to come up with any evidence worthy of the name, one becomes open to the conjecture that the reason we naven't seen evidence yet is because there's none to be had.
73librorumamans
For the past several months I've been participating in an online reading group that has been working its way through Spinoza's two principal works. Although he was for over a century vilified in public and avidly studied, generally in private, we are living today largely in Spinoza's world. The following two paragraphs come from this week's reading; they seem worth sharing.
It's important to point out that, for Spinoza, God is synonymous with Nature – that is, the entire universe.
From near the end of chapter 12 of The Theological-political Treatise (in the Cambridge translation)
(corrected typo)
It's important to point out that, for Spinoza, God is synonymous with Nature – that is, the entire universe.
From near the end of chapter 12 of The Theological-political Treatise (in the Cambridge translation)
. . . we see from Scripture itself, and without any difficulty or ambiguity, that the essence of the Law is to love God above all things and one's neighbour as oneself. And this cannot be adulterated nor penned in a slap-dash, error-prone manner. For if Scripture ever taught anything else than this, it would necessarily have had to teach everything else differently, since this is the foundation of all religion. Were this removed, the entire structure would immediately collapse.And in the second paragraph of the following chapter:
I never cease to be amazed that the ingenuity of those I mentioned earlier who uncover in Scripture mysteries too profound to be explained in any human terms and [who] hence imported into religion so many philosophical questions that the Church now resembles a university and religion a field of learning or, rather, ceaseless learned controversy.
(corrected typo)
74modalursine
>71 timspalding: There is certainly something in what you say.
As everyone , or at least everyone who at one time in their career has fallen from grace into the "computer business", knows ... whether and to what degree two things are "the same" depends on what similarity measure one is using.
I do think it's fair enough to say that the Abrahamics, being so closely related historically and culturally all share the general notion of a singular, powerful, intelligent, benign creator god who is also the arbitor of true morality, and in that sense they can all be said to venerate "the same" god.
That's certainly different from the gods of classical antiquity who were not creator gods.
If I'm not mistaken there are Hindu scriptures (talking through my hat a bit here, I'm really shaky on Hinduism) about "who knows how things started, the gods came later", but that's neither here nor there.
Then there are the "Lord of Wisdom" and the "Vengeful Spirit" of Zorastrianism who are surely "not the same thing" as the Abrahamic god and for sure not "the same thing" as the classical Greco Roman ones.
The Moslems, to the best of my knowledge and belief, are very strict monotheists and at least in some times and places have accused the Chrstian concept of the trinity of being "polytheism" (a "bad thing", in their book).
So Christians are unbelievers with respect to the status of Muhomed as a prophet, let alone the last and greatest, and Moslems are unbelievers in the divinity of Christ.
All of them reject the divinity of the Greco-Roman bunch and, if I'm not too mistaken, have at least at some time in their history castigated other religions gods as demons, or agents of satan sent to decieve us.
Of course, we can think that Orthodox Catholicism on the one h and and some low Church evangelical protestants on the other are "different" religions because they have different theologies, histories, amd rituals, but they all believe in the divinity of Christ and in the concept of the Trinity, so they are in that sense "the same" religion (all variants of Christianity) and do not disbelieve in one another's god.
What's the difference between a dialect and a language?
Weinreich's answer is: A language is a dialect with an army.
I think the same idea applies to "What's the difference between a sect and a religion".
For purposes of comparing very broad religous concepts, let's say that all the flavors of Chrisianity are "Christian" and all the schools of Islam (Sufi, Shia, Sunni, heaven-know-what) are all "Islam" even though there are very big differences between them, and might be "different" religions by some similarity measures.
One more difficulty: As an outsider, I might think (to take one example) that Sufis and Salfi are all Islam and thus by some measure "the same", but in some places, Salafis bomb the Mosques of Sufis, so they themselves don't think of themselves as "the same" even though for some purposes I might.
My opinion doesn't really cut much ice with them, why should it?
As everyone , or at least everyone who at one time in their career has fallen from grace into the "computer business", knows ... whether and to what degree two things are "the same" depends on what similarity measure one is using.
I do think it's fair enough to say that the Abrahamics, being so closely related historically and culturally all share the general notion of a singular, powerful, intelligent, benign creator god who is also the arbitor of true morality, and in that sense they can all be said to venerate "the same" god.
That's certainly different from the gods of classical antiquity who were not creator gods.
If I'm not mistaken there are Hindu scriptures (talking through my hat a bit here, I'm really shaky on Hinduism) about "who knows how things started, the gods came later", but that's neither here nor there.
Then there are the "Lord of Wisdom" and the "Vengeful Spirit" of Zorastrianism who are surely "not the same thing" as the Abrahamic god and for sure not "the same thing" as the classical Greco Roman ones.
The Moslems, to the best of my knowledge and belief, are very strict monotheists and at least in some times and places have accused the Chrstian concept of the trinity of being "polytheism" (a "bad thing", in their book).
So Christians are unbelievers with respect to the status of Muhomed as a prophet, let alone the last and greatest, and Moslems are unbelievers in the divinity of Christ.
All of them reject the divinity of the Greco-Roman bunch and, if I'm not too mistaken, have at least at some time in their history castigated other religions gods as demons, or agents of satan sent to decieve us.
Of course, we can think that Orthodox Catholicism on the one h and and some low Church evangelical protestants on the other are "different" religions because they have different theologies, histories, amd rituals, but they all believe in the divinity of Christ and in the concept of the Trinity, so they are in that sense "the same" religion (all variants of Christianity) and do not disbelieve in one another's god.
What's the difference between a dialect and a language?
Weinreich's answer is: A language is a dialect with an army.
I think the same idea applies to "What's the difference between a sect and a religion".
For purposes of comparing very broad religous concepts, let's say that all the flavors of Chrisianity are "Christian" and all the schools of Islam (Sufi, Shia, Sunni, heaven-know-what) are all "Islam" even though there are very big differences between them, and might be "different" religions by some similarity measures.
One more difficulty: As an outsider, I might think (to take one example) that Sufis and Salfi are all Islam and thus by some measure "the same", but in some places, Salafis bomb the Mosques of Sufis, so they themselves don't think of themselves as "the same" even though for some purposes I might.
My opinion doesn't really cut much ice with them, why should it?
75timspalding
>74 modalursine:
So apart from the argument from similarity and history, I think there's a strong logical argument that any religion that asserts there is one ultimate, necessary being, who is by definition uncreated, eternal, above all creatures and singular, must necessarily have the same being as their referent.
Trying this on for size: It's sort of like saying that group of scientists A, B and C differ in their opinions about the center of the earth, but it doesn't make sense to say that they believe in "different" centers of the earth. There is definitionally one center. If one says the center is hot and another says it is cold, they disagree, but they are arguing about the same thing. (The cold guy would not say "Oh sure, the center you are talking about is hot, but the other one, the one I am describind, is cold.") This would even be so if the earth turned out to be flat and therefore the earth had no center at all.
This, by the way, would be why many Christians would doubt whether or not Mormons do in fact believe in the same God, so far, at least in theory (but not, I think, in practice), they hold to the idea that God is an divinized man, as expressed by their fifth prophet, Lorenzo Snow:
Different religions is a very different question, I think. I have no desire to claim that Islam, Christianity and Judaism are not different religions!
So apart from the argument from similarity and history, I think there's a strong logical argument that any religion that asserts there is one ultimate, necessary being, who is by definition uncreated, eternal, above all creatures and singular, must necessarily have the same being as their referent.
Trying this on for size: It's sort of like saying that group of scientists A, B and C differ in their opinions about the center of the earth, but it doesn't make sense to say that they believe in "different" centers of the earth. There is definitionally one center. If one says the center is hot and another says it is cold, they disagree, but they are arguing about the same thing. (The cold guy would not say "Oh sure, the center you are talking about is hot, but the other one, the one I am describind, is cold.") This would even be so if the earth turned out to be flat and therefore the earth had no center at all.
This, by the way, would be why many Christians would doubt whether or not Mormons do in fact believe in the same God, so far, at least in theory (but not, I think, in practice), they hold to the idea that God is an divinized man, as expressed by their fifth prophet, Lorenzo Snow:
"As man now is, God once was; As God now is, man may be".Or as he put it on another occasion:
"God himself was once as we are now, and is an exalted man, and sits enthroned in yonder heavens!"This seems to go well beyond the idea that men can become like God (theosis, a feature of Orthodox mysticism), into the notion that God wasn't God, but a man, and then became a God. Whatever the truth of that, it's not logically the same as what standard monotheists believe, because it admits of multiple such beings, and implies such beings were not always and eternally God.
Different religions is a very different question, I think. I have no desire to claim that Islam, Christianity and Judaism are not different religions!
76modalursine
When it comes to the Abrahamics, I don't think there's anything to objectionable in the notion that they're all talking about the same beast, in that they all believe in a being with the "big, important" attributes you enumerate one ultimate, necessary being, who is by definition uncreated, eternal, above all creatures and singular
There's also a social (or do I mean "sociability"?) dimension. If each of the religions (or sub-religions, or whatever) agree that "we all worship the same god", then it may, arguably, be easier for members of each different community to accept one the others as "good fellows, maybe brothers, but if not then maybe cousins" , but at least not "the enemy".
The fact remains though, that each community, at least officially, is an unbeliever in some of the doctrines of the other community.
A Christian may not be an out and out atheist with respect to the god of Islam, and vice versa (though I do believe that even self proclaimed Christians who disbelieved in the divinity of Jesus were written out of the community and would have had a rough time even in Newton's day) Since Islam denies the divinity of Jesus, that would be a bit of a sticky wicket between them and most Christians.
So an atheist can always say something of the form: You Christians don't believe that Muhamed is an authentic prophet, and the Moslems don't believe in the incarnation (though I do think they accept Jesus as a prophet). So I'm just taking the union of your disbeliefs.
Banter of that sort aside, the real issue is that atheists, however they got there, stay there because they don't find the arguments for any religion's claims that their god (or gods) exist in the real world very compelling.
There's also a social (or do I mean "sociability"?) dimension. If each of the religions (or sub-religions, or whatever) agree that "we all worship the same god", then it may, arguably, be easier for members of each different community to accept one the others as "good fellows, maybe brothers, but if not then maybe cousins" , but at least not "the enemy".
The fact remains though, that each community, at least officially, is an unbeliever in some of the doctrines of the other community.
A Christian may not be an out and out atheist with respect to the god of Islam, and vice versa (though I do believe that even self proclaimed Christians who disbelieved in the divinity of Jesus were written out of the community and would have had a rough time even in Newton's day) Since Islam denies the divinity of Jesus, that would be a bit of a sticky wicket between them and most Christians.
So an atheist can always say something of the form: You Christians don't believe that Muhamed is an authentic prophet, and the Moslems don't believe in the incarnation (though I do think they accept Jesus as a prophet). So I'm just taking the union of your disbeliefs.
Banter of that sort aside, the real issue is that atheists, however they got there, stay there because they don't find the arguments for any religion's claims that their god (or gods) exist in the real world very compelling.
77prosfilaes
>75 timspalding: It's sort of like saying that group of scientists A, B and C differ in their opinions about the center of the earth, but it doesn't make sense to say that they believe in "different" centers of the earth. There is definitionally one center.
Except there's not. It's probably close enough for the Earth, but we could talk about the center of mass of the Earth, or we could talk about the center of a theoretical minimal sphere enclosing all the earth (including or excluding water) or a theoretical maximal sphere enclosing only earth (again, including or excluding water). The centers of the spheres that exclude water probably are pretty stable, but the center of mass sloshes around with the movement of water dragged around by the moon.
Or for another analogy, a group of scientists A, B and C differ in their opinions about the average US American. Are we talking mean, mode, median? Do immigrants count? What about illegal immigrants? Are we talking about adults only? Do they simultaneously live close to the coast and in the middle of the country? There's not one average American; there's many, depending on where you put your finger on the scales, intentionally or otherwise.
Except there's not. It's probably close enough for the Earth, but we could talk about the center of mass of the Earth, or we could talk about the center of a theoretical minimal sphere enclosing all the earth (including or excluding water) or a theoretical maximal sphere enclosing only earth (again, including or excluding water). The centers of the spheres that exclude water probably are pretty stable, but the center of mass sloshes around with the movement of water dragged around by the moon.
Or for another analogy, a group of scientists A, B and C differ in their opinions about the average US American. Are we talking mean, mode, median? Do immigrants count? What about illegal immigrants? Are we talking about adults only? Do they simultaneously live close to the coast and in the middle of the country? There's not one average American; there's many, depending on where you put your finger on the scales, intentionally or otherwise.
78John5918
Thanks to Tim for making it clear that the God of Judaism, Christianity and Islam is the same God, the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. That is a very orthodox position.
Obviously their understanding of that God differs, but if God is ineffable, beyond the limitations of human understanding and language, then all our attemps to understand God will be imperfect. That leads to apophatic theology or spirituality, perhaps epitomised by the 14th century text The Cloud of Unknowing, that it is impossible to determine what God is, so we try to work out what God is not.
A less orthodox position would be that if there is a divinity (and I think most Christians would believe there is), then it can only be one, and therefore all people who are seeking divinity in any form or any religion are seeking that same divinity. The British Christian monk Bede Griffiths, who founded a Christian ashram in India, likened God to the hub at the centre of a wheel, with humanity on the rim of the wheel. There are many different spokes joining the rim to the hub. As long as we remain on the rim we know little about God. As we move down any one of the spokes towards the centre we not only get closer to God but we also get closer to each other, regardless of which spoke the others are on.
As I said, not a very orthodox position, but an interesting one which again undermines the soundbite that all religious people are atheists about gods other than their own. That we may all have different understandings of God, and we may find different ways of following God, does not mean we don't believe in the existence of the God that others are understanding and following differently, only that we have our own understanding and way of following that same divinity.
Obviously their understanding of that God differs, but if God is ineffable, beyond the limitations of human understanding and language, then all our attemps to understand God will be imperfect. That leads to apophatic theology or spirituality, perhaps epitomised by the 14th century text The Cloud of Unknowing, that it is impossible to determine what God is, so we try to work out what God is not.
A less orthodox position would be that if there is a divinity (and I think most Christians would believe there is), then it can only be one, and therefore all people who are seeking divinity in any form or any religion are seeking that same divinity. The British Christian monk Bede Griffiths, who founded a Christian ashram in India, likened God to the hub at the centre of a wheel, with humanity on the rim of the wheel. There are many different spokes joining the rim to the hub. As long as we remain on the rim we know little about God. As we move down any one of the spokes towards the centre we not only get closer to God but we also get closer to each other, regardless of which spoke the others are on.
As I said, not a very orthodox position, but an interesting one which again undermines the soundbite that all religious people are atheists about gods other than their own. That we may all have different understandings of God, and we may find different ways of following God, does not mean we don't believe in the existence of the God that others are understanding and following differently, only that we have our own understanding and way of following that same divinity.
79modalursine
>7 librorumamans: liborumamans
Since the title of this group is "Why are you an atheist", I suppose it's fair for to say that one thing that keeps me a team atheist (not the main thing, mind, but definitely a consideration) is the sort of thing posted in yout "7".
No disrespect to you as a person intended, but the idea articulated in "7" is nonesense on stilts.
I'm sure there is as much variation in mood, from cheerfullness to gloominess) among atheists as wihtin humanity at large.
FWIW, I find myself, irrationally and despite the world going to hell in a handcart as one says, on the cheerful side. Go figure!
Since the title of this group is "Why are you an atheist", I suppose it's fair for to say that one thing that keeps me a team atheist (not the main thing, mind, but definitely a consideration) is the sort of thing posted in yout "7".
No disrespect to you as a person intended, but the idea articulated in "7" is nonesense on stilts.
I'm sure there is as much variation in mood, from cheerfullness to gloominess) among atheists as wihtin humanity at large.
FWIW, I find myself, irrationally and despite the world going to hell in a handcart as one says, on the cheerful side. Go figure!
80librorumamans
>79 modalursine:
Attracting flies with vinegar, are we?
You aren't curious enough (or polite enough) to enquire what I might have meant in >7 librorumamans: or to pick up on anything from the subsequent posts. Nonetheless, I will attempt to expand.
In this time and place many people like me have no notion of a cosmic puppet master nor of some other sort of transcendent being. I also have no idea what to do with a word like 'soul' except in its metaphorical use as the essence of something.
But one can't think seriously at all about humanity without thinking about the word 'God' (or 'god', as you wish). I suspect it's been around as long as there have been language and culture, so I don't think we can just throw the word away. What to do with it?
So, one approach is to disentangle it from the transcendent and look at the some of the functions the god idea has played in the past and how that might fit into our situation, that being for this purpose the educated, secularized West.
The God idea gathers what a culture defines as sacred. 'Sacred' means that which is set apart from ordinary use, that which must not be tampered with, that which must be held in the greatest respect. It is that in which we root meaning and around which we build our identity.
Thus, while I don't see a cosmic puppet master at work in my life, I certainly acknowledge the sacred as I have just described it. One thing that ought to be treated with the greatest respect for me is the relations between people; there are others, such as not messing around with or treating casually whatever provides hope. If we lose radical hope we have lost whatever makes our life sacred. I am continually grateful not have experienced that level of despair, but if my life has ceased to be sacred even to me, then of what use is it?
To you this is nonsense on stilts. To me it is not.
Attracting flies with vinegar, are we?
You aren't curious enough (or polite enough) to enquire what I might have meant in >7 librorumamans: or to pick up on anything from the subsequent posts. Nonetheless, I will attempt to expand.
In this time and place many people like me have no notion of a cosmic puppet master nor of some other sort of transcendent being. I also have no idea what to do with a word like 'soul' except in its metaphorical use as the essence of something.
But one can't think seriously at all about humanity without thinking about the word 'God' (or 'god', as you wish). I suspect it's been around as long as there have been language and culture, so I don't think we can just throw the word away. What to do with it?
So, one approach is to disentangle it from the transcendent and look at the some of the functions the god idea has played in the past and how that might fit into our situation, that being for this purpose the educated, secularized West.
The God idea gathers what a culture defines as sacred. 'Sacred' means that which is set apart from ordinary use, that which must not be tampered with, that which must be held in the greatest respect. It is that in which we root meaning and around which we build our identity.
Thus, while I don't see a cosmic puppet master at work in my life, I certainly acknowledge the sacred as I have just described it. One thing that ought to be treated with the greatest respect for me is the relations between people; there are others, such as not messing around with or treating casually whatever provides hope. If we lose radical hope we have lost whatever makes our life sacred. I am continually grateful not have experienced that level of despair, but if my life has ceased to be sacred even to me, then of what use is it?
To you this is nonsense on stilts. To me it is not.
81modalursine
>80 librorumamans: The error, it seems, was mine.
I thought you were saying that atheists must necesarrily be a bunch of despairing gloomy gusses, having either arrived at atheism from gloom, or having arrived at gloom through atheism.
It's a line that's not all that uncommon among theistic apologists, and as you can tell, I'm not a great fan of that line of malarky.
But it seems that we share a disbelif in what I 'll call "the spirit world".
Now there are things in this world that are wonderful and mysteirous, beautiful and awesome, at least things that I find so.
As to the "sacred"; I suppose it's in the eye of the beholder. My particular eye has not beheld it, but that's neither here nor there. Maybe it's only a matter of definition. It's not a subject htat exites my lanquid spleen.
I remain, as I've said before, on "team atheist" because I don't think there's any such thing as a spirit being, nor any guiding intelligence that orders the universe.
I thought you were saying that atheists must necesarrily be a bunch of despairing gloomy gusses, having either arrived at atheism from gloom, or having arrived at gloom through atheism.
It's a line that's not all that uncommon among theistic apologists, and as you can tell, I'm not a great fan of that line of malarky.
But it seems that we share a disbelif in what I 'll call "the spirit world".
Now there are things in this world that are wonderful and mysteirous, beautiful and awesome, at least things that I find so.
As to the "sacred"; I suppose it's in the eye of the beholder. My particular eye has not beheld it, but that's neither here nor there. Maybe it's only a matter of definition. It's not a subject htat exites my lanquid spleen.
I remain, as I've said before, on "team atheist" because I don't think there's any such thing as a spirit being, nor any guiding intelligence that orders the universe.
