ILX Religiosity and Spirituality and Agnosticity and Atheicity Poll

jeez hi dere i think it's a pretty big distinction to make when someone (or a lot of people? i dunno) claims atheists somehow are at a disadvantage in their ability to relate to those behaviours

This is where I assert that you are conflating atheism with humanism.

don't think so, am merely reacting to what was said upthread re: what atheists as misisng out on, tbh

'are missing'

what i mean is that whatever neural construct is formed to model/consider the belief is on a physical basis equivalent to having that belief, and the act of skepticism is one of dismissal, where this construct is inhibited, not one where a new 'non-belief" construct is formed.

this solves the ouroborous problem, which requires an equivalency between belief and non-belief, though it requires you to accept an equivalency between belief and consideration, at least on a neurological level.

i'm pretty sure i misspelled ouroubroous.

whatever neural construct is formed to model/consider the belief is on a physical basis equivalent to having that belief

although this sounds impressive, it's really quite mad

ie visualisation for appreciation/valuation != belief on a physical nor any other level, and i can't think for a second how you'd claim it

but it seems to me that an atheist those things have to be found outside of atheism

Well sure. Atheism is sort of a non-thing. It's like you're saying that baldness doesn't come with a hat included so bald people have to look outside of their baldness to find a way to cover their head. Of course. Baldness just means that you have no hair. It doesn't mean that you have no hair but you're also part of some organized community that provides free hats. I think.

fwiw i never said that atheists are missing out on anything; i said atheism doesn't provide much

i might be conflating the studies where people imagining themselves making free throws activated the same parts of the brain as people actually training, and both groups improving by about the same amount. that and something about mirror neurons.

fwiw i never said that atheists are missing out on anything; i said atheism doesn't provide much

seems i'm picking you up wrong in any number of small ways, elmo, but can you pls explain what the sentiment was, in context of 'here's what religion provides, and atheism doesn't'

what i mean is that whatever neural construct is formed to model/consider the belief is on a physical basis equivalent to having that belief, and the act of skepticism is one of dismissal, where this construct is inhibited, not one where a new 'non-belief" construct is formed.

Conversely, if a believer has doubts or questions about his faith, does his brain instantly go into a state of non-belief that mimics the brain function of an atheist?

not even that- if a believer considers non-belief as a concept their brain function is therefore atheistic

fwiw i never said that atheists are missing out on anything; i said atheism doesn't provide much

It doesn't "provide" anything. It's not supposed to! Atheism doesn't make the kinds of claims or promises that religion makes, which is why I don't think it's really an "ism."

i think if you considered non-belief as a concept, it'd be more like you believed there is such a thing as non-belief, rather than non-believing.
it would have to be something more along the lines like, "what would it be like to live like a heathen athiest? could I go skiing in the summer?"

Also, all of the talk about skepticism and considering various beliefs presupposes that you're coming from a religious point of view. This is what the people who claim that atheism is a religion or belief system are missing. You don't have to do anything to be an atheist. It doesn't take any deep thought or painful transformations if you haven't already been indoctrinated into a religious mindset. It's just the default state of being.

xpost-- I'm not sure what you're saying there.

hmm think we're getting to the root of something here. atheists can conceive of stuff without automatically believing they exist.

i'm pretty sure most people can tbh, but you have me worried

I think saying "religion" provides all these things that "atheism" doesn't is conflating an awful lot of things, where "religion" is being used as specific shorthand for "monotheism." Religion encompasses everything from Christianity to animism to wicca to Buddhism to Scientology. I just feel like someone is skipping an awful lot of steps, here.

I think the things that bother me about these arguments is the tendency for atheists to argue in an (essentially) ad hominim way - i.e. 'theists think I'm going to hell/ believe that you pray and illnesses are cured/ hate homosexuals or some other group' - and think that this is a refutation of the idea of theism. I think that a lot of the new atheists argue like this - the couple of times I've met Dawkins I always felt that he was arguing against an imaginary, right-wing, american fundamentalist standing next to me - the fact that I possessed none of the characteristics he was criticising seemed to be beside the point.

The other problem is the tendency for theists to try to make the argument a fight for the fundamental claim to be human; suggesting that morality, community, values etc. are exclusively religious qualities is frankly insulting to pretty much everyone.

On a side note, I came to my theism through radical skepticism - sort of a move through Descartes, reaching a dead end, ideas about subjectivity, Wittgenstein, and then moving through Kierkegaard to my own ideas about God and self. This was over a period of about 15 years of introspection, however, and the idea that my faith is 'blind' seems kind of odd to me. I'm also aware that my faith is incapable of communication between people (placing me in the 'mystic' camp, I guess) so I'm really not that interested in trying.

Also, I'm a (fairly hard left) socialist (my faith informs my political beliefs, but my political beliefs do not rely on my faith), and, frankly, I find myself much more concerned by poverty levels, preventable disease, the need for democratization of our socio-economic system, climate change etc. than whether or not one guy gets pissed off by someone preaching in the streets, or another gets pissed off because someone thinks that Christ and God are eternally coexistent rather than Christ being begotten of God. I'll pick the crude Left vs. Right dividing line over the time-wasting theist vs anti-theist dichotomy.

Actually, don't know how much sense that makes...

makes perfect sense

the couple of times I've met Dawkins I always felt that he was arguing against an imaginary, right-wing, american fundamentalist standing next to me

yeha totally. so frustrating to see him chase down these easy and unrewarding paths time after time

aware that my faith is incapable of communication between people (placing me in the 'mystic' camp, I guess)

Squarely. Not such a bad place to be, and one that generally proves a bafflement to the standard issue atheist.

I find myself much more concerned by poverty levels, preventable disease, the need for democratization of our socio-economic system, climate change etc.

Most of which are exacerbated by the actions of various churches around the world.

yeah hm -- ok maybe put it this way: when i say "wisdom" in this context i mean aphorisms and edifying teachings that are built into a religious culture. same thing with values: i mean scripture like "love thy neighbor as thyself" and the beatitudes and such. by community I mean congregations and networks of ppl who can rely and help each other according to those values. all good things that religion, at its best, provides -- it's the nature of the religion.

i DON'T mean to suggest that an atheist is incapable of wisdom etc, NOR that any of those things have their root in religion. atheism doesn't have traditions -- so those things come from elsewhere. AND of course lots of religious people find those things elsewhere, too, it should be said.

l-r dmac, elmo

http://www.micheloud.com/FXM/MH/Scans/A_Heart.jpg

:D

wk, yeah lots of churches are fucked up. Which says nothing about the validity of a belief in god. See a few posts back about the prevelance of ad hominem in atheistic debating techniques.

can't decide if 'sandard issue atheist' is ad hominem or not tbh.

i wish there were still pythagoreans around, wkiw

xp i find it difficult to separate the two when having this discussion tbh

Wouldn't go so far as to say it says NOTHING about the validity of belief in god. Certainly it says that "belief in god" is neither a necessary nor a sufficient condition for acting like a decent human being.

I mean at a certain point you have to get out of the rarefied air of theory and theology and discuss religion as actually manifested in human behavior, right?

yeah i guess when the full spectrum of human behavior is present among believers and nonbelievers i'm like "so what does this actually do?"

xp only if you didn't score a sweet gig in the vatican somewhere tbh

Most of which are exacerbated by the actions of various churches around the world.

Sure. But I tend to be of the opinion that the the form of the relationship is capitalism shaping churches, rather than churches altering the drive of capitalism (after all, if the machinations of such navel-gazing institutions as churches has any serious impact on economic structure then capitalism would have died out a long time ago. But churches, while occupying a peculiar relation to production, are as much controlled by these forces as any other institution, and any dogma finding itself incompatible with capitalism would be sidelined or eliminated. Though depending on your political views that may not apply)

I'd be shocked if the members of these awful churches would concede that the bible was just a bunch of stories, actually.

xp

In the same way that fundamentalism has a recognizable profile built around acceptance of the Bible as the inerrant word of god, the standard profile of atheism, when espoused as a philosophy, is also recognizable and Dawkins provides a fairly good example.

It may be that the actual "standard issue atheist", as determined by sheer numbers, is simply someone who has a profound disinterest in anything remotely like religion, thinks of it rarely, if at all, and could not say more than five sentences on the subject without resorting to repetition.

Neither the Dawkins-type of militant, engaged, anti-religious atheist, nor the unengaged, apathetic atheist is likely to have much interest in or understanding of mysticism. The Dawkins type has almost nothing to say on the matter, other than to dismiss it as a chemical abberation in the brain.

all of your atheists are pretty unpleasant on the subject of religion in general tbh

So, now that we've moved from "spirituality" to "mysticism," can someone explain exactly just a) what these two things are, and b) what the difference is between them? And what their interaction with "religion" is? Because we've got an awful lot of nonspecific terms being tossed about here in the process of deriding us poor, lonely, intellectual incurious and unwise atheists, who are yet somehow also disproportionately powerful and angry-making.

Certainly it says that "belief in god" is neither a necessary nor a sufficient condition for acting like a decent human being.

Fully agreed. A "belief in god" is a cipher, upon which almost any image may be cast by the believer. I, myself, do not believe in god, but rather in compassion and spiritual enlightenment. God, whatever it may or may not be, is of little interest to me. Clearly, if god exists, he's doing fine all on his own. My worship of god is as unnecessary as my fear of god.

wk, yeah lots of churches are fucked up. Which says nothing about the validity of a belief in god.

I didn't say that it did, and I have a hard time believing that's what Dawkins was saying to dowd. Atheists don't believe in god because they see no reasonable evidence that god exists. They might also condemn various religious institutions for their actions, but that's not why they don't believe in god. It's just that the conversation tends to end up there when the religious say "all genocides are the result of atheism, and religion is nothing but a force for good in the world, etc".

fwiw there may be some overlap in that one can use the actions of the religious as evidence for the nonexistence of god.

the conversation tends to end up there when the religious say "all genocides are the result of atheism, and religion is nothing but a force for good in the world, etc".

I understand how this works. Seen many thousand times on the internet. You were refuting the argument you anticipated, rather than the arguments that were made. I'm pretty sure the absolute goodness of religion or evil of atheism has not been claimed by anyone in this thread.

God knows, I do this, too.

There was a recent? book out by a convert where the dude basically couldn't reconcile an omnipotent, interventionist God with the suffering he saw in the world, so his backsliding was doctrinally based, rather than pure evidence.

I have a hard time believing that's what Dawkins was saying to dowd

Oh, it wasn't. They were just general kind of chats, the kind you have after lectures - this was late 90s, he wasn't quite the boogeyman he is now. He just seemed to be arguing against strawmen, possibly because he's not a philosopher by trade - retreading the ontological argument etc.

As for mysticism, generally it refers to a claim of direct knowledge or experience of the divine. Fairly influential in Christianity - John of the Cross or St Theresa for example. Anyway, it usually includes a kind of self-justification, an internal necessity of truth, and it is usually considered beyond communication (as in trying to explain 'yellow' to a blind man). If you want to be cynical, this is all very convenient, and the similarity between accounts of 'godhead' and experiences during siezures has not gone without notice.

xp

There are probably many excellent definitions of mysticism out there, but i can't be arsed to hunt them down. I would contend that mysticism is based on personal experience which the believer comprehends as numinous. It is directly experienced, not derived from any philosophy, and by nature uncommunicable.

Mystical traditions tend to center around accumulating empirical techniques that increase the chance that the seeker will reproduce the same or similar numinous experiences. They also specialize in gnomic sayings, since the experience cannot be explained or transmitted, but only hinted at.

The major religions all have mystical offshoots, which are only barely respectable, since the mystics often deride the mainstream as misguided, polluted and ineffectual.

You were refuting the argument you anticipated, rather than the arguments that were made.

Nonsense. I was responding to a specific point made by dowd.

I mean, the general thrust of this thread is that anyone who doesn't believe that gods exist is a "hardcore atheist", as stated in the poll wording. The consensus seems to be that Richard Dawkins is the representative of this entire group of people, labeled by you as "standard issue atheists". Or rather I guess you gave us a choice where atheists can either be "militant" or "unengaged and apathetic."

So apparently these people aren't supposed to point out real world examples of religion's wrongdoing, because that bothers people like dowd, as seen in the Dawkins anecdote. But then dowd goes on to say that "frankly, I find myself much more concerned by poverty levels, preventable disease, the need for democratization of our socio-economic system, climate change etc. than whether or not one guy gets pissed off by someone preaching in the streets". So an atheist can't voice his concern about the actions of the church as they relate to those issues, because it offends the faithful, who are too busy worrying about those same problems, and anyway, it's not my church, I'm a good christian, etc.

Sorry, I think I must have been expressing myself badly last night (which is highly likely, I was kind of drunk). My point about real world concerns was not that this was the domain of religion, but rather that the debate between theists and atheists is a distraction from real problems. And yes, religious groups are part of this problem, and have a lot to answer for in these areas, and should be held to account whenever possible. And there are plenty of strong or hard-line atheists who are a powerful force for good in the world, and have a positive and inspiring vision for a world without religion which is to be applauded. I just happen to think that they're wrong about God, which is no big deal really, is it?

I guess all I was feebly trying to express is that atheism/theism is an argument about a philosophical position, and shouldn't be used as the defining category for mankind, as many people (especially religious people, splitting the world into a war between the faithful and the unfaithful). Criticism of the actions of religions is a necessary part of any struggle for a better world (as is criticising the actions of governments, aid programs, commercial companies etc.) and I would never expect someone to hold their tongue for fear of causing offense. But historical and political examples of religious malpractice are clearly not arguments against the existence of gods.

So, to (try to) clarify - I'm not anti-atheist; I think it's unfortunate that Dawkins has (perhaps against his will) become the spokesman for atheism, mostly because I think he's not very good as it; and I'm sorry if I was confused about what I was trying to say.

Pretty much the least of my worries is 'offending the faithful' but my atheism is underpinned by being reasonably well-informed about other people's belief systems. My reply to offended parties, probably since I was about 11, has always been along the lines of 'I am quite sure your imaginary friend can take a bit of disinterested criticism, see also turning of the other cheek.'

I have more fights on whether I'm right or wrong with my mom, who believes in God but not in any form of organized religion (because denominations are all about making a fast buck), and most of the scientists I've known identify as agnostic - my best friend's dad (major scientist) was always saying that 'not knowing' was the only rational choice for anyone who worked proving things or not for a living.

Nunez was all downhill after the juggaloes comment, which was both perfect and wrong in the way that Jesus was both God and man.

xp that's a philosophical not a scientific opinion tho, and easily arguable.