Atheism, Agnosticism, Politics and Religion

Frank (whose posts I always enjoy) is grinding an axe here which is already very sharp and (in my view) irrelevant to this discussion. What we (choose to) believe (or accept) and what we perceive in everyday reality are interesting to compare, but it's part of the human condition that we can perceive reality as one thing and choose to "have faith" in another.

And I'm also grinding an axe, probably boringly, because my concern is not whether Frank is an agnostic or a reincarnation of St. Teresa, but rather what social construct is needed to accomodate both of us fairly and justly.

Or am I way off track? Is my obsession with the intrusion of the beliefs of others in the social contract I believe I signed when I was born in a particular territory getting out of hand?

Religion never hit me in the gut. It always seemed to belong to others and it always seemed gorgeous and naive -- lovely to look at but hell to live with.

I take my gut reactions pretty seriously -- what hit me like an epiphany were the beginnings of string theory which I've read about in the equivalent of LARGE PRINT -- about my level! The effect was to jump up and down and bask in the blessing of huge complications and blissful simplicity. Can't ask for anything better, in my book. As I move into an age at which death is as likely/more likely than life, these discoveries made me rejoice about the fact that, with or without my presence, huge possibilities would continue to reveal themselves. Do I have a string shrine? Nope. Just a smile.

Well, Fresco, if Dawkins or you want to think that an agnostic is someone who "does nothing" -- you both are certainly free to do so.

I happen to think that notion is so ubsurd and ill-thought out that I feel a bit uncomfortable responding to it.

For the record, though, it is my opinion that to respond to theism with atheism -- is to insure that there never will be a resolution of the problem. Responding to theism with atheism is, if anything, doing nothing. One concept asserts that there is a God. The other asserts that there are no gods.

Both are beliefs -- and the idea of calling atheists "non-believers" is laughable. They simply believe something different from what theists believe.

Agnosticism presents the true alternative to belief, which in the long run is nothing more than a form of guessing, estimating, presuming, etc -- whether the believing is done by a theist or an atheist.

I disagree with you that Dawkins fights dirty. In my opinion, he fights stupidly.

As for his charges that agnosticism is (I think you said) illogical -- or that it represents "doing nothing" -- I am reminded of what Madeline O'Hare use to say about agnotics, that "they are atheists without the guts."

Both Dawkins and O'Hare (and perhaps you) seem to be reacting to the strength of the agnostic position -- and to the glaring inadequacies of the atheistic position that agnosticism exposes. As such, I guess I ought take such comments as compliments rather than insults.

I'll give that avenue my best efforts.




That, Fresco, as I have mentioned in several other threads, is "belief" gone ape. My guess is that you have absolutely no idea if there is an objective reality -- Ultimate reality -- ultimate truth -- or any of the associated possibilities that you so cavalierly reject.

As JL pointed out -- and as you should realize independently, you probably are confusing beliefs about reality with reality.

But I will be the first to acknowledge that you do it with panache.

JLN

Hmm I'm considering whether "reality transcends opinions".

I'll get back to you on that one.

Frank

"This is the truly startling point about quantum mechanics: orthodoxy has it that there is no objective reality (a reality independent of an 'observer') for the electrons and their spins!"
(Professor Tony Hey, University of Southampton)

I guess there are a more than a few such apes with tenure !

truth
Fresco: "Reality transcends opinions." Did I say that? I've always been a devout idealist, following Schopenhauer and other German idealists. Realilty is socially constructed. The reality I feel I inhabit is my construction. If I define a situation in a particular way, I will act as if that situation were real, the basis for Cognitive Psychology and Existential/ phenomenlogical sociology. But there are limits to this model. A totally insane individual lives in a world of definitions of the situation unshared by others and, most important of all, "unrealistic". I may define the ground before me such that it does not have a large hole in it and, if it does, fall into it because I have proceded as if my opinion about the reality of the ground before me were true. This is limitation of idealism when taken to the extreme. I agree with Schopenhauer that "the world is my idea" of it. Nevertheless, even if I do realistically see a hole in the ground and for that reason manage to avoid it, that is STILL my interpretive reality. The notions of "hole" and "ground before me" are culturally inherited ideas, that make interpretive sense of what's before me. The reality DOES transcend my opinion of it, I suppose, because it is capable of multiple definitions. It consists of swirling atoms and who knows what else, in addition to the level of dirt, rocks, grass and holes. Definitions, in short, have consequences, which is what I mean by reality. Metaphysically there is no "Ultimate" reality. That is just a notion. But as a pragmatist my concern is with what works (keeps me out of holes) and what notions do not (causes me to fall into holes).
Frank, I do not know why my statements about my form of atheism go completely ignored. I do not BELIEVE, in an active sense, in atheism. I only see the notion of Gods as meaningless,and therefore turn away from them. That makes me a passive "atheist." Madeline O'hare actively believed in a No-God and worshipped him. I find that an equally fundamentalist and therefore stupid notion.
Oh, Fresco (?) my notion of naive realism is that the naive realist believes that his conceptions of reality (trees, holes, rocks, etc. etc.) completely reflect reality, they are not constructions about "reality." That's why they are naive. To believe in an objective reality which is in itself unreachable, like Kant's Noumena, I suppose, but to also believe that one's interpretations of it are man-made, not God-given, constructions, is not so naive.

What is true for quantum mechanics may not be true for Ultimate Reality -- and what scientists now say about quanum mechanics may change by 180 degrees during our life times.

This comment of yours has marginal bearing on what we are discussing.

You are asserting that there is no objective reality -- or Ultimate Reality.

If you KNOW that to be the case, please share with us the evidence and information that causes it to be KNOWN by you.

If you are just speculating or guessing -- why not just say so?

Re: truth


JL -- there are times when I am so absorbed by a particular argument (as I am here with Fresco) -- that I tend to distance myself from other issues. Apparently I have done that in this instance -- and I apologize.

My initial reaction to what you mentioned above is to question what you mean when you write: "I do not BELIEVE, in an active sense, in atheism."

If you are saying that you are not an atheist -- that is one thing. If you are saying that you are one of the two faces of atheism...

http://nytimes.abuzz.com/interaction/s.169766/discussion

...that is another.

Keep in mind that I am an agnostic -- but I can truthfully say, "I do not believe in God." I also can truthfully say, "I do not believe there are no gods."

I really, honestly do not know if there is a God -- if there are gods -- or if there are no gods.

Atheism does not have a sole claim on "I do not believe in God."

I also note that some people refer to agnostics as "essential atheists" (or something like that, my memory fails me at the moment).

I wonder -- not being argumentative or condescending here -- if you are closer to agnosticism than atheism.

truth
Actually, Frank, I am not closer to agnosticism than I am to atheism. While I know I cannot prove the negative proposition: There is no God. That does not make me an agnostic, anymore than my inability to prove there are no unicorns on the planet X implies that I mean there MIGHT be unicorns there. I would bet my life that there is no such thing as a God, as defined by any religion I know of. Perhaps there is an exception: Tillich's notion of the God above God. But I refrain from betting here only because because the notion is too vague to evaluate.

Ah, JL! Thanks for the Tillich reminder.

Yeah, who created god? c.i.

Re: truth



I have no problem with you being an atheist -- and I thought I covered my comment in that regard well enough not to have to say that a second time.

But...the "planet X unicorn problem" has absolutely nothing to do with agnosticism.

And "proof" has nothing to do with the difference between KNOWING something -- and acknowledging that you are GUESSING something.




Bet your life on anything you want -- but if you are going to bet your life on an unknown, you really are being rather rash.

I suspect you do not know if there is a God or if there are no gods.

The qualifier "as defined by any religion I know of" is a cop out, JL.

Several people have mentioned that there could very well be a God despite the fact that humans have a pathetic history of being able to define gods.

Allow me to ask outright: Are you saying that there is no possibility of a God -- such that no human could comprehend or describe -- a God completely uninterested in interacting with humans or anybody or anything else?

Another question: With reference to this little patch of space, time, and stuff we call the universe -- do you know that it has always existed -- or that it came into existence from nothing of its own volition -- and that there is no possibility that SOMETHING existed before it; concurrently with it; and will exist after it is used up?




Perhaps there are other exceptions. Are you prepared to say there are no other possibilities -- or do you acknowledge that you do not know for sure?

Frank, To say there is no god as created by man is not a cop out. The concept of all gods are the creation of man. To extend it one step further; if contemporary man is the result of evolution developed from other life forms, there were no gods during that period of time, because man could not create the concept of god. At which point in man's evolution man created god is a question that will never be answered - by man. c.i.

JLN

A very enjoyable self examination ! I concur.

Frank

In my world view "knowing" is merely superior "guessing".
In yours they are semantic opposites.

The irony the is that you who claim to shun dogma, rest your own case on a dogmatic distinction !

Says you, ci. Others say differently.

I do not KNOW which of you is correct.

BTW -- how do you KNOW that all concepts of gods are the creations of man?




You wanna bake that a bit more before offering it up for eating?

c.i.

An interesting issue ! It seems to go back a long way if you take ritual behaviour of primates during storms to be "evidence", and most observers of cave art assume those images had "magical /religious"significance.

JL = big smile without emoticons.

Tartarin - I can't believe that you brought in 'string theory'!

Frank, The reason we can base the idea of gods created by man is because when man created language, they are the ones that developed the idea of gods. Without language, the idea of god would be moot. c.i.

If you are talking about "we can base the idea of gods created by man..." -- we have no disagreement, ci.

That was not, however, what you said originally. You stated unequivocally that ALL GODS WERE CREATED BY MEN.

That is why asked my question.

If we are simply talking about a notion that you have -- a speculation you are making -- a guess you are offering -- I have no problem at all.

Is that what we are talking about -- or are you saying absolutely with certainty ALL GODS WERE CREATED BY MEN?

And if it is the latter, please let me know how you KNOW that.

As far as I know, other animal species have not declared any gods. c.i.