Religion and Individualism

[Millane]

Originally Posted by GrayMouser

While some agnostics are in the "evidence's not in" camp, some are there because they feel the question itself is something that can't be asked- you can never get a satisfactory enough definition of "God" to have the question make sense.

I think they call the latter ignosticism, which seems a pretty good stance as well, but it does limit the fun

There's been a discussion going on a few atheist websites recently about what evidence, if any, could make an atheist believe in God- some, like PZ Myers, flatly say there isn't any, there's always a more plausible explanation for any apparent miraculous manifestation

Does he mean there isnt any now, or cant ever be? we might as well call PZ Myers god
Do you know much of this PZ Myers bloke? id never heard of him before TGD and his somewhat clouded "attack" on it, to which i understood as 'didnt reference enough', to which Dawkins responded with some academic lust. My response wouldve been: you desire names, go **** a phone book...

I'd put myself in category 6- de facto- I'm as much a disbeliever in"God" as I am in Zeus or Odin or Shiva. Should people be agnostic about those entities, too?

I dont see why not? thats my query, is there something wrong with being agnostic? I agree religions not much to worry about, and when i say im agnostic its generally to do with the God i conceive (or cant rather) thats beyond human comprehension... This god of mine thats beyond human comprehension wouldnt it be supernatural because of that? Dawkins says its just some Abrahamic God hes arguing against, but he does discount mine numerous times along the way... I also sometimes think im God, id love to see him prove me wrong hahahaha!

Anyway, my blanket stereotype would be that atheism is very comforting - there's no higher judge that can see all of your thoughts, let alone your actions, and will hold you accountable for them, and when you're dead, that's it. Now that is very definitely comforting in many ways, and I can see how an atheist might want to not believe in an all-seeing, holy God because it's more comforting to not do so.

I definately find comfort in that, but i have met a few people that dont believe in god, but cannot abide the idea that death is the end. In regards of death, its more case by case regardless of the god-standpoint.
Definately agree with you that atheism is a belief, and i think those who categorise their atheism in no. 6 would call it a belief, them in no.7 id call deluded (or God!)

[Valandil]

The idea of a numerical scale is interesting. I'm not sure what to think of it. Largely - because most people probably slide up and down it as they go through their lives, for one reason or another.

Even most of us people of faith have our times of doubting.

It is interesting though. I'm mostly not certain I agree that everything in the middle of the scale equates to agnosticism. But I'll have to give it more thought.

And I wonder if we even quantify to ourselves, what percent chance we think there is a God (if we don't think 100% or 0%).

[BeardofPants]

I consider myself an atheist and a skeptic. I'm probably edging towards PZ Myer territory on that scale. Probably a 7.

[Earniel]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

I disagree with that last sentence, GM - I think it is a worldview. It's the WYSIWYG worldview - "what you see is what you get". It's a belief (it cannot be a anything else!) that what we see (in a simple sense) is all there is, and is behind everything. It explains the unexplained things just as much as a god does.

I dunno. It seems strange to categorise a non-belief as a belief. It doesn't entirely compute. Mathematics don't require a god to function, does that mean that every mathematician that doesn't include devine intervention in his calculations is doing that merely on a faith-basis?

Anyway, my blanket stereotype would be that atheism is very comforting - there's no higher judge that can see all of your thoughts, let alone your actions, and will hold you accountable for them, and when you're dead, that's it.

This is not going to lead to that silly notion that atheists can't possibly have morals because they don't expect any devine judgement at the end of the road, is it?

Originally Posted by Millane

Do you know much of this PZ Myers bloke? id never heard of him before TGD and his somewhat clouded "attack" on it, to which i understood as 'didnt reference enough', to which Dawkins responded with some academic lust. My response wouldve been: you desire names, go **** a phone book...

He has a blog: http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula. But his style is not for everyone.

[Jonathan]

Hey Millane! Good to see you around the Moot again

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

I disagree with that last sentence, GM - I think it is a worldview. It's the WYSIWYG worldview - "what you see is what you get". It's a belief (it cannot be a anything else!) that what we see (in a simple sense) is all there is, and is behind everything. It explains the unexplained things just as much as a god does.

Some atheists would agree with you RÃ*an, others would not. I would belong to the latter group. I don't see it fit to implicate that atheists by default have a naturalistic worldview. I, for instance, could believe in a god and still consider myself a natural philosopher. Similarly I could be an atheist and have a Buddhist conception of the world.

In short, I don't think atheism in itself "explains the unexplained things". (And frankly, I don't think believing in a deity necessarily means that you attribute all unexplained things to that very deity either).

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

I take issue with the condescending blanket stereotype of the "comfort zone" thing. Yes, God is comforting in many ways, but in many other ways, he's terrifying! But he is also loving, in the best (but hardest) sense of the word.

Still, wouldn't the belief in a god, no matter how terrible you believe he is, still provide comfort in the sense that it explains the world and reduces uncertainty about what the heck it's all about?

[edit]Heh, cross-post with Eärniel.

[Insidious Rex]

I have friends who dont believe in ANY god (or more accurately think the idea of a sentient god is irrelevant) but are extremely spiritual. They tell me they often get lumped into the Atheist camp because in our society Atheism has become more a political stance against the major single god religions then a point of view on the universe. So these debates about the nature of religion versus non-religion (pick a term; atheist, agnostic, skeptic, secular) always strike me as forever missing the heart of the matter. I can see it in this discussion which is mostly about justifying atheism in terms of not believing in "God". So what do we label those people outside these narrow spiritual lines exactly? Since we have a need to label everybody...

[Jonathan]

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

So what do we label those people outside these narrow spiritual lines exactly? Since we have a need to label everybody...

People like categorical thinking I guess. The LGBT concept comes to mind (ie Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgenderism), where some people would fit into more than one category, or none at all.
Perhaps a more dimensional way of thinking would be more appropriate, like a scale?

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Originally Posted by Eärniel

I dunno. It seems strange to categorise a non-belief as a belief. It doesn't entirely compute. Mathematics don't require a god to function, does that mean that every mathematician that doesn't include devine intervention in his calculations is doing that merely on a faith-basis?

To my mind, atheism is not a non-belief. It is a positive belief in the non-existence of God. Agnosticism, on the other hand, is a non-belief, since it neither believes in the existence nor the non-existence of God. Very Zen of it.

If atheism is a non-belief, how does it differ from agnosticism?

[Jonathan]

Originally Posted by Gwaimir Windgem

It is a positive belief in the non-existence of God.

Is it now? I would disagree. After all, my non-belief in the infamous Flying Spaghetti monster is a highly passive axiom of mine (and of us all, I should think).

Originally Posted by Gwaimir Windgem

If atheism is a non-belief, how does it differ from agnosticism?

Perhaps the difference lies in the agnostic's open attitude towards deities, the notion of positive belief or not being irrelevant.

[Tessar]

I am somewhat in disbelief that you guys are arguing about whether a positive non-belief is different from a non-belief. Does it really make a difference in the scope of the argument? In my opinion whether you say, "I don't believe in God," or "I believe there is no God," you mean the exact same thing... people who aren't sure can either believe they're not sure, or not-believe in their ability to be sure.

[Rían]

Originally Posted by Jonathan

Is it now? I would disagree. After all, my non-belief in the infamous Flying Spaghetti monster is a highly passive axiom of mine (and of us all, I should think).

But of course it's passive - there's no official state church of the FSM; there's no law saying that some of your money must go to the FSM church; there's no people (that I've ever heard of, or that anyone has ever heard of that I know!) that vote based on what they think the FSM wants, there's no people flying planes into buildings because of the FSM, etc. etc. IOW, there's nothing to be non-passive about!

[Rían]

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

I have friends who dont believe in ANY god (or more accurately think the idea of a sentient god is irrelevant) but are extremely spiritual. They tell me they often get lumped into the Atheist camp because in our society Atheism has become more a political stance against the major single god religions then a point of view on the universe. So these debates about the nature of religion versus non-religion (pick a term; atheist, agnostic, skeptic, secular) always strike me as forever missing the heart of the matter. I can see it in this discussion which is mostly about justifying atheism in terms of not believing in "God". So what do we label those people outside these narrow spiritual lines exactly? Since we have a need to label everybody...

Interesting points, Rex - I guess it's a matter of definition. What do they mean by "spiritual"? and if they don't believe in any gods, why would they object to being called atheist? They could qualify it by saying "spiritual atheist", but by "spiritual", do they generally mean they believe in "spirits" but not gods, or just that they are rather non-materialistic?

[Rían]

Originally Posted by Millane

Definately agree with you that atheism is a belief, and i think those who categorise their atheism in no. 6 would call it a belief, them in no.7 id call deluded (or God!)

Totally agree!

Really, the only being that could know that there is no god, is god ...

Good to see you around, Millane! What's up?

[GrayMouser]

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

I have friends who dont believe in ANY god (or more accurately think the idea of a sentient god is irrelevant) but are extremely spiritual. They tell me they often get lumped into the Atheist camp because in our society Atheism has become more a political stance against the major single god religions then a point of view on the universe. So these debates about the nature of religion versus non-religion (pick a term; atheist, agnostic, skeptic, secular) always strike me as forever missing the heart of the matter. I can see it in this discussion which is mostly about justifying atheism in terms of not believing in "God". So what do we label those people outside these narrow spiritual lines exactly? Since we have a need to label everybody...

I don't know. What do they mean by "spiritual"? That there is some force underlying and unifying the Universe in a way not observable to science? That we can relate to this force in ways outside our senses and reason?

[GrayMouser]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

But of course it's passive - there's no official state church of the FSM; there's no law saying that some of your money must go to the FSM church; there's no people (that I've ever heard of, or that anyone has ever heard of that I know!) that vote based on what they think the FSM wants, there's no people flying planes into buildings because of the FSM, etc. etc. IOW, there's nothing to be non-passive about!

This is basically what I meant when I said religion isn't that important. I don't llve in a place with an official state religion, nor do I pay a church tax. Neither of those things apply to the US, Canada, Australia or New Zealand, and those Western countries where they do apply are some of the least religious places around. The taxes are small and the Church power is miniscule- even "Catholic" countries like Spain, Portugal and Italy ignore the Vatican on issues like divorce, contraception and abortion.

Most people in most developed countries don't vote based on religion, with the exception that conservatives generally support religion more than liberals do.

As for flying planes into buildings, yes, militant Islam has developed into a problem in the last few years, resulting in a war in Afghanistan where many Western countries have troops, and sporadic terrorist attacks elsewhere.

Of course the last spate of international terrorist attacks- the PFLP/Red Brigade/ Provo/Baader-Meinhof Gang- was carried out by militant Marxists, and the second-biggest terrorist attack in the US was political, not religious (Canada's greatest attack was carried out by Sikhs).

When I look at the problems that I think are important in the world today, religion (other than the general elevation of women's rights) doesn't play all that big a factor for or against.

Of course If I lived in a place where the churches/mosques/temples were more involved in oppressing women, denying gay rights or pushing creationism in schools I'd be more militant.

[Insidious Rex]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

Interesting points, Rex - I guess it's a matter of definition. What do they mean by "spiritual"? and if they don't believe in any gods, why would they object to being called atheist? They could qualify it by saying "spiritual atheist", but by "spiritual", do they generally mean they believe in "spirits" but not gods, or just that they are rather non-materialistic?

Originally Posted by GrayMouser

I don't know. What do they mean by "spiritual"? That there is some force underlying and unifying the Universe in a way not observable to science? That we can relate to this force in ways outside our senses and reason?

They vehemently disagree with being labelled as atheist almost as much as they dislike being labelled as loony tunes which generally is the only other alternative for them in our narrowly focused society. And please realize these folks are coming from radically different spiritual paths from each other let alone from dominant society. Some believe there is an inherent spirituality in nature and its not derived from a single all powerful source so all of their focus is on nature itself and not on some need for there to be a creator (which remains irrelevant in their point of view). Some worship their ancestors but not as deities or gods but as spirits capable of helping them in the living world. For them there is "another side" but not a heaven or a place where god sits with the dead. Its just the living and the dead. Others believe as GrayMouser pointed out that there is an immaterial fabric connecting all aspects of the universe that we can tap into on a spiritual level. There are other nuances and variations in addition to these but surely you can see how a term like atheist would not work with these folks who often times are MUCH more spiritual in their thinking and behavior than many people who call themselves christian or jewish or muslim.

[Valandil]

Originally Posted by Eärniel

:
:
This is not going to lead to that silly notion that atheists can't possibly have morals because they don't expect any devine judgement at the end of the road, is it?
:
:

I tend to think the opposite. I would think Atheism more likely risks that categorization if it is NOT considered a 'worldview'.

I think a worldview consists of one's view of what the world is, how it came to be, what is the meaning of one's own existence, and therefore - how one is to act (morals - or a sense of right and wrong).

Really though, I don't think there is a single atheist worldview. Inasmuch as a worldview would include a code of ethics, a determination of right and wrong. Here, I imagine atheists would diverge. I can only guess, but I suppose some options for this might include:
* Altruism
* Humanism
* Inclination toward protecting earth's resources (including animal life) from over-consumption by humans
* 'Live-and-let-live'
* Survival of the fittest - doing what is best for one's self
* Following the laws of their society
* Doing what the majority thinks is right
* What 'seems' right - gut reaction
* Upbringing - carrying on training of parents

I'm sure there would be more. Maybe those who consider themselves atheists could share what shapes their own sense of right and wrong - and/or what shapes that for other atheists that they know.

[brownjenkins]

What about 8... just doesn't have time for god.

I've always enjoyed the philosophies of the various religions of the world, but day to day it simply isn't relevant.

I think there needs to be a new category for people of this age. One has to remember that pre-1950, give or take, the idea of being atheist or agnostic or anything else was simple the realm of philosophers and intellectuals. All the common peoples of the world were religious in one way or another because that was how you got by. They didn't have the free time, or the education, to muse about what religion they may, or may not, believe in. They simply took what their parents and culture handed to them, as much of the third world still does today.

My parents grew up pure Catholic, born in the 1940s... their families were, their friends were, they went to Catholic schools and Catholic colleges. When they got older, they became disillusioned by the structure and politics of the Catholic church, so they decided to leave it when I was just a child. That said, they never gave up their belief in a god, they simply didn't think that any religion organized by people could get it right.

That was the belief system I was brought up in. Strong morality, without all that much emphasis on its source, just its practice. I don't muse about whether there is or isn't a god (outside the 'moot ), because it simply doesn't matter. It's a fun intellectual discussion, but it has no relevance to my life. For good or bad, I am who I am without any reverence to a greater being.

Religion is a cultural inheritance, much like the meals you cook and the languages that you speak.

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

Religion is a cultural inheritance, much like the meals you cook and the languages that you speak.

As a convert from one religion to another, I am in a position to credibly say, "That's bull****." True for many people, but to make a generality of it is contrary to the experience of quite a few people.

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by Gwaimir Windgem

As a convert from one religion to another, I am in a position to credibly say, "That's bull****." True for many people, but to make a generality of it is contrary to the experience of quite a few people.

The need for religion, to put it more clearly.