Ethical Atheist vs believer in God

[juantoo3]

Hi Juan and thanks for all the links you have been providing.

It's my pleasure!

If you call this disconnect the result of replacing superstition with rational logic then who is to say which is our "natural being" ?

The disconnect as I see it has more to do with being isolated in our nice comfy little artificial environments. Logic was an afterthought when it finally came along;

The history of logic is the study of the development of the science of valid inference (logic). While many cultures have employed intricate systems of reasoning, and logical methods are evident in all human thought, an explicit analysis of the principles of reasoning was developed only in three traditions: those of China, India, and Greece. Although exact dates are uncertain, particularly in the case of India, it is possible that logic emerged in all three societies by the 4th century BC. The formally sophisticated treatment of modern logic descends from the Greek tradition, particularly Aristotelian logic, which was further developed by Islamic logicians and then medieval European logicians. The work of Frege in the 19th century marked a radical departure from the Aristotlian leading to the rapid development of symbolic logic, later called mathematical logic.

Logic was known as 'dialectic' or 'analytic' in Ancient Greece. The word 'logic' (from the Greek logos, meaning discourse or sentence) does not appear in the modern sense until the commentaries of Alexander of Aphrodisias, writing in the third century A.D.

History of logic - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I don't want to sidetrack on this, but it does warrant clarification. The first bolded part says it well.

Yet, as today, in spite of "logical type" reasoning, superstition persists, even among the educated. The disconnect I spoke of was in relation to intimacy with the natural surroundings. You mentioned earlier about stellar constellations in a context with cave paintings, (I am not familiar with this in particular, but I'll accept it on your word for the moment). You are an amateur astronomer, so you get further benefit of doubt with this exercise I propose. What I propose is to attempt to illustrate this disconnect I am speaking of, at least in a very cursory way.

How many constellations can you name? Now, go out and look in the night sky and how many can you name? Can you tell me the optimum time of night to view any particular constellation I might randomly name at this moment without referring to *any* astronomical charts?

Now, on this one subject alone, how well do you suppose the typical atheist will fare? To be equitable, how well do you suppose the typical city dweller will fare, (religious or atheist, educated or uneducated; random sample)? My guess is a random spot check would reveal that few people even care what phase the moon is in on any given day...that is a disconnect from nature brought about by an artificial environment.

Now, and this is supposition on my part, but I would hazard a guess that typical country folk, especially in animist societies, would have a far greater working knowledge of the night sky than the typical educated city dweller. They may, or may not, call the constellations by the same names. But their familiarity would be far more intimate.

That is the kind of disconnect I am referring to. The concept can be carried much further forward. People living with the earth are more "in tune" with the earth, generally speaking. Also generally speaking, the more civilized people became and the more they became "spoiled" by their artificial environments, the less "in tune" with the earth they became.

The rise of atheism as a deliberate POV is absolutely dependent on ones level of credulity, whether or not you are willing to accept evidence on the weight of its reasoning or whether you will accept it as authoritative based on an emotional need, because of its source or some other non-empirical reasoning. Atheism is to my mind the natural evolution of thought based on an ever expanding body of knowledge that has observed religion/belief and found it to be composed of too many false premises to have any credibility.

I understand this, but it really holds no bearing on what we had been discussing. At least, I can't think of any, so please show me the relevence if I am mistaken.

I think very few atheists arrive at their POV because the have been taught it where as the religious are almost invariably so as the result of a cultural indoctrination. And this is key.

Atheism is in a real sense the natural evolution of thought we can expect to see when education dispels superstition. But even still it requires an environment in which the social pressures to conform to inherited superstitions are either negated or absent. It is thus no accident that you find more atheists in secular France, the UK and Sweden, where the cultural norm places little emphasis on religion and a lot on education, than in Pakistan, the US and Iran where religion dominates the cultural and political spheres.

Disregarding for the moment the discrepencies in your POV pertaining to the States, do you see the inherent contradiction in what you say in these two places? In the first is the implication that atheism is socially normative and acceptable where it is not culturally indoctrinated, and then go on to point out the benefits of an indoctrinated atheist culture.

I am not bringing this to light as any critique of atheism, frankly I have fitful moments when I grapple with my own mental demons. What I am critiquing is the contradiction that is masked as logic...and in Grecian logic both the thing and its contradiction cannot simultaneously be true.

Religious type belief developed to provide explanations in a time of ignorance.

How can I respond to this?

As much as I disagree, that disagreement hinges on the nature of what constitutes knowledge, and in what context. I cannot help but feel so much of what we take for granted today as knowledge will be laughed at by later generations as incredibly ignorant. I fear the only way to demonstrate this would be to bring you back in a couple of hundred years so we both can go over this all again with fresh insight...

As that ignorance is thrown off we can patently observe that the old explanations were not only wrong but had been deliberately and systematically manipulated for the purpose of inferring power on an elite. And that the methodology they employed has been deliberately honed to take advantage of general ignorance.

At a later time, after the development of and within the confines of the artificial environment of cities, and with the advent of religious institutions.

The combined effect of cultural indoctrination and the deep seated need to have some meaning / notion of control in life creates a massive pressure toward accepting irrational ideas. The popularity of astrological predictions highlights well the need and ability to accept we can find answers and/or meaning when there is none. Amongst the religious there is this unspoken collusion to prop up each others superstitions which creates an investment that builds over time and makes it increasingly difficult to withdraw from that collusion. This is a completely artificial edifice of mutual consent to a completely artificial paradigm. There is nothing 'natural' about it, it is learned behaviour.

But good friend Tao, I can insert any rationale / philosophy / line of reasoning here and have it hold true, including atheism. People are prone to create cliques, and slap the backs of those *in* the clique, and point fingers and criticize those *out* of the clique. This serves as no proof of what constitutes an artificial paradigm, unless we call every manner of human thought (including atheism) an artificial paradigm...which rightly may well be!

Atheism has risen in recent years in direct correlation to the rise in empirical information available to the educated. It is the availability of information alone that has made mainstream atheism possible. Atheism uses the availability of empirically founded study to prove conclusively that to date no religious concept has any validity and further, that each and every one can be demonstrated to have been developed by man for the sole purpose of social engineering. With the rise in available information and the introduction of secular social structures (political systems) religion has become obsolete.

Ah, conclusive proof...let me know when atheists find this elusive animal.

It is much easier to be an atheist is secular Europe than in the US, Pakistan or Iran where religion is much more pervasive.

I have spent no time in Europe to fully grasp the political climate, so I would hesitate to make any presumptions. I can say unequivocally that the political climate in the US is not as religiously oriented as you suggest. What is more important is that political climates can change, drastically, and very quickly. That much I *can* point to Europe for, the history is too recent to ignore.

The dominance of religious talk in every corner of the social structure of these countries creates a feedback loop of credulity and acceptance that creates a pressure of conformity that is very difficult to reject.

Seems to me this depends on the circle one finds oneself in, and how much one is willing to abide the influence of others. Sometimes it behooves one to go along in order to get along, whether that be a religiously oriented government or the hallowed halls of a Cambridge or a Harvard.

Mark Twain had a lesser known quote I wish I had committed to memory. The gist was that his politics were of the moment and depended upon whose company he was in. That his *real* politics were very private and often at odds with the necessity of the moment.

Such schizophrenic contradiction is quite common among city dwellers seeking status among each other...and is effectively moot among *primitive* animist societies where status is either a matter of birth or is earned by accomplishment.

Atheism breaks down these artificial structures that rely solely on superstitious belief and replaces them with rationally deduced facts.

Atheism breaks down those artificial structures and replaces them with a different artificial structure. Sorry to say it, but that is the reality. As a meme, atheism has nothing functionally different to distinguish it from religion...they are two sides of the same coin.

An atheist cannot say that the universe was not deliberately created,

...yet so many atheists do that very thing...

because the information is as yet insufficient to state that, but he/she can say with absolute confidence that each and every religion is a human philosophy with no basis in the observational data.

I wish I could agree, Tao. The scholarly "step back" and "dissociation from preconceptions" I can go along with, I like to think I practice it myself. In my experience for the most part, those that feel the need to brandish atheism as some banner to unfurl in the face of whatever perceived adversary do so to be *against* something else, not for atheism per se nor in some benign attempt to be scholastically neutral. Exceptions are rare.

 

[juantoo3]

Just realizing the essentially anthropomorphic nature of narrative metaphysics automatically makes one an atheist, IMO, if the strict definition of the term is employed. If God is a concept, you're an atheist. If you think you can pray and God will maybe change the weather, or keep your car from running out of gas, you're a theist.

What if one views G-d less as an anthropomorphic entity and still prays to keep the car from running out of gas?

Logically it seems to me a conundrum, G-d just doesn't fit neatly into any little boxes we derive...

I've seen too many things that defy explanation, I used to make my guardian angel work overtime when I was a kid. Now I want to understand, but so much of my experience defies logic.

 

[juantoo3]

It could be through peoples conceptions that he revealed himself to them.

This is along the lines I have thought for some time now. Which explains to me how we ended up with so many variations on the theme of religion...yet underneath there seems to be a unity or singularity of metaphysics.

 

[juantoo3]

To a die-hard materialist/atheist, there probably is literally no form of experience/evidence which would cause them to consider the possiblity of other interpretations. It is in that "true-believer" (or in this case true non-believer) sense that materialism and/or atheism could be considered a "religious" fervor.

Ironic, isn't it?

 

[Tao_Equus]

PoO,

As ever you get incredible mileage from your 2c....

Happy New Year

 

[Tao_Equus]

Well, Path, to a die-hard materialist/atheist, (like Tao), there probably is literally no form of experience/evidence which would cause them to consider the possiblity of other interpretations. It is in that "true-believer" (or in this case true non-believer) sense that materialism and/or atheism could be considered a "religious" fervor. earl

Hi Earl,

I do not understand why you would have me labelled a materialist. I care much more passionately about ethics, morality, fairness and learning than any form of materialism. As for my atheism having 'religious' fervour I think you confuse my position with yours because you cannot conceive not having some belief. The lack of belief is not a belief and atheism provides an alternative to belief not just another paradigm. I know this is a rather subtle concept but it is also profound. My atheism is based on observing the history of religions, their methodologies, the (ill) logic and the mental apologetics and credulity of believers. I disbelieve because I have looked at the same stuff you do but reach a different conclusion. I do not offer an alternative and any 'fervour' you perceive is purely as a result of the cut and thrust of debate. I suggest that your tendency to compare atheism with belief in this way is your hang up, not mine

Happy New Year

 

[Tao_Equus]

Hi Juan,

Like Earl you seem incapable of viewing atheism as anything other than another religion.

You talk of "atheistic indoctrination".... there is no such thing. The lack of religious indoctrination does not mean it is simply replaced by an alternative. People are allowed the freedom to discover their own beliefs in their own time without prejudice, a far cry from indoctrination. A child is educated in the empirical truths humanity has learned through long struggle, often handicapped by the dogmatic nonsense of religious institutions.

I am sorry I do not have time to go through your post point by point but I feel you do nothing there but impose on non-belief all the accoutrements of faith that atheism in fact rejects. I feel you do not even understand what atheism is. If you wish I will explain this at greater length when I have more time.



Happy New Year

 

[Postmaster]

As good person as you appear to be, your knowledge is for the elite, the elite alone can't make the changes you want to see.

 

[earl]

Hi Earl,

I do not understand why you would have me labelled a materialist. I care much more passionately about ethics, morality, fairness and learning than any form of materialism. As for my atheism having 'religious' fervour I think you confuse my position with yours because you cannot conceive not having some belief. The lack of belief is not a belief and atheism provides an alternative to belief not just another paradigm. I know this is a rather subtle concept but it is also profound. My atheism is based on observing the history of religions, their methodologies, the (ill) logic and the mental apologetics and credulity of believers. I disbelieve because I have looked at the same stuff you do but reach a different conclusion. I do not offer an alternative and any 'fervour' you perceive is purely as a result of the cut and thrust of debate. I suggest that your tendency to compare atheism with belief in this way is your hang up, not mine

Happy New Year

By materialism, I mean the belief that all phenomena can be reduced to explanation of it manifesting based on and only on physical factors. By a religious fervor, I mean the unshakable unwillingness to entertain the possibilty of another paradigm explaining some phenomena. earl

 

[juantoo3]

Like Earl you seem incapable of viewing atheism as anything other than another religion.

Ah! A meme is a meme is a meme is a meme, except when one's own meme is called into question?

You talk of "atheistic indoctrination".... there is no such thing.

Actually, you said "where the cultural norm places little emphasis on religion," I was merely agreeing that that *is* just another form of cultural indoctrination.

The lack of religious indoctrination does not mean it is simply replaced by an alternative. People are allowed the freedom to discover their own beliefs in their own time without prejudice, a far cry from indoctrination. A child is educated in the empirical truths humanity has learned through long struggle, often handicapped by the dogmatic nonsense of religious institutions.

Would that this were true. If it were, the ongoing struggle between creationists and evolutionists for control of the US educational system would be a moot battle. Teach everything and let the kids sort it all out...

I am sorry I do not have time to go through your post point by point but I feel you do nothing there but impose on non-belief all the accoutrements of faith that atheism in fact rejects. I feel you do not even understand what atheism is. If you wish I will explain this at greater length when I have more time.

That's OK, no hurry! Enjoy your holidays! Happy New Year to you as well!

 

[earl]

Good point Juan. Religion, atheism, scientism, etc. when "preached" as an an explanatory belief system to the exclusion of all other possibilities is indeed a form of "indoctrination." earl

 

[juantoo3]

I guess Panentheism is closest to myself:
Panentheism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I guess this highlights for me the trouble with trying to label it all to begin with, but is there really any significant difference between panentheism and animism? From my perspective, I don't see any significant difference other than the spelling...

 

[path_of_one]

A couple quick notes:

First, I'd say that whether or not atheism is a form of indoctrination depends on whether or not it's part of the enculturation process for someone. An atheist who grew up in an atheist household, where he was taught from a young age that religion is off limits, or stupid, or illogical, or whatever has been made an atheist through cultural indoctrination. An atheist who came to that conclusion in response to cultural indoctrination in a religion as a kid is arguably responding against her enculturation. Only someone who was given all the options equally and without prompting in a certain direction is coming up with atheism without any indoctrination at all. Which hardly ever happens. Just as few people ever come up with religion without some prompt for or against. That's the nature of human beings- we teach our kids our belief systems. Before we even know it as children, we are surrounded with ideas from our culture.

Atheism is (to me) just one more idea about the supernatural.

Animism is a belief in spirits (but not necessarily god(s))
Theism of all sorts is a belief in god(s)/goddess(es)
Pantheism is the belief that God resides in all, or is all things
Panentheism is the belief that God is in all things AND something more (typically something more we can't understand)
Atheism is the belief that there are no god(s) and no spirits... basically nothing supernatural at all

Atheists are often materialists, objectivists, and/or positivists... meaning (in short) that they don't believe in anything that is not observable, measureable, and reproducible. Except that they rarely hold to these standards absolutely in their own lives. It's a tough gig for humans to do.

Most atheists I've known (and I know a lot of them) either came to be atheists through rebellion against the Christian tradition, and they insist on defining God in a Christian way and so can't get past the real diversity of beliefs about the supernatural in the world or they became atheists in response to acculturation to the middle/upper class educated cultures- generally in college. Having been in a discipline where the vast majority of people are atheist for about a decade now, and having been told to my face I am an idiot for thinking outside the atheist box and for giving credit to the vast majority of humankind that has some belief in the supernatural, I can understand that in some groups, great pressure exists to be agnostic or atheist. But ignoring what was blatantly my life's experience just didn't work for me, so I maintain panentheism in accordance with my personal experience.

Oddly enough, most of the atheists I know would insist that I come up with elaborate explanations for my spiritual experience and that I deny my own observations of God, all while proclaiming that people should stick to the most logical, most basic explanation of their observations.

Well, I observe in my life that I experience what I can only call God or the Divine One- a Beingness that is far greater than I, that is in all of us, that is beyond all of us, and that is supremely transcendent and yet somehow quite available. I've been interacting with this Being for my entire life, as far back as I can remember. The way I see it, insisting It doesn't exist is about the same as ignoring data because it doesn't fit with the theory.

I have no qualms about acknowledging that atheism might be the best belief system for a person who's life's data provides no indication of anything supramundane. That's just not my life, so I refuse to shove my life's experience under the rug and claim atheism just because it is more fashionable in my discipline and subculture.

What I wish the atheists would realize is that I'm not betraying my observations or my diligence in recording the human experience. I just have a different experience from them and/or a different interpretation of the same experience. Isn't that diversity what makes culture, philosophy, and science go 'round? What is so wrong with that?

 

[earl]

Good point about shamanism, Path. They're more or less born, not made. Raw talent that is developed under tutelage. To say that certain potential supramundane realities don't exist because the vast bulk of humanity lacks the proper mental tools to witness it is like saying that a distant star unseen except with powerful astronomical telescopes doesn't exist when all we're using is a magnifying glass. The transpersonal theorist, Ken Wilber, made the good point years ago that IHO the proper "research" tool for confirming certain spiritual realities is a highly developed consciousness. Certain physics truths were only confirmed when the proper technology existed to reveal them. If one took a similar attitude into "research" into supramundane realities/paraphsycological issues, etc. that the proper research tool was someone with those abilities, we'd have a very different attitude toward that now in modern (or is that post-modern?) society. Of course, I think 1 of the reasons that that attitude does not exist in science is because of materialist enculturation that automatically precludes any serious consideration of those possiblities. earl

 

[wil]

Atheists are often materialists, objectivists, and/or positivists... meaning (in short) that they don't believe in anything that is not observable, measureable, and reproducible....

Most atheists I've known ...insist on defining God in a Christian way....

Isn't it interesting... Most athiests are fundamental literalists when it comes to G!d, ie they want to argue against the bible/koran/vedas litterally and don't want to discuss metaphor and metaphysics.

 

[Tao_Equus]

PoO,

As ever no one else here can come even close to you in making my atheistic stance untenable. And you do it with straight logic too!! Indeed the only defence you leave me is to question your interpretation of your experience. Something that could be deemed as insulting though I feel quite confident you would view my suggesting it is no slight on you on my part.

Isn't it interesting... Most athiests are fundamental literalists when it comes to G!d, ie they want to argue against the bible/koran/vedas litterally and don't want to discuss metaphor and metaphysics.

What is even more interesting is how the religious apologist will also be equally literalistic until it suits their argument to change the rules and invoke metaphor. Another hypocrisy as an atheist I safely avoid.

 

[Postmaster]

Not really inline with the above posts but just want to say this. Recently I’ve been asking myself and trying to figure out why good things happen to bad people and bad things to good people and although I can’t really figure out a complete system, little concepts pop into my mind from my observations. I think one thing that life thrives on is persistence, persistence is something so simple that anyone can do, its a very powerful force. Life has a natural cycle, life, deterioration and death but if you harness persistence whether or not your doing anything positive or negative this force seems to keep people afloat in a lot of situations. I think persistence slows down time and deterioration, I’d go as far to say persistence is a mystical force. People are more likely to persist if they have faith in something supernatural especially that being God the man. And no surprise that civilisations that believed in God the man as a concept were and still the most successful.

A famous rabbi once said (not sure which one) life is like a tight rope or something along those lines I heard this quote from somewhere years and years ago and always stayed in my head. I don't really agree that anymore. I think life is full of abundance, personally I even think God can turn back the hands of time if need be. I think life is an art form, the simplest things like, acceptance, learning, teaching, persistence, patients, recognition, caution and all the obvious virtues are qualities that anyone of any social, race, religion and intellectual background can possess, use and play with. I think through these qualitys there’s no limit to what you can get and achieve.

And I think women although not perfect people are more likely by nature to live by these principles more subconsciously then consciously. Men being more opportunistic creatures need a discipline. Could explain why most if not all prophets were males. And maybe we pursue these disciplines to relate to women also. No surprise that Casanova and Rasputin were priests (famous womanisers).

 

[Tao_Equus]

No surprise that Casanova and Rasputin were priests (famous womanisers).

By the looks of that girl on your arm then you are the next Pope AND Dalai lama!!!

Happy New Year

 

[c0de]

@ Postmaster

Hey Postmaster,

great post

I think one thing that life thrives on is persistence, persistence is something so simple that anyone can do, its a very powerful force.

(Just to add) that persistence has to be defined in its nature/dimension.
More specifically, the persistence of the finite, compared to the persistence
in the infinite. I think that instead of trying to explain this myself, I will suggest
Fear and Trembling, by Kierkegaard.

The key thing to note is the difference between the persistence of the
Knight of Infinite Resignation, and the Knight of Faith. The stages which
lead up to true faith, relates directly with this quality of "persistence" and
reveal the multi-dimensionality of this quality.

 

[juantoo3]

Good post, Postmaster!

Good post too, as always, Path of One!

<psst> is this proof of clairvoyance? You always seem to express what I am trying to say so much more lucidly than I can...just don't tell Tao, it'll be our secret.