Theism vs. Atheism

@Unconqured,

Holiday20310401;26147 wrote:

Ok I'll be honest here. I do not see the point in religion so that would make me agnostic, right?

Not necessarily. Agnosticism refers to a particular view of knowledge of the divine. Agnostics believe that God is ultimately unknowable. An agnostic might still believe in a God, or an agnostic might be an atheist.

Holiday20310401;26147 wrote:

why must God exist for humans to have a spiritual side?

God need not exist for humans to have a spiritual side. Humans are by nature spiritual; we are spiritual with or without the God concept. God is just one way of putting into words something that is ultimately inexpressible in human language. This is why the Tao Te Ching says "The Tao that can be named is not the eternal Tao." Language is limiting, but language cannot limit God/Tao/ect.

Holiday20310401;26147 wrote:

Why do we need a spiritual side?

My guess is that it has to do with the way we experience reality. We have to accept pain and suffering, we have joys and bliss, we have a host of diverse experiences and throughout we have this nagging "why?" question. Spirituality, at its best, gives us a practice by which we can come to terms with our experiences, and motivate our lives to something greater than our individual selves.

Khethil;26164 wrote:

Well, let's put it this way. I'm not a "theist" because I see no reason to believe. I don't see any rational or empirical support that strikes me as true

Spiritual teachers and scholars have been saying for centuries that rational support is beside the point. As for empirical, I guess this depends on what you mean: if you mean empirical in a scientific sense, in the sense that it can be validated by measurement, again this is something that is typically thought of as beside the point. However, if you mean empirical in a broader sense, in experience, perhaps a personal experience that cannot be measured and tested scientifically, this seems to be the focus of traditional spirituality and religion. And for this sort of experience, it is typically taught that serious practice is required. If one does not seek, how will one find?

To the entire topic: why must it be theism vs atheism? Granted, many theists and atheists see their metaphysical disagreements in this way, but I've never made much sense of this battle. It is, after all, metaphysics. Metaphysics is more of an artistic expression than a science, so why act as though one expression must be right and the other wrong? There may be wrong expressions just as there is bad art, but it is quite another thing to act as though there is only one good work of art in the universe.
[/SIZE][/SIZE]

1 Reply

@Didymos Thomas,

Didymos Thomas;103260 wrote:

Spiritual teachers and scholars have been saying for centuries that rational support is beside the point. As for empirical, I guess this depends on what you mean: if you mean empirical in a scientific sense, in the sense that it can be validated by measurement, again this is something that is typically thought of as beside the point. However, if you mean empirical in a broader sense, in experience, perhaps a personal experience that cannot be measured and tested scientifically, this seems to be the focus of traditional spirituality and religion. And for this sort of experience, it is typically taught that serious practice is required. If one does not seek, how will one find?

I think you're confusing topics here. I wasn't replying to spirituality in any particular sense, but to a query on the reasons for my lack of belief in a god or gods. Spirituality can be quite a different manner and is a concept so hopelessly obscured by different self-professed definitions that depending on what conceptualization you adhere to, almost anyone could be called spiritual or A-spiritual.

Also, empirical support may or may not have anything to do with a the presence or lack of belief in a god or gods; same deal with scientific testing. When we're talking on individual's belief in <this> or <that> it's much more complex.

Thanks

1 Reply

@Khethil,

Khethil;103271 wrote:

I think you're confusing topics here. I wasn't replying to spirituality in any particular sense, but to a query on the reasons for my lack of belief in a god or gods.

Then there is no confusion of topics. Again, God is just a concept for that which transcends the competency of human language. It is a manner of speaking to express spirituality.

For example: as much as I appreciate Taoism, monotheism makes more sense to me. So I go with monotheism. However, I do not reject Tao; that would be silly.

Which is why disbelief in God seems so silly. It isn't a matter of belief: when you have a clear understanding, belief comes naturally. If you do not have a clear understanding, then there is no reason to believe or disbelieve. The issue should not be belief, or evidence, the issue should be 'what manner of expressing an ultimately ineffable experience bests suites you.'

If a person has no experience of love, they have nothing substantial to say about love. The same is true of God, or whatever you want to call that experience. Which is why I left that unfinished sentence about seeking. "Seek and ye shall find" is true no matter what you call what you find.

Khethil;103271 wrote:

Also, empirical support may or may not have anything to do with a the presence or lack of belief in a god or gods

I responded to the empirical issue because you said you had no convincing empirical evidence for God.

2 Replies

@Didymos Thomas,

Didymos Thomas;103282 wrote:

Then there is no confusion of topics.

You know, I'm glad I refreshed this. I was in the midst of replying before yours here when I realized that this isn't the case - woops, my bad.

Didymos Thomas;103282 wrote:

Again, God is just a concept for that which transcends the competency of human language.

I can appreciate and respect that - but I also know this is your conceptualization/ visualization and how your personal belief system works. My atheism is based not on a positive assertion that no such thing - however defined - exists, but simply that I have nothing to go on that leads me to a positive assertion.[INDENT] 1. As I look at the various ways in which god has been defined - the litany of what ways in which we all define what it is, is not - I can only come to the conclusion that it may or may not be a person, phenomena, entity, natural process, way of looking at our relationship-in-being, a feeling, a shared intuitive understanding or any number of other definitions. This is from my understanding, the way I view the world, the history I've become acquainted with - conversations, explanations and studies I've taken to on various religious mindsets and more.

2. As we look at this, for ourselves personally, I believe it important that we, ourselves, decide whether or not such basis (or reasons, or support, or any other motivation) to "adhere" applies to us. This, to me, is belief. Your presence of belief may be based on your experience, your feelings, your intuition, the way your look at the world, rational thought process, empirically-derived evidence or something else. Whether or not these, for you, equate to God is for you and you alone to decide.

3. Now, as I apply that to me I see one thing very clearly: My brothers and sisters on this planet all define this concept of god differently - it's a term that requires clarification on the part of the believer for any rational conversation to take place. Of all the definitions and conceptualizations of god I've come across, there's not a one that I can take hold, grab onto and say "Yes, I believe!". Depending on which one we're talking about I can say, "That sounds nice" or "Sure, I like that" or "Wow wouldn't that be neat" but I've yet to see one I can believe in.

4. I believe we are connected in an inextricable way to the natural world around us; some folks believe this connection is god. I don't begrudge them, but to me it's not "god", it's an interconnectness or relation. Others believe god is a life-binding energy that all things share and this they call god. I don't begrudge these folks either, but to me it's not "god, it's a life-binding energy that all things share. My favorite; however, is the "god is all". I believe in all, but to me this isn't god, it's "all". These aren't plays on semantics, it's how we individually see our world and how things in our universe relate.

5. Your definition/conceptualization ("a concept for that which transcends the competency of human language") is fine, I don't begrudge you but it doesn't mean much to me. Might there be a "that" which transcends the competency of human language? Sure! It doesn't describe much - so little, in fact, that on this statement alone I couldn't tell you what we were talking about. Again, I don't begrudge nor would I berate this assertion of belief; I respect it! I simply don't understand nor share it; also, again, this is highly individualized.
[/INDENT]

Didymos Thomas;103282 wrote:

"... [God] It is a manner of speaking to express spirituality."

To you it is. Again, that's fine and I respect that. To me, a manner of speaking to express spirituality isn't "god", it's a manner of speaking to express spirituality. You want to call this god; yee haw! I won't complain, because I understand it's an individual orientation. Fine for you - I simply don't share it.

Didymos Thomas;103282 wrote:

For example: as much as I appreciate Taoism, monotheism makes more sense to me. So I go with monotheism. However, I do not reject Tao; that would be silly.

Good for you! I found some very excellent and down-to-earth concepts in Taoism and can see its appeal. Theism in any sense hasn't found purchase in my mind.

Didymos Thomas;103282 wrote:

Which is why disbelief in God seems so silly. It isn't a matter of belief...

This is a bit of a contradiction; however, your second part of statement...

Didymos Thomas;103282 wrote:

Which is why disbelief in God seems so silly. It isn't a matter of belief: when you have a clear understanding, belief comes naturally.

... makes fine sense. For you, I'm sure this makes perfect sense - that's fine. To me the opposite becomes increasingly clear and natural. "A clear understanding" is your clear understanding, unless yours is the one, true, clarity to be had. Is everyone else wrong? I thought we'd already established well that these conceptualizations are high-individualized from person to person.

Didymos Thomas;103282 wrote:

The issue should not be belief, or evidence, the issue should be 'what manner of expressing an ultimately ineffable experience bests suites you.'

Perhaps not... but it's the topic of this thread, I'm not sure what might constitute the issue. Theologically, overall, I take it? To the extent I'm correct in interpreting what "the" means here, I'm with you - that is a larger and perhaps more relevant question to us all.

In any case, I take it you've experience (or are experiencing) an ineffable experience that leads you to a monotheistic orientation? That's awesome - perhaps I too will enjoy this some day. From all I've spoken with who've had such experiences, it's a wonderful thing.

Didymos Thomas;103282 wrote:

If a person has no experience of love, they have nothing substantial to say about love. The same is true of God, or whatever you want to call that experience. Which is why I left that unfinished sentence about seeking. "Seek and ye shall find" is true no matter what you call what you find.

Well put and nice comparison there. For those who've not experience the overwhelming feeling of love, it has no context. Hmm... very much like someone who's not experienced what they'd call God; Wait... That's me!

Didymos Thomas;103282 wrote:

I responded to the empirical issue because you said you had no convincing empirical evidence for God.

Yea, I see that now (Ref: the woops above). But as I remark that I have no rational nor empirical basis for adhering to such a concept, that's not to say that I believe these are the only two means. Indeed, I can conceive a number of means by which one might positively assert their belief's basis - I just don't have one personally.

Note: Thanks for the interchange, always a pleasure. But I must confess here (and this is very personal and in no way directed at you, Didy, nor anyone else specifically) that I find this whole subject a bit tiresome. Again, I respect and empathize with all peoples on this deeply-personal subject. Even so, the lack of any common-ground among peoples leave very little to discuss with any common-understanding (and almost assured conflict - just look at all our threads on belief and concepts of god).

Thanks again

0 Replies

@Didymos Thomas,

hi william

maybe a good tactic in trying to unite atheists and theists and pantheists and agnostics etc. ...... is to consider why people choose (or are convincingly taught) their particular position on this subject. Namely the evidence.

How about two classic types of evidence :- experiential and rational. (with varying degrees of reflection and sophistication.)

For me atheists and agnostics just don't see any convincing 'evidence' for theism. They may also see convincing 'evidence' for no divine/otherworld being(s). The latter tends to be a rational and empirical consideration of themselves and the world. The former tends to be a lack of experiential evidence.

Of course an absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, BUT a lack of experiential evidence is most often countered by a positive degree of rational empirical evidence that the world is describable in those terms.

For theists (and others) it is usually the case that there is experiential evidence for their point of view, and any lack of convincing empirical evidence (in the instrumental sense) is neither here nor there. In other words a general reversal of the merits of each type of evidence.

The likes of richard dawkins tries to do the opposite to you, he tries to emphasise the superiority of empirical rational (particularily scientific) evidence and the unreliabilty of experience. Of course this is biased because 'reliability' in the sense he uses it is empirical.

Are you not however bound to try and do the reverse. To emphasise the spiritual dimension of subjective experience? Being itself. A sense of shared love and peace between us as evidence of the divine. A sense of wonder at ourselves and the world in the divine sense also.

The problem is as i see it from your point of view, is that shared love and peace can equally be appreciated by atheists (though i guess you would be frustrated that they don't see it as spiritual) and as dawkins is at pains to point out (and what an entertaining pain! lol), that wonder at ourselves and the world can be in the rational empirical sense.

Apart from an awesome remarkable and super personal encounter with the divine (or more unlikely scientific evidence) ..... what possible experience would necessarily have to be interpreted as evidence of 'god' by an atheist? I cannot think of a common personal experience that we all share that would necessarily 'convert' us one way or the other.

For those of us who are not atheists and agnostics there are plenty of common experiences that we see in the spiritual light. But it is a matter of interpretation..... and each interpretation can make sense with our present day knowledge.

Of course one could argue (as many theistic people do) that if only the non theistic perspective could be honestly and openly dropped for a while, then there are experiences that will be convincingly spiritual and convert the non believer. But why would an atheist try such a thing? (a big question i think). And anyways, even as a pagan i can see that all my spirituality could be reinterpreted as delusion. Any belief (theistic atheistic or otherwise) is surely in that position? Its due to the relationship between subjective experience and rational empiricism. (well until the spiritual realm is scientifically or rationally prooven to exist. And maybe not even then!). It is at that point that faith comes in ..... and i personally think of many atheists as having faith.

With regard to intellect. Well that cuts both ways. There are unreasonable theists and atheists, similarly with regard to depth and sophistication.

0 Replies

@William,

Before beginning, I'd like to note that it is an admirable quest to seek out this understanding and I hold no ill toward you, regardless of my offense to your post or my perception of it's accuracy.

As an agnostic atheist and former theist reading your post, I do not believe that you quite understand atheism. I do not believe that having this history brings me to some higher stand on this issue and perhaps I may have truely lost sight of theistic perspective, but I do believe that having experienced both belief and disbelief gives me some valid insight on the issue.

While most of your post seems to be speculation(being ever so close to god and such, something I don't feel the need to touch), the problem within understand the why, as far as I can tell, seems to be the what. If one doesn't understand what it is someone believes, I would think it would be very difficult to understand why they believe it. Which brings us to the dilema in your post.

Quotes that stood out to me include:

William;26052 wrote:

The Atheist is "definitely" not a follower. Couldn't be, even if they wanted to, especially to those "dictates" some religions have in place that mandate it's followers "bow" to an omnipotent diety. No way. Not going to happen. The word "bow" is the inappropriate word that is causing so much alienation.

I wouldn't exactly say that this is the case, though I have doubts as to what it is exactly that you mean by this. As far as bowing goes, most atheists I know of would simply need a appropriate reason to bow(that, of course, only after a reason to acknowledge what it is we're bowing to). That's it. That's all. Without a reason why we should, the reasons we determine why we shouldn't simply outweigh the issue. I could be shopping, I could be working, I could be sleeping, I could be reading, I could be talking, ect. Why spend my time on something that I'm unaware of entirely, when there are tangible situations in my everyday life which I feel I can trust my stock in?

William;26052 wrote:

Because of the "stranglehold" some religious tenets have on it's follower's, though just, as they all have "their truths" , the intellect of the Atheist has become insulted as they, from sheer frustration, tend to render that cowering belief in a "powerful God" of wrath and vengeance preposterous as the Atheist cannot grasp that ideology for they simply know better.

As far as I am concerned, I am not insulted by most forms of worship Christians perform. I'm not insulted to be told I'm wrong on the streets or in the workplace. I am, however, insulted by the mindset that many theists have, in which my opinion has no stock within the application of human internal, external, and intraternal action.

William;26052 wrote:

It's just they don't know "why" they know better.

Are you claiming that atheists do not understand their own reasoning as to why they don't accept the notion of deity? As far as I'm aware, both I and the atheist community are fully aware of why it is each of us personally do not believe there is such a entity or entities.

William;26052 wrote:

To that degree Atheists effort "to control" render their purpose "evil" rather than "Divine".

I'm not sure if you're proposing atheists seek to control and deem their own cause as "evil" based on what they are taught about these foreign concepts of "good" and "evil" from theists or if you are claiming that atheists view a theistic crusade as "evil". In this, I'll address both cases.

If anything, most atheists I've met have no effort to "control" at all. We are on the opposite side of the spectrum concerning control. Whereas many theists wish that their "divine" notions be applied to the world, atheists want the world in flow. That there are, for the sake of secular fairness(inclusive, not exclusive of the secular concerning religion), priciples and freedoms by which all are entitled. I would describe it as "flow". Not to allow one to be controled by society, rather, letting society take it a natural course, as whole, disregarding individual differences as differences do not exist in this "whole".

As far as "evil" goes, I see no such thing. My perception leads me inclined to believe that there are no objective forces in which "good" and "bad" or "divine" and "evil" can be measured and are thus subjective by nature. An effort to control by theists is not necessarily "evil" or "bad" in nature, it is simply viewed as personally undesirable. In a world of complete agreed theists, I'm sure this would be perfectly desirable. I, however, exist.

1 Reply

@Persona phil,

Persona;103322 wrote:

My perception leads me inclined to believe that there are no objective forces in which "good" and "bad" or "divine" and "evil" can be measured and are thus subjective by nature.

Does this mean then that all matters of value are matters of opinion? Are there any criteria other than the personal or subjective? Is there any truth independent of my opinion or perception, or is it just that I have an opinion, and you another?

I think this goes back to the discussion of Protagoras in Theatetus: In the dialogue of the Theatetus, Plato argues against Protagoras' view thusly, "If what each man believes to be true through sensation is true for him - and no man can judge of another's experience better than the man himself, and no man is in a better position to consider whether another's opinion is true or false than the man himself, but...each man is to have his own opinions for himself alone, and all of them are to be right and true - then how, my friend, was Protagoras so wise that he should consider himself worthy to teach others and for huge fees? And how are we so ignorant that we should go to school to him, if each of us is the measure of his own wisdom?"(161B). Plato argues, here and in the dialogue Protagoras, that it is impossible for everyone to know the Truth of a matter if everyone's opinions of that Truth differ, often dramatically

Read more: Protagoras -- Man is the Measure of All Things: How Everything is True if Believed to be True | Suite101.com

So to some extent, what you are saying mitigates against there being a kind of truth beyond the personal, does it not?

---------- Post added 11-25-2009 at 11:31 AM ----------

prothero;101179 wrote:

Humility in the face of ignorance is the value most forgotten by both sides. Science does not confirm materialism or determinism and theism does not confrim supernatural intevention.

Very Buddhist understanding. This is indeed the middle-path (Madhyamika) analysis in a nutshell.

1 Reply

@jeeprs,

jeeprs;105690 wrote:

Very Buddhist understanding. This is indeed the middle-path (Madhyamika) analysis in a nutshell.

So can I be an honorary Buddhist then?:bigsmile:
Even though I consider myself a process philosophy, process theology, panentheist?:perplexed:
You probably already know this but Whitehead (process philosophy) said all of philosophy was basically footnotes on Plato. I love Plato mostly for his vision of transcendental forms and ideals.

0 Replies

@William,

As if one could prove anything, especially "God."

And those who experience (not "believe in") "God" feel no need to argue the point.

I used to believe not only in God but also in philosophy as some silly sport where people argue.

Then the linguistic philosophers made me conscious that I did not understand the very language I was using, not really.

As if a word like "God" had some solid stable meaning, solid and stable enough to argue from. What a laughable idea.

At the same time, I'm quite passionate about the concept of Totality. God via Spinoza and Hegel is a valuable piece of conceptual art.

Man is God, blah blah. As the entire drama appears to occur within his skull. But this too has its contradictions. Like every effing thing but the mirage of the totality itself.

My 2 cents.

0 Replies

@William,

I have been planning, and really must do, a presentation on the (Buddhist) Middle Way philosophy of Nagarjuna. He was known as 'the Second Buddha' but really he was a very acute critical thinker, and skeptic in the true sense (in fact, as has been commented before, there is evidence that he was a major source for the Greek skeptics). Skeptical in the sense that pious utterances about divinity, obeisance to authority, dogmatic acceptance of the views of the establishment, and any other philosophical position that the mind seeks refuge in, whether 'religious' or 'materialist', are shown to be self-contradictory and ulimately a construct. He has great resonance with some aspects of postmodernism, albeit grounded in a real awareness of the sacred. (Actually the madhyamika [middlle-path] attitude towards Platonism is likewise pretty withering, but I myself have a large and growing respect for Plato, so am inclined not to dwell too much on that part of their critique.)

reconstructo - the art (for me) is to pick up some of the insights you obviously have, and situate them firstly in regards to one or another interesting philosopher in history, and secondly, in response to the many viewpoints that you will encounter in the Forum. My attitude is, not arguing for the sake of arguing, but to challenge and be challenged hopefully in a constructive but congenial way. It really does help focus your thinking, and also see more clearly what you really do think.

2 Replies

@jeeprs,

jeeprs;105736 wrote:

I have been planning, and really must do, a presentation on the (Buddhist) Middle Way philosophy of Nagarjuna. He was known as 'the Second Buddha' but really he was a very acute critical thinker, and skeptic in the true sense (in fact, as has been commented before, there is evidence that he was a major source for the Greek skeptics). Skeptical in the sense that pious utterances about divinity, obeisance to authority, dogmatic acceptance of the views of the establishment, and any other philosophical position that the mind seeks refuge in, whether 'religious' or 'materialist', are shown to be self-contradictory and ulimately a construct. He has great resonance with some aspects of postmodernism, albeit grounded in a real awareness of the sacred. (Actually the madhyamika [middlle-path] attitude towards Platonism is likewise pretty withering, but I myself have a large and growing respect for Plato, so am inclined not to dwell too much on that part of their critique.)

reconstructo - the art (for me) is to pick up some of the insights you obviously have, and situate them firstly in regards to one or another interesting philosopher in history, and secondly, in response to the many viewpoints that you will encounter in the Forum. My attitude is, not arguing for the sake of arguing, but to challenge and be challenged hopefully in a constructive but congenial way. It really does help focus your thinking, and also see more clearly what you really do think.

I don't think it's so much about having an authoritative figure as your basis for acquiring wisdom that creates problems. It's the identifying with the authority which creates the internal conflict which Buddhism tries to resolve. If you invest too much into that authority you will become static and even reverse a lot of the lessons or wisdom that was acquired if that authority were challenged.

I personally think that a teacher is far more productive for a method than going haphazardly. We know this nature about ourselves otherwise we wouldn't have schools, we would just tell our children, "Hey go find out yourself, some how."

If you want to learn math, the best person to go to is a math teacher. They will be able to point out the mistakes and help make any sort of corrections to the theories or questions you have in understanding the problems.

If we do that with everything else, why don't we do it with enlightenment? It seems contradictory that you can learn everything else with that method but when it comes to this one subject, it is off limits. That just seems absurd.

1 Reply

@Krumple,

hi krumple

Quote:

I don't think it's so much about having an authoritative figure as your basis for acquiring wisdom that creates problems. It's the identifying with the authority which creates the internal conflict which Buddhism tries to resolve. If you invest too much into that authority you will become static and even reverse a lot of the lessons or wisdom that was acquired if that authority were challenged.

yes i agree up to a point ....... but 'buddhism' is also rife with authority figures, not least because of the psychological relationship of spiritual teacher and student. Enlightenment undermines the power relationship, and power of authority is where Theism can take on the establishment role as you point out. eg the ironic followers of Krishnamurti and the huge sums of money made from schools of his teaching.

The interesting blind spot is when atheists too have authority figures ...... again on a subject that they not only don't understand, but they have never studied in depth, nor intend too. Dawkins is such an example.

3 Replies

@pagan,

pagan;105842 wrote:

The interesting blind spot is when atheists too have authority figures ...... again on a subject that they not only don't understand, but they have never studied in depth, nor intend too. Dawkins is such an example.

Funny you say that because I make jokes all the time about dawkins selling information that most atheists already know anyways. But I can't imagine a whole lot of Christians are running out to buy his books.

There are some things I like about him but there are also several things that I don't like. I agree with him about religion is in some ways an anchor to human development but in other ways I think he neglects some of the positive points. As if those positives are neutralized by the negatives. As much as I like his militant atheistic enthusiasm, he just seems like a bully.

I wouldn't want to prevent people from having their beliefs. I just don't want them expecting me to follow them because they think their god wants them to convince me that I should. Not on a personal level and definitely not on a political level and even more so on a social level. I think the best place to keep religion is to oneself.

0 Replies

@pagan,

Beware the dogma that has certainty as its foundation. Most faiths once they are conceived have very little flexibility in their dogma. It causes or gives birth to another faith that then becomes dogmatic. Its impossible to have an organisation that can adapt to new trains of thought, it demands a constant opinion. Its the same for atheists once they have opinionated its very difficult for them to speculate on possibilities.

0 Replies

@William,

I am agreement with everything above. I wonder if any of you have read or encountered Krishnamurti in your travels? He was a charismatic spiritual teacher who was very popular in the last century who had a big impact on me. He too was very anti-authority, ant-guru, and anti-religion. I read many of his books.. Of course a lot of people would say, in that case, why did he write books, and why did you read them? Good questions also. But he definitely had a real spiritual power about him and there is such a thing.

I like Dawkins when he is in what I would call 'David Attenborough' mode. His writings on nature and biology are marvellous. I think his whole attitude to religion and spirituality -it's all the same to him - is very prejudiced, but there is an audience for his kinf of thinking. It is all his reaction to 9/11. He already thought all religion was superstition, after that he also thought itr was dangerous superstition. Of course it often is, but there is something more in my view....

0 Replies

@jeeprs,

I was a little humorless in my last post on this thread.

I don't think of man as a rational animal. He's mythological first and critical second. He's programmed, it seems, to project the sacred upon an image or a concept. One could argue that this trait is evolved in order to help man socialize.

We are essentially (I would argue) lingual and therefore social beings. A worthwhile epistemology demands its psychology. And any worthwhile psychology must tackle religion in a way that is not shallow and dismissive.

Deism is Atheism are modifications of Theism, I would argue. The Deist can conceive God as the mysterious intelligence that designs or maintains the order we find (or is create) in "Nature."

But the very concepts of Nature or the Universe are singular. Any concept that includes the whole that is singular is a synonym of God. To view reality as all of a piece is the cornerstone of Monotheism, Philosophy, and Science (in its implicit assumption that the laws of Nature are universal.

I contend that man never escapes mythological thinking. He sophisticates and modifies, but the structure remains. He seeks a relationship (an identification) with the Sacred. And this Sacred may be doubt, selfishness, even meaninglessness. He can make an idol of anything, but he will always find a mission for himself.
.
(Being a self-professed ironist, the above opinions are subject to revision.....)

0 Replies

@William,

thanks. Very perceptive post.

0 Replies

@pagan,

pagan;105842 wrote:

The interesting blind spot is when atheists too have authority figures ...... again on a subject that they not only don't understand, but they have never studied in depth, nor intend too. Dawkins is such an example.

Atheists do not have "authority figures," they merely have people in history that have expressed their beliefs.
Saying this would amount to saying that a past president, say Roosevelt, is an authority figure to Democrats. Just as not all Democrats believe that Roosevelt was a successful president, not all atheists support the ideas of past famous atheists.

To be an atheist has little to do with the Christian God. It is to think (not believe) that spirituality has no unearthly effects.

1 Reply

@William,

Unearthly. Now there's an interesting word. People used to use the term 'supernatural' but I think it has become reasonably clear that we still don't know enough about nature to know what is 'super' to it.

0 Replies

@YumClock,

YumClock;105963 wrote:

Atheists do not have "authority figures," they merely have people in history that have expressed their beliefs.
Saying this would amount to saying that a past president, say Roosevelt, is an authority figure to Democrats. Just as not all Democrats believe that Roosevelt was a successful president, not all atheists support the ideas of past famous atheists.

the logic that states that if democrats have authority figures then it follows that democrats all see Roosevelt as a successful president is just patently false. There are quite possibly many democrats today that have authority figures within their party .......... but have never even heard of roosevelt!

Authority figures vary and change within all groups. Many non catholics would not recognise the pope as such ..... but that does not imply they have no authority figures within their community, that they just they merely have people in history that have expressed their beliefs.

Atheists can have authority figures just like any other belief ..... especially if they lack confidence or knowledge in argueing for their belief.

---------- Post added 11-26-2009 at 03:33 PM ----------

Hi jeeprs

yeh the irony of Krishnamurti followers being precisely the lack of mentality in learning something and then moving on. That and the huge amounts of money charged for 'his' courses.

This is of course what Krumple was pointing out. You need a teacher to learn, but why take the next step and sees them as a figure of authority? Its a part of human pyschology.

Hi Reconstructo

yeh the relationship of I am in this thing called reality, sets up all kinds of potential sacred dimensions, not least because we appear so small in space, time and form. But it would be odd not to wouldn't it? lol I mean its a bit obvious isn't it? lolol

(and i agree atheism generally falls into this way of looking at it. Though for some existentialists, absurdists, surrealists and the like its more of a relationship of bitterness and madness.)

2 Replies

Theism vs. Atheism

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know