The atheist delusion - Page 2

But it's not the debate those particular authors want to address. I imagine they'd view both questions as absurd. Like debating if unicorns are hollow or not.

With a definition this broad, you can compare fencing techniques and Libertarianism. That doesn't make the comparison apt.

One thing puzzles me about this, how did Unicron get brought up in a discussion about atheists and religion? And how could anyone debate whether or not Unicron is hollow, didn't everyone see the Transformers movie?

"Tangentially" meaning "slightly related" and "more substantial sins" meaning, to pick the one that's bugging me the most, where he has to stretch the definition of atheism in order to pin Hitler on it. Sure, it wasn't atheism per se but you can be sure there was a type of atheism involved somewhere in there. That's pretty disingenuous.

Religion concerns itself with fairy tales and rituals and behavioural control. Atheism does not. They do not "share a domain". There is no valid comparison.

I just want to make something clear. When I say science and religion are in conflict, I mean rational thought and religion, not specifically "the sciences" which has acquired a rather narrow definition. Gould writes:

whatever my private beliefs about souls, science cannot touch such a subject and therefore cannot be threatened by any theological position on such a legitimately and intrinsically religious issue.

But what does he mean by science? If he means the fields demarcated by biology, chemistry, physics, astronomy, zoology, etc, then sure he's got a point. The biologist has no means to comment on "souls". But I happen to think science extends beyond such specialization, science is just an attempt to understand the world through rational inquiry and thus walks hand in hand with philosophy and all her disciplines. Only within the last 100 years or so has this been forgotten (for example: Newton was a philosopher, not a physicist).

And so on such an understanding I think it's well within the right of scientific thought to comment. Souls don't hold water under rational scrutiny (something Gould knew as an agnostic).

I think that it's perfectly rational to seek emotional and spiritual truth in symbols and metaphors that themselves may not be rational. But religion, especially that exhibited to the masses, hardly ever maintains such self-awareness.

I'm not sure how often it has to be said, but Gould, Gray... pretty much anyone who's basically arguing the non-overlapping magisteria idea, myself included, acknowledges that souls don't hold water under rational scrutiny. It's not that specific scientific disciplines like biology, etc. don't overlap with religion, but that reason (or science) does not overlap with religion. No, souls don't hold water under rational scrutiny.

Do you mean that religion doesn't acknowledge itself as a set of symbols and metaphors? Or do you mean that religious people aren't self-aware enough to realize that they're seeking emotional truth in symbols and metaphors? If the latter, does that make the emotional truth they find any less true?

Here's a quote from Barack Obama's recent speech (which is, in turn, a quote from his book):
Karen Armstrong points out in A Short History of Myth that myths have staying power usually on the basis that they're archetypal. People can associate with the myth and place themselves in it, recontextualizing as needed. In this Obama quote, you see that happening, and it sounds like a pretty powerful, positive thing.

Now, that guy sitting in the pew across from Obama isn't Moses or Ezekiel. Obama knows this on a rational level. That guy's probably just a plumber or a lawyer. But the rational level just isn't all that inspiring. What Obama is describing operates on a non-rational level, and it seems that it might have positive consequences in terms of how he operates in the real world. So I guess what I'm asking - are we better off if Obama looks over and sees a plumber, or are we better off if he looks over and sees a Bible's worth of completely irrational comparison points that happen to inspire him?

Thanks, Dave, for introducing me to Gould and the term non-overlapping magesteria. I had heard his name before but only with disdain from both sides of the religion/science debate. I can see why now.

Actually, you should probably thank leeVSbenway. He brought him up first, and it sounds like both he and Adam have probably read far more of his work than I have.

I don't suppose it's an option that he can be inspired and realize that it comes from an irrational view of a plumber?

I'm not sure I agree with the way rational/irrational is being thrown around, though. It makes it seem like any kind of inspiration is inherently irrational, and tied to religion. Is it really so irrational to recognize to a familiar situation in a myth or story and respond to it? Are abstraction and empathy fundamentally at odds with rationality?

That's the thing: denying the existence of contemplative or transcendent experiences is not one of the tenets of atheism. Denying that they have anything to do with the truth of old stories is, and I'm pretty sure DaveB even agrees with that (unless the definition of "truth" gets involved.)

Sorry, I thought that was implied with the second option, as I previously mentioned that, as a sane, intelligent man, Obama probably recognizes, on a rational level, that the guy's a plumber. Presumably he's aware that his response to the sermon has nothing to do with reason, but with faith.

Inspiration may not be tied specifically to religion or the irrational, but the type of inspiration in this given scenario most certainly is. I think it's relatively safe to assume that Obama would not have had that particular inspiration minus the setting, the ritual of being in church with those people, and, most importantly, the iconography he learned from the Christian tradition (and probably even more specifically the interpretation on that iconography via his specific church).

I'm not arguing that inspiration is impossible without the spiritual or irrational. I just don't get why irrational (or religion, specifically, in this case) = bad. The irrational can yield a positive effect, as demonstrated above.

Weird double post.

I'm not sure that atheism has tenets, per se. Atheism takes no stance other than on the existence of God, and has nothing to say about mythology or religion. You can be a very religious Buddhist and be atheist. You can believe that it's possible to physically interact with elves and monsters and still not believe in God. But from what I've seen on this board and what I've read of the atheist figureheads du jour, a lot of atheists pretty much dismiss the whole kit and caboodle. It's become a shorthand, of sorts, for "non-spiritual" and even "anti-religious."

There's a problem in terminology here. When you say "the truth of old stories," do you mean "truth" in that the events described actually transpired or truth in that they have something true to say?

This is a crucial distinction to make, as it says something not only about how you feel about religion, but how you feel about art. It's a stance that devalues everything that's non-literal and consequently pushes the religious to attempt to justify their beliefs in literal terms.

Irrational doesn't = bad. I agree completely. I just feel that religion, as is, has not yet evolved to a point in which the irrational is sought as a self-aware complement to the rational, as opposed to a substitute.

Slight tangent: I think people get too caught up in thinking about science the way they read it out of a textbook, and it's difficult for most to apply it to the world around them. If you try to break away from applying science through language (a difficult task, no doubt) and instead allow it to inform your intuitions, to try to view the world and its various processes and patterns abstractly, without words, as is but informed by scientific knowledge, there exists emotionally profound truth unreachable by science but also unreachable without it. That is as close to religion as I get.

Some might say it existed once, but the balance was largely bled out of it by an increasing focus on rationalism. There's a tendency to regard progress as an inherently good thing - that each move we've made societally has been some sort of step forward and that the only mistakes we make are when we regress. It's an easy enough assumption to make when you regard mankind in terms of its tangible accomplishments. We didn't have computers in 4,000 B.C. We didn't have cars during the Renaissance. So we must be getting better, right?

But progress isn't always so beneficial. To use a non-religious example, there have been societies in which women weren't the second-class citizens they became in most Western societies. Yet we somehow managed to "progress" to the point that they were regarded in some supposedly more civilized nations as essentially babymaking factories until relatively recently.

My point is that these supposed improvements over time are not always positive. Some atheists seem to suppose that we are "outgrowing" religion - that we've advanced to the point that we are better than these silly beliefs that religious people take so literally.

The self-awareness that you mention - the compartmentalizing of the religious and the literal - did exist at many points in the history of religion. The nature of religious belief changed for a lot of people when countless religious philosophers decided to apply reason to it, post-Enlightenment. That's the origin of the substitution we see today (e.g., Intelligent Design instead of evolution, Biblically literal dating of the Earth vs. scientific inquiries into its origin). So we're not really waiting for religion to come around to this seemingly new self-awareness you mentioned. It would have to be more of a reclamation, actually.

The thing to remember is that just as science or culture or beliefs on race or gender are not constants, neither is religion. Just because the books were written some time ago doesn't mean that the practice has remained static. And just because the awareness to recognize the difference between rational and irrational may seem like a new concept in religious thinking doesn't mean that it is one.

Transpired.

When James Frey admitted that A Million Little Pieces was not a true account, I know people who felt cheated, as though the story was worthless because it didn't happen. I disagreed and said that it could still be exactly as inspirational and valuable as it always was, if the story was well done and tapped into the reader's emotions. (I haven't read the book, it might be crap, but you get the idea.)

I'm trying to find out exactly how you are thinking of these things, Dave: could you explain if AMLP is a good analogy, and, since we're talking about both, what are the differences in your mind between the magisteria of art and religion?

I think the AMLP analogy works pretty well in delineating the difference between truth (in the sense that something actually happened) and Truth (in the sense that something has resonance because it taps into a universal that might have significant meaning for someone). As someone who thinks a lot about art, I think that's a huge deal and something that often gets swept under the carpet too neatly in these discussions ("Yeah, yeah, I know it has meaning and blah blah, but did God actually speak to Noah? No? Well, then it's not true.")

As for the differences between art and religion, I'll have to think on it. There are some obvious surface issues (art does not necessarily require ritual - religion typically does, religion tends to be more directly prescriptive than art, art can be a solitary experience and religion is usually communal to some extent), but I'm not sure if those all hold up. I think the two have a lot more in common than is often acknowledged. Certainly, they have more in common with each other than either does with science, at least in terms of being an appreciator of art (you might make an argument that certain artists - John Cage and other 20th century experimental composers, for instance - approach art as they might a science).

I agree to a point. Yes, throughout the history of religion there have been stratum of believers in which this kind of self-awareness has existed but where it has done so it has been limited to an elite, educated few. What we're talking about has never, ever been part of popular religion (except perhaps in Buddhist disciplines, which I am only vaguely familiar with), even if it has faded even further into the periphery due to what you describe as Enlightenment inspired rationalism.

Look at the Transcendentalist movement of the 19th century, and you'll get an idea of where I think religion needs to go (or, perhaps, return).

I guess it may depend on who you read, but my understanding is that this has historically not been limited to the elite, educated few, but was pretty standard (the example Karen Armstrong uses is "if you were to ask an average ancient Greek if he thought one could actually meet Zeus on the top of Mt. Olympus, he would have looked at you as if you were crazy"). Our conception of this has been colored by post-Enlightenment thinking. So many believers now put such a high premium on their religious beliefs being literally true that the rest of us can't even imagine a time when this wouldn't have been the case.

I can't attest to whether this distinction could have been articulated by anyone but those in the educated classes; however, it's probably giving our ancestors too little credit to think that they bought, on a literal level, every seemingly explanatory myth on a literal, rather than figurative, level.

That might be one way to go on a personal level, although I think it might be lacking some of the good elements of more established religions, due to its basis in the individual experience. There's something to be said for a tradition rich in mythical archetypes and ritual with a built-in system of cameraderie. But even keeping the transcendentalist option open suggests you see some merit in the irrational experience, and, really, that's the heart of my argument. And even Thoreau occasionally fell back on pre-existing religious traditions via his embrace of Hinduism. Here's a neat passage from Walden from the Wikipedia entry on Transcendentalism:

As I was saying above about Obama realizing the difference between the rational and irrational facets of his experience, but embracing the irrational, Thoreau here does much the same thing. One can assume he knows rationally that his well hasn't merged with the Ganges, but the irrational notion that it has done so is still inspirational in some way.

okay...this is now the coolest discussion I've ever read on Chud.

This is interesting because it's also one of the issues that Western culture has with Buddhism, an inherently atheistic belief system. It is assumed, to a Western mind, that when a Buddhist refers to a god* they are referring to an actual deity versus an anthropomorphic representation of an idea or an ideal. There are some sects of Buddhism that believe in a literal deity but they are far less common then people think.

*Buddha isn't even a god as some have tried to claim. It's the state of being that Siddhartha passed into upon achieving enlightenment. Anyone can become Buddha.

I think this type of representational belief is maintained in many (most?) types of Hinduism, too. Hinduism is such a complex and varied theology (or set of theologies) that I don't claim to understand much of it at all, but I'm pretty sure their many multi-armed, animal-headed gods are believed by most Hindus to be mere symbols - mythical manifestations of a single deity or idea.

It's primarily the big three Abrahamic religions that have gotten themselves into this super sticky business of religious literalism.

This is only my theory, but I wonder if this is because, as fantastical as the idea of someone rising from the dead or gathering a bunch of animals in preparation for a flood may be, these stories are still based in what's recognizable as our reality. They're like exaggerations - tall tales in which the laws of the universe generally apply, except for specific miraculous instances.

The Buddhist stuff is too philosophical and non-Earth-bound to apply a literalist reading, and most polytheistic systems involve the casual occurrences of truly far-out stuff like Athena emerging from Zeus' head. It would be a huge leap even in the less scientifically-inclined era of ancient Greece to accept most of those stories as much more than symbolic representations of some sort of truth.

It's an interesting theory and one that may have some truth to it. But I think a larger part is the style in which the stories are told. Koans are almost always told as stories that the listener needs to think upon. The moral or the purpose is never laid out in a "A is done therefor B is the result" it is up to each person to find their own 'truth' in the koan. This makes it difficult to think of the stories as literal (despite many of the characters being real historical figures). In the Bible the truth or moral is laid out for the reader/listener so there is little to no thinking required as to what it means. The moral is accepted as truth and therefor the story is as well.

Though fundamentalists of every stripe have proven that it is possible to approach the texts of the New and Old Testaments literally, this isn't entirely true. In fact, important parts of the Jewish and Christian traditions actively discourage uncomplicated interaction with holy text. The Jewish practice of midrash, an elaborate layering of Torah commentary upon Torah commentary, stretching back thousands of years and open to all those who study Torah (read: all Jews), deals in subtlety, flexibility, and careful, sometimes word-by-word, interpretation. In the New Testament, Christ (because he was a good rabbi who learned his tricks from midrash) often presented his teachings in the form of koan-like parables which required careful interpretation to understand and appreciate fully.

These Greeks would meet some definitions of "atheist," wouldn't they?

I don't think so. Monotheism and polytheism don't depend on a literalist or physically observable conception of a god or gods, just belief.

What's interesting is that when monotheism started to emerge from polytheism, the monotheists were often called atheists. After all, when you're coming from a tradition of a huge pantheon of gods and you decide that only one of them truly exists in any capacity, you're engaging in a whole lot of disbelief. This is a pretty nifty book on the subject.

I agree that a number of the Parables are intended to be open for interpretation (look at the number of interpretations of the meaning of the Prodigal son) as is the whole bible but the actual teaching of them (if I recall correctly from my Catholic days) rarely leaves them open for discussion or debate. I can't count how many times I was told that my interpretation of a biblical story was wrong* suggesting that there is in fact a true and a false way of interpreting.

Admittedly, that is anecdotal evidence but thirteen years of Catholic school and four priests would suggest that it is not uncommon.

* I still insist that Jesus wasn't predicting the future by telling Peter he will deny him. He was giving Peter an order. He was saying "Deny me and you will live to pass on my teachings. That is far more important then being loyal"

Ryan - interpretation of theology is pretty much where this argument lies. I've known Catholics who were progressive, open-minded, and devout. Suffice to say, their 'interpretation' of the Bible was rarely in lock-step with 'established' doctrine (I abuse these quotation marks because the idea that men can establish doctrinal interpretation with certainty seems - to me - to be fundamentally dangerous . . . of course, this is the same argument I have with atheism).

I have a good friend, we were in the Academic Decathlon way back in High School, who is Indian, Hindu, and a Doctor. Wildly intelligent, and he explains his religious beliefs in a way very similar to how Dave identifies it - the Hindu Gods as manifest representations of reality. I ask him why reality isn't sufficient in and of itself as an explanation, and he responds that our reality is limited to our perception. The Gods of Hinduism exist as a signifier for the things that we cannot, by our very nature, see (or comprehend, depending).

See, that, to me, is an atheistic position. There's no reason an atheistic position can't respect or accept the basic philosophy of Hinduism, Juddaism, or any other faith. The question of whether God or gods literally exists is what defines atheism; if you think the concept of God(s) are symbolic or representative of something else, that's fine, but I wouldn't say you're religous at that point. Spiritual maybe, or whatever you want to call it, but I think there's a great deal of people of all faiths who identify themselves as such simply for ethnic or societal reasons. "Atheist" is a term most people don't want to apply to themselves, as it has come to carry much more baggage than simply thinking there isn't literally a supreme guiding intelligence to all existence; it has come to imply to varying degrees hyper-rationality, amorality, and/or a hostility toward religion or spirituality generally that is not inherent to the basic definition of the term.

Do those things fit well with atheism? Sure, but to paint the entire viewpoint that way is as silly as my thinking that guilt over masturbation is inherent to all theism because I went to Catholic school

You seem to be saying that in order to be religious, you have to subscribe to a literal interpretation. This seems, to me, to be a mis-characterization, similar to saying that an atheist must necessarily be hyper-rational and hostile to people of faith.

That's what I'm saying. I don't think people like the Dave or the doctor described are religious just because they find value in a religion or it's belief system. It may be splitting hairs, but I don't think a person is religious without some kind of belief in the supernatural. I mean, I'm basically a Christian in mindset; I believe generally in charity, forgiveness, and being non-judgmental. But I don't identify myself as Christian because I don't think those things were decreed by God and proclaimed by his son Jesus Christ. So I'm not religious even if I'm greatly influenced by it.

I'm not religious, but I see how one might find personal value in it (I think it's more concrete and demonstrable, if still controversial, that a society can value from its presence). I consider someone like the doctor who actively finds rationale, solace, or whatever via a holy text or practice to be religious, regardless of literal or non-literal interpretation. Even non-literalists tend to think of the symbolic nature of a given holy text as representing something mysterious and true, and that doesn't really apply for me.*

It's almost a matter of terminology, though, as one can find some of the same things in art. It's just that religion has a number of extra components and most religions have long, complex traditions to consider - for instance, being a Christian (of any sort) is more complex than being a fan of Mozart.

* Or maybe I haven't found a religion that answers to any emotional needs I might have in regard to the mysteries of the universe. I generally tend to take reality on face value. It's as fragmented or as unfragmented as it appears at any given moment, and I don't feel an overwhelming need for the unity that religions attempt to place upon it - but this is personal perspective and preference. It's very much one's emotional life more than one's rational life that determines whether one requires religion or not.