Atheists are Beautiful: A Religious Person Defends Atheism
by: Be Scofield on June 13th, 2010 | 59 Comments »
Being an atheist in America means being less than human. I know from personal experience, not from being an atheist but from being raised Christian in a conservative Christian town and holding negative biases about atheists. Like many others I thought that a belief in God was the foundation of morality, that Christians were superior to others and that atheists were a threat to believers. I didn’t, however, reach this conclusion consciously after weighing the facts and examining the issue independently. But rather it was something so ingrained within the culture that it permeated the social conscience. And of course atheists were just one group among many targeted by some Christians. But for several years now there have been movements both religious and secular that have championed the rights of other marginalized groups such as gays, people of color and women. Now it’s time for religious and spiritual people to take a stand for non-believers of all varieties.
Recent years have seen the spread of whats called the new atheism. Led by Christopher Hitchens, Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris and Daniel Dennet who are dubbed the “four horsemen” they are known for their fiery rhetoric and passionate critique of all things religious. While they certainly don’t represent all atheists-some prefer a more moderate approach-they have provided an important voice of resistance and identity for a group that has remained painfully silent for to long. And atheism is one of the fastest growing identities in America. It’s now the third largest group behind Catholics and Baptists. People are fed up with the abuse scandals, hypocrisy, violence and rejection of scientific progress that is associated with so many religions and their teachings. Now that atheism has a renewed interest in the public sphere it is an excellent opportunity for religious people of all sorts to show kindness, compassion and understanding to atheists-all things which are central to their traditions.
I’m both a fan and a critic of the new atheists. I agree with much of what they say but disagree when they indict all of religion or reduce it to its most distasteful elements. I believe religion can serve a useful purpose in our world. It can offer a place of resistance, refuge, healing and renewal. But even as I support critiquing the new atheists I treat atheism like I do any other marginalized group that is targeted by a dominant culture. I liken their cause to other struggles for liberation and freedom. And that is why despite my disagreements I believe their response is just.
The reality is that we live in a culture of Christian hegemony and the new atheists are responding to a troublesome legacy of religious dominance. Paul Kivel, a violence prevention educator, defines this hegemony “as the everyday, pervasive, and systematic set of Christian values and beliefs, individuals and institutions that dominate all aspects of our society through the social, political, economic, and cultural power they wield. Nothing is unaffected by Christian hegemony (whether we are Christian or not) including our personal beliefs and values, our relationships to other people and to the natural environment, and our economic, political, education, health care, criminal/legal, housing, and other social systems.” And this form of dominance is accompanied by a long legacy of persecution, negative attitudes, prejudices and practices of “othering” against atheists. For Christians and other religious people to have to deal with a bit of push back or challenge to their mostly unchallenged ideas and way of living is small compared to being viewed as less than human for much of our civilized history.
One of the strongest pieces of evidence for the existence of an everyday prejudice against atheists is that atheists consistently poll the lowest-below women and African-Americans when people are asked who they would vote for as president. I liken this to the same general disdain that is held against women in our patriarchal culture. What’s the worst thing you can call a man? The answer is usually a woman, girl, sissy or some other adjective for the feminine. What does this say about how we view women as a culture? What does the presidential poll say about how we view atheists? Similar examples can be given about people of color, people with disabilities or those from a lower socio-economic background. These cultural views tell us a lot about the harmful attitudes that have become normalized, some of which make themselves known explicitly while many others are implicit and inherent with our structural, legal and institutional frameworks. But again the prejudice against atheists has yet to be challenged by the same progressive and/or religious forces which have been fighting for racial and gender equality for many years now.
In reality, people who are religious or hold to some conception of God aren’t any different than atheists. Let’s face it, we are all born atheists. No baby is born believing in the miraculous conception of Jesus, that Muhammad is a prophet or that Joseph Smith was chosen by God to spread Mormonism. Rather children are taught to believe religious doctrines or adults freely choose them later in life. But even for those who identify as believing Christians, Jews, Muslims or any other religion they are still atheists in respect to other Gods. In fact some of the very first people to be called atheists were Christians. They were dubbed so by the Roman authorities for denying the state Gods. Socrates was also branded an atheist for denying the various Greek Gods, even though he still believed in God. Therefore, Christians are atheists when it comes to Zeus, Thor and Dionysus. Atheists simply deny one more God than Christians do. And the progressive spiritual people that no longer believe in a theistic God who intervenes in human affairs but still use the word God aren’t describing anything supernatural. Thus, whether it’s liberation or process theology, pantheism or panentheism these liberal ways of defining God as love, creative potential, the universe, everything or freedom are simply interesting methods of describing the natural laws of existence. Therefore this sacred and divine language used to describe the beauty, power and transformative potential of the spirit of life is for many “believers” not describing anything different than what modern physics already acknowledges. Granted some take liberty with this and inject quasi-spiritual truths into science. But the point is that many liberals who use the word God are only a stones throw away from being agnostic or atheists themselves and their understanding of reality is often not that different from many atheists.
Another way that many religious people try to differentiate themselves from atheists is by suggesting morality has no basis without a foundation or belief in God. This is a dangerous and insulting myth that religious and spiritual alike have an ethical responsibility to challenge because we participate in the systems that perpetuate it. It leads people to believe that atheism is a social problem that needs to be confronted. But the real problems in society are poverty, violence, war, dehumanization and greed among others. I understand this belief about God being the foundation for morality because it was the dominant idea in the conservative Christian town I grew up in. However, it has no basis in reality. The idea that Bible believing Christians would be ravenous murderers without a belief in God is not only disturbing but simply untrue. There are many cases of people losing their faith and becoming atheists, yet they don’t lose their moral compass. And if you look at any crime or social ill you will find no statistical difference between atheists and believers. If anything more Christians have committed crimes simply by their sheer majority in the United States. Many European countries contain a majority of atheists and yet they rank among the highest on quality of life measurements; crime, poverty, health, infant mortality…etc. And as Christopher Hitchens frequently states, there are no moral actions that atheists can’t perform but there are plenty of wicked things that have been done by religious people.
Since my upbringing as a Christian my views on Christianity and religion have evolved quite a bit. I’ve lived in a conservative town where atheism was a dirty word. I then went to a progressive liberal arts college where Christian was a dirty word. Now I live in San Francisco and attend one of the very few non-Christian seminaries called Starr King School for the Ministry located in Berkeley. Based in the Unitarian Universalist (UU) tradition I am fortunate to be studying alongside religious leaders who identify as atheist, agnostic, pagan, Hindu, Jewish, Christian, Muslim, humanist, pantheist and everything in between. While we are not homogeneous by any means we share a general commitment to challenging forms of dominance. The only required course is called “Educating to Counter Oppressions to Create Just and Sustainable Communities.” And last year we hosted Paul Kivel’s workshop on Christian hegemony. 19% of Unitarian Universalists identify as atheist, while 33% identify as agnostic. Many services on Sunday will find no mention of the word God or spirit and will often have strong resistance to using these words. Other congregations may use these words but if they do it is in an inclusive non-theistic way that meets the expectations of their members. The point here is to say that there are religious people who are willing to stand up for atheists and agnostics, and that some atheists identify as religious themselves. In addition to UU’s many Buddhists are great examples of religious atheists. Yes it is a small percentage of the overall population just like the number of white people working to end racism is but these are crucial voices on the path to transformation. And until religious people begin to stand up for this cause in earnest and thoughtful ways I don’t blame the new atheists for not trusting us and being skeptical of all things religious.
What can concerned religious or spiritual people do about the dehumanization of atheists? The same criteria that is used for countering other forms of oppression can be applied to atheism. First we can commit to listening to the lived experiences of atheists who are in a culture of Christian hegemony. What’s it like to be you? How is your life impacted by our culture? Secondly we can commit to being an ally. This includes listening but also implies a willingness to stand side-by-side with atheists when they need support. This means exercising power through writing, speaking, advocacy or otherwise and challenging the myths about atheism that dominate our culture. And it means allowing our actions to be informed by the perspectives of atheists. It is commonplace for people in a dominant group to “help” the marginalized group without forming relationships and knowing what they actually need. Third, religious people can educate themselves on the history of atheism and its various expressions, understand how the culture of Christian dominance works and examine one’s own biases and prejudices against atheism. Just like we hold unconscious racist, sexist and class based beliefs we do so about atheism. I have even found these biases to be present amongst the very most progressive and liberal spiritual people. Examining and uncovering them is a crucial step in transforming our culture into a more humane and just one.
As a religious leader in training and as someone who still uses the word God I am committed to working to end the culture of prejudice against atheists. Dehumanization of atheists like any other group of people is a spiritual issue and I would like to encourage my religious and spiritual friends to join me in this cause. If we want to apply our ethical and moral teachings about love, nonviolence, compassion and justice consistently we must demonstrate them when the difficult and challenging opportunities arise.




Well said, Be. I very much appreciate this post as a religious nontheist Unitarian Universalist.
I too have a complex and ambiguous feelings about the ‘new atheists’ and the movement they represent. I can empathize that there is often a social expectation of ‘believing in something’ or else one faces charges of nihilism, (extreme parodies of) relativism, and all sorts of inhumane ‘logical results’ of having no theistic god. There is a lot of work towards understanding and equality that we can all undertake in confronting Christian or theistic hegemonies.
I do feel at odds with some of the tone that is taken by Dennett and Dawkins especially though Hitchens is often uneven in his approaches. Harris is taking a neat ecumenical approach and while sometimes simplistic he is the most consistently fair in his writings/speaking.
I would be so ecstatic if the practice of support, allied work, and compassion that you forward here would be embraced by atheist/freethinkers towards their theistic neighbors. I truly feel that patient and compassionate atheists make for great participants in interfaith work.
I participated with a number of students in a interfaith coalition at Cal (UC Berkeley). There, I met fantastic minded and hearted people some of whom like me were atheist. There was no break in the conversation, no wall between ‘believer’ and ‘nonbeliever’. Disagreements and differences, yes! But not any dead-ends or unbridgable gaps. We were gathered to understand, challenge, support, celebrate, question, and create.
The picture at the head of the post is taken from a very enlightening conversation between the four ‘new atheists’ and I suggest folks who haven’t seen it watch it. Their conversation is enlightening in that it reveals how different they all are! Just as any other ‘movement’–theirs is a diverse one filled with many lifestories and variances. Also, it is heartening to see how much they do appreciate religions’ offerings to cultures. It seems that they would all do well to clarify what seems to be behind their perceived bombast: “its not religion per se. Its fundamentalism, literalism, exclusionism, abuse of trust by those in religious leadership, and anti-science sentiments that we challenge.”
There are so many devout religious theists who read their work scratching their heads thinking ‘this is not any religion I recognize.’
You mention Be some simple ways that theistic believers can create inroads with nontheists and I agree with them all. To those I would add: don’t be afraid to talk with us about your religion and your beliefs! There are many nontheists like myself who really enjoy talking scripture, talking about how Abraham’s life informs our own, hearing about others’ worship experiences. ‘Witnessing’ or ‘evangelizing’? no thanks–but mutually vulnerable and open sharing? What else would be better?
Eric
I am an atheist. I was born that way and stayed that way – the religous teachings didn’t work. I am a very moral person and I do the right thing because I care about others, not because I can get brownie points to impress any gods.
All I ask is that I be allowed to hold my beliefs and not be attacked, insulted or ridiculed. It would be nice if god and government were separated, too.
As a secular Jewish American, I haven’t been marginalized or ostracized for my beliefs. But I know that can be a regional problem (and I grew up in the Northeast where Jews grow, more or less, on trees). So, ok, I felt left out for not having a Christmas tree, but I’ve never been shunned for my belief that Christ isn’t coming back. And anyway, it’s just a belief.
Jesus could be on his way. And that’s where my objection to Atheism lies. It’s the inverse craziness that afflicts fervent religious types. It’s when “knowing” takes the place of “believing.” That is a very dangerous thing indeed. And that’s when others become wrong.
Yes, of course, Atheists are people too. But they’re also just as beautiful and ugly as the rest of us. However, I find it odd when anyone asserts a belief (or rather, knowledge) in God’s non-existence. Why expend energy in order to say no to someone else’s beliefs? To reject all of the infinite definitions of God cannot possibly serve humanity. Isn’t this part of Atheism? Because this is what I’ve heard repeatedly from self-professed Atheists. Why say no when you can say, “Ok. Yes to all of the above. And please remain calm.” If dis-belief doesn’t represent this group, then they need to do some educating. If I’ve got it wrong, bring on the PSAs and poster children.
If Science is the only thing that explains the Universe we live in, then think about all the science that’s been revealed over the past 500 years. How much more is to be revealed?
Perhaps the next big scientific discovery headlines read: Behold: Magic IS Afoot After All. Who would be shocked? Not I.
Can we just agree that beliefs and spiritual life (or lack thereof) are the business of the individual? Can we just say:
“Hey, do what you dig, don’t hurt anyone, and live in harmony with the rest of us. Also, please don’t behave like you own the place, because we’re all just renting and we’re lucky that a) the landlord hasn’t kicked us out, b) the sun hasn’t burned out, c) the meteors haven’t smashed us to bits, d) the Polar Ice Caps are holding for now, and e) all of the above.”
Where religion is concerned, we’re blessed to live in America. Believe it! We’ve got a lot of problems, but, compared to most of the rest of the world, we have religious freedom DOWN. Let’s keep it that way. Which means saying yes to new ideas while striving for tolerance, acceptance, and free hugs.
Northeastern (PA-New England) ex-pat, ex-Xtian, x-geyr, happily living on the Left Coast, here. Regional phenomenon? Not so sure about that. My list of “ex’s” provide me with a broader experience and if there’s a regional aspect to this, it’s merely a matter of degree. Not to burst your bubble, but there is in fact Xtian hegemony and inter-religious oppression across regions.
“We’ve got religious freedom DOWN”?! Having lived in every part of the country other than the midwest (after two months I couldn’t stand it), I have to say that’s extremely naive. I know LOTS of people who believe we’ve got religious freedom wired up tight but that does not square with lived experience, mine and many many others. People who “differ” are frequently ignored when their differences butt up against a strongly held belief (based on faith-not-fact or the product of their own highly individualized lived experience). We all gotta get out more and be the Other for a while.
What you’re asking for sounds reasonable enough. Ironically it’s what most atheists have been saying all along and getting hammered for saying so.
Shira, you might want to read up on the definition between weak and strong atheism.
Not even Dawkins says he knows that there’s no God.
Actually, I guess most people who define themselves as atheist would say they come to the conclusion that there’s most probably no god.
(Yeah, I’ve seen very very few people stating it with certainty – to me that’s touching intellectual dishonesty.)
You may find me even saying “there’s no god”, but that’s not the real representation of what I think.
I guess that a lot of agnostics are actually avoiding the label atheist, and to my understanding they’re doing it wrong – to me agnosticism is more about achievability of knowledge, i.e. if it can actually be found out if there’s a deity or not. But I’m pretty sure that there are quite a few people who actually are agnostics in this sense. I’d love to talk to someone like that – there was a time where I’d have chosen that label wrongly for myself.
To me, Hitchens would be the one most harsh or forthright. He’s usually even labeling himself as antitheist, iirc.
I guess one can mine for quotes who’s more “offensive” or whatever.
But quotes and labels are just an oversimplification, there are great quotes, but their real meaning is so often (even heavily) skewed when taken out of context.
And I’d argue that none of “the four horsemen” is actually offensive. I get that a (very) religious person may feel offended by some sentences of them which are usually thrown around. But I might wonder if they can laugh about themselves?
I’m still amazed that anyone would call Dawkins’ God Delusion “strident and shrill”, to me it’s thought provoking and written with a certain wit. I laughed a lot. And I admit that I had to use the Oxford Dictionary quite a bit as a non native speaker.
I for one don’t get how anyone could cling to a single source and not challenge their own ideas from time to time… let’s assume there really is the abrahamic god – which of the christian denominations is doing it right then? WBC gay-haters? Ray Comfort? Jehovah’s Witnesses? The RCC? Protestants?
Some of them must have it wrong, no? What if they’re all wrong and the Jews were right all along? Or maybe they completely missed it too and Jesus was just a Muslim prophet and they are doing it right?
Argh. That just leads nowhere.
There’s no doubt that religious communities provide social comfort etc. but can’t the same be achieved without dogma? Why not just have a BBQ instead? Religion is so often a political instrument based on very old texts. Sad.
I can’t wait on further research results on “why we believe”. Brain chemistry is very interesting, I also find the “God Helmet” very intriguing.
Well said, Be. I am pleasantly surprised to see this in Tikkun’s blog. There is really a tangled triangle in American discourse- fundamentalism, liberal religion, and atheism. Thanks for contributing to cutting the Gordian knot.
“Your goodness must have some edge to it, — else it is none. The doctrine of hatred must be preached as the counteraction of the doctrine of love when that pules and whines. I shun father and mother and wife and brother, when my genius calls me” Emerson–A Unitarian. Granted: he dropped out, but never took on the tag
atheist or even agnostic. All these religious/spiritual terms are themselves culture traps, connotations that grip the soul like velcro–can’t even get beyond them to start up from old scratch and converse, know what I mean?.
I confess: I’m not very spiritual, but consider myself religious. Surrounded by goodies and swimming with weasels: I wanna be good so bad I can’t afford the bad it takes to get Good.
The most sensitive and sensible Tikkun message ever. But the new atheists had to come on strong to counter the over powerful influence of the “religious”.
WOW! Thanks for one of the best discussions from a compassionate agnostic who loves the teachings of Emerson and Thoreau, but appreciates all interfaith dialog.
So far as I am aware, all of the “new atheists” as identified here have prospered from their published objections. I do not regard the debates they have inspired to be helpful either to progressive religion or free thought. Instead, the consequences I see are a growing rigidity both among believers and non-believers and an elevation of simplistic exchange.
Christian dogmatism, or any other version identified with a religious tradition, offends the sincere advocates of that tradition. The new atheist objections are better advocated by those within the religious tradition. Unfortunately, that doesn’t make headlines. Until we hear a “new atheist” point that out, they are simply ego-tripping–the pot calling the kettle black.
I was with you until this: “Christian dogmatism, or any other version identified with a religious tradition, offends the sincere advocates of that tradition.”
When I was growing up in a fundie-Xtian home dogma was a bad word. The cover for dogma was simply the declaration that our beliefs were exclusively right, accurate and not dogma. The strongest advocates for Xtianity tend to be the most dogmatic (the fundies). That’s an unpleasant thing to say but once one gets outside of that cult-ure, one quickly realizes this can be proven across religions… the orthodox are the most dogmatic and the most vigorous and visible defenders of their respective traditions. The new atheists are merely our (atheists’) orthodox. Unpleasant, but that’s reality. As long as the fundies get a vote and not a veto, we can probably muddle through.
“The new atheist objections are better advocated by those within the religious tradition.”
I’m unclear. What I hear you saying is that, in effect, (new) atheists may not speak for themselves, only the religious. When I was religious I was pretty biased or at least silent on atheists’ objections. Should only melanin-deficient folks speak for the objections of the melanin-rich? There’s something just very “off” about this idea.
I am all for solidarity with people of good will and having lived through a decade or so as an atheist (and even longer if we count agnosticism). I am not opposed to working to defend atheists from prejudice and scorn and I support efforts to recognize the moral capacity and inherent worth of all human beings however they elect to express their connection with the larger Reality of which we are all a part. There is much work to be done to help people understand and empathize with one another across ideological and ecclesiastical lines. I am sure that the NoSP is keen to keep itself involved in such efforts and this should be applauded, as should Be Scofield for raising the issue here.
This does not mean that atheists or atheism are immune to error or criticism, nor would such an immunity be fair toward atheists. Honestly I’ve met more highly intolerant irreligious people over the last few years than intolerant religious ones. That’s not to say I haven’t run across plenty of the latter but there has been a noticeable increase in the former. There is a tendency on the part of such agnostics and atheists to go beyond doubt or disbelief into either active vitriol for anything with spiritual or religious overtones, a phobia about such language, imagery and practices as if they were a dangerous contagion, or a pseudo-pious pity for those “trapped” by the “delusions” of religion. Part of this may be a form of reflexive defensiveness against the judgementalism they routinely face, but that doesn’t make it less distasteful nor less problematic for those seeking common ground.
I mention this out of respect for atheists. I recall all too well how frustrating it was to have someone arguing “on my side” of an issue and doing a disservice to it all the while. Having been through the whole frustration and disenchantment with religion, I appreciate the feeling of bitter resentment and pity towards those caught up in seeming mass hysteria as well as the cool, collected and reasonable way some cohorts of mine and I went about politely ridiculing people’s beliefs as exercises in rational discourse for the betterment of society. It felt safe to sit under the banner of (supposed) open-mindedness behind the walls of Scientism while lobbing challenges to anyone passing by who professed any kind of faith, to have no “skin in the game” as they say.
So that is an area for fruitful discussion. What does it mean for atheists to lay their cards on the table and commit to a metaphysical construction not just on paper or as a default for position for irreligious, but to be embraced with heart and mind? I have known atheists who have done so, including one who believed that the Universe was the result of tension between Love (that which on any level acts to attracts phenomena together) and Freedom (that which causes phenomena to separate). This wasn’t what some would call “New Age” wishy washiness, it was a coherent worldview incorporating insights from both science and the arts. Hence he rejected the nihilism that ultimately results from the “the only meaning is that which we choose” crowd while accepting the beauty of mystery and the power of the idea of grace, a gift which we can all choose offer to one another (“Amazing Grace” was one of his favorite songs) .
The so-called “four Horsemen” of the New Atheist literature do not represent the finest flower of atheist thought or reflection. Far from it. Nor are non-atheists the only ones to find their many examples of collective misrepresentation (based on either ignorance or disdain) of religion and history to be disappointing. Their virtue seems to be connected with their raised public profile, which owes much to widespread frustration over the Religious Right and the (too frequent) arrogant dismissals some of the authors make in their books which raise the hackles of people on all sides. Why aren’t the better informed, more thoughtful, more constructive and frankly more interesting non-religious thinkers and writers better known and more representative of atheism as a whole?
There is no simple answer to that. Perhaps its the mood of atheists in general which is being reflected — often the initial grievances of a group are publicly raised first and most insistently not by the best voiced but by the loudest. That would include the “I don’t agree with a lot of what they say but at least they are saying something” crowd. Then there are those who genuinely agree with virtually everything that these writers publish and additionally don’t feel any further need for education, dialogue, reflection or refinement in their analysis of religion. They’ve got it right and the rest have it wrong. These are the people of the new crusade for purity and certainty, who rankle at being dubbed “atheist fundamentalists” yet reflect their religious counterparts in many ways.
But this latter group is wrong. And whatever one thinks of the Horsemen or their analyses, some of their unofficial disciples make them look pale and tame in comparison. If the voice of atheism becomes known solely or even primarily as the voice of hyperbolic and frequently over-generalized criticism, as those who come off as holier than thou in denying That which is Holy, the prejudice in the minds of many people who distrust atheism will not only be confirmed but strengthened in its conviction. As with every other movement to gain social acceptance, there is a difference between taking a bold and powerful stand in challenging conventional attitudes and engaging in demagoguery, just as there is a difference between a thoughtful protest and an unruly mob. Those believe that “weak” atheists/agnostics who are tolerant or even fond of religion and non-fundamentalist people of faith who see all people as embodiments of the sacred as obstructions to the clear danger of “the other side”, or as collaborators with the enemy, must be challenged by their fellow atheists or religionists with a voice of genuine reason and charity.
As for the suggestions about atheism and (“liberal”) religion being so close together, there are many fruitful areas of overlap but the two are not the same, nor should we try to make them out to be. Recognizing this is also important for a constructive and honest dialogue. No one is born an atheist nor a theist. Rather we are born with a sense of goodness and a natural awe and wonder for the world in which we find ourselves. Position statements on metaphysical issues are secondary. Many atheists have experiences that would otherwise be called spiritual or religious, but what we call them doesn’t validate or invalidate them. Positions on which answer to a specific philosophical question is the natural default of infants may sound good for scoring points in a debate but it is otherwise an empty distraction.
Nor is it fully accurate to repeat the old line (which I had used myself) that atheists believe in “one less God” than everyone else. That misrepresents both atheists and non-atheists alike as monolithic and impervious to change. All “gods” in the sense of that quote are in fact human-made. That is no surprise. All words and concepts reflect human mental constructions pointing to some idea or experience. Even the lesser gods of polytheism reflect something humans perceived not only about the world outside of themselves but the world within. Still, any God that can be accepted or rejected as such is not God. What is accepted or rejected are images, depictions, and descriptions of God. To paraphrase Fr. Ron Rolheiser, God’s existence does not depend upon the quality of our imagination. The deep knowledge of the heart which carries an awareness of what many traditions refer to as (the) Divine cannot truly deny or reject itself. Instead we may ask, “Does our notion of the Divine (or whatever term you are comfortable with) bringing us closer to a greater awareness of the Source of our being and a deeper appreciation of our participation in and as an aspect of It?”
God isn’t a superior hypothesis or a better idea – (seeking/experiencing) God is an entirely different orientation to existence. God isn’t a thing, a being, or any other phenomena. God is like a shorthand for discussing the totality encompassing existence, its sustaining power and source. (Nor is the idea of God being love or creative essence new, it was simply downplayed and under-valued by those who preferred to emphasize God as legitimizing their own power and influence.) If we assume (“believe in”) God, then everything is part of that revelation. If God, Atman, the Tao, the Ultimate Reality, the boundless wisdom and compassion grounded through Shunyata, or whatever we call It creates and sustains all of existence, then you don’t have to go anywhere. If, as many ancient traditions hold, we are a part of/participate in the Divine, then God can’t ever be far from us. That is, the difference between a world with God or without is whether you expect to find God or not.
We all know the importance of expectations and other assumptions in shaping how we look at things, at how we perceive reality. We tend to see what we expect to see and ignore or explain away the rest. No one be debated into a world with or without God. Obviously such language may not fit those who reject or are not comfortable with God talk, and some atheists may reject any notion of the Divine no matter how it is presented. But we must honor that preference and if necessary that rejection. To do otherwise is to diminish the perspective from which such choices and conclusions are made. We must honor such conclusions both in areas of agreement and disagreement just as we expect them to honor ours.
For the Christians too, then, since they have been the prominent example of religiosity in such debates, this reminder out of a quote from Simone Weil:
“Christ does not save all those who say to Him, ‘Lord, Lord.’ But he saves all those who out of a pure heart give a piece of bread to a starving man, without thinking of Him in the least little bit. And these, when He thanks them, reply: ‘Lord, when did we feed thee?’ An atheist and an infidel, capable of pure compassion, are as close to God as is a Christian, and consequently know Him equally well, although their knowledge is expressed in other words, or remains unspoken. For ‘God is love.’ “
“God isn’t a superior hypothesis or a better idea – (seeking/experiencing) God is an entirely different orientation to existence. God isn’t a thing, a being, or any other phenomena. God is like a shorthand for discussing the totality encompassing existence, its sustaining power and source.”
“That is, the difference between a world with God or without is whether you expect to find God or not.”
I’m sorry, but these thoughts express exactly nothing relevant to the debate over God’s existence. Furthermore, they miss the atheist’s point completely, and betray a lack of understanding of the issue at hand. Essentially, all you have said in your lengthy post is that God is all in our minds. He’s but an anthropomorphism, a simple metaphor for the “totality” of existence. As an atheist, I dare say that I agree with you; if indeed he is anything at all, he is that.
However, the whole issue is (for most people, and maybe for atheists especially) whether anything that might be called “God” exists in reality. From your second quote above, I have doubts whether you can even bring yourself to believe in an objective reality, let alone a God outside of your own mind. Expectations do shape perception, but they don’t poof gods into and out of existence.
Your whole diatribe on the “one less God” argument that precedes the first quote above, about how atheists reject all the man-made conceptions of God which are not in fact God, is again accurate but misses the point by a wide margin. Name a conception of God which is not man-made. Even your attempt at describing such a being, utilizing words like Divine and Source, which is far from the worst I’ve heard, is you-made. It’s another example of what I like to call “defining down” God, which is a process by which all of God’s supposed traits are gradually jettisoned or made more and more amorphous, ambiguous, and meaningless, all the while retaining the word “God” or some equivalent, so that the concept becomes harder and harder to argue against. (The process works by maintaining the illusion that God has survived your opponent’s arguments, but the reality is that the only reason the arguments fail is because your position is ultimately without meaning — there’s literally nothing to argue against, and the whole exercise has cleverly become just a word game.) Ultimately, we have to decide whether it is more likely that we are actually talking about something real when we get to the point of the “defined-down” God, or whether our feeling of the divine is simply a result of natural processes related to biology and psychology combined with our inherited ideas from society, history, and culture. Maybe it’s just me, but one of these seems far more plausible than the other.
Thank you!
I really enjoyed reading this article…
Good thoughts to you.
Be Scofield needs to think everyone is “beautiful”, including atheists like me, so he can live up to his false image of himself as being virtuous and spiritual. It just sounds phony and hypocritical.
Marco
Marco – Do you believe it is possible for religious people to authentically be supportive of atheists? Is it just me and my approach or do you think that any and all people associated with any form of religion and spirituality are unable to be an ally to atheists? If you do believe it possible for religious people to work to end prejudice against atheists how might they go about that?
Is this a sort of I-don’t-believe-what-you-believe-but-will-die-to-support-your-right-to-not-belief-what-I-believe
kind of deal? Noblesse Oblige. Loving the Enemy? The elimination of prejudice and discrimination? Hate the sin but love the sinner? Or hate the sinner but love the sin. Or deny and cover-up the differences so as to Just Get Along. Thrones, Powers, & Principalities.
My friend Farbod Khoshtinat grew up in the Islamic Republic of Iran, and his response to state religion was to become an atheist. That’s quite dangerous in a country that persecutes those who abandon Islam. His powerful video, ATTN: Mr. Democrat, www (dot) youtube (dot) com/watch?v=KI6oOgG-HRg is competing as a finalist in Democracy Challenge.
How to vote for ATTN: Mr. Democrat
1.) Sign In to your YouTube account
2.) Go to youtube (dot) com/democracychallenge
3.) Click on VOTE, and search for ATTN: Mr. Democrat
4.) Enjoy the video, then click on green thumbs up to vote
5.) Please sign in and vote once a day through June 15, 2010 (as the organizer suggests.)
What I finally settled on after forty years or so on the planet, is this axiom: Mostly we make [stuff] up. When we take what we’ve made up too seriously that’s when things can get dangerous for all of us.
I know this axiom sounds foolish, oversimplistic and a bazillion other wonderfully intellectual criticisms. Nonetheless, like the Commoner’s Laws of Ecology, lived experience bears the axiom out. The more I studied Anthropology and the more I lived with and as Others (those different from my culture of origin), the more I spent time in the woods, the more I realized people really do make stuff up and they fiercely defend it as a relatively exclusivist reality. But if one takes all the Otheredness together, they cannot all lay claim to their individual exclusivisms. It just doesn’t work.
The comparatively diffuse liberalisms of all the Othereds I’ve ever been exposed to or lived within are ironically where the richness of various diverse cultures and discourses actually lives, and does so with breathing room afforded to Other. But even within those fringes or margins, the axiom still holds true. The bottom line is we need to come down on something we believe in. Beliefs layered around core human values. I finally got to a point where I had to find my own set of beliefs to fit around my values and try not to worry about the rest too much. Unfortunately, hardly anyone else can or wants to do that too so the world remains a very volatile and dangerous place.
When I read the four Horsemen, a lot of their vitriol resonates with me. I’m pretty angry and it’s been a long road trying to recover (and I’m still recovering) from the fundie crap I grew up in and the damage sown by the paths leading into and through conservative and “liberal” religious traditions on my path out of religion altogether. Their wrath invigorates and affirms my own. But as I’ve had to struggle against my conditioned inner-fundie all my life as I continuously worked on leaving every orthodoxy I ran towards, I realize and can clearly see that the wrath is indeed reactionary wrath. But there’s a good point made (not very clean or tidily made I would agree) somewhere down underneath all fundi-isms that is put into perspective by the axiom. Whatever we need to get by in our ecological niches the world over, we invent or “come up with.” Doesn’t mean what we come up with is not true or that it doesn’t have a very powerful pull or attraction to it. But the hard baseline of humanity is species specific: we have an rich and variable social expansion of the basic instincts to survive, reproduce and die. I don’t care what tradition says what we are in fact animals, one among many. It’s in that species-specific social expansion that we do come up with all sorts of things, some wonderful, some… not so much. Where we either get along better than base survival, reproduction and death or we get into war-making with each other is very deeply embedded in that social expansion; what we call those things and how much we invest in them.
I’m a fiction writer, I thrive on stories. But if I ever started to take some stories too seriously, guess what, I’d be back to being a fundie and that’s a tragedy that makes Shakespeare look like an amateur. As a highly imaginative person, I can totally dig all the new agey hoohah and the “Energy of All” stuff and metaphysical this and that. It’s FUN! But that’s all it can ever be for me, fun. Imagination. The axiom, once again, ends up holding. Humans make things up. Nothing wrong with it, makes our lives richer. Until we invest too much in one story or another and then the rocks start flying.
My own atheism is less a “belief” and more of a stepping-aside, an opting-out of the religious frames that demand metaphysical constructs, theological framing and Truth-with-a-capital-T. I’m too damned exhausted by doing the gymnastics the fundies and conservos in every group demand. I’ve been to secular private and public universities and private Xtian ones, and one yeshivah. I’ve done everyone’s gymnastics and am no longer willing to do that. It’s unnecessary and a waste of time. two thirds of my life are gone because I was invested in everyone’s gymnastics. The axiom holds, and I’m not going to invest much energy in discourse framed by (or framed-as) the hard-core of any group or tradition. Hopefully I can dodge duck dive and dodge long enough for the fundies and cons to kill each other off and still be left standing. I don’t like it but that’s what I seem to be left with. Those in the margins of every tradition or group are more sustainable in the end.
As an ex-religious person–”spiritual” as a definitive identity seems too vague and ambiguous for comfort–one who was “in” and now is not, I guess what I’d love to experience is a little more tolerance and a lot less hegemony from the religious and/or spiritual. I’m trying to allow myself social expansion above my basics (but this economy is surely trying me) while vigilant against my inner fundie. But beyond the margins of any one community, I know what lies in that dark heart and I just don’t want to go there. I’m trying to allow for others’ social expansions in a hegemonic cultural mix. All I want in return is a little of the same, and some room to breathe free and clear once in a while.
I confess: I’m an academic and love the back&forth more than the testimonials. Map wars and territorial
pissings–just right at least in the Ivory Tower–or as I call it: School Mode not to be conflated, collapsed, and
confused with “church” & “state” modes where the stakes seem higher. Sustained converse-action:
is good, I say and the more the better if not always merrier. My biologist friends like to talk about
emergent phenomena and values, and that, for me, is potentially what rises up in sustainable argument.
Bring it on. Love the enemy–worthy opponent. Let no team win or lose and look for revelation and small apocalypse. I told my old man, once (Presbyterian minister): “well, you got an ego big as anyone’s!
“Yes,” he said–”and mine’s crucified.” Which made a hell of a lot of good sense of THAT notion for me
at the time. It was like an immaculate conception. Never would of conceived of it myself.
Be,
To answer your questions: from my observations, and personal experiences in various “spiritual” groups over my life ( New Age, AA, some others; I no longer attend ANY spiritual groups, nor ever will again), I think a good part of the general attitude of most “spiritual” or religious persons is an exagerated earnest false lovingness that comes off as phony, even though the person so being may think they are being wholly sincere. I do think there is a part that is also sincere, depending on the person. I mean, when you have a Ghandi sending friendly letters to Hitler, it’s just weird. When I heard people in AA, say, AUTOMATICALLY, about a person who had wronged them,: ” I’ll just pray for the person “, I could only roll up my eyes in contempt for this inappropriate attitude. The appropriate attitude would have been to get mad at them. Anger is an appropriate emotion in every animal’s repertoire, including humans. Hitting back if attacked is quite appropriate. You can perhaps forgive later on. Oh, but the “spiritual” masochist is ABOVE all that, so “spiritual” and “loving” that they are. They are oh-so virtuous; they make me sick. And the worst in North America are the right-wing Christians. I usually do not pick fights with them, but I have had to deal with one of these so-called “Christians” from Wisconsin who shares a rare debilitating ear disease with me, and who set up a website for us to exchange tips nand support. The only catch being is that this MOTHERFUCKER set up all sorts of rules based on his interpretation of Christianity, and IMPOSED it on us, with none of us are able to contest this imposition. Any criticism leads to automatic banning. That did not stop me, and I got banned unjustly. Even worse, I was subjected to all that ” Let’s pray for Marco, he’s such an angry person; maybe eventually he’ll “behave” and we will let him interact with us virtuous polite people who beleive in the Lord Jesus Christ…”. Naturally, I was banned and never “behaved”. So I HATE these people, and quite justifiably.And when I hear the same kind of crap here, coming from the Left, I am doubly enraged. Even worse, there are some of you here who (as one person here put it) would be “honored and touched” to exchange with these hypocritical right-wing scum, so as to possibly build some bridge to their enemies. Hah! good fucking luck! At best, they will patronise you and “pray” for your lost leftist soul; at worst they will have their pig police attack and beat on you ( while , of course, you the pacifist would not hit back, you being so saintly…)
One last thing: I know some of you may be wondering what I am doing here if I can’t stand any kind of “spiritual” person. Good question. I liked coming here once in a while because some of the political positions of the editors I agree with, as a contrast to the more fundamentalist sites , like The Nation; but really, I do think I wil be staying pretty much away from now on, because I get so angry when I also see bullshit posts like yours, and ignorant present-day pacifists actually defending other pacfists from WW2 who thought no one should have fought Hitler. Just resist Nazis non-violently… What irresponsible insanity…
Marco
I ask again Marco, what is an authentic, non-phony example of a religious person working to end the discrimination and prejudice against atheists? Malcolm X use to believe that all white people were devils and that they could do no good. Any attempt by them to work for racial justice was phony and fake. He evolved later in his life and changed his opinion. But I believe his response is just given the circumstances of white supremacy. Do you identify as the early Malcolm X did but in regards to religion? You can say that I am phony, fake and only doing this to feel good but yet your argument is hollow if you just say that all religious people are phony without providing any examples of authentic resistance that religious people can partake in. I understand your position just like I understand Malcolm X’s but I disagree. White people did make significant contributions to the quest for civil rights, straight people have been some of the strongest voices for gay rights, there are men who are strong supporters of womens rights…etc. I don’t see the world in the same either/or lens as you do. So, again I want to know what an authentic action by a religious person would be that would challenge the prejudice against atheists. Please describe what this looks like or simply say that you believe all religious/spiritual people are phony and fake.
“Neither logic nor sermons convince.” (Whitman)
Do you think you can “talk” Marcos down, Be? Point out the inconsistencies?
Have you ever had an experience of convincing either an atheist or theist by
virtue of logic? Reason?
Watch the Four Hoursemen gallope along: brilliant, for sure. You’ll get your biases
confirmed on either side, but probably not a conversion either way, true?
What IS this concern that believers & non-believers Just Get Along–that
the whirl might live in peace? Peace, Peace where there is no peace.
Onward Xtian Soldiers marching as to war?
The “as to” is the kicker.
I’m praying for you, Be.
..And he will think for the both of you! Ohhhh snap
Speaking as an atheist: thank you Mr. Scofield.
Believing is believing is believing!
Believing is a thinking process based on nothing more than other thought processes, i.e. feelings and ideas. Those ideas are usually collected from a source outside ourselves, either through conditioning or propaganda, or from our own experience. Whatever “authority” those sources have for us, has been granted to them by us, because we fail to question their authenticity and/or because they give us a feeling of security and a sense of meaning and belonging.
It all comes down to “I think what I think because I think whoever told me whatever it is I think he told me, must know, and/or, because I think it makes me think I have whatever I think safety is.”
The problem is not WHAT you believe or don’t believe. The convolution inherent in the process of BELIEVING is the problem. More devastation and disaster has been caused by “belief” (religious, political, social, economic) than by any other natural or unnatural phenomena.
Without “believing” the Universe expands, galaxies whirl, the World spins, the tides rise and fall, trees grow and birds fly. “Believing” or “not believing” has nothing to do with it.
Be,
I perceive a lack of clarity in our dispute
due to , in part , to my own part incoherence and inconsistency, and due to your own ignorant and demagogic parrallels of my position and that of some of Malcolm X’s ( even though as the “good” spiritual person you are, you say you “understood” Malcolm’s position, but you don’t agree. Typical atitude of the “good ” spiritual person who must make it clear he “understands” before disagreeing). To be begin with your case, I only made comments about YOU in my first post, so why you should jump to conclusions that I am consistently a black-and white thinking type person , I don’t know. Nowhere did I say that all religious people are devils, and that atheists were on the whole superior. So to be more clear about my attitude:some religious people are OK, especially on the Left, and some rare ones are great ; most of the right-wing ones are filthy disgusting treactionaries. But I’ll say that I have never ever encountered a religious person without some of that fake and earnest loving kindness that comes off so phony. BUT, and this is important, a statement I should have made in my firts post (and did in my second post), there is an underlying genuine decency in many “spiritual” and religious people also, the level of which depends on the person. And I suppose that is true for you also, which counters the impression I gave in my first post that you were a total fake. I apologise for that. That being said, coming off with that title of your thread ,”Atheists are Beautiful” sounded so corny and fake, that I could only roll my eyes, and I still believe that PART of you is like most religious people: you need to “love ” everyone, even if you sometimes secretly resent them, to live up to this false and arrogant image you have of yourself as being so “holy” (and the rest of us, who get mad and bitter sometimes, as being being beneath you; I may have the opposite arrogance, thinking sometimes atheists are superior intellectually at least, for not beleiving that bullshit nonsense that beleivers do).
Now let me answer your key question: what is an authentic non-phony example of a religious person trying to end discrimination towards atheists? Well, given my clarifications above, there are many examples, you being one to a certain extent, and many other PARTLY tolerant religious and “spiritual” persons.But now, let me more clear than I was, and tell you precisely what does piss me off of EVERY religious and “spiritual” person that I have met or encountered or read. Despite some of the genuine tolerance, there is ALWAYS an underlying attitude that you all are partly examples of the way to be, and that eventually atheists like will come around to the TRUTH, your “Truth” ,namlely God or Nirvana or whatever the fuck. I saw this especally in Alcoholics Anonymous. Look, I gave this organisation a shot, for years. And you know what I found out towards the end: that they expected me to come around to beleiving in God eventually, even though their litterature says they are open to atheists. Yes, open, so that eventually we convert (for our own good , of course!). I also realised eventually that most people there are beleivers, they use God talk all the time, and that provided many awkward moments all the time with me in conservations. I would often reply with : “what fucking God are you talking about?” And they would reply : “whatever God you conceive Him to be”. And I would reply to them: “I don’t conceive of any fucking God at all, and why is your fucking God a HIM? There aren’t possibly any female Gods, or androgynous ones”. At this point the conversation would usually come to an end. Usually the average stupid dork of an AA member would not even have considers the HIM and HER question, so programmed are they in patriarchical assumptions (and this is true of most of the unreflective stupid masses. I mean they are so dumb and unreflective, so conformist,so boring, so dull, it’s incredible. ) So now I am leaving AA, and they don’t give a fuck, despite their “tolerance”. I mean, when it comes down to it: ATHEISTS AND THEISTS (even most non-theist spiritual types like Buddhists) CANNOT CO-EXIST IN THE SAME ORGANISATIONS (in my opinion). I don’t belong in AA, nor in your Spiritual Progressives organisation, nor in any ashram or Buddhist retreat, etc…except for limited amounts of time. My mentality is resolutely SCIENTIFIC AND ARTISTIC, and that is that, and I will not hang out in the long-term, with “spiritual” people. I will not be friends with them, I will not marry a spritual female.They can only be acquaintances, it seems to me.
Well I hope I have been more clear. If not, I can’t do any better.
Marco
Be,
If you want top know what I am into, to give you examples of people whose writings and psychotherapeutic practices I respect, please read “Creative Aggression ” by George Bach, “The Primal Scream” by Art Janov, “The Function of the Orgasm” by Wilhelm Reich, and “Bioenergetics” by Alexander Lowen. All books of progressive PSYCHOLOGY (with no mentions of “God” , Allah, or synchronicity, or forgiveness , or the here and now, and all the rest of that bullshit). It’s SCIENCE.
Marco
“What is thought?” is not a question to be answered by qouting some authority or another. Why do we fill our brains with what other people say?
“What is thought?” is not a question to be answered by digging around in our remembered experiences and feelings. Why do we look to the knowledge we have already accumulated for the answer, when “thinking” is a present action?
To understand what “thinking” is, how it arises, where it comes from, what is its locus, what is its nature; one need only observe it in action. Observe it without drawing conclusions, without evaluation, without rejecting or accepting it, in other words – without thinking ABOUT thinking, – just observe. Then learning begins. True learning is not merely accumulating data for our memory banks, it is a way of living.
Lovers Quarrel, it sounds like–full of sound and fury. Saving the Appearances. I want to be good so bad,
or bad so good: amounts to the same deal: Be, Being. (Etymologically: the origin of the word “sin”
is Indo European es, esse: which means essence, being. That makes “original sin” a redundancy: how
did it come to get such negative stigma?)
From Jane Goodall’s standpoint: everything the monkeys do is beautiful, interesting–worth watching and study. From the chimps standpoint: lots of good and evil going on. More evil than good. 4 horsemen of the apocalypse not with standing. Jane looks on, pares her nails–loves it all. How could she not. But don’t be telling that to the monkeys. The parts are partial and less than the sum of the whole.
“Neither nor logic nor sermons convince.” Science might, if you’re trying to get to the moon or San Jose.
Otherwise–not so much.
Trickster makes this world
Oooh, look at Mr Scoville, flitting about like a stupidly grinning Cherub, above the fray, mirthfully chiding the quarrelers with his ever-so-creative pot-fueled sarcastic poetry. Thank you for that. Very interesting thoughts.
regardless how bad a boy you are, the domination lady still loves you enough to whip your little ass. All hail the domination lady.
You rock. If most religious people were like you, there would be no reason for atheists to care about whether or not anyone was religious. The world would be such a better place.
None of you “spiritual” people on this site get through to me at the deepest level, including Lerner, although I find myself agreeing wholeheartedly with many political positions. And, don’t worry, I’m not going to continually spoil your little love-ins here with my “hate”; you’ll continue to be able to be the mutual admiration society you all are ( “look how loving and compassionnate and beautiful and spiritual and wonderful we all are.. in contrast to “negative” inferior people like…ugh…this Marco…let’s pray for him , that he sees The Light…our “Light).
Let me end by saying there is one person who gets through to me , whose writings I never see here, but who says in his book “Democracy Matters” that he is part of your “Spiritual” Progressive networks; and that is Cornel West. He at least refers to Shakespeare, the Greek dramatists and philosophers, and various other intellectuals and artists that I never see mentionned here. They are ,on the whole, far superior than all this New Agey, mystical Buddhist-Jewish shit you people are into.
Well, tata, and try to keep grounded and not float off into space. God does not exist. Anger has its place. And there is only one Reality, and that reality, including our “souls” , can be only properly discovered by an enlightened Science.
Marco
A very interesting discussion, and nicely framed from a perspective of openness and flexibility. It all brings to mind a discussion I had a few years ago on another site with an atheist by the name of Harry, knows as H.K. He posted often on various “religious” discussion boards and, essentially, he said the same thing….that we are all born as atheists.
I could only agree with Harry in part on that point. In other words, I could agree that we are born without knowledge of any teaching of religion, of any origin or culture or tradition. But I don’t quite believe we are born totally without some sense of something being “out there.” I really enjoyed reading Harry’s thought processes, including his less-than-patient tolerance of some very doctrinal Christian critics because, in many cases, I had to agree with him. Following is one of my replies to Harry:
“Let’s theoretically remove all organized “religion” and go back and see where it came from. It is a universal truism that man has always looked up into the skies, stars, the sun, and moon…and wondered about them as a natural human curiosity.
“Yes, babies are born without “religion,” but they are born as human, and therefore with whatever instincts and curiosity that are in our genetic codes. And so, Harry, what do you suppose causes us to wonder. We would do that without any religious teaching because it is human nature to do so. Call that irrational, Harry, but it is there. Even in you, Harry, because in all your denunciations about religion, the fact that you denounce it means you have something you are, in fact, denouncing. Harry, you most certainly have your views of it or you wouldn’t be here to present your own perceptions of whatever existence is. You believe in SOMETHING…maybe not God, or Allah, or what other religions may say.
“I was talking with a Kemetic friend on another site who is very Afrocentric, and also extremely intelligent. She made a post about a book, “The God Code.” This is a scientist who suggests our genetic codes contain knowledge of “something out there,” that which causes man to look into the heavens with his/her curious instincts…and suggests that it is knowledge of God, or Creator, that is embedded in our genetic makeup. Of course, you needn’t agree as to WHAT it might be. It was interesting as I have read books of the Bible Codes, and there are debunkers to that.
“Harry, I do agree with you to the extent that much of religion is man-made in efforts to come forth with doctrine and dogma, and turn and twist ancient scriptural wisdom into our books today, including the Bible…as I do feel, for example, that KJV is a Catholic Church document evolving out of whatever original Hebrew, or Greek, or even black Egyptian history my friend often refers to, and Kemetics, like aspects of Bible Codes research, gets into quantum mechanics…string theory, etc., and another source, a Bavarian chemist and pharmacist who wrote a fascinating paper called, “from Genesis to Genetics and Back,” which so strikingly parallels the “God Code’s” author.
“Harry, science isn’t absolute either. As a Discovery magazine article points out, no one can prove that black holes exist, no one has ever seen one. But theoretical physicists maintain that if a black hole came into our solar system, the Earth would be yanked out of orbit and likely into the path of doom….proof that we would rather do without. So, a black hole is a belief system, as I suppose genetics to some extent as well. Can we go from quantum mechanics, to genetics to…God? You probably wouldn’t, Harry, you would go elsewhere with it, but it would be somewhere! It is only to suggest that universal yearning in man to understand…could it be all embedded in us, in our genetic codes. Some might suggest that universal yearning in us is…pardon me…some instinctual knowledge of God, or of Allah, or of by whatever name man calls what he believes to be the Spirit of the Universe, or Creator. Quantum mechanics speaks of “waves of active intelligence” that permeate the entire universe. God? Allah? Why not?
“And you, Harry, might well have another take on it all, which of course you surely do. And that’s fine. Run with it.”
And in so many ways, I really didn’t think Harry and I were that far apart….
In terms of keeping IT in play (the “god” question ^ with it’s attendant logical either/ors because an
either/or is a logical tool, not analogica): who would I rather hang with? “in game” with?
BE or Marco?
Really: I got to chose my team here because no myn can serve to magisteries, as it were and
while in real-time these 2 teams are always in the mix, back & forth, gray & not black&white as my
students keep insisting, never the less: fundamentally at base and conceptually (“eternally”):
Either/Or.
As Marco observes, & I agree, the forces of BE (love them all, and let no child be left a behind)
don’t hnave the cutting edge for me (I come not to bring peace but a sword, damnit.)
I don’t love my neighbor, that’s for sure, even knowing better let alone the enemy. So I think I’d rather
wage the war with the disenchanted and pissed-off, frustrated and angry–then with the smiley-faces and tender souls. Does this make me a bad person?
Well, of course. I am. Hell yes: it’s the denial and cover up that generates my toxicity and
thickens my bozone level.
I harbor a strong unshakable conviction of sin & guilt: me, an ongoing injustice doer, criminal
discriminator. I rip-off parts of the whole and can’t make a move without some violence
or other: damaged & damaging if I do and damaged and damaging if I don’t do, damnit.
Hosanah Hosanah: save me now: Deliverance for crying out loud. I’m just begging for it.
What a wretch.
Marco,
If you want to believe in “Science”, be my guest. It’s as valid as believing in anything else!
Your postings do, however, raise a question, are you angry and intolerant as a result of believing in “Science,” or do you believe in “Science” because it validates your intolerance and anger?
Either way, your anger seems very important to you. Is it helping to define your self-image? If so – Bravo, go for it!
Sam Scoville,
I don’t know what you are talking about. Really, in this case, I mean no criticism. I can’t accept or criticise what I can’t understand.
Don Thomann,
How you ever got the idea that my anger has something to do with my “belief” in Science, I don’t understand. The two are completely unrelated. And I don’t “beleive” in Science; Science is a tool to investigate reality, not a belief system like Christianity or Marxism.
Marco
Science is not a belief.
It is a method of discovering and understanding reality, the universe, and truth.
It is logic and the contextual understanding of what is discovered.
It is the complete opposite of religious or ideological “belief”.
It is the effort to make us whole.
It is the only way for me to make sense of the universe – and my fellow man.
It also tells us that for all we have done, we are still a rather insignificant species in the great scheme of things.
Science therefor, makes most humans uncomfortable or even outraged- theory of evolution anybody?
Thank you for actually being Christ-like and not just a person who calls themselves a Christian.
Do you think the 4 Horsemen of the Atheist Apocalypse (see Be’s picture at the top) had any
more or less delight in their table converse, then us–maintaining this thread of argument, the
back & forth, tweak & quibble, improving of terms, qualifying & modifying, begging to differ,
shooting and scoring?
Face to face, nose to nose. You’ve seen the IMAGE
http://t3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:_KcTipNXWBIlaM:http://blog.case.edu/singham/2009/11/07/Two%2520faces%2520and%2520a%2520vase.jpg
In between: The Holy Grail for crying out loud. Right under our gnosis all along. “science”
“religion” “atheism” “theism” –mere tokens for play. Play & Be Played. No need to
confuse the tokens with the game.
Trot trot to Boston, Trot Trot to Spain
4 horses & apocalpyse deja vu all
over again.
Post Script:
Beyond.
Beyond good & evil.
Beyond the goodies & the weasels.
Beyond atheism & theism
Beyond believers & infidels
Beyond literalists and meta force.
Beyond logic and illogic
Beyond rational and irrational
A pox on both houses,
divided and can not stand it.
I’ll take you there.
Marco,
I stand corrected, you DON’T believe in Science, got it!
Just as well, considering the leap of faith necessary to accept the basic presumptions western science has inherited from its judo-christian/european roots:
1- That existence is historical.
2- That existence is constrained to the limits of what is available to our sences and reason.
3- Its tendency (with, perhaps the exeptions of the more progressive schools of psychology and quantum theory) to view reality as a conjuction of phenomena rather than a unifield field, and
4- Its assumption that by explaining a phenomenon it has understood its reality, thereby confusing the “description” for the “described.”
Dear Don, That warms the cockles of my heart, soothes my restless leg syndrome, calms my
cutting, purge & binging habit, justifies my jitterbugging attention deficiency as well as my
other addictions I can not mention here: to view my reality as conjunction of phenomena
rather than a unified field. I confess: all the time I confuse the description with the
described, map with territory, menu with cheezeburger. I know this, but can’t
help myself. I need the 4 horsemen of the apocalypse to gallop thu my
house divided, know what I’m saying. Rescue. Deliverance. Don’t
care if they are atheist or true believers, makes no never mind
to me.
Don Thomann,
Your mystical mind is just complicating this question of Science for nothing.There is no leap of faith in Science, and results must be predictable and confirmed in reality. Science is just a tool for discovering reality, including realities beyond our senses, like X-rays. If your God did exist, and we had definite proof, then that would be a scientific discovery. But there is no proof (yet?) og God, therefore one must deduce (for now) it is a product of human imagination ,which can imagine anything unrelated to reality. The trick is to differentiate what is purely imaginary from the real. One way one can deduce if someone is imagining something unreal is by how emotionally attached these people are to their imaginings. Thus these fanatics of the Catholic inquisitions, or the Islamic fascists are so attached to their falsehoods that they are willing to torture and kill. And there are lesser degrees of fanaticism (mostly), of course, in most beleivers .Remove the neediness and rage behind the belief in God, and the belief in God vanishes… An excellent discussion of these emotional roots of unreal belief systems can be read in a book called “Prisoners of Pain” by Arthur Janov, specifically in his chapter “IDEAS AS OPIATES”, a bit like Marx’s “Religion is the Opium of the People”, but scientific, non-polemic, and very convincing. And then there is Freud (even if I have some fundamental disgreements with him):
From The Future of an Illusion (1927):
“Our knowledge of the historical worth of certain religious doctrines increases our respect for them, but does not invalidate our proposal that they should cease to be put forward as the reasons for the precepts of civilization. On the contrary! Those historical residues have helped us to view religious teachings, as it were, as neurotic relics, and we may now argue that the time has probably come, as it does in an analytic treatment, for replacing the effects of repression by the results of the rational operation of the intellect.”
From Civilization and Its Discontents (1930):
“The whole thing (religion) is so patently infantile, so foreign to reality, that to anyone with a friendly attitude to humanity it is painful to think that the great majority of mortals will never be able to rise above this view of life. It is still more humiliating to discover how a large number of people living today, who cannot but see that this religion is not tenable, nevertheless try to defend it piece by piece in a series of pitiful rearguard actions.”
“The different religions have never overlooked the part played by the sense of guilt in civilization. What is more, they come forward with a claim…to save mankind from this sense of guilt, which they call sin.”
Marco
Polo
An assumption might could be called a “leap of faith.”
And then, of course, tautologically, it provides the basis
for generating outcomes in its “assumed” initial terms,
maybe beyond my expectations, but nevertheless within
larger the ball park of my assumption. Which is why i
might be careful what I prey for.
Religion is just a tool for discovering reality.
As is ART. And nushrooms–”including realities beyond
my senses.”
Products of imagination are tools for discovering Reality.
As Einstein insisted: “imagination is more important
than knowledge”–and as I advise my “students”–anyone
with a laptop or smart phone is smart as the smartest kid
in class, and it’s not what I know that counts but whether
I can put it in play.
“The trick is to differentiate what is purely imaginary from the
real” A trick indeed. Like asking Joe Fish to conceive of water.
It would take something like an immaculate conception–all
wet himself and nothing to compare. OR else yanked up on
the dock to flip-flop awhile–discover wet as well as dry.
“Holy Smokes–wait’ll I tell the Finny Tribe: they won’t be
believing THIS!”
Of course they won’t.
Emotion drives my ratios and rationale and rationalizing.
Not the other way around. At least not directly. There’s
a gap. But emotion’s boss. I admit it. It’s the cover
up and denial that’s toxic, don’t you agree?
I absolutely don’t believe in God and the God-talkers are annoying
though great fun to fiddle with–play & be played and a good time is had by all.
I absolutely believe in God and the anti-God talkers are annoying
though, I confess, maybe even more fun to fiddle with than the God-talkers.
Though I would rather hang with the anti-God-talkers than the God-talkers.
Most of the time. Rather take a road-trip with Jesse James than Susan Bullock.
Most of the time.
As Neils Bohr said: the opposite of a profound truth is another profound truth
and the opposite of a trivial truth is a contradiction. (“Do I contradict myself?
asks Walt W: “I’m large, I contain multitudes”
That “damned moral sense” said Twain, and he may have been merely
describing, but perhaps judging too. It’s pretty hard to escape it.
Don’t we swim in it? All wet and thinking we can conceive of dry.
(“absolut”)
Sam Scoville, I don’t know what you is talkin’ about!
Marco
Just trying to re-frame this ancient and ongoing conversation between true believers and true non-believers, Marco.
Put it in play.
Why should the 4 horsemen of the apocalypse (above: sitting around, smoking IT over) have all the fun?
As you suggested earlier–takes all the steam out of the converse-action if one side starts patronizing
the other. Atheists are beautiful, too–says BE. Big whop.
And of course they are, says Snoop and Alexander Pope: S’all Good. All related. All relative.
I presume to try and practice DIALECTIC & even “teach” a course in it & it’s a great presumption
because it goes against the common sense where good & evil battle for supremacy, people
vote, and losers are relegated to the cellar or attic.
In practicing dialectic (theoretically) the idea is to sustain the opposition, not quench or quell.
Turn IT UP. Put it in play. Don’t let either team or side win or lose. Expect synthesis, revelation,
small apocalypse. IN “school mode” at least, if not in “church” and “state” modes.
“Dialectic” is not worth toot in “politic” mode. (It’s an ivory tower activity. There’s a difference. )
For me the universe is a very complicated place. To believe that you know the definitive answer to the universe’s most profound questions– whether the answer comes through an absolute faith in a religious tradition and its tenets, or an absolute belief that there is no spiritual force in the universe, and science is the complete and sole answer seems to me equally dogmatic and constricting. The best way to promote tolerance and freedom of thought for me, seems to leave some fundamental questions open– to be speculated on, but not closed down with assumptions of absolute truths. Richard Dawkins and his associates seem just as closed minded to me as the religious fundamentalists.
To be able to put them In Play (the fundamental issues): may describe the difference between
“dialogue” and “dialectic.” For the sake of argument–let’s say “dialogue” aims to get on
the same page, get something done, determined–marginalizes areas of disagreement
(at least for the moment.)
“Dialectic” on the other hand (theoretically, as a practice )) would Bring IT on–the agon, the differences,
the oppostion. Turn it up. Sustain the play. Let no side “win.” Anticipate synthesis and
revelation.
Time, space, physical “reality”, science and reason; eternity, infinity, religion and “God” are all products of thought. Just because physical human beings are limited to five physical senses does not signify that “reality” is necessarily constrained to those limits. At best it is an assumption, it simply is not know.
Just because someone imagined there to be some historical or existential, personal or blind chance “Source” of this so called “reality” does not make it so. It is also something we do not know. It is also an assumption.
To base one’s raison d’etre on either or both of those assumptions is, in final analysis, a movement in thought, about thought. Assuming that ideas, (scientific, philosophical or religious) can be anything more than mental abstractions drawn from what our senses and reason perceive to be “reality” is already an act of faith.
That the order of mathematics can be proved mathematically, may be entertaining, even significant in the mathematical structures of modern science and culture, but it says nothing more than just that.
Thinking about thinking is nothing more than more thinking. One can base one’s concept of “reality” and one’s “philosophy of life” on thought, or not. However, it is never anything more than thought.
Don,
Are you seriously trying to argue that because we are limited to “thought,” therefore all possible universes are essentially equally likely to exist? That, despite all the evidence to the contrary, just because that evidence is limited to what’s in our thought, it’s just as likely that God exists as not? That even though science and logic have proven themselves over millennia, they’re at bottom simply faith-based assumptions in the same way that God is?
If so, you are essentially arguing that we have no method for judging anything whatsoever. That seems like nothing so much as a form of nihilism. What is your point? Is nihilism your conclusion here (if so it might even be a respectable stance), or are you advocating some other answer to the problem that you are yet to reveal?
because believers can’t say what god is or where it is or how you could detect it, it is nonsense and is nothing but a notion in the mind and can’t be true or false.
the bible is just a bunch of stories about events that never happened and people who never existed.
Despite my Methodist upbringing, I found I did not need a God or god to tell me to be kind to all creatures and the earth. I was told once that the reason for my being able to love was because God first loved me. And in a radio talk show a woman asked how atheists could love. A friend told me that I was the most religious person she had ever known, but she would pray for me anyway — said it with a loving smile! Lee Loe, Grandmother for Peace (I don’t believe in war, either, by the way. What is it that “Christians” don’t understand about “Thou shall not kill?” Curious.
Everyone is right. We corporately are perfect. We as the hologram of that perfection are also perfect. We human wrote the stories and we human can fit them together, if we choose to. Or we can remain forever at odds, splitting hairs instead of splitting adam/atom into light, heat and water energies. The Tower of Babel, Confusion of Language is falling, falling, falling, down. We are without excuse to embrace our perfection in whatever manner, words it chooses to express.
Religions are boxes and boxes are necessary to hold something. When the something outgrows the box, a bigger box is required. That is creation, the old holds until the new replaces it. When the focus is on the building and not the destruction. Destruction happens in the process of building.
Take a perfectly beautifully shaped apple. Put it in your mouth, let your teeth bite into it and its shape is destroyed. The energy of the apple being transferred into energy for the body.
I would hope that we as the only human form would begin to build the future because the old will pass. Cut down the tree and make boards, posts, planks and build a house or cut down the tree and put it in the fire. Both are valid. One provides heat, the other provides cover.
Question becomes what are we struggling over? Is it really god versus no god. The word god in the Bible begins with plural gods is most of the time plural gods. We are the plural gods, the hologram of the whole, whatever that is. We are the plural gods that created the world we live in. I hope that we haved learned some lessons and build a more beautiful tomorrow.
I was born in the great depression of money, water, jobs.
The great depression today is of a different kind.
A depression is but a hole, a container, a box waiting to be filled.
Bright
Thank you, so very much.
It comes to a point where the atheist (myself included here) can start to feel a little hopeless at the common trait of stubborn bias against us from believers. Personally, I am not aggressive in my non-belief and I don’t necessarily advocate atheism. I enjoy discussions on the effect the religious and non religious have on the growth of humans as a species, but I don’t have any negative feelings towards believers until they start to tell me that atheists have no morals- and others such insults. I know clearly that religious belief has no place in my life other than an interesting and relevant discussion topic, it gets to you though when others believe that due to that choice, you are a lesser or pitiable person.
I grew up in a non-religious environment, and I am sincerely grateful for that. To be fair to the younger generations I think that the child should be at an age where they can consider the evidence for or against religion, consider what they have to gain or lose by either, and then have the opportunity to make an informed decision about their belief- without the pressure of stereotyping. I was first exposed to the concept of Jesus and God when I was eight years old, and I honestly, even then, did not understand why that should be believable any more so than the tooth fairy, or any other magical being that had no evidential support, or basis in the observable world.
Children are unbelievably impressionable, and I feel that teaching a child in religious ways is no different to teaching a child that we are actually just batteries for machines that live in a virtual reality. Both seem equally invalid to me, neither provable or unprovable. Try telling me that there’s an invisible purple spotted elephant in my room that I cannot perceive with any of my senses, I cannot say it doesn’t exist- since I cannot perceive it at all, and yet I cannot prove it does exist for the same reason.
You wouldn’t tell a child that there were fairies and expect them to believe so for their entire lives, and then ostracise them when they thought that maybe that wasn’t true. I don’t see much of a difference, having been raised believing in evolution and the big bang- both logical and valid theories that are today being expanded upon and refreshed with better information. God does not evolve as freely and quickly as scientific research, and so many atheists believe it holds humanity back.
I’m from Australia, with hundreds of different cultures and religions all coexisting within our country. We have no specific religion and as far as the general population goes- I’m quite sure we have more non-theists than theists. And a large number of those that consider themselves religious do not actively practice it. I feel very free in this country, and you cannot understand how much religious tolerance can be achieved until you have lived here.
This sort of thinking has been present since Darwin’s time, and we’re making progress whether we are conscious of it or not. I hope that we can broaden our knowledge, in an understanding and peaceful manner, and people like you, make me more hopeful that this can be achieved. I hope that the religious friends I will make in the future, can be as rational and kind as you.
You give them a much better appearance than any Christian I have yet come across.
Mel