Atheism revisited

[Matrim Fox Cauthon]

[b]Proposition for Discussion:[/b] The real modern dilemma facing theists and theistic religions is not proving whether or not God exists (or conversely, even scientists and atheists trying to disprove God), but rather, it is a problem of God's relevancy in our increasingly busy, daily lives. Or to be more succinct, what will kill God is not fact and reason, but a lack of time or care.

[potsherds]

[quote name='Matrim Fox Cauthon' post='1670729' date='Feb 2 2009, 05.55']Or to be more succinct, what will kill God is not fact and reason, but a lack of time or care.[/quote]
That's what I'm hoping. :)

[Matrim Fox Cauthon]

[quote name='Meili' post='1670722' date='Feb 2 2009, 00.41']Theists outlook/s are in groups. Often massive groups in the millions and tens of millions. Each group has the same set of rules and view of the universe including it's creation and it's end. Atheists are not a group. There is no assertion given. There is no answer to the creation, end or even the now. Just guesses which vary from person to person. So no, saying 'atheists' as a group have any outlook is incorrect.[/quote]On what factual basis are you making your claim?

[Kat]

[quote name='Meili' post='1670722' date='Feb 1 2009, 22.41']So no, saying 'atheists' as a group have any outlook is incorrect.[/quote]

I'm not sure that's any more correct. Many people become atheists after reading a [i]particular[/i] book or books. It's not as if atheists (or related non-theist groups) all march in lockstep, but don't kid yourself that there aren't groups who think more or less the same. It's impossible to avoid such trends within any belief system that has outspoken members. Same can be said for politics.

I know you like to believe that you're your own special snowflake, but I really don't think atheists are [i]that[/i] special for [i]that[/i] reason in particular. At least, no more so than theists, who can also come to independent conclusions without following a particular dogmatic religion...while still believing in one or more gods.

[Red Sun]

[quote name='Matrim Fox Cauthon' post='1670729' date='Feb 2 2009, 06.55'][b]Proposition for Discussion:[/b] The real modern dilemma facing theists and theistic religions is not proving whether or not God exists (or conversely, even scientists and atheists trying to disprove God), but rather, it is a problem of God's relevancy in our increasingly busy, daily lives. Or to be more succinct, what will kill God is not fact and reason, but a lack of time or care.[/quote]

[quote name='potsherds' post='1670732' date='Feb 2 2009, 07.00']That's what I'm hoping. :)[/quote]

But is there something to fill the void if all informal groups, parishes, churches, rituals, rites of passage, etc, things that are linked to religion independently of the belief, collaps due to the lack of care. Is there anything to fill that void? I wouldn't want churches to be transformed in discos or, even worse, shopping malls or simple get destroyed, bcause people think that we don't need empty rooms just for the sake of having empty rooms.

Even though, my personal belief is pretty atheistic, or so pantheistic that it's almost atheistic, I just can not consider th complete disappearance of religion as a great thing. It feels a bit like the end of LOTR when many beautiful things are gone, only right now, I do not see if atheism would be the source of beauty or sense of belonging or anything that gives people meaning. I'm not sure if all people could live with the constant knowledge that nothing has meaning.

But, to not sound like I was whining, I would like to ask what visions atheists have for the future without religion. I for myself really liked the idea of "nuns" or "monks" or "monasteries" for science, that Kat has mentioned in the previous Atheist thread. A monastery, in the original meaning, is just a sort of commune, with shared money and without the hassle of having affairs within the group. ;) I also like the idea of having secular parishes that could use the former churches as assembly places, with a secular, paid priest (i. e. that person can live off the job). That would be a person that everyone in the parish can talk to when he/she has problems, without having to pay for every individual consultation, those "priests" or "pastors" could also be mediators when you have conflicts within the parish.

[Happy Ent]

[quote name='Red Sun' post='1670777' date='Feb 2 2009, 08.07']Even though, my personal belief is pretty atheistic, or so pantheistic that it's almost atheistic, [...][/quote]
Huh? That’s like saying “I like so many books I hardly read at all” or “I have so many hairstyles I’m practically bald.” (Edit to add: I have reading comprehension problems. Red Sun says “pan-” not “poly–”. Sorry.)

[quote]I'm not sure if all people could live with the constant knowledge that nothing has meaning.[/quote]
Exactly. We need to realise that our human psyche has difficulty coping with that concept. We crave for [i]meaning[/i], and the realisation that there [i]is[/i] no meaning is pretty damn difficult. [i]That’s[/i] the cognitive problem to overcome, and it has very little to do with rationality or intelligence or education or a scientific mindset. Atheism is fundamentally at odds with how our brains work.

That doesn’t make it false, of course.

[quote]But, to not sound like I was whining, I would like to ask what visions atheists have for the future without religion.[/quote]
None. And it’s important.

We are exactly [i]not[/i] arguing from “It would be nice if the future was XXX. Hence atheism must be correct.” That would be the ought-is fallacy (inferring a stance about reality from a desirable vision for the future). We are saying “Atheism is correct. We give fuck-all about what that implies for the future, because we think correctness trumps decency and compassion and fanaticism and whatever other desirable or undesirable religious may have.”

Of course, the ought-is fallacy is alive and well in a lot of atheists and scientifically minded people in other questions, like the hot buttons I mentioned upthread, so epistemologically there is really no big difference between atheists and other people. They just are lucky that their ethics aren’t built around the belief of [i]meaning[/i] in the universe, so atheism is an ethically neutral position for them.

(For example, there are a lot of people who do accept evolution in all species [i]but homo sapiens[/i]. That aligns them with the political group they want to belong to: 1. God does not exist. 2. On the other hand, human evolution stopped 30,000 years ago and there are no functionally significant cognitive differences between geographically separated subpopulations. 3. Also, uniquely among higher mammals, the cognitive and emotional functions of the sexes are the same, including in questions about reproduction and aggression. To maintain these three positions simultaneously needs the exact same skills or rationalisation, cognitive dissonance, and appeal to emotive arguments that theists need to keep their worldview consistent.)

[HT Reddy]

[quote name='Matrim Fox Cauthon' post='1670729' date='Feb 2 2009, 05.55'][b]Proposition for Discussion:[/b] The real modern dilemma facing theists and theistic religions is not proving whether or not God exists (or conversely, even scientists and atheists trying to disprove God), but rather, it is a problem of God's relevancy in our increasingly busy, daily lives. Or to be more succinct, what will kill God is not fact and reason, but a lack of time or care.[/quote]

One of the speakers we had at CICCU central last term was a minister from London, and he was saying that the current economic downturn was a great time in terms of gospel ministry. A bit blunt, but it is certainly the case I think that although these past few years it has been easy to ignore God, that will become harder now. We shall see. But yes I think you're absolutely right - most people don't start off opposed to God or organised religion; they simply don't care and aren't interested.

[quote name='Happy Ent' post='1670829' date='Feb 2 2009, 09.23']Huh? That’s like saying “I like so many books I hardly read at all” or “I have so many hairstyles I’m practically bald.”[/quote]

Are you getting polytheism and pantheism mixed up?

[quote]None. And it’s important.

We are exactly [i]not[/i] arguing from “It would be nice if the future was XXX. Hence atheism must be correct.” That would be the ought-is fallacy (inferring a stance about reality from a desirable vision for the future). We are saying “Atheism is correct. We give fuck-all about what that implies for the future, because we think correctness trumps decency and compassion and fanaticism and whatever other desirable or undesirable religious may have.”[/quote]

I have never really understood why atheism places such high moral value on correctness (I think that that is a good thing, btw, and I know why [i]I[/i] value the Truth). Surely from a secular viewpoint what matters is human happiness. Surely if religion makes people happy (and it often does) it shouldn't matter whether it is really true or not? I don't know; this is just something I've never understood.

[Happy Ent]

[quote name='HT Reddy' post='1670832' date='Feb 2 2009, 10.34']Surely from a secular viewpoint what matters is human happiness.[/quote]
— and there’s the rub.

That’s why Thomas Mann’s [i]Magic Mountain[/i] is the greatest book ever written. (The question is embodied in the character of Settembrini.)

Truth doesn’t make you happier. Lies do. So what do you choose? I choose truth. But I understand that people who prefer lies are not necessarily dumber or worse people.

[Meili]

[quote name='Matrim Fox Cauthon' post='1670751' date='Feb 2 2009, 00.28']On what factual basis are you making your claim?[/quote]

A shitload already covered. But if one doesn't grasp that atheism is not a belief at all, the facts will seem like nonsense. I am assuming you are one of these because you keep implying that there is some same belief in every person who doesn't think there is a creator or god and some common opinion about the meaning of life when there isn't. A million people saying the tooth fairy doesn't exist does not give them the exact same opinion on the meaning of life and philosophy on our existance altogether. Want to see an example of a billion members groupthink on the purpose of the universe? Look no further than the sig for H T Reddy.

And HE, the truth doesn't make you happier. It also doesn't make you sadder. It has no emotional attachment at all, it is all determined by the individual. Christians cry just as hard (and in my experience harder) when their loved ones die as rationalists do and they are the ones who [b]know[/b], not think but [b]know[/b], they will ssee them soon and spend eternity with them.

[Errant Bard]

[quote name='Meili' post='1670516' date='Feb 2 2009, 03.10']Religious people don't even "tolerate" each other..... ignoring the delusions of these people is obviously not the answer.[/quote]Yeah, that's a fucking good reason for not tolerating them in return.

It doesn't matter what you believe in, attitude like yours are the reason there are those crusades. You are a fanatic, and you are not better than a religious nut. The real division isn't between theists and atheist, but between people forcing their beliefs on others and the rest. I don't even know what goal you think you can reach with your righteous anger... Eradication of opinions different than yours? How do you propose to do that?

You didn't answer, by the way. [b]Why?[/b] State a reason why we should force atheism on others. Is it "because some of them forced what they think is right on others, and they are wrong anyway"?

[Red Sun]

[quote name='Happy Ent' post='1670829' date='Feb 2 2009, 10.23']Huh? That’s like saying “I like so many books I hardly read at all” or “I have so many hairstyles I’m practically bald.” (Edit to add: I have reading comprehension problems. Red Sun says “pan-” not “poly–”. Sorry.)[/quote]

Yes, I meant "pantheism", but in the sense that MFC was referring to in [url="http://asoiaf.westeros.org/index.php?s=&showtopic=33570&view=findpost&p=1652194"]this[/url] quote: "[i]Theologian Paul Tillich actually agreed more often than not with the atheist, and he actually advocated in his theology that God does not exist, because existence would by definition make God finite and material. So instead, he insisted that God was not a being but being itself.[/i]"

After making the step, that God is something like life or being itself, it's just one degree of separation from this sort of pantheism to the statement that it doesn't matter if you believe in God or not, because he exists anyway, to saying "if you don't need to believe, why no assume that he does not exist". That's pretty much my transformation from a Christian to a Theist to this middle way between pantheism and atheism where I'm right now.

[quote name='Happy Ent' post='1670829' date='Feb 2 2009, 10.23']Exactly. We need to realise that our human psyche has difficulty coping with that concept. We crave for [i]meaning[/i], and the realisation that there [i]is[/i] no meaning is pretty damn difficult. [i]That’s[/i] the cognitive problem to overcome, and it has very little to do with rationality or intelligence or education or a scientific mindset. Atheism is fundamentally at odds with how our brains work.[/quote]

Yes, I guess asking for "visions" for the future is the wrong question, and I experience exact the problem you are describing.

ETA:
[quote name='Happy Ent' post='1670837' date='Feb 2 2009, 10.44']— and there’s the rub.

That’s why Thomas Mann’s [i]Magic Mountain[/i] is the greatest book ever written. (The question is embodied in the character of Settembrini.)

Truth doesn’t make you happier. Lies do. So what do you choose? I choose truth. But I understand that people who prefer lies are not necessarily dumber or worse people.[/quote]

That's interesting. Der Zauberberg is on my to-read pill. However, I have to say that another work of Thomas Mann, the first volume of Joseph and his brothers, has a lot to do with my transformation to atheism, because it is an awesome deconstruction of myths.

[Happy Ent]

Thomas Mann is God, of course.

[HT Reddy]

[quote name='Meili' post='1670843' date='Feb 2 2009, 10.00']A shitload already covered. But if one doesn't grasp that atheism is not a belief at all, the facts will seem like nonsense. I am assuming you are one of these because you keep implying that there is some same belief in every person who doesn't think there is a creator or god and some common opinion about the meaning of life when there isn't. A million people saying the tooth fairy doesn't exist does not give them the exact same opinion on the meaning of life and philosophy on our existance altogether. Want to see an example of a billion members groupthink on the purpose of the universe? Look no further than the sig for H T Reddy.[/quote]

MFC just asked you to back up your claims with evidence, so I fail to see why you have become so animated.

[Meili]

[quote name='Errant Bard' post='1670850' date='Feb 2 2009, 05.13']Yeah, that's a fucking good reason for not tolerating them in return.[/quote] It is.

[quote name='Errant Bard' post='1670850' date='Feb 2 2009, 05.13']It doesn't matter what you believe in, attitude like yours are the reason there are those crusades. You are a fanatic, and you are not better than a religious nut. The real division isn't between theists and atheist, but between people forcing their beliefs on others and the rest. I don't even know what goal you think you can reach with your righteous anger... Eradication of opinions different than yours? How do you propose to do that?[/quote] :rolleyes: Because I advocate making someone by force change their beliefs right??..... If my view of people finanlly speaking up and saying 'hey, we are not the crazy ones' and 'no, I don't need to be 'saved', you need to be educated' is too hostile a stance, stand back and let the people with a bit more self-respect do the talking. Should women have shut up after thousands of years of being treated as inferior by men? Should blacks have stayed quite while told their race was basically that of a dumb animal? Why the fuck have we, people who don't believe in fiary tales, have to sit back, year after year and be told that we are damned, loved ones are in hell, that we have to believe fantasy often at the point of a sword or the light of a torch and keep our mouths shut and respect their right to hurl insult after insult and killing after killing. Speaking up isn't inciting violence, it is just finally standing up for yourself. If this makes me a fanatic, your stance makes you the worlds largest pussy.

[quote name='Errant Bard' post='1670850' date='Feb 2 2009, 05.13'][b]Why?[/b] State a reason why we should force atheism on others. Is it "because some of them forced what they think is right on others, and they are wrong anyway"?[/quote]

We shouldn't force anything. So the [b]why[/b] question is one irrelevant to me.

[Matrim Fox Cauthon]

[quote name='Meili' post='1670843' date='Feb 2 2009, 05.00']A shitload already covered. But if one doesn't grasp that atheism is not a belief at all, the facts will seem like nonsense. [b]I am assuming you are one of these because you keep implying that there is some same belief in every person who doesn't think there is a creator or god and some common opinion about the meaning of life when there isn't.[/b] A million people saying the tooth fairy doesn't exist does not give them the exact same opinion on the meaning of life and philosophy on our existance altogether. Want to see an example of a billion members groupthink on the purpose of the universe? Look no further than the sig for H T Reddy.

And HE, the truth doesn't make you happier. It also doesn't make you sadder. It has no emotional attachment at all, it is all determined by the individual. Christians cry just as hard (and in my experience harder) when their loved ones die as rationalists do and they are the ones who [b]know[/b], not think but [b]know[/b], they will ssee them soon and spend eternity with them.[/quote]You have covered nothing in your analysis. Your assumption about me is wrong - I am implying nothing - but it is irrelevant to the question asked.

[TerraPrime]

Re: MFC

Christianity must continue to change to remain relevant in the modern world. Just as it had to change around 2000 years ago from Judaism to Christianity. Christianity's great popularity is due, imo, in no small part to both the proselytizing backbone and the imminently adaptable theology. Many natives, once the Christian missionaries got to them, eventually craft some form of hybrids out of the original message. Even among mainstream Christian sects, we see marked differences based on cultural and historical roots. I do not doubt that we will have Christianity in one form or another in the future. What that form might be I cannot predict, but I have faith ( ;) ) that it will mutate into something that people can live with.

[Walpurgisborn]

[quote name='Meili' post='1670843' date='Feb 2 2009, 05.00']you keep implying that there is some same belief in every person [b]who doesn't think there is a creator or god [/b][/quote]

Ummmm...

[Rockroi]

[quote][b]Proposition for Discussion[/b]: The real modern dilemma facing theists and theistic religions is not proving whether or not God exists (or conversely, even scientists and atheists trying to disprove God), but rather, it is a problem of God's relevancy in our increasingly busy, daily lives. Or to be more succinct, what will kill God is not fact and reason, but a lack of time or care.[/quote]

I think that a variation on that theme is this: that the fact that God is an understood "option" and no longer a bed-rock foundation of knowledge is what theists must truly contend with. The fact that each and every major field of knowledge and discovery works fully well without the inclusion of a divine power is ill news for theists. Evolution, the Big Bang, thermal dynamics, quantum physics, etc all are wholly and utterly independent from whether or not God exists. This is ion STARK comparison to the way people saw the universe prior to Galileo, where God was an abject necessity for knowledge.

This is most evident in the story of when Napoleon met a French physicist Pierre-Simon Laplace, and Napoleon asked Laplace about his theory on black holes, and how there was no evidence of the almighty. Laplace answered that his system worked perfectly fine without God.

That is my foundational point- as time has gone on, more and more people realize that their knowledge and enjoyment of life is not dependant on believing in God, and that everything we know can be explained without the inclusion of God. At that point, we then must ask a very large question- what, if anything, can we look at and appreciate ONLY through the spectrum of God? In other words, what can we articulate is ONLY made by God's work, and has no other possible explanation? That list dwindles almost by the day (in fact, I cannot think of a single item on that list). Once we get there, God becomes a choice- we can either believe or chose NOT to believe, it has no baring AT ALL on anything else that comes within our frame of knowledge. The knowledge of Evolution does not require a God nor does the setting of the sun or the birth of a child. We can CHOOSE to believe or not. And as more and more becomes known, more and more people choose the latter, much to the chagrin of the former.

[kiko]

[quote name='Happy Ent' post='1670829' date='Feb 2 2009, 10.23']Exactly. We need to realise that our human psyche has difficulty coping with that concept. We crave for [i]meaning[/i], and the realisation that there [i]is[/i] no meaning is pretty damn difficult. [i]That’s[/i] the cognitive problem to overcome, and it has very little to do with rationality or intelligence or education or a scientific mindset. Atheism is fundamentally at odds with how our brains work.[/quote]

Could you explain that? It is certainly not true for me and I assume for the people, I know. But then I gre up in a country where religion played a very little role. While our history might have had a goal, our universe certainly didn't.

[quote name='HT Reddy' post='1670539' date='Feb 2 2009, 03.39']Or Soviet Russia's murder of hundred of priests.[/quote]

yeah right. But that is a drop in the ocean of blood (how dramatic!)

[quote name='HT Reddy' post='1670832' date='Feb 2 2009, 10.34']One of the speakers we had at CICCU central last term was a minister from London, and he was saying that the current economic downturn was a great time in terms of gospel ministry. A bit blunt, but it is certainly the case I think that although these past few years it has been easy to ignore God, that will become harder now. We shall see.[/quote]

People left the churches in droves during the last economic crisis.

[Matrim Fox Cauthon]

[quote name='kiko' post='1671248' date='Feb 2 2009, 14.17']yeah right. But that is a drop in the ocean of blood (how dramatic!)[/quote]Does being a non-Jewish minority that was persecuted in the "ocean of blood" of the Holocaust in any way diminish the reality of that persecution? Deadly persecution is still deadly persecution no matter how its statistical percentage amongst the totals.